This is purely for entertainment viewing only, but I must admit, it does awnser alot more questions than the current accepted theory of geographical ideas do, but also raises a few more.:shrug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

Earth is growing because many metric tons a space dust enter Earths Atmosphere every year. Very little mass escapes Earth gravity well and so Earth grows. Why doesn't this video mention this?

This is purely for entertainment viewing only, but I must admit, it does awnser alot more questions than the current accepted theory of geographical ideas do, but also raises a few more.:shrug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

Nobody would be able to figure it out except as an 'educated guestimation'. Too many variables and all the measurements would be subject to a wide range of error. The major unknown is conversion of matter to energy. Most of the heat generated by the Earth is radioactive...conversion of heavy elements into energy and thus a loss of mass. But, as pointed out, some meteoritic dust accumulates each year. The amount isn't known....but every so often hen a biggie asteroid hits the Earth that ammount of accumulation might be more than offset by matter being blown out of Earth's gravitational pull (depends on type of comet, angle, etc.). Regardless, any increase or decrease in the size of the Earth would be in infitestimal non-measurable amounts....for all intents and purposes ZILCH.

Thats the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Nobody would be able to figure it out except as an 'educated guestimation'. Too many variables and all the measurements would be subject to a wide range of error. The major unknown is conversion of matter to energy. Most of the heat generated by the Earth is radioactive...conversion of heavy elements into energy and thus a loss of mass. But, as pointed out, some meteoritic dust accumulates each year. The amount isn't known....but every so often hen a biggie asteroid hits the Earth that ammount of accumulation might be more than offset by matter being blown out of Earth's gravitational pull (depends on type of comet, angle, etc.). Regardless, any increase or decrease in the size of the Earth would be in infitestimal non-measurable amounts....for all intents and purposes ZILCH.

Correction - I've seen some pretty good estimates from NASA on the amounts and it certainly isn't "non-measurable amounts." It's on the order of several millions of tons each and every year. But you are still correct in saying that in comparison to the mass of the Earth it's very insignificant.

Wow, 3 balanced responses...more than I thought.
Figured most of the board had turned into responses like Killians.

Thanks for the feedback.
P.S. And yes I can even appreciate yours Killian;)

I just found an expanding earth proponent over at youtube, I invited him over to these forums.

If the earth was "expanding", gravity would be either be reduced as the world got bigger, since you are further away from the center of gravity of the world, or increased, because somehow the mass of the planet is increased.

Either way, from the muscle and bone structure of humans and animals in the fossil records, no such increase or reduction of gravity is apparent.

On a side note, you can go to California and see the tectonic plate shifting for yourself, there are a couple highways and rail beds that have had to be rebuilt because the plates are moving.

Either way, from the muscle and bone structure of humans and animals in the fossil records, no such increase or reduction of gravity is apparent.What about the giant flying insects in the Pennsylvanian that would be unable to get airborne today?:)

What about the giant flying insects in the Pennsylvanian that would be unable to get airborne today?:)

Due to the thicker atmosphere then.
More oxygen, warmer..

To tell you the truth, the Earth's Expansion to me actually makes sense not so much because of the Tectonic animation in the video but because theory would suggest at first the release of Hydrogen from the planets surface (from cooling) which in turn would be the building point of our atmosphere. One by one chemicals rise from inside and find their way to the surface to be further cooled, as these chemicals rise they might do so similar to bubbles in a Newtonian liquid. While the Newtonian liquid is the same mass the bubbles generate a greater volume by undermining it's density.

Of course this can be identified if you look at Pumas stone from Volcanoes.

If the earth was "expanding", gravity would be either be reduced as the world got bigger, since you are further away from the center of gravity of the world, or increased, because somehow the mass of the planet is increased.

Either way, from the muscle and bone structure of humans and animals in the fossil records, no such increase or reduction of gravity is apparent.

On a side note, you can go to California and see the tectonic plate shifting for yourself, there are a couple highways and rail beds that have had to be rebuilt because the plates are moving.

This is the most intelligent reaply i have read all day.

Watch just off New Zealand at about 1:45 on the vid. Where does he pull that giant island from? Same place as the rest of his ideas I'd bet.

It's also rather telling that he manages to eliminate all of the submerged continental shelf in his animations, even though they are geologically part of the continents and should be present from the beginning in an expanding earth scenario.

Anyone who has looked at a globe of the Earth and pondered the shapes must have noticed the way the land-masses all fit together. I remember doing so at the age of eight or nine (well over fifty years ago). It was some time before I was to hear the name of Prof Warren Carey (Google him!) who was to become the great advocate of an Expaning Earth theory.

Neal Adams has made a score of videos apart from the one referenced by moementum7. These cover not only Expanding Earth, but also Expanding Mars, Expanding Europa and Expanding Ganymede.

Here's (http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip02.html) where you can see the best of the lot.

I take issue with Adams on various details of his theories. He has tried to educate himself in physics and produced explanations which I regard as without validity.

On the face of it, if there was a half-decent explanation of just exactly what was causing the Earth to expand, then the disappearance of animals as massive as the Jurassic theropods as gravity increased, the shapes of the land-masses, the age of the ocean floors, and a whole lot more, would all make tremendous sense.

Trouble is: people have a psychological block against believing in Expanding Earth - however strong the circumstantial evidence - because they do not have an explanation of the HOW. This is a failure of human psychology: an inability to accept that scientific knowledge is not limitless, and there's a whole lot of things we don't know yet. On balance, the sensible thing seems to be to shake free of hidebound psychological chains and accept the evidence of ones eyes.

Trouble is: people have a psychological block against believing in Expanding Earth - however strong the circumstantial evidence - because they do not have an explanation of the HOW.

No, the trouble is that there is no evidence for an expanding earth and there is plenty of evidence against. I've never seen any physical measurements that prove the earth is expanding apart from minor input through extraterrestrial material. The ages of ocean floors and the shapes of the landmasses are both perfectly well explained by plate tectonics, as are, ophiolite suites and accreted terranes. If the earth expanded as the video shows with no subduction, we shouldn't expect any ophiolite suites or accreted terranes at all, and yet we see them predating the supposed first continental movements and first oceanic crust.

No, the trouble is that there is no evidence for an expanding earth . . .
It is one thing to disagree, but to begin with this sort of statement only indicates a willful blindness.

