Behold a fascinating video explaining the Expanding Earth theory of geological change over time. The idea is that the earth was once far smaller than it is now with a surface consisting of land only. Over millions of years the earth expanded, tearing the land apart into the continents that we know today and creating new surface which ended up as ocean floor. I don't believe any of it, but the animation showing the great land mass being assembled and disassembled is compelling. [YouTube]
Behold a fascinating video explaining the Expanding Earth theory of geological change over time. The idea is that the earth was once far smaller than it is now with a surface consisting of land only. Over millions of years the earth expanded, tearing the land apart into the continents that we know today and creating new surface which ended up as ocean floor. I don't believe any of it, but the animation showing the great land mass being assembled and disassembled is compelling. [YouTube]
Remember that plate tectonics, as an accepted theory, has only been around since the 1960s.
Where is Immanuel Velikovsky when you need him?
The "lunar eclypse", as you so delightfully misspell it, is just a byproduct of the expanding Earth temporarily blotting out the sun.
I think nature and cosmos are very sophisticated and complex systems.
The theory of an expanding earth is very simple-minded, like the idea that the earth is flat and not round.
In another way, it could make sense. The core of our earth is energy, and energy is always looking for a calm state, a form of release. Physicists talk about it a lot. All matter is trying for absolute zero, because it's hard to constantly move.
I can see his point, it's just a step up from pangea (is that the correct name for the mass of one land that rode in the oceans?)... but something is missing, so I can't quite believe it.
Il faut arrêter de fumer! La géométrie ne suffit pas, il faut le gonfler ce globe. Comment négliger des subductions du paléozoïque ?
Try this for one sentence - the author himself concedes that to adopt this hypothesis over the current continentual drift theory (which today is well supported by a number of observations) a shit-load of science, also all well supported by observations would have to be abandoned. So, is it easier to believe that this theory is correct AND we've made a massive number of mistakes on a whole lot of other distinct fields, or that this guy doesn't understand geology as well as he thinks?
Considering the silly things he says (subduction can't happen due to the density of the mantle? Bollocks! The density has nothing to do with it - the mantle is liquid and hot, which means the subduced rock is heated to liquid, allowing gradual mixing) I think we're safe in science.
WHAT THE FUCK!?
This "expanding Earth" thing hardly qualifies as a theory. It begs the obvious questions of what drives this expansion, and what prevents ocean-swallowing cracks from forming. His generalizations and insistent tone do not make his claims any more factual.
Yes, the edges of many land-masses do match up like puzzle-pieces. Plate tectonics explains this very well. However, all the evidence indicates that the Atlantic is slowly expanding while the Pacific narrows. There's a subduction zone beneath the Pacific, hence the more volatile volcanic activity in the "Ring of Fire," more volatile than one gets in an expansion zone like the Atlantic's Mariana Trench. Australia and Antarctica were connected, long ago, and Australia may have been connected to China longer ago than that. Both continents have been migrating south for over 100 million years.
As for the presence of penguins in both S. America and Antarctica, and of closely-related species of conifers and redwoods in Asia and N. America, plate tectonics has little to do with that --- ice ages are responsible. During these cold periods, a good deal of water gets locked up in polar ice, and coastlines expand as sea levels drop. Flightless birds migrated between Antarctica and S. America, while vast forests spread across the Bering Strait and became the dominant flora in both Asia and N. America.
The building and melting of polar ice caps during cold and warm periods causes sea levels to fall and rise. Most of Europe was a shallow sea during much of the Mesozoic era, and so more marine reptiles than dinosaurs are found there --- but it dried out as the climate cooled, so many prehistoric land mammal fossils can be found there.
This guy's animation is fairly accurate regarding the S. America / Africa connection, but he really had to distort the coastlines of the Pacific-facing land-masses to make it all fit. There are good maps showing the continental shelves that make it easy to see how things actually did fit together during the good ol' Pangaea days. (Not THAT good --- most of the inland regions were burning hot, dry desert! But that was before the dinosaurs, even.)
They never show you the opposite side of the earth, because they don't fit together on that side.
The reason for this is that instead of a single ball of earth, it was one giant continent. It only ever fit together on one side.
Of course it's fake, since the earth is exactly the same today as it was millions (or billion or trillions) of years ago, when Xenu first deposited the bodies of countless aliens into our volcanos, trapping their souls in our bodies.
THE POINT IS WE DONT KNOW AS MUCH AS WE THINK WE DO AND WHAT LITTLE WE KNOW SHOWS US HOW MUCH WE DONT
could have been centrifugal.
No, I don't have any qualifications either.
a) it was denser, and thus gravity would be higher
or
b) there was less mass
We can eliminate a) as unlikely due to the presence of large animals such as dinosaurs during that time period. So apparently it picked up a bunch of mass somewhere. Gradually. Assuming a planet with a surface area of 25% of today's (based on the current land-ocean ratio), the mass would be 1/8 of the current mass. So dividing by 70 million years, that means we're gaining 82 trillion tons of mass per year! Also, I would say, pretty unlikely.
On a side note (I feel like I can ramble since no one is going to read this far anyway), I liked how the wikipedia article says
However, modern physics does not support the idea of an aether which is absorbed by matter or is transformed into new matter.
and yet concepts like dark matter, dark energy, and antimatter are widely accepted.
http://janus.astro.umd.edu/astro/stars/SunsLife.html
I honestly think that the earth is expanding. Once you begin to look at the evidence a more complete picture begins to come into view.
I reckon there is some subduction and can't see why some expanding earth theorists have such a problem with it - there's still room enough for an ocean-less globe in our past.
There's a heap of evidence accumulated by now for an expanding earth, we still lack a truly convincing engine of expansion, however, and it should really be one that adds enough mass. Get thinking...
Expanding Earth...
- Continents Fit Together Perfectly.
- Explains that mountains form when the curve of the earth buckles and compresses into itself.
- Fits perfectly fine with fossil records.
- Suggests a smaller earth with less gravity hence larger dinosaurs with anatomies that can support the weight.
- Attempts to explain the surface features of other planets in our solar system including Mars and Jupiter's Europa. ( does a pretty good job )
Plate Tectonics
- Suggests heat escapes the center of the earth in plumes and that predictable heat convection currents push land masses into each other yet the earths core has recently been suspected to be "chaotic" and unpredictable. ( not sure how accurate this is )
- Has "supposed" palaeomagnetic evidence which says the earth size is fixed within 0.8% accuracy but is argued to be flawed and EE theorists say it needs more re-evaluation.
- Does not explain why the continents fit together on all sides.
- Superceeded Expanding Earth as the popular accepted theory before any palaeomagnetic evidence came into existence.
I am just a layman... but I have been doing my reading... I hope this gives people something to go from. In any event... neither side has convinced me that they are 100% correct... but "popular science" has proven to me that they are really ignorant to this very plausible possibility.
The "less gravity hence larger dinosaurs with anatomies that can support the weight" item fails in my view. The density of our planet is behind its mass. In order for there to have been a significant change in gravity between the dinosaur age and now, there would have had to have been a significant increase in mass. Where is the evidence of a significant increase in earth's mass between the dinosaur age and now? This increase can't be explained through evidence of a simple non-apocalyptic meteor or comet strike.
Gee... I dunno... How does dark matter create itself? What is it? Where's the proof... Wish I knew... But you don't have to prove it to me for me think it's a possibility...
Honestly... can you even prove the age of the Earth? No... you can only guess at it...
You've brought the concept of gravitational mass changing over a finite and presumably measurable period of time, however. If you're going to cite the dinosaurs as evidence of possible less gravity, surely you must have an idea as to how/why less gravity became more gravity over time?
The most easily found flaws:
1 - if Earth was expanding to this day, there wouldnt be continents collinding right now
2 - its a false assumption of the uneducated that the first supercontinent on Earth was Pangea. It was only THE LAST supercontinent. Scientists have evidences of many other supercontinents that appeared and disappeared in the last 4 billion years (Pangea is only 200 million years old).
The expanding Earth Theory cannot explain all the evidence for previous supercontinents and the continuous cycle of collision and separation of the tectonic plates.
obviously a higher power can control the quantum structure and add or remove quantum information.
But a period of expansion completes the puzzle
how else do you explain disalinement of the earliest south american stone callender to lose about 15 degrees of the summer solstice, and the inconsistency of the pyrimids age and the astrinomical significance of there position and thats just the begining forgeting the fact that the continents fit allmost perfectly together on a smaller globe.
regards a more accurate model
To understand this better the contemplation of quantum phenomina is helpfull and a mind open to the idea that we and our universe is created.