The thread topic on Global Warming got me thinking about an intriguing theory that I've done a lot of reading about that some will call crackpot.
But if you honestly look at the facts and evidence, you might not be so quick to dismiss it.
It is an alternate theory to Plate Tectonics in Geology, called "Expanding Earth Theory".
Basically, this theory has some history, and at one point was pretty much on equal footing with the (then) new Plate Tectonics model.
To put things in perspective, Plate Tectonics as an accepted Geologic model has only been schoolbook science since The mid Nineteen-SEVENTIES. Prior to that the old-school science of Geology was resistant to the concept of dynamics in the Earth's crust, believing it was static and had been so since the Earth formed.
The Plate Tectonics model, along with an Expanding Earth model, were both proposed in the early Nineteenth century by some brilliant geologists, but it took a good 40 years for the geologic community to face the facts that it had to accept the overwhelming evidence that the Earth has changed drastically over the eons. During this time of debate on which model fit the evidence, it was decided it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Earth to be expanding because "bodies do not gain mass" except through accretion, which is too slow a process to fit.
So Plate Tectonics won the day and is now considered fundamental in geology.
However, their are a lot of things about Plate Tectonics that don't fit either, for which explanations have to be "forced". One such concept is that of "subduction zones". Basically, for all the new ocean floor that we know has formed in the past 200 million years or so (thats somewhere near the age of the oldest known ocean floor), there has to be some place where ocean floor older than that age has gone. The theory is that it gets "subducted", basically sucked back into the mantle of the earth. A big conveyor belt in effect, dragging continents along with it like a rug, bumping and crashing and forming mountains and earthquakes. ONLY...We have no real demonstrable proof they even exist!!!!
OK, well there is just enough about Plate Tectonics that is explanatory to make it broadly accepted. Yet there are major questions left unanswered too...furthermore the expanding Earth theory explains much of the same evidence equally well.
Some questions that come up, just to name a few...
What conditions 200 million years ago allowed prehistoric animals to grow so enormous, the size one might expect in a lower gravity world?
The extinction of the dinosaurs roughly coincides with the age of the oldest ocean crust, at least in geologic terms of age, which dates the Earth several billion years old.
Many of the same crustal features that make the Atlantic coastlines match up so brilliantly can be demonstrated in the Pacific and Arctic as well. There are Plate Tectonic explanations for this, but the further back in Geologic time those theories go, the less confidence we can have in their validity.
Read up on it, even if its just for laughs! Just Google "Expanding Earth" theory. Among the sites, you'll find a lot of legitimate research and proposals from a community of scientists mostly in Australia.
You'll also find YouTube animations from an artist names Neil Adams.
And you'll find a lot of heckling and flaming from academics who have their careers invested in the Plate Tectonic theory.
Interesting reading and a good topic for banter.
But if you honestly look at the facts and evidence, you might not be so quick to dismiss it.
It is an alternate theory to Plate Tectonics in Geology, called "Expanding Earth Theory".
Basically, this theory has some history, and at one point was pretty much on equal footing with the (then) new Plate Tectonics model.
To put things in perspective, Plate Tectonics as an accepted Geologic model has only been schoolbook science since The mid Nineteen-SEVENTIES. Prior to that the old-school science of Geology was resistant to the concept of dynamics in the Earth's crust, believing it was static and had been so since the Earth formed.
The Plate Tectonics model, along with an Expanding Earth model, were both proposed in the early Nineteenth century by some brilliant geologists, but it took a good 40 years for the geologic community to face the facts that it had to accept the overwhelming evidence that the Earth has changed drastically over the eons. During this time of debate on which model fit the evidence, it was decided it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Earth to be expanding because "bodies do not gain mass" except through accretion, which is too slow a process to fit.
So Plate Tectonics won the day and is now considered fundamental in geology.
However, their are a lot of things about Plate Tectonics that don't fit either, for which explanations have to be "forced". One such concept is that of "subduction zones". Basically, for all the new ocean floor that we know has formed in the past 200 million years or so (thats somewhere near the age of the oldest known ocean floor), there has to be some place where ocean floor older than that age has gone. The theory is that it gets "subducted", basically sucked back into the mantle of the earth. A big conveyor belt in effect, dragging continents along with it like a rug, bumping and crashing and forming mountains and earthquakes. ONLY...We have no real demonstrable proof they even exist!!!!
OK, well there is just enough about Plate Tectonics that is explanatory to make it broadly accepted. Yet there are major questions left unanswered too...furthermore the expanding Earth theory explains much of the same evidence equally well.
Some questions that come up, just to name a few...
What conditions 200 million years ago allowed prehistoric animals to grow so enormous, the size one might expect in a lower gravity world?
The extinction of the dinosaurs roughly coincides with the age of the oldest ocean crust, at least in geologic terms of age, which dates the Earth several billion years old.
Many of the same crustal features that make the Atlantic coastlines match up so brilliantly can be demonstrated in the Pacific and Arctic as well. There are Plate Tectonic explanations for this, but the further back in Geologic time those theories go, the less confidence we can have in their validity.
Read up on it, even if its just for laughs! Just Google "Expanding Earth" theory. Among the sites, you'll find a lot of legitimate research and proposals from a community of scientists mostly in Australia.
You'll also find YouTube animations from an artist names Neil Adams.
And you'll find a lot of heckling and flaming from academics who have their careers invested in the Plate Tectonic theory.
Interesting reading and a good topic for banter.
Last edited: