P1. Earth is getting bigger.
P2. Things that get bigger gain mass.
P3. Mass is made us of matter.
P4. Matter cannot be created, only transformed.
P5. An ever-expanding sphere would need exponentially more material added to maintain its growth.
P6. Gravity increases with addition of matter.
—————
C. Earth is being fed *massive* amounts of matter to feed its ever-growing appetite, and gravity is MUCH higher than it was when the dinosaurs roamed the planet.
Or
This is unscientific nonsense.
I'm not saying expanding Earth is true, but I'll play devil's advocate.
A) Would less gravity help dinosaurs get so big?
B) Earth is constantly being fed more matter. Space dust is constantly falling onto Earth and I could imagine we do go/have gone through massive debris clouds from time to time.
A) No. Less gravity would help dinosaurs bounce around like they were on the moon.
B) If, by ‘massive debris clouds,’ you mean ‘meteor showers,’ then, *yes*, we go through them, but they burn up in the atmosphere or land as small pebbles. Not nearly enough to grow the planet in the sense the video is claiming. If you mean something bigger than meteor showers, then no, because that would do serious damage to the planet, and we can see the number of times it has happened from the scars left on the surface from their impacts. There are not enough to grow the planet in the way the video claims.
All of the matter from the meteor would still end up on the surface as dust. Where else do you think it would go? Also, you're saying that going through a big dust cloud would do serious damage to the planet? Even if it did, how do you know it hasn't happened but been covered up by geological processes? How do you know we can't see such scars today?
Dude you’re asking for an introductory class on modern geology and astronomy. If you don’t have that background then I’m not going to be able to convince you that you just don’t know what you’re arguing.
The matter does end up on earth, but the amount we gain over time is entirely insignificant. The earth is just so large that even shrunk like the video claims it would add nothing. It also doesn't explain how such matter would end up under the earths crust.
According to NASA, 48.5 tons of meteoric material fall onto Earth every day.
https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/
It adds up over the course of millions of years. The material doesn't end up under the crust. Over time it adds weight to the top of the crust which pushes the bottom of the crust down. This happened with the massive ice sheets during the last ice age. The crust is pliable.
I don't blame you for misunderstanding the scales were talking about with planets. The human brain isn't really made for understanding things of this scope.
But 48.5 tons is fucking TINY compared to the planet as a whole.
That was just meteors. That does not take into consideration space dust, which is over 5000 tons per year. Over the course of millions of years the Earth literally does grow.
Please feel free to do the math on what percent 5000 tons a year is of 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons, the estimated size of earth.
It actually SHRINKS when you look at the big picture. Our atmosphere leaks more mass than it absorbs, in the form of gasses like oxygen, helium, and hydrogen, which absorb enough energy from the sun to escape atmosphere. Taking into account space dust and meteorites, we actually lose roughly 66,000 tons a year.
>The current best estimate for the mass of Earth 5.9722×10\^24 kg, with a relative uncertainty of 10\^-4
Do you have any idea how big that is? That is 5.972.200.000.000.000.000.000.000 kg. To give you some perspective, that is the equivalent of 123.138.144.329.896.920.000 days worth of meteoric rain.
That is about 337.133.865.379.594.560 years of meteoric rain.
That is about 24.453.025 times the estimated age of the universe.
You have no conception of how insignificant that amount of matter is relative to the estimated mass of the earth. I don't even mean as an insult to you, its just that the number is so low (0,0000000000000000008120960450085396%) that our brains cant really comprehend it.
​
>It adds up over the course of millions of years
lol. one million years of meteoric rain would be about 17.7 trillion kg of meteoric mass. That is 0,000000002963831% earth's current mass. In other words to see, lets say a 1% increase on earth's mass, it would at such rate it would take 3.371 quadrillion years. FOR A 1% INCREASE.
Oh, and btw im only addressing mass because you decided to go with mass. But if we're taking about volume that is an entirely different discussion, but with numbers just as insignificant.
TLDR - No amount of meteoric rain could cause the earth to grow as much as this theory seems to claim lol
You left out the part about going through massive debris/dust fields.
Also, with how big the Earth is, how does a continent moving a few cm per year create Mount Everest?
You're looking at numbers with a large difference in scale.
Mt everest is 900,000cm tall, quite achievable in the cm/year range.
The earth weighs 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000kg.
At 1,000,000kg per year that's... well, basically static.
First of all, why is the earth so big that material raining down from space constantly does not add to it's mass but a continent moving a few cm per year can create the highest mountain on the planet?
Second, I did not say I believe in the expanding earth, only that I was playing devil's advocate.
I don't believe in the expanding earth, but your reasoning is not great here. See my response below:
A) the amount of gravity is variable so if you had something like 95% of the current gravity it would not be like the moon. The amount of gravity scales relative to the amount of mass
B) dust might burn up but it doesn't magically destroy the matter.
Again not trying to advocate for the idea that the earth is expanding, just pointing out your arguments don't really disprove what you think they do
We've already measured mass gain from debris. Its negligible. We have two massive shields thaf protect us from being hit by anything of significant mass, notably the gravity of the moon and the gravity of Jupiter. Also anything big enough to add significant mass would also cause an energetic event that would eject shitloads of matter into space. This is why there are martian rocks found on Earth.
This is correct. It is also a counter argument that could be used against the expanding earth theory. The dude I was responding to didn't provide a reasonable argument.
Creationists appeal to the idea of low prehistoric gravity to allow for dinosaurs (not saying OP has anything to do with them). If expansion is due, however, to less density, surface gravity will weaken with time.
The Earth is also constantly losing matter. Little bits of gas escape the Earth all the time. Massive debris field don't really exist in space. Even the asteroid belts are so sparsely populated that you have to try and hit an asteroid. We have animals bigger than dinosaurs living on Earth today and in the recent past. Our ancestors saw to it that most megafauna did not survive our slow march to civilization. Clearly, the gravity of today doesn't prevent large animals from existing, so it shouldn't in the past either.
What is causing the growth if not added matter? What scientifically sound, evidence-supported process would increase the size of the Earth by massive amounts without changing its density? Besides imagination?
Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day. 17,702 tons a year on average. Do the math, it’s not magically appearing. Even if the expansion causing continental drift is incorrect we are definitely getting larger due to space debris.
Your reasoning is flawed. Things do not need to gain mass in order to appear larger. Imagine if the earth didn’t spin, and suddenly another earth sized planet hit the earth at high speed. The coalition would then spin earth so fast that the outer layers and inter layers would practically be forced outward causing the earth to be “hollow”.
Let’s also not forget that geologist think that the earth is mostly molten iron at its core. Doesn’t iron expand when heated due to thermal expansion? That would increase the size of the earth without changing its mass .
All that stuff IS going on, at a much smaller scale. If you couldn’t tell, the difference between the size of the Earth and the size of a balloon is pretty significant
Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day. 17,702 tons a year on average. Do the math, it’s not magically appearing. Even if the expansion causing continental drift is incorrect we are definitely getting larger due to space debris.
