Gee, I may agree with Jammieg001, your retorts to those commenting is so hostile & insulting it makes one shy to make a comment out of fear. Well, I guess I'll try. I must say, though this seems fascinating & you obviously have put a lot of effort in this hypothesis, it is just conjecture to consider amongst others. There are 2 questionable areas: 1) higher elevation doesn't connote greatest age b/c uplift is from antipodal force & 2) primordial seas in basins helped minimize crater scars.
@IAPETUSGIANTS Jammie was agreeing with me, and going along with a punk attitude.
1. Uplift? This isn't uplift. You can SEE the ridge edges of the higher land! Can't you?
2.It's not conjecture amongst what others. It's deduction from clear facts and visual evidence!
Primordal Seas?? What Primordial Seas? POOR Magnetic Field=No clouds=no rain=no standing water! There is NO standing water, and no EVIDENCE for standing water or scientific justification to think so.
the marianis trench grew when mount olympus on the other side of the planet grew, stretching the crust. stop peddling bullshit when you conveniently forget the biggest volcano in the solar system. this and the fact you call the seas on the moon"craters" when they are lava fields.
@raverdeath100 - Hey stupid! They are neither lava fields or craters. The "lava fields" are tectonic spreads, and the craters, craters. How could lava flow topographically lower than the surface? Termites? How can the Valles Marinares, spread, if there is no subduction zone to eat up the material?
well done! this is great and makes more sense then anything else iv heard! this is how teaching is supposed to be, where we come together and feed on each others knowledge!
NASA has to know this, but for some reason is keeping us in the dark...
the only way we are going to break free is to free each other...
Mars, like most planets is growing, but much through accumulation rather than magical expansion. Growth of Mars is far to slow to be accountable for these rifts. The affects of pressure and gravity act at exactly the right speed to explain these rifts. The planet does not need to get larger to allow for these rifts because of conduction.
@RussellHorwood "CONDUCTION",.....CONDUCTION?????? You mean when the Conductor opens the train door,..or when the orchestra leader "CONDUCTS: the Orchestra?
YOU, sir, or madam, as the case may be, are as dumb as a tree. Read a fucking BOOK!
Despite the fact that you are obviously ignorant to the fact that the LOCATION of continents are recorded in the magnetic imprint of rocks that rise to the surface from volcanoes, your hypothesis fails to explain some very simple things, such as mountain ranges. We understand very well how these form through convergent boundaries between tectonic plates. If the planet WAS expanding, then simple geophysics tells us that convergent mountain ranges would be impossible.
@nealadamsdotcom The fact that I have to explain some rudimentary principles of geophysics to you is quite scary and means you have started with a conclusion, and then looked for and cherry picked evidence that supports your claims, while completely ignoring all the mountains of evidence that doesn't. This is typical of the thought processes of religious fundamentalism and instead of forming a view of the world as it IS, it tends to form a view of the world as you wish it to be.
O-kay punk, this is the story. I,..ME,..I study FACTS! Hmmm? YOU,..study THEORY and CONJECTURE! You wouldn't know a FACT if It jumped up and bit you on the nose!
An Example,..FACT: Modern Mountain Ranges began to rise up on Earth beginning about 60 Million Years Ago. (after the Dinosaurs died off.
In school you learn the theory that mountains were on the Earth for Billions of years,..and they were (Chuckle) Sanded away over time. Mine is FACT.
@nealadamsdotcom Wow do you really have to stoop to personal insult? I guess if you had evidence on your side, you really wouldn't have to huh? Must suck to be you. Tell you what... How about you PROVE that mountains didn't exist until 60 million years ago, and then I'll take you seriously. Since there's no evidence at all out there to support your claims, then I expect you have access to some special evidence that the whole world doesn't have. If so, please show us so that you may enlighten us.
@djcorvus Here's where we see the difference between Theory and FACT. " The Mountain Ranges of Earth rose up in the last 60 Million Years. FACT! There they are. You can see them,.. rap them"Knock, kNOCK! We know their ages. Also, Mountains don't rise up overnight! Usually they rise in 3 stages. (Or so.),.. so 60 MYA they weren't actually Mountains. They were folding hills.
Your PROOF? Theory. Evidence of folded land, conjecture, BULL-PUCKEY! No MOUNTAINS.
@nealadamsdotcom You can't just say 'Fact is Fact" without anything to back it up. This isn't science. Regarding your claim that modern mountain ranges aren't older than 60 million years old, I wonder if you can explain the Barberton Greenstone Belt, in South Africa, parts of which are dated to be over a billion years old? There are also numerous mountain ranges that are younger than this, but far in excess of 60 million years old. At this point I'm wondering, do you actually research anything?
@djcorvus - LET ME QUOTE DR EDWIN COLBERT, CURATOR EMERITUS OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY, FOR THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. "THE WORLD OF THE MESOZOIC WAS ONE WORLD CLIMATICALLY, JUST AS IT WAS ONE WORLD GEOGRAPHICALLY. IT WAS LARGELY A SUB-TROPICAL AND WARM TEMPERATE WORLD. DURING THE EXTENT OF THE MESOZOIC, THERE
WAS A UNIFORMITY OF CLIMATES," "WHEN DINOSAURS RULED, THERE WERE NO POLAR ICECAPS. WHILE TROPICAL, SUB-TROPICAL AND WARM TEMPERATE CLIMATE, ACROSS THE EARTH". (more)
@djcorvus - (cont)"GENERAL UNIFORMITY OF MESEZOIC CLIMATES WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A UNIFORMITY OF TOPOGRAPHY. LANDS GENERALLY WERE LOW, WITH NO GREAT ELEVATIONS ABOVE SEA-LEVEL.
THERE WERE HILLS, BUT PROBABLY NO GREAT MOUNTAIN RANGES TO ACT AS BARRIERS TO THE CIRCULATION OF MOISTURE LADEN WINDS OR TO THE MOVEMENTS OF LARGE ACTIVE ANIMALS. (more)
@nealadamsdotcom Please tell me where I can find this quote. I'm quite a fan of Dr. Colbert, and can't seem to recall it from one of his many books that I own. Regardless, the truth in what he is saying is irrelevant to your claims, since the tectonic plates that constituted Pangaea were splitting anyway - there was no other continents to collide and form convergent plate boundaries (our modern mountain ranges). Sure it could support your claim too, but the Pangaea model has more evidence.
@nealadamsdotcom You still haven't told me which book you got the last quote from? The Pangaea model fits a hell of a lot more evidence than your flimsy hypothesis. Namely, the fact that oceanic plates are HEAVIER than continental plates, since they are the ones that subduct under the Earth when a convergent boundary is encountered. The ocean floor is being constantly recycled. We can measure this by dating the sea bed on various locations around the mid-oceanic ridge in the Atlantic.
@djcorvus The book is Dinosaurs, an illustrated history Page.193
No, the "PROOF" for the Pangea and this model is EXACTLY THE SAME. Continents fitting, Flora and Fauna, contiguous land masses, fitting together, etc, etc.etc Except there is FAR MORE EVIDENCE against Pangea and for this model.
flimsy? I'm sorry? You haven't found a flaw. Your note here is nearly all insanely wrong.
What has heaviness compared to Continental plates to do with anything?
@nealadamsdotcom The "proof" is NOT exactly the same. Please explain how your hypothesis explains palaeomagnetic iron alignments in ancient basalt that tell us which position on earth the continents were in relation to each other? Explain how current GPS is tracking the movement of the continents down to the INCH every single year and how it's telling us which way the continents are moving? Explain how we can directly observe the subduction of the oceanic crust underneath continental crust?
@nealadamsdotcom (cont.) Please explain where all this extra mass is coming from. How do you explain the evidence we've found for the straights of Gibraltar opening and closing at least twice during the last million years, caused by the African plate colliding with the European plate? Explain how mountain building occurs conveniently on convergent plate margins and nowhere else. Explain how Earthquakes and volcanoes occur at the edge of plate boundaries. The plate tectonic theory can!
@nealadamsdotcom I don't quite understand what's so impossible about having oceans that existed for billions of years? The Earth sustained frequent collisions during the Late Heavy Bombardment period in its formation, with a decent amount of the early proto-solar system containing water (In fact, the Oort cloud at the edge of the solar system is still mostly water). We can tell the presence of ancient deep oceans due to the worldwide layer of oxidized iron we find in sedimentary deposits.
@djcorvus I'm sorry kid, I just can't do it. SO SO SO much is wrong
LOOK. if DEEP OCEANS existed for billions of years. life would have evolved as in the upper oceans. IT DIDN'T! It didn't until about 70 MYA! That's impossible if there were DEEP OCEANS.
@nealadamsdotcom As far as the deep oceans go, we know only a FRACTION of the species that exist down there. In fact, we know more about our own moon than the ecology of our deep oceans, so then what's the merit in saying that there is "less than half the fish families living the deep oceans then the upper oceans"? What the hell does that prove? You might have to explain yourself a little better there, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
@nealadamsdotcom Just because you say it's impossible doesn't make it so. We have fossil evidence from the pre-Cambrian period that shows organisms very well did live at the bottom of the oceans. I'm not sure why you think it's so 'impossible', since we have evidence to prove the contrary. Obviously we're not going to find ancient fossils on the MODERN sea bed, because we can directly observe the sea bed being recycled continuously.
The Fossil evidence is from the SHALLOW SEAS ON the continental plates! Continental plates are where we find ALL marine FOSSILS,...not the deep oceans AT ALL.
@djcorvus FACT is FACT, is self evident,.. like "I EXIST" " This is a HOUSE" "THIS is a ROCK,..oops...This is a turtle.
Rock that makes MOUNTAINS can be a billion years old while the Mountains are 40 MYO. Folding could have taken place a billion years ago, then again 400 MYA and then recently,..Mountains. There's no "KEEP OFF SIGNS" for folding elves.
AND NO, there aren't "NUMEROUS Mountain Ranges. It just ain't so.
Not because there isn't, but because there CAN'T BE! The crust was too thin
@nealadamsdotcom You can't just make an observation, and arrive at your own conclusions without anything to link the observation to your conclusion and call it a "FACT".
