Expanding Earth Theory

[MHz]

I found this animation to be soo cool LOL Don't care how many apple carts it upsets, it is a great theory and I hope it ends up being the only right one.
YouTube - The earth is Expanding


This link is even better.
Neal Adams Science Project New Model of the Universe Two Guys in a Bar

 

[Tonington]

There is subduction. It's measured by geochemistry and transport of cosmogenic isotopes. It's measured using GPS.

Why do you think there should only be one mechanism? If you know anything about the history of science, you know that it's often mixtures of ideas that all contain some element of truth that best describe any system.

 

[Mongul]

...where would the water be in the past if the earth was as small as you say?

what mechanism is causing the expansion of the earth? How do you know that the ocean floor is young because of subduction pushing the floor under plates or onto dry land?

 

[MHz]

...where would the water be in the past if the earth was as small as you say?

what mechanism is causing the expansion of the earth? How do you know that the ocean floor is young because of subduction pushing the floor under plates or onto dry land?

Wouldn't it spread out like a river in flood? The bottom of the river would be the first to mend together. Perhaps the animation leaves that aspect out so we can see the continental movement. That would explain Alberta being a shallow see, the crack from expansion, drained the higher land. If expansion continues in the deep oceans the ocean level should actually decrease. Ice melt affecting only short term heights, spreading would eventually lower it.
Maybe the interior is heating up, heat increase=expansion. pressure could also be a factor. If the core cooled would it decrease in size because of a decrease in pressure on the crust? It's like a pot over-boiling.

 

[Mongul]

so basically in your theory terrestrial species would be limited to mountainous ranges and select high plateaus.

Extraordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence, and it requires physical proof rather than a graphical explaination that could still be explained using the more substantiated tectonic plates theory.

how could dinosaurs live in alberta if it was underwater 65 million years ago?

 

[Ron in Regina]

so basically in your theory terrestrial species would be limited to mountainous ranges and select high plateaus.

Extraordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence, and it requires physical proof rather than a graphical explaination that could still be explained using the more substantiated tectonic plates theory.

how could dinosaurs live in alberta if it was underwater 65 million years ago?

Part of North America was covered by the Western Interior Seaway 60 to 100 million years ago.

Though T-Rex's and other terrestrial Dino-critters are found in Saskatchewan, most are aquatic.

In known geologic history, Alberta (and much of North America) has been under water, many times...
I'm not say'n I agree with the single theory in the video, but the arguement of "how could
dinosaurs live in alberta if it was underwater 65 million years ago?" is out.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is an interesting theory, and goes off in a totally difference direction form the established wisdom, always a good thing in science. There are several outstanding questions.

First, he does not tell us what is the mechanism of expansion. What is the outward force that keeps the earth expanding for such a long time?

Second, where was all the water before the expansion? Was it sitting under the land? Basically what he is saying is that millions of years ago earth was mostly land sitting on top of water. But he does not propose any mechanism by which such a planet could form. He will have to come up with a totally new mechanism of planet formation for him to be credible.

Another problem is evolution. If water was mostly subterranean millions of years ago, it could not be exposed to sunlight, which I think is essential for evolution. If the planet was mostly land, did the evolution occur much faster than we suppose, say in the past 70 million years or so (when there was plenty of surface water)?

The theory, while interesting, does not sound plausible.

 

[Ron in Regina]

A better argument to rip into the theory proposed in the above video would be to attack Neal
Adams idea of no subduction, and ask him to explain not only mountain building (the
process), but also earthquakes...I'd be very curious to hear how he's explain his way through
those questions. The man does raise some interesting points and explains himself in Laymen's
terms.

 

[Ron in Regina]

It is an interesting theory, and goes off in a totally difference direction form the established wisdom, always a good thing in science. There are several outstanding questions.

First, he does not tell us what is the mechanism of expansion. What is the outward force that keeps the earth expanding for such a long time?

Second, where was all the water before the expansion? Was it sitting under the land? Basically what he is saying is that millions of years ago earth was mostly land sitting on top of water. But he does not propose any mechanism by which such a planet could form. He will have to come up with a totally new mechanism of planet formation for him to be credible.

Another problem is evolution. If water was mostly subterranean millions of years ago, it could not be exposed to sunlight, which I think is essential for evolution. If the planet was mostly land, did the evolution occur much faster than we suppose, say in the past 70 million years or so (when there was plenty of surface water)?

The theory, while interesting, does not sound plausible.

The Video above is video 1/6...the other 5 (that I've found so far) cover most of your
questions, but for me to answer them would take 50 minutes (this guy rambles worse
than I do)....but the other successive videos to part one are an interesting and though
provoking watch, if you're interested. 8O

 

[MHz]

look in youtube or google video under 'expanding earth theory, there is a piece on mountain building.

SJP the water doesn't have to go underground it stays on top, the seas just look different today. The expansion is due to thermal updrafts in the molten core. That material is always under pressure (volcanoes being proof) Put a cracker on a pot of simmering portage and it will float around without being dragged under, even though the portage circulates top to bottom. The crust is like a cork in water, it floats even if the water is boiling.

Edit to add.
I haven't found this in any video yet but subduction zones go under existing land, expansion is just the other way, molten rock coming out in a very slow ooze. A direction change in current flow (towards or away from America's west coast) would still put pressure on the land under the Rockies. Another point (there was a reference to this) is that the crust that fits a 1ft dia circle will not fit as perfect on a 3ft one unless the land adjusts it shape slightly, The edges would want to go up and/or the middle would want to sink (relative to the edges) That would create pressure that would be a folding or raising of the land small mountains and hills. Rockies would be the first crack (never healed as it is still expanding) The East coast ranges would be a result , the bottom of the crust would be the hinge, anything above that point would be under compression.

 

[Mongul]

Part of North America was covered by the Western Interior Seaway 60 to 100 million years ago.

Though T-Rex's and other terrestrial Dino-critters are found in Saskatchewan, most are aquatic.

In known geologic history, Alberta (and much of North America) has been under water, many times...
I'm not say'n I agree with the single theory in the video, but the arguement of "how could
dinosaurs live in alberta if it was underwater 65 million years ago?" is out.

oh i know that the pairies used to be underwater, but if hes proposing that the earth is expanding, we should see only fairly young terrestrial dinosaurs and fairly old aquatic species buried in alberta, however fossils from the triassic and jurassic are also found from both aquatic and terrestrial animals. If the earth did expand overtime we should observe a defiency in terrestrial fossils as we travel back in time and an increase in aquatic fossils in the same area. That is not the situation in this case

 

[Mongul]

plus what would cause water to retreat and re-enter the basin if the earth is simply esxpanding?

 

[eanassir]

it is a great theory and I hope it ends up being the only right one.

The enlargement and contraction of Earth​

>> The earth has enlarged by many factors:
The crust of the earth has increased in thickness, since its formation; because of:
v As it cooled down, its crust increased in thickness.
v The falling of meteorites, celestial rocks and scattered sand from the space down upon the earth has lead to increased crust thickness (Till now tons of this sand and meteorites fall daily on the earth).
v The falling of the portions of the broken up planets has lead to the formation of the old mountains.
v In addition to the formation of new mountains by various geological factors.
v The chemical reactions of its various elements and substances has lead to formation of new substances with new properties, like various compounds on the Earth (Of course the mass in this instance will be the same, but the volume may vary.)
http://universeandquran.t35.com/#Formation_of_the_Earth
See in this link the interpretation of the aya 41: 10​

وَجَعَلَ فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ مِن فَوْقِهَا وَبَارَكَ فِيهَا وَقَدَّرَ فِيهَا أَقْوَاتَهَا فِي أَرْبَعَةِ أَيَّامٍ سَوَاء لِّلسَّائِلِينَ​

The explanation:
(And He made [mountains] that landed upon it, blessed it, and apportioned therein its sustenance in four days; alike for those who ask [provision.] )

The interpretation:
the meteorites started to fall down on it to become the mountains. Therefore, most of the mountains on the earth surface were originally meteorites.
¨ (and blessed it) means: He increased its size, and that was by many factors:
First: The crust of the earth started gradually to be more and more cold; so this increased its thickness.
Second: The falling down of meteorites upon it increased its mass and volume.
Third: The falling down of minute particles upon it (these are the fine particles that we see in a beam of sun rays entering a dark room through a window.) The origin of these particles are from meteorites which were broken up after their Doomsday, so that their parts scattered in the space.
Fourth: The metals increased its volume and size by combination with other elements, e.g. the oxygen may combine with iron, so it will increase in its volume, and ferric oxide will result; and carbon dioxide combines with calcium forming calcium carbonate; and nitrogen combines with sodium and potassium resulting in sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate; and so on gases combine with most of the metals so increasing their volume, and by this way the Earth size goes on increasing with the passing of time and years.
¨ (and apportioned therein its sustenance) means: He made the fall of rain upon it, and created the plant, trees and animals; to be as sustenance and provision for man; in other words: He apportioned these things as sustenance for man when He would create him on Earth; because He –be exalted –had created these things and prepared them for man before did He create man upon it, exactly just as had He created the breast of the woman before did He create the fetus in her womb.
¨ (in four days) means: He created all these things during a period of four thousand years

>> While the contraction of the Earth occurs because of its coldness; and it is now certainly colder than before; although its core is still very hot (and certainly even its core is less in heat than before.) Similarly, Venus has cooled down, as had Mercury before become cold and its crust contracted with the appearance of many trenchs and fissures on its surface.


eanassir
http://universeandquran.t35.com
​

 

[L Gilbert]

lol
This "theory" has been around since the mid 50s in various forms (forms meaning wording used to express it). As a method for explaining why the Earth expands and contracts, it is not a very good one.
This guy assumes that Earth initially had a solid surface. heheh
He assumes that Earth rapidly expanded during the last 200 million years without explaining why it would in the first place.
He assumes that Earth was initially about 75% of what it was now in spite of the paleomagnetic calculations that 400 million years ago the Earth was larger than it is today (by about 105%). It would have shrunk drastically faster than it grew in 200 million years. In order to do this the actual mass would have had to change significantly. Where did this mass come go to and come from?
Um, tectonic plates do NOT fit together perfectly (only generally) because they are NOT rigid.

 

[MHz]

oh i know that the pairies used to be underwater, but if hes proposing that the earth is expanding, we should see only fairly young terrestrial dinosaurs and fairly old aquatic species buried in alberta, however fossils from the triassic and jurassic are also found from both aquatic and terrestrial animals. If the earth did expand overtime we should observe a defiency in terrestrial fossils as we travel back in time and an increase in aquatic fossils in the same area. That is not the situation in this case

I'm not sure how you would arrive at that conclusion. The proposal is that the land masses we have today was the crust way back then, the current Oceans were not there so that water would have covered land that is not covered today. That seems fairly straight forward.
Everybody agrees that the Atlantic ridge is an expansion ridge, which would require a subduction zone. Like the pacific/north american plate. It should be old rock that is at that crack, the article points out that in the pacific that is the youngest rock, that means it is moving in the same direction as the Atlantic split, both sides of the split are moving away from each other. Since north america is not moving that means the magma coming out twice as fast in the other direction. If you have two opposing expansion joints and no subduction then you must have outward growth.
The young rocks have come out of the mantle last, that gives direction to the flow. Age of the Ocean Floor

 

[eanassir]

It is an interesting theory, and goes off in a totally difference direction form the established wisdom, always a good thing in science. There are several outstanding questions.

