• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Growing Earth / Expanding Earth Hypothesis (Earth Getting Bigger?)

Does this site hold any interest to anyone?

Growing Earth Consortium
Click to expand...

I take it your the same Micheal Netzer that just happens to have an article on the website 'A matter of matter or not'? Just what is it your looking for. Is it some sort of approval of the website maybe some converts for your ideas? Why not just come straight out with it at the start and say heres a website i write for (if it is you) feel free to have a look at it and let me know what you think.
The Earth is growing or should i say gaining weight, every year tonnes of dust and rock in the form of meteorites, hit the earth but as for the ideas espoused by your website i don't think so.
 
feen5 said:
I take it your the same Micheal Netzer that just happens to have an article on the website 'A matter of matter or not'? Just what is it your looking for. Is it some sort of approval of the website maybe some converts for your ideas? Why not just come straight out with it at the start and say heres a website i write for (if it is you) feel free to have a look at it and let me know what you think.
Click to expand...

That I'm involved with the web site should be clear (and I wouldn't try to hide such a thing) as its URL resides within www.michaelnetzer.com But to answer your question about my involvement, as the welcome says, we are a growing group, some scientists and geologists who are exploring the growth mechanisms of the Earth in a closed forum. The articles on the site are extracts from these discussions. I've produced this site in order to make this research and exploration more known. The theory is at least several decades old but is gaining more consideration today.

It's in this context that I asked if this interests anyone here. No further motives of approval or converts are there. Simply raising an interesting theory for discussion, which effects all areas of science.

I apologize if it gave you a mistaken impression.

The Earth is growing or should i say gaining weight, every year tonnes of dust and rock in the form of meteorites, hit the earth but as for the ideas espoused by your website i don't think so.
Click to expand...

GE theory cites evidence for the transformation of matter within the core of the Earth, due to the intensity of the Electromagnetic field there. Not only through accretion from space.

Do you think this is flat out impossible?
 
sunsplash1 said:
Crikey! Dr Cary! Bloody genius, mate.
Click to expand...

A genius he was indeed. There are other brilliant Australian geologists, physicists and even brilliant simple blokes writing on that site.
 
GE theory cites evidence for the transformation of matter within the core of the Earth, due to the intensity of the Electromagnetic field there. Not only through accretion from space.
Click to expand...

Transforming matter into what? Any measurements for elasticity of 'crust matter'?
 
GadaffiDuck said:
Transforming matter into what? Any measurements for elasticity of 'crust matter'?
Click to expand...

More precisely, the transformation of Prime Matter to matter. This theory appears to be unifying may elements of quantum physics into it. What's been considered as Anti-matter, or Dark Matter, such as the positron of Positronium, are believed to be an undetectable Prime Matter particle field that fills all space in the universe. Within the core of the Earth, sun, moon, all celestial bodies and even the core of a galaxy, is believed to be such a high intensity of Electro-Magnetic force, or traveling wave oscillitation, so that it converts this Prime Matter into matter.

That's how it's believed that new matter is being generated in the core of the Earth causing it to grow.

The oldest parts of the Earth, the outer crust or continental plates, are quite rigid and not renewing. The ocean floor, however, is much younger and the age of the Mid Ocean Ridges there indicate that this is the place where the new matter is erupting to the surface to fill the space caused by the expansion of the Earth's surface.

We do not yet have conculsive GPS measurements that can confirm or deny this growth.
 
You say unifying many elements of quantum physics. What elements?.
 
A website such as this does not impress me. It should initially present a short clear summary of the theory, with the evidence for it, rather than give links to a series of articles, most of which (at first glance) are equally woolly minded, and do not tempt me to read further.

If planets, Sun and stars are growing, what are they growing with respect to - what are your standards of length and mass? How does this growth affect planetary orbits around their primaries, or the orbits of stars in galaxies? Is there any evidence for such gravitational effects?

Anyone can make assertions, but what started this particular 'theory' off?
Again, what is the evidence? If it's good, put it there on the front page, and don't expect people to drill down through a series of articles to find it.
 
Matter creation anyone? String theory? Hmmm. I have noticed that when people try and blind with science, they invariably cite 'quantum'. Ah, quantum...that chap, must be science then. Can I recommend John Gribbin's ' In search of Schrodinger's Cat'?; yes it was written in the 80's, but it provides a good primer.

Good points Ryn. I look forward to hearing something about quantum gravitiy theories.
 
ok so iirc energy can be converted into mass

e=mc2 can be the other way around m=e/c2

the sun has shone since when?
you arnt warmed by the sun?
how many millions of years but no mass from the energy absorbed?
einstein was wrong?
 
GadaffiDuck said:
You say unifying many elements of quantum physics. What elements?.
Click to expand...

There are many areas of quantum physics in contention with Relativity and conservation of matter and energy. Primarily, notions of traveling wave oscillitation and transfromation into standing wave pairs, the constancy of the speed of light implying the presence of an undetectable particle wave field as a medium for light to travel through, and some others.

One of the main dillemas of Quark particle observations is the discovery of the creation of a positron and electron, apparently out of nothing, during experriments with cosmic rays. The positron that was detected then, in 1932, by Carl David Anderson, was labeled Anti-Matter because it sought out an electron and appeared to annihilate it. Expreriments since have show that the positron does not destroy the electron, rather they begin to revolve around each other and then they both disappear.

One of the theories being discussed in the group is that space is not empty, as predicted by Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. Rather that it is full of a particle wave field we call Prime Matter. The fundemental particle of this Prime Matter is a positron and electron, which have the same mass and Electron Weight.

When they are joined together, as seen within the nano-second they disappeared, their electro-magnetic fields become turned inwardly unto itself, instead of outwardly as in the electron of proton. This makes it undetectable because it has no detectable EM field. This is what's being discussed as the basic particle of Prime Matter from which all matter in the universe is made.

When a high energy photon strikes a Prime Matter particle, the Electron and Positron are split apart and their EM fields turned outwardly again. This is what Carl David Anderson discovered with his cosmic ray experiments. Many scientists theorize this to be of the most common processes occurring in the universe.

But because the electron and positron are two equal opposite charged particles, they are then attracted and their EM fields turn inward again, become undetactable and revert back to Prime Matter.

It's believed that the core of the Earth, sun and other celestial bodies carries a very high intensity EM field, enogh to keep the positron and electron apart when a photon splits the prime matter particles. More positrons then join the firsct core positron. When 5 layers of positrons are accumulated, all equalling 920 positrons, then a new PROTON is made. It then attracts an electron again and a new Hydrogen atom comes into being. This is how it's believed that new matter comes into the world from Prime Matter.

An essential component of this theory is that the proton is in actuality an accumulation of 920 positrons equalling the 1840 Electron weight it is known to have.
 
Erm...are you implying that 'energy' from the sun is converted into elelments (mass) on earth (somehow) or saying that the accretion of energy/mass (via the aforementioned process) is increasing the size of the planet - causing it to expand? OR none of the above?. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
 
enery is converted into mass
the sun is hot etc...

roll a snowball down a snowy bank
 
rynner said:
A website such as this does not impress me. It should initially present a short clear summary of the theory, with the evidence for it, rather than give links to a series of articles, most of which (at first glance) are equally woolly minded, and do not tempt me to read further.
Click to expand...

It is a work in progress, rynner, and this is the first time that I've tried to receive some feedback outside of the group. The material is all categorized for simpler navigation, the front page only has short intros to a selection of articles.

The nature of the site, though, is to show that Growing Earth theory can have so many different mechanisms proposed by a variety of researchers. It is meant to be a refelction of how the issues are discussed and not necassarily a concrete presentation of a finalized theory, at this stage at least. You make a good suggestion, though, and I'll see if there's some way to condense the essence of the idea into one good introductory article.

If planets, Sun and stars are growing, what are they growing with respect to - what are your standards of length and mass? How does this growth affect planetary orbits around their primaries, or the orbits of stars in galaxies? Is there any evidence for such gravitational effects?

Anyone can make assertions, but what started this particular 'theory' off?
Again, what is the evidence? If it's good, put it there on the front page, and don't expect people to drill down through a series of articles to find it.
Click to expand...

The theory was first proposed by S Warren Cary, an Australian geologist in the 1950's on the heals of science adopting the theory of plate tectonics. he proposed that the matching continental shapes facing the Atalntic implied that the Earth was expanding and that's why South America fits into Africa. His ideas were not accepted then by science becaue he couldn't provide a mechanism for how matter would be created in the Earth to cause it to grow.

Soon afterwards, the theories of Pangea and subduction were adopted to explain the observations Cary made. Both of these, however, are very problematic within the limitations of the laws of physics.

One of the most blaring pieces of evidence for Earth Growth is the age of the ocean floor. It is much much younger than the continental crust, at mximum 180 Million years, while the continents are 3-5 Billion.

The youngest part of the ocean floor is barely a Million years old.

There is much more evidence dealing with dinosaur observations and other paleontological research.

I'd suggest listening to the interview given by Neal Adams, one of the primary movers of the idea, on Coast to Coast radio. You can hear it throught the "Broadcast Media" link on the site. It's one of the better ways to become familiar with the theory.
 
I thought that the positron/electron 'falling into a hole' produced gamma rays (2MCsquared) as a product ? I'm going to have a quick look at some text books :D
 
GadaffiDuck said:
Erm...are you implying that 'energy' from the sun is converted into elelments (mass) on earth (somehow) or saying that the accretion of energy/mass (via the aforementioned process) is increasing the size of the planet - causing it to expand? OR none of the above?. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Click to expand...

Alright, GD. But first a little background. The present Big Bang theory basically states that all the matter in the universe was always here, the same amount, no more and no less. That 13 Billion or so years ago it was all condensed into an infinitely dense mass about the size of a thimble... all the matter of the universe. Then something happened that caused it to explode and become spread throughout the universe in exactly the form it is now. Science today believes that all the celestial bodies, planets moons and asteroids have always been the size they are since the Big Bang. That all the matter has always been here and that it's forever constant.

Growing Earth postulates that the universe was created gradually, beginning with the smallest sub-atomic particles. In such a scenario, the first and primary element that came into being was Hydrogen, the simplest atom. From there it accumulated eventually into a hydrogen sun. It then began discharging ionized Helium atoms which collected within Electro-magnetic lines around the sun. As these discharges from the sun collected, they began to accumulate electrons, turning them into higher count atoms which began to form the elements of the planets. At first through accretion from the sun, but later as an asteroid began to come into being, it accreted from the outside while its inside remained hollow. The very intense EM field around which this growing asteroid developed created the conditions to begin converting Prime Matter particles within it into to atomic matter. This is how a planet grows, much like a crystal Geode does.

Today, the sun discharges a great amount of matter, not only energy. Enoumous amounts of Helium and Hydrogen are constantly discharged from the sun. Some of it still seeps through crystal latices of planets to find its way into their core and contribute to the growth process, but conditions inside also appear to allow for the creation of new matter within them.
 
Hi Michael,
Sorry, you took my query to tin finger, but thanks anyway. Firstly, all planets etc were not formed from the big bang (there has been a process). Your view of the process of hydrogen suns upwards seems a bit odd - I believe that helium does not form any molecular bonds etc. But, I am happy that you respond to posts. Thank you for your time :D Sorry for the brevity of this reply, but am still trying to get hold of some books + it's late and I'm having some booze (for wednesday I go dry)
 
MichealNetzer said:
One of the most blaring pieces of evidence for Earth Growth is the age of the ocean floor. It is much much younger than the continental crust, at mximum 180 Million years, while the continents are 3-5 Billion.

The youngest part of the ocean floor is barely a Million years old.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Plate Tectonics explain this?
 
I thought so too. Thus the himalayas are a 'new' mountain range (and not billions of years old).

NB. I'm not familiar withthe idea of planetary crystal lattices either, nor accretion theories, as proposed above.
 
DerekH16 said:
Doesn't Plate Tectonics explain this?
Click to expand...

Plate tectonics alone don't explain the discrepancy in the ages of the ocean floor and the continental crust.

The expanation given is the process of subduction, which is one of the activities theorized within a plate tectonics construct.

Subduction states that though new material comes up through the ocean floor at the MOR's and pushes the plates away... the pushed plates at the other end ot the ocean then subduct under the continent.

The problem with subduction is that an enourmous amount of force is needed to push an ocean floor plate into the denser magma of the Earth. It's much like trying to push a cork into a glass of water. There is no real accounting for such a force though the theory is embraced.

Subduction, as a theory, was born in order to explain how the ocean floor is spreading but the planet remains the same size. It's not sound, however, to eliminate the possibility of Earth Growth because of subduction. Especially if it presents physical inconsistencies.

The same evidence, the new ocean floor, also suggests planetary growth. So if a scientifically sound mechanism for planetary growth can be observed and discovered, it would mean that many of our adhered to theories need to be reconsidered.
 
Plate tectonics wont show the cumulative effect of the sun
its too gradual
earth has been near our sun for quite some time
 
Plate tectonics alone don't explain the discrepancy in the ages of the ocean floor and the continental crust.
Click to expand...

Yes it fucking does.

You can make any assertions you like, but when you ignore evidence such as analysis of seismic waves showing subducted plates intruding into the mantle, then frankly you're applying wishful thinking or your theoretical model over actual observations.

What next? "There is no spoon."? FFS!
 
As Rynner said, how does one measure this growth and in relation to what?
Also, have you taken into account such ideas as static and dynamic pressure? (Within the Earth).
 
as we are close to the sun we are warmed by it


As Rynner said, how does one measure this growth and in relation to what?
Also, have you taken into account such ideas as static and dynamic pressure? (Within the Earth).


its a dead cert that we are being bombarded with energy as me personally aint at zero kelvin

im saying that geoglogy wont show the cumulative effects as its over a vast time scale,and that electrons do have a mass this mass will add to whichever topografy in whichever state it exists.
 
Gosh! I can remember when 'Plate Tectonics' were still a relatively new and spanking fresh theory! :shock:

It was one of the highlights of Open University, back in the 1970's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Ocean floor spreading even let's you see how many times the Earth's poles have flipped, like a gigantic tape recorder.
 
I was being somewhat facetious about static and dynamic pressure. Also, the solar wind acts with the Earth's heliosphere - this is complex and it is too late for me to do the research. Anyhoo, Energy reacting with the Earth is not the same as energy becoming matter.

I'm going to need to see a lot more research before believing this to be viable science. However, I will continue to look at the evidence as it is presented - the Fortean way :D
 
myself am warm in the knowledge that im not freezing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top