@WilfredPujanes The Philippines are small with lots of fragment Islands,(Easy to fit anywhere and hard to give direction) So I would say, following the general DIRECTION of this section of movement the Philippines tore away from Vietnam-Hong Kong? Is that what you mean by squished back?The correct procedure would be to get the big (easy) pieces right then worry about smaller (hard) ones as they will fall into place…The ideal result is no or minimal gaps. Has this answered your question?
I DISPUTE that Australia was joined to North America. I AGREE with you overall theory, but what made me come to the same conclusion of this expanding theory and that Pangea is not the full picture, is that Australia fits in perfectly with Peru/Chile - South America( align Brisbane with Arida) Then you will also find that PNG fits to Central America
To prove this (as you have mentioned in another clip) the tear lines (in the Pacific) show DIRECTION and this point to South American. Also shows that China-Japan shows DIRECTION to North America. You will find that this is a much better fit.
I just found your site that shows planets and moons...I have to say...I am so blown away....I am wondering, the vid showing the earth growth, the mountains of Asia and America. As with the moons, wouldn't earth also be smooth at the start of growth. Im trying to understand how they would be formed during growth. Your vids show them as being there at the start. I may have to watch them a few more times and ponder this. Please, any info is welcome.
@andjusticeforall2010 - 200MYA, the crust of the earth was thin, and though the earth was growing, and the crust was re-curving to a flatter plane, the thinness of the crust led only to low hills and rises. Now that the crust is 30-40Mi thick, re-curving creates gigantic mountain ranges.
@nealadamsdotcom I had the Idea that planets not only expand but slowly move out from the sun. If growth would continue, wouldn't they become as big as our outter planets? We are told that the solar system was formed all at once by a big cloud of gases. What if the sun bleches out material from time to time forming planets. What of the asteroid belt? Once a planet(as I have read such ideas of this). The old sumerian story? I know , Im rambling . Can't help it.
@andjusticeforall2010 Sumerians...dont you find it odd they gave us Art, Laws, Writing, Music etc etc...all the ingredients one would need to give rise to ALL the things we have today?
@NORCALROE78 Yes I do! I tell you and Mr adams that my mind is ablaze with a number of crazy ideas at the moment. I may need an asprin and a night off from work.
@nealadamsdotcom Ok so watching the vids of the moons again I get how this works. So now, we have 'new skin' forming from the core. Condensed material rising and expanding as it would due to the this material being underpressure at the core? Im no scientists or geologists, just an average joe using intuition and what I know from reading. It just boggles the mind .
We are told the universe is expanding, why not planets.
@nealadamsdotcom Well now I'm confused. I thought that matter could be neither created nor destroyed, so how can new matter be "made" at the bodies cores? And with regard to the universe, it is growing in the sense that it's getting larger, but since we have a limited amount of matter in the universe and stars, planets, galaxies, etc. ARE all moving away from each other, is expansion a reasonable term to use? I'm no astrophysicist, but that's how I've always understood it.
@joshjcamara There's a BIGGER question that this addresses.. Where does MATTER come from? How is it made. (It's not my intention to blow up your brain,....BUT,...this is HEAVY.) Remember the clue to YOU is in one cell of your body. The clues to all the universe is in any one planet in every Solar System, and the clue to any planet is locked in every Electron and Positron.
The Universe is NOT expanding. It's GROWING. There is no such thing as Expanding, well, rubber bands.
@nealadamsdotcom I agree that the mystery of matters origin is a large and debated one, and the last thing I want to do is start the old big bang vs. intelligent design discussion. But isn't the rubber band example you used a perfect analogy for the universe? It stretches, it expands, and in doing so its atoms are moving apart from one another. Growing, to me, implies the addition of atoms and/or molecules (mass) - STRETCHING a rubber band doesn't add mass to it, therefore it's not GROWING.
@joshjcamara NO, to be clear, there is NO SUCH Physical concept as EXPAND without the addition of a second force. (Thermal, Chemical) It does not exist. In the rubber band, the fingers that stretch it are the added force.
There are NATURAL ELECTRO-MAGNETIC DISTANCES objects hold from each other based on negative and positive aspects of electro-magnetic fields. Electrons from nuclei, molecules from molecules, Planets from suns, Solar Systems from Solar Systems and Galaxies from..
@nealadamsdotcom Atoms, according to the Electrons on the outer shell bind closer or farther away, and tighter or wider around the Atom. MATTER of every kind is HELD from touching other MATTER by EM fields. It's a negative/positive universe, in perfect balance. The Universe could no more expand than a ball of iron could EXPAND!
@nealadamsdotcom I will freely admit that I know very little about electro-magnetic properties. But if what you're saying is based on the idea that the universe is NOT expanding, specifically because it needs a secondary force to do so (by the way, wouldn't that secondary force be the energy expelled during the big bang? And wasn't the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics given to the three astronomers that discovered "dark energy" - the force that's causing the expansion of the universe to increase?)
@nealadamsdotcom then I have to, respectfully, disagree with you. The comparison of the universe to a ball of iron is nifty, but I think it's just wrong. You're assertion that the universe is not expanding goes against not only everything I've read about the universe, but also to Newton's First Law of Motion; The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. If we accept the Big Bang theory, then the explosion that occured 14 billion years would
@joshjcamara All Physicists today disagree that there was AN EXPLOSION. They insist it is an EXPANSION!.
As stupid as BOTH CONCEPTS ARE. New discovery has found that the Universe is "ACCELERATING" OUTWARD. (Going FASTER with time)
SO, this is NEITHER explosion or expansion.NOR NEWTON!
So, what is it?
It's GROWTH! If you were on an atom of the shoulder of a Baby and looked across the void to it's other shoulder, you might conclude the baby was EXPLODING.
@nealadamsdotcom necessarily propell ALL matter in the universe in every direction until an external force stops it. Since the universe encompasses everything, we can logically assume that there is no external force to impede it's expansion.
@joshjcam Nor are the atoms of the baby flying away from each other EVEN THOUGH EACH SHOULDER SEEMS TO BE ACCELERATING APART.
More cells, More Galaxies, more matter, more GROWING SUNS, super-Novas, more black holes, EXPONENTIALLY GROWING EARTH! The whole and all the parts, Ballance, negative to positive.
Oh,..ONE FORCE, and it's EM in NATURE. Gravity is EM! and it's both attractive and repulsive.
You happen to be in a place where ATTRACTIVE is dominant! Sit between 2 Solar Systems
Oddly planet GJ 1214b that revolves around a brown dwarf, is 3 to 4 times Earths size and is so far, being called a "Waterworld". Mr. Adams anyway you could do a video of earth expanding out 3 to 4 times its size, and seeing where the landmass goes? it very well may unlock a little bit of evolutionary information.
@NORCALROE78 - And you could send me $300,000. to do it, but I don't think you will. This is not a weekend project. It takes a lot of work and a lot of time.
@nealadamsdotcom Mr. Adams if I had the 300,000$ it would be yours. I'd spend every last dime I had to bring truth to light, instead of basing our entire way of life upon theories, that have yet to be proven. In the wake of recent neutrino findings, it very well may seem that what we know, is not what we know. Hell scientists have just reported that organic matter is abundant in space, that has the characteristics of coal and petroleum. Search on Science Daily.com
Mr. Adams. I ran into this expanding earth theory just recently. Im am blown away! Im am trying to disprove this, but so far not having any luck. The oldest FISH fossil(as you said is on land) is 450MYO.Im still looking. I don't believe evrything Im told...even this. Yet this theory is very intersesting to say the least. What of fossils found on west coast USA and east coast Asia? The same as with east coast USA and England/France or the north pole areas?
@andjusticeforall2010 - Incidentally, "Expanding Earth" is the old name of the theory, when first created by Sam Carey. This evolution of the theory is called the GROWING EARTH/GROWING UNIVERSE THEORY.
Gents. Be a detective. What fits the FACTS? 200 Million Yrs ago:
1.There were NO deep oceans anywhere on Earth. ALL oceans were closed, JUST LIKE you were taught the Atlantic was. NO OCEANS! 2.However, TWO-THIRDS of the continental plates were covered by shallow fresh-water seas, up to 800 feet deep.
3.Dinosaurs roamed to every corner/area of the Earth from pole to pole, from one side to the other of any side.
4.Weather was the same whereever dinos roamed as if warmed by the Earth itself.
Today, earth has deep oceans covering 2/3 of the planet, but only in the oceans. 200MYA, earth had shallow seas covering 2/3 of the continental plate only. But there were no deep oceans. When geology creates maps or animations for you of the "LAND", they mix and match shallow seas and deep oceans as if they were the same. Every map or animation that they make, is a fraud, because they never show you the continental plate. Makes us pretty stupid, huh?
Gents. Earth differentiates it's own MOLTEN Granitic crust to the surface, which cools and hardens into layers of the Earth's crust. over billions of years.
I ignore the water, Earth would be a small ball coated by cooled Granitic crust over a basalt molten under-coating.
As Earth Grows, layers are forced to crack and spread! First, the thin layers crack and spread in layered shells. Finally, quite THICK the complete series of granitic shells crack down to the BASALT!
@TheSnowballEarth - Why don't you understand simple things? If this were part o the peer review process, my job would be done. I don't chew my piece of meat twice. I have many other things to do with my time.
@nealadamsdotcom I do understand simple things. Like Plate Tectonics. And unlike yourself I don't assume more things than are logically possible (Occam's Razor).
@TheSnowballEarth -Occam's razor: like the earth differentiates, layer upon layer of granitic rock jigsaw puzzle pieces, miles thick, which all gather together, to fit perfectly on one giant island, with no pieces left at all, on one side of the earth, leaving the opposite side, 10,000 mi. wide of ocean 2.5Mi. deep. And these joined pieces, are all the same height, and the outside edge of the giant island is all broken off, just like the edge when the continents break apart.
@TheSnowballEarth - Do you assume differentiation of lighter material over heavier material? Do you assume if it comes up molten, that it finds jigsaw puzzle pieces or that it coats evenly? I do not see how it cannot coat evenly. Layer after layer, miles thick, when when it stops coating, it's flat. Flat, implies even coating. Not jigsaw puzzle pieces. What keeps it from the other 2/3 of the earth. Jell-O molds?
@P8II Because those of us who are actually trained in geology and understand Plate Tectonics- as opposed to Adams the comic book artist with no scientific background whatsoever- know that Expansion Tectonics requires a mechanism which is known to not exist on the Earth, and is total bunk. Read my posts (and Adams' absurd responses), do your own web research, and read some texts on the subject. Also, check out potholer54's video "Expanding earth my ass." Cheers.
If the Earth is expanding shouldn't the continents just stay in their respective places whilst oceanic crust is created by basaltic magma at the mid-ocean ridges? This would still explain the patterns seen in the fossil record for Gondwana (not to mention continental outlines) that led to the continental drift theory to begin with. The various collisional orogens (e.g. Alps-Himalayas, Cordillera) that are younger than the start date of expansion shouldn't exist, yet they do.Why is that?
@The 1. YES! According to the TIME they began spreading and number of sides. 2." LED TO",...YES, of course. BUT, it took a brilliant Australian Geologist to point out the OBVIOUS to a "western world". Professor Samuel Warren Carey, in the 60's, in his book presenting "The Expanding Earth" pointed out that Geology had gone only HALF WAY, in "MATCHING" in the Atlantic. (They WERE, after all Atlantic-side Scientists, and EVERYTHING happened there, AND the Pacific was SO wide)
@nealadamsdotcom Carey's views have been discredited and supplanted over the last 50 years by Plate Tectonics. Earth expansion has never been observed to be occurring. The three observed plate boundary types- spreading ridges, subduction zones, & transform faults- all allow for continental movement w/o the need for an unobserved, unscientific mechanism i.e. matter generation (which violates Conservation of Matter & Energy). You need to learn basic physics as well as geology.
@TheSnow Geology Professor Carey's conclusions have been IGNORED. Never, NEVER discredited or supplanted. They have been "Gone-Around"! Sam's Geology is SPOT ON. No one argues with it. They used to argue with his conclusions. Now he is ignored.
