Posted on 04/22/2012 3:53:17 PM PDT by Windflier
First… it’s important to understand that this is the most profound disagreement in all of science in a century and a half… and, even so, it is the tip of the iceberg, the ramifications of this disagreement will change everything we know in science, top to bottom.
To begin with basic stuff.
All science knows…
The earth has two crusts. One…the mostly basalt lower crust or the oceanic crust which is 2 – 4 miles deeper down than the higher upper continental crust. This lower crust, essentially covers the Earth. It … this crust is being made daily at rift cracks that snake around the earth’s mid- oceans. But how could all these rifts continually spread apart…without the Earth growing? Ah….that is the question….isn’t it?
Secondly,
Sitting on or “in” and “as part of” the oceanic crust is the second higher upper crust or the Continental Crust rising for the most part out of the water. It is made mostly of granitic rock, which is 2.5 times the weight of water.
Some edge area of the Continental Crust or Plate dips into and under the sea level of the ocean. This area is what we call the Continental Shelf. So as you go out into the ocean and the water gets gradually deeper … that is the Continental Shelf. At a given distance out into the ocean the ocean floor suddenly drops off and goes down like a plummet… 2 ½ to 4 miles to the deep ocean floor, where we find the second lower crust, the Oceanic Crust made mostly of basalts which are 3.0 – 3.3 times the weight of water. So to make it visually clear, if you took the water away what you would see as you go out into the ocean a distance is, the Continental Shelf would suddenly drop away and down like a ridge in Arizona., except it would go straight down for two to three miles, as if it was suddenly broken off. The other side of that broken off ridge is across the ocean thousands of miles in Europe, or Africa and west to Australia and Asia.
How did the two sides of this higher crust spread apart?
Rifts or eruptive cracks in the ocean floor provide new material in the form of molten magmic rock that rises up at a rift area and the oceanic plate spreads apart and the two sides move away from each other smoothly and regularly, and so the continents welded within the oceanic plates also move apart as the ocean bottom spreads…. Now if this happens … and it does, all over the world, logically speaking, this Earth must grow.
We … I … argue that, that this outer crust originally covered the whole of a smaller Earth and the Earth sphere grew. The outer crust, therefore, had to crack and spread to accommodate a growing Earth…which…it apparently did.
We further argue that if you were to shrink the sphere of Earth … by letting the oceanic plate re-enter the rifts they erupted from, over time … the continental crust would easily and completely fit back together, and this solution satisfies all questions of tectonics, science, geology, paleontology, theoretical and practical physics, cosmology, and subatomic physics. Pretty simple actually.
You can always tell someone is a charlatan when they feel the need to tell bald faced lies about the opposing theory. Nothing about the current theories has the contents floating willy nilly crashing like bumper cars, that’s just Neal Adams being a no good filthy lying scumbag. Don’t listen to NGFLS they spread contagious stupidity.
I beg to differ. He didn't 'create' a solution - he discovered one. By simply reducing the size of the planet, he found that every land mass on earth fits neatly together like a jig-saw puzzle. He went on to confirm that observation by looking at other planets and moons, and found the same thing there.
You may not like these observations because they conflict with what you've been taught, but to deny their existence out of hand is simply shutting your eyes to facts (which he has shown). If you really have any sort of scientific curiosity, I think you'd be more closely examining his model. That's basic to the scientific process.
I watched all the vids. He does not addreess the water issue or the increase in mass.
I agree... At the risk of sending the thread off-topic, I would submit that no one compiles and displays errata anymore - Especially modern 'science'. Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine, and one of the reasons I put little faith in science at all. To accuse this guy without leveling the same accusation at most of accepted 'science' seems a bit hypocritical... Not pointed at you. just sayin...
Nice turn of phrase there, Tom, but illogical.
What I should have said before, is that, his observations are indisputable. He's got a theory, not unlike those who pitch the Pangea idea. Unlike them, however, he has a model that is intuitively simple and easily observed by others.
Of course, his theory raises lots of other questions, but that's what science is about. Making observations of the known universe, then advancing various theories to explain the observed phenomena, which are then compared to even more detailed investigations - repeat and rinse. At each stage of the cycle, however, that which is honestly observed, does not get thrown out. Only the theories which fail to explain the observed phenomena.
This is why the theory of anthropogenic global warming is in trouble. It fails to predict and explain the observed phenomena.
Neal Adams has made an honest and intriguing observation. The proper scientific response at this point, is to advance a theory to explain it. Not explain away the observations themselves.
Ok. So the scientific investigation into his observations is incomplete. That doesn't mean that he hasn't observed what he's observed. It only means that there's a lot more to learn about planetary formation and evolution.
Ok, so he used a bit of snarky artistic license to describe the current theories. In essence, though, he's telling the truth. That's exactly the impression I've gotten from the opposing theory all my life.
The current theory holds that there once existed a massive mother continent (Pangea), which somehow broke up, and all of the various parts then (somehow) scattered over the face of the globe.
That same theory holds that India crashed (yes, they do say "crashed") into lower China, thereby lifting up the Himalayas.
I've never seen any reasonable explanation for how or why any of that occurred. How does something the size and mass of an entire continent 'drift' across the face of a planet? That's more an absurd theory than what Neal Adams is proposing, in my view.
What's more, the current theory doesn't have an intuitively simple model that explains itself, such as Neal Adams' does.
Reminds me of the current "unchallengeable" definition of the universe :
"First there was nothing...
Then it exploded."
Right.
It’s not snarky artistic license, it’s blatantly changing what the theory says, AKA LYING. He is NOT in essence telling the truth, he is outright fabricating. If that’s the impression you got then you should do a better job of reading the theory.
No the current theory holds that the most RECENT all in one supercontinent (Pangea) broke up for the exact same reason that all the previous supercontinents, tectonic shift.
No they don’t say crash, they say continental collision.
The reasonable explanation is continental drift. And if you don’t find it reasonable you’ve got problems with what Adams is pushing because even his theory has the continents moving around.
Actually the current model has a much more intuitively simple model than a planet somehow growing larger through some sort of pair production a process we know takes MASSIVE amounts of energy.
The fact of the matter is growing earth is an old theory that got supplanted by plate tectonic theory, didn’t actually explain things without exceptions, and he’s added some extra bunk to it, but it still doesn’t make sense, you can tell because he LIES about tectonic theory to sell his. He’s a liar. And anybody that listens to him is an idiot.
Or better yet--- returning!
Computers and computer graphics have blurred the line between reality and insanity.
And the science-ignorant citizenry manage their neuroses according to their personal fake reality.
Nothing personal, but until I know your bona fides, that statement is meaningless.
Wish I could remember the web site to get a personal science literacy IQ to qualify you to make such an arrogant statement.
Yes, I know that current theory holds that there were previous super-continents. They still cannot explain or provide any rational reason for their assertion that the current land masses 'drifted' around the globe.
But here's the thing, and the current theory cannot explain it. If you watch the animation of the shrinking earth, you can see how all of the land masses move closer to each other until they all fit together like a seamless jig-saw puzzle.
How is that possible, if they broke up into arbitrary chunks from one super-continent? If the current land masses are chunks of one contiguous super-continent, they should only fit seamlessly together using that model. They shouldn't fit together on a smaller globe, if the current theory is true. But they do. Not only that, running the model on other planets produces the same effect as running it on earth.
I know how vehemently opposed you are to this theory, but you really ought to take a half hour and watch Neal Adams' videos. Pay particular attention to the ones where he runs his model on our moon, Mars, and Enceladus. The photographs show clear evidence of expansion.
It's tough to argue with his observations. They show what they show. It's up to science to now discover how and why planets do this.
"I don't call that bias."
You aren't following. I wasn't talking about being biased, I was talking about a logical error called "confirmation bias". Look it up.
Science is not about judging a theory by what you find most compelling. A theory is judged by whether it survives falsification.
You can present a compelling and convincing case that the world is flat or that the sun goes around the earth. All you have to do is present only the confirming evidence. That doesn't make it scientific.
As for which is more compelling, which again, is not the point. Seriously? We measure plates moving around. This theory demands that new matter is continuously created inside the planet. If you think that makes more sense then your BS meter is broken.
On the contrary. The animations do not show the existing shapes seamlessly going together. The shapes change as the size of the globe changes so that they will go together. It's easy to make an animation doing that.
My only bona fides are that I've got eyeballs and can see what I'm seeing in front of me.
Watch the videos. Sure, it's just a theoretical model, but what's indisputable is that the land masses of earth fit neatly together in a seamless jig-saw puzzle when you shrink the planet.
Same holds true for other planets the author has applied his model to.
The point I am making, is that the model does what he says it does, which is confirmed by the viewer's observation. His theory doesn't seem to address why or how planets expand, but that's what real science is all about. It's a quest to explain the how and why of the universe. The door is open for others to discover the mechanisms behind this phenomenon.
No need. I know what confirmation bias is.
Speaking of confirmation bias, I think the geological community is guilty of that with the 'Pangea/continental drift' theory. They postulated the theory, then did everything they could to find evidences to prove it.
Frankly, I don't see that they began by making enough observations to reasonably put forth that theory in the first place. The theory was postulated 150 years ago. Well before geologists were aware of the deep sea trenches and fissures we're now aware of. Once they did make those discoveries, they had to come up with the subduction theory to explain how the earth could simultaneously be ripping apart, and remaining the same size.
In fact, the author goes into the subduction theory on his website, and explains that the entire theory is based upon one small, localized observation, which was then applied to the whole earth.
Anyway, I didn't mean to get into a long-winded argument about plate tectonics tonight. I just thought it was an extremely interesting video that would stimulate interest and discussion. Despite some of the flames tonight, I guess it hasn't been unproductive.
Watch again. The shapes don't change. They simply move in orientation to one another. The author carefully points this out in several of the videos. He even goes forward, reverse, and forward again in some of the animations to underscore that point.
Bump for later.
NOW you've done it!
"...and The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..."
"...Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters...."
"...Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:..."
You've just turned it into a crevo thread!
That map is obviously bogus.
They completely ignored the Mount Shasta Saucer Caves & Himalayan Saucer bases.
Also, they show the Dero caves, but nowhere are the Teros to be found.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.