Chaos Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 here's some good related links:http://www.sciencewa.net.au/science_archive.asp?pg=30&NID=81http://www.expanding-earth.org/http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 Are you claiming that even geologists have abandoned subduction? Your support. No TeleMad, The continents fit in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic. They fit in the Artic Ocean, the Antartic Ocean, the Indian Ocean. They fit in exactly the same time frame all around the world, perfectly. Gentlemen. Out of courtesy, would one of you simply describe to TeleMad that which I cannot show him, so that I may be relieved in some small way from his ire. P.S. TeleMad, the sun spews out matter. Where is it? 100 M. tons per second for 5 billion years. No, geologist's discoveries have made defending subduction harder and harder. 1. If most of the asthenophere is solid, that's bad.2. If some of the oceanic plate is granite, and some not easily transmutable basalts, that's bad.3. If subduction can't happen at continents edge, that's bad.4. If the ocean floor grows exponentially, that's bad! No I haven't said geologists have abandoned subduction, on that day sir, all hell will break loose because the only remaining explanation will be a growing planet. They simply, day by day make it increasingly impossible to defend. Check my map on http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.htmlDid they make YOU aware of this exponential growth of the oceans? There is not one square yard of ancient ocean on this earth. Think of it. What are the odds that not one square yard is left. Impossible odds, sir. They've combed the oceans. Nothing. Well, there is ancient ocean bottoms..in Utah...Mississippi...Italy...China, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 Out of courtesy, would one of you simply describe to TeleMad that which I cannot show him, so that I may be relieved in some small way from his ire. It's not anyone else's job to support or explain your position; it's yours. You failed to do so, even when asked. Don't be a jerk and blame other people for your failures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 It's not anyone else's job to support or explain your position; it's yours. You failed to do so, even when asked. Don't be a jerk and blame other people for your failures. Dear TeleMad, I didn't blame anyone for anything except I will say the junkyard dog in this group turns out to be the one without broadband. Since I say the discussion depends on you being able to download my videos, why don't you get the hell out of this discussion until you upgrade, or your mail order common courtesy course comes in the mail and you learn how to indulge in a reasonable conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams: TeleMad, the sun spews out matter. Where is it? Most all of it? Not here on Earth. NAdams: No, geologist's discoveries have made defending subduction harder and harder. But those silly geologists still hold to subduction? I think I'm going to go with their professional, scientific consensus over your anti-science hypothesis. And, if your evidence were really as strong as you claim, scientists would have no choice but to discard their concept of subduction and accept "your" position: they don't. That tells us something. NAdams: Check my map on http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.htmlDid they make YOU aware of this exponential growth of the oceans? And? Let's assume your doctored map is accurate. If one accepts subduction then the rate of subduction would just have increased too. So what? Nadam: There is not one square yard of ancient ocean on this earth. Think of it. What are the odds that not one square yard is left. Impossible odds, sir. Impossible? Not if one accepts the scientific concept of subduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams: I didn't blame anyone for anything except I will say the junkyard dog in this group turns out to be the one without broadband. Which is completely irrelevant. If you are going to discuss a matter HERE, you need to present your case HERE. If you can't do that, then too bad for you. NAdams: Since I say the discussion depends on you being able to download my videos, ... So you can't present your case here. Fine, go away. NAdams: ... why don't you get the hell out of this discussion until you upgrade ... Dear NAdam, why the hell don't you present your case here? NAdams: ... or your mail order common courtesy course comes in the mail and you learn how to indulge in a reasonable conversation. Common courtesy? I asked you to present your case here and you refused. When does your common courtesy course come in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 here's some good related links:http://www.sciencewa.net.au/science_archive.asp?pg=30&NID=81http://www.expanding-earth.org/http://www.grisda.org/origins/15053.htm Link #1 is a fun article but is merely an assumption and not backed up by proof. Link #2 is a swashbuckling antiscientific website with absolutely no credibility. It assumes that there were no oceans on Earth at a timescale of merely a few hundred million years ago, which is in collision with just about every observation made by geologists. We have evidence of oceans going back almost 4 billion years. Just putting together the continents and assuming that there was no ocean is folly - there is too much water on the Earth to assume it can have all arrived here withing such a short timespan. Link #3 is a discussion of problems with plate tectonics and also the expanding Earth theory and does not conclude with anything at all. The size of the Earth may well be changing, but plate tectonics (and the related continental drift theory) explain what we observe very well. As for whether planetary growth should have any impact on humanity - it is not likely. Our civilization is less than 10,000 years old, or species less than