Geologists... guys, I know you're listening in. What the heck are you afraid of. 99% I'm wrong. 1% i'm right. If I am right, get a piece of it. Are you-all so far from that thrilling experience of learning something... that's maybe new and revolutionary? As an artist I admit I just don't get it.
June 1, 2005
Mr. Adams
I read and i must say your Earth Growing Theory is very interesting, and make sense.... .... I would like to discuss about Universe also. I read another day a scientist said the Universe is a "sphere in expansion". Wait, sphere?? So what have out
the sphere, beyond the sphere?
I think the Universe is just one of many multiverses, one inside the other in different
vibrations, sintonies, someone more subtle, others more solids. The "official"
scientists have some difficult to understand the Infinite; but is simple. They don't
accept just because the Infinite is the unknown, and the unknown is hard to accept. I have that and others theories i would like to discuss with you and compare with
your Earth Growing theory.
Please Answer me.
Thanks again
Dear (name withheld),
I'm not good, I must admit at discussing 'far out' theories. I did it over
coffee when I was younger and it was fascinating 'the world is my dream' 'universes
inside of universes', etc.
If any of this stuff is true, it's either too far away for easy discovery, too
scary, or too personal and esoteric for me.
My interest is in real stuff that is just past our fingertips to find and discoveries
that have been overlooked, or is a logical conclusion when all the clues are put
together, without fear.
This last point, geologists are guilty of not pursuing. They know the facts AND
the logical conclusion TO those facts, but are terrified to explore them, or present
them or suffer the attack of all the other sciences who dare them to prove the earth
is growing (expanding is of course preposterous) of course because they don't,
the other sciences, physics, cosmology, etc. will never know what it is they are
supposed to be looking for. So those gents are left out there wandering around,
bumping into shit going "duh". Uh, dark matter, what is dat, or how com da universe
seems to be accelerating outward suns seem to grow an we explain it so
stupidly as to seem like morons, and hey, hey, matter can't be made or destroyed,
but we can make antimatter and uh, duh, electrons we, uh, duh knew this since
the 1930's an meteors have holes in the middle, but we don't talk about it cause
it's probably not important, and oh yeah, meteors have a skin and well yeah, assemble
like crystal in a medium and duh Einstein was right about everything, duh right?
And we need TWO attractive forces for our unique universe, one isn't enough. Yet
one negative force is okay.
Hey, physicists out there, light travels through something and Michaelson and Morley
were right in the first place. Their experiment was flawed because they didn't
know earth had an electro magnetic field.
Our science is 150 years old and lives in Dogpatch. Itâ?ôs time for A NEW THEORY
OF EVERYTHING.
So you see___________, I've got my hands full explaining how the universe works
to our backward thinking scientific community..If you want to talk about the nitty
gritty..I'm your man..all that other stuff, I'll talk about in comics and movies.
Dis is the real shit.
Hey, Neal
As there is only ONE force that governs the universe which was split in two (Positive
and negative) that had spawned from "Nothing" or the void there then follows
the universe unfolding via Prime matter. Why is it the electron (negative) does
not coat itself with Prime matter? What is the nature for positrons to act that
way to become protons? (a scientific significance)
Also, when inquiring to my former Chemistry teacher, he blocked me with the notion
"with what mathematical equation could I prove it?" I had no answer for
him as he established to me that the most rudementary concepts for science are proven
mathematically. Even though I had no therom I had insisted upon the logic that could
only be. He responded if it was truly logic then the more easier I could concieve
of an equation for it, since math is absolute logic. I saw his point, but that's
not necessarily true, for some mathematics is based on premises or assumptions,
like chaos math. At some point in math you have take a certain leap. (a mathematical
significance)
P A U L
Dear Paul,
Everything is described by mathematics, but as we go back in "time" or
the evolutionary process
the math gets simpler and simpler. This is how simple it gets, minus one and plus
one equals zero.
Well, we must start with zero, you know.
The remaining question is what is the nature of that zero.I don't know, but I can
describe it. If you pull at the universe with "spin", it pulls apart. But in tiny, tiny
bubbles. The positive half of each tiny bubble (Planke sized) is positive in charge, that is it pulls stuff to itself to fulfill itself.
The bubble of pull away energy around the positive half is the negative half.
It represents the pulling away negative energy that responds to the universe's growth
and pull outward. It does not attract. These two parts of zero are exactly balanced in the universe, pulling toward and pushing away. As new matter is produced (from prime matter, previously zero) the universe grows keeping + and - in balance. Why does the positron attract? For the same reason one end of a magnet attracts and the other end repels. It doesn't repel? Yes it does. It flips atoms in say iron and the positive end of the iron attracts the negative end of the magnet can't resist the positive end of the iron.
(This is a clue to everything). Everything in the theory must make sense. Every
single thing! Finally, people look for complicated solutions. All discovery has always shown this is wrong, yet people pursue complication. All you have to do is read the literature. I think it's an elitist ego thing in humans.
Hey Neal,
I'm writing in hope you can look at this mountian and provide a quick, brief
response to my question.
I asked some geologist at my college,whom are not that responsive, the very
same question and they just tell me it's a volcano. I'm sure they know better than
me but I find that you've come to a significant truth in your concepts and so also
find you to be more competant.
By the way, I'm the fellow that emailed a while ago trying to make the point
of the exact simularities between Eastern concepts and Western concepts, including
Taoism and your new Science. (re:unconcious geoligist) Hope I didn't throw you off
there, as you seemed to be unresponsive. Didn't mean to appear strange or uncomfortable.
Anyway back to my quick question, below is a picture of the Mountain in question.
It is located in Croatia and is in the middle of a sea. This mountain is called
Kubuska in the Adriatic Sea. Now I've never known any mountains to rise out of the
sea like that. And I know that mountains of the Earth are suppose to occurr from
the land "crunching-up" by continental movement. A single mountain doesn't
just jutt out from the land. Well this one seems to do just that AND right out of
the water.
Could you explain it to me, please? It seems to just protrude as if a geological
anomoly.
I'd appreciate a professional opinion and any comment on this, Thanx.
Your fan, Paul
Dear Paul,
Not so much unresponsive, as aware of the fact that my platter is full. A man's
got to know his limitations.
I believe in Eastern philosophy insofar as it places no limitations on possibility
which is the great failing of Western science. Western science is constantly closing
doors while Eastern thought has their doors regularly opened.
Mountains:
Are not...are not...I repeat caused by continents careening about the planet crashing,
in incredible slow motion, into each other.
In fact, if a continent could bump into another, physics would tell us they both
stop. Now they must must overcome inertia. Do you know how heavy a continent is
and how impossible it would be to overcome this inertia. To push into another continent. (In fact, science NOW tells us continents are imbedded in solid rock, except for a few volcanos. Not magma.
What exactly is then the force that would apply to push the continent? Surely rifts
peacebly spread open or we would be observing oceanic volcanoes up and down the
Atlantic Ocean every day. No force! The rifts simply spread open. THINK.
So how to make mountains.
You are going to be surprised at the simplicity and obviouslness of the answer.
Say the earth is the size of Mars and growing. The outer crust is thin compared
to how thick it is now. Our "shallow sea" bottoms are in Arizona, Asia
and elsewhere. The "shallow seas" are a mile or so deep and ONTHE LAND.
They're all gone now. No shallow seas on the land. This is such an incredible fact...that
it boggles the mind. It means sea leval around the world would have to have been
a mile and a half deeper. The whole bloody world!
