1. Education

The Expanding-Earth Illusion

By January 19, 2013

Follow me on:

Anyone who's pursued geology on the web enough has run into the expanding-Earthers, a set of people who parrot the long-discredited theory once put forth by respected geologists that the planet's configuration is best explained by having it grow—like double in size since the dinosaurs' days. Their most cherished persuasive tool is the animation, which shows the world shrinking until its continents all tuck neatly together. They really do! But that's because of the way plate tectonics works. Once you realize that, the animation gains a certain perverse charm, like an optical illusion. I've put the details in this article.

I'm renewing this post, first written in August 2010, because I've touched up the article and because unbeknownst to most of you, the expanding-Earthers have been commenting here ever since. If you've never seen them in action, this is typical.

Comments

August 14, 2010 at 7:23 am
(1) Kevin Mansfield says:

If their is one thing that Andrew Alden and myself agree on, it is that Warren Carey was a great man of science.

Right till the end of his life, in 2002, Carey insisted that the geological evidence demonstrated that the Earth had expanded. Carey never deviated from this belief. He felt that the evidence compelled him to believe in an expanding Earth, even though he never found a satisfactory cause for the expansion.

I believe a new theory, shows that Carey was correct all along.

This is the new theory;

Evidence supporting Kevin Mansfield’s Earth Formation Hypothesis.

The Hypothesis:

Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets, called Heaven and PreEarth. Heaven had a radius about ninety percent that of PreEarth. These two, initially comprised a binary system (just like the Earth and Moon presently comprise a binary system) orbiting the Sun.

Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed, Heaven crashed through the crust of PreEarth, taking most of its energy into the interior, while leaving much of the crust unscathed. Now, imagine that the mass of the apple and bullet are so large (planet sized) that the bullet cannot escape their combined gravity. Then you have the hypothesized situation. Of course, as PreEarth swallowed Heaven, it greatly expanded in size. This expansion, however, did not leave the remaining crust unscathed.

The Evidence:

1) The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., the north west Pacific.
2) The impact mountains around the Pacific Ocean, i.e., the ring of fire.
3) Western impact mountains ripped off continental block.
4) The impact caused continental drift.
5) The theory predicts a single circular continent with splits, i.e., Pangaea.
6) The theory predicts oceanic crust very different from continental crust.
7) Warren Carey’s evidence, is also evidence for this hypothesis.
8) Apparent sea-floor ages explained as geochemical gradient due to mixing.
9) The theory predicts Earth’s core is rotating faster than its mantle.
10) The theory predicts Earth’s magnetic field is rapidly decreasing.
11) The theory predicts/explains magnetic reversals.
12) The theory allows the force of gravity to have been smaller in the past.
13) Removes the thermal catastrophe.
14) The theory provides a decent power source for continental drift.
15) Animations of the expansion plus drift can be produced.
16) Provides a new theory regarding the formation of the Moon.

See http://preearth.net/evidence.html where each point above is expanded upon:

A brief history of the ideas.

Many of the ideas above were first presented in a public lecture, on November 2, 2008, at the Alexandra Park Raceway, Auckland, New Zealand. They were subsequently written up and published, on April 20, 2010, in the form of a 26 page paper. The preprint server arxiv.org refused to distribute this paper (clearly, the task of releasing preprints to the scientific community should be taken from those at arxiv.org and given to some responsible party). Consequently, toward the end of May, the website http://www.preearth.net was established to publicize the paper. This summary of evidence was completed on July 29, 2010.

Kevin Mansfield, has a BSc(Hons) from the University of Auckland (Auckland, New Zealand) and a PhD in mathematics from the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia).

From http://preearth.net

August 19, 2010 at 5:00 am
(2) Michael Hauck says:

Hello Andrew, my name is Michael and i am a Biologist from Germany. Fist I have to say that this Expanding Earth Theorie is not inventet by Carey but by Ott Christoph Hilgenberg . He was a college of Wegener and wrote his famous book abot the “wachsenden Erdball” in 1933. Since then his theorie has not been modified and still explains all geological and biological features of the planet earth in a perfect manner, whitch is very astounding in comparison to other theories who underwent great changes. My second argument is related to your statement that Carey, like all(most) expanding earth belivers and the “psychological force of denial”. The human mind often acts like an egg-cell, once a sperm (theorie) has enterd, it is beeing closed for other thouhgts. To avoid this problem I made mysel the habit of looking ad all kinds of different theories, to understand a certain problem. So I compared plate tectonics with expanding earth for about 5 jears now and to my own surprise I did not find any mistakes in the expanding earth theorie. All the counter arguments i found in this time are not valid because they are mostly assumtions or when objective Data is cited expanding earth theorie is explaining this data as well or mostly even better. I red your article in the hope of getting new insights, but sadly you also only give assumtions. My last point is that theories can not be prooven but only falsified. So far I found about 200 falsifications for plate tectonics. The worst one is that the assumed plate movements are geometrically imposible, whitch can easily be proven by using a globe. I can give you lots more if you like. But what falsificates the EE-Theorie? That some points can be explaind by plate tectonics and therfore “EE-theorie is not needed” is not sience but religion.

August 19, 2010 at 2:36 pm
(3) Eric Logan says:

Mansfield’s ‘hypothesis’ attempts to add creditability to the original expanding earth theory by assigning a new mechanism of expansion. There is no plausible expansion mechanism whatever in the original. Expansion is used to explain tectonic observations and then tectonic observations are used to infer expansion. Mansfield’s ‘hypothesis suffers from the same circularity.

August 19, 2010 at 9:54 pm
(4) Kevin Mansfield says:

“Expansion is used to explain tectonic observations and then tectonic observations are used to infer expansion. Mansfield’s hypothesis suffers from the same circularity.”

Your statement is NOT even close to true. To help you see why, consider;

1) Tectonic observations are used to infer expansion.
2) Expansion is used to explain tectonic observations.

