If continents are always forming and others are falling under others due to having less mass, how come we have a Pangea and other theories of how the Earth looked so long ago if maybe there were other coninents present and some that we have today may have not been formed?
"How can an island uproot itself from the ocean floor?" Really? Is that what plate tectonics mean to Neal Adams? And could he please describe the mechanism by which the earth is growing?
But perhaps its better not to. We wouldn't have these delightfuly retarted videos if mr. Adams knew geology or the scientific method.
What a load of horseshit! 1) The theory of plate tectonics never argues that 0:45 "an island can uproot itself from the ocean floor". 2) Adams is clearly not aware or the fact that the mineral composition of top of Mt Everest is marine limestone, which utterly destroys his little "hypothesis".
This Neal Adams buffoon argues like a Creatard on smack, and anyone who buys his plate of shit is an outright fool.
using language like "stupid" and "Preposterous" is not professional. In fact it places your thesis at risk. Try to keep your obvious prejudices out of the presentation.
The matter of this planet started in a very compact/dense state.This planet is breathing/growing.Relative to the fact that everything grows.Theory of relativity.Everything alive is growing.This planet is growing in its complexity and its energy. This planet is being fed energy, therefore it is producing energy. Nothing is pure stagnant.Everything contributes to everything else..This planet is being raised to be a star/ultimate contributor..This planet will go on to raise its own family of stars.
I was waiting for an explanation of the mountain growth, and he never explained it. What is "folding" and how does something like that can happen if Earth is expanding?
what about the oceans, was all of early earth under water, and why doesnt the coastlines recede at a rate parallel to the groth rate as fluid dynamics would suggest, but in this we see them increase, and continue to do so???
do you think as the earth expands the inner core decreases? Ive heard of this theory some time ago may be why ancient civilizations said mother earth :?
Free energy has been here for a while ,But the powerfull Oil business won't alow common ppl to know this,Get a real free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!
this doesn't explain the findings of marine fossils (shells) in the Hymalayas... how did they get there when ther has never been see in that place? and how did they get up there at over 7 km high? the currnt explantion answers that very question! you have to find some answer yet.... you are very good at fabricating "facts" , so I 'll wait for your vid on this subject )
nealadamsdotcom What do you define as blurred? How large is large enough - what is the minimum diameter/mass of an object to start expansion? How can some gasses still be on some planets like Venus - but have no water? Why did the solar wind just blow the water away? Is water a by-product of the expansion mechanism? If the Earth is expanding @ 25" per year - why do we measure the moon (via laser from earth) moving away @ 1.49"/yr from us? Wouldn't the reality be 1.49"+12.5 inches (25"/2)?
Adams is just another conspiracy nut. Every time he's challenged to provide evidence he has nothing to back his ideas up with. Science grows by an unfettered search for the truth, not by making videos to support sci fi. If he had any evidence, he'd have presented something by now. Hilariously he won't even dare publish, he insists people buy his 'paper' though. The world is full of conmen trying to make a quick buck, even off science.
@Ozzyman200 You are just another ignorant sheeple. Just in case you forgot, the earth is no longer flat. Most of you people argue against this kind of concept BECAUSE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT.
Youtube is full of your type. All capslocks and mouth, but no reasoning. You need to start thinking for yourself and not just believing everything you hear.
"Just in case you forgot, the earth is no longer flat. "
Wrong. The Earth was never flat. Obviously you never learnt any science.
Well... lets do some basic physics here. When molecules are farther apart then that means an object is hotter, and closer cooler. So how is the earth getting larger... is the temperature from the earth rising and we are on a giant balloon...lol. Also, if that is correct, then eventually the moon will be pulled onto the earth because the earth's mass would increase its gravitational pull. Neal Adams... go die in hell
@jewfrodavis Actually it would be even worse. The mass of the Earth would remain the same but its density would be shrinking drastically, thus decreasing gravity by huge amounts. The moon, as well as everything on Earth, would go flying into space.
@EmperorofCartoons Do you have evidence that what you say is true? Cause to be honest you are just another random you tuber that THINKS your opinions count as facts, When in fact they dont. Come back with evidence, and btw a THEORY does not count as evidence. Here is a fact for you to ponder, the sun and ALL stars go through stages and IN FACT GROW. Funny even stars that are at a later stage then earth still have planitary bodies within its gravity. Your opinion is no more then missinformation.
@TTribaLL Are you asking me for proof that gravity is related to mass and density? Thats like 9th grade science. An Earth that has the same mass, but spread over a larger area would move the surface of that mass further away from the center point. Yes the gravity would remain the same at the same distances, but the proportions would decrease as the surface moved outward
@TTribaLL (And thus the moon would move outward to scale and experience less and less gravity as it moved further and further from Earth's core.). For the moon to experince the same gravitational pull and the same stability of orbit as before, it would have to orbit INSIDE the radius of this hypothetical Earth. The same thing happens to stars as they expand and go into their red giant phase. Some planets, the nearest ones, get engulfed, while others slowly scale outward
@TTribaLL maintaining the same distance to scale as they originally had, but experiencing less and less gravity the further they move from their original distances from the sun's center. Eventually they would reach a point where the gravitational pull would not be sufficient to hold them in place and they would drift off or fall into the sun.
I am so convinced that Neal is either an idiot with no clue how dumb he sounds, or he's an evil genius trying to see how many fools he can get to go along with his bizarre divergence from reality. That's not too hard to do when your target market is religious fundamentalists and fanatics.
Time for Occam's Razor. Which is simpler: That a brilliant artist with a very successful career actually believes this stuff, or that he's making bank on the fundies?
Neal I didn't know you had a whole video on this when I posted my text comment on your Earth video. About the Himalayas. Now I will have to ponder this whole thing much longer.
Pianoman & okuma- From the rate of spreading in the Indian ocean ("behind" India's alleged path) we can derive the rate of subduction "in front" of India. Yes, there is fossilized marine life there. The trouble for PT is with the timing: when the rate of spreading (and of subduction, according to PT) was highest, at 50 to 100 Ma, the H. "region was a shallow sea receiving quiet sedimentation, with no sign whatever of ...[the turmoil, etc] which should have accompanied rapid subduction there."
The quote was from S. Warren Carey, the grandfather of Earth expansion. The existence of marine life there is hardly sufficient evidence for the existence of a deep ocean separating India and Asia. A number of leading authorities on the region have argued the contrary, and a recent major book on The Origin of Mountains (Routledge, 2000) argues "from facts about mountain landscapes rather than theory" that mountain building in general is incompatible with plate tectonic explanations.
megalodon shark teeth fossils can be found on top of mt everest so india would still had to have been an island or at least mt everest material was submerged under water ,india land border of today was at least first to seperate from africa as tectonic stretch marks show that india was either draged or pushed from the south eastly direction ,earths core is like a pop corn were the curls in the core effects the friction of larva which mix with other materials like dust and form a new crust
The truth is the scientific community doesnt deal with common sense. Once they make up their mind they go in that direction. Since they cant prove this theory other than showing common sense you cannot take it scientifically. It doesnt mean its not true. Im beginning to think we have no clue about anything on this planet.
While proof for subduction is scant (understandably).I haven`t seen any proof,evidence, nor experimental work done by EE`rs. (Except for these innaccurite cartoons).
Scientists dont build on just theories, they build on theories that have been proven by several methods. Then it becomes a building block which they hypothesize & theorize whether the blocks fit together for a working model. It`s an ongoing process, but it`s better than watching cartoons.
Okay... what are the odds that the continents fit perfectly together when you shrink them? Dont you think thats a little too coincidental? Yeah i think so too. What abou the other planets Neil has done? When you shrink them they fit perfect as well? and if you are talking about the amazing science of geology please dont make me laugh. Of all the sciences geology is the worst. Those guys have absolutely no idea on how the earth works or how it was made. Just speculation and hypothesis.
Science always makes opinions out to be facts. Dont believe me? Then explain Dark Matter? Dark Matter is easily the dumbest theory for how the universe works yet even though scientists have no clue on what exactly it is or how it works they claim it is there and on top of that they write books about it. I bet you my left nut sack cosmology is bullshit and the entire universe operates on electromagnetism
It doesn't worn on electro-magnetism. Allow me to explain... the universe is comprised of 11 noticeable dimensions corresponding from a space to time. The problem is scientists got it all wrong.
It is a factor of which gravitons are able to react with one another that shapes our very universe. The four dimension as Newton correctly stated is Mass, not time. Time is a greater dimension. And all these dimensions correspond upwards towards energy and then finally super gravity at the end.
So if the earth was a tiny ball of solid land originally... where did all of the water for the oceans come from? Did it just magically appear? Or did the magic water fairies come from outer space and put it there?
so a continent moving is a ridiculous idea, but an entire planet growing is PERFECTLY REASONABLE? I did some calculations and found that Earth would be 29% of the volume it is today.
What calculations? What do you base this on, give me a published article on your hypothesis also go fuck yourself.
This is what happened, and it proves the earth is growing, we don't know WHY the earth is growing but we do know that it indeed is. We also know that subduction and slab pull is pretty much impossible according to physics, crust can't be forced into the mantle because the mantle is much denser than the crush!
@Xanqui Not to mention this sort of "growth" would play hell with the Earth's magnetic field as well as gravity, as the density within the interior would have fluctuated wildly. Which it would have to do as one must surmise the interior of the Earth has been growing increasingly emptier as this growth has gone on, rather like the inflating of a balloon. Unless we are to believe the density of the earth has somehow stayed stable, which then you to ask where all the extra mass has came from.
@Xanqui That's my problem too, also, where did the water come from? And the whole force thing is explained too, the mass of the continents is definetly large enough to make the Himalayas. Earthquakes can make hills, in less than 15 minutes because the plates push together with so much force.
@Xanqui well I'm no scientist but couldn't density come into play here? if the gravity was higher for that smaller planet would it not be more dense. and because space has no gravity could the earth expanding into space (path of least resistance) making it less dense but have the same amount of material.
@heath832 good idea but every object in the universe has Gravity (mass) more mass more Gravity bigger objects therfor pull on space not space on the objects infact Albert Einstein found out that gravity bends space like a ball on a rubber sheet now if you put the earth on a gigantic sheet of rubber it will bend it
now the video above said it is possible that earth is growing and therfore rolling uphill
@SuperJonathanmatthew I realize that. I don't think anyone is the stupid. I was saying that because the vacuum of space and rotation of earth and those kinds of drivers could in theory be pulling the earth outward where earths mass tries to keep itself together. lets say there was magically no gravity at all on earth, bits and pieces would just break off and fly into space. Couldn't it be possible that even with our gravity this is happening over time? Again I'm no scientist just a thinker.
@heath832 If magically there was no gravity, then no... bits and pieces would NOT just break off and fly into space because THAT would require gravity to pull it apart. I think that what you meant to say is if the centrifugal force gravity were greater than the gravity of the earth's mass, THEN bits and pieces would break off. This would require an immense amount of energy to build and sustain the necessary rotational speed (like a supernova). However, I commend your thinking on the subject!
oh my goodness. his arguments hold about as much water as someone trying to defend geocentrism. what a hack.
"india somehow uprooted itself" he is oversimplifying plate tectonics and his graphic shows india as the only thing moving. what a crock.
instead of feverishly poking holes in other theories and offering yours as the only alternative, how about suggesting a process by which the earth could expand, and set out to prove it through experiments.
I will *open* rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys: I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water.
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; *that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself:*
The formation of Italy, which is both montainous and volcanic is only a problem if one is fix in thinking the ripples would no result in that zone, have you any reason which states that this could not be the case other than the explain that was provided by others? The same goes for any mountian range or valley for that matter.
The earth might be expanding just like the sun is and just like the universe itself is, as is our own culture and species expanding in one big evolution...
Yes, earth expansion must be due to the exact same reasons as all those other things. =/ You gotta do some more work on your superficial new-age theories there, buddy, cuz they ain't be holdin' up, yo. I recommend the following courses @ your local comm. college: SOC, ASTRMY, COSM, ASTR PHYS, ANTHRO. Revise your theory accordingly.
Im not asking for a scientific explanation :/ nor cheap arse sarcasm. What im trying to say is everything in life is expanding or evolving so why not the earth? Science cant prove astrology and yet it exists and has done for thousands of years. Dont forget that "superficial new age theories" can eventually become common knowledge(scientific fact) and without such theories we dont ever redefine the boundaries of our existence. Science has only just started to unravel the mystery of the matrix.
Science can't prove astrology because any self-respecting intellectual knows better than to give in to the hype. Astrology is NOT science, but a relic of our specie's dark-ages. Why you think it's legit... I can only infer.
You don't need "new age" theories. You need scientific theories. With mathematics and physics behind them to justify the claims; not arms in thrown in the air and claiming truth from ignorance. THAT... is how you redefine boundaries... not wishful ideology and superstition.
OMG this guy is so stupid, please ban him from youtube.... if earth had grown it would be flat ya dick... it would not have mountains...
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE AMONITES (sea creatures) FOSSILES ON THE TOP OF HIMALAIAS???? by your theory thats impossible........ and yet.... they are still there
Um fossils on the Himilayas can be explained by meteorites hitting earths oceans and creating massive tsunamis... Alternatively if the earth was much smaller and it grew, then the oceans would of been on top of the original land and as the expansions took place the sea levels changed and moved away from the higher latitudes. Have an objective mind when watching these things. Banning someone for having a point of view is rather stupid, the idea of youtube is to be able to express ideas.
Wow dude, sounds like you have really nailed the coffin in the standard theory. Maybe you can just explain why there are ophiolite complexes in the Himalayas, or why there is such a massive lateral offset of Indochina to the east? Or then again maybe you can explain why the Deccan Traps has the same radiogenic signature as the volcanics of the much younger LaReunion and Mauritus Hotspots?...There is no evidence in the Himilayas to suggest that what you just said is remotely true. Good day.
Ophiolite complexes have been standard business in the plate techtonic theory... so what. Its still a theory. So what ur saying is now we have "decided" how the world has formed we can stop thinking about it forever? If a meteorite half the size of the moon hit the world the tsunami created would be able to spread sea animals to the highest peaks. Im not going 2 sit here trying to prove anything, im not afraid 2 be wrong or have out there theories either. I just have an open mind.
if u would speak portuguese i would explain it better to you, i can't cause i don't speak english that well to name the correct names of hapennings and all that.... let me just ask u a thing.... have u ever been in school? or have u took any lessons of geology?
Are u trying to be condecending? Im not saying what ive said is fact, im merely putting past a theory to explain why there might be fossils on the himalayas. What i do know is that what is taught at school is sometimes not the whole truth. Geology and Geography are my top subjects btw... having an objective and open mind is healthy.
i've an open mind, but i'm not that naive to eve consider this theory.... if geology is realy your top subject u should know that pangea's theory explains a lot more things than this idea does....
Yes, maybe it does explain more and thats probably due to enormous amount of research that go into keeping the pangea theory afloat. Seeing as this idea is relatively new im going to give it a few years and see just how much research is going to go into finding out the truth in Neal Adams theory. I remember "global warming" being some kooky science gobbledegook and now it seems that has been taken on board as "fact", albeit for governments to hijack the meaning and abuse it... time will tell.
@peteyOZ You don't have to wait very long for the evidence on the expanding earth theory. Believe it or not, the theory didn't originate with Neal Adams. It's been around for 121 years (almost 2 centuries if you include Darwin, who proposed it in 1834 and rejected it a year later). Guess how old the theory of plate tectonics is? 98 years. The evidence is in, my friend, and plate tectonics, the newer of the two theories, won by a landslide a long time ago.
@dcs002 The fault of the plate tectonics theory is it forgot to consider the growth of the pacific ocean floor, not just the Atlantic. They proved the Atlantic grows wider roughly 3.5cm/year times that by 200,000,000 and you get 700,000,000 cm or 7000km. Give or take random fluctuations and you get roughly the span of the Atlantic. The funny part? Want the real sick truth? The pacific ocean floor was also proven to be newer near the rifts, MEANING IT FOLLOWS THE SAME DAMN LAWS!!!
@TTribaLL Plate tectonics fully explains the age and the size of the Pacific Ocean floor. Oceanic crust runs like a conveyor belt, from rift to subduction, regardless of the direction of the continents, and regardless of what Neal and his out-of-context use of others' work says.
