Expanding Earth - Consider the T-Rex...

[Wolf]

Consider the lung capacity of the T-Rex...
Theoretically it is an enigma. The lung capacity of the T-Rex is too small to enable the animal to breathe sufficient volumes of current atmospheric levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide necessary to live...
...  the most common error our scientists/archaeologists make are the assumptions about the world we live in today, not just about the chemical makeup of our atmosphere but about the size of the planet itself. One look at the structures of the sea floor immediately enforces the concept that our planet is growing in size.

IMHO 'Continental Drift Theory' is misguided... yes, plates clash and grate by each other, but the majority of movement is caused by an expanding crust, NOT a shifting one.

The immense size of the Dinos would be impossible on today's Earth because of gravitational forces, however on a smaller earth the gravity would have been much less, allowing such impossibilities as the Giant Mammals (and the T-Rex lung capacity) to exist. This also explains neatly why sea shells can be found on Everest... Once the entire planet was covered in water which, as the planet's surface expanded, 'thinned out' and gathered in the lower, newer growth areas.

As the Earth expands in size, gravity increases, making the creatures that live here evolve smaller (except of course ocean going critters like whales)

The 'extra' matter to 'build' this expanding planet could be generated from the core in an electrical process that produces matter from 'antimatter'... fed by the electrical energy bathing our planet from the sun, hence during periods of intense solar activity the 'growing' speeds up, then slows down during less intense periods.

This 'electrical universe' theory is likewise controversial, with conventional science dismissing it even more vehemently than the expanding earth theory. But it does explain gravitational theory (amongst others) with more plausibility than conventional science (in my mind anyway).

[Nuggs]

Trouble with your theory is that it has no plausible mechanism, and therefore cannot be verified.
However, plate tectonics can be measured, tested and is therefore, fact.

Also, actual measurements conclude that Earth has not expanded in size at all over the last 600 million years.

[TrevorPeters]

With things like this it is always good to do some reading and then keep an open mind.

The Expanding Earth vs Shrinking Earth vs Plate Tectonics, vs Catastrophic Plate Tectonics discussion has been going on for more than a hundred years.

Expanding Earth theory was mentioned by Russian engineer Jean Yarkovsky in 1888, Italian geologist Roberto Mantonovi in 1989, the French Geological Society then german geophysicist Otto Christoph Hilgenberg as a response to Wegner's continental drift. Even Tasmanian geology professor Sam Warren Carey stumbled onto the idea independently in 1956. So it's not new and neither are the other theories.

These are all theories, some claim hypotheses, that at some point lack the necessary proof to be confirmed. Even the current best explanations of the origin of earth's magnetic field fall short due to the inconsistency of theoretical explanations like the dynamo theory with the realities of rocks hundreds of miles into the mantle under extreme pressure. I know of no mechanism by which rocks under such extreme pressures as occur in the mantle and outer core can be made to initiate and maintain the circulation required for dynamo-effect electromagnetic generation of the magnetic field (no matter what Hollywood says about it).

Likewise it strains credulity that science can seriously adhere to the subduction of continental plates 30+ km thick without catastrophic destruction of the plate boundary. No proven mechanism exists showing how the necessary forces are generated to overcome the static friction of the supposedly overlapping plates. Neither does the plate theory adequately explain inter-crustal earthquakes or the perpendicular fractures along the pacific rim faults.

The truth is that none of the current theories can be verified and are always subject to challenge.

[Wolf]

Trouble with your theory is that it has no plausible mechanism, and therefore cannot be verified.
However, plate tectonics can be measured, tested and is therefore, fact.

Also, actual measurements conclude that Earth has not expanded in size at all over the last 600 million years.

I didn't know dinosaurs had tape measures...


... seriously though, before discounting it, have a look at the expanding earth theory, particularly paying attention to the 'stretch marks' on the sea floor. This site has some good info on it... http://www.xearththeory.com

[Nuggs]

Thanks guys, some interesting reading.

I'm certainly no scientist and not wise in this field, so I'm not going to attempt to state any specifics.
But from what I see, the xEarth theory and it's supporters tend to abandon widely accepted scientific consensus, instead only cherry-picking (or inventing) evidence that supports their stance.

For example: Where does the extra matter come from?
There's no evidence and no way to plausibly explain it, because the theory poses a situation that never existed.
So in turn, it can't be disproved either - Like a flying spaghetti monster, lol.

Why not trust the peer review process, rather than a few fringe individuals?
You'll end up with much more accurate data and observations that way.
Try to keep an open mind.

[TrevorPeters]

I'm certainly no scientist and not wise in this field, so I'm not going to attempt to state any specifics.

Why not trust the peer review process, rather than a few fringe individuals?
You'll end up with much more accurate data and observations that way.

These two statements seem a little contradictory?

But seriously, I suggest you have a good hard look at the the scientific data yourself. You may be surprised at what is passed off as fact.
From what I have read of Wolf's posts I'm sure he would be happy to give you examples.

I'm no scientist either but I have some problems with the exclusivist culture within the scientific community.
I make it my business to attempt to source the raw data on subjects, not always easy to do, but necessary if want to avoid misplaced trust in so-called experts in white coats.
If you think you need to be a scientist to understand the data then think again.

[Nuggs]

I get what you mean.
Good on you for looking at the data. I wouldn't know what to look for, so I guess that makes me put more trust in the broader scientific consensus - and hope they got it right!

[Wolf]

just have a look at the ocean floor. It seems obvious to the eye that the lower (deeper) areas are the newest. You can practically see the layers of new growth like the rings on a tree.

Remember 'scientists' have no idea exactly what even gravity is. Neither do they have any real idea of how matter is formed in the first place. They do know that it likely is formed under tremendous pressure and who knows... it may be being formed as we speak, in the hot heart of our own planet.

Some 'expanding earthers' have even pointed out that other objects in our system are likewise growing. The water moon of Saturn (or is it Jupiter?) has stretch marks across its frozen surface reminiscent of those on the floors of our oceans.

It is not a new theory. In fact, a hundred years ago it carried some weight in the scientific community. Even Einstein supported it, apparently.

[Wolf]

Think about this for a moment...

Mainstream science states that life began in the water and moved to land, correct?
Are not sea shells and other early marine life found on the tops of mountains, even the Himilayas?
IN fact, cannot we find evidence of marine life on practically EVERY bit of land, including bits that have been dry seemingly for ever?

Mainstream science also concludes that all water on Earth is finite, ie; regardless of form (solid liquid or gaseous) there has always been a set amount of water (arguably the earth may have lost some to space from collision events).

Okay, so bearing that in mind, explain the marine life on mountain tops. Mainstream science indicates this is because said mountains were once on the sea floor yet there is no geological indication that the now ocean floors were EVER above water as has to be the case if the mountains were once underwater too?

So we have a conundrum... one easily explained by the expanding earth theory...
You see, when the earth was smaller, the amount of water was still constant, which meant at one stage we were literally a water world! Even the highest mountain ranges were under water, but then as the earth's crust EXPANDED, the water spread out more and more, eventually bits of higher land pushed clear, and as it did, marine life adapted to fill the new niches.

[themanfromglad]

Water is a byproduct of combustion. Therefore, the amount of water on the earth is not finite. In plate tectonics, mountain building occurs at convergent plates. Not from the earth expanding.

[VicYowieResearch]

Ummm......the Earth actually gets heavier every year by about 40 thousand tonnes just by space dust alone. Sounds mad but its true, something like two aircraft carriers worth. More than enough for expansion over millions of years. That dust goes everywhere and gets recycled.

Ziggy was right!

[Wolf]

Not to mention no-one really knows what goes on in our own planet's core. Is it actually creating matter under immense pressure and heat?
Matter which is forced outwards to the surface and we perceive it as magma?
You won't doubt the expanding earth theory after watching islands form overnight... what is replacing the magma underneath? What pressures are forcing it to the surface, sometimes extremely violently?

Scientists create elements all the time using extreme pressure, but pressure far less than the unimagineable pressure at the core of the Earth.

What if the core is basically a matter producing dynamo, the opposite of a black hole, or perhaps the other end of one? The Electric Universe Theory supports such a scenario IMHO

[Nuggs]

>>Not to mention no-one really knows what goes on in our own planet's core. Is it actually creating matter under immense pressure and heat?<<
By what process would the earths core create matter from pressure and heat?

[Wolf]

Dunno, I aint a scientist... the same process the scientists at CERN use to create matter?

[Nuggs]

Interesting speculation, but it ain't that convincing.

Regardless of our understanding of the core, plate tectonics is a very well understood and verifiable mechanism.
To dispute it you'd need actual proof/measurements, counter to the current consensus.

[Wolf]

Not convincing? Have a look at this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYSSIpP3r9w
and part 2, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V840anEvGPw

[Wolf]

"Physicist Prof. Konstantin Meyl has a plausible Explanation: The Earth core catches the Neutrinos hitting the Earth. When Neutrinos hit free Neutrons in the Earth's core they turn into much larger Hydrogen atoms and the Earth grows larger in the inside, explaining exactly the mountain shapes and rift valleys we find today. Meyl believes the Earth core is not made from Iron but from metallic Hydrogen with superconducting properties with the same mass and density like Iron. This explains the magnetic field of the Earth much better, since glowing hot iron looses it's magnetic properties."