First, he does not tell us what is the mechanism of expansion. What is the outward force that keeps the earth expanding for such a long time?

Second, where was all the water before the expansion? Was it sitting under the land? Basically what he is saying is that millions of years ago earth was mostly land sitting on top of water. But he does not propose any mechanism by which such a planet could form. He will have to come up with a totally new mechanism of planet formation for him to be credible.

Another problem is evolution. If water was mostly subterranean millions of years ago, it could not be exposed to sunlight, which I think is essential for evolution. If the planet was mostly land, did the evolution occur much faster than we suppose, say in the past 70 million years or so (when there was plenty of surface water)?

The theory, while interesting, does not sound plausible.

First: Actually it is not "expanding", but "enlarging": the earth mass and volume increased by the factors we have mentioned in the reply #13
The earth crust increased as did the total mass also increase.​

Second: The water origin is from the Earth itself: gases emerged from the earth in large amounts, especially at its early phases of development when it was very hot and flaming; such emerging gases led to the formation of the atmosphere of the earth. Among these gases were the oxygen and hydrogen, which combined by electric charge forming the water. And then the water cycle was formed: liquid water → vapor → rain → floods and rivers → seas and oceans → and the cycle continue.
Some of this water percolated to form the underground water and water springs.​

¨ "The origin of the gaseous layers is from the Earth itself, and they fill or occupy its atmosphere.
Similarly, each planet has its own seven gaseous layers.
http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The_Gaseous_Heavens​

God – be glorified – said in the Quran 65:12 ​

اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ وَمِنَ الْأَرْضِ مِثْلَهُنَّ ​

The explanation:
(God [is He] Who created seven [ancient ethereal] heavens, and the equal [number of gaseous heavens he –then – created, out] of the earth)​

The interpretation:
It is God Who had created seven ethereal layers in the ancient time, then He created the Earth, and created - from the Earth - seven gaseous layers." ​

¨ In addition, the origin of the water is from the earth itself, as in the Quran 79: 31​

أَخْرَجَ مِنْهَا مَاءهَا وَمَرْعَاهَا​

The explanation:
([And He] produced from it [: the earth] the water thereof and the pasture thereof.)
The interpretation:
Water is a combination of oxygen and hydrogen, and these gases emerged from the Earth, then from their combination by an electrical current, water resulted. Therefore, the origin of the water is from the earth."
http://universeandquran.t35.com/#Formation_of_the_Earth​

Another point:
There is no such evolution; but God created what He wanted and what He wants wherever, whenever and whatever He pleases, according to the circumstances, conditions and the environment.
And of course sunlight is necessary to life, and particularly the plant needs it for the photosynthesis; and the plant was created before the animal.​

eanassir
http://universeandquran.t35.com​

 

[L Gilbert]

roflmao Again we have an explanation of a scientific matter explained by an unscientific person using a highly suspicious interpretation of an unscientific religious text. Good for a laugh.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'm not sure how you would arrive at that conclusion. The proposal is that the land masses we have today was the crust way back then,

Land mass is crust. So?

the current Oceans were not there so that water would have covered land that is not covered today.

If they weren't there, then how would they have covered any land not covered today?

That seems fairly straight forward.

Really? Oceans that weren't there actually covered land that isn't covered today. *scatches head*

Everybody agrees that the Atlantic ridge is an expansion ridge, which would require a subduction zone. Like the pacific/north american plate. It should be old rock that is at that crack, the article points out that in the pacific that is the youngest rock, that means it is moving in the same direction as the Atlantic split, both sides of the split are moving away from each other. Since north america is not moving that means the magma coming out twice as fast in the other direction. If you have two opposing expansion joints and no subduction then you must have outward growth.
The young rocks have come out of the mantle last, that gives direction to the flow. Age of the Ocean Floor

The North American Plate isn't moving? Any evidence for this statement?