2. Earth does not 'expand'! Nor does the Universe. They both GROW, except for people like you who believe in MAGIC. (Or GOD!)
One cannot observe Earth GROW. One must look at the FACTS and evidence.
@nealadamsdotcom "If you're shown FACTS, You go blind." Which is why your "theory" fails miserably. You reject the process of subduction, which has been demonstrated to exist by seismic tomographic imaging. Yes! Descending slabs have been imaged ("seen"). Subduction also explains things like the Basin and Range spreading, a phenomenon which is unrelated to mid-ocean ridge spreading because of the magma types observed. Your "theory" can't account for that. YOU IGNORE FACTS!
@TheSnowballEarth NO. I REJECT subduction as used by Geology to solve the spreading crust issue. Compressive Subduction, like Obduction and Mountain Building are all a result of compressive forces of a Growing Earth. Earth's subduction is located at/as the Ring of Fire, who's origin, a mere 60 MYA, I already discussed. DID YOU forget?
If you have a memory problem, you can print out these pages.
If you have CLEAR Seismic Tomographic images OUTSIDE the RING, lead me to them.
@nealadamsdotcom Why don't you do a simple google image search for "seismic tomography" and see for yourself, rather than ask others to do your work for you? Besides, you just flat-out reject whatever anyone throws your way because it doesn't fit in with what misbelieve is the "truth"? I'm not falling for that.
@TheSnowballEarth I've studied Seismic Tomography for well over 30 years, since I ran across Adam Dziewonski.
I present FACTS. You present LIES and Theories and conjecture. There is no subducting scientific seismic images from any place except the Ring of Fire. The rest is OPINION!
What FACT have I rejected? Name ONE!
NO subducting of OLDEST PLATE. NO plate at it's CENTER that is OLDER! NO DEEP oceanic life older than 70 MYOld. FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! Know the difference?
@nealadamsdotcom "What FACT have I rejected? Name ONE!" Plate Tectonics.
"There is no subducting scientific seismic images from any place except the Ring of Fire." Wrong again. The Caribbean. Look it up yourself. So your statement is patently false, i.e. a LIE. BTW, thank you for finally admitting that subduction has been observed. So it does exist.
Now again, what rate of Earth growth/expansion does your mathematical model predict? Is it measureable? Do you have a model?
@nealadamsdotcom "NO subducting of OLDEST PLATE." If you're considering the Pacific Plate then you're neglecting the portion that's already been subducted under E. Asia. The adjacent oceanic plate to the east of this margin is soon to follow (on a geologic timescale).
"NO plate at it's CENTER that is OLDER!" Should one be?
"NO DEEP oceanic life older than 70 MYOld." Wrong again. You've obviously never studied Paleontology either.
@TheSnowballEarth 1, NO, I diagramed out the subducting area! It gets YOUNGER GOING WEST! YOUNGER-GOING-WEST! It's THERE in the file that I showed you!
ALL the ribbons of PLATE follow to coastal margins, and YOUNGER comes from ASIA!
Should there be? OF COURSE! That's the oldest plate!
Listen, you old fart. NO Deep Oceanic life in the deep oceanic plate older than 70 MYOld.
You, sir are full of it! It took a hundred million years for life to evolve to the deep oceans!
@TheSnowballEarth - You're younger in years, not in thinking. In thinking, you are very old.
Geology insists deep oceans existed on earth for billions of years. Any study of evolution will tell you that life would have evolved in the deep oceans as early as it evolved in the shallow seas. And there are many proofs of this. However, in the 60's, 2 of the greatest scientific questions that existed, 1. Oceanic plate less than 100MYO, could be found nowhere in the world...
@TheSnowballEarth - 2. Search as they would, with their bathyspheres and corers, between the 30's and the 60's, scientists could find no deep oceanic life that had lived in the deep oceans before 70MYA. As a geologist, this may not make such an impact on you, but for a paleontologist, this was stunning and insane. And so the scientific community instituted the greatest geological experiment of all time. The coring and aging of the deep oceans, with the help of the US Navy.
@nealadamsdotcom Fossil evidence of deep marine life greater than 180 Ma can be found deposited on continental crust. There is abundant fossil evidence of deep marine Mesozoic and Paleozoic life. You're quite mistaken, but then you ignore/reject facts that don't fit your beliefs.
"with their bathyspheres and corers... scientists could find no deep oceanic life that had lived in the deep oceans before 70MYA." Not what they're for. How could you not know this?
@TheSnowballEarth Did you READ YOUR OWN WORDS, or are you just BLIND to WORDS! Continental Plates???? Marine LIFE on the continental plates, is NOT what we are talking about! We are talking about MARINE LIFE in the DEEP OCEANS! NONE existed between 180 and 70 Million Years Ago!
How do I know these things? I have studies this stuff since I was a KID! Go buy some OLD BOOKS and study your country's scientific History.
@nealadamsdotcom And BTW: "Did you READ YOUR OWN WORDS, or are you just BLIND to WORDS! Continental Plates????"
Ahem, I wrote (as all can see) "...can be found deposited on continental crust." See that, I wrote CRUST, not PLATE. Are you blind to words, or just a bald-faced liar?
"I have studies this stuff since I was a KID!" And you still don't understand it. Pathetic!!!
@TheSnowballEarth - The conclusions of this 35 year study, while ground-breaking and incredible, never settled the core questions. 1. Why was there no older plate? 2. And why was there no deep ocean life before 70MYA?
So subduction replaced Carey, and the second question, was ignored. But in science, my friend, question as basic as that, cannot be ignored. The answer had to be, that there were no deep oceans until 180MYA, and it took 100MY for it to evolve.
@TheSnowballEarth - Did too? Okay, you're an uneducated idiot. Guys like you should wear signs.
Since the beginning of our discussion, outside of theory, I have given you nothing but the truth, essentially just listing the facts. The whole field of geology and paleontology knows that the oceanic plate was investigated as to age and life in the deep ocean. Partially because no fossils older than 70MYO lived in the deep oceans, and therefore Pangea Theory is false.
@nealadamsdotcom "Okay, you're an uneducated idiot." Again with the insults. Further proof that you've no real argument.
"Since the beginning of our discussion, outside of theory, I have given you nothing but the truth..." No, you've given your own warped misinterpretations.
"...no fossils older than 70MYO lived in the deep oceans..." That's because fossils AREN'T ALIVE! Fossils are the remains of once-living organisms. You should know this after 35+ yrs of study! BWAHAHAHAHA
@nealadamsdotcom "Older plate of DEEP OCEANS , older than 180 MYO DOES NOT EXIST! If it did,...THERE WOULD BE ONE FACTUAL CLUE!" Fossils deep marine life from the Paleozoic can be found in the places like the northern Appalachian and the Caledonian Mtns., in addition to other places. Quit being blind to the facts.
Posting in all caps just makes you like the desperate raving lunatic that you are.
@nealadamsdotcom "...I diagramed out the subducting area!" So it's got to be true then. I refer the reader to the metaphor I gave earlier about being able to prove God's existence by being able to draw a smiley face with a beard and rays of light.
@nealadamsdotcom "Compressive Subduction, like Obduction..." The two are not equivalent. Subduction goes down, obduction goes up. This is easily understood by any first-year geology student, but not by some self-styled genius who has been worshipping pseudo-science for 35+ years.
@TheSnowball How do I overcome your memory problem. They don't remove notes. They're on pges 2-3-4-5 etc. Can you read them over , or print them out? Writing what I already said, over and over is just too much to ask, PLEASE!
If you can "REFRESH" "YOUR" memory on Google (AS YOU DID) you can re-read my notes,
YES, it can. GROWTH accounts for it PERFECTLY! How does subduction which disappears land EXPLAIN SPREAD?? WHAT has MAGMAS to do with it? GROWTH explains SPREADS!
"How does subduction which disappears land EXPLAIN SPREAD?? WHAT has MAGMAS to do with it? " A question based on misunderstanding of geology. Subductive margins destroy oceanic crust created at spreading ridges.
"GROWTH explains SPREADS!" So does PLATE TECTONICS! X-D
@TheSnowballEarth Listen to what you said (QUOTED) "Subduction EXPLAINS Basin and range spreading." The WHOLE CONCEPT of subduction is NON GROWTH, NON SPREAD (Except at rifts) The rest compresses into a subduction slit!
A GROWING EARTH explains perfectly any and all SPREADING-RIFT-BASIN-Range spreading. YOU, sir, ignore common sense. logic ,..and FACTS, for the sake of your own EGO and inability to change with thinking from your MIND!!.
@TheSnowballEarth An increase has never been measured because no instrument(s) has ever been developed that was GOALED to measure such increase, because no one expected an increase. Do you know someone with a few extra billion dollars to design and build such technology? I don't.
@TheSnowball No SIR,..YOU have just LIED! I SAID no instruments have been developed to measure the Earth's growth,...YOU point to a system that measures distance between two points by triangulation and a system that measures Mountain Height change from the re-curving of the Earth. NOT the point. FAIL.
When I invited you to continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth there was a list of spreading growth of the Earth. Eyesight BAD?
@nealadamsdotcom "24" in.circumference increase per year." That's how much the Earth is increasing its circumference per year? What peer-reviewed journalled articles does this result appear in?
continuitystudiosdotnet shows a splash screen with your name and artwork. I also get an error message when adding /growth. I want some peer-reviewed scientific investigations, not your lies and misinformation.
@TheSnowballEarth Well , you could do the math yourself. It's pretty simple. You could use the figures from Geology from "THAT" site. You could use the figures from either of Sam Carey's books or other books. When it says DOT, you type in a DOT, not the word.
Youtube doesn't allow a dot.
If there were peer-reviewed papers on all of this, Why the hell would I be here? THINK!
@nealadamsdotcom Did all that. There it is. I'll give it a look.
"If there were peer-reviewed papers on all of this, Why the hell would I be here?" Because then your so-called "theory" would have some grounding in Science, you would have the backing of at least one segment of the scientific community, have some credibility, and you wouldn't come off as a raving lunatic. THINK. Jeebus Reebus Cannebus.
@nealadamsdotcom It's called "underplating" and yes, it is related to subduction, not mid-ocean ridge spreading. Go look it up, on the internet or in a textbook. Fancy that- something your "theory" can't explain and that you refuse to address.
@TheSnowballEarth NOW, you're arguing Physics with me? Astonishing!
Fine.
I'll tell you the Mechanism of Growth of the Earth,if you tell me how all the matter in the Universe was created, Without using the terms Miracle, Magic or God.
(Hint) It's the same Process.!
It's massively interesting how a bright but primitive Microbe, living on the cold dead skin of a massive vital dense super-heated body presumes so much about how things do and don't work! THINK!
@TheSnowballEarth Since you have only one question, why don't you clarify it for me,...as you provide responses to the questions I bring up relative to the Westen Pacific, and the apparent unsubducted oldest Pacific plate .
@nealadamsdotcom There are rock formations all over the Earth's surface that have radiometric dates >200 Ma. According to your "theory" how were the continents distributed prior to this?
Also, if matter can be generated as you say (resulting in growth) it can also be lost. How does your theory account for that?
@TheSnow HHEY, some guy just called me a Nazi. That's the last stage in irrational attacks, or something, isn't it? People you find on the internet,..wow.
You're talking; ON THE continental plate, of course and sediments FROM the continental plate. NO DEEP Oceanic Plate. MATTER is Generated at the core of the Earth, but ONCE GENERATED it cannot be LOST! (Except on a massive sun or Hydrogen bomb for Example) We havd LAWS, in Physics!) Facts? You got balls, old man.
@nealadamsdotcom "They WERE, after all Atlantic-side Scientists, and EVERYTHING happened there, AND the Pacific was SO wide" So now you're saying that Plate Tectonics is the evil work of Aussie-hating Atlanto-centrists. Funny how many Australian geologists accept Plate Tectonics. Guess that makes them unpatriotic traitors then. Shame on you Adams.
@TheSnowball Listen to your own inability NOT to ridicule, like a CHILD. "You're saying just because Hitler didn't like Jews he intends to KILL a lot of them for political reasons. Shame on you, Adams."
SHAME ON YOU SIR! for not understanding the nature of human thought. 10 year old children , for generations could SEE the continents easily come together in the Atlantic.
Their BETTERS laughed at them because "THEY" couldn't find it in their "adult" BRAINS .
@TheSnowbal IT was NOT so easy to "SEE" the spread in the Pacific. Too wide to easily recognize the joinings Three-way spread, Edges don't "seem" to match., Subduction, beginning 60 MYA,...its HARDER to "imagine"! Shame on ME? Shame on YOU, SIR!
This time around, we have a man with VISION! Sam Carey saw it. European scientists and Australian Geologists saw it. More important I SEE IT and I animated it PERFECTLY, after I ASSEMBLED the FACTS, and found the Mechanism.
@The3. So, explained Carey, If we only need HALF AN ANSWER and wish to blind ourselves to the other half of the world, Or throw a monkey wrench into all Physics and cosmology, Pangea ..will,..sort...of....work,...if we RIP OUT OUR BRAINS!
What if the continental plates FIT in the Pacific??
But Sam,..like YOU, (No offense) was a Geologist. NOT a Physicist. He didn't know there was no such Phenomenon as EXPAND. Hell, the Physicists were using it on the Universe for years.
@nealadamsdotcom The Earth, with the exception of the liquid outer core, behaves as a static rigid body. This is why Plate Tectonics explains what is observed and why Expansion Tectonics does not, fails miserably, and is not accepted by serious scientists. Stars such as Cepheid variables do expand (and contract) regularly because they are gaseous bodies. Earth expansion as a result of cosmic expansion was a brain fart by Paul Dirac, who mentioned it in passing. So there.
@nealadamsdotcom Still waiting for you to answer my questions with valid, logical responses and not personal flames. It's gonna be a long wait, but I've alot of patience.
"It's easy to see when someone is terrified" Like yourself.
@TheSnowballEarth - Good. That will give you some time to THINK. 9 our of 10 of you guys can't do it, but I have hopes.
That wasn't flames, that was a lecture. At this point I don't actually believe you are a geologist at all. But again I've heard so many loonies write in that I could be wrong. I'll know when you have actually absorbed the information.
@The You see, incredibly enough, merely mentioning Paul Dirac has brought you closer to the truth than anything you have said.
If you were well along in this conversation one question you would ask is "Is there, in fact a form of MATTER CREATION known by man, from "SEEMINGLY" NOTHING. Mister Adams?
Have you examined that triangle that was supposed to have sunducted?
I forgive the second goof. Geology, for the most part has given up the "BASALT GETS HEAVIER the older it is.
@TheSnowballEarth Hell. YOU just used "Earth is 'EXPANDING'" yourself (course YOU used Snowball Earth in your Moniker, so...who's judging.) NO SUCH PHYSICAL CONCEPT!
GROWING, yes,..but not without a "MECHANISM", said thePhysicists, to Sam, the Geologist. DUHHHH, but, I'm a Geologist...
Then why did you say "EXPAND"???
But,..but...you guys...
YES, but we have the copyright on BULLS**T!
Then two technicians discovered a descending oceanic plate! BAM!
@nealadamsdotcom As all can see I wrote "If the Earth is expanding..." You deliberately misquoted me to serve yourself. This is another reason that nobody takes you seriously, in addition to your ranting and raving. By ignoring the valid questions put to you whilst expecting others to tolerate your nonsense you demonstrate both your hypocrisy and idiocracy.
"YES, but we have the copyright on BULLS**T!" Thanks for admitting that to everyone.
@TheSnowballEarth when page loads go to pg 2,3,and 4. bottom of the page. numbers. 12345
Let's call them "MOUNTAIN RANGES"! It's what we are talking about. NOT Orogenic activity.
To repeat a second time, another way. If the crust is three miles thick and it recurves to a flatter plane. the upper surface may WRINKLE,..but not Mountain. BUT , when the crust is 30 miles thick, and IT RE-CURVES to a flatter plane,.. the top levels will wrinkle and buckle into MOUNTAIN RANGES
@TheSnowballEarth Why can't continental edges' Mountain 'when they COLLODE?
1. They can't COLLIDE, EVER.
2. They can be driven closer, but never TOUCH!
3. IF THEY COULD (Lord Oz, forgive me.) they WOULD STOP!
4. Say they DIDN'T STOP. (If there's a God of Physics, forgive me!) Continental EDGES are Tiered , WIDER at the BOTTOM (Another discussion!) So what would collide? First? After tens/hundreds of miles of Oceanic Basalt,...is the bottom tier.
@nealadamsdotcom 1. Why this assumption? OH right, bacause otherwise this crazy stuf would have no founding. WE can observe the continental plates drift. Please show us any evidence for an expansion.
Please, someone explain to me how on an expanding earth ophiolite complexes are emplaced onto continental crust. If the Earth is expanding shouldn't ophiolites fall into the resulting graben systems, rather than being obducted onto lighter continental crust? As we all know, ophiolites are denser than continental crust. Thank you.
@TheSnowballEarth You are correct. In fact, according to current Geological theory all such ophiolites should have subducted!
Remember 200 MYA there were NO DEEP OCEANS! However, Shallow Oceans/Seas covered TWO-THIRDS of the continental plates and were often as much as 800 feet deep and more. as such they must be the origins of those complexes.
@nealadamsdotcom But a few ophiolites are obducted (thrust upwards onto light sialic crust) during continental collisions. This explains the ophiolites found in the Himalyas, in addition to other orogenic belts. Your statement "...current Geological theory all such ophiolites should have subducted" is a misunderstanding of said theory. Now you must explain how expansion tectonics creates collisional orogens. Ball's in your court, sir.
@nealadamsdotcom "What do YOU think the northward pressure is that pushes India up?" The northward motion of India colliding with the southward motion of Central Asia. The basaltic (simatic) oceanic crust you are seeking has mostly delaminated and subducted beneath Asia. Some of it has, however, been obducted as ophiolites along with lighter, sialic crust (marine sediments). This has been termed "escape tectonics."
"India BROKE/RIFTED from Africa, but NOT from ASIA." Correct.
@TheSnow NO,I'm 'under the impression' that HALF,...or maybe less, obducted over the supposed Subducted area. Leaving MASSIVE BASALTIC SUTURES between the two,...unless you are now insisting Subduction goes BOTH WAYS/ same time??? You offer JUST ophiolites (from shallow seas?) with lighter sediments? Pick your subducting side and stick with it
What northward motion,..from what? Africa is SOUTH.
@nealadamsdotcom India is moving northwards from Africa, which is to India's south. Meanwhile, Asia is moving southwards from the north, towards India. The oceanic crust/slab that once existed north of the then island continent of India (late Mesozoic to early Cenozoic), part of the Indian plate, and formed the bottom of the eastern Tethyan seaway dipped northwards and has been subducted beneath Asia. However, some of that oceanic crust was obducted (e.g. Indus-Sangbo suture).
@TheSnowballEarth - Let's get down to the nitty and gritty. Until 60 Million Years Ago all continents of Earth were moving apart in straight lines. Twisting tags and stretching mildly this way and that, skewing tags like Spain, Central America etc. But 50-60 MYA the Pacific Rift drove down and split Australia from Antarctica, and circumnavigated around Antarctica. That Antarctic Ocean, since 60MYA, has spread northward, more powerfully that any spreading ocean on earth.
@nealadamsdotcom Again, you're asserting your own opinions as fact w/o any proof to back yourself up, just your own hubris and arrogance. Read Carlo Doglioni's work on plate tectonics and get a decent textbook like Windley's "The Evolving Continents." Then get back to me when you wish to have a serious scientific discussion. Start with answering my original question about earth expansion tectonics, which you still haven't.
And try drinking water instead of that Brawndo crap.
@TheSnowballEarth - The spreading Antarctic Ocean has been shoving upward for 60MY, as the earth grows. As a result, Africa has been spun counterclockwise. India, which was never not attached to Asia, has been shoved upward, adding to, if anything, the mountain-building of the vast Asian continent.
Most powerful, Australia has been spread upward, along it's own pathway, 1,000 miles or more. Australian continental plate, massively driven, has shattered the Indonesian plate.
@TheSnowballEarth - 200MYA, there were no deep oceans, and no mountain ranges. There were many volcanoes, and 2/3 of the granitic continental plate, which covered the earth, (which is today our continents), was covered by shallow seas (oceans), up to and more than 800' deep.
They were essentially oceans. The crust was only about 3Mi. thick, on average, and it had differentiated up to the surface, layer upon layer, from below. The planet was subtropical from pole to pole.
@TheSnowballEarth - Why was earth subtropical from pole to pole? Especially since the sun was 10% smaller and dimmer.
The thin crust let the earth warm itself. No winters, no frozen poles. No ice ages. And most plants were perennials. The crust became thicker as the earth grew. The land rifted and spread, shifting continental seas from place to place. The fossil geology of which we see all over the world.
As the crust thickened, seasons began, reptiles grew long legs.
@nealadamsdotcom "Why was earth subtropical from pole to pole? Especially since the sun was 10% smaller and dimmer." Atmospheric homeostasis by the Biosphere, as explained by Lovelock's Gaia Theory. You need to read up on this as well.
"As the crust thickened, seasons began, reptiles grew long legs." Huh?
Dude, I've a responded sensibly to each of your questions with a valid, scientific answer, yet you still haven't answered my original question. Why not? YOU CAN'T.
@TheSnowballEarth - Reptiles grew long, down-facing legs to begin the process of migration. Seasonal plants. with a need to plant their seeds far afield, to survive the winter, developed fruit, for dinosaurs to carry the seeds in their bellies while they migrated hemispherically. One day the growing of the earth became too great, and the first rifts opened on either side of what we call No. America. IN the Atlantic, a 2-way rift, in the Pacific, a 3-way rift.
@nealadamsdotcom "Reptiles grew long, down-facing legs to begin the process of migration." Another faulty assumption: erect posture solely to migrate rather than as an advantage over the sprawling posture of other archosaurs (e.g. crocodilians, that survive to this day). Mammalian synapsids also developed erect posture at near the same time as the dinosaurs first appeared. Yet they didn't migrate. And spreading across the globe is not migration, just to remind you.
@TheSnowballEarth NO,. DIED OFF! (A little bit of information is a dangerous thing!
(I'm sorry, But Science hasn't had a Sherlock Holmes for a long time.
Earth is SMALLER (Mars size) Gravity LITE! Warm fresh water Shallow Seas. cover 2/3's . Seasons COME TO BE slowly,...enough for evolution to keep up.
If ONE hemisphere is FRESH and abundant with NEW BLOOMING PLANTS, with SEEDS TO SPREAD,.. and the other hemisphere is depleted and withering with seasonal age......then????
@TheSnow - As the rifts spread, the super-heated gases deserted from under the continental plates, and migrated to the rifts. Today, only 4% of the asthenosphere is molten. Mostly under the rifts. Continental crusts pieces became thicker. 3 miles then, 30 miles today. With the thickness came a new phenomenon. 200MYA, re-curving of a stretching crust, hardly changed the surface. Beginning 60MYA, the crustal jigsaw pieces, thick now, had to re-curve with the growth of the earth.
@TheSnow - The continental pieces now have to re-curve to a flatter plane. Re-curving of a 30-40mi thick continent means the upper portion of the crust must, must, buckle & fold. This is where earth gets it's mountains, and Asia, being earth's greatest continent, buckles it's greatest mountain-range. Though the up-pushing against India from the Antarctic spread, may assist the process, it is the re-curving to a flatter plane of the Asian continent that created the Himalayas.
@TheSnowballEarth - Hemispherically migrating dinosaurs, taking advantage of the new blossoming plants, began to have their pathways cut-off. Some few adapted. But the healthiest and strongest could not survive the change. Accept for those who could migrate through the air. The rifting apart of Australia and Antarctica, and it's volcanic eruptions and ask, may have had a hand in the final extinction of the dinosaurs. Certainly more than a small meteorite.
@nealadamsdotcom Dinosaur migration (or any animal migration) does not require an expanding Earth to happen.
"But the healthiest and strongest could not survive the change." Bad assumption. Mammalian synapsids survived.
"Accept [sic] for those who could migrate through the air." The non-avians (birds), not all of which were capable of flight. A number of other land-dwelling, non-migratory animal species survived. Marine life also. Quit obsessing over the dinos.
@TheSnowballEarth - Australia shattered the Indonesian plate into massive chunks, and spun them about, giving purchase to subduction at the Ring of Fire. This is the first, and only provable subduction on earth.
To accomplish this, the Australian plate had to run back over it's rift.
The opportunity to subduct, subducted the western Pacific plate into and under Asia's rifting spread as well. If you check crustal age map, you will see everything I say here is true.
@nealadamsdotcom "Australia shattered the Indonesian plate into massive chunks, and spun them about..." WTF?!?! Where did you get this from, reading Charles Hapgood?
"The opportunity to subduct, subducted the western Pacific plate into and under Asia's rifting spread as well." That statement makes no logical sense whatsoever.
@TheSnowballEarth - Ok. You and I have both had a lifetime of standard theory. You can can spend one bloody short time discovering growing earth theory. First, did you go to the crustal age map? Did you look at it? Did you think, really think?
Of course you didn't. You intention was to come here, show this idiot what a fool he was then go on with your life. Well this is the moment pal. Sh*t or get off the pot. You're gonna learn some growing earth geology.
@TheSnowballEarth No.. I got it from looking at the map and reading the GPS maps. All it takes is intelligence and deduction have you examined the crustal age map. Australian push 1000 miles away from Antarctica, how could there be no consequence.
2. All you have to do is correctly read the undersea ages on the oceanic plates. Like a trail in the woods, they tell you a story. We already know there was a 3 way rift. because it was a 3 way the rifts clung to the receding edges.
@nealadamsdotcom let me explain. a 2 way rift leaves the rift in the middle.
If you know geometry, you realize, if the is a 3 way rift, there is no "opposite" side to spread from, and so, the rifts must cling to each 3 spreading coasts. The oldest oceanic plate remains in the middle, getting younger going away
North America still clings to it's spreading rift. South America jumped from that line 60MYA or so. It's simple geometry and deduction. Count the 10MY Jumps
@nealadamsdotcom Why is oceanic crust in the western Atlantic and western Pacific older than oceanic crust in the respective eastern areas? Does this not imply that the Earth is expanding asymmetrically? Why is the Earth spheroidally shaped then (an oblate spheroid due to centrifugal effects, really)?
@TheSnowballEarth - YOUR geological community created the crustal age map. But in doing so, intentionally, hid the facts from you, a geologist, and all other people.
You don't believe me.
A geology student was able to access the computer information that built the crustal age map, which is offered freely for students and teachers. Under my instruction, he 1. Calmed the colors down and made them into a logical progression. 2. Broke the map into 10MY segments.
@TheSnowballEarth - The crustal age map was broken into 10MY segments with little spaces between the segments for clarification.
Please go to this crustal age map at continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth.
If you know the standard map, please look at the triangle in the western Pacific. The smallest triangle is 180MYO. The triangle outside of that is 170MYO, and then 160MYO. At 160, the left hand corner edge is subducted, and you can follow the Ring of Fire all around.
@TheSnowballEarth - You will notice not 1" of the 180MYO plate is subducted, nor the 170. At the center of the 180MYO, there is no 190MYO. It does not exist. The Pacific began to rift open 3-ways 180MYA, call it Rodinia. Another map there, counts off the 10MYO spreads, & also attempts to show the true possible extent of the subducted plate, as you follow the age lines continuing around under the obducted plate. There is also a list of the area of spreading oceanic crust.
@nealadamsdotcom "...call it Rodinia." Rodinia was a hypothetical supercontinent that existed from ~1.1 Ga to 750 Ma ago. You're geology is confused, but as I pointed out earlier, that's perfectly understandable due to your insufficient background in geology. Read the works of Ian Dalziel and Charles Scotese to get a better understanding of paleogeography. Toodles.
@TheSnowballEarth - Finally, that list, of exponentially spreading and growing surface. Some of the numbers are incorrect, because certain areas of this map were not measured at the time. If you care the least little bit about the future of science, you can get more recent maps, and do the work yourself. I am told it's quite simple. Read the geology students note to me. Perhaps you will feels a little bit of what he felt when he did this work. I think you're afraid to do it.
@nealadamsdotcom "....Some of the numbers are incorrect..." Then get some correct, accurate data that's been peer-reviewed by professionals.
"If you care the least little bit about the future of science, you can get more recent maps, and do the work yourself." I do. I have. That's obvious to everyone but yourself.
"I think you're afraid to do it." Ad hominen attacks are no substitute for rational arguments. I think you're afraid to answer my questions. See how that works?
@nealadamsdotcom (cont.) The Himalayas (and all orogenic belts) are far more complex than your simplistic mode (if it can be called such). You also appear to think that all rock units should still exist, regardless of age, and fail to take into account the effects of erosion. Under expansion tectonics both collisional and subductive orogenic belts would not exist. Yet still, you accept the existence of both. It is you who wants to have it "both ways." You fail.
@crymum1981 Actually, the oldest oceanic crust is ~135 Ma old, in the western Pacific. Older oceanic crust was subducted long ago. Since continental crust is less dense than oceanic crust, it will stay near the Earth's surface. The continents essentially float on top of the denser oceanic crust, like ice on water. This is known as isostasy. You may wish to read a geology textbook or do some online research to learn more. There, that was easy enough.
@TheSnowballEarth you just told somebody the oldest pacific oceanic crust 135 MYO, in spite of the fact that I have given you , free of charge, a crustal age map that shows 180 MYO crust sitting right there, big as life, unsubducted, in the middle of the western pacific. That map comes directly from the geological community. Not one piece of that 180 MYO plate is subducted. Not one piece of the 170 MYO plate is subducted. Are you a liar? Your whole post is a bad theory. Fail.
@nealadamsdotcom Correction. Oldest oceanic crust is in fact of Jurassic age. My bad. Doesn't nullify my explanation of why there is no oceanic crust older than that.
"Are you a liar? Your whole post is a bad theory. Fail." Again with the ad hominen attacks.
Still waiting for you to answer my original question. Nothing that you have posted during our discourse has explained collisional orogenies on an expanding earth.
@TheSnowballEarth )bservation#1. "Doesn't nullify", if you are in an argument. DOES, if you are in an intellectual discussion.
Observation #2; Phrases like "ad Hominen" are schoolboy affectations of "Pseudo- Science " Religious rote thinking.
Pardon me for making you THINK while we head merrily to the answer for a question Geology has no answer for. READ my answers over for a continuity and NON THEORETICAL/FACTUAL continuity. Did you examine the MAP? Got a printer?
@nealadamsdotcom Geology has the answers that you conveniently ignore, for reasons of your own arrogance. Your entire mode of argument is that since you made some pretty animation whatever you think must be automatically true. That's like drawing a smiley face with a beard and rays of light coming from it, and saying "Look! God exists and here's a picture of him to prove it!"
I should've known better than to attempt serious scientific discussion with an aging spoiled child.
@TheSnowballEarth Don't throw snow in my face as you run away from FACTS, by adding words that blur the context. 180 Million Years OLD is the oldest, in Atlantic AND Pacific. THE LOCATIONS for exactly the same reasons that I repeat. 1.Two-way and Three Way spreads. YES, I nullifies it, COMPLETELY! Take three pieces of cloth, wood, tarpaper. notepaper over each other . Pull them apart and the oldest place is in the center. NO OTHER ANSWER EXISTS! YOUR MAP!
@nealadamsdotcom "My map?" I don't see my name on it. Someone elses map perhaps. Seems like you're the only one "throwing snow" in other peoples' faces, pretending to have an erudition that you don't possess.
Shouting only makes you look bad. That and not answering any questions put to you, whilst expecting others to indulge your hubris.
@nealadamsdotcom (cont.) "We KNOW because there would be Hundreds or at least tens of thousands of miles of Basaltic Sutures between India and Asia." Incorrect. As I stated, this oceanic crust has been subducted. You are under the misapprenhension that all of this crust should be preserved, when the reality is that very little is. This is obvious from my explanation and from elementary physics.
@nealadamsdotcom "Remember 200 MYA there were NO DEEP OCEANS! However, Shallow Oceans/Seas covered TWO-THIRDS of the continental plates and were often as much as 800 feet deep and more. as such they must be the origins of those complexes." This statement is patently false, and ignores what is observed in the geologic record. But you wouldn't know this, having no background in geology.
@FALCO64125 Huh? What did you mean to say? What about the videos I post makes them invalid? Because they are the truth and ,..people don't LIKE THE TRUTH?
@Verderestorations - It's not so much that the earth is growing, that the universe is growing. The universe is based on the balance of the interrelationship of the magnetic fields of all the systems withing the universe. The earth is growing, but also the whole solar system is growing. All planets and moons are moving away from each other.
Only our moon is close enough to take EXACT measurements. So it seems to be moving outward. It's not. The system is growing.
the philippines was squished back then??
WilfredPujanes 8 hours ago
@WilfredPujanes The Philippines are small with lots of fragment Islands,(Easy to fit anywhere and hard to give direction) So I would say, following the general DIRECTION of this section of movement the Philippines tore away from Vietnam-Hong Kong? Is that what you mean by squished back?The correct procedure would be to get the big (easy) pieces right then worry about smaller (hard) ones as they will fall into place…The ideal result is no or minimal gaps. Has this answered your question?
Zed6t9r 7 hours ago
I DISPUTE that Australia was joined to North America. I AGREE with you overall theory, but what made me come to the same conclusion of this expanding theory and that Pangea is not the full picture, is that Australia fits in perfectly with Peru/Chile - South America( align Brisbane with Arida) Then you will also find that PNG fits to Central America
Zed6t9r 20 hours ago
To prove this (as you have mentioned in another clip) the tear lines (in the Pacific) show DIRECTION and this point to South American. Also shows that China-Japan shows DIRECTION to North America. You will find that this is a much better fit.
Zed6t9r 20 hours ago
Comment removed
Zed6t9r 20 hours ago
Comment removed
Zed6t9r 20 hours ago
Comment removed
Zed6t9r 21 hours ago
Comment removed
Zed6t9r 21 hours ago
Comment removed
Zed6t9r 21 hours ago
Comment removed
Zed6t9r 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If we are going to have a discussion here lets do it with out removing my comments.
andjusticeforall2010 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andjusticeforall2010 If we are going to have a discussion here lets do it with out removing my comments.
andjusticeforall2010 1 day ago
I just found your site that shows planets and moons...I have to say...I am so blown away....I am wondering, the vid showing the earth growth, the mountains of Asia and America. As with the moons, wouldn't earth also be smooth at the start of growth. Im trying to understand how they would be formed during growth. Your vids show them as being there at the start. I may have to watch them a few more times and ponder this. Please, any info is welcome.
andjusticeforall2010 2 days ago
@andjusticeforall2010 - 200MYA, the crust of the earth was thin, and though the earth was growing, and the crust was re-curving to a flatter plane, the thinness of the crust led only to low hills and rises. Now that the crust is 30-40Mi thick, re-curving creates gigantic mountain ranges.
nealadamsdotcom 2 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom I had the Idea that planets not only expand but slowly move out from the sun. If growth would continue, wouldn't they become as big as our outter planets? We are told that the solar system was formed all at once by a big cloud of gases. What if the sun bleches out material from time to time forming planets. What of the asteroid belt? Once a planet(as I have read such ideas of this). The old sumerian story? I know , Im rambling . Can't help it.
andjusticeforall2010 2 days ago
@andjusticeforall2010 Sumerians...dont you find it odd they gave us Art, Laws, Writing, Music etc etc...all the ingredients one would need to give rise to ALL the things we have today?
