Pangea Theory Proven Wrong!

Watch the full Neal Adams - Science Playlist: • Neal Adams - Science
Adams shows the "Pangea theory" makes no sense, no matter what specialty of science you use to study it. Tectonics, engineering, putting puzzle pieces together, or good old common sense. Believing in the Pangea theory is like believing in magic. it has no relationship to common sense reality.
Download the Crustal Age Map and more at:
continuitystudios.net/growth/
To purchase the full DVD with extra footage unavailable elsewhere, visit:
www.nealadamsstore.com/Science...

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Listen carefully. If you are standing in the middle of a very big inner tube in a driveway of people surrounded by inner tubes , ...shoved together and some force (A guy painted RED) pushes between the tubes and forcing your tube away from the next tube,.....ARE YOU MOVING? ....OR IS THE TUBE YOU ARE SURROUNDED BY "MOVING"? ( remember, nobody's touching or shoving YOU!) By the way, as these red shoving guys continue to shove you apart, you overflow the driveway, UNLESS the driveway GROWS BIGGER!

[@campeonesmundiales]

We need translate at spanish the information. Necesitamos traducir al español de informacion

[@ruacharyeh9655]

This coincides with expanding earth theory cuz then it would make sense as to why dinosaurs existed because the planet was smaller then.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

@@ruacharyeh9655 The theories are one and the same. The difference is Expansion,...and GROWTH! Nothing EXPANDS without another force being added1

[@kurtisbrooks1699]

Has anyone else coupled what we know about the expanding Earth with other theories like aquatic-Ape theory of human evolution? If the planet was at one point all covered in water (As EVERY ancient sacred text suggests) than these two theories support one another.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

@@kurtisbrooks1699 No, they do not support each other! our writings were done/written mere thousands of years ago. If Earth was completely covered by a thin coat of water, we are talking a BILLION YEARS AGO or more!

[@lynnroberts6831]

That would also mean a denser atmosphere (deeper from earth to the edge of space). The increased O2 pressure possibly helped support the massive plant and animal life. The atmosphere would have thinned as the earth expanded.

[@the_ancient_library]

I love how he said “the continents don’t float, they are rooted to the sea floor and go miles below the surface”... lol tectonic plates are like 40-70 k’s thick so you’re not wrong there

[@bdm1000]

This is one of my favorite videos on the subject because if anyone thought Neal was manipulating the original video of his expanding earth model, we can now see pangea theory looks far less realistic.

[@Chrischi3TutorialLPs]

do you even know a thing about how tectonics work? also, assuming you are right, where do you think that extra mass comes from?

[@BrakeCoach]

Chrischi3LPs you know, Wagner also had his pangea theory thought false. Also, this theory is proven false NOW, but in the future, it could be proven.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

The "Pangea Theory" as presented today is insane and stupid,.....while Wagener is RIGHT! How can this be? ONLY ONE WAY! 280 Million Years Ago Earth's crust covered the whole of a smaller Earth. YOU MAY THINK this 'sounds' crazy,....but it's the ONLY conclusion that FITS THE FACTS! Is there SUBDUCTION? Yes, BUT LIMITED and MEASURABLE,.....BY A CHILD,.... ONLY in the Pacific,..... Do YOU KNOW how stupid it is to KNOW how measurable, clear, and demonstrable the spreading TIMELINE, and DISTANCES IS..... SHOWN in the CRUSTAL AGE MAP is CLEAR,....how it FEELS to KNOW THIS,....AS A DEMONSTRABLE FACT,....and to listen to people who SIMPLY,.... DO NOT LOOK,..AND MEASURE and SEE the CLEAR and OBVIOUS! This is NOT "MY" OPINION! THIS is FACT! DEMONSTRABLE FACTS,...by HUMANS WHO WILL SIMPLY (but REFUSE TO.) STUDY THE MAPS!!!! THINK!!!

[@BrakeCoach]

nealadamsdotcom no, your opinion is GOOD ! ITS FANTASTIC! I LOVE your thory!

[@nealadamsdotcom]

I understand,...but this is NOT an opinion. This is merely a study and observation of CLEAR FACTS, published EVERYWHERE,...for ANYONE to examine and SEE! Please don't "LOVE" my "THEORY". Study the Crustal Age Map! Thank You, THINK!

[@BrakeCoach]

nealadamsdotcom Okay. Thanks.

[@MrNicofrog]

no need to "prove "anything wrong or right ,this shows a remarkable grasp of the obvious!

[@SolMuun]

When I was a kid I saw a map of the tectonic plates taken by a satellite and I saw how the Pacific was widening out more than the Atlantic. Then I remembered how the dinosaurs where really huge and only low gravity can support their weight. Then I concluded that the Earth must've been smaller. I figured this out around 12 or 14. It's not that illogical. Also, about two tons of material lands on the Earth every year. That's where the extra weight-mass comes from.

[@DeterminedExpression]

If the growth came mostly from outside, then the layers on earth would neatly stack up at every continent and in every ocean of the planet. If the planet was just recycling, then one side of the plate would have one layer, while the other side would have the most layers. Instead we have most layers in the middle of 'plates'.

[@jenniferclick1238]

You fail to show how the trenches come into play. You cannot ignore them since they are part of Plate Tectonics. And there are NOT earthquakes and volcanoes here and there, most follow specific patterns. Also if you take a look at India and Asia, you will see how continental collision when TWO plates made up of Continental Crust show clearly that plates collide and spread apart. Your premise is fallacy!

[@nealadamsdotcom]

The trenches???? You mean along Asia? Well, some say this trench is the area that we THINK plates subduct. Likely it has, from beginning 60 Million Years Ago As to proof that this trench is responsible for the Earth devouring all and every square inch of the Oceanic plate of Earth, in the last 180 Million Years, as the Pangea theory suggests,........NO, I clearly don't believe this is so and the ages of the undersea plates of Earth don't show it either, unless you can't read or understand a map! 2.Volcanoes and Earthquakes DO INDEED follow patterns of pressure and tectonic movement! What, then is your point? 3.No, India and Asia NEVER EVER collided. If they HAD there would HAVE TO BE massive Basaltic sutures from the OB-DUCTING oceanic plate! And there is not! That is, outside of the fact that colliding continents is laughably stupid as a concept!

[@jenniferclick1238]

1. You said in your video that earthquakes and volcanoes are 'here and there' indicating random appearance. They are not random. 2. Trenches are not only along Asia but also Alaska, Middle America, Puerto Rico, South America, Indonesia, among others. 3. India and Asia collided as any map shows. There is a suture zone with forearc sediments & turbidites and ophiolites. And there are also pillow basalts found in the suture zone. www.files.ethz.ch/structuralgeology/JPB/files/English/Himeng.pdf www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9788132215684-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1436628-p175332424

[@jenniferclick1238]

Also, how do you explain ancient mountain ranges, the Napier, Grenville, Sammian and other ancient orogenies (ie billions of years ago) if plate tectonics was not at play. If, as you say, the earth grew, there would be no mountain building, simple physics.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Jennifer, 1.Well, they are random. AND specific, but ALL caused by PRESSURES under the crust, or else they dont "need" to exist,....nor am I ' necessarily disagreeing with you. YOU created this disagreement, from your "whole cloth"! Not I. My 'point' is, you don't have a 'point'. 2. TRUE! But ONLY at the Western Trench are the ages on either side of the trench SO different from Each other. Down dipping of a nascent trench, my indicate a "FUTURE SUBDUCTION AREA", or NOT! It's the ages of the plate on either side of the trench that shows subduction! 3. Any "stupid , opinionated , THEORETICAL MAP shows". A GROWING EARTH, shows a far different story. Mankind once believed there were canals on Mars and MADE MAPS to show it! Justifying stupid theories is a habit of humans......here requiring a wedge of land to break off Africa and independent of propulsive force, to swim, upward to CRASH into Asia so powerfully as to buckle up the tallest mountains on Earth! And all this doesn't bother you at all.? Showing only, that ,you drank the Kool-Ade. Growing Earth requires the Earth grow, the continents spread and recurve to a flatter plane, and crack apart and a piece like India between two spreading pieces,...cling to ONE side or the other! Then, beginning 60 Million Years Ago ( After all the Dinosaurs died off,... many because of the following.) the continental crust getting thicker and thicker when recurving to a flatter plane MUST and began to buckle into mountain ranges! Finally, this same 60 Million Years Ago, Australia RIFTED FREE of Antarctica, inaugurating the spreading of the Antarctic Ocean. This powerful spreading force drove all Southern Land Mass upward,....as you may know, including India! (Increasing the buckling force at the north of this triangle! 3. These elements are there from the Shallow Seas at this area, that, if you are unaware of these, should drive you back to your books at once! These NEEDED basaltic sutures are NOT Pillow Basalts which indicate SPREADING, or new deposits,.. but MUST be buckling Oceanic Crustal Plate that represents the Obducting side of a subduction Zone, which would result from the "CRASHING" of India into Asia.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Explain fairy tales that don't exist? Are you truly asking me this? Things don't exist because you give them a name! They exist because they exist! Let me ask you this? Do you think Dinosaurs could cross massive mountain Ranges,..like the Andes, or the Rockies, to freely migrate to all continents as the Pangea Theory indicates? Your Mountains exist as Theories only! At the end of this I will include an interesting Quote, but first: Sure, there was tectonics,..WITHIN the continental plates. This is how we get our ridges and flat plains below, all over the world that held our Shallow Seas! But rifts down through the differentiated Granitic rock to the remaining Basalts,....depleted now of lighter Granitic rock, did not begin to rift and spread until 180 Million Years Ago, on Either side of what we now call North America! True, Basalts Came to the surface 250 Million Years Ago (The Siberian Traps.) It was a disaster, because there were no deep oceans to spread into like today. LET ME QUOTE DR EDWIN COLBERT, CURATOR EMERITUS OF VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY, FOR THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. Please attend. "THE WORLD OF THE MESOZOIC WAS ONE WORLD CLIMATICALLY, JUST AS IT WAS ONE WORLD GEOGRAPHICALLY. IT WAS LARGELY A SUB-TROPICAL AND WARM TEMPERATE WORLD. DURING THE EXTENT OF THE MESOZOIC, THERE WAS A UNIFORMITY OF CLIMATES," "WHEN DINOSAURS RULED, THERE WERE NO POLAR ICECAPS. WHILE TROPICAL, SUB-TROPICAL AND WARM TEMPERATE CLIMATE, ACROSS THE EARTH". "GENERAL UNIFORMITY OF MESEZOIC CLIMATES WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A UNIFORMITY OF TOPOGRAPHY. LANDS GENERALLY WERE LOW, WITH NO GREAT ELEVATIONS ABOVE SEA-LEVEL. THERE WERE HILLS, BUT PROBABLY NO GREAT MOUNTAIN RANGES TO ACT AS BARRIERS TO THE CIRCULATION OF MOISTURE LADEN WINDS OR TO THE MOVEMENTS OF LARGE ACTIVE ANIMALS. (THE UP-LIFTING OF OUR MODERN MOUNTAIN SYSTEMS WAS TO BEGIN DURING THE FINAL STAGES OF THE CRETACEOUS HISTORY, AND TO EXTEND INTO THE EARLY MIDDLE STAGES, OF THE CENOZOIC ERA. AFTER THE DINOSAURS HAD BECOME EXTINCT)".

[@mumaac]

Hey, great new video. You mentioned you are working on Pluto too, how is that coming along?

[@japjoem4077]

Dutchsense just found out that pangea didn't exist, and he's one of ,if not the best at predicting earthquakes.

[@WhyNotQuestionEverything]

When did he talk about pangea? Can you link the video?

[@jean-pierrefernandez2460]

i really like this theory, i thought the gfx model that shows if pangea existed there would be a dry spot on opposite side was especially compelling my only question is where was all this oceanic water during "small earth" ? or was all the land submerged till it spread out enough to rise above the waters?

[@MrWolynski]

Here is explanation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eX6TeZxmjtx0gKM

[@jean-pierrefernandez2460]

@@MrWolynski I'll watch it but this is just my personal interest people either are receptively to these things are theyre not

[@jean-pierrefernandez2460]

@@MrWolynski neat little video and i made a comment based on what i believe and some of the things ive read that make sence to me it really feels like he gives a nod to the plasma universe then tries to rationalize contemporary theories back in

[@christiansanchez2600]

What the hell. The planets don’t grow, that would be near impossible since the Earth isn’t hollow. Tectonic plates collide creating big mountain ranges like the Himalaya.

[@andrewwestcott9172]

How does this theory explain the magnetic banding opposite ocean ridges, and the relatively recent formation of mountain ranges?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

I don't understand your first question. My bad. Unless you are talking about Magnetic reversals in the oceanic crust,...which current science clearly and easily understands. NOT SO ,...Mountains. You correctly say "RECENT" Mountain Ranges,..in that these mountain Ranges began to rise up about 60 Million Year Ago! And I said "BEGAN",..not "SHOT UP!" Anyway,...As the oceanic plate spreads,..the continental plate,....mostly UNMOVING has become 35 to 40 Miles THICK! As a result of this thickening,..and as the Earth "GROWS" the un-spreading continental crust must "RECURVE TO A FLATTER PLANE"......so , sensibly, the upper couple of miles of the continental plate must rise up, buckle up, into Mountain Ranges!

[@libertarianguy5567]

I just did the math on this. According to this video, the earth double in size approximately every 100,000,000 years. Considering the earth is 4.5 billion years old, I will give it the very conservative redoubling of 40 times. That would mean the earth started out as a rock that was a little bigger than 100 meters (about 330 ft) in diameter Or the length of a football field. This theory is beyond ridiculous.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

1, First, Simple math would show you the Growth was exponential Calculate it on a curve!,..NOT straight line! (180 Million Years ago Earth was the size of Mars. Assume Earth was 1,100 miles in diameter 4.5 Billion Years Ago, as a rough assumption! From these three points make your curve! This theory is completely sensible and logical if the MATTER UNIVERSE increases in size,...the Sun gets bigger and hotter, the moons seems to move away from the Earth, and Jupiter has become the inner planet's Meteorite umbrella. Do you people ever put puzzles together? EVER????????

[@dark_amethyst9365]

puzzles are what created the pangaea theory

[@frankacuso]

nealadamsdotcom Why is the earth expanding? Where are the materials of expansion coming from? If there are no material to increase the size of the earth, is the earth being transformed from solid to liquid or gas to explain the expansion?

[@jalee6587]

frankacuso it is expanding and becoming less dense. The same mass spread over a larger area.

[@charlesmccoy3519]

You have flawed math beyond ridiculous!

[@master106]

I never believed in Pangea.

[@starlight-xt7po]

First time ever hearing this theory, I dont understand about the volume of water , the total volume should stay the same correct? If the planet grows but the volume of water stays the same, then the oceans are getting more shallow and the land exposed out of the ocean is getting bigger? So the ocean levels are not rising like the environmental people are saying? Or when the planet expands does it some how mean everything expands, more water, more rock, more oxygen.

[@louiethepitt]

Great video....one very important question? I have seen your videos on the Moon, Mars and the the moons like Europa; so now that there is new material coming from the space missions to Ceres and Pluto, with video and HD photographs...would you be doing a study and subsequent video showing growth on this 2 new solid planets that are being orbited as we speak (Ceres and Pluto)?

[@johnlock8041]

+louiethepitt yes!! I imagine that proving growth on those 2 planets is easier since there is no water there.

[@louiethepitt]

+John Lock I'm hoping we see those videos of Ceres and Pluto....and there is very good material for Neal Adams to work on....another thing i learned on this video is that the growth its accelerating in the last 200 millions years...its interesting and we should be asking the question why?....we know that Stars grow until the point of death also this happens with gas giants till the point their core collapses and they start loosing their gas...we know that planets have a mini-Sun core in their center...so is logical to think that the same as stars grow also planets solid or gas grow...but as for the acceleration its interesting that it is happening on earth now...because it could be signaling that the core in the center of earth its at the end of its life just the same way the core of stars also when coming to an end starts accelerating the growth of the star till it collapses...so maybe Neal needs to connect this...maybe our core its in its last stage.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

+louiethepitt On the contrary. The Earth will grow to become a gas-giant,...just as gas giants will become Stars. This is how we get "modern " stars. with planets. This is an ongoing "PROCESS", not an 'event'! I'll try to have the Pluto one this week!

[@nealadamsdotcom]

+louiethepitt Pluto, I hope,...this week! Meteorites add very little to the "growth" of a planet or moon. All GROW from the inside-core and outer core, where new matter is produced.

[@louiethepitt]

nealadamsdotcom thanks for your reply....I got that the growth its cause from the inside out just like in a star no doubt on my part...each planet has a mini-star core in its core..but do you think that there may be a connection between the accelerated growth of the last 200 million years with the growth that stars experience in their last stage before they die? could it be that our planet's core its beginning to die and this is why its accelerating its growth just like a stars grows to a red giant before it dies? do you think that there may be a connection there.

[@LittleMeSmiley]

One question: 1. What makes it grow? I mean if it was heating up it could maybe grow, but we are cooling down. And you cannot add mass from no where so what's making it grow?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Earth, like all the larger moons, Planets, Suns and Halaxies , AND the Universe GROWS from the creation of NEW MATTER beginning with the process science calls Pair-Production! Pair-Production , not only gives us every Electron in the Universe, bu all the Protons and Neutrons that make up our matter Universe! Where did you think all the matter of the Universe came from? MAGIC?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

@Random Gaming Yeah,...Who'd'a thunk it! AND,..I'm, apparently, the only person here who gives their real name!

[@scatterbrain9490]

Cool, I am thinking that if the Grand Canyon was viewed from side to side, , it could match the other side for the most part?

[@paradigmbuster]

If you look at Antarctica and Greenland you will see that both islands are surrounded by mid-ocean ridges. Obviously the oceanic crust beneath them stretched in all direction as the plate enlarged as the earth increased in diameter.

[@user-su9we6kr2n]

Putting puzzle pieces together * moving tectonic plates as what always happens***

[@matthewhenthorn3343]

this doesn't explain seduction or mountain building. if the rock is being stretched it can't fold in the middle. it need needs pressure from opposing sides in order to crumple and fold.

[@chrisrodgers855]

Ok. So should it be a dwarf plant grows since it is in the process of clearing out its orbit around the sun. Those consuming the matter needed to grow in size. This would then be the reason why we are not still growing so fast due to only growing from solar winds from the sun and small dust

[@aminakhmadi9193]

So, why do you think crust is spreading and eathquakes happen? Is it because of the volcanos, or the inside thikenning of the eath core? IF it's the case what is the cause of everexpanding Earth? PS: unique theory, never heard anything like this before, would love to investigate your idea more.

[@aminakhmadi9193]

By the way, do you think other planets grow as well? What about moon?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

To begin. There is one form of matter creation from "seemingly" NOTHING! It's called by science pair-Production, It was first observed by Carl David Anderson,....for which he received a Nobel prize. In Pair-Production a high energy Photon strikes an infacing magnetic field. splitting it in half and sharing that energy equally. The MATTER created is a Positron and an Electron,..the prime particles that all matter is made from! These matter particles are joined into Atoms up and down the Periodic table within the inner magnetic field that rides the Plasma outer core. This NEW matter is added Atom by Atom to the mantle,...to be differentiated upward and outward. For the Earth to GROW. Just like all the bodies of the Universe. Just like the Universe,...GROWING! No expanding. "Expanding" isn't science! GROWING IS Science.

[@rethinkscience8454]

Yes The earth was smaller All the land was heavily forested when small The atmosphere had a higher pressure, water boiled above 100degs (110 ?) and was humid The whole earth was flooded while at this size ( sedimentary deposits only on land) The ring of fire started exploded while the flood occurred saving the atmosphere Plates where formed from explosion High ph compound and sediments released into into the rapidly moving global flood concreting the sediments together The earth was expanded ( unknown how ) The flood water settled and lowered into the new salty oceans An ice age began The oceans continuously grew as the expanse continued The only humans and animals alive where on the ark

[@ektasarwan3700]

How were the folded mountain ranges formed then

[@SpydaNYC]

First, they were NOT FORMED by Continents CRASHING INTO each other! That is utter nonsense! Easiest example is the Rockies and the Andes, unless there is some mysterious invisible continent skipping around smashing into continents when nobody is looking! Here is how we get mountain ranges! (We don't get mountains. We get "ranges".) As the Earth GROWS, and it clearly "GROWS"! So, as the Earth grows,.....from the inside out, like everything that grows. ......the outer crust remains on a MOLTEN UNDER-CRUST. So this outer crust cracks and spreads and new material fills in the cracks between. So , the continental plate is the (BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD SHARDS of the old lighter granitic crust of the Earth,....THE CONTINENTS, covering ONLY ONE THIRD of the Earth! These continental "shards"are about 35 miles thick. As the Earth grows, the outer crust MUST recurve to a flatter plane, resulting in buckling and folding of the upper portion of these continental "SHARDS! Here's an example: Cup your hand palm down on the table, as you watch the back of your hand push your palm down flat on the table,......as you watch the back of your hand buckle into mountain ranges! This is how we get mountain ranges on the Granitic outer continental crust of the Earth.

[@badger8798]

this guy is the type of person to go to a mcdonalds and ask if they serve burgers

[@A_Talented_Maori]

The water was 'formed' on earth after the first split along Africa, America, and Asia. Water is destructive to rock therefore it wasn't here 'in the beginning', this is easy to see along any coastline or river, but people have their heads up their own asses that they can't see it, like all these geniuses in the comments section.

[@bullsonparade8030]

I love how they always show all the land on one face of the earth....like the ENTIRE back side is just completely water. Water covers 71% of the earth, but for some reason during earth's early years all 29% of earth's land mass was all clumped up on just one face of our sphere. These theories only make sense when you're teaching them to children who don't know any better.

[@dalethacker1379]

Bulls On Parade and I love how you think God made the earth into a pizza dish.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

The people in the world around you look at the same Earth, that you do and as I do, and they EVEN agree, that SOMEHOW, because the continents FIT TOGETHER,...that they WERE ACTUALLY TOGETHER,....BUT, on "ONE SIDE OF THE EARTH"! YET, the very SAME CLUES show, "JUST AS CLEARLY," that the continents fit PERFECTLY TOGETHER on the Pacific side of the Earth , AND,.. at the same exact times!. Do you KNOW that continents CAN'T ASSEMBLE, and join together,....but ONLY break and pull apart??? When they BREAK APART,...they GROW this SCAR TISSUE,....between them. We call it the OCEANIC PLATE,...which stops the continents from coming BACK TOGETHER!,....SO THEY DON'T! So,...the Earth had to have GROWN!

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Gabriel Black HI,NEAL IN CAPS! When you hear hoof steps, assume horses, not zebras. This video is not only assuming zebras, but is assuming zebras with clear evidence and logic pointing to horses. IF YOU'RE IN AFRICA, GABRIEL, AND YOU HEAR HOOFBEATS, ASSUME ZEBRAS . "FRAME OF REFERENCE, "GABE! WE HAVE ONE UNIVERSE,...AND IT, THE UNIVERSE, WORKS ONE WAY, AND ONE WAY ONLY! YOU SUGGEST ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED ALL AT ONCE WITH THE SNAP OF THE WIZARD OF OZ'S FINGERS. THIS WOULD BE MAGIC, GABE. I DON'T BELIEVE IN MAGIC. I WOULD HAVE TO BE STUPID IF I DID. I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE!

[@grzyb11]

Ever heard pf there being magma under the earth, that’s liquid, so it moves, and just like if you move water under something, it moves, the plates eventually crack and move? Ever seen cracked roads?

[@michaelneary888neary7]

Thank you for this, there is a question that has been bugging me for over a year now after it popped into my head. that question is; how does the Great Pyramid of Giza stay perfectly aligned to north and south and its equatorial alignments if the plates are shifting all over the place? the African plate is supposedly moving north' ish at a rate of 2.5cm per year, that Pyramid is over 5000 years old and should be way out of alignment by now. even a tiny movement would throw the whole thing out of line!

[@SpydaNYC]

Well, first, things AREN'T moving "all over the place"! The continents began rifting apart 2 HUNDRED......MILLION......YEARS......AGO! Our recorded new history is only about 12 THOUSAND years old! A tiny time! Moreover Africa has stayed mostly very still, compared to many places, like Australia,......A little North, but that wouldn't mess up any alignment, per se. Stars are hundreds of millions of miles away!

[@michaelneary888neary7]

@@SpydaNYC Yes i am aware of this, but only the slightest movement would throw the pyramid (and the sphinx which is older) out of exceedingly precise alignments to the earth meridians, (and 1/15th of 1 degree to the cardinal points) more than a 100m over 5000 years or 200m over 10,000 years. This and your research tells me that yours and others work (including N Tesla; based on absorption and transformation of aether-energy into normal matter. ) is very valid. nice work, plenty to contemplate.

[@bobvance-]

If you did a 5 second google search you would have satisfied your curiosity you have had for all these years. The pyramids have moved about one-thousandth of a degree of latitude since they were built, which is extremely insignificant. So yeah, maybe in another 50,000 years they will not be aligned.

[@Sake906]

I really would prefer to hear this from an actual scientist or geologist, and not from a comic artist. Some of your ideas make visual sense here and there, but there really is no room in your theory to explain why there is a change in size, at all; Earth has obviously cooled down after millennia, and basic science tells that most of the molecules that make solid matter vibrate much less when they get cold, allowing them to come closer to eachother given intermolecular forces (subzero water being the odd case thanks to it's molecular structure, though supercooled water (around 4º celcius) is still at it's highest density) I'm all ears if you can explain that. Likely that it will be wrong, given your very passionate and visual approach to this. I definitely agree that there is some ridiculous and twisted formfitting and shapeshifting in normal Pangea theory, but all this "Growth out of nowhere" thing is just as bad, if not worse. PS Planets are not "matter manufacturing factories", they are matter converters at best, and always at the expense of existing matter; you can't just "create" new matter that would add up to that mysterious size increase, let alone at such a fast rate and scale (in planetary time terms).

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Sake, Perhaps you would prefer I look like Einstein or I wear a lab coat and have a twitch or two,...but this is the real world and this is science. OH,....and I'm wrong because I'm passionate,....and well-spoken???? No,....as it turns out Planets,..Suns and black holes ARE, INDEED "matter manufacturing factories. THAT is indeed their prime and core FUNCTION,....in a Godless function where everything is a process of EVOLUTION,....from simple and basic to complicated and varied. Where did the MATTER UNIVERSE come from????? In one fine day,...from NOTHING, did it BURST INTO EXISTANCE fully formed with all the matteh Big Banging outward???? If this is what you believe,...welll, along with all of standard science, the elite of mankind are fools. If you think that matter creation is a process, that began small and humbly and continued and continued and continued, until we have the Universe we have today,.....just like everything else we KNOW, from all our studies,..then THAT is exactly what THAT Universe would LOOK LIKE! If this is so, we must have one more question,.....which is, and must be,....WHO, turned off the OFF SWITCH??? If Earth were in a process that went from Meteorite to small moon by accretion, to Moon, To planet, to gas giant to sun to super Nova,...would WE short-lived creatures KNOW THIS? I think not. We would see clues, but interpret them according to our current beliefs. ALWAYS HISTORICALLY WRONGLY! Some might see clues and interpret correctly, but be rebuffed by our current beliefs, insane as they may be. For example, as Earth grows and evolves a simple nascent sun at it's core,,..this heat(ed gasses.) rising to under the crust will melt the silicates and differentiate the lighter rock to rise up and coat the Earth with light Granitic rock ,....until the MELT AREA runs out of LIGHTER GRANITIC ROCK.,...at which time the heavier basalt will rise and crack and spread the lighter Granite,...into pieces. Lord knows how short-lived humans will interpret this simple process! I have heard such insane excuses for this process that I shrink from saying them out loud. I will not write the book here, but simplyask and answer a basic question. Is there actually a process of matter creation that we know exist? Yes, it is called Pair-Production. It was first observed in 1932. This process is responsible for the creation of more than one third of the Particles of the WHOLE UNIVERSE,...and HALF OF THE MATTER! I am impressed by this. You should be, too. But being human, you won't understand.

[@Sake906]

Neal Addams, everything we "believe" is "right" as of now is because thorough century-old studies have confirmed it. Your theory has exactly the same beginnings as heliocentrism, it had it's skeptics left and right until finally, through deep observation of other celestial bodies and their orbits, it could be proven right and superior to geocentrism. This last detail is what your theory is missing; you can't explain why all this matter is being created out of nowhere without sounding sorely off. Planets becoming stars? seriously? Black holes are not "manufacturers", they just sucked up matter that already existed around them; they still eject that same matter in the form of Hawking Radiation. Their function is no different from other celestial bodies, they just have a tremendous mass; they generate nothing, other than converting everything they absorb into radiation, which is ejected later on as they evaporate. Suns are giant fusion reactors; they fuse matter into heavier matter, no creation involved; anything they "produce" is a 100% fusion byproduct. Their later stages do show increase in size, but only because their surface can no longer "hold" the much stronger nuclear output; their outer layers are essentially pushed outwards. I just reached the part where you imply that planets are destined to become stars and I believe this is a hopeless debate. Planets are just what they are, not necessarily every planet has to grow into a gas giant; the ones that we know grew into ones when they had the chance to capture leftover gas from earlier solar system formation; we don't have any internal solar system gas giants because the sun got most of that, or blew the rest away. The only thing that could REMOTELY resemble a star, given the current size of the Earth, would be a neutron star (which, at that size, would already be much more massive than the Earth). Pair Production, as far as I know, is the process of taking a photon and shooting it so that it creates an electron and a positron, which immediately eliminate eachother, there is no matter being created here, it's just annihilation of a type of particle in order to create another type of particle. Like I said, Pangea theory might rise an eyebrow in areas like subduction, but everything else you said right now sounds way more bollocks. I don't demand that you look like Einstein nor are condemned to use a wheelchair for the rest of your life so that I can believe you; scientists can look very casual too (and bringing that up, implying what scientists have to look like, is very rude of you) You are free to propose a theory, in fact I applaud at you for bringing this up and trying to explain it with so much dedication, though this theory has been proposed much earlier than you did here, it was studied and considered like heliocentrism; it simply didn't pass the tests, much like "string theory" recently pretty much didn't, as far as I know. Keep in mind that "creating matter/energy out of nothing" really puts scientists on hype (or incredible fear in some cases). I'm sure that if the same thing were happening inside our planet, they would have found by now; no, they are not hiding it, much like they are not hiding anything about the hypothesized "big rip" nor the "big freeze" that will end the universe in less than 20 minutes, whenever it starts. Sounds just as scary, they are definitely not ashamed of hiding dire and ominous things.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

1.Your position is "NOW WE ARE RIGHT!" My position is , "NOW WE ARE WRONG!" Historically,.....I am correct, and YOU are a simple native in the jungle. You don't have evidence of how the Universe came to be. You don't know how QUARKS are made and where they come from and what they are made of even though it is the greatest constituent of MATTER! You don't know what Dark matter is, or what it is made of, what it does and how it does it. Same for Dark Energy,...even though most of the Universe is made of these two things. You can't cure cancer, and you don't know where the fish fossils of the deep Oceans are from before 70 Million year Ago. You have no idea how matter came to be in an empty Universe. YOU, sir KNOW NOTHING. Just sayin'! No, I can tell you exactly how matter is made,...because I have studied it for 40 years. You can't. It's not a short or easy explanation. Planets become suns,...is a surprise to you. Physicists have often said Jupiter could be an unrealized Sun, for all the above reasons. If Jupiter GROWS what else could it grow into but a sun????? Why is that simple concept hard to understand? There is really no other choice. IF Jupiter grew as big as the sun, you think it would not ignite? You make no sense. 2.Ahhhh, YOU know what black holes are. Amazing! They eject Hawkings radiation??? Really? They should, by all rights give Hawkings BACK all his stuff, right now! So, nothing escapes a black hole,......EXCEPT for Hawking's stuff. I don't think so! A black hole ejects Electrons from one pole and Positrons from the other pole......and that's what builds a Galaxy! Evaporate????? You MUST be high! Where do you get these figments of Hawking's imagination? #. Giant Fusion Reactors!!!! They FUSE things together,..and we KNOW THIS BECAUSE,........ummmmm. we theorize thus and so! Light years away. Are there also canals on Mars? Standing water? Suns GROW,.....but they don't gain MASS,..and we KNOW THIS,.......because,...we uh,.......Theorize it to be so. Do you know that our sun gets bigger ongoing and also gets HOTTER over time? Do you know that??? But there's nothing changing on the sun. It's just same old-same old H to He. So why is it GROWING and getting hotter? MAGIC JU-JU? And ALL OTHER SUNS are getting BIGGER AND HOTTER! Did you know that? And the Universe is GROWING OUTWARD,...because the Universe cannot EXPAND,.....because NOTHING EXPANDS in Physics and science. Didn't you KNOW THAT???? 3. My premise is "Growing Earth-Growing Universe" That is, all bodies GROW. first by accretion then by a process that begins with Pair-production. Earth, is simply a microcosm of every body in the universe and the Universe itself. Earth produces new matter , including all the gasses. Hydrogen and the lighter gasses,..which in time are blown off into space by the Solar Wind. These gasses are replaced by the Earth, and so life on Earth does not die. As the Earth grows it's gravity increases and in time, like Jupiter the Gravity prevents the Solar Wind from blowing the hydrogen and other gasses away. And in time these small rocky planets grow to become Gas Giants! If my premise is correct, THIS is the only possible result! Two plus two, my friend. 4. How DARE you recite wrong science to me. LOOK IT UP,....BEFORE you speak! NO they don't EVER rejoin Each other! The Electron goes on it's merry way as a free electron. The Positron finds another Electron near it's path, (Being on EARTH, here, Electrons are more than abundant.) And JOINS with it, to apparently disappear from our perception. Even then,..SO WHAT??????? The new Electron is free to join an atom or chug along as NEW MATTER! Electrons make up more than a third of the particles of the Universe.!!! This ain't chicken feed, pal! 5.Actually, YOU brought it up. I merely expanded on it to show how preposterous your position is! 6.NO, again. The "Expanding Earth" theory had been proposed by Sam Carey (And a number of others, in the 1960's. But Sam was a geologist and could not give the mechanism for GROWTH. I can and do. Sam first! Mine NOW! Am I being clear? 7. Pangea doesn't "Raise an eyebrow". Pangea is downright stupid in a thousand ways. It defies all the laws of Physics and common sense as well! It's a freak show of insane theories and nothing more! 8.Science ,.....is the discovery of new by accident by ignorant and foolish men, exposed by technology to something new! They have no idea what is in the core of the Earth. It takes assembly of FACTS and deductions from these facts..... and THOUGHT! Lots and lots of thought! NEW discovery comes from ONE MAN (Or woman.) Not a committee, or Group,..or coven. ONE-PIGHEADED-STUBBORN-PERSON! It's just too bad for you that this time the "scientist" happens to be an artist and writer. Shit happens! Suck it up and move on! MATTER is Not created out of NOTHING! MATTER,...for the most part IS NOTHING! Do you think MATTER is SOMETHING? It's NOT! MATTER is made of ENERGY,..and one half magnetic fields, surrounded by a gigantic amount of NOTHING through which its magnetic field flows. The Universe is far denser with whole , in-facing complete magnetic fields, all very close together, and far denser than matter!

[@Sake906]

I've given you a polite explanation and you, on every instance, have responded like an childish brat, obviously offended, insulting me. Allow me to quote some of your recent aberrations: "and we KNOW THIS BECAUSE,........ummmmm. we theorize thus and so!" ..and you know about your growing theory because... ummm... you theorize thus and so? You are saying I am theorising when in reality all I'm doing is quoting universally accepted things; the only person theorising and making passionate videos about a ridiculously naive idea is you. Look at your replies now; you and your theory are clearly in shambles. "Even then,..SO WHAT??????? The new Electron is free to join an atom or chug along as NEW MATTER! Electrons make up more than a third of the particles of the Universe.!!! This ain't chicken feed, pal! " Stop claiming that "Pair Production" is something it is not: it is creation of matter and antimatter: an electron and it's opposite, the positron; these two annihilate eachother immediately upon creation, and if they DO not happen to touch (something that would require vacuum and a massive amount of energy) you still end up with a stray antimatter positron that will eventually TOUCH ANOTHER ELECTRON and ANNIHILATE EACHOTHER just as it would have done so with it's "pair particle" counterpart; you end up with the same amount of matter, unless you are inside a perfect void, which is not really what a planetary core is. "4. How DARE you recite wrong science to me. LOOK IT UP,....BEFORE you speak!" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production I looked it up, not daring to tell you wrong science (much unlike.. well, you) ; do a google search about everything I mentioned. Ah wait, you will say it is all wrong on the internet, encyclopedias, science records and so on. You poor, misunderstood prodigy, you. "Do you know that our sun gets bigger ongoing and also gets HOTTER over time? Do you know that???" Have you even read what I wrote about red giants? you really are not paying attention. F- . And yes, things do change in the sun as it grows old; the moment H runs out, it starts to fuse Helium into heavier elements until it reaches iron. ...Not even going to address your ridiculous planetary growth thing. Already explained those on the previous post that you probably skimmed through with your skeptic rage. The fact that Jupiter is a failed star (or failed brown dwarf, at best) doesn't mean that every clump of silicate and iron that orbits around a star will become one. Jupiter has also stopped growing the moment there was nothing else to accrete. "Sam was a geologist and could not give the mechanism for GROWTH. I can and do. Sam first! Mine NOW! Am I being clear?" Nope, you are not clear. You just look like a very uneducated ignorant. So a comic artist can do better than a geologist whose theory was proven wrong decades ago? Laughing out loud. YOU, sir KNOW NOTHING. "Pangea is downright stupid in a thousand ways. It defies all the laws of Physics and common sense as well! It's a freak show of insane theories and nothing more!" You nailed the perfect description of your theory right there! It's cute when you point fingers at things when in reality you really should take a look at yourself and all the nonsense you are telling. "They have no idea what is in the core of the Earth" "You have no idea how matter came to be in an empty Universe." ...as if you do? so no other human but you knows what's happening inside the Earth and every star in the universe? how divine of you! You know what? I will drop this; you are clearly unmoved and will just keep filling your own little bubble with more bullshit, and in the end I will have to pinpoint so many bits of bullshit that this will be an endless and pointless debate. "40 years of studies" my ass; if the product of four decades of studies are this load of nonsense, what kind scam were you brought into? Don't even bother replying if it's going to be rubbish like the previous one. I promise that if you don't, I will leave this be.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

1.Listen carefully, 'pal', A "theory" is a "theory", and a "stupid theory" is still a "stupid theory" no matter WHERE IT COMES FROM! Don't quote "THEORIES" to me and label them as "FACT"! The "Pangea Theory", The "Solar System accretion THEORY" ETC! Theories, and NOTHING MORE! The second, "The Solar System accretion Theory" was presented by 4 or 5 Philisopher-scientists, 170 years ago, and every Physicist in the world KNOWS it's due for re-thinking and review,....because it's STUPID! 2. LISTEN CAREFULLY,......Matter can neither be created or destroyed,..it can be "CHANGED" into ???? "Annihlate" means "To DESTROY"! So, right off the bat,...what you said is ANTI-SCIENCE. ANTI-SCIENCE! WORSE,..faced with a contradiction, and in a fit of insanity and madness, you prefer to quote a theory that fails to explain how we have a Universe of ELECTRONS,......while you insist they are all "destroyed" upon "CREATION",.......AND, you don't see the obvious contradiction of your words!!!!! AND I must reason with people like YOU???????? Clearly SOMETHING "ELSE" IS HAPPENING! A Planetary OUTER CORE,.....is something quite unique,....for, through it rides the MAGNETIC FIELD OF THE EARTH..........The same Magnetic Field that rides around the Earth,...then through the Earth,...AND,...carries Earth's Van ALLEN BELTS! In these Van Allen Belts,..negative ions are kept apart from positive particles. This .........Makes for interesting possibilities! 4. You looked it up??????? Then quote the reference in which it says the Electron and the Positron PAIR REJOIN each other ,....as you said! 5. NO,.....OUR SUN and SUNS LIKE IT are both GROWING and GETTING BRIGHTER AND JUST converting H to He! The rest, by the way is "THEORY"! Our sun is RIGHT UP THERE! 6. The "Planetary Growth "THING" " is WHY WE ARE HERE,.....or didn't you notice??? If not,....just sayin' what are you doing here???????? Just wondered? 7. Look, "pal",....If you're not here to learn about this, what the hell are you doing here????? If your mind is closed to FACTS,...what are you trying to accomplish for YOU or anyone???? Most scientists and lay people disagree with me already,....what's in it for you? Do you like to be insulted???? Are you just nuts? And now, you ramble like the town idiot. It's no loss when stupid people leave, believe me!

[@audiarayz]

The pieces stay where they are and the planet grows. All while ocean levels fluctuate based on ice sheets and atmospheric changes. Interesting indeed.

[@edalweiss]

So what I'm getting in this thought is that the Earth is inflating as it grows, like a balloon?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

NO,.....GROWING, like a baby, or an apple,..or a coconut, or a Geode. or you, before you were born and grew! Not NOW. Not NOW,.....now you stopped growing! The Earth doesn't stop growing! You, being a short-lived creature, wouldn't notice!......except on a Universal level.

[@FractalEarth]

Hey Neal, thank you for being an outspoken voice for Growing Earth theory. Your videos turned me on to the theory after I began to have my own questions about Earths evolution after noticing geological patterns on GoogleEarth that didn't quite fit with current models. You've probably said this somewhere before, but I was wondering what your take is on why the science community is so dismissive and what are the implications if Growing Earth theory has merit? It does, but for them to admit that it does is going to obviously take more conclusive evidence and probably an angry mob. So how do we incite that mob in the science community to overturn the dogma of its own doctrines? Or is it just a waiting game for the next generation of scientists and minds who we are trying to convince now?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

I'm working on it! I will win with FACTS and hard work!

[@KubieQ]

How can idiots thumb this down.??? ITS THE ONLY EXPLANATION that works!!!!

[@ivantolkachev4808]

The Earth's orbit would have become way more elliptical if this was actually happening. Reality is there's no process that creates matter inside the earth and nuclear fusion most certainly doesn't take place on the earth (we would have been able to predict it with energy measurements.) Ocean floor is being created in some places and subverted in others, which is why it's younger than the continental plates.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

+Ivan Tolkachev Fairy tale science predicts things that cannot be predicted. There is NOTHING about a growing Earth that requires a greater elliptical orbit! Pair-Production CREATES NEW MATTER where ENERGY exists! That would be at the core of the Earth! Fusion as a process, gives us Helium. on the sun. Helium also is found on Earth! How is that??? There IS SUBDUCTION on Earth in the Pacific! Not ENOUGH TO DO THE JOB! FAIL!

[@ivantolkachev4808]

Because the earth was created from the left-overs of a former sun most likely, that's why we have helium and all other elements that are produced in heavier stars. If the earth and the sun both gain mass then the earth will go into a spiral orbit towards the sun. If the earth and the moon gain mass then the moon will go into spiral orbit towards the earth. The radii of earth's elliptical orbit around the sun have been relatively constant. The moon is actually moving FURTHER away.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

+Ivan Tolkachev I'm sorry. Do you have a background in any of the sciences? I cannot see it in your comments. 1.Left-overs?????? HUH? Are you thinking Earth is made from Hydrogen and Helium? It's NOT! Nor is it made from a SUN, In fact, no one knows how a Silar System is MADE or what it is made from. There are some very OLD THEORIES,.. but, in fact AN EARTH with Hydrogen or Helium would have these two gasses . AS GASSES, blown away. In fact, Nelium RELEASED, flies away! The only Helium we have is TRAPPED UNDER GROUND! According to this NEW THEORY Earth and sun and ALL satellite bodies ORBIT ON MAGNETIC LINES of the larger bodies! As the bodies GROW their magnetic field lines move/GROW OUTWARD! The Earth's YEAR has become LONGER OVER TIME! According to NEWTON the MOON MUST HAVE FOUND it's orbital distance long before now! YET it moves OUTWARD, because Earth's magnetic field moves outward!

[@ivantolkachev4808]

Moon moves away because of the tides. It gains the energy to move into a farther orbit by taking the energy from earth's rotational momentum. Yes, leftovers. A large star super novas and its pieces collect into a new solar system with a smaller sun. "Earth's magnetic field moves outward" wtf does that even mean? All magnetic fields are infinitely large but are just really weak at long distances. A growing earth and sun wouldn't require a more elliptical orbit, but it would result in a spiraling orbit towards the sun.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

+Ivan Tolkachev If you like to believe in "STUPID SCIENCE", fine. 1. NOTHING about the tides affects the MOON'S orbit! Where did you get this junk???? 2. I told you Helium blows away. It can't be held. NOR has anyone proved Planets are made of "Star Stuff"! It's JUST a theory!!! 3. What does it MEAN???? Did you go to school? Do you remember MAGNETS, and magnetic field LINES??? Increase the field and the FIELD LINES MOVE OUTWARD! Fields may be weak, but they ACT on EVERY SINGLE ATOM OF the moon,. ever so slightly. but their cumulative effect nudges the moon onto the LINE. just as the planets ride the sun's EM lines,..mathematically perfectly! 4 NO increased eliptical,. and NO SPIRAL, since the planets RIDE the EM lines of the sun! And that's why the YEAR has gotten LONGER!!!! As has the day! Time for NEW SCIENCE, and NOT old THEORY! What is your background, please.

[@crazycatlady2744]

I came out here looking to find some plate tectonics denial, and I was not disappointed. I'm not sure where all the extra mass is supposed to come from to make the earth grow, unless maybe you think planets can eat?

[@ggowtham3441]

"kumari kandam" is a huge land mass once existed.

[@unambitious]

Keep up the good work Neal!

[@ForeverTributesNL]

This explains the lower gravity dinosaurs lived under and needed to be able to carry their weight. A recent study proved under nowadays gravity they wouldn't be able to move. Still the mass problem needs an answer other than: "stuff was added from the ether". Imo the electric universe theory is a nice lead to this.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Timothy, "The Electric Universe" is a pile of non-scientific gibberish,...and worse than "The Big Bang" nonsense! GROWTH is, and must be a simple process of matter creation. For there to be "MATTER CREATION" there must be some sort of "PRE-MATTER" to make MATTER FROM! Well, the fact is,...there is no such thing as MATTER! No such thing as "STUFF"! There IS ENERGY. There is electro-magnetic fields. Positive and Negative,..and there-in lies the nature of the universe. SO,...FIRST we must know if there is,..within all this a real, form of matter creation from these NON-MATTER forces! Turns out THERE IS! Is's called Pair-Production,..and it was first observed in 1932 by Carl David Anderson (For which he received a Nobel Prize.) If you don't know/understand this, you should have no right to speak here.

[@HarrisonTodd]

Notice how the 500,000,000 million year old plate is west of the 60,000,000 year old plate, which is west of the 1 year old plate. Almost as if the rock came out of the earth and moved westward, like a tectonic plate? Wild I know

[@Xeno_Bardock]

Peter Woodhead did a great video explaining how the planet expands/grows from within.

[@K8URChannel]

Question: How do you explain the Antarctic having a semi-tropical climate once? Salt water fossils up mountains?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

The whole Earth was sub tropical 200 Million Years Ago. from POLE TP POLE! There were no ice Ages. There were no winters! All plants grew all year around. Seasonable trees and plants had to evolve from Perennial plants until seasons began to exhibit very slowly! How could this all be? It's a long story and it throws most of what you have learned about the Earth into a cocked hat . Salt Water fish did not fossilize to rise to mountain tops. They were FRESH WATER fish that swam in the shallow seas of the Earth! The shallow seas existed on the continental plates. As the Earth GREW, the continental and very thick plates had to recurve to a FLATTER PLANE,..buckling the upper crust into Mountain ranges, The shallow sea bottoms rose up with the rest of the continental crust! Ever ask yourself where Salt water came from???

[@K8URChannel]

nealadamsdotcom I thought there have been many ice ages..? Varying on the cycles of Earth’s eccentricity, precession and solar cycles etc..No?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

No! There have been Ice Ages only inthe last three Million Years, Dinosaurs died off 60 million Years Ago! Ask yourself, How could Dinosaurs survive an ice Age,...or How could a T-rex survive winter in Chicago?

[@K8URChannel]

nealadamsdotcom Are you inferring that the Earth is becoming hollow over time? It’s volume has increased while it’s mass has remained pretty much constant?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

A hollow Earth would be nonsense and scientifically Stupid! How could a bigger planet have less mass than a smaller Planet? Earth GREW, as do all large bodies,...gained mass and grew! 180 Million Years Ago Earth was about the size of Mars. Now it's nearly 5 times more massive. How could a 60 Ton Sauropod exist in today's Earth gravity! That would be like an Elephant carrying 10 Elephants on it's back! Get used to these simple ideas, then watch my other 12 Videos.

[@shambo8171]

So were did all the extra water come from? If earth is expanding, Wouldn't the water get go lower level's. I personally don't believe in contenintal drift theory. I agree the dry land is welded or connected to the oceans floor. How could it move?

[@tyberius66]

Oh man, my geologist eyes and ears are bleeding... The creator of this video should have a small talk with a geologist. It would take me hours to explain all what is wrong here. I invite everyone to see how tectonics works.

[@jenpw1525]

How do you explain the new discovery that there’s an another continent under Europe?

[@SpydaNYC]

Jen W. It's not a continent. It's merely a SECTION of continental plate. There are many sections of continental plate around the world, that are under water. These are called "Continental Shelves"! Some of these , at differing Geological times, also rise above the sea level or are revealed at lower sea level times! One can see these under many Crustal Age maps! Regards Neal

[@reapermanslayer]

It isn't there. Thats how.

[@ZensPlaceyt]

I know this is an old post was just wondering if it was getting any more hits on it..... the part that locks me in, is the age of the oceans floor the expansion of the globe is easily explained by our lil neighbor the moon or i would say the other half of the core of a planet that hit the earth at the youngest part of our planet which is the oldest part of the ocean continental drift is just the land masses being stretched apart over the last 200 million years that means the moon should be the same age as the ocean floor...right has that been dated?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Byron,..If you have a serious question to ask, do so. If you continue here for fun and giggles,..well, I am a busy man,..and I will just remove you. It's as simple as that.

[@Zenovarse]

Explain this then: how India collided with China?

[@DeeRuss]

What about Doggerland?

[@ianwilkinson4602]

What about it?

[@Voltorb1993]

And then the entirety of my scientific being and logic said "nope" and walked away. This is bullshit on so many levels it's not even funny.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

What IS "funny" is, what if a mistake was made ....early on , and all of science went off in the wrong direction,...(as always happens.) What if,..as science says "NOTHING "EXPANDS! That the matter Universe merely increases, GROWS? That there is a process of "INCREASE" of new matter. What if the process that gives us alll the electrons in the Universe, actually gives us ALL the particles in the Universe,...simple Pair-Production. How easily we put aside Pair-Production,...in spite of the fact that there is where we get every Electron in the Universe. EVERY-SINGLE-ELECTRON,......in the Universe.......yet of all the things we "think" we know,...this,...Pair-Production is OBSERVABLE FACT! THINK!

[@Voltorb1993]

You can't use pair production to explain the growing mass. Firstly, pair production only creates one electron and one positron, both of which immidiately disappear again. Even if I, for a second, was about to believe that these particles might survive their "creation" - matter doesn't contain many positrons (as they always annihilate with electrons) and it DOES contain other particles you can't explain in any way in your theory. What about protons and neutrons? Where do these come from? And you should probably know protons and neutrons are quite a complicated particles, consisting of more smaller particles known as quarks, as well as gluons. You can't explain that with simple pair production. And even if protons and electrons were somehow created inside Earth (bullshit) - what mechanisms lead to it creating more crust? I also must ask what is so wrong with simple continental drift theory that you feel a need to propose a new, much more ilogical one.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

I'm glad you asked! 1. Yes, Pair-Production "ONLY" creates one Electron and one Positron. HOLD IT!!! Electrons number in over ONE THIRD of the Particles of the Universe!!!! Can you comprehend this?.....MORE THAN ONE THIRD! This does not impress you? Really? 2. Disappear again?????? I'm sorry? Disappear? Do you realize/KNOW what you are saying? Things,...in the Universe disappear? Not according to all the science we KNOW to be true! They JOIN,..and release their "ENERGY" in two Gamma Ray particles, (light.) and "SEEM" to be gone from detection! Disappear???? NO! 3. Also,...in our experience we note these actions,....because there are SOOO MANY Particles of MASS, that the {ositron immediately finds and joinds one,...but, the ELECTRON goes on, and COULD GO ON FOREVER unless it finds a Positron,....that are as rare as hen's teeth! SO,.....you are 100% WRONG! 4.Annihilate? Again, I'm sorry. You "do" know matter can neither be created or destroyed, tho' it can be transformed" This is pretty elementary stuff here. 5......doesn't contain"many" Positrons...! NO, obviously, to any thinking brain, there are exactly as many Positrons in the Universe as Electrons! Clearly SCIENCE has made some serious errors here! Put your finger on it RIGHT HERE! So,...where are all the Positrons? A question that has perplexed scientists for decades! And HERE is where Theories diverge from FACTS! Science BELIEVES, with religious fervor that the Universe occupies it's time making up new and interesting particles. NO, the Universe is un-creative and STUPID! We get ONE, accidental and odd miracle,...Pair-Production,...and THAT IS IT! From this ONE ACT, we MUST get EVERYTHING! Protons? Are composed of 919 Electron-Positron Pairs ,....and one extra Positron at its Neutrons? Are composed of 919 Pairs, and one Positron at the core , and one electron on the outer surface! Quarks!!!! No, ther is no such thing as a quark! If you "believe" otherwise, show us ONE! Then tell us where it came from! We know where Electrons and Positrons come from,.....PAIR-PRODUCTION! Quarks? Quark-land? Pair-PRODUCTION needs only ENERGY to massively produce. And where do we find MASSIVE ENERGY? Ah,...at the core of the Earth. Hmmm. We also need a massive EM FIELD to carry the pairs APART from each other. Where can we find that field??? Ah, at the outer Plasma core of the Earth. Bullshit? I see,..you learned a word today. Good for you, you little dickens! Crust??????......is created by DIFFERENTIATION! Do you understand differentiation? "Simple continental drift??????? You THINK, continents DRIFT ABOUT, like bumper cars in a carnival???? Really? Then, sir, you are a fool!

[@1984Brandon]

That doesn't raise any doubts or proof of anything. Whether it was 7 years ago or 8 trillion years ago comparison of where the land has spread and water has moved, it still moved didn't it?...

[@darkhorse234]

If the earth did expand, would the earth eventually become hollow?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Earth did not "EXPAND". Earth GREW! Nothing in the Universe "Expands". That;s "silly science"! Things DO GROW! There are many processes of GROWTH!

[@darkhorse234]

No I'm asking if the earth is growing, where did all the new material to cover the surface come from?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Very little material that is NEW covers the outside surface. This surface 'coating' is called sedimentary rock. This stuff is plant and animal detritus , Volcanic rock,, dirt and minerals washed down from mountains, silt, and such sediments! The material that represents GROWTH,....differentiates from inside the Earth to rise up through cracks/ rifts that encircle the Earth in the deep oceans! The cracks SPREAD and new material rises up to fill the ever-widening crack/rifts.

[@MrTjp420]

its not growing grew from asteroid impact in antarctic millions of years ago.... wilks land crater

[@Titanic-wo6bq]

Plot Twist: This isn't matter being created, it's the universe *GROWING*

[@nealadamsdotcom]

The Universe cannot "GROW" unless NEW MATTER is created! There is no such thing as GROWING without met material being added! Nor does the Universe "EXPAND"! NOTHING on science or Physics "EXPANDS" without some other force being added,....like HEAT! (Thermal.) These are FACTS! They are also TRUISMS! You cannot say,..."Nothing in the Universe "Expands" ,...oh,..ONE EXCEPTION,....THE UNIVERSE, itself! NO,....NO EXCEPTIONS!

[@marce11o]

I always thought the traditional story of Pangea drifting apart seemed far fetched and expanding - I'm sorry - growing Earth is an interesting description of how Earth appears. I don't know. I'd like to listen to a debate on it.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

There aew a dozen Videos and lots of debate below them. Earth did NOT expand. Nothing "expands". Earth GROWS,.....which, seems even harder to believe, perhaps,..but is far more scientific! . This is the tiniest part of the "growing Earth-Growing Universe Theory"! Lots is going to have to change, in our understanding of our Universe!

[@rafehusky]

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed

[@rafehusky]

marce11o please learn to spell before posting comments

[@Robboa1]

Pangea is just the last supercontinent - there were 4 previous editions.

[@jerrycho85]

Question. How is the planet expanding? where is the mass coming from?

[@johnmcclary754]

Very interesting video, I'm not going to jump onto this theory right away, but the more i watched the less dismissive i became. But there are some important questions that I cannot answer. IF the earth is growing does that mean the magma is becoming less dense as it gets spread thin under the oceans? With the amount of water in the oceans, wouldn't the world have been a water world before spreading apart? (instead of the dry rock shown in the images that magically fills with water.) If It was a water world it could bring the need of the amphibians and land animals / plants; as the water became more and more shallow life would have to adapt. Make more sense instead of a fish just up and deciding to walk on land one day. Sorry for throwing out some confirmation bias :p I'm just trying to keep an open mind. But have a hard time believing gravity working backwards. The planet should be compressing into a tight sphere; not inflating; Especially as the planet is losing its centrifugal force as its spin in slowed as it becomes tidally locked with the Sun. But then again i'm not a scientist by any means, Also how accurate are the animations anyways they fit nicely in the video, but anyone could draw two shapes and fit them together and say "Yea see, it's true"... I the end i need more than one artists animation played forward and backwards a few times. By the way how old is that video.. it looks like its from the 80s -With respect-

[@nealadamsdotcom]

John: 1. NO. It means that there is a ,....well, Universal process of MATTER CREATION,..and it happens within and at the core of any and all suspended bodies of a given size. A process that increases exponentially as energy at the core of such a body, increases.. Or , to put is another way, Earth is a Microcosm of the Growing Universe and both the Earth,...AND the Universe, by extension "grow" exactly the same way. 2.Keeping an open mind: If matter/atoms are assembled at the outer core after basic matter, Electrons and Positrons, are being created at the core, beginning with a process we call Pair-production,...and we have been aware of since 1932 This "new matter MUST be created and assembled in common and relative amounts up and down the Periodic Table. This applies , naturally, to the gases, Hydrogen and Oxygen, and the rest, And so as the Earth increases in mass and so, grows, the air and water also increases, IF,...the solar Wind does not blow these gasses away , ongoing, as on Mars. 3. The Earth is neither compressing or expanding. It is simply growing, exponentially, as it turns out, not unlike the Universe. "expanding' is a non-scientific concept. Nothing "Expands", without another force being applied. (Thermal, etc.) 4.If you ever tried to put a puzzle together WRONG you easily see how impossible it is to do. Do one thing wrong on a "growing Earth and you get a football. Try any experiment you like and you will see the truth of this. The important thing is, Geology gives us precise diagrams of how the oceanic plates spread and their ages AS they spread. What I did,..and increasingly others do , is use and follow exactly the spreads as given and simply remove newest plate progressively to the oldest,..and only by doing that do the continents move back together exactly and easily. It's like following a diagram. 5. The 90's! No one has done it better in the following years. Or has developed the tech.

[@georgeheath62]

do you really need to throw a tantrum every time somebody tells you what they believe? it's just childish and unprofessional.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Its not a tantrum. Its a discussion. If you don't like it, you can leave the room! This subject concerns the future of all science, NOT your aunties undies!

[@georgeheath62]

how do you even know the earth expanded? where's the evidence? by the way, just like continental drift, it's only just a theory!

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Ryan. How do I KNOW????? The Continental Granitic rock that our Continents are made of lighter Granitic rock, are a result of the process of DIFFERENTIATION! In school. you learned this process. When, in a liquid THE LIGHTER MATERIAL GOES TO THE TOP/OVER the HEAVIER material. In the case of the Earth's CRUST, the lighter Granitic melted rock DIFFERENTIATES over the HEAVIER BASALTIC ROCK! This melted rock is liquid and fills in any empty spaces!!!! UNDERCOATING THE COMPLETE UNDER-CRUST of the WHOLE EARTH! THIS is how science works! All of the whole Earth was UNDERCOATED in layer after layer of Granitic rock!! Then 250 Million years ago the upper asthenosphere RAN OUT OF LIGHTER GRANITIC ROCK!........But,..the Earth continued to GROW! So, what did the whole Granitic crust do? It began to CRACK AND PULL APART,....down to the heavier Basalt level! And NOW, those CRACKS spread and reveal lower TWO THIRDS of the Area of the Earth! How do I KNOW? Science!

[@STARMAN-uz5jt]

ryan heath your like 17 yo with an 11 yo response.. get over it pangea never existed.. only you and one other moron believes that

[@queijonoob1160]

@@STARMAN-uz5jt I'm not ryan but yes it did exist. here is a video explaining how it did cause i dont want to type it kzbin.info/www/bejne/q5ObY4uYZqhrpdU

[@angiesong4458]

So in this theory, it means that America won't crash into asia, because the earth is only expanding from new lands, not from tectonic plates seperating lands, right? Also can you clear that bit up, about what is the difference between tectonic plates (specifically divergent plates) and expanding earth?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Angie, Earth GROWS (not "expands.) The continental plates simply move OUTWARD! There is some,....not much moving toward each other of continental plates IF 1. a more powerful spread overpowers another spread- for example,..the Antarctic rift that began spreading 60 million Years Ago is so powerful , that it actually DROVE Australia up and away from Antarctica driving it over it's own spreading rift, causing the Subduction in the Western Pacific. 2. That subduction broke the tension of the Northern Pacific allowing North America to move toward Asia as the subduction continues. No, North America will never crash into Asia orany continental plate. "Land" does not "expand". Oceanic crust rifts and spreads apart. Land,...CAN rift and spread,..as in Africa today. Tectonic plates are broken egg-shell, thin outer crustal pieces that spread as the Earth GROWS! In fact eggshell is a good example as the chick pushes outward.

[@angiesong4458]

Thank you, I think I understand now!

[@danwill99]

you have no mechanism which would cause this magical "growth", neither energy input, nor mass input (which is not possible). granted that there is some heat energy from radioactive decay, but that decreases over time, and is merely enough to keep the core molten. a smaller earth of equal mass would also have higher surface gravity. (not particularly relevant, but true nonetheless). if all the atoms are expanding, then the growth would be proportional, which would simply result in a lower density, but no "growth rifts"

[@queijonoob1160]

ok adam but where did all the water come from.

[@MrWolynski]

It formed from hydrogen combining with oxygen in its ancient atmosphere. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eX6TeZxmjtx0gKM

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Look, guys. For billions of years the Earth had an increasing MOLTEN under crust that DIFFERENTIATED LIGHTER GRANITIC ROCK above the denser and heavier BASALTS! This less dense Granitic rock sits on top of and coats the heavier Basalt BELOW! This lighter coating in layer after layer IS our continental plate covering of the whole Earth! Spurt after spurt, flow after flow this Granitic magma undercoated the outer crust, to become the outer thick crust of the Earth! THEN that molten liquid rock RAN OUT OF LIGHTER GRANITE,......and YET the Earth continued to GROW! What could the outer Granitic crust do but CRACK and spread apart, revealing the BASALTS BENEATH That lower denser basalt is NOW the crust of TWO THIRDS OF A GROWING EARTH! In those vast spreads there is no more Granitic rock. If you don't understand this, then try to explain why the Granitic crust of the Earth cannot be found on TWO THIRDS OF THE EARTH!

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Ask these questions of your Geology teacher. 1. If lighter continental rock differentiated from the heavier Basalt layer below, how is it the lighter granite doesn't cover the whole Earth, and not just one third. 2. Pangea clearly implies the whole of a smaller Earth was once covered by this lighter Granitic rock, why is it there is no deep oceanic area that is older than 180 Million Years Old, in the pacific just like in the Atlantic? 3. Why are there no ancient fish fossils found in the deep oceans, older than 70 Million Years Old?

[@MasterPlaythrough]

There are ancient fish fossils that have been found that are around 400 Million years old, from the Devonian period. What are you talking about?

[@quangduongphu4190]

Pangea didn't cover the whole earth

So how do they account for the fact the same geological rock formations are on both edges of broken up continents? They match. If the continents didn't break up the geology would be different, it's not. The Pacific plate is solid bedrock, while the Atlantic is volcanic scab. How do they account for that if not plate tectonics? With the advent of GPS they can track the movement of continents as it's happening. They are definitely moving.

[@jakobmiesner3995]

How is the mean between 4 and 12 = 6? 😂

[@sharonbowen4327]

What about the crust that is pushed under the other plates? The earth would stay the same size.

[@SpydaNYC]

The oceanic crust subducting under the opposite oceanic crust as nothing with increase and growth from the core outward!

[@sharonbowen4327]

@@SpydaNYC I just can't understand that. The land mass grows as lava is pushed up and the other is "melted" as it is pushed under the other land masses. Please explain how you conclude that it is being built from the core.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Subduction DOES, indeed exist. To examine it weneed to know about it.It's origins, it's extent, its processes, and it's evidence of where it happens! According to Geology's OWN Crustal Age Map,....these things are true! 1. In the Western Pacific Subduction began 60 Million Years Ago above the Australian continent and up along Asia! 2. This event was coincidental with the rifting apart of the Antarctic continent from the Australian Continent, and the massive and incredible spreading of the Antarctic Ocean. (Which resulted in the driving of Australia up into Indonesia and over it's own rifting spread, giving purchase to this first Subduction! 3. That this subduction does not provably exist anywhere else in/on the Earth! 4. THAT: Though this subduction exists on the Northern pacific, it does not exist in the Southern Pacific,....only spread there! A, I hope you are not calling the slip fault (San Andreas fault, ) "sideways scraping". This is due from Alaska curling upward, held by Asia as the continents pulled apart!

[@darrenhenderson6921]

nealadamsdotcom so what process causes the expansion?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

There is no physical process in science that causes expansion. It does not exist by itself. To get expansion, you need another object or force. For example, you can add heat to some things and they will expand, but only if you add another force. Nothing expands. What, then, is the only thing left? There is growth. Therefore, Earth and the Universe must grow. That is the only option left. How does Earth grow? There is only one form of matter creation in the universe. It is called "pair production" in which a high energy photon impacts and in-facing magnetic field. The two break in half and become matter. An electron and a positron. This process happens where there is a lot of energy. In the case of Earth, it happens in the core of the Earth where there is massive energy. The new matter is assembled at the plasma outer core into atoms up and down the periodic table. This new matter then differentiates up through the mantle as it can. In some cases less, in some cases more. This is how all planets, large moons, suns, solar systems, galaxies, black holes, and the Universe grows.

[@darrenhenderson6921]

nealadamsdotcom thanks for that, you know the single continent never added up to me and I looked for information like this and couldn't find it, and this video pops up, so basically the reason the continents look like a jigsaw in some parts is kind of the same as when a muffin heats up in the oven and then expands and tears and the parts would fit somewhat if re-compressed, and this process is due to expansion as opposed to the merging of the plates somehow carrying them,

[@nealadamsdotcom]

As I said, "NOT "expanding", but "growing"! All parts look like Jigsaw puzzle pieces i Nor do they fit in "some" parts, but in ALL parts,..as is shown in the Animation. Continents are made of Granitic rock, so it hardly deforms,....but cracks apart. However,...yess, you have the general idea!

[@battlecheetah260]

HOW CAN SO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALY SMART FIND THIS VIDEO AND MAKE GENIUS COMMENTS

[@WEB_C_Official]

Why is the Pacific Ocean shrinking while the Atlantic Ocean grows? Also if salt water covered the land it would be impossible to grow flora. Because salt kills dirt and makes it hard for the vegetation that grows there.two major gaps in your theory.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION! BOTH the Pacific AND the Atlantic are GROWING/spreading outward ! Because of the Subduction in the Western Pacific, North America seems to be sliding slowly toward Asia. The southern Pacific, however, is spreading incredibly, making up, by far the NORTH Western Pacific Subducting! The difference is quite incredible! "SALT WATER" did not cover continental plate, any more that "SALT WATER" lies on the land TODAY! The water in the continental plates WAS and CONTINUES TO BE..... FRESH WATER! Did you not know this? Rivers, lakes and in the distant past, SHALLOW SEAS were FRESH WATER,...not salt water! When the continental plates began rifting apart, these rifts broke into the SALT DOMES under the land! ONLY THEN WAS SALT WATER CREATED ON A GROWING EARTH!

[@SpydaNYC]

Green Yoshi Neal The continents would be sitting on the plates. The continents are not sitting on plates. They are part of the plate. The whole of the earth is covered with granitic and basaltic plate, all connected together. Making one complete coating of the whole of the earth. The only way these plates could move, is if the earth grew and cracks formed, and the two sides of the cracks spread apart, allowing new molten material to come up within the crack and harden into new plate material. Convection currents from the Earth's mantle would move the plates. Convection currents can only assist in pushing molten material into the cracks. There is no place for plate to be pushed to. Because the whole earth is coated with solid rock. So where would this plate go? The answer is nowhere. As the plates move, the land would move. When you showed Earth without water, you can clearly see some plates like the African plate. That is not the African plate, it is Africa sitting within an oceanic plate. They are fused together. They are one piece, and as the earth grows, these pieces crack apart to make room for the growth. So, at one point, the land was joined to together which created Pangea. No, at one point 200MYA, the whole crust of the earth was the continental plate, made nearly all of granitic rock. But the molten area beneath the crust, had run of lighter granitic rock, as a result of differentiation. And so, as the earth grew, the earth could only shove up heavier molten, basaltic rock into the new cracks. Why this is so hard to understand, by you people, is beyond me to comprehend. The molten under-crust runs out of lighter granitic rock, through differentiation. And so heavier basalt rises up to fill the new spreading cracks. These are simple scientific principles known by any grade schooler. But I feel as though I am trying to pound a nail into a rock to get you people to understand simple basic science. Read this over until you understand it, and please don't write to me until you do understand. This is beyond my comprehension to deal with. In the future, probably 300 million years from now, the land will merge back together and create Pangea Ultima. No it will not. The land will never merge back together again. The earth will continue to grow and the continental plates, because of this growth, seem to move further apart. I say seem to simply because the spreading of the crust will not make the continents any bigger, but rather seem smaller, and so it will seem to move further apart while remaining the same size. I am repeating myself. I am sorry. Please keep reading until you understand.

[@mylousjakes9702]

One day they will accept it...

[@nealadamsdotcom]

I'm thinking TOMORROW! .........It is insane to me to be forced to believe that all the continents traveled to one side of the planet for a Star Trek convention and stayed there gathered for 300 MILLION YEARS, and finally decided to break up and spread all over the globe,...in such a way that merely by shrinking the Earth they would all come together like a puzzle on a smaller Earth! Is there not a button that goes off in ones head that says this picture is NUTS??????

[@SputerTheHorse]

And you need to learn biology a lot

[@veganconservative1109]

Non-scientist, but fascinated by it. Just came here after watching an Electric Universe vid. Pangaea doesn't make sense to me either. If you had one large land mass wouldn't you end up with only thin coastal climates surrounding a humongous desert? Wouldn't allow for much land-based life. I know I'm not smart enough to decide which theory is correct, but absolutely approve of opinions and ideas that counter the 'accepted' norm. If we only allow accepted Group Think into our lives how will we learn if we are wrong? Especially if we *are* wrong. :) Please keep thinking and investigating or Mankind will stagnate.

[@teddik5243]

I never beleived continental drift as beiing right. Thx.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Rozzy Hi ROZZY, MY RESPONSES WITHIN YOUR NOTE, IN CAPS. If there was only shallow waters( SHALLOW SEAS ARE NOT SHALLOW,...EXCEPT BY COMPARISON TO "DEEP OCEANS". THEY WERE AS MUCH AS A HALF MILE DEEP! 2. SHALLOW SEAS OF EARTH IS SCIENTIFIC FACT!,...NOT "MY THEORY"! LOOK IT UP! when the earth was starting off, EARTH DID NOT "START OFF"!!! EARTH , LIKE ALL PLANETS, MOONS, SUNS, AND THE UNIVERSE, LIKE A POSSUM, A BABY, A TREE, OR A CRYSTAL,..GREW, ONGOING , AND GROWS! IT'S A PROCESS,....NOT AN EVENT! then how are our oceans so vast? TO "GROW", NEW ATOMS MUST BE CREATED/MADE. THAT IS , ALL ATOMS, UP AND DOWN THE PERIODIC TABLE! THIS INCLUDES THE GASSES,......LIKE HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN!!! WHICH MAKE WATER! INCREASING , OVER TIME. And another thing, is that the continents are stabilized on their tectonic plate, but the plates have millions of years of pressure against one another. And an expanding earth would relieve the plates from the immense pressure of the plates, WHICH DOES NOT,...OF COURSE. RIFTING AND SPREADING OF THE OCEANIC PLATES, THAT YOU HAVE SEEN ON THE SCIENCE CHANNELS ......SPREADING AND MAKING NEW OCEANIC CRUST, RELIEVES THE SPREADING !. and lead to a much different global map. For example, I don’t think we would have the Himalayas. Come to think about it, I don’t even think we would have mountains? MOUNTAINS,.....ARE CAUSED BY THE GROWTH OF THE EARTH. EARTH'S CONTINENTAL CRUST IS ABOUT 40 MILES THICK, (WHILE OUR OCEANIC PLATES ARE ONLY 2 MILES THICK.) THE UPPER MILES OF THE PLATE MUST RECURVE TO A FLATTER PLANE AND BUCKLE INTO MOUNTAIN RANGES. The growth rate of the plates PLATES DO NOT "GROW"! THAT WOULD BE NONSENSE. PLATES RIFT AND SPREAD APART AND FILL WITH NEW MOLTEN BASALT! would have to surpass the rate of the earth for this to be a remotely accurate theory. Even then the direction of each plate we know of doesn’t serve this theory any justice either. IT DOES NOT SERVE THE NONSENSICAL PANGEA THEORY,..BUT SERVES THIS THEORY PERFECTLY! Plus the same species were found in areas of continents that serve as evidence of the two pieces fitting together. NO, IT PROVES GROWING, RIFTING AND SPREADING! NOT FORMING A MAGICAL ISLAND SURROUNDED BY WATER WORLD.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

rs4wonder, my responses in caps. Niel, (IT'S NEAL.) I respect your points and mine too. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU RESPECT, IF YOU ARE WORKING FROM SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE. IF YOU SAY THE UNIVERSE IS MADE OF BANANAS, THERE IS NO BASIS OF "RESPECT"FROM ME! What I mentioned in the last note could be correct or slightly correct or totally wrong, NO, IT CAN BE ONLY TOTALLY WRONG! AND IT IS WRONG, PILED UPON WRONG, PILED UPON WRONG! but I always keep the door open for the discussion. Because there is always another face of coin. AGAIN, NO THERE ARE TWO AND ONLY TWO FACES IN A COIN! THERE'S NO BANANA SIDE! My theory (YOU DO NOT HAVE A "THEORY"! YOU HAVE A RANDOM THOUGHTS AND RANDOM SPECULATION, NOT UNLIKE DRUNKS AT A BAR OR A COCKTAIL PARTY, UNCONNECTED AND ANTI-SCIENTIFIC! Today's science have (HAS???) not explained the real cause behind the universe. So always try to understand basic science behind each object/system. I am working on universe model but there is nothing to support that so I start my theory from the point when earth was a hot planet. WHEN WAS THAT???? DO YOU "KNOW"??? NO , YOU DO NOT!!! THERE IS THE "SOLAR SYSTEM ACCRETION THEORY ,..WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED! TROUBLE IS,..."YOU" DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS! SOME THEORIZE THE SOLAR SYSTEM WAS ORIGINATED FROM A JUPITER-LIKE PLANET AROUND ANOTHER STAR, THAT GREW/ACRETED TO EXPLODE INTO A STAR!! THEN,....WHAT OF EARTH, IN THIS CASE????? YOU ARE A CHILD IN THIS ARENA! I believe NO, YOU BELIEVE "NOTHING"! YOU ARE JUST SPOUTING THINGS YOU HEARD, HERE AND THERE! everything thing started from nothing, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SUCH A CONCEPT MEANS! then after long long time, earth was at the state when it's outer core bacame solid. UTTER NONSENSE AND THE NONSENSE CONTINUES AND CONTINUES. THERE IS NOTHING TO "RESPECT"! I'M SORRY! About Himalayan formation, Still would like to understand your point, how a solid surface can bend or fold? If they do so, they will break apart and spread like big bolder. If land fold, then what caused it? How they made mountains with cone shape? And most striking question, why entire Himalayan mountain is solid rock not a heap of mud? PLACE YOUR HAND, "CUPPED" ON A TABLE. LOOK AT THE BACK OF YOUR HAND. NOW, PUSH YOUR HAND DOWN AND FLAT ON THE TABLE, TO RECURVE FLAT, AND LOOK AT THE BACK OF YOUR HAND! YOU SEE THE FOLDS???? THESE ARE EARTH'S MOUNTAIN RANGES! EXCEPT THEY ARE GRANITIC ROCK OUTER CRUST! y? NEALADAMS Thanks for writing

[@EWBRboy2006]

Then how did Earth get its water if nothing can be created or destroyed?

[@SpydaNYC]

Obviously, things (matter) CAN be created! The UNIVERSE of MATTER was CREATED! RIGHT? Think!

[@stujd1539]

You got it half right with seafloor spreading of oceanic crust along divergent plate boundaries then got it completely wrong by omitting the process of subduction of oceanic plates under continental plates at converging plate boundaries. Factor in the compression i.e., buckling, of continental plates during orogenesis (look up palinspastic restoration) and continental rifting, and that it is the continental shelf, not the continental coastline that is used to reassemble ancient land masses, and you will find that continental drift and tectonic theory makes perfect sense.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

You, as well as the whole Geological community are incorrect,...because you ,....well, simply don't think for yourselves and simply recite the nonsense you heard from two or three decades ago! let's think together! 1.Most of the intelligent Geologists of the world have agreed that it is impossible for subduction under continental plates, in spite of desperate holdouts! (Like ,....you?) The oceanic plate of Earth is about 2 miles thick. BUT,...the Continental plates of the Earth are 35 to 40 miles thick! That's a two mile thick plate under a 40 MILE THICK continental plate! Impossible! That would be like a Cocker Spaniel swimming under a hippo stuck in the mud of a still pool! The Pacific rift in in the middle of the Western Pacific, NOT along the continental plate ,...and so can work and happen! SO,...how much? Again think. ..We know the ages of the oceanic plates of the world VERY THOROUGHLY! We know the oldest plate, in the Pacific has NOT subducted! We can see the line of subduction cutting across differing oceanic plate. We can also see the ages of the OBDUCTED side of that "subduction zone" !!! So,...we have two pieces of a simple puzzle! SO,...what do we do? We slide the subducted side out from under the obducted side until we come to a section that matches the obducted side for WHEN BOTH SIDES WERE TOGETHER! (Before they began the subduction process.) But how to we accurately show the contours of the correct obduction time??? Say it's 60 or 50 Million Years Ago. Well, we have the contour of the joining line! Then we have the broken off remaining un-subducted contours. We match the two lines at 50 or 60 Million Years Ago and continue all lines for each 10 million years of progression. . When the lines match we can exactly see when and where Subdiction on Earth began! Mountain building? Began on Earth about 60 Million Years Ago! (After the Dinosaurs died off!) Did you know that?

[@stujd1539]

Your attempt to express your ideas through the written word is poor, makes little sense and is full of contradiction. You say that the "whole geological community is incorrect" then say that "Most of the intelligent geologists..."; the "whole" geological community, by definition, includes the intelligent geologists. It's the WHOLE community. Then you say that it is impossible for subduction in your second paragraph, but go on to say we can see the line of subduction cutting across differing oceanic plates in the western Pacific. Make your mind up! As for any orogenic events being 60 mya or less in age, research and analysis has determined that there are many mountain building events much older than YOU believe, e.g. the Lachlan Fold Belt was mainly created by the Benambran Orogeny which is Ordo-Silurian in age, i.e., ~490-420 mya . As for plate thickness ruling out subduction, bollocks! Yes continental plates are considerably thicker than oceanic plates, but at their central or interior regions. At their margins they are considerably thinner. Seismic surveys have shown this and that the oceanic plates DO subduct under continental plates. If you intend to disprove what has been proven by scientific studies, you should cite references that support your ideas. I would be happy to provide references and citations in support of continental drift, orogenisis and plate tectonics, as there at literally thousands to choose from, but it's not worth my effort to do so to simply show how ridiculous your ideas are. Next you will be telling us the earth is flat!

[@nealadamsdotcom]

MY RESPONSES IN CAPS WITHIN Your attempt to express your ideas through the written word is poor, makes little sense and is full of contradiction. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND IDEAS, READ THEM OVER A SECOND TIME FOR COMPREHENSION! You say that the "whole geological community is incorrect" then say that "Most of the intelligent geologists..."; the "whole" geological community, by definition, includes the intelligent geologists. It's the WHOLE community. YES???? THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN POINTING A WHOLE DISCIPLINE CAN AND HISTORICALLY ARE OFTEN WRONG, WHILE THE BEST OF THEM TRY HARD TO DO THEIR WORK AND AT THE SAME TIME, LEARN! Then you say that it is impossible for subduction in your second paragraph, NO, I DID NOT! YOU NEED TO LEARN TO LISTEN. I SAID SUBDUCTION CANNOT AND DOES NOT "SUBDUCT" UNDER (40 MILE THICK.) CONTINENTAL PLATE! DID YOU MISS THAT???? but go on to say we can see the line of subduction cutting across differing oceanic plates in the western Pacific. Make your mind up! DO YOU "KNOW" THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTINENTAL AND "OCEANIC" PLATE??? DID I NOT EXPLAIN IT ENOUGH??// COCKER SPANIEL VS HIPPO? SOUND FAMILIAR? As for any orogenic events being 60 mya or less in age, research and analysis has determined that there are many mountain building events much older than YOU believe, e.g. the Lachlan Fold Belt SORRY,..."FOLD" DOES NOT MOUNTAIN MAKE. MOUNTAINING IS A CONTINUING PROCESS OF RECURVING CRUST. IF MOUNTAINS EVEN EXISTED, AND THEY DIDN'T,...DINOSAURS WOULD NEVER BE FREE TO MIGRATE TO ALL CONTINENTAL PLATES OF THE EARTH,..WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE PANGEA THEORY!!!!! MOUNTAIN RANGES WOULD PREVENT ANY OF THIS EARTH WAS GENERALLY FLAT AND FEATURELESS BEFORE 60 MILLION YEARS AGO! DO YOU WANT QUOTES?????was mainly created by the Benambran Orogeny which is Ordo-Silurian in age, i.e., ~490-420 mya . As for plate thickness ruling out subduction, bollocks! NNNNNNO, "BOLLOCKS' IS NOT AN ANSWER. Yes continental plates are considerably thicker than oceanic plates, NOT "CONSIDERABLY" ,....TWENTY TIMES!!!!!! but at their central or interior regions. NO!!!, AT THEIR EDGES!!! SORRY! At their margins they are considerably thinner. NOPE! AT THEIR RIFTED APART EDGES! UNLESS YOU'RE SAYING THEY ARE THINNER WHERE THEY RIFT! Seismic surveys have shown NO, THEY HAVEN'T AND COULDN'T! YOU'RE JUST DOING A DONALD TRUMP,...LYING! this and that the oceanic plates DO subduct under continental plates. NO, AND YOU, NOR ANYONE COULD PROVE SUCH A THING AND HAS NOT!!! EVER! IT'S CALLED WISHFUL THINKING! If you intend to disprove what has been proven by scientific studies, YOU HAVE NO SUCH THING!!!! YOU HAVE OPINIONS,..AND THEORIES,..BUT NO FACTS! I HAVE FACTS! HERE'S A SELECT FEW! 1. THERE IS NOT ONE SQUARE FOOT OF OCEANIC PLATE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET EARTH, IN ANY OCEAN, THAT IS OLDER THAN 180 MILLION YEARS OLD!,......YET,...THE PACIFIC IS TWICE AS BIG AS THE ATLANTIC. SO,...IF SUBDUCTION "ATE" HALF THE PACIFIC,, THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE PACIFIC WOULD BE 700 MILLION YEAR OLD!. IT'S NOT! 2. ALL FISH OF 180 M Y AGO,...WER FRESH WATER FISH! 3. THERE ARE NO FISH FOSSILS IN ANY DEEP OCEANS OFTHE EARTH OLDER THAN 70 MILLION YEARS OLD,...IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT FRESH WATER FISH HAVE EXISTED ON THE CONTINENTAL PLATE FOR 400 MILLION YEARS! 4, SAUROPODS EXISTED IN THE PAST THAT WEIGHED AS MUCH AS 60 TONS OR/AND MORE! THIS WOULD BE LIKE AN ELEPHANT CARRYING 10 MORE ELEPHANTS ON IT'S BACK! FACTS??? YOU HAVE NONE! I HAVE THOUSANDS! you should cite references that support your ideas. I would be happy to provide references and citations in support of continental drift, orogenisis and plate tectonics, as there at literally thousands to choose from, but it's not worth my effort to do so to simply show how ridiculous your ideas are. Next you will be telling us the earth is flat! TUE EARTH,...AND THE UNIVERSE IS/ARE "GROWING"!

[@nealadamsdotcom]

True. I can't 'listen' to the written word. I CAN listen to the spoken word. One more fool has crumbled! Isn't there a brain out there?

[@Hydra2054]

I think the only thing being proven here is that 141k people would rather watch an 8 minute and 11 second video of a guy attempting to prove the Pangaea theory wrong rather than use said time to be productive and spend some quality time with their families.

[@rubiconb8176]

I'm on a train by myself on the way to work.... The only thing your comment proves is that you are wrong.

[@alanjones5639]

Can you also prove the Rodinia theory wrong?

[@alanjones5639]

Aye. Perhaps a follower of his will address my question.@@fixedguitar47

[@KevinGonzalez-vu5bo]

¿What about debunking the big bang theory?

[@Cartoonicus]

What's interesting about this, is that if you just speed the process up by a ton, you can generate Noah's flood.

[@bot_spaghetti4567]

It's stupid and can be disproved but it's still interesting to hear a different theory. Although I disagree, good video.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

n FACT, I always answer EVERY SINGLE QUESTION ASKED. A suggestion: Listen to the interview on " theothersideofmidnight.com where I'm interviewed by Richard Hoagland for a couple of hours. First Gorilla. The additional mass is created beginning at the inner core of any large body by the only form of matter creation,....from Energy and unknown obstacles,..called Pair Production. The Electrons and Positrons created enter the Outer Plasma core to build into Atoms, up and down the periodic table. As single super-heated Atoms each differentiates to find it's own level over time. Second Gorilla. Orbit! All bodies Grow,...exponentially. like the whole Universe. In fact the whole system does grow bigger and outward.

[@Titanic-wo6bq]

Honestly, let's suppose that the continents move. But the tectonic plates fit together. Perfectly. HOW DO THEY MOVE?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Continents cannot move. Continents are planted within the oceanic plates like tree stumps in the land! The oceanic plates RIFT AND SPREAD,...with the GROWTH OF THE EARTH! GROWTH-RIFT-SPREAD-NEW PLATE RISES UP AND FILLS THE SCAR! Continents "seem" to move apart! Pangeaists theorize that the crust , in areas, rifts and one side of a given mid ocean plate SUBDUCTS under the opposite side. This allows a continuing spreading and moving of oceanic plates. By this method Pangeaists BELIEVE a circumstance arose in which, by these processes, all the continental plates coincidentally were driven/attracted/sucked together so that the continental TREE STUMPS were drawn together to join on one side of the Earth to form Pangea,.......and they say I'M nuts!

[@nealadamsdotcom]

They never MOVED! They were the Granitic crust of the Earth as the molten undercrust ran out of lighter granite and as the Earth continued to GROW the granite crust rifted and spread, the deeper down Basalts rose up to fill the cracks and make our new oceanic bottoms.

[@leschwartz]

These videos by Neal Adams are really terrific, I share them with everyone.

[@jeshika22]

please don't, this is awful flawed logic not based in science at all

[@leschwartz]

@@jeshika22 You are wrong, it is based on evidence, watch the video.

[@jeshika22]

@@leschwartz lol I'm a geologist, but ok you tell me what constitutes as evidence, go right ahead

[@leschwartz]

@@jeshika22 Two primary points. This is not a new theory, it has been accepted and promoted by academic / scientists who are accredited geologists, the evidence as I said is in this presentation and in other presentations. Second point, you appear to be a closed minded troll looking for an argument. I would not waste my time arguing with anyone with that approach to any topic. If you really are a geologist, you owe it to yourself to open your mind to possibilites beyond or in addition to the narrowest, most conservative points of view in your field of study. For example, in the very early 19th Century in geology, catastrophism was vehemently opposed in geology because geologists wanted to create and separate geology as a science, and did not want religion and biblical interpretations to dominate their field of study. However as the evidence for catastrophism accumulated more and more the modern point of view in geology very much accepts the reality of catastrophism in its scientific views and theories. Similarly, the evidence for the growth of planetary bodies in our solar system is very interesting, compelling, and explains a great deal, the evidence is there, make a good faith effort to educate yourself about it. Its well worth your time to learn and will improve your own understanding of geology.

[@jeshika22]

@@leschwartz Do yourself a favor and look up the Law of Conservation of Matter. Where is the Earth in his model getting matter to grow? Things don't just grow spontaneously. Plate Tectonics and the shaping and movement of continents and oceans happen from convection currents within the Earth, causing matter to move as heat is released from the core over time, like the way water moves in a pot of boiling water. It's very hot in the core and that heat is slowly released, constantly. Heat rises, because whatever the substance is that is hot (air, water, rock etc.) is less dense because the molecules are further spaced apart and are moving faster. As the heat and with it hotter rock rise to the surface, the rock cools and is pushed outward from hotter lighter material continuing to move upward from the mantle to the asthenosphere to the crust. This is a rift. The cooler denser material is eventually pushed away to the point where it meets other rock (because the Earth is a sphere) and whichever is more dense gets pushed under the other. Like oil floating on water, continental rock is less dense than oceanic rock because of its chemical composition, so oceanic rock will always subduct underneath continental. Eventually this rock that subducts under also acts as a pulling force in some locations, in combination with the pushing force of the rifting that occurs from aforementioned convection currents rising up. This is what drives plate motion, rifting, and subducting. It's convection. The planet doesn't get bigger unless enough outside bodies (ie. meteors) add more matter to the planet. Plants and living things grow by chemical reactions from eating, drinking and breathing, converting sugars into carbon which is the structure of growth. The growth doesn't just happen out of nowhere.

[@ayethe4603]

wouldnt the earths core have cooled super rapidly if it expanded so much so fast?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

+ben fuller Earth DID NOT "EXPAND" That would be stupid! Earth, like all larger moons, Planets, Suns, Solar Systems, Galaxies and the WHOLE UNIVERSE,....GROWS,....makes NEW MATTER and GROWS,...and THAT'S how we get a UNIVERSE! It didn't appear....POOF"......like MAGIC! A process of matter creation began with a one time event,.. then more and more until we get the matter Universe we have today. Earth is a MICROCOSM of this process. It GROWS!

[@rafehusky]

+nealadamsdotcom but the one rule of science, like come on, matter cannot be created nor destroyed

[@rafehusky]

+nealadamsdotcom we got a universe through a random implosion

[@rafehusky]

+nealadamsdotcom if earth was "Micro" why can we see it?

[@andrewa1329]

The earth has been pelted with asteroids/meteors for billions of years. Where do you think that mass went? It became part of the earth adding mass.

[@patrickclark3337]

So what explains how Australia is moving north towards Asia at about an inch a year and will eventually collide with it.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Please find the Crustal Age Map. You will see that 60 Million years agp Antarctica rifted apart from Australia. That SPREADING RIFT circumnavigated Antarctica. This spreading rift shoves upward and outward as the Earth grows,.... against MOSTLY Australia, as well as Africa, South America and India! ! This outward thrusting spread of molten Basaltic crust is one of the most powerful tectonic spreading forces of the outer crust;! Australia will NEVER collide with any other continent, and NEVER DID! The crust began whole and completely covered the whole of a smaller Earth. THEN, i80 million years ago, rifting and spreading began . Sometimes the spreading is greater than the crust can endure and one piece of the oceanic plate FOLDS and buckles over the opposite side to force subduction., This is a minor force and continues, ongoing,....but it began here in the western Pacific 60 Million Years Ago! For continents to come together the spreading opposite the subduction must be incredibly powerful and must buckle up fantastically massive basaltic sutures between the pushed plates. This NEVER HAPPENS!

[@markhargrave]

I can't tell if people really think that planets can "grow" or if this is all one big elaborate trolling campaign. I truly hope it's the latter

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Bet on this as a very, very serious presentation, and the future of science! TO believe the Universe does not grow is to throw away all that we observe with our eyes and our learned brains! Where , from NOTHING, do you suppose we get this massive matter Universe??? MAGIC? A >plink< from the wizard of Oz? Do you really believe we can answer all the basic questions without answering the most BASIC of questions,...."How do we get the MATTER UNIVERSE, and how does it work????? Oh,....yeah, there's a God,.....and,....well, he/she made everything. Asked and answered! Personally, I prefer NOT to live in a world populated by piles of religious nuts!. MATTER can, and MUST, be made,...and NOT all at once! THAT is just stupid! Clearly there is a process of matter creation and just as clearly this process MUST be ONGOING,....because , if it were NOT, why is the Universe GROWING OUTWARD??? Expanding???? Nonsense! Nothing in science and our knowledge "expands". NOTHING! There is no such process!

[@markhargrave]

Um, this requires a very long explanation. But to make a long story short matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The only apparent exception to this is the beginning. That said I am interested to see any evidence you have to support this "growing planet" theory.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

If, as you say, Matter can neither be Created or Destroyed" Is a "RULE",......there can be "NO EXCEPTIONS!" You can't make an exception by saying "apparent"... You did , also for get the "EXCEPTION" within the rule. "MATTER" and energy are interchangeable> Energy can be converted into matter and matter to energy. I think , you would have to say, that that opens a very significant doorway! Is there a process of MATTER CREATION,.....anywhere, known to man, at this time? As it turns out there is. It is called Pair-Production, and it was first observed by Carl David Anderson in 1932,....(A man of little imagination. ) He won the Nobel for his discovery. But Pair-Production is very LITTLE understood. Look into it and understand, that what you find is not the end/conclusion to the story!

[@rafehusky]

+nealadamsdotcom OK, rules aren't like language, they can't be broken.

[@markhargrave]

Ok Michael, I will assume that you don't mean to use both the Strawman and false cause fallacy and truly do not know the difference. So allow me to try to explain. The reason the earth is not expanding is because it's mass has stayed relatively constant. This means that the gravitational well that the earth creates pulls it together at a constant rate. This is why a 1 G or gravity is a standard unit of measurement. Now like the old classroom experiment the denser materials like that that makes up the earth's core settles at the bottom and the lighter materials like water and various gasses rise to the top. All of this is pointless because the current model of plate tectonic does not have any holes in it and as such is the reigning champion of sorts. If someone could disprove this theory they would likely get a Nobel prize.

[@andthetimegoeson864]

There is absolutely 0 uncertainty regarding the fact that Earth has expanded. There is no possible doubt.

[@belochai12]

Other than logical fallacy, this theory has little to commend it. What does the Growing Earth theory have to say about subduction?

[@caudlema]

Where did the water come from?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

+Mark Caudle AGAIN!......Earth GROWS by the creation of new MATTER at the core and assembly of this new matter into Atoms , up and down the Periodic table at the outer Plasma core. MATTE R,... These Atoms include the gasses Hydrogen and Oxygen, and the rest,...all of which RISE through the MANTLE to EXIT at the rifts at mid ocean, or volcanoes or natural springs , The Hydrogen and Oxygen become our new increasing water!

[@keylemeyle7252]

i know a ice meteor 4.5 billion years ago earth is very hot planet ice meteor melt ice to form water earths life arrive water oxygen or nitrogen of all life on earth mars has no water no life atmosphere made of poison

[@jiridrabik911]

By měli vymyslet video i se zalesněním.Třeba z pouště na úrodnou část nebo zeleň a tak nebo s ledu poušt nebo zeleň

[@darcgibson5099]

Common sense just means assumption. Not everything is a matter of "common sense" - particularly that of someone entirely uneducated in this and other specific subjects. Just because the proof doesn't match what would be "common sense" to you (i.e. isn't "easy"), doesn't make it wrong. This is genuinely cringe-worthy to watch. Most of this is taught at school, and if you missed those classes, you can read further online to see _why_ you don't understand these facts rather than just making up your own theories (I use theory in the common definition, not the scientific definition which is synonymous with evidenced fact.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

+Darc Gibson I'm sorry for your way of thinking. The one thing we know,..for sure,..is nothing is as sure as CHANGE! Since the 1960's when man discovered the continental crust was once whole and one piece and for some mystical reason it broke apart and the pieces scattered, rather evenly around the world, that that was VERY STRANGE, and for SOME,..unsettling,... as a logical explanation of the FACTS presented! Not only was THAT strange, but many, many, many things were strange. MANY coincidences stand out like open intellectual wounds. The FACT that the Ages of the Pacific oceanic crust are the same distribution of ages as in the Atlantic,..EXACTLY, tells a very different story! That the spreads in the Atlantic AND the Pacific BEGAN at the EXACT SAME TIME 180 MYAgo!!! That there is not ONE SQUARE FOOT of oceanic plate LEFT in any deep ocean anywhere in the world, older than 180 Million Years Old In FACT since oceanic plate in the western Pacific SUBDUCTS under other plate,....Shouldn't that OVER,...OBDUCTED plate be WELL OVER 200 Million Years Old,...like 300 or 400 Million Years Old??? It's NOT! It's MUCH YOUNGER! WHY are there NO fish fossils in any deep oceans OLDER than 70 Million Years Old???? Did you know that? Did you know any of the above FACTS? 'Kay, did you know that science recently discovered that subduction in the Western Pacific BEGAN to subduct a mere 60 MYAgo??? But do not account for the spreading BEFORE THAT??? Can you explain that? Of course you can't! You wear the blinders of a person convinced that science has learned alll it ever will learn and there's nothing to explain where the Universe came from and what processes brought it to where it is NOW! We all die in ignorance of some sort, because we can't move on, out of what we have learned already.

[@TheLove2surf]

+nealadamsdotcom Hey! I am a high school chem and science teacher and I find your ideas fascinating! It seems to make sense that while the universe is rapidly expanding in all directions, that the Earth too should be expanding. Would this be the reason? What was it that kept the earth from expanding beforehand (I am not poo-poohing at all, just trying to get it).

[@nealadamsdotcom]

+Sophia Plate I'm sure you agree that in science NOTHING "EXPANDS" unless acted upon by another force, Thermal, chemical. etc. Unfortunately, for current theory this INCLUDES the Universe. So, the Universe,..assuming it's a "THING",...CANNOT be "expanding". So, what is it doing? Well, it's GROWING! Whoops! Scientifically correct,.....but,...welll....really/ growing/ thats',..well,..that's true about everything we know,...but,...the Universe?..a Planet?..... Sun?,......well, wait a Minute ,...a Sun 'grows'. Well,.. it gets bigger,.. but we "BELIEVE" it expands,... but,..hmmmm So,.. where does it ALL come from, in the first place??? "IT EXPLODED INTO EXISTANCE FROM A SINGULARITY" ! Or,..."GOD SAID PING, AND SO IT WAS!" Welllllll,..NO, I choose science, "There is a process, that we don't yet understand, that made one part of a particle,.. then another, and another and another untillllll we have a Universe of MATTER! If this is indeed the case,.. there is one additional question. "Who pressed the 'off' button?" The process? That's what took me 30 years to figure out! 2. The Universe is NOT "expanding". Nothing "expands" ! It's GROWING! Beforehand???? Growth is not an event,.. it is a process,..an ongoing process! Earth? First,...of course by accretion,..then with a heated core, by the creation of simple Atoms at the core and with GROWTH and more energy,..higher count atoms! I know, lord, I know,...b-b-BUT this goes against everything we KNOW,... wellllll "know" or Theorize about??? This,...is ,......new.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Flawed??? Unlike my name? It's Neal Adams. What's yours? Derp? Really? What are you afraid of? 1. YOU Prove the space between Galaxies "gets bigger" but is not made up by the creation of enough Galaxies to compensate for any change in distance! You cannot! 2. If it was not an explosion,..why was it called the Big Bang????? For it's first 20 years of existence the Big Bang WAS an "EXPLOSION"! You, apparently study NOTHING! But,..since you NOW think you KNOW what it is,...explain it to all of us!,..........Remembering, of course,..in science,..NOTHING "EXPANDS" Unless another force is being added! 3. Dust and GAS???? I'm sorry,...where did this Dust and gas come from???? Suns are made of Hydrogen and Helium,...and a Super-Nova explodes things down to their IONS!!!! 4. Sorry, again,....THE Solar Wind did WHAT???? Are you mad??? 5.WAIT! Now you are an expert on VIRTUAL PARTICLES?????? And what is that stuff that fires from the Poles of a Black Hole??? 6. FINALLY,...a REAL question! The Positrons????? The "negative particles are the ELECTRONS,..and the Electrons comprise over one third of the particles of the Universe! Perhaps you are asking about the POSITIVE Positrons? Where are they??? Positrons are hidden in plain sight! They are the core particle of the Proton! That's why the Proton is Positive!

[@rafehusky]

+nealadamsdotcom but it common acceptance that the Big Bang wasn't any explosion, any 5th grader would know that

[@nealadamsdotcom]

To those who write to insult me, don't waste your time,...ask a question or make a point! You fools are Legion. You once "believe a Chariot pulled the sun across the sky. or that GOD made the Universe on a BIG BANG puff of smoke from NOTHING! You are SAD, beyond SAD! Bless the scientist, who scratches his head, at the end of the day and proclaims, "I just don't know,...over fools who think they KNOW!.....Something and hold it like a Religion!

[@paulthomson2288]

I read the book by Australian geologist SM Carey about expanding earth theory first year of post graduate study (almost 30 years ago) An Interesting book. But it remains only a theory and plates tectonics better explains earth's geology. Also no explanation for why the planet expands and the mechanism?

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Paul, perhaps YOU can explain why and HOW the Universe seems to be GROWING! You can't, because YOU. like Sam Carey are not Physicists. Sam was a Geologist. The limit to his expertise only allows him to show how GEOLOGICALLY, the Earth keeps getting BIGGER! Sam used the word "EXPANDING"! To a Physicist this is impossible! NOTHING EXPANDS unless acted upon by another "force" The question that must be asked , since Carey's observations are true and self-evident, IS, Is there a form of matter creation, out of "SEEMINGLY NOTHING" that exists in the Universe to begin and continue this process? As it urns out THERE IS! It is called Pair-Production,....and it was first observed in 1932 by Carl David Anderson

[@paulthomson2288]

@@nealadamsdotcom I'm quite happy to accept the scientific community and status quo of tectonic theory in the meantime.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

@@paulthomson2288 Sure you would. If I didn't have a questioning mind, I would too. But when i pull the continental plates together along the tectonic lines of the deep oceans and they fit together PERFECTLY on a smaller Earth, I can't even imagine the chances of that possibility. When ten year olds of my generation looked at the Atlantic and said to our fathers, "Hey Dad, it sure looks like Africa and South America fit together," they were laughed at. Now, when I remind people that the continental plates are made of LIGHTER GRANITIC ROCK, while the spreading oceanic plate is made of HEAVIER BASALTS and are NO OLDER THAN 180 Million Years Old people still laugh.

[@nealadamsdotcom]

Lawney! No Geologist or scientist of any sort,....has EVER even implied that a Continental plate can or does slide under ANY other continental plate, anywhere in the world! Only in the Western Pacific does "OCEANIC" PLATE slide under Oceanic plate! LOOK IT UP!!!!! 180 Million Years Ago TWO-THIRDS of the continental plate was covered by SHALLOW SEAS and the sea level was 800 feet deeper than it is today!! As the continental plate rifted and spread, the Shallow Seas drained off into the new spreading oceans!.

[@keith6706]

Actual geologist here. You're full of it. The initial stages of continental collision results in one plate riding over the other, typically reflected in the creation of a reverse fault, after which it can't proceed much further as the continental plates are too thick and buoyant for the process to continue, so the plates suture together. The continental crust that does subduct before the process stalls out is exposed to extreme pressure resulting in the creation of ultra-high pressure metamorphic suites, such as is found in the Al Hajar mountains in Oman. You know, look it up.

[@graw777]

This makes sense to me... But im just a Graphic Designer: what do i know? BUT i just watched this "StarTalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson - Curiosity Mars Rover" and in the comments i read your arguments and the arguments of people opposing yours... And i buy your sayings: not the first time "experts" are wrong. Awesome video. Subscribing...* *by the way...what about evolution? and what about the expanding Universe?...

[@nicholashylton6857]

Yuntha_21 Stick with Neil deGrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking... or read about Richard Feynman... Alfred Wegener.... & Charles Darwin... -Visit the U.S. Geological Survey and NASA websites... -Google, "The Scientific Method" and see why it has worked so marvelously. -Find out why the Catholic Church has long accepted the undeniable validity of modern evolution, geology and cosmology. Do a few of those and then come back and make some informed conclusions about the "Growing Earth" hypothesis.