Is the Earth growing?

[DennisK]

Here is a cool video with a not so hard to believe theory (at least for myself).
[youtube:1ukyc4o4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI[/youtube:1ukyc4o4]

Sorry, I can't get the embedded file to work.  Any suggestions?
Anyway, here's the link:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&NR=1

____________

got it, you needed to copy the url from the place on the screen where it provides it to you.  &NR=1 was messing it up.  You also need to include the www part  
-laetusatheos

[LARA]

oh mi gawd.

My head just exploded.  There are greasy pink fragments everywhere.

It's...it's.... like a big, wet Bakugan.



BUT......

There is a problem I see already here to work out.

1.  Where did all the water come from to expand the growing earth?  This is also an interesting question in cosmology since all of our heavier elements are formed in stars.  So when H and O are formed, the water has to form somewhere outside the hot areas, maybe deposition as frost or ice on cold rocky bodies.  During the whole baby star/solar system disc birth thing, it's pretty damn hot.  So how does water fit into this early scenario of solar system birth?  And in this rather mind blowing model where is the water coming from?

2.  If there was less water on earth as shown in this model, how did life evolve?  Biological models usually show life evolving in the water and oceans.  Pretty sure there is good fossil evidence to support this.  So if there wasn't any water, or there was less water as shown in this model it brings up some questions.  What was the climate like?   How could life evolve with less water?  Do the fossil records support an earth that had less water early on and then later expanded?  The fossil records definitely support the connections between the continents, but the model and animation, while it looks cool, bring up some big questions about water.

3. In this model, if it's not water that is making the earth (supposedly) get bigger, then what is?  Matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, although a more dense material could be transformed into a less dense material overtime and therefore occupy more space.  If that is even possible what is causing this?

[DennisK]

The water question is a good one.  I tried to find how water is said to have originated and I couldn't find one generally accepted theory.  I've seen explanations such as: photolysis, biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis, comets, etc.

[SSY]

The expanding earth theory is viewed as looney tunes by most people inthe geological sciences ( I have had this conversation with some geology students I share a lecture theatre with ).

It is based on the fact that constructive plate boundries are forming new crust, so the crust surface area is increasing, so the volume it encloses also increases ( there is some jiggery pokery with densities, G and g that goes on as well to try and avoid mass conservation problems ). What they fail to grasp is the process of subduction, or any other form of destructive plate boundry, where crust is removed, and melted by the mantle. these destructive plate boundries offer a much more convincing balancing act to constructive ones. They either sya it does not happen, or not happen enough to counteract crust growth.

Coupled with the fact that no one can emasure the earths growth, where people can measure the shifting of tectonic plates, and the theory is starting to look a bit shakey.

Subduction has since gathered a tremendous amount of evidence, that totally refutes the claims of a growing earth. To be honest, this sort of theory should be consigned to the bin of theories along with the aether and the steady state universe.

[LARA]

The expanding earth theory is viewed as looney tunes by most people inthe geological sciences

But cartoon physics is so much more fun!

http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes ... l#subindex

Here's a scientific plate tectonic animation for ya DennisK

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsn ... ATES_3.MPG

[DennisK]

The expanding earth theory is viewed as looney tunes by most people inthe geological sciences

But cartoon physics is so much more fun!

http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes ... l#subindex

Here's a scientific plate tectonic animation for ya DennisK

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsn ... ATES_3.MPG

I likes pictures, thanks.  By comparison, the animation I posted looks cooler so I am going with that theory.  Sorry, I'm a graphic designer.


SSY,
Seeking clarity only.  What about the claims the video makes of the ocean floors being less than 70 million years old?  Is this addressed in plate tectonics?

[igosaur]

And what about the outer edges of Pangaea?  Do they really fit together as this video suggests?

[Will]

No, no that's not how it happened.

There's a better explanation as to why what used to be the outside of Pangea fit together: subduction. As the tectonic plates move apart, the land mass has to go somewhere.
As a ridge grows and tectonic plates move apart, there is generally a subduction as an equal response. Consider the Atlantic ridge moving North America. As that ridge has been separating North America from Europe, the Pacific Ocean has been decreasing in width due to Pacific subduction. The outside of what was Pangea fits together because of subduction.

BTW, Neal Adams is a comic book artist and as far as I know has no formal training in science.

[DennisK]

The Earth Growing theory I think fails to explain forming of mountain ranges, however, the edges seemingly completely fitting together and the dating of the oceans' floors are still compelling to me.  One thing I don't understand about plate tectonic theory is how can scientists measure the sporadic movement of the plates and magma currents through time?

[PipeBox]

[youtube:4vyvqbuu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGrlDF6PjgU[/youtube:4vyvqbuu]

It's a shame some pseudoscience slips through and that it can't all be addressed with the same fervor as creationism.  Plate tectonics accurately describes what we see, and is well evidenced.  Either that, or all the practitioners and students in all the fields of geology are inept or dishonest.  Neal's "theory" has been around for quite a while (since the 60's?), it is not even his to begin with.  It cannot properly account for fault lines and undoubtedly igneous structures that must've been formed at extreme depths and pressures (I cannot personally name such features, though I bet he has a tough time explaining diamonds without them being magically pre-existent).  This is without questioning just where he gets all the extra matter to expand the earth.  I know that he will likely claim it to be lighter density stuff pouring out from under a higher density surface, as though the the earth were magically full of uncompressed, non-dense material, but that'd be one curious way for a planet to form.  All that aside, Neal's understanding of densities, is, well . . .  watch the video.

I highly doubt if he were legit he'd be ignored as he is.  It's a shame I can't find more people to debunk his bad science, but unless you have a pretty poor opinion of scientist (of the Expelled variety . . .  ), I don't see how you can buy into it.

[Recusant]

Thank you for posting this video refutation of the growing earth theory.  When I watched the Adams video, I had a few questions, mainly having to do with the relative density of ocean floor and continental plates.  (If the growing earth theory were correct, then it would seem that the ocean floor should be of a lesser density than the continents, since it would be formed of matter that had expanded from below like popcorn, at least that's how I envisioned it.) I read John McPhee's Annals of the Former World several years ago, and from what I remembered of the book, which is an excellent popularization of current geology, I knew that this theory seemed to have some problems, to put it mildly, but I hadn't bothered to investigate the numbers yet.  Once again, thank you.

[G.ENIGMA]

This is a website that might help you find a few of the answers your looking for ... Not that I would ever visit it myself  http://www.expanding-earth.org

[Loffler]

How did yall get to be atheist/freethinkers in the first place?

You basically got swayed by a computer model and a confident voice. This video does not fix any problems present in plate tectonic theory. It does not provide evidence of why expanding Earth theory is more feasible. I honestly don't see what you guys are seeing here.

How is this video at all convincing?

[Loffler]

And the thing about the platypus? Why in the world did he single out marsupials, which DEFINITELY evolved in isolation? It's like he went out of way to be extra extra wrong.

[McQ]

How did yall get to be atheist/freethinkers in the first place?

You basically got swayed by a computer model and a confident voice. This video does not fix any problems present in plate tectonic theory. It does not provide evidence of why expanding Earth theory is more feasible. I honestly don't see what you guys are seeing here.

How is this video at all convincing?

Yall?
You guys?    One guy thought it was interesting. Others showed refutation, with examples. I personally thought it was so laughable as a theory that it didn't merit further study. And you are dead on with your assessment: this goober in the video is swaying people with computer models and a confident voice, although I think he sounds like he's talking to a child, the way he goes about it.