Talk:Expanding Earth theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] hook it up

This article could be a lot longer, considering that plate tectonics is a hacked-up theory. PT's biggest problem is that it doesn't explain why we have continents. The first observation that led to PT was that South America and Africa "fit" together. But if the continents are suspended on large plates of seafloor, how does dry land fitting together mean anything?

Expanding Earth is a lot simpler, it says the continents fit together because the continents represent the original landmass. It explains trans-pacific flora by positing that the Pacific (and all other oceans) didn't used to exist. Both PT and EE agree that there was a Pangaeal landmass and that the ocean seafloor is growing. However, PT is hacked because it posits that Pangaea "just happened" and it broke apart "just because."

Dennis McCarthy's 4threvolt.com website has a lot of paleological support for EE. In fact it's very descriptive. Try googling it because some of the pages are hidden/down for revision. -broodlinger 24.184.67.122 07:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] requested move

I do agree --Extremophile 05:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Expanded earth theory → Expanding earth theory – I think this is more accurate, the current title would better describe the more widely accepted theory Fred.e 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC) support- these are two terms that mean the samething.

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 06:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry on Expanding Earth Theory seems dissmissive, when considered in the context of lack of proof for largescale subduction events for which there is also little proof. For Expanding Earth Theory to be discredited it is appropriate that each supporting argument be listed and logically discounted as opposed to a dismissve statement rejecting a possibility that is neither proved or disproved. In addition it has been common for ideas in science to languish for periods before re-examination makes a once radical notion mainstream. Suggest this entry is re-worked in a more thorough manner.(Hamish.Hunt 05:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] Improvements

I tried to get the first paragraph moving toward a lead section. Some headings and ideas for expansion;

  • History.
    • Static earth. Creationist model
    • Continental drift, late 19C
    • 1960s new evidence and theories
    • Subduction. Plate tectonics.
    • Mechanisms. Or lack thereof (in either)
  • Carey & other exponents. Credentials. (as per "mechanisms")
    • Current research.
    • Application of model to; fossil and species distribution, the evolution of the solar system, mineral exploration and reference to paradigm, compared with plate tectonics.
    • Little bit about fringe v crackpot in followers.
  • A happy ending.
    • A neutral article with some references and promotion from start class.
    • Protection from the sceptical inquisistion, who seem to be creating a codex of 'proper science' pages on wiki.

The earth was found to have expanded slightly at the equator. It has been suggested that this is due to deformation rather than expansion. Measuring the polar circumference is more difficult due to the ice caps. Conclusive evidence for either theory is not found in the study of other planets either.

A young and interesting area of science as significant to my mind as the other rapid advancements in science such as, biology, astronomy or theoretical physics. Hope this assists a fellow wikipedian, whatever your position on validity of EET. Fred 16:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plate Tectonics Misunderstanding

Expanding Earth theory does not dismiss Plate Tectonics. There is no contradiction between the two precepts. In EE, the Earth expands (or grows) through tectonic plate spreading. The primary difference is the role of subduction in maintaining a fixed size Earth, as proposed by the presently held "Pangea" model. I believe the allusion to EE contradicting plate tectonics is misleading and serves to discredit the theory on a non-issue. MichaelNetzer 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments Against?

Theories are strengthened by attempting to disprove them. Can anyone provide arguments against the expanding earth theory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.67.213.74 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

First, I'd like to point out that this is not the right place to discuss strengthening or weakening the expanding earth hypothesis. Keeping that in mind, I have come across a relevant argument that probably should at least be on record. The argument goes something like this:
If the continents had formed on a smaller earth, they would have been curved more sharply than they are today and then would have flattened as the earth expanded. If this happened, we would expect to see marks relating to the reshaping of the continents; in particular, we would expect to see a series of rivers radiating out from the center of each continent. -Player 03 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, this is exactly how mountains form. Mountain forming (video). The larger the continent, the larger the mountains (eurasia, himalaya) Expanding earth continents (video) and expansion shown, by following the official (1996) Undersea age map (video). Adnaha 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Recent Additions

A concern has been voiced about a possible Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in my editing of another article. Though this article wasn't specifically mentioned, I understand a similar issue might also exist here due to my affiliation with groups and individuals mentioned and referenced in the material I added. I understand there exists a basis and desire to expand the article. I took the opportunity to do so because I know that many of those well versed in the material are not presently Wikipedia editors neither do they expect to become ones. There is more to cover but I began with the most critical issues relating to the theory. I believe I was diligent in remaining unbiased, presented the material without pushing a point of view and cited reliable published references as a source. Within the guidelines of potential conflict of interest, it's suggested to bring the material for discussion in the talk page, in such a situation. Though it's now done after the fact, if others have such a concern and show why... or if those interested in this article support its present state, for now... based on such comments, proper adjustments could be made in order to alleviate such concerns, should they arise. MichaelNetzer 13:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing recent additions

Self promotion by non-academic. Original research. Basically some 'interesting' websites dropped into our page. Read the help pages first, then come back Mr Netzer. - Fred 09:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe it is a mistake to remove the reference to Growing Earth Consortium from the external links section. The site is not a self promotion but rather compiles discussions by known researchers, well established in the academic world, such as James Maxlow, Stavros Tassos, Bill Erickson, Dan Bridges and others. There exists no other compliation of such material as it originates from group discussions within a closed online forum which I participate in. Though not purely academic in nature, I believe the site deserves a place in the external links section, not for self-promotion at all, but for the pure citing of pertinent material relevant to the theory. I will not challenge your removing it by re-instating it myself but would ask you to reconsider doing so yourlsef, perhaps in a condensed form such as the link I've provided in this answer. I believe it is the fair and beneficiary thing to do for the enhancement of this page. MichaelNetzer 12:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, that was rash. External links are generally deprecated, but until the article takes shape it may be useful. Have you considered moving the site to one whose name indicates a more neutral POV, not a persons name. I'm restoring it now. - Fred 13:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have created a Growing Earth Theory page as you suggested. Any advice or contribution you have would be very welcomed. I've purchased www.growinguniverse.com domain name for the purpose of a neutral presentation of Growing Earth Consortium but am unable right now to place it in a separate web hosting package that would give it complete independance. That might change soon, at which point I'll also remove it's affiliation to my site from its header. Thanks for the restoration.

[edit] Categorisation of this theory

I inadvertently removed a category with the belief I added it. It was in fact by another editor. I have wrestled with the definition of this theory and have tried to maintain a NPOV in choosing a categorisation.

