COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

[Zonker]

"Ultra Boy"

 

Y'know, FFB, being such a big Jim Shooter fan, one of these days we are gonna have to get you better exposed to his classic Legion of Super Heroes Silver Age run.

[FFB]

"Ultra Boy"

 

Y'know, FFB, being such a big Jim Shooter fan, one of these days we are gonna have to get you better exposed to his classic Legion of Super Heroes Silver Age run.

 

Tell me about it. I actually have the first few that he ever did (I think starting with #346). But I've only read them once and other than the "One of us is a traitor" storyline (of which I have only the vaguest of recollections), I can't really remember any of them. They read like they were written by a 13 year old.

 

Eventually I'll pick up the rest of the run and sit down and read them for fun, but in truth, I am more of a fan of Shooter's later work as a writer for Marvel and am also appreciative of the higher standards of work product that he instilled at Marvel during the late 1970s and early to mid-1980s -- and, of course, all of the Valiant stuff. Like any other writer, I don't read everything a particular writer wrote just because he wrote it. It has to be good.

 

Anyway, thanks for letting me know who the U guy was.

[Sal]

Odin is my favourite, too. i dig how you took the detailing out of the perimeter, focusing the eye on his eyes...even if he should only have the one, on account of having plucked the other out in exchange for wisdom...

[Michael Netzer]

 

Source please.....

 

Are you saying the asthenosphere (upper mantle) DOESN'T behave as a viscous fluid.

 

I'm saying that it's solid, according to geologists. S.O.L.I.D.

 

They say it BEHAVES as a viscous fluid over billions of years, but that if we were to go down and look at it now, it would be a solid.

 

Now, you can pull my leg as much as you want, but I don't buy this poor excuse for a wacky theory about the ocean floor sinking into the mantle in order to explain how the continents floated around on the plane'ts surface like bumper cars.

 

I'm sorry, I just think it's really funny that the world bought this fantasy tale.

 

I'll tell you what. We should get these geologists to write comics. They're wild, actually.

 

Anyway, here's one source followed by a quote from it. But there are many more. Just do a google search on "earth's crust and mantle" and you'll find tons of info.

 

http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/what.htm

 

***When does a solid flow??

 

Earthquake vibrations tell us that the mantle is as strong as steel. But the shape of the Earth suggests that it is a spinning fluid droplet. Other clues exist which tell us that the rocks beneath our feet can flow and move.

 

The mantle rock is effectively solid if you think of conventional time periods (days, years and even decades). Geological time is measured in many millions of years, the Earth is 4.6 million years old. The mantle does flow like a liquid, but it happens incredibly slowly.***

 

Do we understand now that the geologists are able to perceive billions of years of time in order to palm off such a wacky idea? The rock is solid, but it behaves like a liquid over billions of years. Thank you Geologists. Neither the late Jack Kirby nor Dave Sim could have said it better.

 

What this is saying is that when geologists say it is viscous, they don't mean it's liquidy or molten. They mean its a behavioral thing over billions of years.

 

It has a relatively low density as far as I've seen on various sources.

 

It couldn't have a lower density than the ocean floor. Otherwise it would've been on top. Even the geologists say the mantle is denser than the ocean floor. So, even if the mantle were viscous, the ocean floor couldn't subduct into it without the application of some incredible force which has not been accounted for.

 

Now, I'm sorry to bring this to question, but the impression geologist give is that the ocean floor can subduct into a viscous mantle. Just look at how misleading this is.

 

Maybe I'm just crazy or something (don't answer that) but subduction, as a theory, is even wackier than I am. It's really out there. We need to return to more realistic theories...like the earth growing, for example. That's a little more sane, i'd say.

[Michael Netzer]

Odin is my favourite, too. i dig how you took the detailing out of the perimeter, focusing the eye on his eyes...even if he should only have the one, on account of having plucked the other out in exchange for wisdom...

 

Thanks. Sorry about going back to the science stuff. I don't know what got over me.

[Aman619]

Odin is my favourite, too. i dig how you took the detailing out of the perimeter, focusing the eye on his eyes...even if he should only have the one, on account of having plucked the other out in exchange for wisdom...