The earth grows. As it grows, the crust getting thicker must RE CURVE. As long as
the whole crust doesn't crack and break apart into pieces, the surface will stretch.
But once the continental crust breaks apart, the tension of the surface is relieved.
NOW as the earth grows, the curved pieces (the continents) like pieces of a broken
Christmas tree ornament, will re curve to flatten out. This recurving will buckle
up the upper crust into folds along lines of the compression of recurving. We call
this recurving and buckling of the upper surface MOUNTAINS.
Do you know the Rockies began buckling, and growing about 60 million years ago..before
that, they were a shallow sea. There was nothing to bump into 60 million years ago. (Hello Geologists.) The biggest continent on earth, Asia, buckled and its focus was the epicenter of the continent. The Himalayas. The biggest mountain range, all and all on earth.
Re curving, buckling, mountaining. Press your fingers flat on your desk, raise the
palm of your hand up, and watch the knuckles on the back of your hand turn into
mountains.
Pablo. NO CONTINENT ON EARTH EVER MOVED TOWARD ANY OTHER CONTINENT. Continents only
move away from each other.
As to that mountain. Clearly it is not a volcano. Look at the sides in the bottom
photo which lean against each other.
That mountain is not in the sea. It is on the Continental shelf. You'd have to go
out further to find the edge of the Continental Shelf. THERE the shelf pitches STRAIGHT
DOWN for 3 or 4 miles. When continental plates pull away from each other, it isn't
necessarily neat. One chunk may cling and be pulled outward. Many islands are scattered
like this, like the islands above Canada.
Please invite your geology teacher to view my website videos.
He will certainly be entertained. If he has a partially open mind, he will be surprised
I think.
April 15, 2005
Today’s Question for Geologists
If the continents are granite at 2.5 and much of the oceanic plate is basalt at 3.0 which, in time you say becomes eclogite at hmmm 3.3 which subducts into 3.3 the upper asthenosphere of mostly solid (which I say is bull, but you hold on to this sliver so we deal with it.)
Now the continents are basically granite at 2.5 (no chance of subducting, right)
If, 5 billion years the continents were part of a whole crust that covered the whole planet… the whole crust, as with the remaining pieces was granite, at 2.5…
How did the process of subduction begin? With granite? At 2.5?
(How did the whole process of subduction begin at all, dude?)
To: "'neal@nealadams.com'"
Date: Apr 12, 2005
Neal,
I am typing from my hotel room in the hope to be able to send you this at some point before I come back to Madrid. It is a reply to the expansion and Earth rotation speed changes along time.
Feel free to post this as well as any other text I send you on your website. Also feel free to edit the misspellings.
I wrote a paper about Earth rotation speed in my first year in college, some ten years ago, and I still remember a few things I found out in my research. It was about the Mesozoic. We can know about this change of speed thanks to some indirect facts: the daily growth patterns in sea shells and trees, preserved as fossils, as well as coral and sponges, are the best indicators. Comparing the fossils with modern animals we can determine that during the Mesozoic the length of one Earth rotation was at least 2 or three hours shorter. I do not know if new research on this matter has provided more precise information about it. My paper was focused on two issues: The effects this change in speed could have on animals cloned in the present from fossil material, and the reasons why the speed seemed to be higher.
There are several possible reasons, all valid and non-exclusive:
Astronomic reasons. The Sun’s gravitational field acts as a break for rotation, as well as Earth seemed to have stopped the Moon on its rotation. This seems like the most likely reason.
Also, combined, there are others. Although I do not think there is a system of big convective cells in the mantle, there is some kind of fluid displacement there. As Earth was hotter before, this movement was more intense, increasing Earth’s momentum from the inside. Also, during the Mesozoic, there was a large mass of land located not far from the equator of the Earth. That mass was helping Earth to accelerate its spinning motion, the way the weight launchers use the weights to increase their speed when spinning around to launch them.
Then, on all the other subjects.
I think the reason why I am being vague or maybe not giving you enough hard data is because of my approach to the subject. For instance, on the Earth’s core.
You have not actually performed any experiment to support your theory yourself, and neither have I. You are putting ends together using somebody else’s experiments for it. I am using what I was told in college plus what I have read myself, taking and discarding what I consider good or bad according to my opinion or personal experience.
I have not been to the Earth’s core, but I have worked with seismic data, both in a laboratory and with real data. And it works. With the seismic data you get from the research boats you can determine the density, composition and hydrocarbon contents of a layer 20 cm think at around 3000 meters deep with a certainty of almost 100%. With the waves generated by a major earthquake, you can get a very good structure of the whole Earth. Maybe you cannot be precise to the kilometer, but you get a rough idea. And with the information available on this, I understand that the very center of the Earth is not only solid, but with a density close to 14. It may not be a big volume, but it is there. And for the rest of the core, density goes down to around 8 in the boundary with the mantle. Hence, the average of 5.5
People have to be careful when they say in books that parts of the interior of Earth’s interior are liquid. Like the asthenosphere, for instance. It has a liquid fraction, that is true, which I think to remember was in the order of 0,4%. And that is enough to give it the density and physical properties required to make it work as the “conveyor belt” for the upper mantle.
About the Mediterranean: It is opening, but not much. And this can be due to the physics principle that estates that any force experiments an opposite force of the same magnitude. The Mediterranean is an area in the center of several situations.
Africa is pushing Spain against Europe with an angle. Then Africa is also pushing Europe, but not so hard as it used to, lifting the Alps. The Middle East is pushing the Mediterranean towards Spain through the Anatolia fault from Turkey, and pulling it from the south towards Israel. The resulting force vector is a relative opening of the sea. It is a relative movement because there is no real opening due to production of material, it is a thinning of the crust.
In the Sea of Japan, between Japan and China happens something similar. Although the Pacific is opening up and pushing against the mainland, the Sea is opening, due to the configuration of Mand-Composite oceanic crust-oceanic crust, and the angle in which the subduction is taking place.
Now, the seismic I am using to base my thoughts on may be wrong, but my day job proves me otherwise.
You use that experiment by Carl Thomas Anderson to base your reasoning. It does not seem to be a very well known subject among the scientific community, as you know very well. Your theory mostly makes sense within itself, I admitted that before, but is it not possible that it is based on incorrect facts.
Ok, I am just using the example of the seismic to illustrate one subject, but it seems to work.
I was reviewing what I wrote you before, and I lead to believe that I think that meteorites come from exploded planets, which is not true. I did not express correctly my ideas. I think meteorites come either from material that would have eventually formed a planet, but didn’t, or that they are loose space debris. It is true that meteorites have the composition of the different layers of the Earth (mantle, core) if you forget about the (in)famous meteorite from Getafe, from which I have not been able to find more information, but that exists.
I only know some basic physics, so any speculation I made would be mostly imagination, and I don’t like that. However, as I told you before, I think your theory estates all matter basically expands, either at atomic level, or in a superior level.
As I know little of advanced physics, I could be “convinced” that at atomic level any other theory than the currently accepted is good. But not for geology processes. Plate Tectonics and other processes are just that. Observations have been made during centuries, then we have gathered evidences, and after deep analysis, conclusions have been made. It works the way it does. There are flaws to the theories, and there are things that cannot be explained yet, but it works.
But I find hard to believe that all physical laws turn around one principle, the growth. It could happen like that at atomic level, but I do not accept that after this, all laws and principles would accommodate this.
Could you give me some references about this experiment by Carl Anderson to read about it? I’d like to read it.
I will email you in a while with the reactions of my colleagues to your theory.
