Speculation about the cause of mountains seems to me unecessary since we can see the forming of mountains today. The Himalayas mountain range is rising by 5mm each year caused by the Indo-Australian Tectonic plate colliding into the Eurasian tectonic plate. This is according to standard tectonic plate theory. The expanding earth theory seems to be unneeded.
@nealadamsdotcom The Rockies and Andes were probably created by collisions of tectonic plates in the past (not all carrying continents). You may say this is just theory but since we can see conventional tectonic theory taking place in raising the Himalayas it seems more likely to be generally true then a mountain building theory we cannot see in operation.
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 this is genuis, forgive my bad spelling, I've tried for a long time to think of what might cause mountains in this theory, I used to think it was that newer "Ground" or mas was formed at lower points, sinse the formation proccess obviously begins in the core, but this makes much more sense, maybe it could be a mixture of both though.
@nealadamsdotcom If when the continental plate was together 200 million years ago we only had shallow seas covering 2/3 of a much smaller planet. There would have had to be a vast expansion in the amount of water to give the 2/3 deep ocean covering the much larger earth we have now. we have now. Where did this extra water come from?
@commonberus1 If Earth grows, and it does. NEW matter must be made ongoing. New matter means ATOMS, up and down the periodic table. Atoms include Hydrogen and Oxygen. Right?
@nealadamsdotcom Then why would water be created more then other matter?
And here is the crucial problem what plausible mechanism could create out of thin air all the water the rock and metal out of which the earth is formed? I've heard suggestions but none of them are remotely adequate.
@commonberus- 1. Listen to me, did I say, up and down the periodic table? That would be in common proportions. There are generally more gases that solids. And much more hydrogen than anything. It's the first element. In fact, so much is produced that the solar wind blows it off the upper atmosphere every single day, to be replaced by new light gases, up from the inside of the earth. If it was not replaced in time the solar wind would blow earth's atmosphere completely away.
@commonberus1 - 2. If the earth increases 6-fold and the water increases 6-fold, that's a reasonable proportion. Here's some thing you don't realize. 200MYA, sea level was 800' higher than it is today. That's around the world. Either that water drained into the new spreading oceans, or according to your theory, it disappeared in a puff of smoke. Where is it?
@nealadamsdotcom In your posting of a month ago it was you who said the Earth had shallow seas 200million years ago, now you are saying it had deeper seas 200 million years ago. But my main point is what credible mechanism could cause the earth to expand at the required rate?
@commonberus1 NO, Shallow Seas wer between 1 foot and 800 feet and more. AVERAGE DEPTH of today's oceans is 2 and a half MILES. (Sigh) This stuff is in books, you know.
"Credible"? To a person who is raised in current scientific theory?
I don't think I can do that. It would be like explaining FLIGHT to a jungle native.
There is no such thing as "EXPAND". It is NOT a Physical Phenomenon, without a separate force being added. The Universe CAN'T EXPAND!
Read your previous posts, in one you say the Earth had shallow seas 200 million years ago then you said it had higher sea level than today, now you say it had shallow seas 200 million years ago at the very least your being very unclear in your posts.
But you are settled now the Earth had shallow seas 200million year ago good. Now how did the Earth acquire new substances particuarly water out of thin air.
And no stupid metaphors about jungle natives and flight, they would have seen birds.
@nealadamsdotcom . Actually modern scientists who have looked into the question generally estimate the sea level of 200 million years ago as being as high or higher than modern times.Perhaps you were using an out of date book. In my last post I was trying to establish what your opinion was for the purposes of debate.
@commonberus1 ACTUALLY Sea Level 200 Million Years ago was easily 800 feet above today's sea level. 200 Million years ago there WERE NO DEEP OCEANS ON EARTH AT ALL!
Earth's water resides in Shallow seas/oceans that covered TWO THIRDS of Earth's Continental plate.
Likely, where you live now was 200 to 600 feet under water.
That's why ALL ancient sea fossils are found on the land.
@nealadamsdotcom I think I understand you now, You hold that the seas were 800 feet higher than now, 200 million years ago, but since started in what is now not much lower than sea level they were not much deeper than 800 feet(much more and the seas would not be shallow). According to your theory water would have had to have expanded much greater than the rest of the planet. Since it would have expanded in tune with earth's increase in area multiplied by the massive increase in sea depth.
Umm continents are not sliding around on top of the ocean floor! Use your brain people.
Not to mention siphon ability of liquids is determined by gravity. Our current gravity is too great to allow creatures like Amphicoelias a land creature weighing (in our current gravity) 122 ton. Many more extinct species could not exist in current gravity, yet we know they DID exist! Ergo gravity must have been less then. (smaller planet) If this can be explained away, i would like to hear how.
You just assume that they couldn't exist in current gravity, that doesn't make it so.
Funny how you try to use physics to support this nonsense while at the same time ignoring the fact that the concept of expanding planets blatantly spits at physical laws.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Does the earth magnetic field channel the suns solar wind into our polar regions sending masses of energy into the core of planet or not? What happens to this huge amount of energy?
Oh sorry I forgot to mention that the energy received by the solar wind is no where near the amount received by sunlight so your idea is is still completely absurd:
The total power intercepted by the entire magnetic field of the Earth is 4.5 Terawatts, of which only 2% or 90 Gigawatts are absorbed by the Earth's magnetosphere.
Sun's light delivers about 1400 W/m2, i.e. a 4,000,000 times higher power density.
Assuming complete conversion to mass = 31.5 kg/year.
At a negligible rate. If you believe this poultry increase in mass could come anywhere near to accounting for what is claimed in this video, well then your're just to plan stupid to have a reasonable conversation with.
At a negligible rate. If you believe this poultry increase in mass could come anywhere near to accounting for what is claimed in this video, well then your're just to plain too stupid to have a reasonable conversation with.
@kaderoder No, it did NOT EXPAND. There is no such a physical concept, unless you know something I don't.
Earth GROWS. like the UNIVERSE. which also does NOT EXPAND, but GROWS! (It's how we get a MATTER Universe. NOT from magic,..or god! BUT by a natural repeatable common process that happens everywhere.
@kaderoder - Stop, it is not semantics. Expanding implies/says same amount volume/mass simply spread out to a larger area, (Like an explosion). Growing implies/says increasing in volume and mass to fill a larger space with the same density, like a tree. I would hardly call that semantics. On the other hand it's not necessary to be scientific when you're having a scientific discussion. One can merely be ignorant.
...Interstellar Weather (Super Nova remanents) brings fluctuations in Cosmic Ray Particle induction heating and increased radiological decomposition which drive this process
~Astro Physics is now ready to add to your work SIR.
First, I'm not here as a hater or debater: This would actually only prove your theory on one single continent. Just go to south america. Why isn't there highlands both in the east and west of the continent? Look at continental Europe. Nah, this does not sell it for me. Besides there are just too many leaps of faith for me to accept this. Fascinating hypothesis (not theory), but too many holes. On another note, all these mountain ranges also support the theory of continental drift, perfectly.
@Krappman -Understand please, that each continent has a different history and events that effect it. No. America for example, is spreading apart down the middle. And there is some spreading on the east. Which mitigates against buckling. The Western oceanic plate at So. America pushed So. Amer. from the pacific rift, 60MYA. The Atlantic allowed So. Amer. to stay East, because of slow spreading. And so the Pacific, broke So. America's back. The East Coast is spreading, and cracks appear.
@Krappman - Eastern Southern So. America is cracking and splitting at the edges. It's because the lower continent is bending backwards because of the massive pressure in the Pacific. You can see the v-shaped cracks along the coast as your eye travels down the continent.
Europe is small, and at it's center is the Alps. Asia is massive and at it's center is the Himalayas.
@Krappman also, take a plastic bag, strech it, you'll notice that ripples are created on both sides, how ever they differ because of alternating force, which could be the same with the earth, if you consider all the forces tuggin on it, they'd equal up to a bunch of alternating forces.
@Krappman If you look at So Am carefully you will see massive shoving on the West coast bending it inward and "Breaking it's back". Looking at the East coast, you can see it seems to be bending backward and stretching.
Supporting this you will see the coast cracking in "V" shaped cracks going inland.
These are SPREADS of the continental coast, in contrast to the other side BUCKLING!
Hi Neal, Sorry for that last post. Looks like jibberish past the first two sentences to me. I've never posted before today. I had comments to equal about 3 pages, that acctually make sense, to post to potholer54's channel. I found him to try and find out if the expansion was continual or event based. Also is it science that we cross the center plain of the galaxy next dec? Is there such a thing as empty space? Dark Energy or Dark Matter? I have more questions if you care to indulge me.
@spotter61- 1. First, it's not expansion. There's no such physical phenomenon as expansion, it's GROWTH. We all understand growth and how it works, and that's what the universe is doing. So are all it's parts. Moons planets, suns, galaxies, and the universe itself. all growing. It's an ongoing process. It is not an event. It's how we get the universe of matter. It's not magic or religion. Just science. 2. Center plain? Not to think about. 3. Empty space? No.
That helps explain why North America looks about ready to crack down the middle. Good stuff. My only problem is that it makes too much sense to me and am having trouble playing my usual devil's advocate.
And if you nitice, there have been less massive animals at some times and more at others. Usually more just before a mass extinction. There's probably a connection there.
Also, the oxygen gradient will only change slightly due to pressure changes because of less atmosphere.
I just looked up. Dinosaurs were dominant for about 170 million years, and were around before then. that's a loooooong time to evolve to be massive
The very, very first protomammals showed up about 220 mill years ago. Mammals have only become dominant in the past 60 mill years, at a maximum figure.
@bw9366 Neal Adams DOES LIKE ROCKS! He also depends on the millions of hours of work BY OTHERS....Unless you don't believe that KNOWLEDGE CAN BE PASSED ON??...Through writing it down and ,....reading it?
@FHomeBrew Gravity increases with growth and the creation of new MATTER! That's why the upper size of animals is 1/4 the size NOW as 100 Million years ago.
Earth is growing, because that is it's FUNCTION. It's only reason to BE. To grow and increase, like the MATTER UNIVERSE!
@nealadamsdotcom No, animals were bigger at, let's say, the end of the dinosaurs because they'd had a much longer time to evolve. About 300 million years, if memory serves correctly.
The reason the first life forms were bigger? Higher density of oxygen in the atmosphere, higher concentration gradient, faster movement into the insects or w/e, supportable life.
Go on, ask me to elaborate, I'm sure I can answer your questions with currently known answers.
@nealadamsdotcom You claim that animals now are smaller than animals 100 million years ago (one-fourth as small even)? Comparing a blue whale to any fossil record shows that it is, to our knowledge, the largest creature to have ever lived on Earth. While there may be some larger animals in the past or now that we don't know of, I believe I can safely say that animals do not have a lower "upper size" than animals in prehistoric periods.
@whendiditfall Whales are supported by water that has the same weight and density as the Whale. If you can show the air had the same density and weight as water, you are correct.
Without that, your "OPINION" is Stupid in the extreme, and you , my friend are wasting my and everone's time.
The universe is alive, growing and everchanging, and it takes a bright mind to see it. Thanks for shining the light in a world where skeptics don't want anyone to see.(they can follow instructions to decode dna but can't use their accumulated intelligence to put a puzzle together)
@Snuffomatica I blocked Angry only. Obviously he wanted to push my buttons. Students,..what can you do. When he learns more he'll come back under some silly name.
Keep up the good work, Neal. It's good to find this new animation from you. You ARE teaching people. Your video quest IS working. Earth is growing, and people (like me) are learning to see it.
I'm particularly glad you focused on mountain formation this time. Wrinkling caused by shallowing curvature obviously happens on any growing, curved solid.
Mr Adams I must really thank you for drawing my attention to these theories.
I would like to ask you to track down some anthroposophists sometime and have a good sit down discussion with them regarding the picture of primordial Earth-developement that has emerged from Rudolf Steiners' Anthroposophy- you would find the conversation very stimulating I'm sure, for both parties.
the more i watch this video I'm convinced it's backwards. If it expands it expands everywhere. It would push out and smooth not make ridges. But do the opposite and ridges, mountains and cracks would form. Your computerization moves the top crust around as the planet expands to form the mountains. Look at something like the Mariana's Trench. An expanding Earth would widen and shorten it. But a shrinking Earth would narrow it and deepen it. What is the history of the trenches measurements?
First of all, thank you for your video graphs. It certainly looks like all planets expand and grow continuously. I was surprised to find out that Professor Samuel Warren Carey introduced his Expanding Earth theory in 1956. In the 1960s, Subduction was introduced as the key mechanism of the new theory of plate tectonics in order to maintain the constant Earth diameter required by the nebular hypothesis. Are there reliable statistical data on Earth's growth? I would like to look into numbers too.
@roneaone Go to continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth examine the maps, very carefully, and pay particular attention to the note with the growth numbers for the last 180 MY's. I had NOTHING to do with the numbers, except I asked a student to get/find them from the official source.
I asked him to provide the maps in a form that I require. in 10 MY segments and with less garish color.
@SelectCircle Just "open" your mind to anything... elves, unicorns, homeopathy, magic, god... it's all good! Then kill yourself because you are a product of science, not witchcraft.
is thier a software on line where one can interact with that theory and experince it for ourselves? examp like google earth...except you make the earth grow and watch the plates move.
Is our planet growing now? If it does, what is the evidence for that? Is the length of Earth's equator increasing? What are the up-to-date measurements? If there is no evidence of our globe's growing now, what made the Earth grow 200 million years ago?
@roneaone - Earth is growing now. It always grew. It is a process. If you would like to see the surface increase over the last 180MY, go to continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth. Read the notes.
@nealadamsdotcom Step one - Put all your faith in your theory. Step two - Verify your theory by facts. If you succeed, proceed to step three. If not, return to Step One. Repeat until Step Two becomes irrelevant. Then skip to Step Three - Enjoy Yourself.
He's asked for the data that would support what you are saying, you dodged the question and just reaffirmed what you are claiming. I'd say that you did the dodging because you have no data to support what you are saying, if you provide some data that confirmed your idea of an expanding planet then I might be willing to reconsider my assumption that you are pulling this from your arse.
Given that I've come into your exchange late I'll have missed any prior exchange which would include any site that you gave. Just bear in mind that if the earth was expanding it would mess up things like the orbit of satalites.
@AngryWomble IT'S a few notes above,...Merely read,,.....review comments,..watch my other videos,..read comments there, and save your very basic, constantly re-iterated points, by hundreds of those who have gone before, and if you care at all, provide well thought out questions. You sit among a rabble of near idiots who merely spit their internet crapola. Do you wish to be thought of as "Like THEM?"
.......nice bit of rhetoric there. Pity the idea of an expanding earth is bollocks. It was put forward pre-plate tectonics to try and explain a number of features, plate tectonics explains them better. Or would you like us to go back to using Geosynclines to explain how the earth works? What about geocentrism? Astrology? Alchemy? Flat earth?
You want a fact? How about the inclined seismic planes we have in a number of locations, those are the wadatti-benioff zones......aka subduction ones. You are mixing up the layman use of theory (guess) with the scientific use. In science a theory is a model that explains a sequence of facts drawn from the data.
@AngryWomble Science doesn't get to OPT the English language because they "WANT" TO. A "THEORY" is a theory, and a fact is a "FACT"!
Nor does Wadatti and mister Benioff get to opt the "Ring of Fire" the only compressive Subduction Zone of Earth, which is a FACTUAL EVENT that BEGAN, provably 60 Million Years Ago, when Australia rifted apart from Antartica, driving the Australian Plate into the south East Asia oceanic plate SHATTERING it to pieces and giving PURCHASE to unique Subduction.
Right, that reply makes all the sense in the world. Take a breath, write slowly and then maybe you'll be more coherent. Back to the point. There are many words that have slightly different meanings depending on the context, bedding is one, theory is another. Now you might not be able to get your little brain around the difference but plenty of other people can and do, and they're the ones working in science, not you.
@AngryWomble 1. NO, I've been working IN SCIENCE for longer than you've been alive.
2. NO. English is English and it's corruption is half the cost of this new dark age of SCIENCE.
Specialzation. Non integration of the science. Ego centric and elitists language. I can't talk Geology to a Physicist or Vice-versa. What a CARTOON of ego. I study all sciences and in English.
Do you have any conception of how far ahead that puts me.
@AngryWomble This sequence of events has accounted for the PROVABLE subduction of 1/40th of the Earth's oceanic plate. FACTS! Now you may prove the rest.
I'll go and have a look at that but bear this in mind. If you are *that* right and *that* sure of your notion why are you not trying to prove this scientifically? Bear in mind that we have creationists trying (and failing if i'm honest) to do research to prove their notion and you arn't. They at least get points for trying to do it properly.
@AngryWomble Little brain? Hmmm. Here's a FACT. When you post a video here thy give you two "extra" buttons for the rude and abusers of courtesy. "Remove" and "Block user". Mind your manners in my house.
Fair?
Creationists? Hmmm.
Prediction: Pangeaists who believe an Earth differentiates cookie cutter layer miles thick jigsaw puzzle pieces into limited areas of 1/3 of the crust,.. which one day ALL,..ALL traveled to a continental convention on one side of the Earth. will be laughed at.
@AngryWomble If I'm NOT doing the science, you should be able to easily disprove it with FACTS.
Of course I have you at a disadvantage,. because I rely, almost exclusively on FACTS,..while you are mired (Without quite realizing it in THEORY confused as fact. Small example.
Current "standard theory says Mountains have existed on Earth for Billions of Years.
The FACT IS Mountains began to rise up on Earth a mere 60 Million Years ago, after the Dinosaurs died off
Unfortunately 500 characters limit me in this medium to correct you, however I am planning a rebuttal of your ideas via a medium that will allow more detail. Your 'small example' actually serves to highlight your lack of understanding. Mountains are not eternal but through P/T we have developed an understanding of their birth, life and death. P/T explains the data and facts more than the expanding earth nonsense does.
@AngryWomble Speak to me as if you and I were having a cup of coffee. I don't like warnings, to give or get. But rudeness irks, and I will never meet you. I have spent nearly a million dollars on the work of over 35 years. Compute all that when it comes time to edit your words.
P/T knows nothing about Mountain building because it begins with a completely wrong series of theories and premises. Please watch the video above several times and absorb, so we wont be talking at cross purposes.
Mountains DO NOT WEAR down to a nub. Tops wear down to a greater or lesser degree over time but sediments in time cover two thirds of the base thicker and thicker and support the mountain and prevent erosion like the Adirondacks. There are NO WORN DOWN mountain ranges on Earth. FACT. It's an unproven theory that's simply not true. NO Mountain ranges existed during ALL the ages of the dinosaurs to halt the winds and free movement of dinosaur
@nealadamsdotcom .. please tell the class how the EARTH with it's current size and gravity supported the weight of the Dinosaurs. Or explain how land based Dino's did it. Please bring FACTS.
@MrSchpankme We know Dinosaur Bones are exactly the same density as animal bones today, but ON AVERAGE dinosaurs were 4 times bigger than similar groups today, and the upper weight was 60 tons compared to 10-12 tons today. That's like an elephant carrying around 5 more elephants.
@roneaone just use the analogy of your hair. It even grows when you are so called 'dead' This is a fact. An observable theory that has logic backing it up. You can apply this law to everything natural.Have you investigated crystals? They grow and are seemingly inert solid matter. This is the same application also. We must get past this old assumption of stagnant view of our planet. It is Gaia, meaning, living and growing.
@roneaone The man is a crank. Get an education in basic geology and plate tectonics and you will understand the facts.
Or ask the loon to explain how the growing earth explains limestone [sea shells] at the top of mount Everest.
They are there because India on the Indo-Australian plate, which was adjacent to Africa, migrated and slammed into the Eurasian; closing the Tethys sea and pushing up the mountains - which continue to rise to this day.
@Huttate1 The mountains may well be pushed up but is it an evidence of Indian plate having crashed into the Eurasia? There are many pieces of evidence to support the Growing Planets theory. What I would like to see is a comprehensive data based argumentation to back it up.
@roneaone Provide one of those pieces of evidence then. This is evidence that any idiot cartoonist can post on youtube, nothing else. Theories with merit are published in peer review journals, where they are subject to scrutiny. No geologist would be able to stop laughing long enough to review this.
@Huttate1 Neal Adams has given an amazingly realistic reconstruction of how planets including our Earth might have grown throughout ages. Many authors, such as Egyed (1957), Cox and Doell (1961), Ward (1963), Creer (1965), Heezen (1960) and especially Carey (1954, 1970) have supported the theory that continents have moved apart because of an expanding Earth. Carey has calculated the amount of expansion, which has taken place, is 76%. This equivalent to a 33% increase in radius, or 8mm a year.
@Huttate1 Adams has demonstrated plenty of indirect evidence in favour of the idea of expanding planets. He just used his own professional skills to do so. Nobody was or is laughing. The concepts of plate tectonics and continental drift in part are based on evidence which can be used to support expansion theory, too.The past plate motions theories use paleomagnetic pole data as evidence and that is it. GPS vectors of present day plate motions show that the Earth is bulging around the Pacific..
@roneaone No he has not. And there is a scientific consensus that he is a nut. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. His is a pretty animation and a rediculous baseless pseudo-scientific babble on pair production.
@Huttate1 Alfred Wegener was a meteorologist, his work on continental drift was published in 1925 and American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the hypothesis. George Gaylord Simpson used his influence to make that theory look ridiculous, so it was in the 1960s that enough was found to prove that once all continents were united. Because planet expansion idea was too quirky, naturally it was assumed that the continents must have drifted...
@roneaone And since then all of the subductions zones and oceanic ridges have been mapped and the rates and directions of subduction, creation calculated. And all of it fits the current theory of plate techtonics.
Do a little research on the ridges and their spreading rates. This is not a theory it is observable fact.
@TheDivineCellphone By your own definition science fails science. Look at the atom. atomic theory doesn't actually explain the "why" either. what is the weak force? what is strong force?
@TheDivineCellphone - 1. It grew from the inside out, after reaching a sufficient size from common accretion.
Pair production began at the inner super-heated core. Pairs assembled into atoms at the outer plasma core's magnetic field, up and down the periodic table. Super-heated in simple atoms, matter deposited in the mantle, from atomic and silicate bonds. The gases rise to the rift and exit there, rebuilding the depleted atmosphere and water. 2. Growth is the only function of the universe.
@TheDivineCellphone - 3. There is theoretical proof, mathematical proof, and real world observation proof. 4. It can be proven by deduction supported by facts and conclusions, but there are certain observations that should be made, that haven't yet been made. For example, the new particle we are about to hear about, may be one of those final proofs. I believe it must be. Deduction tells me so. 5. Yes, of course, this is not a process that is controlled by intelligence. It is mindless and stupid.
@TheDivineCellphone - 6. Newton's Laws will have to be adjusted, although I expect he thought that would be the case. I am told by many, that there are deficiencies and holes that have to be plugged. This will do it. There is after all, one force, and it's electromagnetic, and there is no such thing as gravity. Gravity never was a very good idea, and E=mc2 will have to be adjusted, to include very tiny magnetic fields, which are a required constituent of matter. E is not enough.
@nealadamsdotcom "There is after all, one force, and it's electromagnetic, and there is no such thing as gravity. " What about neuclear energy, aren't gama and X-rays forms of energy or are they forms of electro-magetism. I agree that gravity is a property of electromanetism. I read that there is a gama and Xray energy membrane enclosing our Milkyway Galaxy. In E=mc2 there are a number of forms that energy can take.
@nealadamsdotcom E=MC2 is just script on a page anyways. Infinitly interchangeable, and like the planet, it grows and moves on. People and places stuck in a loop is never good.
@nealadamsdotcom the only way the earth can "grow" is energy being released and causing the mantle to become less dense, but that is a load of bullshit. the earth's interior has been cooling down ever since the earth formed, so obviously there is no energy being released. to explain the movement of plates is fluid dynamics. don't even throw the vacuum of space in either.
@thrillzonevideos Yes, De-densing is indeed the very worst bullshit.
No, the Earth has NOT been cooling. In fact it's been heating up. The accretion theory is 150 years old presented by scientist philosophers, and for which there is no proof at all. Time for a NEW SCIENCE!
Go ahead, throw in the vacuum of space. Let's rock.
@TheDivineCellphone No this doesn't fail as science. And what Neal is showing here goes beyond mere hypothesis, these are working computer models Neal is showing. The "how" comes later in science. Go to his website or channel and look at Mars and the moons of Saturn. What he is showing is purely mathematical geometry and very close to empirical. The scientific community ignores these facts because it's the monkey and banana problem. Any monkey that goes for the banana get's beat up.
@MrSchpankme Compressive Subduction,... Happens only at the ring of Fire and began 60 MYA, When Australia was shoved upward by the circumnavigating rift that opened between Antarctica and Australia. As Australian PLATE was shoved UP (Crustal Age Map Best one is at continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth )
it shattered the oceanic plate there to massive chunks, and gave purchase to subduction. HOW MUCH.
By looking at the age of the plate on either side you can SEE the difference. 1/20 of SPREAD!
Whoa! Just like when humans get old and their skin wrinkles! The crust is like the earths skin and the earth grows as it gets older and the mountains wrinkle out of the crust.
Who's the guy blowing? Reminds me of Nassim's correction to the physics books..where there's force of expansion, there must be contraction feeding it...somethin like that anyway ;)
Comment removed
kaderoder 4 days ago
Speculation about the cause of mountains seems to me unecessary since we can see the forming of mountains today. The Himalayas mountain range is rising by 5mm each year caused by the Indo-Australian Tectonic plate colliding into the Eurasian tectonic plate. This is according to standard tectonic plate theory. The expanding earth theory seems to be unneeded.
commonberus1 5 days ago
@commonberus1 Really? What continent crashed into The U. S. west coast to push up the Rockies, or the Andes of S Am.???? Hmmm?
Theory is NOT FACT! FACT is FACT!
nealadamsdotcom 4 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom The Rockies and Andes were probably created by collisions of tectonic plates in the past (not all carrying continents). You may say this is just theory but since we can see conventional tectonic theory taking place in raising the Himalayas it seems more likely to be generally true then a mountain building theory we cannot see in operation.
commonberus1 4 days ago
i love your videos about earth !
tylerdugray 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom this is genuis, forgive my bad spelling, I've tried for a long time to think of what might cause mountains in this theory, I used to think it was that newer "Ground" or mas was formed at lower points, sinse the formation proccess obviously begins in the core, but this makes much more sense, maybe it could be a mixture of both though.
bonedustlover 3 weeks ago
@nealadamsdotcom If when the continental plate was together 200 million years ago we only had shallow seas covering 2/3 of a much smaller planet. There would have had to be a vast expansion in the amount of water to give the 2/3 deep ocean covering the much larger earth we have now. we have now. Where did this extra water come from?
commonberus1 5 days ago
@commonberus1 If Earth grows, and it does. NEW matter must be made ongoing. New matter means ATOMS, up and down the periodic table. Atoms include Hydrogen and Oxygen. Right?
nealadamsdotcom 4 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Then why would water be created more then other matter?
And here is the crucial problem what plausible mechanism could create out of thin air all the water the rock and metal out of which the earth is formed? I've heard suggestions but none of them are remotely adequate.
commonberus1 4 days ago
@commonberus- 1. Listen to me, did I say, up and down the periodic table? That would be in common proportions. There are generally more gases that solids. And much more hydrogen than anything. It's the first element. In fact, so much is produced that the solar wind blows it off the upper atmosphere every single day, to be replaced by new light gases, up from the inside of the earth. If it was not replaced in time the solar wind would blow earth's atmosphere completely away.
nealadamsdotcom 4 days ago
@commonberus1 - 2. If the earth increases 6-fold and the water increases 6-fold, that's a reasonable proportion. Here's some thing you don't realize. 200MYA, sea level was 800' higher than it is today. That's around the world. Either that water drained into the new spreading oceans, or according to your theory, it disappeared in a puff of smoke. Where is it?
nealadamsdotcom 4 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom In your posting of a month ago it was you who said the Earth had shallow seas 200million years ago, now you are saying it had deeper seas 200 million years ago. But my main point is what credible mechanism could cause the earth to expand at the required rate?
commonberus1 3 days ago
@commonberus1 NO, Shallow Seas wer between 1 foot and 800 feet and more. AVERAGE DEPTH of today's oceans is 2 and a half MILES. (Sigh) This stuff is in books, you know.
"Credible"? To a person who is raised in current scientific theory?
I don't think I can do that. It would be like explaining FLIGHT to a jungle native.
There is no such thing as "EXPAND". It is NOT a Physical Phenomenon, without a separate force being added. The Universe CAN'T EXPAND!
The Universe can GROW
nealadamsdotcom 3 days ago
Read your previous posts, in one you say the Earth had shallow seas 200 million years ago then you said it had higher sea level than today, now you say it had shallow seas 200 million years ago at the very least your being very unclear in your posts.
But you are settled now the Earth had shallow seas 200million year ago good. Now how did the Earth acquire new substances particuarly water out of thin air.
And no stupid metaphors about jungle natives and flight, they would have seen birds.
commonberus1 3 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom . Actually modern scientists who have looked into the question generally estimate the sea level of 200 million years ago as being as high or higher than modern times.Perhaps you were using an out of date book. In my last post I was trying to establish what your opinion was for the purposes of debate.
commonberus1 3 days ago
@commonberus1 ACTUALLY Sea Level 200 Million Years ago was easily 800 feet above today's sea level. 200 Million years ago there WERE NO DEEP OCEANS ON EARTH AT ALL!
Earth's water resides in Shallow seas/oceans that covered TWO THIRDS of Earth's Continental plate.
Likely, where you live now was 200 to 600 feet under water.
That's why ALL ancient sea fossils are found on the land.
nealadamsdotcom 3 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom I think I understand you now, You hold that the seas were 800 feet higher than now, 200 million years ago, but since started in what is now not much lower than sea level they were not much deeper than 800 feet(much more and the seas would not be shallow). According to your theory water would have had to have expanded much greater than the rest of the planet. Since it would have expanded in tune with earth's increase in area multiplied by the massive increase in sea depth.
commonberus1 2 days ago
@commonberus1 Perhaps you should watch the other dozen video,.. and read the tens of thousands of comments and conversation.
2.I don't "HOLD" anything. I give the facts that the sciences conclude. Shallow Seas is merely a comparative phrase from a confused scientific world.
3. Nothing "EXPANDS" There's no such Phenomenon. It's GROWTH! INCREASE.
Earth increased by 6 times, as did the WATER! What then is your question?
nealadamsdotcom 1 day ago
@nealadamsdotcom And I suppose a theory to explain this expansion is still not coming, which seems to render this debate a bit pointless.
commonberus1 2 days ago
Umm continents are not sliding around on top of the ocean floor! Use your brain people.
Not to mention siphon ability of liquids is determined by gravity. Our current gravity is too great to allow creatures like Amphicoelias a land creature weighing (in our current gravity) 122 ton. Many more extinct species could not exist in current gravity, yet we know they DID exist! Ergo gravity must have been less then. (smaller planet) If this can be explained away, i would like to hear how.
kaderoder 1 month ago
@kaderoder
You just assume that they couldn't exist in current gravity, that doesn't make it so.
Funny how you try to use physics to support this nonsense while at the same time ignoring the fact that the concept of expanding planets blatantly spits at physical laws.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Explanation >?
kaderoder 1 week ago
@kaderoder
Can you think of a mechanism to explain expanding planets that doesn't fly in the face of the laws of physics?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 week ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Sure. Its E=Mc2. Can you?
kaderoder 1 week ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Does the earth magnetic field channel the suns solar wind into our polar regions sending masses of energy into the core of planet or not? What happens to this huge amount of energy?
kaderoder 1 week ago
@kaderoder
Nonsense.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that ALL of the sun's energy that hits the Earth's surface (5.5×10^24 J) is converted to mass:
E=Mc2 (c = 3*10^8 m/s)
M= 5.5×10^24 / (3*10^8)^2 = about 61,000 metric tones/year.
The mass to the Earth today is 5.9742 × 10^21 metric tones.
5.9742 × 10^21 / 6,1000 = 9.8*10^16
So for the Earth to have gained even a 10th of its current mass by this mechanism, it would take about 720,000 times the age of the Universe.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 week ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The solar wind does not touch the surface of the earth. Nice formula (haha)
kaderoder 6 days ago
@kaderoder
Oh sorry I forgot to mention that the energy received by the solar wind is no where near the amount received by sunlight so your idea is is still completely absurd:
The total power intercepted by the entire magnetic field of the Earth is 4.5 Terawatts, of which only 2% or 90 Gigawatts are absorbed by the Earth's magnetosphere.
Sun's light delivers about 1400 W/m2, i.e. a 4,000,000 times higher power density.
Assuming complete conversion to mass = 31.5 kg/year.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 6 days ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi So you're saying the earth is expanding and gaining mass? I see.
kaderoder 5 days ago
@kaderoder
At a negligible rate. If you believe this poultry increase in mass could come anywhere near to accounting for what is claimed in this video, well then your're just to plan stupid to have a reasonable conversation with.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kaderoder
At a negligible rate. If you believe this poultry increase in mass could come anywhere near to accounting for what is claimed in this video, well then your're just to plain too stupid to have a reasonable conversation with.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 5 days ago
@kaderoder No, it did NOT EXPAND. There is no such a physical concept, unless you know something I don't.
Earth GROWS. like the UNIVERSE. which also does NOT EXPAND, but GROWS! (It's how we get a MATTER Universe. NOT from magic,..or god! BUT by a natural repeatable common process that happens everywhere.
A new model of the Universe.
nealadamsdotcom 4 days ago
@nealadamsdotcom Saying it grew and not expanded is semantics.
kaderoder 4 days ago
@kaderoder - Stop, it is not semantics. Expanding implies/says same amount volume/mass simply spread out to a larger area, (Like an explosion). Growing implies/says increasing in volume and mass to fill a larger space with the same density, like a tree. I would hardly call that semantics. On the other hand it's not necessary to be scientific when you're having a scientific discussion. One can merely be ignorant.
nealadamsdotcom 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...Interstellar Weather (Super Nova remanents) brings fluctuations in Cosmic Ray Particle induction heating and increased radiological decomposition which drive this process
~Astro Physics is now ready to add to your work SIR.
=keep going !
docatomics 1 month ago
Maybe I missed something? So this accounts for uplift, and not the actual formations of the mountains?
spotter61 2 months ago
First, I'm not here as a hater or debater: This would actually only prove your theory on one single continent. Just go to south america. Why isn't there highlands both in the east and west of the continent? Look at continental Europe. Nah, this does not sell it for me. Besides there are just too many leaps of faith for me to accept this. Fascinating hypothesis (not theory), but too many holes. On another note, all these mountain ranges also support the theory of continental drift, perfectly.
Krappman 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 5
@Krappman -Understand please, that each continent has a different history and events that effect it. No. America for example, is spreading apart down the middle. And there is some spreading on the east. Which mitigates against buckling. The Western oceanic plate at So. America pushed So. Amer. from the pacific rift, 60MYA. The Atlantic allowed So. Amer. to stay East, because of slow spreading. And so the Pacific, broke So. America's back. The East Coast is spreading, and cracks appear.
nealadamsdotcom 2 months ago
@Krappman - Eastern Southern So. America is cracking and splitting at the edges. It's because the lower continent is bending backwards because of the massive pressure in the Pacific. You can see the v-shaped cracks along the coast as your eye travels down the continent.
Europe is small, and at it's center is the Alps. Asia is massive and at it's center is the Himalayas.
nealadamsdotcom 2 months ago
@Krappman haha, that also means that continental drift supports this "hypothesis"
bonedustlover 3 weeks ago
@Krappman also, take a plastic bag, strech it, you'll notice that ripples are created on both sides, how ever they differ because of alternating force, which could be the same with the earth, if you consider all the forces tuggin on it, they'd equal up to a bunch of alternating forces.
bonedustlover 3 weeks ago
@Krappman which would lead to differentials in upper crust development
bonedustlover 3 weeks ago
@Krappman If you look at So Am carefully you will see massive shoving on the West coast bending it inward and "Breaking it's back". Looking at the East coast, you can see it seems to be bending backward and stretching.
Supporting this you will see the coast cracking in "V" shaped cracks going inland.
These are SPREADS of the continental coast, in contrast to the other side BUCKLING!
Examine carefully.
nealadamsdotcom 3 days ago
Hi Neal, Aren't some mountains solid rock? And how would these be formed over time through compression?
spotter61 2 months ago
@spotter61 No, Mountains aren't "Solid Rock" They are tilted up slabs pushed up on either side. Did you not watch the video???
Try this. Place your hand flat on the table and lift up your palm. Now, look at your knuckles. Mountain ranges from RE-CURVING.
nealadamsdotcom 2 months ago
Hi Neal, Sorry for that last post. Looks like jibberish past the first two sentences to me. I've never posted before today. I had comments to equal about 3 pages, that acctually make sense, to post to potholer54's channel. I found him to try and find out if the expansion was continual or event based. Also is it science that we cross the center plain of the galaxy next dec? Is there such a thing as empty space? Dark Energy or Dark Matter? I have more questions if you care to indulge me.
spotter61 2 months ago
@spotter61- 1. First, it's not expansion. There's no such physical phenomenon as expansion, it's GROWTH. We all understand growth and how it works, and that's what the universe is doing. So are all it's parts. Moons planets, suns, galaxies, and the universe itself. all growing. It's an ongoing process. It is not an event. It's how we get the universe of matter. It's not magic or religion. Just science. 2. Center plain? Not to think about. 3. Empty space? No.
nealadamsdotcom 2 months ago
@DannyPhantomBeast NO!
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
Whether or not this theory is accepted or not... I'm gonna drink a toast to You Neal Adams... Every chance I get.
batfly 4 months ago
@batfly Oh, It's true all right, and it will become accepted.
You will find yourself watching the discovery channel and and sitting back in astonishment at the things standard theory has to say.
