What is the Neal Adams EXPANDING EARTH theory?

[dekeuk]

 

Someone linked to this previously.

 

From that article:

 

A highly influential Avengers and Green Lantern/Green Arrow artist—and certifiable crackpot, thanks to his “expanding Earth” theory—Adams did quite a bit of album artwork in the ‘70s and early ‘80s.......

 

 

 

Anyone know about this theory?

 

 

[VintageComics]

I have not read it yet but I have heard of it through a friend second hand and he seems to think there is a lot of truth to it. Calling him a crackpot because he believes something different is like calling an early middle ages explorer a crackpot because he thinks the world is round.

 

 

The guy was obviously thinking outside the box 40 years ago with his art, his stance on original art ownership and creator's rights...why is it not possible that he is still thinking outside the box...and has some validity today?

 

R.

 

 

[Scrooge]

Here's some of what Neal posted on the boards:

 

"Well first rather than giving you 30 or so years of my "Homework", let me give you some preliminary birthing thoughts.

 

If Hubble revealed the red shift (actually, the blue shift, but no matter), galaxies were moving away. No one knew why. Some unnamed person suggested maybe it's blowing up.

 

Ridicule was followed by concession that no one had a better idea. So maybe.

 

Then typically, proof was sought. There's nearly no 'real' proof. Subtle stuff. Background radiation.

 

Cool. Fun discussion. Didn't quite answer our real question. Where did it come from in the first place? Describes an ongoing process, when you think about it.

 

Bad news recently. Galaxies were found and proved to be ACCELERATING outward.

 

This then is clearly not an explosion in the sense that we know it. Slowing down, ok. Same speed, questionable. Accelerating means not big bang. Need a new theory.

 

Following about a half dozen world famous geologists theory 40 years ago. I clearly saw the proof that the earth must've grown. While these geologists were shot down, I made up experiments to see if this theory of continents came together on-going. When I put it together wrong, it didn't work at all. But when I followed the undersea lines back in time, the continents came back together as a solid shell practically without my help at all.

 

Stunned me.

 

The theory had too exist to show how matter could be created. (against all the laws.) But matter had to have been created. We're here!) I found our laws weren't exactly what we say.

 

40 years ago geologists, I found, were shot down simply because they were specialists, geologists. How could they possibly prove the earth grew. They'd have to become physicists, cosmologists, paleontologists, et al. Never happened. So I started my homework.

 

But let me finish my own interrupted thought, with apologies.

 

If earth grows, then Mars grows, all planets grow, all suns, large moons, solar systems, galaxies and our Universe grows. (Even small moons and meteorites, but in a slightly different way)

 

And this I think is what Mr. Hubble's blue/red shift shows. Exponential growth of our Universe. (Accelerating.)

 

This, however, turns many laws on their sides, and if I'm correct, we have to re-look at all of science.

 

In my defense, let me say this developing theory predicted the existence of dark matter 30 years ago.

 

Why a comic book artist/ writer? No reason. I love science and I like to really know things, and I'm not a specialist. No tenure and no job to protect.

 

What are my chances of being right? Very, very small. But I have done my homework, as I think folks would expect me to.

 

Subduction. Big topic. Short answer. Rifts simply spread. Nothing forces them. What force pushes subduction then? "

 

Want more? Check out this thread - Neal Adams on Expanding Earth There might have been another thread which you can find looking up all Neal's posts. (thumbs u

[goldust40]

I have not read it yet but I have heard of it through a friend second hand and he seems to think there is a lot of truth to it. Calling him a crackpot because he believes something different is like calling an early middle ages explorer a crackpot because he thinks the world is round.

 

 

The guy was obviously thinking outside the box 40 years ago with his art, his stance on original art ownership and creator's rights...why is it not possible that he is still thinking outside the box...and has some validity today?

 

Because he was a qualified, innovative and professional artist and isn't a scientist?

 

[VintageComics]

I'll definitely be reading that. Thanks!

 

R.

 

 

[VintageComics]

I have not read it yet but I have heard of it through a friend second hand and he seems to think there is a lot of truth to it. Calling him a crackpot because he believes something different is like calling an early middle ages explorer a crackpot because he thinks the world is round.

 

 

The guy was obviously thinking outside the box 40 years ago with his art, his stance on original art ownership and creator's rights...why is it not possible that he is still thinking outside the box...and has some validity today?

