One can't debunk what isn't bunk. Plate Tectonics is based on direct observation, experimentation, and inference in accordance with the Scientific Method, and explains what is currently observed and what appears in the geologic record. Therefore, PT is not bunk.
OTOH, Expansion Tectonics like Carey's & Maxlow's, which postulates matter generation that's never been observed, does qualify as bunk, and was invalidated by Plate Tectonics nearly 50 yrs ago. Maxlow can't even explain his theories.
you are an uneducated dick brain.... how about you learn something before you post a video claiming to know what the hell you are talking about!!!! this is not even worth my time to tell you how stupid and wrong you are!!!!!!!!
Neal Adams is an ignorant fool who just draws comics and think's he can change people's minds with his "science". I've noticed that anyone who's argued with him and have made a point that Neal Adams can't disagree with, he just blocks you.
And there's already so much evidence that the continents have floated around the world for millions of years. Yet this guy thinks he can disprove those facts?
haha I love it! Continents drift at different speeds, change shapes and so on just to fit in to the predetermined model. Science? No... based on facts? No Possible? No
I don't say that the continents hasn't changed shape etc. This video shows ALL continent moving apart when we know they don't. How come no one ever messured the rate of wich earth grows? Maybe because it doesn't...
I don't know why (some) americans love conspiracy theories
@aakesson1 The rate of Earth expansion (or "growth" as some pseudo-scientists would have it) has never been observed because it isn't occurring. What has been observed and measured are rates of mid-ocean ridge spreading and rates of oceanic crust subduction (order of mm/yr). Plate Tectonics explains all this w/o resorting to the hocus-pocus of Expansion Tectonics (matter generation that's never been observed- we'd see neutrinos emanating from w/in the Earth). HTH.
The marsupial duck-billed platypus roamed antarctica and south america did it? And then obviously became extinct and left no traces behind! Good job the better known australian monotreme duck-billed platypus stayed at home to survive into the present.
Also, for all these continents to fit so impessively well in their current above sea-level shapes, they must have the mysterious property of being able to subduct or otherwise 'lose' their under sea-level margins as the video runs time backward !
This guy is hilarious. Found this shit years ago. Did you know tis is the same Neal Adams that is famous in the cmic book community for his work on Batman?
Try going to his channel and disagreeing with him, he will go ape shit on you and rage like crazy.
Obviously the only sensible explanation is the earth is really a giant balloon and the we don't have a molten core, it's just air, filling us up to full size. Just don't dig down too far or you'll let all the air out.
This is what happens when you have too much time on your hands and you have a bag of weed in your pocket. You start thinking up crazy shit to bother ppl with.
Are you suggesting the Earth doubled in mass while the dinosaurs were alive? And that the dinosaurs were alive on a world with no water? I don't understand... You argue subduction and drift, which can be observed with any flimsy solid on a liquid (oil, ice, thick dust, mud), in favor of... um... weight issues? So... how does this account for mountains and rifts?
Charlatans typically accuse their intellectual opponents of knowing the real truth but being too upset to admit it, and keep it a secret. He does that here. As if scientists are emotionally invested in their theories and hypotheses. That's where this whole idea that science is a religion comes from. But really, this is not the case. Though we may hope that we're right in most cases, part of being a professional scientist is recognizing you must succumb to evidence.
@mirrigingi: A Russian psychiatrist. I stand by what I said. Academic geologists and paleogeographers are not out to fool the public. Science is dispassionate search for truth, empirically. DISPASSIONATE. They don't care whether they find result A or result B, they just want to find the answer. It's science denialists like the douche who had this video that are too upset about the truth to admit it.
@McTaggStar being a proffesional scientist also requires succumbing to opinion of those that provide funding, popular opinion is often favored and where complete evidence is lacking theories abound and are proposed as fact, sometimes aggressively. much like religious leaders and charlatans. im not advocating this fellow either. they are all just as bad as each other. it grates me the fact that there is very little objectivity at all
This guy hits and misses, but he is full of shit on some things. "Here, today, antartica and australia and its surrounding islands are the remianing home of marsupials."
An opossum is a marsupial and we have them here in Old Kentucky ya Jagg up!
Wake up America! aint nobody knows all dat shit for shure. Its all hypothetical as far as the sciances go. However, I do believe that as the books says, "They were seperated by bodies of water, and their tongues (languages) were confused.
I've followed this guy for years now, and I still think he's onto something. Not sure if I can go with him on his "prime matter" thing, but the growing earth concept still holds its own. Watch out for accusations of "heresy".
@etzel33 No, it doesn't. Why doesn't it you ask? Lack of evidence that suggests the earth is growing. If you do not believe me, try the following:
Ask yourself this:
"Is there anything that is explained by a hypothetical expanding earth that isn't explainable by Plate tectonics? Or has a better explanation in either of the two?"
If Neil was onto something, then we would be talking about the expanding earth theory. Not the expanding earth pseudo-science. L2 science.
@danschaoticmind Well, there you have it then. I thought Neils indictment of plate tectonics was very interesting, and I found his application of his ideas to other bodies like the Moon, Mars, Titan and Europa to be sound confirmation that should be looked into... fairly, and not as the Holy See tries to consider it.
@etzel33 Then If I may, how about you set up a telescope and begin regular observations of the moon, mars, and titan? With the moon, you can do that one especially well. If you apply the formula by which growth would occur if it was happening (Neil never did suggest how much) then you will be able to measure the changes in magnitude over time (This will probably take a year to do as you'll have to measure them only when they have full disk conditions.) Best to also make measurements of size too.
@etzel33 I say a year because his proposed rate (Though he gives no data to suggest this rates validity) is about 4cm a year. Which, as you'll know from any astronomy book, would have slight effects on brilliance.
However, I could save you some time and give you a reason why the moons expansion is impossible. If only from an orbital dynamics point of view (Though I suggest wiking the moons ascent from earth by year.) But I suggest the experiment route. If your data doesn't match his...
@etzel33 Then that should be enough to suspect his theory and conclusions. That's how science works. The experiment should be able to be reproduced by anyone who attempts the experiment.
Anyways, that's just one of the many ways to check his theorys. We also have ways of doing the earth diameter check without using satellites. It's a kind of fun thing to do too.
@danschaoticmind You are not doing a very good job of investigating this idea. I am in no position to answer all of your questions. Of course, they are valid points that need considered. Your interest though isn't in exploring the overall theory, but to disprove it. This is unfortunate, but necessary in your case I presume.
@etzel33 Actually, I grilled Neil himself and all he said after debating it at length was that I didn't have an open mind. When I showed him evidence that matter is not produced when matter and anti matter collided. And then went through HIS image that he made and showed the flaws with it and then threw down a stack of papers showing evidence (GPS measurements and observed plate motion etc) he simply accused me of being with the IRS and trying to silence him.
@etzel33 So when the resurrector of the idea himself cannot put forth a good theory that can stand careful critic and extensive debate, then his theory stands little chance. There is a reason that EE fell out of favor. It had too little evidence to support it (And all of which was best explained by Plate tectonics)
@danschaoticmind The data came from USGS. I've seen the site, and the summary data. According to the data, no oceanic basalt exists over 70my prior to the atlantic rift. The animation is based on the data, regressing to a smaller sphere rather than display a plate-tectonic engine which is now conventional wisdom. Yet the growing sphere idea holds up to this modeling, and to other plantary bodies as well. It is nothing but cool in my view. Certainly nothing to be dismissed as heresy.
@etzel33 "No basalt exists over 70 my) Wrong to a degree. The oldest recorded basalt is about 150 million years or so but that's not the important fact here. And actually, his expanding earth is wrong in many patent ways. As you likely know, rifting is the cause of that. Looking in the pacific, you see old real old,basalt (up to 250 MYA) Since ocean crust is heavier it subducts easier
Another fun filled video about why Neil is wrong:
@danschaoticmind Where in the pacific? Besides, I am aware of the physics issues regarding EE, which is why Neil argues GE, which requires a mechanism and I find that interesting too. Search for Hadron if you'd like. It was just assumed for the past X decades that water came to earth in form of Comet collision. Of course, actual images and testing of comets by a probe shows no such water. Equally concerned about solar/galactic planes.. why? Graviton lag?
I won't go into Neils mechanism for growth because of the obvious problems with it in accordance with the laws of physics. I will leave that to an expert in quantum mechanics. As for origination of water. Well actually there are numerous ways for water to have come to earth. One was comets (Which are indeed water rich as the tunguska event taught us) another fun way is that it was outgassed during earths origin
@etzel33 Funny thing about the Graviton. It is still theoretical. Just as Dark Matter is. We have indirect evidence of it but no direct observations... yet. Not tracking what it is you are getting at about galactic planes though. if you mean "why a disk" well just remember your centripetal forces which tend to flatten out mass more than allow it to just rotate as a big sphere.(again, demonstrated in a lab hence why it is reproducible)
@etzel33 Finally, you made a note about a day ago about me just trying to disprove EE. You are correct in a way. But at the same time, you miss the mark a small bit. My entire purpose is to say "No you are wrong here is why" and then grill you to death to give you a very basic idea as to how the scientific method works. If a hypothesis can stand up to harsh scrutiny and emerge intact, then it has possibility. That EE has not, should indicate that it is time to discard 19th century thoughts.
