Thread created on 02:42:20 - 14/12/21 (1 year ago)
Last replied 07:19:12 - 16/12/21 (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.
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?
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.