SCIENCE OR FICTION?
Excerpts from a discussion at the Silver Bullet Comic Books forums about Neal Adams' science project, which calls into question long held scientific theorems, including Relativity, Pangea and Subduction. The discussion was edited for this presentation.
BR: a) When and where has Neal Adams presented a science project? b) Pangea and the Big Bang (or at least expansion of the cosmos) are backed up by evidence.
MN: There is only circumstantial evidence for these theories. No real proof for Pangea or subduction, though. These are theories based on assumptions made from observing certain phenomenon. That's the problem with all this and this is what Neal is showing. There are other answers to these phenomenon which Neal suggests.
Go to his web site and look at the science project links. There's a lot of reading to do there but the findings are overwhelming.
To this day, we remain in a continuous process of learning about our world. It's not wise to support popular scientific theories without fully understanding the reason scientists came to their conclusions.
BR: But it seems to me that Pangea & the Big Bang work pretty well as theories. It also occurs that if they didn't, the scientific community would be in more debate about them- scientists like challenging old accepted theories with new evidence, it gets them famous.
I've also seen Dave Sim come up with answers and findings. Doesn't mean they were the right answers. I've seen Jack Chick and similar people have their own answers & findings, and they're quite easily proven wrong by scientists. Also it's hard to take people seriously when they scream "YOU EAT PAP!" at the experts- where is Neal Adam's authority on science and geology? Does he have a degree in these fields that isn't widely known about? Is there a reason I should take his views on dinosaur extinction more seriously than, say, Robert Bakker and Dr David Norman (who are Big Brains when it comes to dinosaurs) beyond Neal Adams being a big noise in comics?
MN: The scientific community has been in debate over many of its theories but it tows the community line in the end.
About 50 years ago a group of scientists had a theory similar to Neal's about the earth expanding and that's why the continents would cover all of it evenly if it was a third of the size. Like jigsaw puzzle pieces coming together as you reduce the size of the earth. They were laughed out of the community as it was in the throws of the new Einsteinian theory that matter is constant and can't be created from what appears to be nothing.
The growing Earth theory answers all the geological and anthropological questions about the Earth but science can't accept it because it means the end of e=mc2. Well, e=mc2 is also only a theory and science has no real proof that matter is constant. Time is running out also for the theory of relativity.
The ocean floor, 2/3 of the planet's surface came into being more than several billion years after the continents. How could this be? Scientists say that the outer crust which covered the ocean floor subducted into the magma under the continents. This may sound interesting as a theory but if you think about it, it's like magic and sorcery. There is no logical way this could've happened and it's a stupid theory concocted in order to defend the idea that the Earth was always the same size. There is no indication of the continents moving on the ocean floor the way Pangea suggests.
It's like defending the idea that the earth is flat because that's how it looks from the ground.
Spend some time reading Neal's work. It's very interesting and informative.
BR: Uh, hang on. The theory of Pangea and all the other continents relates to the theory of continental drift, which links in with tectonic plate movements. It happens below the ocean floor. And we know about tectonic plates- they're the things causing earthquakes.
MN: Just think about this for a second. The continents are 1 to 4 billion yrs old and they're planted 15-20 miles down below the ocean floor which is 5-10 miles below sea level and about 5 miles thick. In order for the continents to move through the ocean floor in the continental drift theory, the ocean floor has to sink another 10-15 miles into the magma and under the continent stumps planted much deeper. The magma is too heavy for the ocean floor to sink into it unless some incredible force pushes it down - and science has no answer as to what made the ocean floor sink so deep in order to allow the continents to move around as they say.
Think about this silly idea that at one time one side of the earth was all land and the other all ocean. An idea imagined by wacky scientists in order to explain how the continents fit together like a puzzle. The ocean floor has no signs of such subduction and the movement of the continents as science says.
Thing is if we were to reduce the earth to one third its size, the continents fit together on all sides and cover it perfectly. That's what science doesn't talk about because the implications would be that the earth grew. This is not a good reason to hold onto a weird fairy tale theory like Pangea which doesn't work according to the laws of physics. The ocean floor has no indication of the subduction in all the places and in the paths that it says the continents drifted. It has a smooth formation along wide rings with the outer parts being the youngest, as young as only one million years old.
Now there is nowhere, repeat nowhere, in the ocean floor that's more than 180 Million yrs. old. This is so blatantly an indication of the problem scientists have with their theories. If we go back 200 million years, 2/3 of the planet would be missing. Where did it go?
BR: Proof of this?
MN: Here's your proof.
Geologist made this map about 30 years ago after 10 years of sampling the ocean floor. Neal did the homework on this and pay attention to the youngest areas of the ocean floor, in red, where new material is coming out from the magma center. It coincides with the faults which cause tectonic plate tension. As you can see, the oldest part of the ocean floor is no more than 180 Million years old, yet the continental crust is 3-5 Billion years old.
This isn't Neal or I saying it. It's the scientific community itself which fails to ask itself the difficult questions that arise from this map which they made - and would apparently embarrass them too much.
Yet science keeps standing behind these theories because of the division of knowledge. Geologists don't deal with physics much and vice versa so there's little cross reference of theories.
