This is the third part of a point-counterpoint debate between Neal Adams and the author.

 

Neal Adams responds:

Regarding Einstein:

Thank you, You’ve made my point perfectly. This is exactly what I’m doing, point for point.

Steve wrote: “Also, Darwin’s Origin of the Species is not just the presentation of an idea, most of the book is a painstakingly detailed presentation of evidence.”

As are my painstakingly detailed maps.

Steve wrote: “It sounds suspiciously like you are trying to shift the burden of proof here. You are the one claiming to have overturned virtually all of modern science. It is not unreasonable to expect a tidbit of evidence.”

Are you suggesting that I provide a new invention, or show you a discovery of some magic thing that no one else has ever made before, like a flying mechanical donkey?

I don’t have one, I have all the same things that are known by many people, like Darwin. Darwin didn’t have to go to the Galapagos to observe what he did. He simply went THERE. The evidence was and is everywhere. It was his eyes and his brain that drew the conclusions. The question is, will you take the chip off your shoulder long enough to see what I see and think with me?

For example when you see an area of flat land, then it drops straight down to a low area then the land flattens out for some area ……Will you look ,….with me for a similar ridge and upper flat land? The other side of a rift and spread?

And note that this is one of the most common geological forms on Earth. Usually these areas go un-thought-about, I Think about them. These same forms are the rifts that spread the ocean and spread the land.

Steve wrote: “However, your argument is that the oceans would have shifted toward
Pangaea, following a shift in the center of gravity. It seems that a flaw in your calculations is that you neglect the fact that the earth is more dense toward the center,”

 

You presume “facts” not in evidence. We are discussing the difference, not the total.

Regarding the origins of moons:

This is the most unscientific complicated heap of gobble-de-gook science Fiction and Fantasy I have ever heard.

Moons is moons, Steven. The method of making moons is not a multiple choice question. All moons come from the same place, just like planets. If you believe the 150 year old theory, They all accreted from debris (from, as the museum of natural history says…Exploded Planets. As some say, exploded stars! Both silly, in my opinion). The Idea is, Steven, You can theorize all you want, but for one to take any theory seriously you have to provide proof. You know, EVIDENCE!

There is NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF of the “COLLISION THEORY”! Oh, you have a link. And I have a straw man.

Steve wrote: “You simply dismiss without justification copious evidence and established
geology that could explain the non-uniformity of the Earth’s surface.”

“COPIOUS EVIDENCE? Established Geology DOES NOT even attempt to explain this ,…..excuse me……NON-uniforminity??…..NON-UNIFORMINITY?? THREE QUARTERS OF THE EARTH’S BLOODY CRUST IS MISSING,THREE MILES DEEP!

THINK OF IT ! Volcanos? Are you kidding ? Pimples! REMEMBER CROSSING THE OCEAN AND LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW FOR HOURS!??? OCEAN FOR THOUSANDS OF MILES.

Steve wrote: “The early Earth had more volcanic activity, supervolcanoes that could produce enormous lava flows, and build continents.”

NO, NO , and NO again. An area of my expertise is a vision to see size and proportion. I assume, at times that others see it too. They mostly don’t. There is no explanation for the missing outer crust what-so-ever. Ask someone. The sky is blue.

Steve wrote: “Once plate tectonics was underway (and I am not sure if it is well understood how it began)”

It couldn’t BEGIN, Steven , GRANITIC ROCK …..CAN NOT subduct! That’s the rules!
Not my rules. Sciences rules!

Steve wrote: “some plates (continental plates) floated consistently above other plates (oceanic plates)… So when they collide oceanic plates always subduct under continental plates.”

No, never happened, ever. DIFFERENTIATION doesn’t work like that at all, EVER.
LOOK TO YOUR FIRST POINT – A SPHERE SMOOTHS OUT AND KEEPS HEIGHT ESPECIALLY IF ITS MOLTEN! You can’t change the rules at your whim.

GEOLOGY NO LONGER SAYS THIS HAPPENS! WHAT THEY SAY HAPPENS IS “COMPRESSION” because continental plates are 70 miles thick. This would reinforce the discontinuity. There is no discontinuity creation event. It’s a fantasy. In fact it’s your theories that are flawed and indefensable!

Regarding flying creatures:

UH…….STEVEN? UMMMMMM…Golly, you are taking this too personally. The albatross has the widest wingspan, cause it floats on the air currents better than any bird. But is not the biggest bird. It’s one of the biggest birds. NOT the biggest.

