What do you think is the Truth? Earth is growing VS the Pangaea theory?

Growing earth has been debunked so many times it makes my head hurt to think about it. It defies all logic to say that the earth is getting bigger. Where does the matter to make it bigger come from? If it is old material which is just forming gaps or some such nonsense, what keeps gravity from crushing it back to it's density? If the earth is getting bigger, what keeps the crust from thinning? We know the amount of crust is static, if earth is growing it should be getting thinner and thinner. Were this the case volcanic activity would sharply increase, why hasn't it if the earth is growing?

We can directly observe sea floor spreading and subduction. Plate tectonics is correct. Pangea existed and in about 250 million years (if my memory of Earth Science is correct) we will have another supercontinent.

EDIT: More errors in this guy's thinking: As the earth "shrinks" in the model in the video vater disappears. Where did the water come from? The amount of water on earth is static. "No part of the seafloor is older than 70 million years old" - BECAUSE OF SUBDUCTION AND SPREADING WHICH WE CAN DIRECTLY OBSERVE!!!!!!!

Ugh, this video deserves a power-facepalm.

EDIT AGAIN: Why does this conspiracy nutjob think that scientists are hiding that the world is growing? He spends the first half of the video claming that the continents are not moving around, then the second half arguing that they did. He is not even internally consistant. His argument amounts to stating "subdiction did not and does not happen, because I have declared that it did not and does not.".

"65 million years ago earth doubled in size" - Adams

According to google the earths radius is 6,378 kilometers. This gives the earth a volume of 1.08*10^12 km^3, dividing that by half is 5.43*10^11 km^3, this gives a new radius of 5062 kilometers. This gives the half sized earth a surface area of 3.22*10^8 km^2.

The oceans currently have a volume of roughly 1.3*10^9 km^3, adding that to the small earth volume and solving for radius gives a radius of 5065. The radius with water minus the radius without it is three (5065-5062=3).

If the earth were half it's size with as much water as it has now (oceanic water only was used in this calculation) The earth would be under three miled of water everywhere and terrestrial life would be IMPOSSIBLE. There would be no land animals or plants because there would be no land and as all of the water would be salt water a good deal of aquatic life wouldn't be able to exist either.

To make the story short, Adams is a moron and you can disprove his hypothesis with what amounts to sixth grade math and internet access.

FINAL EDIT: Sea floor dates prove subduction. The ocean floor is younger near spreading centers and older nearing subduction zones.

E=MCsquared

If energy in the form of light which comes from the sun s fusion, then why can t we assume a reversible process? If mass is being transformed into light energy on the sun, why can t this light energy bathing the earth return to mass somehow??

Also; isn t the earth constantly showered with cosmic dust? This is matter winding its way through the universe and ending up on earth. Sure most of it burns up in the atmosphere, but that is a chemical reaction which leaves residue, right? Why to we have to dig to find ancient ruins? I m not university educated, just a technical worker wondering about this stuff.

I'm not sure. The only answer i can provide would be to those asking if the earth is growing, where is the substance coming from ?

Dead things are the substance. Trees, animals (incl humans) are constantly dieing and new one being born. It would seem logical that all of these dead remains would take up more and more space.

If the Earth is growing, then where does the extra material come from?

His entire argument is based on the premise that there is no subduction. This is a false assumption.

The Plate Tectonic Theory. I'd also like to add, it's not a matter of 'which do you think is true', it's a matter of 'which one has the most substantiated evidence.'

Both. We are not in a vacuum, in which nothing acts upon the earth. Scientific Theories, even the best, only function in that mystical unobtained vacuum.

Neal Adams gave us Joe Camel, too. He's been coasting since the 1970s.

interesting concept, and very imaginiative. but a few red herrings undermine him. anytime anyone yells "conspiracy of science," it usually means, "I don't have any evidence!" His reliance on all-or-nothing assumptions also denote lack of credibility too.

I'd love to see a credible effort to try to support this hypothesis! if nothing else, it makes great sci-fi.

Conservation of mass anyone? I can't believe anyone believes that "Earth is growing Garbage.

that's a lot of 'growing'.... I don't buy that one....

Pangea and the other supercontinents of the past, make a lot more sense....and subduction is something we can measure!!....

Well, it depends on if you want to get information from science, or get your information by making up a hypothesis to fit your religion.

I like to get my info from science.