http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/65762/E...Getting_Larger_
larger???????????????
Full Version: earth getting physically larger
QUOTE(chemical-licker @ May 3 2007, 11:06 PM) [snapback]1658187[/snapback]
Totally credible, that flick. Seriously.
I mean, just what is that?
The support pillars for this hypothesis seem a bit shaky at best.
my internet connection speed is rather slow right now and buffering some videos is hard. don't worry i'll watch the vid and comment later. the topic is interesting.
uhh... this is nonsense. Firstly, how would this guy explain volcanoes, mountains, earthquakes ect with this... theory of his. Secondly "65 million years ago the platypus roamed across antartica and africa... dinosaurs..." 
hmmmkay...? The world can not expand, being that you'd have to constantly create material - which I guess could only come from asteroids - all the asteroids in the asteroid belt would make up a 'planet' half the size of the moon and they're still all there. I also find it funny how they bend the countries to make them fit into each other, and how they try and make out no oceans were around until 70million years ago (no idea where rain came from or how the dinosaurs survived 250million years prior to this, or how ocean dwelling creatures that were around during and far prior to the dinosaurs coped with no water). He also states that scientists don't find any fossils on the sea floor... well... that may be due to the whole depth and pressure and lack of light on the sea floor.
OH and another thing, evidence and facts prove this guy's 'theory' is bogus, along with all his self-contradictions.
hmmmkay...? The world can not expand, being that you'd have to constantly create material - which I guess could only come from asteroids - all the asteroids in the asteroid belt would make up a 'planet' half the size of the moon and they're still all there. I also find it funny how they bend the countries to make them fit into each other, and how they try and make out no oceans were around until 70million years ago (no idea where rain came from or how the dinosaurs survived 250million years prior to this, or how ocean dwelling creatures that were around during and far prior to the dinosaurs coped with no water). He also states that scientists don't find any fossils on the sea floor... well... that may be due to the whole depth and pressure and lack of light on the sea floor. OH and another thing, evidence and facts prove this guy's 'theory' is bogus, along with all his self-contradictions.
oh im so glad someone else noticed this stuff too this film is just stupid no other workd for it
Haha, how absurd. Where was the ocean, just covered up? What a lame theory. He must not understand plate tectonics.
Uh...Hmm...Even my Physical Geography teacher never even stated this..if anything the earth should be staying the same rate because, the plate's sink and rise upon trenches and sub-duction in the ocean floor. So really, the earth is just making and breaking new crust and keeping it the same. Don't think this earth will ever get bigger really...maybe smaller when it explodes 
exactly thats why there no rock beyond that point because all the rock past then went through the process already
Whats so absurd about the Earth getting physically larger? Why do you thing the Earth is not sphere shaped but more of an oval? Its radius at the equater is larger than the radius at the poles, due to the centripetal force associated with the rotation of the Earth.
If the Earth is expanding, the only place the extra material would come from would be inside the earth. This supports the hollow earth theory. The volcanoes are hollowing it out.
(I'm in a 'let's have some fun' mood tonight)
*edited for typos
(I'm in a 'let's have some fun' mood tonight)
*edited for typos
*cough* *cough* CRACK POT!! *cough* *cough*
well....
didnt the earth get larger when living things started dieing and causeing dirt to comeforth? (couldnt think of a word:lol:)
cause when the earth was formed there wasnt dirt...only untill living things came along
so....technicly.....the earth did get larger
...right?
just a teeny tiny bit -.-
didnt the earth get larger when living things started dieing and causeing dirt to comeforth? (couldnt think of a word:lol:)
cause when the earth was formed there wasnt dirt...only untill living things came along
so....technicly.....the earth did get larger
...right?
just a teeny tiny bit -.-
My honest opinion is the Earth is alive,( I have had this argument meany of times) why couldn't it "grow". Who are we to say, "This is what happens in the universe". We haven't even hit the galactic "kindergarden" yet. We are just cave men in faded blue jeans!
Now the Earth has a weight problem??
Yeah, and about time too. Too little space and too many people. LOL
Seriously, lol. But i DO support the GAIA theory.
Wow! I love this model/theory! Makes sense when you apply it to other planets and moons as well. Check out these clips.
New model
Makes sense to me, what is wrong with it? Can someone please show the best arguments against it. Found a nice thread discussing it, will have to go through it sometime...
NEAL ADAMS expanding Earth model
Wonder if it also explains why dinosaurs where so big.
New York Times Article Supports Neal's Theory
Here is a site with more detail:
expanding-earth.org
New model
Makes sense to me, what is wrong with it? Can someone please show the best arguments against it. Found a nice thread discussing it, will have to go through it sometime...
NEAL ADAMS expanding Earth model
Wonder if it also explains why dinosaurs where so big.
New York Times Article Supports Neal's Theory
QUOTE
This humble dinosaur's running speed is the subject of the scientific narrator of this series. He tells us "other scientists" have analyzed its running power at its weight. Their conclusion:
First: At his size, 80 percent of his body weight must be in his legs. Well, obviously this is not so.
Second: At his body weight, he must only run at a top speed of 10 miles per hour.
Well, even the animators have shown the Tarascosaurus running at 40 or 50 miles per hour. His body is made for speed. Clearly the analysis is wrong
But is it. An elephant, not as big, has shoulder blades that have grown forward to protect the elephant's neck from spin torque. The elephant also has a massive trunk that helps to counterbalance the elephant's head as he turns it side to side. The Tarascosaurus has no such protection.
The Earth that Tarascosaurus lived on was less than half the size of the Earth today. The weight of the Tarascosaurus was one quarter of what it would seem to be, and so he ran 50 miles per hour and his head didn't snap off when he swung it around.
First: At his size, 80 percent of his body weight must be in his legs. Well, obviously this is not so.
Second: At his body weight, he must only run at a top speed of 10 miles per hour.
Well, even the animators have shown the Tarascosaurus running at 40 or 50 miles per hour. His body is made for speed. Clearly the analysis is wrong
But is it. An elephant, not as big, has shoulder blades that have grown forward to protect the elephant's neck from spin torque. The elephant also has a massive trunk that helps to counterbalance the elephant's head as he turns it side to side. The Tarascosaurus has no such protection.
The Earth that Tarascosaurus lived on was less than half the size of the Earth today. The weight of the Tarascosaurus was one quarter of what it would seem to be, and so he ran 50 miles per hour and his head didn't snap off when he swung it around.
Here is a site with more detail:
expanding-earth.org
They stole my theory.
We have been bombarded every second of meteorites, you think the earth won't gain weight?
We have been bombarded every second of meteorites, you think the earth won't gain weight?
Um... You guys need to wake up! The earth is alive!! If you want my reasoning, ask. But, it IS!
whoa! stop! earth getting bigger for no reason. earth can get big by being bombarded by Asteroids. this guy's theory is bogus. ocean comeup from nowhere
QUOTE(Deinychus_rulz @ May 20 2007, 03:08 AM) [snapback]1683914[/snapback]
Um... You guys need to wake up! The earth is alive!! If you want my reasoning, ask. But, it IS!
Go ahead, I could use some entertainment.
QUOTE
this guy's theory is bogus. ocean comeup from nowhere
There are other possibilities than "nowhere". "Accretion" and hydrothermal vents to name a few.
The evidence is quite persuasive. Look... articles starting to appear, after 30-40 years of subduction "theory" and ad hoc explanations. Can subduction really explain why NO part of the ocean floor is not older that 200 million years old while an expanding earth expects it and eloquently explains it.
McCarthy, D. 2005. Biogeographical and geological evidence for a smaller,
completely-enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous. Journal of Biogeography, 32,
2161-2177.
McCarthy, D. 2003 The trans-Pacific zipper effect: disjunct sister taxa and matching
geological outlines that link the Pacific margins. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 1545-1561.
McCarthy, D. 2005 Biogeography and scientific revolutions. The Systematist, 3-12.
Have a look at:
Evidence
QUOTE(Fearisgood @ May 24 2007, 12:57 AM) [snapback]1690335[/snapback]
There are other possibilities than "nowhere". "Accretion" to name one.
The evidence is quite persuasive. Look... articles starting to appear, after 30-40 years of subduction "theory" and ad hoc explanations. Can subduction really explain why NO part of the ocean floor is not older that 200 million years old while an expanding earth expects it and eloquently explains it.
McCarthy, D. 2005. Biogeographical and geological evidence for a smaller,
completely-enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous. Journal of Biogeography, 32,
2161-2177.
McCarthy, D. 2003 The trans-Pacific zipper effect: disjunct sister taxa and matching
geological outlines that link the Pacific margins. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 1545-1561.
McCarthy, D. 2005 Biogeography and scientific revolutions. The Systematist, 3-12.
Have a look at:
Evidence
The evidence is quite persuasive. Look... articles starting to appear, after 30-40 years of subduction "theory" and ad hoc explanations. Can subduction really explain why NO part of the ocean floor is not older that 200 million years old while an expanding earth expects it and eloquently explains it.
McCarthy, D. 2005. Biogeographical and geological evidence for a smaller,
completely-enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous. Journal of Biogeography, 32,
2161-2177.
McCarthy, D. 2003 The trans-Pacific zipper effect: disjunct sister taxa and matching
geological outlines that link the Pacific margins. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 1545-1561.
McCarthy, D. 2005 Biogeography and scientific revolutions. The Systematist, 3-12.
Have a look at:
Evidence
this theory is saying that. the molten rock/core constantly produces rocks that expands the earth?
QUOTE(Kretos @ May 23 2007, 07:10 PM) [snapback]1690360[/snapback]
this theory is saying that. the molten rock/core constantly produces rocks that expands the earth?
This is why it was rejected in the 1960's and about the only (albeit big) objection to it becoming accepted today. However, looking at the positive evidence for an expanding earth, it certainly warrants further investigation.Geophysics FAQ
QUOTE
1. Isn't the expansion of planets and moons geophysically impossible and wouldn't it violate
conservation of mass?
Since planets and moons did not pop into existence at their current size, everyone agrees they must have expanded at some point in their history. Currently, the process of planetary formation is one of the most important, outstanding mysteries in all of science. In July of 2005, Science Magazine listed the 125 most significant questions facing scientists today in an article sub-titled "What we don't know." One of the questions was, "How do planetsform?"
Current theories of planetary formation are known to be inadequate, and expanding Earth theory is, at bottom, a planetary formation theory. The seminal questions are: what are all the ways in which planets and moons have accumulated their mass, and when did they stop? There are only two plausible ways that planets can increase in mass: 1) Macroscopic objects can collide with or add to their surfaces, augmenting their size layer by layer or 2) ultra-mundane (e.g., sub-quantum) material can pass through the external layers and collect at the cores of planets and moons, causing them to expand from the inside out. This last method, which is consistent with ether-sink views of gravity, may be one aspect of planetary formation not adequately considered.
In fact, it is now widely accepted that the Jovian moon, Ganymede, has experienced significant, internally-generated, post-formation expansion. As Prockter (2001) writes: "The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size". Collins et al. (1999) agree that the formation of the grooved terrain on Ganymede was likely the result of post-formation "global expansion"
References:
Collins, G.C., Pappalardo, R.T. & Head, J.W. (1999) Surface stresses resulting from internal
differentiation: Application to Ganymede tectonics. 30th Annual Lunar and Planetary
Science Conference, Houston, 1695. Available at
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC99/pdf/1695.pdf
Kerr, R.A. (2001) Jupiter's two-faced moon, Ganymede, falling into line. Science, 291, 22-23.
Prockter, L.M. (2001) Icing Ganymede. Nature, 410, 25-27.
Ravilious, K. (2002) Wind Up. New Scientist, 176, 30-33.
conservation of mass?
Since planets and moons did not pop into existence at their current size, everyone agrees they must have expanded at some point in their history. Currently, the process of planetary formation is one of the most important, outstanding mysteries in all of science. In July of 2005, Science Magazine listed the 125 most significant questions facing scientists today in an article sub-titled "What we don't know." One of the questions was, "How do planetsform?"
Current theories of planetary formation are known to be inadequate, and expanding Earth theory is, at bottom, a planetary formation theory. The seminal questions are: what are all the ways in which planets and moons have accumulated their mass, and when did they stop? There are only two plausible ways that planets can increase in mass: 1) Macroscopic objects can collide with or add to their surfaces, augmenting their size layer by layer or 2) ultra-mundane (e.g., sub-quantum) material can pass through the external layers and collect at the cores of planets and moons, causing them to expand from the inside out. This last method, which is consistent with ether-sink views of gravity, may be one aspect of planetary formation not adequately considered.
