Expanding Earth Theory

Got this link from Coast to Coast AM, its Neal Adams (the comic book artist) doing some animations on the Expanding Earth theory!

Seems pretty credible!

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

What you think about it?

Credible or crazy?

It actually seems more credible than the floating plates theory…

etc

I didn’t know that tectonic plates were a theory. I thought they were a fact.

Yes, because drawing cartoons really helps a crank ‘scientific theory’ gain credibility…

Credible? I’ll have to actually, you know, read it; but where does the mass of a planet’s “growth” come from? Love and honeybees?

Maybe the core expands as it cools. It’s not mass you need, it’s volume.

He certainly comes off as an obsessive kook, with all his railing against “the scientists.”

It’s funny to think that continental drift WAS just a theory in the 50s and into the 60s. I remember learning about in fifth grade, it’s just weird to think it was so controversial for awhile.

Yeah, well, here’s the real reason you shouldn’t take Neal Adams seriously.

They are, but the term used for the description of the mechanics is “tectonic plate theory.” In science, “theory” does not mean “we’re not sure if it’s true yet,” it describes a set of laws/observations about something that’s too complex to reduce down to a simple statement like a scientific law. A law is like a catapult: it does one thing, and that’s all. A theory is like a car: you can swap out parts, change the tires, paint it a new color, but overall it still has the same function, and the legitimacy of the function is not in question.

There’s no such thing as “just a theory” in science. That said, this Expanding Earth thing sounds more crazy to me than anything else. The videos are cool demos, and I can see where the idea comes from, but it leaves too many questions out there.

  • If the planets are expanding…where’s the extra volume coming from? Is their mass increasing? Is it just…what, air in the core or something?

  • An expansion in size and volume would seem to play havoc with the orbits and motion of the planets. Since one of the videos mentions a time period when Jupiter became big enough to be our gravitational guardian against meteorite strikes (hence the lack of cratering on the “newer” surfaces), clearly an increase in mass is implied. How does the increase manage to remain constant throughout the solar system. Why didn’t Jupiter’s mass increase disrupt our orbits? Wouldn’t more massive bodies require adjusted orbit trails, thus changing our proximity to the sun and possibly even pushing us out of the “life belt” in which terrestrial life can exist?

  • The fossil record shows immense seas at the time of Pangaea. In order for the oxygenation of the primordial atmosphere to take place, you need large oceans to provide the planet with the source of rains that encourage plant growth. Unbeset by animal life, plants thrived and coverted much of the toxic CO2 in the atmosphere into oxygen that animal life could then utilize and this allowed them to leave the seas. If there were nothing but “shallow seas” at this time, where was the teeming mass of sea life the fossil record indicates living?

  • Still on the ocean thing, the Sahara and many other desert areas were clearly at the bottom of an ocean at one point. Unless the simulation video is deeply flawed in its depiction of water distribution, this is not part of Expanding Earth theory. Where’d all the fish bones come from, then?

  • The platypus and other marsupials wandered around Africa, Antartica, and South America 65 million years ago? I suppose marsupial-like animals could have, but platypi in the time of the dinosaurs? I think not. This comment makes me wonder if this is just one of a series of “SCIENCE IS WRONG!!!” theories this guy has.

  • If gravitational pull can alter the emergence of new tectonic spread (the moon), how does the expanding body manage to remain spherical and not distend due to said gravitational pull? Last I checked, the moon is still pretty round.

  • If there is no subduction, what the fuck are mountains?

I don’t know. I’m loathe to just discount the theory, because it’s actually kind of a neat idea, but it doesn’t seem to really jibe with reality too well. It reminds me of how people used to think that maggots and flies and such were actually spontaneously generated by rotting meat and rancid milk. The observation has a certain surface logic to it, but appearances can be deceiving.

With the notable exception of water, most things contract as they cool.

If we can deduce that the sun expands and contracts why would it be so impossible to believe that planets can’t, at least in a smaller degree?

Is the earth even a perfect sphere? Don’t our balls expand and contract? The earth is a living scrotum!

etc

No the earth is not a perfect sphere.

I think you’re having a hard time undestanding “science”, in the sense that theories aren’t just some vague idea with many contradictory opinions and no way for the ordinary person to sort through them.

I guess the better question i could respond with would be “why should the earth expand and contract?”

Seriously. That stuff further up is almost Koontz Logic.

Oh, as to the gravitational question;

As long as the TOTAL mass and distribution of this mass remained constant relative to today, the net gravitational effects of these changes upon the solar system should be zero (ie, everything stays the same).

