The Earth Is Growing!? Watch These Videos!

Originally posted by YourForever
Matter does not come from nowhere.

All of it has come from our sun and other suns.

Try to think of all the gold ever mined by man in all of history all added up. How big of a chunk is that?

Well, in a single year there is more gold dissolved in the oceans of the earth than has ever been mined by man. This is in the form of ions that originate in our sun and surrounding space plus in our planet's core.

Matter to provide for the growth of the earth sure seems a little easier to comprehend thinking of that single fact.

Cheers
PS Also don't you think that new things are made all the time from material next to nothing in size. For example, you?

spelling edit

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]

reply to post by TheRealDonPedros


It certainly explains a lot. I don't entirely understand why it isn't of interest to geologists and other scientists. I would think it would be an exciting field of study.

reply to post by Wormwood Squirm


Yes but that is not where Mr Adams says its coming from. This is new matter created from energy and interaction with prematter.

reply to post by robwerden

A chicken hatched on the moon would probably be taller than on hatched on earth.

No... the chicken would be about the same size. Growth isn't limited by gravity, it's limited by growth hormones such as Somatotrophin and the structure of the body. For example, we have many instances of disorders of the petuitary gland causing humans to grow to much larger sizes - but this comes at the cost of serious problems with the circulatory system, the back, etc. These often lead to early death. The human frame just isn't designed to handle that much weight.

A chicken hatched on the moon may be slightly larger than Earth hatched cousins on average - but this would simply be due to less compression on joints compacting the cartilage and ligaments.


As for the Earth growing - yes, it is. The Earth still accretes mass from the universe - be it dust, meteorites, or gaseous vapors. We also loose mass from the upper atmosphere and via radioactive decay. Plus we like to occasionally shoot off little bits of Earth's matter into space and other planets. I dunno if there are any reliable estimates over whether or not this constitutes a net gain or loss.

Insofar as the OP claim, it doesn't matter whether or not he's an "official" scientist (whatever that would mean). The only thing that matters is the validity of his research. If there's really anything to it, he should seek publication - and if what he claims is an accurate description of reality, he will be vindicated. Those who claim that mainstream science will likely reject the idea are correct... this is part of the trial by fire by which science tests and stresses hypothesis for accuracy so that they can be modified and corrected of errors to best fit the evidence we have available. If the theory cannot survive the corrections and does not accurately describe reality, then it's bunk - at least, until newly discovered evidence dictates a re-examination.

So.... yeah. Show me something peer reviewed.

-------

Edit: Never mind. Just out of curiosity, I looked at the sites. This guy is a moron.

The Pangea theory says the Earth was assembled 4.5 billion years ago in a “universal instant” from debris … that was collected in our galaxy, to this size, (by a method that is never … I repeat never explained, why this assembly of material mysteriously ended at exactly this time, and didn’t continue to provide more material is a brutally illogical contradiction.

The earth (and other planets) is thought to have been accreted from a proto-planetary disk. That disk is no longer around, because most of the matter which made it has already been formed into planets. So it makes perfect sense why the Earth would stop growing substantially, as the free matter in the disk was consumed. The Earth is actually likely an amalgamation of two planets, as this planet was struck by a smaller planet (Theia) early in it's life, which is what formed our Moon. Fortunately, the Solar System has calmed substantially since it's formation.

Also, we have observed protoplanetary disks in other star systems.
link

Another note: His theory would have serious problems contending with speciation ranges if there were no coastal barriers to migration. I don't feel like doing the maths right now, but a fairly easy way to validify his theory or not would be to measure the rate of lunar recession.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Waldy


Maybe they were kept as pets? lol

If this expansion is true, then where did the expansion come from? What was expanding? Could the core expand like that? Wouldnt it require heat to expand? Where would that heat come from?

From looking at the video, I do not see him taking the thickening crust currently under the ocean into consideration when he rolls back the time. Wouldn't it thicken and create a mass of land? Wouldn't the ocean rise up and cover most of the earth? If there is less surface area and almost the same amount of water, how could the oceans have only been half a mile higher? On that point, with less surface area and no deep oceans how could you only have shallows? What happened to the water?

Wasn't there a planet in our solar system that was an ocean world which was destroyed?

Seems a bit coincidental, but so is the fact that from our perspective the moon is the same size at the sun. That still amazes me.

Originally posted by MsSmartypants
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm

 

Yes but that is not where Mr Adams says its coming from. This is new matter created from energy and interaction with prematter.

Adams specifically states that there are 400 million tons of matter coming from the sun each second, multiply that by 4.5 billion years and you get planets, asteroids, comets, moons etc. This process has not stopped and continues.

source = www.youtube.com... minute 8:45

link edit

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]

reply to post by MsSmartypants


MsSmarty I look at is as another piece in the puzzle of the ever unfolding "revealing" (Apocalypse).

You also cant knock the everyday mainstream geologist for not wanting to rock the boat. Its the passionate people that rock the boat and its the passionate people that are usually labeled as crazy.

Peace, thanks again for bringing Neal Adams work out in the open.

reply to post by IamTheChosenOne

Wasn't there a planet in our solar system that was an ocean world which was destroyed?

Not that I'm aware of, but considering how common water is in the universe - it's not outside of the realm of possibility. Speaking of water worlds, the planetesimal Ceres is suspected to contain more water than even the Earth.

Source

Oh, and speaking of Ceres - it is the largest body in the Asteroid belt. The Asteroid belt is actually thought to be a remnant of the proto-planetary disk. It likely never formed a substantial planet due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


One of your statements is false. "We lose matter.... and via radioactive decay."

Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. So a radioactive substance simply breaks down into simpler atoms.

Agreed with the rest of your post.

en.wikipedia.org...

OMFG this is just plain awesome.

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm

Originally posted by MsSmartypants
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm

 

Yes but that is not where Mr Adams says its coming from. This is new matter created from energy and interaction with prematter.

Adams specifically states that there are 400 million tons of matter coming from the sun each second, multiply that by 4.5 billion years and you get planets, asteroids, comets, moons etc. This process has not stopped and continues.

source = www.youtube.com... minute 8:45

link edit

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]

Where is all the matter coming from?

Well, the most logical answer would be the sun. Exactly. thank you. Even if you can't see it it's there. This should be looked into by scientist because it is the most logical explanation.

And the water? well maybe it's created in this process of energy absorption from the sun. Seems very logical.

Also, the reason gravity is here might be linked to this. Earth's protective atmosphere is probably keeping all this energy at bay and equally redistributing this energy throughout the planet thus making it into gravity which allows for energy absorption into the planet.

Maybe the water is making this growth possible without huge movements on the ground level because it's making the changes smooth by cooling down the core. I think the oil that is in the ground plays a role in making the changes smooth as well. There is a bigger reason the fossil fuels are there. That is why we shouldn't mess with it a lot.

We must realize that this planet is alive and is doing everything in its power to make this place better for surface dwellers. It's up to us to realize that and addopt.

Not too long ago scientist sead the earth was flat, well I guess it's not.

Tectonic plates floating around? Yea right...give me a break.

reply to post by ps1klon3


I didn't mean that the mass is destroyed because of the decay, merely that it's eventually radiated out into space. The amount the Earth looses in this process is rather minute, but it does happen.

The topic of this thread is commonly called Expanding Earth theory in geology, see here: Expanding Earth

And for those interested, the best book on the subject I've ever read, written by a true geologist, is "Theories of the Earth and Universe" by S. Warren Carey.

The book is outstanding and written with good academic rigor and depth but most of it is not beyond the comprehension of the layperson. To those who ask why mainstream geology has no interest, I think Carey said it best, "The more radical the advance from current orthodoxy, the more certain will it be scorned and rejected."

As for where the new the matter comes from, Carey speculates that it is due to quantum fluctuations at the center of the earth where gravity acceleration approaches zero (a Newton-Hubble null). Of course, I've left out essential background that he includes to setup the hypothesis, but that is the core idea I think.






[edit on 11-1-2009 by ThreadTrekker]

Very interesting. I will have to read more, and do more research before I come to any conclusions, but I am very glad to have it presented. I was not aware of this theory. Clearly, as I read several science journals and magazines monthly, science in general has utterly rejected the possibility. I am curious as to why. The putting back together of all the continents was pretty astounding.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up on this. I am off to learn more.

reply to post by Lasheic


upload.wikimedia.org...

----------------------------------------------------------

According to wikipedia Ceres may have an ocean and according to that picture there is no effing way that Ceres could even have a fraction of Earths water.

Peace

Perhaps there's a point at which all of the matter "sucked" into black holes can get no more dense. You've probably seen 3-d renderings of a plamet sitting on a wire frame at pushing it down, (like a bowling ball on a taught sheet) at critical density a rip could occur or a wormhole. Maybe that's not the right terminololgy. Any way my point is,,,,

If you have black holes "eating" matter, shouldn't you have white holes creating matter? And what would a white hole look like? Not a hole. It would look like a speck, grain, clod, clump,.......planet, sun or other body.

Just a thought, needs developing I realize.

Freebird THB

Another point to consider, which must be answered if this theory is to hold any validity. How do we have marine fossils on the tops of mountains? Continental Drift, which accounts for phenomena like subduction, explains this - as what was once the ocean floor is being pushed up by the collision of another plate. Expansion wouldn't allow for this.

And no... it wasn't a global flood. -_-

Originally posted by Lasheic

The earth (and other planets) is thought to have been accreted from a proto-planetary disk. That disk is no longer around, because most of the matter which made it has already been formed into planets. So it makes perfect sense why the Earth would stop growing substantially, as the free matter in the disk was consumed. The Earth is actually likely an amalgamation of two planets, as this planet was struck by a smaller planet (Theia) early in it's life, which is what formed our Moon. Fortunately, the Solar System has calmed substantially since it's formation.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, you had an awesome post, but that "earth being struck by a smaller planet thing and forming the moon" is just an hypothesis which is still not proven to this day. I don't know if that would actually go together with the theory posted in this topic.. There are even rumors the moon may be fake, but that's another story..

[edit on 11-1-2009 by vasaga]

reply to post by vasaga


It's the most reasonable explanation we have at this time which fits the evidence. The theory didn't truly gain significant momentum until after we sampled the composition of the Moon's surface. It's unlikely that the moon formed parallel to the Earth, as the variable rate of lunar recession would place the moon INSIDE the Earth extrapolating back that far in time. The similar mineral compositions of the Moon and Earth also make it unlikely that it formed elsewhere in the solar system and was later "captured" by Earth's gravity. Even before we went to the moon, though, there was still the problem of how a satellite of such high mass traveling at the Sun's orbital velocity could have been captured. Earth, by far, has the largest moon relative it's size and mass.

In comparison, Cruithne (Earth's "second moon") is very different than that of Earth and the Moon. It's not a true moon, in that it orbits the sun - not the Earth. However it follows the Earth in a 1:1 ratio. It's remotely possible that when Cruithne catches up to the Earth, it may be caught in our gravity well and become a true moon. It's far, far more likely, though, that Earth's gravity will simply fling it off course and out into a different orbit.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm

Originally posted by MsSmartypants
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm

 

Yes but that is not where Mr Adams says its coming from. This is new matter created from energy and interaction with prematter.

Adams specifically states that there are 400 million tons of matter coming from the sun each second, multiply that by 4.5 billion years and you get planets, asteroids, comets, moons etc. This process has not stopped and continues.

source = www.youtube.com... minute 8:45

link edit

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]

I met Mr. Adams 2 years ago in NY and heard him talking about this, he'll most likely be there this year. Maybe someone should set up an interview with some posted questions. He was very nice to me so I'd bet he'd be happy to talk.