The only way to explain the phenomena we now see on the planet is if it grew and the older outer crust broke apart and spread apart as the planet grew. Neal's not the first to espouse such a concept, this but he is the first to fight for it and stand his ground and succeed in convincing many people from the science circles that this is a viable model for why our Earth is as it is. Most people accept what science dishes out as if it's law and it isn't. It's just theory based an one notion that matter is constant. Yet if we could put this notion aside, a lot of doors open up to explain a lot of things about the universe.
Matter had to come from somewhere in the beginning. It's silly to think that for some reason this was an instant one time thing and now someone shut off the switch and matter has become stuck as a constant. It makes much more sense that matter is still being created as it was in the beginning.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more and you can learn a lot of it in the discussions Neal's had with people who come from a scientific background and have come to see the logic in his findings. It's all on his web site.
BR: Has he proven capable in the scientific community? Never even heard he did any science or politics until now, and I'd still like to know his scientific credentials (degree et al). How do I know he's not just got his facts wrong?
MN: You never heard obviously doesn't mean it didn't happen. Degrees mean little in today's world. Brains, thinking creative analysis and not academic pack mentality. Read his work and come back and tell me what you think. This is important stuff and it's worth looking into. The only way for you to really know is to look at his work and think about it. Think about it hard because the biggest academic degrees in the world have been wrong about the simplest things. You need to come to your own understanding about it not only what the academia is telling you.
BR: The continental drift theory is about tectonic plate movements . The plates are under the ocean floor and their movement includes the ocean floor.
MN: Please think about what you're saying. The ocean floor has to move out of the way for the continents to move around on its surface as science says. The continents are stumped 20 miles down, far below the ocean floor. One big chunk of continent rooted so deep below the surface cannot move from one side of the planet to the other without the ocean floor moving out of its way for it to do so.
BR: Continental drift used to be thought to be caused by continents plowing through the ocean floor. That's not true now.
MN: Right. So science came up with the wacky theory of subduction where the upper plates slide under the lower plates and then under the continents thus making way for the continents to move. Think of how stupid this theory is. These plates are miles thick of granite and they can't sink so low into a denser magma without some giant hand twice the size of the Earth pushing them in. This is simple physics which geologists don't want to deal with. Imagine trying to push a cork into a cup of water. That's what it's like.
Also, there are no signs of subduction in the paths which the continents had to move in order to spread out from the Pangea formation to the other side of the planet. No evidence of subduction at all in all the places it would've needed to happen. Check this stuff out and ask the difficult questions and you'll find you're being led around in circles by scientists because their only interest is using their intelligence to cover up for their faulty theories because they don't have the courage to challenge Einstein's mistakes.
BR: Pangea is an idea supported by matching life-forms, matching rocks, matching glacial striations on rocks and the fossil record, presence of coal deposits & tropical plant fossils in Antarctica (meaning it used to be a lot warmer, and couldn't have been if it's always been in its current formation) and, most crucially, NASA satellites have actually shown that the island of Maui is moving three inches a year.
MN: You're right about everything matching but not about Pangea. When the Earth was a third of its size and covered completely only by the continental crust, the continents were all plastered together as one whole shell.. well, matching life-forms, matching rocks and so on, are all also explained in this model. The shift of the continents as the Earth grew also explains movements such as the island of Maui which Nasa detects.
It's part of a continual process. Our planet is in a continual process of growth as new matter is formed within it and pushes out causing new material to come to the surface of the ocean floors at the rifts visible there and pushing the plates apart at the seams.
BR: Speaking of NASA, they've also got a group of connected GPS receivers that monitor tension on the tectonic plates touching in Southern California. They're there and they cause earthquakes, and continental drift has linked to tectonic plate movement for decades now.
MN: You're again just repeating things you read without thinking about them. Nothing you said above addresses the points I made earlier. I'm sorry to be so adamant about your using your own mind to think for yourself and not just to be a parrot to academic vanities of the scientific community. Tectonic plate tension and the continental drift we're detecting today is no proof or evidence for continental drift of the scope that the Pangea theory espouses.
You can understand these things to far greater depths but it means having the personal courage to depend on your own mind and not on those who continue to lead the academic world astray.
BR: But who's he convinced, what position/job did they have, yadda yadda. Has this seriously had a large impact on the scientific community?
MN: It has had an impact with many people who come from the community but I don't really care about that and you shouldn't either. The only person it needs to have an impact on is you.
The problem here is that unless scientists say amen to it you don't accept it. Well, that's a big problem. It means you don't believe in your own ability to analyze and understand things. So the only person I'm interested in now is you. My only interest now is that you come to your own conclusions and not remain dependant on those who led you to believe that you can't think for yourself.
Neal has studied this for thirty years and researched more and has more understanding that everyone with a degree I've ever heard speak or write about it. The degree is no indication of what one truly knows or understands. All it means is that an institution found this person worthy of receiving a relatively worthless piece of paper we call a degree.
BR: Went to his site, read it, thought it seemed quite dodgy. The huge screamings of "RAAAAR YOU GEOLIGISTS KEEP EATING PAP ONLY I KNOW TRUTH" only emphasized that.
MN: That's what it takes to shake up people's thinking. Think of what you've just said. You make your decision based on the fact that Neal is challenging the geologists and that upsets you into not being able to think about the contents of his findings and analysis.
You're following in the footsteps of a blind academia - and - if you fall into the same trap they have, because you didn't use your own mind, then it would be like a blind man being led by another blind man, wouldn't it?
|