@etzel33 Which is what a lot of people like Neil and those who still embrace the EE theory do not seem to realise. You see the same phenomenon in people accepting "superfoods" and other things (like astrology for example) In these modern times, critical thinking is low. People do not really apply skepticism. Which is how you get the 911 truthers.
But TBH when I first heard about EE 3 years ago. I started at a null position. Since then though, I have educated myself (in class and out) enough >
@etzel33 To see the flaws and attempt to educate people so as to realise WHY science discarded EE. So as of now I am at a disprove state. But that is only because I went through the process of education and skeptical inquiry. Which, I feel a number of people have not done and need to do.
Oddly enough, it also changed my career ambitions. I work in RF engineering but in 2014 I intend to finish up schooling in geology and go to work in volcanology.
@etzel33 Here's a fascinating one too. It shows part of the Mediterranean sea as having oceanic age of greater than 200 million years old. (Something I had not noticed before) ngdc dot noaa dot gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_plates dot jpg
@danschaoticmind Yes, I am aware of the purple blob in the Mediterranean. Aside from that, the data is clear. Of course, to work in vulcanology you have to learn the conventions of your trade. Obviously your opinion is corrupted by this, just as a climate scientist from Exxon would be skewed in their opinions. This isn't an attack on you. Keep spreading the true faith my friend...
@etzel33 lol. It only became a corruption after I started with a null hypothesis though. If you get what I mean. I examined the evidence learned what I needed to know, and arrived at a different position using reason and evidence, than Neil did. Furthermore, your correlation implies a march to a beat or you are gone system. Obviously that's not how it works. Otherwise we wouldn't see new scientific discoveries. This is evidenced by quantum mechanics, P.T. and Relativity. All new sciences
@etzel33 For reference to this, I would advise reading Carl Sagans fascinating book "A demon haunted world" More specifically the Baloney detection kit. You see accusations of "Conspiracy within mainstream media or science to suppress XXX" usually are a marker for pseudo-science or a related scam. For an interesting analogy. Look up Perpetual motion. More than likely, you will find a video which states something along those lines (In fact many as a cursory search shows) as you and I know >
@etzel33 Perpetual motion is impossible because it:
1. violates the laws of thermodynamics
2. Is non reproducible.
3. has never been conclusively argued or proven.
But really point 1 is enough. This you can try and prove on your own (Even magnet driven perpetual motion motors are shown to weaken with the diminishing of their magnetic fields over time. An observed phenomena)
@etzel33 Anyways, it would be true faith if I had a position which lacked evidence. As the Tohoku earthquake alone showed us (As it has the most data points and observations) There is plenty of GPS data alone to show active subduction. (hence how they measured Japans movement to the east and the plate motion. They didn't guess. They used data which was gathered from the event itself.
Here's an example.
/watch?v=emH8weV7CYs
So.. faith doesn't work based upon definition and evidence abundance
@danschaoticmind The evidence of the Hadron, or of the Graviton, is purely mathematical. It could be the limit of the model. I don't know that GPS supports subduction, although Neil argues there is some compressive subduction, but that the oceanic plates aren't being "consumed" at the rate they are being formed. The moon video is very interesting; have you seen it? Dark side vs. Near side... combined with the crater evidence, the Mares seem to be spreads, not impact craters....
@etzel33 Here, I'll link a few videos. Though I suggest you look up the data associated with the Tohoku earthquake. here is a quick link and I'll leave it at that. As I stated, I will leave the hadron and graviton to quantum physicists. Geology dot com /press-release/tohoku-oki-earthquake/
And to be frank. I've watched enough of his stuff and came away with more questions than I did answers. Even from him.
Anyways, I'm out. Got some reading I want to get done.
@danschaoticmind I am not equipped to discuss this, having taken a good year off to think of other things. I spent a year listening to the debate and had many with geologists and scientists at that time. While I didn't resolve the issue, I certainly didn't come away with concrete proof "of a negative", as it were. Neils physics are interesting, but I'm not quite buying it. I suggest you watch more of his stuff before being so sure of your loyalty.
This is a wonderful theory. Combined with the plasma core theory, it explains how a planet can grow, water being created as well as abiotic oil creation. There is a theory also that suggest earth had a shield made of ice particles which explained the longevity of pre-flood mankind. When this shield was destroyed it fell into the polar regions, combined with the fountains of the deep it brought about the flood. Earth without this shield caused lifespans to diminish.
@juuonse really? Guess you believe in evolution then,? Guess you believe that we are related to monkeys? Perhaps creation was just a big accident? LOL We will see, will we not? Live it up while you still can for the grave calls you tomorrow. As for me I know I was created by a wonderful creator. He died for my sins and was raised back to live. Name is Jesus. Perhaps if you had real meaning in this life you would not be so arrogant. Grow up. Jesus loves you.
@photonsoflight Yes, the undead living zombie man loves me. And I guess I'm a fool for considering scientific facts as facts and going where the evidence leads. So yeah, I'm going to enjoy my wonderfully meaningless and empty life in all its voidness while you go and worship a magic daddy up in the heavens =)
Well the Earth does gain mass over time and presumably volume, but likely not quite that much during the period he describes, even if you add the theory of a crystallizing core.
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new community site we're putting together based around our planet - earth-forums (dot) com. We'd love for you to take a look :)
Interesting debate. The impact and exit event theory provides plausible answers to most of the questions raised here and in particular the explanation of the 'driving force' behind earth expansion. Also, the post asking for an explanation of the how the Himalayas were formed is also addressed. It is a fascinating theory. Instead of 'debunking' pangea the impact and exit event popstulates that earth was much smaller in the past, and that the entire surface area of the planet was 'pangea'.
Please explain the formation of Himalayas if everything is spreading apart. The high mountains cannot occur as steep as they are. We know that India collided with Asia to form the Himalayas. Similarly, Africa collided with Europe to form the Alps. The spreading cannot explain the intense collisions. Where did the volume come from to grow the earth unless the core is expanding after the gravitation driven nuclear reactions, earth is too small for that! Water to cover the oceans?
It's an intriguing idea, but you have to propose a plausible explanation the expansion of the planet. It doesn't help when the delivery is in the style of Glenn Beck.
For real? Some people are unbelievable. My parents would eat this up. They love conspiracies. I'm serious! Yeah that's it. Scientist's won't discuss it because it "shakes their applecart." -_-
One time I saw this identical video posted on the account belonging to, say "Joe Blow". I accused him of being Neal Adams in disguise. Joe Blow replied "Joe Blow is my son." so I guess Neal Adams forgot himself, lol! Neal Adams has all the scientific perception of a comic-book illustrator, which is what he is!
Wait, so at one time the earth was like half the size it is today? Noticably smaller at least because the pacific is just huge. It's not like I'm good at maths but this can't possibly be true.
How can this be? Where did all the matter come from?
@Quintinohthree He never had an answer for ME when I challenged him on this nonsense. Yeah, how does the Earth gain 8 times its matter in the space of 200 million years, and why did it STOP now?
@yay78900 The average density of the planet NOW is 5.5 times that of water. For the Earth to have been half the diameter 200 million years ago, it would need a density 8 times what it is now. 5.5 x 8 = 44. Tell me what substance is 44 times as dense as water...
Neal, you really are tiresome, signing up with multiple aliases to try to create phony "buzz" for a crap, lunatic theory.
Suggesting that the liquid compassion of the Earth is expanding due to not enough gravity until one day it ends up like mars. That can explain allot of things.
You have absolutely no proof for this. This is all just ridiculous supposition. Maybe you should actually go and study ANY form of science before you go spouting what can only be described as Crackpot Theories.
its simple , the earth was spinning slower and since the plates are loose they stayed lower down and together. As the earth spun faster the plates were pushed off slightly into space, spin faster and it gets bigger. The middle actually gets hollow as all the water spins up to form the oceans. Simple physics really ... 8|
I wish some of these videos posted on here were checked for factual inaccuracies when before being allowed to be posted. This video is so factually flawed it's an insult to people's intelligence.
the continents dont all fit together. thats why mountains are formed. 2 continents crash together the excess earth gets smacked up forming mountain ranges.
@mickeydee23 The sun spews hydrogen by the billion tons. Earth is the only planet in our solar system to have oxygen in a gaseous state. Earth is also the only planet known to have water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is produced when hydrogen mixes with oxygen gas. This is how Earth receives water every day. Research mysterious chunks of ice fall from sky. Frozen hydrogen looks just like ice and under an atmosphere it would evaporate quickly. NASA reported them in space as big as houses.
