"All the world's a stage we pass through." - R. Ayana

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The Earth Is Growing & Expanding Rapidly

The Earth Is Growing & Expanding Rapidly

(The mechanisms and a new cosmology)

by Lawrence S. Myers

The map shown here is PROOF of Earth's growth and expansion in just the last 200 million years -- proving there were NO oceans (now covering over 70% of the planet) when it was 40% smaller than it is today.
The evidence is obvious, unmistakable and irrefutable!

This map of the Earth and World Ocean Floor was created in 1977 by Bruce M. Heezen and Marie Tharp to illustrate their recently-discovered ~65,000 kilometers (~40,000 miles) of midocean ridges (MOR) that almost completely encircle the planet. A white line has been added off the Asian trench system from Kamchatka down to the Mariana Trench, where the oldest known seafloor sediments on Earth, ~195-197 Ma (million years old), were discovered in 1992 by Nakanishi, et al. This gives an approximate age of 200 Ma for today's oceans. This trench system is very significant—it fits the western coast of North America, just as the eastern coast once conjoined Europe and Africa.
However, far more significant is the trench system encompassing the right-angled Vityaz-Tonga-Kermadec Trench, New Zealand, and Macquarie Ridge that ends in a distinct eastward curvature (white rectangle). This figure-7 or fishhook-shaped configuration clearly matches the western coast of South America from the notch at 20° South Latitude to the tip at 60° South Latitude, where it curves perfectly around Cape Horn. (This Australian trench is even more remarkable because it replicates the shape of the eastern coast of South America that once conjoined Africa as part of Wegener’s Pangaea [1912]. Two nearly identical major fractures in Earth's crust is a phenomenon worth further investigation.)

With this evidence in mind, look at the same map with the Asian/Australian trenches moved back to where they were~150 to ~200 million years ago—when all of today's oceans were in their infancy:

(The map above has been modified to show the Asian and Australian trenches near their original positions conjoining North and South America and Europe and Africa moved closer to their original positions conjoined with the Americas (with as much ocean area removed as possible using a flat mercator projection. L.S. Myers, January 2002)

This modified map shows clear empirical evidence that Asia and Australia were originally conjoined with North and South America approximately 200-250 Ma, prior to creation of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans.

This earlier connection of Asia and Australia with the Americas is also confirmed geologically by the deep ocean trenches that delineate the Andesite Line containing andesite, the primary mineral of the Andes Cordilleran Mountains running the length of South America. [Carey, 1976, p.256]

The evidence is empirical and the conclusions are obvious  —the Earth 200-250 million years ago was a single planetary landmass 40% smaller than it is today, and at that moment in geologic time there were NO OCEANS!

Every island and seamount, and most of the water In today’s ocean basins that now cover over 70% of the planet, has evolved in the very short period of 200 million years! The Earth has been, and still is, steadily growing in size and expanding in diameter at an accelerating rate—contrary to what scientists believe because they are currently unable to detect and measure this relatively slow rate of growth.



The Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis of the Solar System and Earth's rapid creation as molten bodies ~4.5 billion years ago cannot be true, and the evidence confirms the Earth is gradually increasing in size--one layer at a time--by constant accretion of mass from outer space--a process I call ACCREATION (creation by accretion).

The fallacy of the nebular hypothesis is shown very clearly in the physiographic cross-section of the Grand Canyon cliffs in Northern Arizona and the photo shown below.  These layers were laid down (accreted) as solid matter, and none show signs of having been melted at any time. These layers are positive evidence the Earth has grown steadily over time.

The significance of these layers is that each one increased the radius of the planet by a small amount and provide additional proof the Earth (and all planetary bodies) originate as meteoroids (cometary fragments) that grow larger by gravitational accretion of dust and small particles, or by chance amalgamation with other (smaller or larger) meteoroids in their orbits around the Sun.
The bottom layers of the Grand Canyon, ~1.6 kilometers (one mile) down, go back in time almost a billion years to the Precambrian, leaving another ~6365 kilometers to Earth's center.  This suggests the Earth could be much older than the 4.5 billion years now accepted as its age from radio-carbon dating of meteorites. 

