Expanding earth , evolution, and everything | Science | TORN
Expanding earth , evolution, and everything
    • Styledcurve [2493033]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 60
    • Posts: 3604
    • Karma: 1343
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 7
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Thread created on 12:26:50 - 09/11/21 (1 year ago)
    |
    Last replied 23:49:39 - 07/01/22 (1 year ago)
    After getting turned on to Neil Adam's and the idea of expanding earth my world view changed. According to wikipedia,  Darwin was the first one to originally put forth the theory of an expanding earth.  That , the whole earth was one land mass on a much smaller globe. 
    Like a balloon, the earth expanded. No subduction of plates , no floating tectonic plates at all. Just our entire global expanding over the cosmic scale of time.

    Modern academia guffaws at this idea in favor of pangaea and rodinia and nina and floating plates of land mass that slip and slide over and under each other. Futher, modern academia purports that super continents are a normal reoccuring thing on earth and that all the land masses regularly crash back into each other to form one singular land mass on earth and then break apart again.

    The mechanisms behind both schools of thought have not been fully explained or understood however one idea is observable , the later is taken on faith with data sets conforming to pre set conclusions. Conclusions that ignore and defy evolution , ignoring the observable and provable for what they want to believe.

    To best explain heres a very short video on it




    If you took the moment to watch the video you can see the simplicity of it. Just walk back the older rock into the younger rock and everything joins together near perfectly on all sides on a much smaller planet.

    I cant provide you any video of the Pacific plate sliding under the North American plate or Asian plate because that video doesnt exist. Subduction along the fault lines of the plates over or under another plate has never been observed or proven. Because that theory is wrong. India did not exist as an island for a time and then crash into Asia. It's always been part of Asia.

    This is why we can find the same ancient fossils on every continent.

    Speaking of life and evolution , size matters. Our largest land animals today would be the elephant. Descended from the wholly mammoth line. Dinosaurs where way bigger. How? Why? Well modern academia would insist it would be because earth had a much richer oxygen level back in their age. This does nothing to explain why the plants equally grew to massive sizes. What does give some sort of explanation would be a weaker gravity. Plants and animals would naturally grow larger with less gravity on a smaller planet. Their size and mass could only operate in less gravity. A fern cant grow to the size of modern day pine trees because it would fall over under it's own weight . Like wise , dinosaurs could never support their sizes in today's gravity, they'd collapse under their own weight like a beached whale.

    They didnt need an asteroid to wipe them out. On an expanding earth the animals would do the same thing the giant ferns did. Evolve smaller or die.

    What about the other planets? Can expansion be shown else where?

    Yes.

    On the moon, Mars, and Europa their is clear Evidence supporting expansion from every satellite and probe picture weve taken.

    Why is expanding planets not accepted?

    Who likes to admit to being wrong.

    Carl Sagan said it best



    One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.
    • Styledcurve [2493033]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 60
    • Posts: 3604
    • Karma: 1343
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 12:27:14 - 09/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Spot reserved for idea expansions

    Let the bamboozled begin.
    Last edited by Styledcurve on 13:46:34 - 09/11/21
    • TheOwl [1316121]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 64
    • Posts: 414
    • Karma: 357
    • Last Action: 15 hours
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:37:57 - 09/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I think that this competes with flat earth for the modern psuedoscience award. Mass doesn't appear out of nothing. That notion defies the laws of physics, that mass is energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed. If the Earth were smaller, then it would be way more dense and gravity would be much higher, not lower. I have a question for you, can you explain how the Alps were created if the earth were expanding rather than contracting?

    Who likes to admit being wrong? Scientists, when shown empirical evidence that the new theory is correct. That's how science works. This idea that there is some kind of "plate tectonic cabal" who are and, have been for over a hundred years, secretly controlling all the geologists in the world to hide the truth and push their false theory is frankly insane.

    I think Carl Sagan would be rolling in his grave to hear you quoting him for this purpose.

    • Styledcurve [2493033]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 60
    • Posts: 3604
    • Karma: 1343
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:00:22 - 09/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Well you're wanting to ignore observations in favor of explanations.

    Do you know how magnets work? Proly not. Do you still observe that magnitisim is real? I bet you do.

    As for the theories of the mechanisms behind the observable evidence of expansion, well theirs different theories.

    Some say accretion from the 100s of millions of tons of space dust we collect daily. I don't think that is correct give the evidence of Mars and Europa. Europa which is still active, their some recent footage of an eruption there just shooting the water out into space, it looks awesome. Which also means its magma is still hot. And that leads to my idea that it must be caused by the heat and pressure of the magma locked inside expanding as heat does.

    The object containing that heat will either explode from the pressure or expand. It has no other choice.


    Also smaller mass equals less gravity. That's why people floated in the moon and why Mars has less gravity. You got you mass relevant to gravity thinking wrong .

    But hey, you know what, we used to think the earth was the center of the universe too.
    Last edited by Styledcurve on 14:02:35 - 09/11/21
    • TheOwl [1316121]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 64
    • Posts: 414
    • Karma: 357
    • Last Action: 15 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:04:01 - 09/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    No, I'm wanting explanations to explain the observations instead of speculation by comic book artists.

    The mass of the planet cannot increase in a way consistent with our understanding of physics. Mass cannot appear from nowhere. An inflating earth would not become more massive. A shrunken Earth would have the same mass as today, except much more dense. As a result, gravity force would be much higher. Your idea that magma is causing the crust of the earth to expand would by necessity mean that the mass remains equal, with less density as time continues. Therefore, this idea is incompatible with your idea that animals and plants were larger in the past due to a lower gravity force.

    • Styledcurve [2493033]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 60
    • Posts: 3604
    • Karma: 1343
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:22:49 - 09/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.

    Bad form to attack the man over his message. Franklin was a womanizing drunk but that is not relevant to his contributions to science and soceity.

    Neil Adam's demonstrates some good points and just because hes a comic book artist, that doesnt invalidate his observations.


    As for the mechanism of expansion, my explanation of it, that's just my personal thought on the cause. Mass isnt appearing from no where. Density and mass are not the same thing. And again, You're telling me smaller planets should have higher gravity, despite what we know about Lunar and Martian gravity. So that does not line fall in line with what we already observably know. Do you know why Hot air balloons fly? What heat does to the enclosed area of air? Does the captured heat expand and inflate atmosphere inside the balloon reducing the density inside comparatively to the cooler air outside achieve a negative bouancy so it can float up. Yes. The answer is yes. And when you wanna come down you stop firing the torch and open the vents to let heat out

    Planets dont have vents but the do have the same primordial molten fire they start with. That magma and its heat and pressure can not be accurately measured with any tool we have today. We can only postulate its magnitude. We CAN safely presume that the heat and pressure build up of said heat has no where else to go. It will expand as heat does and it will carry all the force that only that kind of trapped heat can generate. If it were a locked pressure cooker then it would eventually explode but we have a maliable crust that can stretch and endure.

    But not contract.

    The outter shell that is our crust cant be thrown into reverse.
    Last edited by Styledcurve on 17:27:56 - 09/11/21
    • SssneekySnek [2316379]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 35
    • Posts: 54
    • Karma: 102
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 16:47:04 - 10/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Styledcurve [2493033]

    After getting turned on to Neil Adam's and the idea of expanding earth my world view changed. According to wikipedia, Darwin was the first one to originally put forth the theory of an expanding earth. That , the whole earth was one land mass on a much smaller globe.
    Like a balloon, the earth expanded. No subduction of plates , no floating tectonic plates at all. Just our entire global expanding over the cosmic scale of time.

    Modern academia guffaws at this idea in favor of pangaea and rodinia and nina and floating plates of land mass that slip and slide over and under each other. Futher, modern academia purports that super continents are a normal reoccuring thing on earth and that all the land masses regularly crash back into each other to form one singular land mass on earth and then break apart again.

    The mechanisms behind both schools of thought have not been fully explained or understood however one idea is observable , the later is taken on faith with data sets conforming to pre set conclusions. Conclusions that ignore and defy evolution , ignoring the observable and provable for what they want to believe.

