COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

[shrunkenhead]

[

 

 

I tried to show, and I believe this is clear, that the theory of Subduction was born under a false pretense of discovery. There was no discovery of subduction. Subducion was and is a theory born out of the scientific community's belief that the Earth was always the same size. They believe this because they don't yet know of a mechanism under which the Earth can grow. So, they needed to explain the oceanic ridges and age discrepencies. They put forth the theory of subduction in order to answer this issue. They never discovered subduction and there is no proof that the theory is true. It cannot be proven because it depends on millions of years observations of the movement of the ocean floor which we cannot detect today.

 

 

It would seem to me, with this rationale , that you could just as equally discount Darwinian evolution because there "was no discovery" and it "cannot be proven because it depends on millions of years [of] observations", etc., etc. I mean, that's what the creationist contingency is saying about Darwin right now, yet I think most who are not of that particular mindset can see how creationists put blinders on to get where they want to go.

[Neal Adams-migration]

If you look real close, he doesn't have pants on, just the color grey. (heh)

 

Faced with the problem... if they took his tights off... they'd have to take his shorts off. Baaaaad boys. But I wanted Ras to have his whole uniform, not just his shirt p-tah. So why not just his cape and hood? Well that was weenie cause we couldn't show his chest. And I wanted to show his chest ab-solutely.

 

So I drew the pants off but left the shorts on for decency's sake. It WAS a cover. But the bare legs raised more questions than they answered so we colored the legs grey and figured that people would be so stunned by the hair and nipples that they wouldn't notice, and apparently we were right. (Except for you and about 30 thousand others).

[Rip]

[chrisco37]

Now we're getting somewhere! One mystery solved. On to the next...

[mrwoogieman]

Now we're getting somewhere! One mystery solved. On to the next...

 

The scorecard so far (for those who like to keep score):

 

Tom Cruise is funny - CHECK

Subduction - not sure

Growing Earth - don't know

Neal Adams is funding a tunnel dig to the asthenosphere - of course

Batman has chest hair - DEFINITIVE!

Michael Netzer is the craziest guy in comics - see other thread

http://boards.collectors-society.com/sho...e=2&fpart=4

 

And there you have it!

[goldust40]

I have to hand it to Neal - on the evidence of this thread he doesn't take himself entirely seriously, and can take criticism.

 

Now, err, Denny O'Neill and Len Wein. What are they really like?

[Sal]

If you look real close, he doesn't have pants on, just the color grey. (heh)

 

Faced with the problem... if they took his tights off... they'd have to take his shorts off. Baaaaad boys. But I wanted Ras to have his whole uniform, not just his shirt p-tah. So why not just his cape and hood? Well that was weenie cause we couldn't show his chest. And I wanted to show his chest ab-solutely.

 

So I drew the pants off but left the shorts on for decency's sake. It WAS a cover. But the bare legs raised more questions than they answered so we colored the legs grey and figured that people would be so stunned by the hair and nipples that they wouldn't notice, and apparently we were right. (Except for you and about 30 thousand others).

 

classic. $*ing classic

 

[Neal Adams-migration]

 

(sigh)

 

If it is an open pot and it's viscous, but it's SEALED in a hard crust. Sealed! Where does the displaced "not-silly-putty" displace to?

 

you're implying its being displaced 2000 miles away. But science says over 90% of it is solid, that is crystalline. Current geologists go to great lengths to point out how solid it is.

 

"Deeper you go"

 

This is a no! The magmic material (not me) is at the top. It's solid deeper. There's no fire at the bottom. That's why volcanos and rifts. Again, not me. That graph does not follow the science presented. Anybody can draw a graph. I can and do.

 

Also deeper it's DENSER (fact) the contradiction ges worse and worse. If what you say is true why doesn't magma erupt into the trench? All engineering says so. Dig into the sand at the beach and try to stop the sea water from flooding into your hole at the bottom. You can't.

 

Check sketches above (quickies)

[Sal]

interjecting for a moment, if i may; you should save those sketches for the day your theory supplants conventional wisdom regarding all this geological stuff y'all are talking about.

 

they'll be worth millions. millions, i say

[AlexH]

I feel like I just came out of a University course where the teacher had to cram the last 2 months of lectures into 2 hours.

 

Anyways, Welcome to the boards Neal. I have enjoyed your work over the years. And hopefully I can say hi to you when you come up to Toronto at the end of the month.

 

Alex

[Rip]

 

(sigh)

If it is an open pot and it's viscous, but it's SEALED in a hard crust. Sealed! Where does the displaced "not-silly-putty" displace to?

 

you're implying its being displaced 2000 miles away. But science says over 90% of it is solid, that is crystalline. Current geologists go to great lengths to point out how solid it is.

 

"Deeper you go"

 

This is a no! The magmic material (not me) is at the top. It's solid deeper. There's no fire at the bottom. That's why volcanos and rifts. Again, not me. That graph does not follow the science presented. Anybody can draw a graph. I can and do.

 

 

 

Check sketches above (quickies)

 

I already stated Neal, it gets recycled into the mantle.

Saying no doesn't advance your case. I've got proof with the S-waves FACT!

See fate of the slabs in link below.

 

Also deeper it's DENSER (fact) the contradiction ges worse and worse. If what you say is true why doesn't magma erupt into the trench? All engineering says so.

 

 

Magma erupts further down the curve as depth & temp get greater.

Also go back and read my last few posts.

"As the subducting plate descends, its temperature rises driving off H20. As this water rises into the mantle of the overriding plate, it lowers its melting temperature, resulting in the formation of magma with large amounts of dissolved gases. Hense we can get volcanos."

 

Dig into the sand at the beach and try to stop the sea water from flooding into your hole at the bottom. You can't.

 

No more false analogys

 

http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~crlb/COURSES/270/Lec13/Lec13.html

 

By the way please send sketches with drawing of Batman to:

 

Scott Sleeper

61 Lexington Dr.

Chico CA 95973

 

Adding picture again so you look at it

[Neal Adams-migration]

No more false analogies? You are taking away all my toys. Darn. Everybody's real analogies are someone else's fake analogies, Scott.

 

Magma erupts further down the curve as depth & temp get greater.

 

Where is that? At the rift. I'm confused. I kinda hope you mean the rift cause at the rift NOTHING EVER erupts. The crust spreads peacefully and the collected magma comes up. Burble, burble, burble. Cause... it's less deep IN (down). And? Hotter? Just making my way through the confusion.

 

Please, please listen and don't quote. Just give me YOUR thoughts. I'm easy.

 

If the (magma) stuff is hot and molten and viscous, for something of... okay I won't say the same weight or lighter, I'll say some pressure or iron slab made it heavier. If the understuff is molten enough for it to sink into, isn't it going to erupt up to fill the now empty void of the sinking slab, hit the water, harden and lock it into place? This is what physics and mechanical engineering says. No analogies, No Archimedes.

 

PS--was I you... I'd keep copies of the sketches.

[Forbush-Man]

 

 

Okay,...okay! I came late to the party.

 

Neal Adams,....Welcome to the Boards!

 

I've had a long day, had a few "Wobbly-Pops" and wasn't prepared for today's lecture.

 

 

Note to myself:

 

(1) Listen to Comic Zone w/ Neal Adams

(2) Re-read this thread

(3) Try not to look stoopid,.......

 

DAMN! DAMN! DAMN!

[Rip]

No more false analogies? You are taking away all my toys. Darn. Everybody's real analogies are someone else's fake analogies, Scott.

 

Yea well, I tend to do that.

 

Magma erupts further down the curve as depth & temp get greater.

Where is that? At the rift. I'm confused. I kinda hope you mean the rift cause at the rift NOTHING EVER erupts. The crust spreads peacefully and the collected magma comes up. Burble, burble, burble. Cause... it's less deep IN (down). And? Hotter? Just making my way through the confusion.

 

Please, please listen and don't quote. Just give me YOUR thoughts. I'm easy.

 

If the (magma) stuff is hot and molten and viscous, for something of... okay I won't say the same weight or lighter, I'll say some pressure or iron slab made it heavier. If the understuff is molten enough for it to sink into, isn't it going to erupt up to fill the now empty void of the sinking slab, hit the water, harden and lock it into place? This is what physics and mechanical engineering says. No analogies, No Archimedes.

 

PS--was I you... I'd keep copies of the sketches.

 

No, the magmatism happens hundreds of km (roughly 100-300 km) away from the trench. Its not happening straight down. Its over and at an angle. Go back and look at the angle. I keep trying to show you. What empty void are you talking about?

 

The water heats up in the "not quite silly putty zone" ,boils off, becomes hot gas, makes magma. This rising gas/magma goes up.

 

Click on the animations, maybe this will help since everyone here is so visual.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03fire/logs/subduction.html

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_sci...o=visualization

 

So how about a comic question, do you have favorite artist?

 

Best Again

Scott

[Michael Netzer]

hey we’re getting heavy here and I apologize and well for me in regular talk is as interesting as talking about Green Lantern.. Hal Jordan has yet to redeem himself.

 

Maybe Hal is carrying a big chip on his shoulder since Isaac strapped himself to that airplane back in the mid Seventies. It was Hal's girlfriend, Carol Ferris, who owned that company making those engines which polluted the sky and caused Isaac's self inflicted death. Blowing up that plane afterwards might have vented off some steam but apparantly couldn't alleviate the responsibility he felt for Isaac's death. Hal trusted the establishment, including his girlfriend's corporate integrity, until the bubble burst for him in that series. Carrying this heavy chip, he went on to turn into the biggest villain of the DC universe.

 

So what does Hal Jordan have to do in order to redeem himself?

 

Go back to the source and strap himself up to the airplane, instead of Isaac?

[Michael Netzer]

It would seem to me, with this rationale , that you could just as equally discount Darwinian evolution because there "was no discovery" and it "cannot be proven because it depends on millions of years [of] observations", etc., etc. I mean, that's what the creationist contingency is saying about Darwin right now, yet I think most who are not of that particular mindset can see how creationists put blinders on to get where they want to go.

 

I might do that if I was a creationist at war with the scientists. I'm not. I'm also not a scientist at war with the creationists. Both sides have turned the conflict into the issue which drives them. Both appear guilty of forsaking truth and discovery for the contentious feud between them.

 

If you know my writings at Flaming Sword, you'd know how I feel about the religious establishment. The model for its corruption is also evident in other areas. It's human nature. Let's bring it down to the comics for a moment.

 

Creators bring something good to the world. Something which comes from deep inside, and amorphic perception of the forces driving civilization. They put it down into comic book stories. The publishers take their work and bastardize it in order to consolidate their power as merchants. Before you know it, Superman, Batman and Green Lantern are only a hollow shell of what they were to their creators. The stories they wanted to tell with these characters and the ideas they had are long buried under the corporate muck published in the comics.

 

Same thing happened with religion. The rabbis, priests and muftis bastardized good gifts given by ancient creators, in order to consolidate their power and led the world astray with pompoous excrement which they try to palm off as sanctity.

 

Likewise with science, unfortunately. What Darwin, Einstein and others tried to inspire has been long lost under the elitist manipulations of a pompous academia peddling a bastadization of their ideas as scientific discovery.

 

What drove Hess and Dietz to concoct this absurd theory of subduction wasn't that they saw any evidence for it. Thery were at war with the creationists and looked for a way out of the expanding earth theory explaining the oceanic ridges and age of the ocean floor. They were at war with the idea that the creation of matter was an ongoing process because science is at odds with the creationists.

 

But science is supposed to be science. The essence of science is to discover how the universe works. If the universe works through a model of an ongoing process of the creation of matter, and the scientists see evidence for it - yet deny the evidence because they're at odds with the creationists, well then they become just as much the hyporcrites as religious leaders are.

 

They become liars and deceivers in the name of science.

 

I have no problem with Darwin or evolution. It's a sensible model for the gradual process in which life forms developed.

 

Subduction is a wild concoction which doesn't work. It's a convoluted contraption meant to distract from a more essential issue.

 

I'm not a party to this war between the creationists and the scientists, as you suggest I am. Let them kill each other silly, they both seem to deserve this miserable feud because they've both strayed from their trust. They've both forgotten how to be honest with themselves in order to bring truth and discovery into the world.

 

They both need the comics creators to lead them out of the dark ages they've fallen into.

 

That's what Neal is doing with his science project. That's also what Flaming Sword is about. That's what the comics creators will do, collectively when they come together and form the Comic Book Creators' Guild.

 

Who else can lead civilization out of this darkness?

[goldust40]

Who else can lead civilization out of this darkness?

 

[Neal Adams-migration]

Let's see if I can blow your minds, for fun.

 

List of FACTS. You gotta pause on each and integrate. (Sherlock Holmesian.)

 

1. There were no frozen poles on earth during the time of the dinosaurs.

2. The world was sub-tropical top to bottom...they are currently digging up dinosaur bones in Antarctica. (Two families of dinosaurs that are commonly found in North America.) Also dino bones are found in Alaska.

3. Plants further back in time grew all year round.

4. As time (in dinosaur ages) wore on, plants evolved to be seasonal.

5. In fact, seasoning (seasons) became slowly more apparent as to hot and cold.

6. Dinosaurs evolved down facing legs. (From reptile out-facing legs.) Long down-facing legs.

7. Dinosaurs became more warm blooded for constant regular activity.

8. One of the great indicators of dinosaurs to Paleontologists is dinosaur track ways.

9. The Rocky Mountains began to grow about forty-to-sixty million years ago. (Cool, huh?) Mountains are barriers to some.

10. Grass didn't evolve till about forty million years ago. That's all grass, all grain, most weeds, cane, etc. etc. No dead grass. No HAY.

11. If we didn't have dried grass, most hoofed animals on Earth today would die off in winter.

12. Meat eaters follow herbivores for food. Herbivores were big and needed a lot of food.

13. Reptiles lived at the Equator, still do, particularly a twenty-six foot crocodilian that could eat and pull down just about anything. And there were lots of them, (at the Equator) the big ones died off when the dinosaurs became extinct.

