occured. Not if it occured! Their apparent lack of interest shows their professional fears of an "inconvenient unknown" which is dumbfounding considering that exploring and discovering the causes and effects of "unknowns" are supposed to be one of the motivations and rewards of science! They cannot prove has not occured because their own data PROVES IT! What is left for scientists to show is the HOW!
Its funny when people who claim to speak on "behalf of science" regarding this subject and dispute the obvious nature of it, forget, or are unaware that science is a process of theories, and hypothesis, all in the pursuit of facts. NOT truth. The theory has been presented yet the scientific establishment (and detractors on YouTube) refuse to acknowledge the very data from scientists that discovered evidence that proves the theory in the first place! It is the role of scientists to show how it
The picture on the cover of the book at 2:47 is of a sphere like the one in in the courtyard of the Vatican Museum. I wonder if they know something they're not telling the rest of us about.
The title of the book is :
"WHY EXPANDING EARTH? - A Book in Honour of Otto Christoph Hilgenberg" Edited by Giancarlo Scalera and Karl-Heinz Jacob Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma and Technische Universitat, Berlin Printed by Spedim Montecompatri (Rome) 2003 (460 pages)
Oh, this is where you got the idea? Or, did you think of it yourself and then via research come across this? I'm just curious because I love the history of ideas as much as the ideas.
Where do neutrons come from? A P+ plus an e-? Because in my physics, that process also produces a neutrino. Does it in yours? What should be the neutrino flux produced by the Moon, then, as it grows? Or if the process P+e- = n does NOT make a neutrino in your model, then what is all that stuff we detect in our neutrino detectors zapping out of the Sun?
Do you see what I mean about the difference between saying "X could be caused by the creation of Y" and "WE HAVE OBSERVED THE CREATION OF Y"? It would be like if someone had come up with the theory of natural selection before the discovery of fossils, but then didn't advocate actually looking for the evidence. OH there is no need to LOOK for fossils of transitional forms! I have proven they exist via my obvious model of evolutionary change!
It's amazing how closed-minded scientists resort to circular logic when defending their pet theories... geesh... i recall my grade 11 physics teacher talking about how dinosaurs could not live today because it has been proven that their bones could not support their mass at this gravity.
@MrUppertorso Or they could choose to keeping believing and studying it until they find proof enough for people like you right ?? Rightt!!!. I would think people would allow progress and stop holding on to old scientific theories that may sooner or later be proven wrong because if you don't then what will make science any different than religion something else that holds on to outdated traditions and never advances with humanity.. We don't want science to be come the new Christianity do we ???
@MrUppertorso - The evidence is massive and abundant. Except to lazy idiots, who are too filled with themselves to do the work. I am neither lazy or an idiot. You clearly are. The expanding earth theory was never dis-proven. This now, the growing earth theory, will never BE disproved, because it follows fact. You are a child in the peanut gallery, nothing more. The sooner you "do-nothings" learn your place, the better for everyone.
@nealadamsdotcom The theory is "disproven" from the get-go because it violates everything we know about the science of physics. There is an idea from the philosophy of science called "Correspondence". New scientific theories in one area have to "fit" with the existing body of scientific knowledge in other areas. A theory that purports to solve some tiny issues in geology by tossing out the law of conservation of energy and rewriting particle physics is worthy of no consideration whatsoever.
@doctordave Dave, you little cookie, you. Propounding your Physics philosophy as a Geologist. I love it.
I'm afraid you have it Bas-ackward Dave . As I learned, to my chagrin, this is totally a Physics problem and solution. The geology is merely a bi-product of the Physical world solution.
The answer to the Physics IS the re-writing of Particle Physics.
Your massive ignorance is shown in your assumptions, after all this time that The solution disobeys the conservation laws. Laughable.
@nealadamsdotcom Well, it does involve violation of energy conservation. You said yourself that matter is being created in the Earth's core.
If your re-writing particle physics, then re-write it.
What value does your model predict for the g-factor of the electron? Mine matches experiment to 12 decimal places.
What implications does your new internal model of nucleon structure have for proton-scattering cross-sections? My model's calculations are verified in accelerator experiments daily.
@doctordave MATTER is being created FROM PRE-MATTER AND ENERGY.
The Pre-MATTER is TINY infacing EM fields that fill the Universe and slide between the fields of Atoms like Sand between Boulders, (Because of the infacing field.) The ENERGY IS PRODUCED at the H solid core H to He. The Energy strikes the Field and the resultant Pair-Production gives us MATTER.
Are you competing with me Dave? That's funny. Not Ha Ha funny, if true, more Ironic. You guys.
@nealadamsdotcom No Neil, YOU are competing with US. You are offering a "new theory" and repeatedly revealing that you have NO CLUE how scientific theories work or what they are supposed to do.
You say there is no Big Bang. Ok, well then, I say "Alright, so show me what size density fluctuations YOUR new model of all-of-cosmology-and-physics predicts in the CMBR." And you pretend the question is never asked, because you don't understand why it's relevant.
@doctordave I....READ-MY-LIPS Dave , Don't KNOW. NOR does ANYONE ELSE. And if they say they do,..They're LIARS!
Do this Dave. Find the RATE OF EXPANSION. Then the acceleration,..Then math the acceleration backward to find the speed outward 14 BYA. Bet Its pretty DAMN slow, champ. Funny how nobody's published that speed.
Competing with YOU-ALL? Too easy. You're all religious fanatics. It's not even a contest!
@nealadamsdotcom I don't understand your comment about the acceleration. Hubble's Law is based on the assumption of a constant rate of expansion. If the expansion is speeding up or slowing down, Hubble's law is only an approximation. (Hint: it is, b/c the expansion is speeding up slightly.)
When you say "I don't know" you are saying: "My model addresses none of the cosmological issues that existing models present explanations and calculations for".
Just to clarify. You are are saying the following: In order to believe my theory that explains geological features via an expanding Earth you must also...
A) Believe my new model of particle physics that makes no attempt to explain any of the properties of particles and nuclei discovered since the 1950s
B) Believe my new cosmological model that makes no attempt to explain any cosmological discoveries made since the 1920s.
@doctordave NO, Dave it means ONE of TWO THINGS. It means, I don't know....yet. Or I am simply not willing to commit to my opinion until it's completely verified. I'm convinced, however that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH a Big Bang.
MY scientific community discovered the matter universe is accelerating outward! You didn't KNOW THIS?
They should pay attention because I'm not bullshitting them that I know something when I don't!
Did "YOUR" figures PREDICT THE ACCELERATION OUTWARD?
Was the accel'n predicted? Yes and No. Einstein put the cosmological constant in based on incomplete observational data. Post-Hubble we took it back out, b/c the data seemed to suggest the expansion was constant. But people had been playing around with negative vacuum energy for years, b/c there were reasons to consider it that had nothing to do w/ cosmology. Here's the kicker: when the acceleration was discovered experimentally, we changed our models to accommodate it. So much for rigid dogma!
Here is another, just for kicks, from Nature... one of the impenetrable strongholds of dogmatic orthodoxy.
--"The Observational case for a low density universe with a nonzero cosmological constant."
J.P. Ostriker, Paul J. Steinhardt, Published in Nature 377:600-602,1995.
(Just to clarify, "non-zero cosmological constant" is synonymous with "accelerating expansion". And once again, this is THREE YEARS before the first observational evidence of acceleration from distant galaxy observations.)
OBSERVATIONS are providing progressively tighter constraints on cosmological models. The combined observations point to models in which the matter density of the Universe falls well below the critical energy density required to halt its expansion. But they also permit a substantial contribution to the energy density from the vacuum itself (a cosmological constant). A univ' having the critical energy density & a large cosmological constant appears to be favored
So there is a paper, from the Scientific Orthodoxy bastion that is "Nature", advocating a cosmology with a non-zero vacuum energy density from 1995... a full three years before the supernova observations by Reiss and Perlmutter in 1998 gave direct evidence of an accelerating expansion. (Check the Wiki entry on Dark Energy for those references).
Did those dudes have a TIME MACHINE?? Or perhaps I'm just right, and the idea of an accelerated expansion had been floating around for quite some time.
@doctordave No dave, I reckon some few scientists observed HINTS and evidence of the TRUTH, as finally discovered.
WHY is this a Big Deal to you? If it was verified,.. and some found clues before that discovery, isn't that logical? Doesn't change the fact that EVERYONE WAS SHOCKED! Man, you are so pig-headed.
Not in a paper but in my preparations for my one day book I described this acceleration. SO WHAT! The important thing is religious fanatics like you cling to Big Bang LOOPHOLES!
@nealadamsdotcom No Neal, the point is the exact OPPOSITE. This imaginary community of dogmatists who refuse to consider new ideas or change their minds in the face of new evidence SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST!
For 50 yrs the evidence pointed to a uniform expansion, and yet all along we CONSIDERED the possibility of a non-uniform expansion, then actually went LOOKING FOR IT. And when we FOUND it we adjusted our model. The time from discovery to textbook? Less than the time I've been out of grad school
@doctordave No, again Dave, (Lord) If you went looking , l'll bet you'll find many more papers suggesting the Universe was slowing expansion.
YOU never heard acceleration outward until the discovery,..RIGHT? Will you lie for the team?
"Somehow 'evidence'" that threatens Big Bang? Do you live in a bubble of self delusion?? Doesn't matter what, you'll twist it around. So typical. You say it doesn't threaten Big Bang????? A little?
@nealadamsdotcom Did I hear "acceleration" before the 1998 discovery? Well I was still in grad school until 1997, and it was certainly discussed as a possibility when we learned about the Einstein field equations. The "lambda" that causes the acceleration was right there since 1916.
And if you "math the acceleration backward" (it's not constant, btw) all it does is change the age of the universe a bit. From the 15-18 Gy that was floating around in the early 90s to the 13.5 Gy of today.
@doctordave Wow, what a flow. It's not constant? Really? Is it exponential or what?
I ask questions at Monasteries, too Dave.
In 1998, two teams of astronomers announced that not only was the universe expanding, but it was accelerating as well. In fact, the farther away a galaxy is from Earth, the faster it is moving away, researchers have said.
@nealadamsdotcom It's exponential yes, b/c the amount of dark energy is proportional to the amount of SPACE. More space, more repulsion, more expansion, more space -> exponential
Surprise isn't exactly the right word. Although I will say I resisted it for 6-8 years. Meaning, when I taught astronomy, I would tell my students "There is this newer data that suggests the expansion is actually ACCELERATING, but it's only based on a handful of supernovae, so the verdict is still out."
But I didn't SUPPRESS it and I didn't DENY it and I didn't HIDE from my students that there was some uncertainty in the interpretation of the results. I reserved judgment until the evidence became convincing enough that the prevailing wisdom shifted. Which was a somewhat gradual process, but there were no Inquisitions, for God's sake. In short, the whole process unfolded exactly the way science is supposed to unfold.
I don't get it. Are you trying to paint my admission that there is "uncertainty" inherent in a scientific theory as some sort of victory on your part? Because that's the EXACT point I often try to make in these discussions with you. That there IS NO SUCH THING as a proven-once-and-for-all theory in science. That science is ALWAYS self-questioning and then self-correcting. That's why we went LOOKING FOR those supernovae in 1998!!!!
@doctordave Dave when you finally accept my theory, you will be totally shocked at the result.
You notice with all the outward movement, Galaxies continue to be built, without any of them ,...subducting?
Travel and notice steep ridges and flatlands below then ridges on the other side. Under the oceans, those are rifts and spreads. On the land they are the same thing, only shallower. AND they're everywhere. Dark Matter and dark Energy are the layers of repulsion and attraction of growing
And it's not a big deal to ME - YOU brought up the accelerated expansion thing as if it was somehow evidence that (1) threatens the idea of the Big Bang & (2) is an indictment of the process by which science proceeds. I'm just pointing out that this claim makes absolutely no sense on either account.
@nealadamsdotcom "some found clues before that discovery, isn't that logical? Doesn't change the fact that EVERYONE WAS SHOCKED! "
Neal - come on... if people had been PUBLISHING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY in dozens of published and PEER REVIEWED journal articles, including articles in FREAKING *NATURE* a full THREE YEARS AGO - it CAN NOT be the case that "EVERYONE WAS SHOCKED"!!!!
*I'M* pig-headed?? let's ask the studio audience here which of us is unable to admit they are wrong in this example!
@doctordave You made a list Dave. You didn't make sense. Your jiggle-de-pop-theorists come down on all sides of the issue, so you're right no matter how it goes? YOU GOT DECELERATION,..SAME-SAME-, AND ACCELERATION. YOU gotta win.
I say it accelerated from the beginning , destroying Big Bang and accelerated expansion is NON-SCIENTIFIC as is the Big Bang! You, at least, HALF-BELIEVE IT. TOO
You know what they call that Dave.
Which BB do you favor? The latest; Pair-Production til asymmetry?
I think u r confusing 2 issues: the history of the universe and the ORIGIN of the universe. They are separate and barely-related. We know very much about the first, and very LITTLE about the second. This is the same sort of confusion a lot of creationists make about evolution: taking the fact that we don't know how life began as evidence against evolution. Nothing that happens after 100,000 y has anything to do w/ pair production.