 

Thanks. Sorry about going back to the science stuff. I don't know what got over me.

 

I like the poster you are working on. But am I the only one who likes the inked version better? Its much tighter IMO. Somehow as you color it, it looks more cartoony. Nothing wrong with cartoony, of course, but the inkes are more realistic and powerful.

[Michael Netzer]

I like the poster you are working on. But am I the only one who likes the inked version better? Its much tighter IMO. Somehow as you color it, it looks more cartoony. Nothing wrong with cartoony, of course, but the inkes are more realistic and powerful.

 

The inking you're seeing on top was how I started the poster. As I progressed with it, the inking became more stylized and maybe looks more cartoony. The coloring followed the inking, mostly.

 

I'm probably searching for some expression beyond what I've done before, or beyond realistic or whatever, so the coloring may change how the top figures will look in the end.

 

Some people like what you do in it and others like the opposite. The overall effect, though, is expressive of changing the approach along the way.

[Rip]

OK lets try this again. I'l try to explain this again to you as others have. I've sourced this all already.

 

Ocean Floor is denser than a continental plate. Can we agree on this. Its colder and heavier.

The Ocean floor collides with this less dense materical. Since the Ocean Floor is cold and heavier, more dense, it goes underneath the continental crust. (The continental crust is less dense than the material of the mantle and thus "floats" on top of it. Its also thicker than the Ocean crust)

 

The lithosphere (above asthenosphere) is cooler and more rigid, while the asthenosphere is hotter and mechanically weaker.

 

So then the Ocean crust heads down with some of the lithospere into the mechanically weaker asthenosphere.

 

The asthenosphere is ductile and can be deformed like the silly putty you put on your comics in high school, it is in response to the warmth of the Earth. The rocks actually flow, in response to the stresses placed upon them by the churning motions of the deep Earth. Sure they move slowly, but they move.

 

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. (I'd love to hear how you think they are caused.)

 

The incredible force is right here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Sources_of_plate_motion

Gravity.

Plate motion is driven by the higher elevation of plates at mid-ocean ridges. Essentially stuff slides downhill.

 

Slab-pull Plate motion is driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking into the mantle at trenches.

Friction:

Trench suction: Local convection currents exert a downward frictional pull on plates in subduction zones at ocean trenches.

 

Does this help???

 

Again: the asthenosphere is solid even though it is at very hot temperatures of about 1600 C

BUT....at this temperature, minerals are almost ready to melt and they become ductile and can be pushed and deformed like silly putty.

 

 

Now they can detect the slabs by mesuring the fast seismic velocities.

 

(Sorry made a few edits)

 

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

[Neal Adams-migration]

Known property? Okay, a hydrogen atom contains one proton weight 1836. Charge is plus one, around it is an electron weight one, charge is negative one. A neutron weighs 1840, its charge is zero.

 

Now, a proton can take an electron from a neutron (in the lab) and the proton becomes a neutron. The neutron becomes a proton and you can switch the electron back again

 

Our early universe had (some say) only hydrogen. A sun has 90% hydrogen and 10% helium, which came first? Can you have a helium sun? No! Hydrogen came first. How do you get helium then, from only hydrogen.

 

In order to get helium you need neutrons.

 

What do you make neutrons from if all you have is hydrogen?

 

My first guess? Hydrogen.

 

 

 

Evidence of gasses and plasma? Seismic waves come in two types, T and P. T waves go through solids and P waves go through fluids and plasma and gasses. Approximately halfway into the Earth seismic waves record a dis-CONTINUITY. (This is getting too personal.) A rapid change to a liquid or a plasma-gas. Till recently Don Anderson and others insisted the outer core was liquid iron. I dispute this. My proof? Hah, hard. Liquid iron plus plasma both transmit P waves. Both, in fact transmit and carry the electro-magnetic field of Earth. Anderson’s molten iron depends on differentation of iron silicates from Earth’s creation, in other words like a cauldron, the iron was melted out to the core where it sits molten.

 

I argue, if Earth has been cooling for five billion years, the iron, if there, would’ve hardened and crystallized.