"Getting Bigger" isn't very scientific or exact. Fluid dynamics says volume can change with change in pressure and temperature, mass doesn't have to change. Assuming the earth is like a "fluid" (molten core) then it can expand/contract (get bigger, get smaller) as temperature and/or pressure changes.
This theory is incredibly dumb, bordering on flat-earth levels of conspiracy. Why would the Earth be expanding, and how? Continental drift is a very well studied phenomenon that doesn't need this frankly ridiculous theory to explain supercontinents like Pangea. What on earth convinced you of this?
I'm not saying this theory is true, but your vitriol for a competing idea isn't warranted. I think you put too much stock in our current theories. They are all just theories at that, and they are presented as fact, but no one actually understands exactly how all this stuff works.
There is no reason to think it's impossible for planets to expand. Actually, there are so many different types of planets out there that I'm sure some of them do expand. It also doesn't make these theories mutually exclusive.
This is the problem with "science" today. Their theories were presented to us as fact since we were tots. It's until you really dig into it that you realize that was disingenuous of them. They wanted to sound authoritative, and over sold their theories. I remember being in grade school and being taught about plate tectonics and that is definitely the way it works. Then looking into it later, and realizing all of this is just a theory with some data behind it, and is most likely wrong at least in some ways.
You'd have to provide solid reasoning as to how a planet would expand to such a significant degree, until then there's far less evidence for this "theory" than plate tectonics
I think the author is stating that they created a model which predicts that the continents can fit together with a deflating earth, which they are claiming is evidence of this.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory. It's interesting, I've never heard it. Perhaps someone will look into it one day, and it will be disproven. Perhaps they'll look into it someday and they'll find interesting evidence.
My point is actually that the vitriol prevents both of those outcomes, and both of those outcomes are beneficial. My other point is that the scientific establishment has a financial and "prestige" benefit to keeping the status quo, since they are the gatekeepers of it. That prevents new, good research, to their personal benefit. It's happened time and time again in the scientific community, it's a huge part of their history. There is a certain narcissistic personality type that is drawn to establishment science, and they see the benefit in gatekeeping this stuff.
Semmelweis, we shall never forget!
Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day. 17,702 tons a year on average. Do the math, it’s not magically appearing. Even if the expansion causing continental drift is incorrect we are definitely getting larger due to space debris.
Are you aware of how much the Earth masses? Approximately 6.6 sextillion tonnes, 17,702 tonnes of meteoric rock a year isn't making a single damn difference
>What on earth convinced you of this?
I learned about this theory shortly after acing a geology survey course to pass my science requirement to graduate college.
It explains the major problems in geology. See this map:
[https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html)
It’s the map used in this globe reconstruction video:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/s/kYycWTptM1
By following the age gradient of the sea floor, you can close the continents back up together and show how plate tectonics actually works.
Assuming you mean the Pangea Theory, then no. That's the whole difference between the Growing Theory and Pangea, although I'd argue they're both "plate tectonic" theories.
There is no mainstream geology explanation for the "fit" of all of the continents on a smaller globe is a coincidence. Mainstream geology say that Pangea was a giant island on one side of the planet which broke apart in the Atlantic only.
Instead, geologists have created a rather bizarre looking model [showing](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/18odc88/one_billion_years_of_plate_tectonics/) how the continents moved around over the past 1 billion years. All of this was to explain why there is evidence to show that Australia and North America were connected about 150-200M years ago.
The sad thing is most geologists don't even know about this theory, because it became taboo once Pangea was adopted, so they were never taught an alternate explanation, and this mountain of evidence has been ignored by individuals, while becoming increasingly embarrassing on an institutional level.
> There is no mainstream geology explanation for the "fit" of all of the continents on a smaller globe. Mainstream geology says it is a coincidence and that Pangea was a giant island on one side of the planet which broke apart in the Atlantic only.
Complete misunderstanding of the whole Pangea and Continental drift lol.
For *starters*, your theory doesn’t even actually work — please show me pacific America fitting snug with Chinese Asia and Australia, let alone along with the rest of the continents. It doesn’t, not without massive overlap and rotation to a ridiculous extend that it disproves your theory anyways.
Secondly, Pangea didn’t break apart in the “Atlantic” it broke apart in a single mega ocean lol.
> Instead, geologists have created a rather bizarre looking model showing how the continents moved around over the past 1 billion years.
You act like your model isn’t even more bizarre lol
> The sad thing is most geologists don't even know about this theory, because it became taboo once Pangea was adopted, so they were never taught an alternate explanation, and this mountain of evidence has been ignored by individuals, while becoming increasingly embarrassing on an institutional level.
Most geologists don’t know about this theory because it’s a bunch of bullcrap — you have 0 actual scientific evidence that isn’t more easily explained via literally any other means.
There’s certainly something to be said about being suspicious and critical of scientific theories — but not to such a ridiculous point that you are simply a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.
>please show me pacific America fitting snug with Chinese Asia and Australia
I'm not in complete agreement with this reconstruction, but here is an interactive model which I believe fits Neal's construction (which traces the NOAA [data](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/globes/age_lithosphere_globe_southpole.png) back):
[http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ExpandingEarth-demo.htm](http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ExpandingEarth-demo.htm)
And your “model” proves my point exactly lol. You can’t fit the continents on a smaller globe without distorting, stretching, rotating and shifting them to such a ridiculous extend that it inherently disproves your point because you need plate tectonics of some sort anyways to get to the final resting point.
Even if you ignore the physical impossibility of this “theory” you have not answered any of the geographic impossibilities whatsoever. Where are the oceans that we know of? How do the rest of the supercontinents (and their breaking up) that occurred before Pangea fit in? How do you explain the moon and [Theia and it’s remnants in our planet](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/11/03/world/earth-moon-theia-collision-llvps-scn/index.html)? The very fact that the Appalachian mountain range exists and it’s remnants can be found in Europe and Africa inherently means that you need some plates to exist.
You have the same problem as flat earthers — your models of the planet is geophysically and algebraically impossible and you can’t even come to an agreement over what it looks like.
I don’t get why is it infinitely more likely that the Earth *grew* in diameter than… giant slabs of rocks sliding on a hot and spinning core? You complain about the ocean floor being significantly newer than continental rock, but that’s perfectly logical because why *wouldn’t* the ocean floor be younger when continental crust is always pushing it back into the Earth’s mantle?
>You have the same problem as flat earthers
Over the line!
I've been doing this all day. I'm going to go spend time with my kids. There are good answers to all of those questions.
Happy New Year!
So...subduction? Living on a subduction zone, with the lovely volcanos a bit inland, I think about them a lot.
The expanding earth is an old hypothesis in it's various forms.
Also, somewhere else in the comments mountains were mentioned. That mountains aren't that old? There is the bare nub of a 1.4 billion year old supervolcano in SE Missouri. Worn down by the untold billions of years, it's only 1772 ft elevation (and the highest in the entire state...wig sort of amuses me as the little peak I'm looking out my window at is over a 1000 ft. higher
Back to subduction, though. Where I live right on the coast, the mountains are being pushed up by the subduction and the scraping of the "top" of the subducting plate is the "wrinkling". I can follow the sand and mudstones inland for miles, wit their tilt showing clearly the direction.
Also, the Yakutat Plate is currently slamming/subducting under the "hinge" where SE Alaska and the main land mass of that state meet. It is producing the highest coastal range in the world. It's amazing to be on a boat just offshore and look up at a 18,000 plus mountain right there. A mountain range caused by the collision and subduction of a small plate moving quite quickly. Don't get me started on the Aleutian Trench.
I read recently that perhaps it isn't the spreading ridges tat are the driver for the plate tectonics, but rather the subduction of the plates. Not sure I agree, but it was an interesting thought.
But, like I said, subduction.
This theory actually has scientific basis unlike flat earth theory. There's no denying how every continent fits together perfectly on a smaller globe. How our ocean floor is only 200 million years old at the oldest and how we only find ancient fish fossils on mainland and mountains. Or how we only see Sequoiadendron trees in China and California. Despite Pangea showing these two continents on the polar opposite side. Same with alligators. Or how about replicating it on every Terran planet and moon in our solar system. Once we remove the "subduction" the moons and planets fit together perfectly. It explains how dinosaurs went extinct and how Atlantis could be swallowed by the ocean. Considering the myth was thought to be in the middle of a fault line. Or how about when Charles Darwin noticed how steppe plains had been raised in succession which gave birth to their theory. Other scientists have studied this in recent times. Here is a science paper.
[https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/7531](https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/7531)
Now let's see the compounded evidence for flat earth theory. Yea that's what I thought.
The paper boils down to this: A new theory of gravity is needed to support the idea of an expanding earth. That would be far more fundamental and to the point.
Contrary to the idea of stuffy scientists hiding an inconvenient secret that will destroy their empire, there is actually a lot of effort going into measuring fundamental physical constants like the speed of light and elementary particle masses, as well as G. Trapped ion methods promise to resolve G to 8 digits, at which point annual changes might be detected. That would have interesting consequences. Until then, the claim that scientists are hiding "the truth" is a tired conspiracist trope.
There is sciencetists researching this topic as I just proved. The work is on a public domain. Institutions don't have the benefit of the doubt anymore. Blame ourselves for having corrupt world leaders.
The earth has always been gaining mass since its formation. We are constantly hit by meteorites. When our solar system was younger and more crowded, we would have been gaining at a faster rate than we are now. So we need to find out how much we gain each year, then look over a 4 billion year history.
Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day. 17,702 tons a year on average. Do the math, it’s not magically appearing. Even if the expansion causing continental drift is incorrect we are definitely getting larger due to space debris.
The funniest thing in the world to me is that your name is statistician but you're failing so bad at basic math. 17,700 tons a year for a billion years represents .0031% of the earths ATMOSPHERIC mass. Not even the ground lol
Yes the automatically generated Reddit name is my claim to be a statistician. you fail to see what I’m saying, people claim how would the earth be growing in size. I don’t care if it’s .0000000000000000000000001% it’s still gaining some solid rock/metal. I also understand that the earth is losing mass in the form of hydrogen at a larger rate than the higher estimates for space debris gain. I don’t believe hydrogen contributes to the rocky surface, nor does the space debris gains contribute to continental drift. You clearly didn’t read what I posted maybe this clears things up a little.
Where was all the water hiding?
Does he think everything was covered in water or ice until it was large enough for the water to spread out and find low spots?
>Where was all the water hiding?
Solids, liquids, and gasses are formed in the outer core and rise up through cracks in the mantle. Those cracks increase over time, so you start with a small rocky planet without an atmosphere or water and eventually get a gas giant, with Venus, Earth and Neptune-like phases in between.
​
>Does he think everything was covered in water or ice until it was large enough for the water to spread out and find low spots
He points out that 60% of the continents were covered in shallow seas during the age of the dinosaurs. I will point out two other facts about the planet, which Neal didn't discuss to my knowledge:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball\_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian\_explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion)
What makes sense to me is that the Snowball Earth (1) began when there were enough cracks in the surface that water rose up and then froze over in large quantities, (2) and ended when there was enough gas to trap enough heat to melt the surface, and (3) that the Cambrian explosion occurred as a result of the Earth's crust peaking above the water line.
They are naively using the break up of supercontinents (hence why continents loosely fit together like a jigsaw puzzle) as evidence for a growing Earth.
And yet we have lots of evidence for plate tectonics, including subduction zones, slip faults and collisions. For example, how would a growing Earth explain the formation of the Himalayas? Plate tectonics has this covered - due to the Indian plate crashing into the Eurasian plate.
It’s actually the opposite. The increase in the size of globe causes the crust to form wrinkles.
65 million years ago, we didn’t have very many mountains. There were some, like the Appalachians.
The Rockies, Andes, and Himalayas are all less than 100 million years old, in some cases far less. That’s 2% of the age of the planet itself.
Have you ever blown up a balloon or baked a loaf of bread? Increasing something’s size smoothes out any wrinkles as they get stretched over the surface. And the reason most mountain ranges are geologically young is simple erosion.
The science of this isn’t nearly as settled as you might think.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/why-some-mountain-ranges-dont-erode-away-flna6C10462947
So, where are those massive cracks? Why have ocean levels risen, rather than decreased? Surely if the surface of the planet was being torn apart, there would be a decrease in sea-level, as water recedes into the fissures that I'm sure you will maintain are hidden under the ocean.
>So, where are those massive cracks?
Those are the mountains. Like the Himalayas, which are a [clear](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18ulu53/explanation_of_mountain_formation_under_the/) fold area.
​
>Why have ocean levels risen, rather than decreased?
They did decrease. North America held shallow seas before this breakup occurred. That's part of standard model. Parts of Utah used to be underwater. This is [according](https://geology.utah.gov/popular/geologic-history/) to the Utah Geological Survey. They've risen in recent times due to the end of an ice age.
You should call the Utah Geological Survey and ask them why there's no longer an inland sea in the middle of North America. I suspect you're not going to cite their response as a support for your argument.
It’s fun to entertain various ideas even if it’s wild, however, the whole thing about gravity increasing pretty much kills this theory. Plus, the motions water levels would be getting shallower I would think. However the ice melting I guess would interfere with that a little bit
There's so much more evidence than that. Here is a science paper regarding the findings.
[https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/7531](https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/7531)
Oh the great works of Degezelle Marvin !! Why didn't you say so !!
46 Page Paper on the expanding Earth with a 1/2 page of references....amazing work for University of Phoenix
There were plenty of mountains they’re just worn away. The appalachians used to be a lot taller, now they’re short and round. Just standard erosion.
Many mountain ranges that did exist don’t exist anymore.
>Many mountain ranges that did exist don’t exist anymore.
Geology says that a lot of things used to exist that don't exist anymore.
I'm going off of what the data shows. Who is using science and who is using a belief system?
