if this has been posted, sorry lol

i think this video is very possible but why aren't people talking about it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

There is some truth to this but not all of it. The most important aspect of this video is that it gets people thinking.

My opinion:

When the earth was first pulled out of the sun by that massive travelling black hole, it was the same kind of planet as mercury, venus, and mars. They were all little balls of sun. Little molten balls of nickel/iron. After some millions of years a little cooling took place and hardened the planets that were getting bigger because of the molten material sucked out of the sun. The planets cooled a little and the sun kept spewing causing the impact craters on these planets. Now, the sun is burning inward going thru the natural life cycle of a star, but this earth is remaining in the halo of the sun that causes the perfect temperature for the formation of plant life, bacteria, molds, etc. These life forms created the air we breathe, but not the water. The water was formed by the particles of the sun hitting the ozone layer of the earth causing the water. Nothing in the atmosphere of the earth can survive in space. We have a Life-form surrounding this earth; its outer edge is the ozone layer. The Life-form is getting a little old and has some breathing problems. And we're not heping matters by our insistance that little Johnny needs a car. And after he gets a car he needs billions of other things that aren't natural. Well, this Life-form that surrounds the earth is running out of options of how to deal with the problems it faces. It tears a lot of things up with hurricanes, tornadoes, wind storms, flooding, etc. Now, it is taking the last thing that came to this earth, us people, and it is allowing us to kill ourselves. And it won't be long.

This sounds suspiciously as if you've attended Al Gore's school of man-made global warming. Hurricanes and tornadoes and weather patterns... an Earth cognisance which is deliberately trying to combat what man does?

Do you actually think that this massive planet and it's expansive living atmospheric system, in which human beings--(and any other animal life form that has ever evolved upon it's surface)--actually is responding to men...a virtual microbe on it's surface?

When a volcanic eruption ( a pimple on the face of the globe) can, and does belch more pollutants into Earth's atmosphere in a mere day than men can in a matter of a year, do you honestly think the Earth gives a damn about men?

What makes you think man could possibly be so influential and important to a planet that dwarfs all mankind by trillions of times and merely acts in accordance with natural patterns?

What would make the active volcanos spew their contents, Hmmmm? MID, look at a photograph of the US at night and look at what the hades we have done. That goes for the rest of the home and business building world. Do you have any idea of how much humans have done? I will give you a link to a map and you can go to every icon and get a description of the damage. And go peddle your f...n papers!

Here's the link:

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index.php?smp=&lang=eng

those comments are for another issue, global warming and man lol. check out global dimming if you are interested in the effects of pollution and less sunlight getting to earth because of it. earth may just take care of it's self. this topic was talking about how the earth could have grown, but scientists aren't talking about it.

Well, that would be due to plate tectonics; divergent and convergent tectonic plate movement, non hot-spot intraplate volcanism, and mantle plumes...
All of which result in the hot molten magma trapped beneath the plates to escape under their understandable pressure through vents in the Earth's surface.



By looking at a photo of the U.S. taken during a night pass of a satellite?
Hades? Those are electric lights.
The home and business building world?
Are you putting this evil corporation thing out there...how they're destroying the planet?

Yes, I have an idea what humans have done.
They've done some really amazing things. They've also done some pretty dumb things. They seem to be engaging in more and more dumb things as time goes on! This is basically a reflection of the educational lapse that's occurred in this country in the past several decades, and little else.





You really like this map of events happening around the world...natural occurrancers like volanism, thunderstorms, snow storms, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and the like, and other anomalies that occur all over the world every day like power outages, explosions, disease outbreaks, and all sorts of calamities.



What's your point?
Occurances like these are daily, all over the world in one place or another. Have been in most cases since the atmosphere started doing it's thing and since the Earth was formed. Calamities, accidents (Traffic accidents? Jesus, someone's actually tracking those?), and such occur daily, and have since men started doing things.


I don't know, but I'm thinking that you went out looking for that asteroid without a tin-foil hat.





I think that statement seals it!

It must be amazingly difficult to live with all this doom and gloom infecting you daily....

Don't be so quick to judge that humans don't have an impact on the planet we live on, it seems arrogant in my opinion. In your line of reasoning a few random viruses here or there in the body couldn't possibly do any damage either. Whether humans are inducing global warming or not, we do all need to be more responsible when it comes to our home (aka. EARTH!).

