[Stephen]

Hi Paul,

I would have thought there were several. Neal Adams placed a number of simple introductions to Earth expansion on YouTube. The Science: 01 has over 2.2 million views so far:
https://youtu.be/oJfBSc6e7QQ

Prof. S. Warren Carey did a video in 1982, Planet Earth: A Question of Expansion that has made it onto YouTube:
https://youtu.be/Othb0xsvZb4

Dr. James Maxlow placed a whole lecture, Yes! The Earth is Expanding:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRA8S2qijlkEVJCL01KShkuOByKc6su1L

Greg Moffit has conducted some interviews:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRA8S2qijlkE8PkTKQn0QvofP7ba179OL

There’s an interesting TV short documentary about Earth expansion (but you need to speak French or German):

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRA8S2qijlkGEE0W0xTv_B-ffhPtnU-YO

And of course our very own David de Hilster has a number of videos about Earth expansion:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT87-DzFFbPkAIk2PRZuz2A

All the best.

Stephen

[Paul]

Thank you Stephen. Its an honour to hear directly from the source. I’ve seen all of those video’s, (with the exception of the ones at the end not in English). They’re great and informative and convincing. But I’m referring to an approach that is designed specifically to appeal to the more broad audience of non PHD level understanding of these concepts. I referred to that sea spreading video because its a representation of half the discussion of earth spreading and its a fully endorsed mainstream theory, as well as explained with simple idea’s and images to gear to the mainstream non phd viewers. You can watch that initial establishing video without triggering the ‘debunking defensive response’ and you’re already educating people and getting them up to speed. It would be exciting to see an equivalent demonstration, (made easy to comprehend) referring to the other more challenging part of the explanation. Like the video I refer to, it would start with a short history of the development of the concept of subduction followed by the challenges to it, and that would lead into this alternative concept. In the absence of some considerable time spent demonstrating the ‘dismantling’ of subduction, which to most is considered ‘accepted science’, I’m assuming that’s the point where we lose the audience. I think that hurdle requires a longer and more simplified video that’s geared to a more broad audience. Its challenging enough to aim at seasoned experts and authorities, and get them to even ‘consider’ these concepts at great risk to their professional credibility, but if you draw in the unwashed masses, you’ll force those in control of the mainstream narrative to at least demonstrate enough respect to tackle the job of a reasonably thought out response, and even join a publicly demanded debate. And that’s where this concept would begin to really join the public discussion. And I hate to say it, but that’s exactly how we’ve witnessed this explosion of ‘flat earth’ discussions. Multitudes of spin off video’s from millions of non PHD types. I say pander to them and lets get this out in the open.

[Paul]

I have found another video not mentioned that is closer to what I was thinking about, at least for the first half of its presentation.

The first 17 minutes is a relatively simplified approach to the introduction of the concept that carries the viewer carefully past the debunking triggers and establishes the idea using accepted science for the most part. It cover the concept’s basic rational’s for its existence, after which it gets into ‘a’ theory about the burning question of ‘where the mass comes from’, and it proceeds in tone as if that is the pin ultimate extension of the full concept, which it definitely is not. There are many theories that attempt to explain possible answers to that big question, so this particular video requires a lot more caution and context to this persons singular idea’s on that bigger question. But otherwise before that part, its not bad from my perspective to draw in the less technical viewer armed only with basic grade school indoctrination into tectonic plate theory.

[Andy]

Couldn’t this also be related to the more persistent density of water over time? A sifting process. Same basic result, slightly different mechanics. Higher density land mass breaks up and falls down, while waters density remains more constant over time in relation to land mass. Our planet has a high iron content. Water pushes up from the plates while heavier particles fall down to the core. Gravity further compresses land mass into denser solids underneath the layer of water. The entire core of our planet is thought to be dense iron. Contraction would seem to play a vital role in the process as well. The core layers may be gaining density while the more persistent density of the water layer pushes up and spreads out.

I suppose we would also be gaining some matter over time naturally from gravity. Debris from comets and asteroids floating around in space getting pulled in to our gravitational field. Wonder how much of that is water or iron.

Are there any estimates from the amount of mass we gain from space on a yearly basis?

Just wondering…

Seems like a lot of moving parts over time.

Looks plausible. The video is pretty convincing.