Growing Earth and large animals

[danilofaria]

I just read the newest insights post by @Leo Gura about the growing earth https://actualized.org/insights/a-growing-earth

In it it is hypothesized that bigger animals could thrive in the past when the Earth's radius was ~50% of what it is today. However gravitational theory says that gravitational force is inversely proportional to the squared radius, which means that gravity on the Earth's surface then would be 4 times what it is today. So how can that be a better environment for big animals?

[Leo Gura]

Obviously mass of the Earth would be much less.

The claim is that the mass of the Earth is growing.

The other possibility is that the Earth's center of mass is towards the surface more than to its center, such that expanding radius would lessen gravity. This is the hollow sphere model, which means the Earth's core might be something like light plasma vs a dense iron core.

[Leo Gura]

@Outer Yes, I heard the oxygen theory too. But it doesn't seem plausible to me. There seems to be a larger bio-mechanical issue. A two foot dragonfly will not fly, even with more oxygen in the atmosphere.

At least that's my guess.

Try to imagine a dragonfly with a wingspan of two feet!

[Leo Gura]

@Outer That's fine. You should be skeptical.

It's a crazy theory, if true.

I am all for putting the theory to the test.

[danilofaria]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Obviously mass of the Earth would be much less.

The claim is that the mass of the Earth is growing.

The other possibility is that the Earth's center of mass is towards the surface more than to its center, such that expanding radius would lessen gravity. This is the hollow sphere model, which means the Earth's core might be something like light plasma vs a dense iron core.

I had assumed that the Earth was expanding with constant-ish mass. However, if the claim is that the mass is increasing, this is an even crazier hypothesis than just that the Earth is expanding. Because, where would the extra mass come from?

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, danilofaria said:

I had assumed that the Earth was expanding with constant-ish mass. However, if the claim is that the mass is increasing, this is an even crazier hypothesis than just that the Earth is expanding. Because, where would the extra mass come from?

Indeed, it's a very radical hypothesis which would undermine much of existing geology and science. Which would explain why serious scientists would not take it seriously (paradigm lock).

The idea is that all planets manufacture their own mass! Somehow...

Or, it's an expanding hollow-ish sphere with constant mass.

Regardless, if the Earth is increasing in radius at all (whether growing or expanding) there needs to be fairly significant mechanism at work at the core which is as yet unknown. Why would a constant-mass object expand?

[Ape]

What is the current "official" explanation where planets come from?
They just appear out of nothing and never grow? lol
It just seems logical that planets are growing.

[Leo Gura]

50 minutes ago, Ape said:

What is the current "official" explanation where planets come from?
They just appear out of nothing and never grow? lol
It just seems logical that planets are growing.

Well, they are supposed to accrete during the formation of the solar system. That's fairly plausible.

[Zweistein]

Here is a nice video about the faith of our sun and Earth:

 

And this is a nice one about the formation of our solar system:

 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Zweistein

[Leo-Tzu]

Where were the oceans? Fossils of underwater creatures are way older than those of the Jurassic era. And what does "growing" mean? To gain mass costantly it needs to accumulate new particles from space somehow. . . Like constant meteor bombardment ect ... If growing means just expanding its volume with the same mass like a balloon it may be possible . . . I've seen a ted talk where a scientist noticed the "constat" g (gravitational constat) was not a constant at all because it changed during years and places where it was maeasured.

 

[Leo Gura]

@Leo-Tzu The inner core of the Earth contains more water than all of the Earth's oceans combined within a newly discovered substance called ringwoodite:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-diamond-confirms-that-earths-mantle-holds-an-oceans-worth-of-water/

That easily accounts for where the oceans came from.

The Earth could be growing from the inside out by some kind of physical, subatomic process. Accumulation of particles from the outside would not account for Earth's growth. If it is growing at all, it's growing from the inside.

This actually helps to explain why the Earth's atmosphere keeps from being eroded by solar wind: the atmosphere gets replenished by gasses escaping the core.

[Leo-Tzu]

Well now that i think of it we as humans haven't explore even the bottom of the oceans  . . . We really dont know anything ... Not to mention anything we know personally comes from mainstream books which will going do be laughble in 200-300 years. . . The question here comes down always to the IF the academy of science for example ridicules everyone who tries to question the colums of their knowledge to the point of neglecting or hiding any fact if there's one? Like in a direct flight from Rome to New York the distance grows 10 centimeters in 10 years or something like that... The moment when those dragonflies existed is know (lets say 100 million years ago)  If the radius was 50% of whats today it can me meausured at what's pace is growing. I'm too lazy to do the math right now but i think it cant be visible in our lifespan

[Leo Gura]

@Leo-Tzu In the videos I linked in the blog post, they tell you how many cenimeters per year the Earth is supposed to be growing. It's like 10 cm or something similar.

And the rate of growth is accelerating.

Some of those in-depth videos I linked go into a lot of detail about the mechanics of how this might work, and address all the common objections.

Of course that doesn't mean they are right, but it at least shows that the theory has some legs and can stand up to skeptics.

[Leo-Tzu]

@Leo Gura i know where you're pointing at. Mainstream science will never approve or even open up a possibility for these hypothesis til the very end when they become undeniable. It will always be a science's problem like it has always been. Actually it's a men problem. These scientists claim to be develeoped but at the core they act by the same mechanisms as terrorists do when it comes to questions their books . .on the other hand Bodhisattvas and gurus will never do mainstream science because they see it as unimportant . . . I personally i'm open to everything since i consider it a miracle. I think you shared the link of Dr. Rupert Shelfdrake which claimed he measured different values of G, when i saw that i instantly thought about a growing or changing earth. 

[Dragallur]

@Leo-Tzu oh come on, now it is people making war against science. Sheldrake should do research that would prove all the claims that he makes. Also read this to get better context for big G and the research about it:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16441/does-the-gravitational-constant-fluctuate

[purerogue]

Well but science is biased, especially nowadays, they will rather believe in aliens and matrix made by some aliens , then allow  even slightest thought of something superficial, when nothing is really superficial , everything can be explained and that is what science is about, even if there would be magic, it would still be completely possible to look at it from scientific view point, at this point I am surprised that they even talk about different dimensions.

 

[Leo-Tzu]

@Dragallur i'm not saying he has the final word lol, just that he mentions it makes me wonder for the relations it might have . . .