In fact, it is now widely accepted that the Jovian moon, Ganymede, has experienced significant, internally-generated, post-formation expansion. As Prockter (2001) writes: "The bright terrain formed as Ganymede underwent some extreme resurfacing event, probably as a result of the moon's increase in size". Collins et al. (1999) agree that the formation of the grooved terrain on Ganymede was likely the result of post-formation "global expansion"
References:
Collins, G.C., Pappalardo, R.T. & Head, J.W. (1999) Surface stresses resulting from internal
differentiation: Application to Ganymede tectonics. 30th Annual Lunar and Planetary
Science Conference, Houston, 1695. Available at
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC99/pdf/1695.pdf
Kerr, R.A. (2001) Jupiter's two-faced moon, Ganymede, falling into line. Science, 291, 22-23.
Prockter, L.M. (2001) Icing Ganymede. Nature, 410, 25-27.
Ravilious, K. (2002) Wind Up. New Scientist, 176, 30-33.
ah now i understand. but the question is. why now? why hasn't it been released to the public much much ealier.
QUOTE(Kretos @ May 23 2007, 08:14 PM) [snapback]1690484[/snapback]
ah now i understand. but the question is. why now? why hasn't it been released to the public much much ealier.
Good question. Dont know. Maybe because there is so much vested interest in subduction theory. Lots of money wasted and reputations (Geophysicist PHd etc) at risk.
QUOTE(chemical-licker @ May 3 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]1658187[/snapback]
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/65762/E...Getting_Larger_
larger???????????????
larger???????????????
I don't know....my geology is a bit hazy now, but I've got a few issues with the idea.
- How would he explain earthquakes along the fault-lines of the plates if there is no subduction & tension resulting from it?
- How were the Himalayas, Rockies or the Alps formed, if all continents were drifting apart? If you look at mountain geology, you can see the foldings of the different rock strata (believe me, I know...I had to learn the whole folding of the Alps to the last bloody wrinkle!) So which were the immense forces that created our mountain ranges if the continents just gently drifted apart over millenia?
- Where did all the billions and billions of tons of rock come from to enlarge the earth? Can't have been the meteors; firstly, not enough material, secondly, the oceans did not start to form AFTER the meteor pounding stopped, around 3.9 bya, because before then all water got vaporized by the impacts (a propos, don't forget we lost quite a big chunk - our moon)
-there is evidence to suggest that from around 750 - 570 mya we had a severe ice age (snowball earth); the entire globe was covered in glaciers from pole to pole and seas would have been iced over too. It is thought that life could only survive near deep-sea vents, hot springs and rare places where sunlight was able to melt the surface of the seas. So, if the earth had only shallow seas, as the film suggests, I'm wondering if there would have been enough life to survive to evolve & radiate in the oceans. After all, life did first bloom in the oceans. Deep sea vents provided a much more stable environment than hazardous and ephemeral patches of melted sea ice.
-the current plate-tectonic model does include drift & enlargement/formation of new ocean floor along the ocean's fault lines, which also explains why the rock along them is the newest, and one theory of earth expansion is mentioned, but not to the extent this guy suggests
- and how does the massive expansion in his theory incorporate the earth's magnetic field?
Here are a couple of links to plate tectonics and ocean formation
Blessed are the cracked for they shall let in the light. 
QUOTE(Fearisgood @ May 24 2007, 02:57 AM) [snapback]1690578[/snapback]
Good question. Dont know. Maybe because there is so much vested interest in subduction theory. Lots of money wasted and reputations (Geophysicist PHd etc) at risk.
if these so called Geophysicist are not able to take the risk. why would we even bother to tackle this theory.
QUOTE(Dark_Ambient @ May 23 2007, 10:20 PM) [snapback]1690868[/snapback]
Blessed are the cracked for they shall let in the light.
only thing that made any sense to me in this whole thread "THANK YOU"
The earth is just inhaling.
The earth is alive, and is like us in many ways...WE ARE ITS CHILDREN!!! 75% of our bodies is water. 75% of the earth's surface is water. We are carbon-based lifeforms. The earth's most abundant metalic element is carbon. We have hair. The Earth has trees, and other vegetation which ROOT into its surface. We grow, the Earth grows. We have parasitic life-forms that live on us, the Earth has 
us. Along with animals. We have pimples, zits, etc. the Earth has mountains. We have bones and joints, the Earth has 'tectonic plates' and fault lines. We have some mysterious deity(ies) that we worship, and well.... The Earth has the sun. 
us. Along with animals. We have pimples, zits, etc. the Earth has mountains. We have bones and joints, the Earth has 'tectonic plates' and fault lines. We have some mysterious deity(ies) that we worship, and well.... The Earth has the sun.
