Expanding Earth?

[InfiniteNow]

I, however, encourage a deeper introspection.

Neal Adams

Actually, you encourage discord as would a tantruming toddler. You proclaim your own knowledge and the mistaken views of others, but (at least as evidenced by this thread) lack the ability to 1) support your views with anything more than feces flinging, 2) recognize that any strong theory will be able to counter or explain away the attacks of others, and 3) prove to me that you're not just a forum troll with an agenda.

 

I like to learn new things. I like exploring new ideas; new concepts. I like listening the well informed opinions of others, and exploring.

 

Show us why we should listen to you with something more than who your friends are or what documents you have hanging on your wall. At present, the only thing proven to be expanding in this thread are childish nonsensical claims and lack of support.

[Boerseun]

I've been trying to stay out of this fray, but being 'Earth Science', you're urinating in my Bailywick. So here goes:

Look Turtle

This is gibberish. Anyone can put anything on the internet. You are driving me to "wax microplates" as a model. WAX IS NOT GRANITIC ROCK !

and now you're counting Google entries.

I agree. Wax is by no means granitic rock. It is simply an analogy to describe the pliability of these rocks over aeons of consistently applied pressure. Seeing as you are insisting on denying the pliable nature of granite, I would love to see how your take on things would describe the folded granite mountain ranges of this world. For instance, why does the Cape mountains in South Africa look the way they do? And how would you describe the folded strata of the Himalayas? Strata are the layers in which the rock has been lain down - you should know this. And strata are always formed level, horisontally, as the deposits layered up. So how do they fold, if they don't have a pliable nature, given enough time and pressure? Kinda waxy, as a visualization aid? Now take that same manifest pliability as shown in the Cape and in the Himalayas, and apply it to continental levels. In this case, the pliability would allow for damn near any structure you'd care to mention.

Call up Nostradamus , Flying saucers . Faces on the moon. It's gibberish and non scientific .

Juvenile ad hominem attack.

You have not tracked tectonic plates ever. I have .

You have not done the work. I have . You don't know the rules. I do.

Juvenile, and presumptious. And flat-out wrong. If you have done the work, then you'd know that you're wrong. And arguments from authority is not the way to go when you want to discuss matters of science. The only tool you have is your argument. And your argument is not supported by the evidence at hand.

Prove to me that you have done any of this work , in this area and I will listen carefully , to you. Until that happens , I will listen and answer to only questions and answer politely.

I have studied geology at varsity. But hey, that probably won't swing any weight with you. But that is besides the point. The years of effort you have committed to this venture is admirable, but if you're wrong, you're wrong. End of story. Anyone with a scientific bent will be mature enough to accept the fact that the evidence doesn't support his pet hypothesis, and move on to the next issue at hand. But that's a good thing, too, because in doing this, we weed out the bad ideas and the pool of possibilities becomes smaller and smaller until we've identified those that are supportable - and one of those will likely be the truth - or the closest description thereof.

The Geological community has , until now , And I said the community,

not an individual , community, has never addressed the idea of islands .

I thought you said you studied geology, mate? If you knew as much as you said you do, then you'd know perfectly well that current geology caters perfectly well for islands. Your knowledge in this field was made suspect with this one statement. Why should we listen to anything else you're saying?

How do I know ? I have their maps,....going back for 600 million years. They are a joke. We have thousands of islands now . Do you know what happens on ISLANDS? Darwin knows . Evolution , Divergent evolution ! Gonna have to prove that one. Can't. Don't. You watch Discovery ? Nova ? Nat'l Geo? Do they talk about divergent evolution on islands? Big Islands? You know ,...the whole three quarters of the world , all one big sea,...gigantic ....no .....

Islands?? Anywhere? I mean ....one or two. medium sized ......islands??

New Zealand size????? Hmmmm?

The whole Pangea theory depends on the island of pangea being in one place for 600 million years.

Yes, and? Is there a point here somewhere? The 'islands' of Pangeae, being the continents of today, is perfectly supported by continuous mountain ranges across continental divides. Continuous rock structures, etc. Solitary islands in the oceans today are either volcanic in nature, or coral (being a submerged volcano) or larger ones at the edge of subduction zones (New Zealand), or even ancient shields, which are actually parts of continental plates (Greenland).

I feel I am debating against the biggest crackpot idea in the history of man on Earth.

This theory might be a 'crackpot idea' in your mind, but the irony here is that the current data set supports it perfectly. This seems to me to be a personal bug-bear of yours, and that's fine. But bug-bears make for notoriously bad science.

Ask a meteorologist what makes cold winters ? Don't tell him why you're asking him . He'll tell you it's because of the deep freezing cold oceans. If not for them it would be sub-tropical all year round all over the world. The deep oceans lie in wait for the sun to go away. then that half of the world gets frozen by the cold deep ocean.

I see apart from geology, metereology ain't your strong suit, either. Cold winters are made by the process of trying to achieve thermal equilibrium between the poles and the equator (in a broad sense). The oceans act as a thermal buffer, tempering the process. You get cases like Europe, where the Gulf Stream carries warm water from the lower lattitudes higher up than they should, because of the layout of the continents forming a path for it to go up.

During the ages of the reptiles and Dinosaurs and in fact for 600 million years there was no winter , There were no ice ages as there are now. The world ,from Alaska to Antarctia was sub tropical . NO ISLANDS for divergent life to grow . No fish in deep oceans . No proof of deep oceans anywhere in the world . All,...all ancient fish fossils , all sea shells are found on the bottom of the shallow seas which are on the land that we live on , We are the bottom of the sea. Think of it. Utah ! You want megladont teeth, teeth from a monsterus fish 30 feet long that had a mouth like a steam shovel?Utah! Every fact I list proves Pangea didn't exist as an island on one side of the Earth. It's a cosmic joke . Three quarters of the upper tectonic plate is missing. Not moved around , Missing , Tectonics Proves it.

Gibberish, if you'll pardon the expression. Seashells are only found in sedimentary rocks, and the lifting of plates and lowering of sealevels from ice-cap growth will eventually expose them. What's the site in Utah's elevation? What rocks are they imbedded in? I'll bet you'll find "monstrous" fish skeletons smack bang right on top of Mount Everest. And you'll find it there because of plate tectonics, and the pliable nature of granite, amongst others.

Fish families? There are more than twice as many fish families on the land in fresh water , than in the oceans .

River systems are isolated from each other. The sea is one huge playground, where it's much more difficult to isolate species.

There are more than twice as many fish families in the shallow ocean than are in the deep oceans. (I'm being conservative.) What would Darwin say about that ?

Darwin would say: "Ehm, okay, it's like, you know, probably because in the shallows, species have access to more energy coming to them in the form of sunlight, making possible a lot more stuff than in the deep. Like that, check. Word."

The Pangea theory is unexplainable . It's nonsensical from a thousand points of view.

No, it's not. Go to your nearest university, and take Geology 101 asap.

So grasshopper ,...Turtle.,ask away. Don't assume . I've

done my homework.

Doing your homework is not productive if you didn't pay any attention in class!

[NAdams]

I've been trying to stay out of this fray, but being 'Earth Science', you're urinating in my Bailywick. So here goes:

 

I agree. Wax is by no means granitic rock. It is simply an analogy to describe the pliability of these rocks over aeons of consistently applied pressure. Seeing as you are insisting on denying the pliable nature of granite, I would love to see how your take on things would describe the folded granite mountain ranges of this world. For instance, why does the Cape mountains in South Africa look the way they do? And how would you describe the folded strata of the Himalayas? Strata are the layers in which the rock has been lain down - you should know this. And strata are always formed level, horisontally, as the deposits layered up. So how do they fold, if they don't have a pliable nature, given enough time and pressure? Kinda waxy, as a visualization aid? Now take that same manifest pliability as shown in the Cape and in the Himalayas, and apply it to continental levels. In this case, the pliability would allow for damn near any structure you'd care to mention.

 

Juvenile ad hominem attack.

 

Juvenile, and presumptious. And flat-out wrong. If you have done the work, then you'd know that you're wrong. And arguments from authority is not the way to go when you want to discuss matters of science. The only tool you have is your argument. And your argument is not supported by the evidence at hand.

 

I have studied geology at varsity. But hey, that probably won't swing any weight with you. But that is besides the point. The years of effort you have committed to this venture is admirable, but if you're wrong, you're wrong. End of story. Anyone with a scientific bent will be mature enough to accept the fact that the evidence doesn't support his pet hypothesis, and move on to the next issue at hand. But that's a good thing, too, because in doing this, we weed out the bad ideas and the pool of possibilities becomes smaller and smaller until we've identified those that are supportable - and one of those will likely be the truth - or the closest description thereof.

 

I thought you said you studied geology, mate? If you knew as much as you said you do, then you'd know perfectly well that current geology caters perfectly well for islands. Your knowledge in this field was made suspect with this one statement. Why should we listen to anything else you're saying?

 

Yes, and? Is there a point here somewhere? The 'islands' of Pangeae, being the continents of today, is perfectly supported by continuous mountain ranges across continental divides. Continuous rock structures, etc. Solitary islands in the oceans today are either volcanic in nature, or coral (being a submerged volcano) or larger ones at the edge of subduction zones (New Zealand), or even ancient shields, which are actually parts of continental plates (Greenland).

 

This theory might be a 'crackpot idea' in your mind, but the irony here is that the current data set supports it perfectly. This seems to me to be a personal bug-bear of yours, and that's fine. But bug-bears make for notoriously bad science.

 

I see apart from geology, metereology ain't your strong suit, either. Cold winters are made by the process of trying to achieve thermal equilibrium between the poles and the equator (in a broad sense). The oceans act as a thermal buffer, tempering the process. You get cases like Europe, where the Gulf Stream carries warm water from the lower lattitudes higher up than they should, because of the layout of the continents forming a path for it to go up.

 

Gibberish, if you'll pardon the expression. Seashells are only found in sedimentary rocks, and the lifting of plates and lowering of sealevels from ice-cap growth will eventually expose them. What's the site in Utah's elevation? What rocks are they imbedded in? I'll bet you'll find "monstrous" fish skeletons smack bang right on top of Mount Everest. And you'll find it there because of plate tectonics, and the pliable nature of granite, amongst others.

 

River systems are isolated from each other. The sea is one huge playground, where it's much more difficult to isolate species.

 

Darwin would say: "Ehm, okay, it's like, you know, probably because in the shallows, species have access to more energy coming to them in the form of sunlight, making possible a lot more stuff than in the deep. Like that, check. Word."

 

No, it's not. Go to your nearest university, and take Geology 101 asap.

 

Doing your homework is not productive if you didn't pay any attention in class!:doh:

Boersun

Is everyone in this group cranky? If we were having a cup of coffee would you all sound like this ?

I don't think so. at any rate.

1.A. You agree with me. Fine.

B . I did not say or imply, that heat and/or pressure did not affect materials according to what they are, In fact the melting states has so much to do wirth the tectonic and all other geological processes ! But it ain't wax,

Nor do I think wax is a poor start point , moving on to materials and mixes which cool at the top and hold relative firmness on the way down.

I have examined the islands above Canada and compared them to oslands nearer the equator and other land masses .

Spiraling trailing edges (Central America , The bottom of India.

The islands off Indoneisa

etc have this trailing off quallity , while the islands above Canada have a brittle broken off quallity ,...still I'm not sure a change in direction during the process is not responsible . Either way , the relative plasticity of the base area is clearly important as is the brittleness of the upper plating.

Note : A real discusion is considering the theory that mountaining is NOT caused by Crashing of continents in to each other , but rather The exponentially more rapidly growing Earth and the resultant recurving of the upper crust.

I will remind you, most sternly, that any supposed "crashing of continents" that supposedly " made" these mountains is off by six hundred million years. since most mountains on Earth are no older tham 40 million years old , and since Pangea there has been drifting apart , not crashing together . according to current theory , there is a problem ,

If 600 million years ago landmasses were crashing about , it ended with

Pangea.

We are speaking of a time of mountain building when all the continents were separate and separated. Moreover inland mountains are not justified in any way ,

North America is a perfect example , Tectonic spreading and pulling apart pressure is noted in the center coming down frim the great lakes

area. Here we have flatlands . On either side we have folding,

because of the recurving flatter of the Earth , Crashing not only does not exist , The earliest deep old ocean in the Atlantic occurs at the east coast of the North American continent

I can answer more later . Going to the gym and shopping,

Happy Holidays

neal Adams

[NAdams]

I've been trying to stay out of this fray, but being 'Earth Science', you're urinating in my Bailywick. So here goes:

 

I agree. Wax is by no means granitic rock. It is simply an analogy to describe the pliability of these rocks over aeons of consistently applied pressure. Seeing as you are insisting on denying the pliable nature of granite, I would love to see how your take on things would describe the folded granite mountain ranges of this world. For instance, why does the Cape mountains in South Africa look the way they do? And how would you describe the folded strata of the Himalayas? Strata are the layers in which the rock has been lain down - you should know this. And strata are always formed level, horisontally, as the deposits layered up. So how do they fold, if they don't have a pliable nature, given enough time and pressure? Kinda waxy, as a visualization aid? Now take that same manifest pliability as shown in the Cape and in the Himalayas, and apply it to continental levels. In this case, the pliability would allow for damn near any structure you'd care to mention.

 

Juvenile ad hominem attack.

 

Juvenile, and presumptious. And flat-out wrong. If you have done the work, then you'd know that you're wrong. And arguments from authority is not the way to go when you want to discuss matters of science. The only tool you have is your argument. And your argument is not supported by the evidence at hand.

 

I have studied geology at varsity. But hey, that probably won't swing any weight with you. But that is besides the point. The years of effort you have committed to this venture is admirable, but if you're wrong, you're wrong. End of story. Anyone with a scientific bent will be mature enough to accept the fact that the evidence doesn't support his pet hypothesis, and move on to the next issue at hand. But that's a good thing, too, because in doing this, we weed out the bad ideas and the pool of possibilities becomes smaller and smaller until we've identified those that are supportable - and one of those will likely be the truth - or the closest description thereof.

 

I thought you said you studied geology, mate? If you knew as much as you said you do, then you'd know perfectly well that current geology caters perfectly well for islands. Your knowledge in this field was made suspect with this one statement. Why should we listen to anything else you're saying?

 

Yes, and? Is there a point here somewhere? The 'islands' of Pangeae, being the continents of today, is perfectly supported by continuous mountain ranges across continental divides. Continuous rock structures, etc. Solitary islands in the oceans today are either volcanic in nature, or coral (being a submerged volcano) or larger ones at the edge of subduction zones (New Zealand), or even ancient shields, which are actually parts of continental plates (Greenland).

 

This theory might be a 'crackpot idea' in your mind, but the irony here is that the current data set supports it perfectly. This seems to me to be a personal bug-bear of yours, and that's fine. But bug-bears make for notoriously bad science.

 

I see apart from geology, metereology ain't your strong suit, either. Cold winters are made by the process of trying to achieve thermal equilibrium between the poles and the equator (in a broad sense). The oceans act as a thermal buffer, tempering the process. You get cases like Europe, where the Gulf Stream carries warm water from the lower lattitudes higher up than they should, because of the layout of the continents forming a path for it to go up.

 

Gibberish, if you'll pardon the expression. Seashells are only found in sedimentary rocks, and the lifting of plates and lowering of sealevels from ice-cap growth will eventually expose them. What's the site in Utah's elevation? What rocks are they imbedded in? I'll bet you'll find "monstrous" fish skeletons smack bang right on top of Mount Everest. And you'll find it there because of plate tectonics, and the pliable nature of granite, amongst others.

 

River systems are isolated from each other. The sea is one huge playground, where it's much more difficult to isolate species.

 

Darwin would say: "Ehm, okay, it's like, you know, probably because in the shallows, species have access to more energy coming to them in the form of sunlight, making possible a lot more stuff than in the deep. Like that, check. Word."

 

No, it's not. Go to your nearest university, and take Geology 101 asap.

 

Doing your homework is not productive if you didn't pay any attention in class!

 

 

Juvinile attack?

No , it's a comparison ,,,In that each has NO VALUE except the value that kooks and gullible people give it. You as much as said so yourself when you agreeed this experiment has little or no value.

Therefore , I'm to assume you have not edited your words here or merely "Hipshot a stream of conciousnes at me??

I have not done the same. I have not taken the slap-dash insult route that the internet engenders in its practitioners. You should be embarrassed at the

insincerity herin. Still I will respond.

 

Presumptous? How dare you . A fool could see the writer did not do the work. I am presumptous ? Let the writer answer . Not you ,...unless you speak for him. You, sir, are presumptous. And again , how do you presume?

Now ...Wrong? You have no basis for your claim . I study exactly what is available to anyone. I study, then I give my opinion , You may disagree ,

Though I don't know how since the first paragraph , you have misrepresented my stance and my position, as I have shown

To the point. You again represent my corespondent's study and knowlege which is what I alluded to . Do you know him personally and his level of study?

Then , how dare you speak to this point?Speak for yourself.

 

No , it does not swing any weight with me . except to say you are "mildly" familiar with the subject at hand , and you are aware that I disagree with much of it's conclusions.

" If you're wrong, you're wrong." Hmmmm Profound. But , how would you even know I was wrong , unless you 1. were an expert in geology?

and 2. you understood my theory completely? And even then , how would YOU know? Both theories attempt to follow the facts. Mine , of course , much more completely. You'd know that. of course if you studied both.

If your argument is that if a theory doesnt follow the facts , that direction should be abandoned, Then I agree,Totally .

Mine does. Let's see if "yours" does?

1. Yours says sea level does not change , unless all the stored ice melts, Then ,it would get about 25 feet deeper.

In the days of the dinosaurs 300 million years ago , for example the Shallow Seas were nearly a half of a mile deeper, Today that would be more than1/4 to 1/3 rd of all the water on the earth today.

Perhaps you'd like to account for all that water HAVING DISAPPEARED?

In my model The only water on Earth was in the Shallow seas. As the Earth rifted and the continental plates spread apart The shallow Seas drained off into the new spreading oceans , as the amount of surface water increased from the gases from inside the Earth that exit the rift lines (85 thousand miles of them)

2. In "your" model , the Earth began MOLTEN and DIFFERENTATED

with about 2.5 miles thick Granitic crust on down to Heavier Basalts. It cooled with ,

now/then a solid 2.5 mile granitic crust. Your model.

NOW..... ONLY 1/4 of this outer crust is left on the Earth. Where is the rest, the other three quarters ? Granitic rock at 2.5, According to your experts , cannot Subduct ! Can NOT Subduct into the oceanic basalts at 3.3. times the weight of water. Impossible!. Where is it all???

In my model the crust constantly cracks and splits , ongoing

. 3. In your MODEL Pangea , all the continents lie on one side of the globe , The Granitic rock and basalts average THREE TIMES the density of water, Then there is an average 1/2 mile thick amount that rises above the water. making the whole mass 5 times heavier than the Water on the other side. THIS slides the center of gravity over to the pangea side by 4 miles!

Based on this and only this , the opportunistic water would shift to the pangea side so that the whole center of Pangea would go under water ,

The center of the vast(ER) Pacific would rise above the waves and become an island the size of Eurasia.

In my model continents don't "MOVE" at all , except outward.

 

On your model , across the board , dinosaurs are 4 times as heavy as modern animals , yet have the same bone density .

On my model Earth is 1/4 the size it is here ,today.

On your model there is no evidence of the actual EXISTANCE

of DEEP OCEANS on the planet Earth . Their very existence is based only .

ONLY ....on theory! There is no evidence of the existence of 2/3 rds of this Deep Ocean area anywhere in the world! Not one square mile ,..not one square yard!

Shall I go on?

Islands? Caters? What?? What emboldens people on the internet , to say things thet can never prove? Before 180 million years ago

there is no evidence of ocean's existence on Earth , How then can islands be identified. ???

there are 20,000 to 30,000 Islands in the pacific now.

were there 20 to 20 thousand islands in the pacific200 million years ago?

Were they there for the 400 mllion years of the ages of the pangeic island?

Were they all around the vast pacific ? In all that time , did they develop divergent life forms? Species? Etc? This is Flim-flam Geology, my friend.

Hey ,,,try this one , 20 thousand islands in the Pacific, right , so the seafloor subducts ,..right . Does it suck the islands down along with the oceanic plate (SSSLLOOPP chomp, chomp ,it's gone ) What's the next island to go?/ I mean there's 20,000 minimum ,...there must be an island that's in line to go. Shouldn't we warn those folks living there ?

GOT a better question . all those Islands were once part if a landmass left behind, now sprinkling the ocean. What land mass?????

How did they get there? Were they there 400 million years ago when the pacific was so much wider ? SSSSso the oceanic plate around them is how old?????

Or they keep being broken off the American continents and float across the Pacific??

Intelectually preposterous!

 

Is there a point here? This seems to be the paragraph where you Google a site and type things in.

1, There are no "islands of pangea."

 

2. You've really put your foot into it this time ....as to Contiguousness of mountains. I should just let you out of this, but there's too much information to share.

I will admit and concur that mountain ranges continue vast distances and bend and fold like folds you can track and inentify. This happens

in all directions, East-west , north-south. for example from North Anerica through Central America to South America, the mountains of Italy to Spain are part of the mountains of northern Africa.

couple of things:

First : 170 million years ago , according to Geology.... Laurasia broke away from Godwanna and the two took a trip to the North and South poles respectively and didn't start back toward the equator 'til....

60-70 million years ago . That's North America and Eurasia went north and South America ,Africa Australia and Antarctica went south.

Secondly: Trouble is these mountains were built 30-40- maybe

50 million years ago ....When these continents were ,according to your guys .

A THOUSAND MILES APART!

 

Instead of wasting your and my time ,here ask a Meteorologist this. IF THERE WERE THE DEEP OCEANS THAT WE HAVE NOW

THERE IN THE AGES OF DINOSAURS , ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL COULD THE EARTH AVOID FRIDGID WINTERS IN THE WINTER SEASONS?

Don't try to throw a Google quote at me . I am not impressed with your ability to google.

 

Gibberish paragraph ,........What the heck was that random "interesting geological factoids" jumble of third grade stuff?

The subject was Deep ocean fossils from before 180 million years ago.

NOT fossils found on what was once shallow seas.

You seem mighty confused here , Crack a book.

 

RIVER SYSTEMS,......That's pretty funny, gotta say/

O-kay. I told you that ...200 million years ago on back. The

continental plates had shallow seas.. Do you understand? This is where the fish families EVOLVED. Fresh water fish!!!!

If these Seas were contiguous with the fantasy Deep oceans.

and they would have to be,..... then They would have the same fish families.

AND THE oceans would have to be fresh water, The fish? Fresh-water fish!

So they had 600 million years to populate the deep oceans ,...the oceans ,...and the shallow seas ....all the same.

The rivers are just the remnant of the water on the land.

All should have the same fish families if your geology were true.

 

Darwin ,.....O-kay. you don't get it ,fine . It's MORE , NOT LESS!

But for extinctions! If I was you and I just wanted to be silly ,..I'd've used extinctiom. At least the other fellow (me) would have to think fot a minute.

 

 

Uni . really Juvinile, boyo,

Neal Adams

[NAdams]

Actually, you encourage discord as would a tantruming toddler. You proclaim your own knowledge and the mistaken views of others, but (at least as evidenced by this thread) lack the ability to 1) support your views with anything more than feces flinging, 2) recognize that any strong theory will be able to counter or explain away the attacks of others, and 3) prove to me that you're not just a forum troll with an agenda.

 

I like to learn new things. I like exploring new ideas; new concepts. I like listening the well informed opinions of others, and exploring.

 

Show us why we should listen to you with something more than who your friends are or what documents you have hanging on your wall. At present, the only thing proven to be expanding in this thread are childish nonsensical claims and lack of support.

 

 

Dear sir

Let me try to give you a perspective . Of course I can't really. But I'll try.I warn you there will be no clear proof here like a dawning light over the horizon that clears away the fog.. You're me, 40 years ago . A young unpretentious artist just seeking knowledge. Secretly cynical, but openly accepting of explainations that work. In science you resent , really resent as in religion having to accept ideas that you know are really bullshit. The sun grows and was once dimmer yet it throws stuff out into its system ,...so they explain it scientifically ,,,,bullshit, A photon is a particle AND a wave and it moves through NOTHING,...bullshit. It all started compacted to the size of a wallnut , a basketball , or a barn and EXPLODED in a Big Bang.

bull-f**ging ****. Then it was quarks gluons and the topper Gravitons,...can someone cut me a break here. Man , You can love scirnce just so much,.. and well , fact is , I never settled , I believed there was truth.

Like everyone 40 -some years ago I saw that Africa and South America fit

together , but as an artist , I could see that this wasn't really true . It was an illusion , Like one of those illusion games , you know "which line is longer " ," Ha,Ha, got you the other line is longer. It's an optical illusion."

If you put the two together straight on theres a triangle of space thet .s a simple

acute triangle of 25 degrees . No doubt of it . I believe this atuff , If it's wrong , it's wrong. If I'm to beliee they fit there must be some other not explained thing , so I dropped it, mentally , and went on.

Then was discussed , the pangea theory, It was wonderful , what a brilliant

concept , They did fit yogether , What fun.

They fit....in the Atlantic. ...........That's .........great! Ha. .........Doubts crept is . I tried to hold them back.

Hadn't .........they checked the tectonic matching in the Pacific? Oh, yeah,it was bigger ...and harder , much harder ti see .....but .....so what,...this is science , isn't it ......don't we have a responsibility to the truth ?....whereever it goes ? Flaura and fauna ? Tectonic matching....guys....after all .....Africa and South America diDN'T REALLY MATCH. DID THEY? GUYS.......... I didn't understand? Was it ...we are Americans and Europeans ? We don't care ...We're afraid??? I mean if the Pacific ALSO came together ....why , that would mean ......grave consequences. Hell , we have a150 years of tradition that tells us how the Earth assembled ...from ....uh....um a collection of .......more bullshit. (sigh) Forget it.

The person can for get, but the brain ......ratty thing that it is.....doesn't. I calculated , and figured and sure enough , it fit! Damn!

There was only room for little doubt ...Self delusion ,...but I am a very good draughtsman. It fit . oh not perfectly like Africa And South America . Then I discovered , if you take South America and Africa and recurve then to a smaller globe , say the size of Mars ....

The recurving caused the empty space to go away. !!! I was stunned . Then I rotated Spain up to close with europe and I was able to close the Mediteranian , I boought antarctica up and it fit Australia, i briught the two up and i was closing the Pacific ,....but Africa was moving down WITH South America , India was becoming part of Africa as well as Asia , and on and on . BUT THE WORLD WAS GETTING.....smaller.

You know when you do a jigsaw puzzle , and it all fits . If some one told you there was an extra piece you would know it must be from another puzzle because this one was done.

Then professor Sam Carey showed up on the scene. from Australis. and he said the exact same thing I knew to be true. There WAS a pangea , but it fit right around a smaller world . I followed the discussion from affar. I was busy having a 20hour a day 7 day a week carreer.

Then the scientific community found SUBDUCTION in the benioff zone, and with-out a tip of the hat to Sam Carey , who had driven a bolt of living intelectual

lightning theough the scientific community they dismissed his theory.

Oh, I thought , thats how it worked ....hmmmmmmmm. duck and cover, it's done .

But what about ...it fits ....perfectly.... that's impossible. What if this "subduction" is just downward comperssion like mountain-building? There WAS compression , there were slabs of mountain-sides. .

But that's not what defeated Carey,....really. It was part fear and part that Carey wasn't a physicist and he didn't solve the problem of the mechanism ." The mechanism, Professor, that makes new mass for your growing planet, What is it?"

Carey continued as an honored and awarded professor of Geology in Australia , still fighting the good fight, and groups and associations formed and faded and formed again ....but in the end it was "the mechanism (And subduction)that disheartensd the faithfull .

Me, I never got in touch with them. ' til recently. I had decided to dig in. and find the mechanism.

Seemed like a nice limited problem to solve. It would satisfy my science Johnson , and I knew this Subduction thing would die of it's oun accord.

The mechanism. That took 30 years. I thought I was done in three years but nope , thirty. I started a graphic novel about it, then stopped, Finished it recently. along with the videos,

The mechanism,...took me into every area of science, yum, yum. Had a great time , of course,......but ... it got very deep. I discovered a lot of things and there was no way I could deal with it except to carry on . This growing Earth is like the cork that's stopped up the whole bottle . Everything came gushing out.

You see for the Earth to grow , mass must be made. like they said , You cn try to avoid it, and i did, for a time . but theres no other answer. for this you need a few things. You need,...Something to make matter OUT OF, And it must be stuff that, right now we can't see of percieve. lnvisable..... stuff!

Then you need energy,....to make the stuff , lots of energy.

Then you need a place, a big place in which this matter -stuff is to be made. Someplace where you can't see this process happening. Or else we'd have already seen it, and seen it happen???? Invisible stuff, lots of energy , and a BIG location where we can't see it happen. That's a tall order.

It would be good if we could have a clue as to this process if it's so COMMON.

Suppose it's happening right in front of our faces and we don't exactly see it right? Suppose its happening everywhere and happening very much in mysterious big unseen places and maybe we realize it , but we don't understand it? That's better than being hidden.

Because , you see the answer must be very simple and common. Youve heard the phrase ...we can't see the forrest for the trees, Well, WE can't see the forrest for the trees.

If all this is true. how could I compile unique evidence. How can I do the magical experiment, The experiment has already been done . We didn't understand the result, ...

I know , It's too simple. It can't be true! ...Oh yes it is, I'll be glad to tell it to you, but we can't easily do the experimrnt to show it.

The only known Spontanious creation of matter out of invisible matter was observed by Carl David Anderson in a pig shaped vacuum container ...in 1932!

He observed the spontanious creation of a Positron , from the apparent collision of a photon with ...nothing. The Positron seemed to seek out a nearbu Electron and within a nano-second , it (Seemingly ) annhilated it

For the sake of this act thw Positron was named ANTI-MATTER,....And Carl David Anderson was the youngest man to be given the Nobel Prize.

Several years later other scientists discovered that at the same instant that the Positron was/is created ,...an ELECTRON is CREATED!

Dirac was right . The Electron MUST HAVE an opposite particle.......but....an Electron ...my god,,,it's an electron, Are all electrons in the universe created this way? Are all other Electrons in the universe created this way??? Is there two ways to create Electrons ??

Wait ,...didn't it take a photon .....and it created an electron AND a Positron??? Can Electrons be created "another" way? Have we seen it ??

NO???? NO! So this is the only way? There were no electrons in the Big Bang?

But if Positrons Annhilate Electrons ,,,,,,,and this is the only way Electrons can be created.....how can we have Electrons ???

The .....only way we can have Electrons is if we have Exactly the exact same amount of Positrons. The only way. and THAT is a fact! It's not a theory, a supposition or conjecture . It is simply a fact.

There's one Positron inside each proton in the universe . exactly and precisely, the same.

Neal Adams

[TheBigDog]

That last post is longer than "War and Peace". How am I expected to read it? I will be the first to admit that I have not read most of this thread. I skipped around over the past few months. And here I am drunk off my *** responding...

 

Neal, your theory of an expanding earth is wrong.

 

A) If the earth is expanding, what is causing it to happen? The core of the earth has been losing energy since it was formed. When if was young and had the most energy and crust was not yet formed. It had no resistance to expansion then, so it should have just exploded if it were going to expand. Now that the crust has been hard for the past few billion years and there is severe resistance to expansion (have we been able to stretch rock in the laboratory?) you are claiming that it is expanding. That just doesn't add up.

 

No modern scientific readings support expansion. We can measure the earth very precisely. While there is some oscillation recorded in the shape of the earth, there is no evidence that it is or has changed shape in any significant way. Satellites are not in danger of losing altitude because the earth is expanding into them. And we use satellites to measure bulges in the earth surrounding fault lines measuring in millimeters. (proven)

 

C) If the earth had the want to expand, then any place where there was the opportunity for pressure to leak out from the inside would be like a pinhole in a balloon. The massive expanding energy would take the path of least resistance and escape out of every crack and crevice, leaving the core devoid of such high energy billions of years ago (assuming it didn't all expend before the crust formed).

 

D) What is the center of the earth made of? What natural mineral expands without gaining mass or changing form? Is it made of Ready Whip?

 

E) I saw the video's you made. Very well thought out. Where were the oceans when there was only one continent? When the earth was so much smaller, the oceans must have been much deeper. But then there may not have been room for any land at all. Yet we know that there were always both oceans and land.

 

F) Why would the expansion be so even? For the landscapes that we enjoy, the earth is nearly flat. It it were expanding from internal pressure why would we not see much greater bulges where there are week points? I say this because the highest peak to the lowest depth of the ocean are only separated by about 13 miles elevation. While the earth is over 4000 miles in diameter. This means the greatest geological deviation (aside from equatorial asymety) is 0.325%. This would indicate that there are virtually no weak spots in the earth that allow for bulging from the extreme forces of expansion taking place. Even in areas of high volcanic activity where there is obvious for core pressure to be relieved through the crust.

 

My thought is that you are a bright guy. And that you like to show off you intellectual prowess by taking on a fools argument, and beating the idle minded in debate much of the time. I know many people like you. I am like you sometimes. But don't get upset when people don't buy your wares because they can see your hand up the *** of your puppet. That probably sounds grumpier than it is intended.

 

Bill

[NAdams]

That last post is longer than "War and Peace". How am I expected to read it? I will be the first to admit that I have not read most of this thread. I skipped around over the past few months. And here I am drunk off my *** responding...

 

Hey pal . suck it up and read it, or don't. S'up to you If I could make it shorter, I would. It's No fun for me.

 

Neal, your theory of an expanding earth is wrong.

 

What the hell is it with you guys,.. Comin' on like that? You just admitted you hadn't read lots of it. Man! Fine, It's wrong!

 

A) If the earth is expanding, what is causing it to happen?

 

(Sigh.) It's not expanding! It's growing . Balloons "Expand" A puppy grows. It's "Growing" because matter is being "Created" in the outer core, added to the inner surface of the manter and "LIKE A GEODE" pushing outward, .....Because for silicate crystal .outward is easier than INward.

 

This is how the universe works. No Big Bang. It's all creating Matter and it happens exponentially. You can't expect a moon to make matter as fast and energetically as Jupiter,say. I'm saying this briefly and if it soungs abrupt, i'm sorry. (War and Peace.)

 

The core of the earth has been losing energy since it was formed.

 

The opposite of the truth.

 

Most of the stuff you're about to say is Theory. Actually , if it was that , it probably would be better.( Man I gotta get past this early stuff faster.)

 

50 years ago 4 or 5 philosopher/scientists told us how the Solar System was created.

 

WE'VE been bending science to suit this model ever since . I love my great grandfater but I don't believe in slavery and I want to give the vote to women And I think this idea that this area collected meteorites (From WHERE?) and one day someone switched gravity on , (When we had "just enough stuff) and FOOM magic we got a Solar System,....Now isn't that hunky-dorry,? Poom, hardly broke a sweat . Evolutionary process? Unnecessary . Hey not even a process . Hell ,we don't even have to think about it. Just gather up all this material.

 

Tell you something . You know what kind of meteorites we find that are 4.5 billion years old? Not many . One kind!

 

They're called condrite meteorites. They're made from chondrules. little mineral geodes the size of a pencil point... and more accreted material like the chondrule material. They . Don't get very big and 2. They CAN'T be accreted on or part of another gravitational body.

 

Think about that for an hour or ao.

 

When if was young and had the most energy and crust was not yet formed.

 

When It was YOUNG , it was cold and small. Then It grew , First by outer accretion and by inner accretion like a geode . Then When It got big enough and found a planrtary "LINE" and spun, it generated an energetic field and created matter and GREW. Now its getting more energy .

 

It had no resistance to expansion then, so it should have just exploded if it were going to expand.

 

I'm sorry . this is silly. Planets don't explode.

 

Now that the crust has been hard for the past few billion years and there is severe resistance to expansion (have we been able to stretch rock in the laboratory?) you are claiming that it is expanding. That just doesn't add up.

 

No ,......I'm saying Earth ,....and by logical extension all celestial bodies grow , Or they wouldn't be here . It's hard to pop into existance. There has to be an evolutionary process. Not a biologic process but a ' First this has to happen , then these two things can happen " process.

 

 

:naughty: No modern scientific readings support expansion.

 

Not a lot of "MODERN" scientific stuff being done these days, Nature bites us in the *** nearly every day. My fave recently is The universe is exponentially "Growing" / moving? outward. Score one, Neal. (gee, the universe is growing but WE'RE not)

 

We can measure the earth very precisely.

 

No . we can't. There , I said it and I'm glad. We say we can't. Now you prove your assertion.

 

2002 , Raytheon Scientists on the Topex/Poseidon satellite project announced the equator was growing, had been for 4 years. They said it was reducing for years before.

 

So I looked for an item that announced that years-ago shrinking. No existan.

 

Then they announced it was rebound from the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

 

I felt privledged , In my lifetime I witnessed the re-reversal of an ice age rebound, I've been tracking down the continuing story and the two researchers, Cant find 'em. While there is some oscillation recorded in the shape of the earth, there is no evidence that it is or has changed shape in any significant way. Satellites are not in danger of losing altitude because the earth is expanding into them. And we use satellites to measure bulges in the earth surrounding fault lines measuringin millimeters. (proven)

 

The truth is these massive figures are given to a few outside researchers to analyze . I've got a limited set ,and I'm trying to get station locations

.

One chinese researcher says the southern hemisphere is growing. I'll tell you one thing,...the stations are set up in a sawtooth way AND every single set either gains or loses each year. Every one!

 

C) If the earth had the want to expand, then any place where there was the opportunity for pressure to leak out from the inside would be like a pinhole in a balloon. The massive expanding energy would take the path of least resistance and escape out of every crack and crevice, leaving the core devoid of such high energy billions of years ago (assuming it didn't all expend before the crust formed).

 

I didn't understand this and it's relevance. Pressure leaks from Eighty five thousand miles of active rifts every dey , as well as over 35 natural vents in the continental plates..

 

D) What is the center of the earth made of? What natural mineral expands without gaining mass or changing form? Is it made of Ready Whip?

 

No. it's its a dense heated plasma. A plasma that processes matter, ions and electrons, within earth's electro-magnetic field , into atoms ,up and down the periodic table.

 

E) I saw the video's you made. Very well thought out. Where were the oceans when there was only one continent?

 

Please look again . They are not simply an entertainment but for study.

 

There were NO DEEP OCEANS just as the Earth 200 million years ago had no deep oceans .

 

Still there were shallow seas on the land , If I put the seas in the correct places, the video would be confusing. Assume shallow seas 1/2 mile deep. When the earth was so much smaller, the oceans must have been much deeper.

 

Not at all . If a planet, like earth ...has water ..and grows ,by creation of new mass. some of that mass must be water , so as the Earth gains mass ther is more water!

 

But then there may not have been room for any land at all. Yet we know that there were always both oceans and land.

 

Yes ,...but the water is ON the land!

 

F) Why would the expansion be so even? For the landscapes that we enjoy, the earth is nearly flat. It it were expanding from internal pressure why would we not see much greater bulges where there are week points?

 

The "weak POINTS" are the RIFTS, under the oceans,85,000 miles of them around the world!

 

I say this because the highest peak to the lowest depth of the ocean are only separated by about 13 miles elevation. While the earth is over 4000 miles in diameter. This means the greatest geological deviation (aside from equatorial asymety) is 0.325%. This would indicate that there are virtually no weak spots in the earth that allow for bulging from the extreme forces ( a rift is not extreme. Discovery shows them all the time.) of expansion (GROWTH) taking place. Even in areas of high volcanic activity where there is obvious for core pressure to be relieved through the crust.

 

My thought is that you are a bright guy. And that you like to show off you intellectual prowess by taking on a fools argument, and beating the idle minded in debate much of the time. I know many people like you. I am like you sometimes. But don't get upset when people don't buy your wares because they can see your hand up the *** of your puppet. That probably sounds grumpier than it is intended.

 

Bill

 

It sure did Bill. You couldn't be more wrong. Those videos took years to do, Years to do. I have worked on this project for 40 years, I have seen stupid men attempt to crush the work and reputation of Professor Sammuel Warren Carey The man that first presented this clear Geologic concept. 40 years ago he had the Geology but not the Physics, He sucked it up and had a great career. Man in a million.

 

The Physics took me 30 years. I may be wrong about some of it but basically, I've got it knocked. Now my job is to present it. Believe it or not Bill I'm the real deal. This work will rewrite all the textbooks on Earth. Nor do I give a rat's *** about impressing stupid people.

 

All I care about is ,....the truth ... that's it . You'll see.

 

Neal Adams

[Boerseun]

Riiiiiiigggghhhht... <sigh>. Here we go, again:

I have not taken the slap-dash insult route that the internet engenders in its practitioners. You should be embarrassed at the insincerity herin. Still I will respond.

No, you will step back a little and ponder your arrogant, presumptious attitude of "I have done the work, you haven't". Tell me straight, bubba, how do you know?

Presumptous? How dare you . A fool could see the writer did not do the work. I am presumptous ? Let the writer answer . Not you ,...unless you speak for him. You, sir, are presumptous. And again , how do you presume?

Once again, how on Earth could you make a judgement call on anybody here's levels of knowledge? Apart from battling slightly with geology and metereology, do you have any problems with English, to the tune of knowing how a dictionary works? If you do, then go and look up the meaning of 'presumptuous'.

Though I don't know how since the first paragraph , you have misrepresented my stance and my position, as I have shown

To the point. You again represent my corespondent's study and knowlege which is what I alluded to . Do you know him personally and his level of study?

Pot calling the kettle black? Making judgements here, saying that you, and only you have done the work, and nobody here have the level of knowledge you have here, then questioning my bona fides? You, dear sir, are a agenda-driven, single-minded troll. I'm going to answer to only this one post of you, then give up - based on your future behaviour.

So - let's see:

Then , how dare you speak to this point?Speak for yourself.

Have you actually read my post?

No , it does not swing any weight with me . except to say you are "mildly" familiar with the subject at hand , and you are aware that I disagree with much of it's conclusions.

No, I have never said I'm "mildly" familiar with geology. You've said it. Matter of fact, I majored in it. But that won't swing any weight with you, because my studies in interpretation is not in accord with yours. And anybody who's not in accord with you has no knowledge of the subject matter, and is only "mildly familiar" with the subject, and must then also be wrong, because you, and only you, are the authority here. Once again, the hallmark of a troll. Be careful, Neal. We hate losing members in such a way.

" If you're wrong, you're wrong." Hmmmm Profound. But , how would you even know I was wrong , unless you 1. were an expert in geology?

Your presumptuous mind, of course, will completely black out the possibility that yes, indeed, I, or any given member here, might just be an expert in the field. But you will not attribute me with that, simply because I don't agree with you. But how would you know? Have you looked up the meaning of "presumptuous" yet?

and 2. you understood my theory completely? And even then , how would YOU know? Both theories attempt to follow the facts. Mine , of course , much more completely.

Apart from Geology, Meterology and English, I see you've no problem with Modesty, either...

If your argument is that if a theory doesnt follow the facts , that direction should be abandoned, Then I agree,Totally .

Mine does.

No, Neal, your theory does not follow the facts.

For instance, this 'expansion' you keep on talking about. Where does the matter come from? Are you aware that mass equals energy? Are you aware of the fact that energy cannot be created? If the Earth is growing from nowhere, then you will be able to fit your cut-out continent design on your two-foot globe. But you will walk slap-bang into the fundamental laws of physics. Your theory seems to be more an ego-stroking exercise than anything else.

Let's see if "yours" does?

1. Yours says sea level does not change , unless all the stored ice melts, Then ,it would get about 25 feet deeper.

In the days of the dinosaurs 300 million years ago , for example the Shallow Seas were nearly a half of a mile deeper, Today that would be more than1/4 to 1/3 rd of all the water on the earth today.

Huh? Dinosaurs walked the Earth 300 million years ago? What scientific discipline don't you suck at? Might it be the feeble attempts at dino-hood cruisin' da hood in the Triassic, from between 225 to 195 million years ago, or the serious humanga mothers walkin' the Earth in the Jurassic from between 195 to 136 million years ago? 300 million years ago, you'd have been hard-pressed to find a decent dino on the Third Rock from the Sun. But then, an average high-school student "mildly" familiar with the matter at hand, and geology in general, could have told you that.

Perhaps you'd like to account for all that water HAVING DISAPPEARED?

No, Neal. I don't have to. Water levels rise and fall as we cycle between ice ages. Relative water levels also seem to rise and fall as tectonic activity raises and lowers plates. Every now and then, the water level might drop as a humungous, monstrous impactor crashes into the sea and sends trillions of tons of seawater into space, together with a fair amount of atmosphere and other stuff that happened to be in the way - only to be replaced by a continuous bombardment of material from space, to the tune of a few hundred tons a day.

In my model The only water on Earth was in the Shallow seas. As the Earth rifted and the continental plates spread apart The shallow Seas drained off into the new spreading oceans , as the amount of surface water increased from the gases from inside the Earth that exit the rift lines (85 thousand miles of them)

2. In "your" model , the Earth began MOLTEN and DIFFERENTATED

with about 2.5 miles thick Granitic crust on down to Heavier Basalts. It cooled with ,

now/then a solid 2.5 mile granitic crust. Your model.

