As an aside and minor hijack, and I apologize for this, but I find it infinately fascinating that I'm in any sort of discourse with a published artist. Do you have a link to your work? You could PM me if you prefer. I must admit that outside of the occasional graphic novel, I'm largely comic-illiterate. I ask in public, though, because I would imagine I am not the only curious one

Sorry for the hijack, please continue with your regularly scheduled program.

__________________
"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

I Just shorten the URL found in the OP to "http://www.nealadams.com/" Is this that ?

Pretty hard to find nealadams.com
Heh Neal

Yes, must be him. Have a look at >Neal Adams Science< and >What will the Europeans find when they CRASH their ship on the moon? They´ll find that the moon is ... HOLLOW<

Reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe: We have a hollow moon, we have a stuffed moon, etc

Neal Adams, you're new to BAUT, so I will explain how this ATM section works (you already know the BAUT rules, including the one which applies to this ATM section).

You are welcome to present an ATM idea, here in this ATM section.

Any BAUT member may then challenge that idea, as you presented it.

Any BAUT member may ask questions about that idea, as you presented it.

As long as the questions asked are direct and pertinent, as long as the questions asked relate to the ATM idea as presented, you - the presenter of the ATM idea - must answer them in a timely fashion.

To not answer such questions, in a timely fashion, is a violation of BAUT rules.

Of course, your answer to such a question may be "I don't know", or "I can't answer that question", or "I don't understand the question - could you clarify please?", or "It will take me some time to answer that, I expect to be able to provide an answer by {date}", or similar.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Now to the six questions I asked you.

The first one ("What is the surface area of the Earth, today") is, as written, not a question about your idea, as you presented it. So I can say that the surface area of the Earth, today, is approx 5.1 x 10⁸ km² (510 million square kilometres). Note that this assumes a radius of 6,378 km, which gives a circumference of 25,046 miles, not 25,600 miles*.

The remaining five questions relate directly to elements of the ATM claim you have presented, so I would like you to answer them please.

- - - - - - - - -
If you read some of the ATM threads in which I have participated, you will find that I am, generally, able to work out many of the answers to the questions I ask, even when they relate to ATM ideas presented.

However, you will also see that I don't often actually do so until I have clarified just what the key terms in the ATM idea (needed to work out an answer) actually mean.

You will also see, in a great many threads, that what the presenter of ATM idea did actually mean, in many cases, is different than what other BAUT members assumed was meant.

So it is with your ATM idea.

For example, you said "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." This is ambiguous - is "the oceanic plate" in the second sentence the same as "the oceanic plate" in the first? Does "2/3s" mean two-thirds? Does "3/4 s" mean three-quarters?

Another example: you said "Today ....circumference 25,600 miles
200 MYA..circumference 8.000 miles" Is the period in "8.000" a typo (you meant to write 8,000)?

The questions I asked serve to determine, with some precision, just what your ATM idea actually is.

*Where did you get your figure of 25,600 miles from?

Rules sound fine to me.
These terms , the oceans , the deep ocean , the oceanic plate , do 'lead to some ambiguity. The "oceans" of the world cover 3/4 of the Earth. However , if one counts the continental shelf as part of the continental plate ,
which would be more correct than not , we're moving toward 2/3 rds. If one counts undersea highlands , again which would be more correct , the 2/3 rds figure becomes even more valid ,...especially if one uses the term "deep
oceans" . "Oceanic plate" makes it a bit more confusing . Is the continental
shelf part of ot or no ? At what height does the oceanic plate begin?
I prefer "deep ocean". two thirds but that conflicts with the common description.

Circumference of earth is "exactly" 24,902 miles
I meant 8,000 as a rough estimate . roughing up the problem is the , again, continental shelf.
My feeling is if one figure is unknowable to an exact measurement it's better to be general . I think "one third".
Neal Adams

So is the earth , for that matter and all other planets . Well, not hollow, never hollow . Each has a plasma outer core . Sort of like the sun.
Neal Adams

Thanks.

It seems that you have answered my second question ("2) What is the surface area of the Earth, covered by "[t]he oceanic plate", today?"), if somewhat indirectly.

It seems that the answer is somewhere between 3.4 x 10⁸ km² and 3.8 x 10⁸ km². Is this correct?

Please answer the other four questions:

>So, the Earth is hollow as all other planets, well, not hollow, never hollow<... I apologize, but that´s far beyond my horizon. I don´t think that you really believe in this. In what? Hollow, not hollow, never hollow? And then: What is an >outer core< ??? My dictionary says: Core = the inner part of something (for those who understand German: das Innere, der Kern). Isn´t >outer core< a contradiction in itself? I have no problem to listen to/read ATM opinions, as long as they have some logical background. But, as I said, that´s far beyond my comprehension. Or do I misunderstand everything you say?

dr abacar heistenvoorden 2 posts and not around.
Neal do you have any association with dr abacar heistenvoorden?

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

There is both an inner core and an outer core to the Earth. Yes, it's slightly contradictory, but there we are. The outer core is wrapped around the inner core.

Oh, and yes, we are observing subduction happen. It causes most of the earthquakes around here.

__________________
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!"

Actually why not take the amount of dark energy required to expand space within our Hubble bubble (cool term; hey? you heard it here first) and set your expansion of bodies like the earth to match the ammount of energy in mass (E=mc^2). Then at least your accounting will look neater. And you will be saying that expansion is a payback of energy borrowed to make mass. Which reminds me of an ATM I need to raise.

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

Of course I did not say we were not observing subduction . I said we were not observing subduction "In real time" or as it happens,

If you say subduction causes "Most " of the Earthquakes , I think you are going to have to broaden your definition of Subduction to include any slippage of plate material.
I would say slippage of plate material is caused by growth of the planet and the pressures it causes especially compression and slipage.
Correct ,of course about the inner and outer cores.
Neal Adams

No . I do not . Who is he , if I may ask? My site gets many visitors .
Neal

Um ,...no , you just don't understand inner core and outer core.
Ain't no thang.
Real good standard text is Don Anderson from HAAAAvard .
He's got a really good paper on the outer core (which I disagree with 100
percent , incidentally,) it's a darn good paper ,...15 pages or so and you can download it .

Neal Adams

3, I don't do this sort of math . I'm an artist and writer and designer.
But take 8,000 miles to about 10,000 miles and math it . I ask others to do this kind of thing for me. They feel sorry for me and do it rather than let me make a fool of myself.
4. That would be Zero. but you'd have to count some rifting . I think , kinda like on Mars, but on either side of the United States of America. Turns out North America is further from all the other continents than all the others , in general. Probably why Columbus had to "discover" America.
Small amount if anything . No ones found any. and they know where to look. Deep blue area.
5. Little smaller than 185million years ago. If I need 2000 miles leeway
I couldn't guess smaller than 185 MYA.
6. Totally zero. Still it's right to say , that everything's relative . If there's no really deep oceans ,..then the "Shallow Seas " at a half mile deep are deep oceans , the deepest they had. On , what we call the continental plate.
Neal Adams

If you "don't do this sort of math", how can your ideas be tested?

Well, I have taken some geology, although I did get that bit out of a children's dictionary that I had when I was very young indeed.

No. Most of the earthquakes in Washington State are caused by the fact that the Juan de Fuca plate is slowly but measurably disappearing. There are several kinds of earthquakes--back home in California, we got them as the Pacific and North American plates slid past one another. Yellowstone is on a geological hotspot, as is Hawaii. Some earthquakes are caused by two continental plates slamming together, such as the plate movement that's causing the growth of the Himalayas.

However, Washington--indeed, the entire Cascadia fault region--is all about subduction. We do have earthquakes with other causes, like our local volcanoes erupting, but all of the ones I've experienced in the 11 years I've lived in this state have been because the Juan de Fuca plate is vanishing under the North American plate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Plate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone)

Incidentally, I'm quite sure you're wrong about North America being further from other continents than any other; surely, it's very close indeed to South America.

__________________
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!"

Thanks, you´re right. I didn´t know that, would have called them >shells<. That happens when you´re not familiar with technical terms.
I will have a look at the link you mentioned (Don Anderson)

And thanks also to Gillianren, too.

None of these involve this sort of detail, and if necessary others are quite glad to do it for me . Certainly the questions you ask and we are discussing are simple and do not require sophisticated math. nor in fact do most concepts.
Finally,... I thought it was Dirac or perhaps I am wrong about the source I just like the quote
"If we didn't have higher math , science would be held back for about a week."

I call a guy who likes to do this stuff and ask him to run the figures....then I get back to my regular work . Easy , fast stuff I do myself . It's really quite simple. Math guys are usually not idea guys . There are exceptions .
Neal Adams

OK, so will he be joining this thread, to provide the answers? Or will you be getting them from him, and posting them here, yourself?

In any case, I'm sure you'll agree that without some answers to quantitative questions about key points of your idea, we would have no basis for continuing to challenge it, right?

But to be sure, can you state what quantitative aspects of your ATM idea you are able (and willing) to present (and defend) here?

Well, whoever said it, they sure never had to run a telephone network, design a PC, write voice recognition software, develop profitable insurance products, make a modern battlefield weapon, ... and so on!

To take just one example - how would you (or anyone else for that matter) go about designing and building a laser pointer ... without making use of the results of other people's work? Knowing what we know today, about how lasers work, could you show - without "higher math" - how it might, plausibly, be possible to reproduce that knowledge (starting with what we knew before lasers 'were invented')?

Well, of course you did say that we are not observing subduction. In fact, you said it was impossible. You are of course quite wrong, it is not only possible, it is unavoidable, and it is in fact observed literally in real time, as we watch it happen. I find it somewhat interesting that anyone claims to have put in 40 years studying this problem, and yet remains so ignorant of very basic physics. Hint: the continents are not solid rock, nor is the mantle under them. After 40 years you really should have been able to figure out at least that much. How did you come to this conclusion? How much work have you actually done over the last 40 years in studying the physics of materials under high pressure? Are you self taught, or did you take classes? Or have you spent 40 years "studying" by contemplation, like the ancient Greeks? What do you really mean when you say you have studied this problem for 40 years?

As for the "many geologists" claim, what is "many"? 2 or 3? a dozen? I dispute the factual validity of the claim. The vast majority of geologists & geophysicists do not replace "subduction" with "compression". A few misguided & confused individuals might, but that is hardly a significant development.

So, in your model, Earth as a whole is not expanding? One side expands, while the other contracts?

If Panagia is sitting on "solid rock" (as you yourself put it), then how does it sink beneath the waves, quite regardless of where the center of gravity is? It can only sink beneath the waves if it is suppsed to be floating on the water. Is that your claim, that the continents float on water? As for the center of gravity moving, that only works if you assume, a-proiri, that Earrth is as small in the past as you claim. However, if we don't make that assumption, then the total mass of Panagea, at most about 10²¹ kg, is less than 1/1000 of the total mass of Earth, about 6x10²⁴ kg. Obviously, moving Panagea around will not significantly shift the center of gravity of Earth enough to make it sink. Math that, if you can.

It is? How do you know it's true? Do you know how fast the sun's magnetic field rotates? Have you compared that to the speed of the planets going around the sun? Have you noticed a problem? Do you know how the field lines of the sun's magnetic field are oriented compared to the planets? Do you know what the coupling constant is between the planet and the sun's magnetic field? Surely you already know all of these things, in order to make the claim stick? Some of us might doubt the validity of such a claim, and we would like to see some physics to support it.

That should do for now.

__________________
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

I don't even think of it as physics, actually, but geology. Which I took for a quarter in college--by which point I already knew about subduction, because I grew up in Los Angeles, and they teach that sort of thing in the schools there. Generally early in elementary school. (Or they did when I was there, anyway.) Oh, and at least bits of the continents are solid rock, right? I mean, mountains and things.

Oh, and it's not at all what I learned in college, either. My professor had gotten his PhD maybe two years earlier, and this was perhaps seven years ago. So if this massive change of information has happened, it's been in about the last ten years.

And for the love of Gods, it's Pangaea. Greek "Gaea" for "Earth." Same route as, well, geology, which our friend Neal has clearly not studied enough.

__________________
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!"

Ummmm. In 'Physics " You learned about ....geology...I, see.
And "you" say the continents are not solid rock? And the mantle ,? It's not solid rock either? O=kay
I'm curious . What else do you think ie under there?
2. I open the book and read , then i think. Yes, a lot.

Many , means many. They're not misguided , simply cautions .


No, That is the model that you are defending. Do you understand?

Do you understand "center of gravity?" If you put a lot of stuff all on one side and take it away from the other side the center shifts. Go to...
http://continuitystudios.net/pangea.html

1. A field doesn't rotate.
2. So, why should that be significant?
3. Again, irrelevant.
4, No , I deduce.
5. No one does.
6. That's for future discovery
It's called theory by deduction. Like Dirac on contemplation of the Electron concluding that there must be an opposite particle in the universe
even though there was no such particle ever detected anywhere.
Neal Adams

I had to jump in here on that one. This and other statements you've made show your understanding of Electromagnetic theory is, well, greatly lacking. Planets riding the "magnetic lines" of the sun was a real hoot, however this one is an even bigger hoot.

The power grid that spans this country and pumps you all the energy that makes your life much easier than your great-great grandparents depends very much on the concept of a "rotating field". The synchronous machine, which makes those 60Hz sine wave does so by a rotating field. That is a main distinction between AC and DC machines actually, and the defining characteristic of the synchronous machine, actually. The former are all about a (B) field rotating in an armature, while the latter are all about an armature rotating in a (B) field.


-Richard

1. It all is granitic rock and basalts.
2,.....
3. It is also Pangea , but Pangea is not pretentious. Also
Pangaea would be pronounced Pan guyA . Probably why sensible folks chose the easy Pangea.
Neal Adams

So " A rotating body containing gas or liquid develops self -amplifying electric currents . and thus a self -generated magnetic field.
At large distances ,however , the magnetic fields of currents flowing in opposite directions cancel out and only a net dipole field survives .
The major component of the generated magnetic field is the dipole field of the equatorial current loop"
Point is, any such rotation or dipole non -rotation , does not relate to planetary orbit which is a separate factor.
Neal Adams

Sorry
The question is far too broad to answer briefly. All . is the correct answer.
If I can give you an answer I will . if my answer is not quantatative , I can give you the train of bredcrumb clues that I followed and the supporting clues that increased the percentage , and if necessary the reasoning I used. Let me give you an some idea of this, please.
If we assume we have an empty-OF-MATTER universe...it does not make sense to me that this primitive empty universe will come up with a bevy of
particles , or miracles . So something must be wrong with "Many Miracles
what does make sense??

one MIRACLE?
Not even that ....can't even be a miracle . ,,,,an event, a very simple event. Like SPIN .
Spin ? .