 

Because he was a qualified, innovative and professional artist and isn't a scientist?

 

That's my point. You don't need to be a scientist to be correct at something just like you don't need to be a doctor to understand how the body works. All you need is time and self education. Self eductation is at times much more effective than Institutionalized education because there is no "axe to grind". You simply want to know what is true and learn it at your own pace (which could be faster or slower than another person's) and using your own resourcs (as opposed to another's), not what your sponsers and $$ investors $$ want you to know.

 

R.

 

 

[Monstro]

i think you should listen to the comic zone interview and listen to his ramblings before you defend him to much.

[DrWatson]

I'm not so sure about expanding. If it's expanding, then why do we have subduction zones? Shouldn't everything be moving outward?

[goldust40]

I have not read it yet but I have heard of it through a friend second hand and he seems to think there is a lot of truth to it. Calling him a crackpot because he believes something different is like calling an early middle ages explorer a crackpot because he thinks the world is round.

 

 

The guy was obviously thinking outside the box 40 years ago with his art, his stance on original art ownership and creator's rights...why is it not possible that he is still thinking outside the box...and has some validity today?

 

Because he was a qualified, innovative and professional artist and isn't a scientist?

 

That's my point. You don't need to be a scientist to be correct at something just like you don't need to be a doctor to understand how the body works. All you need is time and self education. Self eductation is at times much more effective than Institutionalized education because there is no "axe to grind". You simply want to know what is true and learn it at your own pace (which could be faster or slower than another person's) and using your own resourcs (as opposed to another's), not what your sponsers and $$ investors $$ want you to know.

 

A fair point, and one should never judge someone for wanting to learn outside the system.

 

I think the problem here is not Adams's autodidacticism (always wanted to use that word here) but the fact that he seems to be a complete stranger to concision. If he could summarize his theories and make them ACCESSIBLE for non-scientists, then people might feel marginally less aggrieved when he decides it's time for a 45 minute lecture.

[MightyBeanComics]

I think he also discovered a fourth type of matter. Solid, Liquid, Gas, and....Powder.

[VintageComics]

i think you should listen to the comic zone interview and listen to his ramblings before you defend him to much.

 

Oh, I'm not defending him as all I have is my friend's word (though he is a good friend and usually spot on) but I am defending the idea that even a nobody can know more than a somebody. It's all about how you were educated and not where. That is something I firmly believe.

 

As a side note I studied Naturopathic medicine for years. I'm not a doctor by any menas and yet I continue to confound doctors by showing people how to heal themselves. How? By doing simple things like drinking enough water, eating enough good food (as opposed to bad food) and getting good rest. These are all habits that will do more good any amount of scientific research and more often than not illnesses are diagnosed as needing medication when all they need is food, water and rest. I can provide real world examples if you like but you get my point.

Sometimes the institutions are blinded by $$ and political pressure and miss the point...

 

R.

 

 

[nearmint]

I think it's refreshing to hear from a comic book artist who has interests beyond comic books. And calling him a crackpot when he admits that the chances of his theory being right are very, very small seems a bit harsh to me.

[VintageComics]

I have not read it yet but I have heard of it through a friend second hand and he seems to think there is a lot of truth to it. Calling him a crackpot because he believes something different is like calling an early middle ages explorer a crackpot because he thinks the world is round.

 

 

The guy was obviously thinking outside the box 40 years ago with his art, his stance on original art ownership and creator's rights...why is it not possible that he is still thinking outside the box...and has some validity today?

 

Because he was a qualified, innovative and professional artist and isn't a scientist?

 

That's my point. You don't need to be a scientist to be correct at something just like you don't need to be a doctor to understand how the body works. All you need is time and self education. Self eductation is at times much more effective than Institutionalized education because there is no "axe to grind". You simply want to know what is true and learn it at your own pace (which could be faster or slower than another person's) and using your own resourcs (as opposed to another's), not what your sponsers and $$ investors $$ want you to know.

 

A fair point, and one should never judge someone for wanting to learn outside the system.

 

I think the problem here is not Adams's autodidacticism (always wanted to use that word here) but the fact that he seems to be a complete stranger to concision. If he could summarize his theories and make them ACCESSIBLE for non-scientists, then people might feel marginally less aggrieved when he decides it's time for a 45 minute lecture.

 

Again, I think he has a huge battle ahead of him and I haven't done any research yet but I'm sure his rambling can be found somewhere..... He's got people with $1,000 000 000's to fight against and also decades and centuries of conventional theory to wrestle with. I have never studied it but I am no stranger to unconventional thinking. Most of the effort goes into "un-educating" or "un-brainwashing" people first before you can teach them...and this is the difficult or complicated part. That's why it's so easy to teach children...starting with a blank slate. I teach my children to think outside the box, to not trust everything they hear, rather to prove it...but it gets tough when they say "my teacher says...blagh blagh...are they wrong?"...that is tough.

 

R.

 

 

[davidpg]

I've thought about this theory for a while as well. The only problem I have with it is that if everything is expanding, wouldn't it stand to reason that molecules, atoms et al would also be expanding at the same rate as everything else?

 

Why would matter be obligated to move and shift? Unless some matter expands at different speeds than others (doesn't make sense to me).

[Monstro]

OT: life outside of our galaxy? yes or no?

 

to me there has to be. any thoughts?

[Monstro]

[VintageComics]

I've thought about this theory for a while as well. The only problem I have with it is that if everything is expanding, wouldn't it stand to reason that molecules, atoms et al would also be expanding at the same rate as everything else?

 

Why would matter be obligated to move and shift? Unless some matter expands at different speeds than others (doesn't make sense to me).

 

I guess the "obligation" part of your question is what would wrap this whole arguement up, wouldn't it? That would pretty much answer the every question to meaning of life and I'm quite sure we won't find the answer to that in this life. Kind of like getting at the air inside a balloon....all of a sudden the ballon would cease to exist.

Granted you can open a sphere mathematically without breaking it's skin but you can't actually do it in practice...can you?

 

R.

 

 

[VintageComics]

OT: life outside of our galaxy? yes or no?

 

to me there has to be. any thoughts?

 

Sure. Why not?

[Transplant]

Granted you can open a sphere mathematically without breaking it's skin but you can't actually do it in practice...can you?

 

R.

 

Whah?

[goldust40]

I have not read it yet but I have heard of it through a friend second hand and he seems to think there is a lot of truth to it. Calling him a crackpot because he believes something different is like calling an early middle ages explorer a crackpot because he thinks the world is round.

 

 

The guy was obviously thinking outside the box 40 years ago with his art, his stance on original art ownership and creator's rights...why is it not possible that he is still thinking outside the box...and has some validity today?

 

Because he was a qualified, innovative and professional artist and isn't a scientist?

 

That's my point. You don't need to be a scientist to be correct at something just like you don't need to be a doctor to understand how the body works. All you need is time and self education. Self eductation is at times much more effective than Institutionalized education because there is no "axe to grind". You simply want to know what is true and learn it at your own pace (which could be faster or slower than another person's) and using your own resourcs (as opposed to another's), not what your sponsers and $$ investors $$ want you to know.

 

A fair point, and one should never judge someone for wanting to learn outside the system.

 

I think the problem here is not Adams's autodidacticism (always wanted to use that word here) but the fact that he seems to be a complete stranger to concision. If he could summarize his theories and make them ACCESSIBLE for non-scientists, then people might feel marginally less aggrieved when he decides it's time for a 45 minute lecture.

 

Again, I think he has a huge battle ahead of him and I haven't done any research yet but I'm sure his rambling can be found somewhere..... He's got people with $1,000 000 000's to fight against and also decades and centuries of conventional theory to wrestle with. I have never studied it but I am no stranger to unconventional thinking. Most of the effort goes into "un-educating" or "un-brainwashing" people first before you can teach them...and this is the difficult or complicated part. That's why it's so easy to teach children...starting with a blank slate. I teach my children to think outside the box, to not trust everything they hear, rather to prove it...but it gets tough when they say "my teacher says...blagh blagh...are they wrong?"...that is tough.

 

Look, no offence but Neal Adams's attempts to gain acceptance for his theories are not a battle against The Man. Nothing can substitute logic and empirical study - if the opinion-forming establishment won't listen, it might be because the ideas haven't been adequately presented or thought-through for them.

 

Surely there must be someone with the means to take on board Adams's theories?