Growing Planets Theory

[HorseArcher]

Someone sent me this youtube link...

Let's see what you guys think of this:



Ridiculous? Terrible? Heretic? Unscientific?

or..

Interesting? Mesmerizing? Awakening?

What is it going to be?

You gotta look at what is given, physical facts, scientific/historic records, physical possibilities/impossibilities and the whole nine yards about many things and take in contrast with the currently approved swimming/collapsing plates.

To this theory I find the following facts


for:

-similar or same vegetation/animals on continents not being possibly connected otherwise (particular areas not supported by the floating plates theory)
-strechlines under the oceans
-age of the sea bottom
-close to perfect fit of continents on a smaller globe
-most of sea fossils found on dry land

Against:
-Where did all the water come from (to fill up the space between lands?)
-Just how does a planet grow and is there any evidence of other planets which has stopped growing and what happens then?
-Variations in the gravitational forces on the planets and change of orbit due to the size difference
-the spin-rate of the planets must change if size changes (or does it?)
-If there is expanding and if it would be true, why does the rate of expansion is not constant?
-limitation of technology/financing problems to excatave fossils (if there is any) from the deepest part of the oceans.
-Rising sea levels and evidence of sunken continents/islands

I'll think up more for both sides of the argument soon and I'll try to defeat you , regardless where you stand on this..

[Spurius]

I found the video very compelling, but have to think on this.

Would be a curious way for Universal Expansion to come home, if that's what it is. Everybody always assumed that had no real impact locally, since gravity overcomes that. Well, maybe it does, but there IS stretch.

I wonder if the growth is perfectly linear.

[ajm317]

Sibelsz posted this before.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...xpanding+earth

For the record it is absolutely absurd. Explain to me a mechanism for how the Earth might be expanding and we'll talk.

[Spurius]

There's 2 things that puzzle me still - the lack of older seabeds, and the fact that if subduction is an ongoing process, SOME of the continents should 'fit' into each other, others not. Actually, most not.

In fact they all DO fit, amazingly. That's more than odd, that's absurd, unless expansion is correct. Random subduction's not supposed to leave everything intact, I take it.

I must dig into this. And Universal Expansion may be hithertofore mistakenly labeled as 'not relevant locally', but it's not exactly a non-existent mechanism. If everything expands, it expands. Don't need much else. Maybe large and old solid planets ALL bear those marks, but we never looked closely.

Same as with stuff only seen from space, all equally 'unthinkable', before.

[ajm317]

There's 2 things that puzzle me still - the lack of older seabeds,

I don't know what would cause this, but I'm relatively sure that a more reasonable explanation than an expanding earth can be found.

and the fact that if subduction is an ongoing process, SOME of the continents should 'fit' into each other, others not. Actually, most not.

You're going to have to explain that one, because that's not the way I've typically understood it. Ocean plates are supposed to go beneath continental ones, not the other way around, which would imply to me that the shape of continents would be more or less unchanged since the last time they all "fit together."

I must dig into this. And Universal Expansion may be hithertofore mistakenly labeled as 'not relevant locally', but it's not exactly a non-existent mechanism. If everything expands, it expands. Don't need much else. Maybe large and old solid planets ALL bear those marks, but we never looked closely.

Why large planets? You'd expect the effect to be most pronounced on small planets, because gravity is weakest there. The moon, Mars, Mercury, various moons of the outer planets. All these places have been extensively mapped from space and I don't think there are any "continents" on the moon which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

Sometimes a crazy crackpot theory cooked up by a comic book artist is just a crazy crackpot theory cooked up by a comic book artist.

[Spurius]

[1]I don't know what would cause this, but I'm relatively sure that a more reasonable explanation than an expanding earth can be found.



[2]You're going to have to explain that one, because that's not the way I've typically understood it. Ocean plates are supposed to go beneath continental ones, not the other way around, which would imply to me that the shape of continents would be more or less unchanged since the last time they all "fit together."



[3]Why large planets? You'd expect the effect to be most pronounced on small planets, because gravity is weakest there. The moon, Mars, Mercury, various moons of the outer planets. All these places have been extensively mapped from space and I don't think there are any "continents" on the moon which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

Sometimes a crazy crackpot theory cooked up by a comic book artist is just a crazy crackpot theory cooked up by a comic book artist.

[1] Well, that's the $64,000 question, would LOVE to hear the answer.

[2] So, if subduction is always ocean plates going under continental ones, why did the original Pangaea break up in the first place - only one supercontinent, in one huge ocean? The more I think on it, the less sense it makes. Why did it break up in the first place?

[3]I meant large only for visibility of scars, old because they need a history, and solid since a gas is not very telling in this respect.

Indeed, usually a crackpot idea is just that, but mind you the reception Wegener got in the first place. They harder they laugh, the more I want to make sure.

[ajm317]

[1] Well, that's the $64,000 question, would LOVE to hear the answer.

I'm sure there are theories, but you'd have to ask a geologist, which I am not.

What I do know is that geologists view expanding earth theories much the same way biologists view intelligent design.

As long as we're on the subject of $64,000 questions though, here's a couple for you.

1. How is the Earth expanding? It's worth pointing out that not even the expanding earth people posit the expansion of the universe as an answer. We can estimate the expansion of the universe from astronomical data and compare it to gravity. Gravity wins in the case of the Earth. Explanations people come up with include hollow Earths, a decrease in G, and increases in mass...all of which seriously strain the limits of the imagination.
2. Mountains. Explain.

[2] So, if subduction is always ocean plates going under continental ones, why did the original Pangaea break up in the first place - only one supercontinent, in one huge ocean? The more I think on it, the less sense it makes. Why did it break up in the first place?

I don't see what that question has to do with subduction.

To answer the question though, as long as energy and momentum are conserved there is no reason a bunch of continents can't collide, compress and then bounce off each other that I can see. Rubber balls do that all the time, throw one at a wall sometime. Continents just do it in super slow motion I imagine.

[3]I meant large only for visibility of scars, old because they need a history, and solid since a gas is not very telling in this respect.

Uh...ok. So show me the continents on the moon. That's old, at least on the 200 million year timescale of this theory.

If your theory is correct there should be continents on the moon. Let's see them.

Indeed, usually a crackpot idea is just that, but mind you the reception Wegener got in the first place. They harder they laugh, the more I want to make sure.

Wegener wasn't a comic book artist either. The guy who made this video is Neal Adams, more famous for his work on Fantastic Four and Dr. Strange than anything else.

[Spurius]

I'm sure there are theories, but you'd have to ask a geologist, which I am not.

[1]What I do know is that geologists view expanding earth theories much the same way biologists view intelligent design.

As long as we're on the subject of $64,000 questions though, here's a couple for you.

[2] Mountains. Explain.

[3] I don't see what that question has to do with subduction.

To answer the question though, as long as energy and momentum are conserved there is no reason a bunch of continents can't collide, compress and then bounce off each other that I can see. Rubber balls do that all the time, throw one at a wall sometime. Continents just do it in super slow motion I imagine.

[4]Uh...ok. So show me the continents on the moon. That's old, at least on the 200 million year timescale of this theory.

[5] If your theory is correct there should be continents on the moon. Let's see them.

[6]Wegener wasn't a comic book artist either.

[1]That's pretty silly of them if they do, since I don't think anyone mentioned God.

[2] Way ahead of you there - I thought of one far worse: India - explain.

[3] If one continent is pushed on from all sides, why would it break up?
[I know, ask a geologer]

[4&5] Dunno, maybe you need an active core for anything moving molasses-like. The dust and asteroid strikes could cover up the rest, maybe.

[6]Well, Wegener was a balloonist first, and dabbled in meteorlogy and astronomy. Not geology. Not the best of credentials either. Einstein was a clerk in a patent office.

[Rex Invictus]

Perhabs it isnt true but still, like i said in the other post, i would really like to see a terrain generation algorithm based on that. Imagine the realistic maps you could make.

[Ali]

wierd

[Domnul Ceaşcă]

I`m not a scientist, but it`s a bit hard to belive due to some reasons, anyway, cool vid.

[Gary88]

ahh the aged old routine, if you have a crackpot theory and no evidence ramble on about conspiracy theories and how 'the powers that be' (whoever they are) are covering it up because somehow perpetuating a lie about one thing or another benefits them in...one way or another

[DisgruntledGoat]

THis again, wouldn't be easier just to refer to the old topic:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111456

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I haven't had time to read over the background of the person who originally proposed the idea. However, is this expanding earth hypothesis based upon what he knew at the time? What does present geological data support? I would imagine that the work that has occured since the expanding hypthesis lost its credibility would support the modern idea of plate tectonics (hence why it is now almost univerisally accepted).

[Mathias]

If I remember correctly, Simetrical kinda tore this theory apart in the previous thread about this. I suggest you go and read through that thread.

[HorseArcher]

If I remember correctly, Simetrical kinda tore this theory apart in the previous thread about this. I suggest you go and read through that thread.

No..I don't see it's been torn apart, just explained through the current knowledge of science we have.



Here is more stuff about this, perhaps this will explain some questions about this:

Here is the first debunking the Pangea, shown in the first video:




and some claims debunked


athough, I have to add, not all his videos "cheat" anywhere for example these ones looks pretty convincing:



Here is the easiest way to explain the plate tectonics movement theory:



Here is one more you should look:

[Trax]

So, if subduction is always ocean plates going under continental ones, why did the original Pangaea break up in the first place - only one supercontinent, in one huge ocean? The more I think on it, the less sense it makes. Why did it break up in the first place?

The same thing that is happening with East Africa at the moment, the continent is breaking up. Basicly it's about currents in the mantle.

Continental drift can be measured, plate tectonics is no longer a hypothesis, it's a fact.

[Spurius]

The same thing that is happening with East Africa at the moment, the continent is breaking up. Basicly it's about currents in the mantle.

Continental drift can be measured, plate tectonics is no longer a hypothesis, it's a fact.

Sure, but my main question was - how can the original continent split again, going against the stream, as it were. All the flow is inward, toward the continent. The breakaways have to go against the current, sortof.

[Trax]

Sure, but my main question was - how can the original continent split again, going against the stream, as it were. All the flow is inward, toward the continent. The breakaways have to go against the current, sortof.

This should be more or less correct representation as far as I remember.

I hope this scetch I made in 2 minutes makes any sense.

Click to view content: 

Convection in the mantle breaking up a continent.

[TheKwas]

Look really closely at -1:50 and the North pole bit. Look closely at the land masses and how they match togeather before and after. Keep in mind that the earth is a sphere. The plates obviously do not match. In order for that to work, there must have been MASSIVE mountains in modern Northern Russia (along the entire thing) and Northern Canada that simply flattened out when the earth expanded. That, of course, contradicts the narrator's claim of the plates just 'sitting there unchanged' and also leads to the result that the plates don't actually have to match anywhere, as any place were they didn't fit 'the mountains just became flat and created the extra landmass'.

In short, bollocks.