If the earth is, ahem, “growing” - you know, like a plant - then no, the system would change and the planetary orbits would be altered.

This individual is lacking some more detailed information; there is plenty of evidence of “micro-plate tectonics” occuring, such as the Colorado Shield, dozens of micro plate “islands” actually colliding with and accreting onto the Pacific coast states, ect.

I like all sorts of different inquiry; but if you want to overturn the apple cart the burdon of proof is on you, not on the establishment to disprove your wild ideas. Since he’s spent more time creating web animations to demonstrate his little idea more then the hard research needed to prove it (not to mention all the previous research he needs to disprove), it’s clear he’s quite an adept in dumbassery.

Yes, I do know of ‘theory’ as in scientific method and whatnut. Don’t be so patronizing just because of a post you dont agree with (i just said it seemed credible yeesh, never said it was fact). Some of you guys need to get the nuts out of your ass.

Do you believe in ghosts or the life hereafter or God? Whatever. It was Al Qaida.

etc

I’m not going to wave my hand and call this guy a complete tool, because I’m not a geologist. I don’t agree that his bizarre ideas contradict tectonic plates though, since those are simply big hunks of rock floating on the earth’s mantle. Big whoop. I can also think of at least one reason the Earth could grow in size, besides the absurdly small ones like annual accretion of space dust, etc.

For example, when a volcano spews out X million tons of lava, the outside of the Earth becomes larger (in that small limited area). It doesn’t, as far as I’ve ever heard anyone claim, also shrink in size to make up for the missing stuff in the middle. There is plenty of material in the mantle, and as some of it comes out, a small portion of the ultra-dense core could easily become far less dense and fill in in the mantle. Just like compressing air into a diver’s tank, then letting it out again: change in volume/size, no change in mass.

Also: the mass of the Earth would remain unchanged, therefore no change in gravity. Large-body gravity depends on the center of mass and so as long as it more or less grows in size equally around the center with no change in mass, there’s no change in gravity. If the earth were twice as large and half as dense, the moon would continue to orbit exactly as it does now.

I’m going to watch all those videos now, though, to see if he does make some remarks which are completely outlandish. And because it’s Saturday and there’s nothing going on just this minute.

Which, of course, would not cause the “skin” of the planet to tear and rip, pushing up new tectonic surfaces. His theory specifically requires the planet to expand in volume from the inside, thus tearing the crust apart like an orange peel. To do this requires either a massive change of the state of matter in the core, or additional matter somehow materializing inside the planet. At no point in the videos I watched does he even attempt to explain how this would happen.

Also: the mass of the Earth would remain unchanged, therefore no change in gravity. Large-body gravity depends on the center of mass and so as long as it more or less grows in size equally around the center with no change in mass, there’s no change in gravity. If the earth were twice as large and half as dense, the moon would continue to orbit exactly as it does now.

You’re correct, except his theory seems to demand an increase in mass and, therefore, gravity. Part of one of the Mars videos (don’t remember which one, sorry) specifically mentions the lack of cratering on “new” tectonic surfaces as being due to Jupiter finally growing large enough to be the inner planets’ gravitational shield against space debris. This, again, demands a change in actual mass in order to create a larger gravitational field. Or he doesn’t understand the difference between mass and volume, which would hardly shock me.

Again, his ideas strike me as surface logic without any real in-depth rational thought behind them.

Credible? The guy is a crank, with a background as a cartoon artist rather than as a scientist. The idea that the scientific community is one big conspiracy out to HIDE THE TRUTH!!! about geology is ridiculous; if he had something interesting to say other scientists would indeed listen. Taking a look at his website it’s immediately obvious why it only gets play on a gaming web forum.

From what I’ve read there are indeed alot of unknowns about how the earth’s core works and the details of Plate Tectonics. Nonetheless it’s pretty well established, and this guy has just a bit more convincing to do before his hypothesis is even worth debating.

He loses either way. If mass increases as the Earth’s volume increases, so would its gravity. But, if mass remains constant, the increase in radius would mean Earth’s gravity on its surface would decrease, since gravitational pull of an object assumes pull by mass from the object’s center and that all the mass is concentrated at that center.

Increasing volume = increasing radius = increasing distance from center of mass = decreasing pull of gravity by that object on objects on its surface.

Come on, guys. “He doesn’t know physics…I don’t know physics…sounds good to me!”

The cause of the expansion is crystilization. Many elements of the earth form crystals when heated to high temperatures and then rapidly cooled.