Talk:Expanding Earth/Archive 4

Recommend deletion
I think that this article represents something of a original synthesis of disparate ideas that are associated with a physically growing Earth in the past or present. Many of these ideas can be better expounded upon on the pages of the advocates for them including Neal Adams and J. Marvin Herndon or on the page devoted to Timeline of the development of tectonophysics (before 1954). jps (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I might agree with jps just to save advocates of the present state of this article the embarrassment of appearing so one-sided and so frightened of the theory, as if fair representation of EE, based on its notability and RS, is some threat to science. Though the ultimate losers would be the Wikipedia readership who are denied comprehensive coverage of this significant junction in Earth science history. But seeing that it's not likely the theory will be given fair content representation based on its RS and notability, I vote to delete the article. Then everyone might understand the extent some editors are willing to go in order to assert a one-sided representation. MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to give undue legitimacy to EE. The most reliable sources overwhelmingly reject it, and this article is always going to represent that in line with core polices. We aren't going to include supposed evidence sans mainstream rebuttals or some contextualisation. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree, but again, I'm not suggesting "sans mainstream rebuttals" as you say. The history of this article has been to remove arguments for EE and mostly saturate it with why the theory is rejected. As an excercise, I might suggest that User:Visite fortuitement prolongée's link above: The Subduction Myth is a compelling argument for EE. It is not merely "supposed evidence". It is hard scholarly evidence that Carey himself presents the mainstream rebuttal to. But the case he makes for the Antartica spreading not having sufficient subduction zone outlets for, is one of the primary academic arguments about subduction that should be in this article. It can then include the rebuttals. If it wasn't for the consistent removal of such content, I'd take another go at it. So maybe this should be taken up by editors who share the mainstream position. The unfounded concern that this somehow gives EE undue legitimacy should not supersede the encyclopedic value of the information. Plate Tectonics and the mainstream consensus should be strong enough and certain enough of their validity to be able to present this argument and refute it. The way it seems now to readers is that mainstream advocates are frightened that such information will somehow threaten the consensus view - which is the furthest thing from the truth. If the argument is presented forthrightly and rebutted, this will only strengthen the mainstream position. Instead, it seems that it's being omitted out of a position of weakness. I think that editors who've traditionally removed such material should try to add it themselves because of its encyclopedic value without further undue concerns. If information like this is not going to be included in the article, then I think it might be better that it is deleted. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to establish weight by showing coverage in mainstream secondary sources to establish WP:WEIGHT. Selecting what you find compelling from the primary source is original research, and any rebuttal will most likely involve some sort of original synthesis, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we end up deleting the article, we won't have to deal with the WP:WEIGHT issues. I think that the ideas as they are relevant to the individual proponents are best left at their biography page. jps (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, as everybody agree (albeit for different reasons) to delete the article, who will delete it? Florian N (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I make the proposition myself Florian N (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think recent comments are enough for me to see it might have been a futile effort, from the start, to discuss the encyclopedic merit of the article among editors insisting it be a referendum on scientific validity alone - against all WP guidelines. MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't 'scientific validity', it is whether the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Notability can only be demonstrated by showing that the subject matter as a whole has been given sufficient coverage in reliable sources. If you can point to a reliable source which discusses in detail the various different versions of the theory, explaining the differences between them. you may be able to establish this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:AndyTheGrump: Nearly all the text in this article and talk page is concerned with 'scientific validity'. But in believing you are sincere, I ask you to specifically review the academically sourced books referencing notable scientists on the main article page who've debated and analyzed EE in scholarly works, whether for or against the theory, since the turn of the 19th century and specifically from 1950's until today. Of note in the article are Professor W. Carey's and G. Scalera's books and papers in the notes and external references. This is massive notability by all WP standards. Since dismissal of the theory by the mainstream upon the emergence of Plate Tectonics, many notables, some from academic fields and some not, have been engaged in debating the pros and cons of Expanding Earth relative to Plate Tectonics, in countless reliable sources. Other notables are likewise engaged in challenging this trend, also in reliably sourced platforms, touching on most every aspect and version of the theory. This is notability of a very high degree for a dismissed scientific theory.
 * In that, as you correctly say, it's not about 'scientific validity', then recent debates about EE by RS notables, whether in the academic fields or not, and whether for or against the theory...So long as they are reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, radio shows or web sites which are accepted as WP:RS for notability, they all contribute to the subject's notability.
 * A Google search of Expanding Earth Theory delivers about 50,600,000 results.
 * Here are just a few such captures, some appearing in the article, some not.
 * Andrew Alden is waging a campaign against EE on his popular Yahoo/Geology.com
 * More recent from Alden explaining why he's renewing his campaign
 * Steven Novella of Skeptic.org also decries the popular appeal of EE
 * This article at Science Daily states the research it presents is a refutation of "continued" scientific debate on Expanding Earth
 * Article in Wired magazine
 * Article in Japan Times
 * Academic paper by Professor of Physics Bill Mundy on EE vs. PT
 * A few shows from Coast to Coast Radio (YouTube channel).
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Growing Earth is #2 on Discovery Channel's top 5 science conspiracy theories
 * Of the more than 50M Google references, these are merely a tip of the iceberg representation of sources, sufficiently indicating notability of the theory. As such efforts have gone in the past with this article, sources like these are generally dismissed, mostly by measure of their scientific validity. I believe it will take a stern objective to shift the emphasis of the article from 'validity' to 'notability' so the encyclopedia can inform about the theory, it's history and the recent popular trend of debating it in notable RS mainstream and non-mainstream venues. I wish you luck and would be willing to help but at this point I don't seem to hold out much hope because I think I've seen too many violations of the subject's encyclopedic value by advocates of its 'scientific validity' - and too much of what Wikipedia is up against from its mainstream science advocates who appear to be preventing important knowledge about it. That still seems like a difficult hurdle to overcome and I'm not sure I can invest more of myself in what might be another futile round. Your consideration, however, is appreciated. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not looked through the sources you've linked yet, so I'll comment on them later. I would however point out that "Google result counts are a meaningless metric": To claim that there are 50 million online references to the subject of this article is stretching credulity beyond reasonable limits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Though it wasn't meant as proof of anything, just an indication of proportion. I see it's not reliable. The sources in the article itself and ones listed above are the actual indications for notability. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the sources you provide, I think you've misunderstood what I was asking for. To justify the material in the article as it currently stands being grouped together as a topic, we need mainstream sources that do the same thing. This is the normal notability requirement for any topic on Wikipedia, 'fringe' or otherwise. Including everything from Yarkovsky's 1888 proposals and Mantovani's 1889 hypothesis to contemporary material from Herndon and Adams may well be regarded as synthesis unless sources that do the same can be cited - and it has to be said, it looks like synthesis done in order to give credibility to contemporary theories by implying that they are part of some scientific continuum. To meet notability guidelines for the article as it stands, we don't need 50 million references. We don't even need 50 references. What we need is two or three decent sources that demonstrate that the subject matter as a whole has been discussed as a single topic - find these, and the article should be safe from deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In reconsideration of my first response below this one, I think you're the one who's misunderstood, or are injecting an unnecessary concern about the reliable sources. WP:Synthesis would only be a concern if there was an intent to synthesize a conclusion from the sources which is not expressly stated in them. In this case, it's only being suggested that these reliable sources contribute to the notability of the broad subject, and some of which bear mention in the article, as they are, and without any conclusions not expressly stated in them. If you have looked at the sources, you'll see that most of these expressly state Expanding Earth theory as a basis for their content. So, synthesis is not an issue for the purpose of these WP:Reliable sources at this stage. If an editor attempts to make a synthesis from the sources, then that can be removed. But it's no reason to dismiss the sources in advance because of some presently undue concern used as an excuse to delete this page. MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Nah. Go ahead and delete the article. It serves you and Wikipedia right. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I side with MichaelNetzer. Delete the damn article, it is useless and misinform the reader in its current form. Florian N (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hummm, Carey's original theory was one of the competing theories before plate tectonics came along. For example: "Earlier on, however, these valleys and riges were interpreted by all kinds of theories, for example the expanding earth theory (Carey 1976; King 1983) (...) [now we know that] subduction zones and mid oceanic ridges are in volumetric balance so that there is no need for an expanding earth theory." Geodynamics of the Lithosphere: An Introduction p. 16. That alone should justify an article. Carey's theory is listed as an alternative theory in other accounts of plate tectonics history here.


 * A 1996 book analyzed several EE claims and explained how they had been disprovedGlobal Tectonics. Unfortunately, it's no longer previewable, but it had several pages of explanations and maps.
 * I have the last edition of this book. Florian N (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortuantely Florian N it seems that any effort for a good faith discussion here is futile as some editors appear manipulative and insincere in misleading the discussion. Case in point is User:AndyTheGrump's recent comment and request for WP:Notability sources - and his response to the ones I posted, dismissing it all and wikilawyering the issue of synthesis as if everything about Expanding Earth in this article needs to be found collectively in one or two reliable sources. Trying to reason with them at this point seems like a waste of time, I'm afraid. The effective way to improve the article would be to wait until it's unlocked and try to edit it, adhering to WP guidelines and avoiding any unnecessary engagement with some of these editors. MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "as if everything about Expanding Earth in this article needs to be found collectively in one or two reliable sources", yes one would expect individual reliable sources to cover the major aspects of this article. If they don't exist then this article is indeed a synthesis, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say "major aspects" as you suggest. I said "everything about Expanding Earth in this article" and I stand by it. Everything need not be covered in the same source, but the major aspects do. What you've done is misrepresent what I said. The major aspects of this article are already covered by reliable sources. Carey's books, the first to elaborate on geological evidence for the theory cover the major aspects. So does G. Scalera in papers sourced in the article. The Japan Times articles provide a comprehensive review of EE, PT and the Earth sciences relating to them and sufficing for major aspects of the theory. So these sources already exist in the article. Your concluding statement above can itself be seen as a synthesis of your misrepresentation of what I said. Not a good sign for and editor mistakenly suggesting synthesis that doesn't seem to exist in the article. MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, the intellectual heirs of Carey all have their own papers grouped here.


 * And then the not-based-in-hard-science created-by-a-comic-artist variant was merged here (discussion). A proposal to merge into the comic artist article was dismissed discussion.


 * All of these theories are known as "expanding earth" theories. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Deprodding
Proposed deletions, per WP:PROD, are for uncontroversial deletions. As this talk page demonstrates, the issues of notability, synthesis, and neutrality are all disputed. That coupled with the fact that this article has existed since 2006 with many hundreds of edits by many different editors, means that deletion is not uncontroversial. This will need to be taken to AfD, if interested editors choose to do so. --Mark viking (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Unconfusing the article
I think the article is confusing, not because there is a lot of disagreement on the topic, but because two different topics are being conflated under a single name. This article makes a case that that the motion of the continents cannot be explained as a result of the earth's expansion. Fine. But then is goes on to say, there is no significant expansion, implying that there never was a significant expansion. One self-contradictory source admits the radius is increasing by a tenth of a mm per year, but hastens to add that this is not "statistically" significant. No? How much of an increase is that in 4.5 billion years? And what does he mean "significant?" For what?

So obviously, we are talking about two different expansions. How can the Earth have gotten here if it did not expand? Are we to suppose it has been hanging there just as it is for 4.5 billion years? What did it do then, materialize magically? Moreover, how is it that accretion did not change the radius? If there was no accretion, how could the chondritic meteorites represent the early composition of the Earth? To deny any expansion at all ever is to reject all theories of the Earth's origin. I never read or heard of anyone's denying that the Earth has expanded significantly by accretion from masses of various sizes condensing from a rotating cloud of gas.

Inserted Comment: You are correct in the the two types should be defined, So I will try. Expansion is an increase in Volume, with or without an increase in Mass. Growth is an increase in Mass, which implies an increase in Volume, and, an increase in density, and, an Increase in Surface Gravity of a Planet. An increase in Volume without an increase in mass would imply a reduction in average density, and a reduction in Surface gravity, and an internal redistribution of materials where lighter materials rise toward the planet's surface, and denser materials migrate toward its core. These two processes work in concert, and feed on one another ( a positive feedback loop ) to very gradually accelerate the combined Growth and Expansion processes. These processes are aided (it may also be required )by the varying gravitational forces applied by the Sun and the Moon. Without Earth's spin, and varying external forces, the feedback loop of Growth, and Expansion, would be much less pronounced. Earth would be more like Venus, and Mars, with much lower rates of Tectonic motions. End Inserted comment: MWC Golden, Colorado — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.151.6 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So, I suppose I am saying, the article does not define its terminology. The concept of expansion needs clarification. Moreover, the tone is wrong. Long-discarded theories are being hashed over as though they were current. This article is hopelessly confused. If someone can't do better than this, maybe it should be deleted. It is not enough to lock it, you know. Someone has to straighten it all out while it is locked. Otherwise, what is the point? This is the old question, can a large committee of amateurs write a meaningful article on a highly technical topic? However I do not wish to preach discouragement. Maybe some determined persons will take on the task of re-development, being careful to explain what such terms as "expansion" are to mean here.Branigan 01:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of Expanding Earth theories consider the last 250 M years, not the last 4.5 G years. Hope this help. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Inserted comment: It is true that many, but not all discussions, emphasize the period from 252 MYA to the Present, but that is because this period of time shows greatest "evidence of", and the fastest rates of changes on the planet's surface. It is the period of time that the Earth is forming new surfaces in the Ocean Basins, and stretching and separating old surfaces ( Basin and Range, rifting, Atlantic formation, and the Formation of all Oceans that are not atop continents any more ). In fact this late period shows accelerating rates of changes in many surface features, such as tension fractures on continental perimeters, and Lateral compression waveforms ( parallel mountains and basins ), in the middle of continents. Plate tectonics relies heavily on the same time period to explain Subduction, convection cells, Rifting and plate motions. In fact, Subduction could not initiate without the Planet Expanding, and rifting, and creating low density regions of downward moving materials at the continental margins. Also, convection cells could not initiate without higher density materials moving laterally at depth out from under continents toward and to feed the material needs of Spreading Ridges. So, to commence, and, to sustain both Subduction and Convection of Plate Tectonics, the internal material redistribution systems of the Planet Growth and Expansion are required. In Fact, Plate tectonics, subduction, and convection cells would be an observed subset, or byproduct of the more encompassing Theory of combined growth and Expansion of Planets.... End comment, MWC, Golden, Colorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.151.6 (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Also see history of the Earth. The accepted theory is that the Earth did expand to its current size (through accretion of solar system material, rather than some magical and inexplicable process) about 4.5 billion years ago, and expansion since has been minimal. When those studies state that the measured expansion is "insignificant" they are referring to statistical significance,. In lay-man's terms, they are basically saying apparent expansion was so small it could have just been an error in their measurements. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus -- Do the Math
The scientific consensus is that drastic sea level changes would most certainly accompany any substantive change in the Earth's radius that is accompanied by a change in volume. Why is this not mentioned?
 * You are correct this should be mentioned, as it is possible that the whole planet was covered by water and as it expanded the land masses were exposed to the atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.174.93 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 May 2014

You are correct in that a drastic sea level change should be part of the concept, and, example locations mentioned where sea level was at a prior maximum. For example, the Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia, or lake Bonneville in Utah. In addition the concept should include the gradual, and pulsed increase in the total volume of the water on the surface of the Earth, and how it works in conjunction with the changes in surface area of the Planet, while at the same time, water is removed from off the continents, and, thinned out to fill in the forming and growing ocean basins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.151.6 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Geology has more than its share of eccentric theories (and the continuous creation of oil in the Earth's crust is only one of those), but frankly, the Expanding Earth is one that surely belongs in the pseudoscience wing along with the hollow Earth, which for a while was a more popular idea.

I have no particular objection to presentation of a pseudoscience such as Astrology for the sake of remembering the historical significance of the artifact. However, including minor pseudoscience such as Expanding Earth, particularly when they are not tagged as such will eventually mean the demise of Wikipedia as a reliable scientific reference. How is the reader supposed to determine at a glance whether this is a viable theory? Including a "scientific consensus" section is not a very good answer. We don't need to read a "pseudoscientific consensus" section for reputable science articles too, do we? Perhaps someone like "Jacky Jerome" could write us some?
 * It states at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." so this discussion portion should be deleted or reworded so that it is not a discussion on the topic but how to make the article accurate as possible. As stated below, it is very clear in the article that it is 1) a hypothesis, thus not science fact, and 2)scientific consensus has rejected any significant expansion or contraction of Earth.  Maybe the title should add the word hypotheses just like other salient hypotheses on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.174.93 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 May 2014

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame is likewise responsible for an Expanding Universe theory which has been at least as popular as Neil Adam's theory of the Expanding Earth. Adams devoted an entire chapter to the subject at the end of one of his Dilbert books, but there is no reference to that theory in the pages of Wikipedia that I can find. Why is that? Danshawen (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)danshawen Danshawen (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)danshawen


 * Both the lede of the article and the "scientific consensus" section make it very clear that modern science rejects the Expanding Earth hypothesis. We have no obligation to readers who only read the first sentence of the article, or only read the title of a section. It's also unfair to label the entire "Expanding Earth" hypothesis as pseudoscience. There was a point in time (>40 years ago) when it was part of actual scientific discourse. As with many genuine scientific theories, it was disproved. Only in more recent times has EEH been revived by marginally notable pseudoscientists. No comment on Dilbert. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The difference is that no reliable source has made a commentary on Dilbert's theory. Neil Adams is mentioned mostly because Wired made an article on his theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that a talk Page that wants you to do the Math has no Math, so I will Correct that. The density of rocky planets can be approximated using the following equation: R ( the radius ) must be entered into the equation in two locations as Kilometers only. The equation has a cubic term ( compression ), a linear term ( gravity ), and a constant ( material property of rock at the surface). The constant can be changed for ice planets, to a number around 1,000, or increased for iron dominated planets like Mercury which lies far above the graph of "R's". DENSITY ( Rocky Planet)= ( 1+Pi ) x 10^-9 X R^3 + ( 1 + SQRT 2 ) X 10^-1 X R  + 2900 Kg/m^3. The Equation is useful for small rocky planets up thru planets larger than Earth, but, not up to the size of the gas giants. The Equation can tell The Density for a given radius R ( kilometers ), and R can be used for all the rest to acquire Surface Area, Volume, Mass, and Surface Gravity (acceleration)of any planet up thru at least a radius of 7,000 km. it may go higher, but, as of now, we do not yet have examples of planets between Earth size and Gas Giant size. It will give the Density of a mostly rocky planet to within 1 %. MWC, Golden, Colorado. You can also use it to estimate the Surface gravity of the Earth when it was smaller, had a lower gravity, and had far larger land animals such as sauropods. Unfortunately, there is no exact method yet to get the Size, Density, Mass, gravity, and maximum allowable animal size combinations. Perhaps some bright math mind would like to work on the structural limitations of dinosaurs of various sizes, applied forces, surface gravity of Earth, and Earth's Radius, Volume, and Mass at known time periods ( when the dinosaurs lived )....MWC, Golden, Colorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.151.6 (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter Hadfield
Now that there is a Wikipedia article about Peter Hadfield (journalist), can we add his Expanding earth my ass, 2010-11-03, in the External links section? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Expanding Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100820034800/http://search.japantimes.co.jp:80/cgi-bin/fl20091122x3.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20091122x3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Other reference
Other reference: Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sudiro, P.: The Earth expansion theory and its transition from scientific hypothesis to pseudoscientific belief, Hist. Geo Space. Sci., 5, 135-148, doi:10.5194/hgss-5-135-2014, 2014.

