Sorry, I'm not in the "pardoning mood" today...

Can you now answer the following question...

...from my previous post??

edited to add...hey!...where'd he go...??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Mr. Adams, I'm a Science-channel level avid amatuer, but I am pretty confident that I can completely debunk this from top to bottom, but honestly I do beleive you would be better served to have it from much more credible sources than myself. Although I would think that the fact that even I can easily debunk this is not going to be a positive sign of the theory in it's present state

If no one much more qualified than me takes it up, I can, so I'll check back after a reasonable amount of time, but like I said - in the long run your theory will be better off if those more knowledgable than I ran through it

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Theory???

Show me a theory and I'd be happy to discuss it...what Neal is posting is decidedly not a theory in any way shape or form...it's just a bunch of (almost random) ideas...

(Re. debunking this "stuff"), PhantomWolf stated it perfectly months ago when he said that he didn't know where to start...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I stand corrected Let me rephrase my statement to imply "speculation"

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Hi Neal
In fact you are defending an explanation for the Earth expansion theory . I think this theory has its merits and is better than Plate tectonics. And yes if Earth is expanding one must explain how it can be. So the creation of matter inside the planet whatever the method is an obvious idea . But we must reject it because we know of no mechanism which can produce new matter. An other reason is why obviously there is no expansion of the Moon , if it is a general mechanism ?
All this has been already discuss on this site , and i have posted some pet theory of mine.
I give you below a resume :
Matter is not being created but is dilatating from a very compressed state to a less one . This explain expansion. The Earth has not a big iron core , but a big compressed primordial materials core.There is no more iron in the Earth than in the averrage meteorite ie 5%.

Why that ? because Earth has not being born directly by accretion as the mainstream theory says. Earth has been born as a giant planet like Uranus or Neptune in an orbit much farther from the sun that the one it go now.
It has been smashed by an other planet or celestial body . In this shock the rocky core has been ejected , the outer liquid and gazous layers has been lost to space. Now without these layers compressing it , the inner rocky layers slowly expand. Kind of hysteresis process.
IMO may be Venus and Mars are also the products of the same events.
This is not a Velikovskyan theory , all this occurred billions years ago long before the historical times.
[/end speculation]

Tim , hello
You might be interested to know that Stavros Tassos is ensconced in our Crazy ol' EE group when He isn't speaking or writing intensly. He's a bright fellow and keeps us on our toes .
This is the old Expanding Earth "thing" although we have stripped away a lot of froo-fra theories and tried to stay on track.
Let me assure you that I have worked on this for about 40 years on and off. I have tried to bring in many scientific diciplines ,...because I have found this "age of specialization" has caused a lot of rejection of ideas .
Physicists and Geologists pay little attention to the sizes of groups of dinosaurs . ( That they were , not twice as big as current animals , but rather four times as large . Engineers are attracted to our group , because of this.
but others toss it off . An engineer will say , "You can't build a 40 story building with stone and wood like you CAN build a 10 story building. Same with dinosaurs . Ten ton T-rex runs 40-50 mph , turns on a dime , snaps his head around and it snaps off from torq."
At any rate . If you don't get to see my videos. .I'd like to describe the Pangea one .(For a reason
I placed all the continents on one side of the Earth as a majority of Geologists indicate. ( I will say it's an odd sight .looks like an eyeball.)
The rest ,deep ocean 3 miles deep. The average ,if it includes the
Continental shelf , would be 2.5 miles , but of course the continental shelf is attached to the continents.
Now , pangea is made of ,basically , granitic rock and basalts.
This has an average weight of THREE TIMES WATER.
The land today , the continents, are on average a half mile ABOVE
SEA LEVEL . (Sea level was deeper back then but it makes the point greater , so I am being conservative.
In this model , the accepted model, we must shift the center of gravity. That is correct , isn't it?
Water , being opportunistic will shift with the center of gravity.
You may be seeing this in your mind's eye . The whole center of Pangea goes under the ocean. And the middle of the fantastically wide Pacific is drained of water and a super-continent appears ,, about the size of Asia and Australia combined.
Understand this , please , I simply built the models in the computer .
The water was on a separate level . and I shifted the "center of gravity."
That's it . This is also what the math tells us . you can do it yourself, please. It ain't rocket science.
Now someone ask me why someone didn't already do this if it was so darn obvious.
I think it's my question to ask. It's time to ask some real questions , in my opinion.
Neal Adams

O- kay
Have a real nice day.
Neal Adams

I was about to say ,"Friend...." But I thought you may be offended by that ,as well as by my "Pardon me..."
You surely seem to have a chip on your sholder .
It's the holiday season and I just don't want to get in a spitting match
with you , or anyone. I welcome any discussion , any question , please .
Anger, character assassination , wild broad comments are worth little to anyone , in my humble opinion.
Neal Adams

Hi
Thanks for your polite note .
Obviously I cannot agree with your concept , though i give you that it is quite different and imaginative.
My very best,
Neal Adams

Nothing of the sort...you have posted to this board some rather unscientific claims. Will you be making an attempt to substantiate those claims or not?

Yet you have ignored my question...why is that??

Fine and dandy...now, will you be presenting any evidence or does your "presentation" consist entirely of handwaving?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I have a few questions for Neal Adams about this model of his:

1. You discuss positrons gathering mass from the neutral prime matter until they become protons as a means for increasing the mass of the Earth.
a. Why do we never observe positive particles in intermediate stages on this path?
b. Where are these positrons coming from (enough to Octuple the mass of the Earth?) and why don't they annihilate with electrons?
c. Did you actually make a statement about why the Earth is gathering heavy mostly elements while the Sun is gathering mostly Hydrogen? I think some of the people questioning this would appreciate the kind of answer that 40 years of research and hardwork should make easy for you to write clearly.

2. You've mentioned that there is evidence that dinosaur bones are too flimsy unless there was less gravity at an earlier time, but the era of the great dinosaurs ended less than 2% of the age of the Earth ago. Did a substantial fraction of the increase happen since then?

BTW, just as a side note, we did have an interesting theory discussed briefly here in which the Earth started as a Jupiter-like gas giant (with a rocky core, which I don't know if Jupiter has), and that the mass of the volatile atomsphere/oceans was sufficient to have compressed the solid Earth enough for the continents to have formed as they are now completely covering the smaller sphere. In this model, the expansion was brief, and is not on-going.

I don't know if I buy into this model either, but it is a more plausible expanding earth model than what yours seems to require.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Just to be clear, Neal...I'm not intentionally trying to "bust your chops", however I am finding myself exasperated attempting to understand what you are saying...

I agree with antoniseb's post...

If a person wishes to make a convincing argument, then they must be able to express themselfs clearly...

If the argument is "muddled" or if the "description" fails to follow the rules of science, then people will not take it seriously.

Simple as that...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

OK, so Earth is expanding. At what rate, according to your model(s), is the mass and/or the radius of Earth increasing?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

And yet . I have carefully answered and explained myself in several posts here and I continue to be delighted to do so, A thrown out general, annoyed
question who's only answer could be a book length treatise is not a chat ,
Q and A, OR a discusion. I am not in an arena with a mob looking on. I am
offering , OFFERING to be criticised , argued with , and even be fairly ,...FAIRLY rebuked. I am not to be the butt of someones frustration. Your
words belie your spoken intent.
Express myself clearly ? I write comic books. Few things are more clear.
Neal Adams

Let me add my welcome to you, Neal Adams, to this internet discussion forum, BAUT.

May I suggest that you take some time to familiarise yourself with BAUT? Our focus is astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, and space science, and we are avowedly scientific in our approach. This ATM section of BAUT is specific in its aims and its rules (here are our rules; the specific ATM rule is #13). Please also note the very strong rule on Civility and Decorum - if you spend some time reading ATM threads, you'll see that this rule is particularly difficult for some members to adhere to, when they present (or challenge) an ATM idea.

I would like to draw your attention to a key requirement of participation here - you must answer all direct, pertinent questions about the ATM idea that you have presented here, in a timely fashion. Of course, a perfectly valid answer could be "I don't understand your question, could you please clarify?", or "I don't know the answer to that question" or "I am unable to answer that question" or "I need some more time to answer that question; I expect to have an answer by {date}", or similar.

If you feel that a post breaks BAUT rules, please do NOT respond to it! Rather, please make use of our Report Post facility, by clicking on the button (red triangle with black exclamation mark in it). All moderators get these (notified immediately, by email), and we treat each one very seriously.

Now, I have some questions about your first post:Does this mean that you began research on this topic before Carey published anything?To what extent does this "mechanism" (that you claim to have found) conflict with standard physics?
Specifically, how much of it can be derived from textbook quantum physics and General Relativity? and how much needs new physics?

Problem is that on the ATM forum you are required to answer all reasonable questions put to you, not just the ones you "like".

I hadn't really thought about putting it that way but when you come to this board, particularly the ATM section and start making unsubstantiated claims then you are in the "arena" and you will be expected to answer the "mob's" questions. If you are not comfortable with that, then this may not be the board for you.

Problem is that you are not the "one" who determines what is, and what is not "fair". The mods do that.

Then cease to "be" frustrating.

I don't appreciate being characterized as deceitful, but I'll let that "slide".

Hmmm...you state that you express yourself "clearly" and we say that you do not not...if we can't even agree on something as simple as that, if a "meeting of the minds" is that impossible for you, then I see no need to even attempt to discuss anything with you...

Enjoy your stay...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Sir
I realize this "seems to be ,Well ,odd, to you. It would not seem to be so over time and with knowlege, BUT clearly I cannot GIVE that to you , so I
must , otherwise do my best.
The theory above is a contradiction. Gas giant or not Jupiter is so massive that Earth is a pebble by comparison . You can easily , in this day and age look up the mass of jupiter and put this theory to rest .
If I say the Earth GREW , the door is still open enough for this to survive as a theory because gaining mass is not the same as LOSING MASS.
Sometimes I forget what I have said or not said in my mail. I honestly thought I had covered some of this, Sorry,
The growth of the Earth (and other cellestial bodies) is exponential
(Increases over time) Several of us have projected a very dramatic curve that shows , for example that Earth will be the size of saturn in between 300 and 400 million years. The early growth was slight . Thats why meteorites and moons "SHOW" moderately while planets show dramatically .
The last 200 million years on Earth have been incredible , but nothing compared to the last 10 million years.
If you really care The USGS has a world map , commonly called the
rainbow map . Careful examination will reveal that the actual growth of the Earth's oceanic plates in the last 10 million years was equal to , in square milage to the area of the South American continent.
This is a TRUE fact. Though I guarantee it , and though it can only be INCREDIBLE....do you know who will actually access the map print it out and put a piece of tracing paper on it and trace off the last 10 million years , and be astonished?
None. Funny about folks.
Your c. The sun throws out into it's Solar SYSTEM about 500 million tons of matter PER SECOND. Absorb that for a sec. That's IONS and electrons
of Hydrogen and Helium. Yet ...........our System is generally made out of
higher count atoms.
SSSSO the sun's throwing out this little stuff for 4.5 billion years.
and all we got is ....heavy stuff . Ssssso how do we make this heavy stuff out of these electrons and IONS,
Well without a supernova how do we get the ions to join. Cause that's the trick, you know , and they're all positive and won't readily join ,
Yet , HALF the job is already done , and BY THE SUN . Those atoms have been ionized by the sun. Stripped of electrons . If there ever was a time ,
this is it.
You know what a Van Allen belt is? Earth has two , that we know of.
part of the EM layering of Earth's EM field .
AS IT TURNS OUT ,...those Van Allen belts carry IONS and ELECTRONS
" from the sun ". They ride up and down around the Earth, change direction and go the other way....and they progress onto the next over line and, they say, progress around the Earth. It's a little complicated .
Does the sun have "VAN ALLEN BELTS????
Only the Earth ? Unique in the universe ? ???
The SUN has the greatest largest magnetic field in the SYSTEM . Certainly far bigger than Jupiter by a thousand fold . It's massive.
So I ask again will we discover that the sun has many massive VAN ALLEN BELTS stepping outward into it's SYSTEM?
I think so.
And what rides these lines ?
Ions and Electrons . To what result . For the electrons ,...nothing
HOLDING??
For the ions however . Since they ride negative lines, will those lines be enough to allow the IONS to come together???????????
And when they grow enough to get too heavy for the line . will they pop off the line a higher count nucleus , and THEN collect their Electrons ?
If this is true , and since the "Van Allen" belt lines get weaker as you go out from the sun . doesn't it make sense that the higher count atoms will build closer in and the lighter will fall off out further in the system?
These will build/accrete from the outside and by crystaline growth
from the inside like Geodes. Then Moons ,Planets . This is how we get these things , from our own sun .Of course in time they make their own mass inside on the interior van Allen belts , which we know must be there ,
b . Positrons are "Made by collision of high energy photons inside the Earth and riding the magnetic lines in there protects them until they grow to become protons.
a. Conditions must be made and they'll grow .
Wouldn't that be cool? ........Man! I'm trying to work out the experiment .
It ain't easy.

Sorry if I did not follow the rules . Should I now respond to RAF 's first
post? I didn't respond at all to it . Just to a further quick note.
Carey 's book came out , I think in 74 . But I was aware of discussion before that , In fact I never read Careys book . I merely read the articles about the discussion and came to my own conclusion , Then I heard a geologist from Australia had this book, Made me feel justified to know there were others who felt as I did, . Me . I was cutting out maps . Remember , I am not a geologist .
It's quite different , but it has the same origins . I believe the only particles , (matter ) that are created ,spontaniously, From , energy and
something unknown ( A high energy photon that seems to strike something)
to produce an Electron and it's opposite particle , the Positron. When the "Annihilation " or recombining of these two takes place two or three 'clumps of gamma energy leave , and the two magnetic fields disappear. (To be reborn another day??)
Here is where I diverge . Some will say before this , perhaps.
I think the universe is filled with Pre or Prime Matter particles , Call them standing waves , EM portions in a bubble form . Pulled into these bubbles ,
Positron point inside at the middle . The bubble around it being pulled
outward by the universe (From spin? I don't know.) is the Electron . This layering is the Matrix for the structure of the universe .
Further , just as the Electron is a basic particle of the universe , I
think the Positron is the other basic particle of the universe , That the universe is made only and simply of these things.
Why?
I think it is illogical to expect of the universe miracle after miracle .
If evolution can take these few things and make a universe ,it will do it .
More , is expecting too much. I am an artist , anong other things and a truism is you can make all the other colors with three colors Red , Yellow ,
and blue . With a codicil , this is true. Seems fantastic.
So . what do we have ?
1. A prime matter particle . invisible and not easily knowable , except at a great distance and with math . Call it for now , Dark Matter . Thank god that came along , I was looking pretty stupid saying pairs were produced from an invisible Prime Matter .
1. Prime matter
2. Electron one half of a PM particle .
3. Positron the other half of the Prime Matter particle
4. The field that stretches between the two (the only force in the universe) This force simply tries to rejoin these two opposite "Particles"
Every thing else is made of these
For example , if a Positron is protected from "Finding" an electron by an em field of some kind It will gather shells of Prime matter particles .
Why does just the Positron attract the PM particles ?
Because the Prime Matter particle has the electron on the outside .
What are quarks , etc?
They are Prime Matter particles that traded energies within the powerful proton and are now called quarks.
High energy electrons can collect PM particles also and become Taus and Muons.
The positron collects 5 layers of PM particles . As the field ends the corners are clipped off . 10 from each corner , giving us 919 PM particles
Giving us a proton. The 920 th particle is the Positron . Each proton has one positron . Each neutron has one positron and one electron .920 equals 1840
electron weight
In this model the force negative and positive is equal in the universe
AND the MASS is exactly equal.
I know this is nothing like the standard model , but I cant find anything wrong with it.
Matter is made from prime matter on locations like in the plasma cores of celestial bodies. Like the solar system which assembles new higher count atoms in the Van Allen Belts of the sun the outer core of planets also assembles higher and lower count atoms there . This is the mechanism.
Neal Adams

?

I can only give you rough estimates , The USGS 's rainbow map shows the oldest deep oceanic plate to be 185 million years old . The oceanic plate covers between 2/3s and 3/4 s of the earth . The Earth must have been some size
4.5 billion years ago . We'll say 5 miles in diameter . So we plot a cueve between 4.5 billion years ago through 185 million years ago to now, at this size.
The oceans around the world are spreading between 6 and 12 inches per year. Personally I think it is closer to 12 inches , I could be wrong . Some
think there are surges . I don't think so. !85 million years ago it was more like a fingernails width.

While R.A.F.'s own grammar is far from perfect, he is, in this instance, absolutely right. I would never read a comic book you wrote if you wrote it in the same style you have exhibited here. In fact, I find myself unable to read your posts because they are presented in such poor English. I, like Serenitude, cannot comment on your science. However, if you believe your writing is clear, you are mistaken.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I sorry I did not make myself clear to you. You're probably totally right.
Neal adams

I have to agree with Gillianren here, I find I have trouble reading things that are so mangled.

If I have a few things extracted right though, you seem to be claiming that stars don't actually produce heavy atoms and that it's merely assumed they do because of H+H=He fussion in the sun? Have you bothered studying up on star spectra and how we can determine what elements are present in a star? If not I suggest you do as there might be a few surprises in it for you. If so, how do you explain the contradiction with your position?

What is a negative magnetic line? And why would magnetic lines affect protons but not electrons? I also suggest you read up on where the protons in our lower VA Belt actually come from.

Finally, do you actually have any testible ideas, or experimental data to support your claims, or are you just making up stuff as you go because you think it sounds good?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

It's philosophy.
Don't be upset it isn't worth the energy (primal matter ) youll expend. This might be quite meaningful to some.

but it is nonscience

__________________
"You can't talk to a brick wall but you can do Graffiti"

I would agree that if such a theory is as extensive as this is , sooner or later it will break down , Likely sooner than later . But lets speculate on it.
if heavy elements are made /assembled in Van Allen belts around a
sun ,in tight then when the sun goes nova these belts and their contents
as well as any material that falls to the sun explodes . This doesn't settle the question of WHERE the matter is actually made. In my mind a sun IS its system.
As to lines
Protons and Electrons are on different levels . Protons are positive
electro-magnetically and electrons are negative electro-magnetically.
It seems to me that each belt is oppositely charged to the particles .
negative and positive lines/layers . Within these layers there seem to be lines that carry the particles up and down the belt from pole to pole.

Hmmm Making up stuff because it sounds good does not seem an alternate to having testable ideas , but I'll work with that , This theory covers a vast array of areas and subject areas . The simplest is to measure the Earth and compare the measurments over a ten year period. If you talk to experts ,they will tell you that the earth has not changed size. Yet if you go to google and type in Equator is growing you'll see some of what my mother called 'Fast Shuffling.
There's a lot of stuff . some I listed in other posts on this group.
Neal Adams

Personally, I think it is pretty cool that a comic book writer is here posting with us. It's good to have you here. On the other hand, your model really can't get through the phase of applying numbers, and looking at the calendar, and similar systems that are out there.

Concerning the Sun's equivalent of the Van Allen belts, where do you think they are? Our Van Allen belts exist because of the interaction between the Earth's magnetic field, and the stream of particles coming out of the Sun. The Sun is exposed to a much weaker stream as it plows through the interstellar medium. If you want to call the place where the Sun interacts with that stream the Sun's Van Allen Belt (not a completely accurate comparison), it is about 100 times as far from the Sun as the Earth is, and can't really come into your picture of a growing Earth.
Saturn is 100 times the mass of the Earth (roughly). If this growth is exponential, then the Earth should be 10,000 times more massive in 600 to 800 million years, and a million times more massive in 900 to 1200 million years, making it three times more massive than the Sun! (unless your model has some cut-off you haven't mentioned yet).

Also, worthy of note is that for the Earth to be growing at such a rate, we should be able to detect that growth in the motion of the Moon as it must have changed since we put the reflectors on it almost 40 years ago. Also the eclipse records go back almost 3000 years, and tell us some precise details about changes in the movement of the Moon during that time. No such growth (and speeding up of the Moon) is detected in that interval.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

(my bold)

What sort of curve*?

Why start with 5 miles?

Is 5 miles a diameter? radius? circumference? something else?

How did you choose 4.5 billion years?

*I assume that "cueve" is a typo for "curve"; if not, what does "cueve" mean? I can't find this word in my English dictionary.

I'm glad to hear that you have now had a chance to read the BAUT rules and acquaint yourself with them.

I'll leave it to R.A.F. to say if the direct, pertinent questions he has asked about your ATM idea, as you have presented it here, have been answered or not, and if not, whether he is still expecting answers.As you say, your ideas are certainly not derived from quantum physics or General Relativity.

Have you published your new physics, in a peer-reviewed technical journal? If so, please provide references.

If you have not published your new physics in such a journal, have you developed your ideas quantitiatively (maths, numbers, equations and stuff)?

I was going to stay out of this thread, but now I can't resist...

Ya know, it's not readly appearent from the OP's linked page, but you're right! I don't know why I should be so "surprised".

I went to Neal's home page and made some interesting "discoveries"...

For instance, he appeared on Coast to Coast earlier this year.

A quote from the recap...

So not only is Neal talking about the structure of the Earth and planets...he's saying that mainstream ideas about the structure of the entire Universe are incorrect. I look forward to seeing him explain that to the satisfaction of this board.

Actually, I would really like to have an answer concerning this post...

I would really like to know why Neal thinks that "no one could account for it otherwise". I believe that to be a "pertinent" question.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

No . I have not ....I'm a comic book writer and artist (And ,I guess a few other things .) What would I know of such stuff ? I don't much like higher math , latin ,quantum Physics, more than 5 sylable words. obscure terminology , or
exclusionary words and phrases of people working in specialities.
I spent about 40 years quietly working on this , unfortunately , expanding project. I've learned a great deal and I'll be and have beem exposing it to the gravest criticismI can find . and tweaking it as I go along. If I find it's wrong . I'll drop it . I offend, intentionally, no one and I have written a graphic novel version , called " A conversation between two men in a bar , or a new model of the universe" . ( Likely ,to be shortened to "OR".) I have prepaired a 2 hour video . from which those videos are excerpted to be packed with the book.
I am lately speaking in public and for magazine articles in order to stir up interest.
In the end I will be looked at as 'Just another Kook " or I will have changed all the textbooks in the world," As one reporter said a few weeks ago.
Took 40 years . I don't usually speak until I'm nailed down and right.
I do make mistakes .
That about cover it?
Neal Adams
Oh, yeah, and I loved science since since I was 13 years old.

Thanks.

If you have not developed this 'mechanism' to any quantitative extent, how could your idea be shown to be wrong, even in principle?