Neal Adams - The Growing Earth and Universe - Part 1

[enkigilgamesh]

Love it when someone comes out with great ideas. THe orthodox government corporate controlled science looks stupid in comparison. Science should be questioning even religion. It should be looking for truth and not money. Elite are groomed egotistic psychopaths vying for fame and power and control who try to control what we know.

[geoffdundee]

religion and government puppets are steering us all away from the real truth to control us.....expanding earth is so blatantly obvious

[nayanmalig]

in the dark ages the church thought they were the ultimate knowledge & put down all else. today they have out of date professorial clubs who are ashamed to admit they are wrong & reject all new possibilities. This is not science. The peers have to be reviewed.

[HumanSayNo]

Was the moon the "big magnet"??

[emylyy]

Ok its realy simple to prove or disprove this if earth is growing it must have more mass more mass means more gravity if it gets more gravity it means that lets say a 1Ton Iron boll weighted today must weight more next year or 10 years and so on

Realy simple to prove just do thi simple experiment and you wil find the truth

[HarrysSecret]

Wait...no need to have academic qualifications........

Alarm bells are ringing.

[InMooseWeTrust]

@HarrysSecret No need to go through 12 years of utter bullshit brainwashing after high school? I'll take that. And there are plenty of people like Bill Gates in the world who are pretty damn good at what they do, but they're usually dropouts. Richard Branson is a billionaire who dropped out of high school. Are you going to tell him he can't do business just because he doesn't have an MBA?

[HarrysSecret]

@InMooseWeTrust Um...I see you're a student?

Would you like to defend your student status if you sincerely feel academic qualifications have no bearing on success?

Perhaps you are like me and countless others who have studied and did it because it was something you loved and enjoyed.

As for brainwashing, my mind was truly opened once I entered university and learned to understand and think critically and objectively.

[ScienceWars]

God - I can't stop coming back to this train wreck of a video. It's a wholesale disaster.

It's like picking at a loose tooth. It hurts, but it's addictive!

[Andrewlohbihler]

@ScienceWars You are that asshole with a PT bible up your fucking ass. Go back to slandering people and blocking people from your garbage videos.

[Zaphod4100]

@Kable645 When I said I stood on one side or the other, I meant I like to see modern unidirectional academia threatened-it's a good thing for all of us. I cannot prove nor disprove Dr. Adam's work, it is interesting. You talk about wasting their 'time of day' well, with the closed minds and apple carts in this pathetic system of higher learning I wish they would do something with their time other than what they are wasting it on now.

[ScienceWars]

@Zaphod4100 From your single comment, I can see that you don't know anything about academia or science. Neal is not a Dr. That takes education, studying, and a huge amount of endeavour.

It's always nice to see people bash science, on the computer it delivered to them. Makes me laugh!

If you have the courage of your convictions... go back to the stone age, and try surviving in the wild somewhere. Science is so rubbish! Scientists are such bastards!!!

[Zaphod4100]

Neal Adams, you've been attacked repeatedly by the brainwashed troglodytes of modern academia since you have threatened their establishment. Hopefully that clarifies for readers of this post on which side of the discussion I fall upon.

[Kable645]

@Zaphod4100 I'd say he mostly goes ignored by academia. I doubt anyone would waste the time of day.

[phdhbtdsmmm]

@GMBCATASTROPHE

Hello, Graham. What data would you like? I provided you with the lengths of the MOR vs Subduction zone lengths, but I didn't hear back from you.

Guess it's tough being non-amenable to evidence and data, eh?

[MyOtherBeaver]

@phdhbtdsmmm LMAO!!! you are STILL pissing in the wind. I:-)

[phdhbtdsmmm]

@MyOtherBeaver On the right side of History though. Whoo!

[lightcatcher3]

this idea makes sense to me. over millions of years the earth absorbs materials from space, asteroids, etc plus loads of real energy from the sun and cosmos. it has to go somewhere. I think it's absorbed by the earth, so the earth slowly grows.

[AngryWomble]

Ugh.....this guy's still peddling his BS???

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

@AngryWomble No no. Just accept that you are a moron. 

[AngryWomble]

@GMBCATASTROPHE

Thats difficult to do since i'm not the moron here.

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

@AngryWomble You are making donkey of the year a one jack-ass race. Live with it.

[AngryWomble]

@GMBCATASTROPHE

*yawns*

[csbair]

@GMBCATASTROPHE Have you accepted that Craig Thomson was a better choice? And that almost 38,000 more people thought he was than you? And that you couldn't even muster support of enough people that could fit into four buses? Are you going to try again next election?

[phdhbtdsmmm]

One can only imagine how desperately Neal fears this kind of real data / information, as he blocked these posts.

I have set up a blog where I will post a long and involved analysis of everything I have learned from EE/GE and their exponents over the last 3 years. Hopefully, it will be a place where people can freely discuss the ideas, and post and share information / data without the restrictions of Neal and his censorship, and 500 character limits.

I'll send you all PMs when ready. :-)

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

@phdhbtdsmmm A leopard doesn't change its spots fella. You never came up with the evidence before. You won't have it now.

[phdhbtdsmmm]

@GMBCATASTROPHE That's right. My dissertation was all made up. Strange that I got a 1st class for it, eh?

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

@phdhbtdsmmm Not strange at all. Passing tests and writing essays is dead easy. And you didn't make it up, You just regurgitated the nonsense that you had learned. To this day you cannot come up with a good justification for the Big Bang Embarrassment of a pseudo-theory. To this day you cannot draw force vectors that could show what forces are pushing the continents around under your lame theory. To this day you cannot tell me why we ever get ore-grade substances under your supernova theory.

[phdhbtdsmmm]

@GMBCATASTROPHE Would you mind telling me how you know all this about - not only my educational history, but also the teaching methods of the institutions I studied at?



The vectors, in your unlettered question, for "what forces are pushing the continents around", have actually been solved. You would know this if you paid any attention to the literature.

Further - I didn't study Cosmology, you stupid, brainless, directionless hate-filled tit.

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

@phdhbtdsmmm But you buy into the Big Bang theory do you not? Now you tell me where you think the forces are pushing that could explain the continents moving in this way. The problem has not been solved except by expanding earth. This is not an anthill that is being wrenched about. Or a tree-trunk. O indeed even a real hill. For those forces to be acting there would have to be visible consequences to that.

Of course what really happens is the expansion is by way of stretch marks.

[phdhbtdsmmm]

@GMBCATASTROPHE

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. (didn't your Mother ever tell you it is rude to answer a question with a question?!)

How do you know about my educational history and the teaching methods of the institutions I studied at?

I await your response...

[Kable31415]

@phdhbtdsmmm Hey ph, a little background on our favourite anonymous super troll GMB. His real name is Graeme Bird of graemebirddotworldpressdotcom. He even ran for office...

[phdhbtdsmmm]

@Kable31415

Hey Kabes.

That blog is a frightening tome of pseudoscientific, conspiratorial mento-babble. GMB is so full of fear and hate and ignorance, it is impossible to have a clear conversation with him about Plate Tectonics without having to discuss 9/11 and the grassy knoll too. Best of luck, anyway, and thanks for the info. I shall follow his blog with a strong sense of "er... what?".

(Makes a change from the COMMENT REMOVED-fest that is Neal's channel, anyway)

[Kable31415]

@phdhbtdsmmm Ive been blocked from Neal's page, so I'm just counting down a few weeks until the dust settles and then will start a new account. In the mean time, Ive found a new one that maybe of interest. Check out astrotometry's channel for the prediction of large earthquakes using solar activity. (you may want to read that sentence again) I've just started to poke at him, but I think I could have some fun with this one...Haven't seen AJ posting for awhile, did he awake from his coma?

[phdhbtdsmmm]

@Kable31415 Ahh... shame. But that's Neal's way. Identify a critic as an enemy = pseudoscience. Silencing a critic = pseudoscience. Set up an unreasonable arena for debate = pseudoscience.

Cuckoo for Coco Pops.

I'll have a look at astrotometry's channel. Who knows - maybe CMEs are what is causing the Earth to expand?!

I didn't hear from AJ in a long while (t.f.). He had a massive, intense burst of all-encompassing passion for EE, and then nothing.

The downside of drug abuse...;-)

[Kable31415]

@GMBCATASTROPHE Hi Graeme, exactly what do you mean by

"To this day you cannot tell me why we ever get ore-grade substances under your supernova theory."

can you elaborate?

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

@Kable31415 Well obviously if you think that virtually all the higher elements have to be produced in a sumpernova, then how do you cranks explain the existence of ore grade elements by recourse to this supernova theory? What this means is that all these elements are billions of years old, much older then the earth itself. And the claims of the quakademics is that they are not homogenised up after all this time .... for what reason? Because they claim that we are stardust from supernova.

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

@phdhbtdsmmm They are not produced in stars. If they were they would be homogenised after all this time. The silly claim of quakademia, is that only a supernova has the required energy to make the higher elements. Clearly in this fantasy our higher elements have been around considerably longer than four billion years. Hence they could only have homogenised in that time.

But in reality the mid-ocean ridge spits out magma that is often of ore grade quality. We are talking ore gr

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

We are talking ore grade gold, silver lead and so forth coming out directly into ocean water. For this to be the case speaks volumes to do with the depth of the materials point of creation/conversion (it cannot be too deep) and the materials juvenile nature (it cannot be too old) or else everything would essentially be homogenised and mud, except for sedimentary rocks and not much else.. Its a direct refutation of yet one more bogus creation-through-explosion fantasy of quakademia.

[phdhbtdsmmm]

@GMBCATASTROPHE "Clearly in this fantasy our higher elements have been around considerably longer than four billion years."

Which higher elements? Can you reference some please?

And you haven't answered my question. Focus, GMB. Look very carefully at my question. Ready?

"What is the mechanism that pseudo-scientwats say homogenises of all the different higher elements? How does THAT work?"

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

Which higher elements do you THINK I'm talking about you moron? You are not smart mate. You are a dummy. Obviously I'm talking about the higher elements that quakademics are claiming were made in supernovas. I'm talking about something that didn't happen. I'm talking someone elses crap theory. And you are such a dumb twat you are asking me for a reference on your own dumb ideas. You are so dimwitted mate.

[phdhbtdsmmm]

@GMBCATASTROPHE

Thanks for restating the question. I am asking you for a reference on "my dumb ideas" because I want to see your sources. I don't believe you have any idea what you are talking about. Your barely intelligable answer to my question has indicated that this is the case. Now do you want another stab at answering my question?

I'll give you another try.

Q: Can you reference the higher elements that have been around for considerably longer than the 4 billions you claim.

[HumanityWins]

@phdhbtdsmmm

so you dont support the GE theory?

where do you think all the water came from? can you rationally explain the "amazing" african mud slide that took place on the Abyssal in the atlantic ocean (~600k years ago)? has anyone compared the age of ocean floor near the continents and near the mid-ocean ridges? what were the results??

HOW THE FUCK does a land-slide created tsunami move islands around???? who the hell buys that shit??

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

@phdhbtdsmmm You don't have any data mate. You run a mile every time you are asked to back up your irrational theories.

[phdhbtdsmmm]

Neal censored my posts with the following info:

Dromaeosaurs:

Slender skulls, no butressing of orbital fenestra; slender neck, weak vertebra w/small vertebral processes; narrow, slender torso; equal tooth size; visual brain; fossils found attacking prey

T. rex:

Butressed, curved skull for distributing huge loads; stout neck w/long vertebral processes (muscle attach); huge barrel-shaped torso; unequal tooth size; large olfactory bulb in the brain (scent); prey fossils = scavenging

[GMBCATASTROPHE]

What is your point. All you say speaks to lower gravity QED. ... You are in fact a real dummy are you not? Yes you are.

[phdhbtdsmmm]

Hey, Kable / Scions / sathearn / Gosh - it's much nicer over here.

I might hang out a while... it seems like extreme and one-sided censorship doesn't exist on this particular channel.

[ItsMeAgainScions]

1/3 OF THE EARTH'S WATER DIDN'T DISAPPEAR. THEY'RE FROZEN.

[ItsMeAgainScions]

Kable? Sathearn? Good to see you guys outside Neal Adams video. I guess the discussion has "leaked" to other videos. The good thing here is that he can't block me here!

[Kable31415]

"and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity." worldnpa website.

with friends like Neal Adams, who needs enemies?

[phdhbtdsmmm]

"The Himalayas will never erode down! The Adirondacks haven't worn down in 2-300MY. Sediments cover the bottom 2/3's, so they will be around for quite a long time" - Direct quote from Neal Adams trying to prove a separate point about mountain erosion.

"FUDD"! (Thanks to Bentgardenho for pointing this one out)

[Kable31415]

7:26 "name them?"

The wikipedia "list of orogenies" can name the earth's previous mountain building events, dating back 3 billion years.

[sathearn]

@Kable31415 - The standard lists of "orogenies" should not be casually conflated with mountain building events. Despite the term's etymology, it's modern definition refers to the formation of fold belts, not the formation of elevated topography. Even where the list links orogenic events with modern mountains - e.g. Rockies, Appalachian, Andes - it can be seen that the given dates - no doubt reasonably applied to the fold structures - contrast with the timing of uplift as per to field studies.

[Kable31415]

@sathearn I use the more recent definition of the term in the "encyclopedia of geology" five volume set (2007), under the sub-title "Mountain building and orogeny" and I quote: "meaning birth or origin, encompasses all the processes of mountain building."

[sathearn]

@Kable31415 - Well, the 2nd ed of B&J was all I could afford on a low budget. That still leaves the question of whether the assumption (shared by contracting Earth, PT, Neal, etc.) that the same processes that cause folding also are responsible for mountain uplift is actually justified. What evidence exists that past "orogenies" created high elevations? What of the evidence that most current mountains were uplifted in the past 6 million years or so, in contrast to the "orogeny" timeline?

[Kable31415]

@sathearn "the same processes that cause folding also are responsible for mountain uplift". lets not forget that folds can be formed due to lateral stress, not just vertical. I've even heard of folds forming in extension environments (i'd have to double check on that though).

[sathearn]

@Kable31415 How this speaks to the point about "the two processes" being "mostly not closely related, either in origin or in time" I'm not sure, but since I have in the past made statements downplaying the role of lateral stress in rock folding, your point is well taken. I've felt more uncertainty regarding such statements than I've perhaps revealed, though I do feel that "gravity sliding" is more obviously a "keeper" than some of the lateral compression ideas that are casually put forth.

[sathearn]

@Kable31415 - Detailed geological reasoning is another matter (from such casual offerings), and I look forward to learning more about the kinds of evidence that can be brought to bear regarding processes that can contribute to rock folding.

[sathearn]

And as a follow up, interested readers may review Ollier and Pain's list of uplift timings along side Wikipedia's list of orogenies - the former as often inferred from remnant planation surfaces at high elevations: such surfaces having been formed at low elevations, dating them constrains the timing of uplift. See New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter #20 (and #39 for reviews of specific mountainous regions by several authors). Website: ncgt . org

[sathearn]

Incidentally, the article in #20 ("The Neotectonic Period") cites the 4th ed. of the Glossary of Geology (1997) as making the same distinction between the original meaning of 'orogeny' and the current one as was made in the 1980 edition. And I would suggest that Wikipedia's "list of orogenies" is _in effect_ reflects the same usage.

[Kable31415]

@sathearn "And I would suggest that Wikipedia's "list of orogenies" is _in effect_ reflects the same usage."

I'm inclined to disagree with you there Steve. If you click each of the provided orogenies (ie with their own wikipedia page), you will find the term "mountain building" (or words to that effect) within the first sentence in over three quarters of the provided articles.

[sathearn]

@Kable31415 - Clearly, the term 'orogeny' retains some of its original meaning, at least by long association, as your evidence well illustrates. What I am suggesting is that the geological evidence associated with the events at the given dates may, in the main, pertain to fold structures, and not necessarily to mountainous topography. I concede PH's implicit point yesterday that evidence of high rates of sedimentation is, other things equal, one kind of evidence for high elevation nearby.

[Kable31415]

@sathearn In addition to folds and high sedimentation rates, I would add the presence of migmatites, high pressure lithologies (ie gniess, eclogite) and minerals (garnet, kyanite, coesite). See the recent paper "The mountains that triggered the late neoproterozoic increase in oxygen" 2010 for a summary of the techniques used (and an interesting hypothesis for how complex life started)

[sathearn]

@Kable31415 - Thanks for the tips. From the abstract, the article appears to contain much food for thought. I'll try to get the full text through my local library.

[sathearn]

@Kable31415 - Bates and Jackson (2nd Ed.): "Literally, the process of formation of mountains. The term came into use in the middle of the 19th Century, when the process was thought to include both the deformation of rocks within the mountains, and the creation of the mountainous topography. Only much later was it realized that the two processes were mostly not closely related, either in origin or in time. Today, most geologists regard the formation of mountainous topography as postorogenic..."