I spoke with my brother over the weekend and he has come to believe that the earth is “growing…” I assumed that he was referring to the shifts in the plates and how volcanoes have added land masses via eruptions. However, he sent me a link regarding an individual whom proclaims that the accepted science of tectonic plates and plate shifting is wrong. A 150 years of accepted doctrine. Now, this idea is not a new idea… It was originally conceived in the late 19th century as a means to explain the drifting of the continents. The idea is “the Earth is growing” (or expanding).
Wikipedia has an article on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth . I find it rather amusing that an individual whose professional background is to draw fantasy worlds & characters and now is dispensing information on geology and physics as though he has spent a lifetime studying science… If you visit his website, you will find some convincing and well drawn animations of his “theory” of Expanding Earth. If you bother to read his rather long opinion about how the Earth must be expanding (and other old, ancient science is wrong), you’ll start to wonder where his evidence is… It’s very convenient to claim that it’s being covered up or information is withheld from the general public. However, if one’s theory is to be substantiated, it must be willing to face the gauntlet of peers who will question every aspect of the theory. The theory must be backed up with empirical evidence that is observable by others in the scientific community. None of Neal Adams’ “theory” has any linked reference nor data on his site.
Furthermore, he fails to account for where the waters of the oceans came from when the continents cracked and “grew” apart. Additionally, if the earth is expanding (disregarding where the additional mass came from), the Earth should accelerate around the Sun faster and as that speed increases, our orbit would also increase. In this scenario, Life on Earth would be significantly impacted! Additionally, Neal claims there is zero subduction because the granite is too light to submerge… This is like saying you can’t make ice sink when you apply pressure or some force above it in water.
Lets take a more recent geological event, the 2011 March MegaQuake that rocked Japan. According to Neal’s theory, Japan should be moving away from the US and China should be moving further away from Japan. However, this is not the case! Instead, geologist found that Japan has moved approximately 8 feet closer towards the USA! The earthquake moved Honshu 2.4 m (8 ft) east and shifted the Earth on its axis by estimates of between 10 cm (4 in) and 25 cm (10 in). Japan also rest ontop of two tectonic plates. If no subduction is to take place, how does this theory explain the movement of Japan towards the east? The Pacific plate moved *under *the Eurasia plate!
Neal Adams claims there is no subduction (maybe localized he says). Neal ignores the fact of why the oceanic plates are all under 180 million years old… They keep getting recycled! If, as Mr. Adams suggests the earth is growing, then why don’t we find a gradual increase in age from the trenches where the plates are moving out that reaches proportionally to the continental plates? We can see a significant difference in age between the continental plates and the subduction zones. Why? The subduction zones are where the sub-ducting plate returns to the magma below. Once recycled, it can not continue to age. However, Neal counters that the Earth began a growth spur approximately 180 million years ago… Hmm, that seems a bit odd when you look at the estimated age of the Earth (4.5 billion years). Why would it suddenly begin to grow? What cosmological event would trigger Earth to grow? Neal Adams draws a blank here. Okay, lets take this idea face on. If the Earth began to grow 180 million years ago, then all the coastal areas would show an age of 180 million years. If you look at a 2008 mapping of the Earth’s oceanic plates, you’ll see that not all coastal regions are over 180 MY.
At this point, Neal Adams fails to fully backup any of his arguments to my satisfaction. The lack of supporting evidence, no referenced links within his arguments, and lack of background make it difficult for me to take Mr. Adams seriously.