A google translation of a German upcoming meeting on the earth expansion. arl Vogel translates by Google to Karl bird.
http://translate.google.com/translat...UTF-8%26sa%3DN

Aside from being rather preposterous in its claims, this "expanding earth" hypothesis is just another bit of bad astronomy as far as I can tell. People who criticize relativity should learn about it first.

I don't know if its going to be worth the time to read all this, but here is a site that apparently explains the expanding earth hypothesis:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...8098/1.htm#Top

Now it would be entertaining to observe a geological debate between an expanding earther and a hollow earther. On the other hand that might be terrifying.

Ok, By the time I got to their explanation of how Ganymede's geology disproves plate tectonics on Earth I was wishing the scroll bar didn't have much left ... but alas it does.

I am an expanding earth proponent. I've written it up in a couple places, the latest being my paper in the book "Pushing Gravity". The main proponent of it is S. Warren Carey the retired Stanford Professor. I've had some considerable correspondence with Carey in Tasmania in the late 80s. He shows how the continets fit together much better on a smaller diameter earth in the past. This is an almost perfect fit with no overlaps in contrast to pangia theories. The only objection that geologists seem to have against the pragmatic portion of the theory, other than some radical subductionists, is "where does the water come from?" to fill the oceans between the continents. The water can come from volcanism or comets.

The main objection to Carey's theory is that it lacks a cause for the expansion, which I give. Carey finally came to the conclusion that it was a universal phenomena consistent with steady state theory, but requiring that new mass be created where existing mass is. I happen to partially agree with him, but I don't need to create the mass from nothing like steady state does. Instead I create the mass by conserving mass and energy and including the special theory of relativity. Unlike the last poster implications, I don't disagree with relativity's equivalency between mass and energy, although I have problems with General relativity's principle of equivalence assumptions. I have the new mass created by the absorption of very long wavelength radiation by the center of the earth which vectorially cancels the resutant kinetic or thermal energy. (This results from the solution to Ollbers paradox in a static universe which I am a proponent of.). Thus the earth converts this energy to mass according to m = E/c^2, where m is new mass created, E is the energy absorbed and vectorially cancelled, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. This is a slow but steady process that also reults in heating of the interior. It's a nice cause for the expanding earth that violates no laws of physics.

Ok, To be serious about this now. Do you have answers for the following:

1. The Moon, Mercury, and Mars show zero geological evidence for this. Where are the younger surfaces that represent the upwelling of material on these objects (such surfaces should show a extreme cratering deficits in places where this has happened). The link above says Venus shows it, but it doesn't seem a rigorous demonstration ... and why not on these other objects.

2. How do you explain convergent geological events on Earth (Ie india/asia, Western South America, and small terrains). It is difficult to deny that the convergent events have occurred when geologists have sedimentary rocks in the Himalayas.

3. Hasn't seismology demonstrated the reality of subduction?

4. What particles/elements are created?

5. The link I noted above claims that dinosaurs were too heavy to have survived on an Earth the mass of the current Earth. They argue that this is evidence that the Earth was less massive at that time. But that was only 65 million years ago and the Earth is 4.56 billion years old. This process would have to be going on throughout the Earth's history which means that you're looking at an exponential increase in the Earth's mass in order to accomodate this claim - right?

John, can you shorten that link in the OP? Those long links sometimes make it tough to read the thread. Thanks.
I stumbled onto Carey's work in the early nineties, and discussed it at length with someone in Wyoming who'd worked with Carey on some of the small Earth reconstructions.

Carey's work was well-known in the late fifties and early sixties. He was a champion of continental drift as well. He'd toured a lot of the universities, giving lectures, and exciting the undergrads. One of the researchers who first discerned sea-floor spreading in the data said their first thought was, hey, Carey was right.

However, forty years later, there is a lot more evidence for the idea of plate tectonics, as opposed to the expanding Earth. But there is also geologic evidence for what is known as super-continent super-cycles, where the continents converge, and then diverge again. The previous cycles had the continents connected on the "back sides", which would certainly be the case in Carey's small Earth scenario--but the timing is wrong. You have to deal with that somehow. I guess one way to do that is to criticize the validity of the dating methods. Seems risky.

Is it possible in an expanding Earth Scenario for continents to converge and diverge again and again? Isn't the expanding Earth idea saying that the continents are moving farther apart because of growth of planetary surface area? Wouldn't an expanding balloon be a pretty good analogy for this?

Or is this a possibility ... We have some expansion taking place, but we also have plate motions and subduction so that even as the planet expands, continents can be pulled together. So in effect you have both expansion and plate tectonics type activity happening.

One of Alfred Wegener's best data supporting continental drift was the similarity of geological provinces that seemed to match up when you fitted the coastlines together. Rock type in South America matched rock type in Africa, and fit the reconstruction demanded by the coastline.

The same thing is true, to a certain extent, along the backsides.

I can see this in the plate tectonic model, but can this happen in a model in which the Earth itself is expanding? If the continents are moving apart because the Earth is getting bigger around, then what could bring them together?

If the expanding Earth model cannot allow for convergence then I cannot see how it could be correct.

No, the idea of the expanding earth is that the continents were originally together along both sides. The evidence is indeed there, but the two theories offer different timings.

So there is no continental convergence in the expanding Earth model after the Earth begins to expand?

I'll let John answer that. Maybe he can fix that link too.

Fair enough.

John, when you posted the "Maybe this is bad astronomy" thread a while back you didn't get involved in the discussion so I didn't think you were serious about this one. My apologies for making light of it in my first 2 posts above.

I would be interested in hearing your answer to the question about convergent continents and any of the other questions.

Which theory is more favored by the timings?

There is no evidence that I know of that favors the expanding Earth hypothesis over the mainstream theories, but I am not that familiar with the expanding earth, so maybe John can answer that question too, from that perspective. I'd like to hear it if they thought there was.

John, have you had a chance to think about this question I asked earlier on this thread:

How would convergent events happen in an expanding Earth model?