The reason there were less mountains during that period is because all continental plates were combined into a giant supercontinent. Since we know that mountains are formed by convergent margins, it stands to reason that the land was relatively flat, since there were no other continents to collide with one another!
@djcorvus - (THE UP-LIFTING OF OUR MODERN MOUNTAIN SYSTEMS WAS TO BEGIN DURING THE FINAL STAGES OF THE CRETACEOUS HISTORY, AND TO EXTEND INTO THE EARLY MIDDLE STAGES, OF THE CENOZOIC ERA. AFTER THE DINOSAURS HAD BECOME EXTINCT)".
@nealadamsdotcom Please tell me where I can find this quote. I'm quite a fan of Dr. Colbert, and can't seem to recall it from one of his many books that I own. Regardless, the truth in what he is saying is irrelevant to your claims, since the tectonic plates that constituted Pangaea were splitting anyway - there was no other continents to collide and form convergent plate boundaries (our modern mountain ranges). Sure it could support your claim too, but the Pangaea model has more evidence.
@nealadamsdotcom "Sanded away over time" is actually correct. We call this erosion, and it can be seen every single day. You can actually perform sand-blasting on rock surfaces to show how simple particulate matter can weather away rock formations over thousands (if not millions) of years. This isn't rocket science. Just because you call what you claim "fact:" doesn't make it so, and just because you deny TRUE facts, which are supported through multiple lines of evidence, doesn't make them false
@djcorvus Try to get this through YOUR THICK SKULL...."lines of evidence" are LINES OF EVIDENCE,....NOT FACT!
Your"lines of evidence are explained by FACTS. As the Earth recurved it's VERY THIN continental crust it curved to a flatter plane, buckled and folded,..to hills and upland folds. NOT, high mountains that would block migrations of dinosaur,. hills
When the spreads opened the oceans, the heat under the continents migrated to the rifts and continental crust got thicker.
@nealadamsdotcom It appears that you have a meager understanding of what constitutes a theory. In scientific literature, a "theory" is the highest title we give to an idea. There IS no 'fact' in science. There's only the most reliable hypothesis, in this case, being the tectonic model, which only keeps IMPROVING our certainty of it the more data we discover. All you've done is come up with a conclusion, and worked backwards. This is the opposite of science and logic and typical of a bible basher
The Aether hypothesis is under way. But Aether alone can't be responsible for everything unless we take into account the "Matrix Substrate Structure" of Space itself.
"there is no other way" - why YES, there IS a way, and that's due to the presence of WATER on Mars billions of years ago! Water causes canyons and erosion, which accounts for basically all of the deformation you see on the landscape of Mars and also explains why the lower areas don't have as many craters - they were covered by a SHALLOW OCEAN. Any moron with an animation program can 'make' a planet grow and contract. This doesn't prove anything. Also, where does all this extra matter come from?
@djcorvus No,...CANYONS on Earth , as well are caused by the crust pulling apart. If you could see the oceans with all the Water gone, you would say ,"Gigantic CANYONS made by the water,.. but they like canyons on the land are "SPREADS". WATER has nothing to do with spreads. If Mars had water there would be EVIDENCE.
THERE-IS-NO-EVIDENCE!!! They, as on Earth and the moon are spreads of a growing body.
MATTER IS MADE,...or MAGICKED, or GOD made it in a BIG EXPLOSION. You believe that?
@nealadamsdotcom The funny thing is that you provide absolution ZERO evidence for your claim, and your whole case hinges on some amusing animations you made. YES, the continents of the Earth fit perfectly together, well done! But instead of coming to the more reasonable conclusion of tectonic drift (backed by many different streams of hard evidence, such as magnetic imprinting of ancient rock), you instead apply this magical "matter from nowhere" fantasy with absolutely nothing to back it up.
@djcorvus NO. MY EVIDENCE is FACTS. YOURS (others) is conjecture and THEORY!
Mars: FACTS: There is NO SURFACE WATER ON MARS (co2) NOW. FACT! 2. Mars has a shitty Magnetic field. Never was very good. Without a field clouds can't collect. NO CLOUDS-NO RAIN-NO WATER! FACT! 3. FACT, Tectonics has nothing to do with WATER. They ? Speculation! Theory! Conjecture! 4. Water near the surface, MUST EVAPORATE or Freeze. FACT!
I'll take FACTS! Not one drop of water. (Except underground.)
@nealadamsdotcom Your sheer ignorance is shown in your misunderstanding of the 'big bang'. Firstly, despite popular belief, it was NOT an 'explosion'. Basic high school physics will tell you that energy is equivalent to matter. The hyperexpansion event at the beginning of the universe was just that. All the energy and matter that currently exists in our universe was compressed to the size of a basketball, and then rapidly expanded, and coalesced, forming the elements of the periodic table.
@nealadamsdotcom "No evidence for water on Mars"?? Are you on drugs?? Which rapidly expanding rock have you been living under? Try googling "evidence for water on Mars". It's not that hard, I promise.
There is incontrovertible evidence now that liquid water (most likely shallow seas) that covered a good portion of Mars billions of years ago when it was warmer and still had tectonic activity. The evidence is all around you, and you deny it to hold onto your fantasy.
@djcorvus 1. I am not on drugs. Geologists have been trying (For some insane reason.) to prove standing water on Mars. (Just as they tried to prove canals on Mars, in the past.) They have FAILED COMPLETELY.
Yet. there is CLEAR RECENT TECTONIC ACTIVITY! VOLCANIC AND Rifting. Lack of water makes it even more clear.
@MovieMagicMaster Indeed...But in times like this it is good to have something to laugh about, albeit it is at others expenses. Still have to say growing planets....that is funny :)
@ueks69 EVEN funnier,..GET THIS,,.. Empty universe,... GOD comes by and magics a massively big explosion and all the matter in the universe APPEARS! BANG. Wot-a-yock, HUH?
Another guess that might cause this growing effect is, if compressing matter generates heat, and heat generates expansive force, and if gravity is continuously compressing matter to denser forms(rocks) then heat is being generated even though slight and over very long time frames gravity might continuously be adding more geothermal energy within a planet thereby continuously creating increasing expansive pressure, not just by radioactive decay. That is gravity continuously does work.
@Jammieg001 I have not pursued these questions for 35 years, to "guess" at answers. If I was guessing, you may rest assured I would not be in this discussion. Nor is it a Growing "EFFECT". It is the creation of new matter and growth,
Gravity is NOT "continually compressing MATTER" MATTER has STRUCTURE, If Gravity increases a lot, you can get, what is called "PHASE CHANGE" which ,WITH HEAT and pressure, can re-arrange one form of silicate to another form. Each has a STRUCTURE.
It can't grow. Where does it get all the extra mass required?
Let's say mars weighed 100 lbs. It can not possibly weigh more without something external adding mass to it. 1 asteroid weighing 1lb hits it, it now weighs 101lbs. You plant a tree on mars from a seed that you find there and it grows to be 1lb in weight. Mars still weights 100lbs as the tree has consumed resources from the planet = to 1lb. Matter doesn't just materialize out of nothing.
In your video, you say that there is no other way that this could have formed. Have you considered that it may have been river channels following pre-existing weaknesses in the underlying rock caused by an ancient impact? This would explain the roundness....or that Valles Marineris was a similar weakness from a radial fracture due to that region being uplifted? I like how you are thinking outside the box, but this is a tough sell. How can a planet grow? Does density decrease or is mass gained?
@brandondagel Standing Water in Mars is childish thinking based, not on science, but on HOPES and WISHFULL THINKING. Mars has always had a terribly small Magnetic field.
Small field, and the solar wind takes gases away. No gases=no clouds, No clouds+ no rain, NO RAIN= NO STANDING WATER! THIS is simple science. NO wishful thinking. I don't believe in MAGIC, Concidence OR ancient impacts. We SEE the result of impacts. CRATERS. It is I that remain WITHIN the BOX. Wishful thinking that goes out
@nealadamsdotcom Thanks for your reply. You can see images of the channels carved out by water on the THEMIS website. These channels are consistent with water-formed channels. Satellite images and the Rovers found plenty of evidence for water as well. Mars did once have flowing water.
There are several satellites orbiting Mars currently, including the MRO. One of the MRO's main purposes is to monitor the weather and the atmosphere, which it does regularly. The atmosphere is about 11 km thick.
@nealadamsdotcom Also, older craters become "erased" over time due to the action of the atmosphere and water. Ancient impacts will lose their rims due to weathering and erosion, but the underlying cracks and weaknesses in the rock remain.
@nealadamsdotcom This obsrvation by you is truly amazing and so clearly explained, that it leaves very little argument to the contrary. I have a question for you, is it true that the craters on mars were caused in less than an hour, because 95% of the craters are found on one side?
@rhuezo67 That would be silly wouldn't it. No, the larger craters are on the OLDER LAND. Why do I say that?
Because in recent hundreds of millions of years Jupiter has become, from it's incredible growth-size a meteorite umbrella for the inner planets. THEN as Mars grew new crust appeared more in the north than the south. By then mostly small meteorites were hitting.
@nealadamsdotcom I also saw your video showing this same phenomena on the Lunar surface and again I am in agreement with you, your model is convincing and it fits better than any other existing theory I've seen. But please be patient with my question, did all the craters on the Lunar surface come from a single catastrophic event? I ask because in your video, it shows the dark side of the Moon having almost all the meteor impacts, since it rotates it makes sense that they all occured at once.
no it's not that the crator number is the same if you look.. orthat mars was once like earth and the red stuff is smthing like a mountian? nooo.... btw where the hell dose the mass come from i haven't sen that on any of the vids yet...
What would really sell me on this idea is if you found two halves of a crater that would come back together when shrinking the land back together... You know what I mean?
maybe, maybe not. an unkown mechanism for a universe that grows ,does not get rid of gravity or mass.if you increase one you increase the other.an increase in spatial size without a subsquent increase in mass and gravitaional pull is still an explosion.
to grow or expand requires gaining mass wich would increase gravity. expanding or growing larger without gaining mass is called exploding.i suppose the planetary explosions bieng described could be happening very slowly, relative to our sense of time.