1) Tectonic observations are used to infer mantle currents.
2) Mantle currents are used to explain tectonic observations.

The problem being that your assumptions do NOT imply circularity.

Contrary to your statement that they do.

August 20, 2010 at 8:00 am
(5) Jules says:

Kevin,

It is the responsibility of you and other earth expansion proponents to back up your ideas with experimentation, data and peer review that confirm, discredit or modify your theories.

Wegner’s “radical ideas” were not broadly accepted by the geology community in his time, but decades later research proved his basic ideas were correct. Where is the peer reviewed research by practicing geological professionals that will validate these EE theories?

August 20, 2010 at 9:55 am
(6) Kevin Mansfield says:

Hi Michael Hauck; Thanks a lot for the information about Ott Christoph Hilgenberg.

Hi Jules; I reckon that point 5) by itself is already compelling;

5) The theory predicts a single circular continent with splits, i.e., Pangaea.

The expansion cracked PreEarth’s unimpacted crust into large pieces that became today’s continents. These massive pieces of crust largely retained their shape throughout the expansion, although their curvature changed considerably. Since these pieces of crust had previously comprised the region, PreEarth-Pangaea, it is clear that Earth’s continents should be able to be shuffled about Earth’s surface and be reassembled as an area resembling PreEarth-Pangaea. Of course, it will not be possible to recreate PreEarth-Pangaea, exactly, because of the change of curvature.

Alfred Wegener was the first to notice this and reassemble all of Earth’s continents. Wegener patched them into a single landmass, which he called Pangaea. He claimed that Pangaea existed for millions of years, until, for some unknown reason, it broke into smaller continents, which then drifted to their current positions. Above, on the right, is a map of the Earth showing Pangaea (the land area enclosed by the inner circle). The azimuthal equidistant projection has been used to create this map which is from the America Association of Petroleum Geologists, and is, reportedly, the most accurate available.

If one took the crust from the PreEarth-Pangaea region and imposed Earth’s curvature upon it, by say, placing it above the Earth and physically forcing it down until it lay on the Earth’s surface, then the crust would necessarily split in one or two places and at least one of these splits would extend to the center of the region. This is exactly what we see in Wegener’s Pangaea. The splits being the polar sea and the large triangular shaped Tethys Ocean, which extends right to the center of the region.

Of course, Pangaea never existed as a continent. It was never surrounded by ocean and the Tethys Ocean and polar sea never existed at all. These are understandable fictions, forced upon scientists because they reassembled Earth’s continents on Earth, rather than on PreEarth, from whence the continents actually originated. However, even though these are fictional, they are all fictions predicted by the hypothesis.

Think about it;

Why can Pangaea be neatly circumscribed by a circle?
Why does Pangaea have a large triangular shaped sea that extends to the center (i.e., splits)?

Only one theory explains/predicts both of these.

August 23, 2010 at 5:40 am
(7) Kevin Mansfield says:

Geologists say:

1) The Earth started molten.
2) The granitic material, being lightest, precipitated out of the melt first, forming the continental crust.

Today, the continental crust covers only 35% of the globe.
Continental crust cannot be subducted as it is the lightest.
Thus continental crust cannot be destroyed by tectonics, however, 65% of it has vanished.

3) Some unknown event removed 65% of the continental crust to give todays 35%.

Of course, the event unknown to geologists is Mansfield’s impact described above.

August 23, 2010 at 9:03 pm
(8) Geology Guide says:

Kevin:

Because you do not understand current thinking among geologists (meaning your point #2), your own arguments have no credibility. You cannot persuade us with mistaken premises and poor grasp of concepts. In the notorious phrase attributed to Pauli, you are not even wrong.

August 23, 2010 at 11:42 pm
(9) Kevin Mansfield says:

Hi Andrew, I am unaware of any “standard” explanation for the disappearance of 65% of the continental crust (in the precipitation from melt scenario).

If you know of one, please inform me of it.

Another scenario, is that the continental crust did not arise from any melt, but somehow grew, once the Earth had mostly solidified.

I have read about the underplating of continental crust, with more continental crust, but this has one obvious logical problem, namely; If you need continental crust to form more continental crust, then how did the first patch of continental crust come about?

Any help on these would be appreciated.

August 27, 2010 at 7:17 am
(10) Michael says:

Kevin, your 2 assumptions are wrong.
The earth did not start molten. It started as an aggregate of star dust. It was melted once – differentiating it to the inner iron core and outer mantle. It did not have any continental crust to begin with!
You are saying as if the earth had 100% continental crust, and then 65% disappeared. Wrong.
The continental crust is a result of repeated partial melting of the mantle.
You are also saying in your website that the tethys ocean did not exist. Of course it did. You can actually go to the Troodos mountains in Cyprus and see for yourself, and magnificent outcrop of the oceanic crust all the way from the mantle, through the moho and to the surface.
Impact mountains? These mountains are being created as we speak – I fail to understand how they were created in a single event, especially when they are all dated to various times and not to one single event.
Speaking of dating – what is the timing of the impact? When did it happen?

I have found many more holes in your theory, but it’s a bit useless to explain them all here. I don’t know if you’re a charlatan trying to convince people of something which you know is false, or you truly believe in this. This theory has “WRONG” written all over it.

August 27, 2010 at 8:27 am
(11) Kevin Mansfield says:

Michael: Is this your theory,…? I doubt it is standard.

1) Earth was melted once differentiating it to the inner iron core and outer mantle.
2) Earth did not have any continental crust to begin with!
3) The continental crust is a result of repeated partial melting of the mantle.

Problem 1) Partial melting created continental crust but the larger melt didn’t. Why?

Problem 2) What caused the partial melting?

Impacts certainly don’t create continental crust (and certainly not a layer 40 km thick).

“I have found many more holes in your theory, but it’s a bit useless to explain them all here.”

Why not?

