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.

 

Video:Conspiracy of Science-The Earth Is In Fact Growing?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I stumbled across this quite interesting video. It brings up a lot of interesting points and visuals. this is making me wonder what the world is going to look like ages from now. If it's true, I wonder why the government or Illuminati would throw away so much history out the window, just to cover this wonderful fact up, and for what?

this video is a Must See!




[edit on 24-8-2008 by Pocky]

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Pocky]




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
That's very interesting, thanks for posting this,

I don't really know much about geography, but it seems to put forward quite a good theory.

What I will say though is the way in which he shows the land masses separating wasn't entirely accurate as I remember, for example India was not connected to Asia back then, it moved from elsewhere and connected on, hence the Himalayas from the impact. Also, he doesn't explain how we still have growing mountain ranges and volcanoes if there is no subduction. I was under the impression they were caused by it, as on the West Coast of South America.

Still, interesting material.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GrooveCat
 


I would assume , if the earth is growing, mass land is compiling itself and forming heat. So there must be more magma and volcanoes happening.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Perhaps, but still if the Earth was growing the mass needs to come from somewhere. How is the magma in the Earth being replaced as it creeps up and turns to rock if not for subduction?

The other thing I was wondering about this:

If there were only shallow seas originally, where did all that water come from to fill the vast oceans?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GrooveCat
 


My theory is that water comes from intense heat that becomes steam and gets rained down. If there were other creatures roaming the land, it seemed they lived in a dessert like environment. Human creatures body fluids could have evaporated over time and created H20 that accumulated int eh skies and rained down until eventually becoming oceans. Something like that.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Hello. I'm sort of an armchair geologist, but I would like to share my thoughts on this very interesting topic.

It seems to me that the Earth is no different than any other living organism living on her surface ... namely humans. Much like the human body, the Earth acquires part (or perhaps all) of its mass from foreign bodies just as humans do. She "consumes" comets, space dust, meteor's, and other foreign matter that are summoned by her gravitational pull, and adds it to her body...hence the natural growth we see in the video above. By comparison, humans also need external sources of sustenance in order to grow and thrive. On a daily basis we naturally lose calories, blood, hair, skin, calcium (et al.) In order to maintain our biologic equilibrium we need to consume food and liquids in order to replenish the loss so that we may grow and thrive; just like the Earth.

As you may already know, the ocean floor is full of volcanic activity and is constantly churning the magma with the ocean floor (which is why the ocean floor seems so much younger than what we may expect.) Similar to churning butter, the Earth takes what is on top and mixes the magma and foreign matter, folding it into itself over the span of millions of years, creating an ever changing floor while increasing the mass of the Earth.

Of course this is an oversimplified account of what I believe is going on and could bore you to tears with more detail (just ask my wife) but I think this should do it. If anyone has any additional thoughts (or differences of opinion) on the subject I would love to hear them. Thanks for listening.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


That seems like a possibility too. I've never really agreed with that Big Bang Theory, so this video, I feel like it seems more probable.


That's an interesting notion that the Dinosaurs could have been around in a time when water was more scarce, but then again I'm not sure how they came to the conclusion that some where vegetarians. What evidence was there to extrapolate the diets of creatures that have been buried under ages of dirt?



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I love this topic.
Neil Adams is truly a visionary.

I have watched all his videos and listened to all his interviews. The one on coast to coast was the one that answered all my skeptical reservations about his theory.

The one thing most people see as the failing point is the mass and where did it come from. Growth is the answer to all the questions regarding where did the water come from as well as the mass.

In his interview on C2C he referenced a experiment in which matter was created via cosmic rays or photons entering a vacuum chamber. The primary principle is the hydrogen atom is the building block for all matter. The cosmic rays from the sun seemed to bring together subatomic particles and create a hydrogen atom. Once a hydrogen atom is created it can then join with billions of other hydrogen atoms until the mass is great enough to create fusion.

When fusion is reached the magic happens creating all sorts of elements required to create planets and water.

It is a super logical theory to me. Much more logical than the other theories being fed to us.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Thinking about it, I decided this theory cannot be true. I think this for these reasons:

Firstly, if the planet was smaller in the past, it would have been either enormously hotter or enormously colder. Hotter because it has less mass and thus is heated more by the sun, or colder because of my second reason...

The second reason is that without large seas in early earth we would have no atmosphere. At least not the one we had today. Life can only begin in water, since it's the only place the ingredients are present. With such little water, you get very little life in the early years of earth, thus the atmosphere made of carbon dioxide at the time would never have been converted into oxygen. CO2 dissolves in water and was converted to oxygen by primitive plant life on the sea bed, thus slowly creating an atmosphere that could support complex sea life and eventually land life.

Though that was enough to convince me, the third reason would be that mass isn't just created. The amout of mass Earth recieves from space is negligible.

If Earth expands, then it would become empty of magma and stop expanding almost immediately. There is a critical size that the planet can be based on how much magma it has. Too little and you get no volcanoes, thus no conversion of magma to landmass and no currents in the magma below the surface to cause the plates to move.

Sorry for the long-windedness of that, but that's just my view.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Well, it would have to be growing due to all the meteors that fall into the atmosphere every day. Unless the earth is ejecting as much as it's eating up, which I doubt.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Very Interesting, I'm more aware of what the world is doing to itself and how it is doing it.

I'm only new here, but i'm definatley going to have a good look around. This site seems interesting.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
this like all the others are "possible" theories i say this because our understanding of what is realy happening at the very core of our planet is just that theory just same as the vast majority of our understanding of the universe itself

physics has allowed us some movement in this but and again alot of our physics is based on theory and has evolved over the years

it was not so very long ago in the life of this planet we believed it was flat or as stated in the video we where the center of the universe.

it is very dangerouse to state that because of our current knowledge something is impossible because we realy dont have answers just theory.

if history of the evolution of science is anything to go by our most commony ideas and accepted theories often turn out to be at the very least miss calculations or completley wrong thus opening us up to change

i would like to thank the op for posting this and would like to see more research into this but then again there are many things i would like to se emore reasearch in


my comments above are not to discredit current brilliant work nore to discredit the hard working scientists this world has


keep up the good work

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by Amitsumikaboshi]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join