st434u Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 In this presentation, Neal Adams argues that the upper tectonic plates fit together perfectly in the Pacific Ocean as well as in the Atlantic Ocean, and he argues that geologists know this but are silent about it because of the repercussions that this realization would bring. He argues that because of this, the Earth must be growing. He also argues that continents do not move or rotate as geologists think, but that they stay in their place above their plates, they are just moving away from each other because the planet is growing. I first watched this 3 years ago, and I still find it interesting, but I haven't done any research on the topic to be able to form a strong opinion either way. I have basically zero knowledge in the area of geology and I haven't done any research into this guy's claim. Also, I am not quite sure of what this would imply if it was true. I'd like to know your thoughts. Here's the link:
Bastii Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 I remember the video, watched it a long time ago. My thoughts on this were the following: If earth grew 10% in radius/circumference it means that it grows ~33% (1.1³~1.33) in volume. That means earth must've gathered about 30% the mass of itself from some outside source. 30% of earth's mass is like 3 times the mass of mars and I don't see how this amount of mass just happened to merge with earth over time (Afaik it is not explained in the video, but I will watch it again soon). Plus I really dislike theories that claim that "science is all quiet about this". It's either true and can be verified by evidence or it's just made up.
dsayers Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 If earth grew 10% in radius/circumference it means that it grows ~33% (1.1³~1.33) in volume. That means earth must've gathered about 30% the mass of itself from some outside source. Not necessarily. Its density wouldn't necessarily remain constant. IF it were in fact swelling, it would almost have to be changing in density also, or else we'd notice things weighing significantly more.
LovePrevails Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 I find this theory interesting although I do not know whether it is true , it would mean theories on plate tectonics would have to be reviewed entirely h must've gathered about 30% the mass of itself from some outside source. yes, by agglomeration ie. space dust and particles of water as well as comets and asteroids being pulled in by the earth's gravity it's not too unimaginable
Bastii Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Not necessarily. Its density wouldn't necessarily remain constant. IF it were in fact swelling, it would almost have to be changing in density also, or else we'd notice things weighing significantly more. While this is an interesting point, it just shifts the explanation from "where's the mass coming from?" to "where's the density change coming from?". Solid matter does not change it's density and for the molten core to change density, it must get heated up. So we are left at the question where all the extra energy might come from. yes, by agglomeration ie. space dust and particles of water as well as comets and asteroids being pulled in by the earth's gravity it's not too unimaginable That's a valid point, and it happens to be quite a big number (~10^8kg/year), but compared to the mass of earth itself (6*10^24) it is insignificant. Additionally earth loses mass in form of air escaping it and energy being radiated to space. http://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/
JamesP Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Holy cow. 1:03 - "You are asked to believe that the continents swim or drift about willy-nilly, bumping and crashing as if they were on a greased skillet." I'm not an expert, but this is such a misrepresentation of plate tectonic theory that I cannot take this guy seriously. Did anyone who found this video compelling not notice this?
LovePrevails Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 I didn't like the conspiratorial tone either James P, but I have heard the theory elsewhere as fringe science
JamesP Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 There is also this comment, from this fellow himself, which demonstrates his appalling scientific ignorance: "NO, GPS cannot prove growth,. Nor is it designed to do so. There is NO TECHNOLOGY that can, or is designed to measure any such growth." GPS is so sensitive that relativistic effects have to be considered in order to ensure proper time-keeping. Perhaps the growth of earth's radius is so slow that this is not detectable in the short term, but it certainly could be one way of verifying, as an increasing radius would necessarily require changes in orbits over time. But aside from that, a very simple technology can be used. Shove some sticks into the ground and observe the sun's shadow. Measure precisely the angles. If this theory proposed a rate of inflation or growth, then over time, you would be able to detect this. The orientation of landmasses relative to each other would also change, as in his original animation. You could observe the Bering Strait, see if the real distances between the landmasses change in a way consistent with this theory or with plate tectonics. I can think of a technology, fella. Shove some sticks into the ground. This guy is a loony. I didn't like the conspiratorial tone either James P, but I have heard the theory elsewhere as fringe science I wasn't criticizing this guy's tone. I was criticizing his clear lack of scientific understanding.
st434u Posted March 7, 2014 Author Posted March 7, 2014 James, I don't think he is claiming that growth happens at a constant rate. I think he's saying that it happens on occasions. I don't really understand his theory much. I think it has something to do with molten lava coming out of the planet's core and forming new surface area rather than simply compressing the surface area that already exists. "You are asked to believe that the continents swim or drift about willy-nilly, bumping and crashing as if they were on a greased skillet." I noticed this, and to be honest I had a similar impression when I was taught in school about how continents move. I passed the exams, but it never made sense to me.
