COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

[Batfiend-migration]

Hey Bug, when are you going to pay FD the $50 you owe him?

 

Are you sure he hasn't shilled it up to $75- by now?

[selegue]

...

 

The lesson I learned and keep on learning is that science is populated by really smart folks who, because of the academic structure and the job market specialize early and totally; and each new piece of information makes vacationing in other disciplines virtually impossible. This is a sociological point, not a scientific point.

 

A physicist is not going to take a 60 ton sauropod seriously. A cosmologist can't tell you if a rock can grow. A geologist doesn't know who Carl David Anderson is, or who Jack Kirby is, for that matter. I'm talking to some heavy hitters and teachers and getting smacked around pretty good, but in spite of themselves folks are feeding back a beginning open-ness to the Growing Earth thing. Hey, maybe I'll put it into the Batman Story DC and I are casually talking about. Oh check my vids on http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

 

You know some very narrow-minded scientists. Most of the good scientists I know are able to cross disciplines very well. You've really got no choice nowadays.

 

Some chemists even know who Carl David Anderson AND Jack Kirby are. Can you imagine?

 

Who are the scientists throwing their support behind the spontaneous generation of matter in the core of the earth?

 

Jack

[Rip]

Mr. Adams I believe your article at your website is incorrect.

 

According to your website The Tethys Sea looked like what I have cut and pasted in the upper left.

http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html

You stated:

"If you've been reading carefully, you will realize that at the time of Tarascosaurus that 83 million years ago was in the midst of the time that the vaunted Tethys Sea existed. No humble Mediterranean, but a two thousand mile wide ocean."

 

 

 

The larger picture is the widely accepted view from what I have seen at around 80 mil.

http://geowords.com/lostlinks/j01/1.htm

 

 

[topofthetotem]

Remember the good 'ol days when people said things we didn't like we would burn them at the stake,boil them in oil or strech them on the rack for being diffrent minded

[Sal]

Remember the good 'ol days when people said things we didn't like we would burn them at the stake,boil them in oil or strech them on the rack for being diffrent minded

 

actually, no. were you around back when people were being burned at the stake?

 

[topofthetotem]

Remember the good 'ol days when people said things we didn't like we would burn them at the stake,boil them in oil or strech them on the rack for being diffrent minded

 

actually, no. were you around back when people were being burned at the stake?

 

 

yes in one of my may past lives along with shirly Mclean hahaha

[Ze-man]

actually, no. were you around back when people were being burned at the stake?

 

 

 

Actually, I think Redhook was.

 

Or at least he hunted witches...

 

 

Ze-

[Red Hook]

The Amazing Randi? Love him! Seen him on tv a number of times......

 

It just seems a shame that when our schools are being broadsided by the creationists trying to push their religious agenda into the classroom, and trying to take Darwin prisoner in the process, that more energy isn't put into promoting and defending pure hard science.

 

But hey, Adams is under no more obligation to carry any particular ideological torch than say, the guy sitting in the back booth of the local bar mumbling to himself. The only reason anyone is giving Adam's theories two seconds of reflection.....is because he drew a mean Batman. That's the only reason. It's not because of the veracity or originality of the ideas.

 

Brad

 

Brad,

 

Try not to take my ramblings too seriously, after all, I just do 'comics'. I hold the view that comic books, science and science fiction are all grist for our mill and since I do one, there's no reason not to hobby in the other. Had I chosen science I suspect I would have done quite well. What I learned in 'comics' is how to communicate and how to keep ideas clear and simple in structure. I believe science, like law and medicine, would all do well to adopt this goal. Ease of communication.

 

The lesson I learned and keep on learning is that science is populated by really smart folks who, because of the academic structure and the job market specialize early and totally; and each new piece of information makes vacationing in other disciplines virtually impossible. This is a sociological point, not a scientific point.