Shown are the geological strata (layers) accreted (laid down) just in the Palaeozoic Era from the beginning of the Cambrian (~570 Ma) through the Permian (~240 Ma), a total of ~330 million years. The indicated depth shown is ~3300 feet (about 1 kilometer), representing a slow accretion rate of about 10 feet (~3 meters) per million years, which means it took about 100,000 years to accumulate each foot of new surface soil at the rate of about one inch in 10,000 years.

But, more importantly, think of the BOTTOM layer. When that bottom layer accreted onto Earth’s surface it was the TOP layer of the Earth and exposed to the sun. All layers above it were laid down, one by one, in subsequent years. Where could this enormous volume of material have come from except outer space?
A visualization of these layers is provided in the photo of the Grand Canyon shown below. The thick layers in the foreground and on the far side of the canyon show different colors and depths that are clear evidence meteor streams millions of years ago consisted of different chemical compositions in different geological epochs and each meteor stream deposited its unique material for prolonged periods of time before another took its place and deposited a layer with a different chemical composition.  

[Courtesy of IBM]

This whole area, like other areas of the United States, was once covered by water, forming a shallow epicontinental sea, so one can assume the cataclysm that caused the breakup of Pangaea and formation of the Pacific Ocean basin ~200 Ma offered a lower elevation into which this shallow sea could run off—thus eroding and creating the Grand Canyon.


The planet is accreting new mass consisting of TWO types of matter from outer space— meteorites and meteor dust, plus solar energy captured by photo- synthesis in living organisms—which could happen only after water appeared on the planet’s surface to support organic growth.

Meteorites falling to Earth, large and small, have been known for centuries, but more recent scientific measurements show that an even greater volume of dust and meteorites (hundreds, possibly thousands, of tons) accretes onto Earth's surface every day!
The estimates vary widely (wildly?)—from ~274 to ~55,000 tons per day [Newkirk in Meteor Orbits and Dust, NASA, 1967], but one can imagine the potential volume of accreting extraterrestrial material from the very large number of meteor streams (10 major and 374 minor, of which 154 are the most authentic) reported by Terentjeva [ibid.] She reported “Generally, the existence is accepted of several hundred minor meteor showers with a duration of not less than 3 to 7 days and an average rate not exceeding 2 meteors per hour.”
Although today the daily volume of extraterrestrial matter from space may be minuscule relative to Earth’s total mass, even one kilogram of new matter is unquestionably an addition of mass and gravitational power. This influx is well known but has been grossly underestimated and dismissed as insignificant—despite massive amounts of meteoric, geologic and organic evidence found in immense coal, oil, and limestone deposits, plus deep overburdens, on every continent and in all ocean sediments.

Some scientists may dispute the notion that additional solid matter is created from solar energy by photosynthesis in plants and other living organisms, but they should consider coal beds that were formed from trees in the Carboniferous (~360 to ~290 Ma) but are now buried under deep overburden that accreted later. 

The huge fossilized tree trunks found in the Petrified National Forest near Holbrook in eastern Arizona are additional evidence of mass from solar energy. Also consider the massive deposits of limestone created by marine fauna (fish, coral, bivalves, microfossils, etc.) in earlier epochs and this growth continues today. Today, piles of leaves, wood chips and fallen trees are rapidly converted to soil by nematodes.  The whole question of added mass needs further research to more accurately determine the volume and sources.


This overwhelming evidence of Earth’s growth and rapidly accelerating expansion over the past ~200 Ma not only contradicts the current philosophy of Earth's creation, but is revolutionary and self-explanatory—the facts are there for everyone to see. 

However, there is no explanation for what may have caused this small early planet with only a single landmass, no oceans, and scattered epicontinental seas to suddenly break apart and form several separate continents, commence formation of the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian and Arctic Oceans, and split off Antarctica to become a separate, nearly-circular continent.

The mechanism or cataclysmic event that initiated this global breakup is unknown. Also still unclear is whether Asia and Australia broke away from North and South America before the breakup of Wegener’s Pangaea that created the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, or whether the events were parts of a single, simultaneous global event. These are details that require further investigation.

Could this event have been triggered by a major cataclysmic event such as an asteroid impact somewhere on the planet? Yes, but there could be other explanations as well, and caution is mandatory. There is good evidence to support the notion an asteroid impact suddenly formed the Arctic Ocean basin, an idea based on the nearly-circular character of the Arctic Ocean within the Arctic Circle, bounded by the Brooks Mountain Range in Alaska, and the Siberian coast (see the polar projection map below).

If research could confirm this suggestion and provide an appropriate time frame, it would support the possibility the impact not only formed the Arctic basin but fractured the planet longitudinally from north to south on each side of North and South America, thereby initiating the Pacific and Atlantic ocean basins and simultaneously creating (punching out) Antarctica at the planet’s antipode. 

Whatever the actual cause of the event, this was a truly major planet-wide event that coincided with the transition from the Triassic (~240-205 Ma) to the Jurassic (~205-138 Ma), periods remarkable for producing the immense sauropods and other fauna and flora of exceptionally large size. Stephen Hurrell in “Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth,” [1994, One-off Publishing, Great Britain] makes a strong case that the immense size of the animal, insect and plant species during those periods was due to the lesser gravity of a much smaller Earth, which is supported by the evidence of growth and expansion of the planet presented here.

However, much of Earth’s earlier history is hidden from view or disguised by subsequent accretion, volcanic, seismic and climatic events. Many details are still unknown because geologists for two centuries have been trying to interpret the geological evidence using the faulty fundamental philosophy of the nebular hypothesis that produced faulty interpretations.


Not really, but early resolution of this fundamental controversy is extremely important for the future of both science and Mankind because it is now clear the planet IS GROWING AND EXPANDING at a velocity that appears to be accelerating exponentially.

It is now up to the appropriate governmental authorities (NASA and NOAA) to measure and recalculate Earth’s diameter to establish the TRUE rates of accretion and expansion in order to establish benchmarks for estimates of future growth and expansion. This will require extensive international geodesic effort by NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey (NGS), as well as international cooperation to recalibrate the global grid system that is now seriously out of date.

Earth's diameter can not be changed by the beliefs of scientists but the beliefs of scientists can be changed by re-measuring Earth's diameter!


+ Approximately 200 million years ago ALL of today’s continents were joined together as a single planetary landmass on a much smaller planet (slightly larger than Mars is today) when NONE OF TODAY’S OCEANS EXISTED!

+ This unequivocal evidence suggests Earth’s diameter has increased at an accelerating velocity. Today’s oceans cover ~71% of Earth’s surface, which equates to a ~40% increase in Earth’s diameter in just ~200 Ma, an incredibly short period in geologic time. Earth’s diameter then, without oceans, would have been only ~7640 km (~4747 mi) or about ~60% of its current average diameter of 12,734.889 km (7913.46 mi). [North American Datum of 1983, NOAA, 1989]

+ The Earth ~200 Ma was different from Wegener’s 1912 concept of a single continental landmass (Pangaea) that covered one hemisphere, surrounded by a single hemispheric ocean (Panthalassa) on a planet of today’s diameter because WEGENER’S PANTHALASSA NEVER EXISTED!

+ This evidence also nullifies the Kant-Laplace (1796) nebular hypothesis of creation of the Earth ~4.5 billion years ago, which requires replacement by an entirely new cosmological theory for creation of the Earth and other bodies in our Solar System.
+ This evidence also verifies Carey’s Earth Expansion hypothesis [1956, 1976] that was rejected by the world’s scientific community three decades ago after the subduction concept was introduced by Oliver and Isacks [1967].

+ Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics. Had the scientific community been less hasty in adopting subduction they might have realized subduction’s fatal flaw that shows WHY subduction is totally false. [See P. 2 – Subduction Sophistry]

+ This evidence also eliminates subduction from current plate tectonics dogma because it was adopted on the basis of a constant-diameter Earth and EARTH’S DIAMETER HAS NEVER BEEN CONSTANT.

+ The supreme irony of subduction and the conclusive argument that subduction is false can be summarized quite simply by the following illustration.

IF EARTH'S DIAMETER IS FIXED AND UNCHANGING, the Atlantic Ocean basin MUST continue to EXPAND, pushing North and South America westward until they collide with Asia and Australia AFTER ELIMINATING THE PACIFIC OCEAN. 

This means North and South America would have been pushed from the west side of Pangaea to the east side of Pangaea—half way around the planet and eliminating the entire Pacific Ocean basin in the process. This would happen despite the massive growth of new seafloor along the East Pacific Rise, which today is actually expanding the Pacific Ocean basin—not decreasing it!


ANSWER: TWO concurrent basic mechanisms reinforcing each other:


Whether cosmic rays, neutrinos, or other known particles with mass, contribute to Earth’s total mass is beyond the scope of my knowledge, but it is seriously doubted such particles would contribute any appreciable volume of mass equal to that of the known meteor dust and meteorites. Furthermore, an acceptable mechanism for their capture must be demonstrated, particularly in the proto- planetary stages of meteoroids before they reach spherical shape and core melting commences.

Also problematic are suggestions that appreciable amounts of gases are lost into space. This idea is also subject to proof by someone else.


The dominant factor in global expansion today is the expanding molten core-–melting its way upward towards the crust and creating new ocean floor when extruded from the ~65,000 km (~40,000 miles) of midocean ridges. In the last ~200 Ma these ridges have added more than 71% of new ocean surface area to the planet, increasing Earth’s diameter by 40%.

Midocean ridges are the enabling mechanism of GLOBAL EXPANSION, acting like cranial sutures that allow the human skull to grow to maturity.

The heat source melting and expanding the core is compressive heating generated by the planet’s total atomic weight omnidirectionally focused by gravity on its exact center. Some investigators may invoke radioactive decay of fissionable material as an additional heat source, but I seriously doubt this and will leave it to further debate and proof by discovery of a molten core in an irregularly-shaped asteroid.
Diagram of Omnidirectional Gravitational Pressure on exact center of any spherical body.

Empirical evidence that as recently as ~200 Ma the Earth was only ~60% of its present diameter, and that today’s oceans, and the waters in them, did not exist on the planet may come as a shock to most scientists, especially those in earth sciences who have been taught differently with fundamental philosophies that have not changed in the past 200 years.
Many fundamental reference tables and fact sheets now need revision, and most textbooks are certainly out of date. Earth’s gravitational constant must be updated and recalibrated to reflect constantly-increasing mass. Maps need to be redrawn and positions of key cities and landmarks re-determined because ALL distances between meridians of longitude and parallels of latitude have increased because of expansion, but scientists do not yet realize it. The grid system itself needs to be recalibrated periodically after expansion is confirmed—another challenge facing geophysicists and geodesists!

Similar reference data applicable to all other bodies in the Solar System will require revision, because they, too, come under the same universal rule of constant growth and development by accretion and should be considered patterns for other solar systems and galaxies in the Universe. In effect, global growth and expansion can be considered a Universal Recycling System.
These conclusions are inescapable, and this evidence of an incredibly rapid increase in Earth’s diameter and surface area is a new development the scientific community must confront, confirm, and calibrate before contemplating measures to cope with the inevitable consequences of global expansion such as earthquakes and the global warming that has now become apparent.

Eventually Mankind will be forced to migrate to a new home on Mars before Earth grows to the size of Neptune. Today's global warming is an early warning to Mankind.
 (Revised 29 April 2005)

(First presentation of theory Dec. 14, 1982, at the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco, California)

This article reflects the personal views of Lawrence S. Myers, who alone is responsible for the accuracy and reliability of all data. This concept paper introduces many new ideas that contradict the current philosophy of Earth’s creation accepted as fact by 99.99% of the world’s scientists. These ideas have been independently generated since February 1965, when the subject of an energy source necessary for the earth to expand appeared in a newspaper article discussing Professor S. Warren Carey’s then new (1956) theory of the expanding earth. The importance of these new ideas and perceptions should not be ignored; they are the forerunners of a new theory of ‘universal planetary growth’ that explains creation of the Earth and Solar System in an entirely new way. This new theory is called ACCREATION (creation by accretion) to distinguish it from the biblical story of Creation recited in Genesis, and other new creation theories that scientists have tried to introduce over the past 200 years.

(Copyright, 1999, St. Clair Enterprises, Inc.) ( Last revised 29 April 2005)
Email comments to: meteordust@expanding-earth.org

For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

or http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com
 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com (this one only works with Firefox)

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


  1. On the dinosaurs: blew me away when the 'less gravity' element was thrown in for explaining their size. Makes perfect sense. But it also doesn't contradict the more common reason that I've read in that, during the time of dinosaurs, earth's atmospheric O2 levels were 10% higher than they are today. This made the vascular system of dinosaurs easier to support their mass. O2 can become H2O2 via biological means, something that would be more capable as more water and a larger planetary mass grew, and, as well, as H2O2 was produced via bacteria, the atmospheric O2 levels would drop as H2O2 is more easily a liquid at earth's cooling temperatures post a sun blocking asteroid strike such that could be capable of wiping out dinosaurs. Bacteria and fungi continue to grow, producing ever increasing quantities of the enzyme catalase, which, in turn, breaks 2H2O2 down into 2H2O + 2O1's... and then combines the 2O1's into an O2 such the the aerobic microbes can breathe... this explains where the higher concentration of O2 levels that would support the dinosaurs larger mass (regardless of gravity being less... thus, easier to move, keeping that much mass oxygenated is *still* difficult, and higher blood O2 levels are needed.. as well larger and-thus stronger hearts)... this would explain where the higher concentration of O2 levels would 'disappear' to... into water... helping to partially explain where the water could have *also* come from... read: the raw ingredients (H & O) where already here, as well as being added by new mass being introduced to earth's atmosphere(s).... so, H2O being made, as well H2O or at least H & O being introduced from space... again, they don't contradict one another but, in fact, compliment one another.

    The third place that H2O could come from can also be added to this... either as a 3rd point, or an addition or expansion on the second point of the two points at the top of the "What's Causing Rapid Growth & Expansion" section....

    Working in a sort of reverse centrifuge... gravity pulls the heavier elements down, and allows the lighter elements to rise to the top... (in a centrifuge it's the opposite, in that the heavier elements are pushed to the outside, as the lighter elements are moved to the inside out of the way). The overall turning effect of the planet for various reasons (sun/moon's pull, magma displacement, gases rising up, etc etc), pulls the heavier elements down, heavier elements like Uranium and Plutonium... and Thorium.... wherein these elements, being brought together in larger concentrations and closer proximity... esp as the accretion continues to add mass and, thus, increase gravity... as well, the heavier elements making it closer to the center of the planet and, thus, in larger and denser concentrations, at closer points in space-time, increases the singular point of gravity around which the planet rotates, as well increasing the gravity such as to faster & with greater force pull the elements farther down and closer to one another...

    ...creates the conditions necessary for a nuclear fission to happen as these now-closer-together heavier radioactive elements tear each other apart, and fissile into smaller, lighter elements... smaller and lighter elements like oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen.... the first and the last being the two that would be necessary for producing water.

  2. (part 2)

    Thus, I put forth the idea that as much of the raw ingredients for the water (and, thus the water itself) could be 'created' from the breaking down of larger elements into smaller ones... as being just as much a contribution to the water and thus the size of the planet (two hydrogen atoms take up more space than a single helium atom, despite being made up of the same number of pieces.... and 92 hydrogen atoms all the more space than a single decaying Uranium atom....

    as these heavier elements break down or are broken down into smaller lighter ones, they turn gaseous with less energy, rising up to the surface away from the core... not just allowing for more room in the core for larger elements to come down into (increasing gravity as more denser materials cram together into a smaller point of space-time), not just allowing for the churning effect to happen to promote the shift in materials needed to bring not just heavy things down, but light things up... but also bring the light things up such as to initially heat up so much as to break to the surface and into the atmosphere (ie, increased levels of oxygen during 'dino-times', but also increased levels of hydrogen in the atmosphere.... ) ... until they were able to join together via multiple means.. be it 'naturally' just by atomic attraction to one another, or biologically (microbial, fungal, etc metabolisms) and, as such, come together and produce the incredibly stable molecule of H2O... which is, by its very nature, more stable than the COx and CHx that can also exist as carbon (and the 91 other smaller elements than Uranium are produced during the fission happening at the core)....

    In short, as much water could have simply been 'made' here from already existing materials as was 'brought' to earth by new materials via accretion. All of it adding to the explanation of the increase in the overall size of the planet... *and* mass where accretion comes into play...

    Not only does this not contradict the theories put forth, not only does it expand to them, but I believe that it does so in such a way as to have them been/be even *more* likely the case... just like hydrocarbons (coal, tar sands, petroleum, etc) can be made via the F-T process, or geologically, as *well* as biologically... so can other molecules... like water... as well the base elements from all of the above.


Add your perspective to the conscious collective