I think that the earth was a different sphere. We are too small to be in this solar system. The sun may have nova'd at one time and that blew off our covering, our thick atmosphere, and the orbit we are in now is a slow shock wave. They say the middle of the earth is hot iron with layer upon layer upon layer of earth. Did this pregnant ball start out as a small ball of iron and throughout the billions of years of this universe the space debris has accumulated on this rolling ball and caused it to grow this big? And now, this little ball of iron has reached this size and passed through all the debris and is reaching a point in this galaxie or universe where the general laws of existence are different, like the laws of gravity are slightly off causing instruments of weight mesurement to be off. A beautiful, slender female who is light on her feet weighs 450 pounds. Things that used to be so light and feathery are like glued to the floor. But, you can fly with your eyes open. What a dream . . .
no it is true that the earth is getting larger, it is due to cosmic debrees meteorites ect. We may not seem them but thousands fall to earth per day.
QUOTE(Deinychus_rulz @ May 24 2007, 03:44 PM) [snapback]1692186[/snapback]
The earth is alive, and is like us in many ways...WE ARE ITS CHILDREN!!! 75% of our bodies is water. 75% of the earth's surface is water. We are carbon-based lifeforms. The earth's most abundant metalic element is carbon. We have hair. The Earth has trees, and other vegetation which ROOT into its surface. We grow, the Earth grows. We have parasitic life-forms that live on us, the Earth has us. Along with animals. We have pimples, zits, etc. the Earth has mountains. We have bones and joints, the Earth has 'tectonic plates' and fault lines. We have some mysterious deity(ies) that we worship, and well.... The Earth has the sun.
us. Along with animals. We have pimples, zits, etc. the Earth has mountains. We have bones and joints, the Earth has 'tectonic plates' and fault lines. We have some mysterious deity(ies) that we worship, and well.... The Earth has the sun. AND LO! Where did said skeptics go?!
You just drew extremely vague comparisons between us and the Earth...absolutely none of those things mean the Earth is alive.
Not very vague, actually. And why can't the earth be alive? It IS an organism.
Being alive is a requirement for something to be considered an organism; the Earth is not alive therefore not an organism.
So what similarities are there between trees and hair, or mountains and pimples, or tectonic plates and joints? They aren't even similar superficially; let alone in structure or function.
Now me even asking this is pointless because even if you are able to come up with a few similarities, it still doesn't mean the Earth is alive. It doesn't grow, reproduce, react to stimuli, metabolize or adapt...
So what similarities are there between trees and hair, or mountains and pimples, or tectonic plates and joints? They aren't even similar superficially; let alone in structure or function.
Now me even asking this is pointless because even if you are able to come up with a few similarities, it still doesn't mean the Earth is alive. It doesn't grow, reproduce, react to stimuli, metabolize or adapt...
It lives, and actually does grow, but waaaaay off topic.... OMG!! A REEL DINO 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9MO8JH3nSI...ted&search=
OOOOOOOO! And this 1 2! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtfMIiinJso...ted&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9MO8JH3nSI...ted&search=OOOOOOOO! And this 1 2! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtfMIiinJso...ted&search=
It doesn't grow, it accumulates mass. There's a difference.
Actually it's on topic, but those dinosaur videos aren't.
Actually it's on topic, but those dinosaur videos aren't.
the earth IS alive thats pretty factual but it is true i doesnt grow it accumulates mass like my previous post said, meteors, space debrees ect
Tons of micrometeors come down every year. The Earth getting larger would not seem so impossible. It wouldn't be a problem either.
Wow, Neal Adams sure likes to repeat himself...over and over and over and over and over...But I suppose I would need to do the same thing to convince myself of something like this.
So, out of curiosity, where does the extra mass come from? And what about increased gravity from said mass? Oh wait, thats real science. Nevermind.
So, out of curiosity, where does the extra mass come from? And what about increased gravity from said mass? Oh wait, thats real science. Nevermind.
I'm sure the all knowing here, can tell us what the gravity was here ten thousand years ago or a hundred thousand years ago. I'm sure that they can even tell us what suposedly drastic changes a 10% gain or loss of gravity would cause. I'm sure that they could prove that if my great grandfather was buried naked, they could prove he didn't die 25 million years ago. I even believe they can prove that the radiation they judge age things by, could never have been altered by matter from outer space. I also believe in Santa Claus and the easter bunny. I love these all knowing people.
i cant believe it,but its very interesting..............
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.