Tectonic Plate Motion

Plate motion

For the most part, the North American Plate moves in roughly a southwest direction away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
The motion of the plate cannot be driven by subduction as no part of the North American Plate is being subducted (except for a very small section comprising part of the Puerto Rico Trench), thus other mechanisms continue to be investigated.
One recent study suggests that a mantle convective current is propelling the plate. [4]

- North American Plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html

Movement of the Plates
One of the key principles of geology, discussed elsewhere in this book, is uniformitarianism: the idea that processes occurring now also occurred in the past. The reverse usually is also true; thus, as we have noted, the plates are still moving, just as they have done for millions of years. Thanks to satellite remote sensing, geologists are able to measure this rate of movement. (See Remote Sensing for more on this subject.) Not surprisingly, its pace befits the timescale of geologic, as opposed to human, processes: the fastest-moving plates are careening forward at a breathtaking speed of 4 in. (10 cm) per year. The ground beneath Americans' feet (assuming they live in the continental United States, east of the Juan de Fuca) is drifting at the rate of 1.2 in. (3 cm) every year, which means that in a hundred years it will have shifted 10 ft. (3 m).

- plate tectonics: Definition from Answers.com

Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

 

[MHz]

Land mass is crust. So?If they weren't there, then how would they have covered any land not covered today?Really? Oceans that weren't there actually covered land that isn't covered today. *scatches head*
The North American Plate isn't moving? Any evidence for this statement?

If you went to youtube and looked for expanding earth theory you wouldn't have any questions.
The water, if the expansion joints (all underwater meaning they are lower than the land masses that surround them) could be closed up (run in reverse) at some point the water would start to flood what is today dry land. Do you follow that part?
When it was closed up the water was on what today is dry land, as the expansion started it made cracks that were lower than the existing land, when water filled those cracks it became less deep where it had been (shorelines receded towards the expansion cracks), the wider the cracks got the more water was focused in those areas that were new land (all still much lower than any existing crust)

The Atlantic expansion moves the north american plate to the north-west. The pacific expansion should move the north american plate to the east (more or less). Since it cannot move the plate the magma only makes new land going to the west of the west coast of north america.
For evidence, the link I posted has the ocean floor color coded into ages of the rock. Red is the newest. In the north-pacific there is a lot of red to the west of the crack but little or none going to the east. We have been told that the pacific plate is going under the north american plate. Apparently it isn't, from the crack the pacific plate is expanding to the west, to go under the north american plate is should be moving to the east.

Does this clear up the 'not moving' statement?

roflmao Again we have an explanation of a scientific matter explained by an unscientific person using a highly suspicious interpretation of an unscientific religious text. Good for a laugh.

Are you sure you should be mocking anybody, you aren't catching any speeding tickets in understanding the concepts yourself.

 

[eanassir]

The expansion of the earth concerning particularly the drifting of the continents; it occurred, and it may be going on slowly.

But there is also the increase in the volume of the earth and the increase in the mass of the earth.

The mass increased because of the falling of meteorites, and fine particles from the outer space.
And the volume increased because of the falling of meteorites and formation of the old mountains, which later was followed by the eruption of volcanoes leading to new mountains formation due to this eruption and to some other geological factors.
The increase in volume also includes various chemical reactions between various elements and substances leading to the appearance of other substances with other properties, and this had led to the increase in the volume of the Earth.

The Moon detached from the Earth in the past; and as such all the moons of the planets were detached from their planets in the same way.

The moutains has some fixing effect on the crust of the earth: as I think may be impeding the drift of continents!

The fixing effect of the mountains, and their fasting on the earth surface is mentioned in many ayat of the Quran like the aya 78: 6-7

أَلَمْ نَجْعَلِ الْأَرْضَ مِهَادًا . وَالْجِبَالَ أَوْتَادًا​

The explanation:
(Have we not made the earth well-prepared for you [people]?​

And the mountains [as] pegs?)​

eanassir
http://universeandquran.t35.com​