The earth is expanding

1a. A good reason for not finding plenty of deep sea fossils is because THE OCEAN IS HARD TO EXPLORE. In fact, we have explored less than 5 percent of the ocean! (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov...) Another reason why we don't find many under is SEAFLOOR SPREADING. Think of this as an incinerator conveyor belt, pushing off garbage (fossils) into the fire (the mantle.) As new garbage is put onto the belt (fossils are formed) it is in a constant movement outward to the fire (the mantle.) Also, water is much more effective at wearing down fossils than things like air. These three reasons easily explain why more fossils are found on land. 1b. "Light is spin torque energy from the sun." Um, no it's not? Light is a type of electromagnetic wave. The sun produces light, but sun(s) are not the only source of light. If your statement were true, how would the light from your computer screens, lamps, phone flashlights, etc. work? If you want know how light really works, do a simple Google search, or just click to one of the three provided links: (http://www.andor.com...) (http://science.howstuffworks.com...) (http://www.explainthatstuff.com...) If any of this is too complicated, I found another source that may be more understandable: (http://www.sciencekids.co.nz...) 1c. "Thus, all living things are like little wind-up toys which are powered by the suns spin torque energy." What? No, living things are powered by energy, which on earth, commonly comes in the form of things glucose. Not... torque? The idea of torque as a type of energy for living creatures is ridiculous, especially if we already know how they work. I mean, I guess it may theoretically be possible for a creature to harness any type of energy, but no known creatures harness this type of energy, so the idea of this being the only way for creatures to receive energy is ridiculous. If you refer to light as this energy, then that is also not true. It is true that a majority of creature do, by extension receive most of their energy from the Sun, whether it be directly, by eating that organism, by eating that organism that ate the other organism, and/or on and on and on. However, this idea is already proven false by the existence of chemotropism, which are organisms that collect energy by the oxidation of electron donors. You can read on them here: (http://www.fossilmuseum.net...) 1d. "Forget about photons, this is not how the universe works." Um? You cannot just rewrite so much of science so easily. If you can point me to several credible sources that even come close enough to suggest the existence, or rather non-existence, of such a theory, please show me. I can guarantee you, if they were not already, they can easily be debunked. 2. What you just described is the process of Nuclear fission. Nuclear fission creates energy, however energy =/= mass. (=/= means doesn't equal.) The idea that our planet is a sun, just with a crust layer is ridiculous, it is extremely unstable. We could make an iron globe and drop nuclear bombs in it and call it a planet, by your definition, but when I put it like that it, somehow, sounds even less feasible. If you are suggesting that the energy created by this creates matter, well it can, but it returns to the exact same amount that was used to cause the process. This way, the planet would not grow. It is impossible to grow without an exterior source of mass, such as a meteor, but that would severely damage the planet. Thank you for reading! On to Pro!