are you a geologist? do you like blindly listening to them?
this theory is ooold. the reason its not "supported" by the scientific community was because its BRUSHED OFF, (just like you are doing), by everyone's misguided view of it, back when two old geologists had a hissy fit for fame. great.
turns out the dude who "won" was WRONG to begin with, because they revise the theory every other year, trying to half-ass'dly fit made up Continents together.
how do we know that this solar system was made the way we think?
tying to figure out how THIS solar system was made by looking at other systems
is as dumb as trying to looking at other person's puzzle to try and figure yours out.
this videos is just trying to give us some new ways to connect puzzles, like it or not, its just as plausible(if not more) as the current mainstream theory; and in fact DOES NOT conflict with most of the plate tectonic theory *to begin with*
@fntime Oh, so you can read my mind, and you know that I "have FAITH" in science... nice try, but no fly, Mr Argues-like-a-creationist. But you CAN'T read my mind. Hell, I'd bet my last dollar that you can't even disagree with me without lapsing into fallacy (the 1st one you made was a strawman btw). Besides a total lack of rational skills and an insurmountable need to voice your opinion, your next most relevant problem is that you think EE crackpots have the potential for validity.
@fntime "Paradigmic" ?? Really? I might guess that the word you're looking for is paradigmatic, except that there's no way it could reasonably be shoehorned into this context.
I have to thank you though. I truly enjoyed watching you make a fool of yourself with absolutely no regard for your dignity. What are you, 12? Your attempt at sounding knowledgeable is laughable, if embarrassingly so.
@skoockum I accept your surrender. I don't dislike you because you are a pedantic blowhard, I dislike you because you are uncreative and lack the minimium intelligence to be considered even below average. Now that you have apologized for being confused, I can offer you a good piece of advice "Now go home and get your fuckin' shine box!" By the way thanks for the spelling help, but don't you think it would be better if you read a book once in awhile instead of correcting your betters.
@fntime Yer funny -- where the fuck did you pick up those pathetic trolling skills? I bet you couldn't even piss off Lewis Black. Hell, pablum is more irritating than you are.
Lol. All im saying is if Earth growing then where is this extra matter coming from??? If EE was true all its resources would be infinite. Water would come from no where or there would be so much land that it would dwart the largest oceans, right??Why hasnt our eliptical orbit changed due to earths increase in size also?? Surely the planet's environment would have drastically changed considering how old it is. It just doesnt add up...
every year the "dark matter" keeps increasing in size. soon it will be 99.99. which means it's bullshit & all laws will have to be rewritten including big bang.
Gravity cannot have been constant. It defies any reason. Even if you ignore the dynosaurs, you have easter island as proof. You have stonehenge, the pyramids. They are built by blocks too heavy to lift ... unless gravity was less. Growing earth, and the non constant gravity is the only explanation to all these "mysteries".
They aren't mysteries, except in the eyes of believers ...
@bjarneorn By carbon dating we know the age of stonehenge to be around, at the earliest, 3100BC. Even if you are so crazy as to believe this whole expanding earth thing, do you really think gravity would have altered much in a few thousand years? :|
@skoockum this is just a theory .... but is more convincing than random movement of land masses. Clearly we see directionality in the continental drift. Pangea theory doesn't have an answer to such directionality. Why did the continents move away from each other when at one point they were all together ?? and how these geo plates came into existence ?? (my theory was there must have been a massive earthquake that ripped the landmass into exactly seven pieces... well 8 if you count Greenland).
@bimaldark "just a theory" ...I love it! First off: EE is in no way a theory. Or even a hypothesis. Hell, it doesn't even qualify as a legitimate idea. What it is, is bullshit. In science, a "theory" functions as a widely proven principle, not as some half-assed guess. 2nd: There's nothing random about continental movement caused by plate tectonics (PT being the scientific theory that explains the relative motion of Earth's crust. 3rd: What's Pangaea theory? I never heard of it.
@skoockum Why there are plate techtonics in the first place ? You don't find that in cooling lava (or magma) ? (Note: I'm assuming Earth is a Cooling Magma). I'm not saying that this is the answer ...that's why it is a theory. And, I see it has some data to back it up. It requires a lot of tests before it can make any grounds (or become a law or universally accepted). I assume you already know how science works.
@bimaldark "[EE ?] may not be the answer ...that's why it's a theory"; "I see [EE] has some data to back it up"; "I assume you already know how science works."
I know how science works well enough to tell that you don't. For starters, your idea of what a scientific theory is, is badly misinformed. EE doesn't have ANY evidence to support it that isn't explained much better by plate tectonics, not to mention the vast body of evidence refuting EE that its proponents either ignore or are unaware of
No this cannot be true because the Law of Conservation of Mass applies. The law states "Mass cannot be created nor destroyed" which means the earth is not growing, nor is the earth shrinking. Ever heard the phrase "ashes to ashes, dust to dust"? It's the same principle. We come from the material in the earth; then we return.If the earth was getting bigger and more massive, then gravity would also be increasing, but gravity is the same as it was since day one.
@fromstart2finish I agree with you, but you didn't give one good argument at all. Balloons increase in volume, it's not magic. In this case gravity would not grow, but since the volume would be larger, the gravity we feel on the surface would be smaller. There is no proof gravity hasn't changed on this level. But in a scenario with bigger gravity, living beings would generally be more massive with stronger muscles and denser bodies.
A balloons volume may increase but its mass stays constant. It does not increase despite it looking that way. But i digress. Currently there are no signs of gravity's strength increasing, and i dont think there ever will be....
Remember, the planet is finite. It will not grow bigger or increase out of nothing. It recycles whats already here.
@fromstart2finish I just wanted to make one little correction: A balloon does gain mass. The air you are blowing into a balloon has mass (Albeit small compared to the solid mass of the Balloon) Which makes your entire thesis a bit harder to swallow.
@fromstart2finish And I agree with you there that the EE theory is rubbish. It is rubbish because it lacks evidence that supports it. It's not rubbish because someone proposed it (Which would be an ad-hominim attack if one were to suggest that it's wrong because X person suggests it) It is wrong because the weight of evidence points to P.T. And many advocates of EE do not realize we have been doing GPS surveys and tracking of oceanic crust which shows very real subduction.
@fromstart2finish Usually at that point, they dismiss GPS data as either: non-existent or "part of the conspiracy to lie to us etc..." Which is an annoying thing to see because if you'll remember a line from the demon haunted world "Beware charges of conspiracy to ""cover up the truth"" and so on.." Carl sagan goes on to show why such things are used. And yet, throughout the entire modern EE talk, you find "Scientists know but are not telling you"
I dont consider the EE theory rubbish simply because it was proposed mind you, its just that as old as the earth itself is, we should have seen evidence of this. If the earth grew larger, its gravity would in turn be stronger. Its eliptical orbit would also be significantly effected if EE was true. But anyway i too will say no more...
@fromstart2finish lol. We see eye to eye on Plate tectonics. I was hoping the earthquake here in Japan would have finally spelled the end of EE. Especially considering the wealth of data collected (I take pride that my host country has the best seismic observation system in the world) and how that data showed precise fault slippage and the exact movement of Japan (Decompression mind you) and the pacific placte (Overcoming tension and pushing under) But I guess some people just don't research.
@fromstart2finish mass cannot be created true in some level ( note: E=MC^2).... you have to also note that Earth is not a rock of constant density. Mass doesn't expand ... volume does !
@fromstart2finish Nobody could say that gravity is the same since day one, as there is no data from it. We only have information about gravity in recent history, so that was not a good point.
You also said "we came from the earth, then we return to it." Well, earth's population is increasing very fast... ;P
I can understand your opinion about gravity, but wouldnt we see proof of this in life on earth? Large animals such as elephants and giraffe would be very different if earth was growing. And they havent changed for while. And yes, in a certain sense, we do come from and return to the earth. When something dies, it is broken down piece by piece atom by atom by nature. I dont see how earths pop is relevant to this :P
@fromstart2finish Again, we couldn't have any significant or relevant data about animals, because if earth is growing (which, for now, I don't believe), it is a process which takes billions of years and such animals didn't even exist. The dinossaurs, for example, can be used as an evidence of a smaller gravity. This would explain how immense bipedal animals like the T-Rex could run very fast, and how giant insects and pterosaurs could fly (the latter has a biological explanation, but anyway).
