It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Theory: Earth, Moon and other celestial bodies growing?!?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:05 AM
Last night fellow comic fan, benevolent tyrant, sent me a U2U to let me know that Comic artist Neal Adams would be a guest on radio show Coast to Coast.
My first thought was why would Neal Adams be on a show like Coast to Coast?

Neal Adams was on the show to talk about his new model of the universe-- that planets and moons are growing in size.

Please view these four videos. (Don't worry they are not long)

There are more if you are interested in viewing them.

So is the Earth really growing? Was there really no super continent Pangaea?

[edit on 17/3/2006 by Umbrax]

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:26 AM
Honestly, I got about a minute into the third one. The simple answer? No. Just no...

Tomorrow, when it's not nearly 3:30 in the morning and I have to be awake in about 4 hours anymore, I'll attempt to get myself through all of them (though I see no need because his science is just SOOOOOOOO bad in the parts I did watch) and post about it all.

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:39 AM
I wouldn't dismiss Neals' theory --- actually it's not a new theory -- out of hand. If you look at it in total, it's really quite comprehensive and it "simply" explains a lot of things. But, again, it's way too involved to try to attempt to describe his theory here. Visit Neal Adam's Growing Earth Theory to get a more comprehensive view of this theory.

Keep in mind that Neal Adams is practically a legend in the comic book world. He has utilized his talents to illustrate and animate his theory in a fashion which describes his theories in a way that few others could. Even if it's bogus, as a valid theory, it is amazing artwork and it does raise some interesting and valid questions.

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:23 AM
This theory is wrong:

Some reasons is -

1) North America and Europe were moving together at one time.

2) North America used to only consist of the shallow sea (now mid-west) and the eastern seaboard. The Sierra's and everything "West of the Rockies" formed through stages of volcanism. The latest being cascadia.

3) The oceans were never "very shallow".

4) India has moved considerably.

5) Paleomagnetism is consistent with a body of the size of Earth; not a body of changing size. This is probably the most hard core proof I can think of off the top of my head.

6) Africa used to be in the Artic regions.

7) We know the plates are currently moving anyway...there's no reason to assume that an expanding earth model is more correct.

8) The earth cannot become much more compressed than it already is...water especially is non-compressible.

I just don't understand how he can say that "This theory upsets too many apple carts" when Tectonics theory is very new; it was only accepted and given a name in the late 1960s or early 1970s when Paleomagnetism and various deep drillings could prove it's existence.

Gravity research proves there are subducting slabs.

In's very scary and "sad" to see some of the heat flow research which is able to trace ancient slabs; you see these vast ancient crusts now thousands of miles under the earth...decending to a literal oceanic crustal grave yard which surrounds the outer core.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Stratrf_Rus]

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:25 AM
I am not a geologist. I'm not even a scientist (though I must admit that I do watch Star Trek reruns). So it's obvious that I really don't know what to make of Neal Adams' "theories". What is obvious, however, is that Neal raises a lot of questions and he does seem to answer them in the simplest manner -- a manner that makes sense.

I have viewed his animations and, again, they make sense. I have read some of the basic, "accepted", geological theories and, frankly they don't make a lot of sense. When I am confronted by this sort of disparity, I often find myself resorting to the maxim behind Occams' Razor, that is, the simplest explanation is often the truth.

Neal Adam's challenge

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:39 AM
There are estimates of the amount of material that enters the Earth's atmosphere and makes it to the surface as being about 1000 tonnes per annum:

101 Amazing Earth Facts

I'd say the Earth was growing!

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:54 AM
Stratrf_Rus, I appreciate your input here, but your reasons for this theory to be wrong are all based on continental drift theory.

4) India has moved considerably.

According to continental drift theory, yes.

What are your comments on this clip?

8) The earth cannot become much more compressed than it already is...water especially is non-compressible.

That is assuming that water has always been here or has always been between continents. Perhaps (according to growing Earth theory) when the Earth was smaller the water was sitting on top of the land and then fell into the gaps that were caused by the Earth’s growth. Imagine Adam’s models with out water." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:33 PM
1) We can measure a continent's latitudinal movement by paleomagnetism because of magnetic alignments of small particles in a rock. Because of the consistency of these alignments in many rocks; our assumptions are accepted as correct. Thus reconstructions of latitudinal motions have created the models of the break-up of Pangea and the collision of various continents and etc.

We know that Africa is moving about 10cm north every year right now; this motion has created the Atlas Mountains, Alps, the Anatolian mountains and etc.

2) The theory that the entire Earth was covered in water was called "Neptunian theory" and was defeated about 1780s when the proposition of uplift and over-turning of rock-bodies came about.

We realized that a decending ocean didn't deposit the mountains but that the mountains were pushed up. At the time they only had various concepts such as isostacy but now we understand that isostacy is only part of it.

Again; the study of the position of the continental plates in the past comes mostly from paleo-magnetism as well as studying glacial striations and terranes (a similar field of geology; a piece of continental crust largely created fromthe same event) etc.

It's not like they just took cut-outs of continents and moved them around to make them fit like you do in high school earth sciences.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:09 PM
8 reasons, thats alot stratrf_Rus

Be interesting to see an email exchange between you and him......

Its very interesting how all the pieces appear to fit together.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by AdamJ]

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 04:27 PM
Sorry but I don't have the time to go through any of the links, but I just wanted to point out that the Earth is growing in mass, through debris falling into the atmosphere. It's not like it's growing like some orginism or anything, it's sort of like cosmic snow.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Keep in mind that Neal Adams is practically a legend in the comic book world. He has utilized his talents to illustrate and animate his theory in a fashion which describes his theories in a way that few others could. Even if it's bogus, as a valid theory, it is amazing artwork and it does raise some interesting and valid questions.

Nobody disputes his talent, particularly those in the comic book industry. But the man wouldn't know a dipole from a standing wave if you held a gun to his head and said "Explain!"

I'll leave CdrKeenKid to shred it, but the answer is "no" and "Holy Heisenberg, Batman! That's just SO bad that it's... it's... COSMIC!"

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:43 PM
Well I looked through them all, and I have to say this:

Creative, but that's really it.

The only real reason this looks appealing is because of the visual cues. In all respects, why do some areas of Mars, the Earth, or so on grow differently? Shouldn't it happen roughly even everywhere? However, it does not. That is a fundamental flaw. Now, for the moon and Europa we can say differently because it tried to explain it.

Next, why so sudden? According to his theory, with Pangea and all, we know that life existed around the time of Pangea - but the earth was already incredibly ancient by that point! If one extrapolates the time frames to do this, one winds up with a planet that is much too small.

Thirdly, what causes this expansion? I don't see that explained at all. This is a critical issue that would need to be thoroughly explained and then tested before planetary expansion could be taken seriously. If it is expanding, is this new mass? Or old mass? Problem is, we know pretty much that it can't be old mass (unless it was, as mentioned a sort of "crystilization" which wouldn't happen because of the intense heat).

In the end, I think that, unlike how he said "note this cannot be explained without planetary expansion", that it can be explained with another important note on Plate Tectonics - that there are MORE plates that we see! There are submersed plates as well (

Since there are more plates, there more space. It's possible that Pangea, originally, simply had all the surface plates conjoined, and the submersed plates were joined elsewhere.

So, in the end, Neal Adams, sorry bud - but I don't think that's the answer to today's million dollar question.

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:04 PM
I would like to share this video I saw a few years back:

More information can be found here:

God Bless

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 06:01 PM
I just stumbled on this today and found the theory to be very interesting. Poke around on YouTube and you can find more of these. Some even address the moon and Mars. The videos (Previously linked in this thread) on his website don't appear to be working now.

Not only was the video nice, this image of the Earth (minus the water) does appear as if the surface is being stretched apart.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by dbates]

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:33 AM
has this topic died? I found this recently on the web as well and it made me think of a Geode, how it is a rock with a growing crystal with in. Has any real science debunked this growing earth theory yet?

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 09:08 PM
Wow, this makes such a perfect sense. Here is how.

-Energy of the sun is entering the earth and creating the mass inside

-There is an enormous amount of energy thrown at the earth from the sun, where is that energy ending up?

-The proven change in rotation of the earth is the result of this.

-Maybe, just maybe, in the process of energy absorption from sun the water is being created and thus making this process more easy on the planet as lava from the inside is being cooled down at the surface as it creates the new land under the ocean.

-Again, ask your self a very legit question. WHERE IS SUNS ENERGY GOING?

-Maybe the gravity has a lot to do with this.

I feel sorry for the scientific community. They are gonna have to start all over again and admit that earth is not flat. ooops

I am trying to point some attention towards this topic as i think it is of great importance and is way overlooked.

new topics

top topics


log in