Pterosaurs …reptiles …You said that last time. Fine GOT IT. What’s your point?

Well, um …thank you for that little chat. It was common knowledge, but fine. NO FLYING CREATURE AT 4 TIMES BIGGER THAN A VULTURE OR EAGLE COULD FLY IN OUR AIR OR GRAVITY OF TODAY.. It’s not possible.

Regarding T-Rex running:

An elephant’s stride on the attack is about 8 feet and the Elephant attack’s WALKING at 18 to 22 miles per hour

A T-rex’s stride is 12 to 15 feet at a walk. At the Alberta museum they measure and examine dinosaur trackways. Allosaurus-like dinosaurs are seen accelerating to attack and nearly doubling their stride. To do this, they must lift the opposing foot to increase their stride. To lift their opposing foot, they must RUN. It’s how it works. A walking speed of 20 to 30 MPH turns into 50 to 60 MPH on attack.

If you assume the acceleration of a modern predator you get 70 to 80 MPH, which is scientific but almost unbelievable.

Steve wrote: “I gave you a link to a published study that calculated (not just eye-balling) from tendon attachments that dinosaurs were walking around in 1g (that’s today’s
gravity). If true, this nullifies your theory.”

But Steven, it was 1/4 the gravity. And No they didn’t CALCULATE, they estimated. I don’t eyeball, I estimated. What I don’t do is lie about it. Tendons and muscles don’t exist.

They are hard to estimate. There are many clues and comparisons, but nail it, no .

Stride? Better!

Steve wrote: “The point of scientific methodology is to make careful observations and to use objective measures whenever possible. If we rely upon our own subjective judgments then there is a tendency to be overwhelmed with confirmation bias.”

Unless “we” are an expert.

Steve wrote: “You stated that ‘all dinosaurs were long-legged.’ You mean, like ankylosaurus, triceratops, and stegosaurus?”

Yes I do . Surprisingly so. Check the bones!

 

Regarding ice sheets:

Steven, you are forcing me to repeat myself . THERE WERE NO ICE SHEETS ANYWHERE ON EARTH DURING THE AGES OF THE DINOSAURS….CATEGORICALLY!!! Moreover for ALL this time ANTARCTICA was SUB-TROPICAL! You are not listening. If I give you something as a fact you can pretty much sure it is a fact. If you don’t believe it, look it up.

Regarding fish fossils on mountains:

Naturally I can. Those fossils on mountains never were DEEP oceans and are not argued to be so. Do you understand this? They were only shallow seas!! NO DEEP OCEANS BECAME MOUNTAINS. That doesn’t bother you???

And there is……look ,…look at how you said “subduction turns over the sea floor over time.” You say it without thinking. There is not ,…in all the oceans of the world, ONE SQUARE YARD of ancient DEEP OCEAN BOTTOM left. THAT ….is IMPOSSIBLE. It’s a cosmic joke. Theres not a clue to ancient deep oceans, anywhere. Yet we must believe they were there. NO INDICATION anywhere…..hello, when does the brain turn on?

Duh, no …uh…tiny …piece….???? NO! Just how naive and stupid are we supposed to be?

Regarding Pangaea:

Of course it doesn’t, they are trying to deal with the obvious contradictions of the Pangea Theory. I am a precision artist with an excellent reputation for engineering, and I have managed as much as a dozen excellent artists and I know how these mongrel projects are done.

Listening to you I don’t believe you have much of a graphic sense. Still I will try to explain, AGAIN.

When Africa tore away from Eurasia ,….Spain tore open at the Bay of Biscay and tilted down to its present position WITH ONLY the strait of gibraltar separating the two. If you examine the current undersea topography, you will see there is no extra material from which a land bridge might have been constructed. Before this time Spain was connected to Africa and the Mediteranian was closed, and the Bay of Biscay didn’t exist. THIS, NOW is the most open this land has ever been.

Your “Map” Is as bogus as a 4 dollar bill, and this will show it for the two islands to provide their task the godwana bottom island must travel to the south pole. On your globe mark the space Africa must move to the pole so that Africa is near to Antarctic. How far South must Africa travel to do this. Mark it on your globe with a red pen. Now for Eurasia and North America to join at the north pole, how far up should we push NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE TO JOIN??? NOW MARK IT! HOW FAR APART WOULD GIBRALTAR AND AFRICA BE? THESE POSITIONS AND HOW FAR APART THEY SHOULD BE WAS ,…EASY TO FIGURE OUT. DOES THIS MATCH THE CAREFULLY RESEARCHED MAP???