 

Further, I argue with growing Earth, the iron is still within the silicate. A basic disagreement.

 

If that’s so, iron silicate would support at that depth using simple engineering principles, Buckminster Fuller’s spherical pressure analysis and good old practical science then iron silicate becomes so compacted and solid 2400 miles down that no more support is needed and you may easily have a hollow core. There’s more much but I’m boring you, I’m sure. Sorry.

 

 

 

How can matter be made period, is the question. Whether it is inside the Earth or not, no? Well, not to put a too fine edge on it, matter IS here. It must’ve been made or produced or created. Yes? Do we agree? Did it burst into existence? All of it? A piece at a time? That matter is created somewhere, sometime, some how, there can be no doubt, I think. Is it still going on? Did somebody turn the switch off or is it still being made? And if so, where?

 

Well, we are told suns grow. Our sun grows. Grows in the face of the fact that it throws off 100 million tons of electrons and ions EVERY SECOND. Math that out for five billion years. So, how does it do both? Jupiter has become Earth and Mars’s meteorite umbrella in the last 200 to 400 million years. How can matter be created? Positron emission tomography creates and destroys matter while it scans people’s bodies everyday around the world. Look up Carl David Anderson, please, youngest man to win the Nobel Prize.

 

Inside the Earth? Lots of criss-crossing of energy in there. It’s quite like a dynamo of sorts. Fact the very dense inner core rotates (Harvard says) faster (just a bit) than the planet. I’d say VERY DYNAMIC.

[Rip]

Hey Neal

[topofthetotem]

Known property? Okay, a hydrogen atom contains one proton weight 1836. Charge is plus one, around it is an electron weight one, charge is negative one. A neutron weighs 1840, its charge is zero.

 

Now, a proton can take an electron from a neutron (in the lab) and the proton becomes a neutron. The neutron becomes a proton and you can switch the electron back again

 

Our early universe had (some say) only hydrogen. A sun has 90% hydrogen and 10% helium, which came first? Can you have a helium sun? No! Hydrogen came first. How do you get helium then, from only hydrogen.

 

In order to get helium you need neutrons.

 

What do you make neutrons from if all you have is hydrogen?

 

My first guess? Hydrogen.

 

 

 

Evidence of gasses and plasma? Seismic waves come in two types, T and P. T waves go through solids and P waves go through fluids and plasma and gasses. Approximately halfway into the Earth seismic waves record a dis-CONTINUITY. (This is getting too personal.) A rapid change to a liquid or a plasma-gas. Till recently Don Anderson and others insisted the outer core was liquid iron. I dispute this. My proof? Hah, hard. Liquid iron plus plasma both transmit P waves. Both, in fact transmit and carry the electro-magnetic field of Earth. Anderson’s molten iron depends on differentation of iron silicates from Earth’s creation, in other words like a cauldron, the iron was melted out to the core where it sits molten.

 

I argue, if Earth has been cooling for five billion years, the iron, if there, would’ve hardened and crystallized.

 

Further, I argue with growing Earth, the iron is still within the silicate. A basic disagreement.

 

If that’s so, iron silicate would support at that depth using simple engineering principles, Buckminster Fuller’s spherical pressure analysis and good old practical science then iron silicate becomes so compacted and solid 2400 miles down that no more support is needed and you may easily have a hollow core. There’s more much but I’m boring you, I’m sure. Sorry.

 

 

 

How can matter be made period, is the question. Whether it is inside the Earth or not, no? Well, not to put a too fine edge on it, matter IS here. It must’ve been made or produced or created. Yes? Do we agree? Did it burst into existence? All of it? A piece at a time? That matter is created somewhere, sometime, some how, there can be no doubt, I think. Is it still going on? Did somebody turn the switch off or is it still being made? And if so, where?

 

Well, we are told suns grow. Our sun grows. Grows in the face of the fact that it throws off 100 million tons of electrons and ions EVERY SECOND. Math that out for five billion years. So, how does it do both? Jupiter has become Earth and Mars’s meteorite umbrella in the last 200 to 400 million years. How can matter be created? Positron emission tomography creates and destroys matter while it scans people’s bodies everyday around the world. Look up Carl David Anderson, please, youngest man to win the Nobel Prize.