@GateMessenger Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and the sun is using it in it''s process of nuclear fusion. We do get small quantities of water from comets and the such, but the amounts that would have to be there to create the oceans and clouds would be astronomical.
@mickeydee23 Well if the sun is 99% hydrogen then what spews off during a CME? I have observed the sun spewing more material during a CME than the Earth is in size. Remember the hydrogen on the sun is concentrated because it has 11x the gravity of Earth's, so any material that spews and appears to be larger than Earth actually contains more mass. Where does this hydrogen go when the sun spews it's material and would the solar wind carry it out thus far?
@mickeydee23 So where does the material from comets come from? The Ort cloud is theoretical which observations cannot confirm. I believe comets do not contain water. I believe they contain hydrogen and a collection of elementary particles through accretion. Even so, if a comet hit the Earth the hydrogen would convert into water vapor in the atmosphere as it mixed with the oxygen gas, simply see the PEM cell and how it works for the evidence to this process.
@mickeydee23 One more note, nuclear fusion is not what is producing the sun's initial heat & energy. When gravity is used as the work force in the formula for thermodynamics it produces heat, so there is no need to assume that nuclear fusion is taking place. Gravity is the source of new energy. Gravity as the source was ignored because it implied over unity in the universe. Now evidence shows gravity is the source of over unity as the universe is inflating from every gravitational point.
@GateMessenger Way to try to talk about thermodynamics and use the phrase "source of new energy" in the same paragraph. Do you know the first law of thermodynamics? Conservation of Energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. However, I am open to any proof you may have that the first law of thermodynamics is invalid. You obviously have it or else you wouldn't try to talk about thermodynamics while ignoring the first law of thermodynamics. Thanks
@kipka2 Yes, I know the first law & it is flawed according to the observations of the inflating universe. This single observation shows over unity is happening in the universe when pressure is applied to mass, work force W, in the formula for thermodynamics, p= W/t =(mg)h/t. Gravity causes pressure, K = σh'/σv', pressure creates heat & according to thermodynamics heat is energy, so gravity is creating energy, heat. This is why the universe is inflating. The inflation effect is caused by gravity.
@kipka2 This is why observations show that the centralized points where the inflation occurs happens to be where mass is concentrated in the universe, or places where gravity is present. Einstein never hypothesized of the inflating effect of gravity because the law of thermodynamics is not 100% correct when assuming that energy cannot be made. If energy/matter could not be created then it would not be here. Energy can be created but it cannot be destroyed, m=E/c² adds to this effect, inflation.
@kipka2 From this I can hypothesize about many other effects which also baffle scientists, like the age of Saturn's rings. According to pair production matter can be made from energy, m=E/c². If energy is produced in the cores of planets, stars and other large bodies then this is why the universe is inflating. I am not the first to theorize of this effect of gravity. In 1854 Hermann von Helmholtz first proposed that gravity was causing the energy which emanates from the Sun. He was right.
If you could prove to me how the earth expands I would begin to listen to your theory. As of now it's much easier to see plate tectonics floating over a partially melted mantle, which makes much more sense
(continued)... Also, creation scientists are saying that people lived past 1000, before the flood, due to the build up of H2O, which resulted in a canopy of water surrounding the earth— which furthermore created a modification in the suitability of the environment and diverse weather phenomenon— such as the restriction and mitigation in the exposure of radiation and hydrogenic mixtures. Also, vegetation was more common due to a tropical like mist.
Also, we have more water on the planet now because of the increased amount of H2O that continued to be stored up in the sky before the time of the flood (it never rained until the flood). The reason for this increased build up of water was, according to creationists, a fluctation in the sun's hydrogen exosure, which created a chemical mixture of oxygen and hydrogen which then created the need for rain.
Pangea wasn't divided over millions of years later, but it was right after the great flood. This may sound strange, but the earth is actually less than 10000 years old.
This is not even a hypothesis. Adams has a preconcieved notion that the earth is expanding, and here we see one of his blatant attempts to make the facts (as he is willing to present them) fit his preconception.
Ahem, ahem... and where precisely did all the mass of the new oceans come from? Dihydrogen monoxide doesn't magically appear from nowhere. The water molecules are either there or they aren't. Since the narrator speaks with an american accent, this presumably would be an american production, which would explain everything.
@electronfun Water is made of hydrogen & oxygen not Dihydrogen monoxide . Where is hydrogen found in our solar system? The sun is made mostly of hydrogen. Which planet has the most oxygen? Earth! Mix the two and you get water. See Mysterious chunks of ice fall from the sky. When the sun experiences a CME it spews chunks of hydrogen into space. Some larger than the earth but mostly the size of houses. If this occurs for billions of years it would account for the extra H2O to fill the seas.
@GateMessenger Every year, thousands of people die needless and tragic deaths from dihydrogen monoxide abuse. Kids, just say no to dihydrogen monoxide!
@electronfun Are you blonde? According to the centers of disease control (CDC) dihydrogen monoxide is the second leading cause of deaths by accident. You should know that more deaths occur from injury which occur near your home, so just tell the kids to move away from home. It's safer in the long run.
@mickeydee23 Monoxides can spell... DANGER! Carbon monoxide can be dangerous and IS dangerous, but the overall body count it's caused is NOTHING compared to the overall body count caused by dihydrogen monoxide. In fact, dihydrogen monoxide is just another term for... TRAGEDY...! Personally, I never get near or touch the cursed stuff!
@electronfun Would you believe that the Jack Danials company was stockpiling solid cubes of dihydrogen monoxide when there was a terrible fire and it all turned to the very dangerous liquid form. ? ;)
finally , reason to the expanding earth. Being bombarded by meteors is a heavy weight to bare, mostly water from space filled the land mass, expanded the volume on earth and increased the gravitational effect making it harder to get around, shrinking the body mass of animals.
Pangaea may not have existed. It is pretty undeniable however, that the Atlantic did not exist and that Africa and Europe were attached to the Americas. Pre-Jurassic fossil record tells us that, not to mention the obvious geological similarities between the two.
At what rate does the Earth gain Hydrogen etc from solar winds? Would it be commensurate with the required planetary growth to substantiate a Pangaea theory?
Just Google 'map of earth's tectonic plates' and you'll find lots of excellent info. I used to teach this stuff, and frankly don't want to teach it anymore. If you never studied geology or the earth sciences in general, that's a shame, but it's not too late to teach yourself. JUST DON'T EXPECT SIMPLE, EASY ANSWERS FOLKS. It's very complex stuff.
@tellok1 Dude, ignore all the conspiracy theory stuff and re-examine your evidence. Look at the age of the ocean bed compared to the continents. Look at the evidence used to work out the structure of pangea and see if it still holds true under the expanding earth model. Look at the distibution of different radio isotopes around the world, the distibution of fossils. Why did the dinosaurs die out? Why were they so big? It all points to one thing... open your mind!
@tellok1 I was addressing anyone who'd listen, and, unsuprisingly, the one thing i was referring too is that the Earth is expandinding! Dude, you clearly know your stuff when it comes to geology, is there any geological evidence that disproves this theory? because to the layman, this video makes sense whereas the pangea videos look fake, and i know that that in itself is not enough to believe one theory over another so . . . educate me (your tutoring skills are in high demand!).
The plates fit together because they move around, collide, and separate. How could Pangea possibly divide so that it wouldn't fit back together? What Neal is missing is the fact that Pangea was not the origin. What about Rodinia, Kenorland and Ur?
The movement is being directly measured and observed today on the land and by satellite. Spreading at the mid-Atlantic Ridge and the subduction in the Pacific are clear, The Himalaya are still growing, etc.
Besides, why would anyone need to fake plate tectonics anyway?
PS 65 million years ago the continents were NOT the same size and shape as today, so this animation is fundamentally silly.
@tellok1 why is there no subduction near antarctica? where are all the other subduction zones? the only one being observed is the one occuring in the west pacific.
Why should there be subduction at antartica? Antartica is within a plate and not at an convergent margin. There are 2 types of active plate boundaries:convergent -where subduction occurs and you have trenches and and volcanoes- or divergent where you get spreading,rifting and like the mid-Atlantic ridge. Where I live in the north east,it used to be on a plate boundary way back,but now its current state is in the middle of a the North American plate and is now a passive boundary.
@tellok1 so was it by accident that the shapes fits today? can you calculate the odds the the shapes today would fit in a smaller globe? would the odds be so astronaomical?
I agree. This guy ignores most science and cobbles together techno-bable like Star Trek. Never mipullnd the fact that gravity pulled all heavier elements to the core during its' molten phase. He believes the Earth is like a helium balloon and there is some invisible man with his mouth on the sphincter!
