Expanding earth

[bascule]

I found this hilarious:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

 

Yes, continental drift is a massive scientific conspiracy. The real answer is the earth is expanding!

 

This video comes from Neal Adams, a former comic book artist.

 

Wikipedia page here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

[insane_alien]

yeah, we've been over that one several times on this forum already. we deduced it was physically impossible then, we would reach the same conclusion now.

[mooeypoo]

I found this hilarious:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

 

Yes, continental drift is a massive scientific conspiracy. The real answer is the earth is expanding!

 

This video comes from Neal Adams, a former comic book artist.

 

Wikipedia page here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

 

 

Yup this guy is doing that for years. He's also claiming the earth is hollow or something like that.

 

Check this out, from the awesomeness of the "Skeptic's Guide" - an interview with Neal Adams: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=51

 

Pretty.. uhm.. sad.

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

I am discussing this same video on another forum.

[KrisSam]

saw this last week on another forum. kind of interesting, regardless of its validity.

[mooeypoo]

Guys, I was wondering - anyone knows what he claims is supposed to be the active effect of the expansion?

 

What.. someone's blowing hot air into the earth? It's the accumulation of all the human flatuses ?

 

I'd love to know how he explains that..

 

oh.. and I *loved* the way the continents twist around to fit one another as he goes 'backwards' in time, as if they're made of flexible rubber... that's hilarious.

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

oh.. and I *loved* the way the continents twist around to fit one another as he goes 'backwards' in time, as if they're made of flexible rubber... that's hilarious.

What is even more funny is that he says that this is impossible. He flat out states that the continent can't move around on their plates. So the animation directly contradicts what he is saying.

 

He says it right at the start (from 00:20 to 00:35). Then you can clearly see continent twisting al little later (01:40 to 01:53).

 

If he can't even make a cartoon Earth shrink without violating what he says, what chance is the real world going to have to match up with what he says.

[JohnB]

So..... After a certain point will the Earth rupture and fly around the Solar system going Bththththththththththththththpppppp?

[Ophiolite]

I find it interesting that you are all ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, as if only a charlatan could contemplate such a notion.

If you had studied geology prior to the plate tectonic revolution that occured in the 1960s, then you would have found the expanding Earth hypothesis was accepted as a bona fide explanation for global structural features. Continental drift was rejected as pretty unlikely because of the absence of any plausible mechanism.

New evidence, and a mechanism, have led to acceptance of plate tectonics, and the expanding Earth theory is rightly discarded. It struck me, however, that your reactions to the idea smacked more of dogma than science. You might wish to consider that..... or not.

[mooeypoo]

I find it interesting that you are all ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, as if only a charlatan could contemplate such a notion.

No no.. not a charlatan.. a person knowing NOTHING of contemporary science, who ignores evidence on purpose, and preaches against the evidence while calling the entire scientific community idiots.

 

Oh wait.. so maybe he is a Charlatan.

 

If you had studied geology prior to the plate tectonic revolution that occured in the 1960s, then you would have found the expanding Earth hypothesis was accepted as a bona fide explanation for global structural features. Continental drift was rejected as pretty unlikely because of the absence of any plausible mechanism.

Wonderful, I would love to have resources for this, to see what it was that caused people to doubt the theories we have not only about geology but also planatary science. But that makes no difference at all to the treatment of this specific guy.

 

Everything we know about geology today doesn't even *suggest* an expansion, and beyond that, everything we know about *PLANETS* today makes planatary expansion (after they are *solid*) ridiculous.

 

Further, I must point something out to you: The fact that *in the past* a certain theory was accepted does not make it not false today. And the fact that certain theory was accepted in the past does not make it not utterly ridiculous in the light of current FACTS.

 

The entire scientific community used to think the sun and outer planets are revolving around earth. They developed intricate and sophisticated models to explain that movement.

 

And yet, if anyone claims *today* that the sun revolves around the earth he will be treated as an utter ignorant.

 

And even FURTHERMORE than that, This guy doesn't only 'suggest' his theory, he does it by blatantly accusing the scientific community of a paranoid delusional conspiracy; all the while he is ignoring facts and mocking science.

 

Yah, we're mocking this, of course we are, it's not a valid theory, and even worse, it's a POOR presentation of one.

 

 

 

New evidence, and a mechanism, have led to acceptance of plate tectonics, and the expanding Earth theory is rightly discarded. It struck me, however, that your reactions to the idea smacked more of dogma than science. You might wish to consider that..... or not.

 

See, that's the point. If someone would come onto this forum (and it has happened) and suggested a theory of expanding earth - but he would do it by substantiating, by giving explanation of why current science is wrong, and will *not* resort to mockery of science, I can tell you abotu *myself* that I would read his words and answer his claims honestly and respectfully.

 

I don't have respect to this guy's theory because he doesn't have respect for himself; claiming conspiracy and playing on people's ignorance while announcing he is spreading the news of the scientific conspiracy theory - and calling scientists blind fools (you should watch his other movies, and listen to the interview I supplied) is having no respect to the ARGUMENT or the people you're arguing WITH.

 

Merriam Webster Dictionary says about "Charlatan":

1 : quack

2 : one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : fraud, faker

 

The theory itself may be considered by someone who isn't a charlatan, but by presenting it *this way*, this specific guy *is* a Charlatan.

 

To summarize: It's not necessarily *what* he is saying, he's HOW he's presenting it. If you think we are being dogmatic, I really strongly recommend you go over some of the other highly ridiculous theories people post in this specific forum and you will see that we usually are a lot more patient, and willing to listen, with people who present their theory - as 'whackie' as it may sound on face value - with respect, if they are honest with their explanations.

 

 

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

I find it interesting that you are all ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, as if only a charlatan could contemplate such a notion.

I am not ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, just the expanding Earth that guy presents. He contradicts himself (he says that the continents can't twist, and yet to make the continents fit he has to twist them).

 

If you had studied geology prior to the plate tectonic revolution that occured in the 1960s, then you would have found the expanding Earth hypothesis was accepted as a bona fide explanation for global structural features. Continental drift was rejected as pretty unlikely because of the absence of any plausible mechanism.

Yes and now we know better. And yet, this guy is still trying to peddle something that has been completely discredited.

 

It struck me, however, that your reactions to the idea smacked more of dogma than science. You might wish to consider that..... or not.

I did consider it. That was why I was involved in the discussion on the other forum. I was willing to enter into a debate, looking at the evidence on both sides and then make my on conclusions. I posted about what I thought of it and why I thought it wouldn't work (because I looked at the evidence presented in the video and from what I have learned of geology).

 

If what I posted ridiculed it, then it was because that in the light of current knowledge, and that to make it work you have to violate your own arguments against tectonic activity, to propose something like an Expanding Earth under these circumstances is pretty ridiculous.

[ecoli]

It's called Occam's blunt instrument of destruction. The simplest answer is the one you whack over the head repeatedly until it goes into hiding, so a more ridiculous, complex to the point of lunacy, answer can take it's place.

[bascule]

Continental drift was rejected as pretty unlikely because of the absence of any plausible mechanism.

 

And the plausible mechanism for the earth's mass increasing rapidly over the past hundred million years is what?

[insane_alien]

And the plausible mechanism for the earth's mass increasing rapidly over the past hundred million years is what?

 

idiocy has mass

[Ophiolite]

To summarize: It's not necessarily *what* he is saying, he's HOW he's presenting it. If you think we are being dogmatic, I really strongly recommend you go over some of the other highly ridiculous theories people post in this specific forum and you will see that we usually are a lot more patient, and willing to listen, with people who present their theory - as 'whackie' as it may sound on face value - with respect, if they are honest with their explanations.

I am well familiar with how whacko ideas are treated on this forum. If you glance at my post count and join date you will see I have been around for a while. The reason I rarely post here now is precisely because of a dogmatic defence of scientific orthodoxy that has been used against perfectly sound hypotheses.

 

I commented that I found the reactions here interesting because they might be symptomatic of a knee jerk, dogmatic response to the apparently absurd. And perhaps not. The posts decidedly read as 'who could ever be so foolish as to envisage an expanding Earth'. The responses so far suggest this might have been a faulty reading.

 

And the plausible mechanism for the earth's mass increasing rapidly over the past hundred million years is what?

Why would I know? I don't think there is one. I don't think the Earth is expanding? In the 1950s (apart from the pioneering thinking of Arthur Holmes) there were no plausible mechanisms for any proposed mountain building concepts. That placed the expanding Earth hypothesis at the same level as the contracting Earth and continental drift.

[Edtharan]

I commented that I found the reactions here interesting because they might be symptomatic of a knee jerk, dogmatic response to the apparently absurd. And perhaps not. The posts decidedly read as 'who could ever be so foolish as to envisage an expanding Earth'. The responses so far suggest this might have been a faulty reading.

It is more that it is "In the light of easily obtained knowledge (high school science), how could anyone believe in an expanding Earth?"

