For scientists and others: about earth!

[Grandliseur]

It seems that most ancient archaeological finds are found buried many feet under what now is the surface.

In the theory found about the expanding earth here: Main Evidence for the Expanding Earth Theory - dinox.org
- the claim that the earth is expanding is found. There is even a claim that this is a large expansion affecting earth's gravity.

Please give us your supported, or perhaps unsupported, views on this!
Is this why we find ancient things mostly buried deep?

Have materials from - asteroids, meteors, etc. - been responsible for the weight gain of our beloved mother 'terra less than firma' at times?! Is this what happens to all matrons with age?

Or, do you have some other explanation for this.

Any ideas and theories about this are welcome. Explanations hoped for!

 

[Terese]

The earth is not expanding. Planets don't do that. Where are they getting the necessary mass to expand? The reason ancient things are buried deep is because the earth's surface shifts greatly through the eons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

 

[HonestJoe]

It seems that most ancient archaeological finds are found buried many feet under what now is the surface.

That’s not necessarily true, it actually varies significantly depending on a whole load of different factors. Anyway, if the Earth was expanding, wouldn’t the archaeological finds be pushed out with it and thus remain the same distance from the surface?

In the theory found about the expanding earth here: Main Evidence for the Expanding Earth Theory

That isn’t a theory, it’s a set of loosely developed hypotheses, mostly presented in commercial books rather than scientific publications.

There is even a claim that this is a large expansion affecting earth's gravity.

A claim with no evidence. I saw a mention of the size of dinosaurs but the largest dinosaurs wouldn’t need lower gravity to exist and the idea that most dinosaurs were huge is a common misnomer, with the vast majority being within similar ranges to animals today. The core element about tectonic plates fitting together doesn’t prove anything; maybe they could fit on a smaller Earth but they could equally fit on a consistently sized Earth as per conventional understanding.

If the size and particularly if the mass of Earth has been increasing at the rate being suggested here, there are countless consequences which would be noticed in recent years. Many areas which are very closely studied and measured, both for practical applications and scientific curiosity, would show consistent changes if this were true.

Have materials from - asteroids, meteors, etc. - been responsible for the weight gain of our beloved mother 'terra less than firma' at times?!

Sure, but the relative scale means any addition from all those strikes added together would still be a miniscule percentage of the mass of the Earth. Anyway, if the increase in the mass of the Earth primarily came from material falling on the surface, wouldn’t everything (including much of the evidence being offered) have been covered by many miles depth of this new material?[/I]

 

[Grandliseur]

Thank you for an entertaining video on this subject. I don't believe this, never have, but thought it an entertaining subject for all since one of my searches ran into this website.

I wish someone would address the other part of the question, why so many ancient things are buried so deep. What is the mechanics for that?

 

[Grandliseur]

mostly presented in commercial books rather than scientific publications.

Thank you. And also thank you for addressing the question about archaeology.

That website never constituted something I believe. I simply thought it something we all could have fun with. And, the question of archaeology is mine. Still, don't quite understand the mechanics this, but you say it isn't true in many cases. I'll have to accept that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for an entertaining video on this subject. I don't believe this, never have, but thought it an entertaining subject for all since one of my searches ran into this website.

I wish someone would address the other part of the question, why so many ancient things are buried so deep. What is the mechanics for that?

What ancient beings? If you are talking about fossils that is well understood. But I need to know exactly what you are asking about first.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you for an entertaining video on this subject. I don't believe this, never have, but thought it an entertaining subject for all since one of my searches ran into this website.

I wish someone would address the other part of the question, why so many ancient things are buried so deep. What is the mechanics for that?

Buried by desert sands, silting by river floods, covered by oceans and ocean sediments etc.

 

[Grandliseur]

What ancient beings? If you are talking about fossils that is well understood. But I need to know exactly what you are asking about first.

Not beings, things from human civilizations (and yes, fossils too perhaps) why we are seeing many archaeological digs go quite deep to get to ancient cities, cites. But, I am just curious as to why this is. Obviously, other old cities stand quite exposed for us to see. It just the archaeologist with a digging tool in hand and quite deep is the most ordinary picture of said profession.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not beings, things from human civilizations (and yes, fossils too perhaps) why we are seeing many archaeological digs go quite deep to get to ancient cities, cites. But, I am just curious as to why this is. Obviously, other old cities stand quite exposed for us to see. It just the archaeologist with a digging tool in hand and quite deep is the most ordinary picture of said profession.

Human artifacts tend to be very shallowly buried at best. I don't know of any that were buried deep underground. If an archaeologist can dig it out by hand that tells you it is all but on the surface.

 

[Grandliseur]

Buried by desert sands, silting by river floods, covered by oceans and ocean sediments etc.

I guess it explains the question. It just seems as if some places are layers after layers of more and more ancient remains, going deeper and deeper.
Of course, my main problem is probably exposure to the issues. I have never participated in any dig; so, my slight or non-existent knowledge in the field bites me in the rear.

 

[Grandliseur]

That’s not necessarily true, it actually varies significantly depending on a whole load of different factors. Anyway, if the Earth was expanding, wouldn’t the archaeological finds be pushed out with it and thus remain the same distance from the surface?