Aspects of the geological evidence have been debated at great length as can readily be discovered by Googling "expanding earth", etc. Some of the most intelligent and informed discussion can be found at bautforum (http://www.bautforum.com/).

I do not have a strong belief in any specific explanation of the HOW of expansion, but consider this. Until a few years ago, neutrinos were undetected "dark matter". Until quite recently, they were considered to be without mass. Now we know that they do have a very small mass. Squillions of these tiny particles, theorized to be remnants of the big bang, others to be created by fusion in the Sun, pass through the Earth (and through each of us) every second. Just a few get stopped by collision -- that's how they have now been detected. Across the thousands of kilometers of the Earth's core, billions get stopped. Their mass is added to that of the planet.

Neutrinos are responsible for only a fraction of the increase in the Earth's mass, but neutrinos account for only (let's say) five percent of dark matter. If we begin to think of "dark matter" as matter which reacts with "normal" matter with extreme rarity (rather than not at all) we can readily see how occasional collisions with types of particle yet to be detected in the laboratory can also increment the Earth's mass -- albeit with great slowness.

Suppose then that the Earth's internal mass and size increase by .0001% every thousand years (the exact fraction does not matter). It creates enormous forces which force apart the structure of the surface of the planet. Surely this is a vastly more believable scenario than that the continental plates slither around in the way described by plate tectonics. It is one thing to state that the Earth's crust is thin and fragile relative to the planet's size, but it ain't exactly floating -- and whether or not there is a liquid core, the Earth is very solid for a very long way down!

It is one thing to disagree, but to begin with this sort of statement only indicates a willful blindness.

Ok, replace "there is no evidence" with "I have seen no evidence" and lets move on.

You have dodged my point about there being evidence of tectonic movement and of the presence of oceanic crust. What produced ancient ophiolite suites and moved them to their current position if oceanic crust only dates back to the opening of the Atlantic?

Surely this is a vastly more believable scenario than that the continental plates slither around in the way described by plate tectonics
I'm not sure what your objections to mainstream models of plate movements are, but the fact is that actual measurements (http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html) can be made of the direction and speed of plate movements, and these measurements conform to the directions of movement expected based on observations made at plate boundaries and hotspot island chains.

It is one thing to state that the Earth's crust is thin and fragile relative to the planet's size, but it ain't exactly floating -- and whether or not there is a liquid core, the Earth is very solid for a very long way down!
We can agree partially here. The crust does not float and the earth is indeed solid for a very long way down. There does seem to be some good evidence for a liquid (outer) core though- shear waves cannot travel through a fluid, which is why we get the S-wave shadow zone observed on seismographs after earthquakes.

I just watched that video and found it very entertaining. I particularly liked the non sequitur introduced at the very end where the conventional theory of plate tectonics is somehow put on the same level as extreme geocentrism.

Matthyaow, your point about ophiolites is an excellent one (and one I didn't think of myself). I think another fatal flaw in the expansion theory is the fact that plates have actually been imaged in the process of subduction - by seismic tomography and by earthquake first motion studies. Combine this with actual real-time measurement of plate motion (see the Nasa site (http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html)), accretionary prisms on continental margins, and the actual, real-life existence of mountain ranges formed by folding and thrusting, and Neal Adams's position appears quite untenable.

You have dodged my point . . .
I have "dodged" your point on the grounds of not wanting, at great length, to run through arguments and counter-arguments which (as I suggested) can be found elsewhere on the Internet. Googling "expanding earth ophiolites" will present you with several sites putting forward the Expanding Earth case.

I wonder if you think the moon Europa has expanded -- per the visual evidence presented in this (http://www.gaiagonewild.com/view/118/is-earth-growing-part-4-europa/) Neal Adams video. Check out also the Adams' videos for Mars and Ganymede.

I wonder if moementum7 thinks that theorizing that Europa has expanded is "pseudoscience"?

River Ape, the evidence in that movie does not show that Europa has expanded. It shows that some areas of the moon have undergone lateral extension. I don't think there's any controversy about that at all. The only part of the movie that indicates global expansion is when the narrator (Neal Adams?) hints at subduction then dismisses it as a joke - he gives no reason for his dismissal. Also, the narrator says that he believes "this is ongoing eruptive silicate growth from the moon's inside." Why he thinks that silicates are being extruded he doesn't say. Is there spectral evidence for this assertion? The scientific consensus is that the surface of Europa is water ice.

I just watched part 2 of the series (yes, I'm aware of all the other things I could be doing with my time!), about the Alps and Himalayas. The narrator has committed a major strawman fallacy here. He asks how India could have uprooted itself from the ocean floor, and on the impossibility of this he dismisses as "stupid and even preposterous" the idea that the Himalayas were caused by the collision of India and Asia. The problem is that nobody suggests that the Indian subcontinent was uprooted from the ocean floor. The creator of this movie has obviously done at least a little research into geology, so it's especially irritating when he deliberately misrepresents conventional thought in this way.
The narrator acknowledges that "the stacked-up mountains are there, and still they grow." Then he goes on to contrive a vague explanation for their formation involving crustal extension. That's right - he attempts to attribute the folding and thrusting of the Himalayas to extension of the subcontinent to the south, but he doesn't even hint at a mechanism. It seems that the target audience of this material are expected to be satisfied by polished animations and hollow dogma.

Their mass is added to that of the planet.

Neutrinos are responsible for only a fraction of the increase in the Earth's mass, but neutrinos account for only (let's say) five percent of dark matter. If we begin to think of "dark matter" as matter which reacts with "normal" matter with extreme rarity (rather than not at all) we can readily see how occasional collisions with types of particle yet to be detected in the laboratory can also increment the Earth's mass -- albeit with great slowness.

And here's another thing: if the Earth's mass is increasing, then how is it that the Moon is receding?

River Ape, the evidence in that movie does not show that Europa has expanded. It shows that some areas of the moon have undergone lateral extension. I don't think there's any controversy about that at all.
Well, when something expands internally, is guess what you call "lateral extension" is just exactly what does happen at the surface. It happens when you bake certain types of pudding! If you get hold of good maps of Europa, you will find that the features Adams describes are not limited to "some areas".

When features suggestive of internal expansion can be found on a series of celestial bodies you have to choose between two possibilities:
1: internal expansion has taken place
2: a strange coincidence of circumstantial evidence is being observed.

In regard to India, Prof Warren Carey always enjoyed especial support from geologists in that country who said that time after time, when local features were studied, they pointed at the effects of tension rather than compression; i.e. they were more compatible with an Expanding Earth than with the idea that India rammed into the Himalayas.

I do not follow the point you are making regarding the Moon receding from the Earth.

I have "dodged" your point on the grounds of not wanting, at great length, to run through arguments and counter-arguments which (as I suggested) can be found elsewhere on the Internet. Googling "expanding earth ophiolites" will present you with several sites putting forward the Expanding Earth case.

I have, and found nothing of any worth. If you know of a good site about EE, point me towards it.

When features suggestive of internal expansion can be found on a series of celestial bodies you have to choose between two possibilities:
1: internal expansion has taken place
2: a strange coincidence of circumstantial evidence is being observed
or 3: extension is balanced by compression elsewhere.

I do not follow the point you are making regarding the Moon receding from the Earth.
If the earth is increasing in mass, the increased gravity should be pulling the moon in, and yet the distance between us is increasing.

Well, when something expands internally, is guess what you call "lateral extension" is just exactly what does happen at the surface. It happens when you bake certain types of pudding! If you get hold of good maps of Europa, you will find that the features Adams describes are not limited to "some areas".
Yes, of course the surface expression of global expansion will be lateral extension. But the linear features on Europa do not necessarily imply that extension has occurred simultaneously all over the moon. The narrator scoffs at the notion that, as matthyaouw just pointed out above, lateral extension is balanced elsewhere by crustal shortening. I don't know why he is so opposed to this idea; this paper (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5481/941) is about just such shortening on Europa.

When features suggestive of internal expansion can be found on a series of celestial bodies you have to choose between two possibilities:
1: internal expansion has taken place
2: a strange coincidence of circumstantial evidence is being observed.
Nonsense, for the same reason given above. Internal expansion is suggested only when local extension is mistakenly extrapolated to a global scale, and evidence of shortening is ignored. Furthermore, why are these features only observed on a select "series of celestial bodies"? Neal Adams says that "you may fairly ask how this matter can be created. It’s created at the plasma core of all planets, moons, and suns by a process that is so common that science has a name for it, “pair production!” It’s how all matter is made from energy." Ignoring the obvious physical absurdity of this statement, I have to ask why it is that only the surfaces of Earth, Mars and certain moons of Jupiter show the scars of the supposed expansion?

In regard to India, Prof Warren Carey always enjoyed especial support from geologists in that country who said that time after time, when local features were studied, they pointed at the effects of tension rather than compression; i.e. they were more compatible with an Expanding Earth than with the idea that India rammed into the Himalayas.
I would very much like to see a reference to Carey's work, if you have one. The bottom image on this page (http://www.geo.cornell.edu/grads/duncan/topo/) shows a cross section through the Himalayas. The consequences of continental collision are clearly visible: folding and thrust stacking.

I do not follow the point you are making regarding the Moon receding from the Earth.
matthyaouw has addressed this above. The orbital radius of the Moon is known to be increasing due to tidal interactions. If the mass of the Earth has increased so much in the last 180 Ma (I am assuming that in Adams's theory the density of the Earth stays roughly constant), then the Moon would be expected to orbit more closely.

If the earth is increasing in mass, the increased gravity should be pulling the moon in, and yet the distance between us is increasing.
I am sorry you have not found satisfaction with any of the Expanding Earth sites you have visited, but may I invite you to get to grips (via the Internet -- but if necessary with a physics textbook) with the reason that the Moon is receding from the Earth. The simplicity of your reasoning on this matter will actually reveal itself as somewhat naive once you have researched and understood the issue. And after all, you probably do not imagine that the Moon is getting further away because the Earth is getting lighter!

I am sorry you have not found satisfaction with any of the Expanding Earth sites you have visited, but may I invite you to get to grips (via the Internet -- but if necessary with a physics textbook) with the reason that the Moon is receding from the Earth. The simplicity of your reasoning on this matter will actually reveal itself as somewhat naive once you have researched and understood the issue. And after all, you probably do not imagine that the Moon is getting further away because the Earth is getting lighter!

River Ape, since you have encouraged us to consult conventional literature regarding the Moon's recession from the Earth, I assume that you accept tidal interaction as the method by which Earth's rotational energy is being transferred to the Moon. But if you subscribe to Neal Adams's expansion theory, then you also presumably believe that the Earth has increased in volume by more than a factor of 6 in the last 200 Ma. Supposing that the Earth has kept a constant density through its expansion, then Earth's gravitational field strength has increased by the same amount. I'm not a physicist, and I don't know exactly how such a massive gain in energy by the Moon translates to a slowing down of the Earth's rotation - especially when the issue is complicated by new (presumably initially static?) mass added constantly to the cores of these bodies. By the condescending tone of your last post, I gather that you have a better grasp on the situation, so perhaps you could enlighten us.

Neal Adams says that "you may fairly ask how this matter can be created. It’s created at the plasma core of all planets, moons, and suns by a process that is so common that science has a name for it, “pair production!” It’s how all matter is made from energy."
As I said in my initial post: "I take issue with Adams on various details of his theories. He has tried to educate himself in physics and produced explanations which I regard as without validity."

Adams cannot free himself from the psychological imperative of producing a (physics) explanation. If you look for relatively unbiased articles on the Expanding Earth Theory on the Internet or elsewhere, you are likely to come upon sentences like: "The theory ultimately foundered on the failure of its followers to produce a plausible explanation for expansion." The truly wise man is prepared to accept that he sometimes does not know! My own explanation (conversion of dark matter) I offer merely to suggest that there is scope for imagination. Whether it will ultimately prove to contain the seeds of probably truth I have no idea. Nor am I much worried.

I have to ask why it is that only the surfaces of Earth, Mars and certain moons of Jupiter show the scars of the supposed expansion?
Well, it is not clear to me how Venus, Jupiter, Saturn or Uranus could bear visible scars. Sorry there aren't videos for a few more moons!

I would very much like to see a reference to Carey's work, if you have one.
Carey (motto: "We are blinded by what we think we know; disbelieve if you can") developed his ideas in academic journal or conference papers, and enjoyed a large following circa the 1960s, which seems to have been based at least in part on his attactive, energetic and impressive personality. "The Expanding Earth" was published in 1976 and is an expensive item to acquire as EE enthusiasts cheerfully stump up $250 for a copy. There's plenty about him and his ideas on the Internet, but reading his original words requires access to a top grade library.

The orbital radius of the Moon is known to be increasing due to tidal interactions. If the mass of the Earth has increased so much in the last 180 Ma (I am assuming that in Adams's theory the density of the Earth stays roughly constant), then the Moon would be expected to orbit more closely.
Please show me your calculations.

PS I feel that all the followers of this thread bar two are coming round to my point of view! :)

PS I feel that all the followers of this thread bar two are coming round to my point of view!

Yeah. "Just google it" is a really convincing argument :)

Adams cannot free himself from the psychological imperative of producing a (physics) explanation. If you look for relatively unbiased articles on the Expanding Earth Theory on the Internet or elsewhere, you are likely to come upon sentences like: "The theory ultimately foundered on the failure of its followers to produce a plausible explanation for expansion." The truly wise man is prepared to accept that he sometimes does not know!
Fair enough. I can let the lack of a cause go for the time being - after all, the driving force beind plate tectonics was also once a mystery.

Well, it is not clear to me how Venus, Jupiter, Saturn or Uranus could bear visible scars.
Clearly, we can exclude the gas giants, but why wouldn't Venus show evidence of expansion? It has a similar mass and composition to the Earth, and its surface is apparently older than the Earth's oldest oceanic crust, so where are the rifts?

Mercury has an ancient, heavily cratered surface which, if anything, shows signs of global contraction. Why?

The lack of craters in the lowlands of Mars's northern hemisphere is given by Adams as evidence of youth. Yet scientists have recently found that under a covering of lava and sediment, these regions are as crater-saturated as the 'older' southern regions.

According to Adams, expansion on Earth, Mars, Europa and Ganymede is expressed as linear rifts. Why then has it been accommodated on our Moon as generally circular maria?

On Earth, as has already been posted but not addressed, subduction zones are clearly visible, and convergent plate boundaries are apparent from studies of actual plate motion. Also, as matthyaouw pointed out, ancient oceanic crust has been preserved on the continents.

Sorry there aren't videos for a few more moons!
Never mind the lack of videos, it's the lack of evidence that bothers me. If Europa and Ganymede show evidence of expansion, why is it absent on Io and Callisto? What about Titan? Titania? Triton?

Please show me your calculations.
The only calculations I've done are simple ones to arrive at the proposed volume (and hence mass and gravitational field strength) of the Earth before the creation of the ocean crust. I took the percentage of the Earth that's land as a proxy for continental crust (unsatisfactory, since as matthyaouw commented, this disregards the submerged continental crust), then worked out the volume. I don't know how to apply this to the rate of energy transfer from the Earth's rotation to the Moon's orbit.

Yeah. "Just google it" is a really convincing argument :)Well, I am sorry about that -- but if you are waiting for me to explain the physics behind the recession of the Moon then you are expecting me to expend considerably more time and effort than I am prepared to do.

I never asked you to give detailed explanations of the physics behind the moon's orbit. I asked why we see ophiolite suites and accreted terranes. Search engines did not bring up anything useful, so if you know of a resource that deals with it, point me towards it.

You guys are arguing somewhat above my head, but I did have these observations:
1)River Ape seems to be correct in saying that the expanding earth hypothesis was a seriously considered explanation for some of the gross tectonic features of the Earth. I ran across a discussion of it in an old text book from the 60s, Structural Geology by de Sitter.
2) My understanding is that it was abandoned because plate tectonics offered a much better explanation, of more features, along with a mechanism.
3) I don't see why River Ape thinks Venus is going to 'conceal' signs of expansion. We have perfectly good renditions of its surface feature a t resolution that would reveal any that were to be seen.
4) For me the decisive item is that we have measured continetal movement by satellite. The movement is consisten with plate tectonics, not with an expanding Earth.

I feel that I do not have enough time to keep up my side of the argument (anyone out there want to help? :) . . . thought not :( ) -- and it's actually a few years since I studied EE. However, here's five minutes worth:
matthyaouw: re. your request for EE sources. I really don't have time to read what's out there and endorse one EE website over another on ophiolites, etc. I know there's plenty of pro-EE stuff I would find questionable. I used to follow the EE threads on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, now taken over by bautforum (www.bautforum.com). I was always impressed by the case put forward and defended by ExpErdMann. I don't know if there have been any recent threads. I think there has to be plenty of archived stuff.
Laika: I think your claim that the EE case demands that expansion should be demonstable on Triton, etc, is unreasonable. Moons are of such diversity that I see no reason why internal expansion (if it has taken place) has to be detectable in particular surface features. / The paper you referenced on Europa seems to require subscription. Seems to me that anyone who studies the best maps of Europa and cannot see the evidence of expansion is in denial.
Hipparchia: Venus has no "visible scars" for no better reason than we cannot see its surface. We still have very limited knowledge of the planet: let's say we know 1% of 1% as much about Venus as we know about Mars. To conclude that Venus has not expanded on the basis of our existing knowledge seems premature.

I think your claim that the EE case demands that expansion should be demonstable on Triton, etc, is unreasonable. Moons are of such diversity that I see no reason why internal expansion (if it has taken place) has to be detectable in particular surface features.
The claim that all planets and moons undergo expansion is made by Neal Adams, not me. How strangely inconsistent it would be for this process to be recorded so vivdly on two of Jupiter's moons (Europa, Ganymede) and not on their similarly-composed neighbour (Callisto). Especially since Callisto's surface appears all the more ancient. A similar case can be made for Venus: the planet has been mapped with radar at a resolution that would reveal Earth-like rifts if they were there. And why wouldn't they be, since Venus and Earth are so similar?

Seems to me that anyone who studies the best maps of Europa and cannot see the evidence of expansion is in denial.
Europa's surface features certainly hint at relatively violent tectonics, but can be explained by local, incremental movements. It seems to me that the real denial is exhibited by those who are blind to the demonstrable subduction process on the Earth.

