I hate stupidity almost as much as I hate hypocrisy, but somehow nealadams manages to transcend their combined levels of sucktitude.
That's right -- sucktitude. It's a new word. I was forced to invent it in order to adequately describe nealadams' real world contribution to rational thought and intellectual honesty.
@BdArmyman981 who is it that has control of these "lasers" aimed at earth, measuring it's growth? where are they stationed? and even if they went to all that effort, and the data showed that the earth IS growing, why wouldn't they just lie about it like they did man made global worming to try to get an international carbon tax treaty signed? i don't believe them except on some of the most basic things they discover with telescopes and publish. NASA isn't even part of our government.
There is no need to analyse this video. The size of the earth is measured directly at many locations just like the drift of the.continents and the rise of the mountains and it is known not to growing.
Of course, you don't go anywhere close to explaining WHY the Pacific ocean is expanding and understanding why the WHOLE Pacific sea floor is under 200 million years old. You can point at the lash in my eye, but IGNORE the elephant in the room. Maybe you are another stupid and biased grad student with a doomed career in earthquake prediction.
I am one person who thinks that the theory of Earth and other planets growing is possibly a valid theory, however, I very much enjoyed your video here. So I thought you deserved a LIKE.
and these SAME scientists that would have you believe the continents drift about crashing into each other will tell you that its ok to believe that the UNIVERSE is expanding and getting larger... but not the earth. PLEASE...explain to me what the universe is expanding INTO??!! what is the UNIVERSE DISPLACING?? just because we don't know HOW yet doesn't mean that it's NOT, right? where does the universe begin or end? and what is outside our 'box'? if u can answer that i'll believe continent drift
@thosah The universe isn't expanding in the sense you seem to believe, the matter in the universe is NOT expanding, the universe is "expanding" because there is more and more space in between celestial bodies not because the celestial bodies are expanding.
and furthermore it just seems to make sense more that continents would pull further apart as a result of some internal pressure. think of blowing up a balloon. the question has been asked, "where does the extra mass come from?" it doesn't come from anywhere. there is no extra mass. the gravity of the earth pulls the mass in and compresses it. as the volcanic material cools and solidifies, it stops expanding. the internal heat of friction causes the matter to melt and expand. simple stuff.
"I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven!" ~ Thomas Jefferson. even respected and intelligent people can be wrong when we don't have all the facts. and even when we do, we can draw the wrong conclusions. even when the MINOR details of little islands and such aren't depicted "perfectly" in Neil's SIMULATION, at least his simulation makes more sense based off the relevant data available. NOBODY was THERE when these things happened.
@thosah Yes, but in the here and the now we can measure the earth, and the earth just isn't growing. We can measure the expansion of oceans and so if the earth were to be expanding as well we could measure it. As it is we SEE that as one part of earth expands, another shrinks on a 1:1 scale keeping earth the same size.
@BdArmyman981 The earth IS growing. Explain why the dinosaurs were so big, why the continents fit together on every side, why there are GROWth RINGS IN-BETween, every continent that fits together on every side.
Life is proportional to the planet. when the planet was young and small, the gravity was very weak, and the life was able to grow to extreme sizes. As the earth grew, the gravity increased, and the continents separated. Dinos found themselves trapped... (i ran out of room)
@nayanmalig Thank you for proving me right. You are a liar! In fact, you talk JUST like Neal Adams. I wonder, are you really Neal himself? You certainly have his supreme arrogance.
@nayanmalig And just by posting on here in defense of Neal Adam's lunacy, it's obvious you DO care what people think. And I suspect anyone with half a brain thinks you're a nutjob!
@VinnyMonster1 people who come up with new theories are lunatics? is that a science standpoint or religious dogma? name calling does not answer any of these questions. The church branded people who question beliefs as heretics because they were scared of the truth or the search for it.
@nayanmalig No, but people who go batshit and rant at anyone who asks a fair question are lunatics. If you DARE to ask neal Adams any questions that seem to doubt his ideas, he launches into a tirade of insults and ranting. He WILL NOT engage in any rational discussion. THAT is what makes him a lunatic. If I thought that he had any solid scientific evidence for his balloon earth idea, I'd give it as much respect as I do plate tectonics.
@VinnyMonster1 And I'm still waiting for you to provide me with the names of these scientists who believe in Neal Adam's crackpot ideas. Just saying you're not going to and calling me lazy merely makes you look like a liar who doesn't have the evidence, which you obviously are.
@VinnyMonster1 forget neal. he's frustrated & ranted at me like an idiot too. this is not his idea but from the 1930's - long before Neal's parents thought of sex. Hindenberg or some guy. this theory is not perfect. same with evolution or any other. even Einstein's theories are being challenged seriously today.
Now we're back to square A. there are other scientists who believe in this. There are videos of american scientists presenting this in the 1960's.
@nayanmalig Maybe there were, in the 60s when Plate Tectonics was still a relatively new theory. But from what I have read, from what I learned at school and have researched myself pre internet and post internet, Plate Tectonics seems a viable theory. I HAVE looked into the expanding earth theory, and it is a leaking boat of an idea. But as I said, if there is ever any evidence to support it strongly, I will have to reconsider my opinion.
@VinnyMonster1 everything changes. that's how science works. even the age of the universe has been modified many times. when change comes it can be sudden. I think although main stream science makes us believe they have all the answers but they are actually fudging the figures by huge margins & creating equations to fit their theories. I don't think humans still have the vision or the technology to answer such big questions like how the universe came into being or how it really works.
@VinnyMonster1 everything changes. that's how science works. even the age of the universe has been modified many times. when change comes it can be sudden. I think although main stream science makes us believe they have all the answers but they are actually fudging the figures by huge margins & creating equations to fit their theories. I don't think humans still have the vision or the technology to answer such big questions like how the universe came into being or how it really works.
the basic theory of this makes far more sence than plate shifts and quick look on google earth gives anyone an idear of the under sea rifts, volcanoes and direction of spread of contanants, however neil has indeed alterd and not taken into account many other factions such as sea level rise and fall. if he took these into account they acualy fit better. the problem is you cant tell somone its fact as he dose without evidence (tho its obvious) and much more data over decades it remains theory
Yeah, if Neil wants to be taken a bit seriously, despite being a cartoonist, he should at least start telling the truth .. especially on his own videos! Good video.
@sownzgr8 AND he should stop blocking people who ask uncomfortable questions. TBH I think, going from his tirades and rants on his comments pages, that neal has been sniffing his drawing ink a little too much, the man is a nutcase.
hello, i'm studying plate tectonics atm for my degree and just came across all this growing earth non-sense. Have you seen 'potholer54' video on this? I reckon it cements this bullshit back to the 1900s. Btw great satire vid.
Wow dude LOL looks like SOMEone got pissed and made a video. Listen to him, he's practically foaming at the mouth. "UHRR I went to college NO ONE UNDERSTANDS BUT ME" All the while refuting nothing. I don't even believe in EE, but all I can find are people like him that can't come up with anything other than "It's JUST STUPID" "SCIENTISTS SEZ SO" as counter. doesn't really help your case. What arrogance! Down boy, easy now, easy. Calm down, just calm down!! Don't have a fucking coronary.
This is a very poor atempt at dis-information.! This guy has no idea what he's talking about...lol. The "we" that know the truth, know why you are misleading everyone... people like you are very hard at work to try to keep everyone believing the mainstream bullshit science...your trying to back and support the brainwashing efforts that have been going on now for about 1000 years...you will only fool the truely stupid with your propaganda...!!! They thought they could fool everyone for ever.!!!!!
@truthterrorist11 Ha! You can maybe fool some people, but there's simply no way anyone is as bat shit insane as you're pretending to be. Good show old chap! Keep up the comedy gold!
@yorrike the Theory <remember that word the theory is that the earth is growing its alot better then the one mainstream science is going with so maybe think twice before bitching about such a tiny thing honestly your really going out on a limb here to disprove something Do you feel like a man inside now ?
@TheNwoRhemity Nah, you're wrong. Science is right. The expanding earth hypothesis (please learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory please) is baseless and flawed and lacking in any evidence what-so-ever.
Also, if your going to say that a geologist is backing up this theory, keep in mind he can hardly explain what our core is made of, and how all that mass is appearing from nowhere (which breaks the law of conservation of energy btw)
Proves nothing. I think Visually, and in the imagination, the concept of an expanding earth makes far more sense then the plates floating around the ocean like pinball. Look at the History channel's earth video, how they explain how the earth was started as a cloud of dust.
@gastrolBTR And what is this evidence? Scientists have thought of everything correct? I just won't buy that the earth has been the same size for eternity. Doesn't it seem logical tht it would expand? I would love to think that even one day our firey center would expand to become a red dwarf. Think of the possibilities.
So you are taking the words of a comic book artist above those of the entire scientific community? No offense meant, but that's pretty close-minded...
If you look at the picture you have provided, you can clearly see a land mass close to and a part of New Zealand. So, this does not prove to me that the earth is not expanding.
@rugbyguy59 The Earth is only slightly growing because of space dust and particles that are attracted to the Earth. However, back when there were great bombardments of meteors, the Earth surely had to expand because the matter from the meteors and astroids had to go somewhere. Plus, when the Earth was a firey ball of molten rock, how could it have an abundance of water? It would be too hot.
@yorrike They were just a general idea. Some famous scientists were considered lunatics at their time. I'm not defending neil. Yes, they are not nuts today, but this is because we have finally found out what geniuses they are. Some scientists were lucky enough to be credited for what they did while they were alive. However, most weren't. The Universe expanding? Might be that the Earth is expanding? Consider it. Look at everyone else's work before making up your mind.