Useful Concepts Not Explainable By Plate Tectonics
Growing and Expanding Planets ( like Earth ) have certain problems that can not be reasonably explained by any theory where the mass, density, volume, surface area, and surface gravity do not change appreciably. One area is the Excessive size of land animals in the past, sizes that are no longer possible in the current surface gravity conditions of the Earth, but, were no problem for more than 200 million years between 230 Mya and 65 Mya, and then again when mammals grew excessively large up to about 20 Mya. Either a Growing Earth, or and expanding Earth can easily provide combinations of conditions that allow reduced surface gravities for certain time periods. MWC Golden Co. 71.196.151.6 (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid that that won't do. There are several physical explanations as to why physical largeness of animals is not generally the result of evolution in modern times: the ability of intelligence in predators to overcome the utility of largeness as a defence, for one.  Using increasing gravity is much more far-fetched than that; in addition it has lots of inescapable consequences which are not observed. As far as I know, Expanding Earth Theory does not have any "Useful Concepts Not Explainable By Plate Tectonics" as the result of consideration. And if you think it does, the right thing to do is edit the article with appropriate sources to convince other editors, or even better, address the geological community through peer-reviewed publication, then use your article as a source, not try to convince anyone in a Talk article. SkoreKeep (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that the original poster can't see that the span of 235-65 MYA is not "more than 200 million years", I have no problem with dismissing him/her completely. --Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I messed up on the time span by combining concepts into a single sentence. The largest dinosaurs ran from 230 Mya to 66 MYA, and the Largest Mammals from around 65 MYA to approximately 130,000 years ago. The duration exceeds 200 Million Years. The general trend was for animals to get very large, then evolve toward smaller species. This is not something new, but was recognized by engineers in the late 1800's that the largest dinosaurs ( sauropods and their cousins ) are structurally not possible in the current surface gravity of the current sized Earth. The trend showed an absolute peak size before 160 MYA that may maximize at approximately 14.5 Male African Elephant Volumes at a surface gravity of 41 % of the current surface gravity. This would mean that the maximum weight of the largest animals would not exceed 0.41 ( 14.5 ) = 5.945 Male African Elephant Weights. The problem is that Male African Elephants are not standardized in size, or volumetric displacement, and, the ones we have left may not represent the maximum allowable size of animals anymore due to excessive hunting in the last 150 plus years. Even with these limitations, an average of several Male African Elephant is about 5.374 m^3 of volumetric displacement. The average volume of largest sauropods would be 5.374 X 14.5 = 77.923, round to 78 cubic meters of water displacement, but they would only weight about 31.98, round to 32 metric tonnes. An interesting sidebar is that an animal was found in Argentina that was first reported at 100 Tonnes, which was lowered to 77 Tonnes, and after further calculations, was lowered to 70 Tonnes. By conversion this would be approximately 70 cubic meters of water displacement, but the surface gravity would be higher than 41 %, but still estimatable but using the concept that the weight is the 2/3 rds power of volumetric displacement. Dividing 70 by 5.374 gives a value of almost exactly 13.0 Male African Elephant Volumes. Taking 1 divided by the cube root of 13.0 gives a surface gravity of 0.42529 g now. So the weight would be around 13.0 x 0.42529 x 5.374 = 29.71 Tonnes. This number is less than 32 tonnes as would be expected. This animal was 89.66 % of the calculated absolute maximum average volume, but almost 93 % of the maximum allowable average weight of big dinosaurs. The really interesting part is not the size, but the age of the animal. The age is in 100 million year old deposits, not in 160 plus million year old deposits. This is a big deal as it hints that the Earth not only undergoes normal planetary growth ( mass gain ), but also undergoes periods of expansion that excessively increase the Radius, which lowers the average density of the Earth, and lowers the surface gravity far below what one would expect for that time period. This might also support the concept that size is also limited by food supply, and when the Earth was active 100 MYA, the average temperature was higher ( 26 centigrade ), sea levels were still rising ( maximum elevation at 92 MYA ), and the climate ( rainfall ) allowed for plentiful plant food. In short, the whole of conditions was good for very large animals. Comment By: Michael W. Clark, Golden, Colorado, USA. 73.3.187.143 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, do you have any sources to cover this material? It all sounds like original research, which is not deemed useful in Wikipedia (see WP:NOR).  Do that, and then we'll argue about the applicability and utility of your argument. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyway 1) the assertion "sizes that are no longer possible in the current surface gravity" is not true and 2) "engineers in the late 1800's" clearly miscalculated, as the bumblebee can fly. Engineers in the late 1900s found that the bones of dinosaurs could support and move the weight of such animals in the gravity of today, so that there is no reason to think gravity must have been different then. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Graphic: expanding or contracting?
The graphic at the top of the article is confusing. "Read" in the natural top-down direction, it demonstrates a contracting Earth, not an expanding one. --Thnidu (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be more confusing if it was reversed because for the average viewer, there is no immediate recognition of a smaller earth in which the continental features disappear into the whole. This way the greatest confusion results from changing the order because we immediately recognize the difference between a smaller and larger earth where the continents remain the same size. If it was reversed, then a far more confusing situation arises from not recognizing the first tier images - which would lead many readers to simply overlook the graphic. This way they're more likely to stay with the image until the lesser confusion is settled, mostly due to the page title they were curious about - but also due to the lesser confusion being relatively marginal in the overall context. MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The graphic is fine, but the caption could be better. "As the Earth expands" does kind of contradict the bottom-up depiction, and the phrasing is a little too conclusive for this subject. It's late and I'm too tired to suggest a good and concise replacement, but I would start with something along the lines of "Continents around the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as they might have appeared at several points in history under the expanding Earth hypothesis." Maghnus (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Reduced Gravity seems to Lead to a Lower Soil Bearing Capacity, and larger feet in Sauropods
Current, The Largest Animals are elephants, and when they are standing still, with all four feet on the ground, they exert a pressure on the Soil of approximately 13 lbs per square inch under each foot. This is approximately 1872 lbs per square foot of surface area under their feet, which is about 75 % of the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soils of approximately 2500 lbs per square foot, in the current Surface Gravity of 1.0 G. In comparison, the measured, and Calculated soil pressure under a sauropods foot at the Dinosaur Bulges at Dinosaur Ridge near Morrison Colorado, is approximately 9 lbs per square inch under their feet, which is only 1296 lbs per square feet of foot bottom surface area with all four feet on the ground. Assuming this is also 75% of the Soil Bearing capacity of the Dinosaurs time, the Ultimate Soil Bearing Capacity would be 1728 lbs per square foot. This is only about 69 % of the current soil bearing capacity. Additional calculations indicate that the surface gravity was around 50% of the Current Surface Gravity, the time period was less than 150 MYa, it may be as close as 140 MYa. 0.50 g occurs when the product of the Planets Density and Radius is one half of the current Product. That is when it is one half of 6372.4567 km X 5509.649049 = 35,110,000 km - kg/m^3. one half is 17,555,000 km - kg/m^3. This occurs at roughly 4172.2674 km and a Density of 4207.545 kg/m^3, and 140.61 Million years ago.