@nealadamsdotcom "theorists come down on all sides of the issue, so you're right no matter how it goes"
So, wait. I'm sorry - Is science a dogmatic religion that refuses to consider any challenge to itsorthodoxy? Or is it a wishy-washy construct that makes no definite statements because its theories change too easily? Because I'm confused now which fictional version of science I'm supposed to be defending.
@doctordave The History of the Universe,....and the Origin of the universe. NNNNnnooo. I think we're talking about the ORIGIN and evolution of the MATTER portion of the Universe. BOTH are ONE question.
Ah, You're defending the Position that Science is NOT so mired in a rickety elitist specialist inward focused religion of science constructed on THEORY and CONJECTURE, instead of FACTS! Pick one from Column A and two from column B
If Science was in a "dark ages" would you recognize it?
@nealadamsdotcom "we're talking about the ORIGIN and evolution of the MATTER portion of the Universe. "
Well these are separate issues. I tell my students, The Big Bang Theory says nothing about THE BIG BANG, if by THE BIG BANG, we mean the instant of creation. Basically, from the CMBR on, the job of describing the history of the universe is one for astronomers and cosmologists. From t=2 minutes BACK, it's one for particle physicists. There is some grey in between where the two have to agree.
What I mean is, no part of our cosmological theories of expansion would change in the slightest if tomorrow it was proven that matter can not be created from energy, any more than our theories of evolution would change if it were proven tomorrow that aliens seeded the early earth with single-celled organisms. Neither Big Bang cosmology nor Natural Selection are theories about ORIGINS.
The confusion comes from an unfortunate bit of nomenclature: that we have taken to calling the moment in which the universe came into existence "THE BIG BANG". The term was originally used to refer to the EXPANSION, not the initial event. It would be better had we used different terms for the singular event at t=0 and the subsequent 13 billion year expansion, but - oh well... these things happen.
@nealadamsdotcom "If Science was in a "dark ages" would you recognize it?"
I think so. Given that I am only 40 years old, and I am teaching my undergraduates in introductory courses about phenomena which had not yet been discovered when I was in graduate school at age 28... I'd say there is very little evidence that science is handing down some sort of static body of unquestioned knowledge.
Jesus, do you know how often science textbooks get updated with new editions?!
@doctordave I think you would NOT. You would have to recognize some great FAULT, and it's consequences. For example If you were teaching that the Sun orbited the Earth,.. all the evidence would be on your side as you showed students the "vault of the sky and the sun's place in it. How could you possibly KNOW the truth.
LOOK at the Spreading Atlantic as the Trans-Atlantic phone cables melted through, while you scratched your head.
Today, we have massive specialization, innocent enough..
@doctordave Specialization,....What IF:....Suppose Carey had shown, Early on, that Subduction, not only existed but it's extent could be shown by carefully measuring the Crustal age map and plotting the missing area,
Say, in cooperation it was shown how each succeeding crust spread and filled as it did so, as all the other proofs fell into place.
SUPPOSE Geology presented , in the early seventies complete and conclusive proof, that new matter was created and assembled at core and outer core
@nealadamsdotcom SUPPOSE:Geologists enlisted Physicists to help explain how such Creation of new matter at the core and assembly at the outer core, now finally proved to happen, could happen as an ongoing process, not only for the Earth but for the universe.
Say, then, they did find the Mechanism,...How different would science be TODAY, NOW.? In all seriousness, I ask you, how different would science be NOW? Imagine,.. held back by specialization!
@nealadamsdotcom "Creation of new matter at the core and assembly at the outer core, now finally proved to happen"
You have such a funny definition of words like "proved". We haven't proved the universe is expanding, but YOU have proved that new matter is being create within the earth. Well, no, you haven't. Even if I were to GRANT the Earth was growing it could be because...
The only way to "prove" (which is a word we don't use in science, btw) that matter is being produced in the core is to detect new matter being created according to your supposed mechanism. Which is why I always ask for supposed calculations that could be checked. Would this process produce neutrinos or gamma rays the could be detected emanating from the Earth's core? How many new atoms should be appearing in the tanks at Super-K each year, and what would the signature of the process be? etc...
And it's not a "physics problem" at all. What anomalous prediction from theory or unexplained measurement from experimental physics is this model designed to improve upon?
@doctordave Well, it explains how MATTER is made from the Pre/Prime MATTER that the Universe is made of,..neither being "matter" or "stuff", but EM and Energy
Since the Advanced MATTER is made ongoing and exponentially FASTER with time,..There was NO Big Bang.
The Universe is not flying apart, but is BALLANCED Negative and Positive, so that it contains the same general volume and mass of material per large section and doesn't"THIN OUT". So there is NO EXPANSION AT ALL. JUST GROWING.
@nealadamsdotcom I see, so now in addition to all the particle physics data I've asked you to match and you've repeatedly ignored, you need to show me how your model reproduces Hubble's Law, and explains the origin, temperature, and distribution of the CMBR.
But here is a simpler question. If you don't believe in the evidence for the Big Bang, why on earth do you believe the universe is 14 billion years old????
@doctordave Bullshit Dave..1. I don't ignore your questions. YOU ignore MINE.
2.Hubble? It's NOT A LAW, Dave. It's an observation based on the component wavelengths of colot portions of Light.
3. I don't ignore Background radiation. I haven't tried to explain it because there are many possibl reasons and I don't speak unless I'm sure and verified.
4. I didn't say I believe the Universe is 14 BYO. I have NO IDEA how old what is. This process may have been going on forever.
@nealadamsdotcom "Hubble's Law" is a name for the linear relationship between Distance and Recessional Velocity. If you do not believe the universe is expanding, then you need to explain WHY there is a galactic redshift and WHY the amount of redshift is linearly proportional to distance.
As for the 13-14 billion year number, I can find the comment where you used it, if you want. So you are saying your new-improved cosmology has NOTHING to say about the age of the universe?
It would NOT be detectable@Kalphiter45 Mass, as IS THE MATTER UNIVERSE, is CREATED,...by a simple basic repeatable logical, scientifically understandable process.
@Kalphiter45 It wouldn't be detectable, because there is no overriding reason to spend billions of dollars to create new technology to prove some jerk artist wrong. The Earth grows the width of a farmers Furrow, or a ROCK each year.
@nealadamsdotcom And that process is? It has been observed where? The published articles are in which journals? It gets around the conservation of mass/energy by doing what? The mass is never deposited on the continents because?
2. It was first observed in 1932 by Carl David Anderson, The youngest man, to that date to win the Nobel proze for this work.
3. LOOK IT UP!
4. By E=mc2 in which we theorise MATTER and ENERGY are interchangable! The ONLY KNOWN process of MATTER CREATION IS Pair-Production, in which a high-energy Photon strikes something invisible to us, changes it's momentum and is divided and changed to 1 Electron and 1 Positron,...MATTER!
@nealadamsdotcom Well if something is striking something else then E=mc^2 is not the correct equation. Do you know why? If not then you don't know enough about the subject to claim that it's a fact. At least you say it's pair production because you are correct that it's the only way we know to produce matter but where is the energy coming from for the pair production? Doubling the mass of the protoEarth you suggest to the present one would require truly staggering amounts of energy.
@wkrepelin LOOK, with that deductive part of your brain. Assign a significance to this statement. "THERE...IS..ONLY...ONE...FORM...OF...MATTER...CREATION...FROM..."SEEMINGLY" ...NOTHING...KNOWN! PAIR-PRODUCTION.
Science has abrogated it's responsibility since it has, like a monkey with shiny stones become fascinated by "new Particles". never questioning if these are all the same particles in differing assemblages. And so we get QUARKS,..from quark land produced from MAGIC, Having NO ...
@nealadamsdotcom actually quark theory had testable consequences that were later confirmed. It's not magic it was science. New particles were predicted by quark theory and quark theory alone which were then created in particle accelerators.
@wkrepelin If you think you are making a point, perhaps you are. I don't SEE it. Perhaps you did not read my notes ,...CAREFULLY. I say a Quark is a SNOWBALL, and NOT a SNOWFLAKE! That it is an assemblage of Particles. In fact 919 of such PRE-PARTICLES, or PRIME MATTER particles. The same PRE-Particles that are SPLIT in Pair-Production. and THAT is why they disipate when removed from Protons and/or Neutrons.
@nealadamsdotcom You just completely lost me. The only response I can give is that a quark is not a snowflake or snowball. Don't use metaphor. Metaphors are not quantitative descriptions. The rest, 919, prime matter , pre-particles . . . no idea what you're talking about.
@wkrepelin QUARKS, having NO CREATION MOMENT (Like Electrons and Positrons) Unable to exist outside of it's parent body (Protons and Neutrons) for a second,..while Electrons and Positrons are eternal.
"A snowball", I say "posing as a snowflake". CLUMPS of simpler particles. SIMPLER PARTICLES that are struck by those high energy Photons. (Lord, I feel like I'm chasing a kid around the playground.) "I" don't know enough about the subject."??? Excuse me?!
@nealadamsdotcom you do realize that high energy photons are not the only way to get pair-production right? Anyway, how did those photons get to the center of the Earth? Did the quantum tunnel all the way from the sun? You are not addressing where all that energy comes from but you really need to before anyone begins to take the hypothesis seriously because it's a staggering amount of it. Right now it appears to violate the conservation of energy.
@wkrepelin Well NO. Perhaps in a LAB,..but ONE Electron and ONE Positron? No.
Again, not reading and >magic word< 'reviewing. The Earth's CORE is a Pre-Sun object. H to He gives Earth it's Helium ,...and the core energy, for Ta-Da, Pair-Production.
I do think that covers it. Yes?
You know the outer Plasma core is 6,000˚ to 9,000˚ F and "they say"The core is incredibly hotter. Like the ..Say it with me...
@nealadamsdotcom Well, helium comes mostly from nucleosynthesis in the primordial universe according to our best predictive models (they make predictions forward in time as well that are highly confirmed) and not a whole lot comes from stars although certainly some of it does. As far as the Earth being a pre-solar body goes . . . that doesn't make much sense as the Earth is made largely of materials that gravity in a normal star cannot fuse into heavier elements for energy.
@nealadamsdotcom Also, lets say everything you've said is true. You still haven't addressed the issue of the antimatter from the pair production. Where does it go? Where is it now? Is it sequestered in the core and if so by what? Is it free from the core and if so how? This is as far as I can see one of the most critical holes in the hypothesis. You MUST address this for anyone to take the hypothesis seriously.
@nealadamsdotcom And yes, absolutely, if you don't know math then this hypothesis isn't something you can claim to understand. If you don't know the math of modern physics that predict pair production then you don't understand what you're promoting. You do realize that you are not a superman and cannot instantly disentangle all the mysteries of the universe because you are a legend in the comic industry. Don't act so indignant. You seem like it couldn't be that you might not understand.
Respond to this video... Excuse me? It's SCIENCE, that, IN GENERAL, has ignored Pair-Production,...UNTIL RECENTLY! I have worked with it for decades. To ACTUALLY KNOW it is the only form of MATTER CREATION,...then abandon it? An intellectual ATROCITY! Pair=Production happens everywhere. Especially where there is a concentration of ENERGY. Do you know that simple lightning produces an abundance of Pair-Production?
@nealadamsdotcom (cough) bullshit! The atomic bomb is based on this. Every particle accelerator going back to the cyclotrons of the early 20th century BEFORE you were born! So your statement is complete fiction. Did you know lightening is hotter than the surface of the sun? Did you know that it is the result of capacitance between clouds and the Earth with air as a dielectric? Did you know it builds charge until the voltage overcomes the dielectric and discharges? Two can play this game.
@wkrepelin LOOK. I'm having fun here. There's no need to get your Knickers in a TWIST. I did NOT intend to insult your Diety. I'm sorry. I REEeally don't think Al would be offended, but , hey, Your Religion, Sorry . Relax.
Fiction? Whoa. Does a High energy Photon Have an EM field? Just counting my cookies. I'm seeing TWO HALF field/charges AND the same energy. Something HAS been ADDED,...and if it WASN'T,...NO MATTER,..OH, and NO response to Gravity.
@nealadamsdotcom I subscribe to no diety. No, photons do not produce or "have" electric fields they are alternate interpretations OF electric fields. I missed the gravity question. State it again and I will try to respond although gravity isn't well understood by many measures and less so by me personally.
@nealadamsdotcom It's as bad of an idea for you to start questioning me on physics and expect me not to know as it is for me to grill you on the comics industry and expect you not to know. I used to be into comics, now I study math and physics. Compared to you I am an expert on the things you talk about (the mechanisms I mean. Obviously the expanding Earth hypothesis is something you have studied more than I) and you show a great lack of understanding. Like if I said Dick Greyson is Superman.
@wkrepelin Well, golly I also study Physics,and ALL THE OTHER SCIENCES and semi-sciences, Geometry. Engineering etc, etc. Have, all my life. I reckon longer than you have been alive.
WELL, I think YOU show a GREAT LACK OF UNDERSTANDING,..like YOU swallow Geology's Pangea "theory" HOOK, LINE,..AND SINKER. You swallow Big Bang even after acceleration was found.
YOU swallow the accretion theory of Solar Systems. YOU swallow ASYMMETRY. YOU think the MATTER UNIVERSE JUST APPEARED in a..... FLASH
@nealadamsdotcom Big bang theory predicts the acceleration mathematically via differential equations. Look up the Friedmann Equations. I do appeal to authority in fields I am not an expert in. I would immediately defer to your authority on matters of what the comic industry is like. Just because Silverwolf comics tried to hire me when I was 12 doesn't inform me on the whole industry. Even though you know what aspirin is get your medical advice from a doctor don't you? You're funny sometimes.