@tellok1 why would anyone debunk plate tectonics? easy if you simply accept that scientists, like anyone, have there own agendas and theories to prove to themselves...namely they ignore the fact that earth was smaller as this video shows, with water beneath the surface which was added to and released by a worldwide flood---
@tellok1 why would anyone debunk plate tectonics? easy if you simply accept that scientists, like anyone, have there own agendas and theories to prove to themselves...namely they ignore the fact that earth was smaller as this video shows, with water beneath the surface which was added to and released by a worldwide flood---they fake plate tectonics to lead away from God--look into what the video is saying instead of simply taking what is said to you--
@bondaren Actually, scientists do not wake up every morning looking for ways to make unbelievers out of believers. Read some history: nearly all of the greatest scientists in history were fervent believers. I'm a trustee at my church, and taught science for many years. Studying science only increased my awe of the creation. If you have to take the Bible as a source of scientific fact, you'll stay lost.
Reading some of these posts just reminds me of the sad state of education in the US.
@tellok1 ok- remove the idea that people bring their beliefs into any situation (thereby removing the concept that people operate from base belief system, consciously or not) the majority of scientists are not actively looking for ways to dupe people, they simply amplify misinformation, some truth with some lies, also the only way anyone is "lost", is when they do not accept jesus christ as lord and savior- the rest really doesn't matter and i'm pretty sure the bible is the word of God literally
@tellok1 ok- remove the idea that people bring their beliefs into any situation (thereby removing the concept that people operate from base belief system, consciously or not) the majority of scientists are not actively looking for ways to dupe people, they simply amplify misinformation, some truth with some lies, also the only way anyone is "lost", is when they do not accept jesus christ as lord and savior- the rest doesn't matter to God and the bible is the word of God, no more no less
@tellok1 Charles Darwin himself was a bit torn between his findings that would lead to The Origin of Species and his faith, being that his father I think was a minister? But he still kept on digging deep (which was good, damn good) so yes, many great scientists were also believers of God (to any Christians reading, yes you can be both) and before anyone replies with how Darwin rebuked his findings on natural selection on his deathbed, research better, you'll hold off on that silly notion.
@tellok1 To add to my previous comment, I am a Catholic but study science and theories of how we exist like evolution and abiogenesis, etc. To my knowledge I think the previous Pope acknowledged Darwin's findings back in the late 90s, saying perhaps God intended for natural selection to happen. Could be wrong on that, so correct me if I'm mistaken lol.
@HumanityWins No. The mid-Atlantic ridge formed as one of the earliest and largest divisions of Pangaea, only the most recent supercontinent. India, however, had nothing to do with the MA-ridge. Furthermore, no continent 'glides over' anything.
@Bpage211 If you go to his site, he explains that there's this "primal atom" which--essentially--creates more matter (yes, it kind of tosses thermodynamics out the window). So EVERYTHING is getting larger, not just the earth, since more and more matter is being created.
At least, this is what I got out of it. It's when he claims that there's a conspiracy of silence from scientists (and the globe industry, I gather) that I stopped paying attention.
@ PlainObserver So let me get this str8, Ur suggesting that global sea levels were 2 miles lower 40 million years ago bcuz of a geological formation (Monterey Canyon) close to a tectonically active area (San Andreas Fault)? I guess u never heard of the Messinian Salinity Crisis (Late Miocene Epoch, 12-5 million years ago). Which was about the same time the Alps were pushed up. Look that up then tell me how that may apply to ur Monterey Canyon hypothosis.
This is bullshit. Subduction of tectonic plates occur today and id measured. For earth to grow, the mass has to come from somewhere. If it would come from space - we wouldn't be living here. I guess this moron Adams claims the matter forms somehow inside...? This is major FAIL in so many levels. FACEPALM.
I'd like to ask this Neil Adams guy that if the Earth is growing, where is the material coming from? and the oceans? Obviously not from space debris being drawn in, because to grow at that rate even over a billion years, the collisions would tear apart the entire crust, including the continents, and vaporise the oceans.
If I'm allowed to morph both the size and the shape of continents as he does in this video, I could make any continents of any shape or size fit together. He has continents magically shrinking and growing in order to make things fit. And how did you like South America bending around Africa to force a fit?
One word; stupid. This asshole is a comic book artist. Sorry for being a skeptic, but I am going to side with the large body of tested geologic data instead of a man that was paid to draw shit for children and forty year old virgins.
He has the earth and the continents way out of proportion. Why throw out existing science with a crazy idea like this? I don't see the evidence for his 'earth growth' idea. It just isn't there.
Wait, is this guys saying that the Earth actually grew in size over time?
Nyctomancer 1 week ago
One can't debunk what isn't bunk. Plate Tectonics is based on direct observation, experimentation, and inference in accordance with the Scientific Method, and explains what is currently observed and what appears in the geologic record. Therefore, PT is not bunk.
OTOH, Expansion Tectonics like Carey's & Maxlow's, which postulates matter generation that's never been observed, does qualify as bunk, and was invalidated by Plate Tectonics nearly 50 yrs ago. Maxlow can't even explain his theories.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
really informative and interesting
MrJonkelp 1 week ago
Very enjoyable thank you
shellybirdy 1 week ago
very interesting thanks
msjessypp 2 weeks ago
this is stupid
me700gnomes 3 weeks ago
you are an uneducated dick brain.... how about you learn something before you post a video claiming to know what the hell you are talking about!!!! this is not even worth my time to tell you how stupid and wrong you are!!!!!!!!
JWKILLION1987 1 month ago
Very interesting! Thanks for posting
naturespaths 1 month ago
this guy makes a good point. nice to see an other opinion for a change
yurik19881 2 months ago
Neal Adams is an ignorant fool who just draws comics and think's he can change people's minds with his "science". I've noticed that anyone who's argued with him and have made a point that Neal Adams can't disagree with, he just blocks you.
And there's already so much evidence that the continents have floated around the world for millions of years. Yet this guy thinks he can disprove those facts?
mviper500 3 months ago
haha I love it! Continents drift at different speeds, change shapes and so on just to fit in to the predetermined model. Science? No... based on facts? No Possible? No
I don't say that the continents hasn't changed shape etc. This video shows ALL continent moving apart when we know they don't. How come no one ever messured the rate of wich earth grows? Maybe because it doesn't...
I don't know why (some) americans love conspiracy theories
aakesson1 4 months ago 2
@aakesson1 The rate of Earth expansion (or "growth" as some pseudo-scientists would have it) has never been observed because it isn't occurring. What has been observed and measured are rates of mid-ocean ridge spreading and rates of oceanic crust subduction (order of mm/yr). Plate Tectonics explains all this w/o resorting to the hocus-pocus of Expansion Tectonics (matter generation that's never been observed- we'd see neutrinos emanating from w/in the Earth). HTH.
TheSnowballEarth 1 week ago
OK.. so where did all this extra mass come from without destroying the continents mr scientist?
R0B0stairs 4 months ago
The marsupial duck-billed platypus roamed antarctica and south america did it? And then obviously became extinct and left no traces behind! Good job the better known australian monotreme duck-billed platypus stayed at home to survive into the present.
Also, for all these continents to fit so impessively well in their current above sea-level shapes, they must have the mysterious property of being able to subduct or otherwise 'lose' their under sea-level margins as the video runs time backward !
Uinta1964 5 months ago 4
This is true.
scottgioia 5 months ago
I don't get how on the picture, there is no sea, while the sea makes out like what, 80% of earth now?:P
SlappieBob 6 months ago 2
This guy is hilarious. Found this shit years ago. Did you know tis is the same Neal Adams that is famous in the cmic book community for his work on Batman?
Try going to his channel and disagreeing with him, he will go ape shit on you and rage like crazy.
EmperorofCartoons 6 months ago 2
Obviously the only sensible explanation is the earth is really a giant balloon and the we don't have a molten core, it's just air, filling us up to full size. Just don't dig down too far or you'll let all the air out.
NoJake 6 months ago
This is what happens when you have too much time on your hands and you have a bag of weed in your pocket. You start thinking up crazy shit to bother ppl with.
garland81 6 months ago
Are you suggesting the Earth doubled in mass while the dinosaurs were alive? And that the dinosaurs were alive on a world with no water? I don't understand... You argue subduction and drift, which can be observed with any flimsy solid on a liquid (oil, ice, thick dust, mud), in favor of... um... weight issues? So... how does this account for mountains and rifts?
slugfly 6 months ago
@slugfly He apparently said that the dinosaurs survived on earth with very shallow seas, not oceans.
And that the Earth is a balloon.
NakedCreep 6 months ago
"Just a hypothesis, but you never know....ooooooohhhhh :"
Ahhhhhh! Well played good sir!