NO? SURPRISE SURPRISE.

Here, let’s keep it simple. Take a basketball. Now a piece of paper and tear the paper into an irregular circle covering about 1/4 of the ball. Now just tear the paper in half and slide the two halves to the poles. When you do this you will see exactly what bullshit that map is. You can listen to your jaw hit the floor.

Steve wrote: “Regarding continents moving and the asthenosphere: Your dismissal of this
as only a ‘theory’ is reminiscent of other critics of accepted science with which we are very familiar. It’s not just a guess, we know from multiple lines of evidence that the Earth gets hotter as you get deeper.”

PRETTY HARD TO think this line of reasoning isn’t kinda loopy Kiddo.!!!

FIRST…..Heat Rises! Ever hear that. It’s usually hidden away in arcane books of mystery science. Heat…….RISES……um ……..you can’t change this. It’s what we call a principle.

Heat….rises.

After it “rises” through the Earth the outer crust may cool further trapping the heat, but the hottest area on Earth…..IN Earth is at the top of the Asthenosphere!

We, being little dinky ants at the top of this cooled SLAG may think that, because when we dig down that it gets hotter ,…THAT this getting hotter thing CONTINUES,……….But it DOESEN’T cause……

……say it with me …..HEAT RISES!

BELIEVE IN SCIENCE,……IT WILL NEVER FAIL YOU!

Steve wrote: “Lava is a solid, but it can flow because it is soft. When it is very hot it is almost a liquid, and it cools it gets more and more viscous, until it completely solidifies.”

THEN IT CRYSTALIZES, AND CAN’T TRANSMIT “P” WAVES NO MO!

Steve wrote: “So the real question is can the asthenosphere flow at all� and the answer must be yes given the temperature at that depth.”

So the answer must be no. Think of the continents as a WART. ‘Ja ever see a wart. An old one, all cracked up. Each section is hard with cracks between and the “roots” of each section go down and the roots are solid but not as hard as the surface which is rocky.

You can spread the cracks and really irritate them and blood will flow between the chunks, but the chunks will act like a solid piece and not really move around. Earth – best analogy I can draw, but like all analogies do, it breaks down when the cracks spread and new ocean floor is made.

Steve wrote: “You also claim that the continents do not move. However, we can actually see and measure the movement of the tectonic plates. A quick search found many links to evidence of this,”

This is not evidence. You can “DRAW” a map to do anything you wish. They’re making it up based on speculation. There was a time I did maps showing this crap. They told me what they wanted it to look like and I did it. This isn’t science. It’s bullshit, and a yard wide.

There’s EVIDENCE to use and a disciplined, precisioned way to do this work and only my maps …..in the world, do it. No others come even near. Compare them to each other, they are sad jokes. Arrogance?

No. Its just true. Look at them, the movements follow the tectonic lines under the sea, perfectly, in direction and age.

Steve wrote: “here is one
(<http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html). Here is an excerpt: “Current plate movement can be tracked directly by means of ground-based or space-based geodetic measurements” While we are talking about direct observation, undersea cameras have also filmed subduction zones. It’s hard to dismiss something you can see directly.”

Only they are now BEGINNING to be called IMPACT ZONES. And I have no problem with impact zones. In fact I show some on our moon, IF YOU’D LOOK CAREFULLY. can you?

Steve wrote: “Tidal forces: You dismiss the well established theory that tidal forces are slowing the Earth and moving the moon farther away with a simple, “No, I don’t think so.” Justification? – none. I refer you to any credible textbook or website on the issue.”

I read a text book that said areas of the ocean move laterally with the moon as it progresses around the world. You know why this happens? Said they? Cause atoms can’t compress.

Like that?

Know how fast the moon goes over the face of the Earth? 1,000 miles per hour. I think the water compresses. Got some textbooks wanna be rewritten!

Steve wrote: “Size of the Earth: You are cherry picking evidence (apparently – you have yet to give me a reference so I don’t know where you are picking your evidence from). You have to look at all the evidence. First, Carey’s measurements were based upon one technique, not the most accurate technique, and the potential errors in the measurements he was relying upon (all scientific data has error bars) includes zero growth for the Earth.
(http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm>http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm).
Also, there are now several very accurate methods to measure the earth, getting down to millimeter accuracy”

You know what – That’s another piece of bullshit. I tried to get the evidence and after 2 years work I have had to hire a geologist-researcher to do this and he’s been working on the problem for 6 months now. It isn’t what you think. I challenge anyone to provide accurate evidence that VERIFIABLY SHOWS Earth remained the same size for even 10 years.

Steve wrote: “(http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/reports/slrreport.html>http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/reports/slrreport.html), and these methods have not detected the phenomenal growth rate you claim and your theories demand. So direct observation, once again, disproves your theories.”

THAT’S A LIE AND I CAN PROVE IT IN A SNAP.

Steve wrote: “Production of matter: There is no avoiding the fact that we are getting into the difficult and strange area of quantum mechanics here. But what is clear is that no net mass, charge, momentum, or anything is coming from anywhere.”

OH, really,…….hmmmmm, then …….where, exactly did the matter universe come from? Hmmmm?

Steve wrote: “Numerous and ongoing experiments in this area are all consistent on the fact that the net result of such paired particle creation is nothing. They have opposite everything and they simply cancel each other out. They do not and cannot join to form a matter particle. To claim this is to discount all of modern physics. Again – with what justification?”

Steven, knock, knock. Isn’t that the whole point of this exercise?

If they proved it, it would be known, and EVERYONE would know it, then why would I be doing this? Are you okay, man?

When you do something new, by definition ,…..No one knows it yet. That’s why they call it NEW! Worse, EVERYTHING that is now known ,….automatically disagrees with it. THE SUN GOES AROUND THE EARTH. I CAN EASILY PROVE IT. CAN’T I?

 

Steve wrote: “Also, look at it this way (and this is also clearly experimentally established). Energy can be converted to matter and matter to energy. The electron-positron creation is a result of energy (gamma rays colliding)”

NO ITS NOT, Its a result of a photon colliding with NOTHING that we can percieve.

Steve wrote: “and then when they come back together they “annihilate” each other (that is the technical term)”

That is NOT a technical term. It is an idiotic term presented by people who did not come near completing their work. Is what it is. In every business there is what we call technically “dumb shit”. This is one of those.

Steve wrote: “and they produce large amounts of energy – the same amount that went into their creation”

They do not lose charge! ONLY THE PHOTON’S ENERGY. It’s just gamma radiation not the “THING THAT MAKES IT MATTER, STEVEN!

Steve wrote: “(http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/eedd.html). So
conservation of energy/matter is being obeyed. All those physicists did not simply miss the fact, as you astoundingly claim, that the standard model of particle physics violates the conservation laws. The matter/anti-matter is being converted back into energy.”

BUT DOES NOT LOSE ITS CHARGE,………BECAUSE IT IS NOT ANNIHILATED……IT SIMPLY DISAPPEARS

FROM YOUR PERCEPTION

UNTIL STRUCK AGAIN!

Regarding the formation of heavier elements:

Steve wrote: “The Earth cannot simply “copy” the process of the sun.”

Duh, yes it can.

Steve write: “The interior of the sun has tremendous heat and pressure, which is necessary to force hydrogen nuclei to fuse together to form hydrogen.”

The process doesn’t happen the way we think it does, but just as a tease we’ll ask and answer: Why is the hydrogen atom the only atom that doesn’t have a neutron?

(Oh ,…. rrrrrr….that question .)

Because a hydrogen atom IS a Neutron.

YOU ARE NOT READY FOR THIS, YET, STEVEN.

Let me ask you a question. You know some of, a lot of the stuff that I’ve thrown at you has worked out to be true. Rather than be pleased, you get upset. It’s not a contest. It’s either finding something new or something bogus. If it’s new…….. you are acting outrageously. If I’m just a kook, why get upset.

Why don’t you review what new shit you’ve learned and really explore with me. I gotta tell ya’, I’ve done my homework. This thing proves out. I’ve probably got details wrong but basic stuff ,…nailed.

Steve wrote: “Those temperatures and pressures are not present in the Earth. And, this process generates tremendous energy (it is literally a hydrogen bomb exploding). So how come the Earth is not constantly exploding with hydrogen bombs like the sun?”

Because it does it slowly,. now. Size of Jupiter, gets pretty exciting, size of the sun…..well….