@wkrepelin NO, I study medicine and law as well. I will go to a specialist, but I will go WELL-ARMED.
You'd do well to have someone like me at your side when you volunteer for someone's tender mercies, who speaks Specialist LINGO, that you DON'T understand.
I have had more than one ER doctor up against the wall, until he "Chose to" Speak English. 5 kids does that to a man.
@nealadamsdotcom Also you make an awful lot of assumptions about what I believe without any evidence at all. Dieties, pangea, big bang, big bang from nothing etc. I have not told you I believe any of this I have just told you that mathematical physics is my field of expertise. Must a theological scholar be a believer or can they just study the material and reserve absolute judgment? I think the latter is totally permissible.
@wkrepelin That,...has NOT been My experience. Every person I've ever met thinks !. They are Right and have more common sense than anyone in the world. If I confront them to tell me who, in the world, is smarter than them, they can't do it. Their FIRST answer is Einstein! But he probably didn't have more 'common sense'.
@nealadamsdotcom well, I'm glad to be a counterexample. Look on my channel where it describes me simply says "as big a fool as any." Sometimes I "feel" like I'm super-intelligent and it is everyone else that is a miserable idiot but that's just my ego making an even bigger fool of me than usual. I know I am a fool regardless of my feelings on the subject. My behavior over the course of my personal life is evidence enough of that certainty. Perhaps this is not a common view but it should be.
@wkrepelin Let me be quick to assure you that you are FAR from the counter-example.
You said NOTHING in your note that would assure anyone listening that you thought you were not the smartest person in the world. A Genius can, nevertheless, be a fool. Foolishness has nothing to do with intelligence or common sense.
If you wish to test yourself, name three people you have good knowledge of, that are smarter than you.
Or ONE! Then, ask yourself if that person has more common sense than YOU?
@wkrepelin The MORE ENERGY,..The more Pair-Production.
Where does the energy come from? Big subject. The core of the Earth is solid Hydrigen, protected by a dense Plasma outer core. I know, I know, CURRENT SCIENCE SAYS, ...and it changes almost yearly.
This is NEW SCIENCE. Do you know the gas giants have verified solid H cores? H core gives controlled H to He.
Plasma outer core?? Dense Plasma registers correctly AND carries Earth's magnetic field BETTER than Molten Iron. But-BUT..
@nealadamsdotcom Wait, you think there is a vast ball of hydrogen at the core? Okay, let's suppose that's true for a moment. Where did it come from (and don't say pair production because you still haven't tackled the antimatter question and you can't claim there is stable hydrogen forming until you do)? Also, where does the magnetic field of the Earth come from? It loops through the Earth's center but why? Why is the dense plasma above the hydrogen instead of the other way around?
@wkrepelin Is there a VAST BALL OF HYDROGEN AT THE CORE OF,,.oh, JUPITER.???? GOOGLE IT, please.
If it reached GOOGLE.......SOLID H. See,..I don't need to answer your next letter.
Anti MATTER ,.....Hold on. We BOTH KNOW ANTI-matter isn't "ANTI" matter, right. It's the other/opposite in charge/sister matter, correct? Just checking.
How do we get to Hydrogen from Pairs. YOU will LOVE this. First, you'll hate it.
FIRST, we have to isolate The Pairs from each other. We can do that hmm
@nealadamsdotcom Yes and Jupiter primarily consists of Hydrogen so that makes sense and is consistent with what I said. (It's a really cool theory where the pressure has produced conditions where the most stable state for the hydrogen is as a metal!) Jupiter really could be called a proto-star! But that's not Earth. That's not an answer to the antimatter question. You ARE aware of the time reversal of pair-creation right? It's called annihilation. How does the hypothesis avoid this?
@wkrepelin AHHH, BUT Earth WILL BECOME a star, Just as Jupiter was once a rocky planet, until it captured its "CREATED" Gases,..and Earth fails to do .....YET!
Time reversal? Hmmm. Coffee-house speculation chat. I avoid. things are bad enough.
@nealadamsdotcom Time reversal is a mathematical symmetry in the models not some crap out of back to the future or terminator. I don't care if you don't like what they've named it that's irrelevant. Are you aware of it? It is observed all over the cosmos and thousands of papers have been written on it. It is how the LHC works and it occurs whenever a particle and it's antiparticle collide. It's demonstrable fact. How does your model deal with it?
@nealadamsdotcom Also the idea that you avoid speculation is demonstrably false as this youtube channel is just such a demonstration. You speculate juipter was rocky, you speculate subduction does not occur, you speculate that time reversal symmetry is something from a coffee house instead of the hard science that the PET scanner is based on. So far I have seen nothing but speculation from you. That's why I keep asking for a model.
@nealadamsdotcom Furthermore since this is my field of expertise I would appreciate you not making blatantly inflammatory and ignorant comments like asking me if I know what antimatter is. Duh, do you know what paper is? Of course you do as you are a freaking professional artist. I know this stuff on a mathematically rigorous level because it's my job. just assume I know what it is and I'll ask if I don't. As long as you avoid pointless metaphor we will do just fine.
@nealadamsdotcom Woah, woah , woah there. Just because you are a well known comic book artist does not logically lead to the idea that you could not become a scientist later and I made no such claim. I did refer to your past but out of respect for it. I've known who you are since I was a kid and used to copy your drawings along with Jack Kirby, Arthur Adams, Frank Miller, Jim Lee, Sam Kieth and other favorites. Comics got me into both art and science as they are often artistic sci-fi.
@wkrepelin ,.....in a Colliders, with magnets.,....Van Allen Belts. Wait,..there must be van Allen Belt structures at the Plasma core. That's good. NOW we need to BUFFER one of the two pairs, but all we have is Prime MATTER Particles/in-facing fields . Let's see, hmmm, the Particle on the OUTSIDE is the ELECTRON,..so only the Positron will attract it,.. and build a geometric cube of 5 layers. That's 1,000. But the field ends/weakens, so the corners Slough off. So 10 from 8 corners. hmm
@nealadamsdotcom please forgo the drama in favor of lucid explanation. There is no reason to interject "wow" on your own statement. Also it is very difficult to sequester antimatter and we have found no way of doing it without keeping it in circulation. If you propose it is circulating then that is going to have measurable effects exterior to the planet in the form of magnetic fields. Have these fields been modeled by the hypothesis? Have the models been observationally verified?
@nealadamsdotcom Please Neal really, I'm probably being much more open minded by most just by virtue of me expressing an interest in reading the literature on the subject so long as it is academic. If you can produce no such sources then this isn't even a hypothesis it's a delusion. Please source this hypothesis or stop trying to convince me. You're already deviating enough from science by posting on youtube instead of going through proper channels. Source or I I will no longer entertain it.
@wkrepelin Don't you understand ANYTHING? When ONE MIND finds something new,..there are no papers from other people. Something NEW disagrees with every one on Earth, or else it would not be NEW. NEW requires the observer to have a unique deductive mind that can analyze for themselves and NOT depend on others for THEIR opinion.
Entertain what you will. I have no interest in trying to convince YOU. My job is to expose this to a broad cross-section of people, be tested, and watch the results
@nealadamsdotcom Also, good scientists do not tell people who disagree with them to "learn their place." If you can't handle everyone trying to destroy and undermine your work then science is the single worst pursuit you could possibly choose. It comes part and parcel with the trade. This is why only the most robust and verifiable hypothesis survive to become theory because nobody can figure out a better explanation with more predictive power.
@nealadamsdotcom There are certainly fields at the core but to call that a van allen belt is to display ignorance of what that phenomenon is. The belt is not the field alone. Do you know why this is true? It has to interact with something, what is it? Just refer me to a full paper. I can't handle your explanations anymore. I'm glad you're curious about nature but you do a terrible job trying to explain this hypothesis. Please refer me to scientific papers you read so I can get a clear idea.
@wkrepelin The really frustrating thing is you do such a poor job explaining the anything beyond the statement "the earth is growing" that I don't even know what the hypothesis is. Shit Neal, maybe you're right but nobody would ever know because you seem to have a complete inability to verbalize the hypothesis. Mathematical models - without them this isn't even a hypothesis. To quote Pauli right now you're "not even wrong" because you would have had to propose something for you to get that far.
@wkrepelin What the "H" "E' double golfsticks are you talking about? Do you KNOW the CHAOS that led to the INSANE "PANGEA" Theory? How do you stop a bloody train at a hundred miles an hour???
LOOK. YOU GLUE 10 shards together. You have help. They are connected by strings. You pull one string and they all slide together to make a perfect vase.
Then SOME GUY grabs it and pulls open the wet glue at the back and spreads it out like a Pelt
And slaps it on one side of a big urn. WHAT do you say?
NOW, YOU can listen. There ARE NO PAPERS. THIS is my Homework, my work , BASED on the very things that scientists around the world have randomly perused and SHOULD KNOW, if they weren't to damned lazy to step out of their speciality.
I DIDN"T SAY the Van Allen belt was "THE FIELD". It's THERE. It CAPTURES IONS, which is "essentially" what Pairs are.
NOR do I do a terrible job, It's clear as a bell, and its plain English.
@nealadamsdotcom True, ignorance has lots of negative connotations but I use it literally. Ignorance is lack of knowledge not stupidity. It is descriptive not normative. I am vastly more ignorant than I am knowledgeable but that is true of all humans. See? Not derisive. You have finally answered a key question though. Since there are no papers we have nothing more to discuss. I look forward to the future publications of your and your son's art. Thank you for taking your time with me. Cheers.
@wkrepelin That leaves us with 920. NO, one core particle is the Positron. So it's 919.
Each has one Electron and one Positron, so it's electron weight 1838. A Proton Add the Electron and we have H.
Why won't an Electron attract PM Particles?
Electron is on the OUTSIDE. However if the Electron is highly energized it will overcome the Electron and attract the Positron ,..giving us Muons and Taus. (Did I spell those right?) The incredible strong force within the Proton make us think Quarks
@nealadamsdotcom BUZZ wrong! The giants presumably have cores but your claim that we have confirmed their structure is either an outright lie or your personal fantasy. You are flatly wrong on this point. In the event that you can back this up with journal publications that show consensus building I will at least say that maybe people really do think that but it's not confirmed. Really no celestial body should have a hydrogen core unless the whole thing is pretty much hydrogen.
Oh? Then why is there so much iron up here? SSsso much must change. It's too much to take in!
Let me tell you how the universe works.
It began ,.well LATER it was ,...um ..NOTHING..integrated. A force (SPIN, I think) Pulled the universe OUTWARD,..making some LESS-THAN-NOTHING . In tiny Planck sized pull-aparts. BUBBLES.
These dimensionless bubbles are Electrons being pulled OUT. At the core a POINT-PARTICLE. (Positron) pulling IN!
@nealadamsdotcom I find this comment disturbing. I don't know if you were trying to be dramatic but it gives the impression of mental instability. Perhaps you would like to phrase it differently in a way a physicist would understand.
THESE electron Bubbles with the core point particle FILL THE UNIVERSE. They ARE the universe, dense as steel! IN-FACING FIELDS. CORE pulls at the bubble which IS PULLED outward. This is an in-facing EM FIELD!
WE can't KNOW IT,..cause WE are OUT-facing fields. How do we get an OUT-facing field from one of these?
Drive a high-energy photon through the bubble and strike the point particle and KNOCK IT OUT of the bubble.
@nealadamsdotcom I have no problem with either inward or outward facing vector fields as they are common to both mathematics and physics but they are chosen arbitrarily (ie by convention). We are not fields, you clearly don't know what a field is as an object from mathematical physics if that is what you are literally claiming. Point particles are not thought to exist as assuming they are points leads to nonsensical prediction in the limits of the model. Bubble. Be literal. I can take it.
@nealadamsdotcom Well I'm not either professionally ( career mathematician or physicist) but I am an academic pursuing those degrees in hopes of being part of the profession and I am an educator as well. That is an accurate portrayal of me in regards to this subject. I would like to know what you mean accurately by your study of ALL sciences as you cannot mean that you are actually educated in them all. You are just human after all.
@wkrepelin There's very little difference between MATTER and "NOTHING". BUT THAT DIFFERENCE is WHAT WE ARE! OUT-FACING FIELDS,..While the universe is made of far-denser IN-FACING fields.
But these in-facing fields are like marbles among E M BOULDERS. TO us the supply of this Pre-matter is endless. As I said, the more energy, the more Pair-Production. And now we have Electrons. Can Protons be mase of these elements? Yes, they can. which particle will attract these Pre-matter particles?
@nealadamsdotcom You throw derision at everyone but fail to fill even the most obvious holes in the hypothesis. Where does the mass come from Neal? Where does the water come from? Where are the visible effects of altered gravity on the surface? This hypothesis is so ridiculous it baffles me how a man of your advanced years could be duped by it. I used to respect you so much, you made me love comics, now I just feel a combination of pity and loss for who you are and who you used to be.
@wkrep Pardon me. I throw derision at assholes. It's the only way I know to PLUG them up.
The MASS is "made"/created at the core, beginning with a process called Pair-Production. And processed to Atoms in the Plasma outer core.These Atoms are deposited into the mantle and, super-heated, seek their own level , as they "DEPOSIT" upward.
The Gases, Slide between silicate latices to the under-surface to exit at the rifts.
WATER, unless things have changed, is a combination of H and O. Atoms!
@wkrepelin CONT 3 The upper weight of STRAIGHT legged WALKING animals Today is 10 to 12 tons.
25 MYA it was 60 tons. (Sauropods) . Bent legged RUNNERS today top at about 2 tons. 200 MYA it was about 12 tons. The reason insects remain so small TODAY, is they have no INTERNAL Skeleton,but an EXTERNAL exo Skeleton. FROM which the ORGANS are suspended. Greater gravity crushes these organs on themselves.
Look up the sizes of some of these ancient insects!
Respond to this video... YOU RESPECTED ME? How about when I fought and won for the income and security of the creators of Superman. Fought for and won the right of artists to get their original art returned? Fought for and won ROYALTIES for creators, Fought for and gained access to better separations and reproduction methodologies for all comic book companies.
Know how I did all that, when no one else could or had the balls to do it all?
@nealadamsdotcom I still respect you for that and that will not change but I do find it very upsetting that you're buying into this. In matters of comics you'll always be a great. What you did in terms of that industry and in defense of the creators of intellectual properties will always meaningful. That makes what you're doing here all the more upsetting. Have you learned the needed mathematics to understand the theory you're supporting? It doesn't make sense.
@wkrepelin This is not an area of science that requires higher math on a daily basis. I have access to such math, but I have never found occasion to need it.. You have a lot of balls to "assume"!
YES, Einstein's equation is incorrect. Einstein would be the first to understand. The Tiny magnetic field that the High Energy Photon strikes the core Point particle OUT OF, is not in the equation.. If this collision did not happen. MATTER would not have been produced and we WOULD NOT HAVE A UNIVERSE!
They were afraid. Some had families. Some were just grateful that they had work. . I was the trouble maker. The troublemaker that doubled their income in ONE DAY when I got the artwork returned for them to sell.
Advanced years? Can you bench press 300 lbs? Leg Press 1,200 lbs? Do you have all your hair, with some grey? Do you smoke or drink? I don't . I run. I draw 2 pages a day and I'm about to change all science.
@JPO1618 NONSENSE. My FIRST evidence.when I was a teen. NOW, evidence has become overwhelming in every area of science. Your view is simplistic and Naive. Like one viewing the Pieta and saying "nice statue".
People are not allowed to be aware of the naturally occurring cold fusion reactions on the Earth's molten core. It is too late now. Cold fusion happens when hydrogen atoms are confined within a metallic lattice. The conditions are all present.
@kosty1990 understanding the UNIVERSE is what this is all about! i didn't come here to simply demonstrate the GROWING EARTH. The Theory is called "Growing Earth, Growing Universe Theory."
That's what took 35 yrs. Growing Earth was clear in the 1960's.
YOU googled stupid sites. DIG MORE! NO NUCLEUS is needed. Pair-Production is everywhere in the universe where there is a build up and release of ENERGY. LOOK UP Pair-Production IN LIGHTNING!
@nealadamsdotcom I don't know if that is happening in the core, but even if it was why can't we observe the earths expansion. I mean we can observe millimeter increases in mountain sizes but can't seem to notice any growth in earths size even though we have and continue to measure the tectonic drift. Even if Pair Production was occurring at the center of the earth, and it is not my job to prove that but yours, your hypothesis fails on the large scale.
@kosty1990 You TRY MY PATIENCE!. The question is NOT is there Pair-Production at the core, for of course there MUST BE. The QUESTION is "how do you get Atoms FROM PAIRS?"
You can see GROWTH, conclusively from the CRUSTAL AGE MAP! From the Gigantic size of dinosaurs, the lengthening days, the addition of seasons, the lack of Mountains, the differentiation of the complete crust, and the science that measures the equator GROWING, ...The LACK of oceanic life's fossils in the deep Oceans ETC
@kosty1990 Super-heated atoms rise up between silicate latices of the mantle, slowly.
There is one and only one form of matter creation in the universe. Pair-Production. You must first understand this as a certainty. ONLY ONE FORM! You and MOST, even Physicists, have nearly no understanding of it's function and it's importance. If you wish to understand go to continuitystudiosdotcom the science section.
@nealadamsdotcom also by super-heated atoms are you talking about plasma, cause otherwise I am going to need you to further explain that term. With respect to pair production being the only form of matter creation in the universe, i cant see you being a person capable of supporting such a claim, not an insult as there is no person alive who could support that statement. Also the only mention can find of Silicate Latices in the earths mantle are by people pushing the growing earth theory
@nealadamsdotcom you mistook what i was saying, my point is that we,Humans, only know of one method for matter creation in the universe, not that there is only one just that we have only found one. My point was that your claim was not scientific but an opinion. Secondly I don't know much about Silicate and crystal structue, but that doesn't mean you can ignore 90% of my point and act like you were correct.
PS it seems my comments are being removed, that seems a little low if it is you doing it.
@kosty1990 Pair-Production was discovered/ first observed in 1932, after it's necessity was predicted by Paul Dirac. There is NO NEED for another "ACT OF CREATION" but for the QUARK and that is laughable.
YOU are simply ignorant of FACTS! Pair-Production is the ONLY FORM of matter creation out of "seemingly" NOTHING! PERIOD! This is not a "CLAIM, but a FACT!.
YOU, young man HAVE NO POINT! NOT A PERCENTAGE OF A POINT. NO POINT! NAME IT, IF YOU CAN!
@panterguy I can't believe there are humans that are so stupid that WITH THEIR OWN EYES they can see that the puzzle pieces of continents FIT PERFECTLY together , IN A SMALLER GLOBE but can screw their own brain so damn badly that they deny the evidence of their own eyes. How stupid and deluded do you have to be to disrespect your own brain so much that reality means NOTHING!
@nealadamsdotcom O.K. Brainiac. You tell me, if the Earth is growing, where is the extra mass for the expantion is comming from? You would be the first to come up with an explanation.
@panterguy - The earth does not expand, it grows. New matter is made at the core, in a process that's called pair production. The electrons and positrons are assembled into new atoms, up and down the periodic table, at the plasma outer core. Gases rise to the surface through the mantle, to resupply the atmosphere and the water, as the solar wind blows away from the upper atmosphere.
Yeah, and the mass just magically appears? I'm sorry, but continental drift has the advantage of making sense and not invoking the random appearance of mass.
@lobaxx ? MASS magically appears"???????? You idiot,....Like the BIG BANG,. in which God or the bloody Wizard of Oz magically makes a UNIVERSE OF MATTER IN A COSMIC HEARTBEAT??? are all you idiots retarded? The Universe is HERE. It EXISTS. There WAS,...AND IS a process of MATTER CREATION that made it . WHO, you IDIOT, turned off the OFF SWITCH???? A PROCESS doesn't STOP. Unless its MAGIC and the trick's OVER!
HEY,...The trick isn't over! The universe is GROWING! didn't they tell you?
The universe is growing, yes. But just like water spreads out when you drop a water balloon from two-story building, no claims that this expansion of water is the result of some "MATTER CREATION". And, yeah, heard of singularity? See, that's the precursor to the big bang. And I doubt there is a singularity in the middle of the earth pumping out mass, because singularity = black hole. Which does pose a slight problem...
@lobaxx Big Bang is LIKE when you Drop a water balloon?
Listen STUPID, Go on youtube or some where and watch an action similar to what you're speaking of. IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE THE MATTER UNIVERSE. Study,... as NO SCIENTIST on FUKIN' Earth is willing to do...BALLISTICS, and see how explosions actually WORK...
The MATTER UNIVERSE gets BIGGER, yet the distribution of MATTER is EVEN and REGULAR. like the CELLS of a body.
A singularity??? Is that like a PLURALITY, only ONE OF THEM!
@lobaxx Big Bang is LIKE when you Drop a water balloon?
Listen STUPID, Go on youtube or some where and watch an action similar to what you're speaking of. IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE THE MATTER UNIVERSE. Study,... as NO SCIENTIST on FUKIN' Earth is willing to do...BALLISTICS, and see how explosions actually WORK...
The MATTER UNIVERSE gets BIGGER, yet the distribution of MATTER is EVEN and REGULAR. like the CELLS of a body.
A singularity??? Is that like a PLURALITY, only ONE OF THEM!
Oh, and before you "DERP DERP IF BLACK HOLE SINGULARITY HOW CAN BIGBANG BE SINGULARITY", lets do some physics 101. Unfortunately, however, it turns out you can't explain physics in one mere comment, so bare with me as we go through this epic journey.
A singularity is what physicists call it when you take a shitload of mass, say earth, and squeeze it to the size of a pebble. And then repeat, repeat, and repeat, until you've got a point so small it virtually has no volume.
@lobaxx lobaxx In science it is dangerous to make assumptions, and more dangerous to base MORE assumptions on those,. and so on. A house of questions that have no answers. I would prefer to have answers and build up on these. Fool though I am.
YOU begin at the END of the process (what we used to call THE BIG CRUNCH.) and move on. NOT an answer.
1. How did we gt all that matter in the FIRST PLACE?
2. Why did it all come together, if NOW it goes OUT?
4. If it's GROWING,.. you know, it's not accelerating OUTWARD. It's not moving outward at all. It's simply growing. You don't need either the Big Bamg OR the Big Crunch. Like every thing in nature it GROWS.
5. MORE, you defend GRAVITY, though it defies the laws of Physics. WHY?
"For every action there is an equal bla bla. EXCEPT GRAVITY???? EM obeys the law. Nature fukin'wit us?
Still, Gravity requires MATTER, yes? But there's no such thing as MATTER, Just ENERGY and EM.
@nealadamsdotcom As it tuns out there is ONLY ONE FORM of MATTER CREATION,...Pair-Production. Pair-Production DOES obey the laws of Physics,.. Negative AND Positive, so why does GRAVITY attract these two Particles?? they are merely Energy and EM. can it be that Gravity is REALLY EM? Hmm Don't answer too quickly. It's true.
If the Universe is MADE completely and exclusively of Pairs, it will neither Crunch, or Bang! ( + & - ) Yet, as long as there's new energy, it will GROW.
Now, if we consider what Einstein said (a descent idea, after all he was a fairly smart bloke), this means we've got a motherload of a gravity well in our hands, sucking everything in its vicinity down. And, poof, thanks to Steven Hawking, we've got ourselves a black hole.
Now, if this applies, how could the big bang happen? Shouldn't the singularity stay a singularity because of all the gravity?
Well, it turns out that if you take a lot of stuff (say, hmm, dunnu, the entire universe maybe?) and put it in a really small place, the laws of physics make stuff go really weird. If you spice all that mass with some quantum mechanics, it turns out vacuum energy overpowers gravity, and a process called inflation busts everything out in record speed in an orderly fashion.
As the gravity becomes weaker as everything spreads out, the universe cools and a couple of billion years later, here we are. But how did this singularity spring forth, you might say? Ah, here we reach the forefront of cosmology and physics.Truth is, we don't know. But there are pretty descent ideas out there. Might want an entire comment for that, so look down (or up, youtube works in mysterious ways):
occured. Not if it occured! Their apparent lack of interest shows their professional fears of an "inconvenient unknown" which is dumbfounding considering that exploring and discovering the causes and effects of "unknowns" are supposed to be one of the motivations and rewards of science! They cannot prove has not occured because their own data PROVES IT! What is left for scientists to show is the HOW!
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 day ago
Its funny when people who claim to speak on "behalf of science" regarding this subject and dispute the obvious nature of it, forget, or are unaware that science is a process of theories, and hypothesis, all in the pursuit of facts. NOT truth. The theory has been presented yet the scientific establishment (and detractors on YouTube) refuse to acknowledge the very data from scientists that discovered evidence that proves the theory in the first place! It is the role of scientists to show how it
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 day ago
hold your seats all you Ph.D's... but, sometimes, the most simple answer is the best one
razblack 5 days ago
The picture on the cover of the book at 2:47 is of a sphere like the one in in the courtyard of the Vatican Museum. I wonder if they know something they're not telling the rest of us about.
The title of the book is :
"WHY EXPANDING EARTH? - A Book in Honour of Otto Christoph Hilgenberg" Edited by Giancarlo Scalera and Karl-Heinz Jacob Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma and Technische Universitat, Berlin Printed by Spedim Montecompatri (Rome) 2003 (460 pages)
BackToTheBus 1 month ago
THIS MAKES MORE SENSE !!
flea121183 3 months ago
Oh, this is where you got the idea? Or, did you think of it yourself and then via research come across this? I'm just curious because I love the history of ideas as much as the ideas.
jgbloyd 3 months ago
a little leaven, leavens the whole lump. You got a rise out of me.
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where do neutrons come from? A P+ plus an e-? Because in my physics, that process also produces a neutrino. Does it in yours? What should be the neutrino flux produced by the Moon, then, as it grows? Or if the process P+e- = n does NOT make a neutrino in your model, then what is all that stuff we detect in our neutrino detectors zapping out of the Sun?
doctordave 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you see what I mean about the difference between saying "X could be caused by the creation of Y" and "WE HAVE OBSERVED THE CREATION OF Y"? It would be like if someone had come up with the theory of natural selection before the discovery of fossils, but then didn't advocate actually looking for the evidence. OH there is no need to LOOK for fossils of transitional forms! I have proven they exist via my obvious model of evolutionary change!
Not how it works.
doctordave 5 months ago
Why excatly would India move up with an expanding earth????
orge121 5 months ago
@orge121 If you look at the India Video you will see India was ALWAYS ATTACHED TO Eurasia.
To even think otherwise is ANTI Physics.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
It's amazing how closed-minded scientists resort to circular logic when defending their pet theories... geesh... i recall my grade 11 physics teacher talking about how dinosaurs could not live today because it has been proven that their bones could not support their mass at this gravity.
coldfusion12 6 months ago
lolremember people got killed when they say the planet was not flat but round just keep your mind open on that and search b4 you say anything.....
Redlocokixx 6 months ago
where did all the water come from then?
Hardagate 6 months ago
@MrUppertorso Or they could choose to keeping believing and studying it until they find proof enough for people like you right ?? Rightt!!!. I would think people would allow progress and stop holding on to old scientific theories that may sooner or later be proven wrong because if you don't then what will make science any different than religion something else that holds on to outdated traditions and never advances with humanity.. We don't want science to be come the new Christianity do we ???
grownman455 6 months ago
@MrUppertorso - The evidence is massive and abundant. Except to lazy idiots, who are too filled with themselves to do the work. I am neither lazy or an idiot. You clearly are. The expanding earth theory was never dis-proven. This now, the growing earth theory, will never BE disproved, because it follows fact. You are a child in the peanut gallery, nothing more. The sooner you "do-nothings" learn your place, the better for everyone.
nealadamsdotcom 7 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom The theory is "disproven" from the get-go because it violates everything we know about the science of physics. There is an idea from the philosophy of science called "Correspondence". New scientific theories in one area have to "fit" with the existing body of scientific knowledge in other areas. A theory that purports to solve some tiny issues in geology by tossing out the law of conservation of energy and rewriting particle physics is worthy of no consideration whatsoever.
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave Dave, you little cookie, you. Propounding your Physics philosophy as a Geologist. I love it.
I'm afraid you have it Bas-ackward Dave . As I learned, to my chagrin, this is totally a Physics problem and solution. The geology is merely a bi-product of the Physical world solution.
The answer to the Physics IS the re-writing of Particle Physics.
Your massive ignorance is shown in your assumptions, after all this time that The solution disobeys the conservation laws. Laughable.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Well, it does involve violation of energy conservation. You said yourself that matter is being created in the Earth's core.
If your re-writing particle physics, then re-write it.
What value does your model predict for the g-factor of the electron? Mine matches experiment to 12 decimal places.
What implications does your new internal model of nucleon structure have for proton-scattering cross-sections? My model's calculations are verified in accelerator experiments daily.
?
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave MATTER is being created FROM PRE-MATTER AND ENERGY.
The Pre-MATTER is TINY infacing EM fields that fill the Universe and slide between the fields of Atoms like Sand between Boulders, (Because of the infacing field.) The ENERGY IS PRODUCED at the H solid core H to He. The Energy strikes the Field and the resultant Pair-Production gives us MATTER.
Are you competing with me Dave? That's funny. Not Ha Ha funny, if true, more Ironic. You guys.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom No Neil, YOU are competing with US. You are offering a "new theory" and repeatedly revealing that you have NO CLUE how scientific theories work or what they are supposed to do.
You say there is no Big Bang. Ok, well then, I say "Alright, so show me what size density fluctuations YOUR new model of all-of-cosmology-and-physics predicts in the CMBR." And you pretend the question is never asked, because you don't understand why it's relevant.
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave I....READ-MY-LIPS Dave , Don't KNOW. NOR does ANYONE ELSE. And if they say they do,..They're LIARS!
Do this Dave. Find the RATE OF EXPANSION. Then the acceleration,..Then math the acceleration backward to find the speed outward 14 BYA. Bet Its pretty DAMN slow, champ. Funny how nobody's published that speed.
Competing with YOU-ALL? Too easy. You're all religious fanatics. It's not even a contest!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I don't understand your comment about the acceleration. Hubble's Law is based on the assumption of a constant rate of expansion. If the expansion is speeding up or slowing down, Hubble's law is only an approximation. (Hint: it is, b/c the expansion is speeding up slightly.)
When you say "I don't know" you are saying: "My model addresses none of the cosmological issues that existing models present explanations and calculations for".
So, why should anyone pay attention to it?
doctordave 5 months ago
Just to clarify. You are are saying the following: In order to believe my theory that explains geological features via an expanding Earth you must also...
A) Believe my new model of particle physics that makes no attempt to explain any of the properties of particles and nuclei discovered since the 1950s
B) Believe my new cosmological model that makes no attempt to explain any cosmological discoveries made since the 1920s.
Am I mis-stating your position?
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave NO, Dave it means ONE of TWO THINGS. It means, I don't know....yet. Or I am simply not willing to commit to my opinion until it's completely verified. I'm convinced, however that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH a Big Bang.
MY scientific community discovered the matter universe is accelerating outward! You didn't KNOW THIS?
They should pay attention because I'm not bullshitting them that I know something when I don't!
Did "YOUR" figures PREDICT THE ACCELERATION OUTWARD?
NO!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
Was the accel'n predicted? Yes and No. Einstein put the cosmological constant in based on incomplete observational data. Post-Hubble we took it back out, b/c the data seemed to suggest the expansion was constant. But people had been playing around with negative vacuum energy for years, b/c there were reasons to consider it that had nothing to do w/ cosmology. Here's the kicker: when the acceleration was discovered experimentally, we changed our models to accommodate it. So much for rigid dogma!
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave BULL-SHIT!
No one expected it. NO ONE. Everyone was shocked to their souls. Stunned, they KNEW the Big Bang theory was disprooved.
BUT no one had accounted religious NUT-CASES. Fanatics for whom conclusive proof means NOTHING!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Absolutely wrong Neal. The DATA supporting the BB acceleration comes from 1998. But behold...
"Gravity driven acceleration of the cosmic expansion". Janna J. Levin, Phys.Rev.D 1995 <--!
Finding that paper took me exactly 2 minutes with a vague database search. I'm guessing I could find 10 more exactly like it pretty easily.
The problem is, you are not a physicist, so you have no idea what goes on INSIDE the field. Physics doesn't happen in New Scientist magazine, Neal.
doctordave 5 months ago
Here is another, just for kicks, from Nature... one of the impenetrable strongholds of dogmatic orthodoxy.
--"The Observational case for a low density universe with a nonzero cosmological constant."
J.P. Ostriker, Paul J. Steinhardt, Published in Nature 377:600-602,1995.
(Just to clarify, "non-zero cosmological constant" is synonymous with "accelerating expansion". And once again, this is THREE YEARS before the first observational evidence of acceleration from distant galaxy observations.)
doctordave 5 months ago
from the abstract of that paper:
OBSERVATIONS are providing progressively tighter constraints on cosmological models. The combined observations point to models in which the matter density of the Universe falls well below the critical energy density required to halt its expansion. But they also permit a substantial contribution to the energy density from the vacuum itself (a cosmological constant). A univ' having the critical energy density & a large cosmological constant appears to be favored
doctordave 5 months ago
So there is a paper, from the Scientific Orthodoxy bastion that is "Nature", advocating a cosmology with a non-zero vacuum energy density from 1995... a full three years before the supernova observations by Reiss and Perlmutter in 1998 gave direct evidence of an accelerating expansion. (Check the Wiki entry on Dark Energy for those references).
Did those dudes have a TIME MACHINE?? Or perhaps I'm just right, and the idea of an accelerated expansion had been floating around for quite some time.
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave No dave, I reckon some few scientists observed HINTS and evidence of the TRUTH, as finally discovered.
WHY is this a Big Deal to you? If it was verified,.. and some found clues before that discovery, isn't that logical? Doesn't change the fact that EVERYONE WAS SHOCKED! Man, you are so pig-headed.
Not in a paper but in my preparations for my one day book I described this acceleration. SO WHAT! The important thing is religious fanatics like you cling to Big Bang LOOPHOLES!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom No Neal, the point is the exact OPPOSITE. This imaginary community of dogmatists who refuse to consider new ideas or change their minds in the face of new evidence SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST!
For 50 yrs the evidence pointed to a uniform expansion, and yet all along we CONSIDERED the possibility of a non-uniform expansion, then actually went LOOKING FOR IT. And when we FOUND it we adjusted our model. The time from discovery to textbook? Less than the time I've been out of grad school
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave No, again Dave, (Lord) If you went looking , l'll bet you'll find many more papers suggesting the Universe was slowing expansion.
YOU never heard acceleration outward until the discovery,..RIGHT? Will you lie for the team?
"Somehow 'evidence'" that threatens Big Bang? Do you live in a bubble of self delusion?? Doesn't matter what, you'll twist it around. So typical. You say it doesn't threaten Big Bang????? A little?
You math the acceleration Backward?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Did I hear "acceleration" before the 1998 discovery? Well I was still in grad school until 1997, and it was certainly discussed as a possibility when we learned about the Einstein field equations. The "lambda" that causes the acceleration was right there since 1916.
And if you "math the acceleration backward" (it's not constant, btw) all it does is change the age of the universe a bit. From the 15-18 Gy that was floating around in the early 90s to the 13.5 Gy of today.
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave Wow, what a flow. It's not constant? Really? Is it exponential or what?
I ask questions at Monasteries, too Dave.
In 1998, two teams of astronomers announced that not only was the universe expanding, but it was accelerating as well. In fact, the farther away a galaxy is from Earth, the faster it is moving away, researchers have said.
Remember that Dave? Didn't surprise you, huh?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom It's exponential yes, b/c the amount of dark energy is proportional to the amount of SPACE. More space, more repulsion, more expansion, more space -> exponential
Surprise isn't exactly the right word. Although I will say I resisted it for 6-8 years. Meaning, when I taught astronomy, I would tell my students "There is this newer data that suggests the expansion is actually ACCELERATING, but it's only based on a handful of supernovae, so the verdict is still out."
doctordave 5 months ago
But I didn't SUPPRESS it and I didn't DENY it and I didn't HIDE from my students that there was some uncertainty in the interpretation of the results. I reserved judgment until the evidence became convincing enough that the prevailing wisdom shifted. Which was a somewhat gradual process, but there were no Inquisitions, for God's sake. In short, the whole process unfolded exactly the way science is supposed to unfold.
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave It's like tryin' to get blood from a stone. Uncertainty? (Walks away shaking his head.)
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Uncertainty? (Walks away shaking his head.)"
I don't get it. Are you trying to paint my admission that there is "uncertainty" inherent in a scientific theory as some sort of victory on your part? Because that's the EXACT point I often try to make in these discussions with you. That there IS NO SUCH THING as a proven-once-and-for-all theory in science. That science is ALWAYS self-questioning and then self-correcting. That's why we went LOOKING FOR those supernovae in 1998!!!!
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave Dave when you finally accept my theory, you will be totally shocked at the result.
You notice with all the outward movement, Galaxies continue to be built, without any of them ,...subducting?
Travel and notice steep ridges and flatlands below then ridges on the other side. Under the oceans, those are rifts and spreads. On the land they are the same thing, only shallower. AND they're everywhere. Dark Matter and dark Energy are the layers of repulsion and attraction of growing
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
And it's not a big deal to ME - YOU brought up the accelerated expansion thing as if it was somehow evidence that (1) threatens the idea of the Big Bang & (2) is an indictment of the process by which science proceeds. I'm just pointing out that this claim makes absolutely no sense on either account.
doctordave 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "some found clues before that discovery, isn't that logical? Doesn't change the fact that EVERYONE WAS SHOCKED! "
Neal - come on... if people had been PUBLISHING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY in dozens of published and PEER REVIEWED journal articles, including articles in FREAKING *NATURE* a full THREE YEARS AGO - it CAN NOT be the case that "EVERYONE WAS SHOCKED"!!!!
*I'M* pig-headed?? let's ask the studio audience here which of us is unable to admit they are wrong in this example!
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave You made a list Dave. You didn't make sense. Your jiggle-de-pop-theorists come down on all sides of the issue, so you're right no matter how it goes? YOU GOT DECELERATION,..SAME-SAME-, AND ACCELERATION. YOU gotta win.
I say it accelerated from the beginning , destroying Big Bang and accelerated expansion is NON-SCIENTIFIC as is the Big Bang! You, at least, HALF-BELIEVE IT. TOO
You know what they call that Dave.
Which BB do you favor? The latest; Pair-Production til asymmetry?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Which BB do you favor? Pair Production..."
I think u r confusing 2 issues: the history of the universe and the ORIGIN of the universe. They are separate and barely-related. We know very much about the first, and very LITTLE about the second. This is the same sort of confusion a lot of creationists make about evolution: taking the fact that we don't know how life began as evidence against evolution. Nothing that happens after 100,000 y has anything to do w/ pair production.
doctordave 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "theorists come down on all sides of the issue, so you're right no matter how it goes"
So, wait. I'm sorry - Is science a dogmatic religion that refuses to consider any challenge to itsorthodoxy? Or is it a wishy-washy construct that makes no definite statements because its theories change too easily? Because I'm confused now which fictional version of science I'm supposed to be defending.
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave The History of the Universe,....and the Origin of the universe. NNNNnnooo. I think we're talking about the ORIGIN and evolution of the MATTER portion of the Universe. BOTH are ONE question.
Ah, You're defending the Position that Science is NOT so mired in a rickety elitist specialist inward focused religion of science constructed on THEORY and CONJECTURE, instead of FACTS! Pick one from Column A and two from column B
If Science was in a "dark ages" would you recognize it?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "we're talking about the ORIGIN and evolution of the MATTER portion of the Universe. "
Well these are separate issues. I tell my students, The Big Bang Theory says nothing about THE BIG BANG, if by THE BIG BANG, we mean the instant of creation. Basically, from the CMBR on, the job of describing the history of the universe is one for astronomers and cosmologists. From t=2 minutes BACK, it's one for particle physicists. There is some grey in between where the two have to agree.
doctordave 5 months ago
What I mean is, no part of our cosmological theories of expansion would change in the slightest if tomorrow it was proven that matter can not be created from energy, any more than our theories of evolution would change if it were proven tomorrow that aliens seeded the early earth with single-celled organisms. Neither Big Bang cosmology nor Natural Selection are theories about ORIGINS.
doctordave 5 months ago
The confusion comes from an unfortunate bit of nomenclature: that we have taken to calling the moment in which the universe came into existence "THE BIG BANG". The term was originally used to refer to the EXPANSION, not the initial event. It would be better had we used different terms for the singular event at t=0 and the subsequent 13 billion year expansion, but - oh well... these things happen.
doctordave 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "If Science was in a "dark ages" would you recognize it?"
I think so. Given that I am only 40 years old, and I am teaching my undergraduates in introductory courses about phenomena which had not yet been discovered when I was in graduate school at age 28... I'd say there is very little evidence that science is handing down some sort of static body of unquestioned knowledge.
Jesus, do you know how often science textbooks get updated with new editions?!
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave I think you would NOT. You would have to recognize some great FAULT, and it's consequences. For example If you were teaching that the Sun orbited the Earth,.. all the evidence would be on your side as you showed students the "vault of the sky and the sun's place in it. How could you possibly KNOW the truth.
LOOK at the Spreading Atlantic as the Trans-Atlantic phone cables melted through, while you scratched your head.
Today, we have massive specialization, innocent enough..
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@doctordave Specialization,....What IF:....Suppose Carey had shown, Early on, that Subduction, not only existed but it's extent could be shown by carefully measuring the Crustal age map and plotting the missing area,
Say, in cooperation it was shown how each succeeding crust spread and filled as it did so, as all the other proofs fell into place.
SUPPOSE Geology presented , in the early seventies complete and conclusive proof, that new matter was created and assembled at core and outer core
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom SUPPOSE:Geologists enlisted Physicists to help explain how such Creation of new matter at the core and assembly at the outer core, now finally proved to happen, could happen as an ongoing process, not only for the Earth but for the universe.
Say, then, they did find the Mechanism,...How different would science be TODAY, NOW.? In all seriousness, I ask you, how different would science be NOW? Imagine,.. held back by specialization!
I have lived the difference, Dave.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom "Creation of new matter at the core and assembly at the outer core, now finally proved to happen"
You have such a funny definition of words like "proved". We haven't proved the universe is expanding, but YOU have proved that new matter is being create within the earth. Well, no, you haven't. Even if I were to GRANT the Earth was growing it could be because...
1) Matter is being created
2) The density of the Earth is decreasing
3) A repulsive force exists in the core
.
.
.
doctordave 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only way to "prove" (which is a word we don't use in science, btw) that matter is being produced in the core is to detect new matter being created according to your supposed mechanism. Which is why I always ask for supposed calculations that could be checked. Would this process produce neutrinos or gamma rays the could be detected emanating from the Earth's core? How many new atoms should be appearing in the tanks at Super-K each year, and what would the signature of the process be? etc...
doctordave 5 months ago
And it's not a "physics problem" at all. What anomalous prediction from theory or unexplained measurement from experimental physics is this model designed to improve upon?
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave Well, it explains how MATTER is made from the Pre/Prime MATTER that the Universe is made of,..neither being "matter" or "stuff", but EM and Energy
Since the Advanced MATTER is made ongoing and exponentially FASTER with time,..There was NO Big Bang.
The Universe is not flying apart, but is BALLANCED Negative and Positive, so that it contains the same general volume and mass of material per large section and doesn't"THIN OUT". So there is NO EXPANSION AT ALL. JUST GROWING.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I see, so now in addition to all the particle physics data I've asked you to match and you've repeatedly ignored, you need to show me how your model reproduces Hubble's Law, and explains the origin, temperature, and distribution of the CMBR.
But here is a simpler question. If you don't believe in the evidence for the Big Bang, why on earth do you believe the universe is 14 billion years old????
doctordave 5 months ago
@doctordave Bullshit Dave..1. I don't ignore your questions. YOU ignore MINE.
2.Hubble? It's NOT A LAW, Dave. It's an observation based on the component wavelengths of colot portions of Light.
3. I don't ignore Background radiation. I haven't tried to explain it because there are many possibl reasons and I don't speak unless I'm sure and verified.
4. I didn't say I believe the Universe is 14 BYO. I have NO IDEA how old what is. This process may have been going on forever.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom "Hubble's Law" is a name for the linear relationship between Distance and Recessional Velocity. If you do not believe the universe is expanding, then you need to explain WHY there is a galactic redshift and WHY the amount of redshift is linearly proportional to distance.
As for the 13-14 billion year number, I can find the comment where you used it, if you want. So you are saying your new-improved cosmology has NOTHING to say about the age of the universe?
And that's PROGRESS?
doctordave 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom 1. An expanding earth would be detectable by satellites
2. Where the hell does the mass come from?
Kalphiter45 5 months ago
It would NOT be detectable@Kalphiter45 Mass, as IS THE MATTER UNIVERSE, is CREATED,...by a simple basic repeatable logical, scientifically understandable process.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Why the fuck wouldn't it be detectable?
Kalphiter45 5 months ago
@Kalphiter45 It wouldn't be detectable, because there is no overriding reason to spend billions of dollars to create new technology to prove some jerk artist wrong. The Earth grows the width of a farmers Furrow, or a ROCK each year.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Hold on, how big is that?
Kalphiter45 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom And that process is? It has been observed where? The published articles are in which journals? It gets around the conservation of mass/energy by doing what? The mass is never deposited on the continents because?
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin 1. Pair-Production.
2. It was first observed in 1932 by Carl David Anderson, The youngest man, to that date to win the Nobel proze for this work.
3. LOOK IT UP!
4. By E=mc2 in which we theorise MATTER and ENERGY are interchangable! The ONLY KNOWN process of MATTER CREATION IS Pair-Production, in which a high-energy Photon strikes something invisible to us, changes it's momentum and is divided and changed to 1 Electron and 1 Positron,...MATTER!
5. BECAUSE,..it's MADE at the CORE!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Well if something is striking something else then E=mc^2 is not the correct equation. Do you know why? If not then you don't know enough about the subject to claim that it's a fact. At least you say it's pair production because you are correct that it's the only way we know to produce matter but where is the energy coming from for the pair production? Doubling the mass of the protoEarth you suggest to the present one would require truly staggering amounts of energy.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin LOOK, with that deductive part of your brain. Assign a significance to this statement. "THERE...IS..ONLY...ONE...FORM...OF...MATTER...CREATION...FROM..."SEEMINGLY" ...NOTHING...KNOWN! PAIR-PRODUCTION.
Science has abrogated it's responsibility since it has, like a monkey with shiny stones become fascinated by "new Particles". never questioning if these are all the same particles in differing assemblages. And so we get QUARKS,..from quark land produced from MAGIC, Having NO ...
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom actually quark theory had testable consequences that were later confirmed. It's not magic it was science. New particles were predicted by quark theory and quark theory alone which were then created in particle accelerators.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin If you think you are making a point, perhaps you are. I don't SEE it. Perhaps you did not read my notes ,...CAREFULLY. I say a Quark is a SNOWBALL, and NOT a SNOWFLAKE! That it is an assemblage of Particles. In fact 919 of such PRE-PARTICLES, or PRIME MATTER particles. The same PRE-Particles that are SPLIT in Pair-Production. and THAT is why they disipate when removed from Protons and/or Neutrons.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom You just completely lost me. The only response I can give is that a quark is not a snowflake or snowball. Don't use metaphor. Metaphors are not quantitative descriptions. The rest, 919, prime matter , pre-particles . . . no idea what you're talking about.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin QUARKS, having NO CREATION MOMENT (Like Electrons and Positrons) Unable to exist outside of it's parent body (Protons and Neutrons) for a second,..while Electrons and Positrons are eternal.
"A snowball", I say "posing as a snowflake". CLUMPS of simpler particles. SIMPLER PARTICLES that are struck by those high energy Photons. (Lord, I feel like I'm chasing a kid around the playground.) "I" don't know enough about the subject."??? Excuse me?!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom you do realize that high energy photons are not the only way to get pair-production right? Anyway, how did those photons get to the center of the Earth? Did the quantum tunnel all the way from the sun? You are not addressing where all that energy comes from but you really need to before anyone begins to take the hypothesis seriously because it's a staggering amount of it. Right now it appears to violate the conservation of energy.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin Well NO. Perhaps in a LAB,..but ONE Electron and ONE Positron? No.
Again, not reading and >magic word< 'reviewing. The Earth's CORE is a Pre-Sun object. H to He gives Earth it's Helium ,...and the core energy, for Ta-Da, Pair-Production.
I do think that covers it. Yes?
You know the outer Plasma core is 6,000˚ to 9,000˚ F and "they say"The core is incredibly hotter. Like the ..Say it with me...
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Well, helium comes mostly from nucleosynthesis in the primordial universe according to our best predictive models (they make predictions forward in time as well that are highly confirmed) and not a whole lot comes from stars although certainly some of it does. As far as the Earth being a pre-solar body goes . . . that doesn't make much sense as the Earth is made largely of materials that gravity in a normal star cannot fuse into heavier elements for energy.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Also, lets say everything you've said is true. You still haven't addressed the issue of the antimatter from the pair production. Where does it go? Where is it now? Is it sequestered in the core and if so by what? Is it free from the core and if so how? This is as far as I can see one of the most critical holes in the hypothesis. You MUST address this for anyone to take the hypothesis seriously.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom And yes, absolutely, if you don't know math then this hypothesis isn't something you can claim to understand. If you don't know the math of modern physics that predict pair production then you don't understand what you're promoting. You do realize that you are not a superman and cannot instantly disentangle all the mysteries of the universe because you are a legend in the comic industry. Don't act so indignant. You seem like it couldn't be that you might not understand.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
Respond to this video... Excuse me? It's SCIENCE, that, IN GENERAL, has ignored Pair-Production,...UNTIL RECENTLY! I have worked with it for decades. To ACTUALLY KNOW it is the only form of MATTER CREATION,...then abandon it? An intellectual ATROCITY! Pair=Production happens everywhere. Especially where there is a concentration of ENERGY. Do you know that simple lightning produces an abundance of Pair-Production?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom (cough) bullshit! The atomic bomb is based on this. Every particle accelerator going back to the cyclotrons of the early 20th century BEFORE you were born! So your statement is complete fiction. Did you know lightening is hotter than the surface of the sun? Did you know that it is the result of capacitance between clouds and the Earth with air as a dielectric? Did you know it builds charge until the voltage overcomes the dielectric and discharges? Two can play this game.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin LOOK. I'm having fun here. There's no need to get your Knickers in a TWIST. I did NOT intend to insult your Diety. I'm sorry. I REEeally don't think Al would be offended, but , hey, Your Religion, Sorry . Relax.
Fiction? Whoa. Does a High energy Photon Have an EM field? Just counting my cookies. I'm seeing TWO HALF field/charges AND the same energy. Something HAS been ADDED,...and if it WASN'T,...NO MATTER,..OH, and NO response to Gravity.
(cough) which means Gravity is EM!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I subscribe to no diety. No, photons do not produce or "have" electric fields they are alternate interpretations OF electric fields. I missed the gravity question. State it again and I will try to respond although gravity isn't well understood by many measures and less so by me personally.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom It's as bad of an idea for you to start questioning me on physics and expect me not to know as it is for me to grill you on the comics industry and expect you not to know. I used to be into comics, now I study math and physics. Compared to you I am an expert on the things you talk about (the mechanisms I mean. Obviously the expanding Earth hypothesis is something you have studied more than I) and you show a great lack of understanding. Like if I said Dick Greyson is Superman.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin Well, golly I also study Physics,and ALL THE OTHER SCIENCES and semi-sciences, Geometry. Engineering etc, etc. Have, all my life. I reckon longer than you have been alive.
WELL, I think YOU show a GREAT LACK OF UNDERSTANDING,..like YOU swallow Geology's Pangea "theory" HOOK, LINE,..AND SINKER. You swallow Big Bang even after acceleration was found.
YOU swallow the accretion theory of Solar Systems. YOU swallow ASYMMETRY. YOU think the MATTER UNIVERSE JUST APPEARED in a..... FLASH
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Big bang theory predicts the acceleration mathematically via differential equations. Look up the Friedmann Equations. I do appeal to authority in fields I am not an expert in. I would immediately defer to your authority on matters of what the comic industry is like. Just because Silverwolf comics tried to hire me when I was 12 doesn't inform me on the whole industry. Even though you know what aspirin is get your medical advice from a doctor don't you? You're funny sometimes.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin NO, I study medicine and law as well. I will go to a specialist, but I will go WELL-ARMED.
You'd do well to have someone like me at your side when you volunteer for someone's tender mercies, who speaks Specialist LINGO, that you DON'T understand.
I have had more than one ER doctor up against the wall, until he "Chose to" Speak English. 5 kids does that to a man.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Also you make an awful lot of assumptions about what I believe without any evidence at all. Dieties, pangea, big bang, big bang from nothing etc. I have not told you I believe any of this I have just told you that mathematical physics is my field of expertise. Must a theological scholar be a believer or can they just study the material and reserve absolute judgment? I think the latter is totally permissible.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin That,...has NOT been My experience. Every person I've ever met thinks !. They are Right and have more common sense than anyone in the world. If I confront them to tell me who, in the world, is smarter than them, they can't do it. Their FIRST answer is Einstein! But he probably didn't have more 'common sense'.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom well, I'm glad to be a counterexample. Look on my channel where it describes me simply says "as big a fool as any." Sometimes I "feel" like I'm super-intelligent and it is everyone else that is a miserable idiot but that's just my ego making an even bigger fool of me than usual. I know I am a fool regardless of my feelings on the subject. My behavior over the course of my personal life is evidence enough of that certainty. Perhaps this is not a common view but it should be.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin Let me be quick to assure you that you are FAR from the counter-example.
You said NOTHING in your note that would assure anyone listening that you thought you were not the smartest person in the world. A Genius can, nevertheless, be a fool. Foolishness has nothing to do with intelligence or common sense.
If you wish to test yourself, name three people you have good knowledge of, that are smarter than you.
Or ONE! Then, ask yourself if that person has more common sense than YOU?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@wkrepelin The MORE ENERGY,..The more Pair-Production.
Where does the energy come from? Big subject. The core of the Earth is solid Hydrigen, protected by a dense Plasma outer core. I know, I know, CURRENT SCIENCE SAYS, ...and it changes almost yearly.
This is NEW SCIENCE. Do you know the gas giants have verified solid H cores? H core gives controlled H to He.
Plasma outer core?? Dense Plasma registers correctly AND carries Earth's magnetic field BETTER than Molten Iron. But-BUT..
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Wait, you think there is a vast ball of hydrogen at the core? Okay, let's suppose that's true for a moment. Where did it come from (and don't say pair production because you still haven't tackled the antimatter question and you can't claim there is stable hydrogen forming until you do)? Also, where does the magnetic field of the Earth come from? It loops through the Earth's center but why? Why is the dense plasma above the hydrogen instead of the other way around?
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin Is there a VAST BALL OF HYDROGEN AT THE CORE OF,,.oh, JUPITER.???? GOOGLE IT, please.
If it reached GOOGLE.......SOLID H. See,..I don't need to answer your next letter.
Anti MATTER ,.....Hold on. We BOTH KNOW ANTI-matter isn't "ANTI" matter, right. It's the other/opposite in charge/sister matter, correct? Just checking.
How do we get to Hydrogen from Pairs. YOU will LOVE this. First, you'll hate it.
FIRST, we have to isolate The Pairs from each other. We can do that hmm
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Yes and Jupiter primarily consists of Hydrogen so that makes sense and is consistent with what I said. (It's a really cool theory where the pressure has produced conditions where the most stable state for the hydrogen is as a metal!) Jupiter really could be called a proto-star! But that's not Earth. That's not an answer to the antimatter question. You ARE aware of the time reversal of pair-creation right? It's called annihilation. How does the hypothesis avoid this?
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin AHHH, BUT Earth WILL BECOME a star, Just as Jupiter was once a rocky planet, until it captured its "CREATED" Gases,..and Earth fails to do .....YET!
Time reversal? Hmmm. Coffee-house speculation chat. I avoid. things are bad enough.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Time reversal is a mathematical symmetry in the models not some crap out of back to the future or terminator. I don't care if you don't like what they've named it that's irrelevant. Are you aware of it? It is observed all over the cosmos and thousands of papers have been written on it. It is how the LHC works and it occurs whenever a particle and it's antiparticle collide. It's demonstrable fact. How does your model deal with it?
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Also the idea that you avoid speculation is demonstrably false as this youtube channel is just such a demonstration. You speculate juipter was rocky, you speculate subduction does not occur, you speculate that time reversal symmetry is something from a coffee house instead of the hard science that the PET scanner is based on. So far I have seen nothing but speculation from you. That's why I keep asking for a model.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin If all GREW, by simple deduction Jupiter was a small rocky planet. Deduction is the basis of science.
Perhaps it's fallen out of favor.
Compressive Subduction DOES happen at the Ring of fire, ONLY, and it began 60 MYA.
I don't discuss theories, just facts and deductions.
Do you know what Asymmetry is? Just asking? I gave you the MODEL. I used words!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Thanks again for taking time out of your schedule for me. Be well. Cheers
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Furthermore since this is my field of expertise I would appreciate you not making blatantly inflammatory and ignorant comments like asking me if I know what antimatter is. Duh, do you know what paper is? Of course you do as you are a freaking professional artist. I know this stuff on a mathematically rigorous level because it's my job. just assume I know what it is and I'll ask if I don't. As long as you avoid pointless metaphor we will do just fine.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin Have you NOT referred to my Comic book past? SOME look upon that as a reason why I should not be listened to at all.
I have communicated with OTHER Physicists, who, believe it or not, DEFEND the ANTI. I was just checking. Sorry. No offense intended. Inflammatory???
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Woah, woah , woah there. Just because you are a well known comic book artist does not logically lead to the idea that you could not become a scientist later and I made no such claim. I did refer to your past but out of respect for it. I've known who you are since I was a kid and used to copy your drawings along with Jack Kirby, Arthur Adams, Frank Miller, Jim Lee, Sam Kieth and other favorites. Comics got me into both art and science as they are often artistic sci-fi.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin ,.....in a Colliders, with magnets.,....Van Allen Belts. Wait,..there must be van Allen Belt structures at the Plasma core. That's good. NOW we need to BUFFER one of the two pairs, but all we have is Prime MATTER Particles/in-facing fields . Let's see, hmmm, the Particle on the OUTSIDE is the ELECTRON,..so only the Positron will attract it,.. and build a geometric cube of 5 layers. That's 1,000. But the field ends/weakens, so the corners Slough off. So 10 from 8 corners. hmm
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom please forgo the drama in favor of lucid explanation. There is no reason to interject "wow" on your own statement. Also it is very difficult to sequester antimatter and we have found no way of doing it without keeping it in circulation. If you propose it is circulating then that is going to have measurable effects exterior to the planet in the form of magnetic fields. Have these fields been modeled by the hypothesis? Have the models been observationally verified?
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin Why Yes. Yesterday, at the core, just as I was,...
I get the very same info as you. I deal with it far differently.
Magnetic fields,...at the OUTER CORE? Your next note.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Please Neal really, I'm probably being much more open minded by most just by virtue of me expressing an interest in reading the literature on the subject so long as it is academic. If you can produce no such sources then this isn't even a hypothesis it's a delusion. Please source this hypothesis or stop trying to convince me. You're already deviating enough from science by posting on youtube instead of going through proper channels. Source or I I will no longer entertain it.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin Don't you understand ANYTHING? When ONE MIND finds something new,..there are no papers from other people. Something NEW disagrees with every one on Earth, or else it would not be NEW. NEW requires the observer to have a unique deductive mind that can analyze for themselves and NOT depend on others for THEIR opinion.
Entertain what you will. I have no interest in trying to convince YOU. My job is to expose this to a broad cross-section of people, be tested, and watch the results
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Also, good scientists do not tell people who disagree with them to "learn their place." If you can't handle everyone trying to destroy and undermine your work then science is the single worst pursuit you could possibly choose. It comes part and parcel with the trade. This is why only the most robust and verifiable hypothesis survive to become theory because nobody can figure out a better explanation with more predictive power.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin In this case, I'd like to quote a significant bit of pointed Philosophy from Pliny, the Younger.
Heh, Heh, He don't know me vewwy well, do he?!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom There are certainly fields at the core but to call that a van allen belt is to display ignorance of what that phenomenon is. The belt is not the field alone. Do you know why this is true? It has to interact with something, what is it? Just refer me to a full paper. I can't handle your explanations anymore. I'm glad you're curious about nature but you do a terrible job trying to explain this hypothesis. Please refer me to scientific papers you read so I can get a clear idea.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin The really frustrating thing is you do such a poor job explaining the anything beyond the statement "the earth is growing" that I don't even know what the hypothesis is. Shit Neal, maybe you're right but nobody would ever know because you seem to have a complete inability to verbalize the hypothesis. Mathematical models - without them this isn't even a hypothesis. To quote Pauli right now you're "not even wrong" because you would have had to propose something for you to get that far.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin What the "H" "E' double golfsticks are you talking about? Do you KNOW the CHAOS that led to the INSANE "PANGEA" Theory? How do you stop a bloody train at a hundred miles an hour???
LOOK. YOU GLUE 10 shards together. You have help. They are connected by strings. You pull one string and they all slide together to make a perfect vase.
Then SOME GUY grabs it and pulls open the wet glue at the back and spreads it out like a Pelt
And slaps it on one side of a big urn. WHAT do you say?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@wkrepelin" Ignorance"??? You're getting mighty cranky again.
NOW, YOU can listen. There ARE NO PAPERS. THIS is my Homework, my work , BASED on the very things that scientists around the world have randomly perused and SHOULD KNOW, if they weren't to damned lazy to step out of their speciality.
I DIDN"T SAY the Van Allen belt was "THE FIELD". It's THERE. It CAPTURES IONS, which is "essentially" what Pairs are.
NOR do I do a terrible job, It's clear as a bell, and its plain English.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom True, ignorance has lots of negative connotations but I use it literally. Ignorance is lack of knowledge not stupidity. It is descriptive not normative. I am vastly more ignorant than I am knowledgeable but that is true of all humans. See? Not derisive. You have finally answered a key question though. Since there are no papers we have nothing more to discuss. I look forward to the future publications of your and your son's art. Thank you for taking your time with me. Cheers.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin Heh, you'll be back. You haven't scratched the surface.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@wkrepelin That leaves us with 920. NO, one core particle is the Positron. So it's 919.
Each has one Electron and one Positron, so it's electron weight 1838. A Proton Add the Electron and we have H.
Why won't an Electron attract PM Particles?
Electron is on the OUTSIDE. However if the Electron is highly energized it will overcome the Electron and attract the Positron ,..giving us Muons and Taus. (Did I spell those right?) The incredible strong force within the Proton make us think Quarks
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom BUZZ wrong! The giants presumably have cores but your claim that we have confirmed their structure is either an outright lie or your personal fantasy. You are flatly wrong on this point. In the event that you can back this up with journal publications that show consensus building I will at least say that maybe people really do think that but it's not confirmed. Really no celestial body should have a hydrogen core unless the whole thing is pretty much hydrogen.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
BUT,.." Iron differentiated to the core! "
OH? In Jupiter?
Oh? Then why is there so much iron up here? SSsso much must change. It's too much to take in!
Let me tell you how the universe works.
It began ,.well LATER it was ,...um ..NOTHING..integrated. A force (SPIN, I think) Pulled the universe OUTWARD,..making some LESS-THAN-NOTHING . In tiny Planck sized pull-aparts. BUBBLES.
These dimensionless bubbles are Electrons being pulled OUT. At the core a POINT-PARTICLE. (Positron) pulling IN!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I find this comment disturbing. I don't know if you were trying to be dramatic but it gives the impression of mental instability. Perhaps you would like to phrase it differently in a way a physicist would understand.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin I know,It's getting nutty. Go with it.
THESE electron Bubbles with the core point particle FILL THE UNIVERSE. They ARE the universe, dense as steel! IN-FACING FIELDS. CORE pulls at the bubble which IS PULLED outward. This is an in-facing EM FIELD!
WE can't KNOW IT,..cause WE are OUT-facing fields. How do we get an OUT-facing field from one of these?
Drive a high-energy photon through the bubble and strike the point particle and KNOCK IT OUT of the bubble.
Pair-Production. MATTER!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I have no problem with either inward or outward facing vector fields as they are common to both mathematics and physics but they are chosen arbitrarily (ie by convention). We are not fields, you clearly don't know what a field is as an object from mathematical physics if that is what you are literally claiming. Point particles are not thought to exist as assuming they are points leads to nonsensical prediction in the limits of the model. Bubble. Be literal. I can take it.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin I'm not talking to a Physicist. I'm talking to, I HOPE, a SCIENTIST.
A bubble is a Dimensionless hold between two densities, +1 and -1. Much like the Pointparticle
These are the furthest from non-sensical that does the job. You're welcome to come up with better.
I find Science to be adolescent in it's understanding of these primitive and "beginning" processes.
It's only much later down the evolutionary line when we come to STUFF, that IS NOT STUFF , but looks like stuff.!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Well I'm not either professionally ( career mathematician or physicist) but I am an academic pursuing those degrees in hopes of being part of the profession and I am an educator as well. That is an accurate portrayal of me in regards to this subject. I would like to know what you mean accurately by your study of ALL sciences as you cannot mean that you are actually educated in them all. You are just human after all.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin There's very little difference between MATTER and "NOTHING". BUT THAT DIFFERENCE is WHAT WE ARE! OUT-FACING FIELDS,..While the universe is made of far-denser IN-FACING fields.
But these in-facing fields are like marbles among E M BOULDERS. TO us the supply of this Pre-matter is endless. As I said, the more energy, the more Pair-Production. And now we have Electrons. Can Protons be mase of these elements? Yes, they can. which particle will attract these Pre-matter particles?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom You throw derision at everyone but fail to fill even the most obvious holes in the hypothesis. Where does the mass come from Neal? Where does the water come from? Where are the visible effects of altered gravity on the surface? This hypothesis is so ridiculous it baffles me how a man of your advanced years could be duped by it. I used to respect you so much, you made me love comics, now I just feel a combination of pity and loss for who you are and who you used to be.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrep Pardon me. I throw derision at assholes. It's the only way I know to PLUG them up.
The MASS is "made"/created at the core, beginning with a process called Pair-Production. And processed to Atoms in the Plasma outer core.These Atoms are deposited into the mantle and, super-heated, seek their own level , as they "DEPOSIT" upward.
The Gases, Slide between silicate latices to the under-surface to exit at the rifts.
WATER, unless things have changed, is a combination of H and O. Atoms!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@wkrepelin CONT 3 The upper weight of STRAIGHT legged WALKING animals Today is 10 to 12 tons.
25 MYA it was 60 tons. (Sauropods) . Bent legged RUNNERS today top at about 2 tons. 200 MYA it was about 12 tons. The reason insects remain so small TODAY, is they have no INTERNAL Skeleton,but an EXTERNAL exo Skeleton. FROM which the ORGANS are suspended. Greater gravity crushes these organs on themselves.
Look up the sizes of some of these ancient insects!
Air Thinner, NO MOUNTAINS. THIN CRUST etc
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
Respond to this video... YOU RESPECTED ME? How about when I fought and won for the income and security of the creators of Superman. Fought for and won the right of artists to get their original art returned? Fought for and won ROYALTIES for creators, Fought for and gained access to better separations and reproduction methodologies for all comic book companies.
Know how I did all that, when no one else could or had the balls to do it all?
I did my homework.
Did Anyone help me?
NO!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I still respect you for that and that will not change but I do find it very upsetting that you're buying into this. In matters of comics you'll always be a great. What you did in terms of that industry and in defense of the creators of intellectual properties will always meaningful. That makes what you're doing here all the more upsetting. Have you learned the needed mathematics to understand the theory you're supporting? It doesn't make sense.
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin (typo) should be "will always be meaningful."
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin This is not an area of science that requires higher math on a daily basis. I have access to such math, but I have never found occasion to need it.. You have a lot of balls to "assume"!
YES, Einstein's equation is incorrect. Einstein would be the first to understand. The Tiny magnetic field that the High Energy Photon strikes the core Point particle OUT OF, is not in the equation.. If this collision did not happen. MATTER would not have been produced and we WOULD NOT HAVE A UNIVERSE!
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
wkpepelin Did anyone help me? Artists? Writers?
NO.
Why?
They were afraid. Some had families. Some were just grateful that they had work. . I was the trouble maker. The troublemaker that doubled their income in ONE DAY when I got the artwork returned for them to sell.
Advanced years? Can you bench press 300 lbs? Leg Press 1,200 lbs? Do you have all your hair, with some grey? Do you smoke or drink? I don't . I run. I draw 2 pages a day and I'm about to change all science.
I pity YOU.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
The main argument is: it just looks that way! That's the MAIN ARGUMENT!?!?!
JPO1618 7 months ago
@JPO1618 NO, the main argument id that we GREW a universe of matter FROM NOTHING,.. in a mere 14 BILLION YEARS
nealadamsdotcom 7 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom And your main evidence for this is that - to you - it looks that way.
JPO1618 7 months ago
@JPO1618 NONSENSE. My FIRST evidence.when I was a teen. NOW, evidence has become overwhelming in every area of science. Your view is simplistic and Naive. Like one viewing the Pieta and saying "nice statue".
nealadamsdotcom 7 months ago
People are not allowed to be aware of the naturally occurring cold fusion reactions on the Earth's molten core. It is too late now. Cold fusion happens when hydrogen atoms are confined within a metallic lattice. The conditions are all present.
simmagnus 7 months ago
@kosty1990 understanding the UNIVERSE is what this is all about! i didn't come here to simply demonstrate the GROWING EARTH. The Theory is called "Growing Earth, Growing Universe Theory."
That's what took 35 yrs. Growing Earth was clear in the 1960's.
YOU googled stupid sites. DIG MORE! NO NUCLEUS is needed. Pair-Production is everywhere in the universe where there is a build up and release of ENERGY. LOOK UP Pair-Production IN LIGHTNING!
You think there's not this release in the core?
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I don't know if that is happening in the core, but even if it was why can't we observe the earths expansion. I mean we can observe millimeter increases in mountain sizes but can't seem to notice any growth in earths size even though we have and continue to measure the tectonic drift. Even if Pair Production was occurring at the center of the earth, and it is not my job to prove that but yours, your hypothesis fails on the large scale.
kosty1990 8 months ago
@kosty1990 You TRY MY PATIENCE!. The question is NOT is there Pair-Production at the core, for of course there MUST BE. The QUESTION is "how do you get Atoms FROM PAIRS?"
You can see GROWTH, conclusively from the CRUSTAL AGE MAP! From the Gigantic size of dinosaurs, the lengthening days, the addition of seasons, the lack of Mountains, the differentiation of the complete crust, and the science that measures the equator GROWING, ...The LACK of oceanic life's fossils in the deep Oceans ETC
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@kosty1990 Super-heated atoms rise up between silicate latices of the mantle, slowly.
There is one and only one form of matter creation in the universe. Pair-Production. You must first understand this as a certainty. ONLY ONE FORM! You and MOST, even Physicists, have nearly no understanding of it's function and it's importance. If you wish to understand go to continuitystudiosdotcom the science section.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom also by super-heated atoms are you talking about plasma, cause otherwise I am going to need you to further explain that term. With respect to pair production being the only form of matter creation in the universe, i cant see you being a person capable of supporting such a claim, not an insult as there is no person alive who could support that statement. Also the only mention can find of Silicate Latices in the earths mantle are by people pushing the growing earth theory
kosty1990 8 months ago
@kosty1990 O-KAY, YOU show me another form of MATTER CREATION? I'm waiting?????
I'm waiting?????
You also do not know much about silicate and crystal structure. Why then are you speaking?
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom you mistook what i was saying, my point is that we,Humans, only know of one method for matter creation in the universe, not that there is only one just that we have only found one. My point was that your claim was not scientific but an opinion. Secondly I don't know much about Silicate and crystal structue, but that doesn't mean you can ignore 90% of my point and act like you were correct.
PS it seems my comments are being removed, that seems a little low if it is you doing it.
kosty1990 8 months ago
@kosty1990 Pair-Production was discovered/ first observed in 1932, after it's necessity was predicted by Paul Dirac. There is NO NEED for another "ACT OF CREATION" but for the QUARK and that is laughable.
YOU are simply ignorant of FACTS! Pair-Production is the ONLY FORM of matter creation out of "seemingly" NOTHING! PERIOD! This is not a "CLAIM, but a FACT!.
YOU, young man HAVE NO POINT! NOT A PERCENTAGE OF A POINT. NO POINT! NAME IT, IF YOU CAN!
I don't leave up poor science.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
I can't believe that people are still expounding a failed 19th century hypothesis.
panterguy 8 months ago
@panterguy I can't believe there are humans that are so stupid that WITH THEIR OWN EYES they can see that the puzzle pieces of continents FIT PERFECTLY together , IN A SMALLER GLOBE but can screw their own brain so damn badly that they deny the evidence of their own eyes. How stupid and deluded do you have to be to disrespect your own brain so much that reality means NOTHING!
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom O.K. Brainiac. You tell me, if the Earth is growing, where is the extra mass for the expantion is comming from? You would be the first to come up with an explanation.
panterguy 8 months ago
@panterguy - The earth does not expand, it grows. New matter is made at the core, in a process that's called pair production. The electrons and positrons are assembled into new atoms, up and down the periodic table, at the plasma outer core. Gases rise to the surface through the mantle, to resupply the atmosphere and the water, as the solar wind blows away from the upper atmosphere.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
Yeah, and the mass just magically appears? I'm sorry, but continental drift has the advantage of making sense and not invoking the random appearance of mass.
lobaxx 8 months ago
@lobaxx ? MASS magically appears"???????? You idiot,....Like the BIG BANG,. in which God or the bloody Wizard of Oz magically makes a UNIVERSE OF MATTER IN A COSMIC HEARTBEAT??? are all you idiots retarded? The Universe is HERE. It EXISTS. There WAS,...AND IS a process of MATTER CREATION that made it . WHO, you IDIOT, turned off the OFF SWITCH???? A PROCESS doesn't STOP. Unless its MAGIC and the trick's OVER!
HEY,...The trick isn't over! The universe is GROWING! didn't they tell you?
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
/facepalm
Please, redo grade-school physics or something.
The universe is growing, yes. But just like water spreads out when you drop a water balloon from two-story building, no claims that this expansion of water is the result of some "MATTER CREATION". And, yeah, heard of singularity? See, that's the precursor to the big bang. And I doubt there is a singularity in the middle of the earth pumping out mass, because singularity = black hole. Which does pose a slight problem...
lobaxx 8 months ago
@lobaxx Big Bang is LIKE when you Drop a water balloon?
Listen STUPID, Go on youtube or some where and watch an action similar to what you're speaking of. IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE THE MATTER UNIVERSE. Study,... as NO SCIENTIST on FUKIN' Earth is willing to do...BALLISTICS, and see how explosions actually WORK...
The MATTER UNIVERSE gets BIGGER, yet the distribution of MATTER is EVEN and REGULAR. like the CELLS of a body.
A singularity??? Is that like a PLURALITY, only ONE OF THEM!
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@lobaxx Big Bang is LIKE when you Drop a water balloon?
Listen STUPID, Go on youtube or some where and watch an action similar to what you're speaking of. IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE THE MATTER UNIVERSE. Study,... as NO SCIENTIST on FUKIN' Earth is willing to do...BALLISTICS, and see how explosions actually WORK...
The MATTER UNIVERSE gets BIGGER, yet the distribution of MATTER is EVEN and REGULAR. like the CELLS of a body.
A singularity??? Is that like a PLURALITY, only ONE OF THEM!
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Oh, and before you "DERP DERP IF BLACK HOLE SINGULARITY HOW CAN BIGBANG BE SINGULARITY", lets do some physics 101. Unfortunately, however, it turns out you can't explain physics in one mere comment, so bare with me as we go through this epic journey.
A singularity is what physicists call it when you take a shitload of mass, say earth, and squeeze it to the size of a pebble. And then repeat, repeat, and repeat, until you've got a point so small it virtually has no volume.
lobaxx 8 months ago
@lobaxx lobaxx In science it is dangerous to make assumptions, and more dangerous to base MORE assumptions on those,. and so on. A house of questions that have no answers. I would prefer to have answers and build up on these. Fool though I am.
YOU begin at the END of the process (what we used to call THE BIG CRUNCH.) and move on. NOT an answer.
1. How did we gt all that matter in the FIRST PLACE?
2. Why did it all come together, if NOW it goes OUT?
3. WHY is it accelerating outward?
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
4. If it's GROWING,.. you know, it's not accelerating OUTWARD. It's not moving outward at all. It's simply growing. You don't need either the Big Bamg OR the Big Crunch. Like every thing in nature it GROWS.
5. MORE, you defend GRAVITY, though it defies the laws of Physics. WHY?
"For every action there is an equal bla bla. EXCEPT GRAVITY???? EM obeys the law. Nature fukin'wit us?
Still, Gravity requires MATTER, yes? But there's no such thing as MATTER, Just ENERGY and EM.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom As it tuns out there is ONLY ONE FORM of MATTER CREATION,...Pair-Production. Pair-Production DOES obey the laws of Physics,.. Negative AND Positive, so why does GRAVITY attract these two Particles?? they are merely Energy and EM. can it be that Gravity is REALLY EM? Hmm Don't answer too quickly. It's true.
If the Universe is MADE completely and exclusively of Pairs, it will neither Crunch, or Bang! ( + & - ) Yet, as long as there's new energy, it will GROW.
nealadamsdotcom 8 months ago
Now, if we consider what Einstein said (a descent idea, after all he was a fairly smart bloke), this means we've got a motherload of a gravity well in our hands, sucking everything in its vicinity down. And, poof, thanks to Steven Hawking, we've got ourselves a black hole.
Now, if this applies, how could the big bang happen? Shouldn't the singularity stay a singularity because of all the gravity?
lobaxx 8 months ago
Well, it turns out that if you take a lot of stuff (say, hmm, dunnu, the entire universe maybe?) and put it in a really small place, the laws of physics make stuff go really weird. If you spice all that mass with some quantum mechanics, it turns out vacuum energy overpowers gravity, and a process called inflation busts everything out in record speed in an orderly fashion.
lobaxx 8 months ago
As the gravity becomes weaker as everything spreads out, the universe cools and a couple of billion years later, here we are. But how did this singularity spring forth, you might say? Ah, here we reach the forefront of cosmology and physics.Truth is, we don't know. But there are pretty descent ideas out there. Might want an entire comment for that, so look down (or up, youtube works in mysterious ways):
lobaxx 8 months ago