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
Charlatans typically accuse their intellectual opponents of knowing the real truth but being too upset to admit it, and keep it a secret. He does that here. As if scientists are emotionally invested in their theories and hypotheses. That's where this whole idea that science is a religion comes from. But really, this is not the case. Though we may hope that we're right in most cases, part of being a professional scientist is recognizing you must succumb to evidence.
McTaggStar 7 months ago
@McTaggStar ,who was emanuel velokofskie then
mirrigingi 6 months ago
@mirrigingi: A Russian psychiatrist. I stand by what I said. Academic geologists and paleogeographers are not out to fool the public. Science is dispassionate search for truth, empirically. DISPASSIONATE. They don't care whether they find result A or result B, they just want to find the answer. It's science denialists like the douche who had this video that are too upset about the truth to admit it.
McTaggStar 6 months ago
@McTaggStar being a proffesional scientist also requires succumbing to opinion of those that provide funding, popular opinion is often favored and where complete evidence is lacking theories abound and are proposed as fact, sometimes aggressively. much like religious leaders and charlatans. im not advocating this fellow either. they are all just as bad as each other. it grates me the fact that there is very little objectivity at all
hereslookingatukid 3 months ago
This guy hits and misses, but he is full of shit on some things. "Here, today, antartica and australia and its surrounding islands are the remianing home of marsupials."
An opossum is a marsupial and we have them here in Old Kentucky ya Jagg up!
Wake up America! aint nobody knows all dat shit for shure. Its all hypothetical as far as the sciances go. However, I do believe that as the books says, "They were seperated by bodies of water, and their tongues (languages) were confused.
DeMarkieSade 7 months ago
If there was a void of science this video would be it.
cmsalvagio 7 months ago
I've followed this guy for years now, and I still think he's onto something. Not sure if I can go with him on his "prime matter" thing, but the growing earth concept still holds its own. Watch out for accusations of "heresy".
etzel33 8 months ago
@etzel33 No, it doesn't. Why doesn't it you ask? Lack of evidence that suggests the earth is growing. If you do not believe me, try the following:
Ask yourself this:
"Is there anything that is explained by a hypothetical expanding earth that isn't explainable by Plate tectonics? Or has a better explanation in either of the two?"
If Neil was onto something, then we would be talking about the expanding earth theory. Not the expanding earth pseudo-science. L2 science.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@danschaoticmind Well, there you have it then. I thought Neils indictment of plate tectonics was very interesting, and I found his application of his ideas to other bodies like the Moon, Mars, Titan and Europa to be sound confirmation that should be looked into... fairly, and not as the Holy See tries to consider it.
etzel33 7 months ago
@etzel33 Then If I may, how about you set up a telescope and begin regular observations of the moon, mars, and titan? With the moon, you can do that one especially well. If you apply the formula by which growth would occur if it was happening (Neil never did suggest how much) then you will be able to measure the changes in magnitude over time (This will probably take a year to do as you'll have to measure them only when they have full disk conditions.) Best to also make measurements of size too.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 I say a year because his proposed rate (Though he gives no data to suggest this rates validity) is about 4cm a year. Which, as you'll know from any astronomy book, would have slight effects on brilliance.
However, I could save you some time and give you a reason why the moons expansion is impossible. If only from an orbital dynamics point of view (Though I suggest wiking the moons ascent from earth by year.) But I suggest the experiment route. If your data doesn't match his...
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 Then that should be enough to suspect his theory and conclusions. That's how science works. The experiment should be able to be reproduced by anyone who attempts the experiment.
Anyways, that's just one of the many ways to check his theorys. We also have ways of doing the earth diameter check without using satellites. It's a kind of fun thing to do too.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@danschaoticmind You are not doing a very good job of investigating this idea. I am in no position to answer all of your questions. Of course, they are valid points that need considered. Your interest though isn't in exploring the overall theory, but to disprove it. This is unfortunate, but necessary in your case I presume.
etzel33 7 months ago
@etzel33 Actually, I grilled Neil himself and all he said after debating it at length was that I didn't have an open mind. When I showed him evidence that matter is not produced when matter and anti matter collided. And then went through HIS image that he made and showed the flaws with it and then threw down a stack of papers showing evidence (GPS measurements and observed plate motion etc) he simply accused me of being with the IRS and trying to silence him.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 So when the resurrector of the idea himself cannot put forth a good theory that can stand careful critic and extensive debate, then his theory stands little chance. There is a reason that EE fell out of favor. It had too little evidence to support it (And all of which was best explained by Plate tectonics)
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@danschaoticmind The data came from USGS. I've seen the site, and the summary data. According to the data, no oceanic basalt exists over 70my prior to the atlantic rift. The animation is based on the data, regressing to a smaller sphere rather than display a plate-tectonic engine which is now conventional wisdom. Yet the growing sphere idea holds up to this modeling, and to other plantary bodies as well. It is nothing but cool in my view. Certainly nothing to be dismissed as heresy.
etzel33 7 months ago
@etzel33 "No basalt exists over 70 my) Wrong to a degree. The oldest recorded basalt is about 150 million years or so but that's not the important fact here. And actually, his expanding earth is wrong in many patent ways. As you likely know, rifting is the cause of that. Looking in the pacific, you see old real old,basalt (up to 250 MYA) Since ocean crust is heavier it subducts easier
Another fun filled video about why Neil is wrong:
/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@danschaoticmind Where in the pacific? Besides, I am aware of the physics issues regarding EE, which is why Neil argues GE, which requires a mechanism and I find that interesting too. Search for Hadron if you'd like. It was just assumed for the past X decades that water came to earth in form of Comet collision. Of course, actual images and testing of comets by a probe shows no such water. Equally concerned about solar/galactic planes.. why? Graviton lag?
etzel33 7 months ago
@etzel33 for sea floor ages: ngdc dot noaa dot gov /mgg/image/crustageposter dot jpg
I won't go into Neils mechanism for growth because of the obvious problems with it in accordance with the laws of physics. I will leave that to an expert in quantum mechanics. As for origination of water. Well actually there are numerous ways for water to have come to earth. One was comets (Which are indeed water rich as the tunguska event taught us) another fun way is that it was outgassed during earths origin
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 Funny thing about the Graviton. It is still theoretical. Just as Dark Matter is. We have indirect evidence of it but no direct observations... yet. Not tracking what it is you are getting at about galactic planes though. if you mean "why a disk" well just remember your centripetal forces which tend to flatten out mass more than allow it to just rotate as a big sphere.(again, demonstrated in a lab hence why it is reproducible)
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 Finally, you made a note about a day ago about me just trying to disprove EE. You are correct in a way. But at the same time, you miss the mark a small bit. My entire purpose is to say "No you are wrong here is why" and then grill you to death to give you a very basic idea as to how the scientific method works. If a hypothesis can stand up to harsh scrutiny and emerge intact, then it has possibility. That EE has not, should indicate that it is time to discard 19th century thoughts.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 Which is what a lot of people like Neil and those who still embrace the EE theory do not seem to realise. You see the same phenomenon in people accepting "superfoods" and other things (like astrology for example) In these modern times, critical thinking is low. People do not really apply skepticism. Which is how you get the 911 truthers.
But TBH when I first heard about EE 3 years ago. I started at a null position. Since then though, I have educated myself (in class and out) enough >
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 To see the flaws and attempt to educate people so as to realise WHY science discarded EE. So as of now I am at a disprove state. But that is only because I went through the process of education and skeptical inquiry. Which, I feel a number of people have not done and need to do.
Oddly enough, it also changed my career ambitions. I work in RF engineering but in 2014 I intend to finish up schooling in geology and go to work in volcanology.
Funny how life is (I blame the army for that)
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 But final answer for where in the pacific is around the Marianas trench. Sorry I just linked and forgot to mention where precisely. My bad!
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 Here's a fascinating one too. It shows part of the Mediterranean sea as having oceanic age of greater than 200 million years old. (Something I had not noticed before) ngdc dot noaa dot gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_plates dot jpg
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@danschaoticmind Yes, I am aware of the purple blob in the Mediterranean. Aside from that, the data is clear. Of course, to work in vulcanology you have to learn the conventions of your trade. Obviously your opinion is corrupted by this, just as a climate scientist from Exxon would be skewed in their opinions. This isn't an attack on you. Keep spreading the true faith my friend...
etzel33 7 months ago
@etzel33 lol. It only became a corruption after I started with a null hypothesis though. If you get what I mean. I examined the evidence learned what I needed to know, and arrived at a different position using reason and evidence, than Neil did. Furthermore, your correlation implies a march to a beat or you are gone system. Obviously that's not how it works. Otherwise we wouldn't see new scientific discoveries. This is evidenced by quantum mechanics, P.T. and Relativity. All new sciences
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 For reference to this, I would advise reading Carl Sagans fascinating book "A demon haunted world" More specifically the Baloney detection kit. You see accusations of "Conspiracy within mainstream media or science to suppress XXX" usually are a marker for pseudo-science or a related scam. For an interesting analogy. Look up Perpetual motion. More than likely, you will find a video which states something along those lines (In fact many as a cursory search shows) as you and I know >
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 Perpetual motion is impossible because it:
1. violates the laws of thermodynamics
2. Is non reproducible.
3. has never been conclusively argued or proven.
But really point 1 is enough. This you can try and prove on your own (Even magnet driven perpetual motion motors are shown to weaken with the diminishing of their magnetic fields over time. An observed phenomena)
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@etzel33 Anyways, it would be true faith if I had a position which lacked evidence. As the Tohoku earthquake alone showed us (As it has the most data points and observations) There is plenty of GPS data alone to show active subduction. (hence how they measured Japans movement to the east and the plate motion. They didn't guess. They used data which was gathered from the event itself.
Here's an example.
/watch?v=emH8weV7CYs
So.. faith doesn't work based upon definition and evidence abundance
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@danschaoticmind The evidence of the Hadron, or of the Graviton, is purely mathematical. It could be the limit of the model. I don't know that GPS supports subduction, although Neil argues there is some compressive subduction, but that the oceanic plates aren't being "consumed" at the rate they are being formed. The moon video is very interesting; have you seen it? Dark side vs. Near side... combined with the crater evidence, the Mares seem to be spreads, not impact craters....
etzel33 7 months ago
@etzel33 Here, I'll link a few videos. Though I suggest you look up the data associated with the Tohoku earthquake. here is a quick link and I'll leave it at that. As I stated, I will leave the hadron and graviton to quantum physicists. Geology dot com /press-release/tohoku-oki-earthquake/
And to be frank. I've watched enough of his stuff and came away with more questions than I did answers. Even from him.
Anyways, I'm out. Got some reading I want to get done.
Take care man.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@danschaoticmind I am not equipped to discuss this, having taken a good year off to think of other things. I spent a year listening to the debate and had many with geologists and scientists at that time. While I didn't resolve the issue, I certainly didn't come away with concrete proof "of a negative", as it were. Neils physics are interesting, but I'm not quite buying it. I suggest you watch more of his stuff before being so sure of your loyalty.
etzel33 7 months ago
This is a wonderful theory. Combined with the plasma core theory, it explains how a planet can grow, water being created as well as abiotic oil creation. There is a theory also that suggest earth had a shield made of ice particles which explained the longevity of pre-flood mankind. When this shield was destroyed it fell into the polar regions, combined with the fountains of the deep it brought about the flood. Earth without this shield caused lifespans to diminish.
photonsoflight 8 months ago
@photonsoflight man...you really...really....need to get back in touch with reality
juuonse 8 months ago
@juuonse really? Guess you believe in evolution then,? Guess you believe that we are related to monkeys? Perhaps creation was just a big accident? LOL We will see, will we not? Live it up while you still can for the grave calls you tomorrow. As for me I know I was created by a wonderful creator. He died for my sins and was raised back to live. Name is Jesus. Perhaps if you had real meaning in this life you would not be so arrogant. Grow up. Jesus loves you.
photonsoflight 8 months ago
@photonsoflight Yes, the undead living zombie man loves me. And I guess I'm a fool for considering scientific facts as facts and going where the evidence leads. So yeah, I'm going to enjoy my wonderfully meaningless and empty life in all its voidness while you go and worship a magic daddy up in the heavens =)
juuonse 8 months ago
@juuonse smile Jesus loves you.
photonsoflight 8 months ago
Umm, the oceans have gone.
floisheremuch 8 months ago
I like it, #COOL vid
MuzicOrNoise 8 months ago
Well the Earth does gain mass over time and presumably volume, but likely not quite that much during the period he describes, even if you add the theory of a crystallizing core.
xrqpdx 8 months ago
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new community site we're putting together based around our planet - earth-forums (dot) com. We'd love for you to take a look :)
EarthForums 8 months ago
I came to see Pangea getting debunked. Oh well I guess I will have to find another video. This wasn't it.
brewerbrian420 8 months ago
Interesting debate. The impact and exit event theory provides plausible answers to most of the questions raised here and in particular the explanation of the 'driving force' behind earth expansion. Also, the post asking for an explanation of the how the Himalayas were formed is also addressed. It is a fascinating theory. Instead of 'debunking' pangea the impact and exit event popstulates that earth was much smaller in the past, and that the entire surface area of the planet was 'pangea'.
cwoods191 9 months ago
Oh yeah then how did the water show up?
Dechord 10 months ago
@Dechord
underground?
Amin079 9 months ago
does magma expand when it turns into stone?
dudefrombelgium 10 months ago
Please explain the formation of Himalayas if everything is spreading apart. The high mountains cannot occur as steep as they are. We know that India collided with Asia to form the Himalayas. Similarly, Africa collided with Europe to form the Alps. The spreading cannot explain the intense collisions. Where did the volume come from to grow the earth unless the core is expanding after the gravitation driven nuclear reactions, earth is too small for that! Water to cover the oceans?
gkisacik 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's an intriguing idea, but you have to propose a plausible explanation the expansion of the planet. It doesn't help when the delivery is in the style of Glenn Beck.
qutenuf 10 months ago
so what, there is no ocean floor? oh ok.
Cylixx3 10 months ago
Landmass = 29.2%
Oceans = 70.8%
@ 1:19 Africa is the size of the pacific. Where did the ocean go?
"No alliterating sizes"? You expanded Africa by 800%. I do not accept your theory.
JoshJefferiesBlog 10 months ago
see there is a problem if it did grow, the continents shapes would twist and shape differently.
plus . . . .well you did warp the shapes a bit dude
Ralokone 10 months ago
me dumberer got
Vnicolas 11 months ago
this is stupid
Clifton100 11 months ago
OMG Have they been brainwashing us in school all this time!? Is the earth really round!?
uhgfdsa123 11 months ago
For real? Some people are unbelievable. My parents would eat this up. They love conspiracies. I'm serious! Yeah that's it. Scientist's won't discuss it because it "shakes their applecart." -_-
uhgfdsa123 11 months ago
One time I saw this identical video posted on the account belonging to, say "Joe Blow". I accused him of being Neal Adams in disguise. Joe Blow replied "Joe Blow is my son." so I guess Neal Adams forgot himself, lol! Neal Adams has all the scientific perception of a comic-book illustrator, which is what he is!
Dracopol 11 months ago
Wait, so at one time the earth was like half the size it is today? Noticably smaller at least because the pacific is just huge. It's not like I'm good at maths but this can't possibly be true.
How can this be? Where did all the matter come from?
Tell me how that can be and I may be convinced.
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree He never had an answer for ME when I challenged him on this nonsense. Yeah, how does the Earth gain 8 times its matter in the space of 200 million years, and why did it STOP now?
Dracopol 11 months ago
@Dracopol maybe it doesn't gain matter, or mass, it just expands and becomes less dense
yay78900 11 months ago
@yay78900 The average density of the planet NOW is 5.5 times that of water. For the Earth to have been half the diameter 200 million years ago, it would need a density 8 times what it is now. 5.5 x 8 = 44. Tell me what substance is 44 times as dense as water...
Neal, you really are tiresome, signing up with multiple aliases to try to create phony "buzz" for a crap, lunatic theory.
Dracopol 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree
i dont know if it was matter expanding when it gets hot or just the other way around....
But if the a mass of magma is more dense thus covering smaller space then the same mass of stone covers a larger space then it could be.
But i have to look that up and i dont realy know if this theory is even recognisable , but for the sake of my own knowlege i will study it :p
dudefrombelgium 10 months ago
Crackpot science.
criskity 11 months ago
Conspiracy
elazar79 11 months ago
Suggesting that the liquid compassion of the Earth is expanding due to not enough gravity until one day it ends up like mars. That can explain allot of things.
FarceTheory 1 year ago
Just one of the things wrong with this visual, where does the water come from? lol
TheYellag 1 year ago
Australia is also home to the Redback and White tail spiders, which i have just posted to you in large numbers. Good day.
kaderoder 1 year ago
Why would the Earth be smaller in the past?
RobDeManc 1 year ago
@RobDeManc i think the expansion came from the water.. i know at one point there was not alot of water..this planet went thru many phases
mrzavion 1 year ago
You have absolutely no proof for this. This is all just ridiculous supposition. Maybe you should actually go and study ANY form of science before you go spouting what can only be described as Crackpot Theories.