NORCALROE78 2 days ago
@NORCALROE78 Yes I do! I tell you and Mr adams that my mind is ablaze with a number of crazy ideas at the moment. I may need an asprin and a night off from work.
andjusticeforall2010 2 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Ok so watching the vids of the moons again I get how this works. So now, we have 'new skin' forming from the core. Condensed material rising and expanding as it would due to the this material being underpressure at the core? Im no scientists or geologists, just an average joe using intuition and what I know from reading. It just boggles the mind .
We are told the universe is expanding, why not planets.
andjusticeforall2010 2 days ago
@andjusticeforall2010 It will be quite a while before you "GET" how this works.
There is no Physical Phenomenon that we can call EXPAND. No such concept. Nothing "EXPANDS"!
We know GROWTH! Same stuff, only MORE OF IT! That's what this is about.
An Atom is an Atom. it doesn't "EXPAND" or even "GROW". It's controlled by "LAWS"! Known LAWS. However if you PILE MORE ATOMS IN,.. you get "growth"!
And that's how the Universe GROWS. New matter is made at the bodies cores.
nealadamsdotcom 2 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Well now I'm confused. I thought that matter could be neither created nor destroyed, so how can new matter be "made" at the bodies cores? And with regard to the universe, it is growing in the sense that it's getting larger, but since we have a limited amount of matter in the universe and stars, planets, galaxies, etc. ARE all moving away from each other, is expansion a reasonable term to use? I'm no astrophysicist, but that's how I've always understood it.
joshjcamara 2 days ago
@joshjcamara There's a BIGGER question that this addresses.. Where does MATTER come from? How is it made. (It's not my intention to blow up your brain,....BUT,...this is HEAVY.) Remember the clue to YOU is in one cell of your body. The clues to all the universe is in any one planet in every Solar System, and the clue to any planet is locked in every Electron and Positron.
The Universe is NOT expanding. It's GROWING. There is no such thing as Expanding, well, rubber bands.
nealadamsdotcom 2 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom I agree that the mystery of matters origin is a large and debated one, and the last thing I want to do is start the old big bang vs. intelligent design discussion. But isn't the rubber band example you used a perfect analogy for the universe? It stretches, it expands, and in doing so its atoms are moving apart from one another. Growing, to me, implies the addition of atoms and/or molecules (mass) - STRETCHING a rubber band doesn't add mass to it, therefore it's not GROWING.
joshjcamara 1 day ago
@joshjcamara NO, to be clear, there is NO SUCH Physical concept as EXPAND without the addition of a second force. (Thermal, Chemical) It does not exist. In the rubber band, the fingers that stretch it are the added force.
There are NATURAL ELECTRO-MAGNETIC DISTANCES objects hold from each other based on negative and positive aspects of electro-magnetic fields. Electrons from nuclei, molecules from molecules, Planets from suns, Solar Systems from Solar Systems and Galaxies from..
nealadamsdotcom 1 day ago
@nealadamsdotcom Atoms, according to the Electrons on the outer shell bind closer or farther away, and tighter or wider around the Atom. MATTER of every kind is HELD from touching other MATTER by EM fields. It's a negative/positive universe, in perfect balance. The Universe could no more expand than a ball of iron could EXPAND!
nealadamsdotcom 1 day ago
@nealadamsdotcom I will freely admit that I know very little about electro-magnetic properties. But if what you're saying is based on the idea that the universe is NOT expanding, specifically because it needs a secondary force to do so (by the way, wouldn't that secondary force be the energy expelled during the big bang? And wasn't the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics given to the three astronomers that discovered "dark energy" - the force that's causing the expansion of the universe to increase?)
joshjcamara 1 day ago
@nealadamsdotcom then I have to, respectfully, disagree with you. The comparison of the universe to a ball of iron is nifty, but I think it's just wrong. You're assertion that the universe is not expanding goes against not only everything I've read about the universe, but also to Newton's First Law of Motion; The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. If we accept the Big Bang theory, then the explosion that occured 14 billion years would
joshjcamara 1 day ago
@joshjcamara All Physicists today disagree that there was AN EXPLOSION. They insist it is an EXPANSION!.
As stupid as BOTH CONCEPTS ARE. New discovery has found that the Universe is "ACCELERATING" OUTWARD. (Going FASTER with time)
SO, this is NEITHER explosion or expansion.NOR NEWTON!
So, what is it?
It's GROWTH! If you were on an atom of the shoulder of a Baby and looked across the void to it's other shoulder, you might conclude the baby was EXPLODING.
It's merely GROWING!
nealadamsdotcom 1 day ago
@nealadamsdotcom necessarily propell ALL matter in the universe in every direction until an external force stops it. Since the universe encompasses everything, we can logically assume that there is no external force to impede it's expansion.
joshjcamara 1 day ago
@joshjcam Nor are the atoms of the baby flying away from each other EVEN THOUGH EACH SHOULDER SEEMS TO BE ACCELERATING APART.
More cells, More Galaxies, more matter, more GROWING SUNS, super-Novas, more black holes, EXPONENTIALLY GROWING EARTH! The whole and all the parts, Ballance, negative to positive.
Oh,..ONE FORCE, and it's EM in NATURE. Gravity is EM! and it's both attractive and repulsive.
You happen to be in a place where ATTRACTIVE is dominant! Sit between 2 Solar Systems
nealadamsdotcom 1 day ago
@joshjcamara Incorrect. What holds an Atom together? What holds a Rock together. a Solar System, A Galaxy, a universe AS IT GROWS?
Do you NOT understand the concept of GROWTH? SAME DENSITY ADDED MATTER!
nealadamsdotcom 1 day ago
Oddly planet GJ 1214b that revolves around a brown dwarf, is 3 to 4 times Earths size and is so far, being called a "Waterworld". Mr. Adams anyway you could do a video of earth expanding out 3 to 4 times its size, and seeing where the landmass goes? it very well may unlock a little bit of evolutionary information.
NORCALROE78 2 days ago
@NORCALROE78 - And you could send me $300,000. to do it, but I don't think you will. This is not a weekend project. It takes a lot of work and a lot of time.
nealadamsdotcom 2 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Mr. Adams if I had the 300,000$ it would be yours. I'd spend every last dime I had to bring truth to light, instead of basing our entire way of life upon theories, that have yet to be proven. In the wake of recent neutrino findings, it very well may seem that what we know, is not what we know. Hell scientists have just reported that organic matter is abundant in space, that has the characteristics of coal and petroleum. Search on Science Daily.com
NORCALROE78 2 days ago
Mr. Adams. I ran into this expanding earth theory just recently. Im am blown away! Im am trying to disprove this, but so far not having any luck. The oldest FISH fossil(as you said is on land) is 450MYO.Im still looking. I don't believe evrything Im told...even this. Yet this theory is very intersesting to say the least. What of fossils found on west coast USA and east coast Asia? The same as with east coast USA and England/France or the north pole areas?
andjusticeforall2010 2 days ago
@andjusticeforall2010
Just ask any question you may like along the way.
nealadamsdotcom 2 days ago
@andjusticeforall2010 - Incidentally, "Expanding Earth" is the old name of the theory, when first created by Sam Carey. This evolution of the theory is called the GROWING EARTH/GROWING UNIVERSE THEORY.
nealadamsdotcom 2 days ago
Comment removed
TheSnowballEarth 4 days ago
Gents. Be a detective. What fits the FACTS? 200 Million Yrs ago:
1.There were NO deep oceans anywhere on Earth. ALL oceans were closed, JUST LIKE you were taught the Atlantic was. NO OCEANS! 2.However, TWO-THIRDS of the continental plates were covered by shallow fresh-water seas, up to 800 feet deep.
3.Dinosaurs roamed to every corner/area of the Earth from pole to pole, from one side to the other of any side.
4.Weather was the same whereever dinos roamed as if warmed by the Earth itself.
nealadamsdotcom 4 days ago
A note for your brain:
Today, earth has deep oceans covering 2/3 of the planet, but only in the oceans. 200MYA, earth had shallow seas covering 2/3 of the continental plate only. But there were no deep oceans. When geology creates maps or animations for you of the "LAND", they mix and match shallow seas and deep oceans as if they were the same. Every map or animation that they make, is a fraud, because they never show you the continental plate. Makes us pretty stupid, huh?
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
PT is a joke. Continents dont just drift around.
kaderoder 5 days ago
Gents. Earth differentiates it's own MOLTEN Granitic crust to the surface, which cools and hardens into layers of the Earth's crust. over billions of years.
I ignore the water, Earth would be a small ball coated by cooled Granitic crust over a basalt molten under-coating.
As Earth Grows, layers are forced to crack and spread! First, the thin layers crack and spread in layered shells. Finally, quite THICK the complete series of granitic shells crack down to the BASALT!
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Why don't you understand simple things? If this were part o the peer review process, my job would be done. I don't chew my piece of meat twice. I have many other things to do with my time.
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom I do understand simple things. Like Plate Tectonics. And unlike yourself I don't assume more things than are logically possible (Occam's Razor).
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth -Occam's razor: like the earth differentiates, layer upon layer of granitic rock jigsaw puzzle pieces, miles thick, which all gather together, to fit perfectly on one giant island, with no pieces left at all, on one side of the earth, leaving the opposite side, 10,000 mi. wide of ocean 2.5Mi. deep. And these joined pieces, are all the same height, and the outside edge of the giant island is all broken off, just like the edge when the continents break apart.
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Do you assume differentiation of lighter material over heavier material? Do you assume if it comes up molten, that it finds jigsaw puzzle pieces or that it coats evenly? I do not see how it cannot coat evenly. Layer after layer, miles thick, when when it stops coating, it's flat. Flat, implies even coating. Not jigsaw puzzle pieces. What keeps it from the other 2/3 of the earth. Jell-O molds?
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Don't call me Shirley. Drink your Brawndo. It's got electrolytes.
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
Can someone explain to me why about 50% thinks this vid is bs? Seems legit to me...
P8II 6 days ago
@P8II Read the blindness of TheSnowballEarth
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@P8II Because those of us who are actually trained in geology and understand Plate Tectonics- as opposed to Adams the comic book artist with no scientific background whatsoever- know that Expansion Tectonics requires a mechanism which is known to not exist on the Earth, and is total bunk. Read my posts (and Adams' absurd responses), do your own web research, and read some texts on the subject. Also, check out potholer54's video "Expanding earth my ass." Cheers.
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
@calebcompton123 YOU are NOT stupid and I'll punch anyone who says so.
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
If the Earth is expanding shouldn't the continents just stay in their respective places whilst oceanic crust is created by basaltic magma at the mid-ocean ridges? This would still explain the patterns seen in the fossil record for Gondwana (not to mention continental outlines) that led to the continental drift theory to begin with. The various collisional orogens (e.g. Alps-Himalayas, Cordillera) that are younger than the start date of expansion shouldn't exist, yet they do.Why is that?
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@The 1. YES! According to the TIME they began spreading and number of sides. 2." LED TO",...YES, of course. BUT, it took a brilliant Australian Geologist to point out the OBVIOUS to a "western world". Professor Samuel Warren Carey, in the 60's, in his book presenting "The Expanding Earth" pointed out that Geology had gone only HALF WAY, in "MATCHING" in the Atlantic. (They WERE, after all Atlantic-side Scientists, and EVERYTHING happened there, AND the Pacific was SO wide)
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom Carey's views have been discredited and supplanted over the last 50 years by Plate Tectonics. Earth expansion has never been observed to be occurring. The three observed plate boundary types- spreading ridges, subduction zones, & transform faults- all allow for continental movement w/o the need for an unobserved, unscientific mechanism i.e. matter generation (which violates Conservation of Matter & Energy). You need to learn basic physics as well as geology.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnow Geology Professor Carey's conclusions have been IGNORED. Never, NEVER discredited or supplanted. They have been "Gone-Around"! Sam's Geology is SPOT ON. No one argues with it. They used to argue with his conclusions. Now he is ignored.
