Support our work and discover more:Become a Patron!
We are working on a model that merges the growing Earth hypothesis with our own hypothesis and method. We have found encouraging correspondencies but we are still finalizing our own details. We are reviewing the works of Samual Carey, James Maxlow, Jan Koziar, Klaus Vogel, Hugh Owen, and others. Their work is original, profound, and easily verifiable to be 100% true.
Academia remains unconvinced and prefers to stay in its parallel fantasy world of papers, fundings, and careers. Contemporary scientists say that there is no evidence for a growing Earth, hence no evidence for a lower gravity in the past. The evidence is in fact so overwhelming that it is next to impossible to claim that there is no evidence for a growing or expanding Earth.
Our research results are intriguing. We have found proof that our ancient history is far older than scholars claim. But we have also found proof that expansion cycles, as we know it today, are far younger than we initially thought.
Expansion is not Constant
NASA’s observations that the Earth grows at a rate of about 0.1 mm per year seems unquestionable. This growth is measured by using all kinds of advanced techniques like: satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry, and GPS. The Earth’s radius is not really growing over a period of two decades. This might appear correct, at least for now.
The very limited time frame that scientists had to measure a possible expansion was too short to draw conclusions from. Extrapolations based on too less data or too short time frames are not very scientific. The Earth has periods of tranquility, and has periods of severe changes which are caused by growing pains in combination with a high eccentric orbit around the Sun. We think that the matter for expansion is ultimately provided by CMEs that work in par with the magnetosphere of the earth.
During these periods of turmoil grows the Earth at a rate of a few meters per year, while in periods of tranquility and blossom everything seems to be stable as ever. Nothing is more untrue.
We cannot extrapolate these recent NASA measurements just like that into the future or the past. Especially when we look at the map of Fig. 1, many of us will immediately understand that this has severe consequences for, indeed, a growing Earth.
The same scientists say that the geographical North pole did not move over the last million years, while we have delivered 100% proof that this assumption is incorrect. The geographic North pole moved significantly while the geographic South pole hardly changed its position. And indeed, Antarctica is as the only continent surrounded by a ring of expansion, suggesting that it has no mechanism to rapidly move its position.
Expansion is a Fact
Geological Ideas Are Obsolete
When we look at the map above there are a few interesting things to discover: colors and stretchmarks. Colors stand for age. The stretchmarks shows us the way back how to join the continental shelves together. In most cases the shelves fit together. That was the original idea in the Pangaea theory. Most people understand intuitively that stretchmark paths do not just result coincidentally into matching continental shelves. The likelihood that this is the right approach, in order to understand a much deeper truth, is very high.
We also need to join the continental shelves at both sides of the Pacific. Because there is no reason to leave these expansion marks out of the equation. But when we do this the Earth is about 50% smaller. It is easy to understand there was a significant expansion over the last 150 million years, although geology stubbornly denies this. The ideas of geologists and their own data is obviously conflicting. They have a paradigm problem, their believe systems conflicts with the facts. A typical problem that religions also have. Ideas lag behind on facts.
The Earth expanded from a diameter of about 6,500 km to a diameter of 12,750 km in 150 million years. On a sliding scale that is an average expansion of only 4.25 cm (1.67 inch) per year.
This expansion is hardly noticeable on a short time scale. And when these growing pains are not constant, but go hand in hand with crustal deformations cycles like we have proven with our method, it is very likely there are cycles of sudden growth.
More Constructive Zones Than Destructive Zone
What About Pangaea?
Pangaea is a halfhearted attempt to explain Earth’s history. The Pangaea idea, which is unverified and incomplete, attempts to unify the continents on a flat map. The theory neglects the perfect match of the continents on the far right and on the far left of this flat map.
Why is that important? Because, as you can see in Fig. 1 above, the age of the ocean floor in the Pacific is of the same spreading age as elsewhere on the globe and therefore all landmasses should be joined together when considering a younger earth. There is no reason to keep the Pacific spreading out of the equation. The only correct conclusion is: the Earth must have been significantly smaller back then.
This can best be visualized on a sphere and not on a flat plane. However, such modeling is quite difficult and most geologists seem to lack the spatial insight to visualize this. That is why we are working on a new model that is supported by the age-dating method that we have already proven to be correct.
Are Narratives of Floods and Giants True?
The narratives of floods and giants are not as unlikely as they seem at first hand. Lower gravity encouraged life to grow to much larger proportions like in the era of the dinosaurs. Virtually all life on Earth was bigger then.
Could a flying dinosaur, called pterosaurs, like the massive Quetzalcoatlus fly in our gravity? No, of course, they could not. That is simply impossible, they would not even be able to stand on their own legs without support. The dinosaurs that we see in Jurassic Park could not remain standing on their legs without collapsing under their own weight.
Would it be a coincidence that the most antique sea, the area of the Old Testament, is located in the Mediterranean? The whole area surrounding the Mediterranean is littered with very ancient ruins. Myths of giants in very ancient times? There is increasing evidence that indeed giants wandered the Earth over more than 250 million years ago. Live evolved and shrunk with an increasing gravity. Violent floods, megaquakes and massive volcano eruptions, that were caused by the growing pains of Mother Earth, made sure that new evolving life was not obstructed by the old guards. Science calls them extinctions events.
When gravity increased – when the Earth grew further – the dinosaurs became extinct and were replaced by smaller-sized animals. Once you understand this concept, it is so simple that even a first grader can grasp it.
We do not deny meteor impacts. But massive impacts and extinction events are connected to each other as if that would be the only possibility. It is easy to understand that an increasing gravity combined with meteor impacts also leads to extinction. There is no factual basis to remove one aspect from the equation while leaving others in.
Contemporary science has shown us already many times to behave as a new form of religion – a sort of modern Catholic church – neglecting facts, condemning new ideas and persecuting heretics.
Our new hypothesis explains quite elegantly why geology and archaeology have never found a common ground: because they both live in parallel, and still incorrect academic worlds.
This Map Shows the Basis of Earth’s Expansion over the Last 280 Million Years
Why Antarctica Remained a Stable Position
The Proof is in the Number of Facts
Fact | True? (Yes/No) |
| Continent borders line up perfectly at an Earth radius of around 50%, only when we take in regard the ages on the sea floor, called sea floor isochrons. | Yes |
| Was gravity less if the Earth was smaller, hence its mass was smaller? | Yes |
| Fossil records of giantly sized dinosaurs and insects which seem anatomically impossible given Earth current gravity. | Yes |
| Other animals which used to grow to enormous proportions like giant sharks and giant crocodiles, are also now small. | Yes |
| Could the huge pterosaurus only fly when gravity was significantly smaller? Between 25% to 50% of what it is today? | Yes |
| It seems that ancient fossils are only found on land. No ancient fossils are found in the oceans. | Yes |
| Dating of the sea floor shows it to be extremely young compared to the age of the Earth. The oldest sea floor is not older than 280 million years old and much of it is newer. There is no billion year old sea floor rock. | Yes |
| More than 50% of the surface area of the sea bed is younger than 100 million years. | Yes |
| The oldest sea floors are in the Mediterranean around the most ancient cultures like Greece, Italy, Syria, and Turkey. | Yes |
| Stretch marks seem to radiate outward as if the Earth was a slowly inflating balloon. The stretch marks has similarities with the abdominal skin of a pregnant woman. | Yes |
| The theory of plate tectonics was extremely controversial when first proposed, and rejected by most geologists. The theory contains many inconsistencies and is factual incomplete. | Yes |
| Plate tectonics and continental drift theory provides NO mechanism or reason why the crust would break up spontaneously and starts to move continents around in random directions. | Yes |
| There is no mechanism present in plate tectonics to form clusters of land like Pangaea or an earlier Gondwana, leaving the rest oceans. It makes more sense that the distribution of land and water on the early Earth was uniform. | Yes |
| If Pangaea would be true then the sea floor age mapping of the Pacific is not true. It is impossible to maintain both paradigms. Pangaea is just an idea, the sea floor age mapping are hard data. | Yes |
| There is no empirical evidence of subduction (land sliding back inside the Earth’s core). No good theory as to why subduction would happen given the density of the underlying rock. | Yes |
| The sum of all subduction zones and all expansion zones is NOT in balance, leaving no other option than that the crust grows. The quotation is so simple that scientists are overlooking the facts. | Yes |
| Evidence for spreading ocean floor is much more significant than evidence for subducting ocean floor. | Yes |
| Newly discovered ringwoodite (Mg2SiO4) in the Earth’s core contains more locked-in water than all the oceans combined together. There is literally enough water in the Earth’s core to refill all the Earth’s oceans a few times over. This makes it much more plausible that the oceans leaked out from inside the cracked expansion zones over millions of years. | Yes |
| The Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede show similar kinds of stretch marks and signs of growth. | Yes |
| There is NO empirical evidence of what’s inside the Earth’s core, while contemporary science is completely built on observation and experiments. | Yes |
| If the Earth used to be smaller, as it grows bigger, its rotation speed will have to slow down to conserve angular momentum. It is well known that the rotation of the Earth has been slowing down, with days getting longer. | Yes |
| If the Earth grows then Physics and science in general has a major problem: where is the matter coming from? | Yes |
Where is the Matter Coming From?
Some scientists still believe that the mass of the universe is constant. They also like to dismiss the existence of dark matter because it is inconvenient for their theories. The universe is infinite, it contains an infinite amount of mass, it still expands, while mass is constantly added. How these mechanisms work is still very poorly understood.
We find increasing evidence that the matter for Earth’s growth comes from the Sun in the form of massive X-class CMEs. These giant plasma clouds are caught in the nets of the magnetosphere, and according the laws of magnetism guided to the South Pole where it penetrates into the Earth’s inner. We are still in the process of study to this phenomenon, however, it explains why Antarctica remained fairly stable while the North pole migrated heavily over the last half a million years.
Within a century from now almost everyone will laugh at the idea that the Earth never grew. Believing that the Earth does NOT grow is similar as believing that the Earth is flat.
But where is the mass coming from to make the Earth to grow? And why doesn’t it grow at a constant rate? Good questions.
As soon as we have gathered more information we will share this. In the meantime, you can support our work.
Thank you for your visit!
Download: THE EXPANDING EARTH&THE IMPLICATIONS ON THE GEOPHYSICS OF EARTH
© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps et al.
https://mariobuildreps.com
Proofreading and editing: J.B.
91 Responses
I was speaking to a geologist from Canada who told me that the land of the Canada was rising due to a property of geology called Isostatic rebound. https://www.ontariobeneathourfeet.com/rising-land-isostatic-rebound
This enormous weight of ice compressed the land and everything beneath it. When you compress matter, it heats it up. When you heat matter, it causes thermal expansion.
I was reading a Popular Science article which sneered at the notion of an expanding Earth, and as proof, the author claimed that the ocean was clearly spreading from the mid-Atlantic ridge. This seemed to argue in favor of an expanding Earth, but she went on to say that this proved subduction was taking place elsewhere. Using waves from earthquakes, geologists can crudely image the Earth’s crust, and it is claimed that they found parts of the lithosphere deep below the Earth which proved subduction had taken place.
What no one seemed to consider is that in-built was the assumption that subduction exactly equaled ocean spreading–which it would have to in order to have no change in the Earth’s radius.
Another ‘debunking’ factoid presented was that current measurements of debris falling to Earth was constant 5200 tons per year, which would be insufficient to significantly affect the radius of the Earth. The in-built assumption, again, is that the amount of debris reaching the Earth was constant. In my view, the Earth has had many more cosmic impacts from meteors and comets than current scientific theory accepts.
I am still not completely convinced in the expanding Earth theory, but I have an open mind to this theory–it would explain many glaring discrepancies in the Earth’s geological history. I am still wondering where the additional matter came from to expand the Earth so much.
Hello Zero, thanks for your in-depth comment. There are many things to be doubtful about in standard geology. While there seems to be subduction on some places, when earth is at rest, it does not mean it can be multiplied to everywhere without further proof. The great unconformity shows us there is something wrong, there are layers missing. Not just a few years, a few hundred million years up to 1.2 billion years. This article gives a deeper explanation why radiometric dating could be wrong and why geology could have maneuvered itself into a complete misunderstanding of the earth. The article requires some study, and provides a basis why the isochrons can be misdated quite a bit.
I’m using an AI tool to simulate several dinosaur walks based on their skeletons, and the results show their skeletons are at least two times too weak when it comes to buckling of their femur and tibia bones. These calculations include the forces acted upon the bones by the muscles, since they add more transverse load to the bones. Also, the age of dinosaurs is based on the ground layers they are associated with, and when these layers are dated incorrectly, the same goes for dinosaurs and all the rest that flows from that.
Of course space debris adds some matter to the earth, and that could vary over time. Xn flares of the sun (n=1 to ?) that are directly pointed to the earth, which is an event that occurs once in every few hundred years adds mass through the magnetosphere. The amount of mass of an Xn-flare is estimated to be over many trillions of tons of matter consisting of protons and electrons (and so energy). When this hits the earth it adds through the magnetosphere energy the earth, which is converted into mass. The flux lines of the magnetosphere guide the energy to the South pole, hence adding the mass to the south pole. This is also the place where we see the continents are all pushed away from.
I have made calculations what the probability is that an x-flare hits the earth. It is around 0.3% per year, which means somewhere around 3 times per millennium. The amount of mass that might come in by these large CMEs through the magnetosphere every millennium, during times the crust is moving, is estimated at 3.0*10^21 kg, which is about 0.005% of the earth’s total mass added every millennium during periods of unrest. This process of unrest continues for many millennia. This is enough to add the mass we’re looking for.
Hey Mario,
Not sure if you have come across this yet or not, but I recommend taking a look at this book: https://www.amazon.com/Earth-but-not-We-Know/dp/1702017575
There’s also an interview that gives an introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swCnPOi5qOU
Their model is of an earth that gets more dense as you move from the core to the crust: pressurized gas, then water, then rock. In a sense, the earth is “hollow”. This allows them to account for
1. an expansion mechanism (via pressurized gas)
2. ocean levels rising despite expansion
3. lower gravity on a smaller planet with the same mass (https://youtu.be/swCnPOi5qOU?t=748)
I think they have an interesting model that could possibly connect with yours in interesting ways.
Your research is fascinating, and I really admire the approach you took to isolate the previous poles – genius!
Hi Josh,
Thanks for the links. It’s always interesting to delve into others ideas. There’s so much proof that the earth gets denser the deeper down you get, and this complicates indeed the growing earth model. However, there is an alternative idea that can explain everything we see, which is decompression. A very heavy thick atmosphere once covered the earth. It was blown away by solar activity or by close by supernovas, and so there was less outside pressure which made the earth to grow in size. That seems to be the ultimate mechanism.
While the earth gets denser as you go down, its worth noting that we can only dig less than 0.1% of the distance to the earth’s center. The furthest we have explored is the Kola borehole – and they reported that the rock they were drilling was saturated with water.
This is the NASA video that provided the inspiration for the theory I mentioned in my last post. It’s only 90s, worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxyfiBGCwhQ
I’m only a little familiar with the decompression theory (Herndon?). It will be interesting if you can match that theory up with the expansion timeline… I would think they would be disparate.
Thanks Josh, decompression is indeed coined by Herndon and Pettit.
Hi Mario,
Happy Newyear – pleased to read that you still work on your book.
About fig.4 – just curious about the link between the lithosphere age of 0-280 my and the 5 poles of half a million years? Or do you think that the lithosphere timeframe is wrong?
The grow of the earth is most likely linked to solar activity, whereas the poles are linked to crustal deformation through excentric orbit, right?
Though, it could very well be that both phenomenons are due to gravitational pull from the heavy planets of our solar system – there is convincing theory that excentricity is caused that way, however not quite on solar activity yet. Maybe because the trace of sunspots only covers the last 500 years?
Keep up the good work 🙂
Hi Thomas, thank you and best wishes to you too. The growing earth is most likely caused by solar activity, and maybe to close by supernovas outbursts as well. The isochrons of the ocean floor, and its age, are constructed with a constant diameter in mind. The age of the sea floor is determined by the alleged magnetic field flips. However, when the assumption is made that the diameter was a constant literally nothing in the model is no longer correct, and produces only wrong data. The model produces false data for age, for continental drift, for diameter, and so on. There is nothing in factual geology that prevents me from positing the theory I have done here without violating any of the data. I only touch upon the believes of the geologists.
If Antarctica remained stationary during the North Pole shifts, wouldn’t the orientation of temples in the Southern hemisphere be consistent with the current South Pole? Why would temples in the Southern Hemisphere be aligned with the North Pole?
That is a good question, Ray. If you look at Tiwanaku for example, there are 3 different structure there: 1.Tiwanaku; 2.Akapana; 3.Puma Punku. If you study their orientation thoroughly you’ll notice thy are slightly differently oriented. The more they are off from the current South Pole, the more they are buried. That is a clear pattern that they are originally oriented to the South Pole indeed. If you look at Cara for example, their orientations are far more clockwise than that of Tiwanaku. When you look at the angles between their locations and the ancient Poles II to VI, you’ll notice they were probably originally located on the Northern hemisphere and so were the “looking” at the North Pole instead of the South Pole.
If you can trust the seafloor age dating, and with reference to Fig 4 – ‘so called seafloor isochrons’, your ~400K and less aged poles would all plot essentially at the spreading ridge. Unless I am reading this wrong, I don’t think this figure helps your narrative.
Hi Mario. It seems to me that there is a problem with the length of the day in an expanding earth scenery. If the earth radius was 50% of actual radius about 150 million years ago, then the length of the day should have been 25% of today’s length (assuming same mass), that is 6 hours. But sedimentary rocks keep records which disagree with that: the length of the day, apparently, was never shorter than 23 hours in the last billion of years… And if we assume increasing mass of earth, the figures are even worse… Am I missing anything? Thank you Mario.
Hi Loris, indeed would Length of Day be much shorter if the earth was smaller and lighter. What sources did you consult when assuming LoD was never shorter than 23 hours?
Hi Mario, sorry for my late reply… Basically, the source of our knowledge of the length of the day in the ancient past is a type of sedimentary rocks named “tidal rhythmites”. You can find a lot of scientific papers about that, Just as an example you can read the following https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpe1952/38/6/38_6_475/_pdf. According to this author, in the Cambrian era the year was about 400 solar days. Assuming that the length of the year was the same as today (depending on the distance from the sun, unchanged), then the length of the day should have been about 21.5 hours. Other papers suggest slightly different figures, as I have mentioned in my previous post, but the issue doesn’t change much.
The surface water on earth has been perceived to be originated from the deeper part of the earth’s interior, not from the outside. See this article: https://www.science.org/content/article/pockets-water-may-lay-deep-below-earth-s-surface. By that token can’t we summarise that the mass of extra matter also grew out of that extrapolation over the millions of years of the earth’s history?
Hey Mario exciting work as always, the Expanding Earth model poses itself a hard level of complexity in order to display the animation of the crust moving around the globe´s surface, Im a 3D Viz expert and to explain the theory i would create an animated Earth model with time keyframes that can be paused and/or reversed by the common user, in a 3D visualization platform (something in the likes of sketchfab dot com)
If the Earth’s data animation is presented crystal clear and accesible for everyone to understand, i’m convinced it would make a breaktrough. Looking forward to the new model the team is developing. Cheers!
Hi Octavia, thank you for your supportive comment! Interesting idea to make a vid that can be paused and/or reversed.
My friend David pointed me to this article: https://www-livescience-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.livescience.com/amp/earth-inner-core-lopsided-crystal-growth.html
The earths core is lopsided, apparently cooling more quickly under Indonesia, resulting in crystallization and *faster growth* on that side.
That’s very interesting, Alan. It’s worthwhile to look as to how this might fit in the puzzle of the expanding earth.
Two things I’d like to consider: atmospheric composition and density necessary to support life and lift required based on estimated mass of flying creatures. The second is what the atmospheric composition and gravity would have to be for it to remain on earth remain on earth. A smaller earth would possibly mean higher surface gravity and not lower, a less dense earth of close to the same size would mean lower surface gravity. A smaller and less dense earth could go either way. A small dense core that’s disorganized may mean a weaker magnetic field and increase of matter inbound. Perhaps it would be possible to do statistics on bone dimensions and weight of animals to determine the skeletal forces and therefore estimate the amount of gravity at the surface and use that to estimate the ratio of size and density of the planet and their time.
Hi Alan, thank you for your interesting ideas. The ideas you propose are certainly worth looking at and we will do this as soon as there is time and inspiration.
Thank you! Mario.
Thank you for exploring these fascinating research topics, Mario. Is it possible, in your opinion, that the expansion of the Earth was triggered/quickened by the Moon? Some myths (like those of Zulus, for example) talk about an epoch where the Moon wasn’t there yet, and according to them, the arrival of the Moon in our orbit caused a massive flood and the end of the Golden Age (start of the crust deformation cycles?). If so, the Moon may be far younger than commonly thought, as its arrival is recorded in mythology. However, if the Growing Earth model is correct, we have to explain how life could have developed before the existence of the oceans… Maybe life on Earth is very younger, too?
Hi Il Merlo Bianco, our research points in the direction of expansion caused by CMEs from the Sun. Massive X-class CMEs cause a domino effect of events from which expansion is only one of them. Our research also shows that CMEs cause flash cooling of the troposphere after flash heating the stratosphere. I don’t know which role the moon might have played in this complex game, but the whole mechanism is much more complex and much more violent and young than mainstream science currently recognizes. Yes, everything is pointing in the direction that dinosaurs are much younger, and that expansion is also much younger, and very catastrophic.
Ok, many thanks! Yes, I remember that a few years ago I read about the discovery of dinosaur’s soft tissues, and that made me think that these animals couldn’t have became extinct millions of years ago. Happy to see that even your research confirms this…
Did you ever look at the concentration of atmospheric CO2 during the last 500 million years?
I suspect that it could provide another proxy besides isochrons for the growth of the Earth.
From the Devonian to the Carboniferous period CO2 levels dropped substantially. Apparently because of the formation of wood from trees.
Pages 6,7,8,9 from this article discuss this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330383444_The_Positive_Impact_of_Human_CO_Emissions_on_the_Survival_of_Life_on_Earth_Title_The_Positive_Impact_of_Human_CO_2_Emissions_on_the_Survival_of_Life_on_Earth_Format_Electronic_book_Publisher
According to James Maxlow the breakup of Pangea happened 250 million years ago.
This first caused an increase of atmospheric CO2 until 150 million years ago.
During this period there was an out-gassing from the crust and oceans gradually started to appear at rupture zones.
These rupture zones then progressively opened and rapidly extended in surface area throughout the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras.
https://www.expansiontectonics.com/page22.html
On page 9 of the first mentioned article it is assumed that the drop of CO2 to present levels is mainly because of marine deposits in the oceans.
“The biological pump refers to the sequestration of carbon from biomass and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from planktonic shells, corals and shellfish into the deep ocean sediments.
During the past 140 million years, these processes have removed more than 90 per cent of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
The steady reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 140 million years from 2,500 ppm to 180 ppm, prior to the Holocene inter-glacial period and prior to significant human emissions of CO2, amounts to a net loss from the global atmosphere of 32 thousand tonnes (Kt) of carbon every year.
We can reasonably surmise that the primary cause of this downward trend was CaCO3 deposition from plankton and coral reefs as marine sediments.”
It seems to me that this could well be caused by the growth of the Earth during which oceans formed. This allowed for the growth of plankton and coral reefs that took up most of the atmospheric CO2.
Thank you for your comment, Kenneth. It is certainly worthwhile to look at the suggestions you make.
Thank you Mario.
I will keep suggestions coming every once in a while.
Wow, what a wealth of information that I can find in the comments here!
For some that are asking, where the extra mass comes from I might want to provide you a few keywords that I’m missing here. Obviously most mass/energy is stored and emitted by our sun (the one and only god;). In school we are taught a simple fusion model of the sun and maybe also the CNO cycle, but it is not that simple, as we all know. Apollo 11 had a solar wind composition experiment and many more such experiments have been conducted since then (Apollo = the sun god;). From that we known that during solar maximum 5% of the particles emitted by the sun are heavier elements covering the whole periodic table. In bleeding edge physics (of which I’m an outsider;) there is a lot of talk in the last couple of decades about abnormal nuclear reactions. Laser physicists have shown that they can transmutate matter using high power laser in many esoteric ways. The Pons- and Fleischmann experiment has been repeated many times (without the explosion;) and it has been proven over and over again, that under certain conditions lower level nuclear reactions, that have before thought to be impossible, happen somewhere in the micro-fissures of the anode. And if I’m not mistaken slow protons to accelerate nuclear reactions are also the talk of the day in the more traditional field of nuclear science.
The catch here: the traditional atomic model of matter is way more limited than reality. Laser physicists that think only in terms of wave patterns are probably nearer to the truth that the rest of pack. In geophysics there is an open question of the source of Earth’s internal heat. Traditionally the question is answered with maybe fission or tidal warming. But could it be low energy nuclear reactions? And in this regard, because the Electric Universe crowd is also on this track. Deep hole boring experiments have disproven many prior predictions of the compositions of Earths upper mantel. Interestingly the experiment conducted here in my home country have shown that hydrogen content increases with depth and is therefore definitely not very biotic in origin. Furthermore they have found layers of graphite up to great depths. You might get a natural Pons- and Fleischman experiment down there in the crust if some electrostatic charge levels vary and the graphite layers start to electrolyse hydrogen soaked soil layers. (There is also a great amount of water bound in crystalline form which might provide the structure and fuel.) A great deal of experimental evidence for excessive hydrogen and oxygen bubbling up from inside of the Earth was collected by the late Thomas Gold. See for instance his book on the “Deep Hot Biosphere”. (But you could also look up the stock price of Gasprom instead.)
And lastly I’m still looking for the composition of the dust found in the Northern Sea ice cores. The Alfred-Wegner institute gathered in the 90-ies core samples with the best time resolution we had up to this point. They say the ice ages comes fast and full shift can happen within 10 years. They also say that they find excessive amount of dust in the cold eras. Is this solar dust? Is this the extra mass we are looking for? Or is the dust just a side-effect of the Earth eating up hydrogen by generating heavier elements by core transmutations?
Very interesting but I miss something here and it is a variable, namely the earth axis angle did vary in the past, some talk about an earth upside down… We must consider this as a possibility. What effect has it on this theory of ancient buildings oriented to the North Pole axis? Another topic is the fable of dino extinction 65 milj years ago, a wide accepted paradigm imposed upon us by the main stream media and their God denying evolutionist clique. In more than 80 cases one has found flexible tissue in fossils even with a few drops of blood in the veins, which make them only roughly 6000 years old. They were extinct by the great Biblical flood together with most of the giants. Ancient cultures prove coexistence of men and dino’s and giants. I can give you some URL with information about this flexible tissue in f.e. a Triceratops horn. Field engineers are still widely denied in the deduction process, unfortunately. Which brings me to another topic: the age of the three pyramids. The 51° angle was impossible to copy by the younger generations of builders. The Orion belt’s orientation some 10500 years BC and the exact copy on earth by the three pyramids, and the sphinx looking east, just before sunrise, at Leo, during spring, when day and night are of same length, some 10500 years ago, is for me evidence of very old age. Where is the axis 12500 years ago and the pyramid orientation to check this out?
It is possible, no matter how crazy it sounds, that the earth has flipped over entirely. This is called the Dzhanibekov effect. For this bizarre effect to occur, the earth has to be geometrically in a serious disbalance. We cannot determine whether this was the case at any moment in time, because the orientations of ancient monuments do not provide a definite answer to this question.
ESA recently made a nice animation of the growing Earth: https://youtu.be/5Uwj5EUSrbo .
Thank you for the link, Frank. The video shows Pangaea with a constant diameter of the earth and not expansion.
Yes, but if I’m not mistaken all the plates in view actually grow. They did a nice job of obfuscating this by playing the time in reverse. The animation could be easily corrected by reversing the video and zooming out at first.
Indeed Frank. I captured the video for possible use later. Btw, the video is hidden. How did you find it? Antarctica was tropical in an ancient past, although there’s lots of controversy about the time frames. A tropical Antarctica suggests other positions than only around the spin axis. The current research methodology that only uses paleomagnetic data are insufficient to solve the positions of the continental plateaus, because the earth has grown as well. With only paleodata, there is data missing to solve the equation correctly.
The ESA video was linked from here: https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Antarctica_s_magnetic_link_to_ancient_neighbours .
See also:
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/Gravity_mission_still_unearthing_hidden_secrets
Hi Mario, on the basis of your growing earth model, what is your opinion about the factuality of the classical Atlantis placed in the Atlantic Ocean? Is this possibility supported by your model, or instead ruled out? Thank you.
Hi Loris, if you insist that Atlantis is one place, than the Azores would be the most promising place. Expansion stretched the ocean floor, pulling down the Azores into the deep.
There are some interesting hints to find in the Emerald Tablets.
Khem is ancient Egypt. “…we fled towards the sun of the morning”, means they came from the West. The text and setting (sinking into the deep) is consistent with the location of the Azores. The time frame is more difficult to extract, but if I would have to make an educated guess, I would guess this event must be placed between 500,000 and 1 million years ago. That is because according to our theory, the first temples were built before 500,000 years ago.
Thank you, Mario. Your reply gives me a doubt, maybe I’ve not fully understood the growing earth model. Since Antarctica is more or less fixed at the geo pole, the fact the Greenland has moved southward along meridian 47,1°W implies that the distance Greenland-Antarctica has diminished, ie, the Atlantic Ocean has shrunk: not stretched, but just the opposite… Am I wrong somewhere? Thank you.
The expansion model is complicated. We are working on a complete new model.
The vertical (or latitudinal) distance between Greenland and Antarctica, as seen from the Atlantic, is indeed decreased. The major stretch is in the horizontal direction, perpendicular to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
As I have come to understand the expanding earth theory, its always about the challenge of where the mass comes from. But as I’ve explored the Electric Universe Theory, and its most advanced scientific testing of the Electric Sun Model with the Safire Project, I have been following the latest discoveries in that experiment, and apparently they have discovered that there is evidence of transmutation of materials left on the anode from the plasma, which could explain where the additional material might come from. Are you familiar with this stuff? Its an entirely additional discipline of science, which makes it a challenging task for you to become familiar with if you have no electrical engineering experience, but if you have some peers in that field, it would be worth getting some assistance from them to attempt to comprehend the implications of this new work.
Thanks Paul, that is very interesting. That completely makes sense. The North pole is negatively charged, hence it is the cathode. The South pole is positively charged, hence the anode. That transmutation of matter would be added to the anode, the South pole, is also what we witness in the isochronic maps. Antarctica, the South pole, is the only continent from which expansion goes in all directions.
This is a fascinating article that provides powerful arguments to suggest the earth has been expanding and gravity increasing. These arguments being the past size of dinosaurs, especially the flying variety and the expanding tectonic plates outnumbering those that are contracting. The overriding problem is for gravity to be increasing so also does mass. Unfortunately, the theories given to explain this increase in mass either from dark matter, or the periodic capture of large amounts of celestial matter are not going to be accepted unless the theory can be tested and proved. Currently I suspect that is a big ask.
Mario, on this page it might be good to have a little section on the math of Earth expansion so that readers will not keep making the same errors over and over again. The relevant equation is g = GM/R^2 . If we let p equal the density of the body the equation will be g =4 pi Rp / 3 = 4.188Rp . So if the Earth is of constant mass and expands its density must decrease and gravity will decrease. This is not want we want for our dinosaurs. If mass increases then density remains constant and gravity will increase. This is more in keeping with what we want but of course creates the considerable problem of where the mass comes from. Also, if we accept expansion is it reasonable to assume that the expansion goes on forever? That seems unlikely to me and I am of the opinion that expansion starts out fast and slows down to a finite limit. This is of opposite opinion to expansionists such as James Maxlow. But Maxlow and others have bought into accepting radioactive dating methods which I believe are wrong. Along with expansion I believe that radioactivity was faster in the past and slowing down to current rates. Of course this creates problems too! What is one to do?
Thank you for your interesting comment, Jeremy. There is very little knowledge on expansion, but I agree with you that expansion probably will not accelerate over time. It probably follows an S-like curve, an S on its side. Earth is probably as old as science currently thinks it is, however, even that is debatable. Earth was relatively small over 80% of its existence, than it started to expand, for an unknown reason, and than expansion will probably slow down again. The current expansion theories (and so the magnetic polar flips as well) solely lean on the dating methods that you describe, it’s a weak basis, like a roof balancing on only one pillar.
I recently stumbled onto this video explaining a “Natural Nuclear Reactor” — a geological process that allowed fission within the earth. Gamma rays turn into mass when they hit the earth, albeit briefly. Also, the volume of space taken by split atoms is larger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMjXAAxgR-M
That’s very interesting, Alan. This might explain why the crust broke up in that area in the first place, due to the enormous pressure of the moderator (water) that becomes steam. This is in the middle of the two continents Africa and South-America. This conversion from U-238 into U-235 explains only partially the volume topic. I think it is a crucial topic for understanding WHY the crust started to crack on that spot specifically. What fed the expansion process and increasing mass is probably something else.
Thank you very much for finding this video!
Mario
Can I email you my idea on the mechanism of the growing earth?
It is a philosophical idea.
Hello Thor, of course you can. You can post your ideas here or e-mail it to buildreps@gmail.com
The growing earth model leaves me doubtful. In order to keep all the polar alignments of the sites, Greenland, America and Eurasia must shift and rotate as a rigid body (otherwise the alignments would be disrupted). But Africa also could not but follow the anticlockwise rotation of Eurasia (because “pushed” by Eurasia). Regarding Australia, apparently it followed the shift/rotation of Asia. Therefore, in conclusion, all the continents rotated as a rigid body, except Antarctica, fixed at the south pole… It doesn’t seem plausible. I hope I explained my idea, it’s not easy without schemes.
I’m no expert, for sure. But the following things seem evident to me. 1) I wonder why the Earth expands. That’s different than Earth gaining mass from external particles falling on its surface. Particles (or light, or whatever) falling in uniform distribution as the Earth spins would simply add mass and gravity. My best guess is that you need internal pressure to expand the ball from the inside. The Electric Universe theory and recent research has shown a strong (predictive) relationship between incoming solar wind strength and earthquakes and tropical cyclone activity. Maybe the incoming millions/billions of tons of electrical charge get inside the Earth from the poles and push the Earth from inside to grow it, before some of the charge leaves the Earth in the equatorial current sheet.
If the incoming charges caused the Earth to expand because of the thermodynamic pressure of expansion of charges on a surface, the Earth could expand without necessarily maintaining the original average density (and associated gravity). You have a bigger Earth with a lower gravity.
2) As far as I know, the m1*m2/r^2 law of gravity works “close in” but fails obviously farther away from the central gravity point. The Electric Universe model points this out as one of the major limitations (or non-universality) of Newtonian thinking in cosmology. (But as you pointed out somewhere above, the equation works well in our local Earth / solar system neighbourhood.)
It’s all so amazing and complex!
Hi Kevin, no one seems to be an expert in the expanding or growing earth. It’s still a mystery for all of us why it grows and gains mass. But we are determined to find out more what sort of mechanism drives this growth. Thank you for your comment and for your contribution to this amazingly fascinating topic!
Very well put. In my book magnetic pole shift and mini ice age I expand on this expanding Earth theory by explaining the cause of Earth’s expansion,
https://books.apple.com/us/book/magnetic-pole-shift-mini-ice-age/id1472101128?ls=1
The Ongoing Magnetic Pole Shift & Mini Ice Age: An in-depth explanation of the ongoing Magnetic Pole Shift, & The Magnetic Pole Shift causing a Mini Ice … a Magnetic shift (Astronomy & Astrophysics) by Amazon Digital Services LLC
Learn more: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07S43HG4J/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_U_C6OvDbRQBY9NH
And what is according to you is the cause of expansion? You post links to your commercially available books without enlightening us with your ideas on this topic.
Hi, again
Your research is increasingly approaching the areas of my interest. please read my articles.
When the earth expands, the sea floor expands, so there is not enough seawater. However, a large amount of water is generated as it expands. The mechanism of the Earth’s expansion is due to the large amount of olivine inside when the earth is made inside Jupiter.
I have considered earth science issues such as dinosaur weight, atmospheric composition and gravity. My articles should be useful to you. Articles are in Japanese, but please read in Google Translate.
http://zao.jp/index.php?blog=12
Thank your for posting the link, ja7tdo. Very interesting articles and you seem to have done good scientific research to this topic. It would be great if you write your articles in English, after all that is the international language for publishing scientific research.
Some questions come to mind regarding Ringwoodite that perhaps someone familiar with the element can answer. Specifically, what are the behaviors of the element under different temperature and pressure conditions? How do those compare with water?
According to Wikipedia: “The pressure range for stability of ringwoodite lies in the approximate range from 18 to 23 GPa.” That’s is a metric f-ton of pressure. There is a graph on Wikipedia that shows the volume vs the pressure at room temperature.
There is also this response on Quora where the compressibility of water is addressed: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-extent-to-which-water-can-be-compressed
20GPa (assuming my math is right) is around 3E6 PSI. The chart from the Quora link shows relation of volume and pressure. You can compress water, but it takes a LOT of pressure. What I’m getting it, and I am busy tackling other computations right now, is that if something geologically occurred in the past that could relieve the pressure on a chunk of that mineral, causing it to destabilize and let loose its water, it seems feasible that the overall volume of the earth would increase. This doesn’t fit the lower gravity model, but it may fall in line with the growing earth hypothesis. It would also change the length of days, the axis of the earth, et cetera. I would not want to be around when something like that happened. This notion of ice caps melting seems quite mild compared to the potential implications of this fantasy.
Genesis 7:11 “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month–on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.”
That is an interesting view on this topic, Alan. If one thing is true, relieve of pressure, than the other thing, growing mass, is not necessarily untrue. They can coexist and interact. This is what most scientists do not like because it complicates models dramatically, perhaps even making them even almost impossible to solve due to the amount of possibilities. If Ringwoodite is pushed to the surface, the pressure on the material becomes less which could indeed destabilize it and cause outbursts of water through the thinnest or weakest parts of the crust. There might be more truth in the bible than we realize.
With a lower gravity earth, the composition of the atmosphere would be very different. Scientists have supposedly documented the history of the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. Mars, with its lower gravity, is rich in CO2 and poor in Nitrogen. Many atmospheric elements would not stay in the atmosphere very long with lower gravity and there would need to be a source for replenishment (Ammonia and Methane are supposedly common on the gas giants, so there’s one source).
That is true, good point. That could be one of the reasons that plant life was so abundantly present. CO2 is denser than oxygen, resp. 1.98 kg/m3 and 1.323 kg/m3 (at 1 bar and 291K). That would mean that at lower gravity (a smaller earth) CO2 was more abundant, because it is denser. But over the last 200 million years there was supposedly hardly any change in oxygen levels, less than a few percent. There was maybe more CO2 present. Geology has figured out to some degree what the composition history of the atmosphere was over the last few billion years. The question is if these values are reliable because there is a considerable spread between values that geology presents. Some figures claim oxygen production started 3 billion years ago and some say it was 2 billion years ago. The steepness of the curve show also differences.
Because Mars has lower gravity and high CO2 does not necessarily mean that would be the case for all planets. Mars can be a trend for all or an anomaly. It seems to be relevant to note that N is much lighter than CO2, and thus that dense gases like CO2 are more abundant on smaller planets than on heavier ones. It appears logical to me. But because there are only a few observations the claim is unsure. Only one observation where the case is vice versa (abundant light gases, few heavy gases, small planet) is enough to falsify the whole idea.
I agree fully with this explanation as I’ve done the experiment myself. I would like to add that the mass could come from dead matter, it cannot leave. Also another thought I had is that the sun is known to shoot matter straight through everything. Indeed scientists have detected this deep within the earth, maybe this is what grows the earth core.
If we add all dark matter in addition to what the Sun radiates to Earth that could fully explain the growing Earth. There is maybe a mechanism at work in the Earth that converts dark matter into gray matter. With this dark matter the Earth would indeed grow as we observe on the isochrons of the ocean floor.
Stuff falls to Earth every day as well. According to the Internet, 37,000 -78,000 tons falls to Earth every year. I’m drinking again, but that’s 37E3-78E3 tons. The Earth supposedly weighs around 6E21 tons and is supposedly 5E9 years old. And, by “[x]E[y]” I mean x * 10^y power.
At that current rate, it’d take a loooong time to affect the mass, but if there have been different rates of impact or some large ones, then maybe that could have an affect as well.
The mass of the moon is supposedly 8.1E19 tons. Add the mass of the moon to the mass of the earth and you get a 1% change in total mass of the Earth — something seems a bit off with all of this, but Buzz Aldrin managed to solve the issue of Orbital Rendezvous, so I’ll put some stock into their word on this. Multiply 50E3 [stuff added every year] * the age of the earth at 5E9 and you get 2.5E14, or 2E-7 the current mass (I hope I did that right). What we shoot into space would be even less negligible.
But… we don’t know what happened a long time ago and it might not take a new theory in physics to state that the Earth gained mass. Massive impacts would likely result in some mass getting ejected and someone can probably compute what amount of energy it would take to hit the earth to make the pieces flying off reach escape velocity. Can the frequency and size of new craters on the Moon shed some light on potentially the amount of stuff that added to the Earth’s mass historically?
I do enjoy the mental exercise that a reduced gravity allowed larger animals. At 150lbs, I was climbing cliffs. At 200lbs, I would not dare try it. Elephants can’t jump. I’d be somewhat curious as to some analysis of the bone dimensions of dinosaurs vs large land mammals vs small land mammals and lizards.
So damned interesting, the plethora of wonders to ponder thanks to this site and all involved.
As a person raised in the Badlands, I’ve always marveled at the proportions and dimensions of the dinosaurs, especially the big predatory ones like T-Rex for example. It had a silhouette not unlike that of a kangaroo, interestingly, (to me. 😉
Seems plain to see that any killer creature that big, built that way, HAD to be working with less resistance. There’s just no other way around it.
Re: The Moon, and how it’s apparently slowly getting farther away from us all the time; perhaps this is just Earth, growing–closer to Moon?
I’ll return to my hoodoo patch now.
EDIT: re: that Moon comment of mine–worded so incorrectly. I meant to express that maybe the Earth is forcing the Moon away due to growth/fields with it.
(Never post pre-coffee, Crikey.)
The earth is a very complex and sophisticated system. Expansion, discharge, and cavity are related to each other. Gravity, magnetism, earthquakes, rotations and weather all work on the same system. I named it Electric Earth Science.
https://www.amazon.it/dp/B07DCQHZQR
According to my expectation, the earth was born from Jupiter. A fusion reaction took place inside Jupiter, and important materials such as rocks and metals were made. And Jupiter was once the sun. The sun is hollow inside, and when the hollowing up of matter, it shrinks and becomes a gas planet. The hollow of the earth will eventually collapse. Feyton, which was in the asteroid belt, collapsed and broke apart. Much of the debris was absorbed by Jupiter and became the material of the next rock planet.
The earth was born in the same way.The rocks that make up the earth use the remnants of the former planet. Burgess Shale, ammonites and dinosaurs were the creatures of the planet that collapsed. The hollow of the earth will eventually collapse. Our purpose is to inform mankind of the future of the earth.
Noah’s Ark was probably the story of a collapsed planet. We have to make the ark again.
Great article. It works really well for me.
I spent a lot of time to locate something such as this.
Mario,
Please consider the work of Wal Thornhill and David Talbott of “The Saturn Myth.” Their work ties in directly with what you’re doing.
Also, look up the Ganymede hypothesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RtGal_-KXU
Thank you for the reference and link, Pete. Very interesting.
I already found the answer to my last question.
The mass of the Earth depends on the volume and the volume of a sphere has the radius cubed in the formula. Because of this the effect of the growing Earth has relatively more influence on gravity than the increasing distance between the Sun and the Earth.
This website estimates the increase in distance per year at 1,5 cm.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/83-is-the-distance-from-the-earth-to-the-sun-changing-advanced
I have a question about the larger gravity.
In the article it is said: “The fact is this: the Earth is inexorably moving away from its birthplace, the sun, and in doing so, it grows.”
When the Earth grows, the mass increases. That is a way to explain the increasing gravity.
On the other hand, the distance between the Earth and the Sun also increases, and according to this gravity would decrease much more.
Wouldn’t this effect have more influence on gravity and doesn’t it contradict with what we experience: increasing gravity?
Or is the mass of the Earth increasing much more rapidly than the distance between the Sun and the Earth?
Following my latest comment about the work of Karl Zeller and Ned Nikolov, let me try to see how this fits the growing Earth model.
There are 2 separate movements. The first is the eccentricity which causes the Earth to be closer or further away from the Sun during the orbit. The second movement is the Earth moving further away from the Sun. Is there an explanation for this second movement?
Because of the Earth moving away from the Sun, the rotational speed of the inner core is getting higher. This has to do with a larger arm over which the magnetic forces of the Sun act on the inner core of the Earth.
To keep the balance the outer layer of the Earth slows down its rotational speed. Because of this the centripetal force of this layer gets lower. This causes the landmass to move away from one another.
The crust of the Earth is the heaviest at the landmasses while the crust is less heavy at the sea beds. Because of this the sea beds are the location where any expansion will happen. This part of the Earth grows, while possibly other layers are compressed or decompressed. The atmosphere could be compressed, while the inner fluid layers could decompress.
The outer layer will get a lower rotational speed, while the inner core will increase its rotational speed.
The research about ringwoodite (Mg2SiO4) shows that water is locked inside the Earth’s core. When the core will rotate faster, the centripetal force of the core will increase and this will cause the locked in water to be pushed to the outer layer, where it fills the voids that are created by the growing Earth.
The opposite rotations of the outer layer and the inner core I am quite sure are what you missed: the law of Gender.
When this is implemented in your research, we can most probably start to see that gravity is only an effect of electricity and magnetism, which is even written by Isaac Newton himself.
Gravity on our planet depends on the rotation speed of the inner core, which causes the electromagnetic field of the Earth.
Another thing that makes me assume the 2 opposite rotations of the Earth is that all these hundreds of thousands of years, the spin axis did hardly change as you mention. With a spinning top, that would not be the case. The spin axis would change its orientation when the Earth rotates slower. With a gyroscope that the spin axis would remain in the same position.
I am just placing some additional comments that might be useful to you. I can only come up with basic logical thinking, but possibly you find it interesting and are able to look into the mathematics.
Have you considered that a significantly higher atmospheric mass in the past could cause buoyancy and hence a lower gravity?
No, we haven’t. I’m interested, why would you suggest this? And based on which mechanism or process would you consider this possibility?
The volume and density would seem to vary due to the expansion of the spherical surface area. Even so, the atmosphere is in itself variable and could increase or decrease in density dependent on the radial distance from the center.
Thank you for this post, I am a big big fan of this site would like to continue updated.
Hello Mario, it’s great to see you covering the subject in this manner. Good to know brilliant minds think alike. Ha! The Expanding Earth Model is a no brainer and only lacks a good model to explain it. I’ve watched all the old Neil Adams videos and generally agree with his renderings, however I still think subduction zones also play into and compliment the model considering the expanding is not even or constant, thus causing some areas to “overlap”. The folks over at the Electric Universe ( Thunderbolts Project, YouTube ) are on to something for a possible explanation has the Earth as a hollow geode with a plasma interior which receives its expanding pressure / energy through the poles. Definitely gives the Hollow Earth theory a new twist and possible new life as well. Truth is stranger than fiction. Keep up the great work and look forward to future postings.
Thank you for your comment, Kreg. We are still working on our model, which will still take some time before it can be published. No matter how good renderings might look, there has to be a well understood mechanism underneath. There are many theories out there about a possible hollow earth. There is a big problem for the hollow earth, and that is that Newton’s law F=(GmM)/r^2 has been proven to work perfectly well, not only for revolving planets, but also for satellites and all sorts of space travelling. There is no evidence that the planetary masses are incorrectly calculated, hence it is quite unlikely to be hollow or filled with plasma. On the other hand, if the plasma would “simulate” a mass similarly as a massive planet, that could explain some things. We don’t see currently how that could work. Our model is still based on an increasing density closer to the core and as far as we have developed our model that could actually work for a growing Earth.
Yeah, there may be some hollows but I think the sun grows the core as the sun is known to shoot matter through everything. Indeed scientists have detected this deep within the earth core. Maybe this is going straight to the central core, growing it.
MB, thank you for your detailed reply, it really pulls all the threads together using simple physics but on a planetary scale, which I think is easy to see in a science class but hard to imagine a planet doing it and over a longer period and of time with such devastating effects. This would also explain the pole shifts in your theory, the direction linked to the Pacific expansion(possibly?). I really hope you and your team get recognition for this, it is brilliant.
MB, interesting concept. The more I read about on this and other sites the more I realise we really know very little and the true facts are probably stranger still. Would your theory have affected time, and the concept of it for the people living at that time? For example in the Bible and Sumerian text it speaks of people living for thousands or hundreds of years (and giants!) making scholars comment that these were myths. But if at that time days and years were much shorter (faster spin and or tighter orbit) then potentially a year could be a week or a month? I appreciate that may be extreme but you get my drift? I’ve also realised that because we have only been monitoring our solar system for a very limited time, any conclusions that have been made are probably speculation, or a ‘best guess’. Additionally you read about our galaxy ‘capturing stars’ and colliding with smaller galaxies then you realise the potential cosmic chaos that would cause if our planet was originally in another galaxy or orbiting a different sun but ended up here and that affected the earth causing it to expand. Who knows?
Thank you for your comment, Terry. You are spot on. One of the few consequences of a growing Earth is that Earth’s orbit was closer to the Sun, and that the rotation speed of the Earth was higher. The rates depend not only on diameter but also on mass. We could claim that an ancient Earth with a diameter of 70% has only a mass of 49% of what it is today (mass and volume grow quadratic with diameter, so an equal density Earth with diameter of 70% has a mass of 0.7*0.7=0.49=49%). An Earth with a diameter of 50% would have a mass of only 25%. Lower mass means lower gravity. With all this reason there is a big “but”. The density of the inner core will probably grow with an increasing diameter due to the growing pressure on the inside. That would mean that the mass and gravity increase more rapidly than the diameter would indicate. What that means is that gravity was somewhat lower than the above mentioned figures and that has consequences on the rotation speed, that would have been slightly higher back then (conservation of momentum).
To make the whole idea more simple, we are certain in one thing; Earth’s mass was significantly lower some 200 million years ago and so were the days much shorter as well as the years. So time measuring was completely different than it is today, and that means that the Earth could be much younger than science has been speculating about.
Just spent my Sunday morning following the people you reference at the start of this web page; found this page but can’t link on here called checktheevidence.com. It explains the expansion theory, with maths, right up your street! Thanks again.
Hi Terry, the people that are referenced to like Samual Carey, James Maxlow, Jan Koziar, Klaus Vogel, and Hugh Owen have published interesting work about this topic. The website you mention looks and feels somewhat like a conspiracist website that sweeps all topics on one big heap and therefore misses the nuances, like the idea the Earth would be hollow. If that would be so gravity would not significantly increase with an increasing diameter. That contradicts all logic.
Mario, I have heard from various sources, that the Earth might be hollow, as it produces a ringing sound like most planets and stars. So if the Earth is growing, and following my logic and all the available evidence I am dead certain that it is so, the only question remains to find a model that would incorporate bits from other theories that could fit this, like the Pangea idea. It makes perfect sense that there was a super continent that broke up into present ones. However this is only half the truth, the other half is that super continent was in fact a continuous mantle that completely enveloped the Earth, and that the Earth therefore had to be smaller. Evidence is abundant about this, corals producing over 400 layers a year instead of 365 as today indicate faster spinning globe in the past, dinosaurs were able to grow gigantic sizes indicate lower gravity and more oxygen in the atmosphere, (also atmospheric pressure higher, like now in the water whales can grow bigger with less gravity because of their buoyancy but higher pressure). But if the Earth grows from within, that alone doesn’t explain the growing gravity unless there is an outside source of material,or energy that would be converted into material. If you compress material, it only alters it’s density not it’s mass. That would be true the other way around, like a weather balloon that expands as it gets higher in the thinner atmosphere. Also if the mass doesn’t increase drastically as the Earth expands, the gravity on the surface would lessen due to the increase of distance from the core. However in our world everything is connected, meaning there are no isolated systems, the lower gravity in the past (100+million years ago) would also be effected by the faster spinning ball of the Earth due to the centrifugal force, making objects lighter on the surface. So the slower spinning would help to increase gravity. So there are questions, but I am confident that someone will come up with the correct assumption about the past and able to prove the current scientific community wrong and that they should really open up their mind and look at the overwhelming fresh evidence today.
The probability that the earth could be hollow is very unlikely. The orbital models on which satellites are shot to distant planets is based on the same theories and they work perfectly. The moon causes tides while it orbits the earth. Some things do not need to be overturned, they are simple and good. But there is a serious problem in geology with the isochrons from the ocean floor – they undoubtedly prove that the earth has grown. The flying dinosaurs only strengthen this idea. The material for the earth to grow might come from the sun, cosmic dust, micro novas, supernovas, and probably sources we don’t know yet.
Congratulations on the very interesting work
Regarding the gravity/mass hypothesis, I believe that it would be necessary to elaborate on why the Earth has gained so much mass in the past few million years. If it is by means of cosmic dust or meteor showers falling onto the surface, a few sources that I found state that the average intake is about 50k-100k tons / year, which more or less balances out the ejection of atmospheric gases of around ~50k tons / year (resulting probably in a yearly net loss of mass).
If no significant additional mass is added, then of course an increase in the Earth’s radius (with constant mass) would result in a lower surface gravity acceleration (supposing, of course, a constant angular velocity of rotation). So we will probably require an explanation about the origin of a significant amount of new material, unless a major change in rotational speed is to be required.
Thank you for your comment, Pedro. Two photons can create a positron and a neutron. Photons a massless, while positrons and neutrons have mass. So, light can create mass. Mass to make the earth grow can come from many sources: cosmic dust, meteors, cosmic radiation, micro novas, novas, supernovas. We simply do not know yet where it all came from. The mass of the earth has grown, there is in fact no way to argue around that rationally. Thanks for your contribution.
Very interesting and plausable theory – keep up the good work.
Real science is all about challenging the unproven theories and mainstream dogmas.
Looking forward to read more about your excellent work and findings.
Hi Thomas, thank you for your kind comment. More on this topic will follow in the future.