Holy crap! That's crackpottery the like of which I haven't seen in quite some time. You found a choice video there.

Posted by: Chris Granade | February 22, 2008 12:52 PM

Obviously, Dave, you're just part of the vast scientific conspiracy to silence this great truth. I bet your name is not even really Dave. ;-)

Posted by: JohnQPublic | February 22, 2008 1:26 PM

Work of Art indeed! I wouldn't pay the $20 to get more proof, I'm already convinced :-)

Chris, no need of input mass, you forget that 'now' the Earth is hollow! We got animations of that 'also'. And it's cheaper, just $15, eBook, fast delivery. World's Top Secret... (no link, google it please)

And I would like to ask a question, Dave, what's your real (secret) name? :-D

Posted by: oldcola | February 22, 2008 1:52 PM

Well, Neal's nuts but he was one of the greatest comic artists ever, so I'll cut him some slack.

Posted by: johnshade | February 22, 2008 2:05 PM

So where was all the water back them? Was there a single small lake a thousand miles deep?

If the Earth is growing, does its mass increase? If not, its density must necessarily decrease. Maybe the inside is getting spongy, with the holes filled with dinosaur farts?

He's not making this up? It's all over the Internet? Okay, name one place. Just one. Can't do that? Aha -- liar, liar, pants on fire!

By the way, does anybody want to buy my $25 animation proving the Sun used to be a golf ball?

Posted by: Ken Shabby | February 22, 2008 3:05 PM

He has it backwards! I will produce animation that proves the earth is not growing but that humans are actually shrinking and that is why we think the universe is expanding.

Posted by: JohnQPublic | February 22, 2008 4:08 PM

The reason there is no need for input mass is, of course, the Banach-Tarski theorem.

Posted by: johnshade | February 22, 2008 5:24 PM

It's typical of the sociology of science that there have been plenty of comments making fun of the theory but none of them give much evidence that it is wrong. The closest one is the comment on conservation of energy, but lacks a calculation for how good of an estimate we have of how conservation of energy applies at the center of the earth. And the comment on where the water comes from is good, but the fact is that water is only a tiny fraction of the planet's mass and so the change in water can be explained by supposing that part of the growth of the earth was in water, which floats up to the top.

Since I started out college studying mining engineering, let me give a no nonsense refutation of the idea.

The spread in the rifts amounts to several centimeters per year, but this is entirely accounted for by the measured loss of ocean floor at subduction zones such as the Pacific coast of the US. In addition, the measured rate of rift spreading, if it were to actually result in a change in the circumference of the earth, would be contrary to the observed (from spacecraft measurements) that the earth is not, in fact growing. Nor are the highest mountains significantly increasing in size.

Physics is a social science because humans are social animals. None of you are smart enough to instantly know the difference between crackpottery and science. Instead, you know what you are told and you believe it almost entirely because other people, who you respect, also believe it. The method that you use to understand the world is, in this way, identical to that of the religious you make fun of 99% of the time. You let a few wise men argue over things and then you judge it on the basis of how smart you think they are, relative to each other. You're not smart enough to judge the ideas on their own merits. You're basically a bunch of stupid sheep, not scientists.

Posted by: Carl Brannen | February 22, 2008 8:30 PM

No evidence? Didn't you see the cartoon??

Posted by: JohnQPublic | February 22, 2008 9:02 PM

... all I'm saying is that someone might need a little nap.

Posted by: JM Geremia | February 22, 2008 10:59 PM

Carl, you really need to cut down the snark and stop being so big headed.

Posted by: guthrie | February 23, 2008 6:02 AM

I posted this last night, but it must have been lost in the matrix. Anyway, expanding earth hasn't totally died. There's a chap by the name of Dennis McCarthy that has published a bit recently, arguing that certain biogeographical patterns are best explained by an expanding earth. The papers are:

McCarthy, D. (2005) Biogeographical and geological evidence for a smaller, completely-enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous. Journal of Biogeography, 32, 2161-2177.

McCarthy, D. (2003) The trans-Pacific zipper effect: disjunct sister taxa and matching geological outlines that link the Pacific margins. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 1545-1561.

Derek Briggs gave him a shredding in a reply, but it goes to show that the idea isn't totally dead. You can read the papers at his website:

http://www.4threvolt.com/

Posted by: SteveF | February 23, 2008 7:34 AM

Actually, this guy is referenced in the wikipedia article, and he is well aware of the history briefly discussed there. Moreoever, he does not even claim to be a professional scientist. You would know all this if you bothered to check, silly sheep.

Posted by: Kea | February 23, 2008 10:54 PM

JohnQPublic, I am not basing my assessment of this idea on a wikipedia article. That is the point.

Posted by: Kea | February 24, 2008 12:26 PM

He has it backwards! I will produce animation that proves the earth is not growing but that humans are actually shrinking and that is why we think the universe is expanding.

Posted by: JohnQPublic | February 22, 2008 4:08 PM

LOL! Thanks for the heads up! This is going to save a lot of time spent with those pesky formulas, calculations etc. LOL!
Dave Briggs :~)

Posted by: Dave Briggs | February 27, 2008 11:11 AM