The findings of the expanding earth thesis will be very hard to sweep away via alternative explanations. The findings take all the convergent evidence from the Pangea/Gondwanaland theory of continental drift and they eliminate some of the problems with this thesis. What makes the expanding thesis virtually impossible to deny for a sane person, is the way it can be demonstrated, not only on earth, but on Mars, the Moon and even on Europa.
What Neal Adams does is he rigs up animations where the lowest-lying-areas are closed, and what is found is that either side of the lower-lying areas tend to match perfectly. Of course the chances of this happening by chance come under the heading of “no chance.” The undeniable conclusion is that our geology primarily alters by way of STRETCH-MARK.
The Pacific is bigger than the Atlantic and people began to notice that the continents fitted together if the Atlantic were closed off. And this was convergent with the fossil record and what the fossil record implied of evolution. But what was not noticed, except by a few, was that the continents fitted together if you closed them off the other way. That is the continents fitted both ways. They fitted if you close off the Atlantic. But they fitted also if you closed off the Pacific.
Now if you wanted to stick dogmatically to the doctrine of the earth that stays the same mass and with the same gravity, then you could theorise that this geological evolution via stretch-mark, already proven, was balanced by subduction. But there isn’t evidence for that level of subduction. However on earth you could find a reason to believe that the subduction happened in the ocean and why not? After all if it did so we would not see it because it would be occurring underwater. So it is not something we could deduce by putting up a similar animation. We don’t see this subduction, or much of it, anywhere underwater. Instead we see rifting, that is to say development by way of stretch-mark. But it could at least be theorised that subduction somewhere was balancing development via stretch-mark.
The problem with this dogamtically inspired thesis, is when we get to the moon and mars there is the evidence of geological development by way of stretch-mark. But no evidence of a balancing sub-duction. So the only conclusion is that the planets and larger moons are expanding.
Now why is this so hard to believe?
BAD THEORY DRIVES OUT THE GOOD. LUDICROUS THEORY DRIVES OUT GOOD THEORY ABSOLUTELY.
“In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded”
The doctrine of planetary expansion is only hard to believe because of a constellation of wrong incumbent theories. I’m pretty fastidious with paradigms. And I cannot and will not accept a paradigm, like the big bang, that never had any convergence to it. That is to say, right from the start the big bang theory, rested on a single line of evidence.
That evidence came from the doctrine of red shift. In effect this doctrine said that red shift was caused by the doppler effect. Which is true and proven to the satisfaction of all. But it secretly says something else. The doctrine of red shift secretly says that red shift is caused by the doppler effect and so ONLY the doppler effect causes red shift.
This is wrong and has been falsified. Hence the Big Bang theory, which never ought to have got off the ground under my fastidious epistemology, is falsified totally.
What happens to our assumptions when we reject the ludicrous and now falsified Big Bang theory? Well everything changes. Or if we are rational people everything must change.
Contemporary science tells us that matter and energy are equivalent in some ways. It tells us that via fission and fusion energy, and perhaps by the standard radioactive decay of pretty much all elements, that matter can be converted to energy. Now I think thats pretty good theory? What do you think? I think its good theory and I think you’ll agree.
But we are pretty light on the conversion running the other way. We are not totally DEVOID of the conversion running the other way. But we seem to think of this as a special case.
But once we deep-six the big bang, as all grown-ups must, we find that the conversion of energy to matter has to be roughly, or pretty-much-exactly as ubiquitous, as the conversion of matter to energy. Since we live in an evolving universe but not one that is on a one-way ticket to heat death as the idiotic big bang theory demands.
So from there come the interesting question. Where is all this new matter being created? Well we know that there must be fusion in the Corona of the sun. Because the Corona is very hot, we know its mostly a hydrogen atmosphere, and that at that heat there will surely be fusion going on. But are protons being created in the Corona? That I do not know.
But we can be pretty sure that they must be being created in some way at or near the centre of planets. And that subsequently some fusion must be going on at or near the centre of these planets and that simple atoms like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon (and mayhaps when the planet gets big enough maybe even iron) must be the result of all this matter creation and fusion.
And this creation, not just in stars and quasars, but also in humble planets and at least some moons, ought to be ubiquitous enough to balance out for the fact that all elements have a half-life and for the fact that we see matter being converted into energy.
Now socialist science will simply not allow this matter to be investigated. Socialist science is an obstructer of knowledge and not a mode of enlightenment. And really I would not want it any other way any more, since a functioning socialist science, would justify stealing for non-defense purposes which in the long run cannot be justified.
The other thing to note is that bad theory isn’t just somewhat ineffectual. It actively blocks out any further progress. The big bang supporters, if anything, are even more dogmatic then the Keynesian-Neoclassical Thief-Economics consensus. Even more determined to not allow the truth to interfere with their ill-gotten status as holders of the economics knowledge and keepers of the credentialist flame.
The conclusion is therefore that we must chart a smooth course to the privatisation of education and scientific research. And that will be an ongoing theme of this forum.
Its not conspiracy. Its socialist financing.