Anyway, I have a forum at: http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/index.php

Here’s a list of topics: http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts

You don’t need to register, just click on the new topic button and start a thread. Only a few people use it at present.

“You are also saying in your website that the tethys ocean did not exist. Of course it did. You can actually go to the Troodos mountains in Cyprus and see for yourself, and magnificent outcrop of the oceanic crust all the way from the mantle, through the moho and to the surface.”

I don’t see that an isolated outcrop of raised oceanic crust, proves the existence of the tethys ocean. You would expect a limited amount of oceanic crust to be forced above sea level during a massive collision.

“Impact mountains? These mountains are being created as we speak.”

What you see is the relaxation of the tremendous stresses caused by the impact. Just like the Fennoscandia area is still rising, 10,000 years after the icecap that depressed it, totally disappeared.

August 31, 2010 at 1:04 am
(12) You got a mention here. says:

Andrew. You got a mention here,

http://earthexpansion.blogspot.com/

August 31, 2010 at 5:57 pm
(13) Geology Guide says:

Typically, with no response to my point. Just as Kevin Mansfield has ignored my point. That’s all right; readers can tell.

September 1, 2010 at 1:21 am
(14) Kevin Mansfield says:

I’m sorry, but it appears to be you, and your supporters, who have ignored most of the comments/points/requests that I have made, not the other way around.

Perhaps you folk just aren’t able to answer the criticism of your theories.

Anyway, which point of yours has been overlooked?

I have read the thread again and am unable to find it.

September 1, 2010 at 12:59 pm
(15) Geology Guide says:

The point is the article that the post is about, the one where I showed that your animation is perfectly compatible with plate tectonics and, indeed, is a lovely counterintuitive illustration of its power. Neither you nor the Earth Expansion blogger made any note of that.

Your “criticism” is merely a set of statements based on gross misunderstanding of plate tectonics. It is a waste of our time to respond, when there are plenty of places for you to learn if you keep an open mind and pay attention, like my “Plate Tectonics in a Nutshell.”

September 1, 2010 at 9:56 pm
(16) Kevin Mansfield says:

“It is a waste of our time to respond,…”

I see. You don’t know any answers.

I thought so.

By the way, in the criticism, plate tectonics was only mentioned once and in this way;

“Continental crust cannot be subducted as it is the lightest.”

And with this you must agree, if you want to have the backing of the geological world. So your statement;

“Your criticism is merely a set of statements based on gross misunderstanding of plate tectonics.”

is totally bogus, as the criticism had almost nothing to do with plate tectonics.

Do not feel bad about not being able to answer these points.

Real geophysicists I have asked, have also stumbled badly here.

September 2, 2010 at 12:17 am
(17) Geology Guide says:

Again, no response to my original point. As I said, readers can tell. Kevin is showing a common sign among “outsider” theorists (creationists, abiotic oilers, climate-change skeptics, expanding Earthers), which is to rely on rhetoric and vigorous assertion for persuasion. That’s not science. We can tell.

September 2, 2010 at 1:43 am
(18) Kevin Mansfield says:

“Again, no response to my original point.”

I’m having trouble figuring exactly what you are talking about,… but let me guess from your comment above;

“where I showed that your animation is perfectly compatible with plate tectonics”

I disagree, in the sense that my animations show an expanding Earth.

I have seen many animations that show how the continents are thought to have moved under plate tectonics.

For these animations, I agree with your statement, that they are compatible with plate tectonics.

Animations only show what is happening on the surface, so they can support plate tectonics, or god pushing the continents around, or an expanding earth, or whatever.

You want me to answer your oblique questions, but don’t answer mine.

Let’s start by getting an answer to these;

1) When did the continental crust come into being?
2) How did the continental crust come into being?
3) How much of the Earth did it originally cover?
4) If it didn’t originally cover the entire Earth, how did it grow?

I have set up a blog at http://preearth.blogspot.com/ .

By the way, a number of your statements about Carey in that article you linked to, are total BS.

September 2, 2010 at 12:40 pm
(19) Geology Guide says:

Kevin, I pointed you to my article that explained why your animation is compatible with plate tectonics. You said in response, “I disagree, in the sense that my animations show an expanding Earth.”

Let me quote from the article, to make sure that you can see my argument:

“Plate tectonics paints a picture of continental crust constantly rearranging itself. In this scenario, every continent eventually gets all of its edges ripped. In a steady-state Earth like this, you can always interpret the result as an expanding Earth purely from geometry. Every edge, if you go back long enough (200 million years), will find its counterpart. It only looks like the Earth must shrink to accomplish this. It’s an optical illusion stemming from a conceptual illusion. And you can only believe that illusion if you treat the continental crust as a featureless blank, with no history of its own—that is, if you ignore basic regional geology.”

Your animations are no different from anyone else’s. Geometrically, they are merely a projection of plate-tectonic motions onto a novel frame. Your animation cannot distinguish between a conventional Earth and an expanding Earth. The obvious and fatal flaw with the expansionist model is that it doesn’t explain seams in the continents (identical to the signs of modern continental ruptures) that are older than your supposed time when the crust had no seams. Apparently you aren’t aware that this is a problem.

Now none of this is to avoid your questions about the origin of the continental crust. There is no widely accepted, useful answer for those questions. But just as evolutionary theory explains the origin of species without getting into the origin of life, so plate tectonics explains the behavior of the lithosphere without getting into its origin. The question of origin is very interesting and important, but it’s separate from plate tectonics. The evidence that plate tectonics explains is about seismicity, geodesy, geochemistry, tectonophysics and paleontology. None of that evidence is definitive about the origin of the continents.

September 3, 2010 at 10:15 am
(20) Kevin Mansfield says:

“Now none of this is to avoid your questions about the origin of the continental crust. There is no widely accepted, useful answer for those questions.”

Andrew. Compare your answer of “We don’t really know.” with the following;

2) How did the continental crust come into being?

PreEarth started molten. The granitic material, being lightest, precipitated out of the melt first, forming a crust.

1) When did the continental crust come into being?

Some 4 or 5 billion years ago as PreEarth cooled from its molten state.

3) How much of the (Pre)Earth did it originally cover?

All of it.

4) How did it grow?

It didn’t.

And the collision also provides answers to these questions;

5) The continental crust covers only 35% of the globe. Why is this?
6) How did the oceanic crust form?
7) Why is the oceanic crust so different from continental crust?
8) Why does Earth have a bimodal altitude distribution?

The collision destroyed much of PreEarth’s crust on impact, but much survived. The surviving crust had an area about 35% of the area of the Earth. This surviving crust became the Earth’s continental crust. The expansion then created the ocean basins, which together with the impacted area, made up the remaining 65%.

The collision hypothesis, answers all these questions that traditional theory doesn’t.

Not too bad for a theory you reject.

September 3, 2010 at 1:11 pm
(21) Geology Guide says:

The collision “hypothesis” doesn’t answer the question I referred to: traces of ocean basins that are older than 200 million years. Do you even know what I’m talking about? Apparently not, since you continually ignore it. A theory that doesn’t account for well-established phenomena must be rejected.

However, you may have the last word. Please be my guest.

September 3, 2010 at 9:04 pm
(22) Kevin Mansfield says:

“However, you may have the last word. Please be my guest.”

Well, I like your sense of humor.

“A theory that doesn’t account for well-established phenomena must be rejected.”

As established above, standard theories do not account the well-established phenomena, called continental crust.

These standard theories do not tell you;

1) When the continental crust come into being?
2) How the continental crust come into being?
3) How much of the Earth it originally covered?
4) How it grew?
5) etc, etc,…

Andrew’s stated conclusion is thus,…

THE STANDARD THEORIES that do not account for this well-established phenomena, called continental crust, MUST BE REJECTED.

Out of his own mouth.

THE STANDARD THEORIES MUST BE REJECTED.

September 4, 2010 at 1:32 pm
(23) Abi says:

Hello dear Andrew,

I’ve read your article but I don’t quite understand how the expanding earth is an illusion. You’ve stated that :

“It only looks like the Earth must shrink to accomplish this.”

But I just don’t see how all the edges would fit together on a constant diameter Earth. When Wegener first proposed the theory of continental drift, it was based on his observation that the continents seem to fit together like a puzzle.

His theory was rejected by scientific consensus for 50 years due to lack of a mechanism that would explain how continental drift happens. With tectonic plates theory the issue was resolved and it is now an accepted and understood fact that the continents did in the past fit together as one super continent.

Why stop there? By there I mean at the contemporary pangea in the middle of one body of water. What about all the outer edges of pangea. Do they have a random shape? Was the continent pangea on that specific location of the globe and not another for other random reasons?

Expanding Earth theory takes the puzzle of Earth’s continents and turns it into a more advanced 3D-puzzle. It just so happens that the outer edges of pangea fit snugly together. But this is only possible if the Earth’s diameter is not constant.

Surely it can’t be coincidence that the fit is so snug. It also makes a lot more sense to say that the Earth was once entirely covered by continental crust, and its expansion caused the crust to break apart into different continents. The original shape of pangea is no longer just a random shape, because we say so, rather it’s been caused.

I understand that a mechanism for an expanding Earth is yet to be found, but remember Wegener, for 50 years his theory was rejected even though it made perfect sense, because a mechanism was unknown.

Please explain to me how the snug fit of all the continents together can take place with a constant diameter Earth, and whether or not you think the snug fit is just by coincidence.

September 4, 2010 at 10:50 pm
(24) Kevin Mansfield says:

“I understand that a mechanism for an expanding Earth is yet to be found.”

The mechanism has been found, it is called a massive impact, see;

http://preearth.net/evidence.html

or read the thread you are commenting on,….

September 5, 2010 at 2:34 pm
(25) Abi says:

Kevin,

That’s a very interesting theory, which seems to address a lot of issues. Like a bullet penetrating an apple, or perhaps, like a sperm cell penetrating an egg, causing much life and many changes to begin?

But i’m not a geologist anyhow, just a curious researcher with an open mind.

I’ve read different theories regarding the mechanism. Neal Adams suggest pair production happens inside the Earth’s Core.

Lawrence Myers at http://www.expanding-earth.org suggests accretion, which is a plausible explanation for the Earth’s beginnings, but I do not see how it would explain expansion. Accretion as I understand it, suggests that new layers are being added on top of older ones. But that wouldn’t make sense since the newest layers are those closest to the Earth’s core.

However, he has also suggested remeasuring the globe’s diameter to settle the matter once and for all. Do you think that could be a useful approach? Also what is your opinion of the scientific consensus, from wikipedia: expanding earth, “measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size.”?

September 8, 2010 at 2:07 pm
(26) Attila says:

Before few years I was believer of PT… but in time of writing Planet erosion paper in Hungarian (2007 Bolygerzi) e
translated by me in 2009: http://planeterosion.blogspot.com/
I have understood:
The Earth Moon formed from Sun simultaneously.
They expanding caused by their transformation of core… The gravity depend from outer core pression…

Rest in paper Planet erosion…

Best Regards,
a.

September 15, 2010 at 5:19 am
(27) OIC says:

We are taught that the earth was formed by accretion (it grew), but now we are told that it has stopped growing, yet NASA have found that it seems to be growing at an average of 4mm per year. I don’t think this has been confirmed as absolutely correct yet as data is still being accrued.
So a quick thought experiment to all those experts that tell us that the earth originally came into being by growing from an accretion disc around the young sun.
The early solar system had far more dust and gas when it was young.
The earth grew.
The earth grew quicker when it was younger due to accretion density.
If the earth were growing at only a minuscule 5mm per year (radius), then over the 165 million years that the dinosaurs were around, the earth “could have grown” by 1,650 million millimetres or in shorthand 1,650 kilometres.
There would also be a peak in growth where the earth’s gravity and size would speed up its growth but probably at a time when the accretion disc was petering out, so there would be an accelerating growth, then after a peak was reached a deceleration of growth.