If the same Sauropod was alive today, and the bottom of its feet were the same surface area, it would exert a pressure of just over 18 psi (2592 PSF ). Just standing there it exceeds the current Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the current soils in 1.0 g. As soon as it raised one foot, the other three feet would be carrying all the load, and the pressure would go up to 4/3 ( 2592 PSF ) = 3456 PSF which is over 138 % of the ultimate soil bearing capacity of today's soils, in 1.0 g.

Additional Information: " IN Theory " at 0.5 g, Sauropods could be as large as ( 1/0.5)^3 = 8.0 Male African Elephant Volumes, but the one at Dinosaur Ridge was only 2.5317 Male African Elephant Volumes. The bottom surface area of four feet is approximately 1651 square inches X 9.0172 PSI = 14,887.4 lbs in 0.50 g. The reference elephant has a bottom of the four feet surface area of 886.137 in^2 X 13.367 psi = 11,845 lbs. The Ratio ( 2 X 14,887.4 ) / 11,845 = 2.5137 Male African Elephant Volumes. The Volume Ratio is 2.5317 to 1, but the weight ratio is half of that, 1.25685 to 1.

A request for a source led to a comparison. If soils have lower Soil Bearing Capacity on smaller planets, then we would need to look at smaller Planets ( Moon and Mars ). There is an article called " Physical and mechanical properties of Lunar Soils." It is only two pages long, but I noticed that the Density of Lunar Soils ( Table 3 ) in that article, vary between 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter to 1.9 grams per cubic centimeter, and soil bearing capacities range between 25 Kpa and 55 Kpa. On Earth soils typically run between 2.6 grams per cubic centimeter, and 2.72 grams per cubic centimeter. In larger volumes 1500 kg/m^3 to 1900 kg/m^3 ( Moon ), versus 2600 kg/m^3 to 2720 kg/m^3 ( Earth now at 1.0 g). The Moons surface material is less compressed in 1/6 g than the Earth in 1.0 g. I have yet to find anything on Mars, but would expect a gradually increasing Density of material on a planets surface, as the applied force of gravity increases with successively larger planets. As the Density of the materials increases, the Soil Bearing Capacity ( applied load per unit area without shear failure ) would also increase. MWC Golden Colorado. Clarkmwc99 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Check, 14,887.4 / 11,845 = 1.25685 OK. 2.5137 / 2 = 1.25685 OK.

The Important thing to do when using foot comparisons is that the animals have similar feet. Both are four footed, both have large oval feet with internal padding. The make similar foot prints in the Mud. Structurally, Sauropods are not possible in today's surface gravity. Their necks, tails, and legs are too long, and their feet are too small, even in our higher gravity with more soil compression, and higher soil bearing capacity. Michael Clark, Golden Colorado, USA. 63.225.17.34 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Are there any reliable sources that make this point? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would ask that an Administrator "hat" the above Original Research/whacky ranting - there is no science based on it whatsoever.104.169.44.141 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

How To Calculate the Density and Mass of the Earth, and other Rocky Planets, and the Surface Gravity
The Density of the Earth and other Rocky Planets is variable depending on the composition of the planet and its physical dimensions. The Primary dimension that governs Volume, Surface Area, Density and Mass is the planets Radius in Kilometers. In addition, the Surface Gravity can be calculated as a decimal of the current gravitational acceleration by taking the Ratio of the Radius-Density of a prior time period divided by the current Radius-Density. The Equation for the Density has three parts. The first term is the triaxial coefficient of compression so it has a cubic term. The second term is linear and is the uniaxial coefficient of compression caused by the planets self gravity acting to compress the material vertically downward toward the core. The third term is the "constant" that implies the average composition of the crust of the planet. For Venus, that Constant is 2657.05 kg/m^3 which implies a lighter composition such as granite, or Rhyolite. For the Earth and the Moon, the Constant is 2900 kg/m^3 which is a blend of granite and Basalt. For Mars, the Constant is 2941.05 kg/m^3 which implies a predominately Basaltic Crust.

The Rocky Planet Density Equation is: Density = (1+Pi) X 10^-9 X Radius^3 +  (1+ Sqrt.2) X 10^-1 X Radius   +   Constant. For the Earth and Moon, Constant = 2900 kg/m^3. The Current Radius is 6372.4567 Km at the location of the tilt angle of 23 degrees, 19 minutes, and 39.4 seconds north or south of the equator. Plugging the radius into the Density Equation gives three values for the three terms: 1071.736597 + 1538.447139 + 2900 = Current Density of 5510.183736 Kg/m^ for a Radius of 6372.4567 Km. Note here that if the Radius used is greater than 6371.0, then the Density is lower than 5515, but the resulting mass is similar.

THE DENSITY RADIUS: Multiplying the Radius X the Density gives the Current Radius-Density which is the Denominator for the Ratio of all prior Earth Radius-Densities. The Denominator is 6372.4567 X 5510.183736 = 35,113,407.27 Km-kg/m^3. This is the Current Value of the Radius-Density, but all Values in the Past were smaller. Typically you would want to know when a prior Radius-Density was one half of what it is now so an exponential decay curve could be fitted to estimate the growth rate of the Earth. One Half of 35,113,407.27 is about 17,556,703.63 km-kg/m^2. By taking the square root of this value, it gets you into the ball park of the previous Values for both radius and density. We want to look at values around 4190, but the Radius should be Larger, and the Density smaller than 4190.

This addition to the talk page is a very important one as it is the precursor to understanding the Maximum Pressure and Temperature of the Atmosphere, the Lapse Rate, the Pressure Altitude, the Temperature Altitude, why there was no glaciation on the planet, why animals could be so large in a reduced surface gravity. These are all things that are inter-related to a gradually Growing Earth, and how and why the Earth could sustain large life forms on its surface for the last 630 Million Years and stay in a very narrow range of temperatures that allow life, while still growing larger at a very slow rate. Mike Clark, Golden Colorado. 63.225.17.34 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC) I will spare you the misery of numerous approximations and just give the results. A Radius of 4172.18 km, and a Density of 4208.03857 kg/m^3 give a Radius-Density = 17,556,694.36 which is very close to 17,556,703.63 km-kg/m^3. Notice that I was wrong as the radius was actually less that 4190, while the Density was actually more than 4190.

Now comes the Problem: When was the Radius-Density one half of what it is now, and thus the surface gravity was also one half of what it is now. The best guess is somewhere in the range of 140 to 150 million years ago the surface gravity passed through the point where it is one half of what it is now.63.225.17.34 (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This would perdict another ice age to come, with a surface further from the core and an average distance (slightly) further from the sun with longer days and nights due to reduced angular velocity to conserve momentum. Plate techtonics is fairy tale science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:8200:8120:618b:690e:c88b:afec (talk • contribs)
 * No, but it does show your need to get out in the fresh air more. 104.169.44.141 (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If everything is getting bigger how would we notice
If all mass changes relative to other mass then how would one determine that mass has changed?

The expansion talked about of the earth seems to be similar to the universes raisin bread theory looking expansion, which would make sense that the only physical evidence would be the jigsaw puzzle looking continents, as if new mass from space was being added to the earth then it wouldn't explain the continents.

