This is interesting - anyone able to comment on the veracity (or lack) of such a claim?
The Earth is Growing
The Earth is Growing
The Earth is Growing?!
- Thread starter Outta here
- Start date
Its interesting except I remember there is an idea in science about conservation of mass. Either everything is getting lighter and less dense as it expands or we got a whole bunch more mass somewhere.
And where did the water come from?
And where did the water come from?
That's exactly what I said when I was watching it. you'd think this is a question they'd address right up front. I don't have time to google around about this tonight, but I was hoping someone who's familiar with this theory might be able to shed some light on that question.
I am as certain of this as I am of anything: that video is pure pseudoscientific nonsense. The earth is not growing, subduction does happen, the plates do move at measurable rates, there is hardly a single true statement or a well-reasoned argument in the whole ten minutes of it. It's crap.
LOL thanks Dexter - I was hoping for a definitive critique. I can sleep easy now. Just kidding - I don't claim to know anything about such things, but I know you do - so I'm curious - do you think this is an out and out hoax?
It would appear that the mass of the Earth is growing (pick a number)by the mass of meteorites that are absorbed by the Earth every year. Whichever figure we use, it is such a tiny fraction of a percentage of the Earth's mass that it is almost negligible.
Last edited:
You can but the dvd's at his website for $50 a piece. Two of them. 2h 36 min on 2 disks for $100. www.cracksmokingscience.com
Lol, just kidding, the website is http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
Lol, just kidding, the website is http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
Just where do these boneheads come from? It cannot all be religion. . .well, maybe it can. But not all flat-earthers are religious, and that is about as loony as one can get - I mean it makes the moon-landing deniers seem positively sane.
What is the motivation for the stupidity of the "growing earth" hypothesis? What agenda is this guy trying to massage the facts to fit?
There's good (social) science in that kind of craziness. Someone ought to study all these wingnuts.
Pangloss
What is the motivation for the stupidity of the "growing earth" hypothesis? What agenda is this guy trying to massage the facts to fit?
There's good (social) science in that kind of craziness. Someone ought to study all these wingnuts.
Pangloss
No, it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_Earth_Theory
Growing Earth Theory is a derivative theory of expanding earth theory. While primarily credited to comics artist Neal Adams,[1] it is also explored and supported by several of geologists, physicists, and expanding earth researchers[2] including geologists Vedat Shehu,[3] James Maxlow,[4][5][6] Stavros Tassos[7] and others. The theory explores evidence for continental matching on both of the Pacific and Atlantic sides of the globe, geological implications of a changing surface curvature--and a smaller, lower-gravity Earth's contribution to the size of dinosaurs. Growing Earth Theory also attempts to put forth, through existing scientific evidence, a mechanism by which new mass is created within the core of the Earth, to facilitate the Expanding Earth model of the late Australian geologist S. Warren Carey.
Preliminary evidence for all-around continental matching
Continental matching on both Pacific and Atlantic sides as Earth size diminishes by losing ocean floor material.
Neal Adams followed the developments of expanding earth theory and plate tectonics since the 1960s and independently researched and studied the various sciences relating to them and to the developing cosmology model. He cites Leonardo DaVinci's passion for the sciences and Galileo's regard for the artists of his time as indications of a long-held bond between art and science, contributing together to societal evolution.
By utilizing digital 3-D imaging technology for video animations[9], Adams cites that the changing curvature of the Earth, due to its increase in size, indicates a near-perfect match of all its continental shapes, when they converge on a smaller globe. His videos imply that an Earth, approximately half the size that it is today, would be completely covered by the continents which converge together like a jigsaw puzzle[10], by completely closing both the Atlantic and Pacific sides. Like Sam Carey, Adams agrees that the mid-ocean ridges, from which new material appears on the ocean floor, had once split the Earth's crust apart and created the ocean basins, causing the Earth to grow. In his videos, Adams states that he adhered to the evidence available regarding the age of the various sections of the ocean floor in order to determine the pattern, order and movements of the various continents during the growth process. By backtracking, and progressively removing the newest sections from the ocean floor, until arriving at a near half-sized globe, completely covered only by the continental crust, Adams demonstrates what appears to be a near-perfect all-around matching of all the continental edges. He speculates that such matching could only be possible if the Earth was once considerably smaller, and completely covered by the continental crust.
Physics of a growing earth
The primary objection to Expanding Earth Theory, as introduced by Professor of Geology Samuel Carey, and others, in the 1960s, centered around the lack of a process by which the Earth's mass could increase. This issue, along with the rise of the theory of subduction, caused the scientific community to dismiss the geological evidence Carey and others presented. The evidence for continental matching, even on the Pacific facing sides became irrelevant, as did the claims that a smaller sized and lower gravity Earth facilitated the growth of dinosaurs to their relatively enormous size. 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.
I question the idea that anyone who studies theories outside the current paradigm should be classified a wingnut, idiot, bonehead, etc.
Wrong, perhaps. Missing vast tracts of information to support a theory, fine. But, 'nutjobs' have been responsible for some of our greatest scientific advances. It's sad to think that all off the wall theories would need to be kept secret, hidden, locked away so as to keep the men who posed them from coming to ridicule or harm.
And admittedly, making a video which presents it as fact, rather than explaining why it's a theory is a bit boneheaded, but, that's typical human ego for you.
Wrong, perhaps. Missing vast tracts of information to support a theory, fine. But, 'nutjobs' have been responsible for some of our greatest scientific advances. It's sad to think that all off the wall theories would need to be kept secret, hidden, locked away so as to keep the men who posed them from coming to ridicule or harm.
And admittedly, making a video which presents it as fact, rather than explaining why it's a theory is a bit boneheaded, but, that's typical human ego for you.
The unfortunate part is that some people believe that simply because the establishment is telling them they are crazy, they must be onto something hot! Those are the nutjobs, honestly. Here is an excellent test.
The Crackpot index
How can it be anything but a growing Earth? The Earth is gaining mass at the rate of at least 70,000 tons a year from meteorites that land on the planet. There is good reason to believe that in earlier times this mass gain was exponentially higher. Earth has been around for about four and a half billion years. In that time she has absorbed a significant amount of material and I know of no process by which Earth would lose mass.
Yes, but I think the difference between what you say Juan, and what this guy claims, are two different mole hills. What you're saying is matter falling from the skies and accumulating here for the moles to shape. What he seems to be suggesting is akin to a mole building up that hill from faeces. Well maybe not quite, I just like poop analogies.
I saw that dopey idea and dismissed it. I think the mass gain from meteorites has been significant but only over the full time of the Earth's existence.
While I'm suspicious of the idea, a growing Earth doesn't sound that hard to conceptualize to me. IF the Earth grows, perhaps it's not the mass that is changing but rather its volume and density. Let's say the core of the Earth became less dense for some reason, couldn't the Earth expand without necessarily gaining mass?