    To best explain heres a very short video on it




    If you took the moment to watch the video you can see the simplicity of it. Just walk back the older rock into the younger rock and everything joins together near perfectly on all sides on a much smaller planet.

    I cant provide you any video of the Pacific plate sliding under the North American plate or Asian plate because that video doesnt exist. Subduction along the fault lines of the plates over or under another plate has never been observed or proven. Because that theory is wrong. India did not exist as an island for a time and then crash into Asia. It's always been part of Asia.

    This is why we can find the same ancient fossils on every continent.

    Speaking of life and evolution , size matters. Our largest land animals today would be the elephant. Descended from the wholly mammoth line. Dinosaurs where way bigger. How? Why? Well modern academia would insist it would be because earth had a much richer oxygen level back in their age. This does nothing to explain why the plants equally grew to massive sizes. What does give some sort of explanation would be a weaker gravity. Plants and animals would naturally grow larger with less gravity on a smaller planet. Their size and mass could only operate in less gravity. A fern cant grow to the size of modern day pine trees because it would fall over under it's own weight . Like wise , dinosaurs could never support their sizes in today's gravity, they'd collapse under their own weight like a beached whale.

    They didnt need an asteroid to wipe them out. On an expanding earth the animals would do the same thing the giant ferns did. Evolve smaller or die.

    What about the other planets? Can expansion be shown else where?

    Yes.

    On the moon, Mars, and Europa their is clear Evidence supporting expansion from every satellite and probe picture weve taken.

    Why is expanding planets not accepted?

    Who likes to admit to being wrong.

    Carl Sagan said it best



    One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.
    Well to start, just because there's a video of one theory and you cant find a video showing plate tectonics doesn't mean anything. As for subduction being observed or proven, we're able to observe earthquakes happen, and our best guess in science is that earthquakes occur because of subduction. If you can think of anything to explain earthquakes occurring in the expanding earth theory, I'm all ears. 

    Saying that the plate tectonics theory is wrong, or even that the expanding earth theory is right, goes against how theories work in science. Theories are never proven or disproven, just more supported than others. If science is able to prove thoroughly and accept a theory, then it becomes a law, and this goes for plate tectonics too. Plate tectonics is a theory because it explains a reasoning for why things happen the way they do. Since we cannot precisely calculate where plates will be and when they will be there, we can not call plate tectonics a law however if science is able to figure this out in the future, then plate tectonics could certainly be accepted.

    The expanding earth theory on the other hand has way much less support because there is so many unanswered questions with the theory and, even as the video you posted showed, a lot of assumptions. This doesn't mean expanding earth theory isn't possible or wrong like I previously said, however the science behind what we know and can observe adds more support to plate tectonics.

    Before I dive deeper in to why this theory is not well supported, putting that Carl Sagan quote in there at the end is for a lack of better terms, idiotic. People hate being proven wrong, I'll agree to that. However, science loves being proven wrong. If you can find concrete evidence to prove something wrong in science, scientists LOVE that. Why? Because it gives them something to review that they might have not noticed or overlooked. That's why peer review is a thing in science, not just to make sure bullshit doesn't get published, but to ensure that the experiments/research that were done, had no flaws. If a scientist took everything they've done in terms of research and experiments and became stubborn that what they have done is what is correct, then science wouldn't exist at all, let alone them having a job for long. The reason evolution is a more accepted theory today rather than creationism is because that's how science works. You even see in history that creationism was thought to be the accepting theory, but science didn't let that stick because evolution was more supported as our technology got better and we had a better understanding of our past.

    Back to the expanding earth theory. The thought that all the continents fit like a jigsaw puzzle is because of rocks, not because of how it looks on a map. The video shows this thought misconception really well, in the fact that the graphic shows everything line all nice and neat. This graphic assumes that shorelines have maintained their position which is laughably incorrect, but it allows Adams to "show" that everything lined up at one point all nice and neat. A good example to show is Florida on North America in the graphic. Florida just seems to tuck away and line up nicely next to Africa. From what we know geographically, Florida is relatively new. Only about 20-30 million years ago parts of Florida were high enough in the water to become dry land. It's not until roughly 3 million years ago Florida starts rising higher to where the southern parts would look like the modern day Bahamas. This also explains why you can't find dinosaur remains in Florida, because of how new the land is. There is many more examples of this across the graphic shown, but this is the best example I can show with my knowledge.