 

A physicist is not going to take a 60 ton sauropod seriously. A cosmologist can't tell you if a rock can grow. A geologist doesn't know who Carl David Anderson is, or who Jack Kirby is, for that matter. I'm talking to some heavy hitters and teachers and getting smacked around pretty good, but in spite of themselves folks are feeding back a beginning open-ness to the Growing Earth thing. Hey, maybe I'll put it into the Batman Story DC and I are casually talking about. Oh check my vids on http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

 

I appreciate you coming on here and dealing directly, Neal. As you can tell, (and without getting tooo damn dramatic about it...) I feel very strongly about where we are going as a society with regard to what I see as a softening of the critical facilities. Before I go any further, I will give your vids a very thorough viewing.....out of respect for your contributions in the artistic arena. (And "just doing comics" goes a long way with me....) My comments were not directed at you personally, but at the general issue of soft science. I miss Carl Sagan, I miss Stephen Jay Gould. Heck....I miss Mr. Science! I'll report back later.....but I suspect my waistline is growing faster than the earth.

 

Regards, Brad

[selegue]

...My comments were not directed at you personally, but at the general issue of soft science. I miss Carl Sagan, I miss Stephen Jay Gould. Heck....I miss Mr. Science! I'll report back later.....but I suspect my waistline is growing faster than the earth.

 

Is it true there's nothing but gas and plasma inside?

 

Jack

[Michael Netzer]

Darn it Red....I was just tryin to be nice to the guy...some of his art is cool.Oh,well..Michael with all due respect it is my opinion that if you have to resort to name calling then you've already lost the argument or any type of view you wish to project to the masses....I wish you well though & hope you make it here to the states.

 

Really, Casey, I'd rather you be honest with me than nice, unless the nice is also honest. Thank you for the nice word about the art, it's honest I know.

 

Maybe I'm not trying to win an argument - and I'm not interested in projecting any view to the masses. Maybe, Casey, I'd just like to see people be a little more honest with themselves and think for themselves. There's a lot more referencing of others' work here than people thinking for themselves.

 

Maybe I'm not impressed by people telling me how many great books they've read in answer to a statement - and would rather see people talk to me in their own words.

 

In their own thoughts.

 

A real good example was the reaction to Neal's simple issue with subduction. Neal asked why, if the granite and basilite rose to the surface of the magma because they're less dense, do they sink back down back into the maga, as subduction purports. Neal expressed an idea in his own words and thoughts but the answer we received was a link to Wikkipedia's Subduction entry.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction

 

Can anybody here answer in their own words why the granite and basalt sink into the magma if they're less dense? I read the entry and tried to put into words what it says about that. Frankly, it's a bit full of double-talk.

 

It basically says that when the less dense material is more dense, it sinks. Well, how did it become more dense? I'd like to understand how the same material is both less dense than the maga and more dense at the same time, just in order to make this theory work.

 

Here's the excerpt which tries to answer this.

 

"Subduction results from the contrast in density between lithosphere (the crust plus the strong portion of the upper mantle) and underlying asthenosphere. Where lithosphere is denser than asthenospheric mantle, it can easily sink back into the mantle at a subduction zone; however, subduction is resisted where lithosphere is less dense than underlying asthenosphere. Whether or not lithosphere is more or less dense than underlying asthenosphere depends on the nature of the associated crust. Crust is always less dense than asthenosphere or lithospheric mantle, but because continental crust is always thicker and less dense than oceanic crust, continental lithosphere is always less dense than oceanic lithosphere. Oceanic lithosphere is generally denser than asthenosphere but continental lithosphere is lighter. Exceptionally, the presence of the large areas of flood basalt that are called large igneous provinces (LIPs), which result in extreme thickening of the oceanic crust, can cause some sections of older oceanic lithosphere to be too buoyant to subduct. Where lithosphere on the downgoing plate is too buoyant to subduct, a collision occurs, hence the adage "Subduction leads to orogeny"."

 

Can anyone here explain this in simple words. Or are we all content in accepting it as an answer to the original question, because it's an entry in Wikkipedia? I thought we were having a discussion with each other, not with an encyclopedia.

 

I'm truly curious if anyone here understands what that paragraph says and can put it into their own words.

 

I'd like to know if anyone truly understands how the less dense matter becomes more dense and sinks into the magma. I'm wondering if anyone here backing the scientific community understand what constitues a "subduction zone"? How do some places on the planet ignore the laws of physics and become a "twilight subduction zone"

 

What is a subduction zone? Does anyone here truly undersand this?

 

I'd like to talk to the people I'm talking to. I'm not crazy about having someone else's work referenced in every turn of a discussion. Yes there's a lot of great work out there and much intelligent material, but we're the ones here discussing this, not the authors of these books.

 

This would be a great discussion if anyone here can play the encyclopedia's advocate..

 

So, how does the less dense matter sink into the more dense one? Anyone? in your words?

[topofthetotem]

come on Neal dont soften your opinion

it yours and thats all we got thats truly are own

 

until you get married

[shrunkenhead]

 

You know some very narrow-minded scientists. Most of the good scientists I know are able to cross disciplines very well. You've really got no choice nowadays.

 

 

That was exactly my thinking, too.

[Red Hook]

[quote

Maybe I'm not impressed by people telling me how many great books they've read in answer to a statement - and would rather see people talk to me in their own words.

 

In their own thoughts.

 

Gee....I mentioned two whole books. They happen to be great. May I send you copies?

 

Brad

[Aman619]

so basically we have two choices: either the earth was smallr and totally covered by a crust/shell that cracked into pieces that moved away from one another as the earth grew in size. OR - - the earth was always the current size (big) and the continent broke apart from one shape that only covered less than haldf the surface of the planet.

 

heres a dumb question: when did the oceans arrive? At the beginning of both of these scenarios, was the crust/continents UNDER the water fully, partially, or was the earth's surface practically dry???

 

thanx

[Michael Netzer]

Is it true there's nothing but gas and plasma inside?

 

Funny thing. Until a couple of weeks ago, scientists and geologists argued vehemently that the earth's core was the most dense of all the planet. Solid iron engulfed by a slightly less dense molten iron mantle. They believed this because of how they read seismic wave measurments.

 

Recently a team of scientists concluded through experriments, that the great pressure and heat in the Earth's core have not been taken into consideration of the seismic wave measuremets. They've concluded that when these factors were taken into consideration, they've discovered that the core is much less dense than previously thought. Much much less dense.

 

For all the scientists and geologists who argued that the growing earth theory doesn't work because the earth's core is too dense to be the cauldron from which the new matter pushes out - I don't hear anyone yet say..."Oh, we were wrong."

 

This is in my own words.

 

Here's the link to the source material.

[Michael Netzer]

Gee....I mentioned two whole books. They happen to be great. May I send you copies?

 

15 Hazait St.

Ofra

Israel, 90627

[topofthetotem]

Is it true there's nothing but gas and plasma inside?

 

Funny thing. Until a couple of weeks ago, scientists and geologists argued vehemently that the earth's core was the most dense of all the planet. Solid iron engulfed by a slightly less dense molten iron mantle. They believed this because of how they read seismic wave measurments.

 

Recently a team of scientists concluded through experriments, that the great pressure and heat in the Earth's core have not been taken into consideration of the seismic wave measuremets. They've concluded that when these factors were taken into consideration, they've discovered that the core is much less dense than previously thought. Much much less dense.

 

For all the scientists and geologists who argued that the growing earth theory doesn't work because the earth's core is too dense to be the cauldron from which the new matter pushes out - I don't hear anyone yet say..."Oh, we were wrong."

 

This is in my own words.

 

Here's the link of the source material.

 

 

At one time most dino guys thought dinosaurs were slow moving, tail dragging grey lizards but now the more accepted view is that they moved more birdlike were brightly colored with more avian then lizard qualities. Science evolves new theories all the time nothing stays the same.

[Sal]

if i ever get me my own custom title, i think i would like the old adage "Subduction leads to orogeny."

 

remember that the wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, and entries may be written by near anyone. they claim to have editors, but lawsamighty i ain't never seen none of them folks around

[shrunkenhead]

if i ever get me my own custom title, i think i would like the old adage "Subduction leads to orogeny."

 

remember that the wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, and entries may be written by near anyone. they claim to have editors, but lawsamighty i ain't never seen none of them folks around

 

Right. I've had a hellacious time getting my students not to use the durned thing in their research papers.

[Michael Netzer]

At one time most dino guys thought dinosaurs were slow moving, tail dragging grey lizards but now the more accepted view is that they moved more birdlike were brightly colored with more avian then lizard qualities. Science evolves new theories all the time nothing stays the same.

 

Oh.

 

So science may yet evolve to discovering that the universe is growing?