It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is Earth GROWING in size?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
From C2C, Youtube user: "theduderinok"

Art chatted with comic book legend Neal Adams about his research on a new model for the Universe and his theory that the Earth is growing. According to Adams, our planet was once only a quarter of its current size, with continents covering most of the world. If one reduces the ocean areas, he explained, the continents fit together perfectly on that smaller globe.

A smaller Earth would also have a corresponding reduction in gravity, Adams proposed. The effect of lower gravity on a smaller planet is what Adams thinks caused the dinosaurs to grow so large. Reduced gravity would not only affect the physical structure of dinosaurs but their movement as well. Dinosaurs had long, down-facing legs and moved more like mammals than contemporary reptiles, Adams noted. This allowed dinosaurs to achieve a speed that would not have been possible under present Earth gravity, he said.

Adams also talked about the physics behind an expanding Earth, citing Carl David Anderson's cosmic ray experiments in which a positron was "created out of nothing." He believes this kind of research shows that matter is in continuous creation in the universe, and helps explain how our planet keeps growing.

This theory ties in real well with the "Gia Theory"! That EVERYTHING in this universe is a LIVING consciousness and are always in constant evolution!


-------------------------------
Link to part 1 of 12 interview!

youtube.com...

-------------------------------
Video

youtube.com...
---------------------------------

More videos on different planets at Neal Adams website:

www.nealadams.com...


Very logical explanation of our planet and our solar system, yet so obvious main stream science refuses to accept this as an explanation! If they do, they have to admit that everything we teach/learn in our educational system are ALL up for debate! But isn't that a TRUE definition of science? to question the unquestionable!




posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
have you seen the new Mercury photos. There have been comments that it appears to have shrunken. I have seen those videos on youtube/etc. and they appear to make a point but I havent analyzed them for accuracy nor have I seen a scientific critique of the work. There is so much we don't know. I think it is exciting to be living now learning more about the universe than our ancestors could have dreamed of.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki
have you seen the new Mercury photos. There have been comments that it appears to have shrunken. I have seen those videos on youtube/etc. and they appear to make a point but I havent analyzed them for accuracy nor have I seen a scientific critique of the work. There is so much we don't know. I think it is exciting to be living now learning more about the universe than our ancestors could have dreamed of.


Well said, although there are lot of our history that proves that OLD cultures knew more about our stars and planets. For instance the Aztecs, Mayans, etc... what they discovered thousands of years ago, with no advanced technology... we are just discovering! Even all religions were at one time based on astronomy. I think we used to know more before, but somehow all vanished over time and now we are starting to rediscover what we used to know! Call it cycle of life



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
An interesting theory. What's it to do with aliens and ufo's? I'm sorry I don't get the connection? Um, don't this and Gaia Theory have a forum more suited?

It is an interesting theory though.


If one does a search in the Google search box on the ATS page with the term "expanding earth" there is plenty of discussion that this could be added to that already exist.

Vic



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by V Kaminski
An interesting theory. What's it to do with aliens and ufo's? I'm sorry I don't get the connection? Um, don't this and Gaia Theory have a forum more suited?

It is an interesting theory though.


If one does a search in the Google search box on the ATS page with the term "expanding earth" there is plenty of discussion that this could be added to that already exist.

Vic


It was one of my first posts and I guess I posted in a wrong category and not sure how to change it now



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I've mentioned this before elsewhere on the forums, but I'll say it again here since it's the topic. I've got a far more mundane explanation for Earth growing in size.

Accretion

In science, accretion is a process in which the size of something gradually increases by steady addition of smaller parts.


That's point number one.

Point number two is cosmic dust


At the Earth, generally, an average of 40 tons per day of extraterrestrial material falls to the Earth[1].


Think of how many trillion tons of stuff would have had accumulated since the beginning.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I've mentioned this before elsewhere on the forums, but I'll say it again here since it's the topic. I've got a far more mundane explanation for Earth growing in size.

Accretion

In science, accretion is a process in which the size of something gradually increases by steady addition of smaller parts.


That's point number one.

Point number two is cosmic dust


At the Earth, generally, an average of 40 tons per day of extraterrestrial material falls to the Earth[1].


Think of how many trillion tons of stuff would have had accumulated since the beginning.




good points you brought up, by my understanding is all stars/comments are growing size. Some say Sun has grown in size which now starting to be a major cause of Global warming! Interesting theories!



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
"Growing" and "Expanding" are different things.

Yes, the earth is growing, as debris from space rains into our atmosphere constantly.

But no, the earth is not expanding, as this theory purports. It's a bad attempt to take plate tectonics and apply it to a dippy and bad reinterpretation of the Flood myth.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I think the Earth was covered mainly by land at one stage, becuase the sea levels were lower, due to the planet having a cooler climate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this makes more sense than the Earth expanding




posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 


The best "evidence" I heard of was that some of the dinosaurs that were meat eaters had to hunt for meat, but to this date physics of the recovered bones proves otherwise. Either some of the dinosaurs were not eat meeter's and if they were it would impossible to chance an animal and turn 90 degree in a drop of a dime as they would snap their neck based on the weight of their head. So one and pretty much only way they could have done this was if earth was smaller with lower gravity. Based on this theory earth was 1/4 of it size 200 million years ago and so must have it's gravity!



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I'm well aware of Neal Adams hypothesis - which largely ignores most current geological knowledge.

Whilst the continents 250million years ago may well have fitted together better on a smaller Earth, he fails to explain how they fitted together in completely different configuration on several occasions priors to that. His theory also fails to explain why the Earth is not currently expanding, nor why continents are moving relative to one another in the manner we know them to be doing.

There is also no physical method whereby mass can increase. So if the Earth were once smaller, it would have been denser and therefore gravity exactly the same as today.

Nice idea. Doesn't work.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I have been following the theory for a while now, and it hit me today that if the mass of planets is constantly increasing, then the orbit must be increasing as well.

If this is the fact then the other planets may be experiencing orbit changes as well.
For instance, it is now coming to light that mars has had flowing water in abundance in the past. Now the ice only melts under rare conditions. In the past though the evidence of massive oceans or flows are abundant. Could this have more to do with Mars simply being a smaller planet thus close to the sun? Also Venus is close to the sun to the point were temperatures are so high life as we know it would have difficulty starting. If Venus is just a bit smaller than the earth in radius it is reasonable to assume its mass may also be smaller. Could it be that as it grows in mass, its orbit will elongate putting it into a area of the solar system that affords it a better balance of solar radiation to support life?

This also raises the question, if the earth is getting heavier, are we moving farther away from the sun as well? Could this explain why 65 million years ago there was a tropical climate and no ice ages?

I find his theory so well thought out. I read the skeptical responses in this thread and I think they are not very well thought out.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I would expect to see lots of filler material on the edges of the tectonic plates, the assumption being that the plates are seperating as the earth expands. So the lava would come up and create ring after ring around the edges of the plates. Never seen or heard of such, have you?

Nope I don't buy the expanding earth story.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
One thing I never understood: if there is so much "erosion" going on, why do we always have to dig down 20, 30, or 40 feet to find ancient cities? Even the sphinx was once covered in sand. Only cities built on top of tall mountains seem to escape this "dig down" pattern.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
I would expect to see lots of filler material on the edges of the tectonic plates, the assumption being that the plates are seperating as the earth expands. So the lava would come up and create ring after ring around the edges of the plates. Never seen or heard of such, have you?

Nope I don't buy the expanding earth story.


His theory does not suggest lava is pushing the earth apart to expand it though!
He suggests that it is slow growth of minerals such as quartz and other structures.
So you point is invalid

[edit on 13-8-2008 by robwerden]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
One thing I never understood: if there is so much "erosion" going on, why do we always have to dig down 20, 30, or 40 feet to find ancient cities? Even the sphinx was once covered in sand. Only cities built on top of tall mountains seem to escape this "dig down" pattern.


Well, erosion is actually causing it...
Stuff falls into disuse, Plants start growing, roots and water and wind crack stone into dirt, allowing more plants to grow over it, plants die, allowing other plants to grow on top of them ...



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


You can look at the official seafloor crustal age map in here: www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Its not that hard to see how the new crust is being created over and over again in the middle of the ocean from the rifts. These are mostly in the middle of the ocean which makes perfect sense as the dust, soil and so forth have had more time to collect and compact into soil, sandstone and so forth on the continents which are also being twisted and torn from the edges causing mountaining for example. As the crust reshapes and recurves itself some parts rip apart while others pushed together. Its a fact that seafloor is spreading all the time from the rifts in the ocean, the official explation how this can happen is that the crust keeps eating itself, although when you look at the crustal age map of the seafloor I fail to see where all this new seafloor is supposed to go in places like around the antarctic for example. To me personally it looks very much like the Earth is very much being pushed outwards and infact growing.

Theres also the small detail that if you look at the seafloor age map you might notice how the older the seafloor gets the less there is of it. I mean if the earth was actually eating its own crust the same pace it is being created, wouldnt there have to about the same amount of the new seafloor as there is older? Looks to me like the newer the seafloor is the more there is of it. Also if the whole pangea was on one side of the earth then why cant we see it on the age map? To me atleast it looks very much like the seafloor is spreading from the rifts and making the Earth grow and the growing seems to be actually speeding up. There is nothing that points towards single island if you look at the age map atleast. Ofcourse you could just say that the evidence has been already eaten up by subduction so we cant see it but the fact remains that the age of the seafloor does not support the current theory of plate tectonics and pangea, unless it wrapped around a smaller earth that is.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


You can look at the official seafloor crustal age map in here: www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Its not that hard to see how the new crust is being created over and over again in the middle of the ocean from the rifts. These are mostly in the middle of the ocean which makes perfect sense as the dust, soil and so forth have had more time to collect and compact into soil, sandstone and so forth on the continents which are also being twisted and torn from the edges causing mountaining for example. As the crust reshapes and recurves itself some parts rip apart while others pushed together. Its a fact that seafloor is spreading all the time from the rifts in the ocean, the official explation how this can happen is that the crust keeps eating itself, although when you look at the crustal age map of the seafloor I fail to see where all this new seafloor is supposed to go in places like around the antarctic for example. To me personally it looks very much like the Earth is very much being pushed outwards and infact growing.

Theres also the small detail that if you look at the seafloor age map you might notice how the older the seafloor gets the less there is of it. I mean if the earth was actually eating its own crust the same pace it is being created, wouldnt there have to about the same amount of the new seafloor as there is older? Looks to me like the newer the seafloor is the more there is of it. To me atleast it looks very much like the seafloor is spreading from the rifts and making the Earth grow and the growing seems to be actually speeding up. Ofcourse you could just say that the evidence has been already eaten up by subduction so we cant see it but the fact remains that the age of the seafloor does not support the current theory of plate tectonics and wandering continents at all.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Actually, the earth is shrinking in size, as the radioactivity of the core of the core of the earth weakens, there isnt enough pressure in the liquid core to stay as liquid, it will cool down and become solid, and in the process contracting earth.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Could it be that the energy of sun is making it grow. Where is all that energy going?? And maybe the water is being created in the process..As the lava is going towards the surface, the water is cooling it down and creating the land under the ocean and the ocean is making that transition smooth.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join