To top

This is an automatic translation.
Click here to read the publication in the original language.

There is a version explaining the absence of a lithospheric plate in the area of ​​the World Ocean. It is based on the hypothesis of the Earth's growth (increase in its size).

Suppose that this is so. Once, the Earth was smaller, then increased. The lithospheric plate does not stretch, so it burst. The area of ​​the plate remained the same, so a new surface appeared, not covered with a plate. At present, it is filled with the oceans.

Based on the conditions of the problem, it is easy to make some logical conclusions. Some contradict the facts, some common sense.

The initial size of the Earth.

The surface area of ​​the planet should have been the same as the current area of ​​the continents (by the condition of the problem), that is, 149 million square meters. km.

Counting. We get the initial diameter of the Earth - 6889 km.

Acceleration of gravity at the surface of 33.37 m / s2

The diameter of Mars is 6786 km, only 103 km less. The original size of the Earth, prior to the expansion, is like modern Mars.

Photo: Two versions of the origin of the Earth. Destruction of DP and the growth of the Earth.

Questions without answers.

Density of the planet.

Since the mass remained unchanged, the average density of the planet before the expansion begins should be 34.9 g / cm3. Substances with such a density are not observed in nature. Already this calculation is enough to doubt the hypothesis of growth.

What reason led to the emergence of such a dense planet? Why is there no other planet with the same high density?

Formation of continents.

The continents were to form up to the modern species to the beginning of the Earth's growth.


If the crust were formed along the course of expansion, volcanism would form not only old continents, but a new surface without continents. And we would now observe a gradual decrease in the thickness of the continents. In reality, we observe the absence of continents in the world ocean area.

Uniformity of growth.

Prior to the beginning of the Earth's growth, the continents had to be formed to a modern species. Cool down. This takes time. And in all this time the Earth did not grow?

Why did not the growth begin immediately?

What kept the planet from growing for a long time?

And then suddenly began a steady growth. And lasted 70 million years.

What reason led to the beginning of the growth of the Earth?

The shape of the continents.

When an object bursts, under the influence of slowly growing pressure from inside, the gap occurs in the weakest place. The crack passes with the speed of sound, dividing the shell along the line. The crack grows fast. The tensile stress is weakened. The broken shell is a single piece.

That is, the continent must be one. In reality, there are many gaps, which means that the cause of the rupture is some other one.

The location of the continents.

Proceeding from the hypothesis of uniform expansion of the planet, parts of the broken continent should be separated from each other. In reality, there is not only removal, but also a relative turn (rotation) and drift over the surface, which is not explained by the hypothesis.

Subduction zones.

To explain subduction, the continent must move relative to basalt. The expansion model does not give such a reason.

The plate tectonics model, too. If the plate tectonics model were true, then in the Atlantic along the perimeter there should be the same subduction zones, as in the Pacific Ocean. They are not there. But in the Pacific Ocean there is a subduction zone, but there are no mid-ocean ridges.


For the formation of mountains (Cordillera, Tibet, the Alps ...), the continents must move in the opposite direction. Great force or inertia due to high speed. There is no reason for this in the framework of the expanding Earth model.

Deep ocean.

The continents were formed under liquid water conditions. It is the presence of water in contact with basalt that has led to the formation of the richest mineral composition of the Earth's lithosphere.

Before the expansion began, there must have been a deep ocean on the continents' surface, at the bottom of which limestone was formed.

With an unchanged amount of water, the original depth of the oceans was supposed to be 9.8 kilometers. So, there was no land.

Dry continent.

I'll calculate the diameter of the planet when the land began to appear.

I get 11,929 kilometers.

The earth increased by 12,749 km - 6889 km = 5860 km.

The land began to appear 12749 km - 11929 km = 820 km. up to the modern diameter.

Duration of existence of land.

If we assume that the expansion of the Earth was uniform and lasts 70 million years, the land began to appear about 10 million years ago.

5860 km / 820km = 7,14 times.

70,000,000 years / 7,14 times = 9,795,000 years.

The erosion of the continents began with the advent of land and lasts by my estimate 15 million - 4 million years. The only thing that coincides with this model.

The temperature of the planet.

At the time of the beginning of the expansion of the Earth, its temperature should already have been very low. A solid lithosphere, as it is now, has already formed. Ocean water in a liquid state.

The expansion of the planet must lead to adiabatic cooling. The principle of the refrigerator, air conditioner. Expansion performs work against the forces of gravity. This is an additional reason for the loss of internal energy.

In reality, the modern Earth is hotter than the one that was at the time of the beginning of the expansion ?!

Expansion now.

The rate of expansion of the planet, according to the hypothesis, if we assume uniformity: 5,860,000 m / 70,000,000 years = 0,084 m / year.

Expansion should now take place at a rate of 8 centimeters per year. This is 80 centimeters for 10 years.

The increase in the planet by 0.8 meters in 10 years has not been noticed by modern GPS navigation? Maybe because this increase is not there ?!

Contours of the continents.

This is the most important trick, which holds the whole hypothesis. It is asserted that the contours coincide completely.

Yes, they coincide, but not completely.

For the model of the growing Earth it is necessary that Antarctica and Australia are to the west of the North and South Americas. India should contact Africa at the southernmost points, like this:

In reality, there is no coincidence in the contours of Antarctica and Australia with South America. Australia coincides with Antarctica in a way that does not stick together with South America. There is also no correspondence in the contours with Asia.

Coincidence in the contours is between Africa and Antarctica. But with this arrangement, Madagascar and India are in contact with Africa much further north, and the continents do not fold into a ball.

Until "completely", this coincidence is adjusted by those who like this hypothesis.

It was coarse, but impressive.

Neal Adams - Science: 01 - Conspiracy: Earth is Growing!

A little humor in the article.

The model of the origin of the Earth due to the destruction of the Ancient Planet

The article "The origin of the Earth in pictures", divided into parts:

Part 1. "The Appearance of the Earth"

Part 2. "Sedimentary Case from the Ancient Planet"

Part-3. "Sedimentary cover biogenic"

Part-4. "Erosion of the sedimentary cover"

Part-5. "Magmatic facts of the history of the Earth"

Part-6. "Astronomical facts of the history of the Earth"

Age of the Earth .

Ancient planet .

Everything is here: on WIX

Everything here: on wmprofile

This is an automatic translation.
Click here to read the publication in the original language.

This post is available in the following languages:
العربية   Deutsch   English   Español   Français   हिन्दी   Italiano   Türkçe   中文   Русский  

Report abuse