TheBrotherGrimmest 1 year ago
FYI
The earth's rate of rotation is slowing down,not speeding up. The plates are not "loose".
tellok1 1 year ago
Wow this is really interesting.... wrong ... but interesting.
stevewiderski 1 year ago 9
@stevewiderski lol, exactly like the bering strait
krucialred26 5 months ago
its simple , the earth was spinning slower and since the plates are loose they stayed lower down and together. As the earth spun faster the plates were pushed off slightly into space, spin faster and it gets bigger. The middle actually gets hollow as all the water spins up to form the oceans. Simple physics really ... 8|
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
@SqueakerAlpha FYI
The earth's rate of rotation is slowing down, not speeding up. Days are getting longer (a few seconds per century). The plates are not "loose".
(I should start charging for tutoring this stuff...)
tellok1 1 year ago
and no axis
samohtzoo 1 year ago
the earth is turning backward...
samohtzoo 1 year ago
water?? it would have covered the whole planet!!
FEDERS2000 1 year ago
I wish some of these videos posted on here were checked for factual inaccuracies when before being allowed to be posted. This video is so factually flawed it's an insult to people's intelligence.
MrBeeblebrook 1 year ago
the continents dont all fit together. thats why mountains are formed. 2 continents crash together the excess earth gets smacked up forming mountain ranges.
MakeSensePlz 1 year ago
lol, troll.
platypus is not a marsupial, it's a monotreme.
bobby58585 1 year ago 15
Could someone show me in the video where all that dang pesky water came from?
mickeydee23 1 year ago
@mickeydee23 The sun spews hydrogen by the billion tons. Earth is the only planet in our solar system to have oxygen in a gaseous state. Earth is also the only planet known to have water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is produced when hydrogen mixes with oxygen gas. This is how Earth receives water every day. Research mysterious chunks of ice fall from sky. Frozen hydrogen looks just like ice and under an atmosphere it would evaporate quickly. NASA reported them in space as big as houses.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and the sun is using it in it''s process of nuclear fusion. We do get small quantities of water from comets and the such, but the amounts that would have to be there to create the oceans and clouds would be astronomical.
mickeydee23 1 year ago
@mickeydee23 Well if the sun is 99% hydrogen then what spews off during a CME? I have observed the sun spewing more material during a CME than the Earth is in size. Remember the hydrogen on the sun is concentrated because it has 11x the gravity of Earth's, so any material that spews and appears to be larger than Earth actually contains more mass. Where does this hydrogen go when the sun spews it's material and would the solar wind carry it out thus far?
GateMessenger 1 year ago
Comment removed
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@mickeydee23 So where does the material from comets come from? The Ort cloud is theoretical which observations cannot confirm. I believe comets do not contain water. I believe they contain hydrogen and a collection of elementary particles through accretion. Even so, if a comet hit the Earth the hydrogen would convert into water vapor in the atmosphere as it mixed with the oxygen gas, simply see the PEM cell and how it works for the evidence to this process.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@mickeydee23 One more note, nuclear fusion is not what is producing the sun's initial heat & energy. When gravity is used as the work force in the formula for thermodynamics it produces heat, so there is no need to assume that nuclear fusion is taking place. Gravity is the source of new energy. Gravity as the source was ignored because it implied over unity in the universe. Now evidence shows gravity is the source of over unity as the universe is inflating from every gravitational point.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Way to try to talk about thermodynamics and use the phrase "source of new energy" in the same paragraph. Do you know the first law of thermodynamics? Conservation of Energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. However, I am open to any proof you may have that the first law of thermodynamics is invalid. You obviously have it or else you wouldn't try to talk about thermodynamics while ignoring the first law of thermodynamics. Thanks
kipka2 1 year ago
@kipka2 Yes, I know the first law & it is flawed according to the observations of the inflating universe. This single observation shows over unity is happening in the universe when pressure is applied to mass, work force W, in the formula for thermodynamics, p= W/t =(mg)h/t. Gravity causes pressure, K = σh'/σv', pressure creates heat & according to thermodynamics heat is energy, so gravity is creating energy, heat. This is why the universe is inflating. The inflation effect is caused by gravity.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@kipka2 This is why observations show that the centralized points where the inflation occurs happens to be where mass is concentrated in the universe, or places where gravity is present. Einstein never hypothesized of the inflating effect of gravity because the law of thermodynamics is not 100% correct when assuming that energy cannot be made. If energy/matter could not be created then it would not be here. Energy can be created but it cannot be destroyed, m=E/c² adds to this effect, inflation.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@kipka2 From this I can hypothesize about many other effects which also baffle scientists, like the age of Saturn's rings. According to pair production matter can be made from energy, m=E/c². If energy is produced in the cores of planets, stars and other large bodies then this is why the universe is inflating. I am not the first to theorize of this effect of gravity. In 1854 Hermann von Helmholtz first proposed that gravity was causing the energy which emanates from the Sun. He was right.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
QUACK!!!
freehal04 1 year ago
If you could prove to me how the earth expands I would begin to listen to your theory. As of now it's much easier to see plate tectonics floating over a partially melted mantle, which makes much more sense
guzman1983 1 year ago
WOW! this video is so dumb!
lesouder2222 1 year ago
So your theory is the Growing Earth Theory? What?
Stonemansteve 1 year ago
LOL! Marsupials like the duck-billed platypus.
curlybob64 1 year ago
(continued)... Also, creation scientists are saying that people lived past 1000, before the flood, due to the build up of H2O, which resulted in a canopy of water surrounding the earth— which furthermore created a modification in the suitability of the environment and diverse weather phenomenon— such as the restriction and mitigation in the exposure of radiation and hydrogenic mixtures. Also, vegetation was more common due to a tropical like mist.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
Also, we have more water on the planet now because of the increased amount of H2O that continued to be stored up in the sky before the time of the flood (it never rained until the flood). The reason for this increased build up of water was, according to creationists, a fluctation in the sun's hydrogen exosure, which created a chemical mixture of oxygen and hydrogen which then created the need for rain.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
Pangea wasn't divided over millions of years later, but it was right after the great flood. This may sound strange, but the earth is actually less than 10000 years old.
Nashhinton 1 year ago
This is not even a hypothesis. Adams has a preconcieved notion that the earth is expanding, and here we see one of his blatant attempts to make the facts (as he is willing to present them) fit his preconception.
aarsho 1 year ago
Oh dear
TheFluffyDuck 1 year ago
Nice idea, but you can bet if there were any evidence for it, a scientist would have found something by now.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
Ahem, ahem... and where precisely did all the mass of the new oceans come from? Dihydrogen monoxide doesn't magically appear from nowhere. The water molecules are either there or they aren't. Since the narrator speaks with an american accent, this presumably would be an american production, which would explain everything.
electronfun 1 year ago
@electronfun Water is made of hydrogen & oxygen not Dihydrogen monoxide . Where is hydrogen found in our solar system? The sun is made mostly of hydrogen. Which planet has the most oxygen? Earth! Mix the two and you get water. See Mysterious chunks of ice fall from the sky. When the sun experiences a CME it spews chunks of hydrogen into space. Some larger than the earth but mostly the size of houses. If this occurs for billions of years it would account for the extra H2O to fill the seas.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Every year, thousands of people die needless and tragic deaths from dihydrogen monoxide abuse. Kids, just say no to dihydrogen monoxide!
electronfun 1 year ago
@electronfun Are you blonde? According to the centers of disease control (CDC) dihydrogen monoxide is the second leading cause of deaths by accident. You should know that more deaths occur from injury which occur near your home, so just tell the kids to move away from home. It's safer in the long run.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger are these people drowning or drinking themselves to death
mickeydee23 1 year ago
@electronfun Or be a responsible parent and watch them when they are near large sources of dihydrogen monoxide
mickeydee23 1 year ago
@mickeydee23 Monoxides can spell... DANGER! Carbon monoxide can be dangerous and IS dangerous, but the overall body count it's caused is NOTHING compared to the overall body count caused by dihydrogen monoxide. In fact, dihydrogen monoxide is just another term for... TRAGEDY...! Personally, I never get near or touch the cursed stuff!
electronfun 1 year ago
@electronfun water
datzfast 1 year ago
@electronfun Would you believe that the Jack Danials company was stockpiling solid cubes of dihydrogen monoxide when there was a terrible fire and it all turned to the very dangerous liquid form. ? ;)
SqueakerAlpha 1 year ago
this isnt serious right? this is ridiculous, i actually got a headache from watching this
ACDCRULESALL 1 year ago
finally , reason to the expanding earth. Being bombarded by meteors is a heavy weight to bare, mostly water from space filled the land mass, expanded the volume on earth and increased the gravitational effect making it harder to get around, shrinking the body mass of animals.
segrum 1 year ago
we wouldn't exist without oceans my friend.
Ahavado88 1 year ago
Comment removed
CassiusChrysanthe 1 year ago
@CassiusChrysanthe
separate from eachother ? the continents are still together conected there is just water in between them
ElChino1959 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pangaea may not have existed. It is pretty undeniable however, that the Atlantic did not exist and that Africa and Europe were attached to the Americas. Pre-Jurassic fossil record tells us that, not to mention the obvious geological similarities between the two.
