Expanding Earth

[Remo]

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html < videos
http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/FixedorExpandingEarth.htm

Opinions?

[Dan Rowden]

Interesting argument and really nice presentations. I can't decide yet if it makes sense or not.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If all the data is accurate, it makes sense to me.

[Dan Rowden]

I did some research on the guy and whilst those vids are interesting, he apparently has some quite crazy ideas.

[brokenhead]

Neal Adams! One of my boyhood heroes! His Batman and X-Men art for DC, along with Green Arrow and Green Lantern... I still have some of them.

[brokenhead]

...except that if the earth had half the radius but the same mass, things would have weighed 4 times more at the earth's surface. If Neal is saying the earth's density was the same as today when its radius was half as large, then that would result in things weighing half as much. But density the same, half the radius means a lot less mass. It would imply the earth has acquired 87.5% of its present mass since the time Neal is talking about.

But what an illustrator!!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Although Adams' reasoning is good, the underlying data is refuted by scientific observations:

Slab Of Sunken Ocean Floor Found Deep Within Earth

This one shows how GPS systems have measured points on various tectonic plates, and how some points get closer together after seismic activity. According to Adams' theory, points would always be further apart.

[brokenhead]

Although Adams' reasoning is good, the underlying data is refuted by scientific observations

Such as the rough calculation I did in my last post. It is a high school physics problem. If you click on his first link, you see he is reasoning that gravity was half as much when the earth's radius was half what it is today. If the earth's "skin" then is the same surface that we see now just spread apart like he says, then the interior volume of mass would have had to grow by 88.5%. That is completely impossible by any physical reasoning whatsoever. No scientific theory could account for the appearance of all that matter coming from within the earth, somehow.

Neal is arguably the greatest comics illustrator of all time, and he has written his share of comic book plots as well. But his reasoning about this topic is really not very good at all.

[Remo]

@broken

Definitely a lot of unanswered questions about his theory, but....

Why does everything match up? Even on other planets?

Obviously he is speculating as to cause, but the effect is quite clear and that's what disturbing about this.

An analogy would be a laymen several hundred years ago, saying " i believe the earth is round and that the moon and sun circle the earth"

A sceptic of that time would say why? that's impossible!!

Our laymen answers
"Well the sun is round and so is the moon , so too must be the earth..

The sceptic says,
"But I can plainly see the earth is flat!!

Our layman answers
The moon and the sun travel across the sky, they always rise from the east and set in the west. So I believe that the sun and the moon orbit the earth, how else can the sun and the moon get to the east from the west? The earth looks flat only because its so huge.

The sceptic says
"Yeah but that doesn't make sense, we would fall off."

The laymen answers
"I agree we only live on the top half"

Now someone from that time would state this guy is totally loopy because what he's saying goes against common sense and knowledge and he's wrong about 50% of his assumptions, but he's also 50% right. And the 50% that he's right about had yet to be proven. Speculation is speculation but observations hint at the underlying truth.

@Eli

GPS measurements show a 11mm avg growth per year, with around a 5mm contraction net gain 6mm /year, also if you looked at the video's the one about Africa it shows how the continent created a pivot point when breaking off from Europe, causing a compression zone, maybe most compression is caused by something like this? And even so the time scale and growth is so small it would probably take a century to see definitive proof of growth.

Also i have trouble understanding how our crust can slip under/into magma, the crust has an average density of 2.6 while the mantle has a density of an average of 3.4, essentially 1/3 more dense, to me that sounds like trying to slip a chunk of Styrofoam underwater, or sand, and sure you can bury a piece of Styrofoam under sand, but you have to bury it, it doesn't sink itself in there. Make a pile of Styrofoam 10 miles high it still wont sink into something that is denser. But of course there might be something we don't know...

I would love to find data on the exact measurements of Jupiter, because if his theory is even remotely true, Jupiter should show the biggest growth factor in the solar system. (the sun too for that matter, but i would speculate the the sun is in a sort of equilibrium where the growth is offset by solar venting of its mass into space due to nuclear fusion.)