You can’t have it both ways, it either grows or does not. I believe that this is where the standard geological model shoots itself in its own foot-notes!

September 15, 2010 at 12:50 pm
(28) Geology Guide says:

Can you show us where NASA supposedly says the Earth is growing?

June 25, 2011 at 8:43 am
(29) Hardy Woodchuck says:

If the earth is expanding so rapidly, wouldn’t we be able to measure that expansion now a days? we can tell if a land mass or coast line has shrunk or grown a few centimeters, if we used our satellites shouldn’t we be able to tell over a few years if the earths diameter is increasing or not, and at what rate?

If so you’d think NASA would have records of it, if they do kindly leave a link for me.

June 27, 2011 at 7:35 pm
(30) Geology Guide says:

Hardy, why don’t you ask that question of the expanding-Earth people? They would love that kind of proof.

July 22, 2011 at 12:43 pm
(31) Michael says:

Andrew, I’m no geologist or scientist but I’ve been examining the expanding earth theory for a while.

I have some issues with the constant earth theory: The idea that our planet has always been the same size. In this CE theory are problems which simply cannot be explained.
These are the biological problems associated with the intensity of the present gravity of our planet. The logical solution to the increase in gravity is natually an increase in mass density, which seems most unlikely to be caused by the development of a back hole in the center of the earth, and rather the increasing collections of matter.

By whatever means, an increase in material/matter to the planet ls a fact: the issue is how, and not if. The issue is valid measurements of such ideas as space rocks falling out of meteor streams and if any one has taken a caculation as to the amounts deposited to see if any such notions could actually be the cause. Itself a highly improbable notion but not an impossible idea.

Then we have how this manifest fact of increasing gravity; proven by the extinction of large land animals and giant insects and giant flora. These all clearly prove the gravity has significantly increased at periods of time. Some apparently rather fast. That the extinctions of these creatures and adaptations of some to the oceans also argue powerfully that the assumptions of a constant earth size is wrong.

For example, no land animal is capable of growing taller than a Giraffe since it isn’t biologically capable of pumping blood much higher without significant alterations in over-all biological design. Again, I’m no expert in the subject but logic does say that a most likely cause of mass extinctions has nothing to do with Comets. An almost absurd idea.
Clearly we are dealing with planet which has increasingly increased its’ gravitational power.

July 24, 2011 at 4:48 pm
(32) Geology Guide says:

We have explanations for the giant insects (there are no “giant flora”) and the height of the dinosaurs. Both rely on oxygen, not gravity. The insects benefited from high oxygen levels; the dinosaurs had smaller oxygen needs than mammals. Neither of your arguments “clearly prove” that gravity has changed, and the same is true of every other argument put up by expanding-earthers. That includes the whole focus on adding mass by accretion of meteorites. We have good numbers; you could look them up and carry out the calculations yourself. But also, there is no geochemical evidence of a gigantic, growing input of extraterrestrial mass. The effect would be gross and obvious.

February 27, 2012 at 9:55 pm
(33) FYI says:
February 28, 2012 at 1:15 am
(34) Geology Guide says:

Don’t make us laugh.

March 1, 2012 at 3:35 am
(35) FYI says:

I think you have been challenged to a duel,…

Those who push plate-tectonics are so amazingly stupid, that they never even bothered to check whether, or not, the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle was really lighter than the colder rock above it, as is required by their theory. And, this is though most geology books actually tell you that the hot rock, 3740 K, at the bottom of the mantle has a density of 5,560 kg/m, and that the density decreases from 5,560 kg/m to 3,370 kg/m as one approaches the top of the mantle (3,370 kg/m is the density the cold rock, 930 K, at the top of the mantle, about 40 kms down).

This, totally contradicts the assumptions of the theory of mantle currents/plate-tectonics (that is, contrary to known fact, plate-tectonics assumes that the rock at the bottom of the mantle becomes hotter, and thus lighter than the colder rock above it, and consequently rises).

How could scientists be so stupid? Well, whatever the reason, they certainly are extremely stupid.

I also note that, various scientists have now had a year to come up with some sort of answer to this problem (and the other problems presented below) but they have not.

March 1, 2012 at 5:50 pm
(36) Geology Guide says:

Maybe it’s not those thousands of scientists who are the stupid ones.

April 6, 2012 at 2:24 pm
(37) katesisco says:

FYI is commenting on an interesting fact. That the rock is hotter at the top of the mantle implies that the crust shifted over the upper mantle. I believe S W Carey’s discovery of two ‘expansion’ events 50 my apart.. A great info site is newgeology.com in which this theory is explained and in particular reference the magnetic stripping. The ‘crack’ in the Atlantic and the older one off California that the continent has overrun are both evidence of Carey’s statement of expansion.

April 9, 2012 at 6:29 am
(38) Inquiring Mind says:

“Maybe it’s not those thousands of scientists who are the stupid ones.”

Maybe IT IS the thousands of scientists who are the stupid ones.

If you, Geology Guide, and the “thousands of scientists” are not the stupid ones, then you should tell us why you believe that the hotter more dense rock, rises into cooler less dense rock, immediately above it.

This appears to be contrary to the laws of physics.

And note that, for the entire height of the mantle, at every level, there is cooler less dense rock, immediately above hotter more dense rock (as can be easily seen from any depth versus density versus temperature graph).

So, tell us why you think the more dense rock, rises into the less dense rock immediately above it. Inquiring minds would like to know.

