digg

Join DiggAbout

Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing-AMAZING watch!

youtube.com — This video is a Neal Adams animation about his theory that the Earth is growing. This collides with the Pangea theory. Watch it, you will be amazed.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+82Interesting Idea. Leaves a lot of questions for me though. Where was all the water? Was everthing underwater at this point? Was the earth ultradense? Do the Mineral patterns around the world suppor this idea. I.E. Are there similar geological formations and compositions in Australia and Anartica. etc..
    • srgtTarantula, on 10/12/2007, -2/+68It would of been cool if they showed a map of what the earth might look like in the future. Using whatever calculations they used to show it in the past.
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34This doesnt explain earthquakes either, however it is an interesting idea.
    • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31It means that the rotation of the earth has changed, days would have gone by alot faster on a earth with a smaller radius.
    • Tenetri, on 10/12/2007, -31/+17I think it supports the idea that all matter in the universe is expanding. The gaps between the particles expand, and on a massive scale like the earth, over 80 million years, that's a lot. Truly interesting.
    • thirdman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@srgttarantula

      Google for "Pangea Ultima" and you'll see some pics of what geologists think the world will look like in 250 million years

      http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast06oct_1.htm
      http://www.scotese.com/future2.htm
    • pickles777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@ fantasticjon
      I agree with your skepticism, those were the very first questions that popped into my head as i watched this. I wish some of these "conspiracy" videos would think of everything instead of presenting just their side, but i guess that goes without saying.
    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7I cannot begin to express the stupidness of this idea. He keeps mentioning marsupials wtf is that about? If there were no oceans in early earth explain the fossil record, life evolving in the oceans. If marsupials (???) and dinosaurs walked around on Antarctica where's the fossil evidence? But most importantly WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM!!!?!?
    • Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17"I think it supports the idea that all matter in the universe is expanding. The gaps between the particles expand, and on a massive scale like the earth, over 80 million years, that's a lot. Truly interesting."

      Actually, it's space that is expanding, points moving further apart, therefore your measuring stick would also expand. If you were using light to measure the increasing distance between any two points, the measured wavelength at point A would be shorter than measured wavelength at point B, assuming you could measure such a change with any accuracy.
    • Legato, on 10/12/2007, -7/+43wow... honestly im really glad i watched this... not because i necessarily believe it, but because its really neat to think about this stuff
    • iShouldveKnown, on 10/12/2007, -30/+1I have just one question: Are the scientists that came up with the Pangaea effect the same ones that measure time? Cuz how the HELL do you measure 2,000,000,000 years?!

      At this point, after watching this video... I'd rather believe that the creation of Earth was by God and not by science. Meh. It makes sense, but doesn't.
    • kamikazecow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"Actually, it's space that is expanding, points moving further apart, therefore your measuring stick would also expand. If you were using light to measure the increasing distance between any two points, the measured wavelength at point A would be shorter than measured wavelength at point B, assuming you could measure such a change with any accuracy."

      I think you got that a little wrong. The measuring stick wouldn't expand, thats not how inflationary cosmology works, however the space between it and another distant object would be (by distant, i mean something really far away like another galaxy). Electro-Magnetism (holding the ruler together) is far stronger then the repulsive gravity causing the expansion of the universe. Even 200 billions years from now, the yard stick (assuming it never changed throughout that long period) would still be the same length, but further away from its counterpart. (in another galaxy)
    • orangemarmalade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25that's an interesting idea, but it loses all credibility with me by saying it's all a huge cover-up. atm all we have is a theory that matches evidence, no concrete proof.
    • alteratti, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22@fantasticjo

      The water was here
      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html
    • Digitalicious, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18And this is what real science is all about. What a revolution to modern science this would be if it were true. A lot of questions answered, even more unanswered, but so many more than that created. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy as much as I would call it the infancy stages of discovery; which always starts with heavy opposition and debate.
    • senorcool, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Besides the fact that Pangaea has formed 3 times kinda just disproves this guy right away.
    • Peturbed, on 10/12/2007, -9/+55Think about it al you want, but you must realise that this is laughable speculation at best.

      This is throwing away 100 years of carefully researched, experimentally verified theory in favor of a scenario whose only proof is the shape of the continents.

      For anyone who has studied even a little geology or physics, this is obviously pseudoscience:

      why would the world expand away from gravity?
      where did all of the mass come from?
      where was the water?
      how do you explain the phenomena now attributed to subduction, ie volcanoes, earthquakes etc...
      how do you tie this in to the underlying geology of the seas?

      This theory fails to address any of these points.

      Nice animation though.
    • ThankTheCheese, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26I think the biggest question is why the ***** would scientists want to hide this from the public? this guy claims it is because they dont want to admit they are wrong and rewrite the history books. That is ludicrous! This guy deserves a kick in the arse. He's no better than the "earth is flat" proponents with their half-baked non-sensical theories.
    • directedition, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23"I think the biggest question is why the ***** would scientists want to hide this from the public?"

      For the same reason they're hiding the ice walls, obviously.
    • MrYellow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21@ peturbed
      Don't ignorantly disregard something because you have difficulty understanding it. While it MAY not be true it MAY be possible. Its not that the Earth would be expanding away from gravity but that the molten core of the earth cools towards the surface into the much less dense mantel, And that is where the material COULD come from. The water maybe here http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html Volcanic activity? How could you imagine this theory without volcanic activity? Cracks would form in the solid part of the earth, Liquid would rise to the surface in the form of volcanic activity and earthquakes and then cool, causing more expansion. This would also explain the belief that the earth was much more volatile millions of years ago, in a time when the earths mantel was much thinner. I'm not saying that I immediately believe this, just that it may deserve more thought than your giving it.
    • Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Well, the whole surface of the earth would have been covered with water... lending truth to evolutionary theory in that; in the beginning, all life was in the water... not because that's just how it happened, but because there was no dry land. Land creatures would only evolve once the earth had expanded enough to cause the water to thin out enough for land to form.
    • InvertedDonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10dugg for narration by jonh goodman.
      on an unrelated note. The earth is actually growing. Every day millions if not billions of particles (im not sure how many) fall from the sky. Just because we can't see them fall doesn't mean they don't. The earth IS growing, im just not sure that it has DOUBLED in the past 60 million years. KATAMARI DAMACY
    • bootfail, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9@Crass

      Days would have not changed since earth's angular velocity did not change.
    • kelly, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9If you leave a dense spherical sponge ball (something along the lines of a nerf ball) out in the Arizona sun for a few days it will dry and be smaller than its size that you normally might use it. Lets think of this as the earth before the continents moved away from each other as a result of the earth's growth.

      Now, if you soak that ball in excessive amounts of water, it will expand dramatically. One might argue that the earth's expansion was the result of a sudden amount of water coming on the earth where before it was not there.

      IN Genesis, the Bible talks of a flood in which excessive amounts of water was brought upon the earth. It would seem to me that what we're seeing here lends more credibility to the Bible's historical understanding of events. Perhaps this is why scientists have been less than willing to promote the theory that the earth is growing.
    • tribble222, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This theory makes absolutely no sense. Why would the Earth expand? The Earth formed by matter coming together due to gravity. So somehow the matter really squished in when it first formed, and then expanded tons after that? What incredible force could possibly cause the Earth to expand to such a degree? Molten core cooling would cause the Earth to become more dense, not less.

      @ kelly

      The water didn't rain down from space. The molecules necessary to make water were always there and the water formed after the Earth was cool enough.
    • tribble222, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@bootfail

      The Earth's angular velocity would have changed. The Earth got bigger and in order to conserve angular momentum, the angular velocity would need to decrease.
    • kelly, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1@ tribble,

      I know that our current understanding of how rain forms wouldn't lend credibility to the theory I presented.... but you're assuming that a higher power wasn't present as I suggested which caused the rain to come where before there was none. if the water was already on the earth, it would not be shrunk. Its only with the inclusion of water where before there was none that would cause it to grow... as illustrated in my nerf ball example.
    • bonemachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4...erosion, landslides, blah, blah...

      you have to love a theory that includes "blah, blah".
    • mikepictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"all we have is a theory that matches evidence, no concrete proof."

      That's all we ever have in science. Every single scientific "fact" is a theory that matches the evidence. Science can never be proven, it can only fit into all observed evidence.

      Just because the claim of this video is suspect, it would be idiotic to outright dismiss it out of hand. Analyze the evidence, be willing to be wrong, and see what you find.
    • rye419, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Digitalicious: the expanding earth theory has been around for almost 60 years, so its not really anything new. it does present some interesting thoughts, but the major downfall is its lack of explanation for how the earth "grows" if it could successfully explain that piece (instead of just talking about the surface plates), it would probably have a lot more credibility.
    • pwill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You know what this theory reminds me of?
      TIME CUBE! http://www.timecube.com/
    • karel747, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hold on...My biggest question is how would this account for the K-T boundary (i.e the proof that a giant asteroid killed off the dinosaurs). There is a uniform layer of elements which are rare on Earth, which is dated back to 65 million years (the same time the video says that the Earth started expanding). If before the Earth started expanding, there was only the surface continents, then how is the K-T boundary also found in the ocean bottoms?

      Also, the crash site is in the Gulf of Mexico, which, according to this theory, wouldn't have existed 65 million years ago...
    • eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"why would the world expand away from gravity?"
      Perhaps there is a gas in our core, perhaps physics as we know it is wrong?

      "where did all of the mass come from?"
      Do we even know that there was a change in mass?

      "where was the water?"
      Could have been in the atmosphere, could have been covering the planet, I'm sure theres other theories

      "how do you explain the phenomena now attributed to subduction, ie volcanoes, earthquakes etc..."
      Subduciton zones would seem to be the biggest question for this theory, it was certainly mine.

      "how do you tie this in to the underlying geology of the seas?"
      Not sure what youre asking, but im sure i wouldnt be able to answer ;)

      I'm no expert, but I don't think you are either. To say this is psuedo sciecne is just like saying the world being round is pseudo science, I wonder what supporting evidence said that it was flat?

      Pseudoscience as defined by princeton: "an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions "

      I don't see fallacious assumptions. I see theory based off of observation which is DEFINITLY a part of science. /cough any physics or geology student should know that. I will be interested in seeing what methods are used to prove/disprove this theory.

      Don't judge a theory based off of a shadey video and false assumptions.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Are the pressure and heat in the interior of the Earth enough to maintain a plasma core? They probably are, and the solid nickel-iron core of the textbooks may be a myth". According to the transmission of seismic waves through the Earth's core and the composition of meteorites, it had previously been thought that the inner core was solid, composed of nickel, iron and probably sulphur. The outer core was assumed to be molten. Owen explains that "the behaviour of waves passing through a plasma core would be similar to that in a solid iron-sulphur core".
      He suggests that if the inner core is plasma there is a potential for expansion when the core changes from a plasma into an atomic state. The Earth's outer core may be molten because it has already changed into its atomic state. (This author adds that an explosion potential would also be present if the gravity envelope had been broken by an impact catastrophe.)
    • exploringfox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is a really exciting theory! To everyone who was saying that our current beliefs of tectonics is a result of 100s of years of research-- actually the tectonic theory is very recent, if memory serves me correctly it was just brought up in the 60s. Furthermore it would explain quite a bit about physics, bringing up the question of if space is expanding-- is it so far fetched that all matter is expanding. If you believe in the big bang theory then this is also an enticing idea.

      Someone said about that maybe it was the water that was on the surface versus the land which would be an easier theory to defend, but who's to say the water wasn't super condensed within the actual chemical bonds of the planet.

      Also I wonder about our collective mythologies; nearly all cultures tell of cataclysmic floods and this might be a neat solution. Chinese culture tells of this huge drenching as well as the Judeo-Islam belief of Noah and even the older story from Sumeria-- Ziusudra (a 'chapter' of Gilgamesh)-- it is a recurring theme in most religious and oral traditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark.

      I think it would be kind of exciting to see this theory explored-- not unlike Galileo figuring out we aren't the center of the solar system. There might be some truth to this! : )
    • Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I have some ideas as to where all the water was:

      Consider the fact that on every continent, large flat areas (such as Poland, Kansas, Utah, and others) have enormous salt mines, and marine fossils have been found on land on every continent (as far as I know; correct me if I'm mistaken). This suggests that these were once under the ocean, and as the water receded, they made inland seas in these flat areas, which dried up and created these salt mines. Perhaps that's where the water was.

      However, even if the water covered those areas, considering the size and depth of the oceans, it would seem that the entire earth would have been covered by the oceans if the earth really were smaller. Could it be that the earth used to have a much more oxygen rich atmosphere, and hydrogen was added to our atmosphere through solar wind, and the hydrogen from solar wind reacted with the oxygen to create water which then precipitated out? That's just one wild guess presuming that the earth was smaller.

      I read somewhere that crap from outer space adds a certain amount of mass to the earth. How much crap accumulation from meteors would be necessary for earth to grow like that? (I know that wouldn't be a sufficient explanation, because the under ocean ridges suggests that the earth grew from the inside out. Just a wild guess.)
    • Peturbed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6In reply to Mr Yellow:
      "Don't ignorantly disregard something because you have difficulty understanding it. "

      I didn't ignorantly disregard it. I watched the whole video waiting for a shred of proof and none was given. Actually I do understand the argument being presented. I simply choose to believe theories that have be scrutinised for decades, presented in peer reviewed scientific journals, that tie into other scientific theories, rather than sensationalist youtube videos.

      Eon Blue:
      "I'm no expert, but I don't think you are either. To say this is psuedo sciecne is just like saying the world being round is pseudo science, I wonder what supporting evidence said that it was flat?"

      Interesting analysis of my points. No I would not class myself as an expert, however I am reasonably informed, having studied physics and geoscience to university level. And i don't think that it is fair to compare to the earth being flat. In that situation the argument was between science and public consensus. Here, the discussion is between existing science and a non-experimental theory.

      The fact is that there are many more plausible, but less flashy explanations for the haes of the continents. Anything that denies the fact of continental plates, seafloor spreading ands subduction, the MoHO, earthquakes and the entire scientific knowledge on the makeup of the center of the earth, as well as ignoring several theories of physics, cannot be easily accepted.

      But what do I know, Write it up as a peer reviewed paper, get a scientific journal to publish it, and lets see how the experts rip it apart :)

    • BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Trip your head on the fact that the crust of the Earth's layers, our favorite I should think, is about 40ish miles deep. Compared with the Earth's size and the distance to the core the crust is thinner than the skin on your body in a proportional way. Everything we know is no more than a hair to this thing.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting recent news that is related to this discussion
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17407745/
  • Pentagonian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31i don't know... i don't really subscribe to science via youtube
    if i did i'd buy the 9/11 conspiracies and about 9000 others

    you can easily present anything just the way you want in something like this... but i always love having my beliefs challenged, so time for further research
    • Pentagonian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22i've wasted so much time looking into this and have found some back up
      http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html
      http://users.indigo.net.au/don/links.html
      http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/index.html

      I've also got emails out to some tectonics experts at the old university to see what they think
    • geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24You know, I've always felt that the Pangaea theory left more to be desired... like a lot is still missing. But for this guy in the video to come out and say "Pangaea is all a conspiracy, man! The scientists don't want you to know about the TRUE theory!" is so ridiculous and insulting to my intelligence. This video almost has to be a joke.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If solid evidence for this new theory starts to pile up, then it will automatically gain more traction. But until then, acting like some whiny bitch that is supposedly being suppressed by "the man" won't get you more adopters.
    • mb96net, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The fallacy in the argument is the assumption that the Earth is growing. Having newer earth shown in the stretchmarks at the bottom of the Ocean does suggest that the Earth is growing in that location, but doesn't account for the possibility that it is shrinking by exactly the same amount of area in other parts of the world. In the picture that shows the age of the ocean floors by color coating it (orange being the most recent) it only shows the age verified by core samples of the ocean floors, it doesn't include the age of the land which occupies >20% of the Earth. If it did, it might reveal that the Earth is shift and folding in on itself, because it isn't one solid piece like a baseball. It is made of solids, liquids and gases which move.

      The Pangaea theory holds more water than this, that is why the scientific community is sticking with it until a better theory (that have more corroborating evidence) comes along.
  • Plasmatica, on 10/12/2007, -10/+69I call *****. The scientific community is not one big organization in which scientists conspire to keep facts away from the society. If the scientific community was afraid of change we wouldn't have any scientific progress at all.

    Also, If this ***** was true, there would be some papers and books published on the subject. I haven't heard anything about this apart from this dubious amateur video on youtube.

    Anyone got any other sources? Credible ones, preferably.
    • NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17If there were any credible evidence for such a theory scientists would embrace it and research it. However no evidence exists. I call ***** too.
    • Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26then again, in some cases you have to wonder...
      "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light; but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
      --Max Planck
    • entorix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Silencer7 brings up an interesting point (even if via a quote).

      It's true that the scientific community doesn't conspire together to keep facts buried... intentionally anyway. What they do do is shy away from embracing ideas that would cause their peers to turn their backs on them. Just because there aren't any books or papers published on the subject doesn't mean there isn't sound reasoning (and science) behind the idea.

      But then again, the idea that a 7.5 ton, 43 foot long lizard roamed the earth 65 million years ago was probably ***** too before books were actually published on the subject.
    • Squeeself, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It should be pointed out that there have been multiple examples of scientific community not accepting new ideas that were later embraced fully. *However,* this does not mean that there was any conspiracy going on. And there certainly isn't any going on here. This idea was originally proposed as an alternate hypothesis to the observations on plate tectonics, like 50 years ago. The current theories of plate tectonics had stronger evidence that the expanding earth theory, which is why it is more widely accepted. There just isn't all that much evidence for the expanding earth theory that doesn't also support plate tectonics. Also, many unanswered questions (such as where the ocean water came from).

      The fact that this guy (or ANY guy with any theory) is calling "Conspiracy!" is a major indication of desperation. There are, however, much better ways to call attention to a theory than comparing the world community of scientists to the theologians of old who believed the earth was the center of the universe. It kindof undermines getting people to look for more evidence when you're trying to convince people rather than prove it.

      There is *some* merit to the theory here (more so to plate tectonics, as well as other scientific theories in other disciplines that support it), so it's not like it should just be ignored. Just that the conspiracy theory should be ignored :P
    • directedition, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Indeed they shy away from new ideas that challenge current norms (like they did with the theory of plate tectonics). But there are usually at least papers published on the subject.
    • mcottier, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Plasmatica

      You are right about Scientist not conspiring to cover up facts, as that would defeat the whole purpose of Science. But you have to admit, throughout history their has always been corrupt people, so most likely there are some corrupt Scientists. Also, if they do hide the truth, then they are not scientist at all, just imposter's.
  • GeoffChang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It's helpful to see this video as a theory, and not something that you can 'catch in a bottle'. The only way we could prove it conclusively is by getting into a time machine, and then taking measurements of mountains and oceans. That's not to trash this new theory, though. The plain-jane 'sliding plates' theory we have right now is also a geological theory- we haven't caught it in a bottle either. We keep it because it's very well researched, and unites many other geological/chemical theories and their disciplines. Which is to say it works very well for today's science. It also doesn't require us to ask any new fundamental questions. Questions like "is it possible that the Earth expands over vast stretches of time?" That is NOT a question which is adressed by the received view of Plate Tectonics. Plate tectonics presupposes that the Eath has stayed, essentially, the same size since its birth. But Plate Tectonics doesn't really tell you why. I don't really think you need any kind of conspiracy for this to happen. Plate Tectonics was not widely accepted by geologists until the 1960's. YES 1960'S! Do you think I'm lying? Go look it up. It's a young theory -not geology- but Plate Tectonics. If that freaks you out, then you'd better go find a less radical branch of science for your interests. (Good luck.)

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

    As a side note from cosmology, we do know that stars expand, although they are orders of magnitude 'hotter' than planets. Still, we aren't certain WHY stars expand (ie causal mechanisms underlying said expansions). In this case, then, we are better educated about the expansion of stars than the (possible) expansion planets. Of course, the Earth (or Mars etc) is not a star, but does that mean that planets can never expand? Tough questions, I think.
    • NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4The idea of expanding planets is ridiculous, apart from gravity accumulating more mass which goes completely against the idea that the continents would still be on top.
    • edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Still, we aren't certain WHY stars expand (ie causal mechanisms underlying said expansions). "
      Balance of the stars mass causing gravitational collapse, and the core hydrogen-hydrogen fusion causing expansion. As Hydrogen is fused to helium, the star becomes denser, and smaller (with more vigorous fusion caused by greater pressure balancing with gravitational collapse). helium fuses with helium beyond a certain point, and the star becomes smaller still. Oxygen, neon, carbon, silicon also follow and the star shrinks. Finally, the star tries to fuse iron. This cannot release enough energy to balance gravitational collapse, so the star falls in on itself creating enormous pressures and temperatures. NOW iron, and other heavier elements can fuse, causing a final burst of energy that propels the outer layers outward.

      THAT is why stars expand. To fundamental theories need to be trashed to explain it. Experimental data conforms with this model.

      An expanding earth, however, raises numerous problems. Where did the water come from (maybe it covered the whole surface)? Did the mass change (the earth would have spiralled into the sun if it had, and if not would have ***** all our current models of physics in the ass, as well as defying all experimental data so far). How and why did the core density change? Why is subduction such an impossible concept?

      Where is the experimental proof of an increase in surface gravity the further back you go in earth's history (unless the moon is also increasing in mass with no density change and also increasing it's orbital velocity and/or distance, then it would have crashed into the earth if the surface gravity was constant)?
    • KMye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Plate tectonics is an extremely rigorously founded science, and one that makes very intuitive sense. It's also observed and measured on a daily basis.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

      If nothing else, it makes sense to invoke Occam's Razor here. In other words, video creator is a *****.
    • milo77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I came looking in the comments to see if anyone brought up the fact that the earth's rotation is slowing (http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/earth.htm). It seems intuitive to me that a faster spinning earth would have a more dense interior, and that as the spin slowed the earth's size would expand. Don't we know that the mantle and core are under intense pressure (eruptions...), and are constantly pushing outward? At this point I'd like to hear the explanation as to why scientist say the earth has stayed the same size, even though we're spinning slower and slower (which to me means less inward force - which could be completely incorrect). Thanks.
  • shakin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Wikipedia has an article about this theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

    This appears to be a theory that was made popular in the 50's and 60's, but no strong evidence emerged in favor of it while strong evidence does suggest that the Earth has remained a constant size.

    Conservapedia does not have an article about it. Sorry, nutjobs.
    • TridenTBoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Oh now the earth staying a constant size is just *****. The earth is constantly growing due to pulling in matter with it's awesome-o gravity power. Growing extremely slowly but surely. Oh and yea...that whole ***** behind dropping 2 differently sized or even same sized balls to the ground went to ***** too because of gravity. In a perfect universe it'd work, but unforunetly the balls do hit the ground at different times because of gravity.(Ahh long forces) Mainly because of more mass being on different sides of the balls and pulling more to a different direction. Complicated ***** but yea..Either way it's unmeasurable and that's the sad part for my wins.
  • NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2This whole theory is woo woo and so is Neal Adams. This theory has no scientific basis.
  • yupko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6some other animations about this theory

    http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
  • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5so where does the extra mass come from? That's a heck of alot of rock....
    • Mier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That is what I was thinking while watching it. Where's all this extra matter, rock, and water coming from? I KNOW!!!

      There's a teeny tiny White Hole in middle of our planet and it's pouring matter from one part of the universe into our planet. It's so hot down there, nice gravity well, magnetic field. Yeah all makes sense now.
    • cgohier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't think he is implying that the Earth is getting heavier. It would be getting less dense.
    • AcidPhysx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Earth gains mass from particles falling into our gravity. Happens everyday, probably tons of it.
    • grobinson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Yes that's the idea, that the spaces between particles, atoms, molecules are expanding. no extra mass.
    • milo77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, becoming less dense because the earth is spinning slower. Why doesn't that make sense? I don't know, just throwing it out there.
  • zobcat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Dugg only so more people can see it and help discredit it.
  • peaches017, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21I love how Hawaii floats off of Pangea, that makes perfect sense. Oh wait, its formed from subterranean volcanic faults.
  • zephc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Beware the Pro-Pangean Cabal!

    They aren't *not* against anti-Pseudo-science!
  • harbl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5So...The earth is just growing?
    It also collides with the laws of thermodynamics...Neither matter nor energy can be destroyed or created.
    It's cool that things fit together like that, but seriously this is *****.
    • harbl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Also, this guy should stick to making comic books.
    • entorix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't know if I'm sold on the idea... but, umm... who said anything about extra mass?

      Do stars gain extra mass and violate the laws of thermodynamics when they expand?
    • orangemarmalade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4harbl:
      crazy ***** happens in space all the time, that's why scientists still exist.

      and who knows how much stuff has been 'added' into earth's mass over the years from asteroids/meteorites/whatever?
    • psychephage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2entorix -

      stars expand, because the process of fusion causes the material within it to change from hydrogen to helium. When the helium fuses, it starts to become carbon. When this happens, the star cools and expands into what's known as a red giant. So the amount of matter/mass isn't changing. The temperature and atomic structure of the mass is changing. However, there's no nuclear fusion occuring at the center of the Eart as far as I know.
  • psychephage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's interesting, but if the Earth is growing, one of two things is happening:

    1. Mass is being generated within the Earth somewhere.... a significant amount.

    OR

    2. The density of the mass which makes up the Earth is slowly decreasing significantly.


    Both of these seem unlikely to me, but I'm not an expert on this subject so take my comment lightly.
    • Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Honestly, Astronomers were able to detect the slight wobble caused by the Earth quake that caused the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. If the earth were expanding then conservation of angular momentum would dictate that the rotational period of the earth were lengthening. If this is the case then we simply need to compare astronomical observations over the last few centuries to see if there are any discrepancies.

      We could also measure changes in the earths surface gravity at some point. If, in fact the earth were growing in radius then this would become smaller and smaller since it is dependent upon the radius of the earth.

      "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment may at any time prove me wrong." --Albert Einstein.
    • milo77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am pretty sure the earth is slowing down. See http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/earth.htm. Its just the first page I found.
  • Radiohead84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2eh..I always keep my mind open to new ideas so i'll do it for this one as well.

    Its an interesting idea but there needs to be more research on it. Where did all the water come from? Was the earth super dense so the matter expanded or something? It takes substance to make it grow..where did it come from? You can't create something out of nothing.
  • Beanseh, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1how can any one say the scientific community is not a big conspiricy is byond me dont you remeber learning things every friging year because "you cant handle the truth" ever year youd have to relearn what they told you the one b4 because it was actually more complex over and over again how the same thing works its not hard to belive that what they tell you and geographers about tectonic shifting isnt true whats hard to understand is where dose the water come from its still a bit of a wierd theory like
    • darkliquid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Re-learn how to use grammar, how to type and spell. Maybe then you won't sound like an *****.
  • Koowan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Pure *****. If the Earth were expanding, why are half of all plate margins being subducted back into the lithosphere? If the Earth were expanding, why are the perimeters of the North American plate surrounded by terranes that have obviously been pushed into it, rather than pulled apart? Why is there essentially no oceanic crust older than the Triassic? Where did all the Cambrian oceanic crust go? Why do you find large xenoliths in granitic plutons exposed at the surface?

    If nothing else, seismic studies have mapped the subduction zones of a number of plates and they are obviously moving back INTO the mantle to be melted and recycled into new crust.

    Current technology is able to map plate movement down to a centimeter scale and sorry, NO EXPANSION.

    Jeez people, didn't any of you take even one geology course in between all the CS courses?
  • Crimsoneer, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Complete utter crap...that would mean earth was so stupidly dense at first that it would probably implode on itself and create a black hole.
  • drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8In science, you should always listen to alternative viewpoints and consider ideas, its always changing. I have always thought since a kid that the continents fit together and the current theory is that they just moved apart. This could make much more sense and coincides with the actual Universe expanding. Maybe everything is getting bigger and that would change many theories.
  • swoopdog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9wait you mean the earth isn't the center of the universe? BLASPHEMY!
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"animation about his theory"

    then why does he keep stating it as if it were fact?
  • Koowan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7It's also worth pointing out that while the animation looks so perfect, if you actually try to fit the continental margins together you do NOT get the perfect fit this nutjob claims. In fact, even if you use the edge of the continental shelf (which his video didn't) you still don't get a perfect fit. Why?

    He also claims there is no plate rotation -- WRONG. The Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington shows a clear rotational element of over 30 degrees from several independent lines of evidence.

    He claims there is no subduction -- WRONG. It's been measured in real time and observed by the studies of seismic waves as they pass through the mantle.

    This guy must be taking lessons from the creationists -- make wild, unsupported, often false claims about a subject the audience isn't familiar with and you'll get suckers going "Yuh know Martha, that sounds like it could be true."

    Leave this kind of stuff for Fark.

    • drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Actually you sound more like a Creationist stuck in your ways. I am not saying its true but there should be more people looking at this. In science ideas should be open to critizism and science does change (unlike a Creationist type of belief where anyone challenging ideas is scoured).

      Plus over time the edges could change. For the large part they somewhat fit together. The official explanation over time even is that they grew apart (just not that the Earth was growing)
    • Koowan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"The official explanation over time even is that they grew apart "

      No, it isn't. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html

      If you actually knew anything about plate tectonics and the history of geology you'd be aware that the "expanding Earth" idea was examined decades ago and has so many inconsistencies and observations it cannot explain that it was abandoned. Trouble is that if you don't know what has already been discovered this crap sounds like a new idea. It isn't. It has been looked at and found wanting.
    • drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Do things within a system act the same? Does your body grow over time? Does the Universe? Are you saying that Planets would be immune to this? I think its always best to keep an open mind. Rather than looking like just a repeater. The theory may have not been given the time of day because it goes against lots of scientific knowledge. But scientists should not be close minded.
    • vann, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"The theory may have not been given the time of day because it goes against lots of scientific knowledge. But scientists should not be close minded."

      I'm sorry, but I think you're ignorant of history. The theory of plate tectonics is relatively new, having only been articulated and accepted in the 1960s. The guy on the video says that the "Expanding Earth" theory would destroy 100 years of scientific tradition. From this I can only conclude that he is either writing that video from the future or wants to tell you a scary story about how scientists are conspiring to Keep The Truth from the Laymen. (Cue dramatic music.)

      The fact is, this theory was given its due in the 1960s and was dismissed precisely because the Expanding Earth theorists were unable to explain where the additional mass was coming from. That, combined with the vidence for subduction, led most scientists to believe that plate tectonics was the better explanation.

      What's more, there's absolutely nothing stopping an Expanding Earth theorists from fixing these holes in EE and publishing a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. That the theory is now being peddled by a cartoonist on YouTube....well, I mean, come on.
    • olik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm no geologist, and of course this leaves a lot of questions, but it makes more sense that all the continents would start together if they covered the entire globe. Why should the world start off segregated between water and land? If you think about how a planet forms, it seems more logical that the surface would be more or less the same all over.

      How and why the earth would be expanding is the interesting part. The thing is, this theory really doesn't seem to conflict with most of the evidence like fossils, etc, because it offers a reason to believe that everything started as a shallow sea, but under the normal model, WHY WOULD IT BE A SHALLOW SEA IF EVERYTHING STARTED AS AN ISLAND.

      I think I buy this theory, at least as much as the one I was presented with in school. Then again, this theory only has to compete with a 7th grade earth science class and a second grade teacher.
    • drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Are not the gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition." --Newton
    • milo77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@olik
      I agree, especially when there appears to be evidence that the earth's rotation is slowing which to me means less inward force which means a less dense earth. I agree that it seems odd that a spinning molten blob would cool with a single continent on one side. I am a layman, however, and am perfectly ok with being put in my place.
  • Koowan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"In science, you should always listen to alternative viewpoints and consider ideas, its always changing. I have always thought since a kid that the continents fit together and the current theory is that they just moved apart. This could make much more sense and coincides with the actual Universe expanding. Maybe everything is getting bigger and that would change many theories."

    No, the current theory is NOT that they just spread apart. New oceanic crust forms at spreading centers like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, but at other parts of the plate margins the plates slam against each other, push up mountain ranges and eventually the oceanic crust is subducted below because it is more dense than continental crust.
  • AigenArn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I just watched a video that told me the earth's 2 billion year old core started rapidly expanding in the last 100 million years, which is about .05% of its entire age. It was very entertaining.
  • Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Interesting.
  • swoopdog, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1Scum of the earth
    Come on

    Yeah
    Run and kill
    Destroy the will
    A hero that doesn't exist
    Yeah
    Smoking gun
    Well I am the one
    A bullet hole
    In your fist
    Yeah

    Hey, I'm breathing
    Hey, I'm bleeding
    Hey, I'm screaming
    Scum of the earth
    Come on

    Hey, I'm breathing
    Hey, I'm bleeding
    Hey, I'm screaming
    Scum of the earth
    Come on

    Yeah
    Wake up dead
    Bleeding red
    A world that doesn't exist
    Yeah
    Heaven waits
    With the gates
    Rusting in the mist
    Yeah

    Yeah
    Hey, I'm breathing
    Hey, I'm bleeding
    Hey, I'm screaming
    Scum of the earth
    Come on

    Hey, I'm breathing
    Hey, I'm bleeding
    Hey, I'm screaming
    Scum of the earth
    Come on

    Go [x12]

    Yeah
    Run and kill
    Destroy the will
    A hero that doesn't exist
    Yeah
    Smoking gun
    Well I am the one
    A bullet hole
    In your fist
    Yeah

    Hey, I'm breathing
    Hey, I'm bleeding
    Hey, I'm screaming
    Scum of the earth
    Come on

    Hey, I'm breathing
    Hey, I'm bleeding
    Hey, I'm screaming
    Scum of the earth
    Come on

    Hey [x6] Scum of the earth
    Hey [x6] Scum of the earth
    Hey [x6] Scum of the earth
    Hey [x6] Scum of the earth
  • NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4100% crap.

    -jcr

  • BillDoor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is an old theory. It has already been discounted as a scientific theory long ago. The current scientific evidence does not support it. All the evidence points to plate tectonics.
  • illahtech, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6And if you fold a $20 just right you can supposedly see 'evidence' of 9/11...

    What ISN'T provided is any REAL EVIDENCE. Just animations repeated at least a dozen times, with the same monotonous droning over each one. In advertising this is referred to as the hammer approach - repeat it enough and it starts to make sense (think of the 'Head On - Apply it to the forehead!' campaign).

    There's no explanation about why or how any of this is happening, just an animation, with growth movements based purely on imagination, showing the pieces of landmass supposedly fitting together.

    There's classic junk-science and logical flaws in this. I mean, all the classical ones. Saying, "If earth expands, so MUST other planets" is a logical fallacy in that he's supporting one conclusion with false evidence (i.e. one unproven theory proposed as evidence for a further jump to conclusions), appeals to emotions, proof by example, comparing those who don't believe in his idea to flat-earthers, etc. Lots of salesman talk with nothing behind it.
  • chump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My problem with this is that it doesn't present a hypothesis and attemp to prove or disprove it, the narration assumes that the idea has already been proven. There's no conspiracy here, even if it was proven it's not like good scientists would try to hide it. The theory doesn't explain how mountain ranges are formed, i.e. by one plate being pushed into another. If the earth is expanding then plates will never be pushed into each other.
    • darkliquid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You are making that assumption on the theory that is the only way mountains are formed.
    • Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1About the mountain thing. I saw it explained somewhere that they could be caused by a curved surface becoming less curved, so the land would pinch together and push up.
    • drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mountain ranges could be as the earth expanded, the mountains formed as the local area flattened out more. SO when it was smaller the wrap was much smaller, as it became bigger there were buckling because it had less curvature.
  • gabacho2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They claim that the earth is growing at an accelerating rate...With all the of the instrumentation we have it would be damned hard not to notice the earth was changing size. This would mess up orbits, mass calculations, distance calculations and all kinds of other measurements. You would think if the earth was really expanding that quickly someone would have noticed it by now. It would be a very big problem indeed. Theres no way we could have ever made it to the moon if our understanding about planet masses and sizes was so wrong, IMHO. (Oh but thats another story, for this people I suppose)
  • 4th3157, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is so obviously a load of nonsense. Ignoring the huge problem about the water (and all the other problems that disprove this silly hypothesis), when this guy shrinks the earth he can only go back 100 million years or so, yet we know the earth is over 4.5 billion years old. Somehow this magical expansion only started 100 mya (or so) or the earth started out the size of an atom.

    Oh, one last thing, land plants evolved after sea life evolved yet he says there were no seas 100 mya. We also find sea fossils high up in mountains. If you have expansion then you don't get continents crashing into each other to create these mountains.

    The only conspiracy going on is by the conspiracy theorists who are denying the real evidence and trying to get everyone to believe in complete *****.
    • darkliquid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3According to this theory there were seas. Now i'm not saying i agree with it but If you are going to attack something at least know what the ***** you are attacking.
    • Auxon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Energy from the sun, stars, comets (where the water came from), meteors, asteroids, other planets that collided, moons, etc... are enough to start expansion. The Earth is absorbing energy all the time, life converts in into matter, increasing the size of the Earth. Old oceans existed over the continents, that's why there are fossils, not because they were pushed up. Perhaps.

      Expansion seems obvious to me.
    • drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Are not the gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition." -- Newton
  • howdareyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Science is about coming up with theories and then trying to disprove them. It's laughable that this guy believes there is some conspiracy. I'm quite positive that if he tried to disprove his "Conspiracy Theory" he would succeed.
  • WeezelDS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0doesnt this agree w/ the metric expansion of the universe which is now accepted?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_universe
    • drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Everything in the Universe is growing, expanding including your own body. It would seem that something has to determine the size of a planet (maybe growth). Why are all the planets of different size, how did they get that way? I think not questioning beliefs will lead to bad science. All theories should be looked at. We really have only been here a short time, not long enough to observe major change to not look at all options.
  • insidesource, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is a load of old *****.
    Please listen to the fantastic skeptic podcast, "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe", especially to podcast #51 & #52 where they interview Mr. Neal Adams. Then read Segment #6 of the correspondence (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=51) with Mr Adams and the host, Dr. Steve Novella. You then can see why this is a load of old hokum.
    • darkliquid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Your irrefutable proof's link is broken. Dumb *****.
    • NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@darkliquid

      Are you retarded? Delete the bracket at the end, anybody would notice that.



      Dumb *****.
    • 4th3157, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1darkliquid clearly IS retarded
    • Koowan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Outstanding link! Isn't there an old cliche that says: "It is better to keep quiet and be presumed an idiot than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
  • MrKlaatu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You ever played with that cheap "Plastic Bubble-crap"?

    You know, where you put a gob of soft-plastic-bubble-crap on the end of a tiny, little straw and blow until your cheeks hurt?

    God has one of these little straws up the Earth's butt and is blowing bubbles up it's ass.

    Ethereal-God-produced gas adds no mass.....Jeebus, its SO freakin' obvious!
  • wepto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This reminds me of the people who deny aids.
  • NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Oh my god.... I'm seriously concerned right now, reading these comments and seeing people actually embracing this *****? This is just downright scary.
    • NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=51

      If you even think thsi theory has credence, read the email exchange between Neal Adams and skeptic Steven Novella. Novella completely disproves Adams and exposes him for the nutjob he is.

      You'll notice as the email exchange continues Adams' words get more CAPS and alot more !!!

      Please people, don't fall for BS, you're the reason people like Sylvia Brown and Creationists are still around.
    • shiola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ NeoRicen - great link. That email exchange was an eye-opener. I'm no scientist but the way he tries to 'prove' his theory is ridiculous, he's like a stubborn child. Some of his conclusions are laughable.

      He actually ends up discrediting himself in one email, unintentionally.
      "Steve wrote: Also, Darwin's Origin of the Species is not just the presentation of an
      idea, most of the book is a painstakingly detailed presentation of evidence.

      Neal wrote: As are my painstakingly detailed maps."

      ...and then says later....

      Neal wrote: This is not evidence. You can "DRAW" a map to do anything you wish. They're making it up based on speculation. There was a time I did maps showing this crap . They told me what they wanted it to look like and I did it. This isn't science . It's *****, and a yard wide."

      So his evidence is based on maps which he states can be made up. Nice one Neal. Good luck to you old fella.
  • stryker1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Neal Adams is a moron. In order for the hollow earth theory to be true essentially all of geology, physics, and biology must be thrown out for the theory to even be possible. If you ever listen to him argue the point its apparent he has no real knowledge of what he's talking about, just speculation and over-simplification.
    • chowderdick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You nailed it... making a video with nifty graphics doesn't came ANYWHERE near actual evidence.

      Matter from nothing... great idea Neal.
  • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Personally, I don't like to get my science from conspiracy theorists. If you want to coma back and present the evidence for this theory in a *credible* way, I'll listen.
  • directedition, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The world is growing? You mean the ice walls are moving further apart?
  • TheTrueAPlus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Did someone else notice that the Great Lakes were still present in the "small Earth"? The Ice Age wasn't 70 million years ago....
  • tokyoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yep, the Earth keeps expanding until we reach... the Big Pop!

    (Seriously, any time anybody refers to a 'conspiracy of silence' in the scientific community, you know they're either lying or certifiably insane).
  • kathaclysm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yea, this is obvious BS: where do fish-fossils on land come from then, if the land was never under water? And how come when I drive through the mountains, I can see the layers of rock that were compressed? http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/sideling.html

    On this planet, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!!
  • Johnpaine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Fake. 70% of the glob is ocean without land. The video slowly stretches each continent to fulfill the 90+% expansion. Thats to much land mass. No way all the continents could form to cover almost the WHOLE Earth.

    Dugg for creativity.
  • emailingRob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Very nice. I'm not at all religious, but it is a good illustration of how science 'fact' is simply man's best guess.
  • 3n7r0py, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Gaia - the earth created life, not some manmade "god". I love this theory! It's a paradigm shift. Oh and by the way, something this large DOES affect the scientific community - for instance, the Sphinx at Giza was eroded by RAIN not wind/sand. That would put the Sphinx back about 6000 years before what is currently believed. Those who research the site would have to re-write the entire Egyptian timeline and nobody wants to do that - same thing with earth.
    • tokyoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wrong wrong wrong!

      Science LOVES being proven incorrect, turned on it's head etc. You have compelling evidence for your revision of history? Enjoy that Nobel prize! The scientific community will pat you on the back and thank you for your contribution.
  • chowderdick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I can't believe you people who are actually buying into this.... this is total ***** pseudoscience.
  • BigmasterJay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3History shows that most of the beliefs we now hold will be found to be incorrect.
  • 11011001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is so aggravating. There is evidence for subduction, there are volcanoes, earthquakes, seismic measurements.. Ignoring the evidence, which is more likely, that all of modern science needs to be modified, or that the simpler explanation of subduction is true?

    I totally agree with chowderdick, this is total *****.
    • drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If its that aggravating then maybe it is right? Over history, people have been wrong a majority of the time. We have only been studyign this for about 50 years (plat tectonics) and this idea wasn't given the time of day in the 60's for what 3-4 years? If you think that is enough time to look at it well I think you think too much of your beliefs rather than real science which changes all the time as our understanding expands along with the universe.
  • 3n7r0py, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17407745/ - Scientists to study gash on Atlantic seafloor
    Earth's deep interior lies exposed without any crust covering... Here's some brand new evidence supporting the theory.
    • BigmasterJay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FTA

      The upwelling drives seafloor spreading, which is the movement of two oceanic plates away from each other. Oceanic crust is destroyed at so-called subduction zones where two plates collide and typically the denser one slips beneath another plate.

      This is how scientists think it works, but areas of exposed mantle on the Earth’s surface aren’t easily explained by this theory. They are regions “where this process seems to have gone wrong somehow,” MacLeod said. “There’s no crust formed, and instead we’ve got mantle—which is normally in the deep Earth—on the seafloor.”

      Scientists have known about such anomalies for years, but it is only within the past decade that they have actively begun investigating them, MacLeod said.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.