Subject:Scientific question.

Date:Thu, 12 Jun 2003 04:11:38 +0200
From: MIKAEL

Hi. I write this because of 'Neal Adams science project'.

First off: I'm Swedish, so It's not entirely unlikely that I missed something in this theory, and if so, please inform me of this.

But this is my problem: I know there's a number of mysteries in life, God knows I have encountered enough of them myself, where I had to submit to the
fact that I don't know exactly what happened or how.
I'd have to say that you are right on some issues, by pointing out the (apparently obvious) flaws of the current model of how earth came to be, you
have proven as much to me, but accepting that one model is wrong doesn't automatically lead me to assume that another is right.

The basic foundation for your line of reasoning seem to be that matter is manufactured, growing, and that this leads to the expansion (or growth) of
each.

Now, here's where the quote above comes into play.. just because I can't offer a credible alternative to the model you describe - you quote Archimedes
laws, which is from physics - I still have to recognize that your model is in conflict with the same physics that you partly use to sustain your model, who
say this cannot be done.

But I might have misunderstood something, or science today might be wrong, since you haven't explained how exactly matter is manufactured/created
for this growth to occur, and whether there is any way of testing this in a controlled environment, the way science is tested.

I can't say if your right or wrong, because you don't offer anything which can explain or theorize on the dynamic creation of matter, despite this being a
crucial part of the theory.

Final summary of my point: I don't want to discuss any of the observations you have made - since they seem to hold water, but I would like to understand
your theories on how matter is created during this growth-process.
I also believe that many of the people visiting your site think exactly like I do.

So, you might be right so far - but I don't care - and I don't think anyone else does either, unless you intend to carry this reasoning over to the much more
interesting 'how'.
- If you would like to explain or develop on how matter is created in this theory, it would be of great interest.
Either you do this in a reply, or if you post it on your (awesome) site, it's definitely something I will read carefully.
I won't ignore it, nor treat it with contempt, I don't think anyone will, I'm just curious as to where it's leading..
...How?

Best regards
Mikael Bergkvist

Mikael,

Of course if I explain it all, I won't be able to sell you my tape and my book.

But I will take you onto my path to see how I got to the theory. Please follow me. Very carefully. It's confusing at first.

1. To prove Earth grew I must bring all continents together perfectly, perfectly, perfectly, with no enlarging of continents no reducing, no turning, no stretching. It must work and fit perfectly. All upper tectonic plates must fit I did that 33 years ago. Step one!

2. The next is in the mind. Mine and yours! Did all the matter in the universe always exist, same amount?! Or in an "empty" Universe was one tiny piece made, then another, then another till we have the universe we have today. If you think the first, I can't talk to you. You are a Big-Banger! If you think the second well, you have a curious mind and you want to know where it all came from. (As I did.)

3. Now, the next step. If this second is the truth who turned off the off-switch?

No one, it must still be going on! If it is, it explains that the sun is growing, (which we know to be true,) the Earth is growing which I can show, as well as Europa, Ganymede, the moon, mars, and others. It explains how it seems the universe is exploding when in fact is simply growing.

In fact it explains so many things that it makes a better picture than all of current science.

4. Now we get to the shit. I, of course could never develop better technology than the whole field of science. That would be stupid. Do you expect me to?

But what I can do is re-examine those things that we know or think we know and see if a pattern of wrong analysis or wrong conclusions or just simply Bad Science exists. After all, if Americans and Europeans simply looked at the Atlantic Ocean and completely ignored the Pacific and presented the field of tectonics and the concept of Pangea as a not fully researched, incomplete theory, then how many other mistakes have been made and by who and do they make a pattern?

They do. Explore with me.

