COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

[Ze-man]

Thanks be to L. Ron for Google.

 

I had no idea who Matt was for a while there.

 

Thanks for the tip. I figured it was a board in-joke!

 

Jack

 

Matt-- Matt, Matt, Matt--

 

 

No. No. Abs-- Matt, that is-- the-- post-- now-- now, you're talking about two different things.

[Aman619]

so wait, we're positing that the Earth grows somehow? what, am i to believe that magma is the second substance on earth that can expand when it cools, the other being water?

 

I think part of the growth comes from all the space dust the Earth has collided into over the millennia. Just think of your garage after a year or two!

[mrwoogieman]

Thanks be to L. Ron for Google.

 

I had no idea who Matt was for a while there.

 

Thanks for the tip. I figured it was a board in-joke!

 

Jack

 

Matt-- Matt, Matt, Matt--

 

 

No. No. Abs-- Matt, that is-- the-- post-- now-- now, you're talking about two different things.

 

Okay. So, now you look at-- and you go okay. A-- a departure from that ideal scene is someone taking drugs, okay. And then you go, okay. What is the theory and the science behind that, that justifies that?

[shrunkenhead]

And there IS a deeply entrenched scientific leaning towards closing ranks against outsiders who who question their accepted tenets.

 

 

I don't entirely agree with this, as scientific conferences happen just about every given week in this country alone, and people on all levels of the social strata can and do attend.

 

But let's just assume you're right....can you seriously blame the "closing of ranks" when scientists are forever barraged with this tripe? What is the scientific community supposed to do, open the doors as wide as can be for every loon with half an idea? How'd we get anything done at all in a situation like that?

 

Part of what goes into being a good scientist (or a good scholar of any stripe) is the possession of a healthy amount of skepticism (that's skepticism, not cynicism). If Mr. Adams was a scientist or a theorist worth his salt he wouldn't even be talking up this theory at this stage in the game. There'd be no internet sites, no hijacking of comiczone, no nothing. Not yet, anyways. He'd be doing a lot more research, alone, quietly, in a room somewhere. No real scientist is going to come off half-cocked with this kind of stuff.

 

I can't even believe we're having this discussion in reference to a guy on comiczone, for god's sakes. I mean, consider the source, people. This is just one small half-step above a hare krishna at the airport passing out leaflets.

[shrunkenhead]

After my earlier posts, I kinda feel the need to also add that I am not some unflinching believer in the almighty metanarrative that is "modern science." Sure, there are a GREAT many problems with so many current scientific attitudes.

 

I just have an even bigger problem with the Adams-type wack-a-doos.

[Aman619]

And there IS a deeply entrenched scientific leaning towards closing ranks against outsiders who who question their accepted tenets.

 

 

I don't entirely agree with this, as scientific conferences happen just about every given week in this country alone, and people on all levels of the social strata can and do attend.

 

But let's just assume you're right....can you seriously blame the "closing of ranks" when scientists are forever barraged with this tripe? What is the scientific community supposed to do, open the doors as wide as can be for every loon with half an idea? How'd we get anything done at all in a situation like that?

 

Part of what goes into being a good scientist (or a good scholar of any stripe) is the possession of a healthy amount of skepticism (that's skepticism, not cynicism). If Mr. Adams was a scientist or a theorist worth his salt he wouldn't even be talking up this theory at this stage in the game. There'd be no internet sites, no hijacking of comiczone, no nothing. Not yet, anyways. He'd be doing a lot more research, alone, quietly, in a room somewhere. No real scientist is going to come off half-cocked with this kind of stuff.

 

I can't even believe we're having this discussion in reference to a guy on comiczone, for god's sakes. I mean, consider the source, people. This is just one small half-step above a hare krishna at the airport passing out leaflets.

 

not only scientists close ranks against heretics, nearly ALL professions do. They are just protecting their turf. Human nature. And they have studied and actually do believe strongly in their scientific givens.

 

But Im thinking this situation Neal is facing is similar to the battle David Hockney is waging against the Art History entrenched Academia. Hockney as posited that the Old Masters actually CHEATED! They used lenses to project scened directly onto their canvases and traced the outlines. This explains the sudden exponential leap in Photo-realistic painting during the Renaissance. Up til now, academics have agreed that these artists (Caravvaggio, Titian, etc I forget the list) ere merely possessed with untofore astounding levels of painting talent that enabled them to paint with photographic accuracy.

 

To date he has proved his case with those with an open mind. But the "serious, learned" leaders who make a good living TEACHING about art as opposed to MAKING it have fought him tooth and nail every step of the way.

 

one of many articles on the subject... he used to have a site up but a quick search didnt find it.

[shrunkenhead]

 

To date he has proved his case with those with an open mind. But the "serious, learned" leaders who make a good living TEACHING about art as opposed to MAKING it have fought him tooth and nail every step of the way.

 

one of many articles on the subject... he used to have a site up but a quick search didnt find it.

 

Yeah, I remember that hockney story. I don't really feel one way or the other about it, though I think you're misrepresenting that article you posted. Seems like nobody's calling the projections "cheating" (see the last paragraph).

 

My contention with your argument has to do with your placement of "people with open mind" on one side of the fence and "academics" on the other. These arent' mutually exclusive categories, and I feel that you're perpetuating an urban legend/stereotype about academics that ranks as high as the one about college professors making a lot of money (believe me, they don't).

 

Believe it or not, their are a lot of open minded academics out there. And the ""teaching" vs. "making" art comparison rubs me the wrong way, too. You're suggesting that intellectual activity isn't activity, and I couldn't disagree more. Just one more example as to how scholars and teachers get absolutely no respect in the USA. Thinking isn't an art form? Well, that just smacks of anti-intellectualism to me. The ability to pass on knowledge to another isn't an art form? Hmm...yeah, we're just not going to agree here.

 

I'm not saying there's no such thing as a snobby academic. But I'd wager that you'll find twenty of that type in the movies for every one you find in real life.

[Aman619]

Yeah, I remember that hockney story. I don't really feel one way or the other about it, though I think you're misrepresenting that article you posted. Seems like nobody's calling the projections "cheating" (see the last paragraph).

 

I didnt even read that article... I just grabbed a link to give you a sense of the discussion. I didnt know if you knew anything about it.

 

My contention with your argument has to do with your placement of "people with open mind" on one side of the fence and "academics" on the other. These arent' mutually exclusive categories, and I feel that you're perpetuating an urban legend/stereotype about academics that ranks as high as the one about college professors making a lot of money (believe me, they don't).

 

again, less my opinion, than me writing quickly. Im like you as seeing both sides but being put off by Neals approach a bit. I certainly have far too little knowledge to even have an opinion on how the continents got this way.

 

Believe it or not, their are a lot of open minded academics out there. And the ""teaching" vs. "making" art comparison rubs me the wrong way, too. You're suggesting that intellectual activity isn't activity, and I couldn't disagree more. Just one more example as to how scholars and teachers get absolutely no respect in the USA. Thinking isn't an art form? Well, that just smacks of anti-intellectualism to me. The ability to pass on knowledge to another isn't an art form? Hmm...yeah, we're just not going to agree here.

 

I'm not saying there's no such thing as a snobby academic. But I'd wager that you'll find twenty of that type in the movies for every one you find in real life.

 

of course there are good teachers etc etc.. Just generalizations. I went to a Hockney presentation and actually got into a discussion with one because I was so thoroughly convinced that I was fascinated to learn what his reasons for denying it were. He had a total mental block about Hockneys discoveries. He was pompous and condescending.... and probably never held a paintbrush since kindergarten. SO how could he ever 'get' how an artsits thinks of his tools, and how and when to use them.

 

This too was one of the stronger arguments for their use of the "camera lucida", or lenses. To save time and get better likenesses without tying up the royals and rich by forcing them to sit for hours and days. All artists in ALL eras use tools to save time and help the work. They arent such "purists" as academics and other romantic observers tend to think of those whose works thay admire..

[Rip]

I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen ole' Neal come over here.

I've heard he's been known to strongly defend his believes.

[Aman619]

maybe Michael will entice him to stop by and check in with us.

[Rip]

[Michael Netzer]

If Mr. Adams was a scientist or a theorist worth his salt he wouldn't even be talking up this theory at this stage in the game. There'd be no internet sites, no hijacking of comiczone, no nothing. Not yet, anyways. He'd be doing a lot more research, alone, quietly, in a room somewhere. No real scientist is going to come off half-cocked with this kind of stuff.

 

Is that to say that a scientist worth his salt would first conclude his discovery alone before sharing it with his community? That involving others in the discovery process is a sign of not being worth your salt?

 

Seems to me, that part of Neal's research depends on the knowledge that him and others are gaining through the community debate. There are many researchers with academic credentials participating in those discussions. We are mind beings, after all, and we do feed off of each other and can grow in knowledge together.

 

Einstein was thought to be a crackpot for the first half of his life, at least. It didn't deter him or his work. Thus was the course of most true discoverers of history. Imagine how odd Franklin looked to his peers while attempting to fly a kite in a storm. Seems to me, a real scientist would be willing to step out on a ledge if he believed that by exposing his research process and involving others in it, he'd be able to advance it. A scientist who closes himself off in a room for fear of presenting incomplete research may never actually advance enough alone to be able to finish his work.

 

I don't understand why such a joint wide-scale research venture is scoffed at. It takes a certain amount of confidence in his work, for Neal to put it out for public and academic scrutiny in mid process.

 

It's one thing to cirticize his findings, but why ridicule his method?

[Michael Netzer]

maybe Michael will entice him to stop by and check in with us.

 

I've just sent him an email. If he has the time, I'm sure he'll consider it.

[goldust40]

It's one thing to cirticize his findings, but why ridicule his method?

 

As I understand it it's his methodology that doesn't add up or stand up to scientific scrutiny. These are THEORIES, after all, and unlike Einstein or Franklin, Adams is not a scientist. Some of his cronies may have academic credentials, but these are unspecified, nor are they (I must assume) leaders in their fields.

 

Many, many, many people have theories, and the fact remains that the scientific community cannot rely on faith, concensus or hypothesis when it comes to such things. As has been stated earlier in this thread, it needs facts and evidence to even begin committing itself to a rethink.

 

Since when could Adams be considered an authority on such matters? He's a comic artist, and is using his pre-eminence in his chosen profession to lecture people who probably aren't in the least bit interested about his pet subject. That's all. I consider it rather arrogant that he assumes that people would be interested.

[Michael Netzer]

As I understand it it's his methodology that doesn't add up or stand up to scientific scrutiny.

 

Then perhaps it's this type of scientific scrutiy that should be put to question.

 

These are THEORIES, after all, and unlike Einstein or Franklin, Adams is not a scientist.

 

Einstein's relativity is also only a theory, as is the overwhelming majority of discovery presented by the scientific community. If scientific scrutiny judges theory based on the standing of the source of the theory within the community, instead of based on the content and essense of the theory - the scientific community then appears to be more interested in bolstering an elitist closed club mentality than seeking true scientific discovery.

 

Some of his cronies may have academic credentials, but these are unspecified, nor are they (I must assume) leaders in their fields.

 

This type of ridicule, "cronies", and "following the leaders" reflects badly on scientists. Leaderships in any community can be corrupted and this type of "ousting from the community" and ex-communicating those who don't "follow the leaders" only strengthens the accusations of academic snobbery - and appear to give them legitimacy.

 

Many, many, many people have theories, and the fact remains that the scientific community cannot rely on faith, concensus or hypothesis when it comes to such things.

 

It takes a lot of faith in an unfounded theory such as Pangea, to stand behind it, if you ask me. The majority of scientific theory is founded on faith, actually. Sadly, the main difference appears to be the psychological deception and strongarming tactics by the holders of power in the scientific community. Not everyone is intimidated by all these, thankfully. I believe that the snobbish powerful elite in the scientific world need more people like Neal who have the courage to call their bluff.

 

As has been stated earlier in this thread, it needs facts and evidence to even begin committing itself to a rethink.

 

There is so much evidence and facts before our eyes for Neal's theory, which is being ignored by the pompous scientists detracting from it with their snobbery and ridicule of his academic background that I wonder what type of evidence and facts are these incompetent elitists looking for. Let's hear them address the issues and theories and stop attacking him personally - then they may be able to regain some of the respect they blindly demand.

 

Since when could Adams be considered an authority on such matters?

 

Since when is that relevant? Since the academic community closed its club and gave out authority certificates? Allow me to suggest that we'd be better served to put aside the issue of authority and discuss the actual issues themselves. This authority you speak of, has unfortunately become a weapon of the class oppressors, I'm sorry to say. The actual research is what should stand before the scrutiny and not the authority of those who espouse it.

 

It's as if the scinetists would have us believe that they wish to discover who is the most authoritative - and not how the universe actually works.

 

He's a comic artist, and is using his pre-eminence in his chosen profession to lecture people who probably aren't in the least bit interested about his pet subject.

 

Why were people interested in hearing a movie actor like Reagan talking about politics? Or an artist like Davinci taking about inventing a helicopter? It's a weak argument, I'd say.

