New Model of the Universe

Videos
Please Show this Video to Your Geology or
Physics Teacher/Professor For Comment

 

New Model Basics - Open Letter to Science, Neal's Earth Project Made Easy

The case against pangea

First… it’s important to understand that this is the most profound disagreement in all of science in a century and a half… and, even so, it is the tip of the iceberg, the ramifications of this disagreement will change everything we know in science, top to bottom.

To begin with basic stuff.
All science knows…
The earth has two crusts. One…the mostly basalt lower crust or the oceanic crust which is 2 – 4 miles deeper down than the higher upper continental crust. This lower crust, essentially covers the Earth. It … this crust is being made daily at rift cracks that snake around the earth’s mid- oceans. But how could all these rifts continually spread apart…without the Earth growing? Ah….that is the question….isn’t it?

Secondly,
Sitting on or “in” and “as part of” the oceanic crust is the second higher upper crust or the Continental Crust rising for the most part out of the water. It is made mostly of granitic rock, which is 2.5 times the weight of water.

Some edge area of the Continental Crust or Plate dips into and under the sea level of the ocean. This area is what we call the Continental Shelf. So as you go out into the ocean and the water gets gradually deeper … that is the Continental Shelf. At a given distance out into the ocean the ocean floor suddenly drops off and goes down like a plummet… 2 ½ to 4 miles to the deep ocean floor, where we find the second lower crust, the Oceanic Crust made mostly of basalts which are 3.0 – 3.3 times the weight of water. So to make it visually clear, if you took the water away what you would see as you go out into the ocean a distance is, the Continental Shelf would suddenly drop away and down like a ridge in Arizona., except it would go straight down for two to three miles, as if it was suddenly broken off. The other side of that broken off ridge is across the ocean thousands of miles in Europe, or Africa and west to Australia and Asia.

How did the two sides of this higher crust spread apart?

Rifts or eruptive cracks in the ocean floor provide new material in the form of molten magmic rock that rises up at a rift area and the oceanic plate spreads apart and the two sides move away from each other smoothly and regularly, and so the continents welded within the oceanic plates also move apart as the ocean bottom spreads…. Now if this happens … and it does, all over the world, logically speaking, this Earth must grow.

We … I … argue that, that this outer crust originally covered the whole of a smaller Earth and the Earth sphere grew. The outer crust, therefore, had to crack and spread to accommodate a growing Earth…which…it apparently did.

We further argue that if you were to shrink the sphere of Earth … by letting the oceanic plate re-enter the rifts they erupted from, over time … the continental crust would easily and completely fit back together, and this solution satisfies all questions of tectonics, science, geology, paleontology, theoretical and practical physics, cosmology, and subatomic physics. Pretty simple actually.

Against this is the current Pangea theory which insists … that the continents float willy, nilly about the Earth, spinning, sliding, bumping, and crashing like bumper cars in a carnival. (That’s a common description … which some geologists are currently backing away from… in small numbers.) The Pangea theory says the Earth was assembled 4.5 billion years ago in a “universal instant” from debris … that was collected in our galaxy, to this size, (by a method that is never … I repeat never explained, why this assembly of material mysteriously ended at exactly this time, and didn’t continue to provide more material is a brutally illogical contradiction. Sometime in the previous 9 billion years, this stuff collected. Yet, for the last 4.5 billion years no new stuff collected, according to our 150 year old theory. How can that be? There is no possible explanation for this contradiction. It’s almost silly. It’s certainly naïve, but still it is one hundred and fifty years old.

We are told this material is ‘star stuff’, from novas or super novas. If this wasn’t presented seriously, it would be funny. Why?

We are told meteorites, comets and asteroids are left over material from this time, only less is going around now. Less … that the shoe-maker levy planets killer that struck Jupiter. Twenty one of them? Billion years ago they were bigger. But meteorites aren’t loosely assembled. They’re solid. Some are solid unrustable iron! This from a super-nova? Gigantic meteorites … floating around, waiting for gravity to come along?