Steve wrote: “I await a more cogent…”

Am you accusing me of not being Cogent? I’ll have you know I was voted “most Cogent”
three years running, in the twin towns of North Overshoe and East Haystack.

Neal Adams

Neal,

I’m not sure what your point was with flying mechanical donkeys, but let’s just agree that scientific claims requires logic, evidence, and careful methodology.

Regarding land spread: I don’t think you can assume that land formations go “un-thought-about.” Generations of geologists have spent their careers thinking about land formations. Land spread has not been observed, and there is no geological evidence to support this claim. Movement of adjacent plates at fault lines, however, has been observed and measured.

Regarding Pangaea sinking – I am not presuming facts not in evidence for two reasons. The first is that geology and physics both support the standard model that the earth is denser as we go deeper. The second is a point of logic – you are saying the standard model is internally inconsistent, my counter is that it is not because the standard model includes an earth that is denser at the middle, which nullifies your calculations (your non-sequitur about the “total not the different” notwithstanding). It is not logical to argue that the model is internally inconsistent by introducing an external factor.

Regarding “moons is moons”: There is no logical reason to demand that all moons have the same origin. If an asteroid is captured by the gravity of a planet, it becomes a moon of that planet. This is inferred primarily from the fact that some moons are very close to their parent planet in the plane of their orbit and the direction of their rotation, and therefore likely formed in place through accretion. Other moons, however, have eccentric orbits, out of the plane of their planet’s rotation, and some even spin in the opposite direction or revolve around their planet in a direction opposite to the planet’s rotation. The two proposals to explain this is that the moons were captured (and therefore there is no reason why their spin and orbit should match the planet’s) or they experienced a collision that knocked them into an aberrant orbit.

Regarding the earth’s moon, although far from proven, the leading hypothesis is that it formed from material ejected as a result of a massive collision of the early earth. You ask for evidence, then disparage my “link.” Perhaps you misunderstood – the link was to a webpage that summarized the evidence for the impact hypothesis. Here are two more:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/outreach/origin/

http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html

Regarding volcanoes: But the entire moon discussion is an aside. The collision hypothesis is only one possible source of non-uniformity of the earth’s crust. And even if the moon did not form in this manner, the early earth was likely subjected to many large collisions, even after the surface began to cool and harden.

Your dismissal of the potential for volcanoes to explain the origin of continents is not justified. Over millions and even billions of years volcanoes can produce large amounts of lava. In recent geological time they have formed island chains (like the Hawaiian islands). We know from geological evidence that in the last few hundred million years a Siberian supervolcanoe covered half the continent with ash and lava. Other than your personal incredulity – can you give me a single reason why volcanoes would not form continents over time?

Regarding scale – 7926/8 = 0.1%. The difference between the highest mountain and the deepest ocean is only 0.1% of the radius of the earth.

Regarding subduction: In your response you have not meaningfully countered the standard geological model of subduction. You seem to think that you can make a scientific argument simply by asserting your position in stronger and stronger terms. Repetition and assertion are not arguments. You have given me nothing to respond to. Again I refer you to my prior links to good summaries of the standard models of plate tectonics, to which you have not offered a single legitimate counter argument.

Regarding flight: Throughout your response you assume that I am getting “upset” and taking this exchange “too personally.” I will let the reader infer from the content and tone of our writing which of us is calm and who is getting emotional.

And forgive me for correcting your factual errors, there is something to be said for accuracy in such an exchange. To be fair “biggest” is an ambiguous term. You are correct in that the albatross has the largest wingspan, but is not the heaviest. The heaviest flying bird is the California condor at 22.3 pounds.

Most pterosaurs were about the same weight or lighter. The pteranadon’s estimated weight is about 25 pounds (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/pterosauria.html). The largest pterosaur (quetzalcoatlus) had a wingspan of about 40 ft. and its estimated weight is about 220 pounds (http://www.abc.net.au/dinosaurs/fact_files/volcanic/quetzalcoatlus.htm). So actually you could claim a tenfold increase in the largest pterosaur over the largest flying bird today. But the wingspan and construction of quetzalcoatlus could support its weight in 1g.

Also, if these dinosaurs were walking and running around in ¼ g (actually you would have to calculate the gravity for each species, as above we are talking about a 160 million year span here – is the ¼ g relevant to 65 million years ago or 220 million years ago?) the tracks they left behind would reveal it in multiple ways. The depth of the tracks would be anomalous – too shallow – because they only weighed about ¼ of what is expected. Also, their stride length would be unnaturally long and not conform to modern animals – they would have been bounding about similar to astronauts on the moon. Again – no evidence for this.

