Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Are mountain ranges artefacts of expansion?

Unread post by moonkoon » Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:00 am

Discussion about possible earth expansion usually focuses on the ocean regions, and rightly so as that is where most of the newer surface of the earth is said to be located. But continental regions also show signs of having been affected by pull-apart forces, the African rift being the most notable example. And although they are not generally associated with expansion, I think there is evidence that some mountain ranges are products of expansion related tectonics.

To support this assertion I made a short clip of a virtual flyover of a portion of the Rocky Mountains of western Alberta, at roughly 52°N 116°E. The video starts with a view of what looks like a canyon wall, but it's not really... It does however give some indication of the scale of the activity that might be involved in the formation of mountains.

Note the odd looking surface at the 'top' of the 'canyon' which itself shows signs of earlier tectonic activity.

It seems that the 'canyon wall'/mountain range in the opening view is one fracture face of an overturned block of crust that, after fracturing, has had the rug pulled out from under it in a rapid, highly energetic event, causing it to topple. However in order to accommodate the depth of the crust fragment (it appears to be deeper than it is wide), some expansion of the underlying substrate would need to occur. Other similarly overturned blocks appear to be present in the vicinity.

It may be that a similar process involving crust fracturing together with stretching of the underlying mantle has been instrumental in creating the major mountain ranges of the continents.

There are plenty of other examples of toppled blocks but this one is easy to vizualize because of the banding/layering of the rocks and relatively uncomplicated displacements.

Here are a few stills from the video.


Looking up towards the rim of the 'canyon'.


Ascending to the rim of the 'canyon', the faulted, furrowed older surface comes into view.


A closer view showing partially dislodged blocks on the rim.


Rotated overhead view.


Now rotated 180°. The old, faulted surface has become one side of a mountain range.


Now rotated 270°, giving a side view of the old surface and an adjacent block.


Two toppled blocks.

I speculate that the apparent large scale crust disturbance is the result of very mobile mantle plume activity that causes doming of the crust leading to fracturing with horizontal expansion of the underlying mantle enabling the overturning of the top 20km or so of the crust.

Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by rickard » Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:25 am

ja7tdo wrote:hi,

Earth is growing? yes, I agree.

But do you think about water? also atmosphere.
If the earth expands, the seabed will expand and the sea water will run out.
It is necessary for the atmosphere to expand as well.
In order to explain the expansion of the earth, we have to solve many problems.

Earth expands during Ice Age ... ng-ice-age
According to the danish writer Martinus, water together with many other gasses, was created early in the formation of the earth, already when it was still a glowing plasma body, and I think that water is still being created in the interior of the earth, and one can see it rise in the mid ocean ridges.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:48 am

Oh, this is really fun.

Way up thread people would talk about high oxygen levels for the reason how dinosaurs could exist. Now, they have done the study and the meme they are pushing is still in place forcing them to still make the claim, yet even in the article they mention that today's oxygen levels are higher. I added a highlight to that part.

So, if it takes high oxygen levels to have dinosaurs, where are they in this one gravity world. HA!

Rise of dinosaurs linked to increasing oxygen levels ... els/124435
Scientists have found that increasing oxygen levels are linked to the rise of North American dinosaurs around 215 M years ago.

by HeritageDailyAugust 21, 20195

A new technique for measuring oxygen levels in ancient rocks shows that oxygen levels in North American rocks leapt by nearly a third in just a couple of million years, possibly setting the scene for a dinosaur expansion into the tropics of North America and elsewhere. This is presented in a Keynote talk at the Goldschmidt Geochemistry conference, in Barcelona.

The US-based scientists have developed a new technique for releasing tiny amounts of gas trapped inside ancient carbonate minerals. The gases are then channelled directly into a mass spectrometer, which measures their composition.

Lead researcher, Professor Morgan Schaller (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York) said: “We tested rocks from the Colorado Plateau and the Newark Basin that formed at the same time about 1000 km apart on the supercontinent of Pangea. Our results show that over a period of around 3 million years – which is very rapid in geological terms – the oxygen levels in the atmosphere jumped from around 15% to around 19%. For comparison, there is 21% oxygen in today’s atmosphere. We really don’t know what might have caused this increase, but we also see a drop in CO2 levels at that time.”

“We expect that this change in oxygen concentration would have been global change, and in fact we found the change in samples which were 1000km apart. What is remarkable is that right at the oxygen peak we see the first dinosaurs appearing in the North American tropics, the Chindesaurus. The Sauropods followed soon afterwards. Again, we can’t yet say if this was a global development, and the dinosaurs don’t rise to ecological dominance in the tropics until after the End-Triassic extinction. What we can say is that this shows that the changing environment 215 M years ago was right for their evolutionary diversification, but of course oxygen levels may not have been the only factor”.

Chindesaurus was an upright carnivorous dinosaur (around 2m long and nearly 1m high). Found extensively in North America, with origins in the North American Tropics, it was a characteristic late Triassic Dinosaur of the American Southwest. It was originally discovered in the Petrified Forest National Park. The Sauropods, which appeared soon after Chindesaurus, were the largest animals ever to live on land.

Commenting, Professor Mike Benton (University of Bristol) said: ‘The first dinosaurs were quite small, but higher oxygen levels in the atmosphere are often associated with a trend to larger size. This new result is interesting as the timing of oxygen rise and dinosaur appearance is good, although dinosaurs had become abundant in South America rather earlier, about 232 million years ago.’ Professor Benton was not involved in this work; this is an independent comment.

At the time the gases were trapped, the Colorado Plateau and the Newark Basin were part of the giant supercontinent, Pangea. Both were located near the equator. The rocks containing the oxygen and carbon dioxide were dated by measuring the radioactive decay of Uranium which was found in the samples.

Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by ja7tdo » Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:56 pm

allynh wrote: Rise of dinosaurs linked to increasing oxygen levels ... els/124435
The earth emits CO2 from the inside. CO2 is divided into nitrogen and oxygen when muons collide.

2CO2 + μ -> 2(C + O) + O2 -> 2N2 + O2

Part of O2->O3 combines with H+ in the atmosphere to become water.
Muon and CO2 concentration are correlated. ... atmosphere

Dinosaurs are not earth creatures. I think.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:28 pm

Here is another fun, very large, pterosaur.

‘Frozen dragon of the north wind’ flew over North America 77 million years ago, scientists say ... tists-say/
Rebecca Tan
An artist's illustration of the Cryodrakon boreas, a new species of pterosaur that was identified in Alberta, Canada. (David Maas)

A new species of pterosaur, a flying reptile, has been identified in the vast, dry terrain of Canada’s badlands. On Tuesday, it was anointed as “Cryodrakon boreas,” Greek for “Frozen dragon of the north wind.”

The discovery may sound like something out of Westeros (who can forget Jon Snow, beleaguered king in the north, riding Rhaegal over the icy wilderness?) but “Game of Thrones” fans shouldn’t get too excited: According to researchers, Cryodrakon looked less like Daenerys Targaryen’s fire-breathing dragons than it did a giraffe-sized, reptilian stork.

The carnivorous animal lived in modern-day Alberta during the Cretaceous period around 77 million years ago, according to a study in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. It could grow to about 13 feet tall, with a wingspan of up to 30 feet, making it one of the largest flying animals ever. It had no chewing apparatus, so it would probably eat whatever was small enough to go down its gullet, including lizards, mammals and baby dinosaurs.

Like other pterosaurs, the Cryodrakon had quite awkward proportions, with a long neck, huge wings and a slender head about 3.5 times the length of its body. As one expert said, imagine a “giant flying murder head.” Alternatively: “A pair of wings that carry around a big head for guzzling things.”

Researchers said that while the pterosaur’s new name was more inspired by Alberta’s frigid landscape than it was by “Game of Thrones,” they were aware that it might elicit some comparisons.

“Yes, we had a good, personal chuckle about that,” said Michael Habib, a paleontologist at the University of Southern California and a fan of the show.

François Therrien, curator of dinosaur paleoecology at Alberta’s Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology, noted that while modern-day Alberta is known for its harsh winters, the landscape that the Cryodrakon would have soared over in the late dinosaur age would actually have been a tropical paradise near a large inland sea.

An artist's illustration of the Cryodrakon boreas. (David Maas)

The fossils that were used to establish the Cryodrakon’s holotype — a single specimen upon which the new species is established — were discovered some 30 years ago in Alberta’s Dinosaur Provincial Park, known for being one of the richest sources of dinosaur fossils in the world. Until recently, however, the remains were thought to belong to an already known species of pterosaur, called the Quetzalcoatlus, first found in Texas.

Habib, one of the few scientists in the world who has worked extensively with Quetzalcoatlus fossils, said that when he first saw the Canadian pterosaur four years ago, he had a hunch that it was not what he had seen before. While its neck bones were long like a typical Quetzalcoatlus, its proportions did not match up.

He enlisted the help of David Hone, a specialist in pterosaur taxonomy, the classification of organisms, who realized that the remains in Alberta were exceptionally well preserved. The skeleton that researchers worked with consisted of parts of the animal’s wings, legs, neck and rib — a remarkable sample, he said, given that the bones of these types of reptiles tend to be thin and fragile, causing them to disintegrate over time.

“This type of pterosaur [azhdarchids] is quite rare, and most specimens are just a single bone,” Habib told SciTech Daily. “Our new species is represented by a partial skeleton. This tells us a great deal about the anatomy of these large fliers, how they flew, and how they lived.”

Hone had a “Eureka moment” early on when he discovered a particular pattern of holes in the fossils that seemed unique, but it took him and the other researchers several years more to cross-check the specimen with pterosaur remains in Mongolia, France and elsewhere to confirm that this was a new species, he said.

Now that they have, however, the possibilities for future research are expansive, Therrien said.

“I tell my students all the time, taxonomy is the most fundamental bit of biological science,” said Hone, director of the biology program at Queen Mary University of London. “If you don’t know what species you’ve got, how do you know what else is going on?”

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:36 pm

Newbie here. I"ve read some of this extremely long post and gathered that the main rift between believers and non believers of an expanding earth theory hinges on the presumption of the creation of matter to allow for the earth to expand, and I guess, not pop.

But on the subject of the creation of matter, the most recent Safire Project seems to be making a claim that on the surface of the Anode there is some transmutation occurring and they are finding elements that previous to the plasma experimentation, had not been introduced into the chamber.

Could this be a new discovery that has relevance in this discussion? Sorry if I'm pasting together unrelated things.

As I understand it, some believe that the life cycle in cosmology is that stars are the furnace that gives birth to planets. So if I speculate what that means, whether the star loses its corona perhaps because of too much matter disrupting the electron flows or something, OR they just spit out blobs of matter that self organize into planets, and continue to be a star until they burn out, this seems to mimic the creation of something out of nothing.

And if Saturn was previously our sun, then did it just create too much matter inside of it until the point that it just became Saturn the planet, but because of the huge amount of electricity flowing through the solar system in the Birkland currents, the next best anode to express that energy took over, which is presently our sun?

Obviously total newb, so help me separate theory from word salad.

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:04 pm

The Earth keeps Growing just like this thread does. HA!

A post up thread has a number of links that address your question. ... 05#p127087

The Safire videos show that transmutation is occurring at low energy levels. Their latest video explains why they held back posting in full. What they are saying is scary as hell.

Watch all of the Safire videos many times to get a sense of how science should be done rather than people playing it safe. The philosophy behind what they are doing is expressed in this video.


Watch the first five minutes to see what I mean. The concept that by using a cigar in the race to detect the slightest wind put them miles ahead in the race. Being miles ahead in a boat race is essentially impossible, and that's what the Safire project is doing.

Basically, all the matter around you is modern. The geological record that Maxlow talks about has the Earth at half the size of the Moon. So all that growth since, all that matter, is new. Transmutation is occurring all of the time, both inside the Earth and in the atmosphere. The dust that falls from the sky is not from outside sources like meteors, it is the atmosphere itself transmuting in into silicon, iron, etc...

The evidence for GET is all around us, but whether people can see beyond their own preconceptions is another matter. GET it? HA!

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:56 pm

Interestsing stuff. I've seen half of those expanding earth vids and all the Safire stuff including the more recent stuff. One thing I found curious about the idea of the expanding earth theory was that idea that the mountains were actually the crinkled push ups where the continents are adjusting to the opening curvature. Its a cool idea.

But I couldn't help wonder why there aren't mountain ranges cutting across the north and south American continents parallel to the lines of latitude. Its as if that curvature correction hasn't had any stress compression rifts at all.

How do you explain that?

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by nick c » Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:04 pm

Open Mind wrote:But on the subject of the creation of matter, the most recent Safire Project seems to be making a claim that on the surface of the Anode there is some transmutation occurring and they are finding elements that previous to the plasma experimentation, had not been introduced into the chamber.
I think that a distinction needs to be made between the "creation of matter" and the "transmutation" of elements. Two very different things. The latter involves the assembling of a given amount of protons and electrons into different combinations (on the periodic table.) The former involves the creation of new protons and electrons, the question is from what?

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:47 pm

So I'm not sure about this, but isn't the theory that it comes from the aether? Isn't that where you find all the material to transmutate stuff into elements? Isn't it that other part of the paradigm that also has to be accepted to be able to comprehend this model?

Baaaa. Sorry if I'm mixing up concepts. I'm trying to comprehend all this.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by nick c » Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:00 am

Saying it comes from the aether does not tell us much, does it?
What is the aether?
My own opinion is that there must be a universal medium, if you have waves then something must be waving.

But the fact that there seems to be a different aether theory for every aether theorist tells us that we know nothing in that regard, and stating that somehow there is a creation of matter from the aether really tells us nothing.
Giving something a name is not an explanation!

As it relates to Expanding Earth theory, the issue of the mechanism can be set aside, and efforts can be made to testing the theory. Is there evidence that the Earth and/or other planets are expanding?
I am referring to actual measurements.... if the expansion can be measured over what is a relatively short period of time in the greater geological time frame.

Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:30 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by BillGardiner1952 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:20 pm

nick c wrote:Greetings SmileKyle,
Welcome to the forum.
The Expanding Earth theory has been debated here previously, and there are some members who are proponents as well as opponents. As I am sure, that we will soon see :o
The tpod's linked in Whitelight's post are skeptical of the theory saying much of the evidence is explainable through electrical forces.
I for one try to keep an open mind. The fitting of the continents on a smaller globe is impressive.

A quick look at some problems I have with the Expanding Earth:

1. Where does the necessary matter come from?
It seems to me that in order to have the necessary expansion (keeping the jigsaw puzzle synchronization of the continents) the Earth must be expanding from the inside. If the accretion of material was that of meteors, cosmic debris, comets, etc then it would be accumulating on top of the continents obscuring the "fit" of the coastlines. So I think the theory requires the addition of matter internally, presumably at the core.

2. Is the matter created inside of the Earth, ex nihilo? if not where does it come from? if so, what is the physical mechanism?
Creation of something from nothing presents a big problem.

3. Where did all the water come from?
if you look at the original one continent Earth, as portrayed in the video, there is only land except for a few shallow seas. The Earth of today is mostly covered by water, and deep water at that. At some point there must have been a considerable quantity of water added to the Earth's surface, where did it come from?

4. Are there alternative explanations?
Could the breakup of the continents and the consequent ability to retrofit them on a smaller globe be explained by other means (Saturn Theory.) Could the Earth have had a different (pear) shape? and when the forces causing (if the Earth were close to a large gas giant or brown dwarf star) this distortion were removed the single continent split apart and the hydrosphere which was also distorted assumed the present configuration. An astounding proposal, in this article: "Geological Genesis," by Harold Tresman:
appears too much evidence that the radius of curvature under the
Pangaean land mass at least, did increase around the time of the break
up of Pangaea, and such an increase would itself provide the initial
force for rifting. The subsidence of a land bulge would also lower the
land relative to the sea and there is fossil evidence of wide
incursions of the sea on to the land soon after Pangaea broke
apart[51]. A change of planetary proportions from the pre-separation
pear shape, to the now rotational oblate spheroid, is in keeping with
observations above.
nick c
I have been researching the possibility of electrochemical deposition or "plasma deionization" in charged media in both my commercial environmental laboratoryas well as in the first order scientific literature. I suggest the mesosphere of the earth and equivalent plasma-active zones in other planetary environments are one such site of deposition. But in accord with "As above, so below" modified to "As in the Plasmasphere so also within charged media at any level or depth," if the earth was once both hollow and charged within that core, that could also in principal be a site of deposition by electrochemical mineralization processes. A brief narrative of the development of the rationale I offer follows:

In 2001 I encountered a graphite furnace (GFAAS-graphite furnace atomic spectrophotometry) anomaly when I couldn't resolve an apparent contamination by iron on the graphite tube that contains and catalyzes the reaction that enables the analysis of trace amounts of the metal of interest. I had been reading Tom Gold's book The Hot Deep Biosphere and decided to remove the black coating on the hydrolyzed and flash-heated tube to look for magnetism. A quick check with a magnetic stirring bar on a weighing paper of the scrapings showed magnetism, indicating the coating contained magnetite, as in Gold's extract from the kerogen deposit from the igneous Siljian Formation in Sweden. I reported my results to a contact at NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center, a researcher in the In-Space Propulsion Project but nothing came of the contact.

After the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up on February 1,2003, some of the graphite wing tiles were recovered and I noticed the same coating in news and NASA website photos. I did a search on Columbia electric discharge and I was taken to two websites: Prof. Gennady Milikh's website at the University of Maryland Physics Department and, both of whom shared my conclusion there was an unexpected high altitude discharge to the wing of the Columbia. I also explained the anomalous presence of iron or Inconel containing deposits as due to the same electrolytic deposition as in my GFAAs investigations, which fairly matched the conditions of flight of the Columbia at that altitude (that is, temperature and the relatively inert atmosphere (nitrogen).

Since then I have been researching and reporting in conferences (National Space Society conferences, principally) electrochemical deposition and plasma deionization in the mesosphere of planets as a location of mineralization producing fines that occur as various effects in the upper atmosphere such as noctilucent clouds, polar mesospheric summer echoes (PMSE's) and even periodic meteor streams. The latter's presence cannot be easily explained by ballistic introduction into the upper atmosphere, as many such particles are too small not to have been quickly dispersed by the action of solar radiation pressure. Therefore they must have a more local source than the standard parent comet debris stream idea. The solution I propose is a periodic deionization of the influx of cations from the solar and other incident plasmas by recombination with anions present in the negative layer of the ionosphere, evidently in the mesosphere or mesopause. More work is needed to verify!

Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Oct 25, 2019 4:12 am

Open Mind wrote:But I couldn't help wonder why there aren't mountain ranges cutting across the north and south American continents parallel to the lines of latitude. Its as if that curvature correction hasn't had any stress compression rifts at all.

How do you explain that?
Why does anyone need to? Latitude is an artificial geometric construct. Compression can happen anywhere and is most likely just dependent on where the crust is weakest.

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Fri Oct 25, 2019 4:51 pm

Aardwolf wrote:Why does anyone need to? Latitude is an artificial geometric construct. Compression can happen anywhere and is most likely just dependent on where the crust is weakest.
I guess. But if you look at north and south America, they're like a strip of land that runs nearly all the way from the south pole to the north pole. If I envision a shrinking planet folding compensation, it seems to be the most in need parallel to latitude lines, or in other words, horizontal. Think about it. If you are arbitrarily placing shapes on a shrinking balloon, don't you think if you put a long rectangle vertically from top to bottom, that shape will only experience a slight arc change on its short axis, where as the long axis is going to experience extreme arc changes along its length that will invariably compound the need for relief ridges.

To me its a bit of a no brain'r

Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sat Oct 26, 2019 12:39 pm

Open Mind wrote: But if you look at north and south America, they're like a strip of land that runs nearly all the way from the south pole to the north pole.
You have fallen into the trap created by the two dimensional distortion of the Mercator Projection.

This interactive map shows how ‘wrong’ other maps are ... -maps-are/

This is the site for the True Size map they are talking about. Notice how distorted in size Greenland is to reality.

This video is the three dimensional model that Neal Adams created, showing just the continents as the Earth Grows. Notice how Australia fits up between China and North America. That is a far more radical move than watching the Atlantic open up from pole to pole.

Expanding Earth Theory

Remember, we are dealing with a "sphere" with floating rafts of thick material spreading apart. The thin areas now will be thickened over time as the Earth Grows even larger. The various deep ocean trenches are where the next thin areas are starting.

Grow the Earth out to double its current radius and what we call continents and oceans will be radically different.

- North America has a region a mile in elevation, bordered by the Rock Mountains that go up over a mile.

- South America has a region two miles in elevation with mountains that go up over a mile more.

- Eurasia has a region three miles in elevation with mountains that go up two miles more.

Each of those continents will begin to flatten, the mountains collapsing into rubble, until they are generally closer to sea level.

- We see that in Africa where it has flattened out, and is starting to split further. There are jumbled areas in Africa that used to be vast mountains.

North America has regions on the west that are a mile above sea level bounded by the newly formed Rocky Mountains. On the east you have the Appalachian Mountains which are a jumble, with the Mississippi river draining a large flat region.

- The Appalachians used to be sharp on the edge of a vast shield, a mile in elevation, with no Rocky Mountains. The Mississippi was small, the way the Rio Grande is now.

The Rio Grande is a rift zone, draining the electrical charge that helps keep the area a mile in elevation. At some point that side of North America will collapse, leaving the Rocky Mountains a jumble just like the Appalachians, and the Rio Grande will be as large as the Mississippi, draining a flat region.

- Over time, North America will split at the rift zones of the Rio Grande and the Mississippi.

When the Earth Grows to double its current radius, gravity will be twice what it is now.

- If water production is the same, the oceans will be on average 30,000 feet deep, and the continents will have broken up into smaller sections. i.e, The Earth will be a water planet with many archipelagos.

- If water production does not keep up, the oceans will drain away from the continents, leaving them large, high and dry with the atmosphere too thin to support life. i.e, The Earth will be a dry world with shallow seas, with life only possible along the coasts.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests