3 ms·

What do you mean? The Earth does not "grow" and is not really bigger now than at any point in the past (since the creation of the Moon). On the contrary, it is

What do you mean? The Earth does not "grow" and is not really bigger now than at any point in the past (since the creation of the Moon). On the contrary, it is losing mass through the escape of light atoms escaping, but even that is absolutely tiny. Also, the Earth is absolutely not a living organism.

OrvalWintermute 2mo ago
The earth is both gaining mass and losing mass at the same time We are losing gases and energy (hydrogen, helium, radioactive decay) Concurrently, we are aggregating cosmic dust, micrometeorites, meteoroids, and the occasional larger body Overall a tiny loss
- kergonath 2mo ago
  Right, I know that. But that’s not the point.
Lumich 2mo ago
What he means is probably the idea of Earth Expansion. See Ott Christoph Hilgenberg, a disciple of Alfred Wegener, and more recently (but still a couple decades ago) Australian geologist Samuel Warren Carey. Here's a 1982 video featuring him on the topic of “Planet Earth: A Question of Expansion”: https://youtu.be/Othb0xsvZb4 https://youtu.be/Othb0xsvZb4 – 26 minutes This view is kinda ostracized in geology and considered heresy.
- timedude 2mo ago
  It is growth and not simply expansion. All planets grow and are living organisms. This was common knowledge for the ancients. Carl Sagan made a similar remark once
- timedude 2mo ago
  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U
  - Lumich 2mo ago
    This video is by graphics artist Neal Adams (who I just learnt passed away in 2022). He had a whole series of these videos on his Youtube. I was fascinated when I discovered them ~2008. He was passionate about Earth Expansion. But despite the assertive tone of the voice and the triumphant music, it cannot be properly seen in this sketchy representation how exactly the continents were supposed to fit together on a smaller globe. And the artistic approach he chose suggests that he cared more about the general idea and vision than about the details, which of course is perfectly legit for an artist.
- kergonath 2mo ago
  > What he means is probably the idea of Earth Expansion. No, it’s probably not what they meant, because otherwise that would be completely inconsistent with the bit about "increased gravity" (whatever that mean). It’s also wrong. Less wrong than Earth being a living organism, but still quite wrong. > This view is kinda ostracized in geology and considered heresy. I know this is a figure of speech, but this is not the right metaphor at all for how science works.
  - Lumich 2mo ago
    « probably not what they meant » – Right, he implied Earth is a “living organism”, which is an additional proposition on top of expansion. (Who knows, maybe it is.) The bit about “increased gravity” could mean that Earth may have gained mass (via some as yet unknown mechanism) at some point of her history, something Carey touches upon in the video I linked. I wonder how people can be so certain that Earth first accreted from "constructive" collisions out of some dust cloud, but then, once her "correct" size attained (in accordance with "Laws of Nature"), did not suffer any further changes in size or mass, except for infinitesimal ± due to hydrogen escaping or collecting shooting stars. After all, there is zero direct evidence for that story/theory, just as the interior of the Earth continues to be empirically unknown to us beyond a depth of about 12 km. What I think is that the idea of an expanding/growing Earth (“gotten drastically bigger” at some point in the not so distant geological past, a development which cannot be observed in the present) does not fit the overall science story (physics/cosmology, mass/matter/gravity) and hence is rejected despite the geological surface evidence (see Carey video).
  - Lumich 2mo ago
    « how science works » – It's a human activity and as such it not only bears all the hallmarks of human behaviour (certainly filtered/tempered, yes) but is also subject to overarching "ideological" issues that govern society, all the more so as its material/social existence is usually institutionalized and tied to things like salary, reputation and careers. I've seen evidence of scientists behaving in ways that warrant just the terms I used, ostracism and heresy, when "dealing with" someone questioning/attacking "core tenets" (which, if successful, perhaps after decades, can lead to a "paradigm shift", like "continental drift"). That's not to say all scientists behave alike, of course; psychologically and statistically, average human behaviour should be expected, which typically means conformist and aligned behaviour (civility/restraint, but also "don't upset the applecart").

OrvalWintermute 2mo ago

The earth is both gaining mass and losing mass at the same time We are losing gases and energy (hydrogen, helium, radioactive decay) Concurrently, we are aggregating cosmic dust, micrometeorites, meteoroids, and the occasional larger body Overall a tiny loss

kergonath 2mo ago
Right, I know that. But that’s not the point.

Lumich 2mo ago

What he means is probably the idea of Earth Expansion. See Ott Christoph Hilgenberg, a disciple of Alfred Wegener, and more recently (but still a couple decades ago) Australian geologist Samuel Warren Carey. Here's a 1982 video featuring him on the topic of “Planet Earth: A Question of Expansion”: https://youtu.be/Othb0xsvZb4 https://youtu.be/Othb0xsvZb4 – 26 minutes This view is kinda ostracized in geology and considered heresy.

timedude 2mo ago
It is growth and not simply expansion. All planets grow and are living organisms. This was common knowledge for the ancients. Carl Sagan made a similar remark once
timedude 2mo ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U
- Lumich 2mo ago
  This video is by graphics artist Neal Adams (who I just learnt passed away in 2022). He had a whole series of these videos on his Youtube. I was fascinated when I discovered them ~2008. He was passionate about Earth Expansion. But despite the assertive tone of the voice and the triumphant music, it cannot be properly seen in this sketchy representation how exactly the continents were supposed to fit together on a smaller globe. And the artistic approach he chose suggests that he cared more about the general idea and vision than about the details, which of course is perfectly legit for an artist.
kergonath 2mo ago
> What he means is probably the idea of Earth Expansion. No, it’s probably not what they meant, because otherwise that would be completely inconsistent with the bit about "increased gravity" (whatever that mean). It’s also wrong. Less wrong than Earth being a living organism, but still quite wrong. > This view is kinda ostracized in geology and considered heresy. I know this is a figure of speech, but this is not the right metaphor at all for how science works.
- Lumich 2mo ago
  « probably not what they meant » – Right, he implied Earth is a “living organism”, which is an additional proposition on top of expansion. (Who knows, maybe it is.) The bit about “increased gravity” could mean that Earth may have gained mass (via some as yet unknown mechanism) at some point of her history, something Carey touches upon in the video I linked. I wonder how people can be so certain that Earth first accreted from "constructive" collisions out of some dust cloud, but then, once her "correct" size attained (in accordance with "Laws of Nature"), did not suffer any further changes in size or mass, except for infinitesimal ± due to hydrogen escaping or collecting shooting stars. After all, there is zero direct evidence for that story/theory, just as the interior of the Earth continues to be empirically unknown to us beyond a depth of about 12 km. What I think is that the idea of an expanding/growing Earth (“gotten drastically bigger” at some point in the not so distant geological past, a development which cannot be observed in the present) does not fit the overall science story (physics/cosmology, mass/matter/gravity) and hence is rejected despite the geological surface evidence (see Carey video).
- Lumich 2mo ago
  « how science works » – It's a human activity and as such it not only bears all the hallmarks of human behaviour (certainly filtered/tempered, yes) but is also subject to overarching "ideological" issues that govern society, all the more so as its material/social existence is usually institutionalized and tied to things like salary, reputation and careers. I've seen evidence of scientists behaving in ways that warrant just the terms I used, ostracism and heresy, when "dealing with" someone questioning/attacking "core tenets" (which, if successful, perhaps after decades, can lead to a "paradigm shift", like "continental drift"). That's not to say all scientists behave alike, of course; psychologically and statistically, average human behaviour should be expected, which typically means conformist and aligned behaviour (civility/restraint, but also "don't upset the applecart").