@truely25 We can measure the universe expanding. It makes sense. Since Newton we've known gravity would require the universe to move apart or be drawn together. There can't be a steady state.
When we use all the latest instruments to measure the earth, we can measure sea spreading and plate subduction but no growing planet. The idea of a growing earth died 100+ years ago when plate tectonics was confirmed, over and over again.
@Entertainmentwf Conspiracy nuts? I'm sorry but those people are the people that change the world. Look at Darwin and Einstien or even Newton. Back then, people thought those people were 'conspiracy nuts'. Take a look at our world. The people who are actually bringing our world forward were conspiracy nuts too! Next time, think closely at what you're saying. Do you want to be known in that history book for being the ones who bagged on those conspiracy nuts, even when they turn out right?
@truely25 Darwin, Newton and Einstein were not conspiracy nuts. They were scientists who formulated hypotheses which were later proven to be accurate through substantial amounts of supporting evidence. Each of the people you named initiated scientific hypotheses which eventually became theories. Einstein famously admitted he was wrong (when has Neal ever done that!?) when Edwin Hubble displayed the universe was expanding, not static as Einstein had claimed, after observing stellar red shift.
@yorrike Your actually wrong google search it Einstein conspiracy and you might find somthing out appollo was jailed for thinking the earth went around the sun because everyone thought the earth was the center of our universe right on Troll
@TheNwoRhemity "Your actually wrong" HA! "appollo was jailed for thinking the earth went around the sun " Apollo? Do you mean Galileo? And no. "No one believed Galileo" is not an argument that lends support and credit to any old whack-job idea. Lots of people believed Galileo, the Catholic Church didn't like his ideas. And if you're judging scientific progress based on the opinions of the Catholic Church in the 16th and 17th centuries, you've got more problem than I can be bothered attending to.
@yorrike You went back in time there and Can say that a lot believed Galileo WoW. the second point would be Must you insult everyone you speak to with that sheep fuckiing mouth of yours? not nice is it or mature try seeing the point that would be people who bring other ideas to the table just get shot down by these critics you must have less time on your hands then Neal Google the word Theory. stupid SHEEP FUCKING KIWI hope your fall into a gap in the earth wow (YOUR RIGHT) it is easy to insult.
@truely25 This video is very stupid. Stupid for not even considering what lies beneath the ocean. Beneath ocean there is land. This video is so stupid because if you look at maps under the ocean the land that Neal Adams shows is actually there. Look at maps of under the ocean. Just because they are submerged does not mean they do not exist.
@ShadowHerder There is land and there are underwater mountain ranges however there is no raised area of land comparable to the land masses Adams invents to make his theory work.
If you agree with Adams' idea that the earth is expanding then explain why we have been unable to ever measure the increase in diameter. We can measure the widening of the Atlantic Ocean and have done for years. If Adams is right we should be able to measure the earth expanding.
The sun expands and will keep expanding. How much do we know of what's beneath the Earths crust. We do know there is pressure down there. This is all very intriguing. And if Neal is wrong, that the continents can still roughly fit is unreal.
No, Neal can be wrong and the continents can still roughly fit.
Here we must ask not so much what is known as what we know violates physics. Neal claims that the outer core is made of plasma, which is not possible, and that the process of pair production occurs, which has only been shown to occur in the atmosphere. He states that pair production produces the necessary matter for the growing Earth, yet pair production doesn't actually form any atoms. He is a pseudo-scientist.
Still even if Neal is wrong and some of the land masses do rotate in his video.. sorry Neal. Even without the little extra land masses, it still looks incredibly convincing and not only that the current contents still could roughly fit together almost like puzzle pieces. I don't know what to believe.
You actually didn't say anything to debunk what Neal Adams ahs put forth, you just nit picked some tiny land masses. Still no closer to proving he's wrong, just wasted 2:31 minutes of our lives.
He debunked it. What other proof do you all need? He just showed that Neil broke his own rules and used another source to validate his point. I guess when your looking hard for an alternative, it's easy to be blinded by your own ignorance. Nobody was around millions of years ago to validate any of this. Plate tectonics has more hard evidence backing it up than the expanding earth theory right now. That's why it's accepedt so widely. I've not seen anything from Neil that would change my opinion.
Since more of us live in Auckland than any other area, and not everyone else not in Auckland can possibly be a bitter homicidal maniac then why would that make him popular? I have nothing against people in other parts of the country so why are you guys so small minded as to attack Auckland? Secondly sure he might not have it perfect but the overall evidence is very strong even if there is a bit of an unfortunate fudge factor.
What the chap from New Zealand fails to notice is there is also more water in the oceans so it is not plates rising or sinking but there is more water as well as more planet as you go forward in the time scale.
What the chap from New Zealand fails to notice is there is also more water in the oceans so it is not plates rising or sinking but there is more water as well as more planet as you go forward in the time scale.
What the chap from New Zealand fails to notice is there is also more water in the oceans so it is not plates rising or sinking but there is more water as well as more planet as you go forward in the time scale.
wow, you pick apart a few low res graphics used and suddenly you have successfully debunked the whole theory! good work!
perhaps as a geologist you should try debunking other geologists work in this area such as James Maxlow - view the uploads of youtube user "OneoffPublishing"
@malfster "perhaps as a geologist you should try debunking other geologists work in this area such as James Maxlow"
I'm not replying to Maxlow's failed hypothesis, I'm replying to Neal Adams'. If Maxlow ever publishes anything worthwhile, I'll take a look. Until then, I'm just having fun poking holes in Adams' ignorance.
@yorrike oh sweet didn't realise the hypothesis/theory had been dis-proven, could you point me to the research, cheers.
seriously though, I'm failing to see how you are poking holes in the theory? I missed the detailed arguments? I'm sure you didn't simply base those 3 rules off a child's paintshop drawing of the earth...
@malfster "oh sweet didn't realise the hypothesis/theory had been dis-proven"
They haven't been proven. It is therefore impossible to disprove them.
"could you point me to the research, cheers."
Look up any peer reviewed papers on geology from the last 30 years, and you will notice none of them rely on the Earth expanding to explain their findings.
You call it a failed hypothesis, when I ask for evidence you say there is none.
Of course the theory is not in current research findings, it lacks basic explanations of how/why the earth is expanding - you know that, it does not however take away from observations the theory is based on - ie. successively removing most recent layers of rock results in the continents fitting together as one sphere.
Research is about creating a model to explain observations, not the other way around.
@malfster "Of course the theory is not in current research findings, it lacks basic explanations of how/why the earth is expanding"
It also lacks any observations that the Earth is currently expanding. The EE hypothesis (it is not a theory), is an explanation for something which has never been observed or measured. Measure that the Earth is expanding right now and we can discuss driving forces. We've measured tectonic plates moving within the bounds of PT. Expansion has never been measured.
@yorrike good luck with that yorrike. im sure neal has become very irritated by your persistent efforts at "poking holes" in his ignorance. he might even consider getting a day job thanks to your tremendous success at exploiting years of one mans research by pointing out trivial flaws in his youtube presentations. bravo, yorrike. bravo. you should get an award for your services to the scientific community. im sure couldnt have revealed neal for the fraud he is without your help.
@yorrike yes yorrike, im certain that deleting your comments is a very emotionally draining task for any pseudo-scientist. spending years being accepted by the majority consensus doesnt make you right either. indeed, no one knows or cares about neal which is why you spent the time answering youtube comments regarding a pseudo science so vague that the general public wastes less effort opposing it than you do.
@omnise If you're so clearly offended by my posting an opposing view of Neal's work, don't waste my time with your posts. In short, if you don't like it, you can fuck completely off. If all you're going to do is raise an opposition to me raising an opposition, I'm less than remotely interested.
@yorrike if you wish to validate your self-proclaimed disinterest in my opinions, you can certainly do so by not responding to them. in fact, i doubt you yet realize that the only person who can be blamed for wasting your time is yourself as the only time i have wasted in typing these posts is my own, not yours. if your previous posts were in fact intended to show your hightened disinterest, it seems your ego has gotten the better of you...
they are called zealandia and the kerguelen plateau. are you that lazy? as for sinking and rising, thats why he said "sinking and rising of plates". im pretty sure if the ice caps melt, the extra water will cause many coastal regions to appear to "sink" beneath the sea. that piece of land didnt appear out of no where, its still there on the ocean floor in the same pictures you refernced. any reasonable person should be skeptical of skeptics
@omnise "they are called zealandia and the kerguelen plateau. are you that lazy"
No it's definitely NOT Zealandia. If Neal really did have a concept of Zealandia when he made this animation, he would have included the entire Zealandia land mass in his animation. But alas, he just used the coastline of New Zealand when he pieced the continents together and invented land to fill in the gaps.
Yorrike uses straight forward logical fallacies to make his case, and so do you. This does nothing to undermine the theory of the expanding earth. Even if the theory is psuedo scientific, you still need to use good science to debunk it.
MaryStewart, you use an "ad hominem" logical fallacy in your attempt to attack me personally, and does nothing for your credibility.
The overall result is insignificant small plots of land like those small islands don't really matter. They don't exist but they aren't harming anything, Neal never said his maps are 100% accurate, of course they are 100% accurate, it's a rough prediction but it still shows, factually and proven that the continents do fit together in the fashion Neal says they do.
All you have done is call him out on a few small errors.
This is all just little stuff, I can point out the blemishes in your skin too. Look at the big picture and explain why the Pacific is NOT expanding. Then you have a real case.
The Pacific oceanic plate is being subducted right around the Pacific Rim at a rate greater than it is being "produced" at its associated mid ocean ridges. Although this isn't how the system actually works, it's a useful way to think about it. The Pacific is "shrinking" and the Atlantic is "growing".
@yorrike WRONG !! this does not explain why the Pacific ocean has the same age as the Atlantic as there is much more ocean bottom area "produced" in the Pacific middle then could ever have been "subducted" at the edges. The expansion occurred over the last 200 million years and that Pacific ocean bottom is still there. You are trying to "explain" using the usual Pangea patch job with little substance as usual.
@yorrike the ocean floors are all under 150 million years old. Look up "Age of the Ocean Floor" on the internet and you can see the map or yourself. The claim is that the expanding Pacific had expanded rapidly and that most of the Pacific is under 30 million years old. It is not clear where the Pacific bottom had subducted.
"the ocean floors are all under 150 million years old"
Actually, the oldest sea floor is 180 MYr old. But there's much older oceanic crust material; rocks called ophiolites are section of ancient sea floor preserved on the continents. The oldest of which (in Greenland) is 3.8 billion years old.
"most of the Pacific is under 30 million years old"
It's clearly not. Look at those sea floor age maps again (and I'm well acquainted with this data, none of it is new to me)
@yorrike I don;t care about Greenland. Look at the map again. The red portion of the map is under 33 million years. Yellow is under 67 million years. Green is under 127 million years. Blue is under 180 million years. Red represent up to 50% of the Pacific ocean. This means that 50% of the pacific had formed in the last 33 million years. This is a rapid expansion, more so in area than the Atlantic. Could all that sea floor have been subducted ?? Some if it maybe on the America's coast ??
@Andrewlohbihler You're looking at a very low resolution (as in data resolution) map then. You still haven't answered my question, BTW, what happened int he preceding 4.35 billion years before the Pacific expanded?
"Could all that sea floor have been subducted ??"
-Yep
" Some if it maybe on the America's coast ??"
And the Russian coast, and Japan, and the Filipino plate, and New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea...
@yorrike Like i said before the age of the ocean along the Asian coast indicates that the Japan, Asian coast could NOT have subducted. They would have disappeared by now. To answer your question, i don;t know what the earth looked like before 200 million years old, and neither do you. If the earth was smaller the land continents were connected. You are supposing that the Pangea theory is the answer.
"Like i said before the age of the ocean along the Asian coast indicates that the Japan, Asian coast could NOT have subducted. They would have disappeared by now."
Says who? The interface between the Pacific Plate and the Asian Plate/Japan is most definitely a subduction zone. Hence the volcanoes and earthquakes in Japan. And the reason the oldest plate material is there is because it hasn't been subducted yet! Everything older than 180 MYr has.
@yorrike My point there was that if the ocean bottom is being created in the middle of the Pacific, then the Asian coast lands should be younger. Mass created should equal mass destroyed. But this does not appear to be happening. Just because volcanoes erupt does not make subduction conclusive. Also, explain this, why does Japan appear to have "broken" off the China mainland? Is it not possible that Japan was part of the Asian continent at one time in the past?
" My point there was that if the ocean bottom is being created in the middle of the Pacific, then the Asian coast lands should be younger."
You've got that backwards. The young stuff is in the middle, thus the older material MUST be at the edge. If material is solidifying at the ocean ridges, how can material further out from the MORs be younger than the stuff that's just formed?
@yorrike What I tried to say there is that the Pacific ocean bottom off the coast from Asia should be younger THAN the Age map says that it is. in other words, younger than 180 million years. You said it has not subducted yet, so i believe THAT is true.
"Mass created should equal mass destroyed. But this does not appear to be happening"
You seem to have the same misconception most EE proponents do. The MORs are not "pushing" material out, they are being pulled apart, passively. The plates subducting at the subduction zones are "pulling" the MORs apart. So it's not that the amount created must be destroyed, but the amount subducted must be replaced. And that has been measured as happening.
@yorrike That is counter-intuitive and strange thinking. How can the subducting zones "PULL" the MORs apart? I think that this theory was manufactured to suggest that every expansion is exactly related to a subduction zone somewhere. This would favour the tectonic plate theory. The EE theory simply has to say that the expansion rift forms and nothing else has to happen.
"How can the subducting zones "PULL" the MORs apart?"
They're attached, so when the older, colder part of the plate subducts under another plate, the younger end gets pulled along too. The MORs pull apart to accommodate the subducting plate. This is only part of it, since there's other forces at work too, but best come to terms with things step by step. Short story: the MORs are not pushing anything, they're passive margins.
@yorrike So if you are so sure of this, where are the subduction zones at the Asian coast. Where are the subduction zones at the American coast. If the rates are faster you would expect more volcanism, right? The Tectonic plate theory suggest that the Pacific is closing, so if in 200 million years the same amount of Pacific sea bottom had subducted as created, right?
"Also, explain this, why does Japan appear to have "broken" off the China mainland? Is it not possible that Japan was part of the Asian continent at one time in the past?"
It's not broken off Asia per se. As I said before, coastlines are not the same thing as plate boundaries. But slivers of continents do break off as a method to "fill" the areas opened up by subduction. Some of Japan was, no doubt, originally part of Asia proper, but I'm no expert in that region.
@yorrike I'm not an expert in coastlines either. But there are many such coastline break-off's that can be described in the same way. Like, Madagascar, New-Zealand, England, Vancouver Island, Greenland, Northern Canada. I expect that they are all different. But perhaps they are based more on an earth expansion and not artifacts of subduction, which would tend to compress the coastal plates together.
The geochemistry of the volcanoes around the Pacific rim are exactly what you'd expect, had oceanic crust been melted in the presence of water. Even more so, the chemistry of the eruptive material changes as you get further back from the subduction margin. This is due to partial melting and partial crystalisation - concentrations of incompatible Large Ion Lithophile Elements (LILE) like Potassium (K), increase.
@yorrike OK, let's talk about Greenland. It appears as a continent broken off from northern Canada. How do you explain the expansion there? How do you explain that the Northern islands of Canada are apart from each other. There is a small rift going between the islands and Greenland. But the islands themselves have no rift.
@Andrewlohbihler It's not due to rifting there, it's all the same continent. A coastline is not the same thing as a plate boundary. Greenland is part of the North American continent. There's a small rift south of Greenland, but this looks like a failed rift (<50 Ma) with very little activity.
"It is not clear where the Pacific bottom had subducted."
The Pacific Ring of Fire is the most active subduction-driven volcanic region on Earth. As a plate subducts, water causes the melting temperature of the rock to lower. This produces melts, which rise to the surface and erupt. The Plates under the Pacific Ocean (The Pacific, Nazca, Jaun de Fuca, Cocoas etc), contain a lot of water and are being subducted under the continents that surround the Pacific.
@yorrike The volcanic action is at selected zones along the "ring-of-fire" not along the whole edge of the pacific. What evidence is that it is subduction, and what drives it. I know, "mantle convection" but that is also an assumption. If you look at the green and blue age zones of the Pacific then they are not subduction zones because they are old. The only plausible subduction zones are the Pacific America coastlines. Likely not enough to counter the rapid Pacific expansion.
"The volcanic action is at selected zones along the "ring-of-fire" not along the whole edge of the pacific"
The Ring of Fire is around the entire Pacific, except the (west) Antarctic plate.
"What evidence is that it is subduction, and what drives it."
Tectonic surveys that have imaged subducting plates, geophysical measurements, and the geochemistry of the volcanoes. Plate drag (the oceanic plates sinking, being pushed down by the buoyant continents) drives the system.
@yorrike Tectonic "surveys" cannot go down far enough to prove anything. You are claiming that current scientific progress can map the plate activity, but this is impossible. The ocean "conveyor" theory cannot prove that subducted ocean floor IS EQUAL TO ocean floor created, in the Pacific. in fact it appears that there is more ocean bottom created. Don't give me chemistry, give me evidence of where the real subduction zones are and the RATE of subduction at each coast. Do you HAVE such a map?
"Tectonic "surveys" cannot go down far enough to prove anything."
Sigh. Yes they can, especially when you're measuring earthquakes
"but this is impossible"
Yeah, tracking movements to a mm scale is impossible. You'd need a satellite system to track things over decades to make those measurements. Oh wait, we do have that, it's called GPS.
"in fact it appears that there is more ocean bottom created."
That's impossible, generation of material is reliant on material be subducted.
@yorrike It seems that SUBDUCTION theory is firmly entrenched in your mind. Do you consider that there is any alternative theory. You are good at selected what you AND only you want to talk about. That is not an open minded Geologist. You have not answered by question about a subduction map, saying merely that tectonic surveys are available. This is a junk conversation, and just a "I know better than you" bullshit format. Try being more MATURE.
Geochemistry would suggest subduction on its own. Don't hand wave an entire field of science away.
" give me evidence of where the real subduction zones are "
You can't be serious. You wade into a debate with a geologist without having the first idea of where subduction zones are (ring of fire, Mediterranean, Caribbean) or what drives plate tectonics (plate drag), and try to argue they don't exist. Unfortunately you're par for the course.
Sea floor spreading and subduction combine to destroy old sea floor crust. There is abundant evidence to support these processes. It is hard to find a really old (>180 million years) fossil on the sea floor when the oldest extant sea floor is ~180 million years old. The older fish fossils found on land are from upthrust portions of former sea floor that escaped subduction.
