The Plate Tectonics -800ma to +200ma

[RobloxTitanicMovie]

alaska didnt change at all

[Yewro2000]

I'm confused why does the continents move back

[Yewro2000]

I'm confused why does the contentents move back

[Iamrandom1997]

yay!!!! pangaea reborn!!!! lol

[diamondglitz100]

OMG it will be 1 world!

[Legomakerx]

What about california!?

[xxsweetseductionxx3]

damn... shows how small the world actually is... O_o

[GTAracer24]

A lot of road travel!

[MrTubetraveller]

Continents will get together,Scandinavia will last forever!)))

[outofbubblegum]

Hang on a min there fellas .... since when did south america and Africa not connect ? ? ? This is pure BS ! ..... Seek the Videos of James Maxlow PHD

[Morkindie]

@outofbubblegum The split at about 25 seconds

[TerraDepicter]

They forgot the Tectonic movment in Ethiopia and Iceland!

[Mampf100]

n1, indeed :o

[akuarashi]

wow, it's so fasinating how in such "fast motion" the continents look almost liquid. weeeee ^w^

[Snowwie888]

Ireland is completely crushed by Greenland.

[Grak70]

Japan gets owned.

[ThomsonFly12331]

:( ill be frozen in ice by then in the north pole :(

[KAAAZAMMM]

ice is almost gone XD

[VivalaChina]

Australia will crush in East Asia,West Antarctica and East Antarctica will seperate,amazing prediction!

[irthenoes]

Yes.

And if this doesn't happen in 200 million years, come by my house and slam me in the balls.

That's a dare.

[AqualinespiritPL]

Ok so why Big Bang can create simple particles that "evolve" later 2 more sophisticated particles while matter creation in the planets - must create whole range of particles - how bout they 2 create simple particles wich eventually "evolve" in smthng else - like positron that is beeing created from space radiation - Anderson got Nobel prize for this discovery - so as u can see, spontanous matter creation happens all the time - its just matter of what exactly is beeing created and when.

[izovire]

California looks like it'll be okay and not split... HA!!! This makes me look at expanding earth theory more and more...

[Gaiabladegold]

What the hell! They just go back together!

[mike4ty4]

Also, based on Neal's spread model there should be a mid-ridge in that ocean starting around the Philipplines and Indonesia, then going northeast, leveling out somewhere in the northern half of the ocean, then turning southeast and running down until it curves around below South America. But look at a map of the ocean floor. That is NOT what the ridges there look like! What ridge is there looks clearly as if it was over-ridden by the North American continent.

[mike4ty4]

Look at the video these comments are being posted under. Just look at where it shows the plate boundaries for the present day. Notice the lack of ridge in where the spreading is supposed to be happening according to Neal's theory (watch his videos and you can easily see where the ridge would have to be).

[VanMoth]

This is going to be my last post to you. Basically, my take on this is, scientists do not know how mass is formed in the universe. Also, based on the animations I've seen, the growing earth example is FAR less convoluted and seemingly "made up" than the geologic

"history" they claim took place.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein

Good luck.

[mike4ty4]

"Also, based on the animations I've seen, the growing earth example is FAR less convoluted and seemingly "made up" than the geologic

"history" they claim took place."

NOT...

"Basically, my take on this is, scientists do not know how mass is formed in the universe."

That doesn't mean it happens inside the Earth.

[diamondglitz100]

@mike4ty4 hey i live in the Philippines!!

[mike4ty4]

One of Neal's "arguments" to support Earth Growth over Tectonic theory seems to be his dubious claim that the continents "ALSO match up in the Pacific not just the Atlantic". But this is *wrong*! Just look at a map. You cannot match the continents up without some serious morphing and rotations that, according to Neal, are IMPOSSIBLE! Yet his animations show continents ROTATING to fit together!!!

[VanMoth]

mike4ty4, All one has to do is watch any program on how current science says all the continents formed and moved around all over the globe over billions of years to see just how "made up" it all is. They are obviously doing major guess work to come to those conclusions. Guess work that is way more laughable than the suggestion that the earth has expanded based on the observable notion that the earth expanded over time. It's because of this that to me, Growing Earth Theory holds more weight.

[mike4ty4]

Doesn't seem like guesswork to me. Seems like hard science.

"Earth Growth Theory" seems much More like guesswork to me. Can you PROVE that "like matter creates more like matter" -- dead matter too, coming from "aether flow" or whatever the proposed (guesswork!) mechanism for mass generation was? Can you even prove that mechanism even exists?

Do this: Google "plate tectonics evidence" (without quotes), pick a hit out, and tell me why its argument is wrong. Just ONE point of argument.

[VanMoth]

O.K., to humor you, I did as you suggested... A. The first thing they mention is the observation that the continents seem to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. B. Similarity of fossil species between continents along the edges. C. seismic, volcanic and geothermal activity along conjectured plate

boundaries(It's worth noting that they used the term "conjectured". See, they are smarter than you.) These are the first three points that are made and can also be used to defend growing earth theory.

[mike4ty4]

"(It's worth noting that they used the term "conjectured". See, they are smarter than you.)"

Maybe have more experience with scientific method. Not the same as "smarter".

"These are the first three points that are made and can also be used to defend growing earth theory. "

Growing earth theory however quickly runs into some fundamental laws of physics, such as those of thermodynamics (it is equivalent to a perpetual motion/"overunity" machine. And we all know what happens with THOSE.).

[mike4ty4]

"(It's worth noting that they used the term "conjectured". See, they are smarter than you.)"

And you ALSO admit they are smarter than YOU and NEAL, TOO? HAH. Becuase NEAL is SOOOOOOOOO WRONG....

But you won't respond anyway, nor do I care. You've ticked me off and I'm going to leave this BS thread alone now.

[AqualinespiritPL]

Not really. The Big Bang theory doesn't care bout the mass conservation law either - so there you go - Growing Earth Theory with the matter creation in the middle of planets uses exatly the same logic as the big bang theory that says, that in some point of our universe existence "point" exploded and we have what we have now. Actually when you pay close attention to the Big Bang Theory it violates way more laws of physic and chemistry then Growing Planets Theory.

[mike4ty4]

"Actually when you pay close attention to the Big Bang Theory it violates way more laws of physic and chemistry then Growing Planets Theory."

Why does Big Bang Theory violate so many laws of physics, exactly?

As for the Earth: Plate tectonics violates ZERO laws of physics. Yet Growing Planets violates at least a few, if not more...

[AqualinespiritPL]

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.

If energy can not be created, then where did the original mass that caused The Big Bang get enough energy to create the universe from?

The idea Universe beeing once small point is against Pauli exclusion principle - same as current cosmology model of Pulsar.

What particular law of physic violates Growing Planets Theory?

[mike4ty4]

"If energy can not be created, then where did the original mass that caused The Big Bang get enough energy to create the universe from?"

The very beginnings of the Bang are not known. However, the physics at the conditions inside a planet (which are pretty much "vacuum" compared to the density of the Bang and ice-cold to its temperature), ARE well known and do not permit spontaneous matter/energy generation or breaches of Conservation of Energy.

[mike4ty4]

Furthermore there is no known or even hinted at "like creates like" process whereby entire _molecules_ of the _same type_ as what's already there (heck, complex molecules of any sort as opposed to hydrogen gas or other simple atoms and molecules). If different types are created it'd show up in the composition of the planet. How do _rock molecules_ magically appear? The Big Bang is believed to have just put out a "soup" of simple particles!

[mike4ty4]

And only later would these particles turn to hydrogen atoms, then later still would those be transmuted to the other elements we have now via stellar fusion and supernovae.

So a Big-Bang like mechanism wouldn't seem to cut it, plus it's too abrupt ("bang", remember?). You'd have to propose something more exotic, plus experimental and/or theoretical justification to back it up.

And what is it about the interiors of planets that make them conducive to carrying out this process?

[VanMoth]

mike4ty4, All you have done is jumped on a bandwagon. It doesn't take any courage or brains to comfortably side with the status quo. You've surrendered to "group think" and blind faith in something that no one has been able to prove. You may as well be defending Christianity or some other religeon. The few problems you've pointed out in Earth Growth Theory are nothing compared to the huge assumptions and gaps in knowledge that come with the current accepted theory of the forming of the earth.

[mike4ty4]

"The few problems you've pointed out in Earth Growth Theory are nothing compared to the huge assumptions and gaps in knowledge that come with the current accepted theory of the forming of the earth."

What _gaps_? What does tectonics _NOT_ explain, excatly?

[VanMoth]

What gaps?! Try the whole geologic timeline that they put forth as though it's taken for granted from what they claim is the first supercontinent of "Rodinia", to it's break up

and the subsequent formation of supercontinent Pannotia, to the fragmentation into Laurasia and Gondwana, to the formation back into another supercontinent "Pangea" and then it's break up into the continents we have today. There is no way in hell that someone could possibly know that this actually happened in this way.

[VanMoth]

mike4ty4, Again, since no one has actually proven plate tectonics, your insistance that

"There is Nothing to this Earth Growth NONSENCE. Nothing at all!", really makes you look like a pompous fool. Simply saying it over and over again and in CAPS, doesn't make it any more true. No honest scientist would claim as you do that a theory is indeed a fact. They are smarter than that. You just seem like some crazed, Plate Tectonic nerd.

[mike4ty4]

"No honest scientist would claim as you do that a theory is indeed a fact."

But a theory is as close to a fact as you can get in lieu of a true, undisputable fact. A theory, in science, is actually well-supported by evidence. Ill-supported and hypothetical concepts are not called theories. Plate tectonics is well-proven, and so is a good theory, not a bad one.

[mike4ty4]

For example you can SEE along faultlines where the crust and rocks have moved SIDEWAYS, something IMPOSSIBLE under Earth Growth theory -- suggesting Migration and ROTATION of Tectonic Plates!!! That is 100% in agreement with Tectonic theory, and 100% isn DISagreement with the Earth Growth NONSENSE theory.

[VanMoth]

...further research. All the time and resources that are being wasted on Plate Techtonics is only serving to push us farther away from the truth. You don't have to buy all of Neil Adams ideas to see with your own eyes that there is something to this growing earth concept. It would be too coincidental that the continents fit the way they do in that model. It's an observable phenomenon. Pangea and "continental drift" are not therefore, a total shot in the dark. Use your own powers of observation.

[mike4ty4]

There is NOTHING to this Earth Growth NONSENSE. Nothing at all! Neal fudges the shapes and doesn't explain what causes that bending and distortion required, or why landmasses the size of Texas can magically vanish into the ocean like Atlantis or something and leave no evidence of their existence. Or why ROCK MOLECULES are formed from quantum energy instead of just single electrons and other simple particles. And so on, and so on...

[VanMoth]

7. One thing that Growing Earth Theory haters love to bring up as a "gotcha" is the question

"Well where did all the water come from?" This is really stupid when you consider that Plate Tectonics doesn't answer that question either! Both theories claim that the earth was a molten ball of lava in the beginning.

8.What this boils down to is this: Simply based on the observation that all the continents DO indeed fit together when assuming a growing earth, this should be the starting point of....

[VanMoth]

5.The geologists didn't have the undersea maps that they have now showing how new crust is being generated from ALL the continental shelf cracks.6.What the geologists fails to mention regarding P.T. is that they are guessing there too. How can they PROVE it? What you guys don't understand about science is that when they can't prove something, the next best thing they can offer is GENERAL AGREEMENT. GENERAL AGREEMENT however, is NOT PROOF. There is a lot that they still don't know.

[VanMoth]

G.E. haters, 1.Neil Adams never claimed it was his idea 2.Growing Earth theory was abandoned by most of the scientific community because they felt they needed an explanation of how the mass is being generated. That doesn't necessarilly mean there IS know explanation.3.Growing Earth theory was never DISPROVEN, the same way Plate Tectonics has never been PROVEN. If you can PROVE that it has been PROVEN then offer it up, smartasses.

4.The continents fit together almost perfectly

with G.E.T.

[mike4ty4]

TECTONICS HAS BEEN "PROVEN", at least to the point nobody seriously doubts it. True, there's no way to prove a theory to absolute certainty, but the certainty level is so good that one would be hard pressed to find something to seriously challenge it. One can even MEASURE the plate motion. And see TECTONIC deformations of crusts that are IMPOSSIBLE under the Earth Growth "Theory".

[EskolainenKarma]

Pangea is just a desperate attempt for science. It never happened. Africa will never collide with Europe, just like India never collided with Asia.

[niginit]

Neal adams' theory of expanding earth is not only correct,it is obvious.

[ManuelHung]

Actually, fuck-o, it's a load of pseudo-scientific horseshit made up by a comic book artist. It has ZERO credibility in modern Earth science. Yeah, yeah, it's a "big conspiracy"... good luck with your delusions.

[niginit]

LOL,you sound like you just got beat up by a bunch of expanding earth theorists!

you sound like you understand science better than me,i had better just let you alone to your own devices.

have a stupendously scientific day!:)

[ManuelHung]

"LOL,you sound like you just got beat up by a bunch of expanding earth theorists!"

Yeah, I'm cowering at the mountain of non-evidence. (unless you call animations and balloons evidence)

"you sound like you understand science better than me,i had better just let you alone to your own devices."

Actually, I'm fairly convinced I do, indeed, understand science signifigantly more than you. Try me.

"have a stupendously scientific day!:)"

/Sarcasm. OK, I will! Enjoy your delusion!

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Well the scientits and gelogists who know about this subject said it was rubbish and wrong 40 years ago an dhtey have not changed their minds.

Neals expertise is he found somones elses discredited theory and pretends its real.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

This isnt even his idea he stole it from a guy who made it 50 yeras ago.

[niginit]

which means what exactly? most theories are carried on and revised by other people.

the theory stands correct,disprove it PLEASE.

Till you have evidence contrary STFU.

take a step back and go learn something first,read a book and realise how fucking stupid you are.

[TheBigGameHunter1]

Yes, but people dont claim its theirs Neal does!

No it is not a theory any more its been DISPROVEN and abandoned as a theory 40 years ago.

Maybe you should read what geologists have to say on the subject not comic book writters?

They will tell you its rubbish.

[mike4ty4]

"Neal adams' theory of expanding earth is not only correct,it is obvious. "

Actually it's all a load of hot air! For starters, what the heck is xeroxing the atoms inside the Earth??? And what about conservation of energy????

Also, if you notice, there is no giant ridge in the Coruscic Ocean like there is in the Atlantic Ocean. In fact the Coruscic ridge is just a little bit south of Mexico and west of South America. TECTONICS explains that, Earth Growth does not.

[leandermodersohn]

And now... watch the Related video "Debunking Pangea" and everything else from "Neal Adams"

Decide for yourselves

[mike4ty4]

"And now... watch the Related video "Debunking Pangea" and everything else from "Neal Adams"

Decide for yourselves "

I have. Tectonics is the winning theory, hands down. The magical perpetual-motion atomic xeroxer loses.