Let’s clear some thing up. The only kind of meteorites that we’ve identified to be 4.5 billion years old are colondrite meteorites. Condrite meteorites are assembled from mineral dust and pencil tip tiny meteorites called chondrules. More importantly, chondrite meteorites cannot assemble, accrete on a gravitational body … like a planet or a sun! So where did they come from? Where did all the other meteorites come from?

Contradiction upon contradiction, upon contradiction. It’s a wrong theory. It’s an old outworn theory, and it contradicts itself.

Geologists then say, that once assembled into planets, moons, and suns…this activity gave us a molten (from all the friction of assembly) differentiated Earth. Differentiated … like in a caldron…melted in that, the lightest material rose to the surface … which was presumably granitic rock … then down to basalts … then heavier silicates at the bottom, or core, you have iron and the heavier elements.

Let us say we accepted this whole wrong scenario
… The Earth finished, cools in time … The Earth must then be coated completely by a 2 – 4 mile crust of light granitic rock, and under that we find basalts.

Comparing that to today’s world we find an Earth that merely has pieces of this granitic crust. We went from an Earth completely covered with a relatively thick outer crust of granitic rock to a few, seven, scattered pieces that we call continents…. Where is the rest of the crust?

The only time geologists admit to us that massive crust is gone is when they come up with theories like the one where a rogue planet comes barreling through space and grazes Earth. Rips off a massive chunk … or “peels off the crust” … that’s one of my favorites, and deposits it in orbit to be our moon. Unlike all the other moons in our solar system, which were made by what? Other rogue planets? Ming the Merciless? …Rogue planets? This is fantasy.

Added together these continental upper plate areas cover only between one third to one quarter of the Earth. Where is the rest of the outer crust? Three quarters of it seems to be missing. It has to be somewhere, This much stuff can’t disappear. If we got it back it would give us four times the continental surface and mass than we have now!

I think the continental crust … is the whole crust of a smaller Earth. In fact, it all does fit together on a smaller Earth.

Granitic rock cannot subduct as geologists insist the oceanic plate does, because it’s too light! This is fact!

This alone disproves the pangea theory! Granitic rock cannot subduct. Yet, three quarters, twenty one continents worth, is gone! Simply gone. No explanation!

I say this: Earth was progressively smaller as we go back in time over 4 – 5 billion years it grew from a small planetesimal to a planet the size of Mars. The increasing speed of growth increased exponentially. The heat under the crust from this growth increased as it grew and the thin thick crust cracked more profoundly, and 2 – 4 miles deep, and over the final 200 million years rifted the ocean to reveal new deeper basalt plate until we have the Earth we see today.


An aside….you may fairly ask how this matter can be created. It’s created at the plasma core of all planets, moons, and suns by a process that is so common that science has a name for it, “pair production!” It’s how all matter is made from energy.


Pangeaists…insist…against all reasonable symmetries, that all the continents moved to one side of Earth about 600 million years ago, (pick your own time, (it’s all a “guessing game”) they gathered together on one side of the Earth, and for some unexplained reason stayed on that side for 400 million to 600 million years. Sound incredible?

Then in an desperate attempt to explain the clear fact that all the continents fit perfectly together geologists say,… that in some magical other unnamed time, and for some unnamed reason, all the continents, once-upon-a-previous-fictional-made-up-time, gathered and connected in the Pacific, again, into one giant island that they named Rodinia. The continents gathered to form Rodinia, in the Pacific, then broke apart and zipped around the planet to gather, and then form Pangea in the Atlantic! You can see why timing is everything in this. How could the two giant islands exist at the same time? What intellectual terror prevents science from the obvious conclusion that Rodinia and Pangea happened at the same time on a smaller Earth, I cannot explain. This, in the face of facts that the ocean floor in all oceans of the world is the same progressive age and none of it, none, is older than 180 million years old. Apparently it’s easier to believe that continents travel around the planet than it is to consider that the Earth grew.

Back to Pangea then: For no explainable reason, this Pangea island broke in half, and one half rode to and over the South Pole, and the other half rode to and over the North Pole, over a period of about 60 million years. Once there inexplicably they broke up again, and spread around the Earth and the poles, and the pieces are currently riding toward each other, north to south to eventually crash back together in the middle. No…not east to west. Simply north to south.