Venus has no "visible scars" for no better reason than we cannot see its surface. We still have very limited knowledge of the planet: let's say we know 1% of 1% as much about Venus as we know about Mars. To conclude that Venus has not expanded on the basis of our existing knowledge seems premature.But River Ape we can 'see' its surface. Detailed radar mapping of Venus was carried out by the Magellan probe. I do not recall the resolution of this mapping, but it was certainly sufficient to allow researchers to identify dozens of classes of surface feature, interpret the geology and come to an understanding of the tectonics. For example, from analysis of the crater count they have deduced that Venus underwent a massive resurfacing event around 500 million years ago.
I have looked again at the detailed topography and with the best will in the world I cannot see anything that looks remotely like an expansion feature.

Laika, Hipparchia: I think you two should settle the dispute between you before you have another go at me!

Laika thinks that "Venus and Earth are so similar".
Hipparchia thinks that Venus "underwent a massive resurfacing event . . ."

I think it is unlikely that you are both right!

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb57/stampnik/silhouettes.jpg
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb57/stampnik/elephant-silh.jpg
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb57/stampnik/trex-silh.jpg


One of the biggest problems of all for those who deny that the Earth has grown and its gravity increased is the size of the great sauropods and theropods of the Jurassic and Cretaceous era. Gravity is one of the great constraining factors in the design of Earth creatures. To a considerable extent, a creature’s weight defines its shape. This is something we all know, and most of us understand.

By the time we reach African elephant size, we have a creature with massive legs, a very vertical stance, relatively slow-moving. It will walk half as fast again as a man. In danger, it will feign to charge – but very rarely actually do so, because of the danger of injury. It is vegetarian. Study it, and you begin to find many special adaptations that allow it to cope with its immense weight.

T rex, among the largest of the Creataceous hunters, was of similar mass to the modern elephant. Yet is stood on only two legs, which in each step moved far from the vertical position which minimizes stress. It is surmised that it ran at a faster pace than an Olympic sprinter. Yet it does not have the uprightness of features even of the ostrich. Explanation: it did not weigh six tons!

Among the herbivores, there were creatures ten times the size of T rex. There were sauropod necks which drawf the dimensions of the giraffe’s. Among the flying dinosaurs, there were again massive creatures which dwarf the albatross. The list is endless. Those who deny that gravity has increased have a lot of explaining to do! The last of the silhouettes above does not belong to the same planet and era as the rest. It is out of pattern.

If increasing gravity is the only reason you can think of why subsequent animals may not have become as large as the biggest dinosaurs then frankly you're being rather naive.

I daresay you are right. It seems to me that if you scaled up an elephant by a factor of two it would collapse under its own weight. If you gave it even bigger legs it would look ridiculous. Explain to me please what I am neglecting to take into account!

By Aether Wave Theory the Earth expansion can be really possible. We can even observe during last forty years by elongation of PtIr meter prototype.

hxxp://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12667_time.html
hxxp://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/collapse_matter.gif

How such stuff is working? The Aether foam forming both vacuum, both observable matter is slightly compressible, but the compressibility of matter is lower due the higher density of matter. If we consider, the vacuum is forming by interior of black hole, which is collapsing gradually, we can expect, the vacuum will collapse faster, then the observable matter. Such difference would manifest itself into a gradual expansion of matter relative to vacuum, when measured by optical methods, i.e. by frequency of light spreading.

Such insight renders the Universe as much more dynamic and enjoyable stuff, then we ever realized. Here are a growing number of evidences of this phenomena. For example, it was found recently, the standard candle supernovae are getting gradually less brighter, because the relative density difference between vacuum and matter density decreases. Furthemore, we can expect, this phenomena changes the gravitational constant at the cosmological scale and it can result into repulsive force at the longer distances, as being considered by MOND gravity theory.

hxxp://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12745-brighter-supernovae-make-dark-energy-even-murkier.html

Laika, Hipparchia: I think you two should settle the dispute between you before you have another go at me!
RiverApe, I am sorry you feel I am 'having a go at you'. In my first post I supported your view that an expanding Earth had been a perfectly valid, mainstream hypothesis. I did express puzzlement as to why you felt Venus's surface was 'concealed' and my reasons for this were expanded in my next post. I am simply trying to understand why you feel we can't 'see' its surface, when I know we can.

You also suggest Laika and I are in dispute. I don't think that is the case. In many respects, exactly as Laika says, Earth and Venus are similar. For example, diameter, density, composition, internal structure. In other respects they are different. The tectonics are definitely different - plate tectonics seems to be absent and, as noted the surface was largely replaced round about 600 million years ago. I don't see anywhere that Laika challenges this. In fact I've read through all her posts and she seems to make lots of sense.

So I'm not trying to give you a hard time and I apologise if it seems that way. At this point I am just trying to understand why you think we can't examine, interpret and understand the surface of Venus.

I enjoy people having a go at me! That's why I participate in these forums. No complaints. :)

If I find that I am being challenged by people making contradictory points, of course, I am inclined to point this out. As you say, and as is widely agreed, it looks like the surface of Venus was renewed between 300mya and 600mya according to your reference. This is hardly consistent with Laika's claim that "Venus and Earth are so similar". I really do not think they are very similar at all -- and since expansion is likely to manifest itself so differently** according to the composition, size, structure, atmosphere (etc) of bodies, I am not sure how I would "test" Venus for expansion on the data we have available. That data is not negligible, and if I seemed to suggest that it was, then I accept your correction. However, there would be thousands of times more data from which to extract clues if Venus were as well known to us as Mars. Consider, after all, how speculative in nature is much of what is written about Venus.

**One cannot even be certain that internal expansion would necessarily be detectable by surface features at all. Nor do I insist that expansion is universal -- it may require certain conditions to be present. Still less, by the way, do I insist that it is ongoing at the same rate.

new real estate sounds good to me lol

Laika, Hipparchia: I think you two should settle the dispute between you before you have another go at me!
River Ape, I have difficulty believing that such a misinterpretation is anything but deliberate but, just in case, I will confirm what Hipparchia has clarified above. Earth and Venus are similar in size, mass and (presumably) composition. They are decidedly different in that Earth bears the scars of ongoing (local!) crustal expansion, while Venus apparently does not.

To avoid further misunderstanding, and to curtail further nibbling at the edges of the issue, I will present simply two of the most major arguments against global expansion for you to really get your teeth into:

1. Subduction zones exist on the Earth. This is demonstrated by seismic tomography and earthquake focal mechanism studies. (There are sure to be additional lines of evidence that others are happy to provide.) This is in direct contradiction to what Neal Adams claims.