I pulled out of this conversation weeks ago after many PMs with Neal and much debate on other videos. I'm really not interested in continuing it. There's no science here, and no room for a scientist.
I mean.. Folding??? The "jet motor" argument is ridiculous, because the mass of the continents could easily create enough force to make the mountain range..
Hmm I have to think about that one... when someone uses those same fossils to justify Noah's ark, plus the evidence that most of those fossils were too young to be on the mountains when you reverse the movements and match them with time, It makes not much sense; especially since some of the fossils were of animals that were supposed to live at a certain water pressure that made it virtually impossible for some of them to be on the land where they are found. I'll have to look at that closer.
There exists no known mechanism for a growing earth. It defies the Law of Conservation of Matter, i.e. matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Unless he's hypothesizing that we're gaining matter from somewhere (and if you do the math, meteor impacts can't cut it), he's breaking the laws of physics.
Further, I love how he talks about an island uprooting itself from the ocean floor - IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY - Neal Adams needs to learn how plate tectonics works. What a moron.
exactly, all he does is sais it in a way that makes it sound true with no evidence basically only gullable people would believe it. know what my auntie probabaly believes this but then again she also beleives the earth is hollow and that there is an entire universe in there (like the tardis) and people guard the entrance at the north pole. SOME PEOPLE eh what can you do?
Geez, peer-reviewed literature. The classic "don't ask me to think" response.
Like Einstein's "peer-reviewed" literature... like he had a peer when his theories were presented.
But if you want actual evidence, visit the guy who made this video's website, he shows on it how the moon and mars shows the same growth without the benefit of plate tectonics or erosion.
Or, you can get pictures of the Moon and Mars and do the research yourself.
sir I have studied both. it's bunk. just like with earth he alters the features to make them look like they fit. now I'm not the one not thinking for myself you are. you let people think for you if they claim that it's a conspiracy against them. how about you do some work before claiming people who have don't.
you know what also requires thinking for yourself?
Proper Scientific Methodology.
Show this to some Real geologists and cosmologists and see what there view of this is, see if it holds up under scrutiny.
If someone can refute you in the Public scientific medium and provide a better explanation, run tests and otherwise eviscerate your position then its completely unjustified. If want "actual evidence" i will explore post secondary accredited institutes of science and read proper papers.
@kermitdfrogz It has nothing to do with thinking for yourself. Any idiot can look at a planet, shrink it and make all the pieces look like they fit together. Most rocky planets work the same way ours does, through plate tectonics. The plates/continents aren't the same ones he squishes together - especially on earth. The continents extend beyond what is visible on maps.
All I see from Neal is half brained ideas coming from an ARTISTS perspective. As an artist myself...
Respond to this video... As an artist myself? I can tell you that you do not want to blindly follow another artist. We can make things fit together, but we can't really explain how or why. He doesn't explain how or why. He just fits shit together. That's it.
Cnidarious, you're polite. Get some soup that can make a skin. When the soup makes a skin, break it apart and try to move the parts independently without causing massive gaps of liquid; most plate tectonic theories don't work under something that's the same model. either the soup has to be heated for movement (crust breaks down), or unless there has to be open areas of liquid soup on one end and massive mountains on the other. India & other plates are dead on the side that should have movement
the comment "no we can see and measure the opposite on very body out to Uranus. solar wind is slowly eroding every thing is our solar system. " was in reply to the comment "stupidity? You're so stupid, you can't even see that other planets and the Moon show the same growth.
Retard. "
sorry if you can't follow a simple conversation line.
You imply that stupidity is rampant, yet you absolve yourself of such an accusation. You might even imply that stupid people aren't even aware of how stupid they are. Just imagine how wrong you could also be without even realizing it. Don't make any statements claiming anything fact or fiction. Who are we to confirm anything. But we can still have an open mind and pay attention to anything thats any form of information. So call me ignorant, thats expected, but realize I don't call you stupid.
Well this person used logical falacies, such as Apeal to common sense and Straw Man Arguments. From what is actualy said it is more than likley this person is just ignorant like young earth creationists.
I am not a master at physics, but this person has presented little evidence to show that it is even POSSIBLE for a planet to "grow".
I have seen drama docs on reconstructing dragons which give more plausible hypothosise than this. I didn't origionaly rant cause I doubt this guy would listen.
go to his page, go to science, go to videos and discussion. scroll down to the discussion and read it. just from a grammatical and spelling standpoint it's poorly done, from a science standpoint it's even worse. Do you know the mechanism he reccomends? pair production, if you're not familiar wiki it. and he has more than 20 videos, a poorly written "letter to science" and a "project made easy" cartoon all of which show a basic failure to understand basic astronomy and geology.
I have to laugh at the appeal to common sense. Our common sense has been reproducibly shown to make false assumptions about all sorts of things. If common sense could be trusted in complex circumstances beyond those which it was evolved to deal with, then we would have little need for science.
You're right, given the mainstream explanation it wouldn't be possible =). Research "The Great Deluge", a catastrophic event where all cultures of the earth recorded a massive flood of water. With this information, its possible to assume that the ocean wasn't as prominent prior to this event.
actually i know about it, but since culture only started within the last few thousand years the most likely explanation for this is the end of the last ice age, when global ocean levels rose dramatically. it was this event which submerged the beiring land bridge cutting off North America from Asia. thus it has no bearing on the topic at hand.
But it has everything to do with the topic at hand. You asked where the water went, I presented an option. Your unwillingness to listen to this idea is completely tied to your fixation on Plate Techtonics theory. Under its theory, the Great Deluge is explained as the end of the Bearing Straight. Yet growth theory claims that no Bearing Straight existed, and that the flood was tied to a massive influx of ocean water. (Possibly post ice age). These things make the Deluge important information.
ok, let's say for one minute that you're right, that the great deluge does explain where the water was, so the question is, how much water was stored in ice? 10%? 50%? more? and if it wasn't in ice where was it?
and if no beiring land bridge existed why is that the point that is the most likely origin of the native americans crossing over to North America? and what about 200 million years ago, when there was no ice age, where was the water then?
i would like to comment on the authority of information.
I think currently even renowned scholars are in debate about this.
it may feel difficult to believe or change perspectives because of the torrent of information that's out there with academic authority on it.
perhaps overclock is asking us to entertain his idea with respect, and perhaps it is worth imagining a world in which our current sense of time and scale is very different
I've given it serious thought and as far as I've seen it has too many holes in it. Besides, it's been around as long as plate tectonics, it's been submitted to peer review and as of yet, plate tectonics still won out. maybe in the future they'll explain it, but at the moment there are just too many holes in it.
and understand i'm making a statement, i'm not attacking you, just pointing out that I haven't seen any proof other than some models that don't prove anything.
Well thats true . So what is your point fatty? There is no such thing as a singularity. Essentially its an idea invented by mathematics. Its got nothing to do with real world observations.
on a different page gmb wrote, "There is nothing supporting the existence of a black hole at all. If by a black whole you are meaning something with a SINGULARITY inside of it."
lol why are we even bothering. He's just writing down words and putting periods at the end hoping to come out with meaningful sentances. He spent an hour saying how stupid einstein was and then said einstein was right to reject the stupid rapid expansion. lol
i don't think he's even reading his own messeges lol.
I haven't argued with him for more than a day. I should've kept my word on doing so after he argued about the existence of brontosaurus. I mean really who doesn't know about apatosaurus being most of the skeleton and the head being wrong.
seriously man, i can't fuckin take this anymore. How many fuckin times are you going to say special relativity sucks, and then i have to tell you, that's why he refined the theory. i can't fuckin take your childish horseshit anymore. You are the worst debater i've ever seen. You ask questions.. then get an answer... and then ask the same question again.
Seriously...
write more fuckin useless crap on here if you want, but i'm done. i can't take your fuckin bullshit anymore.
You fail logic 101. If the refined theory sits on top of the failed theory then its no good and can only be considered a template for calculations. Like a set of tables or something.
There is a heirachy of reasoning there. And if patches of great reasoning sit on a foundation of error, then still the entire edifice is wrong. And like I said must only be considered an aid to local solar system calculations.
No real scientist would have fallen for the transparent idiocy of the big bang. Anyone who falls for that is likely to be a CO2-Bedwetter as well. And really just a glorified welfare recipient.
