No, it’s probably not what they meant, because otherwise that would be completely inconsistent with the bit about "increased gravity" (whatever that mean).
It’s also wrong. Less wrong than Earth being a living organism, but still quite wrong.
> This view is kinda ostracized in geology and considered heresy.
I know this is a figure of speech, but this is not the right metaphor at all for how science works.
I wonder how people can be so certain that Earth first accreted from "constructive" collisions out of some dust cloud, but then, once her "correct" size attained (in accordance with "Laws of Nature"), did not suffer any further changes in size or mass, except for infinitesimal ± due to hydrogen escaping or collecting shooting stars. After all, there is zero direct evidence for that story/theory, just as the interior of the Earth continues to be empirically unknown to us beyond a depth of about 12 km.
What I think is that the idea of an expanding/growing Earth (“gotten drastically bigger” at some point in the not so distant geological past, a development which cannot be observed in the present) does not fit the overall science story (physics/cosmology, mass/matter/gravity) and hence is rejected despite the geological surface evidence (see Carey video).
I've seen evidence of scientists behaving in ways that warrant just the terms I used, ostracism and heresy, when "dealing with" someone questioning/attacking "core tenets" (which, if successful, perhaps after decades, can lead to a "paradigm shift", like "continental drift").
That's not to say all scientists behave alike, of course; psychologically and statistically, average human behaviour should be expected, which typically means conformist and aligned behaviour (civility/restraint, but also "don't upset the applecart").