 

Inside the Earth? Lots of criss-crossing of energy in there. It’s quite like a dynamo of sorts. Fact the very dense inner core rotates (Harvard says) faster (just a bit) than the planet. I’d say VERY DYNAMIC.

 

 

 

I dont know anything about a expanding earth or things of such a cosmic nature but you are passionate about your position right or wrong I respect that

[Rip]

As far as I know there was helium in the early Universe. But there wasn't enough material for the stars to burn for very long. The early stars weren't like our current stars. It took many supernova explosions to make all the heavy elements we find here on Earth and in our Sun.

 

 

But a single first-generation supernova could produce enough heavy elements to enable the first Sun-like stars to form." (Believe it or not I had the link already from debating YECs)

 

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0404.html

 

BTW did you mean P and S waves?

 

Enough for tonight.....

[verygoodplus]

Second: if any of y’all think Jack Kirby and his family should be treated exactly the same as Stan Lee and his family, by Marvel Comics, it would be a simple righteous thing if you would write a straight-forward letter to the publishers of Marvel Comics saying that is what you believe as a fan of their comic books. Say it any way you please, and know that many others will and I will do my very best to settle this issue in a positive way.

 

 

Neal, I'd be happy to write a letter to Marvel on behalf of Jack Kirby, whose life and achievements I have tremendous respect and admiration for. But when you say that "Jack Kirby and his family should be treated exactly the same as Stan Lee and his family," I need a little clarification. Are you simply trying to ensure that Jack receives proper credit for his creations? Or do financial considerations (for his family) enter the picture?

 

I could be wrong (I have to plead ignorance on the inner-workings of the industry), but I'm assuming Marvel has no legal obligation, in terms of monetary compensation, to Jack's family. Do you think there is a moral obligation here on Marvel's part?

 

I'm not sure where I would stand on that point, but I can tell you, I was thrilled to learn of the family's plans for a Kirby Museum. So I certainly hope that Marvel is willing to contribute to that in some way.

[Neal Adams-migration]

Para 2

 

*1. Um. Golly. Let's be thorough please. There is more granitic rock making up the continental plate specifically the upper continent, on which we live. The lower portion of the continents is the same basalts that make up the ocean floor. The new lower plate is basalts. In fact, if there is a crack or rift, both sides are made of exactly the same thing.

 

*Actually, the ocean floor doesn't "collide" in any sense of the word. There is no force to make such a collision. If someone can identify such a force, that would be excellent. 20 years ago speculation was the force was convection, few propose this now cause 99% of the asthenosphere has been found solid. (N0T my science, I vow).

 

Now, for the ocean bottom to subduct, it must displace the material under it. That material is denser than the ocean bottom. But even if it wasn't, it's like a solid book resting on a lighter book. The book won't simply sink into the other book.

 

Even if there was a reason or a force, where would that under material be displaced TO? There is no displacement repository for this material.

 

Let us suppose instead of solid there is magma. To ease the process. As a section descends, the magma would squeeze up at the cracks like tooth paste and re-cement the descending piece in place.

 

Another example for your patience. Silicate does not crack at a razor slant as those thousands of drawings show. They shatter straight down like a ridge in Colorado. At "subduction zones" the crust is typically 4 miles thick.

 

Now think of these breaks as the sides canyons or you know that straight down drop in the abyss? Like that.

 

It's like a crack between two bricks. Flat side against flat side. Not like a razor edge like a beach going into the water.

 

Now imagine these bricks. You've got to slide one four-mile side, before one side could possibly slide under the other side. I don't like to say impossible, but this is certainly mechanically improbable.

 

No convection has been shown or proved. I'm saying it because it's true. It's a theory. There must be heat at the bottom to make convection. There's no burner under the asthenosphere.

 

Please examine a rift map for this next, I implore you. "Stuff slides downhill" (and so subducts.) Examine the Atlantic and the Pacific, if subduction existed based on this supposition. The Atlantic...both sides would subduct incredibly, compared to the Pacific, whose "zone" is half a planet away from the rift which is only overtly in the Southern Pacific.

 

Finally, an oceanic plate going under a continent.

 

Please don't yell.

 

If a continent is mostly granite 2.5 and basalt, a 3.0 in the ocean 1.0, it must displace into the astenosphere to float the continent. So, a continent is about 30 miles thick. The oceanic plate is about 4 miles thick. The oceanic plate would have to dive 15 miles straight down to get under the continent. Why do I say straight down? When continents originally pull apart, they too crack straight down. Not because I say it. It simply is the case. Think of it as a dog trying to swim under a hippo, while they're both sunk in mud.

 

Read your notes please. In one paragraph, you record subduction is caused by riding down from higher elevations. If the very next two paragraphs you record the plate is "pulled down in "trench suction".

 

Trench suction? What could possibly make the suction? There must be a vacated void to form suction.

 

I mean no offence, but this is simply not good science.

 

Earth's rifts and spreads and no part of any ocean anywhere on earth is older than 180 million years old. I must tell you it takes my breath away that this is a fact. No ocean.....anywhere.

 

Shallow seas on the land...yes, gone now..drained into the widening oceans. Blows me away.

[Rip]

So do you have a favorite comic story?

Don't worry I'll get to you.......

I know both you guys are still here.

[Michael Netzer]

The incredible force is right here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Sources_of_plate_motion

Gravity.

Plate motion is driven by the higher elevation of plates at mid-ocean ridges. Essentially stuff slides downhill.

 

Slab-pull Plate motion is driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking into the mantle at trenches.

Friction:

Trench suction: Local convection currents exert a downward frictional pull on plates in subduction zones at ocean trenches.

 

Does this help???

 

Yes, it helps very much. I'll backtrack a little and adress everything within the commentary below. Here's a reference from the source you cited above. I have broken up the text and commented on it along the way in bold text.

 

Quote:

 

Subduction discovered

 

A profound consequence of seafloor spreading is that new crust was, and is now, being continually created along the oceanic ridges. This idea found great favor with some scientists who claimed that the shifting of the continents can be simply explained by a large increase in size of the Earth since its formation. However, this so-called

 

So called? Here, the sacrasm begins.

 

"expanding Earth" hypothesis was unsatisfactory because its supporters could offer no convincing geologic mechanism to produce such a huge, sudden expansion

 

Who said anything about sudden? Why have the scientists twisted this theory and misrepresented it? Notice how this theory is being delegitimized. Now, just because they couldn't produce a mechanism which convinced the scientific community, they dismiss the evidence for this legitimate theory. They didn't want to be convinced that matter can be created in the Earth's core, so they resort to ridicule and delegitimization - and sadly, misrepresentation and deceipt.

 

Most geologists believe that the Earth has changed little, if at all, in size since its formation 4.6 billion years ago,

 

Why do they believe this? Are they scientists or superstitious idol worshippers basing their science on belief, instead of evidence.

 

raising a key question: how can new crust be continuously added along the oceanic ridges without increasing the size of the Earth?

 

This is a fabricated question. They fabricated a problem because they're stuck in the dark ages of science which purports an unreasonable assumption that matter can't be created, even though all evidence points to the fact that it has been created and can very well be created gradually and can continue to be created. Because they don't understand the mechanism, they say it's impossible. As scientists, I'd think they'd leave this possibility open and search for evidence of matter being created in the universe, before throwing out this theory. If they'd done so, they'd have realized that perhaps the universe is expanding because it is growing. Because new matter is still being created as it was in the beginning

 

This question particularly intrigued Harry H. Hess, a Princeton University geologist and a Naval Reserve Rear Admiral, and Robert S. Dietz, a scientist with the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey who first coined the term seafloor spreading. Dietz and Hess were among the small handful who really understood the broad implications of sea floor spreading.

 

Really understood the broad implications of sea floor spreading? Don't they mean, that they really understood how to present an alternative theory? Notice how this pair became a champion because their alternative theory allows the scientific community to remain snug in not addressing the issue of creation of matter and continue to ridicule the group of expansionist scientists.