JamesP Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 If he had any way of verifying his theory, he wouldn't just flatly say that there is no technology to detect this change. And it isn't necessary for change to be constant for it to be detected. Earthquakes can shift plate boundaries relative to each other by inches, feet, or yards. And that you had that impression when you first learned about it leads me to think that this guy's understanding of earth science hasn't progressed beyond the age you were when you learned about this. It's like when people say that evolution claims we evolved from monkeys. It's just not the case and demonstrates a lack of understanding and curiosity. *edit - But that said, I do appreciate the correction that he did not claim a constant rate of growth.
st434u Posted March 20, 2014 Author Posted March 20, 2014 So I watched several other videos from the same guy talking about how planets grow... The following one was the most impressive, about Europa, a moon of Jupiter This one was also interesting, but very low quality video, about our own moon: And the following one was also interesting, he claims to debunk the pangea theory in this one: Any thoughts?
Prairie Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 My first question was where the oceans came from, since it started out with all landmass.
JamesP Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Why is this important to you? Why do you find this guy's videos convincing?
st434u Posted March 21, 2014 Author Posted March 21, 2014 My first question was where the oceans came from, since it started out with all landmass. You mean where all the extra water came from? Well as I understand this, all animals create water (H2O) when they inhale oxygen and break down carbohydrate, releasing the CO2 into the air and combining the oxygen with the hydrogen to create water and extract the energy from the carbohydrate. Plants do the opposite, they break down H2O, releasing oxygen into the air and binding the hydrogen with the CO2 they breathe in, which they use to store the sunlight as energy and as building blocks, and thereby create carbohydrate. Therefore, the total amount of water in the planet can change. Another possibility is that a lot of the water was frozen before. Why is this important to you? Why do you find this guy's videos convincing? Well I find them convincing because they make sense to me. I don't see how else continents on Earth would fit on all sides when you remove the oceans (assuming they do), or how the same seems to happen when you examine other planets or moons such as Europa I find this important because if it was true, it would likely change a lot about the scientific truths that we hold as verified in a lot of areas, not just geology.
Bastii Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 My first question was where the oceans came from, since it started out with all landmass. [/u] It's acutally quite a good question. Well I find them convincing because they make sense to me. They either make sense and are scientific or not, but "sense to you" does not have any meaning.
Prairie Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 I found the ideas interesting. Looking at things in multiple ways is a central part of how I approach the world, so I like this kind of thing. To me it's like mental exercise, keeping constant activity in thinking about things, never becoming a mental couch potato around some subject because something in the world has a dominant explanation. Especially for things so far-removed from practical decisions one makes, there's little reason to invest a lot in a particular view. Well I find them convincing because they make sense to me. They either make sense and are scientific or not, but "sense to you" does not have any meaning.I get plenty of meaning from st434u's post. As st434u was careful to note, this is st434u's understanding and isn't a claim about facts. You've taken it to the extreme, saying that it's meaningless. Why the aggression in what was a pleasant conversation? The first line of scrutiny for any argument is whether it makes sense to oneself. If it doesn't, there's nothing to even work with.
Bastii Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Why the aggression in what was a pleasant conversation? Hm, could you elaborate on this? I want to understand what happened for you when you read my statement.
InfernalVortex Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 You cant just say plate tectonic theory doesnt make sense and start talking about how the earth is violating the law of conservation of energy/mass by changing its density.We understand plate tectonics pretty well. In fact we even know of several continents predating Pangea.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercontinentsThe exact subsurface mechanisms are hard to iron out, but that's what science is for. Not to just toss it all out and make asinine assertions like "The earth is growing but we cant test it!".Liquid water is most likely sourced from bombardment of icy objects during the early formation days of the solar system. So if the earth was that much smaller, then likely hte entire earth was covered in water with no landmasses or it was all vapor in the atmosphere.
Prairie Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 earth is violating the law of conservation of energy/mass by changing its density.How would changing density along with size (and slowing rotation) violate this?
sagiquarius Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 If he had any way of verifying his theory, he wouldn't just flatly say that there is no technology to detect this change. And it isn't necessary for change to be constant for it to be detected. Earthquakes can shift plate boundaries relative to each other by inches, feet, or yards.And that you had that impression when you first learned about it leads me to think that this guy's understanding of earth science hasn't progressed beyond the age you were when you learned about this.It's like when people say that evolution claims we evolved from monkeys. It's just not the case and demonstrates a lack of understanding and curiosity.*edit - But that said, I do appreciate the correction that he did not claim a constant rate of growth. James, where have we heard these types of claims that can't be proven? Oh, I know! You can't know if god exists or not, there is no technology to measure the bastard, and no way of knowing he doesn't exist ... therefore god exists. "There is no technology to measure or test my claim of plate tectonics, therefore this theory is a valid alternative to the one you believe and I'm not at liberty to prove my claim because ... well, we just don't have the technology. Has nothing to do with me." When I first saw this video some years ago, I did a bit more reading because I wanted to see if it could be possible - 'cause, ya know, it sounds kind of sexy and and all, at the time. I recall hearing one dude say that he thought the energy from the sun was impacting the em shield around the planet, which causes the core to build up energy over time and release it in the form of matter from the inside out. Creative idea, but how the fuck could anybody possibly even begin to test that idea? I had forgotten about it until I saw this thread. These vapid, "pseudo science" pot hole theories could easily dent the shiny rims of your intelligence as you drive over them as you cruise the internet. Handle with care and all due rationality and discernment.
Livemike Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 They didn't just make up the way the plates moved. They based it on evidence, matching up places that used to be together by fossil records and geology, figuring out which part of the rock faced magnetic north when they were formed etc. . The theory was originally quite unpopular and faced rigorous challenge. That it would completely misstate what actually happened and this would not be noticed by it's detractors is absurd.
Mike Fleming Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 I always assumed he was basing his ideas on the fact that the universe is expanding in all directions at the same time. Amusing theory, and he's not an unintelligent fellow, but honestly really doesn't make much sense if you actually think about it.
InfernalVortex Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 How would changing density along with size (and slowing rotation) violate this? It wouldn't in that case, but we know how long the days are and we've accounted for the slowing rotation of the earth through tidal deceleration. The moon and earth pull on each other slightly more when their densest regions align and this over time decelerates the angular velocity of the earth. The moon's rotation has already ceased and it is now tidally locked with earth. Eventually they will both be tidally locked with each other if the moon doesn't escape earth orbit first.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-rotation-summer-solstice/There is a chance this is wrong, of course, but that's science.
Think Free Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I looked into this theory a while back and I would just like to clarify one thing: According to this theory, the mass of the Earth is increasing along with its volume. Indeed, all planets in the universe are increasing in mass, according to this theory, through a speculative process. (Before you go pointing out the law of the conservation of mass prohibits this, remember that energy can theoretically be converted into mass.) The process is increasing the mass of the Earth at a (somewhat) constant rate. Thus, by basic laws of geometry, the rate of change in the diameter of the earth decreases over time. It was slow to begin with and is at its slowest now. Assuming a (low number) of 5 billion years between the size of Mars and Earth's current size, it would average out to about 1 millimeter a year, but, of course, the current rate would be much lower than that.
Prairie Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Think Free, it could also be decreasing in density, and thus keeping a constant mass. I found some videos showing how bubbles could migrate to the axis of rotation (rather than simply to the surface and dissipate), as one possible explanation for how the volume could increase/density decrease:
Think Free Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Think Free, it could also be decreasing in density, and thus keeping a constant mass. I found some videos showing how bubbles could migrate to the axis of rotation (rather than simply to the surface and dissipate), as one possible explanation for how the volume could increase/density decrease: I watched the video. It's interesting, but I don't see how that could decrease density. Also, I was just reporting what the expanding Earth theorists had themselves offered as an explanation. They cited larger animals in the past as evidence that the Earth's gravity has been increasing. If the Earth was increasing in diameter but not in mass, surface gravity would actually be decreasing, from about 34.7 m/s2 (or 3.5 g) when it was the diameter of Mars.
GregMerwe Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 New discussion with Neal Adams from last month. Personally I am 100% convinced that all planets are growing. Pangea is incorrect, the big bang is incorrect. I also think the universe is growing, rather than expanding. It is a sporadic and random growth of galaxies and solar systems. The suns creat the solar systems and the planets create the atmospheres.
Recommended Posts