2. Some plates show convergent motion. This is demonstrated by GPS measurements. This also contradicts Neal Adams's claims.

I look forward to reading your opinion about these points.

In fact I've read through all her posts and she seems to make lots of sense.
I am flattered. Thank you.

Earth and Venus are similar in size and mass -- and in practically nothing else! We can only speculate about the composition of Venus, but that planet's lack of a magnetic field suggests some major differences from Earth.

I have been reluctant through lack of time to repeat the debates over subduction which (as I have indicated) can be found elsewhere, and which must to a large extent come down to analysis of individual sites. So just a couple of points about the big picture:

1: A model which asserts continuous formation of new oceanic crust at Earth's mid-ocean-ridges and eventual removal of oceanic crust in deep ocean trenches suffers from the major weakness that there are far more sites of new oceanic crust generation than trenches to equally dispose of oceanic crust.

2: The mechanical resistance to tractional transit of oceanic crust across an ocean basin is orders of magnitude greater than the energy available from all the proposed motivating mechanisms combined. If you can produce any satisfactory explanation of the power source please do so.

Earth and Venus are similar in size and mass -- and in practically nothing else! We can only speculate about the composition of Venus, but that planet's lack of a magnetic field suggests some major differences from Earth.
Yet these are not insignificant similarities. Based on these similarities we can do more than speculate about the composition: we can infer that it is similar to Earth's. This is supported by Venus's flood-basalt-like surface features. I admit that there are major differences between Earth and Venus - this was, in fact, my whole point in comparing these planets! One has supposedly grown six-fold in the last 200 million years (and is still expanding furiously), while the other planet, similar in size and mass, has been unchanged for about 500 million years.

I have been reluctant through lack of time to repeat the debates over subduction which (as I have indicated) can be found elsewhere, and which must to a large extent come down to analysis of individual sites.
I would also be reluctant to talk about clear evidence of subduction zones if the position I had adopted required their nonexistence. Perhaps, if you are determined not be drawn on this subject, you could provide a link to such a debate.

A model which asserts continuous formation of new oceanic crust at Earth's mid-ocean-ridges and eventual removal of oceanic crust in deep ocean trenches suffers from the major weakness that there are far more sites of new oceanic crust generation than trenches to equally dispose of oceanic crust.
Again, this seems to me like willful misrepresentation. As you have clearly studied geology at least casually, you must know that not all subduction zones are signified by deep ocean trenches. Also, in many instances crustal shortening is accommodated at continental-continental plate margins by folding and thrusting. If you have trouble with the model, try looking at actual plate motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tectonic_plates_boundaries_detailed-en.svg) and at an actual subducting slab (http://eri-ndc.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/jp/ohrc/ken1/global-top1.html).

The mechanical resistance to tractional transit of oceanic crust across an ocean basin is orders of magnitude greater than the energy available from all the proposed motivating mechanisms combined. If you can produce any satisfactory explanation of the power source please do so.
I have said before that I am not a physicist; such quantitative investigation is beyond me. However, I am interested to know the reasoning behind your(?) estimates. What value do you assign to the "energy available from all the proposed motivating mechanisms combined", and just how many orders of magnitude smaller is it than the value necessary to overcome the friction you talk about?
Something I can say about this point is that the plates do not move over the mantle like a table cloth over a table. The fact that the lithosphere is coupled with the mantle below allows mantle convection to be expressed as plate motion. Such convection is just one of the probable processes to which plate motion can be attributed. I am sure that you have included this factor and others in your calculations, which I am looking forward to you explaining.

I have said before that I am not a physicist; such quantitative investigation is beyond me.
Sure, but just find me -- somewhere -- an explanation of the driving mechanism that seems vaguely plausible!

PS How deep are the lateral movements which you envisage?

Sure, but just find me -- somewhere -- an explanation of the driving mechanism that seems vaguely plausible!
You could start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Driving_forces_of_plate_motion). Or, if you regard Wikipedia as insufficiently academic, you could try Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5591/207) (I went on Google Scholar and this is the first paper I found). I look forward to finding out why you consider plate tectonics so implausible.

I look forward to finding out why you consider plate tectonics so implausible.
Although I am interested in learning what it is specifically about conventional plate tectonics that you disagree with, I would also like to point out that in previous posts we apparently agreed that the causal mechanism for supposed global expansion could be left unspecified. Therefore, it seems a little inconsistent to me that you consider your speculative musings about dark matter and neutrinos as a satisfactory underpinning for the expansion theory, yet denounce as implausible the relatively robust geophysical framework behind conventional plate tectonics.

Edited to add:

Please don't interpret this post as meaning that I wish to ignore the theory behind either theory - I still want to know what you find so implausible about plate tectonics.

. . . speculative musings about dark matter and neutrinos . . .
I do not think there can be much debate about neutrinos. These particles began as speculation; they were later discovered to exist; they were quite recently discovered (to the general satisfaction of the scientific community) to have a miniscule mass. They are generated by the sun (as a by-product of fusion) among other sources. A tiny fraction of the squillions which at every moment course through the planet are intercepted. Their mass is added, internally, to the planet, causing an outward pressure -- a near-unstoppable force. (Incidentally, this must happen also to Venus.) Thus, however small a contribution is made to the expansion of the Earth by neutrinos, I think it is established that internal growth takes place -- which many people find hard to imagine. I am happy to accept the term "musings" for my hypothesis that other forms of dark(ish) matter may also be intercepted.

Given that the Earth is swelling, one can readily imagine that an outward force would create fractures and that internal material would spill out along the surface lines of those fractures, rearraging the surface features of the planet over a long period of time. (On other planets/moons, depending on structure and composition, such fracturing might not occur in the same way.) On the face of it (though you cannot always trust faces), it is inherently more plausible that an unstoppable outward pressure would force apart trillion of tons of rock than that the surface features would slither around driven by forces which are best described as "still very active subjects of on-going discussion and research in the geophysical community" (to quote Wikipedia).

I really did not discover in the Wipipedia article a satisfactory causative mechanism able to force thin ocean floors only 10 km thick to dive beneath thick continental shields 25-40 km thick without leaving behind some physical evidence. How about the problem of unconsolidated sediments covering the floor of the Pacific to very varying depths -- but let's say an average of ten meters. Massive amounts of sediments should be piled up against continental shores, or in the deep ocean trenches off the eastern coasts of Asia and Australia, the western coasts of North and South America, or in the Aleutian Trench. The sediments just aren't there; the ocean trenches are relatively free of sediments and there are no mountains of soft sediments piled up against any Pacific shore, nor indicative remnants.

