An interesting theory...

Gandalf23

What do ye make of this...

LovelyTom

makes sense to me... in a way...

Caliden

Doesn't explain where all the water came from

Sam Vimes

Caliden wrote:

Doesn't explain where all the water came from

duh, it rained

Capt'n Midnight

water comes from volcanoes

anyway - it doesn't explain the craters on the moon and mars and mercury and all the other moons. Current density of the earth is 5 point something, if the earth only had 30% of it's current surface area then it would have to be a lot denser. The shorter radius would also have affected gravity at the surface for which there is no gelogical or fossil evidence. Dinosaurs didn't have bones that big. Surface gravity on Saturn is only 1.08 times that here, even though it's 95 times heavier, the fact it's less dense and therefore greater radius results in this.

Also why did the earth only start growing 65m years ago ?
more importantly when will it stop because if the planet expands more surface gravity will drop, and we will loose more of the athmosphere to the solar wind, just like what's happening to Venus. Venus used to have oceans with a mile of water, based on the remainng level of nitrogen and oxygen (from water) left in the atmosphere

Hard Larry

Wait a minute...?

The earth is round?

next you'll be telling me we revolve around the sun...damn heretics

Sam Vimes

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Also why did the earth only start growing 65m years ago ?

i'm pretty sure he said that the earth has doubled in size in the last 200 million years and doubled before that in 600 million years. no?

davyjose

Caliden wrote:

Doesn't explain where all the water came from

doesn't explain where anything came from - like the extra land!!! Unless the world is getting hollow.

biko

But... it's not in my bible?

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

Wibbs

Interesting theory. It does make some sense, but... Right the water is a biggie. For a start there are deep water fossils from before when this expansion took place. Secondly, Mars. Mars is not tectonic. Certainly not in the way the Earth is(was). Back to the water. OK lets suppose this is all true. The water would have covered the earth or nearly so on a much smaller planet.

I must admit, I do have a fondness for this kind of left field thinking. It's thinking outside the box. It is a very interesting take on things however. It is possible that there has been some growth. Maybe the truth, like many scientific theories, is somewhere in the middle.

GhostInTheRuins

Interesting....

muppetkiller

What i don't understand what the fuss is about ? Why does all science go out the window ?

fullstop

I like this theory. I always wondered about the way the continents seem to almost fit together like a jigsaw.

Sad Professor

Fascinating stuff.

Terry

too drunk, no read.

Mahatma coat

Spose it makes sense, if the Univwerse is expandin at a constant rate then I see no reason against things inside the universe also expandin to fill out the newly available space, must watch all of this later when I get the time, where does it say all the water was, the only logical place is that it covered everything at one stage hence the dry seabeds in the arizona desert.

anyway an interestin theory, kinda based on things we thought about as kids and were sometimes dismissed by our teachers as it defied conventional wisdom.

davyjose

Mahatma coat wrote:

Spose it makes sense, if the Univwerse is expandin at a constant rate then I see no reason against things inside the universe also expandin to fill out the newly available space, must watch all of this later when I get the time, where does it say all the water was, the only logical place is that it covered everything at one stage hence the dry seabeds in the arizona desert.

anyway an interestin theory, kinda based on things we thought about as kids and were sometimes dismissed by our teachers as it defied conventional wisdom.

Au contraire, if the earth were expanding with the universe, then by that standard everything else would be expanding relative to that. Which technically would mean that, in the absence of a reference point, nothing would seem to be expanding.
It's basically bullsh1t because in order for something to grow it needs more matter - clearly this is not happening to Earth (with the exception of a minimal amount of space debris). Plate tectonics, whilst not yet a thoroughly infallible theory, is a helluva lot more likely.

mathias

In the 50's this was a popular theory , then along came plate tectonics which did a much better job and answers questions that this theory cannot ,

Its in the Wiki , the main points this theory falls down on are all to do with subduction and are listed in the Wiki. That makes this theory outdated and irrelevant unless it can be reconciled with the subduction issue.

Pretty much like the steady state theory has been superseded by the expanding universe theory , the evidence has swamped this one out !!

Far from being new this is a least 60 years out of date !!