Also, some species, like alligators, have been remarkably morphologically stable over this time. Wouldn’t they have been constantly evolving to adapt to the heavier gravity (thicker bones, etc.), yet no such trend has been reported in any long-lived species.

Regarding the tendon attachment arguments – you cannot just dismiss this as “estimating” and equate it to what you are doing. There is a large body of published literature (summarized in some good books like “Dynamics of Dinosaurs and other Extinct Giants” by R.McNeill Alexander) that actually measure the tendon attachments and calculate their cross-sectional area, and compare this to known species to calculate forces, etc. This is not just shooting from the hip, as you appear to be doing. There is still active debate about many details, but the big picture – that dinosaurs were walking around in 1g – is generally accepted. If you were correct then there should be a big mystery about why all the evidence suggests dinosaurs weighed ¼ of what they should.

You wrote: “What I don’t do is lie about it. Tendons and muscles don’t exist.” Neal – read more carefully. Tendon attachments – that is the part of the bone that tendons attach to. Bones fossilize.

In response to “The point of scientific methodology is to make careful observations and to use objective measures whenever possible. If we rely upon our own subjective judgments then there is a tendency to be overwhelmed with confirmation bias.”

You wrote: “Unless ‘we’ are an expert.”

Wrong. That is the argument from authority logical fallacy. Real scientists should understand that no one is above the basic mechanisms of human self-deception. Confirmation bias fools everyone. Careful methodology is the only antidote.

Regarding ice sheets again: Neal – you are not reading carefully. I will write it for a third time:

Age of dinosaurs – no ice sheets – high sea level – continental shallow seas
Today – ice sheets – low sea level – no continental shallow seas.

In fact, this did not just happen once in history – during warmer climates there was less continental ice, and sea levels were substantially higher (400 feet higher – enough to cause the shallow seas). During colder periods more of the earth’s water was bound in ice, including continental ice (ice floating in water does not raise or lower sea levels, so only continental ice matters), this lowers sea levels.

Neal wrote: “Naturally I can. Those fossils on mountains never were DEEP oceans and are not argued to be so. Do you understand this? They were only shallow seas!! NO DEEP OCEANS BECAME MOUNTAINS. That doesn’t bother you???”

The continental shelfs in the past, especially during eras of high sea levels, were under water and accumulated fish fossils. At later times this part of the continental plate was pushed up by colliding plates, forming mountain ranges – therefore fish fossils on top of mountains. No mystery.

According to your theory, how do fish fossils get on top of mountains?

Regarding subduction and the sea floor:

You state that it is “impossible” for the entire sea floor to be turned over by subduction, but without stating why. You seem to be making yet another argument from personal incredulity. Current tectonic theories hold that the sea floor is moving from spreading zones to subduction zones, “like a conveyor belt.” So why wouldn’t this completely turn over the deep sea floor? Of course, this is granting that your assumptions about not “one square yard” being ancient is true – we have not surveyed every square yard of the sea floor. But this is not the point.

Regarding Pangaea:

Your description still makes no sense. For the continents to move from Pangaea to their current positions, why should Africa and Spain have had to be 2000 miles apart? You have them moving very far apart them coming back together, but there is no justification for this.

You are also not giving enough detail – for example you talk about Eurasia and North America joining – but where? – those are two large continents. And why did they have to be at the north pole?

Regarding “heat rises”:

Sorry to say this, Neal, but this is simply wrong. Heat does not rise. It’s what we call a myth, perpetuated in many school books, but totally false. It is a distortion of the fact that relatively warmer air rises above relatively cooler air. But this happens because it is lighter, not because of any inherent tendency for heat to rise. (www.geocities.com/kfuller2001/tmyths.htm#myth7)

The thermodynamics are well worked out. Heat travels from areas of high temperature to areas of low temperature (even if that means moving down). Heat does this through conduction, convection, and radiation. The physics of cooling bodies is also well worked out. Hot bodies cool from the outside in. They do not cool from the inside out. Therefore there is always more heat toward the center.

In response to: “So the real question is can the asthenosphere flow at all, and the answer must be yes given the temperature at that depth.”

Neal wrote: “So the answer must be no. Think of the continents as a WART.”

Your wart analogy is a non-sequitur. The point is that the asthenosphere is warm, therefore it is soft and can flow. You said nothing to contradict this – except for your above fallacy about heat rising.

Regarding maps and the movement of continents:

Again – your answer is a non-sequitur. I am not talking about drawing maps. I am talking about the modern satellite methods of directly measuring the location of land on earth, and that these measurements show the continents are slowly moving – as predicted by plate tectonic theory. They are not showing a growing earth.

Neal wrote: “I think the water compresses. Got some textbooks wanna be rewritten!”

This issue is very much tangential to our main discussion. But I am interested in how and why you think water compresses, contrary to all available evidence.

Neal wrote: “I challenge anyone to provide accurate evidence that VERIFIABLY SHOWS Earth remained the same size for even 10 years.”

I did, but it does not seem to matter. You simply dismiss any inconvenient evidence.

Neal also wrote this “THAT’S A LIE AND I CAN PROVE IT IN A SNAP.”

Then why didn’t you?

In response to : “Production of matter: There is no avoiding the fact that we are getting into the difficult and strange area of quantum mechanics here. But what is clear is that no net mass, charge, momentum, or anything is coming from anywhere.”

Neal wrote: “OH, really,…….hmmmmm, then …….where, exactly did the matter universe come from? Hmmmm?

The physical laws “before” the big bang need not be the same as those in effect in the universe since the big bang. The bottom line is, it is not valid to argue that because of the big bang it must be true that there is ongoing creation and that the conservation laws are not true.

Regarding new findings:

There are several ways new ideas are brought into science. Either there is an existing mystery – phenomena, experimental results, observations that cannot be explained by existing theories. New theories are then postulated to explain these mysteries, and such theories are then tested with new observations.

Or – a new experiment or observation creates data that cannot be explained by existing theories, so these theories need to be modified or new theories need to be invented to accommodate the new data.

Or – a new theory is proposed to explain phenomena that are already known and already explained by existing theories, but the new theory is also compatible with all available evidence. The new theory, in order to be useful, should make predictions that are different than the old theory, and therefore the two can be distinguished experimentally.

None of what you are proposing fits into any of these scenarios. You are promoting old theories or proposing new theories that are not necessary and are not compatible with existing evidence. Many are simply ad hoc fixes to the glaring problems in your other theories.

Regarding particle-antiparticle creation.

The origin of particle-antiparticle pairs is poorly understood. Your assumption is just that, an assumption, without basis. It is also irrelevant, because what experiments show is that the process of the appearance and disappearance of such pairs yields no net matter, energy, charge, or spin. The equations all balance out to zero at the end. So you cannot use this phenomenon to explain the creation of new matter. Wherever they are coming from or going, and whatever you call it, is irrelevant. The net result is zero – proven by many experiments – matter is not being created and there is no theory that is compatible with particle physics that allows for the creation of matter in this way.

Regarding the formation of heavier elements:

A hydrogen atom is not a neutron – it is a proton and an electron. Hydrogen also exists as a heavy isotope with a neutron – heavy hydrogen, or deuterium. All elements have isotopes with slightly different numbers of neutrons (elements are determined by their number of protons, the number of neutrons vary among different isotopes). I suppose that hydrogen is the only element with an isotope without any neutrons because it is the element with 1 proton. All elements can have isotopes with fewer neutrons than protons, but too few and the isotope would be unstable.

But – you have not made clear how this allows for the fusion of lighter elements into heavier elements without either releasing vast amounts of energy, or requiring vast amounts of energy in the first place. You say, “The process doesn’t happen the way we think it does.” So I guess you have casually dismissed all of nuclear physics and stellar astronomy because they are inconvenient to your theories – despite the fact that the standard theories work quite well in predicting the behavior of nuclear weapons, of radioactivity, and of the life and behavior of stars.

I am curious (if you deem me worthy) how you came by your mystery alternate theory of nuclear physics and what logic and evidence you have to support it.

Regarding Gravity:
You never addressed this issue, which I raised in my first response. There are major problems with how you deal with gravity:
1) electromagnetism cannot account for planetary motions and the structure of the solar system because it is too short range a force (drops off as the cube of the distance).
2) If the planets and the moons have been gaining mass there is no mechanism by which their orbits could be stable over a long period of time – gravity would cause them to fall into each other.

Regards,

Steve

Trackback URI | Comments RSS