Also, please explain to me why none of the ocean floors date back to more than 200mya. Why would every last bit of ocean floor get subducted someplace or other before it got any older? Coincidence?

BTW, I think you are a little too trusting of the data said to be deduced from global positioning satellites. It is some time since I read anything on this, but I seem to remember that the data relating to the Pacific was notably contentious. (There might be something on this on the bautforum site referred to in a previous post.)

I notice that no one has so far offered to explain how creatures up to fifteen times the size of an African elephant lived upon the surface of the Earth in past times -- unless gravity was much less strong. One does not need to be a biologist to see that the elephant represents something approaching the "maximum design stretch" for quadrupeds. I have read the books that seek to explain the dynamics of dinosaur motion under present Earth gravity (they are in my personal library). They do indeed explain that a 100-ton beast might exist today, provided it stood still. I cannot entirely overturn their mathematics -- but they rely on Nature not having built in the engineering "margins" and "tolerances" that she does today, and I will not wear that idea. I don't think that is something that would change.

Earth and Venus are similar in size and mass -- and in practically nothing else! We can only speculate about the composition of Venus, but that planet's lack of a magnetic field suggests some major differences from Earth.River Ape, I am genuinely puzzled by some of the statements you are making. It seems apparent from your posts that you are both well read and intelligent. (That is not meant to be in any way patronising, but is a real observation.) Despite that you post these strange statements that just don't match up to reality. Compare Earth and Venus with any other two planets in the solar system and ask which is it closest to. There is no competition - Earth and Venus are twins.
You mention that we can only speculate on Venus's composition. It's pretty solid speculation. We have an excellent theory for the origin and development of the solar system. Meteorites give us clear measures of the composition of the non-volatile portion of the nebula that gave birth to the sun and the planets. Spectroscopic analysis of the sun gives us insight into the whole composition, volatiles included. And, as I understand it, the two match up nicely.
Consequently we know the bulk composition from which Venus formed. We know how massive it is. We can work out, with some accuracy not only its composition, but its probable internal structure.

You mention the absence of a magnetic field. Given that Venus rotates very slowly on its axis this alone, I think, is sufficient to explain that difference.

Why does it rotate more slowly on its axis? It is closer to sun and so tidal forces are greater. Although I understand there is also the possibility of a much older collision.

River Ape, it's just that we know so much more about Venus than you seem willing to concede. It is almost as if you wish to ignore this data because it is at odds with what you think about an expanding Earth. Please look again this information with an open mind. It does not, of itself, prove expansion could not occur, but it certainly shows no evidence in support of it.

My apologies. I posted the bit above in response to one of your earlier posts before reading your last one. In this you say:
I really did not discover in the Wipipedia article a satisfactory causative mechanism able to force thin ocean floors only 10 km thick to dive beneath thick continental shields 25-40 km thick without leaving behind some physical evidence.
It isn't just the ocean floor that is taking the dive, but the mantle below the ocean floor. As to evidence, we have lots:
1) Earthquakes occuring on a plane diving beneath the continent.
2) Deep trenches, in some instances.
3) Sequences of submarine lavas, black shales, cherts, serpentinites etc 'scraped' onto the continental margin.
4) Lines of volcanoes extending above the descending plate, where partial melting has generated magmas.

Earth and Venus are twins.
I just don't think we are going to agree over this. I expect the value of real estate to remain much higher on Earth. :)

How about the other questions I raised? I mean, think about this age of the ocean floor thing. If the oceans have been around for a few billion years, why would every bit of ocean floor dating back above c.200mya just happen to have disappeared? We are dealing with a pretty complex and irregular set of shapes here. Wouldn't you expect a patch of old ocean to survive tucked away in some odd corner? Think about when you do the hoovering (of course, as a man, I may be less diligent) . . . :confused:

I do not think there can be much debate about neutrinos. These particles began as speculation; they were later discovered to exist; they were quite recently discovered (to the general satisfaction of the scientific community) to have a miniscule mass. They are generated by the sun (as a by-product of fusion) among other sources. A tiny fraction of the squillions which at every moment course through the planet are intercepted. Their mass is added, internally, to the planet, causing an outward pressure -- a near-unstoppable force. (Incidentally, this must happen also to Venus.)
River Ape, I did not dismiss the existence of neutrinos as speculation (as I think you know very well), but the mechanism my which they contribute to planetary expansion. I have learned that when a neutrino interacts with matter, it can either transfer its momentum to the impactee, causing EM radiation to be emitted, or it can cause a neutron to become a proton and an electron. The Earth is composed largely of iron and iron/magnesium silicates. If iron gains a proton, it will presumably become a light (stable?) isotope of cobalt. Is this the process you envisage? Gradual transmutation of Earth's elements by neutrino interaction? By my admittedly elementary calculations, the combined mass of the proton + electron is actually lower than that of a neutron, but I'm on shaky ground. Please explain.

Thus, however small a contribution is made to the expansion of the Earth by neutrinos, I think it is established that internal growth takes place -- which many people find hard to imagine.
If it is established, I imagine you can supply a reference or two. Perhaps you can do this in the same post in which you provide your calculations showing that the "mechanical resistance to tractional transit of oceanic crust across an ocean basin is orders of magnitude greater than the energy available from all the proposed motivating mechanisms combined", and in which you also demonstrate matthyaouw's and my naivete regarding the Moon's recession from the Earth.

Given that the Earth is swelling, one can readily imagine that an outward force would create fractures and that internal material would spill out along the surface lines of those fractures, rearraging the surface features of the planet over a long period of time. (On other planets/moons, depending on structure and composition, such fracturing might not occur in the same way.)
I concede that expansion might be expressed differently on the surfaces of different bodies. But I will point out again the differences and similarities between Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. All similar in same size and make-up, but decidedly different in surface age and morphology.

On the face of it (though you cannot always trust faces), it is inherently more plausible that an unstoppable outward pressure would force apart trillion of tons of rock than that the surface features would slither around driven by forces which are best described as "still very active subjects of on-going discussion and research in the geophysical community" (to quote Wikipedia).
This adds nothing. You've merely restated your position. We know that you think it's "inherently more plausible", but that's not important. Incidentally, another subject of ongoing discussion and research is the nature of gravitation - I assume you don't doubt the existence of gravity simply because the theory has not yet been nailed.

