I think the point Lightstorm is that the planets do not "grow" as he suggests.

As I learn more about this, I can't help but think this small following might trace back to the same sorta people that ran around with these crazy ideas that just maybe... the earth wasn't the center of the universe, or the earth was round? Those people where mocked by the scientific community as well.

According to him, the placement of the shorelines on his pretty little animations were not "real", but rather there to illustrate how perfectly the continents fit together on the smaller earth, and that the actual shorelines moved towards their present positions as the earth expanded. This occurred because, as he states, "Water will increase in amount,but not percentage". So presumably, this means that about 70% of the land was submerged, as it is today, and as it will always be.

Here's where it falls apart: according to the theory, the land we see exposed today as continents is all old land, and the sea floor is all new land. In fact, this is the whole point of the theory in the first place - the notion that the shapes defined by today's continents fit together perfectly on a smaller sphere with no space between. Since all dry land is old land and all ocean floor is new land, that means the earth is currently 70% new land.

So now, on top of the question of where this astronomically huge quantity of new matter came from, we also have to deal with this magical coincidence.

You don't find it odd that the ocean floor isn't that old? It isn't a new fact that the ocean floors are pretty new compared to the lands we walk on today. There are also many parts of the ocean floor that look like large stretch marks. According to the accepted scientific theory of subduction the structural geology of the ocean floor should show huge subduction rifts and shear zones, where we would see huge rigid bottle neck pile up of oceanic crust nearing the subduction zones... and yet... the entire ocean floor is smoothly surfaced, free of oceanic slab irregularities, indicating harmonious spreading.

It is thought pair production could create the massive amount of mass over that massive length of time.

I wrote 3 paragraphs (5 technically, but only the middle three were really significant). The first two were not even disagreeing with you, rather summarizing previous points and drawing some simple conclusions - specifically, that the percentage of water is constant while the percentage of new land is increasing. The argument I actually made against the theory came in paragraph 3. I can only assume that you didn't understand my argument, since the one paragraph that disagreed with you is the only one you DIDN'T respond to.

The youtube video (or at least the one I saw - it seems to have been re-edited several times) ends with the narrator admonishing those who doubt his genius for their primitive notion that the earth is "special", and that the universe is centered around our species. This is exactly the problem I am pointing out - the theory is suggesting that our species just happened to come along at this exact moment in time when current ocean shores line up with the ancient dividing lines. This is not the kind of coincidence one should be willing to accept in a valid scientific theory.

Third: in order to get new particles at all, an existing atom needs to be hit by a very energetic photon. In order to produce an electron/positron pair, the required photon must have an energy of about 1 million electron volts (1.022 MeV). This gives it a frequency of 2.5x10^20, making it VERY intense gamma radiation. To get protons, required for hydrogen or any other element, requires a photon 1,800 times MORE energetic. To double the mass of the earth would have required about 2.6x10^41 joules of energy. This about 11 million times the total energy imparted by the sun to the earth in the entire 4 billion years the earth has existed. That amount of intense gamma radiation would have, shall we say, been noticed. Or rather, it would not be noticed, as there would be nothing alive TO notice it.

The expanding earth theory does not account for subduction (when two crusts meet one slides underneath the other) and the evidence for subduction is overwhelming. For one thing, we can see evidence of it using seismic tomography.

Light Storm: I strongly recomend you check out this womens book "The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science (1999) "

Under the expanding earth theory, there are a lot of really great points agaist Subduction. Paleomagnetic data is something I honestly don't know much about, but it looks like a pretty complex math formua.

Her critique of the research community is valid. To be honest, there was enough evidence to certainly take a more serious look at the continental drift theory at an earlier time. What happened there I'm not too familiar with. Then again, I'm a geophysicist - not a historian.

No. You did not get "a little off track", you were never anywhere near the track in the first place. Though, in a way, I prefer your vague ramblings to your earlier claims, if only because you are no longer trying to drag the work of reputable scientists, such as our understanding of pair production, into your fantasy world.

Still, I have to ask... Are you even trying anymore? Seriously, now you're making up your own theory for the extinction of the dinosaurs, without suggesting any problems with the existing theories except that you didn't "like them"? It's hard to decide if I'm more in awe of the absurdity or the irrelevance.

And your response to my point about the energies involved in pair production... wow. Could I even call that a response? Are you afraid I hurt the self-esteem of photons? Yes, it's true that many photons will do more than one photon. In fact, 1000 photons of equal wavelength will have exactly 1000 times the effect of one of them. The math is all there. It does not come anywhere close to adding up to the conclusion you hope for, and no amount of poetry will change that.

Scientific theories are not accepted on the basis of how cool they are. They are accepted when those who propose them do the work involved in demonstrating that they are more plausible than all alternatives. If Adams manages to do this, by finding new evidence supporting his theory or against the existing theories, and most importantly addressing the gaping holes in his (starting with where all the new matter came from), I will happily take another look at it. Until then, I find the idea that I am expected to look at his first, pitiful attempt and say "Sure, it violates all the laws of physics, but the animation looks so neat! It must be true!" somewhat insulting

Then there are little things liked ocean sediments lifted a half mile or more above the surrounding sediments wherever one plate slides under another: The Rocky Mountains and their relatives from the Arctic Ocean to Tierra del Fuego, the Coast Mountains, the Appalachians, the Himalaya. Add to those, the mountain ranges with large numbers of volcanos created in the process, such as the Cascades Mountains. There's plenty of good evidence of a past connection between India, Madagascar, Africa, Australia, South America, and Antarctica...yet the inflating balloon stretched India some 5000 miles from Africa, while Madagascar only moved 100. In the process, India slammed into Asia. Likewise, a chunk of the Appalachians has been twisted sideways, broken off, and is now known as the Ozarks. That's not possible without plate tectonics, regardless of whether the Earth is inflating or not. Plate tectonics is required of the inflationary Earth model, but also matches the data fine all by itself.

The whole "matter from energy" concept is utterly ludicrous. There is no free ride. E=MC^2. The equation balances; energy and matter combine to a constant sum. The amount of radiation released is tiny in comparison to the amount of matter it is expected to create. To create one atom, you must completely convert another atom into energy, not simply use the small number of particles produced by radioactive decay. If you create one atom, you lose one atom [on average].

An ancient Earth without mountains? Also ludicrous. All kinds of evidence of worn down ancient mountain ranges, such as the Appalachians. Hundreds of feet of sand, dust, mud and clay eroded, reformed into sandstone, mudstone, shale, limestone, and then into gneiss, schist, marble, and slate. That's a lot of flat-ground erosion. At a bare minimum, there would be mountains created by impact craters and volcanoes. There are a number of very large craters ringed by mountains. I can think of at least one on Australia's east coast, and the monster of Xixchulub happens to coincide with the timing of the last major extinction.

THEN...people forget, or are simply unaware, that Pangea was NOT the "original" land mass. Pangea itself was actually formed by the collisions of multiple previous continents, which were themselves formed by the breakup of Rodinia. These geographic arrangements are determined not only by shape of current continents, but by paleomagnetism, rock types, etc. Much of that data is used to support the inflationary model, but it ONLY works for that model if you exclude everything before Pangea, and even then it's a stretch [so to speak]. It would require inflation, distortion, deflation, inflation, more distortion. It defies physics and chemistry which work just fine otherwise.

Why are we even having to debate this ? Did we suddenly decide that Earthquakes are the result of a billion people all jumping up and down in unison or something ? Did we lose all evidence of the various ice ages this planet has experienced ? Did we misplace all the physical evidence of fossilized flora and fauna indicating that all the continents were joined together in certain areas but not at others ? Most importantly, are we not paying school teachers enough?

Why are we even having to debate this?

I can tell you this... as a 'feeling' 'perceiving' type I go off gut feelings a lot more than the logical 'thinking' 'judging types'.

Do you agree that all living things start out small, and get bigger as time goes on... and this doesn't just apply to ones life, but the life of it's DNA... over a massive amount of time, what started out as a single cell, is now an elephant. I don't think it's a giant leap to take what we know about life and be able to apply it to things bigger than ourselves.