Go to 3:10 of the video I linked above. It shows the map, then wraps the map around the current globe, then shows tracing back the age gradient traces causes the continents to close completely.
Right but simply piecing puzzles together is not physics or geology. That’s just doing a children’s puzzle.
Plate tectonics are completely dependent on complex geological physics based on heat, pressure, and fluid dynamics. If there was a growing/shrinking earth you’d have to change all the properties of those physics.
Come on, man. It's entertaining but not even plausible. We've had plenty of earthquakes and volcano eruptions even in the last 20-50 years and any difference in the size of the earth would be measurable. It would affect gravity, the rides, and a ton of other things.
It's a fun thought exercise, but it's not real.
There's a global [network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Terrestrial_Reference_System_and_Frame) for measuring this data, but when they don't like the results, they change their methodology.
The Earth's growth was being detected at the equator (where we have more pole stations), and this got reported, but they quashed it by calling it a change in the Earth's shape:
[https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-research-offers-explanation-for-earths-bulging-waistline](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-research-offers-explanation-for-earths-bulging-waistline)
They attribute a lot of the increase as sea level rise due to ice melting or thermal expansion. Even still, they concede 0.2mm growth per year ([cite](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715000518)).
But when they say 0.2 mm per year, are they including things like the 60-foot tall island that got created earlier this year? If we measure the Earth's radius from that point, it grew by 60 feet this year.
[https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a45793868/new-island-in-japan/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a45793868/new-island-in-japan/)
Are you talking about the tidal bulge? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_tides/tides03_gravity.html#:~:text=Gravity%20and%20inertia%20act%20in,toward%20it%2C%20creating%20one%20bulge.
The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the moon is strongest on the side of the Earth that happens to be facing the moon, simply because it is closer. This attraction causes the water on this “near side” of Earth to be pulled toward the moon. As gravitational force acts to draw the water closer to the moon, inertia attempts to keep the water in place. But the gravitational force exceeds it and the water is pulled toward the moon, causing a “bulge” of water on the near side toward the moon (Ross, D.A., 1995).
On the opposite side of the Earth, or the “far side,” the gravitational attraction of the moon is less because it is farther away. Here, inertia exceeds the gravitational force, and the water tries to keep going in a straight line, moving away from the Earth, also forming a bulge (Ross, D.A., 1995).
And yes, we get new islands sometimes when a volcano erupts, but it's not making the earth bigger. It's the same material that already existed, it just solidifies as it cools. It is not new material that just spontaneously came from nowhere, and made the earth bigger.
https://www.livescience.com/43220-subduction-zone-definition.html#:~:text=Subduction%20zones%20occur%20in%20a,South%20America%2C%20according%20to%20NOAA.
I'm a teacher aid for 6th and 7th graders with learning and behavior disabilities so I sit in on a lot of their classes, specifically science class.
My 7th grade students with learning disabilities who are currently studying volcanos and plate tectonics could disprove this theory. I'm actually going to show this theory to their science teacher. He's a good friend of mine. It'll be good for a laugh when we get back from winter break.
I'd love to go someday. I lived in Alaska for a while and man those mountains blew my mind every day and I hear those are nothing compared to the Himalayas.
>For example, how would a growing Earth explain the formation of the Himalayas?
Great question! See here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/comments/18ulu53/explanation\_of\_mountain\_formation\_under\_the/
OP gets asked a question. OP replies politely and provides a link to a possible explanation for that exact question. OP gets downvoted.
Great job reddit. You never fail to disappoint me.
You're not helping your case by seeming paranoid about people disagreeing. "The powers that B are hiding the truth of growing earth by downvoting me on Reddit"! Not disrespecting your belief in this theory, but let's not go too far off the deep end?
I’m not don’t subscribe to the theory, but Reddit is absolutely full of bots and sock puppets that serve to control the narrative. You see it every day; you just may not realize it.
Seeing things that others don't is a common theme. You just have to critically think. Of course there are bots on Reddit, but what is the evidence of the US government manipulating information in regards to suppressing evidence about supposed theories on the "growing earth". There is no evidence of this, or any logical reason as to why they would even want to care about something which seems so inconsequential. It honestly reminds me of what flat-earthers always say, that the government somehow has a hand on suppressing this "truth" of the flat earth.
I didn’t suggest there was evidence that the US government is specifically suppressing this info.
I just pointed out that Reddit is swarming with accounts that seek to enforce a particular narrative. So ridiculing OP for being “paranoid” in general is foolish.
Absolutely and people who haven't experienced it directly don't understand. I've been a victim of a bot attack on here and it freaked me out. I've also had the content of my posts changed (temporarily) or seen comments added to profiles (also temporarily). The admins, bots, and algos really fuck with users on here
Not really, and considering lots of what you think is 'science' is actually bullshit and the mainstream is usually wrong about things, I feel confident this is probably more accurate than the 'official' science narrative, which you'll often notices changes every decade to sound like the last decades crackpot ideas, when you've lived long enough..
> which you'll often notices changes every decade to sound like the last decades crackpot ideas, when you've lived long enough..
Which is because we get better technology to understand our world better…? Also you are *massively* exaggerating about the whole “last decade crackpot ideas”
I don’t get how a planet growing in size by like 70% based on 0 actual scientific evidence whatsoever is more believable than… giant rocks sliding around on the core because it’s hot and spins?
I also don’t get why scientists would go through the effort of even hiding this information, especially if as you say, we have no problems completely rewriting our scientific position every decade.
I'm not advocating for this theory necessarily, but I do believe that general accepted belief on plate tectonics is not fully representative of what actually occurs moments of great change on this planet.
The fossil record shows that changes on this planet tend to occur rapidly when they do occur. Things can change fast. Just barely 10,000 years ago all of North America was covered by an ice sheet. That ice sheet was gone in a virtually instantaneous amount of time when it finally went.
I tend to think that there's a missing mechanism for rapid change that rears its head every once in awhile, and I definitely think we don't know anything about what's in our planet. So I cringe when I see people being assured that something is a particular way. It's your surety that I'm reacting to not correctness of any particular theory
>I’m not advocating for this theory necessarily
But you carry water for it?
>plate tectonics is not fully representative
Source needed.
>fossil record shows changes happen rapidly [sic]
Yes over geologic timescales
>ice sheet was gone virtually instantaneously…when it finally went
Over thousands of years
>there’s a missing mechanism for rapid change
Yes and you are the only one to know of this mechanism. You must be very smart.
>Over thousands of years
No, over the span of just a few years. the loss was catastrophic and the ferocity of the meltwater shaped much of the Pacific northwest
No. I believe that crustal displacement events occur on a regular basis, and that these events are driven by indictive interaction with our Sun. I'm not alone in this - the theory was first presented by Charles Hapgood.
Well, I'm pretty smart. I'm certainly less willing to use ad-hominems to simply insult other people outright than you. Certainly, I'm better able to conduct a more measured consideration of the topic than you are. Is this how you respond in a class?
