The Growing Earth Model


We are working on a model that merges the growing Earth hypothesis with our own hypothesis and method. We have found encouraging correspondencies but we are still finalizing our own details. We are reviewing the works of Samual Carey, James Maxlow, Jan Koziar, Klaus Vogel, Hugh Owen, and others. Their work is original, profound, and easily verifiable to be 100% true.

Academia remains unconvinced and prefers to stay in its parallel fantasy world of papers, fundings, and careers. Contemporary scientists say that there is no evidence for a growing Earth, hence no evidence for a lower gravity in the past. The evidence is in fact so overwhelming that it is next to impossible to claim that there is no evidence for a growing or expanding Earth. The fact is this: the Earth is inexorably moving away from its birthplace, the sun, and in doing so, it grows.

Our research results are intriguing. We have found proof that our ancient history is far older than scholars claim. But we have also found proof that the Earth, as we know it today, is far younger than geologists believe.


Expansion is not Constant

NASA’s observations that the Earth grows at a rate of about 0.1 mm per year seems unquestionable. This growth is measured by using all kinds of advanced techniques like: satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry, and GPS. The Earth’s radius is not really growing over a period of two decades. This might be correct, at least for now.

The very limited time frame that scientists had to measure a possible expansion was too short to draw conclusions from. Extrapolations based on too less data or too short time frames are not very scientific. The Earth has periods of tranquility, and has periods of severe changes which are caused by growing pains in combination with a high eccentric orbit around the Sun. During these periods of turmoil grows the Earth at a rate of a few meters per year, while in periods of tranquility and blossom everything seems to be stable as ever. Nothing is more untrue.

We cannot extrapolate these measurements just like that into the future or the past. Especially when we look at the map of Fig. 1, many of us will immediately understand that this has severe consequences for, indeed, a growing Earth.

The same scientists say that the geographical pole did not move over the last million years, while we have delivered 100% proof that this assumption is incorrect. The geographic North pole moved significantly while the geographic South pole hardly changed its position. And indeed, Antarctica is as the only continent surrounded by a ring of expansion, suggesting that it has no mechanism to rapidly move its position.


Expansion is a Fact

Fig. 1: This map delivers instantaneous evidence for a growing Earth. The red zones are young, expanding fault zones. The greenish blueish areas are the older areas on the sea floor. Our reasoning is simple; if the sea floor spreads at the red zones and the Earth does not grow, there would have to be an equal amount of subduction zones at the green/blue areas, otherwise the Earth would grow. Where else would all that material be going to? There are not enough subduction zones present to consume the produced and spreading seafloor. The only way out of this predicament is expansion. The Earth grows from within stretching the crust mainly on the sea floor. Additionally, the continents fit perfectly together on a smaller planet, a planet that is between 70 to 50% smaller. That explains in the simplest way why dinosaurs grew so big – when gravity was less. That should be convincing enough to open the door to a whole other paradigm and proves the fact that the establishment is merely busy to keep an outdated and erroneous theory alive.


What About Pangaea?

Fig. 2: The initial idea that continents were once joined together forming a supercontinent called Pangaea is not at all a bad one but it is half-baked and scientifically incomplete. The point is that if this were correct, then the ocean floor ages that we find in the Pacific (Fig. 1) could not be true – they are of the same ages as the ocean floor between Africa and South-America. If you do the math correctly, you will find that the continents were wrapped around the entire smaller globe. This pattern fits perfectly but demands the acceptance of the fact that, about 200 million years ago, Earth would have to be only about half its present size.

Pangaea is a halfhearted attempt to explain Earth’s history. The Pangaea idea, which is unverified and incomplete, attempts to unify the continents on a flat map. The theory neglects the perfect match of the continents on the far right and on the far left of this flat map.

Why is that important? Because, as you can see in Fig. 1 above, the age of the ocean floor in the Pacific is of the same spreading age as elsewhere on the globe and therefore all landmasses should be joined together when considering a younger earth. There is no reason to keep the Pacific spreading out of the equation. The only correct conclusion is: the Earth must have been significantly smaller back then.

This can best be visualized on a sphere and not on a flat plane. However, such modeling is quite difficult and most geologists seem to lack the spatial insight to visualize this. That is why we are working on a new model that is supported by the age-dating method that we have already proven to be correct.


Are Narratives of Floods and Giants True?

Fig. 3: Popular science exists merely to entertain the masses. Those who have the capacity of a deeper understanding know that a giraffe could never fly in our present gravity, nor could the huge pterosaurs. The weight-muscle strength ratio does not allow this. However, in their era, their gravity was between 25% and 50% of what it is today. That is the reason why such huge beasts could become airborne in their days. Reconstructing these animals like in Jurassic Park using ancient DNA would end in a disaster for these animals.

The narratives of floods and giants are not as unlikely as they seem at first hand. Lower gravity encouraged life to grow to much larger proportions like in the era of the dinosaurs. Virtually all life on Earth was bigger then.

