@jgbloyd If THIS spreads,..then the next out must spread, and the next out, and the next and the next. Where does it go?
2. Look for the whole Mars video. It's up.
3.Earth Growing is merely the model of the GROWING universe. It's our local example. Tip of the iceberg.
EARTH is not unique in any real way. It's a mote. It merely follows the rules, as do all planets, Suns,Larger moons, Solar Systems, Galaxies and the UNIVERSE of MATTER. Same-Same-SAME.
@nealadamsdotcom "Same-same-SAME" would not be observable because then our measures would also expand, including the continents and ourselves. Instead, we observe rates of expansion relative to other rates, which may be even set to negative or flat (i.e.; continents). I don't get why your positing a mysterious universal expansion rate that is absolute and unobservable for something that isn't and can be measured except that maybe you're just following this tradition of doing so.
@jgbloyd No, If all the children GROW,.. their little rulers don't GROW.. Nor do their clothes. That's why we buy them new clothes.
2. There is NO "expansion rate". There is a "GROWTH RATE"! ("Expansion" is a relic of the Big Bang that was an explosion ) GROWTH RATE IS observable! And Measurable.
@nealadamsdotcom Then I recall my comment. Your observations are good, but your theory is, well, unrelated and perhaps even contradicts your observations, as I understand it. You seem to be saying that spacetime is expanding and not the size of the planet relative to crustal plates. Yes, no? By what measure are you using?
@nealadamsdotcom So what exactly is your theory then? What is the "matter universe"? Obviously, it doesn't include crystallized rocks of the continents, right, since they aren't growing? So, is it that matter grows until it crystallizes?
@jgbloyd HUH? Growing assembling MATTER is a process that take place in the BIGGER FACTORIES of the universe. Little can happen in the CORE of an asteroid,..but at the core of , say the MOON or Earth, LOTS of stuff is going on. Call it the Universe's kitchen, for cooking up NEW MATTER!
Suns? Well. SUPER KITCHENS. SUNS can build their own Solar Systems! AND DO!
Neal, does it ever even dawn on you that you may be wrong? You just sound foolish. Where does the mass come from? Why doesn't the pressure cause spiderweb type fractures? Why is there no geothermal activity? Do you understand that you're just a comic book artist with no scientific training but a lifetime of conjuring fantasy instead? Blimey, Neal I still love your art but I fear you're barking mad and right stupid as well.
@nealadamsdotcom I have seen some pictures, that's it. maybe you can link to some scientific paper or something on that topic? some guy throwing in his opinion with some pictures is not really evidence.
Why is it that it seems to be the aim of all astrology videos to put earth down by saying everything on earth is smaller, slower, less spectacular than other planets. Sheesh , somebody say something nice about earth.
Mars IS slowly growing. As are all the planets which receive bulk from meteors.
The rest of the theory is bollocks.
Mars used to have oceans. They were lost to space over a period of billions of years. Solar wind burnt them off, because the gravity on Mars was not strong enough to hold water molecules permanently in place. Simple.
Was Mars hit by an asteroid causing it to lose its moisture. Just still wondering why more water would not fill in the lower lands as on the earth growing concept
@rebokism no matter is being added. if the core's matter is alot denser.. so twice as much of matter in 1cm³ than on the crust.. and the matter in the center is pushing the matter on the crust outwards, while the sea is cooling down the warm matter that creates new crust underseas, it doesnt involve more and new matter out of thin (.. um.. air would be inappropriate i guess.. lets say.. ) vacume :P.
this growing earth and planets theory is flawless and mindblowing and no longer a working theory anymore. everything makes sense this way. thanks for these videos - actually it's a revolutionary idea that it in fact grows.
As with people saying that evolution is a lie, you have seriously misunderstood the science that backs a theory up. This theory is not taken seriously by most scientists, simply because it is not plausible.
@reemstrrr why would it be bad just to think its possible planets can grow in size? im not saying i believe its true btw, just saying, no one really knows anything
Mars shows no such expansion as you claim. The Valles Marineris is the only region that comes close, and it's because of the local magma bulge under it. It's clear if you look at the whole planet. (and you can't use water eroded valleys as proof either!) Also, in the cases of the other planets and moons it's your animation or local effects that make it look like they are.
@ninjaphile Are there people as dumb as you taking out our garbage and working in our businesses?
No wonder we voted George Bush in to ruin the country, and simply can't allow a good intelligent president to do his JOB. Circle the wagons Jeb, we're surrounded by IDIOTS, who cut off access to their BRAINS
@jest3r00 There is NO EMPTYING CENTER. It's the same density everywhere. I study Balistics. THIS ISN"T A BIG BANG. which would be a thin expanding shell that was slowing down! WRONG on ALL COUNTS. Big Bang comes directly from OUR STUPIDITY and GULLIBILITY.
The "UNIVERSE" is not NOTHING. (I don't know what "NOTHING" IS. It ain't "SPACE". Space slows down radiation to a given speed. That's SOMETHING!)
"Space", the UNIVERSE is PRE-matter. Tiny EM fields, INFACING, and dense as steel.
It may be that 'dark matter' is involved in the process of expansion. However, Einsteinian physics does not provide a workable mechanism. It may be necessary to consider a physics which is based on a unified field theory in which celestial bodies 'grow' out of an electromagnetic convergence field. The law of E=mc2 may no longer be valid.
@marcusgael dark matter = ignorance of science?If ou listien to a explaination of dark matter sounds very close to god lol. When science doesnt know its dark matter or dark energy or dark flow lol when religious people dont know its god.
If Mars and the Earth are growing, then it would have to be because of the heat from the core. If this is the case, then when the planets get to a certain size all the heat from the core should be gone or what remains should easily escape very rapidily. Maybe Mars grew too quickly and that is why it is a dead planet
Thank you, I have made similar observations. Now try the rest of the planet. My estimation of earth expansion brings the earth to about 50% of current size if regressed to continental margins. IMO it can be reduced to 35% and perhaps even less. I would also guess 50% for Mars - perhaps also less.
Gents and Ladiez- This theory ends in geology, but it begins in physics. Without the physics, this is just the observation of the result. Go to nealadamsdotcom. The physics paper is there. Read it first, then comment. The answers to 90% of your questions are in that paper. I can't summarize the paper here.
Gents- Numbers are going up here faster and faster. If you want to help, Invite people to watch. Post this video on other sites. I won't be upset. In fact, I'll love it. Start debates anywhere you can. Send people to nealadamsdotcom for all the videos. Invite physicists and physics students to buy the physics paper there. I don't know what the hell they're so afraid of, but the physicists are the worst. They think this is only geology. Is there lead in the water?
SoyCool Physics IS logical and almost exactly like putting together a puzzle, Except it can take a much longer time to figure it out. It took me 30 years.
Well, yes, but I said sometimes. IMO you shouldn't rely on logic...because it only works if you already have something else to work with that is known, and not venturing into the unknown or something that defies your understanding all together. AMBIGUOUS??? I KNOW RIGHT.
I can't remember the examples, but I remember learning about physics in which logic was defied. :)
Nope. Sorry. The "laws of entropy" are harder to break than you think. Basically, it would take an infinite amount of time for the entropy of an isolated system to decrease.
Hi Neal, Just want to say thanks for the vids. You really changed my perspective on the world.
This might be a bit cheeky - but I think that you should make an animation showing just how impossible subduction is. The current models are all shown on 2 d cross-sections - eliminating the impossibility of demonstrating how a curved brittle light crust which is of bigger surface area than the mantel can dive at 45 degrees into the mantle. They also avoid showing how underwater mountains...
Gents, 12 additional similiarly incredible videos FREE at nealadamsdotcom Additional videos and the physics explanation is also available for $20.00 to view for a month, whether to review, discuss, or/and show others.
Neal, your answer to the scientific community is simple and elegant. It goes back to the idea that the simplest answer is usually the correct answer.
Using the simple models showing the stretch marks under the Pacific, one can easily see that the Earth is growing. I have always thought that there must be up to thousands of tons of matter falling onto the earth from space. Why, take a look at archaeological digs! You have to dig down to see the older material! What could be simpler?
I meant to say:"falling to the Earth from space on a daily basis." I live in California, where the sky is the clearest on the continent, and I see meteors all the time. Well, if I see all these meteors looking at my tiny portion of the sky, during a short time--maybe 20 minutes/day on average--think of all the material there must be falling to the earth 24/7 all over the surface.
yay! i must say neal, as a kid i had been taught the Grand Canyon had been formed by the Colorado river. well! I believed that until i went there, and while the v-shaped river canyon was there in the bottom, the rest of the event was a huge stretch mark. just like on the belly of a woman from a baby. folks will argue the details, but the event is obvious. thanks for your video
neal, your models after a couple of years still make perfect sense to me. i recommend you to take a closer look at the 'electric universe' model of wal thornhill e.a.; i think everyone could vastly benefit if you got together to discuss a few things.
Hi! Your theory is extremely seducing and elegant, however I find the twisting of alaska somehow suspicious. If alask was twisted under syberia, how come it created no unsignificant mountain ranges at the north of alaska when it got untwisted?
Guildedhelm In fact it DID form a twisted set of mountain range uplifts at the North Eastern area. It spirals into a circle there like pivoting hinge.
nashertheathiest As a religionest, you clearly believe in magical answers like BIG BANG and PANGEA THEORY and Rogue Planets ripping 2/3's of the crust off of Earth and making a moon out of it.
NASA, however disagrees with you and says these are TECTONIC in NATURE.
Oceans are immaterial for any tectonic requirement except for instantly cooling new oceanic plate material. YOU, ARE INCREDIBLY UNINFORMED.
Big bang theory is actually not a magical answer. It simply states that if you reverse the growth of the universe you will ultimately find it in an infinitely dense spot, and then calculates the properties down to after the planck-time using general relativity, which is an entirely different theory, and which accurately meassures the heavy and or very fast particles we can observe.
There is no evidence that O2 causes plants and animals to grow larger. Oxygen is an oxidizer not propellant! Gravity however, being less, would account for the massive sizes for dinosaurs. And yes, there were smaller ones but who is to say the smaller ones found in fossils did not die at a young age?
This response marks the very last iota of my time that you will waste.
I hope you *are* 25. If you're not, and are in fact significantly older, then you have lived for many more years as an imbecilic moron than I feared - and your poor use of punctuation is even more reprehensible.
Re. bus: Just before you mistakenly meld the phrase "shut up" into a single yelled word for the first time, you imply that fundamentalism is a good thing. This reassures me that society would not mourn your passing.
By the way - and you'll love this - I too can click a link, moron, and I've seen your profile. Gosh, you're 25! Damn, you got me.
Your profile confirms my suspicions. You're the one throwing wrenches. I have nothing personal against Neal, just the lack of systematic methodology behind his claims. However, from your page I can see you have many enemies on the 'net. Perhaps it is because you are a rude, ignorant conspiracy theorist with a problem making friends.
This guy is a goon who advocates something called "Expanding Earth". It was a hypothesis used in the late 1800's to explain how the continents fit together so well and how fossils and minerals can be identical in different islands so far apart. Basically he says that Earth is expanding and has quadrupled in size. This gain in mass is impossible. We now know that this "Expanding Earth" hypothesis is false and that continental drift via "Plate Tectonics" is the explanation.
So bottomline is that Neal's theory has hurt your feelings and he's not being fair to the scientific community who have spent their life's work parrotting a flawed theory?
I give up caring. This lacks rigorous scientific method and as such is no more valid as an explanation of anything than the spiel a Jehovah's Witness might churn out. I have an open mind, but not open enough to bother considering superfluous, disorganised and desperately contrived theories. Prove me wrong. Publish a paper. Just shut up about the conspiracy crap.
but If you want some academic bona fides? check out the work of Dr Samuel Warren Carey. This is the guy who pretty much invented plate tectonics and subduction. Unfortunately he couldn't get it published in 1956, his paper was rejected by the peer review system.
Since then, they've changed their minds. now it's your dogma. Here's the kicker: Carey soon discarded it himself, in favor of a better theory: the expanding earth. Published a book by that name in 1976.
Science is a knowledge of what man observes happening & finalizes its rules like day & night changing seasons etc. But vice versa nature is showing changing its laws from time to time at different places. Many rivers change their track by earthquakes of different intensities. Black holes show static time or no time. These are all hints that Creator of the Universe exists and observes how his orders of becoming a human being are being followed. Man must be humane and not wild any more.
The earth is constantly being explored a lot regarding land, water & human needs & new discoveries are always there whenever man starts his search on new topics. What needs to be studied is the Creator of Universes Manual Quran
And One Cant Capture Knowledge About Anything but Whatever He (Creator) enlightens. The Holy Book gives a lot of light upon the laws of the creator, their violations and frequent change in the laws. It is so far the best book on natural laws in each branch of science.
People that don't accept this are just part of that "the earth is flat" crew. They exist in every generation either out of ignorance or just to protect the status quo. Great stuff Mr Adams.
Incidentally, if all your theory really hangs on is the fact that shrinking a planet shows plates will fit back together perfectly (and most of your "airtime" is devoted to the fact you think your theory does this where accepted tectonic plate theory does not), you should really re-examine your deductive approach.
Why not spend some of your time devoted to something useful instead of trying to discredit the "Scientific Community" like they are indeed a homogeneous conglomerate? Shame.
Is this crack dated to the same time period as Eaths expansion? say..not before 65mya? What triggered this event? Why didn't the earth expand before this point?
except this picture on it's own proves nothing unless you show the other side of the planet.
for now it's just a crack.
sure, Neal sounds convincing for you. but you're not a scientist and your science knowledge is minimal. a few hundred years ago many people would find preachers and their flat-earth theory very convincing too!
it all comes down to same thing: are you ready to investigate it on your own or just blindly "sell" yourself on what you're told?
It's interesting that you claim that the current scientific community is misleading everybody for their own 'gain'. I could just as easily say that you are misleading everyone for your own interests.
Which would be more likely? Thousands of leading scientists with doctoral degrees from the best universities in the world... all lying to us. Or you and a handful of misguided followers with your high school knowledge of art.
What FOLLOWERS? KNOCK,KNOCK,...it's just me, pal. Try not to lose focus. Those others are our JUDGES, not 'followers'. Which is more likely, a "CARTOONIST" or all the scientists in the world?
History tell us "The Cartoonist!" A new idea or discovery does NOT come from the masses, EVER! IT COMES FROM A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL, ALWAYS, and spreads. AND...at first, it is not, EVER believed or accepted BY ANYONE, ESPECIALLY ,..by the "experts."
You seem to be against the fact that common sense can disprove a scientific theory. Have you ever seen the video about the man who figured out how stone henge was created? It proved it perfectly and simply, using common sense. Scientists and others with degrees have been fretting over how it was done for years. One retired construction worker figured out the only logical way for it to work with the tools they had to use. Greeks knew the Earth was round from its shadow on the moon. Common sense.
Just because something makes sense in terms of animation frames, doesn't mean that all the currently held laws of physics are being broken to create matter from nothing in the centre of the Earth. You've arrived at a conclusion and have invented the evidence to support it. Tectonic plate theory has multiple disciplines of science supporting it but yours only has a cartoon explanation.
Get some more solid data before you stop misrepresenting science to all of the young minds out there.
First you insult my profession and background. Then you display your ignorance with your own munderstanding OF SCIENTIFIC LAWS. I am rewriting "THEORIES", not "LAWS".
Then you accuse me of concocting and "Inventing" EVIDENCE. Then I am misleading everyone for 'my own interest'. What interest would that be? TRUTH?
Then you ask"Which would be more likely? Thousands of ..scientists...all lying to us...or a handful of ..followers..of etc?"
Yes I am insulting your background because you pose a scientific theory without even a basic knowledge of science. Do you have a science degree? I would never let someone near my teeth if they hadn't studied dentistry before.
How about I give you some advice on drawing cartoons?
Gents. To get the full impact of the videos, there's a dozen of them on nealadamsdotcom. If you want more of the theory, while you're there you can also drop a double sawbuck and get the full presentation. The dozen videos will rock your clock.
So... if the surface is continuously stretching and there is proven fact for the corrosion of the mountains then how do you explain all the rising mountains at the meeting of the fault lines like the Hymalayan Mountains, that are said to be due to the rising earth's crust over the tectonic plates pushing against each other?
If the theory of growing earth is true, than shouldn't we be having ever flattening mountains due to stretching, instead of rising ones?
Digitally squishing together tectonic rifts hardly validates claims of planetary expansion. Your assertions lack empirical evidence to give them substance.
It would be interesting to find some information contradicting paleomagnetic evidence that the earth's radius has changed only 3% in the last half-billion years (not to mention studies of inertia indicating even less). And then of course there's the mountains of evidence that subduction is occurring.
Jambeeno Let me see. How about the incredibly simple fact that two thirds of the PALEOMAGNETIC crust that you speak of DIDN'T EXIST 200 MILLION YEARS AGO???? Are you guys out of your minds? How can you prove something with something that DIDN'T EXIST? Because someone wrote a paper that YOU don't UNDERSTAND? THE OCEANIC PLATE THAT YOU TAKE PALEOMAGNETIC DATA FROM .....DIDN'T EXIST! Hellooooooooo!
Don't put words in my mouth; I didn't speak of any "paleomagnetic crust." That doesn't even make sense; the earth's magnetism comes from molten material beneath the crust. Paleomagnetism is the study of old magnetism. That the seafloor is 250 million years old is irrelevant; the earth was magnetically active long before that.
If you cannot speak to me as an adult — that is, without the ALL CAPS and the chiiiiiiiiildishly lengthened words, then I've no reason to continue discourse.
I'm under the impression the Mariana Trench in the Pacific has the oldest sea floor known to man... perhaps the first dramatic crack in earth due to rapid expansion?
This Rift Valley on Mars looks like it could be the same thing... Theoretically... Mars could be a young earth as opposed to the concept of it being an older "dead" earth equivalent.
The sheer size of the martian volcanoes on earth could essentially be the result of a colder and thicker mars crust... which is being cracked and punctured with volcanoes due to a massive increase in heat energy within the interior... Erosion on mars can't be significant enough to hide volcanoes as fast as earth does... these volcanoes are part of a new period in the planets development perhaps?
MrKappaBeta , The "Valles is Mars' first deep rift, Not unlike the Rift on Earth that began between Eastern North America and Africa 180 MYA. Yes, it is a "young Earth" sans water. It's the only basic difference. The oldest Deep ocean floor, on Earth is mid-Pacific. Look up "Crustal Age Map."
Thank you for the term... You wouldn't happen to know why many authoritative references say there is absolutely no tectonic movement on mars would you? How does one look at a planet from a distance and determine that there are no plates in motion?
MrKappaBeta , People want to define things, and be believed. Story. Bout 5 yrs ago I wrote to NASA (Who said there was no tectonic movement on Mars for 30 yrs) I gave my vids and observations. NASA announced, after a 5 year study they believe tectonic movement on Mars "like Earth. I was proud of myself,...until I found out that an entire 5 grade class(project) Wrote to NASA giving observations and photo proofs of tectonic growth. Every kid in the class. HEH,HEH. Funny. Humility is good.
some people keep saying that this theory is completely wrong because they think it says that mass is being created, when what's really happening is that when the magma cools it expands, and leaves gaps, which makes it look like mass is being made, when its just taking up more space
i dont see how thats possible, cuz matter cant be created or destroyed, and if the earth is growing AND gaining mass its ridiculous because mass is how much matter is in an object, so where is the matter/mass coming from
your comment doesn't make sense dude...ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. this is a fucking joke. this dude is a comic book writer for the green lantern...he is not a scientist. watch his shit, laugh, and move on... he is a joke.
This is one of the more bizarre theories I've heard! I'm not a professional geologist, so I'm not really qualified to critique it, but it seems rather suspicious. How can the earth be expanding if its mass is not changing and the force of gravity is a constant? How do you explain phenomena unique to subduction zones? What would it take to falsify this theory? What would it take to falsify plate tectonics?
Also, why do you insist that there is a "conspiracy of scientists" working against you? Accusing your opposition of conspiracy is a great way to destroy your credibility, if that's what you're aiming for! And why do you speak so condescendingly of scientists? I don't think they are as dumb as you say they are! I don't understand why you are taking this approach (going directly to the public) instead of submitting it for peer review first.
It's just a heading on youtube. Sam Carey , who Created this theory 50 years ago lost the battle to subduction and a terrified Geological community.
I'm not a scientest. I'm an artist/writer/designer and I've studied this for 40 years.
I think the scientific community betrayed it's "calling" and it's creator. Yeah, they are that dumb, but we all are. We wouldn't recognise our nose if it wasn't on our face. Sam Carey "did" peer review, out the wazoo!
Vlog. Bizarre? You don't think plate tectonics isn't BIZARRE? That Geology tells us that ALL the continental plate "met" for a "gathering" on ONE SIDE OF THE EARTH, and the alllll the rest of the Earth ,2/3's of it, was OCEAN 3 miles deep?
NOT the Earth GROWING and the crust simply cracking and staying in the same relative place, unmoving while the oceanic plates just spread apart? GROWING, not expanding. Balloons 'expand'.
200 MYA Earths 'big animals were 4 to 5 times as big as today's.
Neal, I really enjoy your vids. My question to you is, what are they trying to hide from us if what you suggest is true. That the Earth is expanding and growing? What would be the purpose to mislead? Money, power,control?
Also, I was surprised when I found out on youtube that you have drawn some comics! Pretty interesting life you lead!
Angriest American, When one theory WINS out over another as standard Geology did over Prof Sammuel Warren Carey's "Expanding Earth", The winner doesn't want that same theory to come back stronger and better and their theory having gotten weaker after 40 years of investigation. Growing Earth-Growing Universe will turn 40 years of success upside down. Bitchy-bitchy, If you'll excuse the expression.
OK.. the planets (Mars and Earth so far) are growing. OK.. where does the extra mass come from? If the planet like a balloon, with the growth coming from inside? Physics involves conservation of mass. With no explanation of WHERE the mass is coming from.. the theory will be mocked. I admit it is worth investigating, but I was wondering what YOUR thoughts were on the expanding mass.
Neal you need to sit with one of my old college prof's Dr. Scotese on plate tectonics and subduction. He has studied it for years he just might educate you a bit. keep rockin with the comic art.
hitoallandme, Dr Scotese and I have communicated and we both belong to the group called Growing Earth-Growing Universe. Thank Tou for your good feelings.
Take a look on the other side of Mars. You can see that something hit it, its burned. The shock went all the way thru the planet and created that bulge on the other side. Mars atmosphere was blown away totally due to this.
I had believed something like this for some years, but Warren Casey's book really clinched it. I had not been able to fully visualize it until now, so thanks for completing that important step.
Frankly, I never found the pangea theory compelling and subduction with "convection of solids" is hocus-pocus.
Who cares how many scientists believe in nonsense or how many papers they write about it? A theory has to agree with observed facts and make sense. The prevailing theories do neither.
Wow, Neal you figured out a divergent plate looks like congrats! HAHA! Notice the awesome volcanic arcs due to this divergence, hot spots are apparent as well on Mars.
Gentlemen. To get the full impact of the videos, there's a dozen of them on neal adams dot com. Warning, like this one, they're a kick in the stomach. If you want more, and the theory, while you're there you can also drop a double sawbuck and get the full blast of the presentation. Or not. The dozen videos will rock your clock.
Gentlemen. To get the full impact of the videos, there's a dozen of them on neal adams dot com. Warning, like this one, they're a kick in the stomach. If you want more, and the theory, while you're there you can also drop a double sawbuck and get the full blast of the presentation. Or not. The dozen videos will rock your clock.
It's a hypothesis, not a theory, and to be more precise, a falsified hypothesis. It's dead. But that doesn't mean you won't still use it to draw dubious attention to yourself. I'm sure everyone appreciates your artistry, but you have no place in geology or Earth science for you can't seem to comprehend what the existing science already tells us. Sorry to say, you're no Alfred Wegener.
jff, Apparently . your view and the other knuckleheads who are writing periodically. Others are studdying this, discussing it , now in classrooms, certainly writing to me and watching the videos,....increasingly, waiting for PROOF. clues, evidence, support. Watch the numbers. You are becoming the VOCAL MINORITY. I don't lose. Cause I've done my homework.
Well if you've done your homework, it's time to write that paper and submit it to a journal don't ya think? But there's that little problem though, it would only be a concept paper because there is something that this hypothesis lacks, it's called evidence. Did your homework happen to include the scientific method?
just quoting what you said..and the ultimate truth considering the subject at hand not in general. Its obvious the earth has grown as well as other planets. I'm curious to see what you have contributed? Honestly though, what else can better explain earths natural movement? Nothing, in my opinion, makes more since scientifically and mathematically.
You got me there, but I said it in the context that the existing science already tossed away that hypothesis 70 years ago. In my response to you, I said it in the context that I'm not ignorant to recently published literature. Planets to accrete, they do grow. But we already understand the mechanisms, but there's details missing. Hence the machine of science, it never stops. But now we're asking questions at much higher level of understanding, not pseudoscience like Neal's hypothesis here.
understood...but its the lower level of understanding that the majority has no idea about...thats what Neal is trying to do here..expose this to the majority or in novice terms. Pangia, or what you were taught in school on the subject, is not right. I agree the other, tougher questions are more interesting. if its growing, where is all the mass coming from? Is the earth really one giant geode? Interesting stuff...
I've no doubt that there's an awful lot of forgotten knowledge out there.Sometimes looking at such complex questions for so long you lose sight of some of the simpler things. But when so many ideas are drawn upon a central idea, theory, e.g. plate tectonics, evolution, gravity, anything published in it's reference is evidence to support it. Not much room for error there, if it can exist in light of these central ideas.
Jffry. BUT the "Proof is everywhere". Every bit of "tectonic" proof is the same proof for this theory, Geologists say that the Atlantic did spread open. So does this theory. Geology has finally said the Pacific spread open. WHAT??? But, they say it must've spread open 750 MYA. WHAT? This theory says,,'No, 180 MYA, and the proof for this is in the Crustal Age Map produced by GEOLOGY, in which there is no deep ocean plate older than 180 MYA all around the world. What is left to prove???
Because geologists have known for a very long time that balsaltic crust is HEAVY. Heavier than CRATONS. For that reason, and that reason alone, oceanic crust is constantly renewed. And it's because of, and I know you're not going to like hearing this, but because of SUBDUCTION, and, pun intended, there are MOUNTAINS of PROOF. The basics man, the basics.
maseross. Physics is more messed up than geology,(If such a thing were possible) This 'novice' may not work by the standard methods, but I argue those forms will never get to the proper conclusions , until it jumps up and bites 'em in the face. (Or nature unfolds the proof BY EVENTS) No logical deducing from amassed evidence then proved and reproved. A Positron must become a Proton in the lab. Earth must itself prove the outer core is a plasma. An accident must prove Rodinia broke up 180 MYA.