No one said anything about not being responsible. Humans do effect their environment, locally. Visit any major city and take a deep breath and you'll clearly see that...and smell it. We do need to do something about that, for our own sake, not for the planets. It'll continue on with or without us.


On the contrary, a few random viruses inside the human body quite naturally cause immune responses. We get "sick". We mis-understand those reactions as something to supress, of course, and have a profound tendency to supress natural healing reactions as a result. Eventually, we can't fight off these things and we often die from them. The planet has no such illusory behavior. It knows how to take care of itself and does so without even thinking about it.

Mankind effects mankind through it's foibles. The planet doesn't really "care" much, because it deals with much more powerful problems caused by its own natural mechanics than anything men can throw at it...

hmmmm

lets get back to the topic.
now lets see, my first problem with this ( and this is just thinking out loud )
smaller planet = less volume = less mass
no oceans = no sea life = darwin was a crackpot for thinking that we evolved from single celled organisems that started in water blah blah blah we walk now.
so there is no mention of any theories as to weather the mass in the centre of the earth would have been super condensed.
or is there an alien race living in the center of the earth building their society and pushing the outer shell larger and larger, causing a vast empty cavern in which they can build?
no subduction zones?
well we have global positioning now ( or so i thought ) as well as satalites that can measure the movements of the plates ( giving credence to the theory of pangea ) by the direction of movement of the plates.

and with the theory of pangea, the coastlines fit, but with some hypothesised coastal editing. so i see a similarity there.

but its the question of mass that gets me. and where did all the water come from?

way to many holes that you can drive a mac truck through.

what if the core it self was more dense, a smaller size, the heat surrounding the core was breaking down the dense material. wouldn't it expand, causing the earth to get bigger from the inside out. the original crust would break apart and spread just like in the video. meaning the crust would be older than the younger sea floor, also on the video.

what if there was water covering the complete surface and the water cooled the crust as it spread, until the sea floor was big enough to keep it from growing as fast. now we have the shifting but who's to say the earth isn't getting bigger. if it takes millions of years we'd never know.

ok, kinda plausable.

but lets take this into consideration.
every river and major waterway dumps silt and whatever it may be carrying into the oceans.
and the majority of life in the ocean is in the first couple of fathoms ( 1 fathom = 6 feet ) most of this life is small or microscopic.
all this life that goes through its life cycle dies and ends up on the bottom of the ocean on a large scale.
the upper currents carry lots of "stuff" in it. but we rarely think about the lower colder currents ( stronger as well, moves ships that have sunk )
so in shallower areas the warmer currents deposit their lighter loads. the heavier debris sinks into the lower currents, meaning that the lower areas of the ocean "pile up" at a slower rate.

so my question is. how deep were these core samples?

with the cycle of life being a never ending process, the rate at which this debris is deposited is a constant ( but the rate of deposit varies by current, depending on depth )
also stands to reason that the core samples being taken are a constant, the same length core sample at shallower depth would be digging into younger debris.

we are talking millions of years here. that is a lot of life cycles of small creatures. as well a sub surface volcanic activity and other factors.

and the at the very center of the earth, with the massive compression going on, would not the heat radiate from the center?
so granted there may have been some growth in the inital stages of earths infancy. but would it not stand to reason that once the core was molten, growth would essentialy stop once it reaches a stable temerature?
and once this temperature was reached, would it not start going into a cooling phase, thus causing the earth to shrink?

ok. now i am going on a tangent. so lets look at how we can put darwin and this theory together to make it work. hmm

all life started in water. ok.

now the earth being smaller, covered in water. life starts out simple and gets more complex. then it hits a point where the life in the water has to move to land.
and this has always been a big question "why?"
well if we look at the earth being smaller and covered in water, then as it grows and land is formed, there are lakes that become land locked. these lakes start drying up.
forcing the life that lives in it to addapt. the lake becomes shallower and shallower, and the life within is becomming more and more able to survive in this new enviroment, till eventualy the lake dries up completely. leaving dry land with life on it that has had a long time to adapt. and thus evolving into the life we are familiar with today.

this brings up another problem with the theory ( the part about the trees in the north )
each region would start to develop its own adaptations, meaning that these trees would all have to be different. correct?
wrong. there are other factors that are not taken into considertation in this. the major one being wind.
have you ever been up north and experianced the winds? perfectly capable of carrying seeds. thats a long time and a lot of seeds.
the wind is a major factor in the spread of life. small insects have been found at very high altitudes in modern times ( my father was an air force pilot, he spotted a seagull at 15000 feet ) but the point of the matter is that this theory has some credibility.
but it still has to many holes and factors not considerd.

i still don't buy it.

sorry but satalite information has confirmed that there are expansoin and subduction zones.

another look but at a moon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo

i was going to respond to this earlier, but i got caught up in other things ( saw it but didn't have time )
what i noticed about this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo is the limited scope of view in the examples that it takes.
i would post links to other pics, but they have been down ( at least jpl has been down for me )
what i did notice while digging around on the topic of europa, some of the pics in the video as well as other sites ( other then jpl ) are talking about the strange lines on it.
in close up shots it looks familiar to me.
what they resemble to me is this. take two peices of sheet metal ( rather thick ) and heat up the edges of them. now try to force them together ( oxy acetaline torch required to achieve the temps needed, just short of melting ) now push them together, you get similar kinds of ridges ( learned this from an artist, used for weak "welds" for astetic apperance ) sure there are expansion lines, but there are also signs of material being forced together, it is a large part of the reason why there is speculation to what lies beneith the surface ( fluid is suspected because of these lines )
in conclusion, there are signs of expansion and contraction, which leads one to the assumption of a constant mass ( not to completly rule out growth )
both videos are heavily weighted to one side, with lots of factors beings dismissed.

Silly video.

i would actualy like to see more on this theory with a more even weight applied to both sides of the matter.
there are a bunch of things that could be explained, but the way in which it is presented in the videos is somewhat like propaganda.
i will do some checking myself and see what i come up with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_Earth_Theory

http://www.expanding-earth.org/

the first two links really bust a lot of holes in the last one.
but in the wikipedia article on growing earth theory ( second link ) makes a referance to new matter formation. interesting, a posibility? i doubt it. the explanation given in this theory i could see giving rise to yet another dooms day theory. the universe getting flooded with new matter.

this is about all there is on the topic, most of which is from the early 50's and 60's. since we have the technology now to have a more complete look into what the earth is made of, as well as the motions of the plates, i believe that it is these recent tools in science have disproven this theory, and it has fallen by the wayside.

i was kinda hoping for more. but alas some roads are dead ends.

subduction would work in reverse. IF the earth was growing, the material would have to come from somewhere.

all you would have to do is draw the line out instead of in, shown on the subducting oceanic lithosphere section.



now IF the earth was always the same size, how can we explain the way the undersea floor looks. wouldn't we be able to track the movements? i think the video of the shrinking earth shows clearly where those plates went or came from. i guess we need to see the plates move along those lines and have the earth not shrink to see what would happen.

even if either is true, would it matter anyhow lol.

I enjoyed watching that....and it makes sense to me that the earth could be expanding.

I can't help thinking of ANCIENT stories of THE FLOOD......

greggK, where did you get the idea tha the Earth was pulled out of the Sun by a passing black hole? Gven that the Sun is composed of 71% (by mass) hydrogen, 27% helium, and a few percent of other bits (no nickel), how could planets formed of nickel and iron be drawn out of it?

This video seems to me to be like an awful lot of youtube fare: a lot of ideas but with no evidence to back them up. Where is the evidencve that the Earth was smaller in the past? Wy do modern measurements using GPS show the movement of tectonic plates? What is the explanation of the deep ocean trenches and volcano lines that denote subduction zones? What about Wadati-Benioff zones and their earthquake patterns? If the Eurasian Plate and Indian Plate are not running into each other, where did the Himalayas come from? What is the mechanism by which the Earth is growing? What is the force that is driving it? How small was it when it started? What was it's density? What mechanism triggered the expansion?

The author complains about the fact that the ocean lithosphere is subducting into the denser asthenosphere, as the asthenosphere is denser... so? The asthenosphere may be dense, but it's still a fluid. If there was enough pressure, things will sink into it. Just like a piece of ice will sink into water if you push it hard enough. And the edge of a plate of continental lithosphere will exert a lot of pressure...

Sorry, I don't buy it.

No, subduction wouldn't work in reverse. The new material that forms ocean lithosphere comes from the mid-ocean ridges where magma rises up and is extruded onto whatever surface is there. This is shown nicely by the ages of the rocks and the "frozen" magnetism in the rocks.