Conspiracy of science: the Earth is growing

[dariorpl]

(mods feel free to move if this isn't the correct subforum)

I originally watched this in 2011 and was very interested by it. I still am. I'm really bad with geometry and even worse with geology. But the idea that continents move the way they taught me in school, never made sense to me.

What do you all think? Is this guy on to something?

Neal Adams - Science: 01 - Conspiracy: Earth is Growing!

I can't tell if he's using tricks to make you believe that they fit the way he says. Like I said, I'm really bad with geometry, and big jigsaw puzzles are hard for me. And that's in 2D. In 3D they seem a lot more complex even. Still, a lot of what he says makes sense to me. If you're interested, he has a series of videos, the one on Europa, a moon of Jupiter was particular interesting. And then there was one on our own moon, though the images used were low quality in that one. And the one where he claims to disprove the pangea theory simply by using math, was also very interesting.

I don't know if he's claiming that growth happens by surface area, by volume or by mass, or all of the above. But I think he's not saying that growth happens at a constant rate, or that it's happening right now, just that it happens in some occasions. And I don't know if the ramnifications on science as a whole would be as severe as he claims, but maybe they would be, I don't know.

[cherimoya_kid]

So what would counteract gravity to make it grow in volume? The Earth does increase in mass over time, but that's very, VERY slow, and is caused by meteorites and meteorite dust.

[dariorpl]

I don't know. Maybe the way we think of gravity is wrong. Gravity the way it's explained either by Newtonian physics or special relativity never made a lot of sense to me. And magnetic fields made even less sense. However, some of this has to be correct, if scientists could manage to get nuclear power plants working.

[dariorpl]

I mean the pangea theory is like, ok, we see all these continents, and some of them clearly fit (like South America clearly fits with Africa), so we're going to assume that at one point in the past, our planet had only one continent, and this continent split and is moving all over the place.

But if a continent is just a part of the planet's surface that is further away (higher, from our perspective) from the core than the rest (which is covered under ocean water), why do we automatically assume that it's the continents that must be moving? None of this makes sense to me. The only thing that makes sense is what this guy is saying.

Maybe he's crazy, and maybe I am too for considering this. But I think he's on to something. I can't explain how it happens (the growth), or when it happened (it could've happened during and right after the Big Bang, if there was one, for all I know), but it makes perfect sense that continents got the way they are because they're being pushed away by new surface that is coming out of the core, or coming out of somewhere.

[cherimoya_kid]

I mean the pangea theory is like, ok, we see all these continents, and some of them clearly fit (like South America clearly fits with Africa), so we're going to assume that at one point in the past, our planet had only one continent, and this continent split and is moving all over the place.

But if a continent is just a part of the planet's surface that is further away (higher, from our perspective) from the core than the rest (which is covered under ocean water), why do we automatically assume that it's the continents that must be moving? None of this makes sense to me. The only thing that makes sense is what this guy is saying.

Maybe he's crazy, and maybe I am too for considering this. But I think he's on to something. I can't explain how it happens (the growth), or when it happened (it could've happened during and right after the Big Bang, if there was one, for all I know), but it makes perfect sense that continents got the way they are because they're being pushed away by new surface that is coming out of the core.

We know how old certain sections of the ocean floor are, based on weathering and magnetic orientation of the atoms in the rocks. There's nothing in current geology that doesn't fit the standard theories in terms of mass or size of the Earth, as far as I know. 

[goodsamaritan]

I appreciate the animation and the observation of the video maker!
Kudos for a sharp eye and honest observation.
What I say is:

- observation FIRST.
- figure out your hypothesis later.

Most people in the old days...

- dogma / hypothesis they claim as theory first
- observations later cherry picked to fit dogma above.

[cherimoya_kid]

I appreciate the animation and the observation of the video maker!
Kudos for a sharp eye and honest observation.
What I say is:

- observation FIRST.
- figure out your hypothesis later.

Most people in the old days...

- dogma / hypothesis they claim as theory first
- observations later cherry picked to fit dogma above.

Mass doesn't randomly show up out of nowhere. Calculations of the Earth's mass are VERY precise now, because we can study how the Earth interacts gravitationally with the moon and Sun very precisely. Nobody, AFAIK, has detected any increase in mass or volume beyond the usual meteorite process.

[dariorpl]

This is the one I mentioned where he uses math/physics to disprove the pangea theory:

Neal Adams - Science: 10 - Proof Positive! Earth Grows!


And the following is the one on Europa:

Neal Adams - Science: 05 - Conspiracy: Europa is Growing!

[goodsamaritan]

Mass doesn't randomly show up out of nowhere. Calculations of the Earth's mass are VERY precise now, because we can study how the Earth interacts gravitationally with the moon and Sun very precisely. Nobody, AFAIK, has detected any increase in mass or volume beyond the usual meteorite process.

If the scientists cannot detect growth today... it does not mean there was no possible growth or shrinkage in the past.

What if growth or shrinkage happened in spikes / punctuated times and then plateaus to stagnant... what if we are measuring today at stagnant times?

I'm not siding with any hypothesis.  Let's welcome all hypotheses.

BTW, the Europa video was eyebrow raising!

[cherimoya_kid]

If the scientists cannot detect growth today... it does not mean there was no possible growth or shrinkage in the past.

What if growth or shrinkage happened in spikes / punctuated times and then plateaus to stagnant... what if we are measuring today at stagnant times?

I'm not siding with any hypothesis.  Let's welcome all hypotheses.

BTW, the Europa video was eyebrow raising!

What would the mechanism be for growth?

[JeuneKoq]

What's telling us that the tectonic plate that left a gash in this part of the moon isn't now covering up a part of another plate, creating a hill or a mountain somewhere else? What I mean is that the moon might not be expanding, and tectonic plates might simply be moving around the surface and leaving some gashes here and there.

I'm not necessarily saying that the moon or planet could not be expanding. Maybe the insides of the Earth are producing gazes that puts pressure on the crust and makes it expand. I don't know, could there be gazes inside planets, or only magma and a solid core?

[ys]

This is the silliest thing ever.  Earth is not a rubber balloon.
He does not explain anything.  What are the forces that blowing up the earth? Where is the water came from when it was small and all covered with land?  Cannot be under the land since rock is much denser than water.

Plate movements have been measured precisely by GPS.  It is a fact that some plates move towards each other.  And he is saying there is no such thing.

[JeuneKoq]

Where did the water come from when it was small and all covered with land?  Cannot be under the land since rock is much denser than water.

Good point!

[goodsamaritan]

Where is the water came from when it was small and all covered with land?

The electric universe guys say water is continuously being manufactured with the earth's atmosphere interacting with space and the sun.

There are also ancient accounts of great floods with continuous rains.  The electric universe guys say cosmic induced rain.

Observe that there are many newly discovered ancient cities, structures, pyramids underwater... the ocean levels had risen.

What is important is that observations are first made. (Horse - Yes, the water is there and rising... it has to be coming from somewhere.)

Then you try to figure it out later on with your scientific guesses. (Carriage.  Not the other way around.)

[dariorpl]

Good point!

That is actually a bad point because most scientists agree that the Earth was likely not originally formed with water on it, but rather picked it up over time.

[goodsamaritan]

What would the mechanism be for growth?

Observation must first be made that yes the earth does indeed seem to be growing according to the video.

As for the mechanism, I haven't explored that yet.  But if we are curious enough to find out, some of us or others will come up with scientific guesses.