@robert66michel - If you examine the various 5 or 6 videos, you will see that all suspended bodies are growing. In fact all suns are growing. In fact our universe is growing, although scientists say it's expanding. It's a simple word, isn't it? Growing. Looks the the same, but don't you know there are no simple processes that imply or excuse, expanding. Except for balloon.
@robert66michel - Can it be so simple that there is a process of growth for all matter in the universe, and that, that, is actually how we get a universe. Can we have been so incredibly wrong about everything? How matter is made and where? We've been eating up this stupid Big Bang theory as if it were a fact. Does it make you feel kind of stupid? It did for me.
@nealadamsdotcom This is just a guess as to the cause Neal, it could be that the increase in mass of a planetary body that contributes to the increase in "growing" might be due to matter being converted to energy and ejected by the Sun and then captured and converted back into matter by gravity on more "stable" planetary bodies, in turn more mass creates more internal heat creating more expansive pressures. Such that most energy/mass might be recaptured deep in the Earth under most pressure.
@Jammieg001 Far more simple. At the core is a Nascent sun-like object in which Pair-Production is constantly taking place. The newly produced matter is captured in the shallow EM field of the plasma outer core. Here new ATOMS are assembled and deposited in the mantle.
@nealadamsdotcom That's interesting stuff I did not know about pair production, so if there is enough heat to create high energy photons inside the Earth then pair production occurs and new atoms created, from heat new matter is created, as long as there is a supply of heat from radioactive decay or gravity, or maybe fusion.
Could there be some connection between the strength of the magnetic poles and some amount of energy they absorb to cause expansion?
please dont tell me that the fact that Earths continents exactly match Mars continents are some sort of coincident. Much much more than just coincidence>
Isnt this exactly what earth would have looked like some 180 million years ago. Including size,. There is no difference between the plates on earth as compared to Mars entire planet. this is your proof. We are looking 180 million years into our past when looking at Mars
Out of curiosity, with man's techology today, aren't we able to measure that the earth is expanding. I hear on documentaries that the tectonic plates in Iceland(? .. perhaps other places too?) is spreading apart at the pace of the growth of our fingernails. I think that equates to around 2 centimeters per year (don't quote me on that though). With current technology, would we be able to measure with such accuracy, and in how many years, decades, or centuries?
Thank you very much for information. It'll be an interesting read for the entire page. But for what I did read, the section you pointed out, it's looking to be a hard to understand. :)
@Peace7Maker Thats not growing, thats getting fat. LOL! My wife is not growing, but her mass is increasing!! hahahahaha dont tell the fat bitch i said that.
no one can explain why its necessary for an explanation of growth to come befor the acceptance of growth. we see a tree and accept that it grew long befor we understood why or how it grew. i think some people are just prejudice and ow too much loyalty to the paper degree they earned by studying something that was flawed. it makes them seem ignorant to themselves so they defend the old ways like a pope
Even PT does not explain why the continents separated they had immunity to such questions as to (why are we here?) But a growing earth is held to a higher standard not because it does not have merit but simply because PT is already rooted. PT is teetering on an explanation from the expanding earth theorists as to how Earth grew but time is getting near. Its just a matter of time now and the shit will hit the fan.SC
@MsBonnie1111 Ok, yes you could have meteorites slowly adding to it. But where is the measurable mass increase coming from. If meteorites slowly add to it then all of the other planets are also growing as well.
@JohananRaatz: The fact of the matter is that we don't understand what mass is. In the Electric Universe model there is only one force, the electric force. The ultra-weak force of gravity seems to be a secondary phenomenon. If in a planetary cataclysm the charge of a planet is significantly altered, it might affect gravity as well. I think earth has in fact grown. Mars and the moon not, though.
@MsBonnie1111 I don't doubt that mass has an EM based component to it -in fact I think I'm sort of a closet-etherist (with an ether that is compatible with relativity) and think there is a universal EM field as well. However whatever it eventually turns out to be, mass is still a form of energy, and for Mars' mass to grow, energy must be feeding into it from somewhere for this to work.
@JohananRaatz: Remember, I'm not the one saying Mars has grown. At holoscience,com the Electric Universe model is explained in detail. A lot of proponents of that model are etherists as well. A sentence like 'mass is still a form energy' is scientifically meaningless. Bill Gaede (search youtube) explains it well.
@MsBonnie1111 Well it's conceivable (in an out there kind of way) that mars is deriving the mass from vacuum energy in the ether. But E = mc^2 is still very valid.
Wikipedia: "There is no evidence supporting expansion of the Earth: measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size, and there is no source of energy to power expansion. This is in contrast to plate tectonics, which is supported by a large range of geological and geophysical measurements, including direct measurements of plate motions by geodesy and of subduction at plate boundaries."
Neal, you are self-motivated crackpot. This is a b/s theory, and you are simply trying to make money off of impressionable people. My favorite Wiki quote on the matter is, "Adams rejects tectonics and the decades of geological and geophysical data that illustrate it. He claims that the Earth is not expanding but growing, and advocates his ideas in a DVD documentary he wrote and created". People, don't follow this guy's self-interests!!!
Very intelligent using impact creator to show old and young land. An impact creator is like a geological survey due to the fact that it exposed the crust under crust.
@nealadamsdotcom is it possible to reproduce pair production artificially?? that would be extraordinarily beneficial to technology as a whole, think of the applications if it were true!! virtually FREE mass, and in limitless amounts!!
@scarecrowMad Look I'm more open-minded than many in the scientific community in fact quite a bit more so than I would openly admit to most people. That said we still have to tie into known knowledge and logic. If Mars is growing where is the extra mass coming from? Why aren't Phobos and Demois falling into the planet as the gravity grows?
Before you make statements like why aren't Phobos and Deimos falling into the planet you better do some homework and you will find the Mars inner moon has a trajectory of crashing into Mars in about 150 million years and Mars outer moon continues to move away from Mars as the planet grows just like our Moon. Mass is arbitrary because who is to say what the original constituents of the planet posses as far as growth. Rotation and our moon instill growth.SC
@JohananRaatz doesnt mass just accumulate more lesser masses? if that is the fundamental idea of gravity, wouldn't space dust be continuously be attracted to the gravitation of your solar system?also is not the sun continuously bombarding every planet with renegade ionized mass? our solar system is not an enclosed system, it is continually gaining mass from surrounding "ambient" space matter, is it not?there are literally infinite sources for new matter all around us,so why is it so implausible?
@H0B0J03 Well the problem is that the amount of mass it picks up like this per year is not that much. It's not even enough to register in terms of gravitational interaction.
Has anyone just therorized that maybe all things are still growing even planets and life all over. We are so stupid to think that a god would only create our greddy little asses! Something tells me we are just a phase and when that phase is over so is the day of man! Get used to the idea folks there is no God going to save you if he has already prophecized the end! Makes since right? Our job while were alive is to not screw it up for the next generation! Guess what we are screwing it up! GODMOP!
Surely the Valles can be explained by the large Tharsis bulge to the west (just out of shot) which includes the largest mountain/volcano in the solar system.
@IHATEATHEIST2 - 3 theories, wow, that's impressive. Either one must be right, or they're all just plain stupid. I vote for stupid.
Science tells us, the moon is either accelerating outward, (which is preposterous), or it is slowing it's movement outward. Meaning, a million years ago, it was zooming outward. Idiotic.
The solar system is growing, all bodies are moving away from one another, on growing increasingly powerful, magnetic lines. It's systems that grow, not just planets.
I see what you mean by ( your ref) the new Land having next to no impact craters ...but new land without visible volcanic activity I am not so sure?? ...how would you presume to explain this any theory's ??...
@IHATEATHEIST2 - I see no reason to explain volcanoes or lack of volcanoes. Earth has hundreds, Mars has a few, and not typical. You cannot lightly skip over the sizes of the meteorite craters. They are like a precision clock. The smaller the craters, the newer the spread area. A computer could break it down perfectly.
seems rather flimsy evidence for the theory of expansion..i stil havent found anything on your site to substantiate this theory where is the extra mass coming from or is it expanding like a balloon
If mars is growing there should be a lot more NEW land being created. Mars was once a very active planet but seismic data has revealed the planet is DEAD as its core has solidified. The planet did not obtain plate tectonics and therefore contains few but large volcanoes as heat needed to be released. The trench is equivalent to a large dike formation which split the crust of mars.
@danosurfs - Listen CAREFULLY.,This is how we find new spread areas.
As time has gone by, the remaining meteors that strike earth, the moon and Mars, have become smaller and smaller. Your science says it's because we are running out of meteors. Real science says Jupiter is attracting nearly all meteorites. So only the smallest get through.
Doesn't matter which you believe. The newest spread areas on Mars very simply, have the smallest meteor hits, on average. Look at a good map of Mars.
@nealadamsdotcom Did you give me the answer yet? I'm OK with "how stuff works" theories do you have it out on a video yet?
I'm not really a strong believer in quarks yet because the earlier areas of physics are still grey areas that get manipulated to produce science results not science facts. Nuclear physics probably hasn't been around long enough to retain strong facts about the true nature of the experiments. But hey its a job and they get results for some things already.
I do, uncommon research. I'll read some abstracts anda few papers. Ireview Photos and read RELATED material and compare for myself.
A recent nat geo special "drained" the Ocean away and presented CGI renderings of the Oceanic bottom. At the beginning a narrowSPREAD/ rift valley canyon they "DESCRIBED" as looking exactly like "THE GRAND CANYON. was shown "They said " the two "had completely different origins!" I broke out laughing.
They indeed DID look the SAME. They WERE the same.
@wideheadofknowledge - 1. Wind would fill a crack, not make a crack. That's stupid. Wind and water, in case you didn't know, have a tendency to fill in any cracks in the land, until they disappear. That's why dredges have to constantly dredge up sediments from the mouths of rivers, which are the cracks in the land that opportunistic water follows to get to the sea. When are you going to stop this tirade of ignorance and read a book? Water on Mars is a desperate "Theory" of sci-fi geologists.
@nealadamsdotcom "Wind would fill a crack". Ever been to the Grand Canyon? Or Monument Valley? Wind is an extremely powerful erosive force. Ever seen the effects of, ooh I don't know, a river? They don't fill cracks - they carve channels out of solid rock.
@wideheadofknowledge The Grand Canyon is a simple pull-apart of the land caused by the swinging over to the RIGHT of Central America holding to South America.
You sir are a geological fool. A river doesn't cut the land except if the cut is BEGUN by a spread, to hold it.
On the land, The NILE, the MISSISSIPPI the Tigris and Euphrates flows until the bed is filled with silt and then it changes it's course. Cities along these rivers are left behing and a new city built.
@nealadamsdotcom I guess that waterfalls don't cut through rock then? Describing huge, slow moving and silt laden deltas is one thing but fast flowing water can and does carve its way through rock. Once cuts are opened in this fashion the exposed rocks are susceptible to the erosive force of wind-blown particles. To deny that this is the case is obtuse beyond belief.
@wideheadofknowledge THERE, you are correct about that. It happens, and because of that, the confusion arises. Niagra falls is exactly that. When one portion of land is much higher than another , rushing and falling water CAN cut away the higher land. However the falls area tends o swing around as silt builds up.
Scientists-geologists are even now revising their assement of most rivers for possible tectonic origins.
@nealadamsdotcom Could you point me in the direction of any peer-reviewed papers in which geologists are "revising" their assessment of most rivers for tectonic origins? It would be much appreciated. From what I've read geologist seem to be clear about those that are have tectonic origins. I still stand by my original point though - once a rift is opened it can be made much, much larger by the action of wind and water erosion.
@wideheadofknowledge No. I can't provide . I rarely read these papers because they are theoretical in nature, unless they contain NEW FACTS. I got that particular piece of information from a Discovery program that concerned the losing battle of ongoing dredging of river mouths at the shipping ports . A Geologist on the scene made clear comment of this trend of investigating the tectonic origins of rivers. The MATTER-OF-Fact_presentation, impressed me.
Finding/showing The Growing Earth by unorthodox methods, has driven me to understand the DANGERS of specialization and science's putting aside VISUAL observation and confirmation, Deduction, and LOGIC,.as un-dependable.
Tectonics and the Pangea theory was based, FIRST on the observation that the continents on either side of the Atlantic MATCHED, It was then LOST as a skill as Geology REFUSED to tectonically MATCH the Pacific. out of the numbing FEAR of consequences.
I honestly believe him. The heat form the core earth probably spread earth out. Since mars core is alittle more solid. Some other force new OR old MUST HAVE WORKED ON IT.
@imnntt He's 100% Correct. Space is NOT an absolute vacuum. Gases and matter exist within regions of space. Gravity creates the regions of vacuum delineated by matter or various celestial bodies by initiating the collapse of matter by gravitational waves that leads to the formation of stars, planets, star/planetary systems and galaxies. The vacuum is not an absolute.
As far as I can tell it all boils down to simple logic. Everything inside a vacuum expands (if you don't belive it, google it or watch some of the videos here). Space is a giant vacuum. The planets are all in space.......so....
Neil, i have been watching ur videos for the past 2 years & just came across the "newer episodes". i love & respect ur work. As a 2nd grader back in 1982 i remember thinking that the way the continents "connected" did not seem right....little did i know i was a budding "neil"-- i never thought it was right then, & i am glad u r putting this info out now.i spread the word 2 everyone i know! To all the non-believers-sometimes its about "KISS". Keep up the work! i will continue spreading it!
it really seems that you have something here. too bad the scientific community rejects anything that doesnt fit their norm. They have turned science into a religion, question it and you are a hethen... all theories should be considered and researched if we are to have real science.
Its funny how some can't see that its no longer real science but a true religion. In which if you deviate from there teaching your ostracize and ridiculed.
Gents and Ladiez- This theory ends in geology, but it begins in physics. Without the physics, this is just the observation of the result. Go to nealadamsdotcom. The physics paper is there. Read it first, then comment. The answers to 90% of your questions are in that paper. I can't summarize the paper here.
Gents- Numbers are going up here faster and faster. If you want to help, Invite people to watch. Post this video on other sites. I won't be upset. In fact, I'll love it. Start debates anywhere you can. Send people to nealadamsdotcom for all the videos. Invite physicists and physics students to buy the physics paper there. I don't know what the hell they're so afraid of, but the physicists are the worst. They think this is only geology. Is there lead in the water?
Neal, I have never come across a more refreshing dose of knowledge as your videos. Thank you for your work I hope to spread it to my children and hopefully they may teach his class something about our natural history. Thank you.
BTW if the earth is expanding as much as your other videos show, and the earth being very young (which can be proven), it must be expanding at an alarming rate. There would be far more earthquake activity than there is.
Well the universe is growwing. Well you have to understand Neal, growwing and expanding still take up the same basical principle. Something small is getting bigger. The difference is that growth follows an actual course of development, something that is trying to be done to be achieved, like an acorn into a
Gee, I may agree with Jammieg001, your retorts to those commenting is so hostile & insulting it makes one shy to make a comment out of fear. Well, I guess I'll try. I must say, though this seems fascinating & you obviously have put a lot of effort in this hypothesis, it is just conjecture to consider amongst others. There are 2 questionable areas: 1) higher elevation doesn't connote greatest age b/c uplift is from antipodal force & 2) primordial seas in basins helped minimize crater scars.
IAPETUSGIANTS 4 days ago
@IAPETUSGIANTS Jammie was agreeing with me, and going along with a punk attitude.
1. Uplift? This isn't uplift. You can SEE the ridge edges of the higher land! Can't you?
2.It's not conjecture amongst what others. It's deduction from clear facts and visual evidence!
Primordal Seas?? What Primordial Seas? POOR Magnetic Field=No clouds=no rain=no standing water! There is NO standing water, and no EVIDENCE for standing water or scientific justification to think so.
nealadamsdotcom 4 days ago
the marianis trench grew when mount olympus on the other side of the planet grew, stretching the crust. stop peddling bullshit when you conveniently forget the biggest volcano in the solar system. this and the fact you call the seas on the moon"craters" when they are lava fields.
raverdeath100 2 weeks ago
@raverdeath100 - Hey stupid! They are neither lava fields or craters. The "lava fields" are tectonic spreads, and the craters, craters. How could lava flow topographically lower than the surface? Termites? How can the Valles Marinares, spread, if there is no subduction zone to eat up the material?
nealadamsdotcom 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
waterfireist 1 month ago
Comment removed
waterfireist 1 month ago
Comment removed
waterfireist 1 month ago
Comment removed
waterfireist 1 month ago
well done! this is great and makes more sense then anything else iv heard! this is how teaching is supposed to be, where we come together and feed on each others knowledge!
NASA has to know this, but for some reason is keeping us in the dark...
the only way we are going to break free is to free each other...
thank you!
godkingmac 2 months ago in playlist More videos from nealadamsdotcom
Mars, like most planets is growing, but much through accumulation rather than magical expansion. Growth of Mars is far to slow to be accountable for these rifts. The affects of pressure and gravity act at exactly the right speed to explain these rifts. The planet does not need to get larger to allow for these rifts because of conduction.
RussellHorwood 3 months ago
@RussellHorwood "CONDUCTION",.....CONDUCTION?????? You mean when the Conductor opens the train door,..or when the orchestra leader "CONDUCTS: the Orchestra?
YOU, sir, or madam, as the case may be, are as dumb as a tree. Read a fucking BOOK!
nealadamsdotcom 3 months ago
Why did I get recommended this from underground rap?
ObeseChess 4 months ago
@ueks69 This theory is true. Most of it. So is most of the theory of evolution.So is most of the theory of plate tectonics.
scottgioia 5 months ago
Despite the fact that you are obviously ignorant to the fact that the LOCATION of continents are recorded in the magnetic imprint of rocks that rise to the surface from volcanoes, your hypothesis fails to explain some very simple things, such as mountain ranges. We understand very well how these form through convergent boundaries between tectonic plates. If the planet WAS expanding, then simple geophysics tells us that convergent mountain ranges would be impossible.
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus Watch the Mountain Building video. Please. You understand NOTHING about how Mountain ranges rise up!
What magnetic imprint?
200 Million Years Ago 2/3's of the crust DID-NOT-EXIST!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom The fact that I have to explain some rudimentary principles of geophysics to you is quite scary and means you have started with a conclusion, and then looked for and cherry picked evidence that supports your claims, while completely ignoring all the mountains of evidence that doesn't. This is typical of the thought processes of religious fundamentalism and instead of forming a view of the world as it IS, it tends to form a view of the world as you wish it to be.
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus WHAT an asshole! Lord. save me.
O-kay punk, this is the story. I,..ME,..I study FACTS! Hmmm? YOU,..study THEORY and CONJECTURE! You wouldn't know a FACT if It jumped up and bit you on the nose!
An Example,..FACT: Modern Mountain Ranges began to rise up on Earth beginning about 60 Million Years Ago. (after the Dinosaurs died off.
In school you learn the theory that mountains were on the Earth for Billions of years,..and they were (Chuckle) Sanded away over time. Mine is FACT.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Wow do you really have to stoop to personal insult? I guess if you had evidence on your side, you really wouldn't have to huh? Must suck to be you. Tell you what... How about you PROVE that mountains didn't exist until 60 million years ago, and then I'll take you seriously. Since there's no evidence at all out there to support your claims, then I expect you have access to some special evidence that the whole world doesn't have. If so, please show us so that you may enlighten us.
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus Here's where we see the difference between Theory and FACT. " The Mountain Ranges of Earth rose up in the last 60 Million Years. FACT! There they are. You can see them,.. rap them"Knock, kNOCK! We know their ages. Also, Mountains don't rise up overnight! Usually they rise in 3 stages. (Or so.),.. so 60 MYA they weren't actually Mountains. They were folding hills.