April 9, 2012 at 3:01 pm
(39) Geology Guide says:

Well, let’s see. It’s no use focusing on the exact numbers you posted in comment 49 because there ARE no exact numbers. Densities and temperatures in the deep mantle are mere estimates with significant uncertainties. Nevertheless, they increase with depth as far as we can tell. But look at helium balloons: they expand as they rise. And in the solid Earth, anything that makes a packet of rock rise will cause it to expand as the pressure upon it decreases. If the chemistry and the mineralogy and so on are all identical, a mantle with a density gradient poses no barrier to convection — all you need is extra heat or a current pushing things upward here or downward there. It’s a matter of what physicists call enthalpy.

That answers your question.

However, chemistry and mineralogy do change with depth, which complicates things. Two major mineral changes occur at 660 and 410 km depth, and the energetics of those changes in crystallography act as barriers to simple convection. Your picture of the mantle is too simple.

April 10, 2012 at 1:50 am
(40) Inquiring Mind says:

“That answers your question.”

Rubbish. Your standard of proof is so low as to be almost non-existent.

“Densities and temperatures in the deep mantle are mere estimates with significant uncertainties.”

The temperature estimates indeed have significant uncertainty, however, seismic studies have given us fairly accurate density estimates. You can find them quoted in books like Don Anderson’s Theory of the Earth. See page 358. The estimates are given to one hundredth of a gram per cubic centimetre. Contrary to what you say, the density is known more accurately than just about anything else concerning the Earth’s interior.

“anything that makes a packet of rock rise will cause it to expand as the pressure upon it decreases.”

This statement is true, but it incorporates a false assumption. Your mistake is in assuming that there is some mechanism that will cause a packet of rock to rise. In particular, you seem to believe that you have unlimited heating from the core, however, you only have enough heat (from the core) to heat the rock at the bottom of the mantle to 3740 K, where it has a density of 5,560 kg/m (which is heavier than the rock anywhere above it, so there will be no convection). Of course, unlimited heating from the core would eventually cause convection, but you don’t have that.

“a mantle with a density gradient poses no barrier to convection”

This is similarly incorrect, and for the same reason, namely, you don’t have unlimited heating from the core.

April 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm
(41) Geology Guide says:

I don’t understand your fixation on the core. Earth is a cooling-driven planet. Convection comes from the surface downward. Don Anderson is quite clear on that.

As I said, a density gradient is not a barrier to convection. But viscosity is, and Anderson demonstrates that the lower mantle must be too viscous to convect even with a very large temperature gradient at its base. That is a pillar of his opposition to mantle plumes.

April 11, 2012 at 7:17 pm
(42) Inquiring Mind says:

Statements like “Convection comes from the surface downward,” and “a density gradient is not a barrier to convection,” prove that you really don’t have a clue about this.

Don’t feel bad though. Not one geologist, or geophysicist, that I have spoken to, ever checked the assumptions of mantle currents/plate tectonics. Not one.

So why do they believe in mantle currents? It seems to be a faith thing, they have faith that the people who came before them, must have checked the assumptions of the theory. However, the people who came before them didn’t check these things, they simply believed that the theory was true, because it had to be, because it was the only theory (back then) that allowed for continental drift, and everyone knew that continental drift was true.

April 11, 2012 at 10:34 pm
(43) Geology Guide says:

I guess so.

June 22, 2012 at 11:30 am
(44) Dr, Subhasis Sen says:

Both drift and expansion would not be possible under the present state rigid mantle. However, it is only with the help of expansion theory we find that during the pre-expansion stage of the planet, it was devoid of oceans. Hence, at that stage the ocean-forming water was associated with the mantle, thereby rendering this geosphere sufficiently fluid or semi-fluid and suitable for expansion which was caused by gravitational pull exerted by an extra-terrestrial planetary body. In the deep interior of the planet too due to such expansion, the original core-mantle conjunction would be ruptured. Matching thickness of the fluid outer core with that of the extent of expansion, strongly supports the view that in consequence of prolonged expansion, along the ruptured core-mantle conjunction a pseudo-fluid geosphere which could be identified as the earths fluid outer core was gradually opened up. The above mentioned arguments lead us to envision occurrence of two solid parts of rocky and metallic composition separated by a non-solid and virtually void zone in the deep interior of the planet. This sort of internal setup would give rise to the phenomenon of reverse gravity generating low temperature and low pressure zones in the earths deep interior. The simple and down to earth concept explained here is in complete agreement with all the major fundamental features, including several hitherto unexplained ones encountered in the planetary interior. Evidences of low temperature and low pressure characteristics in the planets deep interior are exhibited in meteorites which are considered to be broken fragments of a pre-existing planet.

EARTH -THE PLANET EXTRAORDINARY, Subhasis Sen, 2007, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 232p, ISBN :.81-8424-151-8, Address : Allied Publishers Limited, 1/13-14, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi , 110 002, India)

June 23, 2012 at 12:25 am
(45) Geology Guide says:

Since your first statement is incorrect, I have to dismiss everything you base upon it—extraterrestrial gravity, pseudofluids, virtually void zones and reverse gravity.

December 30, 2012 at 6:30 pm
(46) Andrew says:

What disproves Growing Earth?

1. The mass, you don’t know where it comes from, but all mass in the universe must have come from somewhere. Not knowing, doesn’t prove the universe doesn’t exist.

2. Measurements. The only people capable of making accurate measurements (NASA) use them in the context of Plate Tectonic Theory, which assumes a static radius, and therefore assumes that vertical motions are errors. They zero these errors, because the vertical motion is irrelevant to PT. The measurements they release to the public, are therefore unreliable. They assume PT must be true, because almost everyone believes it.

3. All the Continents fit together on a smaller globe, but it’s an illusion. The sea floor map, provides constraints on how to fit them together. Fossils match across all oceans, and paleomagnetic data fits better on a smaller globe. PT supporters dismiss all this as coincidence. This does not disprove the theory.

4 Subduction. PTers found a few trenches in the Pacific, and said all the old crust went down there, not realizing that every spreading ridge would have to lead directly to a subduction zone, which is clearly not supported by current data. Continents are too deep-rooted to be subducted under, so oceans cannot close. Starting and stopping subduction, is also not explained by PT. Subduction is an assumption, not proof against Growing Earth. There may be some, in the Ring of Fire, but nowhere near enough for what PT needs.

5. No other planets or moons, are growing. Actually all other rocky planets and moons show spread, but no subduction, hailed as PT on other planets, but PT requires subduction, without it there is growth. So all planets that have solid crusts, are growing.

All Growing Earth opponents can do is ridicule Growing Earth, because they can’t disprove it yet.

December 31, 2012 at 12:55 am
(47) Geology Guide says:

So now you’ve moved over to this thread from the other one just as it was getting interesting. You’ve also dropped the arguments you were making over there.

1. There is no mass argument for a growing Earth. Meteorites are negligible, as simple arithmetic shows. Creation of mass is a prediction of the expansionist theory, not evidence of it.

2. You clearly don’t understand the paper I just sent you, the Robaudo & Harrison paper on VLBI measurements around the Earth. They ignored vertical numbers because the errors were comparatively great, plus or minus (that means down as well as up). They focused on horizontal numbers because that’s what they were measuring, horizontal motions of a single circuit of plates. You know, if that circuit they measured had expanded, that would mean the Earth is expanding, right? Just like you measure your waistline. You don’t need vertical motions to establish vertical growth. Horizontal extension is a more sensitive way to detect expansion.

3. The fit of the continents is beautifully explained by plate tectonics. And plate tectonics goes on to explain things that Earth expanders are silent about. You make the mistake of thinking that all the plates have to be touching at once. The geologic evidence doesn’t support that.

4. You’re just waving your arms here. Really. Like every expansion proponent, you simply can’t accept that subduction exists, is being monitored in real time, and corresponds within the margin of error with the geologic evidence of past subduction. Your blindness on this matter is the damnedest thing. “Oceans cannot close because continents can’t be subducted.” You don’t make the least sense.

5. Not a single rocky body displays evidence of gross swelling. Not one. I don’t know where you got that. Maybe you can point me to a YouTube video.

January 17, 2013 at 9:32 am
(48) Subhasis Sen says:

No additional mass is required for expansion. In cases of earth’s expansion (or even for continental drift) the planet’s mantle must have been fluid which can only be possible in a small ocean-less earth of pre-expansion stage. At that stage, ocean-forming water was associated with the mantle rendering considerably fluid and pre-eminently suitable nature for expansion to this geosphere. The other most important requirement for expansion was gravitational pull from an extra-terrestrial planetary object, possibly the Moon. No convincing concept regarding the nature of the so called outer core has so far been advanced, except that it is fluid in nature. Since the thickness of outer core perfectly matches with the extent of expansion, the author considers that this zone has been opened up due to expansion as a void zone which was subsequently filled up with volatiles and particles from the adjoining walls giving it pseudo-fluid characteristic.

January 17, 2013 at 4:34 pm
(49) Geology Guide says:

We have a very good idea that the outer core is the density of iron metal and is not a “void zone” filled with “volatiles and particles.”

January 21, 2013 at 3:16 am
(50) Gerard says:

Hi Andrew, a very happy new year to you.

After a quick flick through that interesting discussion, I think some of the more technical issues related to physical properties of the mantle and thermal/density arguments could be resolved if the protagonists took a look through Don Anderson’s most excellent book “A New Theory of the Earth”. I find it a really useful reference to understand those kinds of issues in a framework of the latest, unbiased understanding of a part of the Earth we never really get to see much of.

All the best, looking forward to your blogs for 2013!

January 21, 2013 at 2:50 pm
(51) Geology Guide says:

Thanks, Gerard. Anderson’s book is wonderful, and I have relied on it (well, his previous edition of 1989) for many years.

February 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm
(52) Richard Guy says:

I just want to throw this curve ball into the arena of thought. Look it over and see where it fits in the Earth Expansion debate. If you can see the simplicity of the statements you will understand the complexity of earth growth. Earth growth is complex because of its simplicity. We all overlook it because it is so simple it evades the finest minds on the Planet. I will explain the details next: but read:
below and then ask>
Isostacy is a myth it does not occur. Darwin started the whole misconception when he observed what he called “Raised Beaches” during his voyage on the Beadle from 1832 to 1837. Darwin assumed that the land was rising from the sea. He was wrong. What was really occuring was that the sea was receding from the land. This recession of the seas has been ongoing for eons. Later on Jameison and Agazzis came along with the explanation that has set geology back 200 years. Agazzis, using Darwin,s error in judgement based his theory of Isostatic Rebound on it. He stated that the reason the land rose was because of the Ice Age burden that had been imposed on it by thick Glaciars. Well here is where the ideas collide separating fact from fiction. Darwin made the wrong deduction and Agazzis based his Isostatic Rebound theory on the Darwinian error. Which leads us to the next question. If Isostatic Rebound is a myth then the Ice age by association is also a myth. I know you will not publish this but as a service to science dont you think you should?. I tried to log in but the process is difficult. Richard Guy

February 5, 2013 at 6:08 pm
(53) Geology Guide says:

Richard, it’s true that Darwin might have been wrong. The typical Pacific Coast terrace, just 10 meters or so above current sea level, was carved by the ocean waves when the sea was higher during the interglacial period about 125,000 years ago. That is not due to the land rising. But the higher terraces are well explained by tectonic uplift. You’ll notice that uplift terraces are absent from the coast of Europe and the east coast of the Americas and most other places. Therefore they aren’t global and can’t be used as evidence of global expansion. But terraces are abundant in the high northern latitudes, where postglacial rebound explains them perfectly. Postglacial rebound also matches the currently measured uplift in these same areas, and the thickness of the lithosphere, which is modeled from the isostatic evidence by the simple physics of a loaded beam, matches the lithospheric thickness determined by seismic evidence. This kind of independently reinforcing evidence is geology’s strongest form of proof.