I really don't know if he's wrong or right but I just cant get away from the Fact that the pieces do match up, on earth and elsewhere...

>>>Why do the pieces match up?

This is the question and an observation that is, excuse the pun rock solid. Whatever the truth may be it has to account for this, and no presently accepted theory can explain it especially not subduction. So far all the debunking I've read about attacks this theory peripherally from any angle except this one, like no growth has been detected... its impossible because it goes against other theories... he's a great illustrator but... etc... but this one fact is the key to showing there's something very very important that we're missing and don't understand. And no scientist has even gone near this, anything but this, and its the most fundamental part of his theory. Growth is just an explanation for why the pieces match up, an obvious conclusion ala Occam's razor, given the evidence.


If someone could Debunk this, that the pieces don't match up, the theory dies right there... should be simple. But no one has and I'm at total loss to find another explanation.

So lets speculate, if we accept that the pieces fit together, what other reasons could cause the pieces to match up without a growing earth?

[Iolaus]

It is entirely possible that science is wrong about things like Big Bang. And even BB has some pretty strange ideas about whence all this matter got generated.

Paul La Violette thinks that the central star of the galaxy - the galactic core, is the generator of the matter in the galaxy, and each star and planet that gets spawned generates matter also, at a less powerful rate. This means everything is growing.

The matter is generated from the underlying ether, what he calls subquantum kinetics.

I happen to think he is right, and its a pretty grand scheme.

[brokenhead]

So lets speculate, if we accept that the pieces fit together, what other reasons could cause the pieces to match up without a growing earth?

I'm not convinced all the pieces do "fit" as neatly as Neal claims. Bit 4.5 billion years is a long time. And the earth was hotter at one point. Let's say some pieces of the mantle and/or crust detatched from each other, and later went on to crunch into one another on another part of the surface, causing coastal mountain ranges to buckle up, then rebounding and moving away.

Whatever did happen, the earth's diameter may have been smaller, but Neal has it at 30 - 50% smaller and claims gravity would have been less. It could only have been less if the earth's density were the same or less. This could only have happened if additional matter has since then magically appeared in the planet's interior - a lot of matter, almost 90% of its present mass.

But suppose the amount of matter has remained the same and the diameter has increased, which would account for all the present surface areas tucking snugly against one another. This could have happened if the molten core were more compressed, or if the solid mantle has since developed a more honey-combed structure with open pockets distributed everywhere. In this case, the earlier gravity would have been up to 4 times greater, not less, due to the smaller diameter. This contradicts Neal's claim.

Something has to give in his scenario. I think it is simply that it never happened that way.

[Remo]

@broke

Considering the amount of weather erosion on earth , its remarkable that we can still make out how the pieces fit together, if we stick to the pieces fitting so well together we still have an unexplained phenomena, one that is even more apparent on weather-less planets, the Europa video is especially telling, if you search the web for your own pics of Europa, and use photo-shop to line up pieces they do match up. I also have a home globe and they do seem to all fit together just by looking at it, the Atlantic side is a snap, but even the pacific side matches up if you stare at it long enough.

We cant really speculate on gravity and mass because we're using theories that are based on a fixed planet size (which would be wrong if this is true), for example if we apply iolaus's suggestion then it alters these. As for not being convinced that the pieces fit together id like to know what you find that makes you think they don't, as far as i can tell they do, but maybe you have an insight that i missed.

I'm not convinced all the pieces do "fit" as neatly as Neal claims. Bit 4.5 billion years is a long time. And the earth was hotter at one point. Let's say some pieces of the mantle and/or crust detached from each other, and later went on to crunch into one another on another part of the surface, causing coastal mountain ranges to buckle up, then rebounding and moving away.

i would have to think that the probability of all the pieces smashing together in such a way as leave the totality of all the pieces fitting together to form a smaller globe to be highly unlikely, but it could be, however that doesn't explain why the same phenomena is visible on planets that have no tectonic activity.

[brokenhead]

We cant really speculate on gravity and mass because we're using theories that are based on a fixed planet size

My reasoning is sound, Remo. What I said is not speculation, it's science fact. I just calculated what the gravity would be if the earth had the same mass but were smaller by half a radius or diameter. It would be four times what it is now. Think in terms of density. Same amount of matter, smaller size, more dense. Denser matter equals more gravity. That is a physical fact, not a speculation.

Neal is saying that dinosaurs and giant butterflies existed in the past because there was less gravity. You can see from the above that if the amount of matter remained the same, there would have been oppressively more gravity, given a smaller planet size. I would weigh about 860 lbs. on such a planet. A dinosaur-like species would be the last thing to evolve in such crushing gravity.

As for not being convinced that the pieces fit together id like to know what you find that makes you think they don't, as far as i can tell they do, but maybe you have an insight that i missed.

I'll wait for somebody to demonstrate it with CGI. If it is as good a fit as Neal claims, it will be done soon enough. The close fit of all the pieces is not obvious to me.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... you see he is reasoning that gravity was half as much when the earth's radius was half what it is today. If the earth's "skin" then is the same surface that we see now just spread apart like he says, then the interior volume of mass would have had to grow by 88.5%. That is completely impossible by any physical reasoning whatsoever. No scientific theory could account for the appearance of all that matter coming from within the earth, somehow.

Unless of course the properties of the mass change too, like its molecular or even atomic density. And somehow this would work different for mass in its various states: solid, fluid and gas (otherwise: how could we ever notice something changing). Would such thing work? Could it be falsified?

Maybe this is what is meant with the Earth entering a 'higher vibration'... less dense, more ethereal!

Neal is arguably the greatest comics illustrator of all time, and he has written his share of comic book plots as well. But his reasoning about this topic is really not very good at all.

He's just a spokesman though, it's not his theory.

[Remo]

My reasoning is sound, Remo. What I said is not speculation, it's science fact. I just calculated what the gravity would be if the earth had the same mass but were smaller by half a radius or diameter. It would be four times what it is now. Think in terms of density. Same amount of matter, smaller size, more dense. Denser matter equals more gravity. That is a physical fact, not a speculation.

your reasoning is sound but is based on your speculation

But suppose the amount of matter has remained the same and the diameter has increased, which would account for all the present surface areas tucking snugly against one another. This could have happened if the molten core were more compressed, or if the solid mantle has since developed a more honey-combed structure with open pockets distributed everywhere. In this case, the earlier gravity would have been up to 4 times greater, not less, due to the smaller diameter. This contradicts Neal's claim.

this is speculation no? in the sense that your speculating that the earth could have been smaller but with the same mass, in his theory Neil states that mass is increasing, which is speculation to be sure, but he doesn't imply as you do that the earth was in a compressed state before. and you could be right, but your using one speculation to override another.

I'll wait for somebody to demonstrate it with CGI. If it is as good a fit as Neal claims, it will be done soon enough. The close fit of all the pieces is not obvious to me.

try a globe, no tricks there, just visualization, that convinced me more than any cgi of Neil's. a globe unlike a map is not flat so its much easier to see where the pieces match up

[brokenhead]

Unless of course the properties of the mass change too, like its molecular or even atomic density. And somehow this would work different for mass in its various states: solid, fluid and gas (otherwise: how could we ever notice something changing). Would such thing work? Could it be falsified?

Maybe this is what is meant with the Earth entering a 'higher vibration'... less dense, more ethereal!

Gravity depends only on the amount of matter present. There are many things that I know very little about. Physics is not one of them. Whoever came up with this theory, it cannot work without an entirely new paradigm of nature.

May the force be with you.

[Iolaus]

BH

Gravity depends only on the amount of matter present.