    What I meant before about how the continents fit because of rocks, is that we can take rock samples from anywhere in the world. We know at one point North America and North Africa were connected because we have rock samples that prove this. If you take rock samples from the bedrock of North America, you find the same rock samples if you do this in Africa. This is the same with samples from India, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica all matching each other indicating that these lands were once connected. None of the other connections shown in the graphic that line up have similar samples at all. We don't find samples from Asia lining up at all to rock samples from the western part of North America.

    There is much more information I am leaving out, however I don't mind discussing more about why this theory is not well supported. I feel this is a good starting point on this topic and also highlights why theories like this gain attraction and are seen as being "suppressed" by mainstream science. It's not because people want to feel right, but because science shows what is well supported.
    • Styledcurve [2493033]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 60
    • Posts: 3604
    • Karma: 1343
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 00:46:57 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    SssneekySnek [2316379]

    Well to start, just because there's a video of one theory and you cant find a video showing plate tectonics doesn't mean anything. As for subduction being observed or proven, we're able to observe earthquakes happen, and our best guess in science is that earthquakes occur because of subduction. If you can think of anything to explain earthquakes occurring in the expanding earth theory, I'm all ears.

    Saying that the plate tectonics theory is wrong, or even that the expanding earth theory is right, goes against how theories work in science. Theories are never proven or disproven, just more supported than others. If science is able to prove thoroughly and accept a theory, then it becomes a law, and this goes for plate tectonics too. Plate tectonics is a theory because it explains a reasoning for why things happen the way they do. Since we cannot precisely calculate where plates will be and when they will be there, we can not call plate tectonics a law however if science is able to figure this out in the future, then plate tectonics could certainly be accepted.

    The expanding earth theory on the other hand has way much less support because there is so many unanswered questions with the theory and, even as the video you posted showed, a lot of assumptions. This doesn't mean expanding earth theory isn't possible or wrong like I previously said, however the science behind what we know and can observe adds more support to plate tectonics.

    Before I dive deeper in to why this theory is not well supported, putting that Carl Sagan quote in there at the end is for a lack of better terms, idiotic. People hate being proven wrong, I'll agree to that. However, science loves being proven wrong. If you can find concrete evidence to prove something wrong in science, scientists LOVE that. Why? Because it gives them something to review that they might have not noticed or overlooked. That's why peer review is a thing in science, not just to make sure bullshit doesn't get published, but to ensure that the experiments/research that were done, had no flaws. If a scientist took everything they've done in terms of research and experiments and became stubborn that what they have done is what is correct, then science wouldn't exist at all, let alone them having a job for long. The reason evolution is a more accepted theory today rather than creationism is because that's how science works. You even see in history that creationism was thought to be the accepting theory, but science didn't let that stick because evolution was more supported as our technology got better and we had a better understanding of our past.

    Back to the expanding earth theory. The thought that all the continents fit like a jigsaw puzzle is because of rocks, not because of how it looks on a map. The video shows this thought misconception really well, in the fact that the graphic shows everything line all nice and neat. This graphic assumes that shorelines have maintained their position which is laughably incorrect, but it allows Adams to "show" that everything lined up at one point all nice and neat. A good example to show is Florida on North America in the graphic. Florida just seems to tuck away and line up nicely next to Africa. From what we know geographically, Florida is relatively new. Only about 20-30 million years ago parts of Florida were high enough in the water to become dry land. It's not until roughly 3 million years ago Florida starts rising higher to where the southern parts would look like the modern day Bahamas. This also explains why you can't find dinosaur remains in Florida, because of how new the land is. There is many more examples of this across the graphic shown, but this is the best example I can show with my knowledge.

    What I meant before about how the continents fit because of rocks, is that we can take rock samples from anywhere in the world. We know at one point North America and North Africa were connected because we have rock samples that prove this. If you take rock samples from the bedrock of North America, you find the same rock samples if you do this in Africa. This is the same with samples from India, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica all matching each other indicating that these lands were once connected. None of the other connections shown in the graphic that line up have similar samples at all. We don't find samples from Asia lining up at all to rock samples from the western part of North America.

    There is much more information I am leaving out, however I don't mind discussing more about why this theory is not well supported. I feel this is a good starting point on this topic and also highlights why theories like this gain attraction and are seen as being "suppressed" by mainstream science. It's not because people want to feel right, but because science shows what is well supported.
    You can work the experiment for yourself ya know.  

    Just take all the youngest land and remove it.

    Then the second oldest, then third, and so on and so forth till your left with the continents and see where it goes.

    I dare ya to try snek.
    • SssneekySnek [2316379]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 35
    • Posts: 54
    • Karma: 102
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 01:03:50 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    You're just reiterating what the video said, and that video itself has been torn apart by geologists and scientists because of how many things it gets wrong. I even gave you an example of studies that have been done showing rock samples and how you won't find the same rock samples in North America and in Asia, removing land does nothing to show how tides have worked, or how glacial levels can be studied using soil samples from various levels of the ground. The list goes on with evidence that points against the expanding earth theory and I strongly advise you look more in to the topic. Posting a video from a comic book artist about a once heavily debated topic and not scientific papers on the subject is a pretty dumb in my mind.

    Edit: Your response also makes it sound like you completely ignored what I wrote previously and went right to deflecting and telling me to do an experiment, which by the way I've taken classes on geology and done my own research in to this topic before and it's fairly easy to disprove the thought of "removing land until things match up." No need to dare me to do it because I have, and it doesn't add up.
    Last edited by SssneekySnek on 01:07:30 - 11/11/21
    • Styledcurve [2493033]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 60
    • Posts: 3604
    • Karma: 1343
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 03:57:40 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Ok snek. Ok. No  I read your words.It's fine. Its whatever...
    Last edited by Styledcurve on 04:01:00 - 11/11/21
    • Zailemaos [936636]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 58
    • Posts: 360
    • Karma: 102
    • Last Action: 9 months
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 04:19:41 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    thats some pretty cool magic what movie is this?
    • Megan [135372]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 94
    • Posts: 1854
    • Karma: 355
    • Last Action: 18 minutes
      • 2
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 06:03:31 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Zailemaos [936636]

    thats some pretty cool magic what movie is this?
    Please dont derail the topic.

    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 65
    • Posts: 876
    • Karma: 387
    • Last Action: 15 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 14:12:28 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Zailemaos [936636]

    thats some pretty cool magic what movie is this?

    Megan [135372]

    Please dont derail the topic.
    Alternatively the science subforum could be kept on topic by removing posts such as this...

    • SssneekySnek [2316379]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 35
    • Posts: 54
    • Karma: 102
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 16:03:55 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Styledcurve [2493033]

    Ok snek. Ok. No I read your words.It's fine. Its whatever...
    I didn't mean to come off as rude as I did in my previous response, and I apologise for that. I've seen the video you put at the top posted before in other forums and it's usually the main thing people use to explain the expanding earth theory. What I've never seen posted in threads that discuss this theory are scientific papers, of which there are plenty.

    In fact, in the 18th century expanding earth theory was the main theory to explain how our earth worked. It wasn't until the 19th and early 20th century where plate tectonics was discovered and the main theory to explain earth was actually changed to a shrinking earth theory, as the thought was that as our earth cools, the size would shrink. Then around the mid 1900s our technology got better and geological processes such as subduction and accretion were better understood, and science swiftly shifted to plate tectonics as being the main accepted theory.

    One of the main reasons for this sudden change in theories is scientists were able to date rocks with a much better accuracy. We discovered that in the Pacific ocean, if you date the crust on the North American side, were only able to date the crust to being roughly 50 million years old, however on the Asian side of the Pacific ridge, we see a crust that is much older, with samples showing this side to be roughly 180 million years old. Neither expanding nor shrinking earth models can explain why this is.

