Sta Hungry Stay Foolish

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

A blog by Leon Oudejans

The “big-bang” versus the “growing earth, growing universe” theory – part 2

9 March 2015


The “growing earth, growing universe” theory by Neal Adams ( is not a popular theory. Several hundreds of years ago such a theory would be similar as arguing that the Sun is not rotating around the Earth. An Earth rotating around the Sun was considered blasphemy.

The origin of the “growing earth, growing universe” theory is remarkably interesting. When looking from outer space towards planet Earth then the shapes of the continents seem to somehow almost perfectly fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Yet that would leave us with an “island” in a ginormous ocean. Nature does not really support such an idea as the oldest fish fossiles are found at land rather than at sea. Assuming a much smaller, expanding, planet Earth would give a totally different picture: all continents would still be connected and covered by shallow seas. This would perfectly explain earth’s geology and palaeontology (science of fossiles).

After initially supporting continental drift, the late Australian geologist S.Warren Carey advocated earth’s expansion from the 1950s (before the development of plate tectonics provided the generally accepted explanation of the movement of continents) to his death, demonstrating that subduction and other events could not balance the sea-floor spreading at oceanic ridges, and piling yet unresolved paradoxes that continue to plague plate tectonics. Starting in 1956, he proposed some sort of mass increase in the planets and said that a final solution to the problem is only possible in a cosmological perspective in connection with the expansion of the universe.


The “growing earth, growing universe” theory by Neal Adams is strongly based upon the original ideas of Mr. Carey. Neal Adams argues that there was never a big bang. He uses the – rather undisputed – expansion of the Universe as the basis of his theory. The conversion of energy into matter and matter into energy are also leading themes in this theory.

In my layman’s terms the theory assumes that energy converts into matter which makes things grow (e.g., plants, trees, animals, humans and also planets) until “physical maturity”, then “bear fruits”, and the die when matter becomes energy again. If the Sun and other planets/stars can die (explode, implode) then why would they not be able to grow?

If the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and has a diameter of some 12,700 km (equatorial = 12,756.3 km and polar = 12,714 km) then that would imply a growth of almost 2,8 millimetre per year which is that small in % against Earth’s current size that mankind will most likely never be able to measure such small growth. 

Scientists claim that the Universe is some 13.8 billion years old. When applying the growth rate of Earth then the diameter of the Universe would once have been a mere 38,600 km. Such a result even supports claims that the Universe was once “nothing” or just “empty”.

The big-bang theory and the “growing earth, growing universe” theory could actually even merge if the big-bang would involve a perfect big bang from energy (electrons/protons/neutrons) into matter (atoms ==> planets, AND atoms ==> cells ==> organisms) rather than any explosion. 


Framework Posts


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest