I would, but I'm not sure where to start, it's beyond wrong, in fact so far beyond wrong that wrong doesn't even cut close, it's Thgir.

Positron and electron pairs are produced which follow the electromagnetic lines isolated from each other… until the positrons gather neutral mass (prime matter) sufficient to become protons.

Then the same process that happens in the sun and its solar system happens. Hydrogen atoms are compressed into neutrons. Helium is produced. The "inner core" strips the electrons from the helium.

Come on, I mean, this stuff debunks itself.

__________________
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

How about this:

When Earth captured Moon any liquid water and almost all atmosphere on Earth was lost.

It is reasoned that Earth got water again from captured comets.

The creation of matter in the link sounds more like what happened in the universe between big bang and big bang plus 30 seconds or so.

I think if that type of expansion were happening inside Earth, debunking Adams would be moot.

dr abacar (or DocVee, if you prefer): please review our forum rules. We have strict civility and decorum guidelines here and require politeness, even when addressing those who make egregious claims.

Comments like you've made above are wholly inappropriate.

By any chance is this the same Neal Adams who used to write X-MEN?

C2C likes to bring on "alternative theorists" and other assorted characters because it's good for ratings. It doesn't bother C2C in the least to give someone with far-out ideas some air time as long as their entertaining. It also doesn't bother them if the ideas of one speaker totally conflict with what their next speaker proposes (which is different from the next speaker and so on).

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Here's a way that might help you deal with your anger and frustration pointed at Mr. Adams. Think of crackpots as being a natural consequence of the way nature produces positive change. Science evolves in a way that has some analogies to life itself-- it starts with a working paradigm but then modifies it to adapt to new challenges from the experimental "environment". What survives is what succeeds, and what fails becomes extinct, in scientific thought. For a process like that to work, just as with evolution of life, you inevitably have some failed experiments. Basically, you have birth defects. Think of Adams' ideas as being the intellectual equivalent of scientific birth defects. A tragic thing, but an inevitable offshoot of successful evolution of scientific thought.

And frankly, the fact that ideas like that find some level of popularity is actually a good thing for science and for human intellectual development, because it means there is still room in the "niche" for some experimentation. Far worse would be a situation where free thinking is squelched, because the next step after brutally suppressing wrong ideas is brutally suppressing right ones. So lighten up, it's also better for your blood pressure. The fact that Adams takes himself seriously, and some of his followers, is no reason for you to do so. Sure, he's an offensive joke, but even an offensive joke can make you laugh if it is funny enough.

I strongly agree with KenG. These "armchair physicists" already tend to be quite emotional and abrasive in thier rhetoric. Such emotional oubursts degrade one's logical foundation. Crackpots will be with us forever, and we have to get used to it. There's no need to play thier game of irrational name-calling when you have logic going for you.
Also, one of the best ways to quickly identify a "crackpot" is by noting the emotional nature of the text.

I'm no trekkie, but I often imagine how Spock would handle the subject. Also, remember that a stopped clock is right twice a day!

__________________
-----> Be prepared to accept that everything we know is wrong. <-----

Indeed, it's worth examining why crackpot ideas, when they achieve some notoriety, tend to illicit an angry response from more educated people. Where does this come from? Are we afraid that nonscientists will edge out established scientists in the competition for societal resources, even though the benefits they offer prove to be negligible or negative? I'm not sure that's what it is, I don't see evidence that this is a real threat.

If the issue is that we are afraid such ideas tend to undermine or reverse the general level of scientific understanding and education in the larger population, then we should instead view it as a positive opportunity to instill more correct scientific thinking, something which is always difficult in its own right and maybe we should welcome any such new opening. I imagine a statement like: "science is not just a bunch of answers, it is a process for arriving at answers. No answer can be separated from the process that generated it, so let's look at the process you have used to generate these rather radical suggestions you have made. Let's start with experimental evidence that you might care to cite in support of your ideas." By shifting the focus from "who's right" to "who used a credible process", you have created an educational opportunity that bolsters the general understanding of science, rather than undermining it.

You could try the email exchange between Adams and Dr. Steven Novella of the New England Skeptical society here:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skep...nfo.asp?pid=51

Dr. Novella does a pretty good (and remarkably patient) job of it.

You can also listen to the podcast interview with Adams and read the comments on the message board.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/skepti...2006-07-12.mp3

Hope that helps.

__________________
Even Harry Potter studies Astronomy.

Thanks guys; I think I was a little on "tilt" when I posted the message. After a nice coffee it started bothering me less and less and now I've moved on to my projects with Mr. Adams far in the back of my mind.

Whew
Now ,that that,s over ...oh, Hi , I'm Neal Adams
Perhaps I may mention a few things that I find interesting.
This did not begin as "MY" theory, nor did it begin in Physics , but in Geology ,
I would tell you about a professor of geology who worked out of the University of Tazmania until 2 years ago when he died in his late 80's .
Most of you weren't around then , likely ,but in the late 60's and early70's Professor Samuel Warren Carey set a rumble through the new field of Tectonics by writing a very well doccumented tome on the subject of an Expanding Earth ( I say Growing Earth , to avoid the" balloon" concept)
He pointed out tectonic matching around the world , not just in the Atlantic. He discussed the Geology extensively and the relative size of animals then to now (4 times larger in all areas) and a large number of other things .
The majority of geologists were relieved when Sam was debunked with the discovery of sliding oceanic crust material at the Benioff Zone and this suggested the theory of Subduction , This was a second blow . The first being from , indirectly , the Physics community , in the form of a question. A very sensible question.
Where did all this new mass come from? Sammy??/ Hummm?
Professor Carey was a highly regarded teacher and practical practitioner of Geology ...but not Physics. Oh, he pickes up a lot after that ,
but too late..
Truthfully I had no idea of the background of the politics ,back then ,but the theory made total sense to me . I could see it . In fact the more I looked the more sense it made . I didn't understand such a wholesale rejection ( until later , when I discovered the ramifications,) Every new tectonic fact supported this theory / The common theory became incredibly complicated to explain things like ,Antarctica ending up at the south pole .
when It was originally sub-tropical ("The continents swim about like bumper-cars at a carnival." that was one of my favorites.), T-rex was a scavenger 'cause at that size it couldn't possibly run, and on and on.
Why hadn't Carey teamed up with a Physicist .
To late for that . His career went on , with honors . and others joined in on the theory.
With new discoveries a new group has formed. Nice folks, No critiism intended.
Anyway , back then I thought , "What if I could find a mechanism for the making of matter to cause the Earth to grow , as it obviously has?
Books available to anyone. I was a good researcher . I wouldn't lose my job. I had no tenure to protect. I'm not interested in public debate. And I'm not afraid of being embarassed , which would likely happen .
So , without contacting anyone , I simply dug in.
Took 40 years. Heh . So , I know I'm not going to convince anyone overnight , especially folks entrenched with the standard model. Oh , no!
I come here knowing I 'll not convince anyone, really . I'm merely planting seeds. All I ask is Please watch the videos first, then , if you can be gentlemen then please do. If you are rude , I simply won't respond.
Neal Adams

Moved from General Science to ATM.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hi Neal. Welcome to BAUT.
Love your art/animation work. I can see you think well.
I'm into high speed video. Here are some movies I have taken. WMV is a terrible format but its what they wanted. http://www.impulsedevices.com/media.html

Keep going. I think there is enough to say this might be worth investigating.
I can come up with few ways to grow a planet.

You just have to realize that the more science you know the more you realize we dont know ANYTHING.

I'm amazed at people who think they have it figured out.
The issue is coming up with an experimental prediction.
If you can do that then your onto something.

[Matter is created (google Carl David Anderson) from the prime matter (or aether, or dark matter, or, call it, pre-matter) that fills the universe.]

Neal;

The above is from a line in the link in the OP (opening post).

I googled and googled on Carl David Anderson, and could find no reference to
"Matter" is created FROM.........Dark Matter or Aether as the 'Prime Matter' that fills the universe.

Could you please provide a/some specific reference(s)???

Thanks

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Ah yes...but some of "us" were around.

Imagine that.

So you are stating "as fact" that over time, the Earth's diameter has increased?? That shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate, we await your presentation of evidence that this is so.

Then you've come to the wrong board...

Why would you make the assumption that folks are "closed minded" to new "theories"?? If your ideas have merit, then there should be no problem demonstrating their inherent "rightness".

That is not a problem as rudeness is frowned upon on this board...but...

The folks here will gleefully demand that you provide confirmational evidence for your ideas.

If you are "up" for this task, then we look forward to examining your evidence.

I don't think either applies, because they require cause-and-effect thinking, and the reaction you're talking about feels to me more like a "gut reaction", some kind of instinct that's built in at more of an instinctive and emotional level than the kind of conclusion we reach by thinking about causes, effects, and what's coming next a step into the future. (Plus, I have that reaction to things that are well outside of my profession.) I'm thinking of what I'd call "primary motivators", the kind of thing that has us eat not because we're thinking about the need for nutrients but because we feel hungry, and has us avoid danger not because we're thinking about the physical damage to our bodies but because we're scared and pain hurts.

I think that people who end up with much education, and working in scientific fields or subscribing to science magazines or visiting websites like this one, tend to have a "primary motivator" that, like sleep and hunger and pain, is quite simple: knowledge good, factual incorrectness bad. And it's built in as a visceral reaction.

In some cases I think responding to them at all only gives them too much credibility by treating them as worthy of consideration, and wastes time that could be used making real educational progress instead of getting bogged down in silliness. But in the bigger, more prominent case of evolution, I'd use it that way it in my classroom just because it's already out there as a challenge to real science anyway so it might as well be confronted.

Neal Adams,
Welcome to baut - you're brave man with all these sceptics about.

I looked at the site our original poster linked to, and your contribution there.
Leaving aside the spontaeous creation of hydrogen at the centre of the Earth, you seem to suggest that it undergoes fusion to helium and thence to heavier elements in the high pressure and temperature of the Earth's centre. As in every other part of the Universe that transmutation needs the temperature and pressure found in the heart of a star, how do you explain it happening within an Earth that does not evaporate?
John

I was not intending to imply that Carl David Anderson was a reference to anything but "Matter is created" the remainder is my extrapolation and presunption from that . I presume that if there is NO OTHER CREATION EVENT that we know of ,...Carl's is the best candidate for matter creation in our universe .
As to the other names ,....pick one ...."A rose by any other name."
Matter was created that had the charteristics of energy mass and field !
When all that entered the "Impact point " was "energy"..
Did Energy strike a standing field , both split and thereby somehow create Mass? What ever happened ,....can we take this singular event and from it create a Universe ?
I ask , because this seems to be the universe's only creation event that we can observe .
No "stories for Children? of a magical Big bang!
I think we can do it.
Neal Adams