    If you're interested in learning more about how expanding earth theory and plate tectonics switched throughout history, or even if you just want to learn more on the topic itself, I strongly recommend looking up: "The Earth expansion theory and its transition from scientific hypothesis to pseudoscientific belief". It's a public article you can find just by googling the name and is a really well cited and well written document.
    • Styledcurve [2493033]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 60
    • Posts: 3604
    • Karma: 1343
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:47:33 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    SssneekySnek [2316379]

    I didn't mean to come off as rude as I did in my previous response, and I apologise for that. I've seen the video you put at the top posted before in other forums and it's usually the main thing people use to explain the expanding earth theory. What I've never seen posted in threads that discuss this theory are scientific papers, of which there are plenty.

    In fact, in the 18th century expanding earth theory was the main theory to explain how our earth worked. It wasn't until the 19th and early 20th century where plate tectonics was discovered and the main theory to explain earth was actually changed to a shrinking earth theory, as the thought was that as our earth cools, the size would shrink. Then around the mid 1900s our technology got better and geological processes such as subduction and accretion were better understood, and science swiftly shifted to plate tectonics as being the main accepted theory.

    One of the main reasons for this sudden change in theories is scientists were able to date rocks with a much better accuracy. We discovered that in the Pacific ocean, if you date the crust on the North American side, were only able to date the crust to being roughly 50 million years old, however on the Asian side of the Pacific ridge, we see a crust that is much older, with samples showing this side to be roughly 180 million years old. Neither expanding nor shrinking earth models can explain why this is.

    If you're interested in learning more about how expanding earth theory and plate tectonics switched throughout history, or even if you just want to learn more on the topic itself, I strongly recommend looking up: "The Earth expansion theory and its transition from scientific hypothesis to pseudoscientific belief". It's a public article you can find just by googling the name and is a really well cited and well written document.
    I would be more open to the current arguments regarding the plate tectonic  stuff if the same observations were isolated to earth. 

    But the evidence of spreading can be seen on our moon,Mars, and Europa. Which for my money, puts slot more credence into the expansion theory. It ain't unique to our planet.

    Then , as the title suggests, evolution.

    What kind of world did the fish live in to evolve lungs?

    On a smaller planet with less gravity but a ton more atmospheric water vapor, the elements needed to enable such an evolutionary change would be there. We both know (I believe) that the fish didn't evolve those lungs by jumping out of their environment into an arid environment. But if the water vapor were thick enough to continue to enable gill respiration, and then over the eons as the water vapor thins , then it would make more sense to evolve into air respiration and legs and all that.


    Also , I am salty you're not with us anymore :`(
    Last edited by Styledcurve on 18:56:00 - 11/11/21
    • SssneekySnek [2316379]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 35
    • Posts: 54
    • Karma: 102
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:15:48 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    SssneekySnek [2316379]

    I didn't mean to come off as rude as I did in my previous response, and I apologise for that. I've seen the video you put at the top posted before in other forums and it's usually the main thing people use to explain the expanding earth theory. What I've never seen posted in threads that discuss this theory are scientific papers, of which there are plenty.

    In fact, in the 18th century expanding earth theory was the main theory to explain how our earth worked. It wasn't until the 19th and early 20th century where plate tectonics was discovered and the main theory to explain earth was actually changed to a shrinking earth theory, as the thought was that as our earth cools, the size would shrink. Then around the mid 1900s our technology got better and geological processes such as subduction and accretion were better understood, and science swiftly shifted to plate tectonics as being the main accepted theory.

    One of the main reasons for this sudden change in theories is scientists were able to date rocks with a much better accuracy. We discovered that in the Pacific ocean, if you date the crust on the North American side, were only able to date the crust to being roughly 50 million years old, however on the Asian side of the Pacific ridge, we see a crust that is much older, with samples showing this side to be roughly 180 million years old. Neither expanding nor shrinking earth models can explain why this is.

    If you're interested in learning more about how expanding earth theory and plate tectonics switched throughout history, or even if you just want to learn more on the topic itself, I strongly recommend looking up: "The Earth expansion theory and its transition from scientific hypothesis to pseudoscientific belief". It's a public article you can find just by googling the name and is a really well cited and well written document.

