I happened across this interesting video, thought I’d share…
This debunking video uses complex science to destroy the theory, but for a simpler debunking consider this; Some continental plates can move up to 100mm per year, under the expanding Earth theory this would mean the Earth is still growing, but we have the technology to measure that growth to within 2 millimetres of accuracy, it isn’t, not annually and not even since the earliest measurements had been taken.
But then you could decide to believe the scientific community is lying, but they wouldn’t, scientists are not afraid of being wrong, not even if it would destroy their lifes work, because they love it.
@ijesuschrist, A lot of it does make sense, and I had never heard of it before so I found it interesting.
At the moment we cannot deny plate tectonics, because we have continental drift but no expansion/contraction. But I don’t see why expanding Earth couldn’t lead to a tectonic situation. We no pretty much nothing about chemistry on cosmic levels/pressures/temperatures, we don’t know what kind of reactions are possible, and we don’t have the billions of years of observance under our belts, we can only go with geological study and available evidence to try a reconstruction.
Officially: I don’t think the Earth is expanding, nor has it been for at least 70 million years, but I cant really vouch for anything before that, for or against. But I think that plate tectonics is a natural result of the current size of the planet, which may have always been constant or may have experienced change in some form that we have not yet been able to verify.
But I agree that oxygen and notably hydrogen may have been instrumental in some kind of cosmic chemical reaction in the core or surrounding magma, likely core, that could have resulted in a dynamic expansion relative to the reaction and stabilised where it is now.
Again, I’m not saying that is what happened but just that it makes somewhat sense to me, given other factors, and we cant rule it out under scientific principle at this stage, we just need to keep looking, inward and out, for evidence either way.
It has been suggested to me that there is still a planetary growth but the numbers I was provided with do not correspond to the size of our planet now. IF there was a planetary expansion it would have been and event ranging from 200 million years ago, give or take, to around 70 million years ago, any extra growth seen after that time would be residual.
@ijesuschrist, Try this out on your Dad :p
From what I have seen so far, while looking into this, (after a day of knowing about the theory) IF there was such an event, I would place it somewhere around 200 million years ago to about 70 million years ago. It would have been a relatively rapid event, many EE advocates claim it is an ongoing thing for billions of years and still is, but I don’t, I’d place it in that given era.
I think that because Pangaea/super continent was roughly that time 200m ago, and suggestions that the ocean floor is aged between those two points. I’d say such a reaction would had to of released hydrogen(perhaps some other gases) over this period, and that hydrogen into an oxygenated atmosphere, via lightening and perhaps volcanic activity, would have created a constant pour of water into the valleys that were opening up between the continents.
Before this event there would had to of been water but I would presume it was shallows and much less abundant, likely the reason life was pushed onto land in the first place, the seas were teeming with life to overflow.
One EE advocate told me that the Earth is still growing and gave numbers like “the thickness of a human hair per year” and went on to say that people do not find this significant, but it is over time. I basically said if this were true it wouldn’t have been possible for the Earth to expand at that rate from 200 million years ago to its current size, you would only be looking at 12miles of growth (or something along those lines) So under my theory of “the rapid event” it stabilised around the size it is 70 million years ago and maybe has a residual growth rate carrying over til now.
Someone, who is not an EE advocate, suggested to me that human physiology seems to be suited for a different gravity. Now under this theory I have given, the mass of the Earth hasn’t changed, but all this hydrogen, and other gases, was mass at the centre, a greater density below, a greater pull, but as it spilled to our level the centre mass reduced. So this lessening of G-force would have been advantageous to Dinosaurs, and they didn’t go extinct until around the time the event concluded at 70m, which raises more questions like if the two events are linked somehow(?).
As for the Reaction itself that would had to of taken place for such an event, remember you have opposing physics here; you have the expansion of the planet, but at the same time the inner planet is losing massive amounts of matter/gas into the atmosphere. You see the conundrum? At a time physics should be asking for more matter into the core to account for the expansion, in fact it is losing matter out of the core, so riddle me that, what kind of chemical reaction could do that?
I don’t know much but I believe the fusion on the sun is caused from the gravity and pressure pushing atoms so close together that they give off massive amounts of energy, their electrons are colliding etc. This would mean that you could get more atoms into a smaller area, a fusion compression of matter, so an idea I am entertaining is that the planets were basically birthed from our star as compressed fusion clumps, but after a time being free of that powerful gravity, and perhaps something to do with cooling or de-fusion, the result is this sudden expansion. So basically Earth had a fusion core up until 200 million years ago, at which point it burned out, and now it is cooling.
Now I am just basically humouring here, but if there were any science behind it I think it would look like this. It would be a general premise, but obviously Earth has a tectonic situation going on now, with perhaps a residual growth, but is otherwise stable.
There are some tricky things about my theory here; namely that it seems dinosaurs, for a time, required a lesser gravity than the Earth surface currently has. This may be explainable by what we know about supernova.
A supernova is where the fusion reaction of a star ends, you get this massive expansion of matter from fusion conditions to the regular matter state, and after this you see a contraction back to the relatively stable White Dwarf stage.
With my fusion core Earth theory, it would have been an event that lasted some 120-130 million years between 200-70 million years ago; the fusion “death” would have been the expansion of the solid/terrestrial Earth but also a massive “breathing out” of gas from the core, a relatively short process on the cosmic scale but it was over a long time in human terms, as per the times I have provided.
I will go out on a limb and suggest that the core actually “breathed out” much more than is currently of our atmosphere, this would have created conditions of high atmospheric pressure, yet because there is much less mass at the core, you get less gravity as a result. At the apex of this process, atmospheric pressure would have been significantly higher and gravity significantly lower, and it would have been over a long enough period for dinosaurs to evolve to their greatest sizes.
But then sure enough, the core “breathed” back in, I’m not sure how much but it basically settled the Earth to its current situation, give or take.
So this is additional theory in an attempt to explain the Dinosaur contradiction, where these animals were naturally too big to feasibly survive under the current gravity Earth has.