I think I said " I think it was assumed heavier elements were made on bigger suns" I don't think I meant what you say, If you're saying "Scientists
all agree that heavier elements were made during the explosion of a supernova. " I assumed that the community thought the larger sun made the
elements , and the explosion kicked them out.
In that , that's what I thought , I said what I meant. The point is that my assumption was incorrect . The community thinks these elements are made
AT THE TIME OF THE NOVA.
My misunderstanding was colored because I would never think the community could think such a thing . My view is quite different. Likely ,
it's me that is wrong.
Can I make a request here ? Can you take the trouble to read my other posts , if you hane not , and please view the videos that touched this off? Thanx in either case.


I wasn't stating fact. I said ," I believe " this is why it happened .
It seemed people were looking for an origin of heavier elements. They said so last night on Nova . (Was it nova? One of them.)


Well , since I'm still me , I'm not likely to get better at it . The other
possibility is that since I try to be as brief as I can . I shove ideas into short spaces and one has to read them over and separate the ideas.


I just don't think heat and compression will do the job. How does compression get past the electron shells ? They'd get compressed too and form a shield tighter around the Nuclei. I think this is backward thinking .
Strip the electrons off and then apply heat and pressure . Better yet ,
strip the electrons off and electro-magnetically convince the ions to overcome the positive positive repulsion. Add a negative force between
them that is not a particle.
Regards
Neal Adams

Well...hmmm I'll tell you.
It's a long shot .
I'm in touch with a physicist in England . They're building a collider .
Really powerful , better, they say for Positron Electron collision . Most folks think they annhilate . Actually they approach , orbit each other ,become positronium for an instant fire off their energy and disappear. Big Mystery.
So these guys are trying to collide them . If I can get them to slip in a few experiments of keeping positrons going for a time in a negative field to gather up Prime Matter particles , in order to make protons ....that would do it.
Meanwhile Finding the moon's hollow . and has a plasma core , actually its more likely to happen on Earth . This Don Anderson liquid iron core drives me to distraction. There's stuff that helps the Theory along .
The water spraying ,ongoing from Encalatus, Tectonics on mars .
Hey, how's this . I had the Mars tectonic spreading on Mars videos
up on my site a year before NASA's Mars group announced that after a five year study they concluded that Mars was tectonicaly active "Like the Earth" This is after denying tectonic activity on Mars for twenty-five years,,,,,,
My studio started working on the maps 8 years ago.
I keep plugging along
Neal Adams

It's a "curve", I had to relearn typing badly. Now I working on typing
goodly.
What kind ? A curve . You connect three or four points and continue the line, I'm not trying to make a thing out of it , too many variables. does it stop increasing? Does it max out? Effect of slowed spin rate etc. Too many.
5 miles and 4.5 billion years , no real reason. The oldest Meteorites
in our system are condrite meteorites , which they say are , max 4.5
Billion years old . did they actually start 5.5 billion years ago ? I'm not good enough to figure this , Clues are sparce.
Neal Adams

But the moon is moving out from the Earth . I believe on its Earths magnetic line, which as they both grow , moves out,
I believe the moon is getting bigger . perhaps a fingernails width a year.
Maybe half.

Earth 800 million years , a momma . What will happen with Jupiter in half the time,
In the last 400 million years Jupiter has grown inredibly , retarded the growth of Mars ; Become Mars' ,the moon and Earth's meteorite umbrella
(allowing us to age the surface by allowing us to only have smaller and smaller meteorites . )
And how big and bright was the sun 3 billion years ago? Was it even a sun?
It's an evolutionary process . I suspect . that needs figuring out.
The clues are there . Takes more than me. First we gotta get rid of a lot of old thinking . If the Earth grows ,....just think of the ramifications.
I saw those Shoemaker levy 21 meteoric Planet killers , any one would have wiped out all life on Earth ...and science trys to tell me that
Meteorites are getting smaller and less.
21 planet killers , in that small portion of my life when I could atually see it, Always re-assess, Nothing stays the same.
Neal Adams

(my bold)

I can only see three points - today, 185 million years ago, and 4.5 billion years ago; what is the fourth point?

I drew "a curve" through these three points, and got an answer - at present the Earth is growing at a rate of less than 1 km per 100,000 years, or less than 1 cm per annum.

How did you get "[t]he oceans around the world are spreading between 6 and 12 inches per year"?

O-kay lets double check
Today ....circumference 25,600 miles
200 MYA..circumference 8.000 miles

Oh?

In this post of yours, you state (my bold):How is a "200 MYA..circumference 8.000 miles" consistent with this?

