The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 206    Average: 3.8/5]
178 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 29991
Rating: 3.8
Category: Science
Date: 10/23/07 02:24 AM

178 Responses to Hidden Science: The Earth is Growing

  1. Profile photo of KoalaMeatPie
    KoalaMeatPie Male 18-29
    2578 posts
    October 22, 2007 at 2:32 pm
    Link: Hidden Science: The Earth is Growing - Alternate theory to continental drift
  2. Profile photo of the_windy
    the_windy Female 18-29
    1589 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 2:29 am
    Makes sense.
  3. Profile photo of bobbyo
    bobbyo Male 18-29
    318 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 2:39 am
    the universe is expanding and so is everything in it. including time. including you. wrap you finite minds around that.
  4. Profile photo of Eichenkatze
    Eichenkatze Male 18-29
    780 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 2:41 am
    Interesting actually.. though it does undermined alot of what we learn in school... but according to the big-bang theory and the fact that the universe is expanding.. this would kind of fit right in if you think about it. hm. Cool find. gets a 4.
  5. Profile photo of vintagepizza
    vintagepizza Female 13-17
    447 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:03 am
    I learned about this theory in ninth grade...
  6. Profile photo of Berserk505
    Berserk505 Male 18-29
    411 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:11 am
    Interesting much we still need to discover.
  7. Profile photo of bjbj1991
    bjbj1991 Male 13-17
    129 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:25 am
    He fails to note however that for his scenario to be true, the Earth would have had to crash into an object with a diameter of 12,000 km. This object would have a diameter only about 700 km smaller than the Earth we have today.

    Note: The dinosaurs where wiped out by a rock with a diameter less than 15 km.

  8. Profile photo of Kaizer250
    Kaizer250 Male 18-29
    777 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:26 am
    Interesting theory, and it would be cool if it were true, but there are plenty of problems with it.
    This guys idea that the earth is expanding requires energy to be turned into matter. This is the opposite of nuclear fusion, which changes matter into energy and, according to physics, is completely possible.
    However, this guy`s method in which this takes place, which he calls Pair Production, is kind of dumb. One of the questionable bits is that it requires gravity to not exist, and actually be just another function of electromagnetism. This is wrong on any number of levels.
    Also, the situation in which everything happens is really bizaare. I admit that it is an incredibly large coincidence that the earth fits together like that, but if you go to this guy`s website an look at what he`s saying from a scientific point of view, you will see a number of problems.
    Not to mention that the guy`s a comic book artist.
  9. Profile photo of instagata0
    instagata0 Male 13-17
    44 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:34 am
    "Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:25:08 AM
    He fails to note however that for his scenario to be true, the Earth would have had to crash into an object with a diameter of 12,000 km. This object would have a diameter only about 700 km smaller than the Earth we have today.

    Note: The dinosaurs where wiped out by a rock with a diameter less than 15 km."

    .... What?... this has nothing to do with something hitting the earth. it explains the theory that the earth is expanding.

  10. Profile photo of Manar
    Manar Male 30-39
    196 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:45 am
    Intersting theory, but does not that require that the Earth was kind of flooded in the past. Or where would all the water that is in the ocean now have come from otherwise.
  11. Profile photo of Mani-Jac
    Mani-Jac Male 40-49
    805 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:51 am
    ^^ I was thinking exactly the same.
  12. Profile photo of Sean_confer
    Sean_confer Male 18-29
    172 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:57 am
    "He fails to note however that for his scenario to be true, the Earth would have had to crash into an object with a diameter of 12,000 km. This object would have a diameter only about 700 km smaller than the Earth we have today.

    Note: The dinosaurs where wiped out by a rock with a diameter less than 15 km."

    WHAT in the hell does that have to do with this video?

  13. Profile photo of sum41chck911
    sum41chck911 Female 13-17
    199 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:57 am
    i liked it :)
  14. Profile photo of Sean_confer
    Sean_confer Male 18-29
    172 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:01 am
    "Intersting theory, but does not that require that the Earth was kind of flooded in the past. Or where would all the water that is in the ocean now have come from otherwise."

    Comets. turn to the science Channel once in awhile.

  15. Profile photo of Sean_confer
    Sean_confer Male 18-29
    172 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:07 am
    (To what Kaizer250 wrote)

    Dude there are so many unexplained things in the universe. And there are many things that we will never understand. so just because Something you see doesn`t match up with a textbook that you read before You shouldn`t be so quick to throw it out the window.

  16. Profile photo of Trumple07
    Trumple07 Male 13-17
    422 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:09 am
    Oh well, were not gonna lose anything. Water will always be there....somewhere under the plates....
  17. Profile photo of lockedup
    lockedup Female 18-29
    299 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:20 am
    I got to thinking about the water too. It reminds me of Genesis 6:11 - "and the great springs of the deep burst forth". There was enough water in those springs to flood the planet (it wasn`t just the rain)...
  18. Profile photo of starwarsbob
    starwarsbob Male 18-29
    46 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:22 am
    He is an idiot. He said that the fact that there are no underwater plates older than such`n`such years old, proves his point. The fact that the plates are that young proves that there has been subduction and that his hypothisis is wrong. And I say hypothisis because this is bull and no way this can be called a theory.
  19. Profile photo of PianoMan21
    PianoMan21 Male 18-29
    315 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:23 am
    Bad science is bad.

    Mountains, raised land due to tectonic collision.
    Earthquakes, vibration due to "rubbing" of plates during tectonic movement.

    Plates move. This guy fails.

  20. Profile photo of starwarsbob
    starwarsbob Male 18-29
    46 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:24 am
    Also yes the universe is "expanding" but it doesnt have any connection to the individual planets. Cause the powers would have to be stronger than the forces of gravety and there is just no evidence to show that.
  21. Profile photo of PianoMan21
    PianoMan21 Male 18-29
    315 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:25 am
    Sean_confer:
    Comets? Really?
  22. Profile photo of starwarsbob
    starwarsbob Male 18-29
    46 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:26 am
    they started the process, yes.
  23. Profile photo of Sean_confer
    Sean_confer Male 18-29
    172 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:27 am
    "Sean_confer:
    Comets? Really?"

    Thats what i heard. Comets are Just Chunks of ice in space so it makes Sense.

  24. Profile photo of Sean_confer
    Sean_confer Male 18-29
    172 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:31 am
    This site really needs a "Quote" button lol
  25. Profile photo of PianoMan21
    PianoMan21 Male 18-29
    315 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:35 am
    SC: Comets are indeed giant chunks of ice that hurtle through the cosmos. However, if one were to head towards earth, it would burn up in the atmosphere and evaporate into space. What little may have survived the trip to the surface would soon evaporate itself and become rainwater.
  26. Profile photo of Sean_confer
    Sean_confer Male 18-29
    172 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:44 am
    "SC: Comets are indeed giant chunks of ice that hurtle through the cosmos. However, if one were to head towards earth, it would burn up in the atmosphere and evaporate into space. What little may have survived the trip to the surface would soon evaporate itself and become rainwater."

    Once it hits the atmosphere its caught in the air as vapor and the vapor condenses into clouds and the clouds produce rain. And what do you think fills up rivers and oceans and stuff? And even if its a little bit at a time Over millions of year it adds up.

    But who knows? no one will ever know for sure. Its impossible to tell.

  27. Profile photo of PianoMan21
    PianoMan21 Male 18-29
    315 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:59 am
    SC: Comets are far too small to accomplish such a task.
    P.S. Atmospheres don`t work that way.
  28. Profile photo of extreamh
    extreamh Female 13-17
    251 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:53 am
    I WONT LISTEN TO THIS CRAP A PERSON MADE UP!!!!!!!!WHY!WHY ARE THERE STUPID PEOPLE WHO MAKE UP LIES!
  29. Profile photo of ToxicPunk
    ToxicPunk Male 13-17
    320 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:56 am
    Huh?
  30. Profile photo of Zerocyde
    Zerocyde Male 18-29
    3256 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 6:04 am
    I DONT KNOW BUT IF WE ALL YELL A LOT I BET WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  31. Profile photo of Cylomar
    Cylomar Male 18-29
    25 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 6:14 am
    While this theory is plausible, it`s just a theory. I have yet to check upon his website (though I will in a moment), the thing he doesn`t explain in that short clip is where the water came from to fill the oceans we have today. As stated, there were `shallow seas` 50-75 million years ago. The atmosphere can`t hold it all, and the only logical explanation would be either that it came from off world or that it was held in the property of ice. The later resulting in quite the percentage of the earth covered in ice. A colder surface and a lot less temperate climate.

    I am however, open for other suggestions.

  32. Profile photo of squinge69
    squinge69 Male 13-17
    59 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 6:31 am
    wouldve been interesting if the guy didnt sound so boring and talked..........like.........this
  33. Profile photo of Declan191919
    Declan191919 Male 13-17
    1275 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 6:39 am
    HAA HAA HAA
  34. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 7:28 am
    what a load of BS
  35. Profile photo of norwish
    norwish Female 18-29
    432 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 7:50 am
    I heard the steam from volcanoes made rainwater....
  36. Profile photo of mrMongoose
    mrMongoose Male 18-29
    28 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 8:21 am
    If you have a serious point to make why would you make yourself sound like a school child by saying "ooh the scientists are too scared to believe me" in one way or another after every 5 lines?
  37. Profile photo of dust_monkey
    dust_monkey Male 18-29
    57 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 8:45 am
    SC: what you are saying is silly, for the earth to be filled with that much water from a commit, it would have to be 6376390.89 Meters in diameter, ( half the width of the earth atm ), so i call BS
  38. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 9:21 am
    Pianoman21 said:
    "Bad science is bad.

    Mountains, raised land due to tectonic collision.
    Earthquakes, vibration due to "rubbing" of plates during tectonic movement.

    Plates move. This guy fails."

    But he explains mountains in another video. It makes sense.
    http://www.continuitystudios.net/mountai...

  39. Profile photo of RubyStars87
    RubyStars87 Female 18-29
    11 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 9:32 am
    The second the guy said that the duck-billed platypus was a marsupial I stopped watching. The duck-billed platypus is a monotreme, which is believed to be the earliest form of mammal. If the guy is giving false information about things that are completely unrelated to what he is saying, then I don`t believe a word of his argument.
  40. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 9:43 am
    The evidence is overwhelming and extremely hard to ignore. Certainly a million times more plausible then the shifting plates theory.
  41. Profile photo of TapirUnge
    TapirUnge Female 18-29
    71 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 9:51 am
    Someone said "there are no proofs of that" .. Well.. Back in the days there were no proof of the earth being round, and it was "proven by science" that earth was flat, since you couldn`t wee the ships when got far enough away.. But we are smarter now.. .. I see this as the excact same thing.. We THINK we know this and that.. But that`s just until someone proves that we were wrong.. And it`s like that with everything in this world.. We only know something FOR SURE, until someone proves that we were wrong.. (hope this all made sense.. It`s hard explaining this in another language than your own :) )
  42. Profile photo of TapirUnge
    TapirUnge Female 18-29
    71 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 9:52 am
    "wee" of course is.. "see" .. *blush*
  43. Profile photo of Ruswut
    Ruswut Male 18-29
    1266 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 10:17 am
    Sooo how does "the earth is expanding" destroy sciences theories on atoms etc?
  44. Profile photo of garbug
    garbug Male 50-59
    22 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 10:24 am
    If the earth is,indeed,growing by expansion, where is all that extra matter coming from?If there is no subduction or tectonic movement,how are mountain ranges formed?If the whole earth does expands but the continents do not,that is still plate tectomics and continental drift.Where did the extra 300,000,000,000,000 tons of matter come from??? (I know it`s true-I saw it on the internet LOL)
  45. Profile photo of
    kawawakaba
    123 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 10:25 am
    so instead of giving scientific evidence, he decides to spew random insults at the scientific community....and WTF the earth rotates so you can`t see the easily indentifiable continents going together.......I`m very skeptical
  46. Profile photo of yellowsquare
    yellowsquare Female 18-29
    1545 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 10:31 am
    My three questions:

    When all the continents were together, why was there no frozen north/south pole?? A pole is still cold no matter if it`s covered in land or covered in water.

    What about our years? Have our years lengthened in that amount of time? If Earth`s mass is increasing, wouldn`t the velocity at which it traveled around the sun begin to slow down?

    And how do you explain earthquakes then, if there are no tectonic plates rubbing against each other?

    I think this guy has an interesting hypothesis, but it`s nothing more. There`s too many holes in his argument.

  47. Profile photo of llDayo
    llDayo Male 30-39
    144 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 10:34 am
    Continental drift is the best explanation so far, no matter what this guy says. We can actually measure, via satellites, how far South America is moving! That`s right, m-o-v-i-n-g, not growing.
  48. Profile photo of phroedoux
    phroedoux Male 18-29
    363 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 10:55 am
    1 question, and its kind of an important one:
    Where is all that extra material coming from? If the Earth is growing, then either there is a giant void in the center of the Earth, or there is matter being created in a way that we are not yet aware of. This is also ignoring the laws of gravity, which would stipulate that things be pulled in towards the center.

    That bit about Mars isn`t true. Not all planets are tectonically active. The Moon is one of the planets that isn`t, and it has a vastly different surface structure.

  49. Profile photo of Narvos
    Narvos Male 18-29
    39 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 11:31 am
    After watching this, i came up with my own argument/theory =D

    As the video said, magma is coming through the giant cracks in the ocean floor, making the Seabed spread, not the land, the land stays the same size, it`s just getting pushed appart.

    Where did all the matter come from? Well since the magma in the centre of the earth is more dence then granite, because of the high amount of pressure its under, when it reached the suface of the sea bed, it would obviously be under less pressure, thus dispursing...so there for the same amount of matter exists, but is less dence.

    Let me explain it in laments terms. You go into space, complete vaccuum, no pressure, you take off your space suit, yummy, whole lot of mess...

    well, its the same thing with this, the magma comes from being under huge amount of pressure, which also causes the heat at which its kept at, is leaked onto the sea bed, and expands, pushing the plates appart...also suporting the theory of the earth cooling.

  50. Profile photo of Narvos
    Narvos Male 18-29
    39 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 11:31 am
    For anyone that thinks that it would have to be stronger than gravity, what happens if you go 3 miles under water? you get sort of crushed wouldn`t you? well the magma is under the same pressure, but add all the pressure from the land mass..and you have a whole lot of crushing force. and sometimes, a weakness is made, example being a volcano, and magma spews forth.

    Hell you could use that as a reason for global warming, energy from the magma must go somewhere, cooling the oceans etc...blah blah blah

    Anyway, back on point...The expantion of the expanding seabed would also cause the tectonic plates to grind together, since its pushing them appart, causing mountains, earth quakes etc, would it not? but also, this extra mass is Adding to the plates, not the land size, but the parts of the plates underneath the oceans, supporting the theory that the earth is getting bigger, but also that there is tectonic shift.

  51. Profile photo of Narvos
    Narvos Male 18-29
    39 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 11:32 am
    Where the water came from, i have no idea. and to be honest i cant be botehred to find out.
  52. Profile photo of Giligadi
    Giligadi Male 40-49
    356 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 11:44 am
    Lame. There is so much about this garbage that makes no sense, it`s ludicrous to actually go into all of the details. All i can really bring myself to say is this: wow, from a few shallow seas to the Pacific Ocean, etc? That is one hell of a lot of ice balls falling from space.
  53. Profile photo of MetalicDemon
    MetalicDemon Male 18-29
    1485 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 12:12 pm
    i tried to submit this about a year ago but they said no, how come its here now?

    anyway, i do belive this does have some truth about it.

  54. Profile photo of KuzEyeSedSoe
    KuzEyeSedSoe Male 13-17
    90 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 12:22 pm
    Interesting. The narrator is way over dramatic though.
  55. Profile photo of Osprey39
    Osprey39 Male 18-29
    1408 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 12:26 pm
    He presents very little evidence, other than "but the continents fit together." Plate tectonics pretty much accounts for that anyway (see Pangaea). If the volume of the earth was changing so drastically, measurements should be able to easily pick it up. Not to mention the miraculous appearance of water everywhere.

    From a purely common sense point of view, the earth is cooling and thus if anything would be shrinking.

  56. Profile photo of sewie_123
    sewie_123 Male 30-39
    1 post
    October 23, 2007 at 12:29 pm
    So let us assume that what this `tard is saying is true: that the Earth grew. So unless the mass has also increased (through some mechanism unknown), then the pull of gravity on the Earths surface has decreased: same mass with smaller radius= greater force.

    So America won`t have a weight problem after some time: as the Earth grows more (assuming it just hasn`t stopped for whatever reason), we will all lose weight as gravity pulls weaker. No more Jennie Craig!

  57. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 12:59 pm
    "That bit about Mars isn`t true. Not all planets are tectonically active. The Moon is one of the planets that isn`t, and it has a vastly different surface structure."

    The moon isn`t a planet, it`s a satellite.

  58. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:00 pm
    Also, this guy is talking out his arse.
  59. Profile photo of cantab
    cantab Male 18-29
    170 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:05 pm
    This is bullcrap in so many ways. How about just one:

    Lizard point in Cornwall is known to be an `ophiolite` - a piece of ocean floor that has become emplaced onto the continent - by a major continent-continent collision.

    The lizard has been dated to 397 ± 2 Million years ago.

    Thus there was certainly ocean floor around hundreds of millions of years ago.

    Plate tectonics has been one of the most successful theories in geology, and transformed the subject. There`s a wealth of evidence in its favour, and the bar is set very high indeed for alternative hypotheses.

    This person denies subduction; it`s a very natural process. The old oceanic crust (more strictly, oceanic lithosphere) is MORE DENSE than the mantle (strictly, asthenosphere) beneath it, because it`s made (mostly) of the same stuff but is colder. It`s NATURAL that it sinks.

  60. Profile photo of C0mpakt0r
    C0mpakt0r Male 13-17
    38 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:14 pm
    Interesting idea, but i will stick to the moving plates one.
    And how could dinosaurs roam around freely on an all-land planet? (the sea dinosaurs that is)
  61. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32817 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:25 pm
    This site needs a post numbering system so we can refer to earlier posts more easily.
    The video says there`s "localized subduction" because, well, there is! But not on a continent wide scale. Tectonic theory has a hard time also with small "chunks" of plates moving at different speeds. Like in Newfoundland where some rock is 80 million yrs and in other like 800 M yrs.

    MrMongoose - He repeats that because over the centuries many people who advanced theories we now accept as right were persecuted or killed for going against "common knowledge". Heard of Galilao?
    RubyStars - You are correct! The only other surviveing monotreme critter is the spiney anteater of Africa. As far as I know anyhow.
    YellowSquare - our days have gotten longer, but not by a whole lot. I too wonder about the changes in gravity & planetary orbits. This theory is far from perfect eh?
    More:

  62. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32817 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:38 pm
    IIldayo - The continents are floating on "seas" of magma, just like tectonic theory says. In this theory there`s 2 reasons for the motion, not just 1 in tectonics.
    Phroedoux & sewie 123 - Gravity is a constant function, the difference in distance from the middle of the earth is trivial, especially if the earth`s mass is increasing, that would keep gravity either constant or increasing. It`s entirely based on mass sewie, not density.
    >>> As for where the water came from, it could have still been there, in really big lakes & such. There`s nothing in Growing teory that says there wasn`t water on the surface of the big continent, just the opposite! Since it`s obvious that many parts of dry land were once under a lot of water.
    >>> Finally campers, remember that mass=energy and one can change m > e OR e > m so long as the ratio remains constant. The mass required for Grow theory is from some unknown form of energy. Just like "Dark Matte
  63. Profile photo of yellowsquare
    yellowsquare Female 18-29
    1545 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:39 pm
    ooh C0mpakt0r, good point. most ocean dinosaurs came before land dinosaurs, so either the paleontologists are wrong or this crackpot is wrong.
  64. Profile photo of Sean_confer
    Sean_confer Male 18-29
    172 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:43 pm
    "SC: what you are saying is silly, for the earth to be filled with that much water from a commit, it would have to be 6376390.89 Meters in diameter, ( half the width of the earth atm ), so i call BS"

    You don`t get what im saying. im not saying it all came from one Comet. im saying it might`ve came from Several Billion comets over a period of millions of years. So don`t go saying my posts are Bullsh*t When You don`t even Know what the hell im talking about. Ok? And Before you try to put me in my place Why don`t you learn to spell the word "Comet"?

  65. Profile photo of Nightshifter
    Nightshifter Male 18-29
    513 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:44 pm
    Alright... So even though there are parts of this I would like to believe because it would give a starting point to explaining gravity... I just can`t do it.
    Every single person here is failing to notice that he seem to be just filling all the extra space he created with WATER!!
    Even Pangea was surrounded on all sides by water.
    With his theory, where is all the water for the oceans magically coming from??
    The water was there BEFORE any kind of continental drift.
  66. Profile photo of shrtro
    shrtro Male 18-29
    65 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:45 pm
    ive always believed this to be true. it actually explains a lot. if a star can grow why cant a planet?
  67. Profile photo of IceCream128
    IceCream128 Male 18-29
    73 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:47 pm
    He says that the molten mantle which the tectonic plates float upon is twice as hard as granite (when a solid)
    If this is true, then how can he say it wouldn`t support the plates, even if it is molten?
    This is just a load of bull.
    Besides, if you look closely at those `maps` he shows you, the land doesn`t fit - but he rounds off the ends, so they fit as he wants them to. In fact, on eof the last maps we are shown, the map is blurry as it moves together, then once the land has magically `come together` we are shown the picture clearly.
    Very good though, he managed to fool alot of people.
  68. Profile photo of WolfStar
    WolfStar Female 18-29
    455 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 1:58 pm
    This bloke gives absolutely no evidence to support his theory (and the continents clearly don`t fit as perfectly as he claims) and he gives no evidence that the theory of Plate Tectonics is wrong. He`s talking utter crap. Show me some compelling evidence and I`d be willing to consider it, but this is just bollocks.
  69. Profile photo of carldec
    carldec Male 40-49
    140 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 2:11 pm
    This goofball theory has lots of problems... the biggest one for me is that he says this growth all happened in the last 100 million years or so... what about the 3 billion years before that?
    and woulnt a change in mass also change our orbit around the sun? if the earth gained a bunch of mass wouldnt it spiral us right into the sun/
  70. Profile photo of earthshone
    earthshone Male 18-29
    1688 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 2:25 pm
    we must have spreading
  71. Profile photo of xskullkidx
    xskullkidx Male 13-17
    277 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 2:31 pm
    ok i read a theory that the magma is causing the expansion of the world, but surely if that was true the world would be shrinking? A ball full of magma seeping through cracks and cooling. might make the crust larger but whats happening underneath? empty air? theres alot of space if that had happened. if the world was growing, why is the magma level growing aswell? does any of this make sense? does ANYTHING MAKE SENSE ANYMORE!? *dies*
  72. Profile photo of xskullkidx
    xskullkidx Male 13-17
    277 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 2:34 pm
    so wait.... i have invented a crazy theory.. something phenomenal is FEEDING the magma.....!!!

    *re-dies*

  73. Profile photo of ranon
    ranon Male 18-29
    295 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 2:57 pm
    Well, Plate tectonics explains the creation of the Himalaya mountains. If the continents just drifted, the himalayas would not have been created.
  74. Profile photo of tieegg
    tieegg Male 18-29
    42 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 2:59 pm
    Lets see, if the center of the earth is comprised of super-compressed rock, where do you suppose the extra rock comes from? Also, what was that thing I read about `Dark Matter`? I know its unrelated, but peoples keep saying stuff about this and that...
  75. Profile photo of mluther
    mluther Male 13-17
    1023 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:09 pm
    seen it already.
  76. Profile photo of Skyira
    Skyira Female 18-29
    1134 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:13 pm
    i learn this back in 7th grade ugh how i dread that class so much...
  77. Profile photo of Andyl
    Andyl Male 18-29
    300 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm
    Well clearly this proves the existance of hell and extraterrestrial life. Hell is in the centre of the Earth, and as evil souls from all over the universe are shoved in, it swells up and forces the Earth to grow! The water is the residue left over from the transportation process. And when hell gets too big, the Earth explodes and BOOM! Apocalypse, baby!

    THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the REAL Big Bang theory.

  78. Profile photo of TheGrag
    TheGrag Male 13-17
    1497 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm
    wish it were real... it would be cool to have an expanding earth... there will be enough room for every1... Japans geting larger!
  79. Profile photo of shizzamX
    shizzamX Female 18-29
    2695 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 3:52 pm
    very intresting.
  80. Profile photo of hitman03
    hitman03 Male 13-17
    9 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:04 pm
    BS, oh and SC: ""He fails to note however that for his scenario to be true, the Earth would have had to crash into an object with a diameter of 12,000 km. This object would have a diameter only about 700 km smaller than the Earth we have today.
    Note: The dinosaurs where wiped out by a rock with a diameter less than 15 km."

    WHAT in the hell does that have to do with this video?"

    Because it would have turned the Earth into so much debris.

  81. Profile photo of iansquall
    iansquall Female 18-29
    601 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:20 pm
    Well, that made sense...I guess o_o Science isn`t my thing, so I dunno what to make of this. Interesting theory.

    As for where the water comes from: maybe there was water already above the continents/etc while the earth was expanding, but as it expanded, the water didn`t expand with it. Thus, land is uncovered and the water creates oceans. *shrugs* /end random guess

  82. Profile photo of Axium
    Axium Male 18-29
    296 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:28 pm
    TheGrag
    Male, 13-17, Eastern US
    562 Posts Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:14:49 PM
    wish it were real... it would be cool to have an expanding earth... there will be enough room for every1... Japans geting larger!


    Lol but no. This theory doesn`t say that. I understand it as the oceans grew into being. Think of it this way: You have a baby and you put some clothes on the baby and never take them off. The baby (oceans) gets bigger but the clothes (land) stays the same size.

    That may have just been the most retarded thing I`ve said all day, but that`s how I see it.

  83. Profile photo of Agentk120
    Agentk120 Male 18-29
    510 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:31 pm
    One gaping problem:
    Where is all the water?
    This would require that something that makes up 70% of the planet to have just appeared out of nowhere some time between the planet`s creation and now. Comets make no sense because they would burn up on the way down, much of the melted ice being lost in space. Even if it didn`t and did reach the earth, that would require a ridiculously improbable number of icy comets.
  84. Profile photo of gabcab
    gabcab Male 13-17
    404 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm
    Just because the idea is revolutionary doesn`t mean it`s actually true.
    That`s the problem, whenever a new idea is brought up the same group of people always argue that science isn`t always right: it isn`t always wrong either.

    The way he fit the continents at the end didn`t really look very authentic, especially Northern Canada. Considering the fact that the earth is round, it isn`t any weirder that plates shifted in the Arctic and Antarctic.

  85. Profile photo of clorox
    clorox Male 13-17
    415 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:42 pm
    How do you explain earthquakes and mountains and faults?
  86. Profile photo of smells_like
    smells_like Male 18-29
    86 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:42 pm
    I dont know what to think about this... I guess you really have to think outside of the box and question everything you have learned....

    It be cool If it were true I guss...

  87. Profile photo of shinu
    shinu Male 18-29
    1387 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:46 pm
    "man, i love this map." :D
  88. Profile photo of ztrgzr
    ztrgzr Male 30-39
    2 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:47 pm
    Our understanding of how the universe works is being revised constantly, we run into something which doesn`t fit the current model then we revise it until we can resolve the issue. Now look back at the turn of the last century and this is where the current backbone lies in physics, everything has essentially been a revision based on those ideas. Does this model have any value, well yes in fact it does as it shows definite flaws in the current model and tries to establish a way to do away with the conflicts. If you look deeper into this theory, (which has been around for a long time)it seems to hinge on the debate whether matter has always existed or whether it is being created over time. I feel that enough proof is there to establish the fact that something is wrong with the current geologic model because if you ignore the debate whether matter can be created everything else seems to fit, fossil evidence, crustal age maps, anatomy of past creatures, and so on.
  89. Profile photo of Lost_In_Time
    Lost_In_Time Male 18-29
    317 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:58 pm
    Does that shock you? IT SHOULD! IT SHOCKED SCIENTISTS!

    ..lol, laughed my ass off at that part.

  90. Profile photo of Legion5
    Legion5 Male 18-29
    438 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 4:59 pm
    Narvos Narvos Narvos Narvos, you are an idiot idiot idiot idiot. Gases are basically the only substances that compress under pressure, solids and liquids do not really compress very much at all.
  91. Profile photo of kevinz
    kevinz Male 13-17
    99 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:02 pm
    Ah! It`s going against common wisdom! THAT MEANS IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
  92. Profile photo of mrpopenfresh
    mrpopenfresh Male 18-29
    1036 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:03 pm
    The thing is this theory undermines 90% if the discoverys made in the history of science. SO fo crouse, alot of it dosen`t make sense if you use scientific concepts to reason it. Either he is the single most brillient mind ever, or he has some good points but believes in his theroy too much to be blinded by it. I choose the latter.

    Anyways did you see how much effort was put in the animations it`s ridiculous.

  93. Profile photo of punk7634
    punk7634 Female 18-29
    191 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:03 pm
    "shrtro
    Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:45:40 PM
    ive always believed this to be true. it actually explains a lot. if a star can grow why cant a planet?"

    Stars don`t grow. They expand, meaning they become less dense and the matter spreads out. They never gain any matter. Growing requires a gain of matter. Matter doesn`t just pop out of no where.

    The fact that matter isn`t created or distroyed, and they`re no way there`s enough energy in to core of the earth to be turned into matter in order to fuel this "growth" disproves this theory.

  94. Profile photo of ztrgzr
    ztrgzr Male 30-39
    2 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:04 pm
    Regarding the water issue...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano

    "The concentrations of different volcanic gases can vary considerably from one volcano to the next. Water vapor is typically the most abundant volcanic gas, followed by carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. "

    "Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year."

    Do the math using this figure as a low estimate seeing as they state that more water vapor is created than CO2.

  95. Profile photo of mrpopenfresh
    mrpopenfresh Male 18-29
    1036 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:05 pm
    Oh and I forgot to meantion the code of ethics of scientists. When you do research finding out something is wrong is as agood as finding out soemthing new. Scientist don`t try and cover up things like politicians or religious figures.
  96. Profile photo of mrpopenfresh
    mrpopenfresh Male 18-29
    1036 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:07 pm
    Oh and he dosen`t mention the density of earth before. It is totally possible tht the earth was s compact that even after it expanded magmae can be twise as dense as granite. This is all hypothetical of course.
  97. Profile photo of llamaseacow
    llamaseacow Male 13-17
    572 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:21 pm
    wow that was unbelievable but made sense.
  98. Profile photo of AKappy
    AKappy Male 18-29
    2616 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:36 pm
    I have a theory for you: this doesn`t affect your life, so why care about it? BRILLIANT!
  99. Profile photo of Foob
    Foob Male 40-49
    382 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 5:50 pm
    I love it how some people thrusts forth more or less insane theories, and support their clandestine nature by stating that "scientists are hiding this fact". Because that`s what science do, all day long, hide facts.
    Cough.
    What I`m trying to say here, is: what a load of utter bollocks.
    Everybody knows the earth is flat.
  100. Profile photo of solrac9
    solrac9 Male 13-17
    35 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 6:18 pm
    where the hell did the water come from!!!??? think of the problems of ur theories before u post it!
  101. Profile photo of mr_stache
    mr_stache Male 13-17
    133 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 6:20 pm
    Wow. That`s really cool! But wait... How is the earth expanding? Is the heat of the core forcing the earth to expand as it does? But then why isn`t it decelerating with the cooling of the core? Or even stranger: What if the atoms themselves are expanding? This is quite puzzling, indeed...
  102. Profile photo of AFTERSHOCK
    AFTERSHOCK Male 18-29
    2782 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 6:37 pm
    PLANET EARTH IZ H4XX0R!!!
  103. Profile photo of justKatrina
    justKatrina Female 13-17
    1007 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 6:44 pm
    Oh, I know; it grew to make more room for the dinosaurs.

    Wait...

  104. Profile photo of RyanF701
    RyanF701 Male 18-29
    2486 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 6:49 pm
    "
    I DONT KNOW BUT IF WE ALL YELL A LOT I BET WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH IM LAERNING

  105. Profile photo of Roduku
    Roduku Male 50-59
    459 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 7:01 pm
    These types are generally referred to as "armchair scientists". They espouse "theories" that only they seem to realize. The fact that the continental edges seem to match up was noticed about 500 years ago. The idea of continental drift was proposed in the early 20th century. That theory was superseded by the Tectonic Plate Theory about 50 years ago. He has the right idea, but too late to be useful.
  106. Profile photo of Deadman3215
    Deadman3215 Male 18-29
    536 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 7:08 pm
    I`m not using any scientific data for the following information so don`t quote me on any incorrect information.

    The size of our Earth when all the continets fit together and little or no water is visible in most places would be roughly smaller or bigger than our own moon. This isn`t exactly "impossible" as is witnessed with Pluto, but seems odd none-the-less.

    It is hard to imagine life would`ve evolved on a planet covered in mostly land.

    His theory that what we see as "plates spreading from eachother" would mean places in which tectonic plates are colliding would somehow mean the Earth is shrinking, but only in those spots?

  107. Profile photo of kooshi_govno
    kooshi_govno Male 70 & Over
    313 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 7:14 pm
    where does the extra mass come from?
  108. Profile photo of Toribor
    Toribor Male 18-29
    133 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 7:26 pm
    Everyone is pointing out `extra mass` but the narrorator never mentions extra mass... The matter simply expands and becomes less dense. Earth`s orbit would not change because there is no air resistance to create friction and slow the pace of movement, and there is no additional mass. (Save for the water which was either released from the earth or arrived through a large collision.
  109. Profile photo of secret9
    secret9 Male 18-29
    9 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 7:34 pm
    sorry, but anyone who has taken either an earth science or oceanography class knows this is complete bull. You cant create water from no where if the plates expand. and continents do drift, not only move horizontally/vertically, but yea also rotate, this is why the Hawaiin island chain is somewhat cresent shape, while the islands form the tectonic plates are converging/diverging and also slide back and forth as if rubbing your hands together. nice theory though.
  110. Profile photo of Manar
    Manar Male 30-39
    196 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 7:41 pm
    If the mass is the same and only the radius expands, then another problem arises. The force of gravity as calculated by Newtons law of gravity is F=G*(m1+m2)/r^2 where m1 and m2 is mass and r is the radius.
    If the mass stays the same and the radius increase that means the force of gravity decrease by a square of the radius. Or if we count backwards, when the Earth was half the size of now then the force would be four times than what is is now. At a third it would have been 9 times more. If the size of the earth by then realy was the size of the moon as sone on the forum suggested, then the force of gravity would have been more than 13 times of today. Enough to crush whatever dinosaur that would have tried to survive there by then.
  111. Profile photo of jebler
    jebler Male 18-29
    1142 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 7:52 pm
    besides the fact that the voice of the narrator both nearly put me to sleep and sounded angry like he was mad at it high school science teacher so he made it up, everything it said has to many holes in it to even be worth wiping your ass with. you would just end up with poo on your hand. maybe in 20-40 years of research someone might be able to make be believe that the earth grew some but i dont think they can produce enuf evidence to make me believe it the way its represented here. maybe a mix of commonly accepted theories we have today. i really doubt it tho.
  112. Profile photo of michaelteh
    michaelteh Male 18-29
    82 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 8:09 pm
    scientists are just learning this now???
    i came up with this theory years and years and years ago, before i can even remember
  113. Profile photo of redser99
    redser99 Male 30-39
    114 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 8:15 pm
    Very enjoyable and noteworthy finding. There are many theories and the text book I still think is pretty good and intriguing. The earth is indeed growing by about 14K tonnes per year from space dust, meteors and comets but it`s not text book that it`s `expanding` to this degree. If the tectonic plates are moving the equivalent length of growth of a fingernail annually, that`s measurable. If the plates are sliding under or away or alongside it`s because scientist have already proven this. This will also account for mountains and valleys. The measure of the earth would have increased even the small numbers to help prove this theory so let us wait and see if that`s anyones` conclusion whether it`s growth or expansion. Weakening of gravity would support the expanse as well. I guess some good analysts could measure if gravity is changing and I will liken to this theory. Now, I`m going hmmm. Again, this is excellent video.
  114. Profile photo of redser99
    redser99 Male 30-39
    114 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 8:25 pm
    Oh, and in support Manor`s good math, according to our "text books" dinasaurs were incredibly large because the oxygen levels were significantly higher than today. If gravity was 13X that of today indeed supports the expansion theory, but does it support the large (lanky) bodied beasts of 65-185 million years ago---I`d think in 13X gravity, dinasaurs would be made of rock (no pun intended).
  115. Profile photo of pRodigy_
    pRodigy_ Male 13-17
    2 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 9:11 pm
    To Manar:

    Actually, r isn`t the radius of an object, it`s the DISTANCE between two objects.

    So as long as the Earth`s mass and the distance between the Earth and the Sun remained constant, the force of gravity wouldn`t change.

  116. Profile photo of surf831
    surf831 Male 13-17
    117 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 9:12 pm
    I think it was magic.
  117. Profile photo of shiggin
    shiggin Female 13-17
    1470 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 9:20 pm
    It was pretty interesting. I can now tell my grade 9 science teacher to fcuk off for telling me wrong things...
  118. Profile photo of robock
    robock Male 18-29
    317 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 9:44 pm
    interesting hypothesis, but it has a long way to go to be a theory. Plate techtonic theory explains a lot of stuff that this one fails.
  119. Profile photo of JihadAllah
    JihadAllah Male 13-17
    372 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 10:35 pm
    BY THE WAY:
    COMETS AND OUTGASSING OF VOLCANIC VENTS formed COMPOUNDS aka from fresh gases and atmosphere
  120. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 10:45 pm
    It seems like speculation, but since we`re speculating anyhow, It seems possible that water didn`t simply "Appear" but was present the whole time. What we know now to be continental surfaces has been demonstrated to have been the Sea Floor at many points in the past.

    It is widely accepted that Life on earth began in the oceans. A significantly higher Gravitational Pull would be less bothersome to a creature suspended in Water.

    I would be interested to see what correlation there might be between the Rate of Expansion of the Earth and the increasing distance between the earth and the moon.

    If the Moon were in a much tighter Orbit with the earth historically, lunar gravity would have potentially compressed the earth into a denser sphere.

  121. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    October 23, 2007 at 10:51 pm
    The Growth could be accounted for by the decompression of material within the earth`s mantle. It is difficult to compress Solids and liquids, but not impossible. As Solids transition to a liquid State they Expand. At present we believe the Earth has an Iron Crystal roughly 1500 KM in diameter at it`s core surrounded by an outer core of Liquid Iron.

    If the Earth`s Gravity were decreasing through expansion, then the force required to maintain Iron in a Solid State at such Extremes would decrease causing some of the Solid Iron to Liquefy and Expand. The expansion of the Planet manifest on the surface but actually takes place near the center of the Earth.

    I am not going to blindly dismiss the possibility that this is true without further investigation. The only Constant is Change I will guarantee everyone that reads this that what we know is not the sum of what we have learned.

  122. Profile photo of PianoMan21
    PianoMan21 Male 18-29
    315 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 12:06 am
    To those claiming volcanoes account for the water: the water has to come from somewhere to end up as water vapor in the volcano. Magma =/= water. Volcanoes don`t work that way.

    To those claiming that a whole bunch of comets crashed into earth: Comet`s don`t work that way. Nor are they that abundant.

  123. Profile photo of Cylomar
    Cylomar Male 18-29
    25 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 1:21 am
    SilverThread:
    That has to be (so far) the best argument for this expansion theory thus far. Grats to you.

    "if the earth gained a bunch of mass wouldnt it spiral us right into the sun/"
    -carldec

    No, actually it wouldn`t. The only thing that would spiral us into the sun would be a loss of inertia. Forward momentum. A slowing down of the earth as it travels away from the sun. If the earth gained mass for one reason or another, it would only move the barycenter. Slightly.

  124. Profile photo of Cylomar
    Cylomar Male 18-29
    25 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 1:23 am
    ztrgzr:
    Sure thing.
    326 million trillion (326*10^18) gallons of water can be found on our planet. Lets take 1/2 of that (and that`s being overly generous) and place it on the smaller earth. The oldest of the ocean floor is no more than 70 million years old. Meaning that half the water on earth is made in that time frame. Doing the math, that means every year you`d have to pump out 81.5 trillion gallons a year. Multiply by 8.3 (lbs/gallon) you`d come up with 55 thousand trillion (55*10^15) tons per year. Lets say that water vapor is 500 million tons per year - each. Your numbers was for the whole of volcanic activity, mind you. This means that there would be 110 million active volcano`s pushing up 500 million tons of water, each, for the next 70 million years.

    That`s a lot of volcanic activity.

  125. Profile photo of meter1060
    meter1060 Male 18-29
    89 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 1:28 am
    Don`t people realize that the earth would be slowly moving towards the sun because of the size? it would have to speed up to keep its altitude!
  126. Profile photo of Cylomar
    Cylomar Male 18-29
    25 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 1:32 am
    For those of you that are not aware of my sarcasm, that`s not a lot of volcanic activity. That`s a lot of geysers. 500 million tons of water ~= 60 million gallons. Or ~165K gallons/day. As I said before; Each.
  127. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 1:33 am
    I had grounds to discredit anything he said following his claim that the notion of all continents fitting together perfectly is "too upsetting" for the scientific community. The scientific community doesn`t have an agenda, certainly not one that acts in defiance of the evidence. Plate tectonics is still the best explanation for geologic transformations, folks. Life goes on.
  128. Profile photo of Cylomar
    Cylomar Male 18-29
    25 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 1:33 am
    Meter1060:
    Read my post on page 5. Last entry. No, it wouldn`t.
  129. Profile photo of Spellwarrior
    Spellwarrior Male 18-29
    45 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 1:46 am
    I don`t beleive this at all, if our earth was this old our sun would have already used its fuel, and our sun mind you still has about 95% of fuel left.
  130. Profile photo of Manar
    Manar Male 30-39
    196 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 3:16 am
    pRodigy_, i am not talking about the gravitational force between Earth and the sun. It was the force between Earth and an object on the surface i was calculating with F=G(m1+m2)/r^2. To calculate that you will have to measure the distance between the masscentres of the bodies involved. In this case, the Earth and the creature on the surface. If you are standing on the surface of a spherical body then the distance will be the radius of the sphere.
    You are correct however in that the force between Earth and the sun would be the same, since there are no change in neither mass nor distance between them.
  131. Profile photo of Manar
    Manar Male 30-39
    196 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 3:17 am
    Spellwarrior, Actually the sun has about 50% of its fuel left.
  132. Profile photo of Mani-Jac
    Mani-Jac Male 40-49
    805 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 7:31 am
    Thank god the earth is expanding, because the sea level is rising, so in the end it wil compensate eachother, right?
  133. Profile photo of xiera
    xiera Female 18-29
    3 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 11:12 am
    To address several points and questions made by others (please note, I`m paraphrasing and shortening most comments):
    1. The sun is expanding. Why can`t the Earth?
    The sun is expanding because it mostly consists of gas. Gas molecules tend to try to move away from each other. The earth, however, has a solid core, creating a strong enough gravity field to keep everything together. Solids do NOT expand unless they change state.
    2. Comets are the reason for the extra water.
    According to this theory, the Earth used to be around to size of the moon. Major comets, those that might not totally evaporate in the descent through our atmosphere usually pass our orbit once a decade. The amount that actually hit the Earth is minimal, even over the last 4.5 billion years.
    3. The universe is expanding, why not the Earth?
    The universe is NOT expanding. So far, we have not determined whether or not it has edges. Currently it is believed to be infinite.
  134. Profile photo of Vindicate
    Vindicate Female 18-29
    511 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 11:18 am
    What in the hell is this guy smoking, and can I have some?

    If I could explain away my structural geology class with - THE EARTH IS EXPANDING! - that would make things so much simpler.

    Soooooo many issues with this thing. What I`d like to know is where the oceanic plate material older than Jurassic went on the coast of N. America... unless of course the earth only started expanding in the Jurassic, which leaves a good 4.4 billion years uncovered...

    And I`d also like an explanation of how we get earthquakes at 10 km depth and what`s up with the Marianas trench.

    Fail. Crackpot science makes me laugh.

  135. Profile photo of xiera
    xiera Female 18-29
    3 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 11:31 am
    (continued)
    We believe matter came from a single point, from the Big Bang. Just like shrapnel explodes from the centre of a blast, matter is doing to same... just on a larger scale. It doesn`t mean it`s getting bigger, it just means it`s leaving the area.
    4. The `undersea plate` is new and spreading and anything to do with magma
    Magma is molten rock. As the tectonic plates drift, magma is released in gaps between two plates. However, subduction also occurs, pushing the crust (made of ROCK) downwards. This eventually melts, and becomes magma. Thus, we get a cycle occuring. Mother Nature is fond of recycling...

    Sorry for sounding pretentious and rambling on, but people like this just piss me off. They preach about things that they haven`t bothered to actually think about and study, and pass it off to the unknowing public as real. They don`t care at all about how much they`re slowing down our understanding of the world around us.

  136. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32817 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 12:33 pm
    The basis for this theory is that new matter IS being created inside large gravity wells (like stars and planets, eh?)
    http://www.nealadams.com/
    This site has lots more info.
    The increase in size is also an increase in mass, both the planets and sun are increasing, so the relative gravity stays the same.
    There is spontaious creation of sub-atomic particles, but the anti-matter version of the same particle is also created, they zap into each other and out of existance very quickly. So if therre were a way to keep them seperated, new mass would be created +1, and new anti-mass too -1, the end result being zero increase (+1)+(-1)=0 so it would not unbalance the universe. This could be what `dark matter` is made of, who knows?
    The main point is that Neal`s theory does well in explaining some things, not so well in others. Just like almost every theory ever! lol!
  137. Profile photo of irvind
    irvind Male 18-29
    14 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 3:20 pm
    everyone is being scientifical but what about the fact that platyupuses(platyupi?) are monotremes not marsupials
  138. Profile photo of Manar
    Manar Male 30-39
    196 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 4:07 pm
    That is because God created the platyupuses shortly after he created weed. Then he continued with making giraffes.. ;-)
  139. Profile photo of dijipo
    dijipo Male 13-17
    239 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 4:45 pm
    the mejerk what theory?
  140. Profile photo of B3nt
    B3nt Male 18-29
    96 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 5:10 pm
    This is complete bullpoo. AND, if you believe it, then hopefully I run into you someday... because you are obviously gullible enough for me to easily scam you out of all of your money.

    This guy is NOT A SCIENTIST! Ok, lets just ignore for a second the hundreds of years of ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF that we actually have to the contrary... look at the way that he expands the earth. Why does it fit so well? BECAUSE HE MORPHS IT! Watch it very closely. The end result and the beginning scenarios that he uses aren`t shaped the same, he modifies them as he goes as a morphed video.

    Gosh! Idiots!

  141. Profile photo of kenny_f
    kenny_f Male 13-17
    1825 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 5:26 pm
    fuc*ing retarted
  142. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 6:08 pm
    ^^High 5 B3nt. Couldn`t have said it better myself. And I`m a professional geologist!
  143. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 6:10 pm
    ^^ Hey B3nt did you ever check back on the comments string on the movie you posted on the RC Copter skillz? If not you should check it out- it gets more and more retarded toward the end...
  144. Profile photo of Jesus_Wey
    Jesus_Wey Male 18-29
    238 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 6:58 pm
    uh. water? h2o? hello? Go to school. We got plenty of hydrogen and oxygen. It just takes a couple of lighting to get the chemical process started.
  145. Profile photo of Jesus_Wey
    Jesus_Wey Male 18-29
    238 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 7:30 pm
    ok ok. that theory is sooo stupid. seriously, some people think that they`re geniouses and can outsmart 1000 other scientists.
  146. Profile photo of videot
    videot Male 30-39
    21 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 7:44 pm
    The real reason the Earth is growing is the ever increasing amount of bull waste dropped in Internet forums.
  147. Profile photo of BrettIsPyro
    BrettIsPyro Male 13-17
    155 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 9:20 pm
    "Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:51:53 AM
    Someone said "there are no proofs of that" .. Well.. Back in the days there were no proof of the earth being round, and it was "proven by science" that earth was flat, since you couldn`t wee the ships when got far enough away.. But we are smarter now.. .. I see this as the excact same thing.. We THINK we know this and that.. But that`s just until someone proves that we were wrong.. And it`s like that with everything in this world.. We only know something FOR SURE, until someone proves that we were wrong.. (hope this all made sense.. It`s hard explaining this in another language than your own :) )"

    Actually the Greeks new the world was round.

  148. Profile photo of BrettIsPyro
    BrettIsPyro Male 13-17
    155 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 9:21 pm
    "Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:58:31 PM
    uh. water? h2o? hello? Go to school. We got plenty of hydrogen and oxygen. It just takes a couple of lighting to get the chemical process started."

    We don`t have that much

  149. Profile photo of BrettIsPyro
    BrettIsPyro Male 13-17
    155 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 9:22 pm
    "Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:23:45 AM
    ztrgzr:
    Sure thing.
    326 million trillion (326*10^18) gallons of water can be found on our planet. Lets take 1/2 of that (and that`s being overly generous) and place it on the smaller earth. The oldest of the ocean floor is no more than 70 million years old. Meaning that half the water on earth is made in that time frame. Doing the math, that means every year you`d have to pump out 81.5 trillion gallons a year. Multiply by 8.3 (lbs/gallon) you`d come up with 55 thousand trillion (55*10^15) tons per year. Lets say that water vapor is 500 million tons per year - each. Your numbers was for the whole of volcanic activity, mind you. This means that there would be 110 million active volcano`s pushing up 500 million tons of water, each, for the next 70 million years.

    That`s a lot of volcanic activity."

    HAHA nice

  150. Profile photo of AK-047
    AK-047 Male 13-17
    270 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 9:44 pm
    Where the f*ck would the matter to make the earth expand come from? Why do we even have this bu1lshi7 around.
  151. Profile photo of Critic123
    Critic123 Female 18-29
    267 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 11:09 pm
    All that talk about water makes me have to pee.
  152. Profile photo of DrkAng3Lx
    DrkAng3Lx Female 13-17
    66 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 11:57 pm
    veeerrryyyy in-ter-es-tingg
  153. Profile photo of DrkAng3Lx
    DrkAng3Lx Female 13-17
    66 posts
    October 24, 2007 at 11:59 pm
    oh and for all those who say there are problems with this guy`s reasoning, well he did say that if we were to admit this would be true then most of what we have figured out in science for the last 100 years or so would be wrong, so we decided to stick with this. so it could be right, it could be wrong =/
  154. Profile photo of Yaos
    Yaos Male 18-29
    78 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 12:21 am
    You can always tell when somebody is wrong when they claim their "theory" is not talked about because there`s a huge conspiracy with scientists. Scientists hate the idea of new ideas according to these idiots.
  155. Profile photo of Agentk120
    Agentk120 Male 18-29
    510 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 1:04 am
    Yay sophistry!
  156. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 5:42 am
    This is utter bunk and belongs in the same bucket as Young-Earth Creationism. You know, the bucket labelled "Bullsh*t".

    Forget the thing about water, it`s a distraction from the real problem with this theory. This entire "theory" hangs on the fact of there being "NO SUBDUCTION" today. Utter horsewank. The entire Pacific Ocean is subducting at every margin. That`s why the entire Pacific Rim from Chile to Alaska, from Siberia to New Zealand, is known as the Ring of Fire. 90% of the world`s earthquakes and 75% of the world`s volcanoes occur along this margin. This is because it`s one big-ass subduction zone (compare with Atlantic which is not subducting- think Mount St Helens, US earthquakes, all west coast i.e. above the subduction zone)

    This is NOT what any reasonable person would call "localised subduction".

  157. Profile photo of Jesus_Wey
    Jesus_Wey Male 18-29
    238 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 6:49 am
    This thoery doesn`t make sense at all. If the Earth was expanding, the land would flatten, then how do we have such huge mountains?
  158. Profile photo of redawn
    redawn Female 50-59
    32 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 11:33 am
    I come to this as an artist. . .and as an arm chair philosopher. . .this idea has merit. . .

    for all you science-philes out there. . .is Europe getting closer to America or is Calf and the orient closing the great Pacific Gap? If the plates are moving and shifting is going on. . .surface is finite than something must be getting closer together.

    Is the Atlantic Ridge Expanding? Then the Pacific must be shrinking?

    Trouble with science sometimes is it gets all scientific. . .and it can`t see there are no tail marks. <g> Many things rise without "creating matter". . .gases, heat always help. . .ask any person who cooks. . .those two things account for some of the yummiest things to come out of a kitchen. . .breads and cakes.

    Plus the scientific blinders prevent one from looking at the earth as a living thing. We know what a dead planet looks like.. .. to live. . .there is growth.

    So do you live on a live planet or a dead one?

    der.

  159. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 3:04 pm
    ^^ redawn... have you been smoking pot?
  160. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 4:38 pm
    The areas of Subduction are smaller than the Mid Oceanic Rifts where more material is arriving on the surface. In order for stasis to be achieved you have to have the same amount of subduction as expulsion of mantle material, this is not the case at present.

    New Material isn`t simply appearing. Metals Expand when they transition from Solid to Liquid. The Earth has a Solid Iron Core, surrounded by Liquid Iron. The Core is the correct temperature to melt and become liquid but the Pressure exerted upon it by Gravity Holds it in a Solid State.

    If the Gravitational force were decreased (Through expansion for example)then hypothetically the lower pressure would allow some of that Solid Material to Liquefy and Expand.

    I am not sold on either theory as being a Silver Bullet, it may well be a combination of the two that bears out to be true.

    Geologists have a History established by the Channeled Scablands Debate as having difficulty in accepting new theories. This may be no differen

  161. Profile photo of TapirUnge
    TapirUnge Female 18-29
    71 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 7:05 pm
    Now.. Real question here: If only the density is changing, would this at all affect the gravity? I mean, doesn`t grativy has to do with the weight, and not the density? - Probably didn`t listen enough back in science, so could anyone tell me? :)
  162. Profile photo of TapirUnge
    TapirUnge Female 18-29
    71 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 7:09 pm
    Brett, okay, so the ancient greeks knew.. But there are probably still some of their theories and "proof of`s" that has been shot down by modern science.. :) Point is, we never know anything for sure.. Suddenly someone is going to find out that the moon really IS made of green cheese.. ;) And won`t we all look silly then lol
  163. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 8:12 pm
    ^^ Silverthread, "The areas of Subduction are smaller than the Mid Oceanic Rifts".

    Actually, they`re called Mid Oceanic Ridges, but never mind...

    I refer you to my earlier post. The entire Pacific Rim (largest single plate on Planet Earth) is subducting at EVERY SINGLE plate boundary. This is a serious amount of subduction, approximately equal to the amount of crust created at Mid-Oceanic Ridges on a global scale.

    I`m a professional geologist (I work for a supermajor oil company, and have a PhD in Geology, I am not getting my information from Wikipedia). We geologists base our search for oil on currently accepted plate tectonic models which do not involve an expanding earth. If we based our ideas on a model of earth expanding from a condition of NO OCEANS (where most of the major oil-generating "source rocks" are created), we would find nothing and be out of a job pretty fast.

    Never mind the theoretical implications, look at the practical ones!

  164. Profile photo of crystallinec
    crystallinec Female 18-29
    3 posts
    October 25, 2007 at 9:03 pm
    i just can`t believe people even took one second to consider that this might be true.

    the stupidity of some people baffles me.

  165. Profile photo of frostbite22
    frostbite22 Male 13-17
    8 posts
    October 26, 2007 at 2:27 am
    someone said that the water came from ice comets hitting the earth. and someone else counterattacked that argument saying that there couldn`t be enough comets to fill the oceans we have today. what about the whole ice age theory? if the earth was truly completely frozen over at one point, then why can`t the water from from the freezing of the earth?
    if that makes sense :-P
  166. Profile photo of nabs
    nabs Male 18-29
    6 posts
    October 26, 2007 at 6:41 am
    it makes sense that the plates should move around, because that is pretty realistic and the movements are measured... but what is the proof that the earth is expanding? also, i wonder where all the extra land would be coming from... but whatever, theories are theories, in the end we`ll all realise the truth but unfortunately moments later the earth will be destroyed... or something
  167. Profile photo of Cylomar
    Cylomar Male 18-29
    25 posts
    October 26, 2007 at 10:01 am
    Frostbite22:

    The whole `Ice Age theory` stems from the fact that there was water there to begin with in order for the world to be predominately (not completely) ice. And the whole point of the argument was where the water originally came from. I do understand where you`re coming from (and yes, it makes sense).
    A similar argument for your Ice Age question would be to put it like this: My bathtub fills with water when I turn on the tap. You miss the fact however, that the water needs to be pumped into your house to begin with.
    Hope that helps.

    TapirUnge:
    Yes and no. Mass affects gravity. More mass, more gravity. However, density also affects gravity. The less dense the object, the larger it is, the further you are from the center and thus the less hold gravity has on you.
    Usually.
    Here`s a site that expains it a little easier, perhaps.

  168. Profile photo of Canti
    Canti Male 18-29
    25 posts
    October 26, 2007 at 10:42 pm
    This is absurd! First of all, the matter that causes the Earth`s growth has to come from somewhere and even with all the cometary dust and meteorites that hit the Earth every second it would never acrete so much as to grow in size. Also, if it then decreases, where does all the matter go? The increase in size would cause an increase in gravity, which would noticbly alter the orbit of the moon. Instead, the moon`s orbit follows its usual, almost circular path; slowly getting farther away. Also the Big Rip theory that the first commenters are throwing around says that every particle in the universe is slowly getting farther away from every other particle. Before the Earth ever expanded, its entire quantum structure would have fallen apart. I know I`m ranting, but I can`t let those who present their theories with pseudo-scientific evidence in a reckless and wanton manner speak lies and criticise the scientific community. If scientists knew these things, they would embrace them.
  169. Profile photo of SillyBella
    SillyBella Female 18-29
    136 posts
    October 27, 2007 at 11:21 am
    Hmmm thats really interesting.
  170. Profile photo of Cylomar
    Cylomar Male 18-29
    25 posts
    October 27, 2007 at 10:28 pm
    Canti:
    `if it then decreases, where does all the matter go?`
    It was never stated that the earth was shrinking.

    `The increase in size would cause an increase in gravity, which would noticbly alter the orbit of the moon.`
    No, it wouldn`t. An increase in size would do nothing to the moons orbit. An increase in -mass- would. Read the link in my previous post. You might learn something.

    `Also the Big Rip theory ... says that every particle in the universe is slowly getting farther away from every other particle.`
    An object with mass will attract another object with mass, regardless of how finite that pull is. Hence gravity. May never see each other, but the forces are there. Without another force acting on it, that statement will not be true, regardless of who states or paraphrases it.

  171. Profile photo of Cylomar
    Cylomar Male 18-29
    25 posts
    October 27, 2007 at 10:29 pm
    (Continued...)
    `Before the Earth ever expanded, its entire quantum structure would have fallen apart.`
    I`d like to see where you got that notion from before I rip it apart. If your theory is sound, I won`t touch it.

    Ranting is just fine, but please get your facts straight (or at least in a semblance of a logical argument) before doing so.

  172. Profile photo of sulu
    sulu Male 18-29
    994 posts
    October 29, 2007 at 8:09 pm
    This doesn`t really seem to do anything for me. But if you start your argument saying about Secret Scientific conspiracy and such your points are moot and all I see is paranoia.
  173. Profile photo of kureigu3
    kureigu3 Male 40-49
    1 post
    November 6, 2007 at 6:36 am
    Where did the water come from? Possibly from comets? Why did it not rain? The earth was much hotter than so the water remained vapor until the Earth cooled... That part kind of makes sense.. How the Earth grew though still eludes me. Can that much water displace continents like that?
  174. Profile photo of anima_sin
    anima_sin Female 18-29
    75 posts
    November 16, 2007 at 11:42 pm
    It`s an interesting theory and makes you consider the alternatives. But this particular theory has only managed to instigate doubt and a compelling need to contemplate and nothing more. There is no substantial evidence whatsoever making it hard to accept this theory as real. But it is nonetheless a possibility and was,for sure,very interesting. The debatable comments were very intriguing as well.
  175. Profile photo of Gizmovt64
    Gizmovt64 Male 18-29
    1 post
    November 30, 2007 at 4:45 pm
    It would be interesting if he had any evidence.
    1.) there is no reason to believe the earth is stretching nor does he offer one. Where is the extra mass coming from. I was under the impression that mass could not be created or destroyed; that was just me I guess.
    2.) Where is all the water coming from. Most of the earths surface is water. If the earth was smaller like he says then the earth would be nothing but water not swallow lakes.
    3.) If ocean trenches do tell that the earth is growing because they are stretch marks they are running the wrong way. A horizontal stretch mark indicates a north and south growth not a east an west.
    4.) Any mathematician can stretch any two figures and make them fit together.

    There is more but i am running out of characters. This "theory" makes no sense. This is the worst theory i have ever heard and yes i am including creationism. They at least have an explanation even though it is an asinine one.

  176. Profile photo of randomness07
    randomness07 Female 18-29
    280 posts
    December 23, 2007 at 12:37 pm
    "`Intersting theory, but does not that require that the Earth was kind of flooded in the past. Or where would all the water that is in the ocean now have come from otherwise.`
    `Comets. turn to the science Channel once in awhile.`"

    Um, ok. Except for the fact that for this to be as the guy said, trees would have to be around while the comits were bringing water. As we all know life came from the oceans first, trees came much, much later.

  177. Profile photo of xXxNatexXx
    xXxNatexXx Male 13-17
    135 posts
    August 2, 2008 at 4:29 pm
    OOH YAHHH BAYBEE YAAAAGH!!
  178. Profile photo of sereniee
    sereniee Female 18-29
    205 posts
    February 28, 2009 at 12:35 am
    erm... so.. then this dude is saying that the world was under water untill the earth got bigger? or water just miraculously appeared?

Leave a Reply