By the way, claims that scientists suppress contrary ideas, as in “I know you will not publish this,” are a typical symptom of pseudoscience believers. Another one—and this may be the central symptom—is the idea that the pseudoscience believer is really superior to “the finest minds on the planet.”

May 26, 2013 at 12:32 pm
(54) cave dave says:

You must include 4 bilion years of accretion from space.

May 26, 2013 at 1:52 pm
(55) Geology Guide says:

Go ahead and estimate that for me. The numbers are easily available.

June 26, 2013 at 5:59 pm
(56) Darek says:

Of course is expansion.
there is not any other possibility.
E=MC2.
or
MC2=E.
Both are correct.
We don’t know everything..
Even when we are not able to explain fact is fact.
And theory is only theory.
Continents movement is theory. Like 9/11 towers were destroyed in 10 second by air plains. The facts are more important than theories.
Poole apply common sense and not theories of flawed sciences.
What they are teaching us is total garbage.
Everything else is only speculation. Like Darwin theory.
Only fact and fact are important.

June 26, 2013 at 6:43 pm
(57) Geology Guide says:

What they are teaching us is total garbage.

Then you are listening to the wrong teachers. The rocks are good teachers, and they do not display any good evidence that Earth has grossly expanded.

July 13, 2013 at 5:45 pm
(58) D Chastain says:

Many scientist believe in the “Big Bang” theory, (actually, we don’t really have proof that the expansion of the universe isn’t part of a long term cycle which at some point also includes contraction).

However, do some these same scientists who believe in Big Bang yet disbelieve Expanding Earth also believe that our earth is static and nonchanging, even though the resy of the universe is expanding?

Do the math.

July 13, 2013 at 10:59 pm
(59) Geology Guide says:

Do the evidence. The evidence is what drives “belief” in a theory.

The distant galaxies have redshifted light, consistent with an “expanding universe” in which distant objects appear to be retreating at a speed related to their distance from us.

The Earth’s size is under constant observation by our most advanced methods, with centimeter precision. It isn’t growing.

Why do you think those two concepts are even compatible, let alone connected?

July 14, 2013 at 3:05 am
(60) D C says:

Geology Guide,

Interesting if someday that redshifted light turns blue. Earth’s size has been under constant observation for exactly how long?

It’s been discovered that the moon is moving away from the earth at about 1/2 inch per year. What if it’s not actually moving away, but adjusting it’s distance from the earth as the earth expands?

There was a time when earth’s days were much shorter than now. Could the earth’s expansion affect the speed of earth’s rotation?

If earth’s gravity was less in the past, how would this affect sea level. Would it change the density of water, how water behaves, and how an animal moves through it. Could this explain the inland seas of the distant past and the finding of aquatic animal fossils where no oceans exist today.

I’ve seen how water behaves in our current gravity and the zero gravity experiments with it in space. How could we study the properties of water in a reduced gravity, but not totally weightless environment.

I’ve studied animals along with how they move, my whole life. Dinos moving about in today’s gravity just feels very wrong and makes no sense. Nature’s environments, both land and water, shape how an animal moves. Nature is thrifty.

I didn’t just read something about paleogravity and think “cool idea”. The thought came to me about 10 years ago as I obseved how animals are structured for efficiency in order to move through their environments. I then set out to see if anyone had thought to explore the possibility that gravity may have been less at the time of the dinos. Interesting that there are others out there thinking, writing, and discussing this very topic.

I’ll watch a documentary about the largest insects living today, while the scientists explain that these creatures have a size limit due to earth’s gravity. Yet, there were dragonflies with two foot wing spans in the prehistoric past.

I just find this “stuff” fascinating.

July 14, 2013 at 5:22 pm
(61) Geology Guide says:

It’s not hard to figure these things out. Earth expansionists argue that all of the ocean basins arose since the Jurassic or so. That has precise consequences. If you wonder if such expansion affected the length of the day or surface gravity or how fast expansion should be happening today, it is very easy to figure those things out. You have lots of easy questions, and a basic high-school science education would give you all the tools you need to pursue them. Apparently you don’t find “this stuff” fascinating enough to do any work.

July 21, 2013 at 11:47 am
(62) Bjarne Hansen says:

Earth expansionists … it sounds like people are describing some cult.

The problem with all of this is, that current theories that you are describing are two-dimensional. And any mechanics described for the flat earth theories, is so profoundly ignorant, that anyone calling himself a scientist applies. Is simply amazing. There is no mechanism, neither fictional or real, that would drive continents around world like a sailing ship, and create continents on the fly.

Any such mechanics, would never result in any pangeas … but in an even distribution of the earths crust around the earth.

But facts, are quite the opposite … which makes even Hollow Earth a more intinuative theory than any creationists theories of God, Moses and flat earth.

July 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm
(63) Geology Guide says:

That’s an interesting way to describe expansionism, two-dimensional. . . because it treats the Earth’s interior as something like the inside of a bread loaf, with no structure. And as you say it can’t account for actual geology beyond “just-so stories.”

February 15, 2014 at 9:49 am
(64) Josh says:

Rock deformations, ophiolites, andesitic volcanism patterned around deep trenches are factual evidence of the PT theory. Yes it is just a theory, so it is subject to change from new information. The EE hypothesis is a step back in progress because it doesn’t even use good evidence. Most supporters are intent.on disproving PT with a vehement animosity. I understand why so many are confused of subduction and divergence. I think the conveyor analogy can be misleading. the postulate that subduction has to equal spreading and the idea that we have completely calculated every possibility is ridiculous. Subduction is not just one plate being recycled. There is a complex of inter folding and overriding for crystal assimilation. The spreading may be overstated because of research techniques. Maybe initially the new crust is fairly less dense but as it travels the rate of movement slows as it presses against older shoulders. Some people think of a push at spreading zones but it may be more of a stretched area. This explains the ridge around.Antarctica; the northern “plates” are pulling away from it.

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.