Thread: Earth growing?

Originally Posted by Sandform

Interesting.. but how were mountains formed?

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Interesting.. but how were mountains formed?

god did it.

Originally Posted by Mark75

god did it.

And on the 8th day Chuck Norris was made.

I like my scientific documentaries to be full of funky music. It adds to the credibility.

Originally Posted by DNK

I like my scientific documentaries to be full of funky music. It adds to the credibility.

LMAO

Apparently the author is a comic book illustrator :/

So:
1. How did the mountains form?
2. What happened in the other so many hundreds of millions of years before it was all together?
3. How were there dinosaurs and land mammals when there blatantly would have been no dry land?
4. What's in the middle of the Earth then? I mean, you've octupled its volume in 200 million years.

This is a very old theory actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth_theory

Now that I think of it this thoery makes no sense.

Originally Posted by DNK

Apparently the author is a comic book illustrator :/

So:
1. How did the mountains form?
2. What happened in the other so many hundreds of millions of years before it was all together?
3. How were there dinosaurs and land mammals when there blatantly would have been no dry land?
4. What's in the middle of the Earth then? I mean, you've octupled its volume in 200 million years.

(First off I don't actually "believe" in this idea...however, It doesn't change the fact that it is out there and atleast worth footnoting.)

1.
2. I'm confused as to what the question is.
3. There would have been mostly dry land, with pockets of water all over the planet. "there were no oceans just shallow seas."
4. Don't ask me I don't know. I'm gonna just quote wiki or something. The most well known proponent of expanding earth theory, S. Warren Carey (1956, 1976, 1997), also proposed some sort of mass increase in planets and said that a final solution to the problem is only possible in a cosmological perspective in connection with the expansion of the universe. As Carey points out, this model is not affected by the criticism of Stewart: Because if the smaller radius in the past is accompanied with a smaller mass, both effects compensate each other and gravity at earth's surface remains nearly constant, or if the latter effect is greater, surface gravity would be less than today, which might be an explanation of the great size of the dinosaurs. [16] [17] [18]

SURE, LOL.



I have to say I deem the hypothesis at hand as one that is likely to develop a severe case of 'bullshititis'.

Originally Posted by Neruo

SURE, LOL.



I have to say I deem the hypothesis at hand as one that is likely to develop a severe case of 'bullshititis'.

Why is that? All sides of the continents fit eachother, the same trees in the antarctic are in Africa. The only reason you say this is because you've been taught a different theory first.

I actually find this theory intriging...however, I dont know why this theory would send the rest of science "out the window". I figured the explination of the mountains would be similar to what he said too.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Why is that? All sides of the continents fit eachother, the same trees in the antarctic are in Africa. The only reason you say this is because you've been taught a different theory first.

Geosynchronous satellites can measure the drift-speed of continents (2-3cm per year). This is detectable, and has been observed. The Earth is not increasing in size apart from the random stellar junk that falls into its gravity well. This is a crackpot theory that's really got nothing going for it.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Geosynchronous satellites can measure the drift-speed of continents (2-3cm per year). This is detectable, and has been observed. The Earth is not increasing in size apart from the random stellar junk that falls into its gravity well. This is a crackpot theory that's really got nothing going for it.

Haven't some of them sped up to more that 2-3cm a year? Or have in the past.

I don't have any information on that one way or another, but I doubt it. Even so, that wouldn't be evidence in favour of a 'growing earth', simply evidence of faster continental drift.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Why is that? All sides of the continents fit eachother, the same trees in the antarctic are in Africa. The only reason you say this is because you've been taught a different theory first.

rofl.

Originally Posted by Sandform

You know, that's actually very interesting.
But where did the water come from?? And why would the Earth expand?
It sort of makes sense...the universe expands too, because of dark energy. (probably)

:p Perhaps The water from Mars didn't dry, but Mars has already undergone the "big cruch" theory.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Geosynchronous satellites can measure the drift-speed of continents (2-3cm per year). This is detectable, and has been observed. The Earth is not increasing in size apart from the random stellar junk that falls into its gravity well. This is a crackpot theory that's really got nothing going for it.

Originally Posted by wiki

"The Expanding Earth theory is an attempt to explain the position and movement of continents (continental drift) on the surface of the Earth."

The fact that continents are moving away from eachother doesn't discredit the theory...I mean...it is an attempt to explain the same thing...


The expanding earth theory says the exact same thing (that continents drift), it just says that while it may "seem" like it is drifting, it is actually expanding (thus creating the apparent drift).

Meanwhile I'm just keeping an open mind...I really would like to believe what I Was taught first...since it would mean I didn't believe something false, but that doesn't change the fact that the theory is out there and has at least some logic behind it.

but can it really be called a solid theory if there isnt a reasonable reason for why the earth is expanding?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

but can it really be called a solid theory if there isnt a reasonable reason for why the earth is expanding?

Don't ask me I don't believe in it...but "we don't know why it is happening" isn't really enough to say that it isn't happening...

Originally Posted by Sandform

2. I'm confused as to what the question is.

So, the Earth expands from "pangaea" to the current form about 200 million years ago. Did it start then or not, if not what happened before then, if so, why?

And the Earth would have been completely submerged. It originally would have had a surface area 1/4th as large. The current Earth's surface is 2/3 water. The "old" Earth would have therefore been 8/3 water. It wouldn't have been a world of small seas but one massive, extremely deep ocean.

This is true...conveniently enough, isnt that what it was like when life started forming? Or does it just seem that way because all the nature shows on the past only show what happened in the water?

Originally Posted by DNK

So, the Earth expands from "pangaea" to the current form about 200 million years ago. Did it start then or not, if not what happened before then, if so, why?

And the Earth would have been completely submerged. It originally would have had a surface area 1/4th as large. The current Earth's surface is 2/3 water. The "old" Earth would have therefore been 8/3 water. It wouldn't have been a world of small seas but one massive, extremely deep ocean.

I don't know what happened before then. The theory basically relies on the concept that the ocean crusts are only 200 mill years old...but I think it fails to take into account the life cycle of what they are viewing...It is like saying human beings have only existed up to 113 years when you can't find any dead bodies...Or maybe a better analogy would be that X tree has only existed 200 years.

The theory suggest that water comes after, for example maybe there is water from inside the earth, or maybe all those little pieces of ice that hit the earth contributed to it.

I am just trying to explain the theory, the theory says there would have been shallow seas, not water, water, water everywhere.

It's definitely an interesting theory. From what I've heard, life supposedly began in the oceans (or seas, same thing basically). And if the earth used to be smaller, it would be even more covered by water. This would've been the ideal case for life to begin in water, having most of the planet be water.

The way to be sure of this or not, is to find a way to very accurately measure the size of the earth, then wait a few thousand years and do it again.

With the Earth currently weighing in at around 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms, meteorites and such getting caught in earth's gravity is not enough of an explanation for it to grow that much. Earth supposedly gains around 110 kg from meteorites a year. This is probably a conservative estimate though. Let's say we gain 2,000 kg (2 Mg) of mass a year, 2,000 times 4.5 billion is still 12 orders of magnitude smaller than earth's current mass.

Despite any faults in the Pangaea theory, I think it still holds more credibility than the earth growing theory. At least until a reasonable explanation for the increase in size is given.