Incidentally, not to tell you what to do, but maybe you should rename these vids. I mean, "Conspiracy of science" is an eyegrabber, sure, but it makes it sound a bit more fringey, you know?
Also, just in the interests of keeping track of it all, maybe slightly different names. Say, Earth vid 1, Mars vid 1, and so forth.
One other thing - got anything on Venus yet? Near-twin of Earth, size-wise, recently mapped, and it's got that whole reverse-rotation thing going...
Incidentally, not to tell you what to do, but maybe you should rename these vids. I mean, "Conspiracy of science" is an eyegrabber, sure, but it makes it sound a bit more fringey, you know?
Also, just in the interests of keeping track of it all, maybe slightly different names. Say, Earth vid 1, Mars vid 1, and so forth.
One other thing - got anything on Venus yet? Near-twin of Earth, size-wise, recently mapped, and it's got that whole reverse-rotation thing going...
I caught this a few weeks ago. An interesting model, and I can see on the Earth model how they all fit together. However, I have a few problems with it.
The underlying mechanism for generation of mass within the planet. Lesser gravity of a smaller world, re: the gravitational requirements for holding an O2/N2 atmosphere.
Also, I understand you're disclaiming the Big Bang and the meteor that nailed the dinosaurs. I don't see how the one (expansion) rules out the others, esp. given the evidence.
The Big Bang has the evidence of the Comic Microwave Background Radiation, predicted by the math years before it was detected.
The dinosaur thing has the crater in the Yucatan peninsula, with the shocked quartz as secondary proof, and the layer of iridium blanketing the planet at the 65 mya mark.
The physical model seems to work, as I said. The mechanism, that might take some time to figure out.
But the Big Bang and the dinosaur bit, I don't see planetary expansion negating those two.
nightflyer. At the beginning I had no idea it would spread to cover all this. 1. Earth Grew, from making mass at the inner plasma core , starting with Pair-Production and ending with atoms assembly in the EM field in the plasma outer core. Seems almost unimportant. If Earth grows, it always grows. Then... all planets, fair size moons, suns, Solar System, galaxies grow always. Yikes. The Universe GROWS, NOT EXPLODES. Looks the SAME. New matter. Doesn't explode onto existance.
Well, I don't know much about plasma physics (apart from it makes for a nice decorative globe), so I couldn't really debate that point, except to say that the Ni/Fe core model seems to work well enough for now... but that sounds interesting. A little strange, but interesting.
Re: the big bang. That wasn't so much an explosion in the usual sense as a rapid expansion. And the CMBR, predicted by the math of the model before being detected, seems to confirm it.
nightflyer If all the granitic continental plates were joined on a smaller planet. And there were Shallow seas on 2/3 of that plate, and NO MOUNTAINS to impede Dinosaur migrations,... Dinosaurs would migrate hemispherically. They would evolve massively long legs and these migrations would be THEIR WAY,.. unless the continental plates broke up north to south. They would die off as mammals slowly advanced (And ate their eggs, that they LAID ON THE GROUND.) Survivors? If they could fly over rifts.
No, I follow the bit about dino migration, sorry if I was unclear. It was referring to their relatively sudden extinction at the end of the Cretaceous.
All physical evidence I'm aware of (iridium layer, Yucatan impact crater) points to a meteor impact, causing a nuclear winter (or meteor winter, if you will) and mass extinctions of much plant and animal life. Maybe not the only factor involved, but a major one, maybe the "last straw," so to speak. You seem to discount the possibility.
I like the concept all around. keep up the good work.
sms042 3 months ago
Comment removed
jgbloyd 3 months ago
@jgbloyd If THIS spreads,..then the next out must spread, and the next out, and the next and the next. Where does it go?
2. Look for the whole Mars video. It's up.
3.Earth Growing is merely the model of the GROWING universe. It's our local example. Tip of the iceberg.
EARTH is not unique in any real way. It's a mote. It merely follows the rules, as do all planets, Suns,Larger moons, Solar Systems, Galaxies and the UNIVERSE of MATTER. Same-Same-SAME.
nealadamsdotcom 3 months ago
Comment removed
jgbloyd 3 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Same-same-SAME" would not be observable because then our measures would also expand, including the continents and ourselves. Instead, we observe rates of expansion relative to other rates, which may be even set to negative or flat (i.e.; continents). I don't get why your positing a mysterious universal expansion rate that is absolute and unobservable for something that isn't and can be measured except that maybe you're just following this tradition of doing so.
jgbloyd 3 months ago
@jgbloyd No, If all the children GROW,.. their little rulers don't GROW.. Nor do their clothes. That's why we buy them new clothes.
2. There is NO "expansion rate". There is a "GROWTH RATE"! ("Expansion" is a relic of the Big Bang that was an explosion ) GROWTH RATE IS observable! And Measurable.
nealadamsdotcom 3 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Then I recall my comment. Your observations are good, but your theory is, well, unrelated and perhaps even contradicts your observations, as I understand it. You seem to be saying that spacetime is expanding and not the size of the planet relative to crustal plates. Yes, no? By what measure are you using?
jgbloyd 3 months ago
@jgbloyd I say NOTHING about "SPACETIME",..whatever that is. It is not the universe that is expanding, but the MATTER UNIVERSE.
You are making it far to complicated.
nealadamsdotcom 3 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom So what exactly is your theory then? What is the "matter universe"? Obviously, it doesn't include crystallized rocks of the continents, right, since they aren't growing? So, is it that matter grows until it crystallizes?
jgbloyd 3 months ago
@jgbloyd HUH? Growing assembling MATTER is a process that take place in the BIGGER FACTORIES of the universe. Little can happen in the CORE of an asteroid,..but at the core of , say the MOON or Earth, LOTS of stuff is going on. Call it the Universe's kitchen, for cooking up NEW MATTER!
Suns? Well. SUPER KITCHENS. SUNS can build their own Solar Systems! AND DO!
nealadamsdotcom 3 months ago
Neal, does it ever even dawn on you that you may be wrong? You just sound foolish. Where does the mass come from? Why doesn't the pressure cause spiderweb type fractures? Why is there no geothermal activity? Do you understand that you're just a comic book artist with no scientific training but a lifetime of conjuring fantasy instead? Blimey, Neal I still love your art but I fear you're barking mad and right stupid as well.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
allright, now let's see the evidence.
Crosell 6 months ago
@Crosell You've seen it.
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I have seen some pictures, that's it. maybe you can link to some scientific paper or something on that topic? some guy throwing in his opinion with some pictures is not really evidence.
Crosell 5 months ago
@Crosell stretch marks aren't attractive, but they exist.
Huffdaddy1999 4 months ago
Here is a paper where scientists are estimating the degree that Mars shrank...
"Magnitude of global contraction on Mars from analysis of surface faults:
Implications for martian thermal history"
As Mars cooled, it shrank.
Diamonddavej 6 months ago
nealadams......I KNOW Mars has tectonic plates. They may even still be moving.
But you are trying to prove that Mars is significantly GROWING!
And you call ME an idiot who believes in fairy tales????!!!!!!
chiltington 6 months ago
Why is it that it seems to be the aim of all astrology videos to put earth down by saying everything on earth is smaller, slower, less spectacular than other planets. Sheesh , somebody say something nice about earth.
AzumiRM 6 months ago
Mars IS slowly growing. As are all the planets which receive bulk from meteors.
The rest of the theory is bollocks.
Mars used to have oceans. They were lost to space over a period of billions of years. Solar wind burnt them off, because the gravity on Mars was not strong enough to hold water molecules permanently in place. Simple.
chiltington 7 months ago 6
@chiltington You, sir, are an idiot. Worse, an idiot who believes in Fairy tales.
IF An ocean isn't stable/possible NOW, how could it have been POSSIBLE THEN?
Tectonic spreads do NOT REQUIRE AN OCEAN, knucklehead.
nealadamsdotcom 7 months ago
Was Mars hit by an asteroid causing it to lose its moisture. Just still wondering why more water would not fill in the lower lands as on the earth growing concept
sms042 8 months ago
@sms042 Because Mars has a shitty magnetic field. SO it cannot hold water vapor from blowing off into space.
No water vapor, no clouds. No clouds NO RAIN! No rain,....no standing water.
The only water is under ground.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Sorry if I come across as ignorant or colloquial, but I'm just curious.
If Mars has water underground, does that mean that life could be existing underground in Mars??
shadzzz441791 7 months ago
@shadzzz441791 anything is possible, and it's logical that if there is life it will have to be underground.
Even so if it were true, we should see some signs. Big DOUBT.
nealadamsdotcom 7 months ago
Where's all of Mars water and atmosphere. Still trying to understand your interesting concept
sms042 8 months ago
@rebokism Now, that's pretty funny.
nealadamsdotcom 9 months ago
@rebokism no matter is being added. if the core's matter is alot denser.. so twice as much of matter in 1cm³ than on the crust.. and the matter in the center is pushing the matter on the crust outwards, while the sea is cooling down the warm matter that creates new crust underseas, it doesnt involve more and new matter out of thin (.. um.. air would be inappropriate i guess.. lets say.. ) vacume :P.