A. Michaelson and Morley try to prove the existence of ether. They prove the opposite cause light speed doesn't change as Earth goes toward or away from the sun, which makes them sad and changes our whole view of the universe.
Now we know that Earth has a full-out-into-space electromagnetic field. If prime matter, or dark matter or ether is affected then Earth can easily carry its own pod of prime matter! And if light doesn't travel in a vacuum but within prime matter, then light will adjust its speed within that field. To always be light speed within that field. Now what should Michaelson and Morley's conclusion be? Everything would change! Or, is ether dark matter, and is dark matter prime matter? Is Einstein wrong about time, space and the speed of light?

I'm afraid he is, but he started with bad information. It was a waste of his, and our, time.

B. Carl David Anderson, the youngest man to win the Nobel prize was 1. First to observe the trails of cosmic rays and 2. The first to discover that listen now, matter can be created out of nothing! That's in 1932! What was your question?

A cosmic ray strikes nothing, and creates a positron and an electron. The electron is an electron. (Incredible!) But the positron is not a proton. It has the same energy as the proton but it is 1998 times smaller. Worse, a positron seeks out an electron and destroys it within a nanosecond.

And so the field of science makes it's biggest mistake in history, in my opinion, it names the positron anti-matter. And our understanding of how matter begins to be made is lost forever. (Well, till now.)

What if I could prove to you, Mikael and the world that a positron is a primitive proton. And if I join that proton with the (an) electron we have hydrogen. How far is that from making a Universe. No distance at all. Let me give you another real piece of the puzzle.

Question: Why is the hydrogen atom the only atom that has no neutron.

Answer: Because a hydrogen atom is a neutron.

(© Neal Adams June 11, 2003)

Note: I never argue with science. Proven science, I argue with theory. Stupid theory that says granite can subduct into magma which is twice its density. That's not science. It's fear of science.

I'm going to give you one more piece and then I'll expect powerful arguments, comments and attack!

This one seems simple. But you must think about it.

A growing body has a skin. A non-growing body has no skin. A rock doesn't have a skin.

Growth is a process! This process creates a skin. The skin is a result of that process. A rock doesn't have a skin.

But a meteorite does have a skin. A geode has a skin. The Moon, Earth and any floating body in space has a skin. It's a process!

You know, 33 years ago some scientists said Earth expanded. They hide now or are ignored, because they couldn't explain how Earth "expanded" or grew.

I knew I couldn't simply say Earth grew, or even prove it. I had to show it was possible.

Took me 30 years, but doing it, I figured out how the universe worked. And you can dig it out of me by challenging me, or by waiting for the book and tape.

If you challenge me skillfully enough, I'll send you a pre-publication copy of the tape.

Neal Adams

One more clue. Planck was righter than right. And all of sub atomic physics is wrong.

Hi.
I'm not going to debate this.
I'm going to state some facts though, and then get on with it.
-
I admire the artist Neal Adams, and this proves that he has the brains too.
I also accept some of this theory, specifically the part relating to earth growing and the line of reasoning dealing with dinosaurs migration paths.
 
However, I know the quatum physics that you refer to, and I will not debate that.
I'm only curious about your choice of strategy.
 
It's very likely that the first part of the theory will gain a broad acceptance, and it's equally likely that the second part will go down in flames, either you are right or not.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if you are right..
 
If you had settled with the first part, it would have made more sense to me.
Perhaps you are right, perhaps not, I wont dizzy the obvious intelligence this line of reasoning sports, it's just that I know that there's another line of reasoning that deals with the appearance of 'matter out of nothing' which also produces predictions that might or might not come true - which a proven way to test any new theory.
If the prediction comes true, the theory gains a lot of momentum in the scientific community.
 
But again, if I buy the book - and I will - it might have those, and then time might do the rest.
 
Good luck and best wishes
 Mikael Bergkvist

C'mon Mikael get your feet wet.

Let me smash your brain with some reality!

Let's let Quantum Physics take a break and just stick to physics, cause if your physics is off, Quantum Physics is simply a method of codifying and quantifying wrongness, and you know it (or the fact that I watch it, changes it!)

If the Earth grows? don't you realize I can't say that. You can't even say maybe I might be right! I can't be right, don't you realize that..?

Think think. What are the implications if I'm right? What was the implication of the fact that the Earth circled the Sun and was not the center of the Universe.

I can't be right. Earth can't grow. If Earth grows? ALL THE PLANETS GROW. ALL SUNS GROW. ALL GALAXIES GROW AND THE UNIVERSE GROWS. There is NO-OTHER-POSSIBLE-CONCLUSION. You and everyone cannot let me be right about Earth and the others growing. This is the tip of the helmet of a gigantic buried warrior of knowledge.

The funny thing is that for the first to be true, the second must also be true. That's why the first must not be true.

My strategy is logic. Logic is a fearful thing. It leads us into the fearful things, we don't want to know the King has no clothes. We want to think all those brilliant scientists are talking down to us for our own good and trying not to use those big words and that bothersome Latin because we'll just suck our thumbs and be stupid and ignorant and start crying.

The universe is a mystery and I've figured out a big chunk of it. I know how it works.

Still a mystery, to me? Yes! Less of a mystery now. But the most brilliant scientist is no less bewildered by it all, than you or I.

So my strategy is, logic. I just can't blurt it out. I have to bring you all along the same path of logic I had to follow. We need a basis for any dialogue. We must agree on what we know and what we don't know.

We must agree, first, that we don't know where it came from! Do we?

We must agree that at first it was very simply and singular so that as we go back in time this complicated universe gets simpler and simpler. We can't have positrons, protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks, taus, mesons and so on.

There must first be nothing. A zero. An unknown. A simple non-thing.

From that, some thing or force or lack of force must have turned it (the nothing) into something, altered it.

That old something/nothing must have been split into two things or multiples of two things, not fifteen things.

It's sorta like gravity and magnetism. Somehow the Universe must be responsible for two attractive forces, as if one wasn't enough. Well I think one attractive force was indeed enough, and one negative force.

Well since you only want to deal with the "first part," ask me if 400 Million years ago there was salt in the oceans. Ask me why it took 200 million years for shallow sea life to climb onto the land? Ask me how the Grand Canyon got there since rivers fill in their own beds? Good luck and best wishes.

-Neal

Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:54:55 +0200
From:MIKAEL

Hi.
I'm going to sound very pompous in this reply, but you invited this..

The reason I'm telling you that you should take this in two steps, is because 'logic' doesn't work the way you say it does.
The "if one thing is true, then the other follow" is not "logic", and it's generally not accepted by anyone in the scientific community.
That's 'Sherlock Holmes logic', which is much like a 'James Bond spy', or a 'Star Wars spaceship'.
Nothing to do with reality.

It assumes that you know enough of reality to narrow it down to two (or more) options, and that is seldomly the case.
Reality is a big place, and there's a lot of freaky possibilities out there.
'Logic' is about defining the chain of cause and effect, if there is one, and using that as a hierarchical reference for the organizing of the involved
facts, to determine which facts are more important than others, or simply as a 'way to describe a process'.
Like analyzing the game afterwards..not predicting it before it's played.
By that I mean that logic has no value as an probing tool in science, and is even less credible as evidence.
Logic is used to organize already known data, not to prove anything, or discover anything.
(Not entirely true, sometimes you discover stuff by examining them really close, but there's no law that says that you will..)
Your observations regarding earth expanding, not growing, is probably possible to prove scientifically - note that I'm not saying it hasn't actually grown,
only that it's far more difficult to prove that part of it.
If the earth expanded, much of the first parts line of reasoning actually holds water, but it does so even if the globe expanded like a balloon, which
we already know it does.
It does so, to get rid of excess heat, like a tea-pot boiling over, pushing the lid aside.
How much it has expanded over the years is not discussed today and this is an embarrassment in some ways, because even if it is false to assume
that earth 'only' expanded, as you claim, the scientific community should have considered some of the scenarios you describe, relating to the
dinosaurs, Pangea, etc, just because they still know about the earth expanding..
That part of the theorem is something that would be quickly accepted, because it fits the facts in a very obvious way, and it does so without
challanging any important fundamentals in science.

Secondly, regardless if logic is a powerful tool or not -- it took the great heroes of science years and sometimes even centuries to convince anyone
- 'logical' or not - if it challenged the ruling powers.
The people who's toes you intend to stomp (into a bloody mess, I might add) will make this task very difficult for you, and I think you know that.
My question is simply this, since you know that the next mightiest power on earth is stupidity and stubborness married, just look at the world
today, and that sometimes the only way to overcome those powers is to be strategical, like you would with a child, why not take this in steps?
You told me that I needed to, so what is so different with the rest of the world?

If the first part of the theory can lead nowhere but to the next step, as you say, and if it will be accepted because people does'nt initially realise that,
as I say, then why not launch this as a two-step rocket??

Sell it piece by piece, because I belive the scientific community will choke on this, if taken as one single bite.

Let me put it like this, if this was a war-campaign, and your mens life depended on it, would you still go about it the same way?

Regards
Mikael Bergkvist

Point taken.
A few points back.

If you examine fish bones, reptile, mammal, simian and human bones, you may not find 'proof' but you will find logic for evolution. And then your journey begins.

35 years ago a minority of scientists proposed the Earth growing or expanding (I insist growing with a bit of expanding) they were shot down!!! They had no more proof than I. Difference was and is, I'm an artist. I can easily think three-dimensionally (not bragging), I also speak plainly. I can show. Graphically and purely and totally how it works.

All those years ago I saw it so easily it was almost a joke. Then those noble gents, geologists mostly were beaten back like criminals.

Now I knew the assignment. How? How could the Earth grow. That it grew was almost insignificant if it was simply a unique phenomenon. Logic! If not, by logical extension the Universe does not work the way they tell us it does.

Since the Earth grew a whole new set of rules apply. Without these new rules, only new bad and worse theories would arise each infected by the wrong rules of the past.

I am not aimed at scrabbling down a few loose tiles and replacing them. I am going after the basic super structure that hasn't been challenged since Newton. There's a lot of bad shit.

Here's what will change.

1. No Big Bang (steeped idea.)
2. A sun again a sun builds its own planets. (One billion tons of electrons and ions flies off from the sun every second where a-hem where does it go?)
3. The interior of the Earth, the core is filled with super-heated gas and plasma with no solids and gravity is inverted, cause no solids. The electron-magnetic field of Earth flows through this plasma perfectly! (Why don't we know this? Cause scientists are not engineers and they don't understand pressure and gravity and the difference between the two.)
4. No particle in our universe can be larger than the mass of two electrons (or an electron and a positron.)
5. And light is neither a particle or a wave.
6.You can't have plus one and minus one without having zero, no matter how hard you try.
The scientific community will, most assuredly choke on this. Call it tough love. They will recover and, as with many things before in my life you'll start hearing "You know, I always doubted that one." And "Hard to believe, I've been developing a theory along those same lines.

Thanks for your concern, but when I go to war (with a smile) I risk no one but myself. But between you and me, I've done my homework. And finally, who cares if I fail? I'm just some crazy comic book artist.

Just a reminder. Your first note told me I must do the second part or you-just-don't-care. Now you think the first part is enough.

-Neal

Web master,
I just read the article on the reissue of the 1970's Neal Adams "Batman." I read those comics at the time they were originally released and thought
they were great. I still do hold that opinion and will go so far as to say that Neal's Batman was the best ever done. I am glad to see that this material
is being reissued. The reason I am writing is to comment on the printing. I hope you pass this opinion on to the publishers, along with other people's
comments, before they print the books. The article says that only half of the book is going to have the color redone. I do not know anything about
the technical aspects of this issue, but I would pay a higher price for the book knowing that the money goes into a higher quality product. Good luck
with this project and future projects.
Sincerely,
John

I thought the exact same thing as you did...with the exception about Mad Magazine. The special was about Super-Heroes (and some select ones, at that) and nothing more. That's probably why no Mad and no Archie, Dell, Charlton, Disney, etc. And that's a shame because a show on the complete history of comics WOULD make an interesting series. It would definitely have to be at least the ten hours you said, if not more. Just going into some of the artists personal lives would take up a full season or two. Stories about the books and the character histories themselves would be of interest, even to the persons that never read comics. And, of course, inside industry stories would be great to hear. If I remember correctly, didn't you try to start a union for comic creators (which was, I thought, a tremendous idea) and that was met with a major amount of fear. Of course, I could be wrong. After all, a lot of this stuff wasn't in the special, either. Ahhhhh, well, one can only hope that one day it'll be done right !!Take care !!
Joe

Ok....here it goes. You put forth an interesting theory. And you've put a lot of thought into it, but it's no more provable than the "giant asteroid" or "shifting plates." Competing theories should be discussed in scientific circles, and I hope yours is. BUT it's just another theory. We mere humans
will never know for sure.
-Rick

Okay Rick,

Here it comes,
The giant asteroid theory must stand up to proofs just as my "Theory"* does. It doesn't, but that is quite beside the point.
When a new theory stands up to a far greater preponderance of facts than the "old"* theory, it must be examined. But the theory must exist first.
Exist, to be laughed at, ridiculed, argued over and at last considered for its validity when compared to the facts. (And the old alternate.)
Imagine, for example, if you opened the paper tomorrow morning and read that, "After fifteen years of minute measuring, geologists confirm that the Earth is actually growing."* (It will happen.)
Imagine, if after the next Mars flight, scientists verify that "The Valles Marinaris was not only not made by running water but that there never was surface water on Mars and that the Valles Marinaris is, in fact a spreading rift, yet there is no subduction on mars. That is a a Bingo,"* Rick.
Imagine, headline, "Subduction proved invalid."* Bingo!
Imagine, headline, "Matter from the Sun now believed to be the minerals that assemble into meteorites."* Bingo!
Imagine, headline, "Scientists agree that the positron that leaves the proton in positive beta decay was (somehow) in there all along."* (Duh.) Bingo!
Imagine, headline, "No point of origin of the Big Bang found. Science searches for new theory of universe's creation."* (Oops.) Bingo!
These and thousands of headlines can and would prove my theory. Like to hear some headlines that proved my theory already?
Headline, 1995, "Scientists discover gigantic column of positrons ejecting from central hub of the Milky Way (Our) Galaxy! The size of the column is incredible according to readings of Gamma rays. We're now looking, and expect to find a similar column of electrons ejecting from the opposite hub."* (Creation of matter from...|?)
Headline(s), "Measuring the speed of stars circling the outer perimeter of galaxies compared to the speed of the inner suns has drawn a serious and inescapable conclusion. Scientists agree on the existence of an invisible material they call Dark Matter. First mathematical calculations verify that more than ninety percent of our universe must consist of this Dark Matter, probably more, up to ninety-nine percent."* (Boogy-boogy.)
(Course I know dark matter), I did thirty years ago, by deduction. It's Prime Matter, the stuff that matter is made from.)
I could go on and on, but I assure you, I am not one of those fellows, who sit in coffee shops and speculates about reality being a dream and a dream being reality. This is hard science.
I have a video, and in my conference room I have a model of an Earth. Covering this Earth are continents enlarged (through careful methodology) to two hundred percent their present size. These continents fit together perfectly on that smaller globe, without shrinking or growing, subducting, without turning or spinning. The continents were moved toward each other according to the spreading under sea lines that exist under the oceans that you too can see and experiment with on maps that you can buy and download on the internet. We followed these lines backward purely and when we were done, the continents fit together!
The odds of this happening according to the Pangea/subduction theory are impossible. It would be like taking a jigsaw puzzle of thirty pieces and dropping them on a table randomly and shoving them simply toward each other and, by God, they fit without turning and moving them around. They just go together. Is that possible? Of course not. Just as totally impossible for my globe to exist, yet, it does!.
Look, think of this as an adventure,|a show. Neal is in a cage with fifty lions and he is bare-handed. I'm telling you before this adventure is done that all fifty lions will be dead and I won't have a scratch on me. Is that a show? You bet it is.
But to enjoy the show, you got to crack some books because this isn't checkers (nor is it brain surgery. It's elementary).
"Interesting theory?"* You damn me by faint praise. It-covers-the-whole-universe-and-how-it-works! It's a series of theories overlaying three hundred years of bad science.Of course, it's not Velcro. Velcro is cool

P.S.

Listen Rick and any others. This is what science wants you to believe as their theory. That: all the land (upper plate, two to five billion years old) was gathered together on one side of the Earth as a big gigantic island. The rest of the Earth was ocean, five miles or fifty miles deep. This ancient ocean bottom no longer exists. Do you understand this? According to them, the present ocean bottom rolled out from the rifts on a kind of conveyor belt and replaced the old ocean bottom, which dove back into the magma by a method they call subduction. A method that contradicts every branch of science and engineering disobeys Archimedes Displacement Law. (And, for which there is not one shred of evidence). So, two thirds of three quarters of the Earth's surface, the undersea, is no older than one hundred and eighty million years old. Can you imagine this? The whole undersea floor was replaced. Not one square mile of it still exists. Guys, it's solid granite and basalt that is up to and beyond 5 miles thick. Ancient fish fossils? In Utah, Italy and China! Get it?
Then these scientists say that Pangea (This single island) broke into two islands. The tops piece "floated,"* "traveled,"* "Rode,"* to the North Pole while the bottom half went to the South Pole and in between was the Tethys Sea (No, no evidence of this sea has been found.) Nor do the undersea tracks* verify this.
The these two massive continents broke up and "floated"* to their present positions. (South America will crash into North America, and Africa will crash into Europe.)
I'm not making any of this up. Not one freaking word. Try this. India was attached to Africa. It "broke off"*. It swam up the Indian Ocean and crashed into Asia in slow motion. What Ju-Ju did this? Where in your mind or any aspect of science could you find a rationale that could explain this desperate insanity. In time, this conveyor belt|all the crap will be laughed at by the graders. Oceans. Do you believe this?

My Theory (hardly a theory.)

-Earth began small. (Like you and me).
-It grew by inner and outer accretion. (Meteors and silicate penetration along atomic silicate fissures to the center like geodes).
-Inner accretion is silicate from individual atoms from the sun.
-As gravity increased, the ability to retain gas rather than lose it increased and in time water collected.
-As the planetoid grew, it produced new matter on the inside, which pushed outward.
-Outward growing and pushing created increasing heat.
-The surface now cracked and spread.
-The new water fell into these cracks
-New cracks appeared and simply spread and as the water fell from the shallow seas into the deeper and deeper rifts of the growing planet.
-Now the connected upper plate cracks and spreads more profoundly leaving the now high and dry upper older plates to move apart as the undersea rifts pull further and further apart until we have the world we see today.
-And so, no continent moves. Rift ridges erupt new materials as the earth grows the light silicate magmic ""slag" fills in the spreading cracks.
- (At times a pressure point erupts volcanically to relive a specific pressure, but this is rarely part of the smooth rifting process).
-The continents sit in the center of these plates and don't move, yet they ""move" further apart, like ink dots on a balloon. The dots aren't moving yet as the balloon expands, the dots move further apart.
-No continent moves toward any other continent ever. Earth's earliest deep rifts were both sides of North America. That's why we had to re-discover America.
-India was attached to both Africa and Asia, and as Earth grew and un-curved its surface. India had to tear free of Africa and not Asia.
-There is no magic. All must follow nature's basic laws and they can't be forgotten. 5 billion years of lightweight granite ""slagâ floats on the twice as dense magma. Chunks of the sea floor can't sink into magma. it's against the law. It floats on the magma ""cause it's slag. it's lighter! Think, think, think.

-Neal