Your PROOF? Theory. Evidence of folded land, conjecture, BULL-PUCKEY! No MOUNTAINS.
Prove...to you? Hah. FACT is FACT!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom You can't just say 'Fact is Fact" without anything to back it up. This isn't science. Regarding your claim that modern mountain ranges aren't older than 60 million years old, I wonder if you can explain the Barberton Greenstone Belt, in South Africa, parts of which are dated to be over a billion years old? There are also numerous mountain ranges that are younger than this, but far in excess of 60 million years old. At this point I'm wondering, do you actually research anything?
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus - LET ME QUOTE DR EDWIN COLBERT, CURATOR EMERITUS OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY, FOR THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. "THE WORLD OF THE MESOZOIC WAS ONE WORLD CLIMATICALLY, JUST AS IT WAS ONE WORLD GEOGRAPHICALLY. IT WAS LARGELY A SUB-TROPICAL AND WARM TEMPERATE WORLD. DURING THE EXTENT OF THE MESOZOIC, THERE
WAS A UNIFORMITY OF CLIMATES," "WHEN DINOSAURS RULED, THERE WERE NO POLAR ICECAPS. WHILE TROPICAL, SUB-TROPICAL AND WARM TEMPERATE CLIMATE, ACROSS THE EARTH". (more)
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@djcorvus - (cont)"GENERAL UNIFORMITY OF MESEZOIC CLIMATES WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A UNIFORMITY OF TOPOGRAPHY. LANDS GENERALLY WERE LOW, WITH NO GREAT ELEVATIONS ABOVE SEA-LEVEL.
THERE WERE HILLS, BUT PROBABLY NO GREAT MOUNTAIN RANGES TO ACT AS BARRIERS TO THE CIRCULATION OF MOISTURE LADEN WINDS OR TO THE MOVEMENTS OF LARGE ACTIVE ANIMALS. (more)
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Please tell me where I can find this quote. I'm quite a fan of Dr. Colbert, and can't seem to recall it from one of his many books that I own. Regardless, the truth in what he is saying is irrelevant to your claims, since the tectonic plates that constituted Pangaea were splitting anyway - there was no other continents to collide and form convergent plate boundaries (our modern mountain ranges). Sure it could support your claim too, but the Pangaea model has more evidence.
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus Pangea has the same evidence and this theory and more EVIDENCE, AND FACTS!
Mountains are ONE.
Here's another : There are NO Marine fossils in any DEEP OCEANS of the world older than 70 Million Years Old.
Standard theory says deep oceans existed for billions of years. Marine life didn't evolve to live there.
Impossible!
More There is far less than half the fish families living in the deep oceans Today, than in the upper oceans.
IM-POSSIBLE!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom You still haven't told me which book you got the last quote from? The Pangaea model fits a hell of a lot more evidence than your flimsy hypothesis. Namely, the fact that oceanic plates are HEAVIER than continental plates, since they are the ones that subduct under the Earth when a convergent boundary is encountered. The ocean floor is being constantly recycled. We can measure this by dating the sea bed on various locations around the mid-oceanic ridge in the Atlantic.
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus The book is Dinosaurs, an illustrated history Page.193
No, the "PROOF" for the Pangea and this model is EXACTLY THE SAME. Continents fitting, Flora and Fauna, contiguous land masses, fitting together, etc, etc.etc Except there is FAR MORE EVIDENCE against Pangea and for this model.
flimsy? I'm sorry? You haven't found a flaw. Your note here is nearly all insanely wrong.
What has heaviness compared to Continental plates to do with anything?
The Atlantic? The Atlantic???? Lord.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom The "proof" is NOT exactly the same. Please explain how your hypothesis explains palaeomagnetic iron alignments in ancient basalt that tell us which position on earth the continents were in relation to each other? Explain how current GPS is tracking the movement of the continents down to the INCH every single year and how it's telling us which way the continents are moving? Explain how we can directly observe the subduction of the oceanic crust underneath continental crust?
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus 1. Paleomagnetic allignments are from Pole reversals.
2. GPS? How what??? Is this a question? No?
3.We can't observe subduction UNDER CONTINENTS!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom (cont.) Please explain where all this extra mass is coming from. How do you explain the evidence we've found for the straights of Gibraltar opening and closing at least twice during the last million years, caused by the African plate colliding with the European plate? Explain how mountain building occurs conveniently on convergent plate margins and nowhere else. Explain how Earthquakes and volcanoes occur at the edge of plate boundaries. The plate tectonic theory can!
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus 1. The MASS is being made beginning with Pair-Production.
2. It's rotating from up-pushing of southern rifts.
3. Watch the Mountain Building video!
4. PRESSURE!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I don't quite understand what's so impossible about having oceans that existed for billions of years? The Earth sustained frequent collisions during the Late Heavy Bombardment period in its formation, with a decent amount of the early proto-solar system containing water (In fact, the Oort cloud at the edge of the solar system is still mostly water). We can tell the presence of ancient deep oceans due to the worldwide layer of oxidized iron we find in sedimentary deposits.
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus I'm sorry kid, I just can't do it. SO SO SO much is wrong
LOOK. if DEEP OCEANS existed for billions of years. life would have evolved as in the upper oceans. IT DIDN'T! It didn't until about 70 MYA! That's impossible if there were DEEP OCEANS.
Don't you get it?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom As far as the deep oceans go, we know only a FRACTION of the species that exist down there. In fact, we know more about our own moon than the ecology of our deep oceans, so then what's the merit in saying that there is "less than half the fish families living the deep oceans then the upper oceans"? What the hell does that prove? You might have to explain yourself a little better there, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus If a place exists on Earth, biologists will tell you for enough time. life will fill it.
Not so the deep oceans . NO life until 70 Million Years Ago. Impossible.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Just because you say it's impossible doesn't make it so. We have fossil evidence from the pre-Cambrian period that shows organisms very well did live at the bottom of the oceans. I'm not sure why you think it's so 'impossible', since we have evidence to prove the contrary. Obviously we're not going to find ancient fossils on the MODERN sea bed, because we can directly observe the sea bed being recycled continuously.
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus NO, Geology says it subducts and melts.
The Fossil evidence is from the SHALLOW SEAS ON the continental plates! Continental plates are where we find ALL marine FOSSILS,...not the deep oceans AT ALL.
Do you understand YET?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@djcorvus FACT is FACT, is self evident,.. like "I EXIST" " This is a HOUSE" "THIS is a ROCK,..oops...This is a turtle.
Rock that makes MOUNTAINS can be a billion years old while the Mountains are 40 MYO. Folding could have taken place a billion years ago, then again 400 MYA and then recently,..Mountains. There's no "KEEP OFF SIGNS" for folding elves.
AND NO, there aren't "NUMEROUS Mountain Ranges. It just ain't so.
Not because there isn't, but because there CAN'T BE! The crust was too thin
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom You can't just make an observation, and arrive at your own conclusions without anything to link the observation to your conclusion and call it a "FACT".
The reason there were less mountains during that period is because all continental plates were combined into a giant supercontinent. Since we know that mountains are formed by convergent margins, it stands to reason that the land was relatively flat, since there were no other continents to collide with one another!
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus - (THE UP-LIFTING OF OUR MODERN MOUNTAIN SYSTEMS WAS TO BEGIN DURING THE FINAL STAGES OF THE CRETACEOUS HISTORY, AND TO EXTEND INTO THE EARLY MIDDLE STAGES, OF THE CENOZOIC ERA. AFTER THE DINOSAURS HAD BECOME EXTINCT)".
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom Please tell me where I can find this quote. I'm quite a fan of Dr. Colbert, and can't seem to recall it from one of his many books that I own. Regardless, the truth in what he is saying is irrelevant to your claims, since the tectonic plates that constituted Pangaea were splitting anyway - there was no other continents to collide and form convergent plate boundaries (our modern mountain ranges). Sure it could support your claim too, but the Pangaea model has more evidence.
djcorvus 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Sanded away over time" is actually correct. We call this erosion, and it can be seen every single day. You can actually perform sand-blasting on rock surfaces to show how simple particulate matter can weather away rock formations over thousands (if not millions) of years. This isn't rocket science. Just because you call what you claim "fact:" doesn't make it so, and just because you deny TRUE facts, which are supported through multiple lines of evidence, doesn't make them false
djcorvus 5 months ago
@djcorvus Try to get this through YOUR THICK SKULL...."lines of evidence" are LINES OF EVIDENCE,....NOT FACT!
Your"lines of evidence are explained by FACTS. As the Earth recurved it's VERY THIN continental crust it curved to a flatter plane, buckled and folded,..to hills and upland folds. NOT, high mountains that would block migrations of dinosaur,. hills
When the spreads opened the oceans, the heat under the continents migrated to the rifts and continental crust got thicker.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom It appears that you have a meager understanding of what constitutes a theory. In scientific literature, a "theory" is the highest title we give to an idea. There IS no 'fact' in science. There's only the most reliable hypothesis, in this case, being the tectonic model, which only keeps IMPROVING our certainty of it the more data we discover. All you've done is come up with a conclusion, and worked backwards. This is the opposite of science and logic and typical of a bible basher
djcorvus 5 months ago
The Aether hypothesis is under way. But Aether alone can't be responsible for everything unless we take into account the "Matrix Substrate Structure" of Space itself.
jatigre1 6 months ago
"there is no other way" - why YES, there IS a way, and that's due to the presence of WATER on Mars billions of years ago! Water causes canyons and erosion, which accounts for basically all of the deformation you see on the landscape of Mars and also explains why the lower areas don't have as many craters - they were covered by a SHALLOW OCEAN. Any moron with an animation program can 'make' a planet grow and contract. This doesn't prove anything. Also, where does all this extra matter come from?
djcorvus 6 months ago
@djcorvus No,...CANYONS on Earth , as well are caused by the crust pulling apart. If you could see the oceans with all the Water gone, you would say ,"Gigantic CANYONS made by the water,.. but they like canyons on the land are "SPREADS". WATER has nothing to do with spreads. If Mars had water there would be EVIDENCE.
THERE-IS-NO-EVIDENCE!!! They, as on Earth and the moon are spreads of a growing body.
MATTER IS MADE,...or MAGICKED, or GOD made it in a BIG EXPLOSION. You believe that?
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom The funny thing is that you provide absolution ZERO evidence for your claim, and your whole case hinges on some amusing animations you made. YES, the continents of the Earth fit perfectly together, well done! But instead of coming to the more reasonable conclusion of tectonic drift (backed by many different streams of hard evidence, such as magnetic imprinting of ancient rock), you instead apply this magical "matter from nowhere" fantasy with absolutely nothing to back it up.
djcorvus 6 months ago
@djcorvus NO. MY EVIDENCE is FACTS. YOURS (others) is conjecture and THEORY!
Mars: FACTS: There is NO SURFACE WATER ON MARS (co2) NOW. FACT! 2. Mars has a shitty Magnetic field. Never was very good. Without a field clouds can't collect. NO CLOUDS-NO RAIN-NO WATER! FACT! 3. FACT, Tectonics has nothing to do with WATER. They ? Speculation! Theory! Conjecture! 4. Water near the surface, MUST EVAPORATE or Freeze. FACT!
I'll take FACTS! Not one drop of water. (Except underground.)
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Your sheer ignorance is shown in your misunderstanding of the 'big bang'. Firstly, despite popular belief, it was NOT an 'explosion'. Basic high school physics will tell you that energy is equivalent to matter. The hyperexpansion event at the beginning of the universe was just that. All the energy and matter that currently exists in our universe was compressed to the size of a basketball, and then rapidly expanded, and coalesced, forming the elements of the periodic table.
djcorvus 6 months ago
@djcorvus HEY, STUPID,..Why do you suppose they called it the BIG BANG???/ Ifit didn't explode how did it escape it's own gravity?
Why would it EXPAND EXPLOSIVELY? (Since that's the only process that explains it.) WHY--HOW????
WHAT,.. physical process explains such a thing? I have looked for one? Can't find it. Tell me, what process causes ....hyperexpansion??????
Oh,...and our's accelerates. I won't ask you about that,...BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROCESS THAT EXPLAINS 'HYPEREXPANSION"!
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@djcorvus A God-damned basketball,..GREAT! Must I get all the idiots? NOT A basketball?...Not a ...barn....an accorn????
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "No evidence for water on Mars"?? Are you on drugs?? Which rapidly expanding rock have you been living under? Try googling "evidence for water on Mars". It's not that hard, I promise.
There is incontrovertible evidence now that liquid water (most likely shallow seas) that covered a good portion of Mars billions of years ago when it was warmer and still had tectonic activity. The evidence is all around you, and you deny it to hold onto your fantasy.
djcorvus 6 months ago
@djcorvus 1. I am not on drugs. Geologists have been trying (For some insane reason.) to prove standing water on Mars. (Just as they tried to prove canals on Mars, in the past.) They have FAILED COMPLETELY.
Yet. there is CLEAR RECENT TECTONIC ACTIVITY! VOLCANIC AND Rifting. Lack of water makes it even more clear.
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
@MovieMagicMaster Indeed...But in times like this it is good to have something to laugh about, albeit it is at others expenses. Still have to say growing planets....that is funny :)
ueks69 6 months ago
@ueks69
Very.
MovieMagicMaster 6 months ago
@ueks69 EVEN funnier,..GET THIS,,.. Empty universe,... GOD comes by and magics a massively big explosion and all the matter in the universe APPEARS! BANG. Wot-a-yock, HUH?
You fukin' idiot!
nealadamsdotcom 6 months ago
"and the newer blue area has fewer craters" He says as the screen shows that there is in fact MORE craters in the blue area.
LOL.
gambleyourhealth 6 months ago
Another guess that might cause this growing effect is, if compressing matter generates heat, and heat generates expansive force, and if gravity is continuously compressing matter to denser forms(rocks) then heat is being generated even though slight and over very long time frames gravity might continuously be adding more geothermal energy within a planet thereby continuously creating increasing expansive pressure, not just by radioactive decay. That is gravity continuously does work.
Jammieg001 8 months ago
@Jammieg001 I have not pursued these questions for 35 years, to "guess" at answers. If I was guessing, you may rest assured I would not be in this discussion. Nor is it a Growing "EFFECT". It is the creation of new matter and growth,
Gravity is NOT "continually compressing MATTER" MATTER has STRUCTURE, If Gravity increases a lot, you can get, what is called "PHASE CHANGE" which ,WITH HEAT and pressure, can re-arrange one form of silicate to another form. Each has a STRUCTURE.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@Jammieg001 mate every object in the space attracts matter...... so obviously every object in the space will grow
Panz82 6 months ago
I think you should end all your videos by saying "and that's the way it is bitches"
Jammieg001 8 months ago 8
It can't grow. Where does it get all the extra mass required?
Let's say mars weighed 100 lbs. It can not possibly weigh more without something external adding mass to it. 1 asteroid weighing 1lb hits it, it now weighs 101lbs. You plant a tree on mars from a seed that you find there and it grows to be 1lb in weight. Mars still weights 100lbs as the tree has consumed resources from the planet = to 1lb. Matter doesn't just materialize out of nothing.
AzumiRM 9 months ago
In your video, you say that there is no other way that this could have formed. Have you considered that it may have been river channels following pre-existing weaknesses in the underlying rock caused by an ancient impact? This would explain the roundness....or that Valles Marineris was a similar weakness from a radial fracture due to that region being uplifted? I like how you are thinking outside the box, but this is a tough sell. How can a planet grow? Does density decrease or is mass gained?
brandondagel 9 months ago
@brandondagel Standing Water in Mars is childish thinking based, not on science, but on HOPES and WISHFULL THINKING. Mars has always had a terribly small Magnetic field.
Small field, and the solar wind takes gases away. No gases=no clouds, No clouds+ no rain, NO RAIN= NO STANDING WATER! THIS is simple science. NO wishful thinking. I don't believe in MAGIC, Concidence OR ancient impacts. We SEE the result of impacts. CRATERS. It is I that remain WITHIN the BOX. Wishful thinking that goes out
nealadamsdotcom 9 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Thanks for your reply. You can see images of the channels carved out by water on the THEMIS website. These channels are consistent with water-formed channels. Satellite images and the Rovers found plenty of evidence for water as well. Mars did once have flowing water.
There are several satellites orbiting Mars currently, including the MRO. One of the MRO's main purposes is to monitor the weather and the atmosphere, which it does regularly. The atmosphere is about 11 km thick.
brandondagel 9 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Also, older craters become "erased" over time due to the action of the atmosphere and water. Ancient impacts will lose their rims due to weathering and erosion, but the underlying cracks and weaknesses in the rock remain.
I look forward to your reply.
brandondagel 9 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom This obsrvation by you is truly amazing and so clearly explained, that it leaves very little argument to the contrary. I have a question for you, is it true that the craters on mars were caused in less than an hour, because 95% of the craters are found on one side?
rhuezo67 8 months ago in playlist earth creation
@rhuezo67 That would be silly wouldn't it. No, the larger craters are on the OLDER LAND. Why do I say that?
Because in recent hundreds of millions of years Jupiter has become, from it's incredible growth-size a meteorite umbrella for the inner planets. THEN as Mars grew new crust appeared more in the north than the south. By then mostly small meteorites were hitting.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I also saw your video showing this same phenomena on the Lunar surface and again I am in agreement with you, your model is convincing and it fits better than any other existing theory I've seen. But please be patient with my question, did all the craters on the Lunar surface come from a single catastrophic event? I ask because in your video, it shows the dark side of the Moon having almost all the meteor impacts, since it rotates it makes sense that they all occured at once.
rhuezo67 8 months ago in playlist earth creation
Extraordinary!
hcm9999 9 months ago
so ... "oversimplifying makes it look like x happened so it did" not sure it works that way
aluphoss 9 months ago
no it's not that the crator number is the same if you look.. orthat mars was once like earth and the red stuff is smthing like a mountian? nooo.... btw where the hell dose the mass come from i haven't sen that on any of the vids yet...
jannikmt 9 months ago
What would really sell me on this idea is if you found two halves of a crater that would come back together when shrinking the land back together... You know what I mean?
batfly 10 months ago
Neal's graphics help support my gut feeling he is absolutely correct.
batfly 10 months ago
@batfly
you have been illuminated
MADhybrid1 10 months ago
maybe, maybe not. an unkown mechanism for a universe that grows ,does not get rid of gravity or mass.if you increase one you increase the other.an increase in spatial size without a subsquent increase in mass and gravitaional pull is still an explosion.
robert66michel 10 months ago
to grow or expand requires gaining mass wich would increase gravity. expanding or growing larger without gaining mass is called exploding.i suppose the planetary explosions bieng described could be happening very slowly, relative to our sense of time.
robert66michel 10 months ago
@robert66michel - If you examine the various 5 or 6 videos, you will see that all suspended bodies are growing. In fact all suns are growing. In fact our universe is growing, although scientists say it's expanding. It's a simple word, isn't it? Growing. Looks the the same, but don't you know there are no simple processes that imply or excuse, expanding. Except for balloon.
nealadamsdotcom 10 months ago
@robert66michel - Can it be so simple that there is a process of growth for all matter in the universe, and that, that, is actually how we get a universe. Can we have been so incredibly wrong about everything? How matter is made and where? We've been eating up this stupid Big Bang theory as if it were a fact. Does it make you feel kind of stupid? It did for me.
nealadamsdotcom 10 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom This is just a guess as to the cause Neal, it could be that the increase in mass of a planetary body that contributes to the increase in "growing" might be due to matter being converted to energy and ejected by the Sun and then captured and converted back into matter by gravity on more "stable" planetary bodies, in turn more mass creates more internal heat creating more expansive pressures. Such that most energy/mass might be recaptured deep in the Earth under most pressure.
Jammieg001 8 months ago
@Jammieg001 Far more simple. At the core is a Nascent sun-like object in which Pair-Production is constantly taking place. The newly produced matter is captured in the shallow EM field of the plasma outer core. Here new ATOMS are assembled and deposited in the mantle.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom That's interesting stuff I did not know about pair production, so if there is enough heat to create high energy photons inside the Earth then pair production occurs and new atoms created, from heat new matter is created, as long as there is a supply of heat from radioactive decay or gravity, or maybe fusion.
Could there be some connection between the strength of the magnetic poles and some amount of energy they absorb to cause expansion?
Jammieg001 8 months ago
@Jammieg001 Pair-Production takes place Mundanely, everywhere, even in "space", grossly in something as common as Lightning.
New MATTER is ASSEMBLED in MAGNETIC FIELDS. Heat assists, of course in continuing Ionization.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
please dont tell me that the fact that Earths continents exactly match Mars continents are some sort of coincident. Much much more than just coincidence>
MADhybrid1 10 months ago
Isnt this exactly what earth would have looked like some 180 million years ago. Including size,. There is no difference between the plates on earth as compared to Mars entire planet. this is your proof. We are looking 180 million years into our past when looking at Mars
MADhybrid1 10 months ago
Out of curiosity, with man's techology today, aren't we able to measure that the earth is expanding. I hear on documentaries that the tectonic plates in Iceland(? .. perhaps other places too?) is spreading apart at the pace of the growth of our fingernails. I think that equates to around 2 centimeters per year (don't quote me on that though). With current technology, would we be able to measure with such accuracy, and in how many years, decades, or centuries?
huyked 11 months ago
Comment removed
DodecaDude 11 months ago
@DodecaDude
Hello DodecaDude,
Thank you very much for information. It'll be an interesting read for the entire page. But for what I did read, the section you pointed out, it's looking to be a hard to understand. :)
huyked 11 months ago
Earth and Mars and the Moon did grow. But they are not growing now.
kaderoder 1 year ago
@kaderoder they grow a little each time a meteor fall on it tough xD
Peace7Maker 10 months ago
@Peace7Maker Thats not growing, thats getting fat. LOL! My wife is not growing, but her mass is increasing!! hahahahaha dont tell the fat bitch i said that.
kaderoder 10 months ago
@MsBonnie1111 hardly thinking outside of the box this is purely intuitive thinking.
datzfast 1 year ago
no one can explain why its necessary for an explanation of growth to come befor the acceptance of growth. we see a tree and accept that it grew long befor we understood why or how it grew. i think some people are just prejudice and ow too much loyalty to the paper degree they earned by studying something that was flawed. it makes them seem ignorant to themselves so they defend the old ways like a pope
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast
Even PT does not explain why the continents separated they had immunity to such questions as to (why are we here?) But a growing earth is held to a higher standard not because it does not have merit but simply because PT is already rooted. PT is teetering on an explanation from the expanding earth theorists as to how Earth grew but time is getting near. Its just a matter of time now and the shit will hit the fan.SC
scarecrowMad 1 year ago
@MsBonnie1111
most likely, it is combination of both.
ArchytypeNet 1 year ago
@MsBonnie1111 Ok, yes you could have meteorites slowly adding to it. But where is the measurable mass increase coming from. If meteorites slowly add to it then all of the other planets are also growing as well.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz: The fact of the matter is that we don't understand what mass is. In the Electric Universe model there is only one force, the electric force. The ultra-weak force of gravity seems to be a secondary phenomenon. If in a planetary cataclysm the charge of a planet is significantly altered, it might affect gravity as well. I think earth has in fact grown. Mars and the moon not, though.
MsBonnie1111 1 year ago
@MsBonnie1111 I don't doubt that mass has an EM based component to it -in fact I think I'm sort of a closet-etherist (with an ether that is compatible with relativity) and think there is a universal EM field as well. However whatever it eventually turns out to be, mass is still a form of energy, and for Mars' mass to grow, energy must be feeding into it from somewhere for this to work.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz: Remember, I'm not the one saying Mars has grown. At holoscience,com the Electric Universe model is explained in detail. A lot of proponents of that model are etherists as well. A sentence like 'mass is still a form energy' is scientifically meaningless. Bill Gaede (search youtube) explains it well.
MsBonnie1111 1 year ago
@MsBonnie1111 Well it's conceivable (in an out there kind of way) that mars is deriving the mass from vacuum energy in the ether. But E = mc^2 is still very valid.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
If you type "disasterous" into Google, it asks "Did you mean: disastrous?"
You clown.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@MsBonnie1111 No.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
hrm i saw quite a few craters on the blue. I dunno what this guys trying to prove. Maybe seeing how many gullable ppl there are on youtube.
huntman1412 1 year ago
@huntman1412 but are there as many craters on the blue as there is on the "older" parts.
Dalemoooooon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wikipedia: "There is no evidence supporting expansion of the Earth: measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size, and there is no source of energy to power expansion. This is in contrast to plate tectonics, which is supported by a large range of geological and geophysical measurements, including direct measurements of plate motions by geodesy and of subduction at plate boundaries."
andyvlak 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neal, you are self-motivated crackpot. This is a b/s theory, and you are simply trying to make money off of impressionable people. My favorite Wiki quote on the matter is, "Adams rejects tectonics and the decades of geological and geophysical data that illustrate it. He claims that the Earth is not expanding but growing, and advocates his ideas in a DVD documentary he wrote and created". People, don't follow this guy's self-interests!!!
andyvlak 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Oil companies are trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common people.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating your own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
rebelliouseoagj 1 year ago
Very intelligent using impact creator to show old and young land. An impact creator is like a geological survey due to the fact that it exposed the crust under crust.
Rozettados25 1 year ago
no... Thank you
You're awesome
skipp311 1 year ago
@8osiris Fusion doesn't produce mass. Pair-Production produces MASS/Matter.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom is it possible to reproduce pair production artificially?? that would be extraordinarily beneficial to technology as a whole, think of the applications if it were true!! virtually FREE mass, and in limitless amounts!!
H0B0J03 1 year ago
@H0B0J03 Pair-Production was first observed in 1932 By Carl David Anderson. for which he received the Nobel Prize.
You should look it up. Very, very interesting!
Solar System is not an enclosed system. Matter is not STUFF. It's ENERGY and EM FIELDS. Kind of throws a monkey wrench into everything, doesn't it?
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
Mars isn't "growing" here. This is just plate tectonics. The ground recycles itself under the crust, same thing on Earth.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Dont even start that PT crap on Mars it is BS here and it is no different there. It is an obvious case of the 'BLINDFOLDED LEADING THE BLIND" SC
scarecrowMad 1 year ago
@scarecrowMad Look I'm more open-minded than many in the scientific community in fact quite a bit more so than I would openly admit to most people. That said we still have to tie into known knowledge and logic. If Mars is growing where is the extra mass coming from? Why aren't Phobos and Demois falling into the planet as the gravity grows?
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Before you make statements like why aren't Phobos and Deimos falling into the planet you better do some homework and you will find the Mars inner moon has a trajectory of crashing into Mars in about 150 million years and Mars outer moon continues to move away from Mars as the planet grows just like our Moon. Mass is arbitrary because who is to say what the original constituents of the planet posses as far as growth. Rotation and our moon instill growth.SC
scarecrowMad 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz doesnt mass just accumulate more lesser masses? if that is the fundamental idea of gravity, wouldn't space dust be continuously be attracted to the gravitation of your solar system?also is not the sun continuously bombarding every planet with renegade ionized mass? our solar system is not an enclosed system, it is continually gaining mass from surrounding "ambient" space matter, is it not?there are literally infinite sources for new matter all around us,so why is it so implausible?
H0B0J03 1 year ago
@H0B0J03 Well the problem is that the amount of mass it picks up like this per year is not that much. It's not even enough to register in terms of gravitational interaction.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Has anyone just therorized that maybe all things are still growing even planets and life all over. We are so stupid to think that a god would only create our greddy little asses! Something tells me we are just a phase and when that phase is over so is the day of man! Get used to the idea folks there is no God going to save you if he has already prophecized the end! Makes since right? Our job while were alive is to not screw it up for the next generation! Guess what we are screwing it up! GODMOP!
kmitchem4 1 year ago
Surely the Valles can be explained by the large Tharsis bulge to the west (just out of shot) which includes the largest mountain/volcano in the solar system.
(btw you spelt disastrous wrong)
JudeccanBreed 1 year ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 - 3 theories, wow, that's impressive. Either one must be right, or they're all just plain stupid. I vote for stupid.
Science tells us, the moon is either accelerating outward, (which is preposterous), or it is slowing it's movement outward. Meaning, a million years ago, it was zooming outward. Idiotic.
The solar system is growing, all bodies are moving away from one another, on growing increasingly powerful, magnetic lines. It's systems that grow, not just planets.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
I see what you mean by ( your ref) the new Land having next to no impact craters ...but new land without visible volcanic activity I am not so sure?? ...how would you presume to explain this any theory's ??...
Thanks
IHATEATHEIST2 1 year ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 - I see no reason to explain volcanoes or lack of volcanoes. Earth has hundreds, Mars has a few, and not typical. You cannot lightly skip over the sizes of the meteorite craters. They are like a precision clock. The smaller the craters, the newer the spread area. A computer could break it down perfectly.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@IHATEATHEIST2 Spread in the Volcano and new land sliding outward
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
lol wtf ..this is not even worth commenting .
abradras 1 year ago
seems rather flimsy evidence for the theory of expansion..i stil havent found anything on your site to substantiate this theory where is the extra mass coming from or is it expanding like a balloon
mugwamp4 1 year ago
Tell everyone you know, especially students, teachers, Professors all about this.
Encourage them to think, consider and discuss.
It's time for a broader_ debate. The fact that it's necessary is laughable, but it is,...NECESSARY!
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
If mars is growing there should be a lot more NEW land being created. Mars was once a very active planet but seismic data has revealed the planet is DEAD as its core has solidified. The planet did not obtain plate tectonics and therefore contains few but large volcanoes as heat needed to be released. The trench is equivalent to a large dike formation which split the crust of mars.
danosurfs 1 year ago
@danosurfs - Listen CAREFULLY.,This is how we find new spread areas.
As time has gone by, the remaining meteors that strike earth, the moon and Mars, have become smaller and smaller. Your science says it's because we are running out of meteors. Real science says Jupiter is attracting nearly all meteorites. So only the smallest get through.
Doesn't matter which you believe. The newest spread areas on Mars very simply, have the smallest meteor hits, on average. Look at a good map of Mars.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
Tell everyone you know, especially students, teachers , Professors all about this.
Encourage them to think, consider and discuss.
It's time for a broader debate. The fact that it's necessary is laughable, but it is,...NECESSARY!
If you're interested in more videos or the Physics portion, go to nealadamsdotcom
Spread the word. You will be participating in the next great revolution in science.
Just imagine how rowdy it will get before the truth wins.
Is there anything like this?
Nope.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@Scoinsoffaterocks inside earth is gas
jettaknightvr6 1 year ago
how are you connecting height and age?
EmperorOfMars 1 year ago
Is Mars growing by sunlight (Photon) absorption, internal atomic reduction, or space particle loading?
stubbornVN 1 year ago
@stubbornVN Heh, heh, heh. Goodness, what a nifty menu. No. To understand, you would have to be exposed to a NEW approach to HOW EVERYTHING WORKS.
For Example," MATTER is not made out of STUFF! It's MADE OF ENERGY,...and EM FIELDS ONLY.
Have I lost you?
Try this, To call a Proton three quarks,..is like saying that SNOW is A SNOWBALL.
There's NO SUCH THING AS A QUARK.. A Proton is a group of 919 Prime matter particles around a Positron....CLUMPED.
Lost you yet? I thought so.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom Did you give me the answer yet? I'm OK with "how stuff works" theories do you have it out on a video yet?
I'm not really a strong believer in quarks yet because the earlier areas of physics are still grey areas that get manipulated to produce science results not science facts. Nuclear physics probably hasn't been around long enough to retain strong facts about the true nature of the experiments. But hey its a job and they get results for some things already.
stubbornVN 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom how on earth did you guys formulate these theories?
EmperorOfMars 1 year ago
I do, uncommon research. I'll read some abstracts anda few papers. Ireview Photos and read RELATED material and compare for myself.
A recent nat geo special "drained" the Ocean away and presented CGI renderings of the Oceanic bottom. At the beginning a narrowSPREAD/ rift valley canyon they "DESCRIBED" as looking exactly like "THE GRAND CANYON. was shown "They said " the two "had completely different origins!" I broke out laughing.
They indeed DID look the SAME. They WERE the same.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
Rift valley + erosion = Occams Razor.
wideheadofknowledge 1 year ago
@wideheadofknowledge Erosion FROM WHAT?????
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom Erm. Wind? the water that we know once flowed on Mars?
wideheadofknowledge 1 year ago
@wideheadofknowledge - 1. Wind would fill a crack, not make a crack. That's stupid. Wind and water, in case you didn't know, have a tendency to fill in any cracks in the land, until they disappear. That's why dredges have to constantly dredge up sediments from the mouths of rivers, which are the cracks in the land that opportunistic water follows to get to the sea. When are you going to stop this tirade of ignorance and read a book? Water on Mars is a desperate "Theory" of sci-fi geologists.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Wind would fill a crack". Ever been to the Grand Canyon? Or Monument Valley? Wind is an extremely powerful erosive force. Ever seen the effects of, ooh I don't know, a river? They don't fill cracks - they carve channels out of solid rock.
wideheadofknowledge 1 year ago
@wideheadofknowledge The Grand Canyon is a simple pull-apart of the land caused by the swinging over to the RIGHT of Central America holding to South America.
You sir are a geological fool. A river doesn't cut the land except if the cut is BEGUN by a spread, to hold it.
On the land, The NILE, the MISSISSIPPI the Tigris and Euphrates flows until the bed is filled with silt and then it changes it's course. Cities along these rivers are left behing and a new city built.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom I guess that waterfalls don't cut through rock then? Describing huge, slow moving and silt laden deltas is one thing but fast flowing water can and does carve its way through rock. Once cuts are opened in this fashion the exposed rocks are susceptible to the erosive force of wind-blown particles. To deny that this is the case is obtuse beyond belief.
wideheadofknowledge 1 year ago
@wideheadofknowledge THERE, you are correct about that. It happens, and because of that, the confusion arises. Niagra falls is exactly that. When one portion of land is much higher than another , rushing and falling water CAN cut away the higher land. However the falls area tends o swing around as silt builds up.
Scientists-geologists are even now revising their assement of most rivers for possible tectonic origins.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom Could you point me in the direction of any peer-reviewed papers in which geologists are "revising" their assessment of most rivers for tectonic origins? It would be much appreciated. From what I've read geologist seem to be clear about those that are have tectonic origins. I still stand by my original point though - once a rift is opened it can be made much, much larger by the action of wind and water erosion.
wideheadofknowledge 1 year ago
@wideheadofknowledge No. I can't provide . I rarely read these papers because they are theoretical in nature, unless they contain NEW FACTS. I got that particular piece of information from a Discovery program that concerned the losing battle of ongoing dredging of river mouths at the shipping ports . A Geologist on the scene made clear comment of this trend of investigating the tectonic origins of rivers. The MATTER-OF-Fact_presentation, impressed me.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom OK. Will keep on looking myself. Thanks for responding without calling me a fool.
wideheadofknowledge 1 year ago
@wide You're quite welcome.
Finding/showing The Growing Earth by unorthodox methods, has driven me to understand the DANGERS of specialization and science's putting aside VISUAL observation and confirmation, Deduction, and LOGIC,.as un-dependable.
Tectonics and the Pangea theory was based, FIRST on the observation that the continents on either side of the Atlantic MATCHED, It was then LOST as a skill as Geology REFUSED to tectonically MATCH the Pacific. out of the numbing FEAR of consequences.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
its a jawbreaker. you can see the shine at the top of it where the guy's lightbulb was reflecting on it lmao
Kayceism 1 year ago
I honestly believe him. The heat form the core earth probably spread earth out. Since mars core is alittle more solid. Some other force new OR old MUST HAVE WORKED ON IT.
ChildePC 1 year ago
so how small was Mars to begin with? And where did it come from?
fergus247 1 year ago
TD are you seriously trying to tell me that space ISN'T a vacuum?
imnntt 1 year ago
imnntt No, it's not a vacuum, nor does matter exist, nor is matter denser than "space'. " In fact Space is far denser than matter.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@imnntt He's 100% Correct. Space is NOT an absolute vacuum. Gases and matter exist within regions of space. Gravity creates the regions of vacuum delineated by matter or various celestial bodies by initiating the collapse of matter by gravitational waves that leads to the formation of stars, planets, star/planetary systems and galaxies. The vacuum is not an absolute.
MixingLaboratory 1 year ago
The Blue area is mostly At the Poles, and it canyons. Its harder for a meteor to hit there than it is the equatorial and other zones.
Theres a same density of craters on all areas when I saw it. Theres even less craters in some of the yellows and reds than some greens and blues.
TerraDepicter 1 year ago
As far as I can tell it all boils down to simple logic. Everything inside a vacuum expands (if you don't belive it, google it or watch some of the videos here). Space is a giant vacuum. The planets are all in space.......so....
imnntt 1 year ago
Space is full of Intergalatic Atoms of Hydragen, helium, and all of the other elements. so taht is not the answer.
TerraDepicter 1 year ago
Neil, i have been watching ur videos for the past 2 years & just came across the "newer episodes". i love & respect ur work. As a 2nd grader back in 1982 i remember thinking that the way the continents "connected" did not seem right....little did i know i was a budding "neil"-- i never thought it was right then, & i am glad u r putting this info out now.i spread the word 2 everyone i know! To all the non-believers-sometimes its about "KISS". Keep up the work! i will continue spreading it!
Jestiegirl 1 year ago
it really seems that you have something here. too bad the scientific community rejects anything that doesnt fit their norm. They have turned science into a religion, question it and you are a hethen... all theories should be considered and researched if we are to have real science.
FarangBalls 1 year ago
Its funny how some can't see that its no longer real science but a true religion. In which if you deviate from there teaching your ostracize and ridiculed.
davidgran1967 1 year ago
Comment removed
4N0NYM0U557 1 year ago
Gents and Ladiez- This theory ends in geology, but it begins in physics. Without the physics, this is just the observation of the result. Go to nealadamsdotcom. The physics paper is there. Read it first, then comment. The answers to 90% of your questions are in that paper. I can't summarize the paper here.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
Gents- Numbers are going up here faster and faster. If you want to help, Invite people to watch. Post this video on other sites. I won't be upset. In fact, I'll love it. Start debates anywhere you can. Send people to nealadamsdotcom for all the videos. Invite physicists and physics students to buy the physics paper there. I don't know what the hell they're so afraid of, but the physicists are the worst. They think this is only geology. Is there lead in the water?
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
Neal, I have never come across a more refreshing dose of knowledge as your videos. Thank you for your work I hope to spread it to my children and hopefully they may teach his class something about our natural history. Thank you.
swusinich 1 year ago
BTW if the earth is expanding as much as your other videos show, and the earth being very young (which can be proven), it must be expanding at an alarming rate. There would be far more earthquake activity than there is.
SounzNice 2 years ago
Sounz Earth is not "expanding'. That would be , scientifically, silly. Balloons 'expand".
Earth, like all OTHERS, GROWS!
There IS "MORE EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY!" LOOK at the videos, You think I made this shit up?
THINK!
nealadamsdotcom 2 years ago
Oh time for let's play the semantics game: grow vs expanding. Whatever term you prefer, that's what I meant.
No, not all "others" grow and the sun is currently shrinking according to multiple sources I've ran across online.
You mean you didn't make the animation shit up? Think!
SounzNice 2 years ago
Well the universe is growwing. Well you have to understand Neal, growwing and expanding still take up the same basical principle. Something small is getting bigger. The difference is that growth follows an actual course of development, something that is trying to be done to be achieved, like an acorn into a