GoodFortuneOfficial 11 months ago
this growing earth and planets theory is flawless and mindblowing and no longer a working theory anymore. everything makes sense this way. thanks for these videos - actually it's a revolutionary idea that it in fact grows.
CassiusChrysanthe 1 year ago
@rebokism
:D
LamaPaj 1 year ago
@rebokism
Well, to put it simply, it could be true if large quantities of matter could just spring into existence for no apparent reason.
LamaPaj 1 year ago
@rebokism
As with people saying that evolution is a lie, you have seriously misunderstood the science that backs a theory up. This theory is not taken seriously by most scientists, simply because it is not plausible.
LamaPaj 1 year ago
@reemstrrr why would it be bad just to think its possible planets can grow in size? im not saying i believe its true btw, just saying, no one really knows anything
GLICKTON 1 year ago
this my favorite conspiracy
gabydewilde 1 year ago
@javierneptuno Then why isn't it just covered with "DUST".
Lord, save me from the brainless.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom dont pay atention to those ppl its bad for your health
reemstrrr 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Mars shows no such expansion as you claim. The Valles Marineris is the only region that comes close, and it's because of the local magma bulge under it. It's clear if you look at the whole planet. (and you can't use water eroded valleys as proof either!) Also, in the cases of the other planets and moons it's your animation or local effects that make it look like they are.
robkirk0071 1 year ago
@ninjaphile Are there people as dumb as you taking out our garbage and working in our businesses?
No wonder we voted George Bush in to ruin the country, and simply can't allow a good intelligent president to do his JOB. Circle the wagons Jeb, we're surrounded by IDIOTS, who cut off access to their BRAINS
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom My thoughts exactly...
ninjaphile 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Is Obama the good intelligent president you are talking about ?
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@jest3r00 There is NO EMPTYING CENTER. It's the same density everywhere. I study Balistics. THIS ISN"T A BIG BANG. which would be a thin expanding shell that was slowing down! WRONG on ALL COUNTS. Big Bang comes directly from OUR STUPIDITY and GULLIBILITY.
The "UNIVERSE" is not NOTHING. (I don't know what "NOTHING" IS. It ain't "SPACE". Space slows down radiation to a given speed. That's SOMETHING!)
"Space", the UNIVERSE is PRE-matter. Tiny EM fields, INFACING, and dense as steel.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom HOLY FUCKING SHITBALLS! THAT BLEW MY FUCKING MIND!
chainsaw745 1 year ago
@chainsaw745 Don't worry, some asshole will try to talk you out of what you just saw with your own eyes.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@jest3r00
It may be that 'dark matter' is involved in the process of expansion. However, Einsteinian physics does not provide a workable mechanism. It may be necessary to consider a physics which is based on a unified field theory in which celestial bodies 'grow' out of an electromagnetic convergence field. The law of E=mc2 may no longer be valid.
marcusgael 1 year ago
@marcusgael dark matter = ignorance of science?If ou listien to a explaination of dark matter sounds very close to god lol. When science doesnt know its dark matter or dark energy or dark flow lol when religious people dont know its god.
yourboycal 1 year ago
so if these plates are moving that is why water is appearing on mars, right?
whitekryptonite91 1 year ago
Compare this Video too this one.
watch?v=2wOogk2LSSw
wavepsychic 1 year ago
If Mars and the Earth are growing, then it would have to be because of the heat from the core. If this is the case, then when the planets get to a certain size all the heat from the core should be gone or what remains should easily escape very rapidily. Maybe Mars grew too quickly and that is why it is a dead planet
dubhlinn100 1 year ago
Tell everyone you know, especially students, teachers, Professors all about this.
Encourage them to think, consider and discuss.
It's time for a broader_ debate. The fact that it's necessary is laughable, but it is,...NECESSARY!
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Tell me how the fuck a planet grows without massive collision!?
LamaPaj 1 year ago
@LamaPaj chekc out the growing earth theory.
shoshanish 1 year ago
@shoshanish
It lacks a proper explanation as well.
LamaPaj 1 year ago
Tell everyone you know, especially students, teachers , Professors all about this.
Encourage them to think, consider and discuss.
It's time for a broader debate. The fact that it's necessary is laughable, but it is,...NECESSARY!
If you're interested in more videos or the Physics portion, go to nealadamsdotcom
Spread the word. You will be participating in the next great revolution in science.
Just imagine how rowdy it will get before the truth wins.
Is there anything like this?
Nope.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
that's like stretchmarks on a preggo chick.
pixelsword 1 year ago
what would mars be like now if the core had not cooled by what we know of earth
jcb570 1 year ago
if earth was expanding in the past and if they found a bit of water on mars doesnt it mean that mars could be very similer to earth later on
MrHappypaper 1 year ago
Evidently, you dont understand that WHEN A PLATE CLOSES, IT OPENS AT THE OTHER SIDE.
MARS IS NOT EXPANDING.
mphmm 1 year ago
@mphmm Hellllooo. It's NOT CLOSING ON THE OTHER SIDE!
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom
I bet if you would look at the Plate shift properly (not just a segment) then you would see it /is/
mphmm 1 year ago
Thank you, I have made similar observations. Now try the rest of the planet. My estimation of earth expansion brings the earth to about 50% of current size if regressed to continental margins. IMO it can be reduced to 35% and perhaps even less. I would also guess 50% for Mars - perhaps also less.
philipmarkedwards 1 year ago
Gents and Ladiez- This theory ends in geology, but it begins in physics. Without the physics, this is just the observation of the result. Go to nealadamsdotcom. The physics paper is there. Read it first, then comment. The answers to 90% of your questions are in that paper. I can't summarize the paper here.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
Gents- Numbers are going up here faster and faster. If you want to help, Invite people to watch. Post this video on other sites. I won't be upset. In fact, I'll love it. Start debates anywhere you can. Send people to nealadamsdotcom for all the videos. Invite physicists and physics students to buy the physics paper there. I don't know what the hell they're so afraid of, but the physicists are the worst. They think this is only geology. Is there lead in the water?
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
I'm afraid even physics sometimes defies logic...don't call it a day quite yet. If only physics was as simple as putting together a puzzle.
SoyCool007 2 years ago
SoyCool Physics IS logical and almost exactly like putting together a puzzle, Except it can take a much longer time to figure it out. It took me 30 years.
nealadamsdotcom 2 years ago
Well, yes, but I said sometimes. IMO you shouldn't rely on logic...because it only works if you already have something else to work with that is known, and not venturing into the unknown or something that defies your understanding all together. AMBIGUOUS??? I KNOW RIGHT.
I can't remember the examples, but I remember learning about physics in which logic was defied. :)
SoyCool007 2 years ago
...boulders and water (???) can be sucked into a high pressure, high temperature environment - contravening the laws of entropy.
MrAjjdonnelly 2 years ago
@MrAjjdonnelly "contravening the laws of entropy."
Nope. Sorry. The "laws of entropy" are harder to break than you think. Basically, it would take an infinite amount of time for the entropy of an isolated system to decrease.
terrymorse 11 months ago
Hi Neal, Just want to say thanks for the vids. You really changed my perspective on the world.
This might be a bit cheeky - but I think that you should make an animation showing just how impossible subduction is. The current models are all shown on 2 d cross-sections - eliminating the impossibility of demonstrating how a curved brittle light crust which is of bigger surface area than the mantel can dive at 45 degrees into the mantle. They also avoid showing how underwater mountains...
MrAjjdonnelly 2 years ago
Gents, 12 additional similiarly incredible videos FREE at nealadamsdotcom Additional videos and the physics explanation is also available for $20.00 to view for a month, whether to review, discuss, or/and show others.
nealadamsdotcom 2 years ago
Neal, your answer to the scientific community is simple and elegant. It goes back to the idea that the simplest answer is usually the correct answer.
Using the simple models showing the stretch marks under the Pacific, one can easily see that the Earth is growing. I have always thought that there must be up to thousands of tons of matter falling onto the earth from space. Why, take a look at archaeological digs! You have to dig down to see the older material! What could be simpler?
saturnx311 2 years ago
Comment removed
saturnx311 2 years ago
I meant to say:"falling to the Earth from space on a daily basis." I live in California, where the sky is the clearest on the continent, and I see meteors all the time. Well, if I see all these meteors looking at my tiny portion of the sky, during a short time--maybe 20 minutes/day on average--think of all the material there must be falling to the earth 24/7 all over the surface.
saturnx311 2 years ago
yay! i must say neal, as a kid i had been taught the Grand Canyon had been formed by the Colorado river. well! I believed that until i went there, and while the v-shaped river canyon was there in the bottom, the rest of the event was a huge stretch mark. just like on the belly of a woman from a baby. folks will argue the details, but the event is obvious. thanks for your video
OriginalScratch 2 years ago
neal, your models after a couple of years still make perfect sense to me. i recommend you to take a closer look at the 'electric universe' model of wal thornhill e.a.; i think everyone could vastly benefit if you got together to discuss a few things.
cmoleon 2 years ago
i second this. i mentioned this to neal awhile ago, but he never replied...
TungstenOrWolfram 2 years ago
Hi! Your theory is extremely seducing and elegant, however I find the twisting of alaska somehow suspicious. If alask was twisted under syberia, how come it created no unsignificant mountain ranges at the north of alaska when it got untwisted?
Guildhelm 2 years ago
Guildedhelm In fact it DID form a twisted set of mountain range uplifts at the North Eastern area. It spirals into a circle there like pivoting hinge.
TAKE A LOOK.
nealadamsdotcom 2 years ago
Mars has no plate tectonics. This is because it has no oceans, which are a requirement for subduction to occur.
This Neal person provides no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim that the gash on Mars' surface is a recent scar.
nashertheatheist 2 years ago
nashertheathiest As a religionest, you clearly believe in magical answers like BIG BANG and PANGEA THEORY and Rogue Planets ripping 2/3's of the crust off of Earth and making a moon out of it.
NASA, however disagrees with you and says these are TECTONIC in NATURE.
Oceans are immaterial for any tectonic requirement except for instantly cooling new oceanic plate material. YOU, ARE INCREDIBLY UNINFORMED.
nealadamsdotcom 2 years ago
Big bang theory is actually not a magical answer. It simply states that if you reverse the growth of the universe you will ultimately find it in an infinitely dense spot, and then calculates the properties down to after the planck-time using general relativity, which is an entirely different theory, and which accurately meassures the heavy and or very fast particles we can observe.
Irbubble 2 years ago
Neal, I applaud your videos! 5 stars all the way friend! The truth feels so much better on the soul.
BigNewGames 2 years ago
because there was more oxygen is there air, more o2 more things grow...though the gravity thing is a good idea
oberonfamily 2 years ago
There is no evidence that O2 causes plants and animals to grow larger. Oxygen is an oxidizer not propellant! Gravity however, being less, would account for the massive sizes for dinosaurs. And yes, there were smaller ones but who is to say the smaller ones found in fossils did not die at a young age?
BigNewGames 2 years ago
um yes there is, o2 makes insects bigger, makes fish grow about 20% bigger then whaT THEY WOULD IN THE NORMAL HABBITAT sorry caps!
oberonfamily 2 years ago
how do iget more informed about such things
Jewfee43 2 years ago
This response marks the very last iota of my time that you will waste.
I hope you *are* 25. If you're not, and are in fact significantly older, then you have lived for many more years as an imbecilic moron than I feared - and your poor use of punctuation is even more reprehensible.
Re. bus: Just before you mistakenly meld the phrase "shut up" into a single yelled word for the first time, you imply that fundamentalism is a good thing. This reassures me that society would not mourn your passing.
altudios 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By the way - and you'll love this - I too can click a link, moron, and I've seen your profile. Gosh, you're 25! Damn, you got me.
Your profile confirms my suspicions. You're the one throwing wrenches. I have nothing personal against Neal, just the lack of systematic methodology behind his claims. However, from your page I can see you have many enemies on the 'net. Perhaps it is because you are a rude, ignorant conspiracy theorist with a problem making friends.
I hope you get hit by a bus.
altudios 2 years ago
Comment removed
altudios 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is a goon who advocates something called "Expanding Earth". It was a hypothesis used in the late 1800's to explain how the continents fit together so well and how fossils and minerals can be identical in different islands so far apart. Basically he says that Earth is expanding and has quadrupled in size. This gain in mass is impossible. We now know that this "Expanding Earth" hypothesis is false and that continental drift via "Plate Tectonics" is the explanation.
lordcodicus 2 years ago 3
very nice! you can even tell before hand that it looks liike it would all fit together
better get some cream for that streach mark ;D
Estilum 2 years ago
Alright, so what does it mean? Are the planets alive and growing? What are they eating?
Are universal constants of physics changing and resulting in densities of matter changing?
What is going on?
TruthUpsideDown 2 years ago
The shape of the two canyon edges changed as they moved closer together in your animation...
wongrenjie 2 years ago 2
looks more like thinning out then growing
buster27 2 years ago 2
So bottomline is that Neal's theory has hurt your feelings and he's not being fair to the scientific community who have spent their life's work parrotting a flawed theory?
joethestrummer 2 years ago
I give up caring. This lacks rigorous scientific method and as such is no more valid as an explanation of anything than the spiel a Jehovah's Witness might churn out. I have an open mind, but not open enough to bother considering superfluous, disorganised and desperately contrived theories. Prove me wrong. Publish a paper. Just shut up about the conspiracy crap.
altudios 2 years ago
Consensus is not proof.
but If you want some academic bona fides? check out the work of Dr Samuel Warren Carey. This is the guy who pretty much invented plate tectonics and subduction. Unfortunately he couldn't get it published in 1956, his paper was rejected by the peer review system.
Since then, they've changed their minds. now it's your dogma. Here's the kicker: Carey soon discarded it himself, in favor of a better theory: the expanding earth. Published a book by that name in 1976.
PensiveBuffalo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science is a knowledge of what man observes happening & finalizes its rules like day & night changing seasons etc. But vice versa nature is showing changing its laws from time to time at different places. Many rivers change their track by earthquakes of different intensities. Black holes show static time or no time. These are all hints that Creator of the Universe exists and observes how his orders of becoming a human being are being followed. Man must be humane and not wild any more.
yahoovisitor 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The earth is constantly being explored a lot regarding land, water & human needs & new discoveries are always there whenever man starts his search on new topics. What needs to be studied is the Creator of Universes Manual Quran
And One Cant Capture Knowledge About Anything but Whatever He (Creator) enlightens. The Holy Book gives a lot of light upon the laws of the creator, their violations and frequent change in the laws. It is so far the best book on natural laws in each branch of science.
yahoovisitor 2 years ago
People that don't accept this are just part of that "the earth is flat" crew. They exist in every generation either out of ignorance or just to protect the status quo. Great stuff Mr Adams.
Loveseekingmissile 2 years ago
Please Mr. Neal never give up.
mauricera 3 years ago
Incidentally, if all your theory really hangs on is the fact that shrinking a planet shows plates will fit back together perfectly (and most of your "airtime" is devoted to the fact you think your theory does this where accepted tectonic plate theory does not), you should really re-examine your deductive approach.
Why not spend some of your time devoted to something useful instead of trying to discredit the "Scientific Community" like they are indeed a homogeneous conglomerate? Shame.
altudios 3 years ago
Is this crack dated to the same time period as Eaths expansion? say..not before 65mya? What triggered this event? Why didn't the earth expand before this point?
13thLabyrinth 3 years ago
pitchfest, try being open minded, his theory is pretty good, have you listened to him explain it in full, its very convincing, he sold me on it.
mapleleafs182 3 years ago
except this picture on it's own proves nothing unless you show the other side of the planet.
for now it's just a crack.
sure, Neal sounds convincing for you. but you're not a scientist and your science knowledge is minimal. a few hundred years ago many people would find preachers and their flat-earth theory very convincing too!
it all comes down to same thing: are you ready to investigate it on your own or just blindly "sell" yourself on what you're told?
Muxxyy 3 years ago
It's interesting that you claim that the current scientific community is misleading everybody for their own 'gain'. I could just as easily say that you are misleading everyone for your own interests.
Which would be more likely? Thousands of leading scientists with doctoral degrees from the best universities in the world... all lying to us. Or you and a handful of misguided followers with your high school knowledge of art.
Pitchfest 3 years ago
Pitchfest. A handful of (misguided) followers?
What FOLLOWERS? KNOCK,KNOCK,...it's just me, pal. Try not to lose focus. Those others are our JUDGES, not 'followers'. Which is more likely, a "CARTOONIST" or all the scientists in the world?
History tell us "The Cartoonist!" A new idea or discovery does NOT come from the masses, EVER! IT COMES FROM A UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL, ALWAYS, and spreads. AND...at first, it is not, EVER believed or accepted BY ANYONE, ESPECIALLY ,..by the "experts."
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Well I'm glad you realise that you don't have much support. It's a natural human feeling to think that you are the only one who is right.
I'm glad that the cartoonists were here all along to cure us of smallpox, build the international space station and invent penicillin.
I will listen to your pseudo-scientific nonsense when you get yourself a geology degree. And in the meantime I won't give anybody artistic advice.
Ever noticed that the stars 'look' small? Maybe they really are!
Pitchfest 3 years ago
You seem to be against the fact that common sense can disprove a scientific theory. Have you ever seen the video about the man who figured out how stone henge was created? It proved it perfectly and simply, using common sense. Scientists and others with degrees have been fretting over how it was done for years. One retired construction worker figured out the only logical way for it to work with the tools they had to use. Greeks knew the Earth was round from its shadow on the moon. Common sense.
Snuggaliicious 3 years ago
You can search for James Maxlow here on youtube if you want someone with a geology degree to present the idea for you.
razieel 2 years ago
Just because something makes sense in terms of animation frames, doesn't mean that all the currently held laws of physics are being broken to create matter from nothing in the centre of the Earth. You've arrived at a conclusion and have invented the evidence to support it. Tectonic plate theory has multiple disciplines of science supporting it but yours only has a cartoon explanation.
Get some more solid data before you stop misrepresenting science to all of the young minds out there.
