Talk:Expanding Earth

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Historical

[1] Sciencia58 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2023-01

Samuel Carey, 1976: «Two corner-cube reflectors have been placed on the moon. Three optical observatories at Canberra, Honululu, and Tokyo have telescopes capable of receiving reflected laser light from a lunar corner-cube [...] According to the "plate tectonics" hypotheses these three observatories are approaching each other at a rate of several centimetres per year. According to the expanding earth model they are separating at a few centimetres per year. Remeasurement after a few years would establish the truth.»
Samuel Carey, 1994: «No new crust has been inserted between Hawaii and Japan since the Jurassic, so this arc would appear to be shrinking at 6 cm per year, which is about what NASA finds. But they interpret it as subduction of crust, whereas I interpret it as caused by insertion of new crust between Hawaii and Peru and elsewhere within the Hawaii-Japan great circle.»

The Expanding Earth thesis is garbage and always has been. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is flawed as even rulers would have to expand for this idea to work. So it is not testable. 50.35.113.183 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Importance of Comparisons

What is missing is comparisons between Plate Tectonics, Planetary Growth Tectonics, Mass redistribution Tectonics, and most importantly a Neutral outlook and presentation of the Concepts. There are dozens of articles on the topic of Expansion Tectonics, several Videos, Many Authors, and lots of compelling evidence that both Plate Tectonics and Expansion Tectonics have good concepts to look at and compare.

However, whoever is controlling this version is definitely was too Negative to be even consider a Positive Outlook, and real Neutral comparisons. 24.9.221.181 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FALSEBALANCE for why that won't be happening. Mikenorton (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary References on Earth Expansion

Hello all, I’ve added two recent sources under the Contemporary subsection of the Expanding Earth article. These are: Giancarlo Scalera (2022) – A non-Newtonian view of the Universe based on Hydrodynamic-Inspired Gravity from the Expanding Earth hypothesis

(Earth-Prints link)

James Maxlow (2020) – The essence of all my expanding Earth research

(DINOS link)

These were added as recent, independent contributions reflecting ongoing scientific perspectives on expansion-based geodynamics. I believe they meet the standard for inclusion in the Contemporary section, and I welcome input if others feel differently. Best regards,

— Ruud Loeffen Ruud Loeffen (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all of the external links, and restored the categories that were removed. The external links were all self-published, unreliable, and most ran through a proxy service rather than linking to the content. External links aren't a section to dump the views and unreviewed writings of non-notable people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two AIs Discuss: The Expanding Earth Theory Solves the Continental Puzzle

I propose adding the following video to the Contemporary section of the Expanding Earth article: Two AIs Discuss: The Expanding Earth Theory Solves the Continental Puzzle This 2024 video presents a neutral dialogue between two AI avatars, exploring new geological and planetary observations relevant to Earth expansion theory. It does not make definitive claims, but frames the topic as a legitimate question for scientific re-evaluation. I believe it offers educational value and reflects modern perspectives on the topic. – Ruud Loeffen Ruud Loeffen (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such a framing would introduce a false balance, so I don't think that would be an improvement. Mikenorton (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no circumstances whatsoever where a 'dialogue' between two LLMs would be considered even remotely appropriate content to provide as an external link. WP:ELNO deprecates "site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research", and by its very nature, any output from an LLM is unverifiable. Furthermore, with a frequency high enough to utterly invalidate them as a useful means to explore complex topics, LLMs are liable to repeatedly 'hallucinate' - in plain English to make stuff up, in order to generate 'data' where they have none. So no, we aren't going to pretend that next-word-generator-Bot output is 'educational', regardless of what questionable prompts they have been fed to coax them into generating pseudoscientific bullshit. We have enough problems already on Wikipedia with people spamming talk-page and article space with LLM generated drivel, and we certainly aren't going to mislead our readers into thinking they are going to be 'educated' by reading more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]