Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing
User comments:
[2012-05-23 13:57:03] nealadamsdotcom - Plate Tectonics are ...
Plate Tectonics are far more logical and sensible to believe and understand on a growing Planet, than a Static planet where one has to make up process that do not exist. 1. Continents floating around and spinning like Bumper Cars in a carnival, contrary to the clear spread track isochons in all oceans. 2. Convection. A process, that exists, but NOT UNDER THE conditions of a sealed crust and liquid only at the rifts, which act as release valves to heat and pressure. VERY BAD SCIENCE! THINK!
[2012-05-23 13:56:31] nealadamsdotcom - Call yourself yella ...Call yourself yella,...and "stupid" and a defender of ignorance. YOU are a member of a great Fraternity, who's purpose and goals are static and fear of the new and different and TRUTH!
[2012-05-23 13:53:13] nealadamsdotcom - 1.Tell people in ...1.Tell people in honesty you have opposed this HERE FOR YEARS! What is YOUR INTEREST? 2. No. nor do I believe thousands of Scientists "CONSPIRE" to let millions die from smoking . Or conspire to insist the sun clearly orbited the Earth or be wrong in their beliefs and their teachings until NEW discoveries are found to JUNK their past teachings! 3. I believed Geologists are ignorant of most of Physics, including Sam Carey, who ignorantly used the word "EXPAND" for a Growing Earth. 4. THINK!
[2012-05-23 13:39:23] nealadamsdotcom - And YET, to be ...And YET, to be expected on a CONSTANTLY GROWING planet. Shallow OCEANS covered TWO THIRDS of the continental plates, but compressive forces Subduction, OBDUCTION and Mountain building were miniature versions of what we have today. WHICH is what is to be expected considering the thinness of the , THEN, Continental plate.
[2012-05-23 13:33:56] nealadamsdotcom - Easily, in fact. ...Easily, in fact. 200 MYA and much more, the outer crust was 2 and 3 miles thick, very much like the oceanic crust today. Rifting and spreading is an ongoing process, though as we go to the past it happened more and more slowly. Earth's "SEAS" were, in fact OCEANS of considerable depth,.. all or partially filled by sediments. Basalts were closer to the surface and processes were much the same but of smaller size, the Geological fossils of these spreads are all over the continents.
[2012-05-23 13:07:51] newfiegeo - Neal - How does ...Neal - How does your model explain the existence of ancient oceanic crust in the rock record that dates as far back as 2.5 billion years? I would like to note that these rocks in question were determined to be oceanic by the exact same means that the oceanic rocks in Neal's model were determined to be oceanic - the only difference is there current positions in space and time. Everything else is largely the same (ie composition, textures like pillows, mineralogy, sequence stratigraphy and more)
[2012-05-23 13:03:23] newfiegeo - In fact there are ...In fact there are examples of Oceanic crust very similiar to what we see froming today dating back almost 2.5 billion years. Prior to that the nature of plate tectonics becomes obscure - partially because the rock record is so incomplete and partially because there appears to be some point before or near this time when plate tectonics as we know it today commenced. It will take some time to decifer the rock record around this epoch but progress is being made.
[2012-05-23 12:59:18] newfiegeo - So here's an ...So here's an interesting point. In Western Newfoundland (on the NE coast of North America) there are a number of well preserved slabs of oceanic crust that were obducted onto the ancient margin of NA. These rocks are in the order of 500+ my old (we used the same techinique to date these rocks as the rocks in Neal's magnetic reversal map). This type of crust only forms at midocean ridges in deep oceans. Therefore deep ocean basins existed over 500my ago. Numerous examples exist worldwide.
[2012-05-23 12:49:29] newfiegeo - yet on the west ...yet on the west coast of North America we have oceanic crust that is in excess of 200my in age. Google the 'Stikine Terrane' or check out the 'Slide Mountain Terrane'. In fact there are some 50 different terranes on this margin that represent a variety of styles of rocks formed in an oceanic environment (both younger and older then 200my). The best way to explain how these rocks were attached to the western margin of NA is thru plate tectonics.
[2012-05-23 12:22:33] newfiegeo - Funny..... As a ...Funny..... As a geologist I don't give a rats a@# about wether or not the pacific or atlantic or artic or any ocean opened or closed yesterday or 500 my ago. I simply look at the rock record and derive the timing of rifting from the physical characteristics of the rocks on these ancient margins to determine an age. Where do you get the conspiracy from? Do you honestly believe that hundreds of thousands of geologists would ALL cover up such a thing? Why would they do this???????
[2012-05-23 12:07:45] yajia1 - Stop this kind of ...Stop this kind of thing! Stop this pseudo-science thing! This is why Creationists say Evolution is "just a theory". This is what a "just a theory" is.
[2012-05-23 09:53:52] nealadamsdotcom - Examination of the ...Examination of the Crustal Age Map shows NO EVIDENCE of such a sea,. But Rodina. yes, Rodinia began spreading in the Pacific at exactly the same time as the spreading of the Atlantic. This fraud has been perpetrated when Geologists discovered Sam Carey was RIGHT and the Pacific also spread, like the Atlantic. The simple conspiracy WAS to set the SPREADING PACIFIC back in time! THAT WAS THE LIE! Rodinia broke up 180 MYA, not 700 MYA. For which there is NO PROOF. 180 MYA is proved by the C A Map
[2012-05-23 09:15:36] MrDudette546 - You gave me a word ...You gave me a word not an explanation.
[2012-05-23 09:08:51] mordinvan - except we can find ...except we can find subduction zones in the ocean today.
[2012-05-23 09:06:20] nealadamsdotcom - Current theory is ...Current theory is mere speculation and conjecture, and stupid, unscientific speculation, at that. This theory is based exclusively on FACTS! Once Theories take over we only have CHAOS! Geology is the worst sinner in this area.
[2012-05-23 08:59:55] nealadamsdotcom - Read my comments on ...Read my comments on this page and go back in comments
[2012-05-23 08:58:00] nealadamsdotcom - THINK!THINK!
[2012-05-23 08:57:17] nealadamsdotcom - This is NEW SCIENCE ...This is NEW SCIENCE! New science, that is based on facts and dismisses Theories. You learned that 200 Million Years Ago, TWO THIRDS of the Continental plate was covered by SHALLOW SEAS! Seas up to 800 feet deep. Where YOU LIVE was more than likely covered by several hundred feet of water, 200 Million Years Ago. As the Earth grows, the water increases. As the Crust spread, the water drained off into the new spreading nascent Oceans, These Seas no longer exist on the land.
[2012-05-23 08:43:48] nealadamsdotcom - For the moment, ...For the moment, assume there exists a process in which new matter is made/created/produced at the core ,( beginning with Pair Production.) And assembled at the outer dense plasma core, into matter/atoms up and down the Periodic table IN COMMON AMOUNTS. The Super Heated gases rise between the silicate latices of the Mantle to the asthenosphere and upward to the 60,000 miles of rifts around the world. These atoms (Gases,)include H and O. I did not animate the water, just continental plate.
[2012-05-23 05:50:47] 001010011100101110 - I'm not saying that ...I'm not saying that I support this theory, in fact I only saw it 10 minutes ago, but the counterarguments are ridiculous. Over 90 percent of all water comes from first or second generation star induced comets.
[2012-05-23 05:22:07] nub74347 - Where was the ...Where was the water????
[2012-05-23 03:51:40] MrAmalsam - Firstly, more irony ...Firstly, more irony. How am I supposed to read comments that no longer exist? Secondly, I'm actually presenting 'evidence' that might support your bloody theory, so why are you attacking me with this irrelevant statement?
[2012-05-23 03:28:12] MrDgmiller - assuming you are ...assuming you are correct in your theory, and that would be a rather large assumption. i have one question. if all continents were land locked at one point in time causing the surface of earth to appear strictly "green", how is the earth over 70% water?
[2012-05-23 02:40:38] nealadamsdotcom - GOOOLLLLY. So now ...GOOOLLLLY. So now explain how all the lower oceanic Basalt crust is at MOST 180 MYO back to 0 years old.. whereas the Granitic continental crust is generally layer under layer that is Billions of years old and differentiated long long ago to cover the whole of a GROWING Earth.
[2012-05-23 02:30:26] BiebersTheMan - You are severely ...You are severely underinformed. The answer to that is simple. The granitic crust forms intrusively. This means much of this crust is buried, while the basalt crust that makes up 2/3 of the crust is formed extrusively by magma coming through cracks in the surface and out of volcanoes, and cooling to form land. You would think with all the time you've devoted to this fallacy you would know that.
[2012-05-23 02:03:03] rongrite - Spineless jellyfish ...Spineless jellyfish. LOL
[2012-05-23 01:58:12] novembrine1 - BiebersTheMan?? ...BiebersTheMan?? REALLY?
[2012-05-23 01:52:01] nealadamsdotcom - Really? Mister ...Really? Mister EXPERT? Where did all the matter in the universe come from? If the Earth differentiated (You KNOW differentiation?!) it's granitic crust ..BUT it now covers only one third of the Earth. What happened to the other two thirds of the crust.
[2012-05-23 01:45:59] nealadamsdotcom - SO, Has nature ...SO, Has nature provided a similar organization of Field lines? 7.Van Allen belt lines? What about the portion of Earth's magnetic field that flows through the OUTER PLASMA CORE? So, If Pair-Production at the core can be saved from annihilation at the outer core. What happens then? What happens THEN? Can they be kept apart? Forever? How? Took me 20 years to figure it out. What REALLY happens at Pair-Production? WHAT IS Pair-Production,,,REALLY? What gives the Pairs their1/2 FIELDS?
[2012-05-23 01:33:07] nealadamsdotcom - !, They nearly ...!, They nearly NEVER "annihilate each other." 2. Patrick Blackett won Nobel for investigation of Cosmic Rays using his counter controlled cloud chamber. 3. Carl David Anderson first observed Pair-Production in 1932. and discovered the Positron. In 1936 shared the Nobel for this work. 4.This REALITY is the only form of MATTER CREATION KNOWN TO MAN! 5. CAN,...Pairs be kept from Joining? If they CAN, a universe can be built. 6. Well, they CAN in a collider with magnetic field lines. HMMmm
[2012-05-23 00:45:37] fighisver - only egotistical ...only egotistical assholes who think their thoughts are so unique and everyone else are feeble and "ignorant". It's pretty funny.
[2012-05-22 23:58:25] BiebersTheMan - This is nothing but ...This is nothing but pseudo-science. Only the weak-minded buy into this. There is no tangible evidence to back this theory, it is all speculation.
[2012-05-22 23:54:16] mynameissooriginal2 - Pair production is ...Pair production is the direct precursor to pair annihilation, being that pair production produces a pair of quantum particles with opposing quantum numbers, and immediately afterward the pair annihilate themselves, barring special circumstances. In the context of Earth, pair production will not create lasting matter, and often doesn't occur at all, and what's more, the 1948 Nobel Physics prize was given for the observation of pair production to a man named Patrick Blackett. Learn your facts.
[2012-05-22 21:42:49] nealadamsdotcom - Your presumptuous ...Your presumptuous remarks are incorrect and unthinking. I attempted to explain this set of theories in a progression of thinking that MIGHT make you understand. Without a simple progression and a 500 character limit, I could never do it. MATTER/MASS can be created from energy and something invisible and undetectable to us as of today. The Process is called Pair-Production. You may say this is "CONVERTED" but there IS matter there where there was none previously. Do you understand?
[2012-05-22 21:22:11] SapphireTheDragon - This still douse ...This still douse not answer my question, what you are doing is posing another question. There are a few theories out there that suggest where matter came from, but so far what we do understand is that mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted. If you were to set off a nuclear explosion, you would find the total mass of the explosion would weigh the same as the bomb it was originally comprised of. Nothing is actually destroyed or created.
[2012-05-22 20:20:48] nealadamsdotcom - What area of proof ...What area of proof are you looking to verify. This is very BIG!