I really did not discover in the Wipipedia article a satisfactory causative mechanism able to force thin ocean floors only 10 km thick to dive beneath thick continental shields 25-40 km thick without leaving behind some physical evidence.
I will reiterate for emphasis what Hipparchia has already said very eloquently above. I apologise if you already got the message.
It is the whole ocean lithosphere that gets subducted, not only the crust. The lithosphere can be more than 100 km thick, and subducts because it is denser than the over-riding lithosphere and the mantle below. And if you don't regard as evidence the actual imaging of subducting plates and the measurement of plate motion, then I really don't know what to say.

How about the problem of unconsolidated sediments covering the floor of the Pacific to very varying depths -- but let's say an average of ten meters. Massive amounts of sediments should be piled up against continental shores, or in the deep ocean trenches off the eastern coasts of Asia and Australia, the western coasts of North and South America, or in the Aleutian Trench. The sediments just aren't there; the ocean trenches are relatively free of sediments and there are no mountains of soft sediments piled up against any Pacific shore, nor indicative remnants.
You have described accretionary prisms. I mentioned them in a previous post, and they do exist.

Also, please explain to me why none of the ocean floors date back to more than 200mya. Why would every last bit of ocean floor get subducted someplace or other before it got any older? Coincidence?
The ocean lithosphere thickens as it moves away from the rift. This is because the upper mantle cools by conduction and by water circulating through cracks. Eventually, enough cooler (denser) mantle material will have been underplated to compensate for the more buoyant, slightly more felsic crust above, and the lithosphere as a unit will have become denser than the mantle immediately beneath. This is when a slight disturbance can initiate subduction, and is the reason that oceanic crust tends to have a maximum age. However, not all oceanic crust is recycled; in some tectonic environments oceanic crust can be obducted onto the continent, where it is preserved. These are ophiolites (I think that matthyaouw already mentioned them), and have been studied extensively.

BTW, I think you are a little too trusting of the data said to be deduced from global positioning satellites. It is some time since I read anything on this, but I seem to remember that the data relating to the Pacific was notably contentious. (There might be something on this on the bautforum site referred to in a previous post.)
GPS measurements are not the only method of geodesy. Look up, for example, very long baseline interferometry.

I notice that no one has so far offered to explain how creatures up to fifteen times the size of an African elephant lived upon the surface of the Earth in past times -- unless gravity was much less strong.
I did not respond to your previous post about dinosaurs for two reasons:
1. I am as much a palaeontologist as I am a physicist;
2. I don't recall that you made any specific points that needed to be addressed.

One does not need to be a biologist to see that the elephant represents something approaching the "maximum design stretch" for quadrupeds. I have read the books that seek to explain the dynamics of dinosaur motion under present Earth gravity (they are in my personal library). They do indeed explain that a 100-ton beast might exist today, provided it stood still. I cannot entirely overturn their mathematics -- but they rely on Nature not having built in the engineering "margins" and "tolerances" that she does today, and I will not wear that idea. I don't think that is something that would change.
On the contrary, I think that expertise in biology (and possibly structural engineering) is very much necessary to make such a confident assertion.

How about the other questions I raised?I'll answer the one you repeated, but could you go back an address my points about the evidence for plate tectonics - and include by all means the points Laika raised.
If the oceans have been around for a few billion years, why would every bit of ocean floor dating back above c.200mya just happen to have disappeared? We are dealing with a pretty complex and irregular set of shapes here. Wouldn't you expect a patch of old ocean to survive tucked away in some odd corner? The shapes are complex, but the basic principle is simple: ocean crust can get absorbed, continental crust doesn't. I have no dificult imagining all the floor beign absorbed. Equally I would not be surprised to find that a small portion of older floor is to be found in a poorly explored region of the oceans - under arctic ice for example.

it is true that earth is expanding because it is living thing like tree and its birth is from seed or meteroids.it has core and crust same tree log has.

Some Logics That Earth Is Living Thing Like Tree And Its Birth Is From Seed.
1. It Is Expanding Like Living Thing
2. It Has Skin Or Core That All Living Thing Has.
3. It Has Mountains Same Trees Has Tree Knot.
4. Its Core Has Temprature Like All Living Thing.
5. When We See The Map Of Earth It Seems It Has Expanded From Small Globle Wnen See The Land Area
6.it Has Crude Oil Same Tree Abstract Milk Or Wax Oil
7.stroke Of Earth Quake Is Stoke Of Expantion.
8. It Has Gravity
Lot Of Other Similarties Are There Showing Birth Of Planets Are Like Birth Of Plants.
Suresh Bansal
+91 9814058342

Hello all

Here are some of the problems I see with the expanding Earth theories.

1) Conservation of momentum. In this case the spin of the Earth. More mass would decrease the momentum and spin. The current decrease is well calculated as a loss from tidal interaction with the moon.
2) The plate drift directions do not fit any type of expansion. Plate drift directions are well documented with "hot spots" and their resultant volcanic activity. There are also the more modern GPS measurements.
3) The two main types of lava viscosity correlate with different types of sources.

As for a cause for the movement of the plates I will give you this idea. The reduction of the Earth's spin and the Coriolis effect generates a force on the Earth's crust. The Earth's shape is a geoid which is caused, for the most part, by the interaction of gravity and centrifugal forces. Reduction of spin causes a "down hill" force to be present at the equator. Currently. for the Earth, the polar radii is approximately 22km less the the equatorial radii.

:)

Hmm, upon retrospect and new information...I will add the Hexagonal shape upon the top of Jupiter and Saturn, other dimensions(string theory), the relationship between sound/frequency/vibration and matter, zero point energy/dark matter and all of the discoveries in between.
Too much to share,...anyone with questions better get on it or get left behind.
Incredible information surfacing about our physical universe.
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/images/070328-saturn-hexagon_big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070328-saturn-hexagon.html&h=401&w=461&sz=46&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=fT5ZkrCuFfCA8M:&tbnh=111&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsaturn%2Bhexagon%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den

it is true that earth is growing. pls see the attached snaps showing growth of earth like.must see with cool mind.

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs127&d=08226&...s_wood1354.jpg