The Nonsensical "Growing Earth" "Theory"

origin said:
You logic is something like this:
I think the earth is expanding.
For it to expand there must be mass being added.
The conservation of mass and energy says this can't happen
There must be some 'whatever' mechanism to form the mass.

A more logical approach is the earth must not be expanding.;)
Click to expand...

I know this will sound crazy but I just wanted to put it out there:

Maybe the earth is (or has been) expanding like a balloon, but not gaining much mass at all. The earth could be hollow on the inside, as well as many other planets and moons, and maybe even stars. Our understanding and calculations of gravity is based on the assumption that these bodies are solid to the core.

I believe that empty space has density directly proportional to the volume of matter around it(space is pressurized from the existence of matter). I think it's possible that the space on the inside of our planet pushed outwards, as our planet moved into a less dense area of space. This would be similar to the way a filled balloon would expand as it enters an area of lower pressure.
 
I really don't get it. Has the educational system really failed that badly?
 
Matthew809, Post #89:

. . . total mass may not change, but the 'density' of that total mass can become segregated; e.g. asthenosphere (mantle) can segragate into to sial ('granitic' lithosphere)and sima ('basaltic' lithosphere) - both are less dense (in g/cc) than asthenosphere. Therefore, while total mass stays the same, total volume (ergo, spherical radius) increases proportionately.

. . . . uh-oh! . . . I think hear Trippy's and Florian's footsteps closing in . . . . (tee hee)!

wlminex
 
Last edited:
Yes Florian, you are so totally the victim of bullying by mainstream authorities, and you're the only one with any kind of relevant experience as evidenced by the fact that you're the only one willing to accept expanding earth tectonics, because expanding earth tectonics is so obviously the only valid answer that anybody who doesn't immediately submit to your authority obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.
:rolleyes:
 
matthew809 said:
The earth could be hollow on the inside, as well as many other planets and moons, and maybe even stars. Our understanding and calculations of gravity is based on the assumption that these bodies are solid to the core.
Click to expand...
This is not an assumption. The path of seismic waves is only compatible with a layered body without any "hole".
 
Last edited:
wlminex said:
. . . pretty much in agreement with Nalkar's comments, I think . . . . few persons (scientists OR non-scientists!) want to 'give-up' their notions (preconceived, or not) .
Click to expand...

Kuhn describes this phenomenon in "the structure of scientific revolution" (a must read for anyone interested in science).

The key is that scientists need to feel that their field is in crisis to look for alternative theories. If that perception does not exist, then there is no chance that a better theory will rise.

Carey had that feeling in the 50s, after he taught plate tectonics for about 10 years. He understood that the destruction of lithosphere at trenches is marginal, orders of magnitude too low to balance the accretion of lithosphere at Mid Ocean Ridges. He recognized from his own field studies, large shears in the lithosphere. He was not satisfied either with his own reconstruction. That's why he switch from plate tectonics to the expanding earth theory. And that was in the 50s (!)

So the good question is: Is there a looming crisis in geosciences, one that is sufficiently strong to induce a paradigm shift?
And I'm afraid that the answer is: not yet.

But I identified possible nuclei for such a crisis: the mantle plume controversy, the question of the driving force of plate tectonics, the dominance of mantle flows in surface tectonic (killing the "total recycling by subduction" concept), planetology.

All of them could develop into a crisis which solution is the inside growth of planets.

And yes, I'm just a messenger at this time, but I have various ongoing projects to become an active player :)
 
Last edited:
There is one particular paragraph in Narlikar's column that I would like to comment:

"If the scientist happens to be very distinguished and has credentials as a path breaker in the field, this belief may not be confined to the individual but extend to a whole community following the leader. Such a belief system, if wrongly directed, can retard the progress of science."

Now let's imagine that the expanding earth theory became the mainstream theory in geosciences in the 70s following the work of Carey, Egyed, Hess any of their fellow expansionists. From that time, there would have been a harsh competition between physicists to discover the physical theory at the heart of the mechanism of growth. I'm very confident that they would have found that damned theory by now, and that we would benefit from it right now. What a terrible waste of time!
So definitively yes, a belief system, if wrongly directed, can retard the progress of science, and mankind.
 
Ophiolite said:
I take my hat off to him, anticipating the plate tectonic revolution by a decade.
Click to expand...

Quite.

That there has been a crisis doesn't neccessarily imply there still is one. Plate tectonics has come a long way in the last fifty years, in part because of at some of Carey's work.
 
Last edited:
florian said:
these informations [which] validate the growing earth theory
Click to expand...

may exist.

florian said:
the observations supporting the Expanding Earth theory
Click to expand...

may exist.

florian said:
It is NOT an assumption. It is inferred from observations that give no other alternatives!
Click to expand...

Maybe.

florian said:
Many observations supporting the expanding earth theory are described in these papers, in a more accurate manner than could be done on a webforum.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

florian said:
So why don't you just read them?
Click to expand...

I have read them. Your logic is surprising.
 
Ophiolite said:
I take my hat off to him, anticipating the plate tectonic revolution by a decade.
Click to expand...

He taught plate tectonics just after the war, in 1946, at the time he became Foundation Professor of the Department of Geology at the University of Tasmania.
He submitted a paper describing the recycling by subduction concept to the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1953, but his paper was rejected because the referees found the concept was "naive", which is actually true ;)
 
florian said:
He taught plate tectonics just after the war, in 1946, at the time he became Foundation Professor of the Department of Geology at the University of Tasmania.
He submitted a paper describing the recycling by subduction concept to the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1953, but his paper was rejected because the referees found the concept was "naive", which is actually true ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, and..?

The record shows that Svante Arrhenius only barely scraped through with his 150 page thesis that showed that when sodium chloride dissolved in water it broke into positively charged bits of sodium, and negatively charged bits of chlorine and I'm given to the understanding that this was only after he had resubmitted it two or three times.

It took young up-and-comers like Van't Hoff to get the model accepted.

The point being that it was, albeit reluctantly, accepted because it had merit and because new evidence continued to be uncovered that supported it.

Expanding Earth Tectonics was discarded in favour of plate tectonics.

As you suggest, plate tectonics has already overcome these same hurdles, and is now widely accepted. Plate Tectonics had to prove itself to be a better model than expanding earth tectonics in order to be accepted. Expanding earth tectonics was discarded because not only did plate tectonics give a better accounting of the evidence available, there was no evidence to support an expanding earth, and a not insubstantial amount of evidence against it.
 
Expanding earth ...

Earth Expansion has already been "confirmed", but alas at a slow rate ... but still it is expanding. Expanding by one hair a year, amounts to a couple of moon volumes, over earths age ...

Now, for all this science here ... it's not particularly scientific. Earth expansion never had to have any magic increase of matter. That is just bogus. If you observe lava, as it comes form the earth ... you will notice that this lava is filled with microscopic gas bubbles, that are released into the atmosphere as it comes out. These bubbles are from the plasma inside the earth ... lava, behaves like yeasted bread dough ... it expands as the matter cools, and the liquified magnetic plasma wants to return to it's gaseous state.

Concerning gravity, the gravity as you experience it here, is surface gravity. It is the plasma inside the earth, and it's core, that make up the mass. The crust, makes up very little of the mass. If the crust thins out, then gravity will increase ... irrespective of the earth growing or not, expanding in mass, or not.

And rationally, there is one major flaw with Plate Tectonics. And that is subduction. It isn't possible, as defined by plate tectonics. It doesn't matter how many scientists put their names behind this perpetual machine, it's still non-achievable, to push, pull or otherwise in vast numbers, put the crust inside that immensely dense magnetic plasma beneath. We wouldn't be floating on top, if it was.

And concerning that the continents are bumping and crashing into each other, slowly forming the ends so they fit. Is literally preposterous. Think about it, if the continents are bumping they would randomly bump. It's not like a car is trying to parallel park. It's like a tivoli electrical car ride ... everyone is bumping into everyone, and the continents wouldn't fit anywhere. Unless you are suggesting there is some sort of "mind" or "mechanism" at the helm, steering us, similarly like a human being steering the car at a parking lot.

This isn't theology, what you wan't to believe isn't relevant either. That isn't science. You must OBSERVE and then explain what you observe. There is no observation that observes the continents moving about in the manner suggested ... in fact, all the continents are firmly fittet together, with tens to hundred kilometer thick crust. The motion of the continents as recorded, is not in contrast with plate tectonics. Although it is yet too early to determine, if they support Earth Expansion either. The only observation made, is that new material is created at the ocean floor. And second, that all the continents fit together on a smaller globe. These are only observations, fact in question. Plate tectonics, is a theory that was rejected, and later accepted because the newer theory of Earth Expansion could not be accepted. So the alternative, and previously rejected theory, was accepted.

The notion of the continents fittet across the atlantic, was obvious very early on. Sometime in the 19th century, if my recollection is correct. But it wasn't until the 20th century, that a model of a globe which fittet the continents over the pacific as well, was made.

However, the most important point of all. Is that a non-contant earth is an extremely scary thought to many.
 
Last edited:
Trippy said:
Plate Tectonics had to prove itself to be a better model than expanding earth tectonics in order to be accepted..
Click to expand...

Ideally that's the way science would work, but it doesn't work that way today due to the influence and control of money and power.

Plate tectonics simply had a more powerful marketing campaign, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top