Planets Grow!, page 1

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:28 AM

link

I'm not a geologist but I think this guy is on to something. The theory has been around for a while but it seems to make a lot better sense than our modern theory.

Watch a few of the clips on this page:

www.nealadams.com...

Post back if you have any thoughts on this stuff.

acmeartifacts

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:54 AM

link

a scientific breakthrough!!!
Just like growing a chicken inside an egg, eventually the egg will crack open.

Byrd

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 09:49 AM

link

Discussed a number of times here.

Basically, Adams is a wonderful cartoonist but doesn't even know basic high school science.

SimonGray

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 03:54 PM

link

I'm not sure when this subject of Neal Adams work arose previously, but I've re-opened this topic for discussion as it appears to have been some time.

Previous comments over the accuracy and science was discussed here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 18-7-2007 by SimonGray]

squiz

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:06 PM

link

A few words from an interview with a REAL geologist. Professor Sam Carey (1911-2002)

A question of best fit: the expanding Earth

The other thing that you’ve done – and you’re still a bit of a rebel in this regard – is to propose the question of the expanding Earth.

No longer a rebel – they now believe it! At least, they all will eventually. It takes some people a while to catch up.

What made you think of an expanding Earth as the explanation for what you saw? Was it purely that you were fitting the continents together and it didn’t fit?

Well, I put the continents together and there was a big hole. I had to have that or more than half the world as ocean. It seemed to be a better solution, because there was a great area where I believed the edges of those things belonged to each other, across the Pacific. And the north Pacific had rims which belonged to each other.

Source
en.wikipedia.org...

Doesn't anyone else think the concept of pangea is just a little silly?

Just a thought, gravity would've been weaker, could that explain the size of some dinosaurs? and why land animals today cannot grow to that size?

Byrd with all due respect I believe that comment falls into this category.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by squiz]

Tuning Spork

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:47 PM

link

Originally posted by squiz
Just a thought, gravity would've been weaker, could that explain the size of some dinosaurs? and why land animals today cannot grow to that size?

Actually, gravity would have been much much stronger. Fitting the mass of the earth into a sphere with, say, 25% of it's current radius would raise the surface gravity to 16 times it's current force.

This is assuming that the earth is not growing in mass as it supposedly expands... a safe assumption, by the way, since the only way for the earth to expand, as hypothesised, would be to add a lot of mass through meteor and comet collisions. A WHOLE lot of meteor and comet collisions.

Strangely, this expansion would have to occur as the earth is actually COOLING. I don't buy it.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]

squiz

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 09:12 PM

link

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Actually, gravity would have much much stronger. Fitting the mass of the earth into a sphere with 25% of it's current radius would raise the surface gravity to 16 times it's current force.

This is assuming that the earth is not growing in mass as it supposedly expands. A safe assumption, by the way, since the only way for the earth to expand as hypothesised would be to a lot of mass through meteor and comet collisions. A WHOLE lot of meteor and comet collisions.

Mass is not the same as size, mass is simply how much matter is in an object, you can have diferent sized objects with the same amount of mass.
Changing the size of an object without changing the mass should have no effect on the gravitational force.
Actually the earth is growing in mass, approximately 10 to the 8th power kilograms every day due to debri from space.
hmm...65 million years plus, that's a lot of mass.

More suggestive evidence for an expanding earth and increasing mass.here.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by squiz]

Tuning Spork

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 10:34 PM

link

Originally posted by squiz
Mass is not the same as size, mass is simply how much matter is in an object, you can have diferent sized objects with the same amount of mass.

Correct!

Changing the size of an object without changing the mass should have no effect on the gravitational force.

Au contraire, it does, at it's surface. Remember the inverse square law of gravity. When you shrink a planet to 1/2 it's current size, that reduction in distance from the center of mass will result in a quadrupling of it's surface gravity.

Actually the earth is growing in mass, approximately 10 to the 8th power kilograms every day due to debri from space.
hmm...65 million years plus, that's a lot of mass.

Darn it, I just calculated for 1000 tonnes per year and now you've changed it to 250,000 tonnes per day?!

Anywho, your source says:

"Not only is it obvious that a daily influx of extraterrestrial meteorites and dust amounting to ~275-50,000 TONS PER DAY (NASA)..."

...so let's go with 250,000 tonnes per day. (I assume this is metric tonnes.)

That'll be 365 million kg per year, or 3.65 x 10^8 kg per year. The mass of the earth is approximately 6 x 10^24 kg.

Adding this additional debris for 65 million years would add about 3.65 x 10^17 kg, or, roughly, 1/22,000,000th of the earth's current mass. This can't account for the increase in volume.

In order to account for the nearly 75% of the earth's surface that comprises the "newly formed" ocean basins, the earth's surface must quadruple, which means that it's radius and diameter have nearly doubled. This will increase the volume of the earth will increase about eightfold. (I'm too tired to do anymore exact calculations.)

Anyway, you can't get 8 times the volume by adding 1/22,000,000 the mass.

Mozel tov.

squiz

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 11:27 PM

link

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Au contraire, it does, at it's surface. Remember the inverse square law of gravity. When you shrink a planet to 1/2 it's current size, that reduction in distance from the center of mass will result in a quadrupling of it's surface gravity.

Ah yes, of course. Thanks for pointing that out. Ha I was wondering if someone was going to do the math when I posted that. Anyway it was just a thought.

The Earth is increasing in size and mass by daily accretion of extraterrestrial meteorites and meteor dust--additional weight that is gravitationally focused on the planet's exact center, thereby generating compressive heat and thermal expansion of the core.

from the previous link.

We know size and mass are two different things, could the thermal expansion account for the difference?
The extra matter combined with the core expansion could account for the size difference?

I still believe the theory raises some valid points. The expanding earth theory that is.
www.expanding-earth.org...

[edit on 18-7-2007 by squiz]

Tuning Spork

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:38 AM

link

Originally posted by squiz
...could the thermal expansion account for the difference?
The extra matter combined with the core expansion could account for the size difference?

It's hard to accept that such a small increase in mass could add to pressure on the earth's core that could cause a "thermal expansion". Meteorites burn and slow as they enter the atmosphere, and their impacts probably exert less force less than some little girl jumping rope for a few seconds.

Now, aside from adding mass from extraterrestrial debri, could the earth's core actually be heating up and, thus, expanding as we speak?

Well, in order to heat up it would need to be collecting energy. The obvious source of this increase of energy would be the sun.

Hmmm...

We know that the earth is losing heat as geothermal radiation. But, could it be gaining more heat than it is losing due to absorption of solar radiation?

Hmmm...

EDIT to add: Keep in mind: we're talking about a LOT of planetary expansion. The energy needed to boil the inner earth to account for eight-fold expansion over 65 million years would probably blow this planet apart at some point in the future.

And I seriously doubt that the earth's crust could have cooled to become the many tectonic plates that they have if that much energy were being absorbed at the surface.

Nope. The entire premise is nonsensical. imho, of course.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]

squiz

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:31 AM

link

Originally posted by Tuning Spork[/i
Adding this additional debris for 65 million years would add about 3.65 x 10^17 kg, or, roughly, 1/22,000,000th of the earth's current mass. This can't account for the increase in volume.

In order to account for the nearly 75% of the earth's surface that comprises the "newly formed" ocean basins, the earth's surface must quadruple, which means that it's radius and diameter have nearly doubled. This will increase the volume of the earth will increase about eightfold. (I'm too tired to do anymore exact calculations.)

Anyway, you can't get 8 times the volume by adding 1/22,000,000 the mass.

I think my dinosaur thought has confused the issue, these are all estimates of course, the 65 million year time frame was refering to the extinction event, of course we are discussing the formation and on going formation of the earth. We're talking about a much much longer time frame.

Personaly the idea of having a huge continent (Pangea) existing on on side of the planet with the rest of it covered by ocean is as I said a bit silly.
Do we assume the earth formed at it's current size? Thats highly unlikely.
It's still forming and evolving like the rest of the universe.

Tuning Spork

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link

Originally posted by squiz
...the idea of having a huge continent (Pangea) existing on on side of the planet with the rest of it covered by ocean is as I said a bit silly.

Why? The earth, right now, is pretty much pear-shaped. It's depressed at the north pole (resulting in the arctic ocean). It's bulging throughout the northern hemisphere (Pacific Ocean aside). It's depressed in the southern hemisphere, and bulging at the south pole (resulting in the continent of Antarctica).

That a bulge in an earlier, primitive earth would have prduced in an above-sealevel super-continent on one side of the world isn't all that strange an idea. Especially concidering that the difference between the Marianas Trench and Mount Everest isn't all that great, on a global scale.

Aside: Did you know that if you could hold the earth as the size of a billiard ball in one hand, and an actual billiard ball in the other hand, that the earth would feel to be even more smooth than the billiard ball?

Do we assume the earth formed at it's current size? Thats highly unlikely.
It's still forming and evolving like the rest of the universe.

But we're talking about a planet growing in size to (approximately) eight times it's volume within the course of, relatively recent, continental slide due to meteor impacts.

If, as the films supposes, that India colliding with Asia did not create the Himalayas, then what did? Were they already there?

An expanding earth would suggest that it'd only be more flattened. Can mountains be raised by a bloating planet?

The ocean bottoms are new. Yes. That's because they are created by the fissures in the earth's crust which are pushing the plates in their respective directions.

Is there no resistance to this expansion of continents? Of course not. It is the movement of North America into the Pacific basic that created the Rocky Mountains. It's the pressure of the African continent that created the Alps (contrary to the film's assertion that Italy was, somehow, part of the southern European "continent" -- it's actually part of the African plate).

I really need to get some sleep, now.

Catch ya in the morning.

JackRuby

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link

Originally posted by Byrd
Discussed a number of times here.

Basically, Adams is a wonderful cartoonist but doesn't even know basic high school science.

Wait a minute, your calling the guy incompetent because he doesn't buy into the bunk that is taught in high school science class?

JackRuby

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link

Some of the discussion above tries to deal with the question of where all the matter might be coming from. Does anyone have any thoughts on Neal's ideas concerning prime matter? Perhaps there is a process going on in the earths core involving prime matter particles?

Here are 2 links:

www.nealadams.com...

continuitystudios.net...

JackRuby

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link

Originally posted by Tuning Spork

If, as the films supposes, that India colliding with Asia did not create the Himalayas, then what did? Were they already there?

An expanding earth would suggest that it'd only be more flattened. Can mountains be raised by a bloating planet?

Actually he makes it pretty clear in this clip how mountains could be raised by a bloating planet:

www.continuitystudios.net...

Here is some more info in written form:

www.nealadams.com...

Eddy_Jordan

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link

It may not seem to make sense that pangea could exist as one super continent in an ocean of water, but if we look at Mars we see exactly that. Were there large amounts of water on Mars it would likely be concentrated in the northern hemisphere where the altitude is significantly lower than the south:

geology.com...

I believe the leading theory for the formation of the moon is that pre-earth and pre-mars collided, leading possibly to those mountains and oceans?

Interesting theory, it is actually quite likely that the Earth is expanding, I'd like to see some actual chemical reactions and physics equations relating what we believe is at the center of the Earth and what it is forming as it becomes the mantle and the crust. Maybe the chemical structure of the core happens to occupy less space than that of the mantle and the core is shrinking in space while the mantle is growing in space, while still maintaining a balance of mass.

squiz

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:42 AM
link

The shape of the earth is due to rotational flattening (I also think due to magnetic feilds). So yes I think it would be unnatural for a large land mass to exist on one half of the planet, unless it was located at one of the poles like the martian example above. There's evidence to suggest that the martian wobble causes the water to migrate from one pole to the other over the cycle. See Byrd's thread

I just found this Wikipedia article.

Because, however, the proponents of this theory were unable to explain where the mass that causes Earth Growth comes from, it was dismissed for the theory that subduction caused the Earth to remain at a fixed size.

Accretion theory suggests mass by metorites dust and solar energy as well as internal core expansion. If core expansion is true you don't need to account for all the mass. The prime matter explanation could also be part of this process. Also Professor Carey stated that expanding earth theory is not at ends with subduction.

Hey, the wiki article even mentions the dinosaur thing.

Essan

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link

Originally posted by JackRuby

Originally posted by Byrd
Discussed a number of times here.

Basically, Adams is a wonderful cartoonist but doesn't even know basic high school science.

Wait a minute, your calling the guy incompetent because he doesn't buy into the bunk that is taught in high school science class?

No, I think you'll find Byrd simply said that he doesn't know basic high school science
Stop trying to twist words to your own agenda.

Adams is highly selective with his evidence - for example he believes in Pangea. Yet not in Rodinia (or the previous suspected supercontinent)? Why is that? Because Rodinia doesn't fit his ideaology.

www.palaeos.com...

If he rejects Rodinia he must reject Pangea. You can't just pick and chose your evidence and expect people to take you seriously.

Now if he came up with an idea that better fitted all the evidence, fine. But coming up with a theory that requires discarding most of the evidence is - well, incompetent ......

Astyanax

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link

Angelic blowhards

Of course Earth is expanding.

There's a big valve at the South Pole. Angels are blowing into it.

Sometimes they blow too hard. That's what causes geysers, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.

I thought everyone knew this.

MajorMalfunction

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link

Originally posted by Astyanax

There's a big valve at the South Pole. Angels are blowing into it.

But then, how do the hollow earth aliens get out? Is there an exit valve at the North Pole?

Seriously, though, does it matter if the earth is expanding? IF it is, it's doing it so slowly that it won't have any effect on us at all. And if it isn't, who cares?