2. Earth does not 'expand'! Nor does the Universe. They both GROW, except for people like you who believe in MAGIC. (Or GOD!)
One cannot observe Earth GROW. One must look at the FACTS and evidence.
If you're shown FACTS, You go blind.
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom "If you're shown FACTS, You go blind." Which is why your "theory" fails miserably. You reject the process of subduction, which has been demonstrated to exist by seismic tomographic imaging. Yes! Descending slabs have been imaged ("seen"). Subduction also explains things like the Basin and Range spreading, a phenomenon which is unrelated to mid-ocean ridge spreading because of the magma types observed. Your "theory" can't account for that. YOU IGNORE FACTS!
TheSnowballEarth 6 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth NO. I REJECT subduction as used by Geology to solve the spreading crust issue. Compressive Subduction, like Obduction and Mountain Building are all a result of compressive forces of a Growing Earth. Earth's subduction is located at/as the Ring of Fire, who's origin, a mere 60 MYA, I already discussed. DID YOU forget?
If you have a memory problem, you can print out these pages.
If you have CLEAR Seismic Tomographic images OUTSIDE the RING, lead me to them.
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Why don't you do a simple google image search for "seismic tomography" and see for yourself, rather than ask others to do your work for you? Besides, you just flat-out reject whatever anyone throws your way because it doesn't fit in with what misbelieve is the "truth"? I'm not falling for that.
TheSnowballEarth 6 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth I've studied Seismic Tomography for well over 30 years, since I ran across Adam Dziewonski.
I present FACTS. You present LIES and Theories and conjecture. There is no subducting scientific seismic images from any place except the Ring of Fire. The rest is OPINION!
What FACT have I rejected? Name ONE!
NO subducting of OLDEST PLATE. NO plate at it's CENTER that is OLDER! NO DEEP oceanic life older than 70 MYOld. FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! Know the difference?
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
Comment removed
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom "What FACT have I rejected? Name ONE!" Plate Tectonics.
"There is no subducting scientific seismic images from any place except the Ring of Fire." Wrong again. The Caribbean. Look it up yourself. So your statement is patently false, i.e. a LIE. BTW, thank you for finally admitting that subduction has been observed. So it does exist.
Now again, what rate of Earth growth/expansion does your mathematical model predict? Is it measureable? Do you have a model?
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom "NO subducting of OLDEST PLATE." If you're considering the Pacific Plate then you're neglecting the portion that's already been subducted under E. Asia. The adjacent oceanic plate to the east of this margin is soon to follow (on a geologic timescale).
"NO plate at it's CENTER that is OLDER!" Should one be?
"NO DEEP oceanic life older than 70 MYOld." Wrong again. You've obviously never studied Paleontology either.
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth 1, NO, I diagramed out the subducting area! It gets YOUNGER GOING WEST! YOUNGER-GOING-WEST! It's THERE in the file that I showed you!
ALL the ribbons of PLATE follow to coastal margins, and YOUNGER comes from ASIA!
Should there be? OF COURSE! That's the oldest plate!
Listen, you old fart. NO Deep Oceanic life in the deep oceanic plate older than 70 MYOld.
You, sir are full of it! It took a hundred million years for life to evolve to the deep oceans!
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom "you old fart." I'm nearly 30 years younger than you. Ageist.
"NO Deep Oceanic life in the deep oceanic plate older than 70 MYOld." Of what relevance is that to anything? I confess, you have me there.
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth - You're younger in years, not in thinking. In thinking, you are very old.
Geology insists deep oceans existed on earth for billions of years. Any study of evolution will tell you that life would have evolved in the deep oceans as early as it evolved in the shallow seas. And there are many proofs of this. However, in the 60's, 2 of the greatest scientific questions that existed, 1. Oceanic plate less than 100MYO, could be found nowhere in the world...
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth - 2. Search as they would, with their bathyspheres and corers, between the 30's and the 60's, scientists could find no deep oceanic life that had lived in the deep oceans before 70MYA. As a geologist, this may not make such an impact on you, but for a paleontologist, this was stunning and insane. And so the scientific community instituted the greatest geological experiment of all time. The coring and aging of the deep oceans, with the help of the US Navy.
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Fossil evidence of deep marine life greater than 180 Ma can be found deposited on continental crust. There is abundant fossil evidence of deep marine Mesozoic and Paleozoic life. You're quite mistaken, but then you ignore/reject facts that don't fit your beliefs.
"with their bathyspheres and corers... scientists could find no deep oceanic life that had lived in the deep oceans before 70MYA." Not what they're for. How could you not know this?
TheSnowballEarth 4 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth Did you READ YOUR OWN WORDS, or are you just BLIND to WORDS! Continental Plates???? Marine LIFE on the continental plates, is NOT what we are talking about! We are talking about MARINE LIFE in the DEEP OCEANS! NONE existed between 180 and 70 Million Years Ago!
How do I know these things? I have studies this stuff since I was a KID! Go buy some OLD BOOKS and study your country's scientific History.
nealadamsdotcom 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom And BTW: "Did you READ YOUR OWN WORDS, or are you just BLIND to WORDS! Continental Plates????"
Ahem, I wrote (as all can see) "...can be found deposited on continental crust." See that, I wrote CRUST, not PLATE. Are you blind to words, or just a bald-faced liar?
"I have studies this stuff since I was a KID!" And you still don't understand it. Pathetic!!!
TheSnowballEarth 3 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth - The conclusions of this 35 year study, while ground-breaking and incredible, never settled the core questions. 1. Why was there no older plate? 2. And why was there no deep ocean life before 70MYA?
So subduction replaced Carey, and the second question, was ignored. But in science, my friend, question as basic as that, cannot be ignored. The answer had to be, that there were no deep oceans until 180MYA, and it took 100MY for it to evolve.
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Why is there no older oceanic plate? Subduction.
TheSnowballEarth 4 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth Older plate of DEEP OCEANS , older than 180 MYO DOES NOT EXIST! If it did,...THERE WOULD BE ONE FACTUAL CLUE!
There are many CLUES and FACTUAL PROOFS of 180 MYO Plate. It's RIGHT THERE TO SEE! FACTS!
nealadamsdotcom 3 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Older plate of DEEP OCEANS , older than 180 MYO DOES NOT EXIST!" Destroyed by subduction.
"We are talking about MARINE LIFE in the DEEP OCEANS! NONE existed between 180 and 70 Million Years Ago!" Did too.
TheSnowballEarth 3 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Did too? Okay, you're an uneducated idiot. Guys like you should wear signs.
Since the beginning of our discussion, outside of theory, I have given you nothing but the truth, essentially just listing the facts. The whole field of geology and paleontology knows that the oceanic plate was investigated as to age and life in the deep ocean. Partially because no fossils older than 70MYO lived in the deep oceans, and therefore Pangea Theory is false.
nealadamsdotcom 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom "Okay, you're an uneducated idiot." Again with the insults. Further proof that you've no real argument.
"Since the beginning of our discussion, outside of theory, I have given you nothing but the truth..." No, you've given your own warped misinterpretations.
"...no fossils older than 70MYO lived in the deep oceans..." That's because fossils AREN'T ALIVE! Fossils are the remains of once-living organisms. You should know this after 35+ yrs of study! BWAHAHAHAHA
TheSnowballEarth 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom "Older plate of DEEP OCEANS , older than 180 MYO DOES NOT EXIST! If it did,...THERE WOULD BE ONE FACTUAL CLUE!" Fossils deep marine life from the Paleozoic can be found in the places like the northern Appalachian and the Caledonian Mtns., in addition to other places. Quit being blind to the facts.
Posting in all caps just makes you like the desperate raving lunatic that you are.
TheSnowballEarth 3 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom "...I diagramed out the subducting area!" So it's got to be true then. I refer the reader to the metaphor I gave earlier about being able to prove God's existence by being able to draw a smiley face with a beard and rays of light.
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom "Compressive Subduction, like Obduction..." The two are not equivalent. Subduction goes down, obduction goes up. This is easily understood by any first-year geology student, but not by some self-styled genius who has been worshipping pseudo-science for 35+ years.
TheSnowballEarth 4 days ago
@TheSnowball How do I overcome your memory problem. They don't remove notes. They're on pges 2-3-4-5 etc. Can you read them over , or print them out? Writing what I already said, over and over is just too much to ask, PLEASE!
If you can "REFRESH" "YOUR" memory on Google (AS YOU DID) you can re-read my notes,
YES, it can. GROWTH accounts for it PERFECTLY! How does subduction which disappears land EXPLAIN SPREAD?? WHAT has MAGMAS to do with it? GROWTH explains SPREADS!
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Notes? Oh, you mean your psycho-babble.
"How does subduction which disappears land EXPLAIN SPREAD?? WHAT has MAGMAS to do with it? " A question based on misunderstanding of geology. Subductive margins destroy oceanic crust created at spreading ridges.
"GROWTH explains SPREADS!" So does PLATE TECTONICS! X-D
TheSnowballEarth 6 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth Listen to what you said (QUOTED) "Subduction EXPLAINS Basin and range spreading." The WHOLE CONCEPT of subduction is NON GROWTH, NON SPREAD (Except at rifts) The rest compresses into a subduction slit!
A GROWING EARTH explains perfectly any and all SPREADING-RIFT-BASIN-Range spreading. YOU, sir, ignore common sense. logic ,..and FACTS, for the sake of your own EGO and inability to change with thinking from your MIND!!.
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom So why has an increase in the Earth's radius never been measured?
TheSnowballEarth 6 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth An increase has never been measured because no instrument(s) has ever been developed that was GOALED to measure such increase, because no one expected an increase. Do you know someone with a few extra billion dollars to design and build such technology? I don't.
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Bullshit. Laser surveys and GPS can measure the rate of seafloor spreading and mountain uplift.
What rate of Earth growth/expansion does your mathematical model predict?
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
@TheSnowball No SIR,..YOU have just LIED! I SAID no instruments have been developed to measure the Earth's growth,...YOU point to a system that measures distance between two points by triangulation and a system that measures Mountain Height change from the re-curving of the Earth. NOT the point. FAIL.
When I invited you to continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth there was a list of spreading growth of the Earth. Eyesight BAD?
24" in.circumference increase per year.
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom "24" in.circumference increase per year." That's how much the Earth is increasing its circumference per year? What peer-reviewed journalled articles does this result appear in?
continuitystudiosdotnet shows a splash screen with your name and artwork. I also get an error message when adding /growth. I want some peer-reviewed scientific investigations, not your lies and misinformation.
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth Well , you could do the math yourself. It's pretty simple. You could use the figures from Geology from "THAT" site. You could use the figures from either of Sam Carey's books or other books. When it says DOT, you type in a DOT, not the word.
Youtube doesn't allow a dot.
If there were peer-reviewed papers on all of this, Why the hell would I be here? THINK!
nealadamsdotcom 5 days ago
Comment removed
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Did all that. There it is. I'll give it a look.
"If there were peer-reviewed papers on all of this, Why the hell would I be here?" Because then your so-called "theory" would have some grounding in Science, you would have the backing of at least one segment of the scientific community, have some credibility, and you wouldn't come off as a raving lunatic. THINK. Jeebus Reebus Cannebus.
TheSnowballEarth 5 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom It's called "underplating" and yes, it is related to subduction, not mid-ocean ridge spreading. Go look it up, on the internet or in a textbook. Fancy that- something your "theory" can't explain and that you refuse to address.
TheSnowballEarth 6 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth NOW, you're arguing Physics with me? Astonishing!
Fine.
I'll tell you the Mechanism of Growth of the Earth,if you tell me how all the matter in the Universe was created, Without using the terms Miracle, Magic or God.
(Hint) It's the same Process.!
It's massively interesting how a bright but primitive Microbe, living on the cold dead skin of a massive vital dense super-heated body presumes so much about how things do and don't work! THINK!
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom The onus has been on you all along. I've given, you've taken. Now you must give.
TheSnowballEarth 6 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth Since you have only one question, why don't you clarify it for me,...as you provide responses to the questions I bring up relative to the Westen Pacific, and the apparent unsubducted oldest Pacific plate .
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom There are rock formations all over the Earth's surface that have radiometric dates >200 Ma. According to your "theory" how were the continents distributed prior to this?
Also, if matter can be generated as you say (resulting in growth) it can also be lost. How does your theory account for that?
TheSnowballEarth 6 days ago
@TheSnow HHEY, some guy just called me a Nazi. That's the last stage in irrational attacks, or something, isn't it? People you find on the internet,..wow.
You're talking; ON THE continental plate, of course and sediments FROM the continental plate. NO DEEP Oceanic Plate. MATTER is Generated at the core of the Earth, but ONCE GENERATED it cannot be LOST! (Except on a massive sun or Hydrogen bomb for Example) We havd LAWS, in Physics!) Facts? You got balls, old man.
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom "They WERE, after all Atlantic-side Scientists, and EVERYTHING happened there, AND the Pacific was SO wide" So now you're saying that Plate Tectonics is the evil work of Aussie-hating Atlanto-centrists. Funny how many Australian geologists accept Plate Tectonics. Guess that makes them unpatriotic traitors then. Shame on you Adams.
TheSnowballEarth 6 days ago
@TheSnowball Listen to your own inability NOT to ridicule, like a CHILD. "You're saying just because Hitler didn't like Jews he intends to KILL a lot of them for political reasons. Shame on you, Adams."
SHAME ON YOU SIR! for not understanding the nature of human thought. 10 year old children , for generations could SEE the continents easily come together in the Atlantic.
Their BETTERS laughed at them because "THEY" couldn't find it in their "adult" BRAINS .
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@TheSnowbal IT was NOT so easy to "SEE" the spread in the Pacific. Too wide to easily recognize the joinings Three-way spread, Edges don't "seem" to match., Subduction, beginning 60 MYA,...its HARDER to "imagine"! Shame on ME? Shame on YOU, SIR!
This time around, we have a man with VISION! Sam Carey saw it. European scientists and Australian Geologists saw it. More important I SEE IT and I animated it PERFECTLY, after I ASSEMBLED the FACTS, and found the Mechanism.
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@The3. So, explained Carey, If we only need HALF AN ANSWER and wish to blind ourselves to the other half of the world, Or throw a monkey wrench into all Physics and cosmology, Pangea ..will,..sort...of....work,...if we RIP OUT OUR BRAINS!
What if the continental plates FIT in the Pacific??
But Sam,..like YOU, (No offense) was a Geologist. NOT a Physicist. He didn't know there was no such Phenomenon as EXPAND. Hell, the Physicists were using it on the Universe for years.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom The Earth, with the exception of the liquid outer core, behaves as a static rigid body. This is why Plate Tectonics explains what is observed and why Expansion Tectonics does not, fails miserably, and is not accepted by serious scientists. Stars such as Cepheid variables do expand (and contract) regularly because they are gaseous bodies. Earth expansion as a result of cosmic expansion was a brain fart by Paul Dirac, who mentioned it in passing. So there.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth How old are you?
You'd better get your Priorities in order. Come back then. It's easy to see when someone is terrified
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom Still waiting for you to answer my questions with valid, logical responses and not personal flames. It's gonna be a long wait, but I've alot of patience.
"It's easy to see when someone is terrified" Like yourself.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Good. That will give you some time to THINK. 9 our of 10 of you guys can't do it, but I have hopes.
That wasn't flames, that was a lecture. At this point I don't actually believe you are a geologist at all. But again I've heard so many loonies write in that I could be wrong. I'll know when you have actually absorbed the information.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth Ah-ah-ah- Play nice, or I'll send Slim Whitman over to see you, you little caution, you.
Try THINKING! The Triangle!
FACTS! I have FACTS! Dog ate your theories??? You're a coward, my friend. Afraid to think!
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@The You see, incredibly enough, merely mentioning Paul Dirac has brought you closer to the truth than anything you have said.
If you were well along in this conversation one question you would ask is "Is there, in fact a form of MATTER CREATION known by man, from "SEEMINGLY" NOTHING. Mister Adams?
Have you examined that triangle that was supposed to have sunducted?
I forgive the second goof. Geology, for the most part has given up the "BASALT GETS HEAVIER the older it is.
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth Hell. YOU just used "Earth is 'EXPANDING'" yourself (course YOU used Snowball Earth in your Moniker, so...who's judging.) NO SUCH PHYSICAL CONCEPT!
GROWING, yes,..but not without a "MECHANISM", said thePhysicists, to Sam, the Geologist. DUHHHH, but, I'm a Geologist...
Then why did you say "EXPAND"???
But,..but...you guys...
YES, but we have the copyright on BULLS**T!
Then two technicians discovered a descending oceanic plate! BAM!
GOOOD-BYE Sam Carey.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom As all can see I wrote "If the Earth is expanding..." You deliberately misquoted me to serve yourself. This is another reason that nobody takes you seriously, in addition to your ranting and raving. By ignoring the valid questions put to you whilst expecting others to tolerate your nonsense you demonstrate both your hypocrisy and idiocracy.
"YES, but we have the copyright on BULLS**T!" Thanks for admitting that to everyone.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth when page loads go to pg 2,3,and 4. bottom of the page. numbers. 12345
Let's call them "MOUNTAIN RANGES"! It's what we are talking about. NOT Orogenic activity.
To repeat a second time, another way. If the crust is three miles thick and it recurves to a flatter plane. the upper surface may WRINKLE,..but not Mountain. BUT , when the crust is 30 miles thick, and IT RE-CURVES to a flatter plane,.. the top levels will wrinkle and buckle into MOUNTAIN RANGES
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth Why can't continental edges' Mountain 'when they COLLODE?
1. They can't COLLIDE, EVER.
2. They can be driven closer, but never TOUCH!
3. IF THEY COULD (Lord Oz, forgive me.) they WOULD STOP!
4. Say they DIDN'T STOP. (If there's a God of Physics, forgive me!) Continental EDGES are Tiered , WIDER at the BOTTOM (Another discussion!) So what would collide? First? After tens/hundreds of miles of Oceanic Basalt,...is the bottom tier.
Then what?????PHYSICS!
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom 1. Why this assumption? OH right, bacause otherwise this crazy stuf would have no founding. WE can observe the continental plates drift. Please show us any evidence for an expansion.
tristbjorn 6 days ago
@tristbjorn 1.Do you really want to see or are you just a big-mouthed Nosy Parker.
2.
"FOUNDING"??? Is that a word? Did you mean "FOUNDLING" or FOUNDING EVIDENCE as in Basis in fact, Or "FUNDING"?
3. "WE" CAN'T observe continental plates DRIFT! That would be ,..STUPID!
4. EARTH does NOT "EXPAND". It grows.
5. Are you finished with your self-serving bullshit? Go back to your cat-fart videos knucklehead . We do thinking here.
nealadamsdotcom 6 days ago
@TheSnowballEarth Hmmm... still no answers from Dr. Adams. Imagine that...
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
Please, someone explain to me how on an expanding earth ophiolite complexes are emplaced onto continental crust. If the Earth is expanding shouldn't ophiolites fall into the resulting graben systems, rather than being obducted onto lighter continental crust? As we all know, ophiolites are denser than continental crust. Thank you.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth You are correct. In fact, according to current Geological theory all such ophiolites should have subducted!
Remember 200 MYA there were NO DEEP OCEANS! However, Shallow Oceans/Seas covered TWO-THIRDS of the continental plates and were often as much as 800 feet deep and more. as such they must be the origins of those complexes.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom But a few ophiolites are obducted (thrust upwards onto light sialic crust) during continental collisions. This explains the ophiolites found in the Himalyas, in addition to other orogenic belts. Your statement "...current Geological theory all such ophiolites should have subducted" is a misunderstanding of said theory. Now you must explain how expansion tectonics creates collisional orogens. Ball's in your court, sir.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowball Collisions??? Are we talking about, oh, Continental Collisions that drove up the Rockies? The Andes?...? ah,...no.
The Himalyas. Others?? Himalyas! What do YOU think the northward pressure is that pushes India up?
Of course WE agree that India BROKE/RIFTED from Africa, but NOT from ASIA.
We KNOW because there would be Hundreds or at least tens of thousands of miles of Basaltic Sutures between India and Asia.
Much of the Himalyas WAS shallow sea
Return?
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom "What do YOU think the northward pressure is that pushes India up?" The northward motion of India colliding with the southward motion of Central Asia. The basaltic (simatic) oceanic crust you are seeking has mostly delaminated and subducted beneath Asia. Some of it has, however, been obducted as ophiolites along with lighter, sialic crust (marine sediments). This has been termed "escape tectonics."
"India BROKE/RIFTED from Africa, but NOT from ASIA." Correct.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnow NO,I'm 'under the impression' that HALF,...or maybe less, obducted over the supposed Subducted area. Leaving MASSIVE BASALTIC SUTURES between the two,...unless you are now insisting Subduction goes BOTH WAYS/ same time??? You offer JUST ophiolites (from shallow seas?) with lighter sediments? Pick your subducting side and stick with it
What northward motion,..from what? Africa is SOUTH.
What southward motion,..from what?
"escape tectonics?" Let's call it FUDGING!
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom India is moving northwards from Africa, which is to India's south. Meanwhile, Asia is moving southwards from the north, towards India. The oceanic crust/slab that once existed north of the then island continent of India (late Mesozoic to early Cenozoic), part of the Indian plate, and formed the bottom of the eastern Tethyan seaway dipped northwards and has been subducted beneath Asia. However, some of that oceanic crust was obducted (e.g. Indus-Sangbo suture).
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Let's get down to the nitty and gritty. Until 60 Million Years Ago all continents of Earth were moving apart in straight lines. Twisting tags and stretching mildly this way and that, skewing tags like Spain, Central America etc. But 50-60 MYA the Pacific Rift drove down and split Australia from Antarctica, and circumnavigated around Antarctica. That Antarctic Ocean, since 60MYA, has spread northward, more powerfully that any spreading ocean on earth.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom Again, you're asserting your own opinions as fact w/o any proof to back yourself up, just your own hubris and arrogance. Read Carlo Doglioni's work on plate tectonics and get a decent textbook like Windley's "The Evolving Continents." Then get back to me when you wish to have a serious scientific discussion. Start with answering my original question about earth expansion tectonics, which you still haven't.
And try drinking water instead of that Brawndo crap.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - The spreading Antarctic Ocean has been shoving upward for 60MY, as the earth grows. As a result, Africa has been spun counterclockwise. India, which was never not attached to Asia, has been shoved upward, adding to, if anything, the mountain-building of the vast Asian continent.
Most powerful, Australia has been spread upward, along it's own pathway, 1,000 miles or more. Australian continental plate, massively driven, has shattered the Indonesian plate.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom You have no proof of any of this. More arm-wavy unscientific psycho-babble.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - 200MYA, there were no deep oceans, and no mountain ranges. There were many volcanoes, and 2/3 of the granitic continental plate, which covered the earth, (which is today our continents), was covered by shallow seas (oceans), up to and more than 800' deep.
They were essentially oceans. The crust was only about 3Mi. thick, on average, and it had differentiated up to the surface, layer upon layer, from below. The planet was subtropical from pole to pole.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Why was earth subtropical from pole to pole? Especially since the sun was 10% smaller and dimmer.
The thin crust let the earth warm itself. No winters, no frozen poles. No ice ages. And most plants were perennials. The crust became thicker as the earth grew. The land rifted and spread, shifting continental seas from place to place. The fossil geology of which we see all over the world.
As the crust thickened, seasons began, reptiles grew long legs.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Why was earth subtropical from pole to pole? Especially since the sun was 10% smaller and dimmer." Atmospheric homeostasis by the Biosphere, as explained by Lovelock's Gaia Theory. You need to read up on this as well.
"As the crust thickened, seasons began, reptiles grew long legs." Huh?
Dude, I've a responded sensibly to each of your questions with a valid, scientific answer, yet you still haven't answered my original question. Why not? YOU CAN'T.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Reptiles grew long, down-facing legs to begin the process of migration. Seasonal plants. with a need to plant their seeds far afield, to survive the winter, developed fruit, for dinosaurs to carry the seeds in their bellies while they migrated hemispherically. One day the growing of the earth became too great, and the first rifts opened on either side of what we call No. America. IN the Atlantic, a 2-way rift, in the Pacific, a 3-way rift.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Reptiles grew long, down-facing legs to begin the process of migration." Another faulty assumption: erect posture solely to migrate rather than as an advantage over the sprawling posture of other archosaurs (e.g. crocodilians, that survive to this day). Mammalian synapsids also developed erect posture at near the same time as the dinosaurs first appeared. Yet they didn't migrate. And spreading across the globe is not migration, just to remind you.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth NO,. DIED OFF! (A little bit of information is a dangerous thing!
(I'm sorry, But Science hasn't had a Sherlock Holmes for a long time.
Earth is SMALLER (Mars size) Gravity LITE! Warm fresh water Shallow Seas. cover 2/3's . Seasons COME TO BE slowly,...enough for evolution to keep up.
If ONE hemisphere is FRESH and abundant with NEW BLOOMING PLANTS, with SEEDS TO SPREAD,.. and the other hemisphere is depleted and withering with seasonal age......then????
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@TheSnow - As the rifts spread, the super-heated gases deserted from under the continental plates, and migrated to the rifts. Today, only 4% of the asthenosphere is molten. Mostly under the rifts. Continental crusts pieces became thicker. 3 miles then, 30 miles today. With the thickness came a new phenomenon. 200MYA, re-curving of a stretching crust, hardly changed the surface. Beginning 60MYA, the crustal jigsaw pieces, thick now, had to re-curve with the growth of the earth.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@TheSnow - The continental pieces now have to re-curve to a flatter plane. Re-curving of a 30-40mi thick continent means the upper portion of the crust must, must, buckle & fold. This is where earth gets it's mountains, and Asia, being earth's greatest continent, buckles it's greatest mountain-range. Though the up-pushing against India from the Antarctic spread, may assist the process, it is the re-curving to a flatter plane of the Asian continent that created the Himalayas.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Hemispherically migrating dinosaurs, taking advantage of the new blossoming plants, began to have their pathways cut-off. Some few adapted. But the healthiest and strongest could not survive the change. Accept for those who could migrate through the air. The rifting apart of Australia and Antarctica, and it's volcanic eruptions and ask, may have had a hand in the final extinction of the dinosaurs. Certainly more than a small meteorite.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom Dinosaur migration (or any animal migration) does not require an expanding Earth to happen.
"But the healthiest and strongest could not survive the change." Bad assumption. Mammalian synapsids survived.
"Accept [sic] for those who could migrate through the air." The non-avians (birds), not all of which were capable of flight. A number of other land-dwelling, non-migratory animal species survived. Marine life also. Quit obsessing over the dinos.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Australia shattered the Indonesian plate into massive chunks, and spun them about, giving purchase to subduction at the Ring of Fire. This is the first, and only provable subduction on earth.
To accomplish this, the Australian plate had to run back over it's rift.
The opportunity to subduct, subducted the western Pacific plate into and under Asia's rifting spread as well. If you check crustal age map, you will see everything I say here is true.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Australia shattered the Indonesian plate into massive chunks, and spun them about..." WTF?!?! Where did you get this from, reading Charles Hapgood?
"The opportunity to subduct, subducted the western Pacific plate into and under Asia's rifting spread as well." That statement makes no logical sense whatsoever.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Ok. You and I have both had a lifetime of standard theory. You can can spend one bloody short time discovering growing earth theory. First, did you go to the crustal age map? Did you look at it? Did you think, really think?
Of course you didn't. You intention was to come here, show this idiot what a fool he was then go on with your life. Well this is the moment pal. Sh*t or get off the pot. You're gonna learn some growing earth geology.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth No.. I got it from looking at the map and reading the GPS maps. All it takes is intelligence and deduction have you examined the crustal age map. Australian push 1000 miles away from Antarctica, how could there be no consequence.
2. All you have to do is correctly read the undersea ages on the oceanic plates. Like a trail in the woods, they tell you a story. We already know there was a 3 way rift. because it was a 3 way the rifts clung to the receding edges.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom let me explain. a 2 way rift leaves the rift in the middle.
If you know geometry, you realize, if the is a 3 way rift, there is no "opposite" side to spread from, and so, the rifts must cling to each 3 spreading coasts. The oldest oceanic plate remains in the middle, getting younger going away
North America still clings to it's spreading rift. South America jumped from that line 60MYA or so. It's simple geometry and deduction. Count the 10MY Jumps
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom Why is oceanic crust in the western Atlantic and western Pacific older than oceanic crust in the respective eastern areas? Does this not imply that the Earth is expanding asymmetrically? Why is the Earth spheroidally shaped then (an oblate spheroid due to centrifugal effects, really)?
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - YOUR geological community created the crustal age map. But in doing so, intentionally, hid the facts from you, a geologist, and all other people.
You don't believe me.
A geology student was able to access the computer information that built the crustal age map, which is offered freely for students and teachers. Under my instruction, he 1. Calmed the colors down and made them into a logical progression. 2. Broke the map into 10MY segments.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom Paranoid much?
"You don't believe me." First thing you've written that makes any sense.
"Under my instruction..." No need to examine this any further then. You're not a geologist. Your unqualified opinions don't mean anything.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - The crustal age map was broken into 10MY segments with little spaces between the segments for clarification.
Please go to this crustal age map at continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth.
If you know the standard map, please look at the triangle in the western Pacific. The smallest triangle is 180MYO. The triangle outside of that is 170MYO, and then 160MYO. At 160, the left hand corner edge is subducted, and you can follow the Ring of Fire all around.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - You will notice not 1" of the 180MYO plate is subducted, nor the 170. At the center of the 180MYO, there is no 190MYO. It does not exist. The Pacific began to rift open 3-ways 180MYA, call it Rodinia. Another map there, counts off the 10MYO spreads, & also attempts to show the true possible extent of the subducted plate, as you follow the age lines continuing around under the obducted plate. There is also a list of the area of spreading oceanic crust.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom "...call it Rodinia." Rodinia was a hypothetical supercontinent that existed from ~1.1 Ga to 750 Ma ago. You're geology is confused, but as I pointed out earlier, that's perfectly understandable due to your insufficient background in geology. Read the works of Ian Dalziel and Charles Scotese to get a better understanding of paleogeography. Toodles.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth - Finally, that list, of exponentially spreading and growing surface. Some of the numbers are incorrect, because certain areas of this map were not measured at the time. If you care the least little bit about the future of science, you can get more recent maps, and do the work yourself. I am told it's quite simple. Read the geology students note to me. Perhaps you will feels a little bit of what he felt when he did this work. I think you're afraid to do it.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom "....Some of the numbers are incorrect..." Then get some correct, accurate data that's been peer-reviewed by professionals.
"If you care the least little bit about the future of science, you can get more recent maps, and do the work yourself." I do. I have. That's obvious to everyone but yourself.
"I think you're afraid to do it." Ad hominen attacks are no substitute for rational arguments. I think you're afraid to answer my questions. See how that works?
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom (cont.) The Himalayas (and all orogenic belts) are far more complex than your simplistic mode (if it can be called such). You also appear to think that all rock units should still exist, regardless of age, and fail to take into account the effects of erosion. Under expansion tectonics both collisional and subductive orogenic belts would not exist. Yet still, you accept the existence of both. It is you who wants to have it "both ways." You fail.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth please explain why the navy and science has proven that the seabed is no older than 70 million years old and yet the land is older
crymum1981 1 week ago
@crymum1981 Actually, the oldest oceanic crust is ~135 Ma old, in the western Pacific. Older oceanic crust was subducted long ago. Since continental crust is less dense than oceanic crust, it will stay near the Earth's surface. The continents essentially float on top of the denser oceanic crust, like ice on water. This is known as isostasy. You may wish to read a geology textbook or do some online research to learn more. There, that was easy enough.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth you just told somebody the oldest pacific oceanic crust 135 MYO, in spite of the fact that I have given you , free of charge, a crustal age map that shows 180 MYO crust sitting right there, big as life, unsubducted, in the middle of the western pacific. That map comes directly from the geological community. Not one piece of that 180 MYO plate is subducted. Not one piece of the 170 MYO plate is subducted. Are you a liar? Your whole post is a bad theory. Fail.
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom Correction. Oldest oceanic crust is in fact of Jurassic age. My bad. Doesn't nullify my explanation of why there is no oceanic crust older than that.
"Are you a liar? Your whole post is a bad theory. Fail." Again with the ad hominen attacks.
Still waiting for you to answer my original question. Nothing that you have posted during our discourse has explained collisional orogenies on an expanding earth.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth )bservation#1. "Doesn't nullify", if you are in an argument. DOES, if you are in an intellectual discussion.
Observation #2; Phrases like "ad Hominen" are schoolboy affectations of "Pseudo- Science " Religious rote thinking.
Pardon me for making you THINK while we head merrily to the answer for a question Geology has no answer for. READ my answers over for a continuity and NON THEORETICAL/FACTUAL continuity. Did you examine the MAP? Got a printer?
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom Geology has the answers that you conveniently ignore, for reasons of your own arrogance. Your entire mode of argument is that since you made some pretty animation whatever you think must be automatically true. That's like drawing a smiley face with a beard and rays of light coming from it, and saying "Look! God exists and here's a picture of him to prove it!"
I should've known better than to attempt serious scientific discussion with an aging spoiled child.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheSnowballEarth Don't throw snow in my face as you run away from FACTS, by adding words that blur the context. 180 Million Years OLD is the oldest, in Atlantic AND Pacific. THE LOCATIONS for exactly the same reasons that I repeat. 1.Two-way and Three Way spreads. YES, I nullifies it, COMPLETELY! Take three pieces of cloth, wood, tarpaper. notepaper over each other . Pull them apart and the oldest place is in the center. NO OTHER ANSWER EXISTS! YOUR MAP!
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom "My map?" I don't see my name on it. Someone elses map perhaps. Seems like you're the only one "throwing snow" in other peoples' faces, pretending to have an erudition that you don't possess.
Shouting only makes you look bad. That and not answering any questions put to you, whilst expecting others to indulge your hubris.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@nealadamsdotcom (cont.) "We KNOW because there would be Hundreds or at least tens of thousands of miles of Basaltic Sutures between India and Asia." Incorrect. As I stated, this oceanic crust has been subducted. You are under the misapprenhension that all of this crust should be preserved, when the reality is that very little is. This is obvious from my explanation and from elementary physics.
Now please answer my original question.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom "Remember 200 MYA there were NO DEEP OCEANS! However, Shallow Oceans/Seas covered TWO-THIRDS of the continental plates and were often as much as 800 feet deep and more. as such they must be the origins of those complexes." This statement is patently false, and ignores what is observed in the geologic record. But you wouldn't know this, having no background in geology.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
@TheJaxon000 quarts crystals grow
940anthony 1 week ago
Yes rock is formed by magma seeping through areas on the earth creating rock
TheJaxon000 1 week ago
@FALCO64125 Huh? What did you mean to say? What about the videos I post makes them invalid? Because they are the truth and ,..people don't LIKE THE TRUTH?
nealadamsdotcom 1 week ago
If the early Earth was almost all land, where did all the water come from that now covers the Earth come from...?
11hoosierfc 1 week ago
If the earth is growing then how come the moon is getting father away every day?
Verderestorations 1 week ago
@Verderestorations - It's not so much that the earth is growing, that the universe is growing. The universe is based on the balance of the interrelationship of the magnetic fields of all the systems withing the universe. The earth is growing, but also the whole solar system is growing. All planets and moons are moving away from each other.
Only our moon is close enough to take EXACT measurements. So it seems to be moving outward. It's not. The system is growing.
SpydaNYC