Everything I've said here is intelligent. You are just a moron who cannot justify his religious belief in the big bang. The big bang is just Genesis with a thin veil. Its the immaculate conception of matter, space, time and everything. Its an idiots theory invented as a short-cut to having to think about reality. Its not an answer to anything. But a denial of the need to find answers. Its not evidence for anything. Rather the denial of the need for evidence.
Are you saying we should ask what came before the big bang and not accept it as the beginning of everything? I agree, even if the sequence of 'false beginnings' goes on for eternity, we should still have our minds open to these possibilities.
the scientific consensus is heading in the direction that there was no beginning and there will be no end. the big bang is merely the point we can't see before. but yes all hypothesizes should be explored but equally most should be discarded or reformed after this process. this is what happens and will continue to happen unless people like Neal get their way and every one can say that they have the 100% truth and if you don't agree you are a idiot.
The accusation of the "argument from personal incredulity" is just a big banger gyp to cover their blatant irrationality.
But something like that is being used here. Since people are not used to the idea of new mass creation they are coming over all incredulous and saying the most stupid stuff.
But new mass creation must be possible. Or the mass would not be here.
first of all, get off Einsteins back. He didn't even want to accept the expansion theory. It didn't sit right with him. You'd know that if you got your information from actual science books rather than random internet websites.
Big bang says nothing about how the singularity got there in the first place.. it only explains how it spread out. The universe is still being spread out as we speak. and no, that doesn't mean new matter is being created.
i hate how people like you waste real scientists time by making them explain themselves to uninformed ignorant children like you. You doubt modern science in its entirety, yet you enjoy it's pleasures every day of your life, and choose to insult the hand that feeds you
There is no way for it to move in the way you describe except by new matter creation. Go diving all around the coast and you will find that the continents are locked in by miles and miles of solid sea floor. Miles and miles in all directions.
what a load of horse sh**!
DAndrewL1 3 weeks ago
If continents are always forming and others are falling under others due to having less mass, how come we have a Pangea and other theories of how the Earth looked so long ago if maybe there were other coninents present and some that we have today may have not been formed?
rhinnawi95 5 months ago
is this for real? it's like an onion clip. totally discrediting.
ezcondition 6 months ago
"How can an island uproot itself from the ocean floor?" Really? Is that what plate tectonics mean to Neal Adams? And could he please describe the mechanism by which the earth is growing?
But perhaps its better not to. We wouldn't have these delightfuly retarted videos if mr. Adams knew geology or the scientific method.
MoebiusPan 7 months ago
@MoebiusPan lol @ the irony of derogating something with the term 'retarted'
noahevans 5 months ago
What a load of horseshit! 1) The theory of plate tectonics never argues that 0:45 "an island can uproot itself from the ocean floor". 2) Adams is clearly not aware or the fact that the mineral composition of top of Mt Everest is marine limestone, which utterly destroys his little "hypothesis".
This Neal Adams buffoon argues like a Creatard on smack, and anyone who buys his plate of shit is an outright fool.
skoockum 7 months ago
using language like "stupid" and "Preposterous" is not professional. In fact it places your thesis at risk. Try to keep your obvious prejudices out of the presentation.
thinbutfun 8 months ago
@thinbutfun Trust me, if he excludes his prejudices, he won't have a single thing left to say.
skoockum 7 months ago
The matter of this planet started in a very compact/dense state.This planet is breathing/growing.Relative to the fact that everything grows.Theory of relativity.Everything alive is growing.This planet is growing in its complexity and its energy. This planet is being fed energy, therefore it is producing energy. Nothing is pure stagnant.Everything contributes to everything else..This planet is being raised to be a star/ultimate contributor..This planet will go on to raise its own family of stars.
jdace00 8 months ago
@jdace00 wtf no Planet will EVER bekomme a Star
SuperJonathanmatthew 6 months ago
@jdace00 Everything grows? This was a fact I am unaware of. Not EVERYTHING grows. The theory of relativity doesn't say that everything is growing.
Planets don't grow up to become stars.
Stop trolling.
jreed136 2 months ago
final fantasy music?
SirVaughnElric 1 year ago
I was waiting for an explanation of the mountain growth, and he never explained it. What is "folding" and how does something like that can happen if Earth is expanding?
DjScudMissile 1 year ago
what about the oceans, was all of early earth under water, and why doesnt the coastlines recede at a rate parallel to the groth rate as fluid dynamics would suggest, but in this we see them increase, and continue to do so???
yazerith 1 year ago
And the new matter comes from where?
FSMnoodle 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FSMnoodle the hole in his head
skoockum 7 months ago
do you think as the earth expands the inner core decreases? Ive heard of this theory some time ago may be why ancient civilizations said mother earth :?
SNaRF66666666 1 year ago
make so much sense! everything is growing the universe is expending..so make sense
pulsare21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here for a while ,But the powerfull Oil business won't alow common ppl to know this,Get a real free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the energy revolution!
polysemousncrk 1 year ago
Science is a lie!
Kox300 1 year ago
And so than what is Hawii? What are those pimples from earths youth like you get when your a teenager??? lol
ASexyChef 1 year ago
what an absolute load of bollocks
ninemen123 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
The Oil companies are trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common people.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating your own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
offertorycardiacml 1 year ago
this is a cool theory, not sure if it makes any snese, but its intresting indeed
Kox300 1 year ago
neal adams is a total fool he doesnt even think his stupid arguements thru let alone check facts.
Cliams dinsaurs died out because they couldnt migrate from europe to africa, so they froze to death.
Ignoring the facts
1) Dinosaurs where warm blooded
2) The majority of the dinosaurs didnt migrate from europe to africa
3) Didnt explain why the cold blooded reptiles didnt die out.
When I pointed out his failures
He deleted my comments and blocked me
gorilla199uncensored 1 year ago
this doesn't explain the findings of marine fossils (shells) in the Hymalayas... how did they get there when ther has never been see in that place? and how did they get up there at over 7 km high? the currnt explantion answers that very question! you have to find some answer yet.... you are very good at fabricating "facts" , so I 'll wait for your vid on this subject )
mmiaso 1 year ago
have you heard of plate tectonics
slushpuppy3340 1 year ago 4
Be careful! This guy blocks you if you ask too many questions that he cant answer!
mrlungsballs 1 year ago
nealadamsdotcom What do you define as blurred? How large is large enough - what is the minimum diameter/mass of an object to start expansion? How can some gasses still be on some planets like Venus - but have no water? Why did the solar wind just blow the water away? Is water a by-product of the expansion mechanism? If the Earth is expanding @ 25" per year - why do we measure the moon (via laser from earth) moving away @ 1.49"/yr from us? Wouldn't the reality be 1.49"+12.5 inches (25"/2)?
mrlungsballs 1 year ago 2
it's ALLWAYS a conspiracy when their beliefs are challenged... nutters.
didjabringadidjalong 1 year ago
i just assumed this anyway u bell end
liambrown0 1 year ago
Adams is just another conspiracy nut. Every time he's challenged to provide evidence he has nothing to back his ideas up with. Science grows by an unfettered search for the truth, not by making videos to support sci fi. If he had any evidence, he'd have presented something by now. Hilariously he won't even dare publish, he insists people buy his 'paper' though. The world is full of conmen trying to make a quick buck, even off science.
This is why we need more schools.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago 2
@Ozzyman200 You are just another ignorant sheeple. Just in case you forgot, the earth is no longer flat. Most of you people argue against this kind of concept BECAUSE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT.
TTribaLL 1 year ago
@TTribaLL
Youtube is full of your type. All capslocks and mouth, but no reasoning. You need to start thinking for yourself and not just believing everything you hear.
"Just in case you forgot, the earth is no longer flat. "
Wrong. The Earth was never flat. Obviously you never learnt any science.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
Well... lets do some basic physics here. When molecules are farther apart then that means an object is hotter, and closer cooler. So how is the earth getting larger... is the temperature from the earth rising and we are on a giant balloon...lol. Also, if that is correct, then eventually the moon will be pulled onto the earth because the earth's mass would increase its gravitational pull. Neal Adams... go die in hell
jewfrodavis 1 year ago 2
@jewfrodavis Actually it would be even worse. The mass of the Earth would remain the same but its density would be shrinking drastically, thus decreasing gravity by huge amounts. The moon, as well as everything on Earth, would go flying into space.