The oceanic plate took 185million years to create by spreading at the rifts
To remove 185 Million Years , simply remove the 1 to 185 m y old rainbow
and what you are left with is the Earth , 185 million years ago
If you were to want to take away 10 million years remove the RED .
Cut it out with scissors and move the remaining pieces together That's the same as going back in time for 10 million years. (or do it in photoshop if
you'd like
I have done this on a 3-d animation for anyone to see , Go Too:
www.nealadams.com/nmu.html
It;s a very high quality animation . the sort you'd see on "Discovery"
Mars , by the way , is just at the beginning of this process . The first deep tectonic rift has split open and has begun pulling apart. Big and deep and wide . Too bad Mars will never have standing water.

Assuming that nothing - "oceanic plate", islands, continents, ... nothing - else was destroyed during these 185 million years.

Do you agree?

If you do, then what case can you present to show no destruction?Even if I agreed with this, I can't see how it demonstrates consistency between your two claims - please show (using numbers) how the two claims are consistent.What is this "first deep tectonic rift"?

When did it - according to your idea - begin to spit open? What is the amount by which Mars has increased (in size), in order to produce this rift?

What does the existence (or not) of standing water on Mars have to do with any planetary expansion?

I'm a little confused by your first question . Did I lead you to believe something was being desrtoyed? Land slides ,..Volcanos and such . On a planitary level ...negliable.
I don't know why something should be destroyed???
You'll have to have a little patience here. Destruction...confused?
Also confused about"" ? There are quite a few claims .
(Did you watch some of the videos? That will make a lot , a lot clearer,
Ah The first rift (Blue) happened 185 million years ago on earth.
Let me back up . o-kay ?
On any growing planet the growth , at first is incredibly slow .
Slivers a year . The Early growth includes accretion ,which is actually faster than inner growth , The inner ACCRETION is from single atoms and molecules
attracted to the gravitational center of meteotites moonlets. Planetesmals.
To an individual atom or molecule crystal latices are like canyons down which to fall, once at the empty core the individual atom acts as a gas and joins the inner silicate crystal surface , to compact and push out..
Like a geode these meteorites grow, very slowly .
You may know ,crystals are subject to pressure , and they displace and shift position under differing pressure . The surface splits and cracks , but repairs itself with deposits from the inside .
Small moons begin the process of manufacturing matter from Prime Matter (Which is everywhere) Heat and/or EM will create high energy photons . these will begin" pair production" (Electrons and Positrons)
This new production begins to supply more matter than accretion
The silicate rock material slides off other layes revealing new surface .
like the Mares of the moon ,,,SPREADS, Heat is gathering now under the crust allowing the silicate to lie more easily as it spreads slowly. '
About the size of Mars ( Not Mercury) the growth seems to become robust enough ,not to be satisfied with simple sliding of plates , it must RIFT down to the Magmic and hot layer . The surface water , if there is water seeks it's own level and falls into the spread areas ,,The truth is, these spreads are simply deeper versions of earlier spreads.
The Valles Marinares likely began a hundred million years ago to rift .
The increase over this time is probably between 1 and 2 percnt.
Standing water on Mars. Planetary Expansion ( Not Expansion , Growth)
Little , but significant . If Jupiter's growth affected Mars' EM field negatively
then Mars has no clouds BECAUSE OF Jupiter.s selfish massive growth. Growth
If Jupiter didn't attract the Shoemaker Levy meteorites . some might have struck and enlarged Mars. How often do these things come in and are stolen by Jupiter.
How much does the EM field of Mars assist in internal manufacture of matter of Mars ?? This is very important . Was Mars supposed to be a size between Jupiter and Earth ,...and was shorted?
These are questions that I dont have an answer for . I'm curious !
Neal Adams

Neal

As i am also a believer in the expansion theory , i don't want to be too hard on you , but i must say : your posts are very tiring to read. And your explanations of expansion , hum , they just look like awaken dreams to me . Speculation without the beginning of proof ... Words and words ....

Hey , It does not prevent you from being a good drawer.

If the Eath and the Moon are both constantly (gradually or in chunks) increasing their mass, as you have stated, then the Moon should not be "moving out" from the Earth, as you have confirmed. It should be spiraling in towards us, not away from us. If there was a hidden magnetic repulsory force strong enough to push two orbiting bodies away, even as they add mass (and therefore gravity), gravity should have failed some time (billions of years) ago. Indeed, the sun should never have existed. That we are here is a failure of the theory. Can you explain the apparent paradox?


Is this a mistype, or an "Mother Earth" comment unfinished?

__________________
"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

What do you mean by >negative magnetic lines< ? Never heard of things like these.

I do not think that Mr. Adams ideas have any merit, yet I've found that I really don't have the "Heart" (for lack of a better word) to continue to debunk his expanding Earth.

Therefore, I am removing myself from this discussion.

Oh...and thanks, Neal for answering my questions...

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

Well , I guess you'd have to be interested in what the words are saying and follow the thread of the process. I try to shorten it , but someone always catches me on a detail I've left out.
I don't do those one sentence sound-bites ,..because I think it's to easy to walk away and not care. This is a process , not a sound-bite.
Like that last one . Talk about 'Damned by faint praise.'
Neal Adams

Something new. Like the end of a magnet but spread out .
Think about it. Negative particles ride on.............?
Positive particles ride on.........................?Neal

Here's what I asked earlier:Let me try again ...

1) What is the surface area of the Earth, today (in either square miles or square km)?

2) What is the surface area of the Earth, covered by "[t]he oceanic plate", today?

3) What was, according to you, the surface area of the Earth, 185 mya (million years ago)?

4) What was, according to you, the surface area of the Earth, covered by "[t]he oceanic plate", 185 mya (million years ago)?

5) What was, according to you, the surface area of the Earth, 200 mya (million years ago)?

6) What was, according to you, the surface area of the Earth, covered by "[t]he oceanic plate", 200 mya (million years ago)?

It's not a matter of sound bites, it's a matter of making your posts readable. If you wrote like this in high school, you would've flunked every paper you turned in.

Try making complete paragraphs and stop using spaces to break your sentences. That's what the Return/Enter key is for.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

This is a revealing answer. After all ...
If you work on something for 40 years, and can only come up with consistently vague & evasive answers, it would seem that "off" is the more operative chioce here.

You have referred to this several times, but I do not know what it is and you do not provide a link to the map. Do you have a link or reference for this map?

Why? Why not 10 or 15? Why not 7,926.4 miles? What is the most likely, most reasonable, most acceptable diameter for Earth 4.5 billion years ago, in your opinion?

Why is this a matter of opinion? Why don't you use the measured spreading rates?

What was a fingernail's width? The size of Earth? The size of the ocean basin? The spreading rate?

A word of advice: Your writing style is nearly incomprehensible, you should work on that.

In order to fall for the fantasy of an expanding Earth, you must reject subduction. Since subduction is observed to happen in real time, why do you reject it? You must also ignore the measured plate velocities. Why do you think the plate velocity data are no good? Why do you think that standard plate tectonics is inferior to an expanding Earth model?

As you may know, the Gravity Recover and Climate Experiment (GRACE) is able to measure the time variable graviational field of Earth. Any global variation in the radius and/or mass of Earth is bound to change the gravitaitonal potential. Should we not expect GRACE to see this? What about more sensitive follow-on missions?

What about the observabilty of the effect of a growing radius is precision GPS data?

__________________
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

You're not taking subduction into account, your estimate is severly flawed. The reason the oldest plate is 185 million years old is because the old plates are being destroyed at the same rate that new ones are created. There is absolutely no evidence of growth.

I really would be interested in this >something new<. Any references or links?
The spread out end of a magnet? Maybe an axe, cutting a magnet into North and South monopoles?
But seriously: Where do you get all these ideas from? Is there any background literature I can look at? As I said in the beginning, I would be interested in your >something new<, but I can´t find the faintest hint in my brain how to >think about it<

div(B) = 0 :P
In plain english: magnets cannot be split into monopoles...

I know, but does Neal know?
Well, I think I forgot to use the smilies, when I said: >Maybe an axe, cutting a magnet into North and South monopoles?<
Still waiting for an answer from Neal

Merely saying it , as you must know. does not make it true. Please Google
"equator growing" . Ignore , if you can the mad scramble to assure us idiots that there is a logical and scientific explaination . Just pay attention to the facts.
Add to this the research that I have done to discover any mention years ago of the equator "shrinking" in any news media of any sort. None!
I am not taking subduction into account because Subduction is , thirty-five years or there-abouts after its presentation , an unproven theory.
All measurements between G.P.S.points change 'every year" smaller or larger , near Subduction areas, or not near at all. Many geologists are revising their view of subduction zones and calling them compression zones , because the
continents are 70 miles thick and go down into solid rock. How would a
4 mile thick subducting plate "go under" such a solid and massive slab as this . I'm not saying they don't . I'm saying they can't !
I say the Northern pacific is compressing a bit , but the southern pacific is growing . as is the Atlantic and the Antarctic ocean ,all around ,360 degrees ,
and no subduction ,
NASA finally admits Mars exhibits Tectinic activity , not unlike Earth ,..
Yet no subduction was found after a five year study.
Neal Adams

I have not read this entire thread yet because I am tired but when I got to the point about the ether creating new matter inside the earth then the thought hit me, in the wildest of ideas, that dark matter was colliding within this big ball of normal baryonic matter that is called earth. Since the baryonic matter creates an incubator, of sorts, then the dark matter collisions cause new baryonic matter as a by-product.

One of the nice features of the ATM section is that I can let my mind explore whatever it fancies ... until the questions get too heavy.

Vague answers ????? No , Honest answers . I intentionally answer in a conservative manner in order to avoid error. I have a responsibility.
You may think I'm a kook, but I have done my homework , and I don't speak out 'til i'm sure. Habit,


Exponential rainbow map
www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html
Writing style . Foolish people in the several areas of the media pay me very well for this writing style. Please don't tell them.

Subduction is not observed in real time. "Real time" means now as we look at it.
Why?????? My -o-my. I'll tell you , will you listen? Really? Fine?
This is the Earth that I must accept.
,
Split Earth into 2 hemispheres ...the Pacific side ,and the Atlantic side . All the continents around the Atlantic are
MOVING AWAY from each other. All the continents on the Pacific side
are moving toward each other. Now we can tell the ancient greeks that they were wrong when they said the earth was the center of the universe and it was the most unique place in the universe. It's more than that .
One side of the Earth is unique from the other side, They are opposites. They work two different ways . That's incredible.
How 'bout this... If Pangia existed as they say on one side of the Earth , Then the Pangea side (Granitic rock and basalts , with a half mile above Sea level) was FIVE times as heavy as the water Pacific ocean side!
Simple math will tell you that the center of gravity would shift to the Pangea side (You can easily do the math), The middle of Pangea would sink beneath the waves, and the middle of the Pacific would be dry land. This is an
inescapable conclusion. Math it .
Try this ...Shallow Seas were easily a half mile deep 'on the
continenttal plates . Assuming there were also Deep oceans , then sea level
on the Earth was a half mile deeper than it is now. That's one third more water than exists on Earth today. Do you comprehend what that means?
That water is gone! It doesn't exist any more .No shallow seas anywhere
A half mile of real water covering the world.
And this , The density of heavy dinosaur bones is exactly the same density as an elephant's bones. But a sauropod can have grown to be 4 to 5 times as heavy as the elephant . A t-rex is as heavy as an elephant , Engineers tell us that in order to run , over 70 percent of
of the weight and muscles of the T-rex would have to be located in the legs.
Dragonflies had over a one foot wingspan , Paleontologists Argue on television about why T-rex MUST be scavengers because they cOULDN'T possibly run down their prey (Which were often nearly as big as them.)
Do you know that nature evolved an elephant's shoulder blades to push foreward to protect the elephant"s head , to the extent that an elephant
can't turn it's head from side to side?
Look at a rhino . Look at a hippo..then look at a hadrosaur . just as heavy , but it got around like a kangaroo.
The Earth was sub-tropical from pole to pole , Why? It had no deep oceans anywhere . It had warm shallow seas on the land. Science tells us that the deeper the ocean the colder , If we had deep oceans on Earth back then , Earth would have had freezing icy winters and frozen poles like now.
And it goes on , I depend on facts from all areas of science. And I believe
facts when they are facts . Subduction is not fact , it is theory.

I don't think GRACE could spot it . Otherwise they would tell us .
I have paid a scientist to gather and analize the evidence and try to give me comparitive cercumfrences over 10 years , 6 months and 3 thousand dollars later , No results .
Neal Adams

I'm sure you can work out the answers from the information(Assumptions ) I gave you .
Thanks Neal Adams

But , that dOESNT' make
it...... any
more readable . But ddddddddddddddddddddon't owrry we ,
wont' tell THEM.

__________________
"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

I will try, but we're far down into the theory.
The planets ride on the magnetic lines of the sun.
Calm down now. ...I know, I know......but ...It's true.
Sun's got a magnetic field,,,biggest in the solar System.
It must be that the sun has a magnetic lines , like the Earth,
The Earth has magnetic lines . Some of them deflect ions and electrons
from the sun , Some make the Van Allen belts . Some hold the clouds up.
(Oops , did I say that?)
If a planet is going to orbit the sun , it's speed is good for orbit ,
it is logical that if there IS a line , the planet will ride it . I made up a law about it . then I discovered some other guy , named Bode had already done it , Personally , I like mine. I think it's more precise. Anyway they both
predict Uranus is off it's line. . but Neptune is on it's line.
Anyway, the moon is riding one of Earth,s magnetic lines ,.. maybe
two, The line attracts the moon and the moon attracts the line .
As the Earth and moon grow, the moon moves outward on the outgoing line. So do the planets in the solar system. All very organized.

It was Momma.

They taught me that in school
Then I heard about Positrons and electrons .
Then I heard about Electrons and Protons.
Then positive and negative charges leaping at each other, and I realized there was a lot more to all this than I had imagined
Neal Adams