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 appear 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 North 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
Geological Ideas Are Obsolete
When we look at the map above there are a few interesting things to discover: colors and stretchmarks. Colors stand for age. The stretchmarks shows us the way back how to join the continental shelves together. In most cases the shelves fit together. That was the original idea in the Pangaea theory. Most people understand intuitively that stretchmark paths do not just result coincidentally into matching continental shelves. The likelihood that this is the right approach, in order to understand a much deeper truth, is very high.
We also need to join the continental shelves at both sides of the Pacific. Because there is no reason to leave these expansion marks out of the equation. But when we do this the Earth is about 50% smaller. It is easy to understand there was a significant expansion over the last 150 million years, although geology stubbornly denies this. The ideas of geologists and their own data is obviously conflicting. They have a paradigm problem, their believe systems conflicts with the facts. A typical problem that religions also have. Ideas lag behind on facts.
The Earth expanded from a diameter of about 6,500 km to a diameter of 12,750 km in 150 million years. On a sliding scale that is an average expansion of only 4.25 cm (1.67 inch) per year.
This expansion is hardly noticeable on a short time scale. And when these growing pains are not constant, but go hand in hand with crustal deformations cycles like we have proven with our method, it is very likely there are cycles of sudden growth.
More Constructive Zones Than Destructive Zone
What About Pangaea?
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?
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
Why Antarctica Remained a Stable Position
The Proof is in the Number of Facts
|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.||Yes|
|The oldest sea floors are in the Mediterranean around the most ancient cultures like Greece, Italy, Syria, and Turkey.||Yes|
|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.||Yes|
|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.||Yes|
|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?||Yes|
Where is the Matter Coming From?
Some scientists still believe that the mass of the universe is constant. They also like to dismiss the existence of dark matter because it is inconvenient for their theories. The universe is infinite, it contains an infinite amount of mass, it still expands, while mass is constantly added. How these mechanisms work is still very poorly understood.
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.
But where is the mass coming from to make the Earth to grow? And why doesn’t it grow at a constant rate? Good questions.
As soon as we have gathered more information we will share this. In the meantime, you can support our work.
Thank you for your visit!
© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps et al.
Proofreading and editing: J.B.