Pitchfest 3 years ago
Pitchfest. You ask several interesting questions.
First you insult my profession and background. Then you display your ignorance with your own munderstanding OF SCIENTIFIC LAWS. I am rewriting "THEORIES", not "LAWS".
Then you accuse me of concocting and "Inventing" EVIDENCE. Then I am misleading everyone for 'my own interest'. What interest would that be? TRUTH?
Then you ask"Which would be more likely? Thousands of ..scientists...all lying to us...or a handful of ..followers..of etc?"
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Yes I am insulting your background because you pose a scientific theory without even a basic knowledge of science. Do you have a science degree? I would never let someone near my teeth if they hadn't studied dentistry before.
How about I give you some advice on drawing cartoons?
Pitchfest 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gents. To get the full impact of the videos, there's a dozen of them on nealadamsdotcom. If you want more of the theory, while you're there you can also drop a double sawbuck and get the full presentation. The dozen videos will rock your clock.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So... if the surface is continuously stretching and there is proven fact for the corrosion of the mountains then how do you explain all the rising mountains at the meeting of the fault lines like the Hymalayan Mountains, that are said to be due to the rising earth's crust over the tectonic plates pushing against each other?
If the theory of growing earth is true, than shouldn't we be having ever flattening mountains due to stretching, instead of rising ones?
stevenkain 3 years ago
Digitally squishing together tectonic rifts hardly validates claims of planetary expansion. Your assertions lack empirical evidence to give them substance.
It would be interesting to find some information contradicting paleomagnetic evidence that the earth's radius has changed only 3% in the last half-billion years (not to mention studies of inertia indicating even less). And then of course there's the mountains of evidence that subduction is occurring.
Neat animation, though.
Jambeeno 3 years ago
Jambeeno Let me see. How about the incredibly simple fact that two thirds of the PALEOMAGNETIC crust that you speak of DIDN'T EXIST 200 MILLION YEARS AGO???? Are you guys out of your minds? How can you prove something with something that DIDN'T EXIST? Because someone wrote a paper that YOU don't UNDERSTAND? THE OCEANIC PLATE THAT YOU TAKE PALEOMAGNETIC DATA FROM .....DIDN'T EXIST! Hellooooooooo!
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Don't put words in my mouth; I didn't speak of any "paleomagnetic crust." That doesn't even make sense; the earth's magnetism comes from molten material beneath the crust. Paleomagnetism is the study of old magnetism. That the seafloor is 250 million years old is irrelevant; the earth was magnetically active long before that.
If you cannot speak to me as an adult — that is, without the ALL CAPS and the chiiiiiiiiildishly lengthened words, then I've no reason to continue discourse.
Jambeeno 3 years ago
I'm under the impression the Mariana Trench in the Pacific has the oldest sea floor known to man... perhaps the first dramatic crack in earth due to rapid expansion?
This Rift Valley on Mars looks like it could be the same thing... Theoretically... Mars could be a young earth as opposed to the concept of it being an older "dead" earth equivalent.
MrKappaBeta 3 years ago
The sheer size of the martian volcanoes on earth could essentially be the result of a colder and thicker mars crust... which is being cracked and punctured with volcanoes due to a massive increase in heat energy within the interior... Erosion on mars can't be significant enough to hide volcanoes as fast as earth does... these volcanoes are part of a new period in the planets development perhaps?
MrKappaBeta 3 years ago
MrKappaBeta , The "Valles is Mars' first deep rift, Not unlike the Rift on Earth that began between Eastern North America and Africa 180 MYA. Yes, it is a "young Earth" sans water. It's the only basic difference. The oldest Deep ocean floor, on Earth is mid-Pacific. Look up "Crustal Age Map."
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
"Crustal Age Map."
Thank you for the term... You wouldn't happen to know why many authoritative references say there is absolutely no tectonic movement on mars would you? How does one look at a planet from a distance and determine that there are no plates in motion?
MrKappaBeta 3 years ago
MrKappaBeta , People want to define things, and be believed. Story. Bout 5 yrs ago I wrote to NASA (Who said there was no tectonic movement on Mars for 30 yrs) I gave my vids and observations. NASA announced, after a 5 year study they believe tectonic movement on Mars "like Earth. I was proud of myself,...until I found out that an entire 5 grade class(project) Wrote to NASA giving observations and photo proofs of tectonic growth. Every kid in the class. HEH,HEH. Funny. Humility is good.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
some people keep saying that this theory is completely wrong because they think it says that mass is being created, when what's really happening is that when the magma cools it expands, and leaves gaps, which makes it look like mass is being made, when its just taking up more space
Cherv 3 years ago
Cherv, No, it's making mas and growing.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
i dont see how thats possible, cuz matter cant be created or destroyed, and if the earth is growing AND gaining mass its ridiculous because mass is how much matter is in an object, so where is the matter/mass coming from
Cherv 3 years ago
gaining volume, not mass.
so that's theorically possible.
Numaltar 3 years ago
when you gain mass you increase volume. this is in fact how we got all the water on earth...gained it from somwhere else...god damn
tet5u01000 3 years ago
your comment doesn't make sense dude...ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. this is a fucking joke. this dude is a comic book writer for the green lantern...he is not a scientist. watch his shit, laugh, and move on... he is a joke.
tet5u01000 3 years ago
ENERGY can not be created nor destroyed, but converted. Mass can be created from energy => PLASMA, outer core anyone?
Edward1589 3 years ago
This is one of the more bizarre theories I've heard! I'm not a professional geologist, so I'm not really qualified to critique it, but it seems rather suspicious. How can the earth be expanding if its mass is not changing and the force of gravity is a constant? How do you explain phenomena unique to subduction zones? What would it take to falsify this theory? What would it take to falsify plate tectonics?
VlogOfTheMathGuy 3 years ago
Also, why do you insist that there is a "conspiracy of scientists" working against you? Accusing your opposition of conspiracy is a great way to destroy your credibility, if that's what you're aiming for! And why do you speak so condescendingly of scientists? I don't think they are as dumb as you say they are! I don't understand why you are taking this approach (going directly to the public) instead of submitting it for peer review first.
VlogOfTheMathGuy 3 years ago
vlogOfTheMathGuy, Theres no conspiracy.
It's just a heading on youtube. Sam Carey , who Created this theory 50 years ago lost the battle to subduction and a terrified Geological community.
I'm not a scientest. I'm an artist/writer/designer and I've studied this for 40 years.
I think the scientific community betrayed it's "calling" and it's creator. Yeah, they are that dumb, but we all are. We wouldn't recognise our nose if it wasn't on our face. Sam Carey "did" peer review, out the wazoo!
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Vlog. Bizarre? You don't think plate tectonics isn't BIZARRE? That Geology tells us that ALL the continental plate "met" for a "gathering" on ONE SIDE OF THE EARTH, and the alllll the rest of the Earth ,2/3's of it, was OCEAN 3 miles deep?
NOT the Earth GROWING and the crust simply cracking and staying in the same relative place, unmoving while the oceanic plates just spread apart? GROWING, not expanding. Balloons 'expand'.
200 MYA Earths 'big animals were 4 to 5 times as big as today's.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
You should number the parts of the video so we can listen to them in the right order.
o0PinKFisH0o 3 years ago
Neal, I really enjoy your vids. My question to you is, what are they trying to hide from us if what you suggest is true. That the Earth is expanding and growing? What would be the purpose to mislead? Money, power,control?
Also, I was surprised when I found out on youtube that you have drawn some comics! Pretty interesting life you lead!
Keep up the good work!
AngriestAmerican 3 years ago
Angriest American, When one theory WINS out over another as standard Geology did over Prof Sammuel Warren Carey's "Expanding Earth", The winner doesn't want that same theory to come back stronger and better and their theory having gotten weaker after 40 years of investigation. Growing Earth-Growing Universe will turn 40 years of success upside down. Bitchy-bitchy, If you'll excuse the expression.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Hey, you know what they say about real estate being a good investment because "They ain't makin' any more of it!"? This shoots that down...
theunknownknows 3 years ago
OK.. the planets (Mars and Earth so far) are growing. OK.. where does the extra mass come from? If the planet like a balloon, with the growth coming from inside? Physics involves conservation of mass. With no explanation of WHERE the mass is coming from.. the theory will be mocked. I admit it is worth investigating, but I was wondering what YOUR thoughts were on the expanding mass.
jesterspace 3 years ago
jester Look at the big video
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Neal you need to sit with one of my old college prof's Dr. Scotese on plate tectonics and subduction. He has studied it for years he just might educate you a bit. keep rockin with the comic art.
hitoallandme 3 years ago
hitoallandme, Dr Scotese and I have communicated and we both belong to the group called Growing Earth-Growing Universe. Thank Tou for your good feelings.
Neal Adams
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Take a look on the other side of Mars. You can see that something hit it, its burned. The shock went all the way thru the planet and created that bulge on the other side. Mars atmosphere was blown away totally due to this.
Zobor111 3 years ago
and your point is..???
Proflutzn 3 years ago
I had believed something like this for some years, but Warren Casey's book really clinched it. I had not been able to fully visualize it until now, so thanks for completing that important step.
Frankly, I never found the pangea theory compelling and subduction with "convection of solids" is hocus-pocus.
Who cares how many scientists believe in nonsense or how many papers they write about it? A theory has to agree with observed facts and make sense. The prevailing theories do neither.
ogf0001 3 years ago
You do like classical music, don't you :) ?
It's just spectacular - for lack of a better word
radia333 3 years ago
can you do that to my ass crack
kanyenke12 3 years ago
Wow, Neal you figured out a divergent plate looks like congrats! HAHA! Notice the awesome volcanic arcs due to this divergence, hot spots are apparent as well on Mars.
tgshark1 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gentlemen. To get the full impact of the videos, there's a dozen of them on neal adams dot com. Warning, like this one, they're a kick in the stomach. If you want more, and the theory, while you're there you can also drop a double sawbuck and get the full blast of the presentation. Or not. The dozen videos will rock your clock.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
SO why wont you get it peer reviewed? and dont want to talk about that? Or you qualifications in geology? What you got to hide?
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gentlemen. To get the full impact of the videos, there's a dozen of them on neal adams dot com. Warning, like this one, they're a kick in the stomach. If you want more, and the theory, while you're there you can also drop a double sawbuck and get the full blast of the presentation. Or not. The dozen videos will rock your clock.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
It's a hypothesis, not a theory, and to be more precise, a falsified hypothesis. It's dead. But that doesn't mean you won't still use it to draw dubious attention to yourself. I'm sure everyone appreciates your artistry, but you have no place in geology or Earth science for you can't seem to comprehend what the existing science already tells us. Sorry to say, you're no Alfred Wegener.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jff, Apparently . your view and the other knuckleheads who are writing periodically. Others are studdying this, discussing it , now in classrooms, certainly writing to me and watching the videos,....increasingly, waiting for PROOF. clues, evidence, support. Watch the numbers. You are becoming the VOCAL MINORITY. I don't lose. Cause I've done my homework.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Well if you've done your homework, it's time to write that paper and submit it to a journal don't ya think? But there's that little problem though, it would only be a concept paper because there is something that this hypothesis lacks, it's called evidence. Did your homework happen to include the scientific method?
jffryfnt 3 years ago
you're wrong jeff...keep listening to what "existing science already tells us" and you'll continue to stay behind those of us who seek ultimate truth
maseross 3 years ago
keep listening to what "existing science already tells us"??
Science is published in periodicals, it's never stagnant. I work in research, so I am a contributor as well. I don't think I'm falling behind.
Besides, what makes you think there's some 'ultimate truth'? What makes you think you know so much more than anyone else by seeking it?
jffryfnt 3 years ago
just quoting what you said..and the ultimate truth considering the subject at hand not in general. Its obvious the earth has grown as well as other planets. I'm curious to see what you have contributed? Honestly though, what else can better explain earths natural movement? Nothing, in my opinion, makes more since scientifically and mathematically.
maseross 3 years ago
You got me there, but I said it in the context that the existing science already tossed away that hypothesis 70 years ago. In my response to you, I said it in the context that I'm not ignorant to recently published literature. Planets to accrete, they do grow. But we already understand the mechanisms, but there's details missing. Hence the machine of science, it never stops. But now we're asking questions at much higher level of understanding, not pseudoscience like Neal's hypothesis here.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
understood...but its the lower level of understanding that the majority has no idea about...thats what Neal is trying to do here..expose this to the majority or in novice terms. Pangia, or what you were taught in school on the subject, is not right. I agree the other, tougher questions are more interesting. if its growing, where is all the mass coming from? Is the earth really one giant geode? Interesting stuff...
maseross 3 years ago
I've no doubt that there's an awful lot of forgotten knowledge out there.Sometimes looking at such complex questions for so long you lose sight of some of the simpler things. But when so many ideas are drawn upon a central idea, theory, e.g. plate tectonics, evolution, gravity, anything published in it's reference is evidence to support it. Not much room for error there, if it can exist in light of these central ideas.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Jffry. BUT the "Proof is everywhere". Every bit of "tectonic" proof is the same proof for this theory, Geologists say that the Atlantic did spread open. So does this theory. Geology has finally said the Pacific spread open. WHAT??? But, they say it must've spread open 750 MYA. WHAT? This theory says,,'No, 180 MYA, and the proof for this is in the Crustal Age Map produced by GEOLOGY, in which there is no deep ocean plate older than 180 MYA all around the world. What is left to prove???
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Because geologists have known for a very long time that balsaltic crust is HEAVY. Heavier than CRATONS. For that reason, and that reason alone, oceanic crust is constantly renewed. And it's because of, and I know you're not going to like hearing this, but because of SUBDUCTION, and, pun intended, there are MOUNTAINS of PROOF. The basics man, the basics.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffry. It's probably because you are sooo knowledgeable, but I have no idea what you are talking about. But,...rock on , man.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
perhaps that's your problem brother, you just don't know. That's why you don't know what I'm talking about. Ignorance is bliss.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
maseross. Physics is more messed up than geology,(If such a thing were possible) This 'novice' may not work by the standard methods, but I argue those forms will never get to the proper conclusions , until it jumps up and bites 'em in the face. (Or nature unfolds the proof BY EVENTS) No logical deducing from amassed evidence then proved and reproved. A Positron must become a Proton in the lab. Earth must itself prove the outer core is a plasma. An accident must prove Rodinia broke up 180 MYA.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Incidentally, not to tell you what to do, but maybe you should rename these vids. I mean, "Conspiracy of science" is an eyegrabber, sure, but it makes it sound a bit more fringey, you know?
Also, just in the interests of keeping track of it all, maybe slightly different names. Say, Earth vid 1, Mars vid 1, and so forth.
One other thing - got anything on Venus yet? Near-twin of Earth, size-wise, recently mapped, and it's got that whole reverse-rotation thing going...
Just a few thoughts...
nightflyer28 3 years ago
Incidentally, not to tell you what to do, but maybe you should rename these vids. I mean, "Conspiracy of science" is an eyegrabber, sure, but it makes it sound a bit more fringey, you know?
Also, just in the interests of keeping track of it all, maybe slightly different names. Say, Earth vid 1, Mars vid 1, and so forth.
One other thing - got anything on Venus yet? Near-twin of Earth, size-wise, recently mapped, and it's got that whole reverse-rotation thing going...
Just a few thoughts...
nightflyer28 3 years ago
I caught this a few weeks ago. An interesting model, and I can see on the Earth model how they all fit together. However, I have a few problems with it.
The underlying mechanism for generation of mass within the planet. Lesser gravity of a smaller world, re: the gravitational requirements for holding an O2/N2 atmosphere.
Also, I understand you're disclaiming the Big Bang and the meteor that nailed the dinosaurs. I don't see how the one (expansion) rules out the others, esp. given the evidence.
nightflyer28 3 years ago
The Big Bang has the evidence of the Comic Microwave Background Radiation, predicted by the math years before it was detected.
The dinosaur thing has the crater in the Yucatan peninsula, with the shocked quartz as secondary proof, and the layer of iridium blanketing the planet at the 65 mya mark.
The physical model seems to work, as I said. The mechanism, that might take some time to figure out.
But the Big Bang and the dinosaur bit, I don't see planetary expansion negating those two.
nightflyer28 3 years ago
nightflyer. At the beginning I had no idea it would spread to cover all this. 1. Earth Grew, from making mass at the inner plasma core , starting with Pair-Production and ending with atoms assembly in the EM field in the plasma outer core. Seems almost unimportant. If Earth grows, it always grows. Then... all planets, fair size moons, suns, Solar System, galaxies grow always. Yikes. The Universe GROWS, NOT EXPLODES. Looks the SAME. New matter. Doesn't explode onto existance.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
Well, I don't know much about plasma physics (apart from it makes for a nice decorative globe), so I couldn't really debate that point, except to say that the Ni/Fe core model seems to work well enough for now... but that sounds interesting. A little strange, but interesting.
Re: the big bang. That wasn't so much an explosion in the usual sense as a rapid expansion. And the CMBR, predicted by the math of the model before being detected, seems to confirm it.
nightflyer28 3 years ago
nightflyer If all the granitic continental plates were joined on a smaller planet. And there were Shallow seas on 2/3 of that plate, and NO MOUNTAINS to impede Dinosaur migrations,... Dinosaurs would migrate hemispherically. They would evolve massively long legs and these migrations would be THEIR WAY,.. unless the continental plates broke up north to south. They would die off as mammals slowly advanced (And ate their eggs, that they LAID ON THE GROUND.) Survivors? If they could fly over rifts.
nealadamsdotcom 3 years ago
No, I follow the bit about dino migration, sorry if I was unclear. It was referring to their relatively sudden extinction at the end of the Cretaceous.
All physical evidence I'm aware of (iridium layer, Yucatan impact crater) points to a meteor impact, causing a nuclear winter (or meteor winter, if you will) and mass extinctions of much plant and animal life. Maybe not the only factor involved, but a major one, maybe the "last straw," so to speak. You seem to discount the possibility.
nightflyer28 3 years ago