 

If the Earth's crust was expanding along the oceanic ridges, Hess reasoned, it must be shrinking elsewhere.

 

Why would he reason such a forced assessment. This is deceiptful. It could be expanding along the ridges causing the Earth to grow. Again, notice the snugness and dismissal of clear evidence to the contrary - regardless of whether they yet have an answer to where the matter comes from. These scientists cannot accept a simple human trait that they may not know everything about the creation of matter

 

I ask a simple question here. After thousands of years, why do these scientists not account for an ongoing discovery process? Why can they not accept that they may not yet have all the answers? Why do they choose to ignore looking in the proper place for the answer to whether the creation of matter is an ongoing process? This is a primordeal question and they dismiss it because they refuse to look at what the evidence is saying. So, they ridicule and ex-communicate their peers who are looking at the clear evidence before them.

 

He suggested that new oceanic crust continuously spread away from the ridges in a conveyor belt-like motion. Many millions of years later, the oceanic crust eventually descends into the oceanic trenches -- very deep, narrow canyons along the rim of the Pacific Ocean basin. According to Hess, the Atlantic Ocean was expanding while the Pacific Ocean was shrinking. As old oceanic crust was consumed in the trenches, new magma rose and erupted along the spreading ridges to form new crust. In effect, the ocean basins were perpetually being "recycled," with the creation of new crust and the destruction of old oceanic lithosphere occurring simultaneously.

 

Well! Quite a concept there. The mind is a fickle thing indeed. Recycle the ocean floor and ignore the evidence for expansion. How imaginative!

 

 

Thus, Hess' ideas neatly explained why the Earth does not get bigger with sea floor spreading, why there is so little sediment accumulation on the ocean floor, and why oceanic rocks are much younger than continental rocks.

 

Neatly? Indeed! According to this, Hess was only interested in explaining why the Earth does not get bigger with sea spreading. He was not interested in explaining that the sea ridges are strong evidence that the sea floor was growing. He was only interested in concoting a mechanism which proved otherwise because these scientists believed that if they did not yet know about the mechanism within which matter is created, it must not exist! They are snug gods, after all, these scientists. They will fabricate anything in order to cover up for their human fallabilities!

 

Their theory of subduction is full of many fallacies. It is based on assumptions of tectonic plate movements over millions of years which are undetectable. It purports that solid rocks behave like liquid. It is outlandishly unreasonable for gravity to cause the less dense slabs to push through these trenches they concocted.

 

All this, only in order to avoid the simple issue: Is the creation of matter an ongoing process - or not?

 

It's time for the scientific community to look at this issue and face it with head bowed, at the house of cards they've built in avoiding it.

 

The house of cards is about to come down.

[Rip]

Did you really address anything I wrote...

Or even counter with a single source??

I'm still looking for something.

All you really stated was "No I don't believe it" Its outlandish....

Go back and address and counter my last post with something.

 

Did you address the problem with Adams map yet?

 

Anyway whats your favorite comic story? I'm getting tired its late. Hulk say Head hurt...

[Silver Surfer]

This would be a perfect time for one of Old Guy's famous quotes like "sometimes I light my farts on fire".

[Michael Netzer]

Anyway whats your favorite comic story? I'm getting tired its late. Hulk say Head hurt...

 

The story which most left an impression on me as a child was Kirby's New Gods trilogy, the first year or so, as one story.

 

It's still a high favorite, though I've cultivated a love for so many others since. I love the Deadmans telling of the raw search for justice, Steranko was able to squeeze some of the best out of Stan Lee and Frank Miller knocked me out with Dark Knight. There's so much delectible storytelling in the comics. The films can rarely come near it.

 

Sleep well.

[Rip]

When I first saw Dark Knight I hated it. But as I got older I loved it. It was weird. Same thing with Moores Swamp Thing. I quit when Moore started. Later I realized Swamp Thing was just incredible.

Oh man Perfect combo of story and artwork.

But it seemed after Moore left Swamp Thing so powerful it seemed like they had difficulty with the story telling.