So it’s Rodinia, Pangea, Godswana, and Laurasia. Then Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, Europe and Antarctica. And now back to crash together. I say this is ludicrous and scientifically impossible.

We (I) say this: These conclusions defy reason and common sense. Scientifically they have no basis in fact, only theory that gets stronger every year! Granitic rock and basalt is, on average, three times heavier than water. Let’s suppose Pangea is on one side of the Earth as the Pangeaists say. Let’s add that if today we can say the land masses rise on average, half mile above sea level, that equals a mile and a half of water, then the pangea side of Earth is four and one half times heavier than the water side!

This shift results in a natural shift of the center of gravity to the Pangea side. Not much for the whole Earth, but quite enough to sink most of Pangea into the sea. It’s also enough to raise the middle of the Pacific out into the air.

In addition, at this configuration, the continents could not move. Pangea is in a hole … as it were … gravity wise. Everything else is up hill!

This is not quantum physics here, it’s simple. You learn this kind of math in grade school. This is undeniable and clear. Pangea could not have existed as described.

3. Pangeaists insist that the concept of subduction disproves a growing Earth because … they say, the oceanic plate subducts, or dives under the continental plate,… on a sort of conveyor belt that carries crust down and under, to somehow join the plastic material below. At a moment of discovery in 1964, Kiyoo Wadati and Hugo Benioff discovered a chunk of Oceanic Plate angling downward just east of the island of Tonga in the South Pacific trench areas. With some relief they and others announced that this “subduction” principle alone explained the apparent disappearance of excess crustal material of Earth. This view was enhanced and supported by the appearance and extent of the under sea trenches around… what became known as the “Ring of Fire.” A volcanic arch of island and trench areas around the western pacific, but far from the continental plate.

The world of science, and specifically geology, breathed a collective sigh of relief that the growing Earth theory proposed by the brilliant geologist, Professor Samuel Warren Carey, of Australia, was not true and no longer would science have to deal with the possibility of a growing Earth … and its ramifications, and their … now 150 year old theory of a constant size Earth was secure, along with the non-sensical theory that Earth and the solar system coalesced 4.5 billion years ago out of what they call “star stuff.” (Sigh)

Our secondary goal here is to rid ourselves of this old unrealistic and simplistic and wrong theory of solar system assembly completely and utterly. A theory that insults intelligence and the facts of “real science,” and was born of ignorance and desperation, long ago by intelligent, yet time ignorant men. 150 years is a very long time. And this theory has served its purpose … time to fix it.

So what, in fact, is subduction, and what is it not?

First: Continents do not subduct under other continents as originally proposed! Geology has come to slowly agree with this.

We know this for many reasons, the most important being that the granitic rock of the continents cannot subduct, because it is too light to do so.

Continents sit on and in oceanic plates like cups welded to growing, spreading plates.

A continent is not capable of independent movement or growing, their function is done. They may crack apart if rifting dictates, but only the lower oceanic plates gain new edges … and grow outward.

Secondly… subduction and tectonic movement was originally proposed to be fueled by the convection (roiling and boiling) of an ocean of molten rock under the crust of the Earth, like a pot of boiling water on a stove.

It is now known, and has been discovered by seismic scanning, that only 4% of the asthenosphere (under the crust) is molten and most of that, if not all, is located under the rifts. Some is under volcanic areas, to be sure, but they are the exception that proves the rule.

The concept of convection has been altered into near disuse because of recent discovery.

Because convection requires the heat to be under the bottom of the pot… little survives of the stubborn convection concept. Super heated gases rise to the highest areas under the crust and collect there.

This creates a problem! If new material erupts from the rifts to the new sea floor… where does this new material come from? What space inside the Earth is being emptied out to provide this new stuff? There’s no convection conveyor belt to bring new material.

Third: And quite telling… there is no evidence even that oceanic plate subducts under the actual continental plates at all!! Is this a surprise to you? None has been seen. In fact, the concept is nearly impossible to actually imagine based on facts. The continents, themselves, are plus or minus 30 to 40 miles thick! The oceanic plates are only 4 to 5 miles thick. The continents are not only solid and 35 miles thick, they become part of the increasingly dense asthenosphere beneath making it solid into solid. In other words, a total barrier to subducting plates. Not exactly what you have been led to believe is it?

Some may think that what I’m saying contradicts the observed truth itself, that the Ring of Fire, and the trenches you have heard about are up against the continents. They are not! They are, in fact, on average, hundreds of miles from continents, (see for yourself! Hardly like the drawings they show in books is it?) Subduction zones and trenches generally line the edges of newly created volcanic islands. In fact, this is exactly what we see … trenches pushing down along side volcanic islands that are pushing upwards! The continents play no part in this process. The continents are too thick and old to enter!

Let us consider… away from the continents we find volcanic island chains pushing upward out of the oceans, and right next to these volcanic islands… we find trenches, which indicate subduction or pushing down. Sort of makes sense, doesn’t it?

Even geologists say these two phenomenon’s are directly related. Sure they are!!!

Isn’t this folding… under pressure?

If we say the Earth is growing and we point to uneven growth from rifting and spreading,… it is reasonable to assume great pressures from this growth are being applied, and not evenly, and regularly, everywhere.

So, along some edges compression and folding are reasonable and logical, especially where there’s little or no rifting. On the upper surface of the continental plates compression results in folding and mountaining. In fact, compared to mountaining subduction and volcanic islands are new and only just beginning.

So, instead of a conveyor belt we have, simply some compression and folding.

Let’s look at the Western Pacific … Here along the west side is the Ring of Fire way out into the ocean. Next is a chain of volcanic islands. These, like Hawaii, are pushed up high as if compressed and folded, because the ocean bottom pushes against them. As proof we have these trenches, evidence on new folding downward.

Here is a vast expanse on our moon, we call it Valles Ibrium. This, like the western pacific, is receiving outward pressure and holding pressure from nearby spreads. Can you see how the crater’s edges are dealing with the pressure by collapsing and folding?

This is similar to the Ring of Fire folding edges.

While you hold that in your mind let’s look at another phenomenon. Geology tells you that mountains are created by continents bumping and crashing into each other. A preposterous idea.

The fact is most, if not all, the mountains on Earth were created since 200 million years ago, and most of them are 60 million years old and younger.

The Rockies are under 60 million.

The Andes are under 60 million.

And the massive Himalayas are under 60 million years old. During all the ages of dinosaurs there were literally no mountains. Please let that sink in. They told you different? There is folded land and theories, but no true mountains, after all.

Keeping that thought … carefully now, Pangea stayed whole for 300 million years and then only broke apart … yes … where is the bumping and crashing that made the mountains if it stayed whole??? Serious question here. One island … How did we get mountains with no crashing?

Here is how the mountains are really made and why they are so young.

The Earth is growing

If the skin of the growing Earth is stretched as the Earth grows a hair breadth per year, the cool dry crust will stretch … crack and repair, and in time gently slide apart un-dramatically. Cracks will appear and slide apart, and water will settle in these shallow spread areas. But three things happen.
One, with added growth the heat of this growth increases under the crust.
Two, the crust thickens.
Three, the growth of the Earth increases exponentially.

Let me remind you that a growing sphere changes it’s geometry. It’s surface re-curves to a flatter surface.

If that surface stretches like a balloon to the bigger size, this re-curving is made up by stretching.

But, if any section holds its shape and the edges crack and rift down to a deeper level…a plastic lower level that can continue to stretch, then the upper piece is broken free … sitting on the surface … like a continent, now broken free, it no longer stretches, to flatten out.

That separate surface continental plate sits un-stretched on a sphere that is continuing to get bigger and to re-curve flatter.

The curvature of that continent is no longer the same as the sphere … so it must somehow flatten out. Re-curve.

But remember, as crust it has now thickened to 20 -30 miles thick. 200 million years ago it was only 4 – 5 miles thick, now it’s 20 miles thick.

As it re-curves the edges crack and split (into bays and inlets and under sea “V’s” forms and the upper surface of the main body wrinkles and folds … into mountains.

This is how we get nearly all our mountains.

The Andes are a unique case. South America lies east of the most profound and rapidly growing rift area on Earth. The pressure of this growing rift against South America prevents South America from flattening out easily. This pressure drives a trench along South America’s coast as a barrier to westward movement, so like on the moon. Remember? …The…edge of South America folds more profoundly like waves against a barrier it cannot pass! No other place on Earth is quite like this.

Now let us look at the western pacific.

The western Pacific has no rifting to speak of. Yet rifting is all over the rest of the planet spreading and holding the western pacific in a circular vice.

The world rifts and grows all around the un-growing Pacific creating vice-like pressure. All areas push in multiplying pressure. Now the Earth re-curves. The oceanic plate, in the western pacific, is pushed on around the edges and also down by the re-curve. Down, right?!!.

Volcanic islands rise up…next outward, pushes downward … not near the super thick continents, but outward in the ocean creating a ring of pressure, a ring of fire.

This folding has only happened … like mountaining, in the last 30 – 60 million years.

A phenomenon … yes.

A conveyor belt … nonsense!

We are not floating on a sea of magma. Certain areas are folding up and down, under the pressure of Earth’s growth. That’s all. We have examined descending slabs seismically. There are some slabs, but not the whole ocean floor descending for hundreds of millions of years. In the last 200 million years are there enough slabs to account for 2/3rds of the old ocean from all directions? Of course not! It’s nonsense, we’d see it clear as a bell if it happened. The Antarctic Ocean completely surrounds Antarctica. It’s as big as the Atlantic Ocean, according to how you measure it … and it encircles Antarctica. It has no subduction to eat up its ocean floor … which is only about 60 million years old. No subduction!! How then can it grow? It grows because the Earth grows!

We are told by geology that the southern continents are traveling upward to join the descending northern continents.

For this to be so, the oceanic plates must be subducting in the middle some where. Search with me to find a subducting trench or any sign that the two sides are moving towards each other.

Nope…nothing…but that can’t be true. The whole Pangea concept rests on this theory.

Let’s examine this more closely. The northern and southern continents, that they named Gondwana and Laurasia, pulled and went over the poles and separated 1000 to 2000 miles apart.
Listen carefully, please. The northern continent split in two. The southern continent broke into 4 continents.

It is not possible for North America to join with South America exactly at Panama. T’s a needle in a haystack.

Similarly, Africa could not, could not join Eurasia at exactly the same place that it split away. There is no way to justify this. There are no odds that make this possible.

Pangea: The first proof. How South America fits perfectly into Africa. Easy enough to recognize . They said that a child could see it. But here’s the thing.

It’s not true.

If you settle South America to Africa, in the north there is a 25 degree split between the two. They do not fit! If you try to fit downward coasts, there is a 25 degree split at the top.

There is only one way these two continents will fit together properly.

If you make a globe 50% smaller … and re-curve these two continents on to that globe…

They fit perfectly!

In fact geologists will tell you that South America’s tail wrapped under Africa. The story of this fact is recorded in the under sea geology for anyone to see. Both Antarctica and South America have tails that pulled apart from under Africa.

Now watch what happens when we put these on a smaller globe.

Now we’ll go to India.

Geologists tell you in books, and on television, that India was once attached to Africa. That for some reason, and at a mysterious time, India tore off of Africa … it rode up the Indian Ocean, and slowly, inexorably crashed into Asia. It proceeded to push so hard against Eurasia they say that it up the Himalayas … the greatest mountain range on Earth.
This little peninsula … India … crush Eurasia?

Let’s get the rules straight: Continents don’t move. Only the Oceanic Plate that they sit in, moves!

In order for India, the upper plate, to crash into Eurasia… India’s oceanic plate would have to subduct under Eurasia.

But we have established… that oceanic plate cannot subduct under a continental plate… because a continental plate is well over 30 miles thick. This halts the process. It can’t happen!

Let’s imagine there’s no leading plate edge on the Indian northern edge … which … would be impossible. But let’s forget this impossibility. Say we can shove India up against Eurasia, it would then stop or become part of Eurasia, like Europe. Why would it crumple up mountains? Even worse, these mountains were made only 30,40,50 million years ago. When did India “crash” into Eurasia, while the southern continents were a further 2000 miles to the south? That’s where the southern continents were 50 million years ago. Or while 4 continents were at the South Pole did India independently voyage north for 2500 miles? All by itself?

So, let’s say India fused together with Eurasia. How does one peninsula push into a continent and why? Once it stops that peninsula has stopped. It has to overcome inertia in order to do anything. If it’s truly against Eurasia … it would have to back up and crash into Eurasia over and over again to overcome inertia … that’s how physics works.

Speaking of physics … physics say every action has an equal and opposite re-action, well we have established it’s the oceanic plate that moves. The continental India is the body of the thing. Think of it like a Volkswagen Beatle crashing into a truck. No matter how that truck crumples … it’s nothing compared to how crushed the Volkswagen would be.

The same thing is true of India. India would be one vast mountain range … it’s not.

Again, worse…the Eurasian mountains are far too gigantic and extensive to be crumpled by puny India.

Look closer. Examine the north of India. This is an impacting body. Yet, the top of it is extensive flatland. So flat, in fact, that it looks almost stretched out. How can this be an impacting body?

So how do I explain all this with a growing Earth, and how can my conclusion explain all the clues, and far, far better than this? Earth grew.

As earth grew India was a part of both Africa and Asia. The geometry of a smaller Earth makes this very simple. India broke away from Africa … but stayed attached Eurasia. As Africa pulled further away the distance simply increased. That’s it. Explains everything.

The mountains in Asia?

We’ve discussed how mountains are made. The thick continental plates must re-curve to a growing planet. The greatest mountain range on Earth should be … from compression folding … at the center of the biggest continent on Earth. That would be … the Himalayans.

Finally:

It’s important to understand how desperate the scientific and geologic community is to avoid the logical conclusion that the Earth grew.

Since the Earth, 200 million years ago, had no deep oceans, and all the continents were seamlessly together as one land that covered a smaller planet, then any variation of this story that’s not true, will have to be explained, and re-explained as contradictions must, and did, show up one after the other.

That’s exactly what has happened!

Science has had to admit all the continents were together, because of tectonic matching in the Atlantic, and animals and plants matching on either side of the ocean. But it seemed no one asked about how the Pacific could have bee so vast. This was incredibly ignored.

Then the question rose of how Antarctica could have ridden to the South Pole … especially when the other southern continents were wrapped around it with Antarctica in the center.

Then, of course, there was the North Pole.

So geology made up another part of the story in which Pangea not only broke up … but now Pangea broke in half and the two halves rode to and over the poles.

But then how to explain how the continents are more together than apart today.

The new chapter … included continents moving back toward the equator and each other … to one day crash together. Shockingly now … no one objected and pointed out the near unreal contradictions.

Then the worst possible thing happened, tectonic matching in the Pacific showed undeniable coincidences of tectonics .. at one time the Pacific was closed. So back to the drawing board … the continents must have been joined in the Pacific as well. Some explanation was needed fast!

Of course they couldn’t even suggest, in any way, that this new massive island they named Rodinia, was assembled at the same time as Pangea! So … they assigned a time to it that would never be suspected to conflict with Pangea. They said it was formed 11 to 12 hundred million years ago, and it broke up 9, or 8, or 7 hundred million years ago.

Did they have proof of these dates?

Not one tenth of proof. If I said this Rodinia had exactly the same timings as Pangea … there is no proof … what-so-ever that this isn’t true!

How irresponsible … are Rodinia’s dates?

This irresponsible…there is, in fact, no beginning point for either Rodinia or Pangea.

Can we let that sink in? No provable beginning point! When they say these islands formed at such and such time, it’s fabrication based on no proof what-so-ever. It’s a lie!

There is only one proof of age that’s verifiable, and that’s the work that led to the Rainbow Map… And on the Rainbow Map there is no square yard of the deep ocean that is older than one hundred and eighty million years … Atlantic or Pacific. So Rodinia began breaking up 180 million years ago, just as Pangea did. No difference, and there is no evidence of deep ocean anywhere in the world!

 

Articles

New York Times Article Supports Neal's Theory

Links

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html
http://continuitystudios.net/dinosaur.html
http://www.nealadams.com/PhysicsOfGrow.html
http://www.itslikecool.com/prime
http://www.itslikecool.com/dinosaur.html