"Earth is Expanding" New Model For the Universe - Must See Videos.

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

SOURCE - More vids here.
The case against pangea

First… it’s important to understand that this is the most profound disagreement in all of science in a century and a half… and, even so, it is the tip of the iceberg, the ramifications of this disagreement will change everything we know in science, top to bottom.

To begin with basic stuff.
All science knows…
The earth has two crusts. One…the mostly basalt lower crust or the oceanic crust which is 2 – 4 miles deeper down than the higher upper continental crust. This lower crust, essentially covers the Earth. It … this crust is being made daily at rift cracks that snake around the earth’s mid- oceans. But how could all these rifts continually spread apart…without the Earth growing? Ah….that is the question….isn’t it?


Here is a sample Video on youtube



His website is HERE and he has more videos explaining his theory and examples in the solar system.

This explains global flood, catastrophies, geological formations, and exspecially our lack of human history. imo

[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
i would love to know if it has been debunked yet? i knew about this a while ago and people were trying to debunk it altho it didn't convince me. sounds to me to be very interesting and believable. i think it seems more realistic than what we've been told thus far. very very interesting, love to hear others opinions on this...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jboogienoj
i would love to know if it has been debunked yet?


Yes. Many times.

One word debunks it: Rodinia

How could the continents have previously been joined in a different configuration, before breaking up and then recombining into Pangea?

I like his comment:


the obvious conclusion that Rodinia and Pangea happened at the same time on a smaller Earth


So presumable there were multiple continents? 2 Balticas. 2 Siberias. 2 Amazonias etc etc. Oh, and presumable all dating methods are wrong as well?

Neal Adam's hypothesis is based on a very limited knowledge of Earth's history. He's unaware of Earth history before Pangea and thus ignores it. If his theory is correct, the Earth didn't expand at all for the first 4,250,000,000 years of it's existence! (Since Pangea only began breaking up 250 million year ago)

How does his theory explain England and Scotland once being parts of different continents before they collided as the Iapetus Ocean closed up? Oops, it can't. It can't explain a huge mass of geological evidence.

The other problem is that there's no mechanism for expansions and as far as we know, you can't create matter out of nothing, so where as all the extra mass come from?

Read a proper geology textbook. Then re-read Adams' hypothesis ......



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jboogienoj
i would love to know if it has been debunked yet?



In addition to Essan's post. This "new" model has come up a few times on ATS before. A search for "Neal Adams" should pull up some old threads. Not that there is anything wrong with starting this new one.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
i gotta scratch my head....


isn't this another way of saying the Earth is De-Compressing
as opposed to expanding



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Umbrax
 


Yes, these two come to mind
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Basically the whole idea makes no sense, you would need more material to increase something in size like that, and it isn't there. Also it completely ignores subduction zones, which destroy the old plate material. Sure the continents fit together, if you reverse all the directions of plate boundaries. You don't need to shrink the planet.

Even if you had less mass then, that would mean the orbit of the moon has changed as well, since the radius of it's orbit is a function of the mass of Earth. And for it to expand that also goes against gravity, and doesn't really explain fold mountains.

Also, continents aren't plates.

So basically, total rubbish.


[edit on 3-1-2008 by apex]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
more material tho? sometimes mixing materials and life itself creates expansion and if earth is alive why can't it expand? we expand. maybe the earth consumes gasses and liquids as such. then grows. come on this debunking is weak. i don't think it very good debunking it's more pulling and reaching than anything. it's worth discussing further no doubt. i'm not ready to toss it out the window yet.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by jboogienoj
i would love to know if it has been debunked yet?


Yes. Many times.

One word debunks it: Rodinia

Ha ha ha, Thats Rodinia. Terrible theory, makes no sense. lol. nice.
Occums Razor.





How could the continents have previously been joined in a different configuration, before breaking up and then recombining into Pangea?


Since we dont have a time machine,Pangea is a theory too, a flawed one aswell.

I like his comment:


the obvious conclusion that Rodinia and Pangea happened at the same time on a smaller Earth



So presumable there were multiple continents? 2 Balticas. 2 Siberias. 2 Amazonias etc etc. Oh, and presumable all dating methods are wrong as well?


People thought the earth was flat and faught to the death to hold on to that lunacy.


Neal Adam's hypothesis is based on a very limited knowledge of Earth's history. He's unaware of Earth history before Pangea and thus ignores it. If his theory is correct, the Earth didn't expand at all for the first 4,250,000,000 years of it's existence! (Since Pangea only began breaking up 250 million year ago)


Thats his whole basis of his theory. Pangea is BUNK, so i am sure he is aware of Pangea and didnt ignore it at all.


How does his theory explain England and Scotland once being parts of different continents before they collided as the Iapetus Ocean closed up? Oops, it can't. It can't explain a huge mass of geological evidence.



WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?! England and scotland are highlands and the lowlands have been submerged since 8000 b.c. Conclusion: They are the same continent.

I recommend you pick up an atlas and a geography book.




The other problem is that there's no mechanism for expansions and as far as we know, you can't create matter out of nothing, so where as all the extra mass come from?


DO you think the universe just appeared in its present state?

all ready for habitation, full of trees with pretty oceans and beaches... ummm


Read a proper geology textbook. Then re-read Adams' hypothesis ......


I did thats why im promoting these videos for consumption.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
So if this theory was true, and all the land masses were all connected when the size of Earth was smaller, then where did all the ocean water come from? He said in the video that the trees were the same on the northern hemisphere because they were connected at one time, so the water could not have covered the globe, which is what would happen if we could shrink the globe back to the size it started. The oceans would deepen and cover the globe.

This theory doesn't make sense. The video shows the continents spreading apart and the oceans just magically appear.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Ha ha ha, Thats Rodinia. Terrible theory, makes no sense. lol. nice.
Occums Razor.


Same can be said of expanding earth. Where does the extra material come from, space? All very well but you need rock, not gas.



How could the continents have previously been joined in a different configuration, before breaking up and then recombining into Pangea?


Since we dont have a time machine,Pangea is a theory too, a flawed one aswell.

A theory with scientific evidence to back it up, that is widely accepted. In fact, it is proposed that the continents will merge together again, Pangea Ultima


People thought the earth was flat and fought to the death to hold on to that lunacy.


But they had no idea of scientific theory, or any proof for their argument. Plus, satellites in orbit kind of eliminated any possibility of them being right.


Thats his whole basis of his theory. Pangea is BUNK, so i am sure he is aware of Pangea and didnt ignore it at all.


How is Pangea 'Bunk'? It's widely accepted as happening, and saying it is bunk with no proof does nothing.


WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?! England and scotland are highlands and the lowlands have been submerged since 8000 b.c. Conclusion: They are the same continent.
I recommend you pick up an atlas and a geography book.


Why don't you? You are ignoring the Great Glen Fault, which shows that the top of Scotland was indeed not always connected to the rest of Britain. And what lowlands? There are lowlands around Britain, and they aren't underwater. And Britain isn't a Continent.

Britain also used to be underwater, for example the Oxford Clay.



DO you think the universe just appeared in its present state?

all ready for habitation, full of trees with pretty oceans and beaches... ummm
Who said it did that?


Looking at another of his videos, he states that it is silly that India split from Africa or wherever, on a pretext that it floats over the land there. It got pushed by tectonic activity from the divergent boundary even his images show. And how else can fold mountains form? There's basically only two ways to form a mountain, that and volcanism, or maybe eroding less solid material. If they had always been there, they would be more eroded by several hundred million years of snow and rain and wind.

Also note on some of his videos, islands just suddenly spring out from landmasses as if they are on two paper sheets. It works with paper, but not with land masses.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by apex]

Additionally:

If, as he claims, there is no subduction, explain the earthquakes going on at subduction zones. For example, the Pacific Ring of Fire.


[edit on 4-1-2008 by apex]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
well i'm no scientist and neither are you i'm sure. maybe you are. BUT we can't just put our hands on our hip and go, "where did the water come from"? is it really that far fetched? look at the other planets around us. they are all so different. earth just might be expanding. it might not be. but me as a truth seeking individual, i'm looking for answers. there are a lot of good arguments but nothing convincing on either side really. those lines certainly do seem like stretch marks tho don't they?



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Lets seen now, science tells us the sun will expand on its way out. So thinking further on down the line, why would this not be true for the planets orbiting the sun. Than think about our moons gravitational pull while orbiting the earth and our inner core expanding from cooling. Why not consider the earth expanded into its present state. Perhaps it was a water planet. Cracks formed by expansion, which filled in with water as the planet expanded to what it now is. I could believe this as much as the continents breaking apart and sliding across the surface of the planet. Remember high school science class.... Hot objects shrink, cool objects expand. As for the moon. It could be the catalyst pulling the earth apart to further speed up expansion when it was its closest in the past as the planet cooled.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by WorldShadow
 

Actually most things expand as they heat up, and shrink when they cool, except for water that does expand when it freezes.

From what I have read lately scientist believe that the Earth was covered by water very early. The continents came later when granite was formed and was able to withstand the erosion of water.

The History Channel has a great program called How the Earth was Made which they show occasionally.

A short article from Space.com:
Diamonds Reveal Early Water World of Earth
Longer article from Scientific American:
A Cool Early Earth?



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Hmmm, much to ponder on both sides of the coin here. I disliked the tone of the youtube video, kinda seemed like his answer was the be all and end all. BUT.

I am no scientist, so excuse these thoughts I'm having on this subject.

This is how I am imagining things in my head. Imagine the big bang, and at this time, Perhaps "Dark Energy" or whatever it may be is like a tightly packed concrete slab, encasing all matter. This massive compression eventually shatters, such as can be seen when loading up concrete in a compression test. When it shatters, particles fly outwards. Now, imagine that the matter previously constricted by this 'dark energy' is able to spread further and faster apart as the 'dark energy' thins out, becoming more like a soup. Since its expanding into an empty vacuum, there is no friction (perhaps?) thus the further it expands, the thinner 'dark energy' becomes and the normal matter is able to speed up.
This would account for the universe expanding, and accelerating. Standard gravity would still apply over billions of years, planets could still form, but as they race away, the pressure of 'dark energy' binding around all matter is thinned out allowing matter to expand and seemingly grow???

Perhaps, water, being a unique type of liquid, is able to expand more easily when faced with less resistance of 'dark energy'? Maybe this is how the oceans grew much faster to fill the voids??


As I said, I'm no scientist, and I'm not sure what science has really discovered about 'dark energy'? Maybe I'm calling it the wrong thing? If someone could think about my theory and perhaps explain it more succinctly I would appreciate it!

I'm proud of it though, and thus will rename myself Einstein the Tooth.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





top topics
 
5

log in

join