 

I'll admit, that if one does not have this knowledge, then it is possible to believe in an expanding Earth. But, you could say this about anything. If you have no knowledge to the contrary, then you can believe in anything.

 

If you didn't have eyes, you could believe that they sky is pink at midday. You have no way to know otherwise, so it is possible to believe that the sky is pink. But, if you have evidence to the contrary (ie: eyes), then to believe the sky is pink at midday is foolish.

 

So, bringing up the fact that in the past people have not had the knowledge to determine which theory is (more) correct, does not mean anything about what modern thinking is about.

 

Remember, the people who used to think that the Earth had expanded years ago dismissed the idea that the Earth Expanded because of the evidence. This evidence still exists.

[bascule]

Why would I know? I don't think there is one. I don't think the Earth is expanding? In the 1950s (apart from the pioneering thinking of Arthur Holmes) there were no plausible mechanisms for any proposed mountain building concepts. That placed the expanding Earth hypothesis at the same level as the contracting Earth and continental drift.

 

So, in absence of evidence for either hypothesis, a somewhat reasonable one is on par with a totally absurd one?

 

I guess string theory should be treated with equal skepticism to the idea that the universe is made out of spaghetti?

[mooeypoo]

So, in absence of evidence for either hypothesis, a somewhat reasonable one is on par with a totally absurd one?

 

I guess string theory should be treated with equal skepticism to the idea that the universe is made out of spaghetti?

 

All hail the spaghetti monster!

 

 

Ramen.

[JohnB]

So, in absence of evidence for either hypothesis, a somewhat reasonable one is on par with a totally absurd one?

In the absence of evidence and in this case, I think reasonable and absurd are in the eye of the beholder.

 

A train of thought may go this way;

1. The continents can be put together like a puzzle.

2. They are currently split up.

3. There was a Big Bang and the Universe expands.

4. It is still expanding, so mass must be coming from somewhere.

 

Question; Where is it more likely for the new mass to appear, where there is no mass or where mass already exists?

 

Conclusion: New mass preferentially appears inside planets and stars and since their density is not increasing, then their size must.

 

I'm not defending the hypothesis, just showing that it can be viewed as reasonable in some lights.

[Mr Skeptic]

If the earth's mass were increasing enough to expand the earth, wouldn't that be noticed as higher gravity if nothing else? Whereas if the size of the earth were increasing but its mass constant, gravity would be weaker.

[ecoli]

If the earth's mass were increasing enough to expand the earth, wouldn't that be noticed as higher gravity if nothing else? Whereas if the size of the earth were increasing but its mass constant, gravity would be weaker.

by the square of the distance, yeah.

[HappyCoder]

The earth really is expanding as well as other planets and moons.

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

And before you try to argue it at least read it and maybe watch some of the videos, #2 and #10 are pretty cool. It is long but it defiantly states enough evidence on the page to support this theory and put down plate tectonics.

[mooeypoo]

We did read it.

 

The geology, physics and astronomical "arguments" don't fit the argument itself (hence, they're self-contradictory) and they don't fit SCIENCE itself (hence, not only are they not proven, they're debunked by observation and experimental data).

 

It's bunk. The earth is not expanding, and it's not hollow.

 

The moon, too, is not made of Cheese.

 

~moo

[HappyCoder]

Any good examples as to why it doesn't work? Because the theory seems to explain pretty well why the Atlantic spread can be closed up and the shorelines meet up, the pacific spread can be closed. It can explain why the Moon, Mars, Ganymede, and Europa also have older plates that can be put back together it explains why the dinosaurs could grow to such an enormous size.

 

All plate tectonics seems to explain out of all of that is the Atlantic spread.

 

Another thing, at least try to explain why his arguments aren't valid.

 

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/images/WorldCrustalAge.gif

Take a look at that map.

In the pacific ocean, why would the sea floor be the same age as the Atlantic? I've heard the argument before that the crust is being formed at the ridges and subducts under the continents. So even if that were the case take a look at the crust just west of south america. See the two horizontal cracks where the seafloor is being created. If the two creation zones are causing the sea floor to grow inward. Where is the subduction happening?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tectonics/quakemapbw.gif

Where are all the earthquakes?

Another quick think I want to point out. Doesn't that trench going down the west side of South America line up nicely with the west coast just like the Atlantic trench lines up with the east coast.

 

Please tell me what I just said is wrong rather than just posting something about Benioff zones and why subduction is correct, because as far as I'm concerned, there is enough proof for me to believe that the earth is expanding and unless you can come up with some logical reason why that evidence doesn't work you aren't going to convince me otherwise.

[mooeypoo]

Any good examples as to why it doesn't work?

 

Yes, many, some of them we've discussed in the entire thread, feel free to go over it again - it's pretty plainly written.

 

 

Because the theory seems to explain pretty well why the Atlantic spread can be closed up and the shorelines meet up, the pacific spread can be closed.

Only if you don't know the implications.

 

First off, we know the earth is not expanding because we know what *does* happen inside of it; It's like the question of "why isn't it logical that the sun's heat is due to its expansion" --> it's illogical not because that can't be, but because we *know* what causes the sun to emmit heat: Nuclear reactions within its core.

 

Same with the earth. We know the processes that occur, and the fact that this video disputes them does not mean they're not happening. Here are a few useful links with *proof* and not just claims:

 

A very good article about the debate over continental drift, and how it was eventually solved:

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

 

 

Explanation of what "Plate Tectonic" truly is: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html

(the video has some strawmen in it. It doesn't do the theory justice)

 

What is inside the planet: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/interior/

 

Astronomical knowledge of how planets are formed: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/spitzer_planets_041018.html

 

 

don't forget: This movie makes a lot of claims and no proof. The nice animation isn't proof, it's animation. The proof is on the geological side.

 

Second, for the Earth to expand, it needs to have a *cause* for expansion. I'll be "blunt" and ask -- is there anyone "blowing air" into it? -- What causes the expansion? How would one prove it? After you ask these questions, which consist of the theory - you set about to test them. That's the core of science - you extrapolate, hypothesize, devise an experiment,and check the validity of your claim.

 

But claims on their own are invalid for a theory to be defined as logical, or true.

 

It can explain why the Moon, Mars, Ganymede, and Europa also have older plates that can be put back together it explains why the dinosaurs could grow to such an enormous size.

How can it explain that? See, that is a claim I heard in the movie, and read in the article, and didn't really see the causal relationship. How is this specific theory, as opposed to what is known through scientific proof of our day, explain this better?

 

Paleontologists explain the size of the dinosaurs quite well without the need for this unproven, unsupported, and unfitting theory. If these are the ONLY questions it answers, they are being ansewred by a better theory that explains a lot of other questions, and is actually supported by scientific evidence.

 

 

 

 

All plate tectonics seems to explain out of all of that is the Atlantic spread.

It explains *quite* a lot more than that, and the support for its truth comes from more than just Geology. Astronomy, too, supports this, by our observation of how planets are formed and what goes on in their interior. The theory of "expanding earth" claims, too, that the earth is hollow. It makes no sense in any scientific level you choose.

 

 

Another thing, at least try to explain why his arguments aren't valid.

Yeah, I tried. Read about the theory of Plate Tectonic, the movie doesn't do it justice. Defining a theory the way *he* thinks it is doesn't mean that his depiction of it is the real theory.

 

Also, argument from ignorance ("If I don't understand, it can't be true") is a fallacy, and his entire arguments seem to start and end with that.

 

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/images/WorldCrustalAge.gif

Take a look at that map.

In the pacific ocean, why would the sea floor be the same age as the Atlantic? I've heard the argument before that the crust is being formed at the ridges and subducts under the continents. So even if that were the case take a look at the crust just west of south america. See the two horizontal cracks where the seafloor is being created. If the two creation zones are causing the sea floor to grow inward. Where is the subduction happening?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.. Why is the sea floor in the atlantic the same age of the atlantic ocean .. or.. ? uhm.. explain, I think I lost you here.

 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tectonics/quakemapbw.gif

Where are all the earthquakes?

Read the scientific theory. Their cause is explained *very* well, while an expansion of the earth's crust wouldn't REALLY demand them, would it...

 

 

Another quick think I want to point out. Doesn't that trench going down the west side of South America line up nicely with the west coast just like the Atlantic trench lines up with the east coast.

Yes, that apparantly fits both "Expansion" and "Plate Tectonics", doesn't it... I don't quite understand where you're going with that one.

 

Please tell me what I just said is wrong rather than just posting something about Benioff zones and why subduction is correct, because as far as I'm concerned, there is enough proof for me to believe that the earth is expanding and unless you can come up with some logical reason why that evidence doesn't work you aren't going to convince me otherwise.

 

Anyways, I did my best. Now it's your turn to read what science *truly* says on the matter, and not just go for one guy interpreting it for you. He's doing a lousy job, even if his theory is valid (which it isn't).

 

Learn what science says, *then* decide if you disagree with it. I think it's only fair.

 

Good luck,

 

~moo