Hall effect thrusters aren't really my thing. Here though - debunk this -
https://medium.com/@sschepis/harnessing-the-hidden-power-of-water-exploring-vortex-induced-negentropy-2dee3ad5c99e
Cool link. I think you did yourself a disservice by not elaborating on what this theory is about. It isn't quite High Strangeness though so I get why you are getting push back. It is a kind of cool intellectual exercise to imagine it. I'm able to hold more than 1 idea in my mind at the same time so I'm not prone to outright dismissal of any idea simply because I'm aware of why other theories are much more conclusive.
* You should have mentioned that the "growing earth" is part of a larger theory the "growing universe" which puts it into the framework of whatever that is about. It is a glaring missing bit to say the Universe is as normal but the Earth is special which is what this post seems to say.
* The Earth is spinning in the wrong direction in your animation.
* The growing universe part should be demonstrated in the stars background. It also would seem to me that the Earth should appear much smaller at its most contracted stage.
* Where is all the water? Why is there no water when contracted? Why does the growing nature of the planet cause any deviations from the original configuration?
* You are showing the continents moving and that's not explained.
I'm sure you have answers if this is indeed a complete theory out there somewhere - but you didn't expect posting a crude animation without any details was going to generate a lot of enthusiasm did you?
>you didn't expect posting a crude animation without any details was going to generate a lot of enthusiasm did you?
I totally hear you, but I get much less traction when I try to explain it:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/comments/18qxt2u/half\_baked\_the\_pangea\_theory\_overlooked\_that\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/comments/18qxt2u/half_baked_the_pangea_theory_overlooked_that_the/)
It's not my animation. I wonder if they intentionally didn't do it in the right direction, because they're not trying to show the Earth's actual rotation. They're trying to give you a decent sense of what it looks like from a 360 view.
I'm in touch with the daughter of the narrator, and she also helped create it. I'll ask her about this. You're only the second or third person to mention it.
That probably depends on the current state of things.
I would think that, because diversion and subduction zones are based only on the areas that serve as paths of least resistance for that phenomena, the kilometerage could change over a geological time scale depending on how the plates and magma convection work out.
One would think that, definitely.
In the map below, you're comparing the black lines (spread areas) versus the white lines (convergent boundaries, i.e., *potential* subduction zones).
[https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean\_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated\_images/whole\_world/2008\_age\_of\_oceans\_plates\_indian.png](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_plates_indian.png)
They call the Bering Straight a convergent boundary, but notice the directionality of the spreading in the Pacific in the red and yellow areas.
It's running parallel to the boundary, meaning the 'conveyor belt' was not going the right way in this critical area over the last \~40 million years, when 1/3 of the ocean's surface needs to have been subducted.
They don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Obviously they is overwhelming evidence supporting subduction zones. I think there is a case to be made for earth not having a fixed volume over geologic timescales.
I remember hearing about this a decade ago when I was in college. I happened to be in a geology class at the time and I brought this to the professors attention. The professor never heard the theory before but was kind enough to humor her conspiracy minded student. She actually posted questions on the YouTube videos to challenge certain aspects of the theory, and then within a day had her comments removed and blocked.
Moral of the story, if people are afraid of scientific scrutiny, it's probably because they know their theory can't stand up to it.
People in pseudoscience love to play the victim of, "look how mainstream science oppressed my ideas!", but then when they are questioned or challenged, they run like cowards, because they rely on the sympathy and ignorance of their gullible believers.
Perhaps you're unaware that plate tectonic theory is only 110 years old and was basically ridiculed by "mainstream science" until the 1960s. And look at how much we gained from those who questioned the status quo. A youtube comment being removed is pretty meaningless as far as scientific rigor is concerned.
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html
It was ridiculed because when he put forward the idea he offered little supporting evidence. Pseudo science fans everywhere love to use this example to illustrate that the scientific method is broken when, in fact, it worked exactly as it should.
You're an imbecile. There are myriad examples. I'm only saying the person I responded has a stupid point, which objectively he does. Enjoy your upvotes.
The funny thing is……. That’s exactly where the conspiracy started! That’s where most conspiracies start! YouTube, 4Chan, Reddit, Facebook…. The list goes on and on. There isn’t some ancient group coming up with these theories. They’re keyboard warriors living in their parents basements with waaaaay too much time on their hands.
I don't know if this is possible. Seems terribly unlikely. If they're was a way for this to be true, then the planet must have been incredibly cold in its center before and has been expanding as it has warmed up.
This idea simply complicates things more, generates more questions and I think it does not match current observations.
>I think it does not match current observations
Check out this map:
[https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/scotese-present.png](https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/scotese-present.png)
​
>the planet must have been incredibly cold in its center before and has been expanding as it has warmed up
That's the general idea. Here's an [infographic](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F0jl5vzzv9lvb1.jpg) I made. If I were better at graphic design, I'd have basically added some smaller planets, moons, and asteroids to an image like [this](https://futurism.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwp-assets.futurism.com%2F2015%2F11%2Fbrown-dwarf-star-gas-giant-comparison1.jpg&w=1080&q=75).
Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day. 17,702 tons a year on average. Do the math, it’s not magically appearing. Even if the expansion causing continental drift is incorrect we are definitely getting larger due to space debris.
And does this theory account for the orbits of all the planets, which would shift as a result of the additional mass of earth (which came from what, BTW? The calories of digesting dinosaurs?)?
Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day. 17,702 tons a year on average. Do the math, it’s not magically appearing. Even if the expansion causing continental drift is incorrect we are definitely getting larger due to space debris.
It’s hard to weight the earth, since it produces its own gravity, but we know the mass and we know the constant of gravity, and weight is just mass x gravity.
Long story short, the earth weighs around
5,970,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. 17,702 tons a year is so small that it doesn’t matter. It would take longer than the age of the universe to accumulate the mass of a single earth.
Somewhat. Adams said that the planets rotate along the Sun’s geomagnetic lines and so the Earth moved outward as the Sun’s mass and geomagnetic lines increased.
That would require a truly immense energy input, and also make a truly immense amount of antimatter.
The stuff that puts nukes to shame when it touches matter.
Also, you're saying that positrons become protons... which begs the question, **where does the mass come from**?
Protons are several orders of magnitude more massive than positrons.
If you actually read all of that, thank you so much.
Adams viewed this as an “ether” theory. Basically, those little prime matter particles (let’s call them neutrinos) are everywhere as a pre-existing condition.
I think of it in a more metaphysical way. The electron is a point particle, right? So it doesn’t have any spatial dimension. In a sense, that’s the smallest possible particle, except it can’t exist in physical reality.
The smallest thing that could exist in reality would be a double-point particle. A particle that’s only not a point particle by virtue of being associated as the opposite of another point particle.
I think this gives rise to spin and entanglement. I’m working on it.
Did we ever actually prove if gravitrons existed?
Anyway, it's not really that good to think of an electron being a point when you're working at the atomic level.
It doesn't have an internal structure, but it does "occupy" a volume, in a way.
In this model, gravity is a function of the positron’s field extending ever so slightly beyond the dimensions of the hadron. So whether a gravity particle exists, it fits within the field theory.
If an electron has a width, I’d be curious to know what it is. I know why it has a mass of 1/1836th the mass of a proton.
It's not really that it has a width, it's just that it exists in a volume.
It's better to visualize it as a fluid rather than a point, flowing through the volume described by the probability functions everyone who gets into quantum physics tries to understand.
Anyway, positrons definitely don't cause gravity, since we make and handle positron sources and would notice that they were making more gravity.
If something has a volume, it has a width.
Positrons don’t impose gravity unless they’re inside of a hadron. And no amount of them you’d be handling in a lab would impart gravity like that.
So, to be clear, this is Neal Adams’ theory. I’m not saying it’s true. But I think I’ve made it make a little more sense.
Two positrons have to get squished out of their electron pods at the same time, then one of those electrons has to start orbiting the two positrons while they’re trapped inside 918 neutrinos (which are positrons with electrons wrapped around them).
https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/s/dWGSnxuUB0
Wait, that requires each of the "pmp"s to have a negative charge of 1/918th the elementary charge in one configuration or 1/919 in the other I think.
Also neutrons are not very stable at all, and decay into a proton and an electron when freed from nuclei with a half life of maybe 10 minutes.
I don't think any of this works at all with the current understanding of quantum physics.
>Also neutrons are not very stable at all, and decay into a proton and an electron when freed from nuclei with a half life of maybe 10 minutes.
They both have 919 PMPs.
The neutron has 1 positron, so it's just barely able to hold them all together and will eventually break apart.
The proton has 2 positrons, so it has a positive charge can hold them together indefinitely.
The charge math makes more sense if you start with the proton.
919 PMPs = 1638 electron masses + 2 negative-electron masses (from the positrons) = 1636 electron masses for the proton.
If one of the proton's positrons is struck by a sufficiently energized electron, it will become a neutron.
It might suffice to stop there and say that the positron and electron get absorbed *somehow*, since we know the neutron acquires 2 electron masses, and positron emission and neutron decay are recognized in the standard model.
In the writeup, I suggest that the electron's annihilation of the positron (1) adds an electron mass, and (2) negates the 2nd positron's negative electron mass, without another PMP coming into existence.
I think the neutrino is the key to understanding this process. Standard model says that proton decay releases a positron and a neutrino, while neutron decay releases an electron and an anti-neutrino.
yeah yeah no ridicule but this vide disregards what other theories it might support, and what other proof those theories have. this is for dumb people. growing earth? okay not entirely impossible... if it's hollow... and what supports that? ah yeah not much somfar. and the way we get more water to cover it all from nowhere... wtf?
this is dumb
Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day. 17,702 tons a year on average. Do the math, it’s not magically appearing. Even if the expansion causing continental drift is incorrect we are definitely getting larger due to space debris.
"How many tons of meteors hit the Earth every year?
An estimated 25 million meteoroids, micrometeoroids and other space debris enter Earth's atmosphere each day, which results in an estimated 15,000 tonnes of that material entering the atmosphere each year."
"The earth weighs 5.9725 billion trillion metric tons. That translates to 6570 x 109 gigatons, or 6,570,000,000 gigatons."
"From about 300-200 million years ago (late Paleozoic Era until the very late Triassic), the continent we now know as North America was contiguous with Africa, South America, and Europe. They all existed as a single continent called Pangea."
"1 tons (t) is equal to 0.907184 metric tonnes (mt). Conversely, 1 metric tonnes (mt) is equal to 1.10231 tons (t)."
4 000 000 000 000 ton over 300 million years?
One gigaton is a billion metric tons, so that is what?
4000 Gton? vs 6,570,000,000 Gtons.
And Earth grew so big we mostly have oceans. 71 percent. That came on asteroids i assume...?
Wanna talk about size difference based just on that? So Earth's size multiplied from a fraction of it's weight, got an insane amount of water out of nowhere, and the moon - what also should grow - is yet to fall on us.
Yeah, you are right.
If you really want the red pill on this theory, listen to this interview with the creator of the video. This is a time-stamped link, but it starts at 42 min:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7ypXNCc2ebFIR3wiJx3qMT?si=ZrJ7iTCzQBqPLTMp89nk1w&t=2510&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A2ocYkJGxMruhjcgnTjFh0i
If actually want to convince others, stop using "-pill". The only people who don't think that term is fucking nonsense are people on 4chan. Who are SO well known for their sound logic.
Neil Adam personally emailed me a drawing explaining his theory. It's far more than just the Earth getting bigger. Everything is getting bigger.
He starts off with an asteroid, that grows into a moon, then a rockey a planet, then a Gas Giant, then a small Star, a big Star, that then explodes in a Supernova that makes asteroids, avd the cycle continues.
TLDR: The Earth will expand so much it will explode as a Supernova eventually.
That’s awesome! If you find it, I’d love to take a look. You could post it to the sub or DM me.
I’ve written up his pair production explanation [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GrowingEarth/s/Cdl6pvQjyW). It pieces together some of the things he said and proposes a new model for subatomic particles.
I’ve not yet added this, but I think the particle described as “PMP” is the neutrino.
Just to point out that I do not believe in Growing Earth, there's absolutely no evidence for it, in fact there's several lines of evidence against it.
1. A global network of superconducting gravimeters, which measure the strength of gravity with extreme accuracy, proves the Earth's gravity isn't changing, so it's is not expanding or changing in mass (e.g. Neil claimed dinosaurs were bigger in the past because gravity was weaker when the Earth was smaller than today).
https://i.imgur.com/3TL0xXE.jpg
Calvo, M., Hinderer, J., Rosat, S., Legros, H., Boy, J.P., Ducarme, B. and Zürn, W., 2014. Time stability of spring and superconducting gravimeters through the analysis of very long gravity records. Journal of Geodynamics, 80, pp.20-33.
2. Long term changes in the Earth's radius and mass would drastically affect its rotation. We know the Earth's rotation period going back billions of years. For example, the Earth's rotation was about 13 hours 3.2 billion years ago, tides were more extreme, the Moon a lot closer to the Earth. The changes in Earth's rotation and Moon's recession are consistent with the tides slowing the Earth rotation, not Earth expansion.
Coughenour, C.L., Archer, A.W. and Lacovara, K.J., 2009. Tides, tidalites, and secular changes in the Earth–Moon system. Earth-Science Reviews, 97(1-4), pp.59-79.
Eulenfeld, T. and Heubeck, C., 2023. Constraints on Moon's orbit 3.2 billion years ago from tidal bundle data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 128(1), p.e2022JE007466.
2. Very Long Range Interferometery - a global network of radiotelescopes measuring the angles to distant an Quasars, measured the radius of the Earth, and proved the Earth is not expanding with an accuracy of 0.5 Millimeters per Year.
>Here, we use multiple precise geodetic data sets and a simultaneous global estimation platform to determine that the ITRF2008 origin is consistent with the mean CM at the level of 0.5 mm yr−1, and the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within 1σ measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm yr−1.
Wu, X., Collilieux, X., Altamimi, Z., Vermeersen, B.L.A., Gross, R.S. and Fukumori, I., 2011. Accuracy of the international terrestrial reference frame origin and earth expansion. Geophysical Research Letters, 38(13).
3. GPS, DORIS, SLR, and other geodetic measurement prove measure continental drift, proving the theory of plate tectonics and therfore the non-expansion of the Earth. Indeed, some mapping projections e.g. ETRS used in Europe, take into account the plate motions in order to maintain the accuracy of GPS.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00190-023-01738-w/figures/10
Altamimi, Z., Rebischung, P., Collilieux, X., Métivier, L. and Chanard, K., 2023. ITRF2020: An augmented reference frame refining the modeling of nonlinear station motions. Journal of Geodesy, 97(5), p.47.
4. International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF2020) measures the radius of the Earth to an accuracy of 0.2 mm, no expansion was detected:
https://itrf.ign.fr/en/solutions/ITRF2020
Scientists estimate that about 48.5 tons (44 tonnes or 44,000 kilograms) of meteoritic material falls on Earth each day. 17,702 tons a year on average. Do the math, it’s not magically appearing. Even if the expansion causing continental drift is incorrect we are definitely getting larger due to space debris.
Note that overall, despite the addition of metorite and cosmic dust, the Earth is losing c. 50,000 metric tons of mass per year.
The biggest mass loss comes from escaped hydrogen and helium, 95,000 metric tons of hydrogen and 1,600 metric tons of helium are lost per year. These elements are very light and tend to escape into space.
[Earth Loses 50,000 Metric Tons of Mass Every Year](https://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/)
This is what really gets downvoted… I think it’s gravity. The gravity equations basically say that, as time moves forward, a force is acted upon between two massive bodies.
Physicists will say that gravity is a special type of force which imparts no energy, but instead curves spacetime itself. But the work that gravity does generally requires energy.
I think there’s some equilibrium between gravity and dark energy, which pushed the planets apart. So things are getting bigger and moving away from each other in proportion.
The components that make up the universe moving farther apart doesn’t require additional mass. Just additional space in which to expand.
The earth actually growing larger does require additional mass.
They’re two very different things.
If mass did not increase, the gravity on the surface of the planet would decrease over time, leading to measurable effects like the volcanic particles that settle into the geologic record slowly having a smaller constituency of lighter particles.
Yeah, but it's a very small amount. About 0.3% from the googling I did.
It's worth noting that the peak of Everest is about 9km tall where the radius of the planet is about 6400km. That's why the effect is so small. But if the same comparison were done with a variable radius planet, with a change large enough to explain observed continental movement, it would be a much larger effect.
This link cover the physics behind some misconception that could arise not knowing how to approach some NASA data.
[does gravity gets stronger the higher up you are on a mountain?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/652752/does-gravity-get-stronger-the-higher-up-you-are-on-a-mountain)
The components that make up the universe moving farther apart doesn’t require additional mass. Just additional space in which to expand.
The earth actually growing larger does require additional mass.
They’re two very different things.
Heard of it, seen it, love it. However, I have my own theory I've never heard anyone else say and I have evidence for it. That is that the earth was hit by another body which embedded itself into the center, or near the center of the planet and it's still there. Caused our wobble, pushed the continents apart, and some other stuff I won't detail here. But yeah. Makes sense.
Heard of that. Like it, but not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about how the moon was created. And this theory doesn't consider the impacting object to still be lodged within the earth, nor does it use the various observations I cite as it's evidence except for the angular orientation of the planet.
In my theory, the impacting object going into the earth caused the earth to balloon outward, separating the continents and altering our gravity.
I remember reading an article in the 60s in a PopSci book that was (in hindsight) probably from 50s US in our little library in Bavaria.
No plate tectonics - it discussed "shrinking vs growing earth" theories with regards to continents and their features and shapes.
Summary was: "If the earth is shrinking, then mountain ranges are 'shrink marks'. If the earth is growing, then mountain ranges are 'stretch marks'".
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Man, you yanks come up with all kinds of half-thought-through crap to justify your cookerage.
OK, curvature decreases, but as the earth grows, the surface area also *expands* (a lot); that would make enough space for things like continents to flatten out in the process and *get larger* in the process. This video keeps the continental area at the same size just so the "scrunching up" can happen.
Please continue to insert more and more variables just so your pet (rock) theory doesn't get hurt.
I think they were probably rotating the earth backwards to suggest it was going ‘back in time’, which in essence is what it was doing, that is until of course it starts to expand again.
I've seen reports of conservatives having a strong gag reflex. They instinctively push back on anything they see as gross. The same is true for intellectuals (who may be on a spectrum, my own theory) who have a reflex against new ideas. They instinctively push back immediately. I don't know why people can't entertain two opposing viewpoints for awhile to mull around the intricacies each have. The expanding earth theory really does have some intriguing ideas. The same is true for electric universe. Both are worth a deep dive. I haven't changed my mind on anything yet, but they are fun ideas to entertain without having one's fight/flight apparatus triggered, becoming agitated, and insulting op's family genes. I guess snowflakes are going to melt. It's their nature to do so, and no amount of words will change that.
I wouldn't even say this is high strangeness worthy. It's on the same vein as flat earthers. Absolute nonsense. I can suspend my disbelief for a lot of things but not something as ignorant as this.
The Atlantic ocean widening and the Pacific narrowing is consistent with plate tectonics. This theory requires both widening and appeals to processes never observed (creation of mass from nothing or change in density) and then claims coverup.
>oceans also have land under them
Correct, and that land is made of a different type of material (basalt) than the upper plates of the earth (granite/land).
The granite is 2,000 million years old, on average. The oceanic crust is only 65 million years old, on average. This newer crust has spread out from the mid-ocean ridges that wrap around the whole planet, pushing the continents away from each other.
This process can be measured according to the age of the oceanic crust:
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean\_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated\_images/whole\_world/2008\_age\_of\_oceans\_plates\_fullscale.jpg
Just for sake of argument, I guess you could explain the excess water buildup from millions of years of space debris burning up in the atmosphere, no? Lots of comets/meteors have water in them. It would then presumably get added to the atmosphere and thus rain down on the planet, increasing the size of oceans.
I mean do this over 1 billion years, you can even fathom the amount of water that gets added to the planet in that time frame.
I have done zero research on this theory, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Water and gas are produced at the center of planets. It escapes through cracks in the mantle.
That’s why small rocky planets are generally dry and without atmosphere. The water and gas are trapped.
That’s also why large planets are generally gaseous. The Earth is in the sweet spot, like an egg cracking open.
The center of planets is liquid minerals like nickel and iron. This has been studied and confirmed thousands of times. Water doesn't exist there.
I know it's fun to read or watch whacky theories on the internet, but please try to apply some critical thinking. Focus on the things we don't already have answers for.
The dude is not a geologist or a physicist or anything like that. He's a comic book artist.
Everybody in here are getting way too serious and butt hurt over this.
His name is Neal Adams. He’s a legend in the field of comic books. But I don’t think he narrated much in that capacity, so unless you knew of him, it’s probably something else. I think he kinda sounds like Roger Moore.
It is intriguing how it better explains some issues, and I've never seen a photo of a subduction zone. But there's a lot of evidence for tectonics. Why not both? I can see both happening. Plates sliding and energy pushing out, lifting up earth that solidifies as it cools.
There is no validity to this theory. Millions of people every day rely on accurate measurements between specific points in the earth's surface - airplane pilots, satellite operators, surveyors, engineers, meteorologists. If the earth was growing at a detectable rate every year, we would know about it.
Those points get updated annually to reflect continental drift, a now-accepted phenomenon that scientists knew about for 50 years before adopting.
This is the remainder of what the evidence shows.
**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
We are also happy to be able to provide an ideologically and operationally independent platform for you all. Join us at our official Discord - https://discord.gg/MYvRkYK85v
---
'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.'
_-J. Allen Hynek_
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
271 Comments
SomedayWeDie@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
SomedayWeDie@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
SomedayWeDie@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
dracef@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
Iorith@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
Iorith@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
MR_WhiteStar@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
exceptionaluser@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
exceptionaluser@reddit
MR_WhiteStar@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
Foxwolfe2@reddit
Kooperst@reddit
nice2cu2cunice@reddit
Own_Contribution_480@reddit
hubetronic@reddit
StinkNort@reddit
hubetronic@reddit
skrutnizer@reddit
Diorannael@reddit
NAKD2THEMOON@reddit
SomedayWeDie@reddit
NAKD2THEMOON@reddit
SomedayWeDie@reddit
StatisticianOk228@reddit
Own_Contribution_480@reddit
kukulkhan@reddit
SomedayWeDie@reddit
RoseyOneOne@reddit
SkankyG@reddit
RoseyOneOne@reddit
SomedayWeDie@reddit
SkankyG@reddit
fourcolourhero44@reddit
RoseyOneOne@reddit
clandestineVexation@reddit
StatisticianOk228@reddit
JeveSt0bs@reddit
SomedayWeDie@reddit
MammothJammer@reddit
rr1pp3rr@reddit
MammothJammer@reddit
rr1pp3rr@reddit
StinkNort@reddit
rr1pp3rr@reddit
StinkNort@reddit
StatisticianOk228@reddit
MammothJammer@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
oodoov21@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
MammothJammer@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
KofteriOutlook@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
KofteriOutlook@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
KofteriOutlook@reddit
Repuck@reddit
CallistosTitan@reddit
skrutnizer@reddit
CallistosTitan@reddit
exceptionaluser@reddit
StupidandGeeky@reddit
Autong@reddit
olimaks@reddit
Ormsfang@reddit
StatisticianOk228@reddit
StinkNort@reddit
StatisticianOk228@reddit
StinkNort@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
DaemonBlackfyre_21@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
StinkNort@reddit
Kinis_Deren@reddit
Paper-street-garage@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
scumbag760@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
StinkNort@reddit
KnowYourEnemy818@reddit
ghost_jamm@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
ghost_jamm@reddit
SamuelDoctor@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
SamuelDoctor@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
SamuelDoctor@reddit
Paper-street-garage@reddit
CallistosTitan@reddit
TiocfaidhArLa72@reddit
charlesxavier007@reddit
Smokedsoba@reddit
KelbyMoon@reddit
Zeabos@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Zeabos@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Zeabos@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Zeabos@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Zeabos@reddit
SubstantialPressure3@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
SubstantialPressure3@reddit
Mountain_ears@reddit
Dagmar_Overbye@reddit
auxaperture@reddit
Own_Contribution_480@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
DespicableHunter@reddit
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
Own_Contribution_480@reddit
DespicableHunter@reddit
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
ninthtale@reddit
mybustersword@reddit
Acceptable_Card_9818@reddit
Savage-Sully@reddit
Acceptable_Card_9818@reddit
Savage-Sully@reddit
Vindepomarus@reddit
ElectronicEgg1833@reddit
Double_Time_@reddit
sschepis@reddit
KofteriOutlook@reddit
sschepis@reddit
Double_Time_@reddit
sschepis@reddit
sschepis@reddit
Double_Time_@reddit
Double_Time_@reddit
sschepis@reddit
seldom_r@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Prestigious_Ad6247@reddit
DazedPapacy@reddit
clandestineVexation@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
NAKD2THEMOON@reddit
jarofgoodness@reddit
Particular-Ad9266@reddit
seldom_r@reddit
Firesoldier987@reddit
seldom_r@reddit
Own_Contribution_480@reddit
seldom_r@reddit
Particular-Ad9266@reddit
seldom_r@reddit
Antique_Garden91@reddit
Particular-Ad9266@reddit
ohpickanametheysaid@reddit
LittleG0d@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
StatisticianOk228@reddit
MantisAwakening@reddit
StatisticianOk228@reddit
MantisAwakening@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Evilnight007@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
exceptionaluser@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
exceptionaluser@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
exceptionaluser@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
exceptionaluser@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
exceptionaluser@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
JaguarSubstantial307@reddit
JaguarSubstantial307@reddit
Pilota_kex@reddit
StatisticianOk228@reddit
Pilota_kex@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
SkankyG@reddit
Pilota_kex@reddit
ironburton@reddit
Bbrhuft@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Bbrhuft@reddit
StatisticianOk228@reddit
Bbrhuft@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
revelator41@reddit
TiocfaidhArLa72@reddit
Kayomaro@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Kayomaro@reddit
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
Kayomaro@reddit
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
barto5@reddit
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
ASpaceOstrich@reddit
Kayomaro@reddit
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
Kayomaro@reddit
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
Kayomaro@reddit
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
Kayomaro@reddit
JurassicCotyledon@reddit
Kayomaro@reddit
Square_Agency3265@reddit
barto5@reddit
barto5@reddit
gonzo_baby_girl@reddit
jarofgoodness@reddit
defiCosmos@reddit
jarofgoodness@reddit
AllHailTheWinslow@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
AllHailTheWinslow@reddit
Inevitable_Shift1365@reddit
SpacemanStevenWJ@reddit
MantisAwakening@reddit
venomous-gerbil@reddit
Live_Point_6533@reddit
genericauthor@reddit
Ziprasidone_Stat@reddit
Spatanky@reddit
_Exotic_Booger@reddit
BulletDodger@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
danny_man@reddit
SkankyG@reddit
Ziprasidone_Stat@reddit
danny_man@reddit
Firesoldier987@reddit
gonzo_baby_girl@reddit
chickichickman@reddit
skrutnizer@reddit
Quevin@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
NosyCrayfish@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Inevitable-catnip@reddit
drake8887@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
NosyCrayfish@reddit
theswervepodcast@reddit
EvanTheAlien@reddit
IONaut@reddit
Difficult-Albatross7@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Ziprasidone_Stat@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
Neeeeedles@reddit
billybadass123@reddit
europorn@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
europorn@reddit
DavidM47@reddit (OP)
weenboyy@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit