Adam's theory has some flaws but that doesn't rule out that the earth could be growing/expanding, he may be clutching at straws to give a plausable answer to explain how this is possible? the pressure in the earths core are between 330-360 gigapascals, matter exist in environments that can not be observed in a laboratory. If you look at pumice that is secreted from volcanos it once was a much denser material from deep under ground, but now has the same mass but much larger volume *EXPANSION!*???
You're right, the pressure in the Earth's core is extremely high. That pressure is required to balance the weight of the planet pressing down. If the pressure in the core was not so high, the Earth would collapse under its own weight and become a black hole.
Pumice is low density because the erupting lava contained bubbles of carbon dioxide, like soda overflowing from a bottle.
@Arfalarf could it then be possible that this could be the only possible conclusion for the expanding earth theory? that mass has not gained, but has been inflated and lost density but gained volume? maybe a sort of naturally occuring form of something similar to carbon fiber which has been carbonated ( I used carbon fiber becase i know its strong)
That was exactly the calculation I did in the video.
If the Earth decreased in density it would have to push outwards against its own gravity. I calculated the amount of energy that would require, and its huge.
When you talk of dust coming together to form the earth, that's speculation. No one was here to see it. It's a guess, reasonable, still a guess. Have you seen Neal's video on the moon Europa? Have you seen the one on Earth's moon? When he shrinks the moon, it lines up old asteroid splatter lines. On Europa it lines up previous crack lines in its surface. You're just repeating what you've been taught, and your "I know it all" attitude, I bet you vote Democrat, a "hail mary" hope vote.
Do you honestly believe that the only valid form of evidence is personal wtiness by a human? We have theoretical models of planetary formation that predict formation from an accretion disc. Those models are confirmed by observations of other solar systems forming at a distance, and by the fact that the chemical composition of the Earth is consistent with other objects in our solar system, particularly chondritic meteorites.
Arfalarf, spread areas have been identified on Mars by NASA, but no subduction zones have been. Why is that? Mars hasn't an ocean letting observers speculate on what "must" be going on under the ocean, an assumption that a planet just can't grow from apparently nothing. "It can't be" but there it is. Einstein thought black holes impossible, but we've found one at the center of every galaxy. He proved Newton wrong, but this! An embarrassing number of theories are wrong with this.
Mid-ocean ridge spreading centers have NOT been identified on Mars. The Valles Marineris is an extensional feature, but it only records local extension associated with the uplift of Tharsis and associated volcanism.
The map showing the expanding Pacific says it all. This map PROVES the expanding earth theory is RIGHT. PT has a "way" around this argument by saying that subduction "conveyers" are happening. However they don't show where all the friction comes from. Thermal convection? Bullshit. Note that scientific investigation is at its infancy. These PT advocates will eventually snap out of their DOGMATIC ways.
Typing key words in ALL CAPS does not constitute an argument. The evidence for subduction zones- from earthquake locations, volcano locations, gravity anomalies, and even GPS observations of plate motion- is overwhelming. If you really think subduction is a myth, you should go tell that to the people of Japan. They know all too well how real subduction zones are.
@Arfalarf The expansion map of the Pacific is overwhelming evidence that the Pacific had EXPANDED, and is continuing to expand. All PT "expert" fail to acknowlegde this evidence and go back to piling on the subduction GUCK and other unprovable "evidence". CAPs are to be emphatic, assuming you don't get the point.
Do you really think that geologists are unaware of the age maps of the Pacific Ocean? Or of the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans? Have you ever even spoken to a real Earth scientist, or taken classes in the subject? This is one of the primary sources of evidence for plate tectonics, and you can't spend more than a few weeks in an introductory class without learning about it.
since the universe is continually expanding and getting bigger since the "big bang" wouldn't that mean that everything in it is expanding/growing too.....
Yes, the fact that the universe is expanding does mean that it is gaining gravitational potential energy. If the expansion was slowing down then there would be no problem, because we would be trading kinetic energy for potential energy. But the expansion is speeding up, which is why physicists have postulated "dark energy". What it is we don't know, but there is no evidence it enters individual planets in large quantities.
@stvbrsn ...totally agree.........so obvious as all plates fit together and did so in the past......my theory is everything was bigger way back then plants,animals and humans hence where story comes from in bible regards giants and humans living for hundreds of years (i believe bible is false for control of humans only)....humans are getting smaller as earth expands and plant life is depleted - oxygen levels are also dropping as time passes...in a million years we will be size of ants
The reason for the dislikes is most likely the annoying, dismissive and smug demeanor of the presenter. Science is a technique, not the unassailable, monolithic body of knowledge for which it is often mistaken. Don't be a know-it-all... admit first that Universe cannot be fully understood by us, for we are a part of it. Then and only then can you even begin to know anything.
@stvbrsn Neal Adams applies an artistic technique to the scientific technique. He's just as bad. Just because they earth LOOKS like it's expanding, does not mean it is.
I don't know that expanding planet theory is valid. But I think using conservation of mass to refute it is weak logic. Conservation of mass is useful for understanding chemistry and closed systems but the earth is not a closed system. Its constantly take hits from comets meteors and charged particles that add many tons to the earth mass daily. You can look any where in the solar system and see large bodies are sphere shaped. Is it so crazy to think they might also be bubbles.
Large bodies are (almost) sphere shaped because they are gravitationally bound, which is my point.
The addition of mass from impacts has not been significant since the Late Heavy Bombardment ~4 billion years ago. If it was, Earth's geology would be dominated by craters, not mid-ocean ridges, subduction zones, and continental collisions.
Depends how big it is. If it is just an ice cube in your kitchen, the gravitational binding energy is negligible. If it is an ice cube the size of the Earth, it would be the same sort of calculation as I did in the video, but adjusted for the density of ice.
But if you are talking about an ice cube that is expanding because it is freezing, then you have a source of mass from the water and the dominant term in the energy budget is latent heat from the phase transition.
Neal Adams is trying to explain why the planets look the way they do. He says "growth!", and he postulates a mechanism for it. This is outside of mainstream science and he may be right or wrong about it.
Still, growth would, hypothetically explain it, so if it isn´t growing, mainstream sciensce should focus on explaining why it LOOKS LIKE it does! And they are not! They are ignoring the problem, because it doesn´t fit, or it doesn´t pay. Denying the obvious or claiming it´s all coicidence.
If you could imagine you could give something looking like the Earth to a forensic expert in CSI Miami, he would definitely conclude that the only logical solution is that there is some kind of growth involved and that the Earth is some sort of growing fruit, where the skin is cracking, like a rain-swelled tomato.
It´s a psychological fact that your perseption is influenced by what you think you see. If it is a planet, you tend to think "no growth possible". If it is a fruit, you will think "growth possible". So you are not independently investigating the evidence.
Here is a new video I have made to show that geometric evidence supports Earth growth.
watch?v=TuMGf_p7pkc
I also have other videos on the subject, so enjoy!
@Arfalarf So if the earth had a CO2 atmosphere and live organisms turn it into an Oxigen atmosphere then there would be oxidation and expansion without some theory of new mass generation, right? B y the way i don't remember the original video mentioning extra mass.
@northerntropics The original video didn't mention extra mass because Neal Adams doesn't really understand what mass is. However, there are only two ways to make a planet grow:
1. add mass (an enormous amount of it).
2. lower the density, which implies pushing material outwards against gravity. This implies an enormous increase in potential energy.
@Arfalarf I thought we already agreed that for something to increase in volume no mass needs to be added. Do this experiment: get a coconut, extract the liquid, fill it with beans and water. Wait 2-5 days. If you are right the coconut will keep its shape. If I am right the coconut will expand and crack open.
@Arfalarf how is mass created? Is mass created only under the conditions of the big bang? BTW, where did the big bang come from? You operate from presumptions and have no evidence whatsoever that mass only comes from outside the earth. It is nothing more than an assumption. It is a mystery and the ball is in your court... it seems you need to come up with a better set of explanations and perhaps some evidence.
In other words, you don't just object to basic geology, you object to basic physics and cosmology too. What existed "before the big bang", if such a question is even meaningful, has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth is growing. The conservation of mass and energy (they are two forms of the same thing) is a fundamental tenet of modern science which has underpinned most of the progress we have made in the last few centuries.
I love it.... I actually asked him the same thing, what would science have to gain in hiding that information if it were true. He got very defensive. He calls people stupid because they do not agree with his theory. He is just plain wrong.
Dude, you're not realizing that the footage was SPED UP. It's showing the expansion over BILLIONS of years. For example's sake, people still don't quite understand why gravity even exists--or what truly makes up "mass" for "that matter" (lol). Einstein's theory of Relativity is just THAT--a THEORY. They're still trying to figure out the "quarks" at the subatomic level with colliders as big as Switzerland and they aren't getting anywhere.
Oh? And by what mechanism does the Earth capture the Suns energy to grow? Perhaps by some form of geological photosynthesis then? How efficient is this capture rate? How much energy is needed for the Earth to grow, the energy the Sun outputs, the rate of the Earth's radial growth, the rate of mass production, and the method by which the energy is converted into matter?
You will find that the Sun, as large as it is, is a very finite body.
@mastersausagemaker I'll do you one better. Let's calculate how much solar energy falls on the Earth in one year.
(1300 W/m^2*pi*r_Earth^2*1 year) in Joules = 5x10^24 Joules. If that was ALL converted to mass (divide by c^2) that would be around 58 million kilograms a year! multiply by a billion years, that's enough to create 6x10^16 kg of new matter!! Seems like enough to make the Earth grow, right?
Wrong... it's about 1/100millionth of the Earth's mass.
Now one might counter, "Well that's just LIGHT energy! What about neutrinos and dark matter particles and tachyons and prime mater and..."
Fine. Let's grant that the Sun actually puts out A MILLION TIMES MORE ENERGY in exotic science-fictiony particles than it does in sunlight. (Which is of course impossible if fusion is the source of power, but whatever, were playing Crackpot's Advocate.) Even if this is TRUE that's still only enough to grow the Earth's mass by ONE PERCENT IN A BILLION YEARS
It may be neat to try and calculate this by photon momentum per surface area of contact.
Regardless, their claims are beyond outlandish. Some even state that the Earth doubled its volume in 300 million years (their math is generally so bad, they can't determine radial growth rates using highschool calculus).
Perhaps this is why Adam's reworking of Atomic theory is devoid of any mathematics, replaced instead with expensive imagery. To these paranoid people, science is an enemy.
One last interesting piece of gossip: Adams also told me that there are only physicists or geologists, and if you ask one about the others field, they are completely ignorant. He uses this as a pretense to attack specialisation thus he sees "the big picture" because he isn't burdened with "specialised knowledge". I pointed out to him the existence of geophysicists which are both and he seemed to entirely dismiss the idea that such people exist.
@mastersausagemaker Yeah, believe me... I've engaged Neal extensively, so I know how the argument process works. Although I will say he seems to be getting increasingly erratic. He's quite a character. He's definitely not STUPID. In fact I think he's quite clever. But his fondness for this theory has pulled him so far off the intellectual deep end that I don't think even he believes most of this nonsense about redefining the meaning and process of science anymore. So he just yells a lot.
I would argue that seems he is too erratic to make any meaningful distinction whether he is intelligent or not. Coupled with some incredibly misinformed comments, paranoia, and his unique realism, it's really quite hard to make any distinction about how he thinks or his basis in reinventing scientific principles by a priori means.
Well, one can always choose incrementally larger arbitrary points. Really, it simply comes down to what is plausible. Even total energy output is too low.
Adams told me once that "this is theoretical physics, not engineering" in explaining to me why he had no estimates or data. He has since deleted all my comments.
The whole point was to demonstrate that these quacks don't use or understand data. Let's just say they wont be publishing anything in Springer-Verlag anytime soon.
I got the roughly same numbers you did, the magnitudes at least were the same. I noticed you chose a 100% perfect absorption system. Being generous, are we?
Well, yes... that's how you do these things. If someone says mechanism X causes effect Y, and you want to quickly show that it's not possible... the best approach is to grossly overestimate ALL of the factors in X, calculate the effect, and show that it's still far too small to be responsible. In this case multiplying the solar flux by a MILLION and assuming it ALL gets converted to mass? "Generous" doesn't even do it justice. There is NO WAY to grow the Earth w/o violating energy conservation.
if in fact the earth is growing and this information is being withheld, how can you make a calculation on sizes and data you can not possibly know ???
You have not considered that ions may be jetting into the auroral areas - positive in the north and negative ones in the south. High energy ions produced from the ionisation of cosmic dust would diffuse through the crust and into the mantle where they would eventually form compounds in an exothermic way. These would explain a 'liquid inflation' of the planet, regular increases in hydrostatic pressure which are neutralised by volcanism or crustal strain.See evolutionem.webplus.net - details
You have not considered that ions may be jetting into the auroral areas - positive in the north and negative ones in the south. High energy ions produced from the ionisation of cosmic dust would diffuse through the crust and into the mantle where they would eventually form compounds in an exothermic way. These would explain a 'liquid inflation' of the planet, regular increases in hydrostatic pressure which are neutralised by volcanism or crustal strain.See evolutionem.webplus.net for details
listen buddy, you are right there is not conspiracy
But the world is growing but not as Neal Adam suggests
listen closely
our magnetic field is ingesting enregy- matter that the sun expels as it converts hydrogen to helium.
Basalt is the foundation for the entire planet and it did severe because of our magnetic field ingesting energy-matter from the sun and forcing continents-basalt upward
@arfalarf expanding earth would not be possible with an iron core that being said how do we know earth has an iron core this would make alot more sense to u if u take into account the core may not be iron perhaps plasma would make the theory better understood and perhaps plasma that absorbs suns energy n produces matter...not saying ur wrong in any way but this is a subject ive just began to look into n it woud seem the unknown is endless
Planets grow and while they grow they become hollow.
That's what "they" are conspiring against. We are not supposed to know that planets are in fact hollow. Because if we knew, it would eventually lead to the end of "their" reign.
There is much more to this issue than you can even start to comprehend buddy. But i'm sure you're way too smart to buy into all the conspiracy bullshit, right?
So i'll leave it at that, just continue sucking up the party line and i'm sure you'll do fine.
@Aphobis Well sir, that's your opinion. I on the other hand am pretty much convinced that it is not wrong. To me, the hollow planet model makes much more sense than the solid planet model.
Anyway, there was a time in history when everyone KNEW that the planet was flat and that you would fall off if you ventured far enough over the oceans. And everyone even considering a spherical form was labeled crazy and blasphemous.
@CCLJunky Hollow planets would have serious problems with gravitational instability. The outer ring would collapse inwards under its own weight. No natural materials (and for that matter, no artificial materials) are strong enough to withstand the force required to keep a hollow planet from collapsing.
Not to mention that seismic waves travel through the interior of the Earth in a manner consistent with a liquid outer core and a solid inner core.
@Arfalarf Lol, you mean the other way around, a liquid inner and a solid outer core. But anyway, even that is not true. I suggest you take a look at Jan Lamprecht's work. He has the math to show that planets are in fact hollow from a seismic point of view. Besides, we know to little about gravity to make the claim that a hollow planet would collapse under it's own weight. It might even turn out that it is BECAUSE of gravity that planets grow and become hollow.
@CCLJunky No, I actually mean liquid outer and solid inner. Seismic shear waves cannot travel through the liquid outer core but pressure waves can. This produces characteristic patterns of seismic arrivals on the other side of the Earth from earthquakes.
And we most definitely do know enough about gravity to conclude that a hollow planet would collapse under its own weight.
@Arfalarf I'm sorry, but you're referring to the mainstream science bullshit explanation for the fact that they have to adjust their calculations every time again, whilst mr. Lamprecht's calculations don't need to be changed, they work all the time, because he uses a hollow model.
But anyway, you seem to be arrogant enough to think we know all there is to know about gravity and nature. Well, dream on buddy. We know nothing, we just like to think we do, so people like you can sleep at night.
The flaw in your rebuttal is that Adams & company never tried to explain how it is possible... they simply describe the evidence that proves that the expansions have occurred. You assume that you know the laws of physics, when any physicist will tell you that we know very little. The growing earth theory was covered up because, more than anything else, it exposes how very little we truly understand and in the 1930s, Western Science needed firm foundations to gain global acceptance.
And yes... I am aware that there is no real proof that COE is wrong either. But, I am sure that eventually, probably sooner rather than later, quantum physicists will figure that one out. And then it will all begin to make some sort of sense.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, you lost my interest when you simply cited the law of COE as the reason that the mass of the Earth could not have changed. There is no proof that COE is correct. It is just part of a belief system adopted by physicists who needed a set of basic laws to help them define the behavior of existing mass. There is no scientific provision or explanation of where all the energy come from in the first place. To me, that is more like a religiou
@Robin081564 There's more proof of COE than any other theory ever dreamt up. i.e. Every single experiment ever coined up has energy conserved. Plus you can derive it mathematically with considerations of symmetry in time. COE is probably the most well established and fundemental piece of science there ever has been. If 4 momentum isn't conserved then, quite frankly, all science is useless, because every single scientific theory is based on conservation of 4 momentum somewhere along the line
With the sun being the source of our potential energy, by large, we receive some 150+ petawatts from a 386 yottawatts sun. "Our earth is warmed by a gigantic nuclear fireball, millions of times the mass of earth and a mere 8.5 light-minutes away." I think thats the "ALOT" of energy you spoke of.
[by a little stretch of the imagination to retain substantially larger, and equally amorphic concepts. Be mindful of added variables over time] expanding earth theory seems to more so enforces all the laws of thermodynamics than go against them.
It doesn't seem that far fetched to postulate that this ball of rock isn't storing potential. Many fail to see that dynamically, our planet is a GIANT multi-layered structure [gases liquids solids] which all form insulation. the SUN is the source
another thing I come across a lot are these "ABSOLUTES" that many want to hold on to so dear, fighting a progressive change tooth and nail. Absolute provide calm for a child but in this universe my friend, there are no absolutes, only what you call evolution. anything's possible.
earth, like any mass of cells, or big ball or rocks, as what is know as "consciousness potential" meaning, given the right conditions and observance of Time and Scale, Life or consciousness can be seen. patterns etc...
your numbers seem [biblically] sit in stone. but i wanted to ask if your calculations account for the constant bombardment of new materials from space [seeming burning to dust as these bits of rock and ice collide with the layers of heavier and heavier air molecules which surrounding this blue spec.] also all the energy you proposed, had some 200+ mil years to gradually amass its 'current' potential.
Adams never said no oceans, he said water was there but it was shallow seas, which covers the first half of this pile of shite video... it amazes me that wankers like you cherry pick the bits of information that make you look inteligent.... YOU FUCKING MORON
If it turns out the Earth is expanding well we will feel stupid for believing such crap and scientists will feel dumb.. all in all the people are as dumb as the scientists and none of us get any where any where near as fast as we ought to!
Thank you for making this video. I'm genuinely surprised at how badly rated this was despite how intellectually honest you are being (you've even sited your sources)! We need more people like you who are competent in science on Youtube.
.........i hate to state the obvious, but wouldnt it be embarrassment? afterall, who likes being seen as a fool? you make that quite clear in your attempt to discredit a theory which has alot more supporting evidence (and its growing, pardon the pun) than techtonic plate movement.
eg, sea floor stretch marks indicating movement and direction (see any sea floor geological map), the further out we move from a sea floor crack, the older the rock samples are, earthquake gaps,.............
first off, is NOT neil adam's theory, the theory has been around for some 70 years, perhaps even longer. all he is doing is is informing others of an alternative, and god forbid me for saying this, a more plausible theory.
"flagrantly disobeys the laws of conservation of energy"? well doesnt quantum mechanics do the same thing? since we're on the subject, remember when the earth was flat, an atom was indivisible, electrons float in a sea of positive.....
@johnnytheprick ......but wait, theres more. lets not forget that nothing heavier air than can fly, and one of my favourites, "everything that can be invented has been invented " (said in 1940's) .
secondly, "gravitaional potential energy": correct me if im wrong, but isnt the earth expansion theory based on the same prinicipal as an expanding star?
thridly, you asked: what benefit could scientist possibly have from convincing everybody that the world was not growing when it actually was
And if the earth expanding does require more energy to expand, who is to say that the earth is not acquiring it from a yet unknown source?
"Where would the energy come from" is evidence of nothing. Has it occurred to you that you do not know everything there is to know yet?
If it was up to persons like yourself, nothing new new would ever be discovered, because any new possibility that contradicts the paradigm would never be explored because nothing new can be true.
The problem with the Growing earth Theory is that it runs headfirst straight into the law of conservation of energy. All this matter cannot form without some sort of energy. Also "who is to say that the earth is not acquiring it from a yet unknown source" And who is to say that it is?
You keep saying that this proposed model can't be true because it does not fit with current models known by science.
I grow so tired of this brutal circular ignorance displayed by the supposed smart persons of science who can't entertain anything other than what they already think they know.
The mentality is infantile.
As far as "needing more energy". Why would the earth require more energy to expand? Perhaps the earth is expanding and retaining the same mass.
@2bornot2b1984 Expanding an retaining the same mass is impossible for an object that large. You cannot stretch trillions of tons of rock and metal without an immense force acting upon it. And we have not yet observed any of this occurring. So we have to assume that it is not occurring.
"And we have not yet observed any of this occurring."
But can it be demonstrated that it is NOT occurring?
"So we have to assume that it is not occurring."
I am fine with this assumption as a WORKING MODEL, to progress in various theoretical scientific pursuits, especially because it seems more plausible considering what we DO know about gravity etc.
But I take aversion to insisting as FACT that expansion has been ruled out, and in general arfalarf's smarmy belligerence
First of all, sarcasm and smarmyness are evidence of absolutely zero. Your presentation rests heavily upon these tactics. Being a smarmy douche does not increase accuracy.
Secondly, "where does the energy come from". This proves nothing. Why focus on what you DONT have evidence for, if you HAVE evidence for something that you can see.
The way the continents fit together is compelling. I am not a convert yet, but I see why Adams is choosing to explore/promote the theory.
"Mr Adams, you fail". Ah the witless binary win/fail dichotomy being regurgitated by group thinking hordes of pimple poppers every where.
And it adds so much more certainty when Arfalarf puts his face closer to the camera. Did you know evidence is more sound when one's face is closer to the camera? I am sure Arfalarf can produce an equation that attests to such.
How many joules of smarmyness increase the accuracy of your argument? Ask Arfalarf.
Concider the seed yet so small yet grows so big. concider us as children yet we grow. Are we as well as the animals, Trees and universe would not resemble each other. Why does everyone want to disagree with others.
We all breathe and inhale and exhale in our Living organism called Earth.
Even Flowers.
We have a lot of cosmic Dust that build up over time and even when we Die our bones are left behind
There once was dinosours proven by fossils and they were mamoth (big)
man, can tell you have lots of time to think about this. glad you are putting your mind to something educational. sorry didn't realize your situation. peace be with you.
oh... and i dig the hair, use to have a head full just like it. never could get it under control, no matter how long it got or dreaded. the girls thought it was awful. Started shaving it and a new world opened. I did it for me and no other reason, i got rewarded in ways i never expected. So nice to be free of "theBozo". Then again Einstein had a hell of a mop ... he was also way-out of the 'normal' box. So what new idea are you going to give, ripping on another's new idea is not productive.
i need not say much, it has all been said. real scientist keep an open mind to possible new and more fitting theories ...the real geniuses all think so far out of the box that they are rarely understood by the best in the fields of which they specialize.
And he's not talking about an intentional, grand conspiracy... he's talking about the way scientist's egos prevent them form taking on new ideas, even if those ideas make more sense than the popular ones... a bit like how your ego is preventing you from giving the theory due consideration.
What benefit? You sir, are either incredibly naive, OR, all your biological energy has gone into growing that RIDICULOUS head of hair. Little or no nutrients left over to grow some brains.
In any case, why sir, if you are sincere, why do you not use your real name? Something to hide?
Best way to debunk a theory is to provide theories for the observations that lead to the conclusion you are trying to debunk. You did not do that. I do not personally believe the earth is growing, but you have not showed anyone anything.
How is it that both my comments recieved more Votes Up then the highest rated comments, yet neither of them are in the Highest Rated Comments? Hmmmm?!
U wouldnt be censoring me now would you? Its gotta be a youtube thing.
Why are you afraid of debate?
I apologize for the trolling....just a lil vexed at the audacity of some people.
To the pretentious douche in this video: have you considered the possibilty that the earth might have been compressed and much more dense in the past and is now (maybe after a sun erruption stripped a potential pre-existing gas shell) decompressing (growing) and cooling?
@181183R20710 they also say that the universe and everything in it is expanding and if that's so, then maybe the earth, and all matter, is experiencing a decreasing amount of gravity, which would also result in decompression and growth.
Is it me or is he using math that may potentialy be flawed, If the Theory is correct about the exspanding Earth. The Math would have to be re-calculated to suit the result. We know fuck all and nobody likes change!!
You want to make a point and then pull it out for the sake of BREVITY yet
you have multiple parts and free access to make more videos.?
Are you factoriing that if the earth indeed is growing (which follows ALL the laws of nature) like a SEED grows, do you equate the time ratio in your formulae? I did not hear you mention the deduction reasoning from the many miillion year timeline. Just some points to consider.
I have a question for you: Have you ever debated with Niel Adams and if you did, did he censor your comments as well?
I pressed him for explicit numbers and he told me that "this is science, not engineering". *sigh*
I tried to explain how incorrect his theory is but he censored my comments so heavily I'm afraid this is lost. He censored especially hard my scientific rebuttals.
@mastersausagemaker Personally, i think Neal Adams has lost it in a big way. I don't believe the EE theory either, but if it WERE true, Neal Adams is inadvertantly kicking it to death. The man is an arrogant, obbsessed, fantical fucktard.
I agree, I've never known such a condescending and ingratiating personality.
I literally spent about three days wasting my time asking him the same three questions, never getting a result. I'm a physicist, all I wanted to discuss was how he accounted for the added matter, and he goes on some massive tirade about how Plate Tectonics is false and there is somehow plasma in the Earths core which undergoes pair production (so many things wrong here).
@mastersausagemaker Well, I'm not a scientist, but from what little I do know, pair production produces one positive particle and one negative particle. And they tend to annihilate each other within nano seconds. But if there WAS such a powerful ball of plasma at the earth's core, wouldn't the heat it generates (which would have to be close to the temperature of a small star) eventually melt the outer crust? Heat, when being constantly generated will keep on travelling.
I don't think Neal Adams has ever heard of hydrostatic pressure. But then again, he's crazy. He actually made up a new Atomic "Theory" to explain his nonsense and failed in every spectacularly in every significant way.
Indeed, that's the general idea behind pair production. It occurs all the time in the Earth's atmosphere at the plasma fountain (what I originally thought he meant by "Earth Plasma" but he never heard of) due to the exotic nature, but becomes energy quickly after.
Study the "Age of the Ocean Floor" map. It shows the silted in portions of continental crust. Now go get some tracing paper, which I'm sure you have 'cause you probably can't draw and need to trace everything. Trace the Atlantic continental borders and try to fit it together. They will match in the middle, but become off symmetrically as you move out. They only fit together on a smaller earth. Explain that! Its like finding a dead body and saying they're not dead, we don't know how they died
Ummm.... What about E=mc²? We all know that in the sun: H-1 + Neutron => H-2 + Energy; H- 2 + Neutron => H-3 + Energy; and 2 H-3 => He-4 + 2 Neutrons + Energy. Of course, take the heat energy from the core, convert that into matter, and it must go somewhere... Same for every planet in the universe, although the rate depends on the size, which increases at faster speeds in an endless loop. Find for me, where is there subduction? How can it subduct when THE ATHENOSPHERE IS NEARLY SOLID ROCK?
@kd5gua hi i am here to remind you that mass = size + density of an object
or dose earth get pockets of vacume... if it is geting new mater ( XD as if )
it's mass would increse... did you know nasa meshured the size of earth using the light from the sun wheil standing on the moo becuse ALL light is afected by gravity and gravity is dependent on MASS
I tried responding to Mr. Adams on a few of his videos, questioning his reasoning, and pointing out errors he had made. At first he replied with baseless assertions and childish insults. Then he removed only my rebuttals and blocked me.
Not even willing to discuss his own theory. He knows damn well it doesn't stand up to scrutiny but I guess he's one of those people who can never admit being wrong.
You guys do realize that Neal Adams is a comic book artist, right?.....and an iconic one at that...but still, a comic book artist. Its true, there were many arguements made in favor of this theory by otherwise creditable scientists over the last 150 years but none, other than Neal still actively pursue the idea with much vigor anymore. That being the case, don't you think it's really just an obsolete theory (that has been disproved by modern measurement) and Neal just hasn't caught up?
@chaseisahappyman, one thing to remember, size/volume is not the same as mass. There is the density factor. When something grows in size it can/often does, maintain constant mass.
Arfarf - brilliant! You totally kick butt and takes names. (Conservation of energy -- exactly!!) And unlike Neil Adams, you actually do -- gasp, math! And you base your arguments on *real* physics and geology! What a concept! Kudos! Also, with an earth gaining mass, does Adams even consider what this means in terms of the Earth' orbital position over time? I could go on and on...thank you!!!
YES! Let's get this mischievous, heretic Neil Adams and BURN him in the stake!. Who is this insignificant buffoon to DARE to contradict US, the academically recognized scientist?
LOL You're an idiot. LOL Because you forgot to factor in that the Earth grew which also means the gravity also grew with it and slowed down the rate at which the Earth was able to expand. As the Earth grew so did the gravity upon the Earth and is why it has slowed the process of the expanding Earth and is why the Earth no longer expands at the rate it once did because of the force of gravity upon the Earth's surface. You idiot. LOL!
if the earth is expanding then... everything else MUST be questioned. which is the case anyway.. everything is always being questioned. know why? because nobody has a clue whether or not our "laws" apply everywhere. being condescending turns people away from your opinon, which you are entitled to. if you want to go against someones belief, don't act like others are retarded for doing so, who are you to do so.
Damn man, you sure seem sure of yourself. it's people like you that caused galileo to be shunned and locked away because he "had no idea" how the Universe worked. just because someone else has an idea about our still Mysterious universe and even our own Blue planet, you Attack him because he breaks with the Status quo. by the way, get a hair cut and Shave if you want to at least appear professional. worthless college kids these days; mom and dad's money all a waste.
@PettyOfficerPain107, I found it hard to take him seriously because of his look as well. Also his speech had some big mistakes in grammar and misuse of expressions. I know that how someone looks shouldn't matter, but, it always will.
as the gravity of the earth increased by the adding of material through meteorites, commits and space dust, at a rate of 1 foot dirt increase per 100,000 years, gives ample time for the required energy to build up over the 4 billion years the earth has been forming. With the gravity increasing, the core would become more pressurized, and would release more energy. 200 mil years ago is most likely the pivot point of gravity, liquid molten core size, and the earths rotation. But what would i know?
@TheKcTy ur all wrong. the earth and universe is younger than you think. a dating system determined by the ratio of carbon 12-14 isnt gospel when the exchange of carbon varies according to environmental circumstances. further, the fact u are relying on dating techniques from earth is circular reasoning=fallacy. look further. the sun burning out. how big could it be 10 mil yrs ago? itd be touching mercury. 20 mill- earth. the rate stars explode=much younger.
Let me guess you still think Oil comes from dead plants & animals? Kind of funny when skeletons can only be found up to 10,000 feet down while Oil can be found 40,000+ feet down. Let me guess you still believe in the Holocaust Conspiracy Theory as well? Or how about the 9/11 Arab Conspiracy Theory? On and on your "Conspiracy Theories" grow. You really should learn what the words mean that you speak. I highly doubt you have ever had an ORIGINAL thought in your head. Your a trained repeater.
@parasitesarefunny lol this is a great post.The guy ask what purpose would thier be in scientist lieing. Knowledge is power and if the masses are left in the dark the more easier they will be controlled.
Adam's theory has some flaws but that doesn't rule out that the earth could be growing/expanding, he may be clutching at straws to give a plausable answer to explain how this is possible? the pressure in the earths core are between 330-360 gigapascals, matter exist in environments that can not be observed in a laboratory. If you look at pumice that is secreted from volcanos it once was a much denser material from deep under ground, but now has the same mass but much larger volume *EXPANSION!*???
smeagleberry85 3 days ago
@smeagleberry85
You're right, the pressure in the Earth's core is extremely high. That pressure is required to balance the weight of the planet pressing down. If the pressure in the core was not so high, the Earth would collapse under its own weight and become a black hole.
Pumice is low density because the erupting lava contained bubbles of carbon dioxide, like soda overflowing from a bottle.
Arfalarf 3 days ago
@Arfalarf could it then be possible that this could be the only possible conclusion for the expanding earth theory? that mass has not gained, but has been inflated and lost density but gained volume? maybe a sort of naturally occuring form of something similar to carbon fiber which has been carbonated ( I used carbon fiber becase i know its strong)
smeagleberry85 2 days ago
@smeagleberry85
That was exactly the calculation I did in the video.
If the Earth decreased in density it would have to push outwards against its own gravity. I calculated the amount of energy that would require, and its huge.
Arfalarf 2 days ago
@smeagleberry85 a diamond anvil cell can allow for controlled experiments to 300 GPa
161803 5 hours ago
When you talk of dust coming together to form the earth, that's speculation. No one was here to see it. It's a guess, reasonable, still a guess. Have you seen Neal's video on the moon Europa? Have you seen the one on Earth's moon? When he shrinks the moon, it lines up old asteroid splatter lines. On Europa it lines up previous crack lines in its surface. You're just repeating what you've been taught, and your "I know it all" attitude, I bet you vote Democrat, a "hail mary" hope vote.
dbr9714 1 week ago
@dbr9714
Do you honestly believe that the only valid form of evidence is personal wtiness by a human? We have theoretical models of planetary formation that predict formation from an accretion disc. Those models are confirmed by observations of other solar systems forming at a distance, and by the fact that the chemical composition of the Earth is consistent with other objects in our solar system, particularly chondritic meteorites.
Arfalarf 1 week ago
Arfalarf, spread areas have been identified on Mars by NASA, but no subduction zones have been. Why is that? Mars hasn't an ocean letting observers speculate on what "must" be going on under the ocean, an assumption that a planet just can't grow from apparently nothing. "It can't be" but there it is. Einstein thought black holes impossible, but we've found one at the center of every galaxy. He proved Newton wrong, but this! An embarrassing number of theories are wrong with this.
dbr9714 1 week ago
@dbr9714
Mid-ocean ridge spreading centers have NOT been identified on Mars. The Valles Marineris is an extensional feature, but it only records local extension associated with the uplift of Tharsis and associated volcanism.
Arfalarf 6 days ago
how did i get here? i came to youtube to listen to "without you" by david guetta...
meltinrain 2 weeks ago
@meltinrain
I don't know, but be glad you didn't have to listen to me sing.
Arfalarf 2 weeks ago
@Arfalarf hahhahhaha that really made me laugh out loud. (:
meltinrain 2 weeks ago
The map showing the expanding Pacific says it all. This map PROVES the expanding earth theory is RIGHT. PT has a "way" around this argument by saying that subduction "conveyers" are happening. However they don't show where all the friction comes from. Thermal convection? Bullshit. Note that scientific investigation is at its infancy. These PT advocates will eventually snap out of their DOGMATIC ways.
Andrewlohbihler 3 weeks ago
@Andrewlohbihler
Typing key words in ALL CAPS does not constitute an argument. The evidence for subduction zones- from earthquake locations, volcano locations, gravity anomalies, and even GPS observations of plate motion- is overwhelming. If you really think subduction is a myth, you should go tell that to the people of Japan. They know all too well how real subduction zones are.
Arfalarf 3 weeks ago
@Arfalarf The expansion map of the Pacific is overwhelming evidence that the Pacific had EXPANDED, and is continuing to expand. All PT "expert" fail to acknowlegde this evidence and go back to piling on the subduction GUCK and other unprovable "evidence". CAPs are to be emphatic, assuming you don't get the point.
Andrewlohbihler 3 weeks ago
@Andrewlohbihler
Do you really think that geologists are unaware of the age maps of the Pacific Ocean? Or of the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans? Have you ever even spoken to a real Earth scientist, or taken classes in the subject? This is one of the primary sources of evidence for plate tectonics, and you can't spend more than a few weeks in an introductory class without learning about it.
Arfalarf 3 weeks ago
since the universe is continually expanding and getting bigger since the "big bang" wouldn't that mean that everything in it is expanding/growing too.....
slayerfreak79 4 months ago
@slayerfreak79
Yes, the fact that the universe is expanding does mean that it is gaining gravitational potential energy. If the expansion was slowing down then there would be no problem, because we would be trading kinetic energy for potential energy. But the expansion is speeding up, which is why physicists have postulated "dark energy". What it is we don't know, but there is no evidence it enters individual planets in large quantities.
Arfalarf 4 months ago
Of course the earth is growing. So are the other planets. How else do you expect them to develop into stars?
stvbrsn 4 months ago
@stvbrsn
umm...They Don't.
Arfalarf 4 months ago
@stvbrsn ...totally agree.........so obvious as all plates fit together and did so in the past......my theory is everything was bigger way back then plants,animals and humans hence where story comes from in bible regards giants and humans living for hundreds of years (i believe bible is false for control of humans only)....humans are getting smaller as earth expands and plant life is depleted - oxygen levels are also dropping as time passes...in a million years we will be size of ants
geoffdundee 4 weeks ago
@geoffdundee
1. The plates fit together because they used to be joined in a supercontinent.
2. The bible is not an accurate source of historical information.
3. Oxygen levels have been as high as 30% and as low as 0% in the past. They have not risen or fallen continuously, they have fluctuated.
4. Why on Earth would the Earth expanding cause humans to shrink?
Arfalarf 3 weeks ago
@geoffdundee
1. The plates fit together because they used to be joined in a supercontinent.
2. The bible is not an accurate source of historical information.
3. Oxygen levels have been as high as 30% and as low as 0% in the past. They have not risen or fallen continuously, they have fluctuated.
4. Why on Earth would the Earth expanding cause humans to shrink?
Arfalarf 3 weeks ago
The reason for the dislikes is most likely the annoying, dismissive and smug demeanor of the presenter. Science is a technique, not the unassailable, monolithic body of knowledge for which it is often mistaken. Don't be a know-it-all... admit first that Universe cannot be fully understood by us, for we are a part of it. Then and only then can you even begin to know anything.
stvbrsn 4 months ago
@stvbrsn
You are right, I don't know everything. What I know is a tiny, minuscule fraction of what there is to know, and most of what I think I know is wrong.
But I still know more about the Earth than Neal Adams.
Arfalarf 4 months ago
@stvbrsn Neal Adams applies an artistic technique to the scientific technique. He's just as bad. Just because they earth LOOKS like it's expanding, does not mean it is.
jreed136 3 months ago
I don't know that expanding planet theory is valid. But I think using conservation of mass to refute it is weak logic. Conservation of mass is useful for understanding chemistry and closed systems but the earth is not a closed system. Its constantly take hits from comets meteors and charged particles that add many tons to the earth mass daily. You can look any where in the solar system and see large bodies are sphere shaped. Is it so crazy to think they might also be bubbles.
tmcdon4ld 4 months ago
@tmcdon4ld
Large bodies are (almost) sphere shaped because they are gravitationally bound, which is my point.
The addition of mass from impacts has not been significant since the Late Heavy Bombardment ~4 billion years ago. If it was, Earth's geology would be dominated by craters, not mid-ocean ridges, subduction zones, and continental collisions.
Arfalarf 4 months ago
How much energy does an expanding cube of ice take?
desertbard 4 months ago
@desertbard
Depends how big it is. If it is just an ice cube in your kitchen, the gravitational binding energy is negligible. If it is an ice cube the size of the Earth, it would be the same sort of calculation as I did in the video, but adjusted for the density of ice.
But if you are talking about an ice cube that is expanding because it is freezing, then you have a source of mass from the water and the dominant term in the energy budget is latent heat from the phase transition.
Arfalarf 4 months ago
@Arfalarf It's a shame your video has so many dislikes. It seems the majority of voting viewers have been morons.
TatsujinSan 4 months ago
@TatsujinSan
Thanks.
Arfalarf 4 months ago
Neal Adams is trying to explain why the planets look the way they do. He says "growth!", and he postulates a mechanism for it. This is outside of mainstream science and he may be right or wrong about it.
Still, growth would, hypothetically explain it, so if it isn´t growing, mainstream sciensce should focus on explaining why it LOOKS LIKE it does! And they are not! They are ignoring the problem, because it doesn´t fit, or it doesn´t pay. Denying the obvious or claiming it´s all coicidence.
TREMILBERG 5 months ago
If you could imagine you could give something looking like the Earth to a forensic expert in CSI Miami, he would definitely conclude that the only logical solution is that there is some kind of growth involved and that the Earth is some sort of growing fruit, where the skin is cracking, like a rain-swelled tomato.
TREMILBERG 5 months ago
It´s a psychological fact that your perseption is influenced by what you think you see. If it is a planet, you tend to think "no growth possible". If it is a fruit, you will think "growth possible". So you are not independently investigating the evidence.
Here is a new video I have made to show that geometric evidence supports Earth growth.
watch?v=TuMGf_p7pkc
I also have other videos on the subject, so enjoy!
TREMILBERG 5 months ago
where does the extra mass come from an expanding rusting nail?
for all of us out here that do not know?
northerntropics 6 months ago
@northerntropics The extra mass on an expanding rusty nail is oxygen which binds to the iron.
Arfalarf 6 months ago
@Arfalarf So if the earth had a CO2 atmosphere and live organisms turn it into an Oxigen atmosphere then there would be oxidation and expansion without some theory of new mass generation, right? B y the way i don't remember the original video mentioning extra mass.
northerntropics 6 months ago
@northerntropics The original video didn't mention extra mass because Neal Adams doesn't really understand what mass is. However, there are only two ways to make a planet grow:
1. add mass (an enormous amount of it).
2. lower the density, which implies pushing material outwards against gravity. This implies an enormous increase in potential energy.
Either way, its a fatal objection to his theory.
Arfalarf 6 months ago
@Arfalarf I thought we already agreed that for something to increase in volume no mass needs to be added. Do this experiment: get a coconut, extract the liquid, fill it with beans and water. Wait 2-5 days. If you are right the coconut will keep its shape. If I am right the coconut will expand and crack open.
northerntropics 6 months ago
@northerntropics
See #2 above.
Arfalarf 6 months ago
@Arfalarf how is mass created? Is mass created only under the conditions of the big bang? BTW, where did the big bang come from? You operate from presumptions and have no evidence whatsoever that mass only comes from outside the earth. It is nothing more than an assumption. It is a mystery and the ball is in your court... it seems you need to come up with a better set of explanations and perhaps some evidence.
PatheticHero 5 months ago
@PatheticHero
In other words, you don't just object to basic geology, you object to basic physics and cosmology too. What existed "before the big bang", if such a question is even meaningful, has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth is growing. The conservation of mass and energy (they are two forms of the same thing) is a fundamental tenet of modern science which has underpinned most of the progress we have made in the last few centuries.
Arfalarf 5 months ago
I love it.... I actually asked him the same thing, what would science have to gain in hiding that information if it were true. He got very defensive. He calls people stupid because they do not agree with his theory. He is just plain wrong.
MsJadedmind 6 months ago
Dude, you're not realizing that the footage was SPED UP. It's showing the expansion over BILLIONS of years. For example's sake, people still don't quite understand why gravity even exists--or what truly makes up "mass" for "that matter" (lol). Einstein's theory of Relativity is just THAT--a THEORY. They're still trying to figure out the "quarks" at the subatomic level with colliders as big as Switzerland and they aren't getting anywhere.
P.S. When are you getting out of jail? lol
AndradaDacia 7 months ago
People used to think the world was flat, just remember that! lol So I'm not tossing this awesome theory to the side...lol
AndradaDacia 7 months ago
Earth has an unlimited amount of energy from which to grow and it's called the Sun.
dirtydeeds76 7 months ago
@dirtydeeds76
Oh? And by what mechanism does the Earth capture the Suns energy to grow? Perhaps by some form of geological photosynthesis then? How efficient is this capture rate? How much energy is needed for the Earth to grow, the energy the Sun outputs, the rate of the Earth's radial growth, the rate of mass production, and the method by which the energy is converted into matter?
You will find that the Sun, as large as it is, is a very finite body.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
Comment removed
doctordave 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker I'll do you one better. Let's calculate how much solar energy falls on the Earth in one year.
(1300 W/m^2*pi*r_Earth^2*1 year) in Joules = 5x10^24 Joules. If that was ALL converted to mass (divide by c^2) that would be around 58 million kilograms a year! multiply by a billion years, that's enough to create 6x10^16 kg of new matter!! Seems like enough to make the Earth grow, right?
Wrong... it's about 1/100millionth of the Earth's mass.
Sorry Neal & friends!
doctordave 6 months ago
Now one might counter, "Well that's just LIGHT energy! What about neutrinos and dark matter particles and tachyons and prime mater and..."
Fine. Let's grant that the Sun actually puts out A MILLION TIMES MORE ENERGY in exotic science-fictiony particles than it does in sunlight. (Which is of course impossible if fusion is the source of power, but whatever, were playing Crackpot's Advocate.) Even if this is TRUE that's still only enough to grow the Earth's mass by ONE PERCENT IN A BILLION YEARS
doctordave 6 months ago
@doctordave
It may be neat to try and calculate this by photon momentum per surface area of contact.
Regardless, their claims are beyond outlandish. Some even state that the Earth doubled its volume in 300 million years (their math is generally so bad, they can't determine radial growth rates using highschool calculus).
Perhaps this is why Adam's reworking of Atomic theory is devoid of any mathematics, replaced instead with expensive imagery. To these paranoid people, science is an enemy.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@doctordave
One last interesting piece of gossip: Adams also told me that there are only physicists or geologists, and if you ask one about the others field, they are completely ignorant. He uses this as a pretense to attack specialisation thus he sees "the big picture" because he isn't burdened with "specialised knowledge". I pointed out to him the existence of geophysicists which are both and he seemed to entirely dismiss the idea that such people exist.
Then he called me an ignorant child...
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker Yeah, believe me... I've engaged Neal extensively, so I know how the argument process works. Although I will say he seems to be getting increasingly erratic. He's quite a character. He's definitely not STUPID. In fact I think he's quite clever. But his fondness for this theory has pulled him so far off the intellectual deep end that I don't think even he believes most of this nonsense about redefining the meaning and process of science anymore. So he just yells a lot.
doctordave 6 months ago
@doctordave
I would argue that seems he is too erratic to make any meaningful distinction whether he is intelligent or not. Coupled with some incredibly misinformed comments, paranoia, and his unique realism, it's really quite hard to make any distinction about how he thinks or his basis in reinventing scientific principles by a priori means.
Well, one can always choose incrementally larger arbitrary points. Really, it simply comes down to what is plausible. Even total energy output is too low.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@doctordave
Adams told me once that "this is theoretical physics, not engineering" in explaining to me why he had no estimates or data. He has since deleted all my comments.
The whole point was to demonstrate that these quacks don't use or understand data. Let's just say they wont be publishing anything in Springer-Verlag anytime soon.
I got the roughly same numbers you did, the magnitudes at least were the same. I noticed you chose a 100% perfect absorption system. Being generous, are we?
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
Well, yes... that's how you do these things. If someone says mechanism X causes effect Y, and you want to quickly show that it's not possible... the best approach is to grossly overestimate ALL of the factors in X, calculate the effect, and show that it's still far too small to be responsible. In this case multiplying the solar flux by a MILLION and assuming it ALL gets converted to mass? "Generous" doesn't even do it justice. There is NO WAY to grow the Earth w/o violating energy conservation.
doctordave 6 months ago
Enjoy :)
Bellman18 7 months ago
if in fact the earth is growing and this information is being withheld, how can you make a calculation on sizes and data you can not possibly know ???
G20GAN 8 months ago
You have not considered that ions may be jetting into the auroral areas - positive in the north and negative ones in the south. High energy ions produced from the ionisation of cosmic dust would diffuse through the crust and into the mantle where they would eventually form compounds in an exothermic way. These would explain a 'liquid inflation' of the planet, regular increases in hydrostatic pressure which are neutralised by volcanism or crustal strain.See evolutionem.webplus.net - details
planmet 8 months ago
You have not considered that ions may be jetting into the auroral areas - positive in the north and negative ones in the south. High energy ions produced from the ionisation of cosmic dust would diffuse through the crust and into the mantle where they would eventually form compounds in an exothermic way. These would explain a 'liquid inflation' of the planet, regular increases in hydrostatic pressure which are neutralised by volcanism or crustal strain.See evolutionem.webplus.net for details
planmet 8 months ago
Wow, now I KNOW the earth is hollow. One question please? Dude are you jail?
TheOlderangel 8 months ago
He's had several things he's said that violate the conservation of energy.
His fucknut cronies seem to like to downvote videos that correctly prove him wrong
Hellsadvocate 9 months ago
Look Neal is a dick and don't let it fuck with you
Peace
MADhybrid1 9 months ago
Oil comes from growth. There is your stupid conspiracy. You dont get shit
MADhybrid1 9 months ago
listen buddy, you are right there is not conspiracy
But the world is growing but not as Neal Adam suggests
listen closely
our magnetic field is ingesting enregy- matter that the sun expels as it converts hydrogen to helium.
Basalt is the foundation for the entire planet and it did severe because of our magnetic field ingesting energy-matter from the sun and forcing continents-basalt upward
Your numbers mean nothing
MADhybrid1 9 months ago
@arfalarf expanding earth would not be possible with an iron core that being said how do we know earth has an iron core this would make alot more sense to u if u take into account the core may not be iron perhaps plasma would make the theory better understood and perhaps plasma that absorbs suns energy n produces matter...not saying ur wrong in any way but this is a subject ive just began to look into n it woud seem the unknown is endless
endub42 10 months ago
Planets grow and while they grow they become hollow.
That's what "they" are conspiring against. We are not supposed to know that planets are in fact hollow. Because if we knew, it would eventually lead to the end of "their" reign.
There is much more to this issue than you can even start to comprehend buddy. But i'm sure you're way too smart to buy into all the conspiracy bullshit, right?
So i'll leave it at that, just continue sucking up the party line and i'm sure you'll do fine.
Cheers! :)
CCLJunky 10 months ago 2
@CCLJunky Planets become hollow!?!? THAT sir is just wrong, SOOOO wrong.
Aphobis 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aphobis Well sir, that's your opinion. I on the other hand am pretty much convinced that it is not wrong. To me, the hollow planet model makes much more sense than the solid planet model.
Anyway, there was a time in history when everyone KNEW that the planet was flat and that you would fall off if you ventured far enough over the oceans. And everyone even considering a spherical form was labeled crazy and blasphemous.
I guess things haven't changed much, huh? ;)
CCLJunky 6 months ago
@CCLJunky Hollow planets would have serious problems with gravitational instability. The outer ring would collapse inwards under its own weight. No natural materials (and for that matter, no artificial materials) are strong enough to withstand the force required to keep a hollow planet from collapsing.
Not to mention that seismic waves travel through the interior of the Earth in a manner consistent with a liquid outer core and a solid inner core.
Arfalarf 6 months ago
@Arfalarf Lol, you mean the other way around, a liquid inner and a solid outer core. But anyway, even that is not true. I suggest you take a look at Jan Lamprecht's work. He has the math to show that planets are in fact hollow from a seismic point of view. Besides, we know to little about gravity to make the claim that a hollow planet would collapse under it's own weight. It might even turn out that it is BECAUSE of gravity that planets grow and become hollow.
CCLJunky 6 months ago
@CCLJunky No, I actually mean liquid outer and solid inner. Seismic shear waves cannot travel through the liquid outer core but pressure waves can. This produces characteristic patterns of seismic arrivals on the other side of the Earth from earthquakes.
And we most definitely do know enough about gravity to conclude that a hollow planet would collapse under its own weight.
Arfalarf 6 months ago
@Arfalarf I'm sorry, but you're referring to the mainstream science bullshit explanation for the fact that they have to adjust their calculations every time again, whilst mr. Lamprecht's calculations don't need to be changed, they work all the time, because he uses a hollow model.
But anyway, you seem to be arrogant enough to think we know all there is to know about gravity and nature. Well, dream on buddy. We know nothing, we just like to think we do, so people like you can sleep at night.
CCLJunky 6 months ago
The flaw in your rebuttal is that Adams & company never tried to explain how it is possible... they simply describe the evidence that proves that the expansions have occurred. You assume that you know the laws of physics, when any physicist will tell you that we know very little. The growing earth theory was covered up because, more than anything else, it exposes how very little we truly understand and in the 1930s, Western Science needed firm foundations to gain global acceptance.
JoedaBigs 10 months ago
And yes... I am aware that there is no real proof that COE is wrong either. But, I am sure that eventually, probably sooner rather than later, quantum physicists will figure that one out. And then it will all begin to make some sort of sense.
Robin081564 11 months ago
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, you lost my interest when you simply cited the law of COE as the reason that the mass of the Earth could not have changed. There is no proof that COE is correct. It is just part of a belief system adopted by physicists who needed a set of basic laws to help them define the behavior of existing mass. There is no scientific provision or explanation of where all the energy come from in the first place. To me, that is more like a religiou
Robin081564 11 months ago
@Robin081564 There's more proof of COE than any other theory ever dreamt up. i.e. Every single experiment ever coined up has energy conserved. Plus you can derive it mathematically with considerations of symmetry in time. COE is probably the most well established and fundemental piece of science there ever has been. If 4 momentum isn't conserved then, quite frankly, all science is useless, because every single scientific theory is based on conservation of 4 momentum somewhere along the line
AceBean27 10 months ago
With the sun being the source of our potential energy, by large, we receive some 150+ petawatts from a 386 yottawatts sun. "Our earth is warmed by a gigantic nuclear fireball, millions of times the mass of earth and a mere 8.5 light-minutes away." I think thats the "ALOT" of energy you spoke of.
tewster 11 months ago
[by a little stretch of the imagination to retain substantially larger, and equally amorphic concepts. Be mindful of added variables over time] expanding earth theory seems to more so enforces all the laws of thermodynamics than go against them.
It doesn't seem that far fetched to postulate that this ball of rock isn't storing potential. Many fail to see that dynamically, our planet is a GIANT multi-layered structure [gases liquids solids] which all form insulation. the SUN is the source
tewster 11 months ago
another thing I come across a lot are these "ABSOLUTES" that many want to hold on to so dear, fighting a progressive change tooth and nail. Absolute provide calm for a child but in this universe my friend, there are no absolutes, only what you call evolution. anything's possible.
earth, like any mass of cells, or big ball or rocks, as what is know as "consciousness potential" meaning, given the right conditions and observance of Time and Scale, Life or consciousness can be seen. patterns etc...
tewster 11 months ago
your numbers seem [biblically] sit in stone. but i wanted to ask if your calculations account for the constant bombardment of new materials from space [seeming burning to dust as these bits of rock and ice collide with the layers of heavier and heavier air molecules which surrounding this blue spec.] also all the energy you proposed, had some 200+ mil years to gradually amass its 'current' potential.
tewster 11 months ago
Adams never said no oceans, he said water was there but it was shallow seas, which covers the first half of this pile of shite video... it amazes me that wankers like you cherry pick the bits of information that make you look inteligent.... YOU FUCKING MORON
ekhornbeck127 11 months ago
i have no idea what you are saying but i do agree the growing earth "theory" is total bullshit
SubliimePotato 11 months ago
Made some comments here NtXydGGgMs.
If it turns out the Earth is expanding well we will feel stupid for believing such crap and scientists will feel dumb.. all in all the people are as dumb as the scientists and none of us get any where any where near as fast as we ought to!
CBFR07 11 months ago
@CBFR07 Sorry it's here _NtXydGGgMs
CBFR07 11 months ago
Thank you for making this video. I'm genuinely surprised at how badly rated this was despite how intellectually honest you are being (you've even sited your sources)! We need more people like you who are competent in science on Youtube.
JabborWacky 11 months ago
.........i hate to state the obvious, but wouldnt it be embarrassment? afterall, who likes being seen as a fool? you make that quite clear in your attempt to discredit a theory which has alot more supporting evidence (and its growing, pardon the pun) than techtonic plate movement.
eg, sea floor stretch marks indicating movement and direction (see any sea floor geological map), the further out we move from a sea floor crack, the older the rock samples are, earthquake gaps,.............
johnnytheprick 11 months ago
good god!
first off, is NOT neil adam's theory, the theory has been around for some 70 years, perhaps even longer. all he is doing is is informing others of an alternative, and god forbid me for saying this, a more plausible theory.
"flagrantly disobeys the laws of conservation of energy"? well doesnt quantum mechanics do the same thing? since we're on the subject, remember when the earth was flat, an atom was indivisible, electrons float in a sea of positive.....
johnnytheprick 11 months ago
@johnnytheprick ......but wait, theres more. lets not forget that nothing heavier air than can fly, and one of my favourites, "everything that can be invented has been invented " (said in 1940's) .
secondly, "gravitaional potential energy": correct me if im wrong, but isnt the earth expansion theory based on the same prinicipal as an expanding star?
thridly, you asked: what benefit could scientist possibly have from convincing everybody that the world was not growing when it actually was
johnnytheprick 11 months ago
The Earth gains 20 tonnes a day?-dust ,meteors ice crystals so over 4 billion years....
It gets a fat ass as do all large bodies in space.
If science is right then ask the quest - i - on " how much energy is in you?"
shaundelear 11 months ago
Pt. 4.
And if the earth expanding does require more energy to expand, who is to say that the earth is not acquiring it from a yet unknown source?
"Where would the energy come from" is evidence of nothing. Has it occurred to you that you do not know everything there is to know yet?
If it was up to persons like yourself, nothing new new would ever be discovered, because any new possibility that contradicts the paradigm would never be explored because nothing new can be true.
Lol: "Education"
2bornot2b1984 11 months ago
@2bornot2b1984
The problem with the Growing earth Theory is that it runs headfirst straight into the law of conservation of energy. All this matter cannot form without some sort of energy. Also "who is to say that the earth is not acquiring it from a yet unknown source" And who is to say that it is?
gastrolBTR 11 months ago
Pt. 3.
You keep saying that this proposed model can't be true because it does not fit with current models known by science.
I grow so tired of this brutal circular ignorance displayed by the supposed smart persons of science who can't entertain anything other than what they already think they know.
The mentality is infantile.
As far as "needing more energy". Why would the earth require more energy to expand? Perhaps the earth is expanding and retaining the same mass.
2bornot2b1984 11 months ago
@2bornot2b1984 Expanding an retaining the same mass is impossible for an object that large. You cannot stretch trillions of tons of rock and metal without an immense force acting upon it. And we have not yet observed any of this occurring. So we have to assume that it is not occurring.
gastrolBTR 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gastrolBTR
Pt. 1.
"Expanding and retaining the same mass is impossible for an object that large."
A balloon expands and retains the same mass. Ever watched anyone blow glass, and spin a blob of glass into a larger sphere?
How can we say for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN the earth is not expanding and re-hardening its structure while displacing mass INSIDE?
Cont...
2bornot2b1984 6 months ago
Comment removed
2bornot2b1984 6 months ago
@gastrolBTR
Pt. 2.
"And we have not yet observed any of this occurring."
But can it be demonstrated that it is NOT occurring?
"So we have to assume that it is not occurring."
I am fine with this assumption as a WORKING MODEL, to progress in various theoretical scientific pursuits, especially because it seems more plausible considering what we DO know about gravity etc.
But I take aversion to insisting as FACT that expansion has been ruled out, and in general arfalarf's smarmy belligerence
2bornot2b1984 6 months ago
Pt. 2.
First of all, sarcasm and smarmyness are evidence of absolutely zero. Your presentation rests heavily upon these tactics. Being a smarmy douche does not increase accuracy.
Secondly, "where does the energy come from". This proves nothing. Why focus on what you DONT have evidence for, if you HAVE evidence for something that you can see.
The way the continents fit together is compelling. I am not a convert yet, but I see why Adams is choosing to explore/promote the theory.
2bornot2b1984 11 months ago
@2bornot2b1984
The continental shelves are ignored. Also, some places did have to be squashed and played around with until they fit (in neil's video.)
gastrolBTR 11 months ago
Pt. 1.
"Mr Adams, you fail". Ah the witless binary win/fail dichotomy being regurgitated by group thinking hordes of pimple poppers every where.
And it adds so much more certainty when Arfalarf puts his face closer to the camera. Did you know evidence is more sound when one's face is closer to the camera? I am sure Arfalarf can produce an equation that attests to such.
How many joules of smarmyness increase the accuracy of your argument? Ask Arfalarf.
Cont...
2bornot2b1984 11 months ago
Dumbass!
MarieInRed 1 year ago
agreed; nobody likes a smartass.
TechnoKid79 1 year ago
Dude, WTF, So the earth is still the same old size FLAT DISC...!
Seriously, and I don't want anyone bothering me with spherical shaped earth theories... just rediculous..!
Get alive people, the earth is FLAT!! LOL
(for the truthseeksers, keep away from idiots like this for it can seriously damage your health )
HGNnet 1 year ago
everything grows you fucking retard...open your eyes you dumb sounding tryhard scientist .mr adams makes more sence than you freak.
imnofun1 1 year ago
In the beginning God created the Earth and it was without Form, Meaning it was in a Gas state before it took to tetra (soil,Dirt, Rock)
We started out as a chemical that was mixed between a sperm and a Egg and began Growing like any other Living thing.
But some of us still want to be a baby and not grow up to Truth
God created us in his Image so we would Grow with him and not to be left alone
He is now even bigger than when he began yet we still think in small terms
Our Planet is the seed
kolb49 1 year ago
@kolb49
No you're actually deluded.
JamesThWilliams 1 year ago
Concider the seed yet so small yet grows so big. concider us as children yet we grow. Are we as well as the animals, Trees and universe would not resemble each other. Why does everyone want to disagree with others.
We all breathe and inhale and exhale in our Living organism called Earth.
Even Flowers.
We have a lot of cosmic Dust that build up over time and even when we Die our bones are left behind
There once was dinosours proven by fossils and they were mamoth (big)
kolb49 1 year ago
what benefit do you have from making yourself so smart!!! well the same as the one bla bla,... have fun... i have nothing against that!
pipolopulus 1 year ago
man, can tell you have lots of time to think about this. glad you are putting your mind to something educational. sorry didn't realize your situation. peace be with you.
godnmyhands 1 year ago
how much energy would an expanding universe require?
godnmyhands 1 year ago
oh... and i dig the hair, use to have a head full just like it. never could get it under control, no matter how long it got or dreaded. the girls thought it was awful. Started shaving it and a new world opened. I did it for me and no other reason, i got rewarded in ways i never expected. So nice to be free of "theBozo". Then again Einstein had a hell of a mop ... he was also way-out of the 'normal' box. So what new idea are you going to give, ripping on another's new idea is not productive.
godnmyhands 1 year ago
i need not say much, it has all been said. real scientist keep an open mind to possible new and more fitting theories ...the real geniuses all think so far out of the box that they are rarely understood by the best in the fields of which they specialize.
godnmyhands 1 year ago
Expanding Earth isn't Adam's theory, dork.
And he's not talking about an intentional, grand conspiracy... he's talking about the way scientist's egos prevent them form taking on new ideas, even if those ideas make more sense than the popular ones... a bit like how your ego is preventing you from giving the theory due consideration.
shanehoustein 1 year ago
What benefit? You sir, are either incredibly naive, OR, all your biological energy has gone into growing that RIDICULOUS head of hair. Little or no nutrients left over to grow some brains.
In any case, why sir, if you are sincere, why do you not use your real name? Something to hide?
beneehall 1 year ago
@arfalarf,
1) your attitude sucks & reminds of the catholic church's attitude toward Galileo.
2) EE isn't Adams' theory, it's been around much longer, and has better proponents, Adams' is just great at animating it.
3) the EE theory doesn't contradict conservation of energy, you merely lack a scientific mind to admit we don't know everything yet.
4) sea level is irrelevant to the "motion" of the continents.
5) many things are "beyond" you.
6) your bedroom looks like a psych-ward bedroom.
muslUnbounded 1 year ago
Hey professor Douche Bag, get a hair cut.
Best way to debunk a theory is to provide theories for the observations that lead to the conclusion you are trying to debunk. You did not do that. I do not personally believe the earth is growing, but you have not showed anyone anything.
FourTwenny 1 year ago
Anyone who uses Wikipedia as their references should be shot.
thosefuckers 1 year ago
Dude!!!
How is it that both my comments recieved more Votes Up then the highest rated comments, yet neither of them are in the Highest Rated Comments? Hmmmm?!
U wouldnt be censoring me now would you? Its gotta be a youtube thing.
Why are you afraid of debate?
I apologize for the trolling....just a lil vexed at the audacity of some people.
ecpruthless 1 year ago
To the pretentious douche in this video: have you considered the possibilty that the earth might have been compressed and much more dense in the past and is now (maybe after a sun erruption stripped a potential pre-existing gas shell) decompressing (growing) and cooling?
181183R20710 1 year ago
@181183R20710 they also say that the universe and everything in it is expanding and if that's so, then maybe the earth, and all matter, is experiencing a decreasing amount of gravity, which would also result in decompression and growth.
truthandlightprevail 1 year ago
Is it me or is he using math that may potentialy be flawed, If the Theory is correct about the exspanding Earth. The Math would have to be re-calculated to suit the result. We know fuck all and nobody likes change!!
187781jason 1 year ago
You want to make a point and then pull it out for the sake of BREVITY yet
you have multiple parts and free access to make more videos.?
Are you factoriing that if the earth indeed is growing (which follows ALL the laws of nature) like a SEED grows, do you equate the time ratio in your formulae? I did not hear you mention the deduction reasoning from the many miillion year timeline. Just some points to consider.
oatstao 1 year ago
I have a question for you: Have you ever debated with Niel Adams and if you did, did he censor your comments as well?
I pressed him for explicit numbers and he told me that "this is science, not engineering". *sigh*
I tried to explain how incorrect his theory is but he censored my comments so heavily I'm afraid this is lost. He censored especially hard my scientific rebuttals.
He was like a creationist:
Evolution is wrong, so God is true.
Tectonics is wrong, so my theory is true
mastersausagemaker 1 year ago
@mastersausagemaker Personally, i think Neal Adams has lost it in a big way. I don't believe the EE theory either, but if it WERE true, Neal Adams is inadvertantly kicking it to death. The man is an arrogant, obbsessed, fantical fucktard.
VinnyMonster1 6 months ago
@VinnyMonster1
I agree, I've never known such a condescending and ingratiating personality.
I literally spent about three days wasting my time asking him the same three questions, never getting a result. I'm a physicist, all I wanted to discuss was how he accounted for the added matter, and he goes on some massive tirade about how Plate Tectonics is false and there is somehow plasma in the Earths core which undergoes pair production (so many things wrong here).
Let him waste his money.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
@mastersausagemaker Well, I'm not a scientist, but from what little I do know, pair production produces one positive particle and one negative particle. And they tend to annihilate each other within nano seconds. But if there WAS such a powerful ball of plasma at the earth's core, wouldn't the heat it generates (which would have to be close to the temperature of a small star) eventually melt the outer crust? Heat, when being constantly generated will keep on travelling.
VinnyMonster1 6 months ago
@VinnyMonster1
I don't think Neal Adams has ever heard of hydrostatic pressure. But then again, he's crazy. He actually made up a new Atomic "Theory" to explain his nonsense and failed in every spectacularly in every significant way.
Indeed, that's the general idea behind pair production. It occurs all the time in the Earth's atmosphere at the plasma fountain (what I originally thought he meant by "Earth Plasma" but he never heard of) due to the exotic nature, but becomes energy quickly after.
mastersausagemaker 6 months ago
Study the "Age of the Ocean Floor" map. It shows the silted in portions of continental crust. Now go get some tracing paper, which I'm sure you have 'cause you probably can't draw and need to trace everything. Trace the Atlantic continental borders and try to fit it together. They will match in the middle, but become off symmetrically as you move out. They only fit together on a smaller earth. Explain that! Its like finding a dead body and saying they're not dead, we don't know how they died
robehne 1 year ago
Wow.. You must think your an expert on earth and so knowledgeable about earth you think you can explain how it all works...
LMAO
SemiazasxXx 1 year ago
@SemiazasxXx well he's got some super factual numbers on a page and a few
mainstream books he's sited from. IT MUST BE TRUE, he sure thinks so.
He can't even figure out how to get out of that damn room
oatstao 1 year ago
Ummm.... What about E=mc²? We all know that in the sun: H-1 + Neutron => H-2 + Energy; H- 2 + Neutron => H-3 + Energy; and 2 H-3 => He-4 + 2 Neutrons + Energy. Of course, take the heat energy from the core, convert that into matter, and it must go somewhere... Same for every planet in the universe, although the rate depends on the size, which increases at faster speeds in an endless loop. Find for me, where is there subduction? How can it subduct when THE ATHENOSPHERE IS NEARLY SOLID ROCK?
zelda64rules 1 year ago
You are truly a fool , your thinking is tainted.
LifeOrLies 1 year ago
Any idiot that would grow that hair style facial hair and use retarded like Flagarantly LoL you are an idiot my friend!!
BloodyKnukelz 1 year ago
"through the course of geologic time", what a stupid statement. I notice this guy talks about size as if it equals mass. roflmao
kd5gua 1 year ago
@kd5gua hi i am here to remind you that mass = size + density of an object
or dose earth get pockets of vacume... if it is geting new mater ( XD as if )
it's mass would increse... did you know nasa meshured the size of earth using the light from the sun wheil standing on the moo becuse ALL light is afected by gravity and gravity is dependent on MASS
jannikmt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jannikmt, all I can do is laugh at your response. Were you stoned or drunk?
kd5gua 1 year ago
@kd5gua and he doesn't even truly approach to factor in the millions of years that a process of PLANT-ET
growing like the seed it has deemed by many cultures would take and destroy his miniscule indoctrined
facsimilie equation, sad because he's a boy.
oatstao 1 year ago
I tried responding to Mr. Adams on a few of his videos, questioning his reasoning, and pointing out errors he had made. At first he replied with baseless assertions and childish insults. Then he removed only my rebuttals and blocked me.
Not even willing to discuss his own theory. He knows damn well it doesn't stand up to scrutiny but I guess he's one of those people who can never admit being wrong.
Aethgeir 1 year ago
I've been so high this whole time and thought he was in jail
codyg670 1 year ago
You guys do realize that Neal Adams is a comic book artist, right?.....and an iconic one at that...but still, a comic book artist. Its true, there were many arguements made in favor of this theory by otherwise creditable scientists over the last 150 years but none, other than Neal still actively pursue the idea with much vigor anymore. That being the case, don't you think it's really just an obsolete theory (that has been disproved by modern measurement) and Neal just hasn't caught up?
LitterboxDiorama 1 year ago
doesn't a star grow before it explodes, where does that extra energy come from?
chaseisahappyman 1 year ago
@chaseisahappyman .....Nuclear fusion.
hippydude89 1 year ago
@chaseisahappyman, one thing to remember, size/volume is not the same as mass. There is the density factor. When something grows in size it can/often does, maintain constant mass.
kd5gua 1 year ago
Arfarf - brilliant! You totally kick butt and takes names. (Conservation of energy -- exactly!!) And unlike Neil Adams, you actually do -- gasp, math! And you base your arguments on *real* physics and geology! What a concept! Kudos! Also, with an earth gaining mass, does Adams even consider what this means in terms of the Earth' orbital position over time? I could go on and on...thank you!!!
mettarefuge 1 year ago
YES! Let's get this mischievous, heretic Neil Adams and BURN him in the stake!. Who is this insignificant buffoon to DARE to contradict US, the academically recognized scientist?
FMMAROTO 1 year ago
Comment removed
hoad47 1 year ago
LOL You're an idiot. LOL Because you forgot to factor in that the Earth grew which also means the gravity also grew with it and slowed down the rate at which the Earth was able to expand. As the Earth grew so did the gravity upon the Earth and is why it has slowed the process of the expanding Earth and is why the Earth no longer expands at the rate it once did because of the force of gravity upon the Earth's surface. You idiot. LOL!
chuck1967 1 year ago
A- for effort
the7thwreck 1 year ago
if the earth is expanding then... everything else MUST be questioned. which is the case anyway.. everything is always being questioned. know why? because nobody has a clue whether or not our "laws" apply everywhere. being condescending turns people away from your opinon, which you are entitled to. if you want to go against someones belief, don't act like others are retarded for doing so, who are you to do so.
afrobandit79 1 year ago
Damn man, you sure seem sure of yourself. it's people like you that caused galileo to be shunned and locked away because he "had no idea" how the Universe worked. just because someone else has an idea about our still Mysterious universe and even our own Blue planet, you Attack him because he breaks with the Status quo. by the way, get a hair cut and Shave if you want to at least appear professional. worthless college kids these days; mom and dad's money all a waste.
PettyOfficerPain107 1 year ago
@PettyOfficerPain107, I found it hard to take him seriously because of his look as well. Also his speech had some big mistakes in grammar and misuse of expressions. I know that how someone looks shouldn't matter, but, it always will.
kd5gua 1 year ago
as the gravity of the earth increased by the adding of material through meteorites, commits and space dust, at a rate of 1 foot dirt increase per 100,000 years, gives ample time for the required energy to build up over the 4 billion years the earth has been forming. With the gravity increasing, the core would become more pressurized, and would release more energy. 200 mil years ago is most likely the pivot point of gravity, liquid molten core size, and the earths rotation. But what would i know?
TheKcTy 1 year ago
@TheKcTy Now this guy knows what i'm talking about. lol You are absolutely correct sir.
chuck1967 1 year ago
@TheKcTy ur all wrong. the earth and universe is younger than you think. a dating system determined by the ratio of carbon 12-14 isnt gospel when the exchange of carbon varies according to environmental circumstances. further, the fact u are relying on dating techniques from earth is circular reasoning=fallacy. look further. the sun burning out. how big could it be 10 mil yrs ago? itd be touching mercury. 20 mill- earth. the rate stars explode=much younger.
tymwlltll 1 year ago
@TheKcTy Are you drunk boy?
PierreGrondinLeBlanc 1 year ago
Let me guess you still think Oil comes from dead plants & animals? Kind of funny when skeletons can only be found up to 10,000 feet down while Oil can be found 40,000+ feet down. Let me guess you still believe in the Holocaust Conspiracy Theory as well? Or how about the 9/11 Arab Conspiracy Theory? On and on your "Conspiracy Theories" grow. You really should learn what the words mean that you speak. I highly doubt you have ever had an ORIGINAL thought in your head. Your a trained repeater.
parasitesarefunny 1 year ago
@parasitesarefunny lol this is a great post.The guy ask what purpose would thier be in scientist lieing. Knowledge is power and if the masses are left in the dark the more easier they will be controlled.
jackflack1516 1 year ago
A hilarious amount of Neal Adams' groupies commenting on this video.
thecreepingmess 1 year ago
I have two words to say to respond to this:
Plate Tectonics
DarkForceB 1 year ago
dude are you in jail?
LogWiz 1 year ago 23
@LogWiz THe hallowed halls of indoctrination and cage methodology is where this boy resides.
oatstao 1 year ago
@LogWiz roflmao
TheOlderangel 8 months ago