Do you believe on the new geological theory that the Earth is infact growing?

Question

According to the new theory on earth evolution, when the earth was young, all continents were linked together as a single continent (Pangaea), connected altogether on one SMALLER earth sphere.

It really differs from the theory on our geology class, when Pangaea is on the other side of the globe and on the other side is a vast ocean.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oBAbD8bhoM&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1oza6jybOA

Answer 1

No.  First of all this is a very old theory.

The atmosphere dissipates outward.... in  fact this question is negligible.

Answer 2

Of course the earth is growing in size.  Every day material from outer space arrives on the earth's surface adding to its mass.

However, I doubt that this had any significant effect on the processes of plate tectonics since long before the formation of Pangaea.

Answer 3

This represents an idea that was the basis of geology prior to the 1960's. It was superseded by the Theory of Plate Tectonics which has been very thoroughly proved esp. since the advent of Earth Observing Satellites

Answer 4

makes a good case.

Answer 5

This is not a new theory.  The expanding earth "theory" is a hundred years old.

And disproven.

Answer 6

please tell me you're not using youtube as your science reference.

shooting stars fall every day.

every day, some of the upper atmosphere is probably lost.

on balance, there may be some gain.

but not enough to measure.

in the distant past, clearly the earth did grow.

planets clear out their area of the solar system.

most of the material is collected, but not all.

some is flung out of near earth orbit.

what i find absolutely mind boggling is the number of people who seem to think they know more than university researchers.

okay, so i watched your 2 videos.

it amazed me that someone has so much extra time as to have made them.

but shall we look?

first, on the first one,  WHERE IS ALL THE WATER?

water has been accumulating for 4 billion years.

in fact, the accumulation rate early in the life of the earth was faster than in the last 65 million years.

but he would have us believe that there were no oceans.

in addition, he denied tectonic plate movement.

come to California.

i can show you where the pacific plate moved north 16 feet in 1906.

it's still there.

fences torn apart.

he denies subduction.

subduction caused the great Alaska quake.of 1964.  9.2  lasted 5 minutes.

http://www.olympus.net/personal/gofamily...

in the second video he argues that the pacific plate was not heavy enough to balance out Pangaea.

however, ocean basalt is heavier than continental rock.

that's why you never see a subduction of a continent under an oceanic plate.  NEVER.

nice presentation, of an idea that is clearly wrong.