• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

474 posts in this topic

Gotta agree with ya Netzer.

I have always admired people who are at least passionate about something, I may not always agree or even understand them. But hey right or wrong.. at least they are doing something they believe in.

And I sure know better then to laugh off someone as a crackpot until I know for certain I can prove them wrong, as you said.. it does take a wee bit of time and a few brain cells to really grasp what Neal is slingin. Let alone refute it soundly.

It did amaze me the amount of time he has spent with these topics, and I think most here are just a bit bent because he would rather discuss tectonic plates then discuss Deadman.

Both have a valid place in a conversation with him, his bread was buttered by comics, but he seems the type of guy that just talks about what he wants to talk about,regardless of the question posed to him.

That is what I think people take offense to.

 

Welcome to the boards, ( gossip.gif there is a typo on your TIME cover, Approval is spelled wrong.

flowerred.gif

 

Ze-

 

 

27_laughing.gif.. Aman... here ya go.. CG movies and everything

NealAdams.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But people are fickle and not always in a sarcastic mood. Sometimes people take things seriously, especially when it referrs to them. Imagine if Neal was to pop into this board for example.

 

The majority of the board members would have their faces so wedged up his a*s*s so quickly it would make his head spin. The one sure thing in life (besides death and taxes) is the sheer hypocrisy of a lot of the posters here, none of whom have any beliefs of their own. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but jeeez mIke - -- you're pixellated too!!! SO of course Neal makes sense? : )

 

Of course I'm pixelated, just like everybody else. I'm very high rez, though.

 

The continents are 4 billion years older than the seabottom? Which sea bottom, the ULTIMATE sea bottom under the last 4 billion years of sediment? Has anyone aged THAT sea bottom? Where can I read up on Neal's science project. Ive heard tell some stuff, but not seen any pages...

 

Alright, I'll bite on this. But I'm just scratching the surface here.

 

Geologists and scientists, in trying to come up with a theory for why some of the continents seem to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, spent nearly the entire decade of the 60's sending out expeditions to measure the age of the ocean floor. After 10 years of intensive work they finished their job, measuring almost every square kilometer of all the ocean floor. They discovered that no part of the ocean floor is more that 180 Million years old, while at certain rift lines it was about 1 Million years old. Here's the map they made.

 

crusty.jpg

 

This caused a great mystery. The continetal crust, the continents which we live on, are 3-5 BILLION years old. The question was, how can this be? If there was no ocean floor 200 Million years ago, what was there?

 

So they started coming up with this weird theory in order to explain this. They called it Pangea and supported it with another weird theory which they called Subduction.

 

This wacky pangea theory builds on the idea of tectonic plate movements and says that all the continents were once plastered togeher as one land mass on one side of the planet. That explains why they fit together. This land mass broke apart and pieces of it drifted around the planet, crashing into each other and then came to rest in the formation they're in today. According to this theory, they still move around a little.

 

The problem with this theory was how the continents could move on the ocean floor. Because the continents have stumps or roots which go deep into the earth, like a tooth in the gums. They then imagined this wacky theory of Subduction with which to also explain why the ocean floor is so young. The theory says that the upper plates of the ocean floor sink or subduct into the molten magma deep under them and new magma comes out to make a new ocean floor. When this happens, it gives way for the continents to move into where the maga is on the surface and travel from one side of the planet to the other.

 

Neal heard all this while he was young in the 60's and thought something was wacky about this idea of Pangea and Subduction. So he started studying it and found out that it's full of a lot of plot holes. For example, by the laws of physics a granite slab , which is what the ocean floor is made of, can't sink into the center of the earth unless something pushes it down very hard. Because the magma under the slab is much denser. It's like pushing a cork into a cup of water.

 

Another problem was that there are NO signs of subduction in the ocean floor along the lines where the continents drifted from the Pangea formation. Neal basically came to a conclusion that there's something wrong in how we're thinking about the whole thing. So he studied it for 30 years and has gained a lot of knowledge and understanding about it.

 

By thinking about it like an artist, he comes to conclusions that some academics can't. Artists learn early in life to figure out how things work. They have to in order to draw them convincingly. Neal applied this thinking to how our world works.

 

His conclusion was that the earth's core, and most planets, are a closed cauldron of atomic fusion and processes which create matter. The planet begins small, from the simplest sub-atomic particles and gathers atoms until it and grows until it's a closed meteor like rock which has a burning hydrogen core where new matter is made spontaneously. The rock grows from the inside and becomes big.

 

According to his theory, the Earth grew to about a third it's size today and formed an outer crust which hardened and was mostly covered with water. When it grew more, the outer crust broke apart and new matter came up from the center which formed the ocean floor we have today. The water then flowed into the lower ocean floor and that's when mamall life on Earth began to florish.

 

That's why, if you just take the continents and place them on a ball a third the size of the earth, they fit together perfectly, covering it completely.

 

What I'm saying is that science has a problem with this because they have theories which this goes against. Such as relativity. Well, matter being constant is also just a theory which could be wrong. Does it really make sense that all this matter in the universe had to come into being sometime but it suddenly stopped and it doesn't happen anymore. There is no real conclusive proof for a lot of scientific theory.

 

I believe that we can understand things if we use our imagination a little. That's why we have it. Scientists can learn a lot more about the world by excercising their imagination instead of sticking to classroom books and academia.

 

That's what Neal's project is partly about. Look at his website www.nealadams.com under the science project link to read about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta agree with ya Netzer.

I have always admired people who are at least passionate about something, I may not always agree or even understand them. But hey right or wrong.. at least they are doing something they believe in.

And I sure know better then to laugh off someone as a crackpot until I know for certain I can prove them wrong, as you said.. it does take a wee bit of time and a few brain cells to really grasp what Neal is slingin. Let alone refute it soundly.

It did amaze me the amount of time he has spent with these topics, and I think most here are just a bit bent because he would rather discuss tectonic plates then discuss Deadman.

Both have a valid place in a conversation with him, his bread was buttered by comics, but he seems the type of guy that just talks about what he wants to talk about,regardless of the question posed to him.

That is what I think people take offense to.

 

Welcome to the boards, ( gossip.gif there is a typo on your TIME cover, Approval is spelled wrong.

flowerred.gif

 

Thanks, Ze. It's a nice forum, actually. A pretty good bunch. And thanks also for the typo. I'll fix it pronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a few people on here are missing the obvious point.

 

Neal Adams can think anything he likes about how the Earth came to be, how old the ocean floor is, or if little green men visited here millions of years ago. That is his right, and if he wants to appear on National Geographic and expound his views, or write an article for Scientific American, then go for it.

 

But when I tune into something called COMIC ZONE, I expect people to have some respect for the subject matter and not use it as some bizarre platform to moan and groan about their views on "how the Earth was formed".

 

It would be like Neal being invited to the Science Channel, and then droning on and on about Superheroes and Stan Lee. screwy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the board members would have their faces so wedged up his a*s*s so quickly it would make his head spin. The one sure thing in life (besides death and taxes) is the sheer hypocrisy of a lot of the posters here, none of whom have any beliefs of their own. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

I guess we can all be like that to some degree. I like to think we all can catch ourselves when we have to and make up for the time we spend clowning aroun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the board members would have their faces so wedged up his a*s*s so quickly it would make his head spin. The one sure thing in life (besides death and taxes) is the sheer hypocrisy of a lot of the posters here, none of whom have any beliefs of their own. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

I guess we can all be like that to some degree. I like to think we all can catch ourselves when we have to and make up for the time we spend clowning aroun.

 

uh, hey, i know it might have seemed like i was laughing at somebody, but...i don't really know anything about what the earth was like eighteen billion years ago, and truthfully, I used to care a lot more than i do now.

 

what's the point? can't prove anything to the point where everyone's gonna agree...and at the end of the day, i'm still gonna have to pay taxes, so why get all frothed about it...

 

actually, i just wanted to say "coffee and amphetimines" in a sentence. it's also the name of a half-decent Afghan Whigs tune, that band being the creator of what i consider the best alternative rock album of all time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanx Mike. That actually makes sense. However, you mentioned creating "new matter" in there. Is this what you really mean, or are you talking about liquid matter turning to solid matter? Because, as I understand my physics from long ago, matter cannot BE created. (The Law of Conservation of matter"... Einstein, right?) Matter can turn into energy, but not vice versa...

 

anyway, are there lots of other scientists on board with this theory? Or is Neal pulling all the water on it? And, one thing that suggests to me that Neal MIGHT be right is that in 30 years of study, if he hasnt come up with convincing truth that his theory ISNT right, maybe it's onto something...

 

but, I can see why some of the ocean floor is so young. These areas are closest to the vents where the magma comes out. And the floor is older the further away you go. So the floor surface is pushed further away as more magma emerges. but beyond that, Im lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a few people on here are missing the obvious point.

 

Neal Adams can think anything he likes about how the Earth came to be, how old the ocean floor is, or if little green men visited here millions of years ago. That is his right, and if he wants to appear on National Geographic and expound his views, or write an article for Scientific American, then go for it.

 

But when I tune into something called COMIC ZONE, I expect people to have some respect for the subject matter and not use it as some bizarre platform to moan and groan about their views on "how the Earth was formed".

 

It would be like Neal being invited to the Science Channel, and then droning on and on about Superheroes and Stan Lee. screwy.gif

 

I understand that completely. I wonder, though, why the producer invited him to talk about this. I don't think Neal surprised them with the subject and they could've asked him to stay on topic. Maybe because it's also a comics project they figured it'd be interesting to talk about the contents.

 

And I've rarely heard Neal moan and groan. He's actually a good speaker. I can understand that the subject doesn't interest everybody though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uh, hey, i know it might have seemed like i was laughing at somebody, but...i don't really know anything about what the earth was like eighteen billion years ago, and truthfully, I used to care a lot more than i do now.

 

what's the point? can't prove anything to the point where everyone's gonna agree...and at the end of the day, i'm still gonna have to pay taxes, so why get all frothed about it...

 

It's going to help us crack the secrets of gravity and help make flight rings that'll enable us to fly like Superman. Not to say anything about the flying cars, for the squeemish. No, really.

 

But I know that's boring and doesn't interest anyobody here.

 

actually, i just wanted to say "coffee and amphetimines" in a sentence. it's also the name of a half-decent Afghan Whigs tune, that band being the creator of what i consider the best alternative rock album of all time

 

Well coffee and amphetimines go well with something else Afgani that I had the pleasure of toking in my younger years. Must be a good band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But when I tune into something called COMIC ZONE, I expect people to have some respect for the subject matter and not use it as some bizarre platform to moan and groan about their views on "how the Earth was formed".

 

 

 

JC, take that up with Vincent. He is the host.

He landed Neal, I imagine it was not all that easy to arrange, knowing how Neal is what did you expect?

That is why ya tune in....

Vincent always asks a broad spectrum of questions to his guests, most of who are sooo saturated with comics .. they will jump at the chance to talk about ANYTHING else. And as a host it is his job to steer them in a direction.. obviously some are easier to manipulate then others

Even though many listeners wish the guest would just retell the story about how they inked a certain page, or some other insight into the books we all love.

 

The people behind the books are as intriguing as the books they actually made.

Even if sometimes that is not always what we want to hear.

 

I think that is as much a point of the show as anything.

 

 

Ze-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanx Mike. That actually makes sense. However, you mentioned creating "new matter" in there. Is this what you really mean, or are you talking about liquid matter turning to solid matter? Because, as I understand my physics from long ago, matter cannot BE created. (The Law of Conservation of matter"... Einstein, right?) Matter can turn into energy, but not vice versa...

 

I don't know what nut made up that law. Matter was created at some point. Scientists THEORIZE that it happened in a BIG BANG and then it stopped and somebody wrote a law that it can't be created anymore. Well, maybe matter likes to break the law, like J-walkers for example. Or maybe this law is just something somebody wrote and matter behaves under a law that no one has written yet.

 

The idea that new matter can be made from energy has been proven in scientific experiments, though. Look at this about Carl Anderson.

 

anyway, are there lots of other scientists on board with this theory? Or is Neal pulling all the water on it? And, one thing that suggests to me that Neal MIGHT be right is that in 30 years of study, if he hasnt come up with convincing truth that his theory ISNT right, maybe it's onto something...

 

Neal's not alone at all. Check this out.

 

but, I can see why some of the ocean floor is so young. These areas are closest to the vents where the magma comes out. And the floor is older the further away you go. So the floor surface is pushed further away as more magma emerges. but beyond that, Im lost.

 

What it means is that the ocean floor came into being gradually. It grew. And before it started growing, 180 million years ago, it wasn't there. But the continents were. That means that the earth was 1/3 its size today, minus the ocean floor. That means the earth grew

 

Just simple logic, it seems.

 

Now Einstein tells us this simple logic can't be true because he wrote a law that the earth can't grow.

 

Well, I'm wondering if the Earth needed Einstein's permission to grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no problem. Unless maybe we think about it and not just accept it because the scientists "know what they're talking about".

 

Plate tectonics is one thing. Plates shift, we know that.

 

Continental drift doesn't make sense, really. Continents can't drift as the pangea theory purports. The continents would have to plow the ocean floor to do that. The subduction theory for this is a problem because there are NO signs of subduction in the path that the pangea theory says the continents drifted.

 

That's the only problem Pangea is a fairy tale based on plate tectonics. It doesn't work, really. It couldn't have happened based on simple laws of physics. They came up with it to explain something which has another much less problematic explanation.

 

If the earth grew, that would explain why the continents fit together. It works much better. There's more evidence for it than pangea, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this what your looking for?

 

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

http://www.geo.ua.edu/intro03/Plate.html

confused-smiley-013.gif

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snider-Pellegrini_Wegener_fossil_map.gif

 

Also under the plate tectonics link there's a section explaining

 

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 "expanding Earth" hypothesis was unsatisfactory because its supporters could offer no convincing geologic mechanism to produce such a huge, sudden expansion. Most geologists believe that the Earth has changed little, if at all, in size since its formation 4.6 billion years ago, raising a key question: how can new crust be continuously added along the oceanic ridges without increasing the size of the Earth?

 

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

]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics]

 

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

 

Oceanic crust is composed of mafic basaltic rocks.

Most of the present day oceanic crust is less than 200 million years old because it is continuously being created at oceanic ridges and destroyed by being pulled back into the mantle in subduction zones by the processes of plate tectonics.

 

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

The relative low density keeps the continental crust from being re-cycled or subducted back into the mantle. For this reason the oldest rocks on Earth are within the continents rather than in repeatedly re-cycled oceanic crust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

weell, thanks to ZE I found Neals studies and spent the past hours or so watching the videos and reading the email discussions. Here are som eobservations:

 

1) Love the videos. Very convincing, especilaly the Mars video. Took me a while to realize Neal was doing the voiceover

 

2) boy, Neal is really into this stuff! Id love to lock him and Dave Sim in a hotel room and see who kills the other first as they go on and on wiht their all-encompassing theories!!

 

3) In Neals email back and forths with write-in geology students, doesnt he sound just like Hammer? I got the feeling he was gonna threaten to meet them in the middle of th enight somewhere and "straighten them out", and their professors too! He was tossing insults in a nice condescending way, but th esnarling was barely concealed.

 

4) my head hurts...

 

5) Neal still really likes Neal.... a LOT!! Imagine, he constructed those 3D bumblebees, all by himself(!) (as if he invented computerized 3D animation too!) and used that work to prove that he could conceptually understand his geology better than non-artistic scientists. (it's in the emails)

 

6) finally, I have no idea whether Neal's ideas on a growing Earth are valid, or whether, once again, a new theory is about to eclipse a long-accepted one. But its clear Neal think so - - - and you know what? I loved Neals Batman and Deadman comics growing up, so thats good enough for me!!!

 

Go Neal! Prove the basstids wrong, and get back and draw some comics again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He landed Neal, I imagine it was not all that easy to arrange, knowing how Neal is what did you expect?

 

Actually, I've heard that Neal ONLY agrees to these deals if a part of it can be devoted to his "scientific views". So I am assuming Metro knew the deal, and agreed to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense." - Carl Sagan

 

And as an antidote to all this particularly deep nonsense I recommend......

 

demonworld.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites