Conspiracy of Science – Earth is in fact growing

by VDF on February 11, 2010

This video is a Neal Adams animation about his theory that the Earth is growing. This collides with the Pangea theory. Watch it, you will be amazed. www.youtube.com
Did you like this? Share it:

{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }

maartenjohannes February 11, 2010 at 10:43 AM

And where did all the water come from? Shouldn’t it float on top of everything, since water is lighter than stone? If the earth grew, did it accumulate mass? Or were the laws of gravity suspended for a while, to make the earth grow larger? Where did the energy come from to let the earth do that?

Reply

ironpirites February 11, 2010 at 11:19 AM

@nealadamsdotcom Sorry, but the “ALL CAPS”, “HELLO”, and derision are not working for you.

One fact that does suggest that that the earth might have been smaller in the past is that the human bio-clock runs on a cycle that is shorter than 24 hours. Possibly human evolution is lagging behind the process (whatever it is) by which the earth’s size increases.

Reply

dayotobiusa February 11, 2010 at 12:14 PM

This theory is wrong. Dinossaurs, flora and all the other living beings at that time came from the sea. In the beginning of the earth, the atmosfere was too harmful, and the sea was the only place where it was prosperous for life. The first life forms were merely bacteria, then they grew limbs, then shells, then the ability to roam on land.
It’s true that the oceans’ floor is new, that’s because of the vulcanic rifts in the middle of them. It is all explained by the “pangea” theory. Look it up

Reply

OmarDelfinity February 11, 2010 at 12:37 PM

DONT READ THIS CAUUSE IT REALLY WORKS YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND YOUR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CUZ IT ACTUALLY WORK THIS REALLY WORKS

Reply

Timmay123456789 February 11, 2010 at 1:20 PM

@itsdelaney16

but the rotational speed of the earth is slowing, not increasing, which would decrease the centripetal acceleration (btw there’s no such thing as centrifugal force). Still, what you said makes no sense what so ever. Are you saying that the inner volume of the earth is increasing, or the actual mass of the earth is increasing?

Reply

nealadamsdotcom February 11, 2010 at 1:49 PM

@ironpirites Sort of scum??? We “SORT OF” call that ” differentiation”. sort of.
Matter being created? HOW else do you GET MATTER? Do you know how matter is made? MAGIC? GOD?

I know how it’s done. Took me 30 years to figure it out. Now I know. That’s why I’m here.
I don’t speculate. It would be a waste of my time.
NO, Earth was NOT DENSER. Is Mars DENSER than Earth?
The orbit-the whole system GREW! HELLO. Science says the Sun gets “MINIMUM” 10 bigger and brighter each 1 billion years.

Reply

sathearn February 11, 2010 at 2:34 PM

@itsdelaney16 – I’ll put my reply here to keep your posts together. No doubt we should put all the accumulating information from comparative planetology to work, but there’s also a lot we can learn from the evidence from our home planet, and against which we can test our theories. If you notice anything that seems relevant feel free to share.

Reply

ironpirites February 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM

@nealadamsdotcom With respect, I’m not convinced of that. The idea of the crust of the earth as a sort of scum frothing up from the magma makes more sense to me. The idea of planetary matter creation is intriguing, though. But isn’t it impossible for us to do anything but speculate on either the density of the planet or it’s orbit around the sun 180 million years ago? Couldn’t it have been a lot denser? Might not the orbit have been substantially the same as it is now?

Reply

phdhbtdsmmm February 11, 2010 at 4:03 PM

@itsdelaney16 “The impact you described may have been one of many that exist and it may also be due to the crossing of the belt. ”

Er… okay. Good luck with that.

Reply

phdhbtdsmmm February 11, 2010 at 4:31 PM

@itsdelaney16 “What age is associated to the impact?”

You appear to have an internet connection, so….

ht tp:/ / tinyu rl. c om/27pf2ou [<- remove spaces]

Reply

phdhbtdsmmm February 11, 2010 at 5:04 PM

@itsdelaney16 “Plate tectonics and the Big bang are also labeled theories but under closer scrutiny we will find that these theories are no better then the assumptions of a flat earth.”

How so?

Reply

nealadamsdotcom February 11, 2010 at 5:21 PM

itsdelaney – 1. There is no…crossing of the belt. That is either science fiction or nonsense. Orbits are fixed in relative progression, not distance. There’s no dancing a gig inside the solar system. If people think you are supporting my theory, you have a responsibility not to make whacky pronouncements here.

Reply

nealadamsdotcom February 11, 2010 at 5:44 PM

@GHOSTTOYS – No, because thing no sense speak. Thing have no brane. Thing am stupid.

Reply

nealadamsdotcom February 11, 2010 at 5:50 PM

@uconnstudent – You sir, are a tree or a type of senseless pine cone. Go back to your chicken fart or oriental breast massage videos. You have no place here. We’re talking science, not bufoonery.

Reply

GHOSTTOYS February 11, 2010 at 6:44 PM

@nealadamsdotcom why because me theory stand after all and it crush yours … is that why !!

Reply

nealadamsdotcom February 11, 2010 at 7:37 PM

@GHOSTTOYS – Go away.

Reply

nealadamsdotcom February 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM

@itsdelaney16 – When they reach their greatest strength, compared to the lines, they fall off the lines to gather electron shells.

According to the strength of the Van Allen Belt- type lines, these atoms assemble larger or smaller. The stronger lines in closer to the sun, make the higher count atoms. The weaker, EM lines, that go further outward, make smaller count atoms.

The reason gravity works is that the positron inside the proton aims the electron shells repulsive force inward.

Reply

nealadamsdotcom February 11, 2010 at 8:22 PM

@itsdelaney16 – When hydrogen atoms join, electrons are thrown off giving us the heat and energy for the sun. This energy ionizes He atoms. They fail to re-join electrons because they travel out on the sun’s (Van Allen Belt), EM lines. Safe from re-joining, plus nuclei, responding to negative lines they ride, as if they were electrons; join each other to become larger and larger atomic nuclei.

Reply

uconnstudent February 11, 2010 at 8:41 PM

the world is expanding? wow. what a fool. no it isnt. these theories are half baked and are so ridiculously outlandish im surprised he got this many views to begin with. appropriate your time better, and try to find the source of global warming, or a new renewable energy source.

Reply

itsdelaney16 February 11, 2010 at 8:44 PM

@phdhbtdsmmm
The impact you described may have been one of many that exist and it may also be due to the crossing of the belt. Until we understand our inner orbit better we are at odds with uncovering its secrets because our platform of a fixed orbit stands in our way of our better understanding

Reply

itsdelaney16 February 11, 2010 at 9:25 PM

@phdhbtdsmmm
Plate tectonics and the Big bang are also labeled theories but under closer scrutiny we will find that these theories are no better then the assumptions of a flat earth.

Reply

itsdelaney16 February 11, 2010 at 9:33 PM

@phdhbtdsmmm
Maybe not the extinction but many life forms may have submerged below the crust into a vast sea as the crust was forming from impact..and many remains would have also been found that were excavated as the impacts occurred. However the crossing of the asteroid belt is not a constant for a planet that crosses. It goes in and out of the belt as it orbits just like Mars orbits between 145 million miles and 128 million miles or so. It is not a circular orbit but an oblong one.

Reply

phdhbtdsmmm February 11, 2010 at 10:01 PM

@itsdelaney16 The KT impact event is no longer considered an hypothesis, but is now described as a ‘theory’, which is one of the top-level conceptual frameworks in science, and a demonstration of the confidence in all the data and conclusions from those data.

It is nothing to do with the crossing of the asteroid belt, which – if Earth had done this – would have meant the extinction of any life on Earth.

Reply

itsdelaney16 February 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM

@phdhbtdsmmm
What age is associated to the impact?

Reply

phdhbtdsmmm February 11, 2010 at 10:29 PM

@itsdelaney16 The KT boundary (K = Kreta, which is German for ‘chalk’ which refers to the Cretaceous period, when much chalk deposits were deposited, and T = Tertiary, for the Tertiary period) has masses of evidence of a single impact of a large asteroid. I have been to the impact location in Chicxulub, Mexico, a flat expanse of chalky deposits with many limestone caverns (cenotes) that are located in a rough circle 100s of km in diameter in weaknesses in the rock….

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

indice annunci indice annunci indice annunci indice annunci indice annunci indice annunci indice annunci