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
I salute your courage and fortitude... :)
batfly 4 months ago
That helps explain why North America looks about ready to crack down the middle. Good stuff. My only problem is that it makes too much sense to me and am having trouble playing my usual devil's advocate.
jgbloyd 4 months ago
Where did the mass come from? a blue man in blowing mass into the earth? I am open the the idea of a growing earth but the idea has to make since
WaynesData 4 months ago
@tahunu NO, I won't 'stop with the Capitals'. I do them for EMPHASIS. I don't like to repeat, and we have a 500 char limit.
Time to evolve has little validity. Size has had it's ups and downs. The conversation has to do with the UPPER LIMIT to size relative to Bone Density.
A 60 ton sauropod's legs would pulverize in today's Gravity.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
And if you nitice, there have been less massive animals at some times and more at others. Usually more just before a mass extinction. There's probably a connection there.
Also, the oxygen gradient will only change slightly due to pressure changes because of less atmosphere.
tahunu 5 months ago
Um.
No.
I just looked up. Dinosaurs were dominant for about 170 million years, and were around before then. that's a loooooong time to evolve to be massive
The very, very first protomammals showed up about 220 mill years ago. Mammals have only become dominant in the past 60 mill years, at a maximum figure.
tahunu 5 months ago
@tahunu No, there were proto MAMMALS exactly when Dinosaurs appeared,.. but they evolutionary wise came to extinction.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@EqualAndFree Place your hand flat on the table.Lift your palm and look at your knuckles! Mountain Ranges.
From Re-curving.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
Wow, I bet not one second of field study into actual rocks was conducted to reach this mountain forming hypothesis. Does Neil Adams even like rocks?
bw9366 5 months ago
@bw9366 Neal Adams DOES LIKE ROCKS! He also depends on the millions of hours of work BY OTHERS....Unless you don't believe that KNOWLEDGE CAN BE PASSED ON??...Through writing it down and ,....reading it?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
In what way is the earth growing? Just volume, or also in mass? How is (surface) gravity affected by this expansion?
FHomeBrew 5 months ago
@FHomeBrew Gravity increases with growth and the creation of new MATTER! That's why the upper size of animals is 1/4 the size NOW as 100 Million years ago.
Earth is growing, because that is it's FUNCTION. It's only reason to BE. To grow and increase, like the MATTER UNIVERSE!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom No, animals were bigger at, let's say, the end of the dinosaurs because they'd had a much longer time to evolve. About 300 million years, if memory serves correctly.
The reason the first life forms were bigger? Higher density of oxygen in the atmosphere, higher concentration gradient, faster movement into the insects or w/e, supportable life.
Go on, ask me to elaborate, I'm sure I can answer your questions with currently known answers.
tahunu 5 months ago
@tahunu 1. Mammals Evolved the same length of time as Dinosaurs.
2.NO There was a Greater Percentage of Oxygen, but LESS AIR over all. Also, Greater percentage of Oxygen at SOME given times, NOT OTHER TIMES.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom You claim that animals now are smaller than animals 100 million years ago (one-fourth as small even)? Comparing a blue whale to any fossil record shows that it is, to our knowledge, the largest creature to have ever lived on Earth. While there may be some larger animals in the past or now that we don't know of, I believe I can safely say that animals do not have a lower "upper size" than animals in prehistoric periods.
whendiditfall 2 months ago
@whendiditfall Whales are supported by water that has the same weight and density as the Whale. If you can show the air had the same density and weight as water, you are correct.
Without that, your "OPINION" is Stupid in the extreme, and you , my friend are wasting my and everone's time.
nealadamsdotcom 2 months ago
The universe is alive, growing and everchanging, and it takes a bright mind to see it. Thanks for shining the light in a world where skeptics don't want anyone to see.(they can follow instructions to decode dna but can't use their accumulated intelligence to put a puzzle together)
3StarsTraveller 5 months ago
Well then you need to explain EVERY mountain chain...what of the andes...the apls...ect.
orge121 6 months ago
@orge121 Of course I can explain them. I'm a person who is easily embarrassed if I'm caught with my pants down. What would you like to know?
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
Just checking if you've blocked me ....
Snuffomatica 6 months ago
@Snuffomatica I blocked Angry only. Obviously he wanted to push my buttons. Students,..what can you do. When he learns more he'll come back under some silly name.
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@AngryWomble Can't say I didn't warn you. Right?!!!
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
This also perfectly explains volcanic activity :D
shadzzz441791 8 months ago
It's a lie that the earth has been growing VS. It's a lie that he earth hasn't been growing.
What's the point in discussing something that has no repercussion in anybody's lifestyle?
matimaui 8 months ago
lol How about erosion? Well, interesting theory anyway...
BudCharles999 9 months ago
Keep up the good work, Neal. It's good to find this new animation from you. You ARE teaching people. Your video quest IS working. Earth is growing, and people (like me) are learning to see it.
I'm particularly glad you focused on mountain formation this time. Wrinkling caused by shallowing curvature obviously happens on any growing, curved solid.
cmpilot 10 months ago
Desiring others to think afresh?
You may have to take just the tiniest of steps yourself to set such things in motion!
Good wishes to you!
Mercuryrules 10 months ago
Mr Adams I must really thank you for drawing my attention to these theories.
I would like to ask you to track down some anthroposophists sometime and have a good sit down discussion with them regarding the picture of primordial Earth-developement that has emerged from Rudolf Steiners' Anthroposophy- you would find the conversation very stimulating I'm sure, for both parties.
I might recommend a fellow called Dennis Klocek.
CONTINUED !
Mercuryrules 10 months ago
the more i watch this video I'm convinced it's backwards. If it expands it expands everywhere. It would push out and smooth not make ridges. But do the opposite and ridges, mountains and cracks would form. Your computerization moves the top crust around as the planet expands to form the mountains. Look at something like the Mariana's Trench. An expanding Earth would widen and shorten it. But a shrinking Earth would narrow it and deepen it. What is the history of the trenches measurements?
firejack007 10 months ago
@firejack007 While a tortouse shell grows at the plate ridges, it expands pushing up ridges on each plate as well.
freddyeddyr 10 months ago
Very good information. Thanks!!
Agarti555 10 months ago
First of all, thank you for your video graphs. It certainly looks like all planets expand and grow continuously. I was surprised to find out that Professor Samuel Warren Carey introduced his Expanding Earth theory in 1956. In the 1960s, Subduction was introduced as the key mechanism of the new theory of plate tectonics in order to maintain the constant Earth diameter required by the nebular hypothesis. Are there reliable statistical data on Earth's growth? I would like to look into numbers too.
roneaone 10 months ago
@roneaone Go to continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth examine the maps, very carefully, and pay particular attention to the note with the growth numbers for the last 180 MY's. I had NOTHING to do with the numbers, except I asked a student to get/find them from the official source.
I asked him to provide the maps in a form that I require. in 10 MY segments and with less garish color.
nealadamsdotcom 10 months ago
I love this theory if only because it's surely annoying to establishment geologists.
Let us keep our minds open! open! open! : D
SelectCircle 10 months ago 10
@SelectCircle What you advocate is the ooposite of "open".
ManuelHung 5 months ago
@ManuelHung Well, now, there's a strange theory that I'm open to as well.
: )
SelectCircle 5 months ago
@SelectCircle Just "open" your mind to anything... elves, unicorns, homeopathy, magic, god... it's all good! Then kill yourself because you are a product of science, not witchcraft.
ManuelHung 5 months ago
@ManuelHung Shrug. So some science Nazi wants to see open-minded people dead. What eles is new?
I believe in Nazis. Do you? : )
SelectCircle 5 months ago
@SelectCircle You're not good with words... Sorry about that.
ManuelHung 5 months ago
@ManuelHung Yes, science Nazis are so full of compassion. : )
SelectCircle 5 months ago
is thier a software on line where one can interact with that theory and experince it for ourselves? examp like google earth...except you make the earth grow and watch the plates move.
atlan61 10 months ago
Is that a remake? Thanks Neal.
etzel33 10 months ago
very interesting!
which software do you use for shrinking/expanding ?
shailesh2k1in 10 months ago
Is our planet growing now? If it does, what is the evidence for that? Is the length of Earth's equator increasing? What are the up-to-date measurements? If there is no evidence of our globe's growing now, what made the Earth grow 200 million years ago?
roneaone 10 months ago
@roneaone - Earth is growing now. It always grew. It is a process. If you would like to see the surface increase over the last 180MY, go to continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth. Read the notes.
nealadamsdotcom 10 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Step one - Put all your faith in your theory. Step two - Verify your theory by facts. If you succeed, proceed to step three. If not, return to Step One. Repeat until Step Two becomes irrelevant. Then skip to Step Three - Enjoy Yourself.
roneaone 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
He's asked for the data that would support what you are saying, you dodged the question and just reaffirmed what you are claiming. I'd say that you did the dodging because you have no data to support what you are saying, if you provide some data that confirmed your idea of an expanding planet then I might be willing to reconsider my assumption that you are pulling this from your arse.
AngryWomble 7 months ago
@AngryWomble He was given a direction. Did he follow it and respond?
NO!. Why should I continue with him. Did YOU go to the site indicated and study the consequences?
NO!... One doesn't TEACH to empty vessels!
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Given that I've come into your exchange late I'll have missed any prior exchange which would include any site that you gave. Just bear in mind that if the earth was expanding it would mess up things like the orbit of satalites.
AngryWomble 6 months ago
@AngryWomble IT'S a few notes above,...Merely read,,.....review comments,..watch my other videos,..read comments there, and save your very basic, constantly re-iterated points, by hundreds of those who have gone before, and if you care at all, provide well thought out questions. You sit among a rabble of near idiots who merely spit their internet crapola. Do you wish to be thought of as "Like THEM?"
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
.......nice bit of rhetoric there. Pity the idea of an expanding earth is bollocks. It was put forward pre-plate tectonics to try and explain a number of features, plate tectonics explains them better. Or would you like us to go back to using Geosynclines to explain how the earth works? What about geocentrism? Astrology? Alchemy? Flat earth?
AngryWomble 6 months ago
@AngryWomble Would you prefer to go back to THEORY and speculation, instead of FACTS?
I prefer FACTS!
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
You want a fact? How about the inclined seismic planes we have in a number of locations, those are the wadatti-benioff zones......aka subduction ones. You are mixing up the layman use of theory (guess) with the scientific use. In science a theory is a model that explains a sequence of facts drawn from the data.
AngryWomble 6 months ago
@AngryWomble Science doesn't get to OPT the English language because they "WANT" TO. A "THEORY" is a theory, and a fact is a "FACT"!
Nor does Wadatti and mister Benioff get to opt the "Ring of Fire" the only compressive Subduction Zone of Earth, which is a FACTUAL EVENT that BEGAN, provably 60 Million Years Ago, when Australia rifted apart from Antartica, driving the Australian Plate into the south East Asia oceanic plate SHATTERING it to pieces and giving PURCHASE to unique Subduction.
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Right, that reply makes all the sense in the world. Take a breath, write slowly and then maybe you'll be more coherent. Back to the point. There are many words that have slightly different meanings depending on the context, bedding is one, theory is another. Now you might not be able to get your little brain around the difference but plenty of other people can and do, and they're the ones working in science, not you.
AngryWomble 6 months ago
@AngryWomble 1. NO, I've been working IN SCIENCE for longer than you've been alive.
2. NO. English is English and it's corruption is half the cost of this new dark age of SCIENCE.
Specialzation. Non integration of the science. Ego centric and elitists language. I can't talk Geology to a Physicist or Vice-versa. What a CARTOON of ego. I study all sciences and in English.
Do you have any conception of how far ahead that puts me.
No, you wouldn't,...couldn't.
500 char LIMIT. Think FAST!
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@AngryWomble This sequence of events has accounted for the PROVABLE subduction of 1/40th of the Earth's oceanic plate. FACTS! Now you may prove the rest.
Go to continuitystudionsdotnetslashgrowth
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
I'll go and have a look at that but bear this in mind. If you are *that* right and *that* sure of your notion why are you not trying to prove this scientifically? Bear in mind that we have creationists trying (and failing if i'm honest) to do research to prove their notion and you arn't. They at least get points for trying to do it properly.
AngryWomble 6 months ago
@AngryWomble Little brain? Hmmm. Here's a FACT. When you post a video here thy give you two "extra" buttons for the rude and abusers of courtesy. "Remove" and "Block user". Mind your manners in my house.
Fair?
Creationists? Hmmm.
Prediction: Pangeaists who believe an Earth differentiates cookie cutter layer miles thick jigsaw puzzle pieces into limited areas of 1/3 of the crust,.. which one day ALL,..ALL traveled to a continental convention on one side of the Earth. will be laughed at.
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@AngryWomble If I'm NOT doing the science, you should be able to easily disprove it with FACTS.
Of course I have you at a disadvantage,. because I rely, almost exclusively on FACTS,..while you are mired (Without quite realizing it in THEORY confused as fact. Small example.
Current "standard theory says Mountains have existed on Earth for Billions of Years.
The FACT IS Mountains began to rise up on Earth a mere 60 Million Years ago, after the Dinosaurs died off
Some Mountain Ranges began 20 MYA
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Unfortunately 500 characters limit me in this medium to correct you, however I am planning a rebuttal of your ideas via a medium that will allow more detail. Your 'small example' actually serves to highlight your lack of understanding. Mountains are not eternal but through P/T we have developed an understanding of their birth, life and death. P/T explains the data and facts more than the expanding earth nonsense does.
AngryWomble 6 months ago
@AngryWomble Speak to me as if you and I were having a cup of coffee. I don't like warnings, to give or get. But rudeness irks, and I will never meet you. I have spent nearly a million dollars on the work of over 35 years. Compute all that when it comes time to edit your words.
P/T knows nothing about Mountain building because it begins with a completely wrong series of theories and premises. Please watch the video above several times and absorb, so we wont be talking at cross purposes.
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@AngryWomble Put these FACTS into your thinking!
Mountains DO NOT WEAR down to a nub. Tops wear down to a greater or lesser degree over time but sediments in time cover two thirds of the base thicker and thicker and support the mountain and prevent erosion like the Adirondacks. There are NO WORN DOWN mountain ranges on Earth. FACT. It's an unproven theory that's simply not true. NO Mountain ranges existed during ALL the ages of the dinosaurs to halt the winds and free movement of dinosaur
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom .. Machu Picchu, now at 8040 ft, used to be a sea side village. Put these FACTS into your thinking!
MrSchpankme 6 months ago
@AngryWomble .. "we have developed an understanding", who's this we? Do you have proof when you correct others or do you always refer to the "we"?
MrSchpankme 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom .. please tell the class how the EARTH with it's current size and gravity supported the weight of the Dinosaurs. Or explain how land based Dino's did it. Please bring FACTS.
MrSchpankme 6 months ago
@MrSchpankme We know Dinosaur Bones are exactly the same density as animal bones today, but ON AVERAGE dinosaurs were 4 times bigger than similar groups today, and the upper weight was 60 tons compared to 10-12 tons today. That's like an elephant carrying around 5 more elephants.
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Just back from trying to look, the link is dead and not working.
AngryWomble 6 months ago
@roneaone just use the analogy of your hair. It even grows when you are so called 'dead' This is a fact. An observable theory that has logic backing it up. You can apply this law to everything natural.Have you investigated crystals? They grow and are seemingly inert solid matter. This is the same application also. We must get past this old assumption of stagnant view of our planet. It is Gaia, meaning, living and growing.
oatstao 10 months ago
@oatstao I do not trust any logic behind a theory, unless it is backed up by solid facts.
roneaone 8 months ago
@roneaone The man is a crank. Get an education in basic geology and plate tectonics and you will understand the facts.
Or ask the loon to explain how the growing earth explains limestone [sea shells] at the top of mount Everest.
They are there because India on the Indo-Australian plate, which was adjacent to Africa, migrated and slammed into the Eurasian; closing the Tethys sea and pushing up the mountains - which continue to rise to this day.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 The mountains may well be pushed up but is it an evidence of Indian plate having crashed into the Eurasia? There are many pieces of evidence to support the Growing Planets theory. What I would like to see is a comprehensive data based argumentation to back it up.
roneaone 8 months ago
@roneaone Provide one of those pieces of evidence then. This is evidence that any idiot cartoonist can post on youtube, nothing else. Theories with merit are published in peer review journals, where they are subject to scrutiny. No geologist would be able to stop laughing long enough to review this.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 Neal Adams has given an amazingly realistic reconstruction of how planets including our Earth might have grown throughout ages. Many authors, such as Egyed (1957), Cox and Doell (1961), Ward (1963), Creer (1965), Heezen (1960) and especially Carey (1954, 1970) have supported the theory that continents have moved apart because of an expanding Earth. Carey has calculated the amount of expansion, which has taken place, is 76%. This equivalent to a 33% increase in radius, or 8mm a year.
roneaone 8 months ago
@roneaone and? Evidence?
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 Adams has demonstrated plenty of indirect evidence in favour of the idea of expanding planets. He just used his own professional skills to do so. Nobody was or is laughing. The concepts of plate tectonics and continental drift in part are based on evidence which can be used to support expansion theory, too.The past plate motions theories use paleomagnetic pole data as evidence and that is it. GPS vectors of present day plate motions show that the Earth is bulging around the Pacific..
roneaone 8 months ago
@roneaone No he has not. And there is a scientific consensus that he is a nut. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. His is a pretty animation and a rediculous baseless pseudo-scientific babble on pair production.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 Alfred Wegener was a meteorologist, his work on continental drift was published in 1925 and American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the hypothesis. George Gaylord Simpson used his influence to make that theory look ridiculous, so it was in the 1960s that enough was found to prove that once all continents were united. Because planet expansion idea was too quirky, naturally it was assumed that the continents must have drifted...
roneaone 8 months ago
@roneaone And since then all of the subductions zones and oceanic ridges have been mapped and the rates and directions of subduction, creation calculated. And all of it fits the current theory of plate techtonics.
Do a little research on the ridges and their spreading rates. This is not a theory it is observable fact.
Huttate1 8 months ago
@Huttate1 umadyo?
bman462 7 months ago
very cool
fal2grace 10 months ago
The only problem with this theory, is that it fails as science...
all you need to do, is to falsify the theory, meaning: find its shortcommings.
1. how did it grow ?
2. why did it grow ?
3. is there proof ?
4. can the theory be proven ?
5. if eath GREW - is it stil GROWING ?
6. how does it affect newtons laws ?
TheDivineCellphone 10 months ago 6
@TheDivineCellphone By your own definition science fails science. Look at the atom. atomic theory doesn't actually explain the "why" either. what is the weak force? what is strong force?
thefranciswatts 10 months ago
@TheDivineCellphone - 1. It grew from the inside out, after reaching a sufficient size from common accretion.
Pair production began at the inner super-heated core. Pairs assembled into atoms at the outer plasma core's magnetic field, up and down the periodic table. Super-heated in simple atoms, matter deposited in the mantle, from atomic and silicate bonds. The gases rise to the rift and exit there, rebuilding the depleted atmosphere and water. 2. Growth is the only function of the universe.
nealadamsdotcom 10 months ago
@TheDivineCellphone - 3. There is theoretical proof, mathematical proof, and real world observation proof. 4. It can be proven by deduction supported by facts and conclusions, but there are certain observations that should be made, that haven't yet been made. For example, the new particle we are about to hear about, may be one of those final proofs. I believe it must be. Deduction tells me so. 5. Yes, of course, this is not a process that is controlled by intelligence. It is mindless and stupid.
nealadamsdotcom 10 months ago
@TheDivineCellphone - 6. Newton's Laws will have to be adjusted, although I expect he thought that would be the case. I am told by many, that there are deficiencies and holes that have to be plugged. This will do it. There is after all, one force, and it's electromagnetic, and there is no such thing as gravity. Gravity never was a very good idea, and E=mc2 will have to be adjusted, to include very tiny magnetic fields, which are a required constituent of matter. E is not enough.
nealadamsdotcom 10 months ago 2
@nealadamsdotcom "There is after all, one force, and it's electromagnetic, and there is no such thing as gravity. " What about neuclear energy, aren't gama and X-rays forms of energy or are they forms of electro-magetism. I agree that gravity is a property of electromanetism. I read that there is a gama and Xray energy membrane enclosing our Milkyway Galaxy. In E=mc2 there are a number of forms that energy can take.
freddyeddyr 10 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom E=MC2 is just script on a page anyways. Infinitly interchangeable, and like the planet, it grows and moves on. People and places stuck in a loop is never good.
oatstao 10 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom the only way the earth can "grow" is energy being released and causing the mantle to become less dense, but that is a load of bullshit. the earth's interior has been cooling down ever since the earth formed, so obviously there is no energy being released. to explain the movement of plates is fluid dynamics. don't even throw the vacuum of space in either.
thrillzonevideos 9 months ago
@thrillzonevideos Yes, De-densing is indeed the very worst bullshit.
No, the Earth has NOT been cooling. In fact it's been heating up. The accretion theory is 150 years old presented by scientist philosophers, and for which there is no proof at all. Time for a NEW SCIENCE!
Go ahead, throw in the vacuum of space. Let's rock.
nealadamsdotcom 9 months ago
@TheDivineCellphone No this doesn't fail as science. And what Neal is showing here goes beyond mere hypothesis, these are working computer models Neal is showing. The "how" comes later in science. Go to his website or channel and look at Mars and the moons of Saturn. What he is showing is purely mathematical geometry and very close to empirical. The scientific community ignores these facts because it's the monkey and banana problem. Any monkey that goes for the banana get's beat up.
rockthecityatnight 10 months ago
@TheDivineCellphone .. prove Subduction; that dogma has been taught in schools for years; show me the proof or it fails as science...
MrSchpankme 6 months ago
@MrSchpankme Compressive Subduction,... Happens only at the ring of Fire and began 60 MYA, When Australia was shoved upward by the circumnavigating rift that opened between Antarctica and Australia. As Australian PLATE was shoved UP (Crustal Age Map Best one is at continuitystudiosdotnetslashgrowth )
it shattered the oceanic plate there to massive chunks, and gave purchase to subduction. HOW MUCH.
By looking at the age of the plate on either side you can SEE the difference. 1/20 of SPREAD!
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
Whoa! Just like when humans get old and their skin wrinkles! The crust is like the earths skin and the earth grows as it gets older and the mountains wrinkle out of the crust.
q7spiz 10 months ago
Alright, this looks like a portion of an old video, but still glad to see you are on the topic and trying to get the information out still.
ABAisSCIENCE 10 months ago
@ABAisSCIENCE it is . saw the full once.
dogsofwarclan 10 months ago
A lot of people do not understand that the Earth is growing every day.
hythloth70 10 months ago
OMG, 100 years in tectonic research in the trash!
jaimemgn 10 months ago
Fantastic, thank you for thinking outside of the box!
MidlifeCrises 10 months ago
Who's the guy blowing? Reminds me of Nassim's correction to the physics books..where there's force of expansion, there must be contraction feeding it...somethin like that anyway ;)
Thx for the post.
inphiknitfractal 10 months ago