So this vid. does not actually present counter evidence to the Exp. earth theory, it just criticizes some of the graphics of Neal's video, and this vid pretends that these islands that are not precisely drawn have something to do with big contintents fitting together.
TheHippness, welcome to the world of the weird, the earth is expanding, the big bang is false, the universe is eternal, its quite likely alien life is already here.
I only found this theory 1 month ago, its all I can do to stay sane.
EE is a fact. Try to disprove it. The only arguments you get is that it is not the accepted theory. Doh!
I've known about the expanding Earth theory going on... almost an hour now :D
There would have to be some kind of change in sea level over time looking at any theory.. and just like MrAjjdonnelly pointed out, there are shallow spots in the areas you just pointed out.
You haven't de-bunked anything besides the fact that there are no landmasses there as of now...
I see that you haven't personally used the term de-bunk, so I'm guessing that's not what you're doing.
Not that I support Neal Adams, but I would just like to point out that there are indeed huge areas of fractured-off continental shelf on the sea floor exactly where pictured on this animation. Come on guys come up with a better de-bunk than that!
.......but on the other hand the platypus is definitely not a marsupial and Neal Adams is bonkers. However his models are awesome, much better than real science.
I've known about the expanding Earth theory going on... almost an hour now :D
There would have to be some kind of change in sea level over time looking at any theory.. and just like MrAjjdonnelly pointed out, there are shallow spots in the areas you just pointed out.
You haven't de-bunked anything besides the fact that there are no landmasses there as of now...
I see that you haven't personally used the term de-bunk, so I'm guessing that's not what you're doing.
"In chemical terms H2O is very similar to sio3 and feO3"
That's so incredibly wrong I don't know how to counter it. Just because they all have oxygen, doesn't mean they're chemically similar. Far, far from it.
Yorrike, do you think richard dawkins is psychopathic ? i mean he goes on about decrying moral systems like religion but he comes across as a self obsessed vain and righteous selfish git.
@sprinklehopper I use to think that about Dawkins, being a psyco - he is definitely vain and self-righteous but I reckon that just comes from being an Oxford snob, he just don't like plebs (poor people)
" Mantle swell is then manifested in the outer crust as crustal extension and is currently occurring as extension along the mid-ocean-rift zones. Matter generation within the Earths core is seen as an endothermic reaction, which will ultimately result in a decay of matter formation in the core and cessation of expansion with time"
Except the MORs are not "pushing" material out, they're being pulled apart. If they were pushing out, there'd be deep tectonic activity at the MORs. Truth is, earthquakes along the MORs rarely occur below 30 Km. Earthquakes at subduction zones, where plates are sinking into the mantle, occur down to 800 Km.
"The proposed causal model for Expansion Tectonics, while still largely speculative, involves an increase in mass by condensation, or segregation of new matter from energy within the Earths core. This new matter accumulates at the core-mantle interface and the increase in volume results in swelling of the mantle.."
And his evidence to support this is what? The Earth growing by 22 mm per year? That'd be a good start, where are his measurements showing the growth is happening at all?
4. Geological, geographical and geophysical data have been investigated on all models. These data are shown to coincide precisely with expected polar and equatorial climatic and biotic constraints.
5. Models have been animated in four dimensions, showing the increase in Earth radius throughout time along with global distribution of selected data sets
That's because you haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the evidence in support of Plate Tectonics. If you had an idea of just what you were opposing, you'd see Maxlow's conclusions to be flawed. Multiple lines of convergent, supporting evidence over a dozen fields of science.
sure but multiple convergence ..might sound impressive to a layman, but that means nothing to me (a scientist) without quantifiying the complexity of the system and putting that convergence in context with that complexity. e.g. in neuroscience there has continually been multiple converging lines, but these got replaced by emerging new fields. So sorry that says nothing really but a general direction had been taken.
2. A formula for rate of change in Earth radius has been established and modeling of physical data completed. This mathematical modeling demonstrates that Earth radius has been increasing exponentially throughout time, increasing to a current rate of 22mm/year.
3. Ancient magnetic poles plus equator have been accurately located on all models constructed. Both poles plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles, enabling the ancient equators and climate zones to be precisely established.
2: Then where are your measurements showing this? A growth rate of that magnitude is measurable on a year-by-year basis. Yet, you've still not provided anything to back this up with. Where are the measurements of this growth?
3. Um, yeah. This is the field of palaeomagnetics. And if you really want proof the Earth hasn't been growing, then paleo magnetic inclinations is a great place to start.
1. Modeling of continental plate assemblages has now been completed for 100% of geological Earth history, ranging from the early Archaean Era to the present day. These assemblages have demonstrated a high degree of crustal fit accuracy and, most notably, without the need to arbitrarily fragment continents or dispose of pre-existing crusts by subduction.
"Modeling of continental plate assemblages has now been completed for 100% of geological Earth history, ranging from the early Archaean Era"
Bullshit. You can't confidently model plate assemblages from the Archean. And Furthermore, the Early Archean isn't the beginning of "geological Earth history". Earth's history begins in the Hadean, so Maxlow is missing about 700 million years worth of geology.
I hate stupidity almost as much as I hate hypocrisy, but somehow nealadams manages to transcend their combined levels of sucktitude.
That's right -- sucktitude. It's a new word. I was forced to invent it in order to adequately describe nealadams' real world contribution to rational thought and intellectual honesty.
skoockum 2 weeks ago
@BdArmyman981 who is it that has control of these "lasers" aimed at earth, measuring it's growth? where are they stationed? and even if they went to all that effort, and the data showed that the earth IS growing, why wouldn't they just lie about it like they did man made global worming to try to get an international carbon tax treaty signed? i don't believe them except on some of the most basic things they discover with telescopes and publish. NASA isn't even part of our government.
thosah 3 weeks ago
There is no need to analyse this video. The size of the earth is measured directly at many locations just like the drift of the.continents and the rise of the mountains and it is known not to growing.
RussellHorwood 3 weeks ago
Of course, you don't go anywhere close to explaining WHY the Pacific ocean is expanding and understanding why the WHOLE Pacific sea floor is under 200 million years old. You can point at the lash in my eye, but IGNORE the elephant in the room. Maybe you are another stupid and biased grad student with a doomed career in earthquake prediction.
Andrewlohbihler 4 weeks ago
I am one person who thinks that the theory of Earth and other planets growing is possibly a valid theory, however, I very much enjoyed your video here. So I thought you deserved a LIKE.
Mythra13 2 months ago
and these SAME scientists that would have you believe the continents drift about crashing into each other will tell you that its ok to believe that the UNIVERSE is expanding and getting larger... but not the earth. PLEASE...explain to me what the universe is expanding INTO??!! what is the UNIVERSE DISPLACING?? just because we don't know HOW yet doesn't mean that it's NOT, right? where does the universe begin or end? and what is outside our 'box'? if u can answer that i'll believe continent drift
thosah 3 months ago
@thosah The universe isn't expanding in the sense you seem to believe, the matter in the universe is NOT expanding, the universe is "expanding" because there is more and more space in between celestial bodies not because the celestial bodies are expanding.
BdArmyman981 3 weeks ago
and furthermore it just seems to make sense more that continents would pull further apart as a result of some internal pressure. think of blowing up a balloon. the question has been asked, "where does the extra mass come from?" it doesn't come from anywhere. there is no extra mass. the gravity of the earth pulls the mass in and compresses it. as the volcanic material cools and solidifies, it stops expanding. the internal heat of friction causes the matter to melt and expand. simple stuff.
thosah 3 months ago
"I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven!" ~ Thomas Jefferson. even respected and intelligent people can be wrong when we don't have all the facts. and even when we do, we can draw the wrong conclusions. even when the MINOR details of little islands and such aren't depicted "perfectly" in Neil's SIMULATION, at least his simulation makes more sense based off the relevant data available. NOBODY was THERE when these things happened.
thosah 3 months ago
@thosah Yes, but in the here and the now we can measure the earth, and the earth just isn't growing. We can measure the expansion of oceans and so if the earth were to be expanding as well we could measure it. As it is we SEE that as one part of earth expands, another shrinks on a 1:1 scale keeping earth the same size.
BdArmyman981 3 weeks ago
is this the best you (the poster), can do?
Three words: Topographical Satellite Mapping
yeesh. use a little brainpower before you try and debunk Neal Adams.
ineedfiles 3 months ago
@ineedfiles Uhhh, you don't need a brain to debunk a total idiot like Neal. He has NO intelligence whatsoever.
BdArmyman981 3 weeks ago
@BdArmyman981 The earth IS growing. Explain why the dinosaurs were so big, why the continents fit together on every side, why there are GROWth RINGS IN-BETween, every continent that fits together on every side.
Life is proportional to the planet. when the planet was young and small, the gravity was very weak, and the life was able to grow to extreme sizes. As the earth grew, the gravity increased, and the continents separated. Dinos found themselves trapped... (i ran out of room)
ineedfiles 3 weeks ago
there are real scientists who believe in this.
nayanmalig 4 months ago
@nayanmalig Oh yeah? Name them, AND specify their scientific fields.
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 too lazy to find out for yourself ? too bad.
nayanmalig 4 months ago
@nayanmalig YOU made a statement, therefore it is down to you to prove it.
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 take it or leave it. YOU find out for yourself.
nayanmalig 4 months ago
@nayanmalig No, YOU made the claim therefore YOU have the burdon of proof. Personally, I think you're just making shit up.
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 believe what you like. I don't care about what others think. YOU will NEVER get it from me. so do some searching.
nayanmalig 4 months ago
@nayanmalig Thank you for proving me right. You are a liar! In fact, you talk JUST like Neal Adams. I wonder, are you really Neal himself? You certainly have his supreme arrogance.
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
@nayanmalig And just by posting on here in defense of Neal Adam's lunacy, it's obvious you DO care what people think. And I suspect anyone with half a brain thinks you're a nutjob!
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 people who come up with new theories are lunatics? is that a science standpoint or religious dogma? name calling does not answer any of these questions. The church branded people who question beliefs as heretics because they were scared of the truth or the search for it.
nayanmalig 4 months ago
@nayanmalig No, but people who go batshit and rant at anyone who asks a fair question are lunatics. If you DARE to ask neal Adams any questions that seem to doubt his ideas, he launches into a tirade of insults and ranting. He WILL NOT engage in any rational discussion. THAT is what makes him a lunatic. If I thought that he had any solid scientific evidence for his balloon earth idea, I'd give it as much respect as I do plate tectonics.
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 And I'm still waiting for you to provide me with the names of these scientists who believe in Neal Adam's crackpot ideas. Just saying you're not going to and calling me lazy merely makes you look like a liar who doesn't have the evidence, which you obviously are.
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 forget neal. he's frustrated & ranted at me like an idiot too. this is not his idea but from the 1930's - long before Neal's parents thought of sex. Hindenberg or some guy. this theory is not perfect. same with evolution or any other. even Einstein's theories are being challenged seriously today.
Now we're back to square A. there are other scientists who believe in this. There are videos of american scientists presenting this in the 1960's.
nayanmalig 4 months ago
@nayanmalig Maybe there were, in the 60s when Plate Tectonics was still a relatively new theory. But from what I have read, from what I learned at school and have researched myself pre internet and post internet, Plate Tectonics seems a viable theory. I HAVE looked into the expanding earth theory, and it is a leaking boat of an idea. But as I said, if there is ever any evidence to support it strongly, I will have to reconsider my opinion.
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 everything changes. that's how science works. even the age of the universe has been modified many times. when change comes it can be sudden. I think although main stream science makes us believe they have all the answers but they are actually fudging the figures by huge margins & creating equations to fit their theories. I don't think humans still have the vision or the technology to answer such big questions like how the universe came into being or how it really works.
nayanmalig 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VinnyMonster1 everything changes. that's how science works. even the age of the universe has been modified many times. when change comes it can be sudden. I think although main stream science makes us believe they have all the answers but they are actually fudging the figures by huge margins & creating equations to fit their theories. I don't think humans still have the vision or the technology to answer such big questions like how the universe came into being or how it really works.
nayanmalig 4 months ago
@nayanmalig But I would still like the names of these scientists who believe in this idea. Preferably living ones who are not discredited.
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
@VinnyMonster1 there was a big presentation done by an aussie geologist recently on the subject. It's there somewhere on youtube.
nayanmalig 4 months ago
the basic theory of this makes far more sence than plate shifts and quick look on google earth gives anyone an idear of the under sea rifts, volcanoes and direction of spread of contanants, however neil has indeed alterd and not taken into account many other factions such as sea level rise and fall. if he took these into account they acualy fit better. the problem is you cant tell somone its fact as he dose without evidence (tho its obvious) and much more data over decades it remains theory
ts3830 6 months ago
Yeah, if Neil wants to be taken a bit seriously, despite being a cartoonist, he should at least start telling the truth .. especially on his own videos! Good video.
sownzgr8 7 months ago
@sownzgr8 AND he should stop blocking people who ask uncomfortable questions. TBH I think, going from his tirades and rants on his comments pages, that neal has been sniffing his drawing ink a little too much, the man is a nutcase.
VinnyMonster1 4 months ago
Thanks for this! I've been looking for a skeptical video on the topic, but until now couldn't find one. So thanks again.
quietthomas 8 months ago
Neal has watched this video 32 times...
henchmen999 9 months ago
hello, i'm studying plate tectonics atm for my degree and just came across all this growing earth non-sense. Have you seen 'potholer54' video on this? I reckon it cements this bullshit back to the 1900s. Btw great satire vid.
2010HSC 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow dude LOL looks like SOMEone got pissed and made a video. Listen to him, he's practically foaming at the mouth. "UHRR I went to college NO ONE UNDERSTANDS BUT ME" All the while refuting nothing. I don't even believe in EE, but all I can find are people like him that can't come up with anything other than "It's JUST STUPID" "SCIENTISTS SEZ SO" as counter. doesn't really help your case. What arrogance! Down boy, easy now, easy. Calm down, just calm down!! Don't have a fucking coronary.
EverythingInane 10 months ago
This is a very poor atempt at dis-information.! This guy has no idea what he's talking about...lol. The "we" that know the truth, know why you are misleading everyone... people like you are very hard at work to try to keep everyone believing the mainstream bullshit science...your trying to back and support the brainwashing efforts that have been going on now for about 1000 years...you will only fool the truely stupid with your propaganda...!!! They thought they could fool everyone for ever.!!!!!
truthterrorist11 10 months ago
@truthterrorist11 Ha! You can maybe fool some people, but there's simply no way anyone is as bat shit insane as you're pretending to be. Good show old chap! Keep up the comedy gold!
yorrike 10 months ago
@yorrike the Theory <remember that word the theory is that the earth is growing its alot better then the one mainstream science is going with so maybe think twice before bitching about such a tiny thing honestly your really going out on a limb here to disprove something Do you feel like a man inside now ?
TheNwoRhemity 10 months ago
@TheNwoRhemity Nah, you're wrong. Science is right. The expanding earth hypothesis (please learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory please) is baseless and flawed and lacking in any evidence what-so-ever.
yorrike 10 months ago
I just lookd up your pangea theory evidence, and it supports both theories. It is much more likely that the earth is expanding.
halfdutch83 10 months ago
@halfdutch83 How does it 'support both theories'?
Also, if your going to say that a geologist is backing up this theory, keep in mind he can hardly explain what our core is made of, and how all that mass is appearing from nowhere (which breaks the law of conservation of energy btw)
gastrolBTR 10 months ago
Thankyou for taking the time to debunk that IDIOT!
jaykulls 10 months ago
He also leaves off the continental shelves that are presently under water as far as I can tell.
Maxdwolf 11 months ago
Proves nothing. I think Visually, and in the imagination, the concept of an expanding earth makes far more sense then the plates floating around the ocean like pinball. Look at the History channel's earth video, how they explain how the earth was started as a cloud of dust.
halfdutch83 11 months ago
@halfdutch83
However, even if it makes more sense, does not mean it is true. Plate tectonics is compounded by evidence, Expanding Earth is not.
gastrolBTR 10 months ago
@gastrolBTR And what is this evidence? Scientists have thought of everything correct? I just won't buy that the earth has been the same size for eternity. Doesn't it seem logical tht it would expand? I would love to think that even one day our firey center would expand to become a red dwarf. Think of the possibilities.
halfdutch83 10 months ago
@halfdutch83
So you are taking the words of a comic book artist above those of the entire scientific community? No offense meant, but that's pretty close-minded...
gastrolBTR 10 months ago
If you look at the picture you have provided, you can clearly see a land mass close to and a part of New Zealand. So, this does not prove to me that the earth is not expanding.
zorkmen 11 months ago
@zorkmen
This video is not meant to debunk the theory.
gastrolBTR 10 months ago
@rugbyguy59 The Earth is only slightly growing because of space dust and particles that are attracted to the Earth. However, back when there were great bombardments of meteors, the Earth surely had to expand because the matter from the meteors and astroids had to go somewhere. Plus, when the Earth was a firey ball of molten rock, how could it have an abundance of water? It would be too hot.
truely25 1 year ago
@yorrike They were just a general idea. Some famous scientists were considered lunatics at their time. I'm not defending neil. Yes, they are not nuts today, but this is because we have finally found out what geniuses they are. Some scientists were lucky enough to be credited for what they did while they were alive. However, most weren't. The Universe expanding? Might be that the Earth is expanding? Consider it. Look at everyone else's work before making up your mind.
truely25 1 year ago
@truely25 We can measure the universe expanding. It makes sense. Since Newton we've known gravity would require the universe to move apart or be drawn together. There can't be a steady state.
When we use all the latest instruments to measure the earth, we can measure sea spreading and plate subduction but no growing planet. The idea of a growing earth died 100+ years ago when plate tectonics was confirmed, over and over again.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@Entertainmentwf Conspiracy nuts? I'm sorry but those people are the people that change the world. Look at Darwin and Einstien or even Newton. Back then, people thought those people were 'conspiracy nuts'. Take a look at our world. The people who are actually bringing our world forward were conspiracy nuts too! Next time, think closely at what you're saying. Do you want to be known in that history book for being the ones who bagged on those conspiracy nuts, even when they turn out right?
truely25 1 year ago
@truely25 Darwin, Newton and Einstein were not conspiracy nuts. They were scientists who formulated hypotheses which were later proven to be accurate through substantial amounts of supporting evidence. Each of the people you named initiated scientific hypotheses which eventually became theories. Einstein famously admitted he was wrong (when has Neal ever done that!?) when Edwin Hubble displayed the universe was expanding, not static as Einstein had claimed, after observing stellar red shift.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike Your actually wrong google search it Einstein conspiracy and you might find somthing out appollo was jailed for thinking the earth went around the sun because everyone thought the earth was the center of our universe right on Troll
TheNwoRhemity 10 months ago
@TheNwoRhemity "Your actually wrong" HA! "appollo was jailed for thinking the earth went around the sun " Apollo? Do you mean Galileo? And no. "No one believed Galileo" is not an argument that lends support and credit to any old whack-job idea. Lots of people believed Galileo, the Catholic Church didn't like his ideas. And if you're judging scientific progress based on the opinions of the Catholic Church in the 16th and 17th centuries, you've got more problem than I can be bothered attending to.
yorrike 10 months ago
@yorrike You went back in time there and Can say that a lot believed Galileo WoW. the second point would be Must you insult everyone you speak to with that sheep fuckiing mouth of yours? not nice is it or mature try seeing the point that would be people who bring other ideas to the table just get shot down by these critics you must have less time on your hands then Neal Google the word Theory. stupid SHEEP FUCKING KIWI hope your fall into a gap in the earth wow (YOUR RIGHT) it is easy to insult.
TheNwoRhemity 10 months ago
@TheNwoRhemity HA! You're hilarious and borderline psychotic.
yorrike 10 months ago
@truely25 This video is very stupid. Stupid for not even considering what lies beneath the ocean. Beneath ocean there is land. This video is so stupid because if you look at maps under the ocean the land that Neal Adams shows is actually there. Look at maps of under the ocean. Just because they are submerged does not mean they do not exist.
ShadowHerder 1 year ago
@ShadowHerder There is land and there are underwater mountain ranges however there is no raised area of land comparable to the land masses Adams invents to make his theory work.
If you agree with Adams' idea that the earth is expanding then explain why we have been unable to ever measure the increase in diameter. We can measure the widening of the Atlantic Ocean and have done for years. If Adams is right we should be able to measure the earth expanding.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
lol this is the way the debunkers are debunking.....LOL.......
bard2007 1 year ago
While I agree that Earth is not growing, this is a piss-poor demonstration as to why it is not.
rion9009 1 year ago
@rion9009 You'll notice the video is titled "RE: Neal Adams Science Project," not "Reasons why the Earth is not expanding."
yorrike 1 year ago
FAIL !
ineedaname777777 1 year ago
Brilliant! Amazing what shows up when a *real* geologist looks at Neal's Woo Woo! A genuine public service. Thank you.
mettarefuge 1 year ago
The sun expands and will keep expanding. How much do we know of what's beneath the Earths crust. We do know there is pressure down there. This is all very intriguing. And if Neal is wrong, that the continents can still roughly fit is unreal.
OriginalSnow 1 year ago
@OriginalSnow
No, Neal can be wrong and the continents can still roughly fit.
Here we must ask not so much what is known as what we know violates physics. Neal claims that the outer core is made of plasma, which is not possible, and that the process of pair production occurs, which has only been shown to occur in the atmosphere. He states that pair production produces the necessary matter for the growing Earth, yet pair production doesn't actually form any atoms. He is a pseudo-scientist.
mastersausagemaker 1 year ago
Still even if Neal is wrong and some of the land masses do rotate in his video.. sorry Neal. Even without the little extra land masses, it still looks incredibly convincing and not only that the current contents still could roughly fit together almost like puzzle pieces. I don't know what to believe.
OriginalSnow 1 year ago
You actually didn't say anything to debunk what Neal Adams ahs put forth, you just nit picked some tiny land masses. Still no closer to proving he's wrong, just wasted 2:31 minutes of our lives.
PettyOfficerPain107 1 year ago
He debunked it. What other proof do you all need? He just showed that Neil broke his own rules and used another source to validate his point. I guess when your looking hard for an alternative, it's easy to be blinded by your own ignorance. Nobody was around millions of years ago to validate any of this. Plate tectonics has more hard evidence backing it up than the expanding earth theory right now. That's why it's accepedt so widely. I've not seen anything from Neil that would change my opinion.
slowlyawakening 1 year ago
It is so ez to turn ppl in redicule. U sucks
magnetismewave 1 year ago
@magnetismewave Easier than using the English language to make a succinct and insightful comment, it would seem.
yorrike 1 year ago 5
Since more of us live in Auckland than any other area, and not everyone else not in Auckland can possibly be a bitter homicidal maniac then why would that make him popular? I have nothing against people in other parts of the country so why are you guys so small minded as to attack Auckland? Secondly sure he might not have it perfect but the overall evidence is very strong even if there is a bit of an unfortunate fudge factor.
aether222 1 year ago
Yorrike Next time make a point.
nero7926 1 year ago
@nero7926 Do me a favour. Piss off.
yorrike 1 year ago
Poor attempt at debunking.
hisnameisfrankie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What the chap from New Zealand fails to notice is there is also more water in the oceans so it is not plates rising or sinking but there is more water as well as more planet as you go forward in the time scale.
kimreck 1 year ago
What the chap from New Zealand fails to notice is there is also more water in the oceans so it is not plates rising or sinking but there is more water as well as more planet as you go forward in the time scale.
kimreck 1 year ago
What the chap from New Zealand fails to notice is there is also more water in the oceans so it is not plates rising or sinking but there is more water as well as more planet as you go forward in the time scale.
kimreck 1 year ago
@kimreck I'm not sure I understand your claim here. You're saying that massive amounts of water went where?
NoahRobertMiller 1 year ago
Great videos :). Definitely makes me feel glad that there are fellows willing to take these conspiracy nuts on.
Entertainmentwf 1 year ago 7
wow, you pick apart a few low res graphics used and suddenly you have successfully debunked the whole theory! good work!
perhaps as a geologist you should try debunking other geologists work in this area such as James Maxlow - view the uploads of youtube user "OneoffPublishing"
malfster 1 year ago
@malfster "perhaps as a geologist you should try debunking other geologists work in this area such as James Maxlow"
I'm not replying to Maxlow's failed hypothesis, I'm replying to Neal Adams'. If Maxlow ever publishes anything worthwhile, I'll take a look. Until then, I'm just having fun poking holes in Adams' ignorance.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike oh sweet didn't realise the hypothesis/theory had been dis-proven, could you point me to the research, cheers.
seriously though, I'm failing to see how you are poking holes in the theory? I missed the detailed arguments? I'm sure you didn't simply base those 3 rules off a child's paintshop drawing of the earth...
malfster 1 year ago
@malfster "oh sweet didn't realise the hypothesis/theory had been dis-proven"
They haven't been proven. It is therefore impossible to disprove them.
"could you point me to the research, cheers."
Look up any peer reviewed papers on geology from the last 30 years, and you will notice none of them rely on the Earth expanding to explain their findings.
"I missed the detailed arguments? "
Obviously.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike
You call it a failed hypothesis, when I ask for evidence you say there is none.
Of course the theory is not in current research findings, it lacks basic explanations of how/why the earth is expanding - you know that, it does not however take away from observations the theory is based on - ie. successively removing most recent layers of rock results in the continents fitting together as one sphere.
Research is about creating a model to explain observations, not the other way around.
malfster 1 year ago
@malfster "Of course the theory is not in current research findings, it lacks basic explanations of how/why the earth is expanding"
It also lacks any observations that the Earth is currently expanding. The EE hypothesis (it is not a theory), is an explanation for something which has never been observed or measured. Measure that the Earth is expanding right now and we can discuss driving forces. We've measured tectonic plates moving within the bounds of PT. Expansion has never been measured.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike good luck with that yorrike. im sure neal has become very irritated by your persistent efforts at "poking holes" in his ignorance. he might even consider getting a day job thanks to your tremendous success at exploiting years of one mans research by pointing out trivial flaws in his youtube presentations. bravo, yorrike. bravo. you should get an award for your services to the scientific community. im sure couldnt have revealed neal for the fraud he is without your help.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise "im sure neal has become very irritated by your persistent efforts"
So much so that if I post anything on his videos, he deletes it. It must really hurt when someone points out his ideas are in conflict with his ideas.
" thanks to your tremendous success at exploiting years of one mans research"
Spending years being wrong doesn't make you right.
"im sure couldnt have revealed neal for the fraud he is"
No one knows or cares who Neal is. This isn't anti-Neal, it's anti-pseudo science.
yorrike 1 year ago 2
@yorrike yes yorrike, im certain that deleting your comments is a very emotionally draining task for any pseudo-scientist. spending years being accepted by the majority consensus doesnt make you right either. indeed, no one knows or cares about neal which is why you spent the time answering youtube comments regarding a pseudo science so vague that the general public wastes less effort opposing it than you do.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise If you're so clearly offended by my posting an opposing view of Neal's work, don't waste my time with your posts. In short, if you don't like it, you can fuck completely off. If all you're going to do is raise an opposition to me raising an opposition, I'm less than remotely interested.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike if you wish to validate your self-proclaimed disinterest in my opinions, you can certainly do so by not responding to them. in fact, i doubt you yet realize that the only person who can be blamed for wasting your time is yourself as the only time i have wasted in typing these posts is my own, not yours. if your previous posts were in fact intended to show your hightened disinterest, it seems your ego has gotten the better of you...
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise You just don't know when to shut up and piss off do you? Let me help you.
yorrike 1 year ago
this made me lol. adams is an idiot.
mooseman427 1 year ago
neal's theory is more revolutionary than anything proposed by Einstein, and more true!
nealadamsdotcum 1 year ago
they are called zealandia and the kerguelen plateau. are you that lazy? as for sinking and rising, thats why he said "sinking and rising of plates". im pretty sure if the ice caps melt, the extra water will cause many coastal regions to appear to "sink" beneath the sea. that piece of land didnt appear out of no where, its still there on the ocean floor in the same pictures you refernced. any reasonable person should be skeptical of skeptics
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise "they are called zealandia and the kerguelen plateau. are you that lazy"
No it's definitely NOT Zealandia. If Neal really did have a concept of Zealandia when he made this animation, he would have included the entire Zealandia land mass in his animation. But alas, he just used the coastline of New Zealand when he pieced the continents together and invented land to fill in the gaps.
yorrike 1 year ago
from nz hmm? thought you were english!
anyways, cool vid!
MaryStewart 1 year ago
i thought your vid might have something useful and skeptical.... nope.
clevername333 1 year ago
@clevername333 rewatch if fool! it shows land disappearing!
neal's a faker!
MaryStewart 1 year ago
@MaryStewart,
Yorrike uses straight forward logical fallacies to make his case, and so do you. This does nothing to undermine the theory of the expanding earth. Even if the theory is psuedo scientific, you still need to use good science to debunk it.
MaryStewart, you use an "ad hominem" logical fallacy in your attempt to attack me personally, and does nothing for your credibility.
Yorrike is using a "straw man" logical fallacy.
Please google the above terminology.
clevername333 1 year ago
The overall result is insignificant small plots of land like those small islands don't really matter. They don't exist but they aren't harming anything, Neal never said his maps are 100% accurate, of course they are 100% accurate, it's a rough prediction but it still shows, factually and proven that the continents do fit together in the fashion Neal says they do.
All you have done is call him out on a few small errors.
LSDlucid 1 year ago
This is all just little stuff, I can point out the blemishes in your skin too. Look at the big picture and explain why the Pacific is NOT expanding. Then you have a real case.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
The Pacific oceanic plate is being subducted right around the Pacific Rim at a rate greater than it is being "produced" at its associated mid ocean ridges. Although this isn't how the system actually works, it's a useful way to think about it. The Pacific is "shrinking" and the Atlantic is "growing".
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike WRONG !! this does not explain why the Pacific ocean has the same age as the Atlantic as there is much more ocean bottom area "produced" in the Pacific middle then could ever have been "subducted" at the edges. The expansion occurred over the last 200 million years and that Pacific ocean bottom is still there. You are trying to "explain" using the usual Pangea patch job with little substance as usual.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler "there is much more ocean bottom area "produced" in the Pacific middle then could ever have been "subducted" at the edges."
Prove it.
"The expansion occurred over the last 200 million years and that Pacific ocean bottom is still there."
The Earth is 4.55 billion years old. What happened in the preceding 4.35 billion years prior to the expansion you're proposing?
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike the ocean floors are all under 150 million years old. Look up "Age of the Ocean Floor" on the internet and you can see the map or yourself. The claim is that the expanding Pacific had expanded rapidly and that most of the Pacific is under 30 million years old. It is not clear where the Pacific bottom had subducted.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"the ocean floors are all under 150 million years old"
Actually, the oldest sea floor is 180 MYr old. But there's much older oceanic crust material; rocks called ophiolites are section of ancient sea floor preserved on the continents. The oldest of which (in Greenland) is 3.8 billion years old.
"most of the Pacific is under 30 million years old"
It's clearly not. Look at those sea floor age maps again (and I'm well acquainted with this data, none of it is new to me)
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike I don;t care about Greenland. Look at the map again. The red portion of the map is under 33 million years. Yellow is under 67 million years. Green is under 127 million years. Blue is under 180 million years. Red represent up to 50% of the Pacific ocean. This means that 50% of the pacific had formed in the last 33 million years. This is a rapid expansion, more so in area than the Atlantic. Could all that sea floor have been subducted ?? Some if it maybe on the America's coast ??
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler You're looking at a very low resolution (as in data resolution) map then. You still haven't answered my question, BTW, what happened int he preceding 4.35 billion years before the Pacific expanded?
"Could all that sea floor have been subducted ??"
-Yep
" Some if it maybe on the America's coast ??"
And the Russian coast, and Japan, and the Filipino plate, and New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea...
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike Like i said before the age of the ocean along the Asian coast indicates that the Japan, Asian coast could NOT have subducted. They would have disappeared by now. To answer your question, i don;t know what the earth looked like before 200 million years old, and neither do you. If the earth was smaller the land continents were connected. You are supposing that the Pangea theory is the answer.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"Like i said before the age of the ocean along the Asian coast indicates that the Japan, Asian coast could NOT have subducted. They would have disappeared by now."
Says who? The interface between the Pacific Plate and the Asian Plate/Japan is most definitely a subduction zone. Hence the volcanoes and earthquakes in Japan. And the reason the oldest plate material is there is because it hasn't been subducted yet! Everything older than 180 MYr has.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike My point there was that if the ocean bottom is being created in the middle of the Pacific, then the Asian coast lands should be younger. Mass created should equal mass destroyed. But this does not appear to be happening. Just because volcanoes erupt does not make subduction conclusive. Also, explain this, why does Japan appear to have "broken" off the China mainland? Is it not possible that Japan was part of the Asian continent at one time in the past?
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
" My point there was that if the ocean bottom is being created in the middle of the Pacific, then the Asian coast lands should be younger."
You've got that backwards. The young stuff is in the middle, thus the older material MUST be at the edge. If material is solidifying at the ocean ridges, how can material further out from the MORs be younger than the stuff that's just formed?
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike What I tried to say there is that the Pacific ocean bottom off the coast from Asia should be younger THAN the Age map says that it is. in other words, younger than 180 million years. You said it has not subducted yet, so i believe THAT is true.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"should be younger THAN the Age map says that it is"
No, it's the age you'd expect.
yorrike 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"Mass created should equal mass destroyed. But this does not appear to be happening"
You seem to have the same misconception most EE proponents do. The MORs are not "pushing" material out, they are being pulled apart, passively. The plates subducting at the subduction zones are "pulling" the MORs apart. So it's not that the amount created must be destroyed, but the amount subducted must be replaced. And that has been measured as happening.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike That is counter-intuitive and strange thinking. How can the subducting zones "PULL" the MORs apart? I think that this theory was manufactured to suggest that every expansion is exactly related to a subduction zone somewhere. This would favour the tectonic plate theory. The EE theory simply has to say that the expansion rift forms and nothing else has to happen.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"How can the subducting zones "PULL" the MORs apart?"
They're attached, so when the older, colder part of the plate subducts under another plate, the younger end gets pulled along too. The MORs pull apart to accommodate the subducting plate. This is only part of it, since there's other forces at work too, but best come to terms with things step by step. Short story: the MORs are not pushing anything, they're passive margins.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike So if you are so sure of this, where are the subduction zones at the Asian coast. Where are the subduction zones at the American coast. If the rates are faster you would expect more volcanism, right? The Tectonic plate theory suggest that the Pacific is closing, so if in 200 million years the same amount of Pacific sea bottom had subducted as created, right?
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"Also, explain this, why does Japan appear to have "broken" off the China mainland? Is it not possible that Japan was part of the Asian continent at one time in the past?"
It's not broken off Asia per se. As I said before, coastlines are not the same thing as plate boundaries. But slivers of continents do break off as a method to "fill" the areas opened up by subduction. Some of Japan was, no doubt, originally part of Asia proper, but I'm no expert in that region.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike I'm not an expert in coastlines either. But there are many such coastline break-off's that can be described in the same way. Like, Madagascar, New-Zealand, England, Vancouver Island, Greenland, Northern Canada. I expect that they are all different. But perhaps they are based more on an earth expansion and not artifacts of subduction, which would tend to compress the coastal plates together.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"I don;t care about Greenland"
You missed my point. By never mind.
The geochemistry of the volcanoes around the Pacific rim are exactly what you'd expect, had oceanic crust been melted in the presence of water. Even more so, the chemistry of the eruptive material changes as you get further back from the subduction margin. This is due to partial melting and partial crystalisation - concentrations of incompatible Large Ion Lithophile Elements (LILE) like Potassium (K), increase.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike OK, let's talk about Greenland. It appears as a continent broken off from northern Canada. How do you explain the expansion there? How do you explain that the Northern islands of Canada are apart from each other. There is a small rift going between the islands and Greenland. But the islands themselves have no rift.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler It's not due to rifting there, it's all the same continent. A coastline is not the same thing as a plate boundary. Greenland is part of the North American continent. There's a small rift south of Greenland, but this looks like a failed rift (<50 Ma) with very little activity.
yorrike 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"It is not clear where the Pacific bottom had subducted."
The Pacific Ring of Fire is the most active subduction-driven volcanic region on Earth. As a plate subducts, water causes the melting temperature of the rock to lower. This produces melts, which rise to the surface and erupt. The Plates under the Pacific Ocean (The Pacific, Nazca, Jaun de Fuca, Cocoas etc), contain a lot of water and are being subducted under the continents that surround the Pacific.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike The volcanic action is at selected zones along the "ring-of-fire" not along the whole edge of the pacific. What evidence is that it is subduction, and what drives it. I know, "mantle convection" but that is also an assumption. If you look at the green and blue age zones of the Pacific then they are not subduction zones because they are old. The only plausible subduction zones are the Pacific America coastlines. Likely not enough to counter the rapid Pacific expansion.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"The volcanic action is at selected zones along the "ring-of-fire" not along the whole edge of the pacific"
The Ring of Fire is around the entire Pacific, except the (west) Antarctic plate.
"What evidence is that it is subduction, and what drives it."
Tectonic surveys that have imaged subducting plates, geophysical measurements, and the geochemistry of the volcanoes. Plate drag (the oceanic plates sinking, being pushed down by the buoyant continents) drives the system.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike Tectonic "surveys" cannot go down far enough to prove anything. You are claiming that current scientific progress can map the plate activity, but this is impossible. The ocean "conveyor" theory cannot prove that subducted ocean floor IS EQUAL TO ocean floor created, in the Pacific. in fact it appears that there is more ocean bottom created. Don't give me chemistry, give me evidence of where the real subduction zones are and the RATE of subduction at each coast. Do you HAVE such a map?
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"Tectonic "surveys" cannot go down far enough to prove anything."
Sigh. Yes they can, especially when you're measuring earthquakes
"but this is impossible"
Yeah, tracking movements to a mm scale is impossible. You'd need a satellite system to track things over decades to make those measurements. Oh wait, we do have that, it's called GPS.
"in fact it appears that there is more ocean bottom created."
That's impossible, generation of material is reliant on material be subducted.
yorrike 1 year ago
@yorrike It seems that SUBDUCTION theory is firmly entrenched in your mind. Do you consider that there is any alternative theory. You are good at selected what you AND only you want to talk about. That is not an open minded Geologist. You have not answered by question about a subduction map, saying merely that tectonic surveys are available. This is a junk conversation, and just a "I know better than you" bullshit format. Try being more MATURE.
Andrewlohbihler 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler yer conspiracy theory, electric unirse shit is pseudoscience! end of discussion you liberal freak!
MaryStewart 1 year ago
@Andrewlohbihler
"Don't give me chemistry"
Geochemistry would suggest subduction on its own. Don't hand wave an entire field of science away.
" give me evidence of where the real subduction zones are "
You can't be serious. You wade into a debate with a geologist without having the first idea of where subduction zones are (ring of fire, Mediterranean, Caribbean) or what drives plate tectonics (plate drag), and try to argue they don't exist. Unfortunately you're par for the course.
yorrike 1 year ago
Excellent debunkering!
hadr0n 1 year ago
I'm sick of that Geiko lizard.
1donkey 1 year ago
I'm pretty certain every comment on these EE videos are ironic or sarcasm or both.
Linnehan13 1 year ago
Think again my friend.
MrAjjdonnelly 1 year ago
if the EE model is false then why are the oldest fish fossils older than the ocean floor, and all found inland???
ienttellinya 2 years ago
Comment removed
WUZLE 1 year ago
Sea floor spreading and subduction combine to destroy old sea floor crust. There is abundant evidence to support these processes. It is hard to find a really old (>180 million years) fossil on the sea floor when the oldest extant sea floor is ~180 million years old. The older fish fossils found on land are from upthrust portions of former sea floor that escaped subduction.
WUZLE 1 year ago
So this vid. does not actually present counter evidence to the Exp. earth theory, it just criticizes some of the graphics of Neal's video, and this vid pretends that these islands that are not precisely drawn have something to do with big contintents fitting together.
AntimatterRadio 2 years ago 2
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
ajuk1 2 years ago
sort of, but I'm merely trying to point out the mind boggling consequences if this model is true.
MrAjjdonnelly 2 years ago
TheHippness, welcome to the world of the weird, the earth is expanding, the big bang is false, the universe is eternal, its quite likely alien life is already here.
I only found this theory 1 month ago, its all I can do to stay sane.
EE is a fact. Try to disprove it. The only arguments you get is that it is not the accepted theory. Doh!
MrAjjdonnelly 2 years ago
I agree with MrAjjdonnelly...
I've known about the expanding Earth theory going on... almost an hour now :D
There would have to be some kind of change in sea level over time looking at any theory.. and just like MrAjjdonnelly pointed out, there are shallow spots in the areas you just pointed out.
You haven't de-bunked anything besides the fact that there are no landmasses there as of now...
I see that you haven't personally used the term de-bunk, so I'm guessing that's not what you're doing.
TheHippness 2 years ago
the model ain't perfect but the theory is.
zambot3 2 years ago
Not that I support Neal Adams, but I would just like to point out that there are indeed huge areas of fractured-off continental shelf on the sea floor exactly where pictured on this animation. Come on guys come up with a better de-bunk than that!
At least get your ocean bed geology straight!
MrAjjdonnelly 2 years ago
.......but on the other hand the platypus is definitely not a marsupial and Neal Adams is bonkers. However his models are awesome, much better than real science.
MrAjjdonnelly 2 years ago
the problem is they cannot debunk how the whole thing fits smoothly back together, so they concentrate on little things here and there.
Add to this ad homming attacking adams science rather than james maxlows etc
Unless these geologists can come up with an animation that works Expanding earth does appear to be winning.
sprinklehopper 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with MrAjjdonnelly...
I've known about the expanding Earth theory going on... almost an hour now :D
There would have to be some kind of change in sea level over time looking at any theory.. and just like MrAjjdonnelly pointed out, there are shallow spots in the areas you just pointed out.
You haven't de-bunked anything besides the fact that there are no landmasses there as of now...
I see that you haven't personally used the term de-bunk, so I'm guessing that's not what you're doing.
TheHippness 2 years ago
The sea level would have been higher before not lower.
ajuk1 2 years ago
Not if water was created at the same rate as new lithospheric material.
In chemical terms H2O is very similar to sio3 and feO3 - the main constituents of lithosphere.
Check out prof Warren Careys books on geology, he was one of the first proponents of tectonics.
Its his theory, very interesting reading.
MrAjjdonnelly 2 years ago
"In chemical terms H2O is very similar to sio3 and feO3"
That's so incredibly wrong I don't know how to counter it. Just because they all have oxygen, doesn't mean they're chemically similar. Far, far from it.
yorrike 1 year ago
Yorrike, do you think richard dawkins is psychopathic ? i mean he goes on about decrying moral systems like religion but he comes across as a self obsessed vain and righteous selfish git.
sprinklehopper 2 years ago
@sprinklehopper I use to think that about Dawkins, being a psyco - he is definitely vain and self-righteous but I reckon that just comes from being an Oxford snob, he just don't like plebs (poor people)
MrAjjdonnelly 2 years ago
Pt 2.
" Mantle swell is then manifested in the outer crust as crustal extension and is currently occurring as extension along the mid-ocean-rift zones. Matter generation within the Earths core is seen as an endothermic reaction, which will ultimately result in a decay of matter formation in the core and cessation of expansion with time"
sprinklehopper 2 years ago
Except the MORs are not "pushing" material out, they're being pulled apart. If they were pushing out, there'd be deep tectonic activity at the MORs. Truth is, earthquakes along the MORs rarely occur below 30 Km. Earthquakes at subduction zones, where plates are sinking into the mantle, occur down to 800 Km.
yorrike 2 years ago
Maxlows mechanism is
Pt 1,
"The proposed causal model for Expansion Tectonics, while still largely speculative, involves an increase in mass by condensation, or segregation of new matter from energy within the Earths core. This new matter accumulates at the core-mantle interface and the increase in volume results in swelling of the mantle.."
sprinklehopper 2 years ago
And his evidence to support this is what? The Earth growing by 22 mm per year? That'd be a good start, where are his measurements showing the growth is happening at all?
yorrike 2 years ago
4. Geological, geographical and geophysical data have been investigated on all models. These data are shown to coincide precisely with expected polar and equatorial climatic and biotic constraints.
5. Models have been animated in four dimensions, showing the increase in Earth radius throughout time along with global distribution of selected data sets
doesnt look much like pseudoscience to me.
sprinklehopper 2 years ago
"doesnt look much like pseudoscience to me."
That's because you haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the evidence in support of Plate Tectonics. If you had an idea of just what you were opposing, you'd see Maxlow's conclusions to be flawed. Multiple lines of convergent, supporting evidence over a dozen fields of science.
yorrike 2 years ago
sure but multiple convergence ..might sound impressive to a layman, but that means nothing to me (a scientist) without quantifiying the complexity of the system and putting that convergence in context with that complexity. e.g. in neuroscience there has continually been multiple converging lines, but these got replaced by emerging new fields. So sorry that says nothing really but a general direction had been taken.
sprinklehopper 2 years ago
2. A formula for rate of change in Earth radius has been established and modeling of physical data completed. This mathematical modeling demonstrates that Earth radius has been increasing exponentially throughout time, increasing to a current rate of 22mm/year.
3. Ancient magnetic poles plus equator have been accurately located on all models constructed. Both poles plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles, enabling the ancient equators and climate zones to be precisely established.
sprinklehopper 2 years ago
2: Then where are your measurements showing this? A growth rate of that magnitude is measurable on a year-by-year basis. Yet, you've still not provided anything to back this up with. Where are the measurements of this growth?
3. Um, yeah. This is the field of palaeomagnetics. And if you really want proof the Earth hasn't been growing, then paleo magnetic inclinations is a great place to start.
yorrike 2 years ago
progress and results by maxlow from his site.
1. Modeling of continental plate assemblages has now been completed for 100% of geological Earth history, ranging from the early Archaean Era to the present day. These assemblages have demonstrated a high degree of crustal fit accuracy and, most notably, without the need to arbitrarily fragment continents or dispose of pre-existing crusts by subduction.
.
sprinklehopper 2 years ago
"Modeling of continental plate assemblages has now been completed for 100% of geological Earth history, ranging from the early Archaean Era"
Bullshit. You can't confidently model plate assemblages from the Archean. And Furthermore, the Early Archean isn't the beginning of "geological Earth history". Earth's history begins in the Hadean, so Maxlow is missing about 700 million years worth of geology.
yorrike 2 years ago