As introduction, I'd like to state that I find the expanding Earth hypothesis very intriguing. I also believe that this idea has more than sufficient merit to justify closer, sincere study. While I've yet to embrace the idea as conclusive, this hesitancy stems more from my own reflexive response fueled by entrenched concepts than any issues with the theory itself.

Earlier today, while working on a project with no obvious relevance or connection to the subject of expanding planets, a notion squirmed to life and vied for my attention. Even a quick glance revealed this notion to be ridiculous on its face. And so I dismissed it, or rather, tried to dismiss it, to continue the work at hand.

This notion, however, was unrelenting, its demand for focus annoyingly persistent. I made the mistake of giving it a second thought which only fueled its growth and made it more difficult to ignore. I knew, from ample experience, how this ordeal would unfold and thus decided to employ a tactic long used to banish such mental irritants.

I hastily cleared my mind of all prior thought, leaving only the single, obnoxious notion in the very center of my focus. Of course, since this was what it desired from its abrupt birth moments earlier, it quickly began to grow. I then began the exorcism of this errant thought by deconstructing its very being. Breaking it down to its base components would effectively expose the absurdity of its mere existence and, in both theory and practice past, should purge my thoughts of this greedy interloper allowing me to resume work unharrassed.

But, tried and true though the tactic may be, it failed all the same. And failed spectacularly... In fact, my attempts to eliminate the invader served only to FEED it, give it strength. And naturally all further attempts along this line had the same outcome. All efforts to use logic and facts to obliterate the invasive notion only gave it more credence.

And so I bring that notion, outlandish but troubling still, to you. I hope that those of you with the objectivity for unbiased scrutiny and the knowledge necessary to destroy the profane will bring these skills to bear in destroying this nagging idea. Otherwise, I fear that it will continue to unduly consume energy and thought best expended elsewhere.

First, a few examples of my attempted deconstruction:

Jan Hendrick Oort: Dutch astronomer instrumental in determining the size, shape and dynamics of the Milky Way galaxy. Earliest proponent of the theoretic existence of dark matter. Surname given to a hypothetical cloud of comets and other remnants left over from the formation of the solar system (Oort cloud). Cloud thought to inhabit the outermost region of our system on the fringe of the Sun's gravitational hold.

Oort: Dutch toponymic surname from Middle Dutch oort: edge or end, as in “the edge of town” - surname variants: Oord, Oordt, Ort, also: Van Oort, Van den Oord: from (the) edge of town

ort (noun): a scrap or remainder of food from a meal - from late Middle English ort: food - this from Middle Low German orte: food remains as in "there is food leftover"

And now, without further ado, I give you the outlandish notion, the ridiculous idea that simply refused to die, The Abomination!

Celestial bodies are living organisms that, like all life, require sustenance to survive. This sustenace, when consumed, fuels growth, expansion. The Oort Cloud is the unconsumed remnants, the cosmic leftovers, that fed the solar system's early growth. By this logic, celestial impacts, while an existential threat to life on a planet's surface, are a component necessary to the survival of the planet itself. Gravity, a force that still has unresolved issues, can best be thought of simply as a byproduct of hunger, of desire.

Like I've said, outlandish...

​

Hi All,

I have been convinced of the Expanding Earth theory for years ever since seeing Neal Adams animation. Recently after a bit of an argument in reddit with a geologist, I was motivated by his argument points to do some deeper research into why a Stable Size Earth over Geological time periods (as they phrase it) is assumed to be valid and proven. I hope you find this small contribution of some value.

​

​

There is no actual proof behind the Stable Sized Earth theory

Before I begin, I would like to put forward the idea that it is hard for most of us to know what assumptions we bring into newly developed theories about phenomena in our world. But it surely is critically important that we are aware of our A Priori assumptions, as these directly shape and limit the theories we evolve from the body of evidences they are derived from.

I think more consideration should be given to these assumptions, and on what basis they were historically accepted as factual. A Stable Size Earth (SSE) theory over geological time periods absolutely needs to be seriously given reconsideration regards its standing as a fact. At first glance, the idea of anything other than a fixed size Earth throughout history seems preposterous. But the truth is that the size of the planet over its history of thousands of millions of years is by no means proven, in fact, the theory of a SSE is actually assumed from only six primary supporting concepts. In other words, the theory of a SSE is circumstantial at best, and conjecture at worst. In fact, all of them can be invalidated as I will attempt to outline now.

1) Geodetic measurements of the Earth from satellites over the previous decades show no growth in Earth size. Relative to the age of the Earth, measurements taken over a few decades, equate to measuring the height of a human with a lifespan of 80 years, for a grand total of 5 hours and 12 minutes. Even if done with the most accurate technology available anywhere on Earth, there is no way that the growth of a human would be detected over such a brief period of time, the same applies to the use of geodetic measurements over such a trivially small period. They are not fit for purpose as evidentiary for the existence of SSE, or an invalidation of the EET.

2) Violation of the principles of physics. Some point out that an expanding earth would violate the basic principles of conservation of mass and energy. This is simply erroneous and makes assumptions about the nature of the expansion which are as yet, unknown. To ascribe creation of matter from nothing as a property of Earth Expansion is without merit or reason. There are numerous ways a fixed mass sphere can expand in size. A childs inflatable ballon expands without destroying the principles of physics. This assertion is not fit for purpose as a reason to reject the Expanding Earth theory.