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
@EmperorofCartoons Do you have evidence that what you say is true? Cause to be honest you are just another random you tuber that THINKS your opinions count as facts, When in fact they dont. Come back with evidence, and btw a THEORY does not count as evidence. Here is a fact for you to ponder, the sun and ALL stars go through stages and IN FACT GROW. Funny even stars that are at a later stage then earth still have planitary bodies within its gravity. Your opinion is no more then missinformation.
TTribaLL 1 year ago
@TTribaLL Are you asking me for proof that gravity is related to mass and density? Thats like 9th grade science. An Earth that has the same mass, but spread over a larger area would move the surface of that mass further away from the center point. Yes the gravity would remain the same at the same distances, but the proportions would decrease as the surface moved outward
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
@TTribaLL (And thus the moon would move outward to scale and experience less and less gravity as it moved further and further from Earth's core.). For the moon to experince the same gravitational pull and the same stability of orbit as before, it would have to orbit INSIDE the radius of this hypothetical Earth. The same thing happens to stars as they expand and go into their red giant phase. Some planets, the nearest ones, get engulfed, while others slowly scale outward
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
@TTribaLL maintaining the same distance to scale as they originally had, but experiencing less and less gravity the further they move from their original distances from the sun's center. Eventually they would reach a point where the gravitational pull would not be sufficient to hold them in place and they would drift off or fall into the sun.
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
I am so convinced that Neal is either an idiot with no clue how dumb he sounds, or he's an evil genius trying to see how many fools he can get to go along with his bizarre divergence from reality. That's not too hard to do when your target market is religious fundamentalists and fanatics.
Time for Occam's Razor. Which is simpler: That a brilliant artist with a very successful career actually believes this stuff, or that he's making bank on the fundies?
dcs002 1 year ago 2
wow... the lack scientific understanding in this video is flabbergasting..
i suppose you're a supporter of the "we didnt land on the moon" and "9/11 was planned by the us govt" conspiracies too :P
xollst 1 year ago
troll
ecpruthless 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. Let´s take long chutes from different materials into the space and place
telescopes to them to observe some known place of a star. If the energy that
comes to the chutes makes the photons moving in the chute to bend towards
the chute, we can this way observe that this star concerned seems to be in a
different place than it is known to be!
Etimespace 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4. Even Einstein once told us that the massive the object is, the slower the
time is.
In relation to the size of a star there is much more energy / substance in
the stars than in the photons. The substance / energy is denser in the stars
than what it is in the photons. The time of the stars is so slower than the
time of the photons!
Etimespace 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5. This way the time of the old photons is faster than the time of the new
photons and the photons radiating from the stars do not tranfer their
kinetic energy to the photons passing by the star as much as the photons
coming towards the star do. This way the light bends at the same time it
passes the star without supposedly the star would bend the space!
Etimespace 2 years ago
Neal I didn't know you had a whole video on this when I posted my text comment on your Earth video. About the Himalayas. Now I will have to ponder this whole thing much longer.
DrakeDorosh 2 years ago
This is bullshit. The Himalayas have fossilised seashells in the rock at the highest summits meaning that they were once seabed rock.
Pianoman8 2 years ago
Pianoman & okuma- From the rate of spreading in the Indian ocean ("behind" India's alleged path) we can derive the rate of subduction "in front" of India. Yes, there is fossilized marine life there. The trouble for PT is with the timing: when the rate of spreading (and of subduction, according to PT) was highest, at 50 to 100 Ma, the H. "region was a shallow sea receiving quiet sedimentation, with no sign whatever of ...[the turmoil, etc] which should have accompanied rapid subduction there."
sathearn 2 years ago
cont'd
The quote was from S. Warren Carey, the grandfather of Earth expansion. The existence of marine life there is hardly sufficient evidence for the existence of a deep ocean separating India and Asia. A number of leading authorities on the region have argued the contrary, and a recent major book on The Origin of Mountains (Routledge, 2000) argues "from facts about mountain landscapes rather than theory" that mountain building in general is incompatible with plate tectonic explanations.
sathearn 2 years ago
megalodon shark teeth fossils can be found on top of mt everest so india would still had to have been an island or at least mt everest material was submerged under water ,india land border of today was at least first to seperate from africa as tectonic stretch marks show that india was either draged or pushed from the south eastly direction ,earths core is like a pop corn were the curls in the core effects the friction of larva which mix with other materials like dust and form a new crust
okuma0kuma 2 years ago
this video is utter twat talk. if you don't like the earth go live in heaven and leave us in peace.
jeremyhillaryboobphd 2 years ago
1:25 would be cool
luztazz323 2 years ago
im with you willsmackyoudown, we probably don't know JAK. Still youve gotta have an idea cos thats what makes life interesting.
Wupmister 2 years ago
Take a good look at the map at 51 seconds. No mention of the mid ocean spreading clearly visible in the audio.
And attaching rockets to India is Reductio ad absurdum, ergo; your argument is lost.
kayakboyuk 2 years ago
The truth is the scientific community doesnt deal with common sense. Once they make up their mind they go in that direction. Since they cant prove this theory other than showing common sense you cannot take it scientifically. It doesnt mean its not true. Im beginning to think we have no clue about anything on this planet.
willsmackyoudown 2 years ago
While proof for subduction is scant (understandably).I haven`t seen any proof,evidence, nor experimental work done by EE`rs. (Except for these innaccurite cartoons).
Scientists dont build on just theories, they build on theories that have been proven by several methods. Then it becomes a building block which they hypothesize & theorize whether the blocks fit together for a working model. It`s an ongoing process, but it`s better than watching cartoons.
waycooltoo 2 years ago
Okay... what are the odds that the continents fit perfectly together when you shrink them? Dont you think thats a little too coincidental? Yeah i think so too. What abou the other planets Neil has done? When you shrink them they fit perfect as well? and if you are talking about the amazing science of geology please dont make me laugh. Of all the sciences geology is the worst. Those guys have absolutely no idea on how the earth works or how it was made. Just speculation and hypothesis.
willsmackyoudown 2 years ago
Science always makes opinions out to be facts. Dont believe me? Then explain Dark Matter? Dark Matter is easily the dumbest theory for how the universe works yet even though scientists have no clue on what exactly it is or how it works they claim it is there and on top of that they write books about it. I bet you my left nut sack cosmology is bullshit and the entire universe operates on electromagnetism
willsmackyoudown 2 years ago
It doesn't worn on electro-magnetism. Allow me to explain... the universe is comprised of 11 noticeable dimensions corresponding from a space to time. The problem is scientists got it all wrong.
It is a factor of which gravitons are able to react with one another that shapes our very universe. The four dimension as Newton correctly stated is Mass, not time. Time is a greater dimension. And all these dimensions correspond upwards towards energy and then finally super gravity at the end.
Tom101229 1 year ago
So if the earth was a tiny ball of solid land originally... where did all of the water for the oceans come from? Did it just magically appear? Or did the magic water fairies come from outer space and put it there?
Shadymonkey 2 years ago 2
ugh... just ugh.
so a continent moving is a ridiculous idea, but an entire planet growing is PERFECTLY REASONABLE? I did some calculations and found that Earth would be 29% of the volume it is today.
Please tell me where this other 71% came from.
Xanqui 2 years ago 20
From my horsely issue.
8dahar1 2 years ago
@Xanqui
What calculations? What do you base this on, give me a published article on your hypothesis also go fuck yourself.
This is what happened, and it proves the earth is growing, we don't know WHY the earth is growing but we do know that it indeed is. We also know that subduction and slab pull is pretty much impossible according to physics, crust can't be forced into the mantle because the mantle is much denser than the crush!
LSDlucid 1 year ago
@LSDlucid At least one person so far doesn't have their head up their ass.
TTribaLL 1 year ago
@Xanqui Not to mention this sort of "growth" would play hell with the Earth's magnetic field as well as gravity, as the density within the interior would have fluctuated wildly. Which it would have to do as one must surmise the interior of the Earth has been growing increasingly emptier as this growth has gone on, rather like the inflating of a balloon. Unless we are to believe the density of the earth has somehow stayed stable, which then you to ask where all the extra mass has came from.
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
@Xanqui U WERE ONCE A BABY WHERE DID THE REST OF U COME FROM?
9xxxxxxxxx 1 year ago
@Xanqui That's my problem too, also, where did the water come from? And the whole force thing is explained too, the mass of the continents is definetly large enough to make the Himalayas. Earthquakes can make hills, in less than 15 minutes because the plates push together with so much force.
KirbyRoolz47 1 year ago
@Xanqui This theory makes more sense then your so called calculations.
TTribaLL 1 year ago
@Xanqui Haven't any of you guys ever heard of the Hallow earth Theory! Gee whiz!!
PlainObserver 1 year ago
@Xanqui well I'm no scientist but couldn't density come into play here? if the gravity was higher for that smaller planet would it not be more dense. and because space has no gravity could the earth expanding into space (path of least resistance) making it less dense but have the same amount of material.
heath832 7 months ago
@heath832 good idea but every object in the universe has Gravity (mass) more mass more Gravity bigger objects therfor pull on space not space on the objects infact Albert Einstein found out that gravity bends space like a ball on a rubber sheet now if you put the earth on a gigantic sheet of rubber it will bend it
now the video above said it is possible that earth is growing and therfore rolling uphill
SuperJonathanmatthew 6 months ago
@SuperJonathanmatthew I realize that. I don't think anyone is the stupid. I was saying that because the vacuum of space and rotation of earth and those kinds of drivers could in theory be pulling the earth outward where earths mass tries to keep itself together. lets say there was magically no gravity at all on earth, bits and pieces would just break off and fly into space. Couldn't it be possible that even with our gravity this is happening over time? Again I'm no scientist just a thinker.
heath832 6 months ago
@heath832 If magically there was no gravity, then no... bits and pieces would NOT just break off and fly into space because THAT would require gravity to pull it apart. I think that what you meant to say is if the centrifugal force gravity were greater than the gravity of the earth's mass, THEN bits and pieces would break off. This would require an immense amount of energy to build and sustain the necessary rotational speed (like a supernova). However, I commend your thinking on the subject!
ThreeDigitIQ 5 months ago
oh my goodness. his arguments hold about as much water as someone trying to defend geocentrism. what a hack.
"india somehow uprooted itself" he is oversimplifying plate tectonics and his graphic shows india as the only thing moving. what a crock.
instead of feverishly poking holes in other theories and offering yours as the only alternative, how about suggesting a process by which the earth could expand, and set out to prove it through experiments.
geminyo 2 years ago
Isaiah 41:18
I will *open* rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys: I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water.
Proverbs 8:24
When there were *no depths,* I was brought forth; when there were *no fountains abounding with water.*
Isaiah 44:24
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; *that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself:*
bozie09 2 years ago
@bozie09 Taking the Bible as literal fact/history/science...
You succeed only in missing the point of the Bible.
jreed136 2 months ago
Isn't California breaking off? lol gf
cwbskateboarding 2 years ago
The formation of Italy, which is both montainous and volcanic is only a problem if one is fix in thinking the ripples would no result in that zone, have you any reason which states that this could not be the case other than the explain that was provided by others? The same goes for any mountian range or valley for that matter.
BrutusCass 2 years ago
w8...mild mountaining?....
how exactly do mountains form through this hypothesis?
that is NON VOLCANIC mountain ranges.
thinkppl 2 years ago
Lol, why isn't this stuff submitted to peer review, again?
And why is the earth expanding exactly? xD
FyreDeity 2 years ago
The earth might be expanding just like the sun is and just like the universe itself is, as is our own culture and species expanding in one big evolution...
peteyOZ 2 years ago
Solar/Stellar expansion: Nuclear Fusion.
Universal expansion: Kinetic energy/momentum
Culture expansion: War + Telecommunication
Species expansion: Migration + War
Yes, earth expansion must be due to the exact same reasons as all those other things. =/ You gotta do some more work on your superficial new-age theories there, buddy, cuz they ain't be holdin' up, yo. I recommend the following courses @ your local comm. college: SOC, ASTRMY, COSM, ASTR PHYS, ANTHRO. Revise your theory accordingly.
FyreDeity 2 years ago
Im not asking for a scientific explanation :/ nor cheap arse sarcasm. What im trying to say is everything in life is expanding or evolving so why not the earth? Science cant prove astrology and yet it exists and has done for thousands of years. Dont forget that "superficial new age theories" can eventually become common knowledge(scientific fact) and without such theories we dont ever redefine the boundaries of our existence. Science has only just started to unravel the mystery of the matrix.
peteyOZ 2 years ago
Science can't prove astrology because any self-respecting intellectual knows better than to give in to the hype. Astrology is NOT science, but a relic of our specie's dark-ages. Why you think it's legit... I can only infer.
You don't need "new age" theories. You need scientific theories. With mathematics and physics behind them to justify the claims; not arms in thrown in the air and claiming truth from ignorance. THAT... is how you redefine boundaries... not wishful ideology and superstition.
FyreDeity 2 years ago
You're not asking for a scientific explanation?!?!
BULLSHIT!!
When you propose that the Earth is expanding, you're proposing a goddamn scientific explanation!
"Science has only just started to unravel the mystery of the matrix"??? You do know that's a movie, right?
Have you ever even heard of critical thinking?
Arfalarf 2 years ago
OMG this guy is so stupid, please ban him from youtube.... if earth had grown it would be flat ya dick... it would not have mountains...
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE AMONITES (sea creatures) FOSSILES ON THE TOP OF HIMALAIAS???? by your theory thats impossible........ and yet.... they are still there
Gonzaga78 2 years ago 2
Um fossils on the Himilayas can be explained by meteorites hitting earths oceans and creating massive tsunamis... Alternatively if the earth was much smaller and it grew, then the oceans would of been on top of the original land and as the expansions took place the sea levels changed and moved away from the higher latitudes. Have an objective mind when watching these things. Banning someone for having a point of view is rather stupid, the idea of youtube is to be able to express ideas.
peteyOZ 2 years ago
Wow dude, sounds like you have really nailed the coffin in the standard theory. Maybe you can just explain why there are ophiolite complexes in the Himalayas, or why there is such a massive lateral offset of Indochina to the east? Or then again maybe you can explain why the Deccan Traps has the same radiogenic signature as the volcanics of the much younger LaReunion and Mauritus Hotspots?...There is no evidence in the Himilayas to suggest that what you just said is remotely true. Good day.
Kable3141 2 years ago
Ophiolite complexes have been standard business in the plate techtonic theory... so what. Its still a theory. So what ur saying is now we have "decided" how the world has formed we can stop thinking about it forever? If a meteorite half the size of the moon hit the world the tsunami created would be able to spread sea animals to the highest peaks. Im not going 2 sit here trying to prove anything, im not afraid 2 be wrong or have out there theories either. I just have an open mind.
peteyOZ 2 years ago
if u would speak portuguese i would explain it better to you, i can't cause i don't speak english that well to name the correct names of hapennings and all that.... let me just ask u a thing.... have u ever been in school? or have u took any lessons of geology?
Gonzaga78 2 years ago
Are u trying to be condecending? Im not saying what ive said is fact, im merely putting past a theory to explain why there might be fossils on the himalayas. What i do know is that what is taught at school is sometimes not the whole truth. Geology and Geography are my top subjects btw... having an objective and open mind is healthy.
peteyOZ 2 years ago
i've an open mind, but i'm not that naive to eve consider this theory.... if geology is realy your top subject u should know that pangea's theory explains a lot more things than this idea does....
Gonzaga78 2 years ago
Yes, maybe it does explain more and thats probably due to enormous amount of research that go into keeping the pangea theory afloat. Seeing as this idea is relatively new im going to give it a few years and see just how much research is going to go into finding out the truth in Neal Adams theory. I remember "global warming" being some kooky science gobbledegook and now it seems that has been taken on board as "fact", albeit for governments to hijack the meaning and abuse it... time will tell.
peteyOZ 2 years ago 2
@peteyOZ You don't have to wait very long for the evidence on the expanding earth theory. Believe it or not, the theory didn't originate with Neal Adams. It's been around for 121 years (almost 2 centuries if you include Darwin, who proposed it in 1834 and rejected it a year later). Guess how old the theory of plate tectonics is? 98 years. The evidence is in, my friend, and plate tectonics, the newer of the two theories, won by a landslide a long time ago.
dcs002 1 year ago 2
@dcs002 The fault of the plate tectonics theory is it forgot to consider the growth of the pacific ocean floor, not just the Atlantic. They proved the Atlantic grows wider roughly 3.5cm/year times that by 200,000,000 and you get 700,000,000 cm or 7000km. Give or take random fluctuations and you get roughly the span of the Atlantic. The funny part? Want the real sick truth? The pacific ocean floor was also proven to be newer near the rifts, MEANING IT FOLLOWS THE SAME DAMN LAWS!!!
TTribaLL 1 year ago
@TTribaLL Plate tectonics fully explains the age and the size of the Pacific Ocean floor. Oceanic crust runs like a conveyor belt, from rift to subduction, regardless of the direction of the continents, and regardless of what Neal and his out-of-context use of others' work says.
I pulled out of this conversation weeks ago after many PMs with Neal and much debate on other videos. I'm really not interested in continuing it. There's no science here, and no room for a scientist.
dcs002 1 year ago
THE STUPID, IT BURNS!
SoFoSTheWise 2 years ago 2
I agree..
Yorrike > Neil
I mean.. Folding??? The "jet motor" argument is ridiculous, because the mass of the continents could easily create enough force to make the mountain range..
JesterAzazel 2 years ago 8
well who knows who is right... its all theory anyway.
ShaunMood 2 years ago
Hmm I have to think about that one... when someone uses those same fossils to justify Noah's ark, plus the evidence that most of those fossils were too young to be on the mountains when you reverse the movements and match them with time, It makes not much sense; especially since some of the fossils were of animals that were supposed to live at a certain water pressure that made it virtually impossible for some of them to be on the land where they are found. I'll have to look at that closer.
kermitdfrogz 2 years ago
or you can try to understand uplift. by the way tomato soup and silicates aren't homologous. nether is open soup meeting air and magma meeting water.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
There exists no known mechanism for a growing earth. It defies the Law of Conservation of Matter, i.e. matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Unless he's hypothesizing that we're gaining matter from somewhere (and if you do the math, meteor impacts can't cut it), he's breaking the laws of physics.
Further, I love how he talks about an island uprooting itself from the ocean floor - IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY - Neal Adams needs to learn how plate tectonics works. What a moron.
Mnementh2230 2 years ago
How could the upper crust fold without tectonic plates?
usernameofnobody 2 years ago
exactly, all he does is sais it in a way that makes it sound true with no evidence basically only gullable people would believe it. know what my auntie probabaly believes this but then again she also beleives the earth is hollow and that there is an entire universe in there (like the tardis) and people guard the entrance at the north pole. SOME PEOPLE eh what can you do?
OuchIHurtMyNuts 2 years ago
lololol
how does I grow earth?
okristian1 2 years ago
No, it's a backlash against the sheer stupidity of ignorant people like you!
Nightmare060 2 years ago
stupidity? You're so stupid, you can't even see that other planets and the Moon show the same growth.
Retard.
pixelsword 2 years ago
provide some evidence. is there any peer reviewed literature i can find on this?
Cnidarious 2 years ago
Geez, peer-reviewed literature. The classic "don't ask me to think" response.
Like Einstein's "peer-reviewed" literature... like he had a peer when his theories were presented.
But if you want actual evidence, visit the guy who made this video's website, he shows on it how the moon and mars shows the same growth without the benefit of plate tectonics or erosion.
Or, you can get pictures of the Moon and Mars and do the research yourself.
But that requires thinking for yourself as well.
kermitdfrogz 2 years ago
sir I have studied both. it's bunk. just like with earth he alters the features to make them look like they fit. now I'm not the one not thinking for myself you are. you let people think for you if they claim that it's a conspiracy against them. how about you do some work before claiming people who have don't.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
you know what also requires thinking for yourself?
Proper Scientific Methodology.
Show this to some Real geologists and cosmologists and see what there view of this is, see if it holds up under scrutiny.
If someone can refute you in the Public scientific medium and provide a better explanation, run tests and otherwise eviscerate your position then its completely unjustified. If want "actual evidence" i will explore post secondary accredited institutes of science and read proper papers.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
@kermitdfrogz It has nothing to do with thinking for yourself. Any idiot can look at a planet, shrink it and make all the pieces look like they fit together. Most rocky planets work the same way ours does, through plate tectonics. The plates/continents aren't the same ones he squishes together - especially on earth. The continents extend beyond what is visible on maps.
All I see from Neal is half brained ideas coming from an ARTISTS perspective. As an artist myself...
jreed136 2 months ago
Respond to this video... As an artist myself? I can tell you that you do not want to blindly follow another artist. We can make things fit together, but we can't really explain how or why. He doesn't explain how or why. He just fits shit together. That's it.
jreed136 2 months ago
Cnidarious, you're polite. Get some soup that can make a skin. When the soup makes a skin, break it apart and try to move the parts independently without causing massive gaps of liquid; most plate tectonic theories don't work under something that's the same model. either the soup has to be heated for movement (crust breaks down), or unless there has to be open areas of liquid soup on one end and massive mountains on the other. India & other plates are dead on the side that should have movement
kermitdfrogz 2 years ago
Your metaphor is not a good one.
there is a reason why plate tectonics is accepted and your magic growing earth is not.
Employ some critical thinking please.
Cnidarious 2 years ago
@kermitdfrogz Plate tectonics is a LITTLE more complicated than soup skin. Ugh.
jreed136 2 months ago
no we can see and measure the opposite on very body out to Uranus. solar wind is slowly eroding every thing is our solar system.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
The opposite what? I'm sorry, I'm missing your point here.
kermitdfrogz 2 years ago
the comment "no we can see and measure the opposite on very body out to Uranus. solar wind is slowly eroding every thing is our solar system. " was in reply to the comment "stupidity? You're so stupid, you can't even see that other planets and the Moon show the same growth.
Retard. "
sorry if you can't follow a simple conversation line.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
This has got to be a joke!
Two words:
PLATE TECHTONICS!
Learn about it.
Nightmare060 2 years ago
The only joke here is assuming that this guy hadn't already researched PLATE TECHTONICS.
overclock8586 2 years ago
Just when you think people can't get any stupider, somone always comes along to prove you wrong!
Nightmare060 2 years ago
You imply that stupidity is rampant, yet you absolve yourself of such an accusation. You might even imply that stupid people aren't even aware of how stupid they are. Just imagine how wrong you could also be without even realizing it. Don't make any statements claiming anything fact or fiction. Who are we to confirm anything. But we can still have an open mind and pay attention to anything thats any form of information. So call me ignorant, thats expected, but realize I don't call you stupid.
overclock8586 2 years ago
Well I wasn't under the impression that this video was satire. If it was, it was too good! Hence why I said "this has got to be a joke".
If it is not a joke, this guy must be very ignorant and/or stupid because of making a wild conspiracy theory without doing any actual research.
Nightmare060 2 years ago
i think it's healthy to question the standards every once in a while.
i'm not saying we should throw away current ideas for it, just that an imagination and an open mind may direct us into new paths of information.
why do you assume he has not done his research?
naturally what he says challenges the status quo, so it would seem that what he's saying is in disregard for the current popular theory.
at 2mins n 59 secs, surely this isn't a college course on the theory. so it's just some key ideas
thechene 2 years ago
Well this person used logical falacies, such as Apeal to common sense and Straw Man Arguments. From what is actualy said it is more than likley this person is just ignorant like young earth creationists.
I am not a master at physics, but this person has presented little evidence to show that it is even POSSIBLE for a planet to "grow".
I have seen drama docs on reconstructing dragons which give more plausible hypothosise than this. I didn't origionaly rant cause I doubt this guy would listen.
Nightmare060 2 years ago
plus if you watch closely in some of the other videos the shape of the continents get changed as do the canyon wall shapes in his mars videos.
satanisthetruegod666 2 years ago
go to his page, go to science, go to videos and discussion. scroll down to the discussion and read it. just from a grammatical and spelling standpoint it's poorly done, from a science standpoint it's even worse. Do you know the mechanism he reccomends? pair production, if you're not familiar wiki it. and he has more than 20 videos, a poorly written "letter to science" and a "project made easy" cartoon all of which show a basic failure to understand basic astronomy and geology.
that's why.
satanisthetruegod666 2 years ago
"why do you assume he has not done his research?"
growingearthdebait(dot)mybb3(dot)org(slash)neal-adams-growing-earth-framework-f8(dot)html
this is a list of his core claims. all unsupported, most in direct contradiction of branches of science including but not limited to:
Earth / Planetary Geology
Physics
Palaeontology
Cosmology
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
I have to laugh at the appeal to common sense. Our common sense has been reproducibly shown to make false assumptions about all sorts of things. If common sense could be trusted in complex circumstances beyond those which it was evolved to deal with, then we would have little need for science.
AtomicHorror 2 years ago
neal adams = idiot
anarchycastro 2 years ago
This is so depressing. Worst thing is, people are gonna see this vid not knowing how dumb it is. Educate yourself.
ShaunBoreland 2 years ago
Did Neals mom drink when she was pregnant, this guy is fucking retarded?
dah2nd 2 years ago
wow. This is very fucking smart. So magma and molten rock just appeared inside the planet and made it bigger? I mean, seriously, growing planet?
ArtypNk 2 years ago
if the earth was as small as he claims 200 million years ago, where is the water that filled the oceans?
satanisthetruegod666 2 years ago
if you mean the water that fills the oceans. it would have covered the planet.
guthleeglutz 2 years ago
to a depth of 5115.5 miles, I did the math...
satanisthetruegod666 2 years ago
You're right, given the mainstream explanation it wouldn't be possible =). Research "The Great Deluge", a catastrophic event where all cultures of the earth recorded a massive flood of water. With this information, its possible to assume that the ocean wasn't as prominent prior to this event.
overclock8586 2 years ago
actually i know about it, but since culture only started within the last few thousand years the most likely explanation for this is the end of the last ice age, when global ocean levels rose dramatically. it was this event which submerged the beiring land bridge cutting off North America from Asia. thus it has no bearing on the topic at hand.
satanisthetruegod666 2 years ago
But it has everything to do with the topic at hand. You asked where the water went, I presented an option. Your unwillingness to listen to this idea is completely tied to your fixation on Plate Techtonics theory. Under its theory, the Great Deluge is explained as the end of the Bearing Straight. Yet growth theory claims that no Bearing Straight existed, and that the flood was tied to a massive influx of ocean water. (Possibly post ice age). These things make the Deluge important information.
overclock8586 2 years ago
ok, let's say for one minute that you're right, that the great deluge does explain where the water was, so the question is, how much water was stored in ice? 10%? 50%? more? and if it wasn't in ice where was it?
and if no beiring land bridge existed why is that the point that is the most likely origin of the native americans crossing over to North America? and what about 200 million years ago, when there was no ice age, where was the water then?
on a serious note watch my videos on the topic
satanisthetruegod666 2 years ago
i would like to comment on the authority of information.
I think currently even renowned scholars are in debate about this.
it may feel difficult to believe or change perspectives because of the torrent of information that's out there with academic authority on it.
perhaps overclock is asking us to entertain his idea with respect, and perhaps it is worth imagining a world in which our current sense of time and scale is very different
once the authorities believed the earth was flat.
be open
thechene 2 years ago
I've given it serious thought and as far as I've seen it has too many holes in it. Besides, it's been around as long as plate tectonics, it's been submitted to peer review and as of yet, plate tectonics still won out. maybe in the future they'll explain it, but at the moment there are just too many holes in it.
and understand i'm making a statement, i'm not attacking you, just pointing out that I haven't seen any proof other than some models that don't prove anything.
satanisthetruegod666 2 years ago
What music is used in these videos? It's pretty good.
jparagons 2 years ago
The fact is you've got nothing. No serious reasoned comeback at all in the face of what I'm telling you.
You people are not scientists and have no affinity for science. You are merely religious believers.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
Well thats true . So what is your point fatty? There is no such thing as a singularity. Essentially its an idea invented by mathematics. Its got nothing to do with real world observations.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
on a different page gmb wrote, "There is nothing supporting the existence of a black hole at all. If by a black whole you are meaning something with a SINGULARITY inside of it."
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
lol why are we even bothering. He's just writing down words and putting periods at the end hoping to come out with meaningful sentances. He spent an hour saying how stupid einstein was and then said einstein was right to reject the stupid rapid expansion. lol
i don't think he's even reading his own messeges lol.
YourBooksAreWrong 2 years ago
I haven't argued with him for more than a day. I should've kept my word on doing so after he argued about the existence of brontosaurus. I mean really who doesn't know about apatosaurus being most of the skeleton and the head being wrong.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
people who don't know how to look things up. that's who,
YourBooksAreWrong 2 years ago
Brontosaurus will do fine as a name. I know its not the right name technically but thats no important detail fatty.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
Einstein wasn't stupid. But special relativity is. You cannot defend it.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
seriously man, i can't fuckin take this anymore. How many fuckin times are you going to say special relativity sucks, and then i have to tell you, that's why he refined the theory. i can't fuckin take your childish horseshit anymore. You are the worst debater i've ever seen. You ask questions.. then get an answer... and then ask the same question again.
Seriously...
write more fuckin useless crap on here if you want, but i'm done. i can't take your fuckin bullshit anymore.
YourBooksAreWrong 2 years ago
You fail logic 101. If the refined theory sits on top of the failed theory then its no good and can only be considered a template for calculations. Like a set of tables or something.
There is a heirachy of reasoning there. And if patches of great reasoning sit on a foundation of error, then still the entire edifice is wrong. And like I said must only be considered an aid to local solar system calculations.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
What we are seeing here is the absolutely irrational fury of the religious devotee in the face of a faultlessly reasonable heretic.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
he dose that all the time.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
No real scientist would have fallen for the transparent idiocy of the big bang. Anyone who falls for that is likely to be a CO2-Bedwetter as well. And really just a glorified welfare recipient.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
i'm goin to work. when i get back you better have something intelligent posted here, otherwise just don't bother.
YourBooksAreWrong 2 years ago
he won't.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Everything I've said here is intelligent. You are just a moron who cannot justify his religious belief in the big bang. The big bang is just Genesis with a thin veil. Its the immaculate conception of matter, space, time and everything. Its an idiots theory invented as a short-cut to having to think about reality. Its not an answer to anything. But a denial of the need to find answers. Its not evidence for anything. Rather the denial of the need for evidence.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
Are you saying we should ask what came before the big bang and not accept it as the beginning of everything? I agree, even if the sequence of 'false beginnings' goes on for eternity, we should still have our minds open to these possibilities.
DoctorFist 2 years ago
the scientific consensus is heading in the direction that there was no beginning and there will be no end. the big bang is merely the point we can't see before. but yes all hypothesizes should be explored but equally most should be discarded or reformed after this process. this is what happens and will continue to happen unless people like Neal get their way and every one can say that they have the 100% truth and if you don't agree you are a idiot.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Bullshit you are going to work. You are too stupid to have a job.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
The accusation of the "argument from personal incredulity" is just a big banger gyp to cover their blatant irrationality.
But something like that is being used here. Since people are not used to the idea of new mass creation they are coming over all incredulous and saying the most stupid stuff.
But new mass creation must be possible. Or the mass would not be here.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
first of all, get off Einsteins back. He didn't even want to accept the expansion theory. It didn't sit right with him. You'd know that if you got your information from actual science books rather than random internet websites.
Big bang says nothing about how the singularity got there in the first place.. it only explains how it spread out. The universe is still being spread out as we speak. and no, that doesn't mean new matter is being created.
ARG!
YourBooksAreWrong 2 years ago
Einstein was right to reject the notion of inflation. Its an idea only for idiots. Pure fantasy.
The problem comes with the cult of personality where the people reject the cult figures good ideas and uphold his stupid ones.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
i hate how people like you waste real scientists time by making them explain themselves to uninformed ignorant children like you. You doubt modern science in its entirety, yet you enjoy it's pleasures every day of your life, and choose to insult the hand that feeds you
YourBooksAreWrong 2 years ago
You are not a real scientist. You are a moron.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
The earth grew from new mass creation.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago
There is no way for it to move in the way you describe except by new matter creation. Go diving all around the coast and you will find that the continents are locked in by miles and miles of solid sea floor. Miles and miles in all directions.
GMBCATASTROPHE 2 years ago