The user suggested that Carey's theory is obsolete. I invite anyone to offer a citation and/or rationale for any description of the nature of this theory. My understanding is that this is a new (relatively) field of research and while another theory of Plate tectonics, which includes large amounts of subduction, is the predominant one, I contend that neither theory supplies a satisfactory mechanism for the 'drift' of continents. Carey himself was instrumental in advancing all theories relating to a non-static earth surface and, until his death, took the view that this theory was the cause of Alfred Wegener's continental drift. I can find no comparable example with the aforementioned category - Fred 13:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I originally added the category obsolete scientific theories after seeing a similar category in the German Wikipedia at de:Expansionstheorie which was placed in that article before the English version was created. The German version takes a different approach to explaining the history of the theory (for instance Carey isn't mentioned at all), yet still concludes that the theory was obsoleted by developments related to the rise of plate tectonics. The Polish Wikipedia also uses a similar category. All three of these language versions appear to have been developed independently.
The current article text supports the inclusion of this category.
  • Very few geologists or geophysicists today support the expanded Earth. Many of those that remain are proponents of the ideas of the late Australian geologist S. Warren Carey. While Carey's ideas were popular for a time in the 1950s and 1960s, most workers in earth science believe that evidence collected over the last several decades supports a fixed size Earth, due to subduction, over the expanded Earth.
Carey's bio linked from the article also supports it.
  • For a decade starting in the mid-1950s, Carey's theory of Earth expansion was taken seriously. It made sense on the large scale, at the level of detail known at the time.
  • It was not public debate that buried his arguments, but a growing body of knowledge during the 1950s and 1960s and the rise of a better theory to explain them.
Current research on this theory rather clearly falls in the area of fringe science; knowing that a theory is considered obsolete can help make sense of devisive, defensive, and outright preposterous statements made by proponents. Consider this sentence by James Maxlow, who at least has serious academic credentials.
  • It is unfortunate that the concept of "plate tectonics" is now so firmly entrenched in our scientific community that geoscientists, teachers, and students are blinded to all new developments in global tectonics.
Maxlow's quote is very tame compared to the broad salvos against scientists found on a site currently found in the external links section, including an assertion that plate tectonics is junk science. More such examples can be easily found with a web search. Tim Shuba 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tim, the very citings you bring support the factual error in categorizing Expanding Earth Theory as oblsolete. Your reference indicating that some geologists and geophysicists remain in support of it is an indication that it is not absolutely obsolete, as the category intends to impart. The fact that it is not the best model considered today by mainstream science does not also deem it obsolete.
The scientific community itself does not place such a label on Expanding Earth Theory. In fact, mainstream science does not claim that their presently held model is the exclusive truth making others obsolete. Science simply states that the present subduction theory model is believed to be "more" accurate. It is merely the "better" answer they have arrived at at this time. Not that others are obsolete. Science is a developing study and does not close the door on theories which have not been falsified absolutely. Expanding Earth has not been falsified absolutely.
You are certainly welcome to your point of view regarding the theory but it may be disingenuous to the Wikipedia project to attempt to impart a misrepresentaton of the theory based on your point of view. I would agree there is a need to categorize Expanding Earth in a way that indicates a more factual standing in science today. I'd suggest a category titled "Non-Consensus Science" which might alleviate your concern while not imparting a misrepresentative classiffication, as does "Obsolete".
I would beg that you reconsider your position on this and perhaps help categorize EE in a more appropriate way, for the sake of Wikipedia integrity, if nothing else. MichaelNetzer 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence for subduction

I found the discussion above very sensitive and interesting. If I may intervene a bit I would say that denominations as "obsolete theory" or "pseudoscience" are a POV. Science does not absolutely exclude, it doesn't work in that way. Rather we may say that it tries to follow only the much more likely theories, and an expanding Earth is highly unlikely. In the discussion on the Dutch talk page of this article I posted a list of observations from geology and geophysics that cannot be explained by an expanding Earth (senso stricto), but are well explained by the mechanism of subduction. If you like you can add them to the current text of the article. My list was:

  1. The existence of Wadati-Benioff zones, elongated regions of high seismic activity within the crust and mantle that are explained as huge shear zones. These zones are located beneath oceanic trenches and seem to indicate a slice of crustal material is moving downward through the mantle. They form one of the best arguments for subduction but cannot be explained by the expanding Earth model.
  2. 3D models of the mantle made with seismic tomography show cold zones of sinking material exactly in the regions where plate tectonics predicts slabs of crust are subducting into the mantle.
  3. Petrologic research of rocks from mountain belts has given us countless pressure-temperature-time paths. Paths for the axial zones of mountain belts (the metamorphic core) show many mountain chains went through a period of "deep burial". This is nicely explained by plate tectonics (subduction followed by obduction). An expanding Earth cannot explain the observed vertical motions, rather, it would predict mostly horizontal motions in the process of mountainbuilding. The existence of eclogite in many mountainbelts indicates material was "pushed" to depths far into the mantle (depths up to over 200 km are found). A mechanical force to push (less dense) crustal rocks to these depths is lacking in an expanding Earth model, in plate tectonics this is explained by slab pull.
  4. The existence of major geologic shearzones (sutures) in most mountain belts. Paleomagnetic and mineralogic studies show the rocks that are now lying next to each other were originally thousands of kilometers apart. In other words: a piece of the crust is missing. Structural geology has shown these missing pieces of crust are not located directly underneath the shearzones or laterally. Instead, they seem to have moved along the sutures into the mantle (this is supported by shear indicators in the shear zones). This is again strong evidence that subduction took place and mountians form by the "collision" of tectonic plates. The expanding Earth model cannot explain these deep reaching shearzones.

These are some of the strongest geologic arguments for subduction. I am aware that an expanding Earth doesn't exclude subduction, however, the universality of the observations in my list indicate subduction takes place at a large scale, which does discredit the idea of an expanding Earth. As a geologist I did not include any physical (for example gravitational) arguments/observations against an expanding Earth, cause I am no expert in physics. These arguments are probably even stronger so I suggest an expert in physics is asked to look at this article too. Woodwalker 18:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some great opportunities here to illustrate how EET contrasts with other theories, I think the user should be bold and add what can be added. I just copyedited the subduction section, it needs expanding again. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 02:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The new section is interesting, but which sources where used for the "Arguments against subduction" section (Carey?) and which sources where used for the "Arguments for subduction" passage? They should be included. --D.H 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I also included a "history of the concept" section. The problem is indeed to get good sources, which will not be easy. Current literature does not refer to the EET, so older stuff has to be found. Unless my first year's textbook on geology and plate tectonics (Stanley 1999) is sufficient as a source. Woodwalker 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. I also included some historical developments (Yarkovsky and Mantovani). The References section is expanded and in the external links section are some links to historical websites as well. --D.H 17:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is -historically- maybe interesting to mention that Hilgenberg dedicated his 1933 work to Alfred Wegener, even if Wegener himself seems to have had his reservations about the EET.
I will add something about evidence for subduction from isotope geochemistry later.
Another argument against subduction has often been that the eastern boundary of the Pacific is made of high (compressional tectonic) mountain ranges, whereas the western shore is formed by extension tectonics (Japan, the Phillipines and other archipelagoes are moving away from Asia). Fans of the EET have seen this as evidence against a similar process on both sides (subduction..) in the past. However, more recently this difference in tectonic style was explained by the age of the subducting oceanic crust. Old crust (as on the western side of the Pacific) is cooler and heavier, young crust is warmer and less dense. This is supported by the angles of the Benioff zones: the zone under Japan is steep while under North America it makes a small angle. Young crust is appearently not so easy to subduct and does sink into the mantle at a much smaller rate. This has a huge impact on the tectonic style of the regions: under Japan, the dense old crust is more or less rolling back, causing Japan to move forward unto the ocean. Under the US westcoast however, volcanic activity is found far into the continent because of the continued presence of subducted crust underneath. Another thing: since North-America is slowly moving over the Mid-Pacific ridge, the angle of the Benioffzone must have been steeper in the past (the subducting crust was older then). Dating of volcanic rocks has given evidence that volcanic activity has indeed migrated laterally towards the continent during the Cenozoïc era. Woodwalker 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanations

As far as I see, there are 3 classes of explanations for earth expansion (Therefore I made some changes in the historical section):

  1. There was a slight mistake in the historical section: Dirac (and Jordan) didn't proposed an increasing gravity, thery proposed in fact a decreasing gravity. See the description the the Dirac/Jordan theory in Max Borns famous book: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (1962). There, Born described Jordans theory as a modification of general relativity and also described the connection to plate tectonics. But a higher gravity in the past leads to problems with the great size of the dinosaurs.
@this: What if the fossils of the dinosaurs have grown in the same way as earth has been growing? The dinosaurs were smaller than we think.
  1. Contrary to Jordan, an increasing gravity was in fact predicted by models which are based on increasing mass like those of Yarkovsky, Hilgenberg, Carey or Scalera. But there is no physical explanation for the mass increase, therefore the theory is at this time unacceptable.
  2. No variations of gravity were predicted by other theories, which are based on some heating mechanism and thermal expansion. But those heating and expansion mechanisms are not well explained too. --D.H 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
@Hainz: These were small, yet very important changes. Thank you for the effort of reading the sources. I knew the second theory to be contradictionary to classical physics and the third to the principles of material sciences. What I wonder is: how about the first theory, of Dirac/Jordan? Anything written on that since the thirties? Woodwalker 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The physicists Jürgen Ehlers and Markus Pössel wrote some comments in the new edition of Born's book - and on p. 489 they also examined Born's description of Jordan's theory. They wrote that recent measurments of G have established an upper variation-limit, which is ten times to small to explain Jordans expansion-mechanism. So they concluded that Jordans theory is experimentally disproved. --D.H 09:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory?


Isn't it a bit much to refer to anything that's been universally discredited as a 'theory'?

Theories after all are supported by observation and can stand up against scrutiny; this most certainly cannot.

I'd be more comfortable calling this a postulate or at most a hypothesis: it always bugs me when people dont use the word 'theory' correctly, like ID supporters (or anyone ignorant of science) saying 'but it's only a theory. Only. - makes me want to scream because anyone who'd say that has no idea how much work goes into making a theory out of a hypothesis.

I do understand that the word 'theory' has many different meanings depending on the context in which it's used. Isn't this more than a casual context? Further, shouldn't we all as a group of people associated with a language try to grant the word some form of sanctity†?

To sum up, I'd like make a motion to remove the word theory from this and purall articles about obsolete scientific ideas, in the hopes that only serious, supported substantiated theories then recieve the title.

†I suggest this primarily because of ID supporters and those who deride evolution as 'only a theory.' I want to smack those fools in the face with their bibles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.59.12.138 (talk • contribs) 1 June 2007.

I agree that "Intelligent design" is idiotic, but you shouldn't mix up ID with expanding earth theory. The latter has an interesting history and important geologists like Egyed and Carey supported the theory. Pascual Jordan was an important physicist and his modfication of General relativity is well known and was discussed for a long time in the scientific community. --D.H 08:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It has, however, been discredited; modern plate tectonics theory has completely supplanted the theory. It is -the- model for the Earth, and explains the features we see very well. The reality was that the expanding Earth theory was never really tenable because there was no source for the new mass necessary to expand the Earth on the claimed scale. Titanium Dragon 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, but I didn't say that expanding earth theory is still a viable theory because I know the reasons why this theory has been abandoned very well. Therefore it is in the category "History of science" and "Obsolete theories". But contrary to the ID-idiotism the expanding earth model had at least for some time the status of a theory (because of the Dirac/Jordan theory of the decreasing gravitational constant, which was considered as a viable theory for some time). --D.H 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's totally discredited, but don't see any problem with 'theory' being used. There are plenty of similar situations where it is used in other arenas of science. Phlogiston theory. The theory of impetus. I think the introduction is pretty clear about the current status of expanding earth theory.
I agree that Wikipedia should be very clear on the scientific use of the term 'Theory', and only apply it in the correct way when talking about scientific concepts. Something can only be called a theory if it has been extensively tested, and not a single one of it's predictions has been falsified (contrary to popular opinion, the exception DISproves the rule). In this context, Expanding Earth would be a hypothesis, as it has been thoroughly disproven. (Rolf Schmidt (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
I don't agree. For example, Lamarckian Theory was a valid theory. It has been disproved. That doesn't mean it ceases to be a theory -- it merely ceases to be an accepted theory. (And interestingly, recent research on epigenetic inheritance -- often involving proteins -- has given rise to what might be called neo-Larmarkian theories.) But the point is -- a theory remains a theory even when it is eventually replaced by a "better" theory. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You essentially prove my point: the colloquial meaning of the term 'theory' has taken over the scientific meaning of it even in some scientific discussions. I know 'hypothesis' doesn't roll of the tongue the way 'theory' does, but what's the point in having the two terms if they don't mean different things. Not sure where it is written that "a theory remains a theory". Rolf Schmidt (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] back-arc basins

"Back-arc basins associated with subduction zones are not predicted by subduction plate tectonics, but are consistant with them."

This text was underneath the "arguments against subduction" header. How is the presence of back-arc basins not predicted? It all depends on which direction the hinge point (i.e. point where the subducting plate is going underneath the over-riding plate) is moving, or whether it is moving at all. That, in turn, depends on the age and temperature of the subducting and over-riding plates and the regional stresses on the margin. If the hinge point is moving away from the over-riding plate, there will be extensional stress in the over-riding plate, which perfectly predicts the presence of back-arc basins. If the hinge point is moving towards the over-riding plate, there will be compressional stress - Andean type.

So I've removed that sentence from that paragraph. Back-arc basins are in no way an argument against "subduction theory". Okay, I see where the sentence came from. It really should have been "basins... were not predicted". But I still stand by its removal.

[edit] SCHIST IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

schist

–noun any of a class of crystalline metamorphic rocks whose constituent mineral grains have a more or less parallel or foliated arrangement.

metamorphic (mět'ə-môr'fĭk) Pronunciation Key

Geology Relating to rocks that have undergone metamorphism. Metamorphic rocks are formed when igneous, sedimentary, or other metamorphic rocks undergo a physical change due to extreme heat and pressure. These changes often produce folded layers or banding in the rocks, and they can also cause pockets of precious minerals to form. The folds and banding can be produced by incomplete segregation of minerals during recrystallization, or they can be inherited from preexisting beds in sedimentary rocks or preexisting layers in igneous rocks. The precious minerals can form as the result of recrystallization when the rocks undergoing metamorphism are subjected to changes in pressure and temperature.

I collect blue schist here in Southern California along the San Andreas fault. If there is no subduction of plates, how do I find schist at the plate boundary surface? Schist is a metamorphic rock, which has been altered due to extreme heat AND pressure. A fault may apply the sufficiant pressure, but NOT the required heat. Only subduction accounts for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.178.65 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you stop being an ignoramus and actually read something about continental drift. 76.87.253.141 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

I've expanded the historical section, and included a section with the expanding earth description of continents, oceans, and speed of expansion. --D.H (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interesting possible explanation of why the earth has expanded

The following is an interesting possible explanation of why the earth has expanded.

It basically says that the earth used to be like Jupiter, surrounded by a heavy atmosphere that compressed the inner core. As the sun heated up, the outer air was blasted away by solar winds. This left the inner core, but without the intense pressure of the air. So the inner core was able to de-compress, or expand, breaking the land masses apart from each other.

Original source of this idea:

http://www.rocketseason.com/the-amazing-expanding-earth/

Dean Easton MD: April 28th, 2007 @ 1:51 am

72.243.26.154 (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

Im not out to do original research on this but it makes perfect sense. The expansion can be explained by the 2ed law of thermodynamics. P1415926535 10:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Growing Earth Theory and Expanding Earth theory

After the article on expanding earth (EET) is now fundamentally improved, I think it's time to merge it with Growing Earth Theory (GET). More precisely: The GET-article should be substantially shortened and included in the "Status of the theory" section. What is the opinion of the other editor's? --D.H (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to wander by here, but I agree with your merger proposal. --Art Carlson (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No Basis for Merging or NPOV
Growing Earth Theory began as a section in Expanding Earth theory. It was felt then that this bogged down EE and thus it became an independent entry. As it is, its presence is controversial. In Growing Earth Theory deletion-debate:Keep, it was also suggested that it be merged here again. The decision to keep it gave no such endorsement and made no note of bias in its presentation. It would seem then that the argument is mute and unfounded because the article carries its own criticism within itself. Wikipedia is not a place for a mainstream science bias towards GET. It has already been officially decided that the entry is notable and worthy of its own page. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a place for mainstream bias toward GET." You might want to read the UNDUE guidelines. And WP:FRINGE would be helpful. In short, you are mistaken about Wikipedia. It most certainly has a bias towards mainstream scientific thought. Mainstream science is given its due presentation, and extreme minority views are given the attention they are due. Also, there is nothing that states criticism should be in a separate page. Especially not for FRINGE subjects; to do so would give the false impression they are not heavily disputed. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The dispute has already been resolved.
Regarding UNDUE: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
Regarding WP:FRINGE: "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." The article has met all the pertinent guidelines and was already endorsed by the decision to keep it as is and not merge Growing Earth Theory deletion-debate:Keep. So, again, I believe the discussion is welcome though it's purely academic and not applicable to a change in the status of the page. MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding mainstream science bias: Wikipedia:Notability (science) "A key element to understanding this guideline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research publication, and as such Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition. Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors. Inclusion or exclusion is therefore not a judgement on the validity, importance or accuracy of a scientific contribution, but simply a reflection of the quality and quantity of responses it received inside and outside the scientific community." MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Criticism: Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. I did not intend to suggest that the criticism be moved to a separate page. Rather that the criticism is present on the page, in accordance with UNDUE, as cited above. MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge: the differences/embellishments between the two articles can almost certainly be summarised in a section. The central idea, that the Earth was once smaller but now much bigger, is identical as far as I can tell. --Plumbago (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No Merge Warranted. It was already found that the difference between the two articles warrants GET having its own page. As mentioned above, we have already been through this... Growing Earth Theory deletion-debate:Keep. The discussion is welcome though it's purely academic and not applicable to a change in the status of the page. MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge: I'm still the opinion, that the article Growing Earth Theory is superfluous and should be merged into "Expanding earth theory". And BTW: Merging and Deletion is not the same, therefore the previous "deletion-debate" (referred to by Michael Netzer) is irrelevant. --D.H (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not superfluous: The deletion-debate, and decision to keep, is very relevant to the question of merging. When an article is nominated for deletion and the decision is to keep it, by default this means that the article is not superfluous and worthy of its own page. Your sentiment is understandable, DH, but the significance of the decision to keep Growing Earth Theory cannot be downplayed due to the controversy the article raises and personal opinions regarding its viability as a separate entry, which has been well established and corroborated in the decision to keep. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Issues addressed above: Issues of fair and balanced encyclopedic articles of this type, relating to WP:NPOV, have already been addressed above and quotations given which support the presence of GET as an independent page. The decision to keep the article cites that it is a "Notable Fringe Theory". This applies to the Growing Earth Theory page independently, and not as a merged section of Expanding Earth theory. Additionally, your assumption that I "clearly" have a COI issue is in error and has been raised before regarding this article. I have demonstrated that my affiliation with the theory is practically non-existent. But even so, affiliation alone is not an absolute measure of COI, rather the actual editing and writing itself is the ultimate determinate of such a claim. More so, The claims of advertising and advocacy are thus shown as false throughout the history of this page and the official decision handed down regarding its status. The page is written in a very neutral tone and it has withstood the scrutiny of many attempts to compromise it... which indicates that the page is controversial and carries a very charged load. This should not, however, become a factor in continued attempts to change its officially earned status as a viable encyclopedic entry in Wikipedia. MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge: Given that is has been decided to keep information on both EET and GET, the question is whether the reader is better served with separate articles or a combined article. The theories are so closely related, and both articles so short, that it is easier for the reader to grasp the state of affairs in a single article. (Note also that the only regular articles that link to GET are Neal Adams (one line, which uses the expression GET once and EET twice) and the "See Also" in Expanding Earth theory.) GET is not very important and only makes sense in the context of EET. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Merging damages both articles: That the articles are closely related is not reason enough to merge, just as General and Special Relativity require separate pages though they are closely related. Growing Earth Theory goes beyond the localized event of inexplicable Earth Expansion (as stated by Cary) and puts forth a hypothesis for the growth of all celestial bodies, and the universe as a whole, by offering a mechanism for the creation of additional mass, an issue which greatly distinguishes it from EE. These issues are critical to GE and were never addressed by Cary and other supporting geologists (regardless of the perceived scientific rejection of the hypothesis, because the theory stands on its notability as a fringe theory and not on scientific validity). The suggestion has been to significantly cut down GET in order to merge it, which would seriously compromise the information needed to put it forth. This would also bog down EE with an unneeded tailgater, (as was the case when the article began as a section in EE) distracting from the essence of the theory as stated by Sam Carey, its original author. I do, however agree that readers may be compromised with the current situation because there's little mention of GET in EE. There should perhaps thus be a more clear lead to GE within current status section of the EE page, in order help navigate between them and facilitate greater ease in identifying the connection, as you suggest. MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge: Merging the two pages would improve the pages overall. The growing Earth page details a mechanism for accommodating the hypothetical expansion, similar to the hypothesis that the gravitational constant was decreasing so perhaps moving the growing Earth page to the "history and explanations" section of the Expansion page is the best solution. Some of the points mentioned in the criticism section of the Growing Earth page have direct bearing on the Expanding Earth page as well.Adrock828 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge Pseudoscience with Expanding Earth: Expanding Earth, though discredited, is not pseudoscience nor a populist fringe theory. It has been published and reviewed in mainstream science research, while Growing Earth is a pseudoscience fringe theory that has no such regard by the mainstream, whose strength is in populist non-mainstream appeal. Merging them is inappropriate for a page such as EE with a long history of peer reviewed debate... and as proposed here, the merging would compromise the encyclopedic validity of Growing Earth as a notable fringe theory in its own right, as has already been established. MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • An appeal to withdraw merging proposal due to reasonable suspicion of inappropriate mainstream science proponents bias towards Growing Earth Theory: The repeated attempts to compromise the standing of Growing Earth Theory page raises a suspicion of undue bias from editors with a mainstream science orientation, which is inappropriate within the wider encyclopedic structure of Wikipedia: "A key element to understanding this guideline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research publication, and as such Wikipedia does not usurp the usual validation processes of scientific institutions such as peer review, scientific consensus, and academic recognition."
Though the good spirit of this discussion is admirable, the criticism of Growing Earth theory appears to overextend itself into a distortion of facts in order to ridicule it. One such example in the GE criticism: "Adams believes there is no such thing as gravity and so-called "electromagnetic lines" are responsible for the orbit of planets, because they contain iron. Yet, man-made non-ferromagnetic objects still manage to stay in orbit. Also, the world's ocean tide can be observed to be under the influence of gravity every day, even though water is not ferromagnetic." This is a false and unsourced criticism because Adams has never said that there is no such thing as gravity, rather he believes that gravity is electromagnetic in nature. And he has never been cited as saying that gravity holds the orbit of planets because they contain iron. Based on Adams' actual statements, electromagnetic gravity acts on non-ferromagnetic objects because he attributes the electromagnetic charge of positrons and electrons as being the fundemental source force of gravity. This electromagnetic charge exists in all atomic structures, including non-ferromagnetic objects such as wood, water, etc... which facilitates the influence of electromagnetic gravity on all physical matter in the universe, including non-ferromagnetic forms.
Another such example is in the editing of the short lead-in to Growing Earth theory which I added to Expanding Earth based on a concern raised here that this would help make a connection between the two pages. The editing removed minimal explanation needed to make the connection and only kept the inference that it is "not published in reputable scientific journals". This in itself, though appropriate, employs the word "reputable" which appears to indicate a subjective bias. A more NPOV wording might be "peer-reviewed scientific journals". Within the context of the original lead in, by removing the few words used to describe what GE is, the editing shows a relative discomfort with any mention of Growing Earth theory on Expanding Earth page. This being the case, what can be expected from this merger proposal, other the already visible attempts to diminish from the legitimacy of Growing Earth Theory as a viably established Wikipedia page? This does not appear to behoove mainstream science proponets' regard towards the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.
These, including the history of Growing Earth theory at Wikipedia, suggest a suspicion of mainstream science oriented editors' bias towards the page and indicate an intolerance to its non-consensus science nature, though the page has proven to have encyclopedic merit.
As an outside example of mainstream science arguments against Adams' proposed pair production, leading to the positron accumulating prime matter particles and becoming a proton, I'd bring the following example, showing that though unaccepted currently, Adams' idea can have some scientific merit. It has been widely said that no evidence exists that a proton can be made from a positron core. While this is true regarding the evidence, it is interesting that Wikipedia: Proton Decay cites that it is hypothesized by mainstream science proponent of Grand Unification theory, that proton decay would yield a positron core. While this has never been observed as we do not yet have the means to bring about or observe proton decay, it is interesting that such leading mainstream scientists concur that a proton can indeed be made of a positron core. Knowing that pair production is the only known process of producing positrons, this indicates that it is not entirely outside the realm of probability that pair production can one day be discovered to lead to the formation of protons, and eventually new atomic matter.
I bring these examples to indicate that our scientific discovery is a very long range process and though we need to distinguish between real evidence and supposition, history has shown that bold advancements in science have often come at the behest of courageous forays into non-mainstream ideas (such as Alfred Wegener's continental drift which suffered half a century of science ridicule before it was eventually embraced). I believe it behooves mainstream advocates to be a little more respectful and tolerant of exploring possibilities outside of the consensus so that history does not once again show this intolerance as being a detriment to scientific discovery.
As an aside, I would also turn attention to the notion that whether a minority or not, many scientists are expressing increasing disparagement with such mainstream bias in the scientific community. One such example is in the following cosmology statement signed by hundreds of scientists and representatives of science institutions. Even outside of encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia, and in considering the purpose of science to increase our collective knowledge, such attempts to confine scientific curiosity about our universe, and to unduly ridicule genuine attempts to explore non-consensus issues through a broader based reading of evidence, bodes ill towards our collective ability to advance scientific discovery.
I respectfully make this plea to everyone involved, and who are genuinely concerned with enhancing the broader encyclopedic essence of Wikipedia, to consider dismissing this effort to merge the two articles, and to accept the notion that Growing Earth theory has earned a place in Wikipedia. The page itself is replete with mentions of it not being accepted by the mainstream, that it is classified as pseudoscience, and that it is a notable populist fringe theory, and not one which in any way compromises mainstream science consensus. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - either to EE or to Neal Adams biog. Seems the only one objecting has an obvious WP:COI problem. Vsmith (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do no merge: The only "obvious" WP:COI problem is in this attempt to remove the page by merging it, supported ONLY by editors with mainstream science COI affiliations (see below). MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge done per consensus. Continue discussion below if merge to Neal Adams would be preferred. Vsmith (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the Merging of Growing Earth into EE

There did not yet exist a consensus for the merge. We were in mid debate.

The move was bold as advised by Wikimedia policy.

I choose to be less bold and will not contest it nor enter into an edit war over reverting the changes.

There should be voices other than mine participating in pointing out this effort to usurp Wikimedia into science standards when the theory is not considered scientific but rather a notable fringe theory. Nothing significant was changed in the article since a consensus was arrived at keeping it an an independent entry. Users who acted on this appear to have little regard for the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and are more interested in advancing their personal views of science.

This will not hinder the notability of the theory, however, nor the chords of logic it touches as evidenced by its widespread popular appeal. MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Merging Growing Earth Theory and Neal Adams

MichaelNetzer (and nobody else) has argued vocally against a merger of Growing Earth Theory with Expanding Earth theory. The only argument of his that I can make any sense out of is that we should hesitate to mix misguided but serious science with crackpot ravings. (Netzers choice of words would likely differ from mine.) I could see that adding GET to EET might act to unduly promote GET as much as a separate article would. An alternative solution might be to merge GET with Neal Adams. It seems to me that the little bit of notoriety the theory has comes because a famous cartoonist thought it up. My feeling is that GET content might fit better under Neal Adams than under EET. What do y'all think? --Art Carlson (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still for a Merge with EET since the GET page both notes its derivation from EET and suggests that some scientists support this variant, i.e. it might have wider support than Neal Adams (though I can't find this support in any formal scientific publication). In passing, I note that MichaelNetzer maintains a website for GET that is linked from the article, which tends to suggest a COI (much as dave souza previously suggested, though this was dismissed by MichaelNetzer: "I have demonstrated that my affiliation with the theory is practically non-existent"). Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The website is a compilation of the work of geologists and independent researchers discussing the theory in an online listserve forum. I am not an active member nor do I have an interest in the subject other than the natural curiosity which led me to produce a site for the material. Though I worked with Adams in the mid 1970's, we parted ways when I brought litigation against him for intellectual property issues in the early 1990's and we haven't spoken since, and there exists absolutely no affiliation between us. I am merely an outside observer who respects the intellectual integrity of the discussions I ran across in the forum, which is the reason I produced that site. Raising a suspicion of COI is understandable but the ultimate determiner of it is in whether I've been fair and neutral in my approach to the subject and not merely a suspicion of affiliation. As I observe certain disregard for Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature by mainstream science proponents, evident all over the disputes raging behind the scenes here, I am saddened to say that some such advocates are not able to rise above their personal prejudices and insist on attempting to turn Wikipedia into a single-point-of-view science research project, devoid of the natural divergence of understanding evidence and ideas, inherent in science discovery and our culture in general. MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that a merge to the Neal Adams page would be preferred - where it would be more properly associated with comic book fiction rather than science - but, I'm likely one of those awful mainstream science proponents MN notes above :-) Vsmith (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have never said anyone in mainstream science is "awful" and I've noted the good spirit of these discussions. But I do find that none of the merge supporters are answering the issues I've explained and only repeatedly cite a possible COI in order to discredit my comments. This indicates a slight lack of integrity in the discussion. It is a common human frailty we all suffer from at times and nothing "awful" really. MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposition indicates COI issue: Art Carlson says above that "adding GET to EET might act to unduly promote GET as much as a separate article would". In his opinion and in the opinion of everyone else supporting the merge, who all have affiliations in mainstream science, GET does not merit its own page. This, even though the page has already been approved to keep after a deletion debate on its merit. This indicates a COI issue due to merger supporters' affiliations with mainstream science which rejects the theory. Wikipedia has already decided that the page is merited. The merge proposition stands in contempt and disregard of an official decision already handed down to keep it based on its notability as a fringe theory. MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue bias - Do Not Merge: I have extensively attempted to explain why the page has already merited its presence, yet no one here has answered the issues I presented. Art Carlson has said that the only issue he understands from my comments is that GET does not belong on EET and thus initiated this proposal to merge with Neal Adams. This shows a rejection and disregard of the decision to keep the article that I've raised repeatedly. His other statements, and the general disregard here of a previously handed down decision to keep the article, indicate undue bias towards it from editors with science affiliations, even though the page is categorized as pseudoscience and has endured the scrutiny of Wikpedia for its merit as an article. MichaelNetzer (talk)

Answer (and not for the first time) of issues raised by MichaelNetzer
  • The editors involved in the previous delete discussion do not represent "Wikipedia" any more than the editors involved in this discussion, and no decision is exemt from being overturned by a later decision. There would be nothing inappropriate about re-opening the decision to keep the content. (The official and appropriate venue would be Wikipedia:Deletion review.)
  • Nevertheless, neither I nor any other editor in this discussion has shown "rejection and disregard" of the previous decision. The deletion discussion - naturally - centered on the question of whether the content is appropriate for Wikipedia at all. No one here has suggested removing the content from Wikipedia. We are only trying to find the most appropriate and useful way to present that content.
  • You are being inconsistent when you argue that mere "affiliations with mainstream science" indicate a COI, while also arguing that your affiliations with the Growing Earth Theory do not do so. (For the record, I believe that being open about affiliations and opinions helps create a constructive atmosphere, but at the end of the day, NPOV in the article is what counts. Real WP:COIs are rare.)
Neither the previous decision to keep the content nor the POV of the editors is relevant here. Please limit your arguments to those relevant to writing a good encyclopedia. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Response to points made by Art Carlson:
  • A deletion proposal decision on a page at Wikipedia represents a decision on the page itself and not merely on the content. Though the decision can be reviewed, it does indeed represent an administrative opinion on the merit of the page, and thus holds ramifications on opinions which disagree with such merit, as expressed in this discussion.
I have asked for an outside opinion on this point. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I got this reply from Wizardman:
Basically, when a discussion is closed as keep, that means that there is consensus that the article as it was on March 2007 was satisfactory enough for an independent article. That being said, since the AfD took place over a year ago, newfound developments could very well have made that AfD void (see Wikipedia:Consensus can change). If there is consensus to merge, that can be done at the talk page, and is the best option if there is just a keep v. merge debate. If there's a keep v. merge v. delete battle, AfD is generally a better option, but in this case you guys seem to be coming to a consensus rather nicely. To answer your questions in short, keep = to keep the content in some form, merges can be decided by consensus on the talk page. Hopefully I answered your questions fully. Wizardman 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
--Art Carlson (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that you meant it that way, but there was no Wikipedia admin, let alone any official body, that decided on the merits of deleting the article. Wizardman did nothing more than summarize the consensus reached in the discussion. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreciate and agree with the statement that "NPOV in the article is what counts. Real WP:COIs are rare." ... and said exactly the same myself in my first response to COI, leveled in dismissal to my comments. Yet the COI charges continued to be made as near exclusive responses to comment I made. I thus had no choice other than to demonstrate this point by showing that COI can also be applied to the manner in which my comments and the article itself were being treated. Now that we agree on this established principle, I would hope this issue is laid to rest by both sides of the debate, as there exists no NPOV issue on the table regarding the GET page. Based on Mr. Carlson's good spirited clarifications, I will also put this issue to rest.
  • In the sole interest of good encyclopedic content, the following is a summation of my responses regarding both merger propsals for GET.
  • Growing Earth Theory has been found to merit presence in Wikipedia as an independent page. When considering the most appropriate and useful way for presenting its content, and in considering the two merger options discussed here, I believe that Mr. Carlson's newfound hesitance to merge it with Expanding Earth theory to be logical and reasonable, based on the essential difference between a peer-reviewed, though discredited science theory such as EET, and a non-peer-reviewed but notable fringe theory such as GET. Noting the connection between the two theories, the reference to GET in the EET "present status" section solves the problem of reader identification of this connection, though I believe this reference should be slightly more descriptive (perhaps near as it was before it was severely shortened by recent editing).
  • Noting Mr. Carlson's agreement that there exists merit to the notability of the theory itself (as expressed in his comment on the YouTube reference below), and not merely to the notability of its author as a comic book artist, I believe that the second option of merging GET with Neal Adams page would compromise that page as a biographical entry on the artist, because it would need to give undue weight to the theory in the biography. For Growing Earth Theory to be properly shortened and merged with Neal Adams, this would also mean compromising the information needed to explain the theory. Thus the present situation where Growing Earth Theory remains as an independent page, with the existing reference from the Neal Adams page, appears to best serve both articles.
A small correction here. I have not said that I agree that the theory is notable. I said I believe that YouTube statistics can be objective evidence to help decide on notability. I don't ever watch YouTube, so I couldn't say anything about the significance of any particular numbers. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering that the content of Growing Earth Theory is thus best served as an independent page, and considering that satisfactory references lead to it from both the EET page and the Neal Adams page, and considering that GET is categorized as pseudoscience with ample criticism and reference that it is a non-peer reviewed and non-science-consensus theory... and considering that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and is not limited in quantity of pages and content, I believe there exists no good reason to merge the article with any other page and that Wikipedia's encyclopedic considerations are best served by keeping Growing Earth Theory in its present state as an independent entry.
  • I again note the good spirit of this discussion and apologize if I inadvertently overstepped any issues of mutual courtesy in my statements. Much gratitude and regard to Mr. Carlson for his latest clarifications. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Merge - Theory stands on its own merit: The point raised above, that the theory gains its notability because Adams is a cartoonist and thus belongs on his own page, ignores that it is widely discussed for its own pros and cons as a theory. The most active YouTube video on it has been viewed a total of 1,003,297 times as of this moment and has received a total of 21,302 comments, all discussing the theory and not Adams' career as a cartoonist. This is a notably very high standard of popular interest for a video at YouTube and indicates widespread curiosity in the theory itself, whether for or against it, and not an interest in a popular cartoonist, as has been suggested. MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(Note added while resolving edit conflict: Whether this argument is right or not, in contrast to the other comments of MN discussed above, it is at least relevant to the question at hand. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Merge; or delete/revise the GET article. I just read the GET article again and I see no real additional value in it except for mentioning the existance of Adams and his ideas. Nice, those ideas, we could consider them a form of art and therefore encyclopedic. If I hadn't studied geology and hadn't had some basic education in physics in high school, however, I might get the impression from the article GET is possible. The GET article is heavily and thoroughly POV. It is basically a point-to-point summary of Adams ideas, which are presented without criticism or without telling what scientific observations (let's say: made since the 50's) are contradicting these ideas (and the huge amount of video phantasies on the web). Then in the last paragraph, a very meagre few points about physical constants and so are listed, which will neither be understood nor read by people without the proper education for the sort of thing. Worst is the introduction, that tries to underline the scientific credibility of Adams' theory. I conclude that due to this unbalanced way of presenting Adams ideas the article is thorougly biased and has in this way no place in a neutral encyclopedia. The POV begins already with the title. Do we have articles on ideas that explain other strange things happening in comics? Do we have, for example, an article man-can-fly-in-the-sky-theory to explain Superman? These ideas may be worth mentioning if they are well-known fiction, but not under the name "theory", which suggest credibility. Woodwalker (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I just read the Growing Earth article from beginning to end for the first time. It is terrible. It is painful to read. I haven't checked out the critical references, but I have the impression that they do not deal explicitly with the Growing Earth Theory. If that is so, then we do not have the secondary scientific sources that are required in order to write an article on a topic that claims of itself to be science. (It is tempting to debunk it ourselves, since that would be so easy, but that's outside our mandate.) I'll take a look at the coverage in popular media, but I doubt that they can make up for the total lack of scientific (i.e., peer-reviewed) sources. We may very well be forced to reopen the deletion question after all. (All right, it probably at least deserves a mention in the article on Neal Adams.) --Art Carlson (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree - I've cut the supposed supporting geologists bit and the unrelated cosmology stuff - needs more. How much of what remains should be merged and where? I expect MN will strongly object... Oh well, onward. Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved/renamed it the growing Earth hypothesis - as it is not a scientific theory. Seems growing Earth fantasy would fit even better. Vsmith (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vsmith. I've just tidied the text up a bit to fix up the references mostly. Could it perhaps benefit from including some of the rather interesting particle physics ideas (just a paragraph)? Those sounded like something of an update of the more vague ideas of Carey on this point. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted some redundant information, but re-included the links to Maxlow, Shehu and Tassos - if Adams is mentioned they also should be mentioned. --D.H (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am also a geologist by profession. I even had some stuff published. If necessary I can even confess believing in some crap that's on the net. So er, can I have an article in wikipedia please? You get my point ;-) Woodwalker (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source of additional mass

A seemingly unrelated hypothesis may help shed some light on the source of the additional mass required to increase the Earth's diameter and gravity, as well as slow the rotation down to the current day/night cycle.

If the ancient atmosphere contained an extremely high water vapor content that was released by a catastrophic event (or over time) we would have to account for the additional mass which could be translated to an increased earth diameter, hence reducing rotational speed much like a figure skater that extends her arms during a spin.

A higher rotational speed for the current day Earth would cause high winds, but a dense water vapor would suppress wind speed.

This hypothesis in conjunction with a lunar escape hypothesis that can not explain how close the moon was to the Earth prior to apx. 6,000 years ago based upon the rate in which the moon is moving away from the Earth seems to indicate a gravitational event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palaeomagnetic limits to the expansion of Earth

One of the references that got dropped in the merger of Growing Earth theory/hypothesis/fantasy to this article was this:

Nature 271, 316 - 321 (26 January 1978); doi:10.1038/271316a0
Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant
M. W. McElhinny, S. R. Taylor & D. J. Stevenson
Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia
New estimates of the palaeoradius of the Earth for the past 400 Myr from palaeomagnetic data limit possible expansion to less than 0.8%, sufficient to exclude any current theory of Earth expansion. The lunar surface has remained static for 4,000 Myr with possible expansion limited to 0.06%, the martian surface suggests a small possible expansion of 0.6% while the surface of Mercury supports a small contraction. Observations of Mercury, together with reasonable assumptions about its internal structure, indicate that G decreases at a rate of less than 8times10-12 yr-1, in constant mass cosmologies, and 2.5times10-11 yr-1 in Dirac's multiplicative creation cosmology.

Unlike some of the other references, this one refers specifically to theories of Earth expansion. I haven't been to the library yet to read more than the abstract, but I would like to encorporate this reference into this article, and think that it can be done without overstepping the bounds of OR. What bothers me is that the current Status section only mentions the problem with a mechanism to drive the expansion, which suggests that the theory might come back if at some future date such a process is discovered. If it is possible to measure the historical radius of the Earth, then we can stop looking for a process. (Of course, we scientists already have, but Neal Adams could stop, too.)

I'm also a bit bothered by saying that the matching on the Pacific side and the size of the dinosaurs "became irrelevant". I think a much stronger statement could be made, along the lines of "While some degree of matching of the shapes of the continental shelves on the Pacific side can be perceived, matching of geological structures and botanical characteristics are absent." and "Current understanding of paleozoology attributes the large size of the dinosaurs in part to higher levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time. The skeletel structure of the dinosaurs is found to be appropriate to the current strength of Earth's gravity." This would be nice, but is harder to fix than the radius reference above.

--Art Carlson (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This may have been taken care of already. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've created a new section which discusses the findings of McElhenny and Williams. See Expanding earth theory#Rate of expansion. Maybe one can add additional information. --D.H (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Differentiating Growing Earth from Expamding Earth

Isn't all of this:

By utilizing digital 3-D imaging technology for video animations,[1] Adams claims that the changing curvature of the Earth, due to its increase in size, indicates a near-perfect match of all its continental shapes, when they converge on a smaller globe. His videos imply that an Earth, approximately half the size that it is today, would be completely covered by the continents which converge together like a jigsaw puzzle,[2] by completely closing both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Adams proposes that the mid-ocean ridges, from which new material appears on the ocean floor, had once split the Earth's crust apart and created the ocean basins, causing the Earth to grow.

from the Growing Earth section, assertions also made by every version of Expanding Earth theories? (I suppose Carey didn't use "digital 3-D imaging technology for video animations", but taking a boxcutter to a globe will get you there just as good.) I thought the new part introduced by Adams was just the (very elaborate) mechanism for creation of matter just where you need it:

This hypothesis also attempts to put forth a mechanism by which new mass is created within the core of the Earth to facilitate the expanding Earth model.[3]

Doesn't this suggest some additional dramatic trimming is in order? --Art Carlson (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe most of the text on "continental matching" could be trimmed and a few words could be added about the hypothetical mechanism for mass generation.Adrock828 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the section, eliminating the redundancies. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the 3-D imaging part is worth mentioning, so I re-inserted a shortened version of that passage - also the pair production stuff is mentioned. --D.H (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whole-Earth decompression dynamics

Here seems to be another candidate for merging: Whole-Earth decompression dynamics. Regards, --D.H (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe merge, probably delete. It looks like a one-man show with no peer-reviewed publications or coverage in the popular press. The content is lifted directly from http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec102005/1937.pdf. The article was created last week by a single author. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
merge - It clearly is just another attempt to explain the supposed expansion of the Earth. The Whole-Earth decompression dynamics article itself is tagged to suggest it may not be notable on its own. Perhaps the growing Earth theory and the Whole-Earth decompression dynamics should be subsections of the "Status of the theory" section. The text would need to be rewritten (or more fully cited) as it presents this unsubstantiated "problems with plate tectonics" arguments that really aren't problems at all. Adrock828 (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole-Earth decompression dynamics Vsmith (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against subduction

I question the accuracy of this (unsourced) section. For example, There is no agreed mechanism for such a correlation between the two processes. I would have thought this to be trivial in a world without spontaneous creation. Do we have any sources saying that expansionists use these arguments? Do we have a clear statement of the mainstream view (in particular, whether geologists see these points as trivial or as difficult to understand)? --Art Carlson (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some text to clear it up (at least from my perception) and referenced Conservation_of_mass.Adrock828 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm still not very happy. Is it really true that the mid-ocean ridges are longer than the subduction zones? I thought that expansionists don't believe in subduction at all. Did historical expansionist geologists use these arguments or is this a new argument thrown into the ring by science bashers with no understanding of geology? Does anyone have references for either the use of the arguments or the relevant geological facts? Would anyone object if we quietly buried this section? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Some EE-proponants like Owen or Weijermars combine subduction with expansion. Others like Carey actually don't believe in subduction at all. Maybe the section should be rewritten under the name: Carey's arguments against subduction. I will try to find some arguments by Carey in his 1996-book. --D.H (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tense

Shouldn't the entire article (except perhaps parts of the last two sections) be phrased in past tense to do justice to the fact that this is a historical debate, closed and done with? It now (partially) reads like a hypothesis that is being actively discussed in the scientific world. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart

Stewart [11] <ref name=stewart>{{Citation | author=Stewart, A.D.| title = Limits to palaeogravity since the late Precambrian | year =1978 |journal=Nature| volume=271 |pages=153-158}}</ref> is cited in relation to the water that later ended up in the oceans and the size of dinosaurs. Neither of these things is mentioned in the work cited. Does anyone have the proper reference? --Art Carlson (talk)

Corrected. --D.H (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)