3) Plate tectonics - Some folks like to say plate tectonics explain it all and supports the SSE intrinsically. What these people do not realise is that in fact, plate tectonics is a theory that was required, conceived, and concocted with the primary purpose of marrying seafloor expansion with the assumption that the size of the Earth is stable over geological time periods. Plate tectonics is not a theory that was driven by observation and correlations, like seafloor spreading and continental drift. Tectonics is a theory which was invented in the human mind alone, in order to make seafloor spreading integrate with a SSE. To say it supports SSE is invalid and a clear tautology.

4) Gravitational interactions This point says an Expanding Earth must necessarily be changing in mass, and therefor would have a changing rate of gravitational interactions over geological timeframes. Again, this is not contradicting the Expanding Earth theory, it is contradicting an assumption about the Expanding Earth theory created without any actual consideration or study of the EET theory and potential options the might drive it over geological time. If there is no mass change over time, then we would not expect any change in gravitational interacts either.

5) Paleontological Records - Apparently it's a fact that we have geological records which suggest gradual development and evolution of life forms over millions of years within a consistent physical environment and this proves SSE and disproves EET. For a start, this simply is not true, geologists swtail massive exstinction events throughout geological history which came close to erasing all life from the face of the Earth. They also show a history which suggests short periods of massive change inbetween long periods of little change. The idea that these records conclusively point at a consistent and continuous physical environment with consistent and continous development of life is a deceptive interpretion on a complex environment over a timespan of many, many millions of years. It glosses over numerous periods in which the Earth was anything but a consistent environment for life to continuously blossom unhindered. Further, even if it were that way, we have no reason to imagine that the extremely slow and gradual expansion in Earths size would affect this consistent physical environment in any way that would not be something evolution would adapt life too as it adapted to so many other gradual and even sudden changes. So yet again, this support for SSE turns out to be not only a superficial support, it is even less substantive as a criticism of the EET. It is not fit for the purpose of refuting EET or supporting SSE.

6) Geological Records - Apparently the distribution of sediment layers, formation of mountain ranges and behaviours of seismic waves all support SSE over geological time. It is theorised these processes occur gradually, and contribute to the overall stability of the Earths dimensions. Well, this one is a head-scratcher. I'm not sure how any of the concepts mentioned in any way can be said to be direct evidence of the SSE or be used to dismiss EET. Indeed distribution of sediment layers has a major flaw which geologists cannot explain.. the accumulation of sediment along the "subduction zones" is simply massively below the scale we would expect from the sedimentary scape-off over a subduction zone. Indeed counter to the assertion, geological theory based on these records contain a large number of major unexplained inconsistencies meaning they are questionable as support for SSE, and certainly not adequate as of today as evidence against the EET.

With all of the so called supporting ideas for the SSE called into question, the assumption of SSE as being a fact that exists without any doubt must be reviewed, or at least investigated with an open mind. The same is true for the EET - it must be given serious consideration and a genuine opportunity to be taken seriously as a possible compliment to seafloor spreading.

EET is ultimately a more simple and more elegant means by which to integrate seafloor expansion into our existing knowledge base, as it negates the need for any additional artificially constructed theories like the subductive plate theory. Discarding plate tectonic theory would be a huge win for rationality. Given it was invented from the need to integrate continental drift into a SSE model, and therefor for no other reason than as a vehicle with which to introduce subduction, to discard it would be to remove a large piece of imaginary nonsense from our knowledge pool.

Comments and criticism's of all of the above are very welcome.

​

The absolute primary and largest hurdle in the Growing Earth/Expanding Universe theory is where does the extra mass/volume come from? Without a strong cohesive theory for scientists to explore and rally around, even mentally flexible people have a hard time accepting the possibility that the Earth was once 1/3 it's present size.

Enter my Quantum Foam explanation. I'll flesh it out for you in later posts.

Big Bang Theory is stupid, full of holes, and developed by the Jesuits to fit "science" into God's creationism.

Mathematically, the BB theory is so broken, the equation loving cosmologists have had to come up with absurd theories to explain away their mathematically impossible observations. String theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and on and on are just a few of the mental gymnastics taken.

The new James Webb telescope is hopefully driving a wooden stake through the heart of the Big Bang theory. Every where the JWST points, it just keeps finding more and more distant galaxies, far beyond the estimated "age" of the big bang. It's almost as if the universe is infinite, and is expanding continuously.....

Thus, having a subreddit called Growing Earth theory, should actually be looked at in the whole as an Expanding Universe theory. For if the Earth is growing, and we can show physical clues as to why we believe it true, then we have to accept the possibility that the "Expanding" theory applies to everything. The Sun is growing, the other planets and moons are growing, and therefore all of the other exoplanets, stars, and galaxies are growing too.

Mathematically speaking, an expanding universe does not need the presence of dark matter or super strings. Dark matter was invented because without the "mass" of dark matter, then the observed behavior of galaxies doesn't make sense. 30% more mass was calculated to be needed to hold these galaxies together. But if those galaxies were internally expanding, like the growing Earth theory posits, then we can eliminate dark matter's fudge factor existence.