    Styledcurve [2493033]

    I would be more open to the current arguments regarding the plate tectonic stuff if the same observations were isolated to earth.

    But the evidence of spreading can be seen on our moon,Mars, and Europa. Which for my money, puts slot more credence into the expansion theory. It ain't unique to our planet.

    Then , as the title suggests, evolution.

    What kind of world did the fish live in to evolve lungs?

    On a smaller planet with less gravity but a ton more atmospheric water vapor, the elements needed to enable such an evolutionary change would be there. We both know (I believe) that the fish didn't evolve those lungs by jumping out of their environment into an arid environment. But if the water vapor were thick enough to continue to enable gill respiration, and then over the eons as the water vapor thins , then it would make more sense to evolve into air respiration and legs and all that.


    Also , I am salty you're not with us anymore :`(
    You bring up a really good point. I honestly haven't looked in to expansion theory relative to other planets, only just studies relating to our planet. I'll have to do some reading on that. But just because other planets have shown properties that relates to expansion theory doesn't mean all planets work that way. I'm honestly just guessing, when I read more I'll hopefully have a better understanding. 

    As for evolution. The best guess that science has for the origin of life and the one that mostly all scientists agree with, is that life started near hydrothermal vents. These organisms were something very close to cyanobacteria. The main reason this is regarded as the first sign of life is because living things need heat and 3 billion years ago there wasn't much heat at all except for these vents deep in the ocean. We don't get multicellular life on Earth until 1 billion years, and it wasn't until 500 million years when fish started appearing. At this point life was flowing in the oceans. If you look at the time difference from when life started, it was roughly 2.5 billion years. That's how evolution works, it is an extremely drawn out process.

    In the Neal Adams video it shows the smallest size of earth being at it's smallest roughly 80 million years. I'm curious if in the expanding earth theory the world stayed this small from Earth's creation. If you know then please tell me. But from the looks of it this means earth stayed that small from 6ish billion years from it's creation and then started growing around 80 mil. If I could theorize for a second, I imagine life would have an extremely difficult time evolving if land covered most of Earth, or maybe the opposite, maybe we would've seen life on land much sooner under the expanding earth theory due to how competitive living in the water would be.

    I miss y'all too btw, covy was a fun place to be.
    • Styledcurve [2493033]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 60
    • Posts: 3604
    • Karma: 1343
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:48:00 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Water is a terrific insulator  on so many levels.. and life goop from the vents... yes yes that makes more sense. I've watched too much star trek qnd I'm always thinking lightning strike in a puddle of goo ala Q but no that's dumb science fictions.

    Working forward from the various vents of ocean bottoms, life forming in the heat there protected from ultraviolet Ray's and more and that narrow range of light motivating Phtosynthis for the single cells to do something more, yeah from the vent makes a hell of a lot more sense. But I wasnt trying to go that far back LOL, thanks for pointing that out to me all the same 100%

    Yeah I'm just thinking here in my brain pan, (why did fishies decide to walk and breath air instead of staying in the water?) Changing conditions, that's why. Natural selection and species propagation refinement....
    • SssneekySnek [2316379]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 35
    • Posts: 54
    • Karma: 102
    • Last Action: 3 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 23:55:44 - 11/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Not just changing conditions, but what I mentioned before. The reason why plants moved to land was because of how competitive living in the ocean was. The first plants to emerge were similar to ferns, as seeds weren't able to disperse well. Firns spread using spores, so as things got more competitive in the water, plants started creeping up shorelines to have a better chance to live and eventually were able to disperse their spores onto land and start growing there. Ferns also had the ability to do this since gravity doesnt have much of an effect since it doesn't have a "spine". Eventually much much later plants started evolving seeds because seeds allowed nutrition to be stored inside and had a better chance of growing rather than throwing spores everywhere and praying that some of them grow. Yes, changing conditions is part or the equation, but there's so many other variables for why organisms evolved. Some aquatic life originally were on land, and are labeled as secondarily aquatic organisms, because for some unknown reason evolution drove these animals back to the water. We don't know why birds became a thing, because flying is so energy intensive that it requires a lot of food to be consumed, and evolutionarily it was a horrible idea, but it just happened and we don't know why.
    Last edited by SssneekySnek on 00:17:14 - 12/11/21
    • TheOwl [1316121]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 64
    • Posts: 414
    • Karma: 357
    • Last Action: 15 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 01:10:05 - 12/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Styledcurve [2493033]

    We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.

    Bad form to attack the man over his message. Franklin was a womanizing drunk but that is not relevant to his contributions to science and soceity.

    Neil Adam's demonstrates some good points and just because hes a comic book artist, that doesnt invalidate his observations.


    As for the mechanism of expansion, my explanation of it, that's just my personal thought on the cause. Mass isnt appearing from no where. Density and mass are not the same thing. And again, You're telling me smaller planets should have higher gravity, despite what we know about Lunar and Martian gravity. So that does not line fall in line with what we already observably know. Do you know why Hot air balloons fly? What heat does to the enclosed area of air? Does the captured heat expand and inflate atmosphere inside the balloon reducing the density inside comparatively to the cooler air outside achieve a negative bouancy so it can float up. Yes. The answer is yes. And when you wanna come down you stop firing the torch and open the vents to let heat out

    Planets dont have vents but the do have the same primordial molten fire they start with. That magma and its heat and pressure can not be accurately measured with any tool we have today. We can only postulate its magnitude. We CAN safely presume that the heat and pressure build up of said heat has no where else to go. It will expand as heat does and it will carry all the force that only that kind of trapped heat can generate. If it were a locked pressure cooker then it would eventually explode but we have a maliable crust that can stretch and endure.

    But not contract.

    The outter shell that is our crust cant be thrown into reverse.
    If the earth isn't becoming more massive, then it follows that as the earth expands it becomes less dense, as the same mass is spread over a larger area. This is a logical foundation for my next claim, which is that as a planet becomes smaller but still retains the same amount of mass, the planet becomes more dense - the mass is more concentrated.

    The current force of gravity is 9.8 metres per second per second. If tomorrow the earth shrunk by 50%, the force of gravity would be so strong as to crush any person. So, what you're saying about animals and plants being larger because.of lower gravity is mutually exclusive with what you're saying about the Earth being smaller 80 MYA. They can't both be true, unless you try to argue that as the earth expands, it also becomes more massive - which is impossible.

    The moon and mars have less density than earth. Earth is 5.5g/sq.m, mars is 3.9 and the moon is 3.3. They are also much physically smaller than the earth. This is why the gravity force is lower on those places. These bodies are both geologically dead, which can be observed through the lack of magnetic field and a lack of volcanism.

    I'd still like you to explain mountain ranges at fault lines, if possible.
    Last edited by TheOwl on 01:10:43 - 12/11/21

    • Styledcurve [2493033]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 60
    • Posts: 3604
    • Karma: 1343
    • Last Action: 1 year
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 11:30:25 - 12/11/21 (1 year ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    TheOwl [1316121]

    If the earth isn't becoming more massive, then it follows that as the earth expands it becomes less dense, as the same mass is spread over a larger area. This is a logical foundation for my next claim, which is that as a planet becomes smaller but still retains the same amount of mass, the planet becomes more dense - the mass is more concentrated.

    The current force of gravity is 9.8 metres per second per second. If tomorrow the earth shrunk by 50%, the force of gravity would be so strong as to crush any person. So, what you're saying about animals and plants being larger because.of lower gravity is mutually exclusive with what you're saying about the Earth being smaller 80 MYA. They can't both be true, unless you try to argue that as the earth expands, it also becomes more massive - which is impossible.

    The moon and mars have less density than earth. Earth is 5.5g/sq.m, mars is 3.9 and the moon is 3.3. They are also much physically smaller than the earth. This is why the gravity force is lower on those places. These bodies are both geologically dead, which can be observed through the lack of magnetic field and a lack of volcanism.

    I'd still like you to explain mountain ranges at fault lines, if possible.
    Dont quote me on it but I believe theres a fermi equation that relates to density x accelerations
Reply
Thread Title: