Expanding Earth

    The first question we need to answer is whether land masses move. Both theories answer affirmatively.
    Whether we talk of continents drifting or the expansion of the Earth we have to concede that the ground
    under our feet is shaking.

    The fact that the land masses move makes it an easy case to defend for the continental drift side. All that
    the lawyers on their team have to show is that the continents move sideways. As evidence they present fault
    lines and circumstantial evidence such as that the east coast of South America fits neatly into the west
    coast of Africa. The fact that similar archaic bones and plants were found on both sides of the Atlantic
    adds more weight to their case.
   Continental drift           vs.          Expanding Earth


Nila and Bill      


Mathematical Physics      
Rope Hypothesis    
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist
The theory of continental drift
has a good chance of
explaining why we find fossils
of the same plants and animals
on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Of course, the Expanding Earth Theory also answers these questions. So far the two theories are tied. The
    problem with the Expanding Earth is the question of whether the Earth expanded in the past and is still growing.
    Assuming it did, by what mechanism?

    Don't get me wrong. I like the Expanding Earth Theory a lot. It's definitely an interesting insight. I get turned
    off when the theorist starts pulling at straws and tells the crowd that some hocus pocus Quantum Mechanical
    mechanism is creating mass from empty space.

    A more viable theory is that gases might be creating volume from inside the Earth's guts.

    However, I have two problems with this last proposal:

    1. The Earth's diameter would have had to at least double in order to produce the
         amount of area taken over by the oceans. Did the Earth expand that much
         since the days of the dinos?

    2. The seas would have been covered completely by land before the breakup. In
         other words, silicon over H2O! This is in direct violation of the theory that the
         Earth is a black dwarf: a cinder of a star. The Black Dwarf Theory requires
       that lighter elements such as gases are above heavier ones such as iron and
         silicon. The proponent would have to explain how silicon ended up on top of

    The Continental Drift Theory is not without its problems. One that I am uncomfortable with is that there was
    proportionally very little land above the waters and it all was concentrated on one side of the globe. Maybe
    this is exactly what happened, but it still looks weird to me. Until I have a better theory I'll keep my options
    open on the issue of how the land masses broke up and whether the Earth is expanding.

Continental Drift

Is this how we started out? All the land on one side of
the globe?

Maybe! But it still looks weird to me.

Inflating Gaia

|   Cam  |  Ord  | Sil |    Dev   |    Car    |    Per |    Tri    |    Jur   |       Cre      | Pal |Neo|
The History of Life on Earth
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method   

Bill's papers  or find them @  Academia
      Bill's books