Could a flying dinosaur, called pterosaurs, like the massive Quetzalcoatlus fly in our gravity? No, of course, they could not. That is simply impossible, they would not even be able to stand on their own legs without support. The dinosaurs that we see in Jurassic Park could not remain standing on their legs without collapsing under their own weight.

Would it be a coincidence that the most antique sea, the area of the Old Testament, is located in the Mediterranean? The whole area surrounding the Mediterranean is littered with very ancient ruins. Myths of giants in very ancient times? There is increasing evidence that indeed giants wandered the Earth over more than 250 million years ago. Live evolved and shrunk with an increasing gravity. Violent floods, megaquakes and massive volcano eruptions, that were caused by the growing pains of Mother Earth, made sure that new evolving life was not obstructed by the old guards. Science calls them extinctions events.

When gravity increased – when the Earth grew further – the dinosaurs became extinct and were replaced by smaller-sized animals. Once you understand this concept, it is so simple that even a first grader can grasp it.

We do not deny meteor impacts. But massive impacts and extinction events are connected to each other as if that would be the only possibility. It is easy to understand that an increasing gravity combined with meteor impacts also leads to extinction. There is no factual basis to remove one aspect from the equation while leaving others in.

Contemporary science has shown us already many times to behave as a new form of religion – a sort of modern Catholic church – neglecting facts, condemning new ideas and persecuting heretics. 

Our new hypothesis explains quite elegantly why geology and archaeology have never found a common ground: because they both live in parallel, and still incorrect academic worlds.


This Map Shows the Basis of Earth’s Expansion over the Last 280 Million Years


The Proof is in the Number of Facts


True? (Yes/No)

Continent borders line up perfectly at an Earth radius of around 50%, only when we take in regard the ages on the sea floor, called sea floor isochrons. Yes
Was gravity less if the Earth was smaller, hence its mass was smaller? Yes
Fossil records of giantly sized dinosaurs and insects which seem anatomically impossible given Earth current gravity.  Yes
Other animals which used to grow to enormous proportions like giant sharks and giant crocodiles, are also now small.  Yes
Could the huge pterosaurus only fly when gravity was significantly smaller? Between 25% to 50% of what it is today? Yes
It seems that ancient fossils are only found on land. No ancient fossils are found in the oceans. Yes
Dating of the sea floor shows it to be extremely young compared to the age of the Earth. The oldest sea floor is not older than 280 million years old and much of it is newer. There is no billion year old sea floor rock. Yes
More than 50% of the surface area of the sea bed is younger than 100 million years.
The oldest sea floors are in the Mediterranean around the most ancient cultures like Greece, Italy, Syria, and Turkey.
Stretch marks seem to radiate outward as if the Earth was a slowly inflating balloon. The stretch marks has similarities with the abdominal skin of a pregnant woman. Yes
The theory of plate tectonics was extremely controversial when first proposed, and rejected by most geologists. The theory contains many inconsistencies and is factual incomplete. Yes
Plate tectonics and continental drift theory provides NO mechanism or reason why the crust would break up spontaneously and starts to move continents around in random directions. Yes
There is no mechanism present in plate tectonics to form clusters of land like Pangaea or an earlier Gondwana, leaving the rest oceans. It makes more sense that the distribution of land and water on the early Earth was uniform. Yes
If Pangaea would be true then the sea floor age mapping of the Pacific is not true. It is impossible to maintain both paradigms. Pangaea is just an idea, the sea floor age mapping are hard data.
There is no empirical evidence of subduction (land sliding back inside the Earth’s core). No good theory as to why subduction would happen given the density of the underlying rock. Yes
The sum of all subduction zones and all expansion zones is NOT in balance, leaving no other option than that the crust grows. The quotation is so simple that scientists are overlooking the facts.
Evidence for spreading ocean floor is much more significant than evidence for subducting ocean floor.  Yes
Newly discovered ringwoodite (Mg2SiO4) in the Earth’s core contains more locked-in water than all the oceans combined together. There is literally enough water in the Earth’s core to refill all the Earth’s oceans a few times over. This makes it much more plausible that the oceans leaked out from inside the cracked expansion zones over millions of years.  Yes
The Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede show similar kinds of stretch marks and signs of growth. Yes
There is NO empirical evidence of what’s inside the Earth’s core, while contemporary science is completely built on observation and experiments. Yes
If the Earth used to be smaller, as it grows bigger, its rotation speed will have to slow down to conserve angular momentum. It is well known that the rotation of the Earth has been slowing down, with days getting longer. Yes
If the Earth grows then Physics and science in general has a major problem: where is the matter coming from?


Imagine a person standing in front of a court and has to answer “yes” to twenty-two important questions asked about a crime. Questions like: Are you guilty? Were you at the place of the crime scene? Did you use the weapon? Is this your DNA on the victims body? Etc. etc.

And at the end this person still believes to be innocent? Sure. On that same spot are contemporary scientists standing, in complete denial of the facts, rolling around in their comfortable paradigm of careers, social networks, papers, and fundings. 

Within a century from now almost everyone will laugh at the idea that the Earth never grew. Believing that the Earth does NOT grow is similar as believing that the Earth is flat. 

As soon as we have gathered more information we will share this. In the meantime, you can support our work. This extensive, difficult work cannot be done in just one afternoon. It is our full-time job.

Thank you for your visit!


© 2015 – 2018 by Mario Buildreps et al.


Proofreading and editing: J.B.

9 Responses

  • Kreg Hines

    Hello Mario, it’s great to see you covering the subject in this manner. Good to know brilliant minds think alike. Ha! The Expanding Earth Model is a no brainer and only lacks a good model to explain it. I’ve watched all the old Neil Adams videos and generally agree with his renderings, however I still think subduction zones also play into and compliment the model considering the expanding is not even or constant, thus causing some areas to “overlap”. The folks over at the Electric Universe ( Thunderbolts Project, YouTube ) are on to something for a possible explanation has the Earth as a hollow geode with a plasma interior which receives its expanding pressure / energy through the poles. Definitely gives the Hollow Earth theory a new twist and possible new life as well. Truth is stranger than fiction. Keep up the great work and look forward to future postings.

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your comment, Kreg. We are still working on our model, which will still take some time before it can be published. No matter how good renderings might look, there has to be a well understood mechanism underneath. There are many theories out there about a possible hollow earth. There is a big problem for the hollow earth, and that is that Newton’s law F=(GmM)/r^2 has been proven to work perfectly well, not only for revolving planets, but also for satellites and all sorts of space travelling. There is no evidence that the planetary masses are incorrectly calculated, hence it is quite unlikely to be hollow or filled with plasma. On the other hand, if the plasma would “simulate” a mass similarly as a massive planet, that could explain some things. We don’t see currently how that could work. Our model is still based on an increasing density closer to the core and as far as we have developed our model that could actually work for a growing Earth.

  • Terry O'Connell

    MB, thank you for your detailed reply, it really pulls all the threads together using simple physics but on a planetary scale, which I think is easy to see in a science class but hard to imagine a planet doing it and over a longer period and of time with such devastating effects. This would also explain the pole shifts in your theory, the direction linked to the Pacific expansion(possibly?). I really hope you and your team get recognition for this, it is brilliant.

  • Terry O'Connell

    MB, interesting concept. The more I read about on this and other sites the more I realise we really know very little and the true facts are probably stranger still. Would your theory have affected time, and the concept of it for the people living at that time? For example in the Bible and Sumerian text it speaks of people living for thousands or hundreds of years (and giants!) making scholars comment that these were myths. But if at that time days and years were much shorter (faster spin and or tighter orbit) then potentially a year could be a week or a month? I appreciate that may be extreme but you get my drift? I’ve also realised that because we have only been monitoring our solar system for a very limited time, any conclusions that have been made are probably speculation, or a ‘best guess’. Additionally you read about our galaxy ‘capturing stars’ and colliding with smaller galaxies then you realise the potential cosmic chaos that would cause if our planet was originally in another galaxy or orbiting a different sun but ended up here and that affected the earth causing it to expand. Who knows?

    • Mario Buildreps

      Thank you for your comment, Terry. You are spot on. One of the few consequences of a growing Earth is that Earth’s orbit was closer to the Sun, and that the rotation speed of the Earth was higher. The rates depend not only on diameter but also on mass. We could claim that an ancient Earth with a diameter of 70% has only a mass of 49% of what it is today (mass and volume grow quadratic with diameter, so an equal density Earth with diameter of 70% has a mass of 0.7*0.7=0.49=49%). An Earth with a diameter of 50% would have a mass of only 25%. Lower mass means lower gravity. With all this reason there is a big “but”. The density of the inner core will probably grow with an increasing diameter due to the growing pressure on the inside. That would mean that the mass and gravity increase more rapidly than the diameter would indicate. What that means is that gravity was somewhat lower than the above mentioned figures and that has consequences on the rotation speed, that would have been slightly higher back then (conservation of momentum).

      To make the whole idea more simple, we are certain in one thing; Earth’s mass was significantly lower some 200 million years ago and so were the days much shorter as well as the years. So time measuring was completely different than it is today, and that means that the Earth could be much younger than science has been speculating about.

      • Terry O'Connell

        Just spent my Sunday morning following the people you reference at the start of this web page; found this page but can’t link on here called It explains the expansion theory, with maths, right up your street! Thanks again.

      • Mario Buildreps

        Hi Terry, the people that are referenced to like Samual Carey, James Maxlow, Jan Koziar, Klaus Vogel, and Hugh Owen have published interesting work about this topic. The website you mention looks and feels somewhat like a conspiracist website that sweeps all topics on one big heap and therefore misses the nuances, like the idea the Earth would be hollow. If that would be so gravity would not significantly increase with an increasing diameter. That contradicts all logic.

  • Thomas Christiansen

    Very interesting and plausable theory – keep up the good work.
    Real science is all about challenging the unproven theories and mainstream dogmas.
    Looking forward to read more about your excellent work and findings.

    • Mario Buildreps

      Hi Thomas, thank you for your kind comment. More on this topic will follow in the future.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *