Theory of evolution isn't bizarre at all compared to this. We evolved from fish and you are calling someone saying the earth expands bizarre? Evolutionists/atheists are... so bizarre. Bet a not so flat earth was bizarre in the past. Not saying its true, but know yourself. You aren't much better than he is
what a wanker... look how he puts down other forms of thinking, like you know, he's really got it all together..yeah right....has he had a good look at himself in the mirror lately? i think he need to get his out of fast food stores and comic books, and do some serious study of the bible, and ultimately come to know Jesus.
I've heard of the "inflating Earth" idea before, but had no idea Neal Adams was an adherent of it. During John Byrne's run on FANTASTIC FOUR in the 80s, a crazy Walt Disney-esque billionaire kidnapped the Human Torch and hooked him up to power a machine that was supposed to heat the Earth's core more and cause the world to get larger and solve the over population problem. Reed Richards pointed out the flaws in that idea.
telnet, your response to me makes me shudder, I do not profess to be a genius, nor do I care. I know so many people who are "highly intelligent", however, lack the most important thing of all "common sense", being "book smart" means nothing to me, just the fact you would even take the time to insult someone else is indicitive of your character, how sad.
at 2:36 to 2:41 I had to laugh because evolutionists won't tell you where all the mass came from either. Does this mean we can put the growing earth theorists in the same cateogry with evolutionists? Hey, it's his own words. Time, space, matter, energy, and information (intelligence) all had to come into existence at the same time or it won't work. So at 1 second of the beignning of time, the evolutionists have a big problem.
@thesacredcowtipper Again you're not presenting any argumentation for creationism, you're just asserting 'if the universe were different then it would be different, therefore creator'
@TheScienceFoundation What is there to argue. If you look out your window, you see creation. Are you familiar with how complex bacteria even is? If Darwin would have been around for the electron microscope and naotechnology, and found out the cell is way more complex than he thought, he would have dumpe devolution down the toilet. He and others thought cells were real basic. You need at least 250 proteins to come together even for basic life to happen. the math denies evo.
@thesacredcowtipper hello, do you have a facebook account? We could really use your help on a site called "converting atheists" these people are vicious and you are so intelligent and know your stuff! I am a born again christian, however, science is not my thing. Could you message me and let me know if you would be interested in taking this challenge? Would be greatly appreciated. Thank You!!
@TheLissabee No facebook account here. If I did, I sure wouldn't post it on youtube. Evos deny the obvious and ignore the questions. They are easy to debunk really. They act like microevolution proves macroevolution adn it doesn't. Micro is just change within species. Every creationist I know believes that. Two dogs mating still make a dog adn never will make a cat or go from a fish to a mammal (macro) the way evolutionists teach it. U need more faith to be an atheist than to be anything else.
@tellnet I did. It's called common sense. I don't believe everything I read like the evos out there do or beleive the Discovery Channel's animation (soft science) as proof (hard science) of evolution. If I talked iwth you for two days, you would keep going back to micro evolution like all the others. It's all you got. Watch for my upcoming Dawkins video of him admitting to being seeded here by aliens. You need to read what some of your professors believe.
@tellnet As usual. An evolutionist that knows what I am saying is true. Where is your macro evolution? Do you want to start with Lucy, the piltdown hoax, nebraska man (a pig's tooth). The fact that fraudulent information has been given consistently by the evolutionary crowd for about 160 years now is enough evidence for me that you have no real evidence so you resort back to micro that is something so simple a child can explain it. Cats produce cats not bananas or turnips or buffalos.
@thesacredcowtipper give it time its set to improve on this theory. like a puzzle the pieces start off big... now they are becoming smaller and smaller filling in the small parts eventually a picture will be formed the unfortunate thing is you'll be dust before you see such things. the next 100 years will be intense and man will be changing its view points about what the universe really is your excuse tells me everything i need to know... your time is over!! your views are ancient and ignorant!
@thesacredcowtipper I'd like to start with the Piltdown Hoax. The same hoax that was never actually accepted by science (it never fit into the lineages formed by other fossils, and we didn't understand radiation well enough to date it, so it was tossed to the side as an anomaly). The same hoax that was proven a hoax by evolutionary biologists, NOT creationists.
And BTW, Evolution doesn't say that cats give birth to bananas. In fact, that would disprove evolution. WOW.
@Ant42Lee The only evolution that we see that is observable is micro. Most evolutionists do not hold to piltdown anymore although some college students still think it is a missing link which shocks me so it must still be in some textbooks out there. Micro proving macro is a false assumption. Lee Spetner along with Ralph Muncaster did the math (that Dawkins didn't bother doing) and found out that the probability for evolution to go from (cont)
@Ant42Lee Lee Spetner along with Ralph Muncaster did the math (that Dawkins didn't bother doing) and found out that the probability for evolution to go from micro to macro was like picking out one electron in 1,376 universes and that was just to get a dead cell. There are a host of other problems that if factored in show macro evolution wanting. I still have not seen one fossil that can be proven to be a transitional fossil without using my imagination and there should be trillions anyhow.
Be it comic book writer or scientist. Nial's theory makes sense. What I think is killing the idea of the expanding earth is that is came from a comic book writer and not a top notch scientist lol. The science world and all their billions of Dollars in education were out whited by a comic book writer and they are pissed off. Really pissed. Sacrilege!!!!! Into the iron maiden you go after which you will be lowered into the cauldron of boiling oil!!!!! buahahahaha
Isn't it bizaar, no matter what you tell these expanding Earth idiots, they just will not listen to logic. They could even take their own gps messurements to prove themselves right (wrong). They must know deep inside how amazingly full of shit they are. It wouldn't really matter what the shape of the continents were, you could always fit them together somehow and then reduce the mass of the planet to fit them in perfectly.
Adams is correct! The fact that it goes against the grain of what science has deemed truth is A-Typical of man's arrogance. Simple physics proves it daily. A figure skater holding her arms in close to her chest spins much faster but when she spreads her arms out she slows down. The same applies to the spinning of the earth. As it slows the earth spreads or widens. Mass doesn't suddenly appear it just expands. More proof is the moon sliding away at 3.8cm annually. How are you so obtuse?
Cosmic Dust could explain the size growth tons of the stuff enters our atmosphere everyday where does it all go? I always find it funny when people like yourself mock different ideas.
@DarkBioCloud Actually you are missing one critical point. The mass required by Adams conjecture hasn't been infalling since the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment. This amount of mass also releases a corresponding amount of heat upon impact. The amount of mass infalling every day over the entire surface of the Earth is miniscule compared to the existing mass of the Earth. Even a relatively small impactor releases a lot of energy when it hits.
@NorthForkFisherman I actually sugested this to adams and he said that this only accounted for a tiny percent. I believe this is the latest strategy of the creationists to attack science on every level, in an attempt to make the utter rubbish the dribble seem more reasonable.
@jaykulls And that makes me wonder, if on a somewhat more paranoid level, if the rabbit hole goes much deeper still. How much of this is a really well orchestrated assault on learning for the sake of power? Reading back thru some of the older comments shows how rabidly these folks latch on to these ideas despite a lack of data supporting it, and reams of data that directly contradict it. It becomes part of their identity.
@DarkBioCloud From what you seem to imply , cosmic dust would simply cover the Earth, so it would not cause the Earth to actually expand & hence explain the continents. In reality, tons of the stuff enters our atmosphere but get's burnt up & much of it would stay in the upper amosphere & then find it's way out again. Although tons, as you say, this is still miniscule in the context of the mass of the earth. We now have GPS telling us the rate of plate movement and yet no expansion is detected.
Highly compressed dense hot planet slowly but exponentially decompressing (growing) and cooling.. explaining PT without mantle convection, explaining EE without mass/energy problem, explaining much higher see levels in the past (and therefore all those fossils in/on mountains), explaining relatively young sea ground.. and I bet there will be explanations for a whole lot of other things that trouble current theories.. I don't know, just makes sense to me.
Just a laymans opinion: if the earth in fact was a gas giant in the past with a highly compressed center and stripped of its gas shell by sun erruptions.. why shouldn't it be possible that the earth is expanding?
As I understand it, PT has a problem of not being able to explain mantle convection (yet), meaning: it is assumed.
WEDD would have that and a whole lot of other PT problems covered as well as those EE problems.
I haven't read too deep into the matter yet, but something tells me that "Whole Earth Decompression Dynamics" will have some successes in the future.
It kind of combines Plate Tectonics and Earth Expansion... I'm pretty certain there will be answers to all those questions once more honest research is done.
Intuitively it just makes too much sense to be completely wrong.
Well, Neal Adams is neither the first nor the only one proposing this idea.
There were many theories that sounded absurd at first but turned out to be conclusive once more reasearch was done.
Anyone proposing the existance of 11 dimensions was labeled a lunatic 50 years ago.. now string- or m-theory is an accepted field which the world's top theoretical physicists are working on.
why does everyone think he's adding mass! an increase in volume is NOT an increase in mass. everyday water expands as it cools ... the density will decrease. and its not unsubstantiated .. how do you explain the mid ocean ridges in all the oceans?
@calebp9503 Furthermore: Subduction. If Neal Adams was right (And based upon the body of evidence, he is not) then we would not have convergent zones. Given that plates diverge, spread, and converge (With the heavier basalt strata of the ocean floor being pushed under any lighter (Or younger) rocks (Such as Granite for example) Divergent zones are well explained and have a body of evidence that is defined best in plate tectonics. Which is what we go for here: Evidence.
@calebp9503 you are false when it comes to the solid and liquid state of matter. But as for gas (when a gas doesn't stray away from an Ideal gas), you are correct. Solids and liquids are extremely hard to compress, whereas a gas is not. therefore changing volume will change mole content. Take an intro chem class and you'll learn this:p
@fcdog555 So when a civil engineer designs a bridge for the expansion of steel as it warms and cools, you think he's false too? And what is a diamond if not compressed carbon? Its compressed solid! And what about the vast pockets within the earth of methane? Certainly you wouldn't say wood is a solid because its full of pockets too! Thus wood is compressible. Every materials science class teaches that the crystal structure of minerals is between 70-85% empty space. So rock isn't a solid either.
@calebp9503 You are comparing minute expansion sizes from small mass to the expansion this stupid theory requires. This theory requires miles of expansion. Inflation that much requires an addition of mass. If you can't reason this, I don't think you are the brightest kid... wait, you just said rock isn't solid *facepalm.
@fcdog555 A liter of water will expand more than a cup as it freezes, so your argument on scale reinforces my point. Besides, I'm saying there is a relationship between compressibility and porosity. You think every atom touches every other atom? If you don't then you agree with me, rock is not solid, because of its porosity. I believe in expanding earth because I've seen lava expand with my own eyes as it cools, just like water freezing. The earth is no more special than a drop of molten slag.
@calebp9503 you apparently do not know the definition of a solid:/ Any matter that has slow vibrating atoms is a solid. You mean to say that everything is mostly empty space. Yes that is true. But anything with slow vibrating atoms is a sold no matter how you look at it. And yes lava expands..when it is not compressed by the earth weight and when it is cooled. Inside the earth, both of these are inescapable... the earth cannot expand without adding mass. do you not believe in plate tectonics?
@fcdog555 plate tectonics doesn't account for how there are mid ocean ridges (where new crust is formed) on BOTH sides of the plates. And expanding earth has a superior explanation for how mountains form by the re-curving mechanism. From a strictly physical standpoint, both can happen concurrently. I imagine if you sped up the time-line of the earth it would look like a drop of molten slag cooling first at the surface and then cracking and cooling deeper. Eventually the core will be solid.
@fcdog555 And although that's just an intuitive viewpoint the combination of a cracking surface and slowly expanding raw material enable plate tectonics as well as expanding earth. The expanding earth theory also predicts the locations of fossil evidence better than plate tectonics.
@fcdog555 Also, from a standpoint on the dynamics of heat transfer. As new surface is exposed at the mid ocean ridges, that surface is thinner than the continents, allowing the magma underneath the ridge to cool faster thus creating more expansion which thins the surface even more accelerating the process. This is completely supported by undeniable core sample evidence that the age of the ocean floor is less than 70 million years old and is less than 10 million near the ridges.
Dismissing a theory just because it does not conform with the information that has been programmed into your mushy head since birth is not a rebuttal. Tell us why the "coastline" of "Pangea" fits together so well when it is wrapped backwards in a sphere Mr. brainiac? The water in the Oceans covered the Earth and drained into the basins. It is easier to show the mechanics of the expansion without the water on top. The Earth is hallow so no new mass is needed either. Duh!! Is this all too scary?
I love Neil Adam's theory. I think no-body really knows the answer since it was so long ago. This great age makes it impossible to determine what really happened. Just because someone writes comic books doesn't mean they aren't qualified. Plenty of phds have said the same as him. Cheers!
@realscience1 It's not his theory he's a proponent. Given that satellites can accurately measure the circumference of the earth and conclusively show that the earth is not growing, that tectonic movement can and has been measured, and that the creation of matter requires an enormous amount of energy not found in the sun let alone the center of the earth and well that should be enough to discredit the idea, just like the scientific community did 50 years ago.
@sjcousins but what if it grows in sudden bursts? like if earth collides with another planet and the mass joins in a hot fireball and then solidifies back into a sphere again in say 1 million years. and then the continents look different?
@parasitesarefunny What exactly is your point? If you can't understand that an observer does not have to observe an objects entire journey to detect if it is in motion then please abstain from commenting. On anything.
My point you dull idiot, is that over a short 50 years time frame the Earth has not enlarged much as to be detected by these new satellites. However, if people look at the enlarging Earth theory they can certainly detect this enlarging process by the physical evidence plainly visible. You dont have to stop with Earth either, ALL planets can be shown to be enlarging. At least those with a crust for which we can recognize the stretch marks. Gaseous planets, without a crust, harder.
You mean you reject hundreds of years of observation and peer reviewed literature in all areas of science in favour of a comic book artists animation? That's some real rational thought. Then again you've probably never read anything else. For his theory to work, Neal says himself that he has to re write science; from gravity, to conservation of matter and energy from Newton to Einstein. Yeah right. What a scam.
@parasitesarefunny Funny enough all we have to do is take a few old measurements of the earth from waaaay back in 276BCE and compare them to modern results. We can even plot the "growth" (Or lack thereof) using simple measurements. Doing so, you would find that the earth has not changed at all in over 2000 years despite divergent zone motion of 2-4cm a year. If Neal was right (And he's not) That would translate into a 4km increase (Conservatively) with higher sides being 400km but alas no.
@parasitesarefunny We do not see that. Plate tectonics offers a better evidence based assesment of the earths activity. Hundreds of years of peer review and experimental/evidence based observations gave rise to plate tectonics. Careys Expanding earth theory, lacking sufficient evidence, fell to the wayside since it lacked empirical evidence to back it's basic assertions. Which is why there are no peer review papers on expanding earth. It's junked science.
Its completely bullshit I agree but there is marsupial fossils found in India. They think they were wiped out by more agressive placental mammals when the Indian once continent collided with Asia.
TrueNorth.... you criticism of the expanding earth theory uses an ad hominem and straw man logical fallacies. Please be scientific when refuting what you see as pseudo science. Otherwise you argument holds no value.
Neal Adams did not create this hypothesis, he animated it. The earth's mass would not increase, the density decreased. The water did not increase, the original smaller planet would have been completely covered by water, which explains the recession of the oceans and marine fossils in the mountains.
@Sterlacea, very well put. I have always wondered why there has been no explanation as to why the earth was mostly a shallow sea during the dinosaur days. Expanding earth theory makes some sense....
METEORS ? DUhhhh hahhahaha. jeeze i'm laughing already. lets just say, (if ) the moon was getting farther and farther away from the Earth, (FACT) would the Earth need more mass in order to hold its moon in a gravitational Orbit? pahh haaa haa, next time get to the point. the universe is expanding, or did you forget that little tidbit. the (WHOLE) universe, Nahh we should just leave some stuff out. o.k ya got me, you know it all
This has all the appeal of arguing with creationists. North American marsupial the opossum. The earth crust does expand outward from the Atlantic and other areas which is why there are subduction zones. At first though I thought it may be Douglas Adams, I'm not sure if this is anything more than a hoax parading as an amateur scientific theory. However it seems to be revealing what people do not know about geology, or forgot in the third grade, I'm not being sarcastic its just impractical for
@888archangel Yeah, he's for real. He conquered the world of comic book art (for real, he's a legend in that world) without a formal education, and now he's trying to do the same in science. He's got money and fans supporting him.
People like conspiracy theories in part because it makes them feel smarter and more empowered to think they're the ones who know what's really going on, and they don't have to spend all that time learning and educating themselves to get there.
dcs002: Lastly, although I don't claim to understand all the science behind it, I thinks it's not unreasonable to believe that the Earth and other celestial bodies could be growing. Do scientists not agree that the WHOLE UNIVERSE is in fact growing? And do human beings and other living organisms not grow by cell replication? Who's to say that some sort of similar process doesn't happen on a sub-atomic level which could cause planetary growth? Think about it.
@JohnnyS001 Biological organisms grow, usually to a maximum during adulthood, then no more. Our planet is not a biological organism.
The universe is said to be growing in the sense that it is spreading out. The objects within it show no evidence of unexplained growth.
Sub-atomic growth is called pair production. See my response to Omnise.
Earth growth prohibits satellite orbit. The ground rises toward them, and gravity increases pull them down. Yet they orbit predictably and stably in freefall.
@dcs002 that assumes that the satellite in question (the moon in this case) does not also "grow" by a similar mechanism. true, if the earth gains mass and thus, gravitational forces pull more strongly on the orbiting satellite, assuming the mass and gravitational force of the moon remains the same, then the equilibrium would be disturbed and the moon would not retain its stable orbit, unless the moon gains mass by the same mechanism and in balanced rate of growth as to maintain its freefall.
@omnise Oops! Wrong answer. If the moon's mass is also increasing, the gravity increases all the more. That's simple Newtonian physics.
But I wasn't just referring to the moon. Neal pointed me toward a study of the Earth's gravity where orbiting man-made satellites were studied for perturbations in their orbits due to gravitational changes near the equator. Satellite tracking is precise and simple, and there was no evidence at all in that study that overall gravity was changing. Neal oopsed it.
@dcs002 dont tell me we forgot that increase in mass causes a loss of momentum? if the length of a day increases by 17 milliseconds per year, and we assume it has done so for at least the last 3.5 billion years (yes, i know the earth is much older) and without including the leap year (which makes the numbers larger) than the earth has lost roughly 2/3 of its momentum in the last 3.5 billion years.
Momentum = mass * velocity, so increased mass -> increased momentum.
If we assume = momentum and loss of velocity, then we can assume gain of mass, but that's an incorrect assumption, or at least an incomplete one for Earth's rotation.
The days are getting longer, but why? Why did the moon stop rotating entirely relative to Earth? Tidal forces.
Here on Earth, the energy to move our massive oceans around with the tide comes out of our angular momentum. It slows us down.
@omnise In addition, consider the timescale. Neal says all this growth happened over the past 200 million years or so. If we've lost 2/3 of our rotational velocity over 3.5 billion years, only about 4% of that loss occurred over the period in question.
If the Earth had increased in mass by 2 or 2.5 times in the past 200 million years and momentum were conserved, our rotation would have slowed far more dramatically. The Earth would have been spinning like a top back then.
@dcs002 One last, grasping-at-straws question here. If the universe is growing by spreading out, that should mean the distance between the Earth and the moon is increasing. Couldn't that counteract the effects of the increased gravity caused by the objects' growth?
@JohnnyS001 Nah. It just means the galaxies themselves are moving away from each other. The objects within them are held together by gravity. Galaxies have not been observed to be growing or spreading, only the distances between them. Same goes for our solar system.
dcs002: Honestly, Neal's theory about the formation of the continents seems to (on the surface at least) make more sense than the Pangea theory. If all the land was just in one gigantic island on one side of the planet like that, what would have caused it to break apart? And furthermore, why would it form that way to begin with when the rest of the planet formed as a roughly even SPHERE?
He said it's odd that there are continents and oceans, as though there are two distinct levels. In reality the entire earth is extremely uneven, full of mountain ranges and valleys, and sub-ocean continents and trenches.
There is a reason why plate tectonics is accepted theory. When you approach this from the wrong way like these people you end up with BS like Lemuria.
@JohnnyS001 Seriously, hit the reply button so I can know you've responded to me.
First, there is no "Pangaea theory." That was Neal's creation. Geologists refer to the theory of plate tectonics, which accounts for the movements of the continents long before Pangaea. The gathering of the continents at Pangaea was not the first time they converged. It was just the most recent collision involving all of them. Unlike Neal's hypothesis, plate tectonics does not begin with Pangaea.
@omnise The Earth is the only terrestrial planet with enough heat-generating capacity to maintain a semisolid asthenosphere for the plates to slide around on. Earth's composition is different (greater radioactivity in the core) and it is the most massive terrestrial planet. Nothing mysterious about that.
dcs002: I'm not a physicist, astronomer, mathematician or geologist, so I'll admit I'm not in any position to comment on the scientific accuracy of Neal's claims. But by the same token, I'm not in any position to comment on the scientific accuracy of YOUR claims either. No offence, but you could be bending the truth just as much as you say Neal is.
@JohnnyS001 So don't believe what anyone tells you unless you have evidence. That's called academic skepticism, and I support it. If it's important to you, you can fairly easily find the evidence concerning this issue. Neal is not a scientist. He didn't go to college. Yet he put all this together. You can put the same effort into learning about it yourself. But if you don't, then you have nothing to add to the discussion of whether Neal's hypothesis is valid.
The only thing more crackers than 'The Expanding Earth' theory is trying to have an actual conversation with Neal Adams himself. Try it... He will probably reply with a statement such as 'GRAVITY is in BALANCE' and you will think, hold on that isn't what I asked about and it also doesnt make sense.
Please use up as much of Neal Adams time on this earth as possible.
Actually, he does say that there was a big mass of continents that fit together because the earth was smaller when they were whole. Now, he says Earth is growing from under oceans, further separating the continents.
If you're so smart, why are you inferring here and STATING in one of your comments below that Neal was the WRITER of the Green Lantern comic in question? To quote you: "I'm a bit of a green lantern fan and he had a memorable run writing for it". He didn't. Denny O'Neil was the writer. Neal was the ARTIST who DREW it. If you can't even get that simple fact straight I really have to wonder about your so-called "knowledge" of science.
@JohnnyS001 theres a difference between knowing and understanding. scientists know much but understand little. if they understood as much as they claim, then what have they to scrutinize in their research? what is the point of finding truth or learning how things work if we can just as easily deny the entire concept?
@JohnnyS001 scientists think there is something to gain in their studies. religious followers believe there is something to gain in their faith. philosophers think there is something to gain in there search for fundamental truth. anyone with a job thinks there is something to gain from earning their wages. i think there might be something to gain by posting youtube comments. if you reply to this, you must think or feel there is something to gain by doing so. so, what do you hope to gain?
@omnise Nowadays, getting people to THINK is a great gain--even if their thoughts are wrong. Getting people to drag their fat asses away from their stupid TV shows and actually pay attention to ANYTHING in the real world that's even HALF meaningful is a major achievement!
@omnise If people spent a little more time paying attention to and assessing the things that are truly going on in the world, their actions would be better because their choices would be more thoroughly informed, and that would be a great gain for everyone, including me.
@JohnnyS001 i couldnt agree more. beware though, for every truth that can be found, there lies in wait another which can contradict it. never hold to tightly to any belief. you may learn something profound today which changes everything you thought you knew, only to come back around and make you change your beliefs all over again tommorrow.
my motto: accept all things as possible, but none as absolute.
@omnise I understand perfectly what you're saying, and I generally agree with you; but I think there are a few things in life that are absolutes--like proven, verifiable scientific facts, and also the sanctity of marriage, family, social justice, mutual respect and personal integrity. When those latter qualities are not present, individuals, families and societies fall into corruption and decay. So they're absolutely necessary for individual and societal well-being.
@JohnnyS001 i agree on many levels with that viewpoint. however, from what i can observe from society is that many (not all, thankfully) poeple generally see the world as a problem and see themselves as a solution. we think the world is broken and we like to think it can take one person or one idea to change it for the better, and though that isnt necassarily a false idea, the problem is that for one person or one idea to change everything requires that the world abides by it.
@omnise i think the real reason we have corrupt leaders is perhaps, at some point in their life, each person who rose to power believed they could make a difference and wars are always fought, for better or worse, for the sake of advancing one person's (or group of persons') ideas into the forefront of society by force. if one person believes he has a solution to a global problem, he achieves nothing without having followers.
@JohnnyS001 while that doesnt justify wars in my eyes, when a person enters into any military service, one has to ask themselves, "who's cause am i really fighting for?". ive heard of poeple joining the military for career options, for education, for the money, or for the sake of protecting their families. each of these, including the last, are nothing more than incestives to get you to serve the realization of someone else's ideals. its legal murder. legal, not lawful.
@JohnnyS001 while im not saying that poeple are doing things for the wrong reasons, poeple often fail to realize that the goals they strive for are nothing more than incentives to garner your support for someone elses ideals. everytime you pay taxes, you are bolstering the goverments ambitions. everytime you make a purchase at a store, you are bolstering the ambitions of the manufacturers of that product.
@JohnnyS001 but of course, no one likes the alternative. to be self-sufficient has nothing to do with having a job. what are the often over-stated, under-rated necesseties of life? food, water, shelter, clothing. not money, security, financial stability, education, etc, etc. to be self-sufficient would mean growing your own food, building your own homes, fetching your own water, and crafting your own clothes.
@JohnnyS001 the solution is not to remove your leaders. the solution is to not contribute to your leaders ambitions in exchange for the incentives they offer. public school is free, but you are required to attend. if you want better schooling options, contribute your wages and we give your children a higher education. you want a better job? get a better education. you want to drive a car? pay for a permit first so we can test your aptitude for driving.
@JohnnyS001 you want to get married? get a marriage license first. you want to have your own land and grow your own food? get a deed from the government, then pay annual taxes to maintain ownership of that land. you want to have a child? we are required to give that child a social security number. you are of age and want full rights of an adult? we have a card for that too. you want our help? sorry, we cant help you unless youve been registered in our government database.
@JohnnyS001 your child is sick and needs medicine? sorry but medicine is expensive. we cant help you unless we get compensation for the use and consupmtion of the life-saving medical supplies our clinic carries. if you cant pay the fee, youll need to have insurance and proof of that insurance. do you have an insurance card with you? if not, we ask that you fill out this paperwork so you can be treated as a charity case. unfortunately, charity cases only get bare minimum coverage.
@omnise Again, I totally agree with what you're saying, but the reality is that most individuals can only do so much. Very few of us have the resources to actually change society in any appreciable way. But it's certainly good to spread knowledge and ideas--particularly on widely accessible public forums like this, since it could be positively impacting others in ways we're not even aware of.
What the hell are you talking about?! Neal DOES have a mechanism to explain where the extra mass came from. And he never said there was no water originally; he said the water was completely covering the land and as the land shell broke apart with planetary growth, the water filled the spaces to form the oceans as we currently know them.
What the hell are you talking about?! Neal DOES have a mechanism to explain where the extra mass came from. And he never said there was no water originally; he said the water was completely covering the land and as the land shell broke apart with planetary growth, the water filled the spaces to form the oceans as we currently know them.
What the hell are you talking about?! Neal DOES have a mechanism to explain where the extra mass came from. And he never said there was no water originally; he said the water was completely covering the land and as the land shell broke apart with planetary growth, the water filled the spaces to form the oceans as we currently know them.
@JohnnyS001 Yeah, he does propose a mechanism. Do you understand it? Neither does Neal. It's called pair production. It's the conversion of energy into mass.
The atom bomb converts mass into energy (E=mC^2). Pair production converts the same amount of energy back into mass (m=E/C^2). Do you see the problem? If you captured ALL of the sun's energy and converted it to mass, it would take ~300 million years to make the mass he says was added to the Earth in the last 200 million years.
@dcs002 and the sun is the only body in space giving off energy? if the earth wasnt constantly being bombarded by energy from objects far more distant than the sun, then how can you see all those stars in the night sky? you can see the stars because the stars... oh no!!! they give off light!!! and light is... *gasp* ENERGY??? and you can see that light because... *scream* its aimed at the earth?!? WELL NOW, thats just ludacris!!!
@omnise Quantify that energy. All that energy coming from the stars and the sun adds up to almost nothing compared to the energy needed to create 4x10^24 kg of mass. The energy needed for that is the EQUIVALENT of the sun's entire output for 30 million years. (I made a zero error in my above figure.) I don't care where the energy comes from. If it were present on Earth we'd be vaporized. (Remember that Neal says the Earth is going to keep growing. Where's that energy going to come from?)
@dcs002 is that the best answer the scientists can give? the earths core is supposed to be well over the curie temperature for iron. have you ever considered piezoelectrica compounds other than ferroelectric substances? last time i heard, the earths crust was mostly silicate compounds. quartz appears to be rather common.
@dcs002 precisely my point. magnetism sustains the continual flow of energy. just as the earths magnetosphere catches plasma from the sun, the earth is capable of catchimg its own ejected material. have you seen images of the aurora borealis effect over the active volcano in iceland? the earths magnetosphere also has a tendency to link up with the interplanetary magnetic field in spring and autumn.
@dcs002 *correction* the van allen belts prevent the solar wind from reaching the earths surface directly. the earths magnetosphere buffers the solar radiation. it doesnt just bounce off the surface like throwing tennis balls at a concrete wall. it absorbs the impact of more direct flares and deflects the less direct, glancing blows. the weakest radiation will be reflected, yes, but stronger radiation is either absorbed or slowed before it reaches the surface.
@omnise We're still talking about radiation that's tens of millions of times too low to account for Neal's growing Earth idea. Remember also that the figures I gave don't account for reflection or radiation, both of which reduce the amount of energy received.
Neal says that the mass needed comes from energy conversion into matter through pair production, but that's really just his way of deflecting the question. We no longer ask where the mass comes from, but where does the energy come from?
@dcs002 then what accounts for all the energy in the universe? if the universe started as a "big bang" from a singularity, then what stops that from occuring on a smaller scale?
@omnise I think that's a very good question, and I don't have a good answer for it. The cosmologists might have a good answer, but I can't speak for them.
What I can say is that, in the presence of the energy required to make the Earth grow in the way Neal describes, we would probably be instantly vaporized.
Imagine a little star, only 15% as bright as our sun, and we live on its surface. Could we survive in that environment? I seriously doubt it. We can hardly handle the UV from our own sun.
BTW, some cosmologists think of the big bang as a big shrinkage. In other words, instead of expanding outward, the universe is expanding inward. In their view, the universe exists as extra dimensions existing within the limited confines of external dimensions.
Imagine the entire universe existing within an electron. The more space we perceive, the smaller we actually are.
Not saying I agree with this view (as if my opinion should mean anything), but I think it's an interesting concept to ponder.
@dcs002 funny you would mention that. im not sure what to think of that view but during this discussion about a few days ago, i did a little thought experiment concerning how we percieve electrons as smaller than protons and neutrons due to our understanding that protons and neutrons have more mass than electrons, and are therefore, larger than electrons. what if electrons are larger because they have less mass?
@omnise geometrically speaking, it seems counter intuitive to me that electrons being as small as they are would be suspended in an array of vallence fields that are so far apart from each other if electrons are in fact so small. in loose laymans terms, are not electrons less dense than protons and neutrons because they are more easily excited and therefore, more enclined to not remain in one place for too long.
@omnise I'm not sure a term like density applies to electrons, does it? Since they are quantum particles, they can be anywhere or everywhere at once. They can exist in two places or disappear entirely for a moment. How do you determine density in something that behaves like that? Do they have a wekk defined volume?
@dcs002 yeah, sorry about the terminology. i was genuinely trying to avoid using the word "density" in that example as it doesnt apply to electrons. however, if a quantum particle is capable of being two places at once (why not 3 or 4 then?), then that does raise the obvious question of where it goes and wether or not it actually disappeared or simply moved. i believe scientists are still looking to answer that at CERN aas we speak, no?
@dcs002 this also poses to question HOW an electron would appear and disappear and what means it would use to move in such a manner. the most imaginitave minds will undoubtedly picture electrons popping in and out of space through a sort of inter-spatial 'back door' and possibly bringing a few of its friends along with it. neal does pose his belief in one of his other videos about a sort of pre-matter.
@dcs002 additionally, when i first learned of dark matter and dark energy, dark matter was described as being clumped around areas where matter often clumps together, but dark energy was described as uniquely uniform throughout the universe. my young mind at the time immediately began to picture dark energy as the very fabric of space-time itself. if an electron can move about an exist in multiple places at once, is this uniform substance the inter-spacial 'back door'?
@omnise I think we're all excited to learn what CERN will teach us!
Electrons & positrons pop into existence when a high energy photon interacts with something else, like another photon or an atomic nucleus. The energy of the photon itself is consumed to create the electron-positron pair. They can go spinning off in different directions or they can re-converge and annihilate, giving off the energy of the photon that created them.
It's not like a portal opening up allowing matter in, it's a specific wave-particle reaction that creates specific products. The energies have to be conserved. The photon energy must equal the sum of the energies of the two product particles, and that energy can be converted back into the same photon.
Dark energy... wow. As far as I know, it's still just a construct - a placeholder to balance universal equations until we understand things more clearly. Could be energy, might not be. Go CERN!
@omnise If anyone learns anything from this discussion (you, me, or anyone else), then I believe it has value. If we've gotten each other thinking, or opened each other's minds just a little bit (open minds are necessary for learning), we've done something valuable.
Responding to your comments has gotten me reading and thinking, and your comments tell me you're thinking too. I think that's pretty valuable.
Socrates said "an unexamined life is not worth living." I think he would value this too.
I found a cartoon and hung it on my lab door for several years. It said "Don't believe everything you think!"
I think that's an awesome motto for science! If we believe everything we think (or everything that makes sense to us) without question, we will never learn another new thing again.
If we believe we know the answer, we close our minds to the possibility that someone else might have a better answer, or that evidence might contradict our reasoning. That's the opposite of learning.
@dcs002 i have a similar saying of my own: accept all as possible, but none as absolute. if you consider any one belief you hold with such high regrd as to consider that belief to be infallible or irrefutable, then if that belief should happen to be false, every belief you have based on that first concept may as well be as flawed. the sum of ones beliefs may indeed, only be as infallible as the foundation upon which those beliefs rest.
@dcs002 i agree. as long as discussions such as these open more minds to more possibilities, then it is well worth the effort. not a bad discussion, considering it was held between a neuroscientist and a high school dropout. im just glad this discussion didnt become as chaotic as some of the others ive gotten involved in. if i were to use myself as an example for anything, it would be that learning does not always require acedemic merits to be of value.
@dcs002 i know this is a crude example, but bear with me. if protons, neutrons, and electrons are thought of as balloons, and these balloons are filled with helium which is lighter than the surrounding air, would not the largest balloons rise higher and faster until reaching a particular atmospheric pressure? if the helium in the balloons is thought of as the energy in a particle, then would not a particle like a neutron have less energy?
@dcs002 according to the charts and graphs i have found while researching this, i have found one which depicts the process through which hydrogen is fused in the sun to create helium. something stuck out quite abruptly however. the first stage of that graph depicts two protons colliding, creating a proton and neutron. that same part of the graph also depicts a positron and a neutrino are lost.
@dcs002 the question that immediately rose in my mind was how the hell does a proton become a slightly larger neutron by LOSING a positron? if by losing an energized particle, a proton can GAIN mass, and become a slightly larger and more massive neutron, then doesnt this imply, at least on a subatomic scale, that losing energy equals a gain in mass?
@omnise Particle physics are certainly not my forte, but I'll say this. A positron is a particle of antimatter. It's the antiparticle to the electron. Therefore it's mass is a negative quantity. Losing a negative is the same as gaining a positive. For example, 2 - (-1) = 3. Start with 2, then lose a -1, and you wind up increasing to 3 mathematically. Losing antimatter (or anti-mass) means gaining mass.
@dcs002 that much does make sense, but that leaves me to question what happens to the resulting positrons and whether they would have any significant impact on the percievable mass of a star if these positrons are not 'recycled' through some other means?
@dcs002 if the big bang was in fact the result of a sudden release of energy, wasnt mass the result of that release. most of the explanations i have heard regarding the big bang was that it was a singularity which released energy, and as that energy expanded, it CONDENSED??? into matter? do not the fastest particles have less and less mass as they gain momentum?
@omnise According to relativity, faster moving particles become more massive as they approach light speed.
As for matter condensing, think about a boiling teapot. High energy water vapor streams out through the whistle to let you know it's boiling, but as it expands, the water molecules give off some of that energy, reducing their temperature to below the boiling point. When that happens, the molecules stick to each other, or condense, to form steam droplets. Similar principle.
A constant amount of energy spreading out through space reduces in temperature, causing water droplets, or matter, to condense from its higher energy precursor, either hot water vapor or hot plasma. Moving from high pressure to low pressure causes cooling. That's how air conditioners and refrigerators work.
@dcs002 and what does this imply of black holes? they appear to emit no light but appear to absorb it. most of the "light" that they release is merely theoretical from what i have heard, such as hawking rays, or else not released by a black hole itself but by the surrounding mass that accelerates as it is drawn closer to them. so they appear to emit no energy (of their own) but have an unbelievable amount of mass and gravity.
@omnise Black holes are quite the mystery. We haven't observed Hawking radiation, nor are we likely to, given how faint it is compared to the universe's background temperature, but we've seen plenty of these things called "relativistic jets" carrying huge amounts of energy away from black holes. I don't think anyone knows how they work, but they're there.
@dcs002 consider the creation of a neutron, that when a large star collapses, the protons and electrons are forced together to create a mass of neutrons. but arent neutrons created by protons LOSING positrons? i think that electrons being the opposite of a proton is a vast misconception. they are vastly different in mass, for one. and what of black holes that lose theyre mass? perhaps by absorbing light, it re-energizes its particles, and loses its mass?
@dcs002 if the earth's mass is approx. 5.9742*10^27 grams and the sun loses 4.26 million metric tons per second, then in the past 70 million years (not including leap year adjustments) alone, the sun has given off 9.4040352*10^27 grams of mass. compared to the earths wimpy 5.9742*10^27 grams, id say the suns contributions are more than feasable at this scale, even considering most of the ejected mass doesnt end up on earth.
@omnise Your figures match mine fairly well, but consider:
Every 40 million years or so, the sun converts enough mass into energy to build a planet Earth. But to do so would require all of the sun's energy over that time. To cause the growth that Neal claims requires the equivalent of 15% of the sun's energy over that time, but the Earth only receives a fraction of a percent of the sun's energy, which far exceeds what we get from other stars. Where does the rest of the energy come from?
@dcs002 this is probably where ill lose your interest and i doubt even neal would support this but has anyone considered the earths core sustains its own nuclear reaction via fission, possibly of uranium? jupiter is noted for giving off more energy than what the sun throws at it, and though im not saying jupiter is undergoing a fusion reaction like the sun (we'd have two suns in that case) i am suggesting a correlation between nuclear activity in other planetary cores.
@omnise Yes, there is plenty of fission going on in the Earth, and fusion in Jupiter, but both reaction types release massive amounts of energy (exothermic) by converting matter into energy. What Neal's hypothesis needs is the exact opposite - a reaction that consumes huge amounts of energy (endothermic) and converts it into matter. The best we can get from nuclear reactions in the Earth's core is still a net loss of mass because so much of the energy given off is lost as radiated heat.
@dcs002 Ack! My bad. I've been a science nerd all my life, and I learned about Jupiter's radiation long ago. But somehow I thought Jupiter's core had H-He fusion going on too. It doesn't, at least according to the Wi-ki-pedia article. It refers to friction from gas currents, and states definitely that there is no fusion.
Earth definitely does have fission going on though, but again, that gives off energy that is lost via radiation.
@omnise The matter lost in fission reactions is slight. It's all about E=mC^2. A little bit of mass = huge amounts of energy. That's the same reason that mass creation can't explain the growth that Neal claims. To create even a tiny amount of mass requires huge amounts of energy. It's just a matter of scale.
I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine the mass we gain by meteors is likely enough to offset any mass lost by fission.
@dcs002 besides, we arent trying to build an entire earth in 40 million years with this scenario either. if you want that figure to stick, what is the scientific communities current consensus on how much electromagnetic radiation as well as ejected plasma is actually arriving within earths reach? have scientists recently discovered that the sun schedules appointments for its solar flare activity?
@omnise Neal's hypothesis requires about 2/3 of our current mass to have been created over the past 200 million years. That requires the equivalent of 15% of the sun's total output over that time. The Earth's size and distance from the sun means it's in a position to receive only 0.000000046% (4.6 x 10^-8%) of the sun's total output, electromagnetic, ejected plasma, whatever. We only occupy that much of the sun's sphere. Nine orders of magnitude separate what's needed from what's available.
@dcs002 is that assuming that ejected material from the solar wind flow directly outward into space? due to the suns rotation, the IMF rotates in a spiral, meaning the earth crosses the suns Parker
Theory of evolution isn't bizarre at all compared to this. We evolved from fish and you are calling someone saying the earth expands bizarre? Evolutionists/atheists are... so bizarre. Bet a not so flat earth was bizarre in the past. Not saying its true, but know yourself. You aren't much better than he is
semitope 6 months ago
what a wanker... look how he puts down other forms of thinking, like you know, he's really got it all together..yeah right....has he had a good look at himself in the mirror lately? i think he need to get his out of fast food stores and comic books, and do some serious study of the bible, and ultimately come to know Jesus.
bluegrasspineapple 9 months ago
It's not Neal's theory. It's been around for a long time. Google: Warren Carey.
shanehoustein 9 months ago
I've heard of the "inflating Earth" idea before, but had no idea Neal Adams was an adherent of it. During John Byrne's run on FANTASTIC FOUR in the 80s, a crazy Walt Disney-esque billionaire kidnapped the Human Torch and hooked him up to power a machine that was supposed to heat the Earth's core more and cause the world to get larger and solve the over population problem. Reed Richards pointed out the flaws in that idea.
GoblinXXX 10 months ago
telnet, your response to me makes me shudder, I do not profess to be a genius, nor do I care. I know so many people who are "highly intelligent", however, lack the most important thing of all "common sense", being "book smart" means nothing to me, just the fact you would even take the time to insult someone else is indicitive of your character, how sad.
TheLissabee 10 months ago
at 2:36 to 2:41 I had to laugh because evolutionists won't tell you where all the mass came from either. Does this mean we can put the growing earth theorists in the same cateogry with evolutionists? Hey, it's his own words. Time, space, matter, energy, and information (intelligence) all had to come into existence at the same time or it won't work. So at 1 second of the beignning of time, the evolutionists have a big problem.
thesacredcowtipper 10 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper Again you're not presenting any argumentation for creationism, you're just asserting 'if the universe were different then it would be different, therefore creator'
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What is there to argue. If you look out your window, you see creation. Are you familiar with how complex bacteria even is? If Darwin would have been around for the electron microscope and naotechnology, and found out the cell is way more complex than he thought, he would have dumpe devolution down the toilet. He and others thought cells were real basic. You need at least 250 proteins to come together even for basic life to happen. the math denies evo.
thesacredcowtipper 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thesacredcowtipper 'If you look out your window, you see creation'
That's the assertion you keep making, the assertion without any supporting evidence.
'Are you familiar with how complex bacteria even is?'
Are you familiar with a fallacy known as argument from incredulity?
If Darwin knew about modern genetics, he would've known his theory was more spectacularly confirmed than he ever would've thought possible.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper hello, do you have a facebook account? We could really use your help on a site called "converting atheists" these people are vicious and you are so intelligent and know your stuff! I am a born again christian, however, science is not my thing. Could you message me and let me know if you would be interested in taking this challenge? Would be greatly appreciated. Thank You!!
TheLissabee 10 months ago
@TheLissabee No facebook account here. If I did, I sure wouldn't post it on youtube. Evos deny the obvious and ignore the questions. They are easy to debunk really. They act like microevolution proves macroevolution adn it doesn't. Micro is just change within species. Every creationist I know believes that. Two dogs mating still make a dog adn never will make a cat or go from a fish to a mammal (macro) the way evolutionists teach it. U need more faith to be an atheist than to be anything else.
thesacredcowtipper 10 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
Get a proper education
tellnet 10 months ago
@tellnet I did. It's called common sense. I don't believe everything I read like the evos out there do or beleive the Discovery Channel's animation (soft science) as proof (hard science) of evolution. If I talked iwth you for two days, you would keep going back to micro evolution like all the others. It's all you got. Watch for my upcoming Dawkins video of him admitting to being seeded here by aliens. You need to read what some of your professors believe.
thesacredcowtipper 10 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
Common sense ... yeah.
If you had either "common sense" or a proper education you would not be here advertising your ignorance for our amusement.
Your intellectual ineptitude is appalling. But, keep it up ...
Thanks for the joy, and the laughter.
tellnet 10 months ago
@tellnet As usual. An evolutionist that knows what I am saying is true. Where is your macro evolution? Do you want to start with Lucy, the piltdown hoax, nebraska man (a pig's tooth). The fact that fraudulent information has been given consistently by the evolutionary crowd for about 160 years now is enough evidence for me that you have no real evidence so you resort back to micro that is something so simple a child can explain it. Cats produce cats not bananas or turnips or buffalos.
thesacredcowtipper 10 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper
You are seriously demented.
If you like I can send some money to help with your psychiatric treatment.
tellnet 10 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper give it time its set to improve on this theory. like a puzzle the pieces start off big... now they are becoming smaller and smaller filling in the small parts eventually a picture will be formed the unfortunate thing is you'll be dust before you see such things. the next 100 years will be intense and man will be changing its view points about what the universe really is your excuse tells me everything i need to know... your time is over!! your views are ancient and ignorant!
jammapcb 9 months ago
@thesacredcowtipper I'd like to start with the Piltdown Hoax. The same hoax that was never actually accepted by science (it never fit into the lineages formed by other fossils, and we didn't understand radiation well enough to date it, so it was tossed to the side as an anomaly). The same hoax that was proven a hoax by evolutionary biologists, NOT creationists.
And BTW, Evolution doesn't say that cats give birth to bananas. In fact, that would disprove evolution. WOW.
Ant42Lee 5 months ago
@Ant42Lee The only evolution that we see that is observable is micro. Most evolutionists do not hold to piltdown anymore although some college students still think it is a missing link which shocks me so it must still be in some textbooks out there. Micro proving macro is a false assumption. Lee Spetner along with Ralph Muncaster did the math (that Dawkins didn't bother doing) and found out that the probability for evolution to go from (cont)
thesacredcowtipper 5 months ago
@Ant42Lee Lee Spetner along with Ralph Muncaster did the math (that Dawkins didn't bother doing) and found out that the probability for evolution to go from micro to macro was like picking out one electron in 1,376 universes and that was just to get a dead cell. There are a host of other problems that if factored in show macro evolution wanting. I still have not seen one fossil that can be proven to be a transitional fossil without using my imagination and there should be trillions anyhow.
thesacredcowtipper 5 months ago
@TheLissabee
.
If "thesacredbulltipper" is your intellectual ideal I shudder at the thought of the quotient level you have or aspire to.
tellnet 10 months ago
Be it comic book writer or scientist. Nial's theory makes sense. What I think is killing the idea of the expanding earth is that is came from a comic book writer and not a top notch scientist lol. The science world and all their billions of Dollars in education were out whited by a comic book writer and they are pissed off. Really pissed. Sacrilege!!!!! Into the iron maiden you go after which you will be lowered into the cauldron of boiling oil!!!!! buahahahaha
nonsulen 10 months ago
@nonsulen Got some facts wrong. The theory is older than Neal Adam of course.
nonsulen 10 months ago
Isn't it bizaar, no matter what you tell these expanding Earth idiots, they just will not listen to logic. They could even take their own gps messurements to prove themselves right (wrong). They must know deep inside how amazingly full of shit they are. It wouldn't really matter what the shape of the continents were, you could always fit them together somehow and then reduce the mass of the planet to fit them in perfectly.
jaykulls 10 months ago
Adams is correct! The fact that it goes against the grain of what science has deemed truth is A-Typical of man's arrogance. Simple physics proves it daily. A figure skater holding her arms in close to her chest spins much faster but when she spreads her arms out she slows down. The same applies to the spinning of the earth. As it slows the earth spreads or widens. Mass doesn't suddenly appear it just expands. More proof is the moon sliding away at 3.8cm annually. How are you so obtuse?
thomasjbolt 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The earth is getting FAT. You should know a few things about that. lol
symplythebest 11 months ago
Cosmic Dust could explain the size growth tons of the stuff enters our atmosphere everyday where does it all go? I always find it funny when people like yourself mock different ideas.
DarkBioCloud 1 year ago
@DarkBioCloud Actually you are missing one critical point. The mass required by Adams conjecture hasn't been infalling since the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment. This amount of mass also releases a corresponding amount of heat upon impact. The amount of mass infalling every day over the entire surface of the Earth is miniscule compared to the existing mass of the Earth. Even a relatively small impactor releases a lot of energy when it hits.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman I actually sugested this to adams and he said that this only accounted for a tiny percent. I believe this is the latest strategy of the creationists to attack science on every level, in an attempt to make the utter rubbish the dribble seem more reasonable.
jaykulls 10 months ago
@jaykulls And that makes me wonder, if on a somewhat more paranoid level, if the rabbit hole goes much deeper still. How much of this is a really well orchestrated assault on learning for the sake of power? Reading back thru some of the older comments shows how rabidly these folks latch on to these ideas despite a lack of data supporting it, and reams of data that directly contradict it. It becomes part of their identity.
NorthForkFisherman 10 months ago
@DarkBioCloud From what you seem to imply , cosmic dust would simply cover the Earth, so it would not cause the Earth to actually expand & hence explain the continents. In reality, tons of the stuff enters our atmosphere but get's burnt up & much of it would stay in the upper amosphere & then find it's way out again. Although tons, as you say, this is still miniscule in the context of the mass of the earth. We now have GPS telling us the rate of plate movement and yet no expansion is detected.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
There is an article in wiki about this. the idea is about 70 year old.
vmelkon 1 year ago
Comic book fan? Would have never guessed..........BTW, how the fuck do you get short on breath while sitting in a chair?
FourTwenny 1 year ago
Highly compressed dense hot planet slowly but exponentially decompressing (growing) and cooling.. explaining PT without mantle convection, explaining EE without mass/energy problem, explaining much higher see levels in the past (and therefore all those fossils in/on mountains), explaining relatively young sea ground.. and I bet there will be explanations for a whole lot of other things that trouble current theories.. I don't know, just makes sense to me.
181183R20710 1 year ago
Just a laymans opinion: if the earth in fact was a gas giant in the past with a highly compressed center and stripped of its gas shell by sun erruptions.. why shouldn't it be possible that the earth is expanding?
As I understand it, PT has a problem of not being able to explain mantle convection (yet), meaning: it is assumed.
WEDD would have that and a whole lot of other PT problems covered as well as those EE problems.
181183R20710 1 year ago
I haven't read too deep into the matter yet, but something tells me that "Whole Earth Decompression Dynamics" will have some successes in the future.
It kind of combines Plate Tectonics and Earth Expansion... I'm pretty certain there will be answers to all those questions once more honest research is done.
Intuitively it just makes too much sense to be completely wrong.
But we'll have to wait and see how it unfolds..
181183R20710 1 year ago
Well, Neal Adams is neither the first nor the only one proposing this idea.
There were many theories that sounded absurd at first but turned out to be conclusive once more reasearch was done.
Anyone proposing the existance of 11 dimensions was labeled a lunatic 50 years ago.. now string- or m-theory is an accepted field which the world's top theoretical physicists are working on.
181183R20710 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yet another person who has nothing to say other than they disagree due to indoctrination.
oatstao 1 year ago
why does everyone think he's adding mass! an increase in volume is NOT an increase in mass. everyday water expands as it cools ... the density will decrease. and its not unsubstantiated .. how do you explain the mid ocean ridges in all the oceans?
calebp9503 1 year ago
@calebp9503 Because Neal Adams himself has stated and attempted to demonstrate such.
danschaoticmind 1 year ago
@calebp9503 Furthermore: Subduction. If Neal Adams was right (And based upon the body of evidence, he is not) then we would not have convergent zones. Given that plates diverge, spread, and converge (With the heavier basalt strata of the ocean floor being pushed under any lighter (Or younger) rocks (Such as Granite for example) Divergent zones are well explained and have a body of evidence that is defined best in plate tectonics. Which is what we go for here: Evidence.
danschaoticmind 1 year ago
@calebp9503 you are false when it comes to the solid and liquid state of matter. But as for gas (when a gas doesn't stray away from an Ideal gas), you are correct. Solids and liquids are extremely hard to compress, whereas a gas is not. therefore changing volume will change mole content. Take an intro chem class and you'll learn this:p
fcdog555 1 year ago
@fcdog555 So when a civil engineer designs a bridge for the expansion of steel as it warms and cools, you think he's false too? And what is a diamond if not compressed carbon? Its compressed solid! And what about the vast pockets within the earth of methane? Certainly you wouldn't say wood is a solid because its full of pockets too! Thus wood is compressible. Every materials science class teaches that the crystal structure of minerals is between 70-85% empty space. So rock isn't a solid either.
calebp9503 1 year ago
@calebp9503 You are comparing minute expansion sizes from small mass to the expansion this stupid theory requires. This theory requires miles of expansion. Inflation that much requires an addition of mass. If you can't reason this, I don't think you are the brightest kid... wait, you just said rock isn't solid *facepalm.
fcdog555 1 year ago
@fcdog555 A liter of water will expand more than a cup as it freezes, so your argument on scale reinforces my point. Besides, I'm saying there is a relationship between compressibility and porosity. You think every atom touches every other atom? If you don't then you agree with me, rock is not solid, because of its porosity. I believe in expanding earth because I've seen lava expand with my own eyes as it cools, just like water freezing. The earth is no more special than a drop of molten slag.
calebp9503 1 year ago
@calebp9503 you apparently do not know the definition of a solid:/ Any matter that has slow vibrating atoms is a solid. You mean to say that everything is mostly empty space. Yes that is true. But anything with slow vibrating atoms is a sold no matter how you look at it. And yes lava expands..when it is not compressed by the earth weight and when it is cooled. Inside the earth, both of these are inescapable... the earth cannot expand without adding mass. do you not believe in plate tectonics?
fcdog555 1 year ago
@fcdog555 plate tectonics doesn't account for how there are mid ocean ridges (where new crust is formed) on BOTH sides of the plates. And expanding earth has a superior explanation for how mountains form by the re-curving mechanism. From a strictly physical standpoint, both can happen concurrently. I imagine if you sped up the time-line of the earth it would look like a drop of molten slag cooling first at the surface and then cracking and cooling deeper. Eventually the core will be solid.
calebp9503 1 year ago
@fcdog555 And although that's just an intuitive viewpoint the combination of a cracking surface and slowly expanding raw material enable plate tectonics as well as expanding earth. The expanding earth theory also predicts the locations of fossil evidence better than plate tectonics.
calebp9503 1 year ago
@fcdog555 Also, from a standpoint on the dynamics of heat transfer. As new surface is exposed at the mid ocean ridges, that surface is thinner than the continents, allowing the magma underneath the ridge to cool faster thus creating more expansion which thins the surface even more accelerating the process. This is completely supported by undeniable core sample evidence that the age of the ocean floor is less than 70 million years old and is less than 10 million near the ridges.
calebp9503 1 year ago
This guy is a fucking retard.
Young earth creation has no comparison to a growing earth theory.
skipp311 1 year ago
I don't think this is *more* bizarre than Young Earth Creationism; does the growing Earth theory include a talking snake?
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
Dismissing a theory just because it does not conform with the information that has been programmed into your mushy head since birth is not a rebuttal. Tell us why the "coastline" of "Pangea" fits together so well when it is wrapped backwards in a sphere Mr. brainiac? The water in the Oceans covered the Earth and drained into the basins. It is easier to show the mechanics of the expansion without the water on top. The Earth is hallow so no new mass is needed either. Duh!! Is this all too scary?
PlainObserver 1 year ago
@PlainObserver no i will be like a sientist i will dismis a theory if it gose ageist other well established theorys....
jannikmt 1 year ago
I love Neil Adam's theory. I think no-body really knows the answer since it was so long ago. This great age makes it impossible to determine what really happened. Just because someone writes comic books doesn't mean they aren't qualified. Plenty of phds have said the same as him. Cheers!
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1 It's not his theory he's a proponent. Given that satellites can accurately measure the circumference of the earth and conclusively show that the earth is not growing, that tectonic movement can and has been measured, and that the creation of matter requires an enormous amount of energy not found in the sun let alone the center of the earth and well that should be enough to discredit the idea, just like the scientific community did 50 years ago.
sjcousins 1 year ago
@sjcousins but what if it grows in sudden bursts? like if earth collides with another planet and the mass joins in a hot fireball and then solidifies back into a sphere again in say 1 million years. and then the continents look different?
realscience1 1 year ago
@sjcousins
Hey dumbass, satellites have only been up there 50 years. Your hilarious.
parasitesarefunny 1 year ago
@parasitesarefunny What exactly is your point? If you can't understand that an observer does not have to observe an objects entire journey to detect if it is in motion then please abstain from commenting. On anything.
"Your hilarious." My hilarious what? Idiot.
sjcousins 1 year ago
@sjcousins
My point you dull idiot, is that over a short 50 years time frame the Earth has not enlarged much as to be detected by these new satellites. However, if people look at the enlarging Earth theory they can certainly detect this enlarging process by the physical evidence plainly visible. You dont have to stop with Earth either, ALL planets can be shown to be enlarging. At least those with a crust for which we can recognize the stretch marks. Gaseous planets, without a crust, harder.
parasitesarefunny 1 year ago
@parasitesarefunny But we can detect the tectonic plate movement???
You mean you reject hundreds of years of observation and peer reviewed literature in all areas of science in favour of a comic book artists animation? That's some real rational thought. Then again you've probably never read anything else. For his theory to work, Neal says himself that he has to re write science; from gravity, to conservation of matter and energy from Newton to Einstein. Yeah right. What a scam.
sjcousins 1 year ago
@parasitesarefunny continental plates say hi =)
conservatin of mass and energy say hi =)
jannikmt 1 year ago
@parasitesarefunny Funny enough all we have to do is take a few old measurements of the earth from waaaay back in 276BCE and compare them to modern results. We can even plot the "growth" (Or lack thereof) using simple measurements. Doing so, you would find that the earth has not changed at all in over 2000 years despite divergent zone motion of 2-4cm a year. If Neal was right (And he's not) That would translate into a 4km increase (Conservatively) with higher sides being 400km but alas no.
danschaoticmind 1 year ago
@parasitesarefunny We do not see that. Plate tectonics offers a better evidence based assesment of the earths activity. Hundreds of years of peer review and experimental/evidence based observations gave rise to plate tectonics. Careys Expanding earth theory, lacking sufficient evidence, fell to the wayside since it lacked empirical evidence to back it's basic assertions. Which is why there are no peer review papers on expanding earth. It's junked science.
danschaoticmind 1 year ago
Its completely bullshit I agree but there is marsupial fossils found in India. They think they were wiped out by more agressive placental mammals when the Indian once continent collided with Asia.
danosurfs 1 year ago
I'm already laughing. Actually I started laughing as soon as you said you were a comic book fan.
mejc2 1 year ago
TrueNorth.... you criticism of the expanding earth theory uses an ad hominem and straw man logical fallacies. Please be scientific when refuting what you see as pseudo science. Otherwise you argument holds no value.
clevername333 1 year ago
Neal Adams did not create this hypothesis, he animated it. The earth's mass would not increase, the density decreased. The water did not increase, the original smaller planet would have been completely covered by water, which explains the recession of the oceans and marine fossils in the mountains.
Sterlacea 1 year ago
@Sterlacea, very well put. I have always wondered why there has been no explanation as to why the earth was mostly a shallow sea during the dinosaur days. Expanding earth theory makes some sense....
clevername333 1 year ago
METEORS ? DUhhhh hahhahaha. jeeze i'm laughing already. lets just say, (if ) the moon was getting farther and farther away from the Earth, (FACT) would the Earth need more mass in order to hold its moon in a gravitational Orbit? pahh haaa haa, next time get to the point. the universe is expanding, or did you forget that little tidbit. the (WHOLE) universe, Nahh we should just leave some stuff out. o.k ya got me, you know it all
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 1 year ago
people to have an interest in this type of thing.
888archangel 1 year ago
This has all the appeal of arguing with creationists. North American marsupial the opossum. The earth crust does expand outward from the Atlantic and other areas which is why there are subduction zones. At first though I thought it may be Douglas Adams, I'm not sure if this is anything more than a hoax parading as an amateur scientific theory. However it seems to be revealing what people do not know about geology, or forgot in the third grade, I'm not being sarcastic its just impractical for
888archangel 1 year ago
@888archangel Yeah, he's for real. He conquered the world of comic book art (for real, he's a legend in that world) without a formal education, and now he's trying to do the same in science. He's got money and fans supporting him.
People like conspiracy theories in part because it makes them feel smarter and more empowered to think they're the ones who know what's really going on, and they don't have to spend all that time learning and educating themselves to get there.
Argument is futile.
dcs002 1 year ago
@888archangel Oh, BTW, Neal says that subduction doesn't happen.
dcs002 1 year ago
You spent TWO & A HALF MINUTES to explain what Neal Adams managed in a title length!
SuziRGV250R 1 year ago
dcs002: Lastly, although I don't claim to understand all the science behind it, I thinks it's not unreasonable to believe that the Earth and other celestial bodies could be growing. Do scientists not agree that the WHOLE UNIVERSE is in fact growing? And do human beings and other living organisms not grow by cell replication? Who's to say that some sort of similar process doesn't happen on a sub-atomic level which could cause planetary growth? Think about it.
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 Biological organisms grow, usually to a maximum during adulthood, then no more. Our planet is not a biological organism.
The universe is said to be growing in the sense that it is spreading out. The objects within it show no evidence of unexplained growth.
Sub-atomic growth is called pair production. See my response to Omnise.
Earth growth prohibits satellite orbit. The ground rises toward them, and gravity increases pull them down. Yet they orbit predictably and stably in freefall.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 that assumes that the satellite in question (the moon in this case) does not also "grow" by a similar mechanism. true, if the earth gains mass and thus, gravitational forces pull more strongly on the orbiting satellite, assuming the mass and gravitational force of the moon remains the same, then the equilibrium would be disturbed and the moon would not retain its stable orbit, unless the moon gains mass by the same mechanism and in balanced rate of growth as to maintain its freefall.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise Oops! Wrong answer. If the moon's mass is also increasing, the gravity increases all the more. That's simple Newtonian physics.
But I wasn't just referring to the moon. Neal pointed me toward a study of the Earth's gravity where orbiting man-made satellites were studied for perturbations in their orbits due to gravitational changes near the equator. Satellite tracking is precise and simple, and there was no evidence at all in that study that overall gravity was changing. Neal oopsed it.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 why does the length of a year continue to grow by a fraction of a second?
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 dont tell me we forgot that increase in mass causes a loss of momentum? if the length of a day increases by 17 milliseconds per year, and we assume it has done so for at least the last 3.5 billion years (yes, i know the earth is much older) and without including the leap year (which makes the numbers larger) than the earth has lost roughly 2/3 of its momentum in the last 3.5 billion years.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise ???
Momentum = mass * velocity, so increased mass -> increased momentum.
If we assume = momentum and loss of velocity, then we can assume gain of mass, but that's an incorrect assumption, or at least an incomplete one for Earth's rotation.
The days are getting longer, but why? Why did the moon stop rotating entirely relative to Earth? Tidal forces.
Here on Earth, the energy to move our massive oceans around with the tide comes out of our angular momentum. It slows us down.
dcs002 1 year ago
@omnise In addition, consider the timescale. Neal says all this growth happened over the past 200 million years or so. If we've lost 2/3 of our rotational velocity over 3.5 billion years, only about 4% of that loss occurred over the period in question.
If the Earth had increased in mass by 2 or 2.5 times in the past 200 million years and momentum were conserved, our rotation would have slowed far more dramatically. The Earth would have been spinning like a top back then.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 saw what caused the "big bang"? dont tell me you believe a singularity created the entire universe but cant occur on a smaller scale.
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 One last, grasping-at-straws question here. If the universe is growing by spreading out, that should mean the distance between the Earth and the moon is increasing. Couldn't that counteract the effects of the increased gravity caused by the objects' growth?
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 Nah. It just means the galaxies themselves are moving away from each other. The objects within them are held together by gravity. Galaxies have not been observed to be growing or spreading, only the distances between them. Same goes for our solar system.
dcs002 1 year ago
dcs002: Honestly, Neal's theory about the formation of the continents seems to (on the surface at least) make more sense than the Pangea theory. If all the land was just in one gigantic island on one side of the planet like that, what would have caused it to break apart? And furthermore, why would it form that way to begin with when the rest of the planet formed as a roughly even SPHERE?
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001
Educate yourself on deep ocean geography, it is is no way a smooth sphere.
F3YR3 1 year ago
@F3YR3 that was his point.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise
He said it's odd that there are continents and oceans, as though there are two distinct levels. In reality the entire earth is extremely uneven, full of mountain ranges and valleys, and sub-ocean continents and trenches.
There is a reason why plate tectonics is accepted theory. When you approach this from the wrong way like these people you end up with BS like Lemuria.
F3YR3 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 Seriously, hit the reply button so I can know you've responded to me.
First, there is no "Pangaea theory." That was Neal's creation. Geologists refer to the theory of plate tectonics, which accounts for the movements of the continents long before Pangaea. The gathering of the continents at Pangaea was not the first time they converged. It was just the most recent collision involving all of them. Unlike Neal's hypothesis, plate tectonics does not begin with Pangaea.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 then why does the earth appear to be the only solid body in our solar system which undergoes techtonic activity?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise The Earth is the only terrestrial planet with enough heat-generating capacity to maintain a semisolid asthenosphere for the plates to slide around on. Earth's composition is different (greater radioactivity in the core) and it is the most massive terrestrial planet. Nothing mysterious about that.
dcs002 1 year ago
dcs002: I'm not a physicist, astronomer, mathematician or geologist, so I'll admit I'm not in any position to comment on the scientific accuracy of Neal's claims. But by the same token, I'm not in any position to comment on the scientific accuracy of YOUR claims either. No offence, but you could be bending the truth just as much as you say Neal is.
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 So don't believe what anyone tells you unless you have evidence. That's called academic skepticism, and I support it. If it's important to you, you can fairly easily find the evidence concerning this issue. Neal is not a scientist. He didn't go to college. Yet he put all this together. You can put the same effort into learning about it yourself. But if you don't, then you have nothing to add to the discussion of whether Neal's hypothesis is valid.
BTW, hit the reply button next time.
dcs002 1 year ago
phaaahaaahaaaha this guy, phaaaahaahaha, that guy? Huh. is that your scientific opinion? lame
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 1 year ago
Ha Fatman! The links are now under yoo!
yoo faill omgomgomglolroflcopterwinwinwon!!!11!!!!one!thumbmedown!!!oneone!!11!!
empemitheos 1 year ago
The only thing more crackers than 'The Expanding Earth' theory is trying to have an actual conversation with Neal Adams himself. Try it... He will probably reply with a statement such as 'GRAVITY is in BALANCE' and you will think, hold on that isn't what I asked about and it also doesnt make sense.
Please use up as much of Neal Adams time on this earth as possible.
kayakboyuk 1 year ago
Actually, he does say that there was a big mass of continents that fit together because the earth was smaller when they were whole. Now, he says Earth is growing from under oceans, further separating the continents.
kurogogyou 1 year ago
If you're so smart, why are you inferring here and STATING in one of your comments below that Neal was the WRITER of the Green Lantern comic in question? To quote you: "I'm a bit of a green lantern fan and he had a memorable run writing for it". He didn't. Denny O'Neil was the writer. Neal was the ARTIST who DREW it. If you can't even get that simple fact straight I really have to wonder about your so-called "knowledge" of science.
JohnnyS001 1 year ago 2
@JohnnyS001 theres a difference between knowing and understanding. scientists know much but understand little. if they understood as much as they claim, then what have they to scrutinize in their research? what is the point of finding truth or learning how things work if we can just as easily deny the entire concept?
omnise 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 scientists think there is something to gain in their studies. religious followers believe there is something to gain in their faith. philosophers think there is something to gain in there search for fundamental truth. anyone with a job thinks there is something to gain from earning their wages. i think there might be something to gain by posting youtube comments. if you reply to this, you must think or feel there is something to gain by doing so. so, what do you hope to gain?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise Nowadays, getting people to THINK is a great gain--even if their thoughts are wrong. Getting people to drag their fat asses away from their stupid TV shows and actually pay attention to ANYTHING in the real world that's even HALF meaningful is a major achievement!
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
@omnise If people spent a little more time paying attention to and assessing the things that are truly going on in the world, their actions would be better because their choices would be more thoroughly informed, and that would be a great gain for everyone, including me.
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 i couldnt agree more. beware though, for every truth that can be found, there lies in wait another which can contradict it. never hold to tightly to any belief. you may learn something profound today which changes everything you thought you knew, only to come back around and make you change your beliefs all over again tommorrow.
my motto: accept all things as possible, but none as absolute.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise I understand perfectly what you're saying, and I generally agree with you; but I think there are a few things in life that are absolutes--like proven, verifiable scientific facts, and also the sanctity of marriage, family, social justice, mutual respect and personal integrity. When those latter qualities are not present, individuals, families and societies fall into corruption and decay. So they're absolutely necessary for individual and societal well-being.
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 i agree on many levels with that viewpoint. however, from what i can observe from society is that many (not all, thankfully) poeple generally see the world as a problem and see themselves as a solution. we think the world is broken and we like to think it can take one person or one idea to change it for the better, and though that isnt necassarily a false idea, the problem is that for one person or one idea to change everything requires that the world abides by it.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise i think the real reason we have corrupt leaders is perhaps, at some point in their life, each person who rose to power believed they could make a difference and wars are always fought, for better or worse, for the sake of advancing one person's (or group of persons') ideas into the forefront of society by force. if one person believes he has a solution to a global problem, he achieves nothing without having followers.
omnise 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 while that doesnt justify wars in my eyes, when a person enters into any military service, one has to ask themselves, "who's cause am i really fighting for?". ive heard of poeple joining the military for career options, for education, for the money, or for the sake of protecting their families. each of these, including the last, are nothing more than incestives to get you to serve the realization of someone else's ideals. its legal murder. legal, not lawful.
omnise 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 while im not saying that poeple are doing things for the wrong reasons, poeple often fail to realize that the goals they strive for are nothing more than incentives to garner your support for someone elses ideals. everytime you pay taxes, you are bolstering the goverments ambitions. everytime you make a purchase at a store, you are bolstering the ambitions of the manufacturers of that product.
omnise 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 but of course, no one likes the alternative. to be self-sufficient has nothing to do with having a job. what are the often over-stated, under-rated necesseties of life? food, water, shelter, clothing. not money, security, financial stability, education, etc, etc. to be self-sufficient would mean growing your own food, building your own homes, fetching your own water, and crafting your own clothes.
omnise 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 the solution is not to remove your leaders. the solution is to not contribute to your leaders ambitions in exchange for the incentives they offer. public school is free, but you are required to attend. if you want better schooling options, contribute your wages and we give your children a higher education. you want a better job? get a better education. you want to drive a car? pay for a permit first so we can test your aptitude for driving.
omnise 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 you want to get married? get a marriage license first. you want to have your own land and grow your own food? get a deed from the government, then pay annual taxes to maintain ownership of that land. you want to have a child? we are required to give that child a social security number. you are of age and want full rights of an adult? we have a card for that too. you want our help? sorry, we cant help you unless youve been registered in our government database.
omnise 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 your child is sick and needs medicine? sorry but medicine is expensive. we cant help you unless we get compensation for the use and consupmtion of the life-saving medical supplies our clinic carries. if you cant pay the fee, youll need to have insurance and proof of that insurance. do you have an insurance card with you? if not, we ask that you fill out this paperwork so you can be treated as a charity case. unfortunately, charity cases only get bare minimum coverage.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise Again, I totally agree with what you're saying, but the reality is that most individuals can only do so much. Very few of us have the resources to actually change society in any appreciable way. But it's certainly good to spread knowledge and ideas--particularly on widely accessible public forums like this, since it could be positively impacting others in ways we're not even aware of.
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 thats why i spend so much time here :)
omnise 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What the hell are you talking about?! Neal DOES have a mechanism to explain where the extra mass came from. And he never said there was no water originally; he said the water was completely covering the land and as the land shell broke apart with planetary growth, the water filled the spaces to form the oceans as we currently know them.
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What the hell are you talking about?! Neal DOES have a mechanism to explain where the extra mass came from. And he never said there was no water originally; he said the water was completely covering the land and as the land shell broke apart with planetary growth, the water filled the spaces to form the oceans as we currently know them.
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
What the hell are you talking about?! Neal DOES have a mechanism to explain where the extra mass came from. And he never said there was no water originally; he said the water was completely covering the land and as the land shell broke apart with planetary growth, the water filled the spaces to form the oceans as we currently know them.
JohnnyS001 1 year ago
@JohnnyS001 Yeah, he does propose a mechanism. Do you understand it? Neither does Neal. It's called pair production. It's the conversion of energy into mass.
The atom bomb converts mass into energy (E=mC^2). Pair production converts the same amount of energy back into mass (m=E/C^2). Do you see the problem? If you captured ALL of the sun's energy and converted it to mass, it would take ~300 million years to make the mass he says was added to the Earth in the last 200 million years.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 and the sun is the only body in space giving off energy? if the earth wasnt constantly being bombarded by energy from objects far more distant than the sun, then how can you see all those stars in the night sky? you can see the stars because the stars... oh no!!! they give off light!!! and light is... *gasp* ENERGY??? and you can see that light because... *scream* its aimed at the earth?!? WELL NOW, thats just ludacris!!!
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise Quantify that energy. All that energy coming from the stars and the sun adds up to almost nothing compared to the energy needed to create 4x10^24 kg of mass. The energy needed for that is the EQUIVALENT of the sun's entire output for 30 million years. (I made a zero error in my above figure.) I don't care where the energy comes from. If it were present on Earth we'd be vaporized. (Remember that Neal says the Earth is going to keep growing. Where's that energy going to come from?)
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 what mechanism generates the earths magnetic field?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise All of the iron and other magnetic substances in the Earth? Ferro- & ferri-magnetism? What are you getting at?
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 is that the best answer the scientists can give? the earths core is supposed to be well over the curie temperature for iron. have you ever considered piezoelectrica compounds other than ferroelectric substances? last time i heard, the earths crust was mostly silicate compounds. quartz appears to be rather common.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise I don't speak for scientists. I don't know what their best answer is. I'm a neuroscientist, and that's my answer.
What does the curie temperature of iron have to do with this? Magnetism neither creates nor destroys energy.
Piezoelectric compounds do not create energy either. They simply convert one type of energy into another. You'll have to keep looking.
Is iron piezoelectric? I didn't know that.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 precisely my point. magnetism sustains the continual flow of energy. just as the earths magnetosphere catches plasma from the sun, the earth is capable of catchimg its own ejected material. have you seen images of the aurora borealis effect over the active volcano in iceland? the earths magnetosphere also has a tendency to link up with the interplanetary magnetic field in spring and autumn.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise It's my understanding that our van Allen belts keep that solar wing away from the planet rather than funneling the energy into the Earth.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 *correction* the van allen belts prevent the solar wind from reaching the earths surface directly. the earths magnetosphere buffers the solar radiation. it doesnt just bounce off the surface like throwing tennis balls at a concrete wall. it absorbs the impact of more direct flares and deflects the less direct, glancing blows. the weakest radiation will be reflected, yes, but stronger radiation is either absorbed or slowed before it reaches the surface.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise We're still talking about radiation that's tens of millions of times too low to account for Neal's growing Earth idea. Remember also that the figures I gave don't account for reflection or radiation, both of which reduce the amount of energy received.
Neal says that the mass needed comes from energy conversion into matter through pair production, but that's really just his way of deflecting the question. We no longer ask where the mass comes from, but where does the energy come from?
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 then what accounts for all the energy in the universe? if the universe started as a "big bang" from a singularity, then what stops that from occuring on a smaller scale?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise I think that's a very good question, and I don't have a good answer for it. The cosmologists might have a good answer, but I can't speak for them.
What I can say is that, in the presence of the energy required to make the Earth grow in the way Neal describes, we would probably be instantly vaporized.
Imagine a little star, only 15% as bright as our sun, and we live on its surface. Could we survive in that environment? I seriously doubt it. We can hardly handle the UV from our own sun.
dcs002 1 year ago
BTW, some cosmologists think of the big bang as a big shrinkage. In other words, instead of expanding outward, the universe is expanding inward. In their view, the universe exists as extra dimensions existing within the limited confines of external dimensions.
Imagine the entire universe existing within an electron. The more space we perceive, the smaller we actually are.
Not saying I agree with this view (as if my opinion should mean anything), but I think it's an interesting concept to ponder.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 funny you would mention that. im not sure what to think of that view but during this discussion about a few days ago, i did a little thought experiment concerning how we percieve electrons as smaller than protons and neutrons due to our understanding that protons and neutrons have more mass than electrons, and are therefore, larger than electrons. what if electrons are larger because they have less mass?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise geometrically speaking, it seems counter intuitive to me that electrons being as small as they are would be suspended in an array of vallence fields that are so far apart from each other if electrons are in fact so small. in loose laymans terms, are not electrons less dense than protons and neutrons because they are more easily excited and therefore, more enclined to not remain in one place for too long.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise I'm not sure a term like density applies to electrons, does it? Since they are quantum particles, they can be anywhere or everywhere at once. They can exist in two places or disappear entirely for a moment. How do you determine density in something that behaves like that? Do they have a wekk defined volume?
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 yeah, sorry about the terminology. i was genuinely trying to avoid using the word "density" in that example as it doesnt apply to electrons. however, if a quantum particle is capable of being two places at once (why not 3 or 4 then?), then that does raise the obvious question of where it goes and wether or not it actually disappeared or simply moved. i believe scientists are still looking to answer that at CERN aas we speak, no?
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 this also poses to question HOW an electron would appear and disappear and what means it would use to move in such a manner. the most imaginitave minds will undoubtedly picture electrons popping in and out of space through a sort of inter-spatial 'back door' and possibly bringing a few of its friends along with it. neal does pose his belief in one of his other videos about a sort of pre-matter.
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 additionally, when i first learned of dark matter and dark energy, dark matter was described as being clumped around areas where matter often clumps together, but dark energy was described as uniquely uniform throughout the universe. my young mind at the time immediately began to picture dark energy as the very fabric of space-time itself. if an electron can move about an exist in multiple places at once, is this uniform substance the inter-spacial 'back door'?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise I think we're all excited to learn what CERN will teach us!
Electrons & positrons pop into existence when a high energy photon interacts with something else, like another photon or an atomic nucleus. The energy of the photon itself is consumed to create the electron-positron pair. They can go spinning off in different directions or they can re-converge and annihilate, giving off the energy of the photon that created them.
dcs002 1 year ago
It's not like a portal opening up allowing matter in, it's a specific wave-particle reaction that creates specific products. The energies have to be conserved. The photon energy must equal the sum of the energies of the two product particles, and that energy can be converted back into the same photon.
Dark energy... wow. As far as I know, it's still just a construct - a placeholder to balance universal equations until we understand things more clearly. Could be energy, might not be. Go CERN!
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 you said youre a neuroscientist, correct? as a neuroscientist, how would you gauge the intellectual value of this discussion?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise If anyone learns anything from this discussion (you, me, or anyone else), then I believe it has value. If we've gotten each other thinking, or opened each other's minds just a little bit (open minds are necessary for learning), we've done something valuable.
Responding to your comments has gotten me reading and thinking, and your comments tell me you're thinking too. I think that's pretty valuable.
Socrates said "an unexamined life is not worth living." I think he would value this too.
dcs002 1 year ago
I found a cartoon and hung it on my lab door for several years. It said "Don't believe everything you think!"
I think that's an awesome motto for science! If we believe everything we think (or everything that makes sense to us) without question, we will never learn another new thing again.
If we believe we know the answer, we close our minds to the possibility that someone else might have a better answer, or that evidence might contradict our reasoning. That's the opposite of learning.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 i have a similar saying of my own: accept all as possible, but none as absolute. if you consider any one belief you hold with such high regrd as to consider that belief to be infallible or irrefutable, then if that belief should happen to be false, every belief you have based on that first concept may as well be as flawed. the sum of ones beliefs may indeed, only be as infallible as the foundation upon which those beliefs rest.
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 i agree. as long as discussions such as these open more minds to more possibilities, then it is well worth the effort. not a bad discussion, considering it was held between a neuroscientist and a high school dropout. im just glad this discussion didnt become as chaotic as some of the others ive gotten involved in. if i were to use myself as an example for anything, it would be that learning does not always require acedemic merits to be of value.
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 i know this is a crude example, but bear with me. if protons, neutrons, and electrons are thought of as balloons, and these balloons are filled with helium which is lighter than the surrounding air, would not the largest balloons rise higher and faster until reaching a particular atmospheric pressure? if the helium in the balloons is thought of as the energy in a particle, then would not a particle like a neutron have less energy?
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 according to the charts and graphs i have found while researching this, i have found one which depicts the process through which hydrogen is fused in the sun to create helium. something stuck out quite abruptly however. the first stage of that graph depicts two protons colliding, creating a proton and neutron. that same part of the graph also depicts a positron and a neutrino are lost.
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 the question that immediately rose in my mind was how the hell does a proton become a slightly larger neutron by LOSING a positron? if by losing an energized particle, a proton can GAIN mass, and become a slightly larger and more massive neutron, then doesnt this imply, at least on a subatomic scale, that losing energy equals a gain in mass?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise Particle physics are certainly not my forte, but I'll say this. A positron is a particle of antimatter. It's the antiparticle to the electron. Therefore it's mass is a negative quantity. Losing a negative is the same as gaining a positive. For example, 2 - (-1) = 3. Start with 2, then lose a -1, and you wind up increasing to 3 mathematically. Losing antimatter (or anti-mass) means gaining mass.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 that much does make sense, but that leaves me to question what happens to the resulting positrons and whether they would have any significant impact on the percievable mass of a star if these positrons are not 'recycled' through some other means?
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 if the big bang was in fact the result of a sudden release of energy, wasnt mass the result of that release. most of the explanations i have heard regarding the big bang was that it was a singularity which released energy, and as that energy expanded, it CONDENSED??? into matter? do not the fastest particles have less and less mass as they gain momentum?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise According to relativity, faster moving particles become more massive as they approach light speed.
As for matter condensing, think about a boiling teapot. High energy water vapor streams out through the whistle to let you know it's boiling, but as it expands, the water molecules give off some of that energy, reducing their temperature to below the boiling point. When that happens, the molecules stick to each other, or condense, to form steam droplets. Similar principle.
dcs002 1 year ago
A constant amount of energy spreading out through space reduces in temperature, causing water droplets, or matter, to condense from its higher energy precursor, either hot water vapor or hot plasma. Moving from high pressure to low pressure causes cooling. That's how air conditioners and refrigerators work.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 and what does this imply of black holes? they appear to emit no light but appear to absorb it. most of the "light" that they release is merely theoretical from what i have heard, such as hawking rays, or else not released by a black hole itself but by the surrounding mass that accelerates as it is drawn closer to them. so they appear to emit no energy (of their own) but have an unbelievable amount of mass and gravity.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise Black holes are quite the mystery. We haven't observed Hawking radiation, nor are we likely to, given how faint it is compared to the universe's background temperature, but we've seen plenty of these things called "relativistic jets" carrying huge amounts of energy away from black holes. I don't think anyone knows how they work, but they're there.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 consider the creation of a neutron, that when a large star collapses, the protons and electrons are forced together to create a mass of neutrons. but arent neutrons created by protons LOSING positrons? i think that electrons being the opposite of a proton is a vast misconception. they are vastly different in mass, for one. and what of black holes that lose theyre mass? perhaps by absorbing light, it re-energizes its particles, and loses its mass?
omnise 1 year ago
@dcs002 if the earth's mass is approx. 5.9742*10^27 grams and the sun loses 4.26 million metric tons per second, then in the past 70 million years (not including leap year adjustments) alone, the sun has given off 9.4040352*10^27 grams of mass. compared to the earths wimpy 5.9742*10^27 grams, id say the suns contributions are more than feasable at this scale, even considering most of the ejected mass doesnt end up on earth.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise Your figures match mine fairly well, but consider:
Every 40 million years or so, the sun converts enough mass into energy to build a planet Earth. But to do so would require all of the sun's energy over that time. To cause the growth that Neal claims requires the equivalent of 15% of the sun's energy over that time, but the Earth only receives a fraction of a percent of the sun's energy, which far exceeds what we get from other stars. Where does the rest of the energy come from?
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 this is probably where ill lose your interest and i doubt even neal would support this but has anyone considered the earths core sustains its own nuclear reaction via fission, possibly of uranium? jupiter is noted for giving off more energy than what the sun throws at it, and though im not saying jupiter is undergoing a fusion reaction like the sun (we'd have two suns in that case) i am suggesting a correlation between nuclear activity in other planetary cores.
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise Yes, there is plenty of fission going on in the Earth, and fusion in Jupiter, but both reaction types release massive amounts of energy (exothermic) by converting matter into energy. What Neal's hypothesis needs is the exact opposite - a reaction that consumes huge amounts of energy (endothermic) and converts it into matter. The best we can get from nuclear reactions in the Earth's core is still a net loss of mass because so much of the energy given off is lost as radiated heat.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 Ack! My bad. I've been a science nerd all my life, and I learned about Jupiter's radiation long ago. But somehow I thought Jupiter's core had H-He fusion going on too. It doesn't, at least according to the Wi-ki-pedia article. It refers to friction from gas currents, and states definitely that there is no fusion.
Earth definitely does have fission going on though, but again, that gives off energy that is lost via radiation.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 then what stops the earth from shrinking?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise The matter lost in fission reactions is slight. It's all about E=mC^2. A little bit of mass = huge amounts of energy. That's the same reason that mass creation can't explain the growth that Neal claims. To create even a tiny amount of mass requires huge amounts of energy. It's just a matter of scale.
I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine the mass we gain by meteors is likely enough to offset any mass lost by fission.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 besides, we arent trying to build an entire earth in 40 million years with this scenario either. if you want that figure to stick, what is the scientific communities current consensus on how much electromagnetic radiation as well as ejected plasma is actually arriving within earths reach? have scientists recently discovered that the sun schedules appointments for its solar flare activity?
omnise 1 year ago
@omnise Neal's hypothesis requires about 2/3 of our current mass to have been created over the past 200 million years. That requires the equivalent of 15% of the sun's total output over that time. The Earth's size and distance from the sun means it's in a position to receive only 0.000000046% (4.6 x 10^-8%) of the sun's total output, electromagnetic, ejected plasma, whatever. We only occupy that much of the sun's sphere. Nine orders of magnitude separate what's needed from what's available.
dcs002 1 year ago
@dcs002 is that assuming that ejected material from the solar wind flow directly outward into space? due to the suns rotation, the IMF rotates in a spiral, meaning the earth crosses the suns Parker