Not my model, and not the truth, either. You make it sound like we're trying to present the current model as existing of one big homogenous sheet of the same material, meanwhile, the landmass consists of sial, and the seafloor of sima - or is this too "introductory" to you? It is, actually - the sial/sima differentiation between seafloor and landmass is normally treated in seventh grade geography. Were you there that day?

But by the way - sial, consisting out of mostly silica and aluminium, is lighter than sima, consisting out of mostly silica and magnesium. So, as a crude analogy, the crust is not uniform or homogenous, rather, the continents are floating on the sima like slag will float on molten metal - with the same warping of the surface features as the molted metal moves underneath, carrying it along. Or, simply watch the skin warp on custard.

NOW..... ONLY 1/4 of this outer crust is left on the Earth. Where is the rest, the other three quarters ?

Doesn't need to be any more. There is only so much slag in molten metal, and the amount of sial on planet Earth was determined by the random crap colliding in our protoplanetary disk before the Earth fell together.

Granitic rock at 2.5, According to your experts , cannot Subduct ! Can NOT Subduct into the oceanic basalts at 3.3. times the weight of water. Impossible!. Where is it all???

Once again, another illustration that you don't know what you're talking about. What is subducting, is the seafloor. Sediments deposited at rivermouths and through wave action eroding coastlines simply float on top of the seafloor that is heading dead-on to a subduction zone. That's why erosion from landmass eventually ends up back on land - it's lighter than the stuff the seafloor's made of.

On your model , across the board , dinosaurs are 4 times as heavy as modern animals , yet have the same bone density.

No, they don't. First of all, this paragraph is horribly stated. By saying "across the board", to which modern animal, then, would a diplodocus be comparable? A T-Rex?

On my model Earth is 1/4 the size it is here ,today.

On your model there is no evidence of the actual EXISTANCE

of DEEP OCEANS on the planet Earth.

There is no "old" deep seafloor to be sampled, simply because they are subducting at a constant, measurable, verified pace. The only "old" rock on planet Earth is that which is found on the ancient exposed shield structures on the continents - and they, too, are continuously being eroded away.

Their very existence is based only .

ONLY ....on theory! There is no evidence of the existence of 2/3 rds of this Deep Ocean area anywhere in the world! Not one square mile ,..not one square yard!

...yes, because they are being subducted. Cables lain over the Atlantic seafloor snap, because the Americas are moving away from Eurasia and Africa. On the other side of the Americas, the Rockies span from Alaska all the way to Cape Horn in South America, as the Pacific seafloor is grinding under the two continents.

Shall I go on?

Please don't. Your posts are too long as it is.

Islands? Caters? What?? What emboldens people on the internet , to say things thet can never prove? Before 180 million years ago

there is no evidence of ocean's existence on Earth , How then can islands be identified. ???

Huh? 2+billion year old stromatolites kinda proves that the sea's been around for a while. Come on.

there are 20,000 to 30,000 Islands in the pacific now.

were there 20 to 20 thousand islands in the pacific200 million years ago?

Were they there for the 400 mllion years of the ages of the pangeic island?

Were they all around the vast pacific ? In all that time , did they develop divergent life forms? Species? Etc? This is Flim-flam Geology, my friend.

Those islands are volcanic in origin, and come and go. You really don't seem to be on top form as far as your vaunted geologic knowledge is concerned, my friend.

Hey ,,,try this one , 20 thousand islands in the Pacific, right , so the seafloor subducts ,..right . Does it suck the islands down along with the oceanic plate (SSSLLOOPP chomp, chomp ,it's gone )

In some cases, that happens, in other cases, not. The Hawaian islands, for instance, is the same volcanic plume erupting over and over, but everytime the plume rises, the seafloor have moved away. Hence, the Hawaian island chain looks like a string of pearls - meantime, it's the same thing coming to the surface, but now the surface have moved away slightly.

GOT a better question . all those Islands were once part if a landmass left behind, now sprinkling the ocean. What land mass?????

How did they get there? Were they there 400 million years ago when the pacific was so much wider ? SSSSso the oceanic plate around them is how old?????

All those islands were not part of anything - they simply didn't exist until the rising plume erupted and built the island from scratch, out of the seafloor, where there was nothing yesterday, there's an island today.

Or they keep being broken off the American continents and float across the Pacific??

Intelectually preposterous!

You have no idea about geology or how it works. Serious - I'm not kidding. I thought that you've done the work?

 

I'm tired. I'm not going to reply to any more of that post. You have no idea what you're talking about, and in all honesty, you're acting like quite the troll. And besides, I'm tired. I've already wasted an hour of my Sunday afternoon on this crap.

 

Go and brush up on your geology - even if it is only your cousin in seventh grade's school geography handbook. That'll already be a good start.

 

Also, a good rule of thumb: You cannot refute what you don't understand - and you clearly don't understand much of this specific matter.

[NAdams]

Have you actually read my post?

 

Yes

 

If your argument is that if a theory doesnt follow the facts , that direction should be abandoned, Then I agree,Totally. Mine does.

 

No, Neal, your theory does not follow the facts.

For instance, this 'expansion' you keep on talking about. Where does the matter come from? Are you aware that mass equals energy? Are you aware of the fact that energy cannot be created? If the Earth is growing from nowhere, then you will be able to fit your cut-out continent design on your two-foot globe. But you will walk slap-bang into the fundamental laws of physics. Your theory seems to be more an ego-stroking exercise than anything else.

 

You are truly half correct here , The half wrong first , if you don't mind. If we follow the theory as presented , we would never close the continents on a smaller globe . It would be like taking 10 pieces of a puzzle , put them on a table and simply by shoving them together ...they will fit perfectly. . This will work on the Atlantic side because we KNOW they fit together . They ,after all were together and were pulled apart, Not so the Pacific

 

So to be sure that theres no hanky -panky ,, there are some rules.

 

First , we knew Antarctica was sub tropocal in the ages of dinosaurs and attached to australia into a super continent.

 

Second ...we know that Africa (THE Middle east portion was the actual South Pole for quite a time .

 

Third . we know that the tail of South America wrapped around the bottom of Africa and the lower west coast hugged the coast of Antarctica .

 

Fourth , we know that the southern coast of Alaska is the same tectonicaly as northern California.

 

These are some of the bolder. touchstones for us to have to stick to .

 

There is the Marie Tharpe map that shows the under sea plating structure and direction of plate movement, Other maps mirror Tharpes map . In addition we had the USGS Rainbow map of timing of the spreading plates AND direction of movement . Fortunately the two maps , as all quality undersea maps present the same picture, sensibly the correct thing to do was follow the direction of the plates and portions and to follow the timing , as if one had a road map and was simply following it . What we discovered is that if we deviated in any way we bulged or ,, screwed up . We had to follow it "religiously".

When lines disappeared we simply followed the direction we were previously going.

 

You saw the result , The Pacific fit as completely and cleanly as the Atlantic.,..No shrinking , reducing , Turning of plates ,No swiming about , The puzzle fit perfectly together. It made it;s own rules. I can only take credit for being the HAND . I invite the closest scrutinty.

 

The second part. (NOT Expansion , Rather 'Growth." Not "Nothing , But "something" we can't see or detect at a close range. For the moment , call it Dark Matter.

 

Professor Sammuel Warren Carey wrote his book on this theory and publishes in 1976. The subject was talked about sibce the late 50's aparently . I heard about it in the 60's . Sam Carey attained world wide attention and noteriety. His theory was defeated by the "Discovery of the Theory of Subduction" AND , exactly what you speak of "Professor Carey , For your theory to be true , a significant amount of mass would have to be created, .....where did it come from ...and what is the mechanism of it;s creation /"

 

Wrap the problem in a ball of reality and that was it!

 

Or, there have ben theories . Super dense material expanding ,..and so on . But the question was there and Sam Carey was not a Physicist , and now he couldn't easily revisit . he had a continuing award -winning career, and he died 2 years ago unbowed by a milimeter.

 

Devastating . Others picked up the baton and books followed , but no one could or did pick up the" mechanism" problem . He was clearly correct, I could see it as clear as blood on a baby's face. Dead end .

 

So I decided to do it. Simple as that . And when I did I'd do a graaphic novel . How long could it take? Couple of years? (heh. Thirty years, oh , I've had a very successful career while this was going on. Pet project, I love science, since I was 12 . I figured it out. But it turned out to be so much bigger than the earth Growing,...BOY, did it ever.

 

Think of the ramifications if the Earth grows It affects everything, It explains the existance of matter,..and , by extension the existance of the universe. ....un beliveable ???/

 

Did you toexpect it to come with a blare of trumpets ? Or Harvard to announce it? ///.......Comes down to this . ...

 

Do you believe all the matter in the universe always existed , always will exist , same amount ,?...Amen?? or ....do you believe there was no matter in a seemingly empty universe , then one little piece was created , then another, and another, and another until we have the universe we have today? If you believe the former then we truly have nothing to talk about. If you believe the latter then there's a second question...

 

Who turned off the off switch?.

 

Matter can be MADE...in the cores of planets , moons , suns , and they all grow. Solar Ststems grow ,and Galaxies grow ,..as does the universe ,....which means No Big Bang. The earth growing? The tiniest tip of the iceberg.

 

Let's see if "yours" does?

1. Yours says sea level does not change, unless all the stored ice melts, Then, it would get about 25 feet deeper.

In the days of the dinosaurs 300 million years ago , for example the Shallow Seas were nearly a half of a mile deeper, Today that would be more than1/4 to 1/3 rd of all the water on the earth today.

 

Huh? Dinosaurs walked the Earth 300 million years ago?What scientific dicipline don't you suck at? Might it be the feeble attempts at dino-hood cruisin' da hood in the Triassic, from between 225 to 195 million years ago, or the serious humanga mothers walkin' the Earth in the Jurassic from between 195 to 136 million years ago? 300 million years ago, you'd have been hard-pressed to find a decent dino on the Third Rock from the Sun. But then, an average high-school student "mildly" familiar with the matter at hand, and geology in general, could have told you that.

 

You are correct, I have a habit of including the fossil record of dinosaur AND reptile to encompass a convenient time frame. 300 MYA compared to 200 MYA when the rifting of the Upper plate Began , The fossil record for reptiles began in the Pennsylvanian period beginning about 300 MYA. (oldest being 340 MYOld.) But without my qualifying it , you are correct. MY error obfuscated the point ...which is , The shallow seas were about a half mile deep , All fish and reptiles swam in them . including Plesiosaur and the massive Megalodon .

 

Those Shallow Seas no longer exist on the continental plate at all! They are gone , and so Sea level around the world ,..is lower by one half mile. Not 25 feet , Half a mile . There is no place for that water to go unless you believe in magic. I do not.

 

Perhaps you'd like to account for all that water HAVING DISAPPEARED?

 

No, Neal. I don't have to. Water levels rise and fall as we cycle between ice ages.

 

There were NO ICE AGES during the ages of the dinosaurs and reptiles.

 

Relative water levels also seem to rise and fall as tectonic activity raises and lowers plates

 

Yes , by as much as 25 feet ., say 50 .or even a hundred feet. We're talking a HALF MILE.

 

Every now and then, the water level might drop as a humungous, monstrous impactor crashes into the sea and sends trillions of tons of seawater into space,

 

Really ? You think so?

 

together with a fair amount of atmosphere and other stuff that happened to be in the way

 

Other stuff?

 

only to be replaced by a continuous bombardment of material from space, to the tune of a few hundred tons a day.

 

,,,,,,,,,,But ,,,that's going on all the time every day , week, month ,year. It doesn't "SEEM" to affect anything at all.Do .....you know somthing that....we should know?

 

I repeat . A half mile covering 2/3's of the continental plates...GONE . Shall we just ignore it like all the other proof"

 

That's a LOT of water!

 

In my model The only water on Earth was in the Shallow seas. As the Earth rifted and the continental plates spread apart The shallow Seas drained off into the new spreading oceans , as the amount of surface water increased from the gases from inside the Earth that exit the rift lines (85 thousand miles of them)

 

2. In "your" model , the Earth began MOLTEN and DIFFERENTATED with about 2.5 miles thick Granitic crust on down to Heavier Basalts. It cooled with, now/then a solid 2.5 mile granitic crust. Your model.

 

Not my model, and not the truth, either. You make it sound like we're trying to present the current model as existing of one big homogenous sheet of the same material, meanwhile, the landmass consists of sial, and the seafloor of sima - or is this too "introductory" to you? It is, actually - the sial/sima differentiation between seafloor and landmass is normally treated in seventh grade geography. Were you there that day?

But by the way - sial, consisting out of mostly silica and aluminium, is lighter than sima, consisting out of mostly silica and magnesium. So, as a crude analogy, the crust is not uniform or homogenous, rather, the continents are floating on the sima like slag will float on molten metal - with the same warping of the surface features as the molted metal moves underneath, carrying it along. Or, simply watch the skin warp on custard.

 

So , you are saying the Sial did not lay evenly over the Sima ,as a relatively smooth differentiated layer , but in segmented clumps that rose miles above the lower sima plate that covered the world,,,and below that ??? So differention did not make a smooth even ball but it actually CREATED continents? Do either subduct?

 

NOW..... ONLY 1/4 of this outer crust is left on the Earth. Where is the rest, the other three quarters ?

 

Doesn't need to be any more. There is only so much slag in molten metal, and the amount of sial on planet Earth was determined by the random crap colliding in our protoplanetary disk before the Earth fell together.

 

O-kay . If you say so .

 

Granitic rock at 2.5, According to your experts , cannot Subduct ! Can NOT Subduct into the oceanic basalts at 3.3. times the weight of water. Impossible!. Where is it all???

 

Once again, another illustration that you don't know what you're talking about. What is subducting, is the seafloor. Sediments deposited at rivermouths and through wave action eroding coastlines simply float on top of the seafloor that is heading dead-on to a subduction zone. That's why erosion from landmass eventually ends up back on land - it's lighter than the stuff the seafloor's made of.

 

I get that you're in a mood. So lets just clarify , The sediments on the deep ocean floors is/are very thin compared t the ACTUAL SUBDUCTING PLATE, which is about 4 miles thick Geologists say seafloor sediments that accumulate on SUBDUCTING PLATE collide with OVERRIDING plate at subduction zones and are THICKENED into accretionary wedges thousands of meters thick, squeezed ,baked,and uplifted in major mountain-building events that 'transform" SOFT Sediments into hard rock. They say.

 

"Some"seafloor sediment can bypass the collision by being carried underneath the plate-boundry fault down to great depths within the Earth's mantle" they say,"

 

On your model , across the board , dinosaurs are 4 times as heavy as modern animals , yet have the same bone density.

 

No, they don't. First of all, this paragraph is horribly stated. By saying "across the board", to which modern animal, then, would a diplodocus be comparable? A T-Rex?

 

There are large medium and small groups roughly defined , It's not a religion . All three groups are generaly 4 times bigger, Or maybe not, maybe they weren't bigger. An illusion?, T-rex to a tiger or a polar bear. Hadrasaur to a zebra. .

 

Bone density? Not the same? Phil Cure of the Alberta museum says same bone density.

 

On my model Earth is 1/4 the size it is here ,today.

 

On your model there is no evidence of the actual EXISTANCE of DEEP OCEANS on the planet Earth.

 

There is no "old" deep seafloor to be sampled, simply because they are subducting at a constant, measurable, verified pace. The only "old" rock on planet Earth is that which is found on the ancient exposed shield structures on the continents - and they, too, are continuously being eroded away.

 

Well that's convenient . I make a theory and I have all the evidence. "YOU" have a theory and all your evidence has disappeared. I say it never existed and there should be ONE little bit of proof. . ...but you say the process is perfect, even where there's NO supposed subduction.

 

Their very existence is based only. ONLY ....on theory! There is no evidence of the existence of 2/3 rds of this Deep Ocean area anywhere in the world! Not one square mile, ..not one square yard!

 

...yes, because they are being subducted. Cables lain over the Atlantic seafloor snap, because the Americas are moving away from Eurasia and Africa. On the other side of the Americas, the Rockies span from Alaska all the way to Cape Horn in South America, as the Pacific seafloor is grinding under the two continents.

 

Islands? Caters? What?? What emboldens people on the internet , to say things thet can never prove? Before 180 million years ago there is no evidence of ocean's existence on Earth , How then can islands be identified. ???

 

Huh? 2+billion year old stromatolites kinda proves that the sea's been around for a while. Come on.

 

D-E-E-P oceans.

 

Neal

[Eclogite]

Neal,

I was disappointed in your response to my last post. I made the conscious effort to compliment you on the eloquence of your argument and the guts to challenge convention. In reply you noted:

There are things said here that I wish you hadn't said , that I hate to have to deal with , as a waste of time and energy, but so be it .

This is the kind of note that is not helpful in any way , because of it's elitism.

 

Neal, I can understand the passion you feel for your thesis. I applaud that. I would ask that you try not to let that passion spill over into stereotyping your 'opponents', belittling their arguments, and frankly risking alienating someone who may be somewhat supportive of your stance.

 

There are a multiplicity of points that you raise that are contentious. I wish to single out three of them and focus our discussion on these for the moment. If you are agreable we can exhaust them before turning our attention elsewhere. The alternative is to fall into a chaotic exchange of claim and counterclaim, with little science and zero agreement.

 

Point 1:I agree with you on the point of granites and their resistance to subduction. Frankly the counterarguments have been weak, ill founded, irrelevant and ultimately pointless. Granites, in any quantity, are crap at subducting, which is why we have continents in the first place.

I mention this to make it clear to you that in debating your hypothesis I shall deal with facts and observations regardless of how they stand in relation to that hypothesis.

 

Point 2:

This is the kind of note that is not helpful in any way , because of it's elitism. An Atlas or even a reader's digest article is based on the current work in the field. These people have researchers , they have high level professionals , professors and fact checkers . Your school had better resources ? I think not.

Neal, this paragraph from you worried me on several levels. If you seriously contend that a popular presentation of scientific concepts can be considered equivalent of the basic research, published in peer reviewed journals, then you have, I suggest, little concept of the nature of the scientific method.

Do you wish to reconsider your position on this? Be aware that your present position makes you look very foolish and exactly like the nutter you must not be seen as, if your hypothesis is to be taken seriously.

 

My note was not in favour of elitism, but of professionalism. I have a dozen or more Reader's Digest publications in my library, including two versions of their Atlas. I buy and read a popular science book every month or two. These are all fine works, but they are not at the cutting edge of science, they are not the tools of science, they should not be used as proof for the way that scientists active in a particular field view their subject.

 

Finally, on a personal note - your damn tooting my school had better resources! At the time I attended it, it was one of the top four geology departments in the UK.:cup:

 

Point 3:You have repeatedly made the claim that there are no old deep oceans. Please indicate which part of this logical sequence you have a problem with and provide evidence to counter the conventional claims.

 

1. Pillow lavas today are found in submarine environments, most notably on mid ocean ridges.

2. They are associated there with black shales and radiolarian cherts.

3. Somewhat deeper, are lavas and banded basic intrusives associated with the mid-ocean ridge separation.

4. This combination of rock types, sometimes known as the ophiolite suite, is found in a number of locations around the world (e.g. Cyprus, Oman), but now part of continents.

5. Some of these associations, seemingly representing deep ocean environments, are much older than the two hundred million years you claim as the upper limit for deep ocean age. This is certainly true of the Lower Palaeozoic example in and near Girvan, in south west Scotland, which I had the pleasure of mapping as an undergraduate a few decades ago.

 

Neal, lets focus on points 2) and 3) for the moment and reach some form of agreement (or agreed disagreement:( ) on these. I think this will be potentially more productive than going off at several tangents.

 

Regards

Eclogite

[Chacmool]

Neal, I read most of this thread, and I must admit that your theory is indeed interesting.

 

However, I am very upset by the rudeness and arrogance with which you have treated some of the highly respected members of our community. You need to realise that you are communicating in a particular setting, where there are certain rules of conduct. Courtesy and consideration are on a par with scientific enquiry and debate here at Hypography. I urge you to soften your approach and treat others with the respect you would like for yourself.

 

I look forward to further discussion and exploration of the topic in a civilised and polite tone, and with clear and concise posts devoid of personal attacks.

[NAdams]

Neal, I read most of this thread, and I must admit that your theory is indeed interesting.

 

However, I am very upset by the rudeness and arrogance with which you have treated some of the highly respected members of our community. You need to realise that you are communicating in a particular setting, where there are certain rules of conduct. Courtesy and consideration are on a par with scientific enquiry and debate here at Hypography. I urge you to soften your approach and treat others with the respect you would like for yourself.

 

I look forward to further discussion and exploration of the topic in a civilised and polite tone, and with clear and concise posts devoid of personal attacks.

Dear sir

I would say this , and with all due respect.

If you were MY friend , you would be saying exactly the opposite .

Things have been said to me and of me that are demeaning and insulting in the extreme sir .

I have chosen NOT to respnd "in kind" , but to be insulted and not to respond at all is wrong. I say advise a civil exchange to all and you will find me a reasonable and fun person , .

Neal Adams

[Chacmool]

Dear sir

I would say this , and with all due respect.

If you were MY friend , you would be saying exactly the opposite .

Things have been said to me and of me that are demeaning and insulting in the extreme sir .

I have chosen NOT to respnd "in kind" , but to be insulted and not to respond at all is wrong. I say advise a civil exchange to all and you will find me a reasonable and fun person , .

Neal Adams

I am not a "sir" :) Actually, you need not address me in such a formal manner, but I appreciate the polite intent.

 

Of course, as you point out, my plea for a civil exchange is directed at anyone who wishes to participate in this discussion.

[NAdams]

>Neal,ance.

>

>There are a multiplicity of points that you raise that are contentious. I wish

to single out three of them and focus our discussion on these for the moment. If

you are agreable we can exhaust them before turning our attention elsewhere. The

alternative is to fall into a chaotic exchange of claim and counterclaim, with little

science and zero agreement.

>

I can agree with this , wholeheartedly.

 

>*Point 1:*I agree with you on the point of granites and their resistance to

subduction. Frankly the counterarguments have been weak, ill founded, irrelevant

and ultimately pointless. Granites, in any quantity, are crap at subducting, which

is why we have continents in the first place.

>I mention this to make it clear to you that in debating your hypothesis I shall

deal with facts and observations regardless of how they stand in relation to that

hypothesis.

 

Thank you .

>

>*Point 2:*

>---Quote---

>This is the kind of note that is not helpful in any way , because of it's

elitism. An Atlas or even a reader's digest article is based on the current

work in the field. These people have researchers , they have high level professionals

, professors and fact checkers . Your school had better resources ? I think not.

>---End Quote---

>Neal, this paragraph from you worried me on several levels. If you seriously

contend that a popular presentation of scientific concepts can be considered equivalent

of the basic research, published in peer reviewed journals, then you have, I suggest,

little concept of the nature of the scientific method.

>Do you wish to reconsider your position on this? Be aware that your present

position makes you look very foolish and exactly like the nutter you must not be

seen as, if your hypothesis is to be taken seriously.

>

I have reconsidersd my position , and I now consider it exactly as tenable

as before . With a small codicil . Peer review

oddly had many drawbacks . first and most important , It'a slow . Imagine Shoemaker

and Levy trying to go through such a process

as gigantic meteorites crash ,unseen aon Jupiter. The instantness of field work

is a joke , and peer review is good only for summary .

The work at an accelerator facility hasen't the time . I'm working with

Hydrogen power engines and "H" delivery systems right in the car . This

won't even go through Peer review ...except as a footnote.

Then there's the eliteism . If I need to go through the negative

aspects of that , well . there's a problem. You may be living within an environment

of this system ,and as a water dweller doesn't understand the air dwellers

because of a one lifetime timeframe

you can hardlybe expected to be clearheaded and taking the long view.

,,but, this is a new , untested experiment and as such , sociologically untested.

Slavery is not a good idea even though it's been around for many centuries

. nor is impressment for debt. Independant inventers are changing the world . Designers

/inventors are changing your life , just as computer technology races ahead. MY

40 years of quiet introspective re-integration of a multitude of all the scientific

disciplines has no place in a system that has , in fact participated in the SEGMENTATION!

In fact a concept like re-integration of sciences back into one "science"

is antithetical to the process itself .

>My note was not in favour of elitism, but of professionalism. I have a dozen

or more Reader's Digest publications in my library, including two versions of

their Atlas. I buy and read a popular science book every month or two. These are

all fine works, but they are not at the cutting edge of science, they are not the

tools of science, they should not be used as proof for the way that scientists active

in a particular field view their subject.

 

You may believe this ,and that's just fine . But I have had to read

"some" of this stuff and I find it wanting. It's tedious ,

Formulaic in the extreme , repetative and ,..the topper ELITEST, in the extreme

. People are actually encouraged to write in exclusionary verbage and language,

hmmmmmm I wonder what that leads inevitably to.

>

>Finally, on a personal note - your damn tooting my school had better resources!

At the time I attended it, it was one of the top four geology departments in the

UK.:bouquet:

 

Rock on. brother!

>

>*Point 3:*You have repeatedly made the claim that there are no old deep oceans.

Please indicate which part of this logical sequence you have a problem with and

provide evidence to counter the conventional claims.

>

>1. Pillow lavas today are found in submarine environments, most notably on mid

ocean ridges.

>2. They are associated there with black shales and radiolarian cherts.

>3. Somewhat deeper, are lavas and banded basic intrusives associated with the

mid-ocean ridge separation.

>4. This combination of rock types, sometimes known as the ophiolite suite, is

found in a number of locations around the world (e.g. Cyprus, Oman), but now part

of continents.

>5. Some of these associations, seemingly representing deep ocean environments,

are much older than the two hundred million years you claim as the upper limit for

deep ocean age.

 

Got you , good ,Say-no-more, got it ! I said there were no DEEP oceans.

I did not say there were "NO OCEANS" There WERE

of course "Shallow Seas" .....But as you point out correctly ON THE continental

plate . Think of Earth , the size of Mars,..The deep oceans going back are all

closed up , but ,...hey, everything looks (relatively normal. Thereare ni grasses,no

flowering plants , no mountains , no rivers, but you look out onto a , warmish ,likely

fresh water, gigantic ocean with lapping waves .

But you are in Nevada looking eastward to the sea! Even on a rolling hill you cannot

see the opposite shore .

This is an evolutionary process . There are rifts , but they are only 4 miles down.

Dinosaurs walk the land with their long down-facing legs , around the shallow seas

migrating from Alaska to Antarctica in hemispheric migrations from green to green,

across a world where you can go anywhere . God forbid if this land should ever

break up and really pull apart. Those hemisphericly migrating dinosaurs would die

off in no time.

 

This is certainly true of the Lower Palaeozoic example in and near Girvan, in south

west Scotland, which I had the pleasure of mapping as an undergraduate a few decades

ago.

>

>Neal, lets focus on points 2) and 3) for the moment and reach some form of agreement

(or agreed disagreement:( ) on these. I think this will be potentially more productive

than going off at several tangents.

>

>Regards

>Eclogite

>***************

>

>

>There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more notifications

until you visit the forum again.

>

>All the best,

>Science Forums

>

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>Unsubscription information:

>

>To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:

>http://hypography.com/forums/subscription.php?do=removesubscription&type=thread&subscriptionid=37294&auth=355de48c288d97861e1485ca6ecb00d8

>

>To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:

>http://hypography.com/forums/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all

 

 

-------------------------------------------------

Neal Adams