Agent Monkeysee on 21/3/2006 at 05:37
Hahahaha I just clicked on the site. This is like 2 steps above Timecube, I can't
believe you guys are seriously debating this. The guy is throwing out virtually the last 200 years of Geology with "I don't get it. Here's what I think".
edit: also I can't find his explanation for what's making the planets "grow".
edit2: what the hell this is like those pamphets that creationists hand out (
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/toon1.html)
does he actually explain his "theory" anywhere? All I see is a bunch of "geology is absurd lol stupid scientician the earth creates mass and there's pull-aparts"
PULL-APARTS
Fafhrd on 21/3/2006 at 05:47
I think it's worth arguing about because Neal Adams is a guy with a fairly large audience through his comic book work, and that could eventually end up with quite a few people thinking "hmm, maybe there's something to this" a la Epos, so it deserves to squashed promptly and mercilessly, with facts. Some of this shit would probably appeal to the young earth/Intelligent Design/crazy pants people at the Discovery Institute, and we all know what happens if that happens.
Epos Nix on 21/3/2006 at 06:07
I've yet to actually hear why this guy is wrong... at least about his core claim: there's visible evidence that the Earth, among other planets and moons, is expanding. At this point who really cares about why?, if those videos are at all accurate, it's pretty major by itself.
And just so I can add my disclaimer: I don't believe one way or the other on any issue I read. Ever. I find it fun to speculate, but I never have any more trust in one thing than another. If I'm debating a side its because that's the side I found it fun to debate on, not because I believe. You'll notice I ususally take the underdogs...
Agent Monkeysee on 21/3/2006 at 06:34
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I've yet to actually hear why this guy is wrong... at least about his core claim: there's visible evidence that the Earth, among other planets and moons, is expanding.
You're right. His explanation is so asinine it's not even
wrong. He proposes no mechanisms, provides no explanatory framework, composes no predictive capabilities derived from his theory, and his "evidence" is cherry-picked and better explained by existing scientific theories. The "visible evidence" is already explainable through existing geologic processes without the physics- and geometry-defying theory of an "expanding planet". He doesn't even go to the trouble of pointing out where modern geology is wrong, he simply dismisses it outright.
He provides
nothing substantive and certainly nothing scientific. There's nothing to disprove because he barely provides anything to work with. His theory does nothing but propose a barely coherent mechanism for continental drift and some superficial geographic features. He makes no attempt to reconcile his theory with the vast body of geologic, planetary, and astronomic sciences despite the fact that it blatantly contradicts universally established theories. Nor does he even try to expand upon the vast body of geologic processes we observe every single day and integrate these features into his explanation; he doesn't even seem to notice that they need explaining. On top of that he doesn't even go to the trouble of justifying WHY continental drift and oceanic basins require a special explanation that isn't covered by existing theories or bother showing why those theories are inadequate.
This is an example of the worst kind of post hoc reasoning. The total extent to which his "expanding body" hypothesis fails to provide a compelling, comprehensive, or even coherent explanatory framework for geologic processes is ample evidence he began with a preferred conclusion and worked backwards. If the guy's not a crackpot at the very least he clearly has no deep understanding of the field of geology, what science is, or even the implications of his own theory.
Ko0K on 21/3/2006 at 07:09
Basically, the only way anything can expand in apparent volume without gaining mass is by creating voids. Even water, which expands when it freezes, does so by creating voids via molecular alignment. Long story short, Earth does not have any voids inside. You need structures, be it natural or man-made, to house voids, and no structures can withstand the kind of pressure you'd expect inside of this planet. Well, at least no structures made of known elements. If you can believe that some alien race landed here and started building subterranean apartments made of physics-defying construction materials, then this would be a feasible theory. :cheeky: Seriously, Adams' model looks fancy, but to put it politely, it needs a LOT of work, probably from the ground up.
scumble on 21/3/2006 at 08:38
Good grief, it's as daft as Velikovsky's line of reasoning for the origin of oil.
Rogue Keeper on 21/3/2006 at 12:13
Quote Posted by Printer's Devil
The
mass of Earth increases with every meteor that successfully enters the atmosphere and lands. I can't remember if it's a significant increase, but there you are.
Yes and we should consider every successfully landed
grain of space dust as a meteor. Hmm... I think in time range of cca 4.5 billion years it should be quite a decent increase.
That's my little pseudo-scientific addition to this debate.
Now let's talk about astrology and psychotronics! \o/
RyushiBlade on 21/3/2006 at 12:34
What the hell? Did anyone else look at that cartoon Agent Monkeysee linked to?
"The Earth coelesced and cool from debris from the Big Bang."
No. ... No, it didn't. At the time of the Big Bang, there was, theoretically, only Hydrogen and small amounts of Helium. There was absolutely no heavy elements at all. He's either pulling at straws or he's just making this up and saying Scientists said it.
In the next 'panel' he's also showing how immature he is, as the one shouting is obviously a representation of Neal. I'm under the impression that 'the really tall bits stayed above the water when the planet flooded, giving rise to continents.' Maybe this is wrong. I don't know. But it makes sense that the central area of a tectonic plate would be higher than most of its surroundings. Just like how an island is (often) highest in the middle before sloping down into the water.
Bah. I don't know. This guy started out with a good idea, but then completely botched it up. If he could have presented it in a clear, logical, and credible way, I'd probably even give it some thought. The fact that everything fits perfectly together when the planet shrinks is interesting, but I also have no proof he didn't tamper with it.
Rogue Keeper on 21/3/2006 at 12:59
Average Random Forum Participant's Attention Value - ARFPA Value
Initial percentage value (with 1 post in thread [initial post]) = 100 %
Number of posts already present in thread above the initial post = X
Final value of attention of a random participant to any post in thread above the initial post = Y
100 - X = Y
Where Y can be also a negative value.
ARFPA Value for the next random poster in this thread: 100 - 48 = 52 %
descenterace on 21/3/2006 at 14:39
Bearing in mind the ARFPA:
Most of these weird theories are based on intuition. The existing theories don't seem 'intuitively correct' to someone, and they go and think up something that does 'work'. Then they write it down, get criticised, look for evidence to support them, find none, get paranoid, get desperate, and start twisting the existing evidence by 'filling in the gaps'.
The point is, people, our intuition works on a small scale, within the world we see every day. That world is a subset of a much larger system.
In other words, we're only used to seeing part of the elephant, and usually a part that seems to defy the 'whole elephant' theory.
Intuition and Science are largely incompatible.