At what rate does the Earth gain Hydrogen etc from solar winds? Would it be commensurate with the required planetary growth to substantiate a Pangaea theory?
wmaher2 1 year ago
Just Google 'map of earth's tectonic plates' and you'll find lots of excellent info. I used to teach this stuff, and frankly don't want to teach it anymore. If you never studied geology or the earth sciences in general, that's a shame, but it's not too late to teach yourself. JUST DON'T EXPECT SIMPLE, EASY ANSWERS FOLKS. It's very complex stuff.
tellok1 1 year ago
@tellok1 Dude, ignore all the conspiracy theory stuff and re-examine your evidence. Look at the age of the ocean bed compared to the continents. Look at the evidence used to work out the structure of pangea and see if it still holds true under the expanding earth model. Look at the distibution of different radio isotopes around the world, the distibution of fossils. Why did the dinosaurs die out? Why were they so big? It all points to one thing... open your mind!
CrimsonZeoRanger 1 year ago
@CrimsonZeoRanger Confused as to whether you were referring to me directly. What's the 'one thing'?
tellok1 11 months ago
@tellok1 I was addressing anyone who'd listen, and, unsuprisingly, the one thing i was referring too is that the Earth is expandinding! Dude, you clearly know your stuff when it comes to geology, is there any geological evidence that disproves this theory? because to the layman, this video makes sense whereas the pangea videos look fake, and i know that that in itself is not enough to believe one theory over another so . . . educate me (your tutoring skills are in high demand!).
CrimsonZeoRanger 11 months ago
Where did all the water come from?
ironman197268 1 year ago
The plates fit together because they move around, collide, and separate. How could Pangea possibly divide so that it wouldn't fit back together? What Neal is missing is the fact that Pangea was not the origin. What about Rodinia, Kenorland and Ur?
jgoemat 1 year ago
This is supposed to debunk Pangea? Seriously?
The movement is being directly measured and observed today on the land and by satellite. Spreading at the mid-Atlantic Ridge and the subduction in the Pacific are clear, The Himalaya are still growing, etc.
Besides, why would anyone need to fake plate tectonics anyway?
PS 65 million years ago the continents were NOT the same size and shape as today, so this animation is fundamentally silly.
tellok1 1 year ago 38
@tellok1 why is there no subduction near antarctica? where are all the other subduction zones? the only one being observed is the one occuring in the west pacific.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise
Why should there be subduction at antartica? Antartica is within a plate and not at an convergent margin. There are 2 types of active plate boundaries:convergent -where subduction occurs and you have trenches and and volcanoes- or divergent where you get spreading,rifting and like the mid-Atlantic ridge. Where I live in the north east,it used to be on a plate boundary way back,but now its current state is in the middle of a the North American plate and is now a passive boundary.
SkepticalAaron 1 year ago
@tellok1 so was it by accident that the shapes fits today? can you calculate the odds the the shapes today would fit in a smaller globe? would the odds be so astronaomical?
datzfast 1 year ago
@tellok1
I agree. This guy ignores most science and cobbles together techno-bable like Star Trek. Never mipullnd the fact that gravity pulled all heavier elements to the core during its' molten phase. He believes the Earth is like a helium balloon and there is some invisible man with his mouth on the sphincter!
vdecampo 1 year ago
@tellok1 why would anyone debunk plate tectonics? easy if you simply accept that scientists, like anyone, have there own agendas and theories to prove to themselves...namely they ignore the fact that earth was smaller as this video shows, with water beneath the surface which was added to and released by a worldwide flood---
bondaren 1 year ago
@tellok1 why would anyone debunk plate tectonics? easy if you simply accept that scientists, like anyone, have there own agendas and theories to prove to themselves...namely they ignore the fact that earth was smaller as this video shows, with water beneath the surface which was added to and released by a worldwide flood---they fake plate tectonics to lead away from God--look into what the video is saying instead of simply taking what is said to you--
bondaren 1 year ago
@bondaren Actually, scientists do not wake up every morning looking for ways to make unbelievers out of believers. Read some history: nearly all of the greatest scientists in history were fervent believers. I'm a trustee at my church, and taught science for many years. Studying science only increased my awe of the creation. If you have to take the Bible as a source of scientific fact, you'll stay lost.
Reading some of these posts just reminds me of the sad state of education in the US.
tellok1 1 year ago
@tellok1 ok- remove the idea that people bring their beliefs into any situation (thereby removing the concept that people operate from base belief system, consciously or not) the majority of scientists are not actively looking for ways to dupe people, they simply amplify misinformation, some truth with some lies, also the only way anyone is "lost", is when they do not accept jesus christ as lord and savior- the rest really doesn't matter and i'm pretty sure the bible is the word of God literally
bondaren 1 year ago
@tellok1 ok- remove the idea that people bring their beliefs into any situation (thereby removing the concept that people operate from base belief system, consciously or not) the majority of scientists are not actively looking for ways to dupe people, they simply amplify misinformation, some truth with some lies, also the only way anyone is "lost", is when they do not accept jesus christ as lord and savior- the rest doesn't matter to God and the bible is the word of God, no more no less
bondaren 1 year ago
@tellok1 Charles Darwin himself was a bit torn between his findings that would lead to The Origin of Species and his faith, being that his father I think was a minister? But he still kept on digging deep (which was good, damn good) so yes, many great scientists were also believers of God (to any Christians reading, yes you can be both) and before anyone replies with how Darwin rebuked his findings on natural selection on his deathbed, research better, you'll hold off on that silly notion.
AmAxel35 11 months ago
@tellok1 To add to my previous comment, I am a Catholic but study science and theories of how we exist like evolution and abiogenesis, etc. To my knowledge I think the previous Pope acknowledged Darwin's findings back in the late 90s, saying perhaps God intended for natural selection to happen. Could be wrong on that, so correct me if I'm mistaken lol.
AmAxel35 11 months ago
@tellok1
so you are saying that India for example swam over the mid-ocean ridge? LOL
HumanityWins 11 months ago
@HumanityWins No. The mid-Atlantic ridge formed as one of the earliest and largest divisions of Pangaea, only the most recent supercontinent. India, however, had nothing to do with the MA-ridge. Furthermore, no continent 'glides over' anything.
tellok1 11 months ago
I don't understand. How can the Earth be getting bigger?
Bpage211 1 year ago
@Bpage211 If you go to his site, he explains that there's this "primal atom" which--essentially--creates more matter (yes, it kind of tosses thermodynamics out the window). So EVERYTHING is getting larger, not just the earth, since more and more matter is being created.
At least, this is what I got out of it. It's when he claims that there's a conspiracy of silence from scientists (and the globe industry, I gather) that I stopped paying attention.
crabbieappleton 1 year ago
@MrVistaCruiser its wrong .. not rong =]
sorry mr clever clogs :)
1XxpwincessxX1 1 year ago
@ PlainObserver So let me get this str8, Ur suggesting that global sea levels were 2 miles lower 40 million years ago bcuz of a geological formation (Monterey Canyon) close to a tectonically active area (San Andreas Fault)? I guess u never heard of the Messinian Salinity Crisis (Late Miocene Epoch, 12-5 million years ago). Which was about the same time the Alps were pushed up. Look that up then tell me how that may apply to ur Monterey Canyon hypothosis.
ariesdarko 1 year ago
This is bullshit. Subduction of tectonic plates occur today and id measured. For earth to grow, the mass has to come from somewhere. If it would come from space - we wouldn't be living here. I guess this moron Adams claims the matter forms somehow inside...? This is major FAIL in so many levels. FACEPALM.
z356 1 year ago
go die please, people like you are a shame to the human race.
Uteko95 1 year ago
I'd like to ask this Neil Adams guy that if the Earth is growing, where is the material coming from? and the oceans? Obviously not from space debris being drawn in, because to grow at that rate even over a billion years, the collisions would tear apart the entire crust, including the continents, and vaporise the oceans.
MultiPaulinator 1 year ago
If I'm allowed to morph both the size and the shape of continents as he does in this video, I could make any continents of any shape or size fit together. He has continents magically shrinking and growing in order to make things fit. And how did you like South America bending around Africa to force a fit?
Pretty silly stuff, this...
pamcn123 1 year ago
What a huge amount of stupidity!!!!
jrrojass 1 year ago
One word; stupid. This asshole is a comic book artist. Sorry for being a skeptic, but I am going to side with the large body of tested geologic data instead of a man that was paid to draw shit for children and forty year old virgins.
HHAsquith1 1 year ago
Comment removed
HHAsquith1 1 year ago
He has the earth and the continents way out of proportion. Why throw out existing science with a crazy idea like this? I don't see the evidence for his 'earth growth' idea. It just isn't there.
Bozo1360 1 year ago