That isn’t a theory, it’s a set of loosely developed hypotheses, mostly presented in commercial books rather than scientific publications.

A claim with no evidence. I saw a mention of the size of dinosaurs but the largest dinosaurs wouldn’t need lower gravity to exist and the idea that most dinosaurs were huge is a common misnomer, with the vast majority being within similar ranges to animals today. The core element about tectonic plates fitting together doesn’t prove anything; maybe they could fit on a smaller Earth but they could equally fit on a consistently sized Earth as per conventional understanding.

If the size and particularly if the mass of Earth has been increasing at the rate being suggested here, there are countless consequences which would be noticed in recent years. Many areas which are very closely studied and measured, both for practical applications and scientific curiosity, would show consistent changes if this were true.

Sure, but the relative scale means any addition from all those strikes added together would still be a miniscule percentage of the mass of the Earth. Anyway, if the increase in the mass of the Earth primarily came from material falling on the surface, wouldn’t everything (including much of the evidence being offered) have been covered by many miles depth of this new material?[/I]

I just want to once more to say thank you. You put a lot of effort into your answer, and I agree with your counter-arguments.

 

[Wu Wei]

I will make only one post here..... the earth is not expanding....as previously said, for that it would need to be gaining mass...lots of mass.....or be full of hot expanding air and be a big planetary balloon...and it isn't...but if one believe it is they best look up plate tectonics

And I tend to go with NASA on this one

NASA - NASA Research Confirms it’s a Small World, After All

 

[ExVasterist]

Another way to disprove it - Look at the moon. Sure, it is not a planet, but if planets could expand by getting numerous bombardments, then the moon should be 100x larger than is was in the early 1900s cause it gets bombarded by asteroids a ton more than the earth does - Also consider the gravity & atmosphere of our planet vs the moon, most foreign bodies that come rushing in from space get burned up to a fraction of the size it originally was before it finally hits the ground.
The moon has no such luck, no shield to speak of, if say that Asteroid/Comet from the Bruce Willis movie Armageddon were to crash in to the Moon, the moon would be obliterated.

If that Texas sized asteroid did manage to hit earth, it would've shrunk as it entered our atmosphere, but not enough to save our lives or anything else living on the planet.
No matter what hits us, no matter how small or how big, the earth will never get larger because of it.

Should consider watching the movie The Core (where the core has stalled) and even Deep Impact (where a Tsunami causing Asteroid actually does hit), then look up an Asteroid we are all due to see in 2029 (Its an asteroid none of us wants to hit).

As for archaeological digs, you have mostly volcanoes & tectonic shifts to thank for that, but others its mostly time cause as time passes, nature reclaims it either by growing over it or covering it in dust/dirt/sand, plus everything decays on the surface - sure a lot of the world wonders haven't really decayed like the Great Pyramids of Giza but other areas that use have great cities are now barren wastelands with only a small fraction of what use to be there.
Why we're discovering something lost to the ages? Cause they were underground and many old civilizations kept their secrets & wonders under their structures, its the most fair assumption & logical to go off of.

If the earth really expanded, a great many current & old cities would be more spread out instead of remaining in the same place they were built. Like say (extreme hypothetical) you traveled back in time and built up a structure made of material that immune to decay, then went back to the present, and say the building was never transplanted by anyone or wasn't taken down, that building would be (by the expanding theory) hundreds of miles from it's original built point.
But since the earth doesn't expand, it would be in the same spot regardless of how many asteroids or comets made it through and hit the earth.

 

[Grandliseur]

The earth is not expanding. Planets don't do that. Where are they getting the necessary mass to expand? The reason ancient things are buried deep is because the earth's surface shifts greatly through the eons.

I think you were the first to answer the question. I did not want to answer you until others had seen the question.
Thank you for your answer.

I never believed the earth to be expanding as that website mentioned. I was, however, interested in the mechanism that seemed to bury ancient cities and such archaeological remains deep in the ground. I have now seen what several are saying.

I thought that the question the website created would be a fun topic for all here which is why I posted it.

 

[Terese]

I think you were the first to answer the question. I did not want to answer you until others had seen the question.
Thank you for your answer.

I never believed the earth to be expanding as that website mentioned. I was, however, interested in the mechanism that seemed to bury ancient cities and such archaeological remains deep in the ground. I have now seen what several are saying.

I thought that the question the website created would be a fun topic for all here which is why I posted it.

Fun for children perhaps

 

[Grandliseur]

Fun for children perhaps

Things need a pick-me-up on this site once in a while. I thought the website and its claim was related to my main interest. So while I thought the changes of gravity to be utter nonsense together with the extreme large increase this would have needed to earth, I did wonder if there had been enough material from outer space to account for the seemingly feet of burial of many archaeological sites. Naturally, I also thought erosion and whatnot to have an effect; still, I wanted to see what everyone said.

Quote: "Satellite observations suggest that 100-300 metric tons of cosmic dust enter the atmosphere each day. "
Getting a Handle on How Much Cosmic Dust Hits Earth - Universe Today​

Over billions of years that is not pennies. Which is why I asked about it. Let me know what tickles your funny bone.

There is not much going on here as far as serious religious discussion, imo, and evolution interests me not. Sciences, history, and archaeology, I like; but many things here are evolutionary in nature. Have no use for it.