Regards
Miguel
Neal’s Response
To: Miguel
Miguel,
No, matter doesn’t expand. Matter is not a balloon. Matter increases in number, is made. Like you increased in number of cells when you were a child and you grew. More cells were “created” and you grew. In fact, more cells are made in you now, but an equal number are being destroyed and you have reached a stasis. Our Universe hasn't.
I deny, so vehemently that today’s physical laws “work,” it’s almost a kind of joke. Dark matter has only been calculated in the last ten years and we are searching for it passionately in five gigantic labs around the world. There is over a hundred times more dark matter than matter in the Universe (and between you, your nose and finger) and you think the Universe is known and works like we thought eleven years ago. Contemplate this, A HUNDRED TIMES, MORE, maybe a thousand time more dark matter.
Contemplate this Miguel, for a moment, the Sun throws out into the Solar System 100 million tons of ions and electrons per second. Just for fun multiply this figure by five billion years. A tiny, tiny, tiny bit of this goes around our electro-magnetic field and beyond and some, very little, comes back and enters our Van Allen Belts and dives down to become our Auroras. Imagine looking at Earth from the Sun. How small the Earth would be. Now, where is all this stuff from the Sun? Are we it?
Next: you are a Geologist. If atoms of different materials are floating in a medium, like say water will any of those atoms or compounds join with each other. Lets say in a no gravity medium like space, if an atom of iron or such is drawn to a like-atom body by it’s gravity, will the atom sit there or join in an iron crystal bond?
Carl David Anderson was the youngest man ever to win the Nobel Prize. When you were in school you watched film of scientists observing cosmic rays in a vacuum making little smoke trails through certain noble gasses. (Anderson’s experiment.)
This experiment led to the discovery of what we call today antimatter or a positron (at the same time it was discovered was “released” an ELECTRON.)
This process is used in many nuclear experiments and also in medicine, in which antimatter is produced, enters your body, “destroys” an electron, which releases gamma radiation, which is tracked by another scanning and recording device. This process is called a P.E.T. Scan (Positron Emission Tomography.)
Meterorites. One type of common meteorite is the chondrite meteorite. I chose it because it cannot be made on a planet. (Or a gravity structure) minerals collect in little balls of silicate, (chrondrites) they are the size of a pencil dot. They collect, along with the same material in a finer grey dust which coats the collected chondrules which collect together and become chondrite meteorites. Scientists say they could not have formed on or in a gravitational body. How does sediment become stone?
Physical law turning on one principle, hmmm..
How about, all matter is made out of atoms!?
How about, all matter consists of an equal number of positive stuff and an equal number of negative stuff.
Reasons for Earth’s decreasing rotation speed your first explanation:
Sun slowing it down (acting as a break.) Somebody help me here. Does a bigger gravitational body affect a smaller one’s rotation? I don’t think so. It pulls on a body as a whole. If there was irregularity in the small body and it pulls locally and the Sun slows the body, it would pick up speed on the downward side and stay in pendulum balance.
Which brings up the Moon. If the Moon, as I say, grows toward the Earth from the inside because of the Earth’s gravitational pull, I think I can now explain the Moon’s always facing the Earth.
If the Moon’s rotation was originally very slow and an imbalance occurred so that one side of the Moon was heavier it would set up a pendulum movement rather than a rotation, as that one side grew from inside the pendulum would slow down more and more. How can this be proved? I think it would be partially proved if there remains the mildest of pendulum movements.
Also 1.) Convective cells? Gosh, I can’t find a physics law that supports it. 2.) Mass of land? Well what makes the acceleration is increased energy. Mass maintains, energy INCREASES.
Speaking of this, you know I’m often told if an ice skater pulls in her arms she spins faster, yes? So if she put out her arms, she’ll go slower. What if she grew bigger? I don’t know, does anyone? What if her core emptied out?
I admit I am weak on Earth’s interior and my position is hard to defend.
But hey, since we’re here, lets talk seismic data.
We know Earth is 5.5 on average. This means some above, some below, some . . . same, right? Average.
But first we get basalt and granite down ten miles or more that’s 2.5 to 3.0 then an asthenosphere to twenty or twenty-five miles that 3.5 to 5.5.
The for the mantle that’s 5.5 to 10 or so, right. Then the core 10.7 to/or/12, the outer core is “estimated” at 8 to 10. The outer core, we are told is liquid. Now there is no proof that it’s liquid, nor is it proved that it’s 8 to 10. In fact, its estimated that its iron, based on…get this…meteorites (which as you know, are from exploded…sigh…planets.) Then, the inner core, close to fourteen solid.
But Miguel, this does not average 5.5, it averages like 8.0 or 9.0, doesn’t it?
Since the outer core is 30% of earth. If the outer core is plasma at say 5, then we can get an average of 5.5. We CAN’T get 5.5 if the outer core is molten iron at 7.5 to 10, the earth on an average is 8.5. This doesn’t make sense! We’re looking for 5.5. It’s that 30% of “liquid” outer cor that needs to go bye-bye.
If I had an empty core except for gasses and plasma, and it was pushing mightily outward I would suggest an extremely dense shell to accept pressure from either direction. And that is, in fact, what there is! At the Mohorvicic Discontinuity.
“The Mediterranean is opening!” You say it, Miguel, and then you say “but not much”. Pardon me but that’s the same as saying not much THIS WEEK. True, but since sixty million years ago?!
But forget that! The whole field of Geology is saying the MEDITERRANEAN MUST BE CLOSING. Africa, South America, Australia and Antarctica were one land called Godswana which was at the South Pole sixty million years ago while North America and Asia were at the North pole (A more ridiculous and laughable statement I have never heard in my life, but that’s what they say.) Between the two was the Tethys Sea, they say, without one single ounce of proof. (It’s a bloody joke, but they say it, so I repeat it. I had to take a break for 5 minutes to laugh about the Tethys Sea. Geologists, or anyone, please join in and look for with me, the subduction zone that allows the “TETHYS SEA” to close. This is the geological joke to top even the concept of subduction.
Now, they say, bless them that North and South are moving toward each other.
And against all this, you now say the Mediterranean is opening. OF COURSE IT IS. That’s what helped killed the dinosaurs sixty million years ago.
Opening, yes, four centimeters a year, lately, to be exact.
Africa is not pushing Spain, Miguel, or the Mediterranean would be CLOSING!
Do this, cut out a map of the Mediterranean area. You know that V shaped Bay of Biscay and the hinge of flattened land below it, lightly cut or score that land, fold it a bit and turn Spain up to close that V. Watch the mountains line up properly AND look at how easily the Mediterranean will close now that the tipped down door of Spain is no longer in the way. When Africa pulled away it clung to Spain which pulled it down as a door opens, and tore open the Bay of Biscay.
The Alps are rising because of 1.) the Earth is recurving from growth which wrinkles the upper tectonic plate and 2.) because Africa pulling away bent Europe downward and it compressed the land. If you draw a force map of Europe being pulled down and compressing at its center do you know where those force lines will be pointing? The Alps. Did I need to say that?
The Sea of Japan, Miguel, such a complicated description. When the Pacific opens, it doesn’t “push against” anything. The land and the rift “PULL AWAY,” one can’t “push against” and pull away at the same time. Japan once spread from China, every once in a while it pulls further away. Gosh, I hate to say this but if it didn’t pull away, how did it get out in the sea? The Pacific like the Atlantic is pulling apart. There is no pushing together anywhere on the Earth, you need only look.
Subduction, hmm, let me say this. If the upper continental plate pushes together, both sides rise up (into mountains.) This is physics, equal thickness, both sides, RISE STRAIGHT UP EQUALLY. Is there a physicist reading? Please verify.
In the oceanic plate of equal thickness, if both sides push against each other (first they will rise up) say instead and against Archemedes LAW the direction is DOWN into the 0,4%(or whatever weird number you wrote in your last email) magma, both sides will go down equally and STRAIGHT! There can be no sliding under(0,4%) one to the other it is mechanically and physics-ly impossible! There is no model, no physics, no mechanical process that supports this action.
If an oceanic plate tries to subduct under a continental plate, its worse! The base of the oceanic plate is THREE TIMES THICKER and bigger than oceanic plate, it’s like a dog trying to swim under a hippo, it doesn’t go!
Meteorites, Miguel, despite the clap-trap that men 150 year ago spewed, out of ignorance, our Universe didn’t start already made. It grew and evolved.
• Prime matter became positrons and electrons.
• Positrons evolved into protons and became hydrogen.
• Hydrogen collected into galaxies and lit into suns.
• Suns processed (with heat) hydrogen into neutrons which allowed the creation of helium.
• Helium is blown off suns, its electrons blown off.
• Ions collect into larger count atoms finally re-collecting electrons.
• Now we have higher count atoms which collect into meteorites, young moons, young planets, which grow slowly, then faster exponentially. They ride electro-magnetic lines of mother Sun.
Or, instead, as those men 150 years ago once said: There was this whole bunch of stuff floating around and along came gravity to collect it. Simple huh?
(There is no such thing as gravity by the way.)
Miguel, no, Geology doesn’t work. If there is one flaw, it doesn’t work. Everything in Geology must have come from somewhere. No errors.
Explain:
• How crystals grow.
• How a geode grows with the same rules.
• How do you get a salt dome three miles deep, ten miles wide and thirty miles long, with pure salt, no sediment, rot or vegetation. (Grind it, eat it.)
• How does our Sun grow (they say it does) if it fires off 100 million tons a second.
• How can I put all the continents together perfectly, no twisting, no turning, no submerging or rising up, no bending of any rules with the continents only moving back along undersea lines and continents 1 to 5 billion years old fit together perfectly, to make a 4 to 5 billion year old crust.
• If five billion years ago we had a molten crust that covered the planet everywhere, where did three quarters of this crust disappear to?
• If the Tethys Sea two thousand miles wide existed between the Northern and Southern continents, how is it we can find dinosaur bones in Antarctica that were commonly found in North America from that time.
• What are those gigantic spreads on the Moon as big as Europe which are deep below the surface not lava on top of the surface.
• What is that gigantic crack on Mars as wide as the USA called the Valles Marinaras that exists at the base of NO MOUNTAINS. (You know, where water comes from.) Isn’t that a spreading rift?
• What are those young (no or few meteorite craters) light areas on Mars if not spread areas.
• Why do ridges and flatlands mid-continent look exactly like under ocean rift and spread areas, only smaller.
• Where did the shallow seas that were on the continental plates go? They’re all gone. 2/3’s of the land was covered with shallow seas. Where did they go?
• Now could a dinosaur ten times the weight of an elephant(our biggest) exist on Earth today without being crushed with its own weight.
Oh Miguel, there’s so much more, let’s just do the seismic thing and nail it down. To subduction 0,4%. Ah, remember the old days when they told us there was this thick layer of magma on which the crust floats and they made diagrams of how convection would come up from the bottom of the magma as if it were a pot of water on a stove and the convection currents would rise up through this viscous molten layer to the upper area and like boiling water would convect India over to Asia.
They’ve taken it all away. Now they say (darn) that only 04% is molten and worse, this molten material exists, not evenly but in pods where we have volcanic activity, yes? And of course rising up and coating under the oceanic rises and rifts where it is quite molten. This spotty molten 04% is hardly the rolling convecting layer we have come to know and love, and so is dashed the dream fantasy of subduction.
At 04% more area is firmly attached than is separated by magma. In fact the rift areas contain 80% of our magma. There is no magma for plate to subduct into, even if all of physics and engineering rules and laws could be put aside we are pushing crust into material that is denser than itself but is now as we know not magmic but mostly solid!
It is the field of geology that holds back all of physics and cosmology and all the other sciences for the sake of an impossible fantasy that does not obey the physical laws, and why? Pure naked fear. Geology is acting exactly like all science has acted through out history. It’s a very old story. Fear is our greatest motivator.
We are on a wrong scientific track. It crumbles around us as we go further along. The worse it gets the more we howl out in it’s defense.
India, Geology says, tore itself off of Africa, rode up the Indian Ocean and crashed into Asia, against all laws, and Geologists show us this in books and on TV everywhere.
Tore itself off!! Just imagine. Took a trip like a plow goes from one side of a field to the other plowing up the Earth, and yet if you look at the oceanic plate there is no evidence of this happening. None! Then it crashed into Asia. Ah, crashed.
Hey physicists and engineers, a “continent” the size of India strikes Asia; mustn’t it stop, stop many times.
You tell me how much force must be applied to this stopped continental mass to overcome inertia and start it to move again? More, to have it push into a thirty mile thick continent the biggest on our world hard enough to buckle the land into mountains. How much force?
Now let’s say all this were possible and of course IT’S NOT, but let’s say a gigantic truck has collided with a Volkswagen or vice versa. The truck has crumpled into a vast mountain range so large that it surpasses the square mile area of India. Now, based on the simple and clear physics law that says every action has an equal and opposite reaction, mustn’t India be equally or even more crumpled up than Asia.
It’s not, you know! In fact at the area of impact there is an area, a band, of flat land 100 miles wide along the North of India that looks more like stretched and flattened land than anything. That area according to simple physics should be the highest and most crumpled land. I guess we can ignore the “laws” of physics, and the rules of engineering. Ask a physicist if we can ignore these laws.
But you know, I have a map of all the continents on a smaller globe. Oddly enough on that globe, India is attached to both Africa and Asia. And as the globe grows (grows exponentially) India tears free from Africa. It tries to pull away from Asia a bit tugging at the land at the North keeping it flat. But it NEVER tears free of Asia, Asia for it’s part, being the largest continent recurves to a less curved planet and the skin wrinkles from the recurving mostly of course in the middle where there is no release of pressure, Like at the edges. It wrinkles there in the middle into a great mountain range. This wrinkling hardly affects India because while much of it was going on India was pulling free of Africa, and come to think of it, so was Asia.
Best Regards,
Neal Adams
Date: March 18, 2005 11:16 AM
GEOLOGISTS
Oh… kay no new notes this week, except for you Miguel and Sean, but I’m not putting that stuff up. You know why… sssso class is open.
NEW GEOLOGY 101
There are three… count them three reasons for highlands on Earth.
The first, and most unimportant for this study is volcanoes. We know about them and can therefore discount them. And skip meteor hits.
Okay?
Mountains! Is number two. Listen carefully, this is how we get mountains.
The Earth was smaller… it grew from the inside… like a geode… grows…. did you know that… grows…. like Earth…. Same but for one process.
When it grows, the growth has two effects on the Earth’s crust. We will first speak of the one where land holds together, like…. continents!
As the Earth gets older… and bigger its crust gets thicker, one mile thick, two, four, six, eight, twelve, twenty miles thick. As this happens, the Earth grows, its surface splits and pulls apart in rifts. But some places don’t rift apart. So… these chunks, continents, must re-curve to a growing Earth. This recurving causes the upper surface to buckle like the skin on the back of your hand when you press your palm to the desk. Or you scrape up paint after applying stripper, or wet sand when you scoop it, or of course if the early Earth is one mile thin the surface buckling will be small. As the crust gets thicker, the buckling gets thicker and thicker. 200 million years ago the crust was only 2 to 4 miles thick and Earth was half the size it is today. Mountains were minimal. About 60 million years ago, as the deeper ocean geared up, their spreads and the crust got to 15 miles or so buckling of continental foci pushed upward in earnest. The thicker the crust, the higher and bigger the mountains.
This is how we get mountains. (Not by continents “bumping like bumper cars” all around the planet.”)
The third type of highlands are not highlands at all. They are merely highlands by comparison to lowlands. It’s the low land that is created by rifts and spreads. And so there is only one type of highlands if you forget volcanoes... Just mountains.
We will speak of false highlands-by-comparison.
We call them ridges. I call them pull-aparts. They are flat land that suddenly drops straight down to a lower plain which is flat again. Why does it do this.
Because the Earth is growing! In order to evolve mountains, Earth must grow. When it grows, the crust must pull apart, ssssslowly. But on a young Earth the pull apart is not deep. It will only allow shallow seas… because water falls to the lowest level into these pull aparts. Then, in time, a pull-apart begins in another place, now even deeper. The water drains off into it leaving dry ravines with flat valleys. This process continues on and on. 200 million years ago very deep pull aparts began again. In time, the humble rifts and splits will lead to the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans. 120 million years later the Antarctic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean will rift and spread. 20 million years later the Mediterranean will open, South America and Africa will release from each other and the Gulf of Mexico will widen. Australia split from Antarctica and the dinosaurs will no longer migrate hemispherically and will die off… except the dinosaurs who have grown feathers and learned to fly. They will, like their ancestors, not simply go to Florida for the winter but migrate hemispherically and live.
We will in our time remain blind. If we could see the ocean ridges we would remark, “Hey, don’t they look like the ridges in Arizona or Asia or Australia or Europe or Africa… like the Grand Canyon or the New York Pallisades or everywhere on Earth that we have ridges and flatlands. Everytime you look at a ridge, it is a pull-apart like two sides of an earthquake ridge.
That is all there is, only that!!! Highland because of pull aparts down to lower and lower lowlands.
Yes, some rifting on the land continues but as you might expect it is from tension from continuing pulling on weak areas, it causes Earthquakes as well as rifting.
You see ridges, I see pull-aparts. There are no mysterious ridges. How do we easily identify them? Well, when you see a ridge, just look opposite to it, and it may be some distance away, there will be the other side of the pull apart and it will match its opposite ridge, just like under the ocean. Or did you think water wore the Atlantic trench away?? It didn’t wear the Atlantic Ocean basin away, did it?
Don’t you know water can’t wash flat land away? It can’t. See the Mississippi. See the Nile, see the Amazon. See the Tigris and Euphrates. Mostly they lay silt and land from the mountains down on the flat land and then they change their course. Or am I wrong? Did I miss something?
No, ridges, all of them, are pull-aparts. They are simply a convenient place for the water to flow… to… like the deep oceans of the world.
To: "'neal@nealadams.com'"
Subject: pseudo geology
Date: Mar 7, 2005 9:07 PM
Just because a theory is not perfect, does not mean that it is not
correct.
On your Titan page (http://www.nealadams.com/titan.html) you state:
"because all planetoids this size have tectonic activity and, therefore,
are hotter as you go deeper"
Yet on your discussions page (http://www.nealadams.com/discuss.html),
you state in your response to the Feb 9, 2005 letter that: "There is no
FLAME at the bottom of the asthenosphere cooking it to create new heat!
The HEAT RISES and is hottest at the top of the asthenosphere. That's
again, physics. That's where the magma is. If you don't believe this, (I
couldn't know why.), crack a book. Heat rises. The crust is the cool
top, the crust, like slag on a cauldron. So ... it's HOTTEST just under
the plate. NOT ... NOT ...NOT down deeper! Get it?"
You seem to be contradicting yourself. And since the earth IS a
tectonically active planet (Northridge 1994, Kobe 1995, Sumatra 2004,
Mt. St. Helen's 1980, Mt. Etna 2004, Kilauea 1983 to present), you've
just shot down your own arguments.
On your version of the 'geology rainbow map', you show that the area of
spreading gets smaller the further from the spreading zone one goes, and
you say that the only explanation is the incredible, expanding (sorry,
growing) earth. Yet look at thermal mud pots in Yellowstone. As the
mud bubbles up it pushes to the edges previously ejected material. The
material is still there, yet it is compressed and pushed to the side.
Regarding water based erosional forces, unless the sides of a region are
made of different materials, the two edges of a canyon will erode at a
similar rate and thus will mirror the other side, and appear to be able
to slide back together.
You mention the Grand Canyon and seem to think that it is a zone of
spreading, yet how does the area spread at different rates vertically?
How does the upper layer pull apart from the crack at a faster rate than
layers of rock deep within the canyon? With regard to erosion, studies
of the Salton Sea region of California indicated that it is composed of
the same material that would be found in the Grand Canyon, indicating
that it has eroded away.
You show an image of the San Andreas fault zone in coastal California
and label it as 'pull apart'. Yet this region is slipping and sliding
past each other, not apart from each other.
As to how did subduction start, here is my thought. Suppose, as you
state, that the early earth was covered with the slag of a crust, with
no highs or lows. Current theory of lunar formation indicates that a
planetoid about the size of Mars side swiped the earth, destroying the
planetoid, and sending debris into orbit which coalesced into the moon.
What happens to the earth? The crust is shattered. Heavier debris that
has been gouged out of the interior and put into low earth orbit falls
back down on top of the lighter material. There would also now be a
giant gash on one side of the earth. Due to gravity, the materials
along the edge will collapse and fall into the center trying to fill the
hole. The inertia of materials flowing and moving into the hole, plus
the remixing, and relayering of materials causes the cycle to develop
that results in subduction.
You seem to be more of an Immanuel Velikovsky (yes, I've read "Worlds in
Collision" and still disagree with him) rather than an Alfred Wegener.
One last thing, if the earth is growing, wouldn't it be detectable by
the impact that it would have on the variations in the orbit of
spaceships and satellites?
I can't wait to read how you flame me. ;-)
--
Woody
From: "'neal@nealadams.com'"
Subject: RE: pseudo geology
Date: March 8, 2005 5:10pm
Dear Woody,
Heck, you were actually quite courteous in your message, (except for the Velikofsky smack, but I can see how irresistible a shot like that can be.)
Paragraph 1.
When a theory becomes perfect it’s a fact on it’s way to become law. Subduction is so riddled with contradictions and anti-science and anti-engineering that it has earned no respect and fear programmed acceptance. (As opposed to rifting and spreading, which is viewed and measured fact.)
The important thing to contemplate is this. Strip away subduction and the Earth is growing. It’s the only other possibility.
If there is the smallest possibility that this is true then ALL of our science must, by definition, be turned inside out and upside down. Everything changes. It means, Woody, that this is day one of a new revision of everything we know.
It happens every couple of centuries, and to be honest if I were you I’d test this Neal Adams’ mettle with every bit of energy I possess.
I will test my theory with the “perfect” test. I invite you to do the same.
Paragraph 2, 3 and 4.
A lovely argument. I will explain it without rationalizing it and I’m sure you will agree.
It’s a matter of proportion. If I dig down into the Earth I’m sure you will agree it will get hotter and hotter. If we forget about the bends, the heat will increase until it becomes completely unbearable as you know. Nor will we have to come anywhere near magma for this to happen. Miners commonly suffer from heat prostration and dehydration.
This is because Earth is tectonically active. I’m sure you see this. All this heat that I spoke of so far is crustal heat above the asthenosphere. (So also I believe “planetoids this size have tectonic activity, etc.”)
As to the next layer down you have the super heated asthenosphere. The layer that feeds our rifts and volcanos and in fact gave early rise to the justification of rambling and swimming about of continents … until, in fact, when ‘your science’ said much of the asthenosphere is solid, kind of mucking up one of sciences best tectonic-subduction arguments. You … did notice this, didn’t you?
Well, just as it’s the surface and upper surface of the sun that is the hottest, not the inside; just as in a lit match the red tip of the flame is hottest and you can stick your finger (or a toothpick) into the core of the flame, so also, the asthenosphere is the hottest in it’s upper magma layer and cooler as you go down into the Earth, unless you think all the inside of the Earth is molten.
Of course you don’t. Heat rises and it exits the surface at rifts and volcanos and such and dissipates its heat just like heat is released between cracks in the slag at the top of a cooling caldron.
No, there is no flame at the bottom of the asthenosphere, unless you’re thinking of … uh, hell.
Heat rises and nothing I’ve said is contradictory, is it?
Paragraph 5.
I’m a little stunned by your example, Woody, because it makes my argument SO beautifully that if you want to withdraw it after my point, you may do so.
Yes, yes and yes again. The mud may and indeed does push the mud outward in circles that push against previously ejected material, just like the Earth. The smaller area pushes outward and the circles get wider. Probably, any cracks get filled on going and ,by God, you’re right.
Whew … what a relief. I thought I was going to have to defend my stupid theory forever. … Thanks.
But … wait … ah … don’t geologists say that the rifts push outward TOWARD the subduction zones? (Which are the SMALL circles.) And by looking at our examples doesn’t that mean that the outer rings of hardened mud must run backward and shrink to ah … go back into the subduction zones just like the undersea plate must shrink to go back to the subduction zone.
The larger circles, Woody, are the outside circles coming FROM the rifts. THE SMALLER CIRCLES are the ancient subduction zone areas. How does wide subduct to narrow?
Three into one doesn’t go, Woody. Look at the map please. I think this is a very bad thing for subduction. It’s conclusively bad!
Paragraph 6.
Gosh that is an incredibly good excuse for matching canyon walls. Almost as good as rifting. Not quite. (If you study water flow it, I’m sorry, makes no sense. Pour water down a sandy beach and you’ll see.)
But consider this. Let’s look at a rushing river running across the land, like, say, the Rio Grande or Mississippi. Doesn’t these rivers, more or less, deposit silt and gravel and when it piles up, go another route … like the Nile … or the Tigris or the Uphrates? They don’t cut into the land very much do they?
In fact, isn’t it the Colorado River laying down silt at the bottom of the Grand Canyon even as we speak?
In fact, isn’t true that when a river rushes too fast it ‘meanders.’ It rushes … builds up a dyke, then goes another way? It does this to slow its speed. It’s called a meander.
No, Woody, we’re due to put the facts together much more logically. No water cut the Grand Canyon. These are rifts, merely a convenient place for water to flow.
Paragraph 7.
I will explain. The land rifts and spreads. The crust is thin. In time Earth grows. It rifts again. The crust is thicker. Earth grows. It rifts again and we have … tiered canyons. Finally, The Grand Canyon. How do you explain the step down of the tiers of the canyons from Zion to Grand? Wouldn’t it be gradual and sloping by your estimation? Everything we look at in our world must be looked at with new eyes. (Ask me about mountains, about those V shaped valleys that go to the continental edge on the coasts of continents.)
Of course the Grand Canyons sides erode ongoing, and during times of swift river flow material is washed downward, as with rivers. But the river didn’t create the canyon. It rifted! All else followed logically.
Paragraph 8.
It’s San Andreas Fault … not mine.
Eeeeyes, it’s…... sawing. But it’s also pulling apart or are you looking at different photos than I am? Can you explain all that? I can. Look at the rift maps. Watch where the east Pacific rift disappears and sight along that line.
Paragraph 9 and 10.
By the way it’s AFTER these two paragraphs that YOU group me with a Velikovsky. You link me after this. Ho-ho.
O-kay… a PLANETOID… well, a planet… careening through space un-orbited. Now… just a minute… something bigger than the meteorite that “selectively killed all the dinosaurs.” (Right? Avoiding birds, reptiles, mammals, marsupials, insects and sea life, yes?)
Before we go further, since Shoemaker-Levy we’ve more or less proven that Jupiter is our large meteorite UMBRELLA. What happened? Was Jupiter on a coffee break? A vacation? Am I talking new news here?
So a Mars hits Earth … A glancing blow? A solid blow? Earth is… molten? Not molten?
If it’s molten wouldn’t it simply reform into a sphere.
In fact if this thing smashed through the Asthenosphere and blasts a moon size and more hunk out, wouldn’t that leave a mighty big hole?
Which is it, big hole or rapidly reform? I’m afraid there are no other choices!
Here’s the part I don’t get with this… well…. silly…. theory.
This chunk didn’t hit escape velocity. Nor did it avoid crashing back into Earth. Good trick.
What we have here is a long string of super incredible coincidences which once again make Earth the most unique planet in the universe.
Woody, please, don’t make me go further on this. This isn’t a current theory. It’s an ignored theory. How ‘bout aliens planted the seeds of humanity on Earth.
Paragraph 12.
Woody, Earth’s growing by a maximum of 12 inches a year. Think of the Pacific Ocean… 12 inches… detectable? I don’t think so. But over 200 million years.
Heck, that long ago a day would be 14 hours long, a dinosaur could grow 10 times the weight of an elephant, a dragon fly could have a 2 foot wingspan, mile deep seas could be on the lands, there would be no deep oceans, hardly any mountains, no real rivers and no grass at all. It would be a very different planet. Tropical trees would grow from Alaska to Antarctica. Weird, huh?
In Summary
I attack an unproven (in 35 years) theory that evidence is mounting against. I defend a theory that is the only remaining logical theory that could possibly derive from the proven rift and spread fact… not theory.
I NEWLY defend Earth’s growth with facts from physics, paleontology, engineering, cosmology and all the other sciences.
You smear my reasoned, factual accumulation with I’m more like Velikofsky… THEN you drag up one of the most comic book theories ever to cross the minds of coffee house theorists since mysticism. A theory that does not have one scintilla of evidence or rational excuse in our Universe as we know it. (Randomly flying about planets!)
And I’M the Velikofsky?
Woody, there’s nothing strange about my theory. I’ve simply come up with the physics that explains that little niggling doubt that’s crossed the mind of every geologist on Earth, including you. And you know it.
Come on, push harder. I rrrreally can tell you some deep shit. (Drag in a physicist. I’ll tell him how a solar system is made.)
Neal Adams
And prod some geologists to come out of the woodwork. I know they’re listening… and thinking.
To: "'neal@nealadams.com'"
Subject: geology discussion
Date: Feb 9, 2005 10:39 PM
If you read a basic 1st year uni geology book you will find your answers to how a subduction zone works. the oceanic plate subucts under the continental plate until a certain depth where increased heat and pressure
makes the oceanic plate hoter and more liquid - it rises and creates all the volcanoes along the ring of fire - see Japan for a good example but also the
Aleutians etc. because it does not go straight down ward but slide in at an angle the ring of fire is not directly above the subduction zone. you can
tell the angle of sink from how far away the volcanoes are away from the oceanic trenches. How do you explain ocean trenches if the world it
expanding anyway?
However, you are asking nothing new in questioning what mechanism causes it- it's a work in progress as most theorys are - give the geologists a break. in the pacific plate there are at least two major subduction areas - the one along the South American border, and the whole long line up around the top half that results in the Ring of Fire.
On the Antarctic continent there are two mountainous areas and two splits that could be spreading zones. but there is so much ice that the way it fits together is not really well known. can you put an email link to your self on the geology page so people can let
you know of interesting developements I was appalled that I had to go via your self promotion - however I did find out why you seem to know so little about the theory you are questioning. It's clearly your second field – if at all.
don't be such a jerk
very nice maps though
From: "'neal@nealadams.com'"
Subject: geology discussion
Thanks for your carefully thought out note. Certainly not my second field, more like my 5th or 6th field, but I have studied this for 40 years and you know, whether I have a degree in this specialty, they actually allow me to read the same books and papers and articles that people far wiser, like you, get to read. And for me, like you, one and one make two.
This "work in progress" is a sloppy unscientific fiasco of a theory promoted by a bungler and accepted by a frightened discipline, and wrong! And no I will not give them a break. (perhaps if they simply take 'subduction' off the table.) 40 years ago some brilliant geologists put forward the 'growing' or 'expanding Earth theory. Their proofs were gigantically valid, but they were shouted down by ignorant and unscientific geologists who insisted they, these thoughtful men needed to PROVE the 'expanding' Earth part. But they were not physicists and couldn't show HOW the Earth grew. The small minded WON the debate then, because neither group were willing to study all the sciences and find a valid theory for Earth to grow.
I have done that. My sleeves are rolled up, I'm not afraid of hard work, and I'm no fool. I've done my work and in some small way I resent the ignorance of the subduction zone supporters in the same way people ended up viewing with ridicule 'flat worlders' and those who defended the Sun circling the Earth.
You say, "Very nice maps." How dare you flaunt that you looked at the maps and did not absorb the fact that they show conclusively that the ocean plate is rifting and spreading EXPONENTIALLY. Not very scientific.
Explain it if you can. It needs explaining! You will not be able to do it!
"Work in progress?" No, geology is holding back ALL of science with this stupid subduction theory. The implications of a growing Earth cross's all cosmological theory, all paleontological theory, all physics, all everything. This is not a LITTLE mistake! This is a very big mistake.
Let me answer your comments. All I ask is that you read ... and think.
Angle of subduction ... when continental plates collide they go up into mountains ... at what angle?
Both sides go straight up. Both ...sides (not one side) go straight up ... equal and opposite expression of energy.
If one side was somehow greater, how would they go? The LARGER would angle OVER the smaller.
You say, in subduction, the thinner oceanic plate goes over (under) the continental plate, By what science??
Try this, I call it "the dog goes under the hippo" example. The oceanic plate is the dog, the continental plate is the hippo.
The hippo, continental plate), in order to buoy down into the asthenosphere must have a ROOT, a thick base, like an iceberg, under it! How deep then is the root of the oceanic plate? Not very.
Under the continental plate is a thick LOBE, hippo body. Under the oceanic plate is a thinner, dog, root.
How does the dog go under the hippo? How does a small berg go under a big berg? How does a small cork go under a big cork? And how, how, HOW does it go under at a favorable angle? The oceanic plate would have to go backward around the body of the continental plates. Does it ENTER the body of the continent's base?
You have been fooled as all others have been fooled by artists renditions of this phenomenon. Artists, I assure you, scratch their heads in confusion and shame as they try to draw this preposterous concept. I tell you this because I've been paid to do it myself and laughed all the way to the bank.
EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCES (minimum) EXERT AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCE TO ITS OPPOSITE FORCE. Minimum, these plates would go straight up or straight down, and that my friend, is physics, and it's a law!
Final note: There is no FLAME at the bottom of the asthenosphere cooking it to create new heat! The HEAT RISES and is hottest at the top of the asthenosphere. That's again, physics.
That's where the magma is. If you don't believe this, (I couldn't know why.), crack a book. Heat rises.
The crust is the cool top, the crust, like slag on a cauldron.
So ... it's HOTTEST just under the plate. NOT ... NOT ...NOT down deeper! Get it?
Look, you put two phone books into mercury. They float. There's a crack, a rift, between them. How do you push one phone book, along the edge, under the other without adding force? How does it subduct along the flat spine?
It doesn't!
Regards,
Your local jerk,
Neal Adams
P.S. No, I don't expect to convince you, just stagger you with science and facts. It's my experience that all members of all disciplines are closed
minded to new thought. That's the way it is. You will, probably, be convinced when I win. It'll be okay then. Huh?
N
From:
To: "'zeea@earthlink.net'"
Subject: RE: geology discussion
Date: Feb 10, 2005 8:37 PM
So-o-o, you're aggressive, bombastic, imprudent, generalist, oh and obsessive compulsive. Some how, there's no need to PROVE expanding earth theory but a lot of need to prove subduction. A little unfair don't you think? I get, too, that you think that Geologist's are unscientific but, you without the required geology degree, are scientific? Sure people can cross fields of study but it warrants a close look at the evidence which I can see you have not done.
The two confusions that you make are your maps (even though they are pretty) are flat representations of a round world and so the movements you make in 2d are not expected to be representative of the 3d events and even so the events such as the spreading
of the Atlantic plate have happened over many millions of years and one would expect a not to tight fit, since other forces are involved such as small plate degredation. The particular bit you use (the tail of South America and the bottom of Africa) wrap round on a round world but not on a
map. And the physics you talk about is not the physics to do with the malleability of rock, rock is variously malleable depending on pressure, temperature and liquid content. The same rock with variations in any of these factors have different densities, thickness and malleablity. For instance, wetter, hotter, rock rises above overburden, however, increased pressure eg: ks underground can make the same rock more brittle and fracture it. To compare rock to books, hippos, dogs or anything other than rock shows a simplistic, if any, understanding about it. Please don't do that. also please don't misinterpret physics rules when applying them to real things. The rules you use are guides for mathematics not rules for life things eg: rocks.
I repeat, again, yes there are some holes in the tectonics theory and a workable notion of whether the plates are 'pushed' or 'pulled' is still in progress - but in comparison to the expanding world theory it is much more useful, and workable, since it fits the evidence we have, can be used to both predict and back track world geologic events and has a physical history
that can be read in the rock.
Oh, and stop trying to sway me by bombastic language - if you have proofs then use them. If not, emotive language makes you look like a jerk (or have
I heard that somewhere before?)
From: "'neal@nealadams.com'"
Subject: geology discussion
Ah, don’t you think you should read your notes for logic and sense before you send them? (If I disprove subduction, the only remaining conclusion is a growing Earth… this is inescapable.) Note: Rifting and spreading is proved, not by me but by the scientific community. Subduction has not been proved. That's facts!
How broad is your brush??
You attack my academic creds? Such a cartoon. To break down my arguments? If my credentials are, in fact greater than yours, does that mean you have no right to question me?
Almost everything once known in science has been proven wrong. We have been wrong about THIS for 40 years and wrong about our universe 150 years and again since we crawled from the seas, you only defend the latest straw dog!
I am a well known illustrator of some small fame and a three dimensional designer. The Nasonex bee commercial at the head of my site is purely my design. Do you know the understanding of 3-d that is involved in doing that work? You hardly could be expected to, I’ll admit.
My upcoming book and video shows in clear step by step by step detail the growth of the Earth and the spread of the oceanic rifts and spreads and the continents without changing, deforming, shrinking, growing or rotating, simply coming together on a smaller globe. The oceanic spreads of Earth did not, did not, did not exist 200 million years ago. There we no-deep-oceans-on-Earth-200-million-years-ago. Think of it!! Doesn't that stun your mind???
You have accepted the terrified propaganda that one half of the Earth has cracked and spread apart, and the other half of the Earth has continental plates that are coming together. You believe Earth is not only the most unique planet in the universe, but you believe one half of the Earth’s tectonic behavior is the opposite tectonically of the other half of the Earth. Think about that.
Say it over to yourself. One half acts the opposite of the other half, or so you say. Someone give me the words to express my wordless awe.
Yet, the ages of the undersea, the oceanic plate are exactly exactly the same all over the world in all all oceans… as shown by that original map. This is a fact!
No deep ocean plates existed 200 million years ago. Not one acre. Not one single square yard. The subduction theory is bogus and stupid.
I notice you didn’t answer any of my points.
Physics responds equally to oceanic plate, continental plate, hippos, dogs and icebergs, not matter what you say. It's physics! It's not just theory.
You say I, incorrectly look at a 2-D map. Well exponential is exponential. If the top and bottom stretches the question is are the stretched dimensions exponential.
Gonna do you a favor. I’m wrapping that map around a globe to show it to you. Three dimensionally.
Go to this link: http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/3DMap.mov
I have measured actual square miles, not 2-d miles and I have the computers to do it, roughly. Your job is to verify and then explain it, otherwise. I have only one explanation.
Explain please some very odd references for the sake of my confusion
“One would expect a not too tight fit.”
The point of this, I miss; what are you trying to show?
“Small plate degradation.”
I confess I am at a loss. I’m sure this is something, but I’m darned if I know that it is.
“The particular bit you use.” does this refer to the 25 degrees of space between the bottom of South America and Africa??? I don’t know. If it does, that measurement and those figures were taken off of a real globe. If you want to do the experiment. Put a piece of tracing paper on a globe, trace South America (you can wet the tracing paper a bit and stretch it and dry it on the globe. That would help.). Trace South America with a pen, cut it out with scissors then tuck it under Africa where it clearly goes and you’ll see the 25 degrees with your own eyes. Too much work?
“Malleability of rock”
Are you telling me something here? Unless you can explain how rock's malleability is pertinent, please don’t ask me to throw out my analogies… or else we’ll throw out all your teachers analogies, as well, with the trash. I don’t think they’d like that.
ANSWER THE POINT! Don’t whine. “Misinterpret physics rules when applying them to real things.” Ah……….. ssssso I shouldn’t apply physics for “life things eg. rocks.”
I’d like to take a vote on this one. You are simply not making sense. Physics works on everything. “Misinterpret” oh yes… but I’m pretty darn sure I didn’t misstate or misinterpret physics in anything I said. Why don’t you show me how I did.
“Holes in tectonics?” My goodness, we’re driving trucks through these holes and as we watch, the theory of subduction is made of wisps and conjecture.
I don’t argue against tectonics at all. I simply argue against the given mechanics of tectonics. Continents don’t move about, they don’t travel around the globe bumping and crashing into each other and the oceanic plate slide into magma. They don't move at all, the lower plate rifts and spreads, that is all. There is no evidence of continents moving!!!!
What happens is Earth grew, hardened thicker and thicker surface tectonic plate, as the Earth grew the surface cracked and rifted (that’s what canyons are.) the 5 to 2 to 1 billion year old rifting surface began rifting and spreading more profoundly and deeper. The old now thicker plate was left in pieces on the lower spreading oceanic plate. This is how we got our continents. As the thick continents pulled apart the prime life, dinosaurs, who migrated hemispherically (like their ancestors the bird do) were cut off north to south and became extinct 63 million years ago. 2/3’s of our undersea plate has rifted and spread since 63 million years ago.
If this is not true, our Earth would have always been this size. The 5 billion year old crust would cover the whole world and water would cover that 100%. There would be volcanoes and irregularities but not much.
As it stands now, the reality is either 3/4’s of our upper plate is missing… or Earth grew.
You are defending a preposterous theory simply because your elders taught it to you… and the Sun goes around the Earth.
Jerk
N.A. Yo!
Obsessive Compulsive? I….. think I’m in excellent company, thank you. “Pushed or pulled.” An excellent topic… Geology doesn't know after 30 years whether oceanic plate is pushed into magma or pulled into the magma.... hello!!! Neither, folks.
That was my latest debatish thing. Geologists, I can't believe you are satisfied that these thoughts are the best you guys can do. There must be a geologist or a physicist that can give me a good tussle. Just for fun, or serious. Bareknuckle. Older stuff follows.
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004
Subject: Growing universe
Neal-
Just visited your site for the first time via a link from John Byrne's message board. Fun page - lots of cool stuff. What caught my eye, tho, was your "science project" - the videos and the write ups you have posted. I like to keep up with science, but I had never head of this theory before. I don't know how much of it I buy, but you make a very interesting case and I'd love to read more. I notice you mentioned a book and video a few times but I can't find any release info for these. Are they out, or if not, when will they be released?
Anyways, thanks for the things to think about!
-Dave |
Dave,
Greetings.
I don't think you will find this theory in its entirety any other place on the planet. This is why 35 years ago or thereabouts, the general scientific community came to the incredible conclusion that all the continents on Earth had at one time been together as one gigantic island on one side of the Earth, and that the uh rest of the planet was, that's three quarters of the planet was um ocean averaging five miles deep.
With the tectonic matching and the existence of same creatures on divergent continents they "proved" they were correct even though this was an extraordinarily illogical theory. So they named their fantasy island Pangea. And so began another chapter in the intellectual advancement of man on Earth (albeit a very odd-looking Earth).
As appalled as I was by this knee-jerk theory, I had to agree that the proofs were solid.
Could it be, I thunked, that the proofs were solid, but the conclusion was whack. But what other theory would justify the proofs totally.
In my artist's eyes, and if I may say I do have some ability to see things three dimensionally. Not as much as say, Michael Golden and a few others, but I do okay. In my eyes, I saw a greater likelihood in the idea that Earth grew, that the upper tectonic surfaces split, cracked and spread, on an ongoing basis up until today. I could not only see all the upper plates and how they all fit together, but I saw how it progressed and I saw it going on today in a clear logical and progressive way. To me it was a no-brainer.
I wondered where the scientists were who would as easily see what was so clear to me. Then a few showed up. I was relieved. They were as quickly shut down.
Whoa, I thought. Bad Karma.
You see, it wasn't a problem of the Earth growing that tripped them up, but it was how was this possible that the Earth grew.
A rebellious geologist had no chance proving how the Earth could have grown. He didn't have the tools. He could just show the processes. He would have to be a theoretical physicist and much more. He had no chance. Then I thought, who would be the best person to track this down? Hmmm.
Maybe an artist who loved science, who could read the English language, as in scientific books, who had time on his hands, had an income from other stuff, didn't have to fear for his tenure, or the ridicule of his fellows, who really wasn't afraid of much of anything, and loved science since he was 10 years old.
Well, it took me 35 years, on and off, to figure it out. I'm probably wrong. But I've done my homework and the theory
explains the universe and how it got here and how it works, and worst of all, I haven't found a hole in the theory.
Finding holes-- that's up to everyone else.
-Neal |
|