Seems like all the contrary evidence does not explain how they would figure out if all mass is expanding, which would seem quite impossible to disprove. Unlike universe expansion there may be no mass large enough to observe this happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.52.18.45 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Expanding Earth theory is not about all mass expanding at proportionate rates. It is specifically about the Earth expanding, relative to the rest of the universe. What you are talking about is something else entirely. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The expanding earth hypothesis is solely based on it explaining surface morphology of the planet better than other theories, how or why it expands is what is unknown. It seems you are the one who is onto something else as usually this theory includes all planets expanding just the same.  --157.52.18.45 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, now I just have no idea what you're even trying to argue. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That all the contrary evidence presented for why this theory is not accepted comes quite short if the mechanism for expansion is non-measurable and only present in the surface morphology of planets --157.52.18.45 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is written around the versions of the expanding Earth theory that were presented historically, and the rebuttals that were written in response. Not around what you imagine the theory should be, or how it can be refuted. And in fact, the rejection of the various Expanding Earth theories is not to do with the absence of evidence so much as the absence of mechanism - it is a theory that, at this time, is not required to explain any paradoxes, has no known mechanism by which it can occur without notice, and only raises new problems. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Russian Craze
The Expanding Earth hypothesis is huge thing in Russia, where it is mainstream and government supported. For example, there are many MSU scientists, like Vladimir Larin, who publish a ton of papers on it: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

Other scientists, like Vladimir Polivanov, get grants and give presentations for government officials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw3HmV4zO6E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4rgk_Pe58s

In that video Polivanov promises to discover huge underground reserves of hydrogen, that appeared due to expanding earth hypothesis. He also insists that global warming is a myth.

--NikitaSadkov (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing Historical Advancements in the Growth and Expansion of Planets
The History is missing advancements and needed additions by several people working after Carey. People that have worked on various aspects are: Neal Adams,( Videos ), James Maxlow,( books, and videos ), Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth, ( Stephen Hurrell ), Nuriet (spelling), Nut Trees, and the Expanding Earth, and unfortunately all of the lost information when Yahoo shut down their Yahoo groups. Several hundred conversations were lost.

As for myself, I have been working over 21 Years on Growth and Expansion of the Earth, and have recently added growth and expansion of planets. As a result, the Earth is in the beginnings of a transition phase between slower growing smaller rocky planets, and the faster growing, and out-gassing larger gas giants. This transition occurred this side of 252.17 million year ago extinction event. About 200 million years ago, the rate of global growth and expansion resulted in pronounced rifting of the planets crust, and the beginning of the formation of our current ocean basins. Around 90 million years ago, the rate of new water added to the surface was exceeded by the increase in the rate of formation of the new ocean surface area. This side of 90 Ma, the Oceans have generally gotten shallower, and the water has poured off the continents to fill the enlarging ocean basins. At the same time growth has increased the mass of the Earth, the density, and the surface gravity. As a result, maximum allowable insect, and animals sizes have decreased, and the Atmosphere has become thinner, but gravity has compresses the atmosphere keeping Earth in a habitable range of temperatures while the surface pressure has remained similar over vast time periods. However, a thinner atmosphere means it now freezes at the poles, and at high altitudes, which did not happen back past 42 million years ago, when the south pole first formed ice. This side of 37 million years, the south pole has always had ice. After Siberia added 2 to 4 miles of lava flows to its surface, the top still had a temperate climate where trees and plants grew all year long. This was due to the taller atmosphere where the pressure was half at more the 36,000 feet, not at 18,000 feet as it is today. 98.245.216.62 (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia article content is based on published reliable sources, and not on the fringe opinions of Yahoo groups and YouTubers. And this talk page is not a forum. If you want to propose any changes to the article, you will need to be specific, and cite sources meeting WP:RS requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Name and shame, i think that it would be usefull to name other (than Samuel Carey) proponents of Expanding Earth, such
 * contributors of the 1981 conference https://eprints.utas.edu.au/11559/
 * contributors of this 1994 book https://books.google.com/books?id=0DgbAQAAIAAJ
 * contributors of the 2011 conference https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/10268805
 * By the way, have you read the 2014 article, 2018 poster, 2019 article, by Paolo Sudiro about Expanding Earth? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Name and shame' is a poor rationale for including anything in an article. Particularly when based around primary sources. Wikipedia isn't a platform for 'shaming' obscure individuals for their pseudoscientific beliefs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, you are welcome. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For Comparison, I had stated the maximum water elevation peaked at around 90 million years ago for the Western Interior Seaway. More recently, Viewing Cristopher R. Scotese Videos, he shows water elevation peaking at around 82 million year ago, and by 70 million years ago all the water was gone from the Western Interior Seaway. The question is: How is this even possible unless the Surface area of the Earth increased dramatically in only 12 million years. Entire Continents do not suddenly rise up uniformly so the water can pour off uniformly.  But, planets to grow larger, and expand periodically which dramatically, and fairly uniformly increases the volume of the Ocean Basins, thus giving the Water some place to go when it pours off the continents.98.245.219.152 (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Planets do not grow larger. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)