Scientists debate the speed of T-Rex all the time. I for one find it impossible for such a large animal to fast under any circumstances. Some scientists proposed to compesate for its tremendous size and weight it relied on its offspring to help it capture prey. Or in fact it didnt have to run anywhere. It was a scanvenger. It could slowly walk to dead prey :P So increasing gravity still doesnt apply
@fromstart2finish That doesn't explain the giant insects. And the purely scavenger theory is very faulty, since T-Rex had extraordinary binocular vision, as modern predators, such as the hawk, have. Also, fossils from Edmontosaurus were found having healed damage inflicted by a T-Rex on their tail, which suggests a prey that managed to escape from a hunting. Most paleontologists agree that the T-Rex, such as the lion, was a predator, but would not refuse carrion if it had the opportunity.
"Giant" insects werent very large. The largest one i can think of is Scolopendra gigantea, a giant centipede, and its body literally hugged the ground. But giant insects were the result of oxygen in the atmosphere not gravity.
Even if T-rex was both predator and scavenger there is still the theory it used its young to hunt for it. They were small and fast enough to catch prey, and the adult t-rex would come in and eat it.
@fromstart2finish Very unlikely I would say, as they don't even know if the Rex lived in groups or not. Also, I think that if scientists were able to identify an injury and even tell it was a healed one, they were able to say if it was inflicted by an adult or a young.
@fromstart2finish I can understand that, as scientists themselves can't come up with an absolute answer. Anyway, from what I've read, I think it was a tremendous predator ;)
Oh, and the population thing was a joke. If population is increasing and we all "blend" with the nature after we die, earth is growing in the process ;D
You are still not getting it. We come from the earth, and return to it. When we "blend" with it we arent adding anything to it. Were only returning what was already there. ;)
@fromstart2finish People still don't quite understand why gravity even exists--or what truly makes up "mass" for "that matter" (lol). Einstein's theory of Relativity is just THAT--a THEORY. They're still trying to figure out the "quarks" at the subatomic level with colliders as big as Switzerland and they aren't getting anywhere. This video could make more progress than "physicists" have in decades... ;-)
@AndradaDacia If earth was growing then gravity would not be the only evidence. If earth grew its elliptical orbit would be greatly effected. In short, we would have long grown outside our Goldilocks zone necessary for us to survive :P. Im afraid this video wont make any progress straying from the scientific method.
Highly unlikely....but if some scientists came up jwith evidence that it did then EE would probably hold some ground. But its impossible so it wont....
@fromstart2finish but then how do you explain everything contained within this universe started off as a tiny particle ? we certainly got something from a seemingly nothing there.
The tiny particle you are referring to is i assume the big bang. Well a few of the first celestial bodies in the universe were stars. Planets COME from the remnants of stars after going supernova. I dont see how EE applies. If it was true that "tiny particle" would have just become a bigger mass. Not explode and give birth to an entire universe filled with celestial bodies that would grow big for no reason.
No ,this is just nonsense. This video implies that the earth has the same properties like a balloon. Stretchy surface and hollow on the inside.Which is false. planets do not work like that. And on another note, if the earth was growing, wouldnt there also be earth shrinking? EE is nothing more than pseudoscience....
Look at it this way, if the earths mass increased as a result its gravitational properties would also change. If this was true then life on earth would look very different. Animals would be wide and close to the ground to compensate for the obviously tremendous amount of gravity that would exist if the earth continued to grow. The entire solar system would be ruined if planets could just grow for no reason.
you can only have conservation of mass within a closed system, once you start getting into quantum mechanics you learn that matter is simply a form of energy that can be transformed, and is not necessarily conserved. For example when they use particle accelerators. When the particle gets really close to the speed of light, it starts to gain a lot of mass as more and more energy is pumped into the accelerating particle. This however is not proof of this vid
You are right, if we accept the standard physics model. However, there are experiments involving liquid or solid metals which have resulted in excess energy, neutrons, deuterium, and helium 3. These are products that can only occur from nuclear processes! Since their environment is cool compared to millions of degrees it is known as Cold Fusion. If cold fusion is a real phenomenon then it can explain the Earth's expansion.
are u saying when earth was forming from a gaseous ball of star matter that it was the same mass?
uh. don't think so buddy.
of course it grew, its not like we have limited supplies!
the gravity helps to explain why creatures were so much bigger back then
(and YES OXYGEN.SURE.but oxygen levels have yet to be exclusively correlated to the scale of animals, because its the same gradient. oxygen has been slowly falling, and gravity has been slowly growing :P)
I think you misunderstand the type of "growing" that im talking about and is getting the criticism. Yes, eons ago the earth was steadily growing bigger. But not from inflating like a balloon as the video says. But from collecting asteroids in its orbit. Its not that hard to see that EE theory is bogus :/
@SCHMALZ1966 damn kneel adams, it's really gotta bite for you that I figured out who you were based on only 2 of your posts. You're my bitch kneeladamsdotcom, and I'm gonna pimp yer punkass out to the creatards and ufologists and the like.
@skoockum As I mentioned before, this is not to be discussed with any Jack and Joe. Unfortunately, this is one of the side effects of socialized information; it normally falls prey to those who are not ready for it. Please, gentleman, save your foul mouth to your football games. There you can certainly "apply your scientific background."
@SCHMALZ1966 you said that I "can certainly "apply your scientific background" .. "at football games".
Funny... I never mentioned having a "scientific background". I did however point out that your claim that "'expanding earth' has a lot of support in top scientific communities" is a lie so blatant & ridiculous that even the Creationists are having a good larf about it.
You're right NAdams, your average Jacks and Joes are far too intellegent to fall for your Flat Earth's Retarded Cousin Theory
@SCHMALZ1966 you said that I "can certainly "apply your scientific background" .. "at football games".
Funny... I never mentioned having a "scientific background". I did however point out that your claim that "'expanding earth' has a lot of support in top scientific communities" is a lie so blatant & ridiculous that even the Creationists are having a good larf about it.
You're right NAdams, your average Jacks and Joes are far too intellegent to fall for your Flat Earth's Retarded Cousin Theory
@SCHMALZ1966 "Gained alot of support in the scientific community" yes certainly, just like astrology has gained alot of support in the field of astronomy, or praying in the field of medicine.
humourous. But patronizing and incorrect. Weathering of coastlines is caused by rebound? Isostatic rebound does cause cracking, but mountain building?
Seriously? Continental drift is measurable. Since the 70s, the LAGEOS satellites have been measuring the speed and the direction in which the continents are moving to within centimeters. I'm confused about what you are trying to do with this video. Do you have a hidden agenda?
expanding Earth theory makes more sense than Gondwana. If Gondwana existed, all the land mass would have been on one side of the Earth, and the Earth would have spun off its axis. A more balanced, symmetrical movement of the plates, as described in this video, is imho a better explanation.
Spun off its axis? Have you done the math (show it!)?
Unfortunately it seems your knowledge of the earth goes just as far as you can dig. You really think something 30km thick makes a difference on something over 6300km thick? There's crust under the oceans, too (which is denser than continental crust). The density of the crust isn't even 3 times that of water. Just think!
But I fear this is lost on you, because if you really wanted to know, the knowledge is out there since ages
If you think THIS is interesting then you need to consider what the Impact and Exit Event theory has to say. The theory is a facinatingly new concept which adopts and refines Plate Tectonics while acknowledging the possibility of SOME of what is in the above video. In my opinion the impact and exit event has expanded our understanding of what causes plate tectonics, and what is likely to happen to Earth in the future. Well worth a read.
Nice work! But you don´t need the dude and the straw. Put arrows pointing outward from the center of the earth. Other wise you will catch sh@t from none believers for that.
this theory of mass expansion could be proven or disproven very easily by studying the orbit of the earth/moon system. just project it back, if we are spiraling outward, the mass of the earth is expanding. Yes it does increase a little due to cosmic dust and other captured meteoroid objects, but not by much, a few hundred tons a day at the most.
Gography, the study of maps and mapping systems? - WTF are you guys talking about? Geology? because in context of your sentences, that is the word you are looking for... So the earth is growing because.....the north wind is puffing air into it? Really? So the mass of the earth is increasing from inside? REALLY? because rock will only expand if its mass is increasing or the nuclear core of the earth explodes.
so the theory I just typed could now be true thanks to this theory makes sense now man might want to become interstellar as we may have to leave this could be the 2012 prophecy the eggs going to hatch I now call this theory Avery’s theory 2
this theory supports the hollow earth theory as earth is really an egg for a new star that which is the centre earth star I have been notice intelligence in the starts to do with sun dogs and one of which is where 14 stars line up in perfect alignment to create a billions of light years sundog go to my channel and view mystery of heaven this has now added to my theory that we live on a egg and we are the virus that in habits its surface and yes suns move all the time nasa gave me the evidence
my opinion of both sides - against: if earth is growing, then where is all of this new matter coming from? for: we know the sun is expanding, so perhaps too and in the same way is the earth.
@valdemar8 lol trillions of tonnes of space debris accumulated over billions of years? maybe a relatively recent destruction of a neighboring planet, causing massive amounts of matter to exponentially increase earth's gravity further increasing the amount of matter it attracts? hmmm? i don't know... we ALL don't really know....
a single man proves EVERYBODY else wrong... same old Galileo fallacy. There is no conspiracy. Plate tectonics has been observed, confirmed, analysed, modelled, and fits with physics, geology, chemistry and planetology. The Earth is not expanding, satellites would pick that up, and more importantly the resulting gravitational perturbations would render most of them useless.
There is an amazing amount of evidence that says the Rockys and the Appalacians were not created at the same time. It's actually impossible when you examine the specific rocks that compose them. And the Appalacians have been subjected to much more erosion then the Rockys which means their much much older. The coast line thing he was talking about was completely made up by Adams, as well as all other of his additions to the Carey's EE theory.
@socratiz You see, when a scientist comes up with a hypothesis he needs to experiment and collect data in the field to test his hypothesis. Adams doesn't test his hypothesized additions to EE, he just makes them up at his computer in his house. He is not a geologist and does not do field work and collect data to confirm or disconfirm his hypotheses. He just makes them up and says they're facts when they are really just untested hypotheses with no scientific basis or data to support them.
@mmiaso & coraltuber-Continents do NOT float, & science DOES say the ocean floor is spreading. Continents can spread a little, for many reasons,i.e. the super-volcano in Yellowstone. As for marine fossils on mt. tops- sure, cause some mountains have been under a sea many times, such as the inland sea in North America once. Several times? Check out the Rocky Mts. Like historical fiction? "Centennial", by James Michener=great Earth facts! The fiction is only about people, not the land.Good read.
@Skyehook mountains were not yet mountains when they were below sea level :) they became mountains when the rock was pushed up.... continents do not float...in water. they "float" on liquid granite... so, yes, they float. we might ask us this question: what does it matter? are we better of when we believe they don't float than when we believe that they do? does it change anything in the human nature? will the word be a better place?
Complete nonsense. If the earth were expanding, all it would do is place more space between continents -- the continents are floating plates, bonehead, they're not like some drawing on a balloon.
this canNOT be true. for it makes it impossible for marine fossils to be found in the hihger layers of, for instance, the alpine mountain ridges.... they HAD to be UNDER water once...otherwise there could not be marine life to form those fossils. so was there a moment when the continents where flooded? and why?
@mmiaso The bible says there was a moment when Earth was flooded. The Great Flood. But you'd have to believe the bible to accept that, which I don't. Maybe this guy is a creationist scientist, or just a creationist period.
@reedo1703 Ow, there is evidence enough of flooding in the past.... fossils are formed under huge pressures... the ones in the alpine mountain ridges came from deep and came up later... it is not about believing the bible, it is about looking at the evidence and seeing what is to be seen :-)
@mmiaso I agree completely. I know there have been floods in the past, but not as big as the biblical one claims, which would help this video's argument. Have you heard about the Creationist Museum? They teach that the Grand Canyon was formed within days from the Great Flood, not from millions of years of carving by the Colorado River. I think they believe "god" created the mountains too, not plate tech-tonics. Hilarious.
Neal - I wasn't going to comment, but I am hurt that you used "cat fart videos" as an insult to more than three people. I thought I was the only one! At least 4xThexwin didn't get "go back to your oriental breast message videos". i only found two examples of that insult. People beware: between watching your "cat fart" videos and asking legitimate questions about this theory, Neal will block, ban and insult you. As well he should, this is a $400,000.00 project!
nealadamsdotcom What do you define as blurred? How large is large enough - what is the minimum diameter/mass of an object to start expansion? How can some gasses still be on some planets like Venus - but have no water? Why did the solar wind just blow the water away? Is water a by-product of the expansion mechanism? If the Earth is expanding @ 25" per year - why do we measure the moon (via laser from earth) moving away @ 1.49"/yr from us? Wouldn't the reality be 1.49"+12.5 inches (25"/2)?
We need to find this fellow sucking and blowing magma into the earth and have a chat with him. I would think he would be easy to find -- he would leave a pretty big shadow.
For those of you that think it is not possible for the earth to grow, maybe you forgot the current THEORY of plate tectonics. It pretty much concludes that PANGAEA was one huge continent roughly 200 million years ago, using the current theory this means one side of the planet was land, and the other side was water. Do you honestly think that is a better theory then maybe saying the world was all one continent(somewhat underwater though) and that they spread apart equally? Humanity = Ignorance
@socratiz - even stranger, these brilliant scientists will claim the whole universe started from a single point and "expanded" from nothing (and is expanding to this day)....CRAZY indeed! I totally see how they can reconcile their 100% certainty that the Universe is expanding right now with their derision of a very sound theory that the Earth itself might also be expanding....makes perfect sense in the nuthouse of Academia
@socratiz You are comparing apples and oranges here. Trees and seeds are biology. Earth is geography. We know EXACTLY what causes trees to grow from seeds. Other than some "fancy" computer animations, there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. The only thing that Adams is proving here is that, with some technology and conviction, you can make a couple of sheep follow you anywhere.
@socratiz Oh geez... Have you studied science in any way other than this "Mother Gaia" phooey that you just spat at me? Earth is not alive or conscious. There is a very BIG distinction between biology and geography...I shouldnt even have to explain it. My perspective is not limited, it is realistic. Comparmentalized thinking in this sense is not a bad thing. It is your broad and liberal thinking that is the limiting factor here.
Whether u took what I said out of context intentionally or unintentionally is beyond me, Either way, I said that ur compartmentalized view of the Earth as being purely Geographical is ur number 1 flaw. I obviously did not say that Biology is the same as Geography. Duh. :)
Then u go on 2 say that the earth is not alive or conscious? hehe. Ok buddy. U have so much 2 learn. Thats awesome because ur going to experience a major transformation in ur perspective once you realize it.
@socratiz Ohhhh... You're right. Suddenly I understand!
I understand that you are on drugs.
There is no "major trasformation" epiphany. Earth is not alive or conscious. If you can explain it to me in any logical way, I will mail you a cookie. Until then, smoke on.
Also, the earth being alive has nothing to do with this "growing earth" theory, which I THOUGHT was the most laughable thing I had ever heard... until you told me the Earth was alive...
Look, don't get all bent about Neal Adams. The guy makes comic books for a living. He's supposed to be creative. So he's taken his creativity to the point where he's a conspiracy theorist. He's just a crazy old man. Besides, if the Earth is expanding, why isn't my lawn getting bigger?
How does tectonic plate theory explain mountain ranges that are nowhere near plate boundaries? + The idea that little India drives up against Asia causing mountain ranges ONLY on the Asian plate all because of a convection current underneath is fallacious - why does India not buckle?
Neal Adams in basically saying that there are no Plate Tectonics, which is BULLSHIT. If there are no Plate Tectonics, how do Earthquakes occur? Explain that Mr. Neal "I know everything about anything" Adams.
he would probably explain it away by saying that the normal faulting of the mountain belt would cause seismic activity. what the theory cannot explain is the Andes, caused by subduction related volcanism. The subducting oceanic slab has been imaged which completely blows his argument out of the water!
No Neal Adams does admit there are continental plates and they do move, but their movement corresponds with the growth of the planet rather that constant shifting.
The planet like the stars and the star matter it is comprised of is growwing.
The universe is expanding.
Red shift, dude. Red shift. Doesn't it all make sense now?
@Frankthegb Based on this theory, earthquakes would occur because of the deformation/flattening of the earth's surface due to it's expansion - Earthquakes don't exclusively occur on tectonic fault lines, they occur everywhere regardless of what theory you support.
are you serious? mountain formation through continent-continent collision like the formation of the himalayan region is so intuitive. Also, the himalayas arent on the fringes of the continental land mass, they are quite a long distance in from where the tip of India is. Second to that, you can find thrust faulting in that region which can only happen if the there was compression of india into Asia. not to mention ophiolites obducted onto Aisa from the former tethys sea. enough said....
@metfan89 How can India being so small cause mighty Asia to buckle with no effect on the Indian plate whatsoever? Are we to believe that convection current in the mantle causes this small Island to buckle Asia? It's like a sea current causing a rowing boat causing an ocean liner to tip over. I've never understood how these convection current can be so strong relative to the size and mass of land.
@wokenup100 well without going into it further the simple answer is that the indian landmass has been deformed. differences in lithologies(the make up of the rock) govern how the plates react to collision. Also, while convection currents move the plates, subduction of the indian plate is the reason for the collision rather than convection. on a side note. do you really think that all of the scientists working over the past couple of hundred years have got it all wrong?
@metfan89 Plate tectonic theory is not 200 years old - Am I prepared to accept that an entire scientific community could be completely wrong - well as history has shown - we get it wrong all the time!
@wokenup100 correct, it isnt two hundred years old but geoloical work has been done for hunderds of years. you are right in saying that we have been wrong in the past, i wouldnt say all the time but whatever. there are degrees of incorrectness, the chance of us being THAT incorrect is low, especially seeing as subduction can be modelled and plate movement can be measured by satellites. so many aspects dont make sense in neils theory.
@wokenup100 for a good illustration of what i mean of "degrees of incorrectness" please have a look at "The Relativity of Wrong" by C0nc0rdance. its a very good video.
Makes sense totally.
Andrewlohbihler 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
are you a geologist? do you like blindly listening to them?
this theory is ooold. the reason its not "supported" by the scientific community was because its BRUSHED OFF, (just like you are doing), by everyone's misguided view of it, back when two old geologists had a hissy fit for fame. great.
turns out the dude who "won" was WRONG to begin with, because they revise the theory every other year, trying to half-ass'dly fit made up Continents together.
ever heard of tesla? same deal.
H0B0J03 1 month ago
Comment removed
H0B0J03 1 month ago
damned suborn skeptics...
how do we know that this solar system was made the way we think?
tying to figure out how THIS solar system was made by looking at other systems
is as dumb as trying to looking at other person's puzzle to try and figure yours out.
this videos is just trying to give us some new ways to connect puzzles, like it or not, its just as plausible(if not more) as the current mainstream theory; and in fact DOES NOT conflict with most of the plate tectonic theory *to begin with*
H0B0J03 1 month ago
your an asshole and i hate you
birdwell455 3 months ago
The earth is slowly growing... from small metorites its collecting :P
Typho0n86 3 months ago 3
Why are we even talking about mass? The Earth expands... this does not mean it gets more massive, it just means it expands.
mrdanman1403 3 months ago
@mrdanman1403 well its inevitable, it will always gain more mass, whats keeping the new matter out of earth?
H0B0J03 1 month ago
@skoockum You sound like a religious fundementalist.
You don't offer facts only the statement that anyone who would consider
another alternative to the one that was taught to you in school,which
you have FAITH in, must not only be wrong, but be a crackpot or a whackjob.
It bothers me to see a young person who is closed minded.
You should try to stay away from hypothesis' that make you become
emotional.
If the premises is wrong,correct them.Your approach is more
stupid than ignorant.
fntime 6 months ago
@fntime Oh, so you can read my mind, and you know that I "have FAITH" in science... nice try, but no fly, Mr Argues-like-a-creationist. But you CAN'T read my mind. Hell, I'd bet my last dollar that you can't even disagree with me without lapsing into fallacy (the 1st one you made was a strawman btw). Besides a total lack of rational skills and an insurmountable need to voice your opinion, your next most relevant problem is that you think EE crackpots have the potential for validity.
skoockum 6 months ago
@skoockum when you walk like a duck, and you talk like a duck,
usually I presume you are a duck. Now Donald, I suggest
you read a book on logic, you need it.
Donald you lack imagination & creativity, and in regard to
reading your 'mind', there is little there that is original &
your 'thinking' is very paradigmic.
Quack, Quack, now I'll speak your language so
you can understand me! Be careful Elmer Fudd is
looking for you!
fntime 6 months ago
@fntime "Paradigmic" ?? Really? I might guess that the word you're looking for is paradigmatic, except that there's no way it could reasonably be shoehorned into this context.
I have to thank you though. I truly enjoyed watching you make a fool of yourself with absolutely no regard for your dignity. What are you, 12? Your attempt at sounding knowledgeable is laughable, if embarrassingly so.
BTW, Elmer doesn't hunt duck, he hunts wabbit.
skoockum 1 month ago
@skoockum Thanks for the spelling lesson, but you are
still unacceptable as a scientific source!
You are a pedantic blowhard!
fntime 4 weeks ago
@fntime wow ..you are the saddest little troll I've ever seen -- you aren't even irritating anymore, just a boring mush of whatever
skoockum 4 weeks ago
fntime 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
skoockum 1 week ago
@fntime Yer funny -- where the fuck did you pick up those pathetic trolling skills? I bet you couldn't even piss off Lewis Black. Hell, pablum is more irritating than you are.
skoockum 1 week ago
@scottgioia
Lol. All im saying is if Earth growing then where is this extra matter coming from??? If EE was true all its resources would be infinite. Water would come from no where or there would be so much land that it would dwart the largest oceans, right??Why hasnt our eliptical orbit changed due to earths increase in size also?? Surely the planet's environment would have drastically changed considering how old it is. It just doesnt add up...
fromstart2finish 6 months ago
@fromstart2finish Matter can expand perhaps?
TheLightedDarkness 6 months ago
@TheLightedDarkness
Yes, some states of matter expand. Sometimes when heated, this causes the molecules to move around. But its mass stays relatively the same.
fromstart2finish 6 months ago
every year the "dark matter" keeps increasing in size. soon it will be 99.99. which means it's bullshit & all laws will have to be rewritten including big bang.
nayanmalig 7 months ago
no one can explain how whale sized dinosaurs walked the earth & survived for millions of years. it has to be a smaller earth & low gravity.
nayanmalig 7 months ago
Gravity cannot have been constant. It defies any reason. Even if you ignore the dynosaurs, you have easter island as proof. You have stonehenge, the pyramids. They are built by blocks too heavy to lift ... unless gravity was less. Growing earth, and the non constant gravity is the only explanation to all these "mysteries".
They aren't mysteries, except in the eyes of believers ...
bjarneorn 7 months ago
@bjarneorn By carbon dating we know the age of stonehenge to be around, at the earliest, 3100BC. Even if you are so crazy as to believe this whole expanding earth thing, do you really think gravity would have altered much in a few thousand years? :|
tphilippou1 7 months ago
@skoockum this is just a theory .... but is more convincing than random movement of land masses. Clearly we see directionality in the continental drift. Pangea theory doesn't have an answer to such directionality. Why did the continents move away from each other when at one point they were all together ?? and how these geo plates came into existence ?? (my theory was there must have been a massive earthquake that ripped the landmass into exactly seven pieces... well 8 if you count Greenland).
bimaldark 7 months ago
@bimaldark "just a theory" ...I love it! First off: EE is in no way a theory. Or even a hypothesis. Hell, it doesn't even qualify as a legitimate idea. What it is, is bullshit. In science, a "theory" functions as a widely proven principle, not as some half-assed guess. 2nd: There's nothing random about continental movement caused by plate tectonics (PT being the scientific theory that explains the relative motion of Earth's crust. 3rd: What's Pangaea theory? I never heard of it.
skoockum 7 months ago
@skoockum Why there are plate techtonics in the first place ? You don't find that in cooling lava (or magma) ? (Note: I'm assuming Earth is a Cooling Magma). I'm not saying that this is the answer ...that's why it is a theory. And, I see it has some data to back it up. It requires a lot of tests before it can make any grounds (or become a law or universally accepted). I assume you already know how science works.
bimaldark 7 months ago
@bimaldark "[EE ?] may not be the answer ...that's why it's a theory"; "I see [EE] has some data to back it up"; "I assume you already know how science works."
I know how science works well enough to tell that you don't. For starters, your idea of what a scientific theory is, is badly misinformed. EE doesn't have ANY evidence to support it that isn't explained much better by plate tectonics, not to mention the vast body of evidence refuting EE that its proponents either ignore or are unaware of
skoockum 7 months ago
No this cannot be true because the Law of Conservation of Mass applies. The law states "Mass cannot be created nor destroyed" which means the earth is not growing, nor is the earth shrinking. Ever heard the phrase "ashes to ashes, dust to dust"? It's the same principle. We come from the material in the earth; then we return.If the earth was getting bigger and more massive, then gravity would also be increasing, but gravity is the same as it was since day one.
fromstart2finish 8 months ago 5
@fromstart2finish I agree with you, but you didn't give one good argument at all. Balloons increase in volume, it's not magic. In this case gravity would not grow, but since the volume would be larger, the gravity we feel on the surface would be smaller. There is no proof gravity hasn't changed on this level. But in a scenario with bigger gravity, living beings would generally be more massive with stronger muscles and denser bodies.
Ubiquidade 8 months ago
@Ubiquidade
A balloons volume may increase but its mass stays constant. It does not increase despite it looking that way. But i digress. Currently there are no signs of gravity's strength increasing, and i dont think there ever will be....
Remember, the planet is finite. It will not grow bigger or increase out of nothing. It recycles whats already here.
fromstart2finish 8 months ago
@fromstart2finish I just wanted to make one little correction: A balloon does gain mass. The air you are blowing into a balloon has mass (Albeit small compared to the solid mass of the Balloon) Which makes your entire thesis a bit harder to swallow.
danschaoticmind 8 months ago
@danschaoticmind
In retrospect i see what you mean.But that aside, my statement is far fromfiction.....
Expanding earth theory is rubbish its 2011 and ppl still believe in this kind of garbage.and Ubiquidade brought up the whole balloon thing.
fromstart2finish 8 months ago
@fromstart2finish And I agree with you there that the EE theory is rubbish. It is rubbish because it lacks evidence that supports it. It's not rubbish because someone proposed it (Which would be an ad-hominim attack if one were to suggest that it's wrong because X person suggests it) It is wrong because the weight of evidence points to P.T. And many advocates of EE do not realize we have been doing GPS surveys and tracking of oceanic crust which shows very real subduction.
danschaoticmind 8 months ago
@fromstart2finish Usually at that point, they dismiss GPS data as either: non-existent or "part of the conspiracy to lie to us etc..." Which is an annoying thing to see because if you'll remember a line from the demon haunted world "Beware charges of conspiracy to ""cover up the truth"" and so on.." Carl sagan goes on to show why such things are used. And yet, throughout the entire modern EE talk, you find "Scientists know but are not telling you"
I think I need not say more.
danschaoticmind 8 months ago
@danschaoticmind
I dont consider the EE theory rubbish simply because it was proposed mind you, its just that as old as the earth itself is, we should have seen evidence of this. If the earth grew larger, its gravity would in turn be stronger. Its eliptical orbit would also be significantly effected if EE was true. But anyway i too will say no more...
fromstart2finish 8 months ago
@fromstart2finish lol. We see eye to eye on Plate tectonics. I was hoping the earthquake here in Japan would have finally spelled the end of EE. Especially considering the wealth of data collected (I take pride that my host country has the best seismic observation system in the world) and how that data showed precise fault slippage and the exact movement of Japan (Decompression mind you) and the pacific placte (Overcoming tension and pushing under) But I guess some people just don't research.
danschaoticmind 8 months ago
@fromstart2finish mass cannot be created true in some level ( note: E=MC^2).... you have to also note that Earth is not a rock of constant density. Mass doesn't expand ... volume does !
bimaldark 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish Nobody could say that gravity is the same since day one, as there is no data from it. We only have information about gravity in recent history, so that was not a good point.
You also said "we came from the earth, then we return to it." Well, earth's population is increasing very fast... ;P
LouieGee 7 months ago
@LouieGee
I can understand your opinion about gravity, but wouldnt we see proof of this in life on earth? Large animals such as elephants and giraffe would be very different if earth was growing. And they havent changed for while. And yes, in a certain sense, we do come from and return to the earth. When something dies, it is broken down piece by piece atom by atom by nature. I dont see how earths pop is relevant to this :P
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish Again, we couldn't have any significant or relevant data about animals, because if earth is growing (which, for now, I don't believe), it is a process which takes billions of years and such animals didn't even exist. The dinossaurs, for example, can be used as an evidence of a smaller gravity. This would explain how immense bipedal animals like the T-Rex could run very fast, and how giant insects and pterosaurs could fly (the latter has a biological explanation, but anyway).
LouieGee 7 months ago
@LouieGee
Scientists debate the speed of T-Rex all the time. I for one find it impossible for such a large animal to fast under any circumstances. Some scientists proposed to compesate for its tremendous size and weight it relied on its offspring to help it capture prey. Or in fact it didnt have to run anywhere. It was a scanvenger. It could slowly walk to dead prey :P So increasing gravity still doesnt apply
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish That doesn't explain the giant insects. And the purely scavenger theory is very faulty, since T-Rex had extraordinary binocular vision, as modern predators, such as the hawk, have. Also, fossils from Edmontosaurus were found having healed damage inflicted by a T-Rex on their tail, which suggests a prey that managed to escape from a hunting. Most paleontologists agree that the T-Rex, such as the lion, was a predator, but would not refuse carrion if it had the opportunity.
LouieGee 7 months ago
@LouieGee
"Giant" insects werent very large. The largest one i can think of is Scolopendra gigantea, a giant centipede, and its body literally hugged the ground. But giant insects were the result of oxygen in the atmosphere not gravity.
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish (Warning: I am a pedant) Centipedes aren't insects. :-)
Mechness 7 months ago
@Mechness
You get my point.....
fromstart2finish 6 months ago
Even if T-rex was both predator and scavenger there is still the theory it used its young to hunt for it. They were small and fast enough to catch prey, and the adult t-rex would come in and eat it.
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish Very unlikely I would say, as they don't even know if the Rex lived in groups or not. Also, I think that if scientists were able to identify an injury and even tell it was a healed one, they were able to say if it was inflicted by an adult or a young.
LouieGee 7 months ago
@LouieGee
I guess.....
But imo its the best explanation for how such a large animal survived.
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish I can understand that, as scientists themselves can't come up with an absolute answer. Anyway, from what I've read, I think it was a tremendous predator ;)
LouieGee 7 months ago
@LouieGee
Yeah, a slow one
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish
Oh, and the population thing was a joke. If population is increasing and we all "blend" with the nature after we die, earth is growing in the process ;D
LouieGee 7 months ago
@LouieGee
You are still not getting it. We come from the earth, and return to it. When we "blend" with it we arent adding anything to it. Were only returning what was already there. ;)
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish People still don't quite understand why gravity even exists--or what truly makes up "mass" for "that matter" (lol). Einstein's theory of Relativity is just THAT--a THEORY. They're still trying to figure out the "quarks" at the subatomic level with colliders as big as Switzerland and they aren't getting anywhere. This video could make more progress than "physicists" have in decades... ;-)
AndradaDacia 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndradaDacia
lol whatever you say
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@AndradaDacia If earth was growing then gravity would not be the only evidence. If earth grew its elliptical orbit would be greatly effected. In short, we would have long grown outside our Goldilocks zone necessary for us to survive :P. Im afraid this video wont make any progress straying from the scientific method.
Ciao' ;)
fromstart2finish 7 months ago
@fromstart2finish What if the PROVEN law of environmental adaptation were to supercede the theoretical "Goldilocks Zone"? ;-)
AndradaDacia 7 months ago
@AndradaDacia
Highly unlikely....but if some scientists came up jwith evidence that it did then EE would probably hold some ground. But its impossible so it wont....
fromstart2finish 6 months ago
@fromstart2finish but then how do you explain everything contained within this universe started off as a tiny particle ? we certainly got something from a seemingly nothing there.
G20GAN 6 months ago
@G20GAN
The tiny particle you are referring to is i assume the big bang. Well a few of the first celestial bodies in the universe were stars. Planets COME from the remnants of stars after going supernova. I dont see how EE applies. If it was true that "tiny particle" would have just become a bigger mass. Not explode and give birth to an entire universe filled with celestial bodies that would grow big for no reason.
fromstart2finish 6 months ago
@G20GAN An INFINITELY DENSE cosmic particle is vastly different from a planet.
jreed136 1 month ago
@fromstart2finish How can you know the gravity of the earth from day one.
Also can the earth expand without increasing its mass.
I'm not asking rhethorically. You seem to know something about this
subject and would love to hear you elaborate more.
Thank you, your input will be appreciated.
fntime 6 months ago
@fntime
No ,this is just nonsense. This video implies that the earth has the same properties like a balloon. Stretchy surface and hollow on the inside.Which is false. planets do not work like that. And on another note, if the earth was growing, wouldnt there also be earth shrinking? EE is nothing more than pseudoscience....
fromstart2finish 6 months ago
@fntime
Look at it this way, if the earths mass increased as a result its gravitational properties would also change. If this was true then life on earth would look very different. Animals would be wide and close to the ground to compensate for the obviously tremendous amount of gravity that would exist if the earth continued to grow. The entire solar system would be ruined if planets could just grow for no reason.
fromstart2finish 6 months ago
@fromstart2finish
there is no law of "conservation of mass" go take a real physics class, but i agree that this video is total bullshit
MrBheem 4 months ago
@MrBheem
WHAT THE-so all the things i was taught about mass was inaccurate?!?
fromstart2finish 4 months ago
@fromstart2finish
you can only have conservation of mass within a closed system, once you start getting into quantum mechanics you learn that matter is simply a form of energy that can be transformed, and is not necessarily conserved. For example when they use particle accelerators. When the particle gets really close to the speed of light, it starts to gain a lot of mass as more and more energy is pumped into the accelerating particle. This however is not proof of this vid
MrBheem 4 months ago
@MrBheem
okay i get it....
fromstart2finish 4 months ago
@fromstart2finish mass != volume, also newton != earth cannot possibly grow...
kjort 3 months ago
@fromstart2finish
You are right, if we accept the standard physics model. However, there are experiments involving liquid or solid metals which have resulted in excess energy, neutrons, deuterium, and helium 3. These are products that can only occur from nuclear processes! Since their environment is cool compared to millions of degrees it is known as Cold Fusion. If cold fusion is a real phenomenon then it can explain the Earth's expansion.
simmagnus 3 months ago
@simmagnus Cold fusion isn't just spontaneous and it doesn't apply to all material. Sorry. Physics alone denies this ridiculous claim.
jreed136 1 month ago
@fromstart2finish we dont know that.
are u saying when earth was forming from a gaseous ball of star matter that it was the same mass?
uh. don't think so buddy.
of course it grew, its not like we have limited supplies!
the gravity helps to explain why creatures were so much bigger back then
(and YES OXYGEN.SURE.but oxygen levels have yet to be exclusively correlated to the scale of animals, because its the same gradient. oxygen has been slowly falling, and gravity has been slowly growing :P)
H0B0J03 1 month ago
@H0B0J03
I think you misunderstand the type of "growing" that im talking about and is getting the criticism. Yes, eons ago the earth was steadily growing bigger. But not from inflating like a balloon as the video says. But from collecting asteroids in its orbit. Its not that hard to see that EE theory is bogus :/
fromstart2finish 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SCHMALZ1966 damn kneel adams, it's really gotta bite for you that I figured out who you were based on only 2 of your posts. You're my bitch kneeladamsdotcom, and I'm gonna pimp yer punkass out to the creatards and ufologists and the like.
skoockum 8 months ago
@SCHMALZ1966 ...lucky for you neal adams, that YT doesn't filter out idiots, crackpots or whackjob twits. Very lucky indeed.
skoockum 8 months ago
@skoockum As I mentioned before, this is not to be discussed with any Jack and Joe. Unfortunately, this is one of the side effects of socialized information; it normally falls prey to those who are not ready for it. Please, gentleman, save your foul mouth to your football games. There you can certainly "apply your scientific background."
SCHMALZ1966 8 months ago
@SCHMALZ1966 you said that I "can certainly "apply your scientific background" .. "at football games".
Funny... I never mentioned having a "scientific background". I did however point out that your claim that "'expanding earth' has a lot of support in top scientific communities" is a lie so blatant & ridiculous that even the Creationists are having a good larf about it.
You're right NAdams, your average Jacks and Joes are far too intellegent to fall for your Flat Earth's Retarded Cousin Theory
skoockum 8 months ago
@SCHMALZ1966 you said that I "can certainly "apply your scientific background" .. "at football games".
Funny... I never mentioned having a "scientific background". I did however point out that your claim that "'expanding earth' has a lot of support in top scientific communities" is a lie so blatant & ridiculous that even the Creationists are having a good larf about it.
You're right NAdams, your average Jacks and Joes are far too intellegent to fall for your Flat Earth's Retarded Cousin Theory
skoockum 8 months ago
@SCHMALZ1966 "Gained alot of support in the scientific community" yes certainly, just like astrology has gained alot of support in the field of astronomy, or praying in the field of medicine.
Sarcasm may be implied, silly crackpot you ;)
ueks69 8 months ago 3
@ueks69 xD
skoockum 8 months ago
WATCH THE ARRIVALS!!
pinball281 8 months ago
where exactly is the giant blowing into the earth with a straw?
thinbutfun 8 months ago 2
humourous. But patronizing and incorrect. Weathering of coastlines is caused by rebound? Isostatic rebound does cause cracking, but mountain building?
thinbutfun 8 months ago
FAKE
Axel1797 9 months ago
Utter nonsense! We had a good laugh at the geology institute about your "theory" the other day. You are an april fool.
greenstring1 9 months ago
Comment removed
brandondagel 10 months ago
Seriously? Continental drift is measurable. Since the 70s, the LAGEOS satellites have been measuring the speed and the direction in which the continents are moving to within centimeters. I'm confused about what you are trying to do with this video. Do you have a hidden agenda?
brandondagel 10 months ago
It's amazing how many people still stick to the old theory of 150 years about continental drift.
grandpied 10 months ago
expanding Earth theory makes more sense than Gondwana. If Gondwana existed, all the land mass would have been on one side of the Earth, and the Earth would have spun off its axis. A more balanced, symmetrical movement of the plates, as described in this video, is imho a better explanation.
shanehoustein 10 months ago
@shanehoustein why would the earth have spun off its axis, the crust is relatively insignificant to the actually mass of the earth
kosty1990 10 months ago
@shanehoustein
Spun off its axis? Have you done the math (show it!)?
Unfortunately it seems your knowledge of the earth goes just as far as you can dig. You really think something 30km thick makes a difference on something over 6300km thick? There's crust under the oceans, too (which is denser than continental crust). The density of the crust isn't even 3 times that of water. Just think!
But I fear this is lost on you, because if you really wanted to know, the knowledge is out there since ages
superdau 8 months ago
@shanehoustein haha....you do know, that the earth crust is insignificant to the actual mass of the rest of our planet :)
ueks69 8 months ago
Geologists know where mountains come from, loon.
paleomike8 10 months ago
the thing closest to a scientific theory in this video is the guy blowing in the straw
eugeniobb 10 months ago
If you think THIS is interesting then you need to consider what the Impact and Exit Event theory has to say. The theory is a facinatingly new concept which adopts and refines Plate Tectonics while acknowledging the possibility of SOME of what is in the above video. In my opinion the impact and exit event has expanded our understanding of what causes plate tectonics, and what is likely to happen to Earth in the future. Well worth a read.
cwoods191 11 months ago
this is such bullshit
kyleisreallycool 11 months ago
neal adams is one of the most frustrating people ive had the 'pleasure' of debating.
as a biologist, his theory of dinosaur extinction relating to this is, frankly, horrifying =/
haz020190 11 months ago
Nice work! But you don´t need the dude and the straw. Put arrows pointing outward from the center of the earth. Other wise you will catch sh@t from none believers for that.
zorkmen 1 year ago
this theory of mass expansion could be proven or disproven very easily by studying the orbit of the earth/moon system. just project it back, if we are spiraling outward, the mass of the earth is expanding. Yes it does increase a little due to cosmic dust and other captured meteoroid objects, but not by much, a few hundred tons a day at the most.
livingdeadbtu 1 year ago
@livingdeadbtu The moon is receding from the Earth as it orbits. I assume that means you have all of the evidence you need?
Larsendorf 1 year ago
Gography, the study of maps and mapping systems? - WTF are you guys talking about? Geology? because in context of your sentences, that is the word you are looking for... So the earth is growing because.....the north wind is puffing air into it? Really? So the mass of the earth is increasing from inside? REALLY? because rock will only expand if its mass is increasing or the nuclear core of the earth explodes.
livingdeadbtu 1 year ago
so the theory I just typed could now be true thanks to this theory makes sense now man might want to become interstellar as we may have to leave this could be the 2012 prophecy the eggs going to hatch I now call this theory Avery’s theory 2
bluebeard2011 1 year ago
this theory supports the hollow earth theory as earth is really an egg for a new star that which is the centre earth star I have been notice intelligence in the starts to do with sun dogs and one of which is where 14 stars line up in perfect alignment to create a billions of light years sundog go to my channel and view mystery of heaven this has now added to my theory that we live on a egg and we are the virus that in habits its surface and yes suns move all the time nasa gave me the evidence
bluebeard2011 1 year ago
I'm going to tell you something: JUPITER IS SHRINKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
danieltielas 1 year ago
@voiceofunderstanding a reputable Doctor of Geology with an in DEPTH version of practically the same theory. james maxlow, research him.
H0B0J03 1 year ago
my opinion of both sides - against: if earth is growing, then where is all of this new matter coming from? for: we know the sun is expanding, so perhaps too and in the same way is the earth.
valdemar8 1 year ago
@valdemar8 lol trillions of tonnes of space debris accumulated over billions of years? maybe a relatively recent destruction of a neighboring planet, causing massive amounts of matter to exponentially increase earth's gravity further increasing the amount of matter it attracts? hmmm? i don't know... we ALL don't really know....
H0B0J03 1 year ago
@H0B0J03
you guys are bat shit insane...present some REAL evidence, not ur shitty speculation
Timmay123456789 1 year ago
@Timmay123456789 hey, fuck you, i didn't ask you to believe me, i don't have to prove shit to you
H0B0J03 1 month ago
@valdemar8
Microcosm - Macrocosm
Seed - Tree
Baby - Adult
socratiz 1 year ago
Neal, if you keep spouting this shit in public the only things you will see expanding are the walls of your padded cell!
voiceofunderstanding 1 year ago
@voiceofunderstanding
What are you talking about?
socratiz 1 year ago
a single man proves EVERYBODY else wrong... same old Galileo fallacy. There is no conspiracy. Plate tectonics has been observed, confirmed, analysed, modelled, and fits with physics, geology, chemistry and planetology. The Earth is not expanding, satellites would pick that up, and more importantly the resulting gravitational perturbations would render most of them useless.
geogarfield26 1 year ago
There is an amazing amount of evidence that says the Rockys and the Appalacians were not created at the same time. It's actually impossible when you examine the specific rocks that compose them. And the Appalacians have been subjected to much more erosion then the Rockys which means their much much older. The coast line thing he was talking about was completely made up by Adams, as well as all other of his additions to the Carey's EE theory.
Purcia222 1 year ago
@Purcia222
Completely made up by Adams.. Ohh my god. Thats almost like.. Inventing... or realizing.... hmmmm How Radical!
socratiz 1 year ago
@socratiz You see, when a scientist comes up with a hypothesis he needs to experiment and collect data in the field to test his hypothesis. Adams doesn't test his hypothesized additions to EE, he just makes them up at his computer in his house. He is not a geologist and does not do field work and collect data to confirm or disconfirm his hypotheses. He just makes them up and says they're facts when they are really just untested hypotheses with no scientific basis or data to support them.
Purcia222 1 year ago
@Purcia222
Right. Thank you for that clarification.
socratiz 1 year ago
I was skeptical until I saw the animation. It must be true.
'Course, I also saw an animation of a radio change into a giant robot.....
crabbieappleton 1 year ago
Completely bonkers.
To think there are people nowadays who will still believe this kind of bullshit
Azotadeth 1 year ago 18
@mmiaso & coraltuber-Continents do NOT float, & science DOES say the ocean floor is spreading. Continents can spread a little, for many reasons,i.e. the super-volcano in Yellowstone. As for marine fossils on mt. tops- sure, cause some mountains have been under a sea many times, such as the inland sea in North America once. Several times? Check out the Rocky Mts. Like historical fiction? "Centennial", by James Michener=great Earth facts! The fiction is only about people, not the land.Good read.
Skyehook 1 year ago
@Skyehook mountains were not yet mountains when they were below sea level :) they became mountains when the rock was pushed up.... continents do not float...in water. they "float" on liquid granite... so, yes, they float. we might ask us this question: what does it matter? are we better of when we believe they don't float than when we believe that they do? does it change anything in the human nature? will the word be a better place?
mmiaso 1 year ago
Complete nonsense. If the earth were expanding, all it would do is place more space between continents -- the continents are floating plates, bonehead, they're not like some drawing on a balloon.
coraltuber 1 year ago
@coraltuber
What the heck are you talking about? seriously. Place more space between continents? thats exactly what it did do.
socratiz 1 year ago
because you shouldn't know the earth grows because.... umm.... because you're not to!
mauriciohavok 1 year ago
this canNOT be true. for it makes it impossible for marine fossils to be found in the hihger layers of, for instance, the alpine mountain ridges.... they HAD to be UNDER water once...otherwise there could not be marine life to form those fossils. so was there a moment when the continents where flooded? and why?
mmiaso 1 year ago
@mmiaso The bible says there was a moment when Earth was flooded. The Great Flood. But you'd have to believe the bible to accept that, which I don't. Maybe this guy is a creationist scientist, or just a creationist period.
reedo1703 1 year ago
@reedo1703 Ow, there is evidence enough of flooding in the past.... fossils are formed under huge pressures... the ones in the alpine mountain ridges came from deep and came up later... it is not about believing the bible, it is about looking at the evidence and seeing what is to be seen :-)
mmiaso 1 year ago
@mmiaso I agree completely. I know there have been floods in the past, but not as big as the biblical one claims, which would help this video's argument. Have you heard about the Creationist Museum? They teach that the Grand Canyon was formed within days from the Great Flood, not from millions of years of carving by the Colorado River. I think they believe "god" created the mountains too, not plate tech-tonics. Hilarious.
reedo1703 1 year ago
Neal - I wasn't going to comment, but I am hurt that you used "cat fart videos" as an insult to more than three people. I thought I was the only one! At least 4xThexwin didn't get "go back to your oriental breast message videos". i only found two examples of that insult. People beware: between watching your "cat fart" videos and asking legitimate questions about this theory, Neal will block, ban and insult you. As well he should, this is a $400,000.00 project!
mrlungsballs 1 year ago
nealadamsdotcom What do you define as blurred? How large is large enough - what is the minimum diameter/mass of an object to start expansion? How can some gasses still be on some planets like Venus - but have no water? Why did the solar wind just blow the water away? Is water a by-product of the expansion mechanism? If the Earth is expanding @ 25" per year - why do we measure the moon (via laser from earth) moving away @ 1.49"/yr from us? Wouldn't the reality be 1.49"+12.5 inches (25"/2)?
mrlungsballs 1 year ago
Youn forgot the wee Twilight Zone intro bit :D
GeorgesVlogsTV 1 year ago
We need to find this fellow sucking and blowing magma into the earth and have a chat with him. I would think he would be easy to find -- he would leave a pretty big shadow.
DURound 1 year ago
For those of you that think it is not possible for the earth to grow, maybe you forgot the current THEORY of plate tectonics. It pretty much concludes that PANGAEA was one huge continent roughly 200 million years ago, using the current theory this means one side of the planet was land, and the other side was water. Do you honestly think that is a better theory then maybe saying the world was all one continent(somewhat underwater though) and that they spread apart equally? Humanity = Ignorance
TTribaLL 1 year ago
@TTribaLL
Yes I honestly think that current scientific theory makes way more sense than planets that grow and matter (water) coming from nowhere.
It's an imaginative idea, but it's not supported by empirical data.
didjabringadidjalong 1 year ago
@didjabringadidjalong
Planets growing.. Yes, how strange... Imagine. GROWING! hahah
One day they will tell us that these massive trees we see all around us are made from.... Tiny Seeds! hahaha CRAZY
socratiz 1 year ago
@socratiz - even stranger, these brilliant scientists will claim the whole universe started from a single point and "expanded" from nothing (and is expanding to this day)....CRAZY indeed! I totally see how they can reconcile their 100% certainty that the Universe is expanding right now with their derision of a very sound theory that the Earth itself might also be expanding....makes perfect sense in the nuthouse of Academia
TruBlueRepublicanSue 1 year ago
Comment removed
AceBean27 11 months ago
@socratiz You are comparing apples and oranges here. Trees and seeds are biology. Earth is geography. We know EXACTLY what causes trees to grow from seeds. Other than some "fancy" computer animations, there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. The only thing that Adams is proving here is that, with some technology and conviction, you can make a couple of sheep follow you anywhere.
ninjaphile 1 year ago
@ninjaphile
Earth is Geography ehh. Earth is a living system. Alive, Consciousness.
Geography...... What a compartmentalized way of looking at it. No wonder your perspective is so limited.
socratiz 1 year ago
@socratiz Oh geez... Have you studied science in any way other than this "Mother Gaia" phooey that you just spat at me? Earth is not alive or conscious. There is a very BIG distinction between biology and geography...I shouldnt even have to explain it. My perspective is not limited, it is realistic. Comparmentalized thinking in this sense is not a bad thing. It is your broad and liberal thinking that is the limiting factor here.
This theory is poppycock, plain and simple.
ninjaphile 1 year ago
@ninjaphile
Whether u took what I said out of context intentionally or unintentionally is beyond me, Either way, I said that ur compartmentalized view of the Earth as being purely Geographical is ur number 1 flaw. I obviously did not say that Biology is the same as Geography. Duh. :)
Then u go on 2 say that the earth is not alive or conscious? hehe. Ok buddy. U have so much 2 learn. Thats awesome because ur going to experience a major transformation in ur perspective once you realize it.
socratiz 1 year ago
@socratiz Ohhhh... You're right. Suddenly I understand!
I understand that you are on drugs.
There is no "major trasformation" epiphany. Earth is not alive or conscious. If you can explain it to me in any logical way, I will mail you a cookie. Until then, smoke on.
Also, the earth being alive has nothing to do with this "growing earth" theory, which I THOUGHT was the most laughable thing I had ever heard... until you told me the Earth was alive...
ninjaphile 1 year ago
@TTribaLL Yes Plate tectonics =proven theory. Expanding Earth(c)=failed hypothesis.
mrlungsballs 1 year ago
are you saying that the earth hat flattened?
ethanizabunny 1 year ago
LMFAO!!!!!! NICE PARODY
JetpackNinjaDinosaur 1 year ago
Look, don't get all bent about Neal Adams. The guy makes comic books for a living. He's supposed to be creative. So he's taken his creativity to the point where he's a conspiracy theorist. He's just a crazy old man. Besides, if the Earth is expanding, why isn't my lawn getting bigger?
NateSummersNateGrey 1 year ago
@NateSummersNateGrey CONSPIRACY THEORIST? lmao. Try understanding the definition of the term: CONSPIRACY. lmfao. what a douche bag.
thomasmoonman 1 year ago
@NateSummersNateGrey
The question you should be asking is: If the world is expanding along with everything on it, then why is your brain capacity shrinking?
socratiz 1 year ago
Chuck Norris is humping a volcano filling the Earth with his cum.
VinnyVanYiffy 1 year ago
How does tectonic plate theory explain mountain ranges that are nowhere near plate boundaries? + The idea that little India drives up against Asia causing mountain ranges ONLY on the Asian plate all because of a convection current underneath is fallacious - why does India not buckle?
wokenup100 1 year ago
Neal Adams in basically saying that there are no Plate Tectonics, which is BULLSHIT. If there are no Plate Tectonics, how do Earthquakes occur? Explain that Mr. Neal "I know everything about anything" Adams.
Frankthegb 1 year ago
he would probably explain it away by saying that the normal faulting of the mountain belt would cause seismic activity. what the theory cannot explain is the Andes, caused by subduction related volcanism. The subducting oceanic slab has been imaged which completely blows his argument out of the water!
metfan89 1 year ago
True that.
Frankthegb 1 year ago
Comment removed
wokenup100 1 year ago
No Neal Adams does admit there are continental plates and they do move, but their movement corresponds with the growth of the planet rather that constant shifting.
The planet like the stars and the star matter it is comprised of is growwing.
The universe is expanding.
Red shift, dude. Red shift. Doesn't it all make sense now?
Tom101229 1 year ago
omg his explanation demands earthquakes, why do you suggest his theory is suspect? earthquakes
datzfast 1 year ago
@Frankthegb Based on this theory, earthquakes would occur because of the deformation/flattening of the earth's surface due to it's expansion - Earthquakes don't exclusively occur on tectonic fault lines, they occur everywhere regardless of what theory you support.
wokenup100 1 year ago
This video makes sense to me.
I find it a much more convincing discription of the formation of mountians then land masses crashing into each other.
swusinich 2 years ago
are you serious? mountain formation through continent-continent collision like the formation of the himalayan region is so intuitive. Also, the himalayas arent on the fringes of the continental land mass, they are quite a long distance in from where the tip of India is. Second to that, you can find thrust faulting in that region which can only happen if the there was compression of india into Asia. not to mention ophiolites obducted onto Aisa from the former tethys sea. enough said....
metfan89 1 year ago
@metfan89 How can India being so small cause mighty Asia to buckle with no effect on the Indian plate whatsoever? Are we to believe that convection current in the mantle causes this small Island to buckle Asia? It's like a sea current causing a rowing boat causing an ocean liner to tip over. I've never understood how these convection current can be so strong relative to the size and mass of land.
wokenup100 1 year ago
@wokenup100 well without going into it further the simple answer is that the indian landmass has been deformed. differences in lithologies(the make up of the rock) govern how the plates react to collision. Also, while convection currents move the plates, subduction of the indian plate is the reason for the collision rather than convection. on a side note. do you really think that all of the scientists working over the past couple of hundred years have got it all wrong?
metfan89 1 year ago
@metfan89 Plate tectonic theory is not 200 years old - Am I prepared to accept that an entire scientific community could be completely wrong - well as history has shown - we get it wrong all the time!
wokenup100 1 year ago
@wokenup100 correct, it isnt two hundred years old but geoloical work has been done for hunderds of years. you are right in saying that we have been wrong in the past, i wouldnt say all the time but whatever. there are degrees of incorrectness, the chance of us being THAT incorrect is low, especially seeing as subduction can be modelled and plate movement can be measured by satellites. so many aspects dont make sense in neils theory.
metfan89 1 year ago
@wokenup100 for a good illustration of what i mean of "degrees of incorrectness" please have a look at "The Relativity of Wrong" by C0nc0rdance. its a very good video.
metfan89 1 year ago