 

I consider it rather arrogant that he assumes that people would be interested.

 

I agree with you on this. It is arrogant. I suppose, though, in a world such as ours, some arrogance may be needed in order to fend off the other arrogance which is holding us back. Perhaps the clash of arrogance from two opposing forces will give birth to new discovery, in this case.

[goldust40]

Michael, I respect your opinions, although I feel your reply was far more about politics than anything that would back up Adams' actual or apparent scientific notions.

 

Secondly, science and faith are, or at least should be, diametrically opposed. To generalize about the scientific community to the extent that all theories are fashionable and/or belief based is too simplistic. Just because Adams' theories are not widely accepted doesn't necessarily mean there is a cabal of elitist martinets whose sole intent is to prevent change and crush original thought. And him. Adams is not a martyr.

 

Also there is theory and technology. You claim that Adams' theories deserve exposure, but in what way does it engender humanity's progress to constantly declaim ones' beliefs at any given opportunity whatsoever?? All it does is destroy credibility and make Adams appear to be no more than a fanatic.

 

Remember, this is about context. As has been said before, a comic show ain't the place.

[joe_collector]

Einstein was thought to be a crackpot for the first half of his life, at least. It didn't deter him or his work. Thus was the course of most true discoverers of history. Imagine how odd Franklin looked to his peers while attempting to fly a kite in a storm.

 

I always find it amusing when people bring up the incredibly rare exceptions to the rule, rather than making far more apt comparisons to the millions of crackpots throughout history, who put forth looney idea after looney idea, all of which went absolutely no where.

 

Instead, it's always Einstein this, and Einstein that..

[shrunkenhead]

 

Secondly, science and faith are, or at least should be, diametrically opposed. To generalize about the scientific community to the extent that all theories are fashionable and/or belief based is too simplistic. Just because Adams' theories are not widely accepted doesn't necessarily mean there is a cabal of elitist martinets whose sole intent is to prevent change and crush original thought. And him. Adams is not a martyr.

 

 

Thanks for summing it up better than I did, GD.

 

You're absolutely right. The Adams' of the world often use this rigmarole about a scientific elite as a way to justify the most absurd claims. "They reject me because I'm not one of them," yadda yadda. This is an easy way out for some; there was a similar debate in the humanities years ago about Bacon being Shakespeare. Those who put the theory forth were generally not traditional academics, and they claimed that they were being deliberately snubbed by the academic community "just because." Which was of course complete cr*p, as nobody was doing anything of the kind. The theory simply didn't hold water, and was predicated on some very offensive suggestions (i.e. Shakespeare was too poor to be brilliant).

 

Look, people can cry to the heavens about not being one of the club and being a misunderstood genius, blah blah blah.....but most people know better than to buy it. I'd venture that those who perpetuate this myth about a hermetic society of academics have never ventured to meet any of the experts. It's not that hard folks, it's called "office hours." Usually a visit to a "scientific expert's" university office does not meet with brutual opposition, armed guards, or even a mocking attitude.

 

And how can anyone say that the source is irrelevant? Again, more dancing around the issue. Why not just publish a researched work of nonfiction and not include the footnotes? It doesn't matter where you got your information, only what you have to say, right?

 

And GD is also right that context is everything. If Adams didn't want to come off as a kook, he could've found a better venue. I recently saw Herschell Gordon Lewis give a talk, yet somehow he didn't feel compelled to discuss his role in the field of junk mail (in which he's the expert). Instead, he was happy to actually discuss his movies with people who got enjoyment from them without putting on airs and saying "but I also know this!" Look at me, ma.

[Batfiend-migration]

What is so funny with you guys is that this thread started out complaining because he spent 30 minutes of his hour not talking about comics and now 12 pages later you all are still pontificating about these beliefs and your own personal views of them. Doesn't anybody find this even slightly ironic.

 

So I say to you all, please don't say anything else unless it is about a comic book.

[selegue]

Einstein was thought to be a crackpot for the first half of his life, at least. It didn't deter him or his work. ...

 

I always find it amusing when people bring up the incredibly rare exceptions to the rule, rather than making far more apt comparisons to the millions of crackpots throughout history, who put forth looney idea after looney idea, all of which went absolutely no where.

 

Instead, it's always Einstein this, and Einstein that..

 

Odd, isn't it?

And where do people get this idea about Einstein?

Sorry for the long quotation following, but defending a crackpot idea by comparison to Einstein is total BS!

 

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html

(with a few comments inserted)

 

Albert Einstein was born at Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany, on March 14, 1879. Six weeks later the family moved to Munich and he began his schooling there at the Luitpold Gymnasium. Later, they moved to Italy and Albert continued his education at Aarau, Switzerland and in 1896 he entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, the year he gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree.

 

Diploma at 22, doctorate at 26.

 

*Landmark* paper #1 in that year:

In 1905 Einstein founded a kinetic theory to account for this movement by means of which he derived the chief properties of suspensions, i.e. liquids with solid particles suspended in them.

 

*Landmark* paper #2 in that year:

In 1905 Einstein examined the photoelectric effect. .... By 1906 Einstein had correctly guessed that energy changes occur in a quantum material oscillator in changes in jumps which are multiples of planckv where planck is Planck's reduced constant and v is the frequency. Einstein received the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics, in 1922, for this work on the photoelectric effect.

 

The major discoveries are about 1/3 through his lifespan. The Nobel prize is about 1/2 through his lifespan. Is that consistent with the claim, "Einstein was thought to be a crackpot for the first half of his life, at least."

 

During his stay at the Patent Office, and in his spare time, he produced much of his remarkable work and in 1908 he was appointed Privatdozent in Berne. In 1909 he became Professor Extraordinary at Zurich, in 1911 Professor of Theoretical Physics at Prague, returning to Zurich in the following year to fill a similar post. In 1914 he was appointed Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and Professor in the University of Berlin.

 

A chaired professor at a major university at 30. Highly sought by other univesities for the next 5 years.

 

He became a German citizen in 1914 and remained in Berlin until 1933 when he renounced his citizenship for political reasons and emigrated to America to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton*. He became a United States citizen in 1940 and retired from his post in 1945.

 

After World War II, Einstein was a leading figure in the World Government Movement, he was offered the Presidency of the State of Israel, which he declined, and he collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

 

Einstein always appeared to have a clear view of the problems of physics and the determination to solve them. He had a strategy of his own and was able to visualize the main stages on the way to his goal. He regarded his major achievements as mere stepping-stones for the next advance.

 

At the start of his scientific work, Einstein realized the inadequacies of Newtonian mechanics and his special theory of relativity stemmed from an attempt to reconcile the laws of mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field. He dealt with classical problems of statistical mechanics and problems in which they were merged with quantum theory: this led to an explanation of the Brownian movement of molecules. He investigated the thermal properties of light with a low radiation density and his observations laid the foundation of the photon theory of light.

 

In his early days in Berlin, Einstein postulated that the correct interpretation of the special theory of relativity must also furnish a theory of gravitation and in 1916 he published his paper on the general theory of relativity. During this time he also contributed to the problems of the theory of radiation and statistical mechanics.

 

*Landmark* paper #3 at the age of 37

 

In the 1920's, Einstein embarked on the construction of unified field theories, although he continued to work on the probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory, and he persevered with this work in America. He contributed to statistical mechanics by his development of the quantum theory of a monatomic gas and he has also accomplished valuable work in connection with atomic transition probabilities and relativistic cosmology.

 

After his retirement he continued to work towards the unification of the basic concepts of physics, taking the opposite approach, geometrisation, to the majority of physicists.

 

Einstein's researches are, of course, well chronicled and his more important works include Special Theory of Relativity (1905), Relativity (English translations, 1920 and 1950), General Theory of Relativity (1916), Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement (1926), and The Evolution of Physics (1938). Among his non-scientific works, About Zionism (1930), Why War? (1933), My Philosophy (1934), and Out of My Later Years (1950) are perhaps the most important.

 

Albert Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many European and American universities. During the 1920's he lectured in Europe, America and the Far East and he was awarded Fellowships or Memberships of all the leading scientific academies throughout the world. He gained numerous awards in recognition of his work, including the Copley Medal of the Royal Society of London in 1925, and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

 

Einstein's gifts inevitably resulted in his dwelling much in intellectual solitude and, for relaxation, music played an important part in his life. He married Mileva Maric in 1903 and they had a daughter and two sons; their marriage was dissolved in 1919 and in the same year he married his cousin, Elsa Löwenthal, who died in 1936. He died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, New Jersey.

 

From Nobel Lectures, Physics 1901-1921, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1967

 

This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and later published in the book series Les Prix Nobel/Nobel Lectures. The information is sometimes updated with an addendum submitted by the Laureate. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above.