Talk:Expanding Earth

If everything is getting bigger how would we notice

If all mass changes relative to other mass then how would one determine that mass has changed?

The expansion talked about of the earth seems to be similar to the universes raisin bread theory looking expansion, which would make sense that the only physical evidence would be the jigsaw puzzle looking continents, as if new mass from space was being added to the earth then it wouldn't explain the continents.

Seems like all the contrary evidence does not explain how they would figure out if all mass is expanding, which would seem quite impossible to disprove. Unlike universe expansion there may be no mass large enough to observe this happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.52.18.45 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Expanding Earth theory is not about all mass expanding at proportionate rates. It is specifically about the Earth expanding, relative to the rest of the universe. What you are talking about is something else entirely. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The expanding earth hypothesis is solely based on it explaining surface morphology of the planet better than other theories, how or why it expands is what is unknown. It seems you are the one who is onto something else as usually this theory includes all planets expanding just the same. --157.52.18.45 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now I just have no idea what you're even trying to argue. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That all the contrary evidence presented for why this theory is not accepted comes quite short if the mechanism for expansion is non-measurable and only present in the surface morphology of planets --157.52.18.45 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is written around the versions of the expanding Earth theory that were presented historically, and the rebuttals that were written in response. Not around what you imagine the theory should be, or how it can be refuted. And in fact, the rejection of the various Expanding Earth theories is not to do with the absence of evidence so much as the absence of mechanism - it is a theory that, at this time, is not required to explain any paradoxes, has no known mechanism by which it can occur without notice, and only raises new problems. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Russian Craze

The Expanding Earth hypothesis is huge thing in Russia, where it is mainstream and government supported. For example, there are many MSU scientists, like Vladimir Larin, who publish a ton of papers on it: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

Other scientists, like Vladimir Polivanov, get grants and give presentations for government officials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw3HmV4zO6E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4rgk_Pe58s

In that video Polivanov promises to discover huge underground reserves of hydrogen, that appeared due to expanding earth hypothesis. He also insists that global warming is a myth.

--NikitaSadkov (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Self-published volume

I stumbled into another EE-er on Twitter recently who seems to be trying to talk up a self-published book. He's been writing "papers" (no evidence of any peer review, but well presented - spell-checked even!!) on Researchgate, and no doubt is citing them wherever possible. Standard techniques that I remember from EE-ers on USENET back in the 1990s.

The pile I've just been wading though is a re-hash (with, thankfully, references) of the "sauropod size" argument given above. The slightly useful content is that there is a compendium of size models for Giraffatitan (Brachisaurus, the 1909-1912 specimen from Tanzania / Tanganyika Colony at the time), with some degree of referencing. He uses these to get various volume estimates for the specimen. Without giving a methodology, he then picks a number from the air for the volume, completely discarding the acknowledged fact that there is a large variation in those volume estimates. That number divided by a weight estimate taken from limb-bone circumference estimates (no consideration for the bone shape, or proportion of cortical vs marrow bone), then gives the number which was desired. Including the variation in volume estimates produces a range which includes modern gravity, demolishing the author's contention.

Typical fare from an EE-er.

I suppose I'd better give a link to the Researchgate "paper", and post these criticisms there.

Paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329586654_A_palaeogravity_calculation_based_on_weight_and_mass_estimates_of_Giraffatitan_Brachiosaurus_brancai/stats

AKarley (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

New Study

Atmospheric acceleration and Earth-expansion deceleration of the Earth rotation Sciencia58 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

[1] Sciencia58 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

[2] Sciencia58 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

As with most brand new studies, it's best to wait and see whether this becomes accepted and/or backed up by other studies before mentioning it in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Historical

[3] Sciencia58 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing Historical Advancements in the Growth and Expansion of Planets

The History is missing advancements and needed additions by several people working after Carey. People that have worked on various aspects are: Neal Adams,( Videos ), James Maxlow,( books, and videos ), Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth, ( Stephen Hurrell ), Nuriet (spelling), Nut Trees, and the Expanding Earth, and unfortunately all of the lost information when Yahoo shut down their Yahoo groups. Several hundred conversations were lost.

As for myself, I have been working over 21 Years on Growth and Expansion of the Earth, and have recently added growth and expansion of planets. As a result, the Earth is in the beginnings of a transition phase between slower growing smaller rocky planets, and the faster growing, and out-gassing larger gas giants. This transition occurred this side of 252.17 million year ago extinction event. About 200 million years ago, the rate of global growth and expansion resulted in pronounced rifting of the planets crust, and the beginning of the formation of our current ocean basins. Around 90 million years ago, the rate of new water added to the surface was exceeded by the increase in the rate of formation of the new ocean surface area. This side of 90 Ma, the Oceans have generally gotten shallower, and the water has poured off the continents to fill the enlarging ocean basins. At the same time growth has increased the mass of the Earth, the density, and the surface gravity. As a result, maximum allowable insect, and animals sizes have decreased, and the Atmosphere has become thinner, but gravity has compresses the atmosphere keeping Earth in a habitable range of temperatures while the surface pressure has remained similar over vast time periods. However, a thinner atmosphere means it now freezes at the poles, and at high altitudes, which did not happen back past 42 million years ago, when the south pole first formed ice. This side of 37 million years, the south pole has always had ice. After Siberia added 2 to 4 miles of lava flows to its surface, the top still had a temperate climate where trees and plants grew all year long. This was due to the taller atmosphere where the pressure was half at more the 36,000 feet, not at 18,000 feet as it is today. 98.245.216.62 (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)