But Diebert suggested that while the size of earth might change, the density might not change that much if the matter was less dense.

And I suggested that the amount of mass is not the same, but growing, always proportionately.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Gravity depends only on the amount of matter present. There are many things that I know very little about. Physics is not one of them.

Gravity, by the way, depends as well on the Gravitational Constant and the distance between the objects. But more importantly: you are dead wrong to suggest that a smaller Earth with the same mass would have a bigger gravitational field. I mean: F = G * M1 * M2 / R^2, where in there do you see diameter of M1 or M2?

You better add physics to the list of things you know little about.

[brokenhead]

Gravity depends only on the amount of matter present. There are many things that I know very little about. Physics is not one of them.

Gravity, by the way, depends as well on the Gravitational Constant and the distance between the objects. But more importantly: you are dead wrong to suggest that a smaller Earth with the same mass would have a bigger gravitational field. I mean: F = G * M1 * M2 / R^2, where in there do you see diameter of M1 or M2?

You better add physics to the list of things you know little about.

Diebert-

What do you think the R in the above equation stands for? No offense, but you apparently know nothing about physics.

Listen carefully and lean something.

The R in the equation is the distance between M1 and M2 treated as point particles. M1 would be the earth, treated as if it were a point particle located at its center. M2 is any object on its surface. Let's say it is another sphere like the planet it is on. As you'll see, its shape does not matter.

Got it so far, Einstein? So the R in the equation is just the radius is the distance between the centers of the touching spheres. That would be the sum of the two radii. But since the radius of one is so much larger, we assume that the R in the above equation is the radius of the earth.

There 's your answer. R is the radius of M1 and the radius of M2 is insignificant. BTW, if the radius of M2 was NOT insignificant, you would feel noticeably lighter at the top of a flight of stairs than at the bottom. We have a more or less constant gravitational field because the earth is so much bigger than we are.

And the G in the equation is a constant. That means the F in the equation does not "depend" on it, since a constant by definition does not change.

When I said gravity depends on mass alone, I meant at a constant R between the centers of mass. My point was that at R2 = 1/2R, the F above is 4 times as great if you assume that the respective masses do not also change.

A little more math shows that for gravity to have been less and not greater, the mass of the earth would have had to have been 1/8 of its present mass. That is 7/8 smaller, or 88.5%.

Diebert, I taught this stuff in graduate school.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

When I said gravity depends on mass alone, I meant at a constant R between the centers of mass. My point was that at R2 = 1/2R, the F above is 4 times as great if you assume that the respective masses do not also change.

But don't forget the model you criticize does suggest an increase of mass with the expansion or even a change in the Gravitational Constant [eg Egyed].

A little more math shows that for gravity to have been less and not greater, the mass of the earth would have had to have been 1/8 of its present mass. That is 7/8 smaller, or 88.5%.

My impression after reading the rather wacky theory was that this is exactly what they're suggesting, or at least as one of the possibilities.

For the record, you are still wrong on both accounts:

1. Gravity doesn't only depend on the amount of matter [you mean mass] present. You just explained yourself that the decreasing distance R between the bodies is another factor. So your statement as it stands is wrong, period. And you don't seem to be familiar with the fact that some proponents of the theory did question the Gravitational Constant as well. By flat-out stating this 'must' be a constant, or there 'cannot' be mass added during the process, there's no point in arguing further really against the theory like you are doing. One can only entertain this theory when allowing a few assumptions.

2. Denser matter itself does not equal "more gravity". Not in such a general sense. Denser matter might cause objects near or on the surface to be closer to the center of gravity. This is something different and if you once were a teacher, the way you express these things is surprisingly confusing and seems to me rather inaccurate. You might have intended a different meaning though.

[brokenhead]

My impression after reading the rather wacky theory was that this is exactly what they're suggesting, or at least as one of the possibilities.

Yes, it is wacky because they don't say where so much mass could have come from. If it were accreted from matter in the surrounding area, it would have been added to the surface, completely defeating the theory that the surface long ago is still on the surface now, just stretched out. The only other alternative is that the matter appeared on the inside of the planet. This cannot happen.

But don't forget the model you criticize does suggest an increase of mass with the expansion or even a change in the Gravitational Constant [eg Egyed].

A change in the Universal Gravitational Constant has never been observed. A change of the magnitude this theory would require would make the entire universe look different. Why would it change here and not anywhere else? You are being critical of me instead of Neal's reasoning. Such a change in G could not have happened. It did not.

Gravity doesn't only depend on the amount of matter [you mean mass] present.

Mass is the amount of matter present, just like volume (in dB's) is the amount of loudness. Since Einstein, it is understood that matter and mass are the same thing.

And you don't seem to be familiar with the fact that some proponents of the theory did question the Gravitational Constant as well.

In science, every proposition is questioned at some time or another before it becomes widely agreed upon and accepted. No one has proposed, to my knowledge, a value of G that varies as mush as this theory would require.

Listen Diebert, I can say that I still think the moon is made of green cheese and that Apollo just happened to land on a small patch of rock in that green cheese. That wouldn't make my theory as tenable as the prevailing theories. Use some sense.

Denser matter itself does not equal "more gravity". Not in such a general sense.

Yes it does, for a constant radius. I think you know what I meant. We are not speaking in a general sense, but in the terms Neal is presenting. He is proposing a radius 1/2 the present-day value.

Denser matter might cause objects near or on the surface to be closer to the center of gravity.

No it wouldn't. I guess you are still unclear as to accepted theory.

It's very simple. We are talking about an object standing on a planet. In this case, a planet that Neal suggests existed millions of years ago, namely the earth at 1/2 it's present radius (or 1/2 the diameter). That is all we are talking about. So there is a value of R in the equation that is fixed at 1/2 its value today.

Follow me so far? G is constant, and R is fixed.

I am saying that if the amount of matter (mass) was the same then as it is today, the planet would be denser. If the amount of matter were 88.5% or greater less than today's value, F would be the same or less. Otherwise, it would be more. Thus, F depends in my argument only on the density.

The density determines the value of F in the equivalent way I have framed his argument, because his argument does not address where this matter could have come from, or whether it was the same as today or not. My formulation of his theory pinpoints its weakness. This is how you debunk a theory, by narrowing the theory down to its weak points.

Denser matter might cause objects near or on the surface to be closer to the center of gravity.

So do you see where this statement is incorrect? It doesn't matter how dense the earth was in his theory if he is maintaining the earth were half the diameter. An object at the surface would be equally as far from the center of gravity no matter what the density back then - it would be precisely 1/2R away, where R is the present radius of the earth.

if you once were a teacher, the way you express these things is surprisingly confusing and seems to me rather inaccurate.

I was voted best teacher that year. But then, I didn't teach via the Internet. Blackboards do help. Diagrams are essential to teaching physics.

You are intent on demonstrating how Neal's theory, while wacky, isn't necessarily impossible. You are trying to tell me what he could have meant. I'm trying to tell you I understand what he meant, and that he is not addressing accepted physical theory in its entirety. He apparently is not aware of its implications, which I am trying to point out.

This, in fact, is a common problem in first-year mechanics textbooks. It is usually stated as follows:

"Suppose we have a planet P whose radius is R = kr, where r is the radius of the earth and k is a constant of proportionality. If an object weighs W at the surface of the earth, how much would it weigh on P? Assume the density of P is N times that of earth."*

Note that last sentence. Given everything else - as we are in Neal's theory - F depends only on the density, or the amount of matter (mass) for a known radius R =kr.

*The answer where Wp = weight on planet P :
Wp(N) = NkW

Here, as in my formulation of Neal's theory, Wp=Wp(N), or Wp is a function only of N, since we have taken k to be a constant of proportinality. That is, since we know the density of the earth, our value of Wp depends only on the density of planet P:

To be explicit, let: density of earth = De and density of planet P = Dp
We have Dp = NDe, or N = Dp/De

Thus: Wp(Dp) = kWDp/De

where k is fixed and De = density of the earth is known, and W (= weight on the earth) is given.

So do you see that in this version of his theory, the weight (of an object with known weight W on earth today) on the earth at a previous time would depend on its density alone, since he specifies k = 1/2?

[guest_of_logic]

Broke, thanks for your posts to this thread. I didn't get through the links (didn't even start on the video) in the OP, but after reading your critique, I'm not going to spend any time doing so. I feel like I now have an idea of what the theory hinges on, and it seems pretty strange - planets generating matter internally? Hey, anything's possible, it's just a matter of how likely it is - and this one doesn't seem too likely. You seem to know your stuff when it comes to physics.

[brokenhead]

Broke, thanks for your posts to this thread. I didn't get through the links (didn't even start on the video) in the OP, but after reading your critique, I'm not going to spend any time doing so. I feel like I now have an idea of what the theory hinges on, and it seems pretty strange - planets generating matter internally? Hey, anything's possible, it's just a matter of how likely it is - and this one doesn't seem too likely. You seem to know your stuff when it comes to physics.

Thanks, guest, I did ace classical physics in college - physics was my major.

Even stars don't generate net matter - they are the cauldrons wherein the elements are formed from existing Helium and Hydrogen. At least that's the current view of astrophysics.

None of which dethrones Neal Adams as one of my childhood heroes!! I spent countless hours of my youth studying his artwork and copying it. I was a comic book geek and still am, although somewhat closeted these days. His vision of the human form is still, IMHO, unsurpassed in popular art. He considers himself an illustrator as opposed to an artist. I think that says it all.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes, it is wacky because they don't say where so much mass could have come from.

So tell me, where does mass come from? It's not even known what it exactly is. Energy, spin? But if you want to make the point that increases of mass like suggested in this theory go against the regular theories on big-bang and distribution of matter and dark matter through the universe, we're in agreement.

The only other alternative is that the matter appeared on the inside of the planet. This cannot happen.

You mean it's unlikely but then again: how would you know so sure? Do you know how the Earth's mass is calculated? Hint: not using scales. Since there's no way to measure the amount of matter, only deduce it from its gravitational mass, it's not possible yet to falsify your statement.

A change in the Universal Gravitational Constant has never been observed. A change of the magnitude this theory would require would make the entire universe look different. Why would it change here and not anywhere else? You are being critical of me instead of Neal's reasoning. Such a change in G could not have happened. It did not.

One doesn't observe changes in UGC - it's derived at by implication and not very accurate either, but never mind, there has been respectable research [eg John Barrow and Robert Scherrer] in the last decade on the change in UGC for certain particles like photons. It's all not that absolute as you try to make it appear and although far-fetched to use in something like the expanding earth theory, it's not totally out of the question either. Bizarre, yes, full of breath-taking implications for relativity and such, if taken seriously, yes. But it's faulty here to say something at this stage like "cannot". There's just no base for it. This is how science works, and many scientists, including some teachers, just do not get it!

Listen Diebert, I can say that I still think the moon is made of green cheese and that Apollo just happened to land on a small patch of rock in that green cheese. That wouldn't make my theory as tenable as the prevailing theories. Use some sense.

Well, I was criticizing your reaction on the theory, I'm not defending the theory! There are some interesting aspects to it though, more in the form of thought experiment or wondering about the possibility that things are different than one is taught.

Another example: draw a picture of yourself on a piece of paper using a sharp pencil. Then punch a hole through the paper, slowly, using the pencil. Then imagine yourself living inside the piece of paper. How would the hole appear? It will look like a mass increasing circle, expanding magically in size.

You know that gravity is shown in general relativity as spacetime curvature? Or actually mass is a function of the energy and momentum. A system's mass is not ultimately dependent on 'amount of physical matter' but on a lot of specific qualities in the relativistic domain. Which could play a part in the issue of density of the Earth's core, eg, the amount of matter might have increased without increasing the mass as much as current theory describes.

Denser matter itself does not equal "more gravity". Not in such a general sense.

Yes it does, for a constant radius. I think you know what I meant. We are not speaking in a general sense, but in the terms Neal is presenting. He is proposing a radius 1/2 the present-day value.

Well, it's better to be more precise with these kind of statements. While I can see your point about a constant radius and GC being assumed by you, it's still looks like a rather sloppy statement to make in the context of addressing a scientific theory. Perhaps my standards are higher?

What I think confused me is that you started arguing for an instance where the Earth's mass would not have changed while the radius did. Then you come with your calculation about how this would counter the claims on a smaller gravitational field.

It looks to me like a straw man. The Expanding Earth folks are stressing the importance of a large increase of mass or other unknown means to have facilitated the expansion. It's an incomplete theory at best.

My formulation of his theory pinpoints its weakness. This is how you debunk a theory, by narrowing the theory down to its weak points.

No, not at all. Proper critique and dismissal has to happen with great care and precision, which your statements weren't a good example of. And the weakest point is not the gravity issue, it's the plate tectonics, because this is falsifiable: one can investigate the presence and extent of plate tectonics, or a lack of it. One cannot in a similar way prove or disprove the value of the Gravitational Constant or the origin of mass, so those issues cannot be the weakest points. At most these issues can bring up the question of how relevant the theory is to work on, if there would be no other aspects to it.

I'm trying to tell you I understand what he meant, and that he is not addressing accepted physical theory in its entirety.

Duh! Everybody is fully aware of that, especially the people supporting the theory.

He apparently is not aware of its implications, which I am trying to point out.

Surely he would be, otherwise he wouldn't feel the need to propose a huge increase of mass just like other proponents are musing about other mechanisms like a change in the gravitational constant or space-time properties. They need these exotic elements because they are aware of the implications of the theory without them.

[brokenhead]

But it's faulty here to say something at this stage like "cannot". There's just no base for it. This is how science works, and many scientists, including some teachers, just do not get it!

Guilty as charged!

If I were in a classroom and a student presented me with this theory, I would not be doing my job if I merely said this scenario "probably didn't happen."

Ignoring facts that contradict your hypothesis is how science fiction works.

Another example: draw a picture of yourself on a piece of paper using a sharp pencil. Then punch a hole through the paper, slowly, using the pencil. Then imagine yourself living inside the piece of paper. How would the hole appear? It will look like a mass increasing circle, expanding magically in size.

I really have no clue what you are trying to say here.

You know that gravity is shown in general relativity as spacetime curvature? Or actually mass is a function of the energy and momentum. A system's mass is not ultimately dependent on 'amount of physical matter' but on a lot of specific qualities in the relativistic domain.

Your first sentence is correct.

Your second sentence is not complete. "Mass is a function of the energy and momentum." Of what? Matter and energy are the same thing, manifested differently. Mass is the measurement of matter in a local reference frame. You are bringing relativity into the discussion, but it is not warranted. There is nothing relativistic going on in Neal's theory.

While I can see your point about a constant radius and GC being assumed by you, it's still looks like a rather sloppy statement to make in the context of addressing a scientific theory. Perhaps my standards are higher?

I do not have a good feel for where your scientific standards are, but I am just presenting a standard classical physics analysis of this theory.

And the weakest point is not the gravity issue, it's the plate tectonics, because this is falsifiable: one can investigate the presence and extent of plate tectonics, or a lack of it.

If you will. I have not studied plate tectonics, so I zeroed in on the weakness in the theory I could say something knowledgeable about.

This is not really a debatable issue, Diebert. This theory is just not sensible. And I am not criticizing Neal for propounding it. I'm just saying he's wrong. Perhaps I sound too critical. Mea culpa.