14. The only dinosaurs that survived were the birds. Who, as many do today, 64 million years later, migrate hemispherically.

15. Mammals, marsupials and reptiles don't migrate hemispherically.

16. What killed the dinosaurs?

[namisgr]

Both sides have turned the conflict into the issue which drives them. Both appear guilty of forsaking truth and discovery for the contentious feud between them.

 

I'm not a party to this war between the creationists and the scientists, as you suggest I am. Let them kill each other silly, they both seem to deserve this miserable feud because they've both strayed from their trust. They've both forgotten how to be honest with themselves in order to bring truth and discovery into the world.

 

Disclaimer: I am a scientist professionally (Doctorate in Neurobiology, faculty position at a Medical School in the Northeast).

 

I find your characterization of the disagreement about the creation of the universe as a "war" to be absurd. The issue is one of science education. There is nothing in the way of a scrutinized, peer-reviewed body of work to support the view that "creationism" has scientific validity that merits its teaching along side the theory of evolution. There is neither a "contentious feud" nor a "war" nor a forgetting of "honesty" on the issue.

 

Science is science and not religion, and there should be places for educating today's youth on both, but no confusion between the two.

[selegue]

Others who know more geology than I do have already answered most of your questions, so I'll try not to rehash anything.

 

Not believing in conservation of matter is the key to your view of the earth. It seems to me (as the old cliche goes) that that's the hole in the hull of the Titanic, and for us to argue about the details of plate tectonics is like arguing about which china to set out in the main dining room tonight. The discussion's already started though, so I'll join in while I bail.

 

Do you believe in gravity? Gravity that works according to the usual F = G*m1*m2/d^2 law? I don't mean mechanism (if anyone here really understands that, they should book their ticket to Stockholm to pick up their Nobel Prize), I just mean the observable phenomenon. Do you think that's a legitimate way to determine the mass of the earth? (Newton and Cavendish did this LONG before plate tectonics, so you can accept it just fine without believing in plate tectonics.)

 

Do you believe that the earth gets hotter as a function of depth? There are direct measurements down to (I think) 12 km and the evidence that it continues to get hotter is very strong and hard to dispute.

 

Do you believe that science (the old hypothesis, experiment, result, conclusion, theory routine) is a legimate way to learn about the universe? If you believe that, "The scientists are the dead gods of our world leading our perceptions into a dead future for a dead universe..... I reject the dead fairy tales of the dead headed scientific community," our discussion is doomed before it starts.

 

This sketch was very helpful to understand what you have trouble believing.

 

 

(sigh)

 

 

Others should correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the vectors on your top drawing represent force, not pressure.

 

I think your second and third drawings are a good description of what happens when two continental (not ocean) plates collide. Because they have the same density, neither can subduct. Mostly the top drawing describes what happens -- there's an overall "rise", but the bottom one happens a little bit. The whole effect ends up like a corrugation -- sort of like the "ribbing" effect you see when you squish an aluminum can.

 

_____ ______

 

goes to

 

/\/\/\/\/\/\

 

The overall result shows up as the Himalayas where the Indian and Eurasian plates collide.

 

If it is an open pot and it's viscous, but it's SEALED in a hard crust. Sealed! Where does the displaced "not-silly-putty" displace to?

 

you're implying its being displaced 2000 miles away. But science says over 90% of it is solid, that is crystalline. Current geologists go to great lengths to point out how solid it is.

 

 

You're right about the fourth drawing being a fantasy. An easy straw man to knock down because it's not a very accurate picture of subduction -- the gas (magma?) isn't being generated in the right place. Rip did a fine job of explaining where it should vent -- but you've got to believe that the earth gets hotter at lower depths for that to work. It's no coincidence that Mt St Helens is situated where it is. Don't forget that the plates are moving at most a few cm/year, so there's lots of time for the hot gas and magma to work its way up through the crust.

 

 

"Deeper you go"

 

This is a no! The magmic material (not me) is at the top. It's solid deeper. There's no fire at the bottom. That's why volcanos and rifts. Again, not me. That graph does not follow the science presented. Anybody can draw a graph. I can and do.

 

 

I'm a little puzzled here.

That's why I'm afraid that you don't agree in the temperature gradient.

 

 

Also deeper it's DENSER (fact) the contradiction ges worse and worse. If what you say is true why doesn't magma erupt into the trench? All engineering says so. Dig into the sand at the beach and try to stop the sea water from flooding into your hole at the bottom. You can't.

 

Check sketches above (quickies)

 

Rip already raised an objection to the water and sand analogy!

 

Jack the Dead Head