a few million and we are not likely to survive as a species for more than another few million at best. Planetary growth would not affect us. I grant that it is interesting to look at different ideas but the "growing earth" theory is neither new nor well founded, scientifically - it is, as TeleMad points out, a well known Creationist argument and bears very little support from the scientific observations made in the labs and the field. That a small Earth was good for the dinosaurs, but that they would be crushed today, is a humorous prospect at best. That mountain ranges are formed by tectonics is well proven, and that mountains are eroded by wind and ice is also well-proven. I happen to live in a country where we have glorious fjords surrounded by fantastic mountains thanks to glacial activity during the past ice ages. Someone mentioned sea shells on mountain tops. It is well known that continents rise and sink, so this should no longer be a surprise to anyone. I would like to suggest the book "Earth: An intimate history http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/sim-explorer/explore-items/-/0375406263/0/101/1/none/purchase/ref%3Dpd%5Fsxp%5Fr0/002-4456365-8212857" which is a marvellous read on the history of our planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 Which is completely irrelevant. If you are going to discuss a matter HERE, you need to present your case HERE. If you can't do that, then too bad for you. So you can't present your case here. Fine, go away. Dear NAdam, why the hell don't you present your case here? Common courtesy? I asked you to present your case here and you refused. When does your common courtesy course come in? TeleMad, Ah. Nay saying. Petulance. Ignoring of any point. The example of history and the about-facing of long-held, even short-held principles have no place in your mind. I see. Reasoned discourse. Proofs, nothing will sway you, of course. Science will change, like you, if they see reason. Quite so, ah. As ever. Sure, rate of subduction increased. No further thought in that regard? It's just doubled...And redoubled: and exactly what force redoubled it, sir? Just for discussion? No, if one accepts subduction, there should be many areas of ancient undersea. What you say is preposterous. You should call them and tell them to give up their search. It's not necessary. You know they're right. That's enough. You are nay saying and have nothing to really say except the status quo is correct. What contribution do you make to any discussion to new thought at all, sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams, before you go off on a tangent with TeleMad, let me remind you that this is a science forum and that you have provided a theory which is well founded on Creationist ideas. That your ideas are opposed is neither surprising nor unwanted. TeleMad has asked you questions which you need to address by using something else than your movies. Did they make YOU aware of this exponential growth of the oceans? Oh my. Who are "they", now? Are you suggesting there is some kind of conspiracy going on? There is not one square yard of ancient ocean on this earth. Think of it. What are the odds that not one square yard is left. Impossible odds, sir. Well, there is ancient ocean bottoms..in Utah...Mississippi...Italy...China, etc. I don't know what this is supposed to mean. The water we have today is the same we have had since the planet was formed and comets started bombarding it. However, subduction explains very well what you try to explain away, and I have so far not seen any evidence from you that it does not happen. There is however plenty of evidence that it happens. It is *directly observable* which makes it easy to study. http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_12.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 No, if one accepts subduction, there should be many areas of ancient undersea. Why? Subduction brings the ocean floor into the grind and rejoins it with the magma below. Your missing ancient seabeds are today's continents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 So where did all the water come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams, maybe you'll be interested in this. “We report on a marine seismic survey that images an active accretionary wedge west of Gibraltar. Ramp thrusts offset the seafloor and sole out to an east-dipping décollement, indicating ongoing westward-vergent tectonic shortening. New traveltime tomographic results image a slab of oceanic lithosphere descending from the Atlantic domain of the Gulf of Cadiz, passing through intermediate-depth (60–120 km) seismicity beneath the westernmost Alboran Sea, and merging with a region of deep-focus earthquakes 600–660 km below Granada, Spain. Together, these new data provide compelling evidence for an active east-dipping subduction zone. “ (Geology; December 2002; v. 30; no. 12; p. 1071-1074; Evidence for active subduction beneath Gibraltar, M.-A. Gutscher1, J. Malod1, J.-P. Rehault1, I. Contrucci, F. Klingelhoefer, L. Mendes-Victor and W. Spakman) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 So where did all the water come from? This is off topic, but here is a quick response:http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=619 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams, gotta question for you. Okay, you say all these tons of matter from the Sun, each year, have been accumulating on Earth's surface for hundreds of millions of years (it's not clear yet if you accept that the Earth is the 4.55 billion years old that scientists calculate - and since you are anti-science, we can't just assume that you do). The Earth rotates on its axis, which is slightly tilted and "wobbles" only slightly. Overall, certain regions of the Earth - the equator and regions just north and south of it - would experience more bombardment from matter from the sun, just as they experience the greatest bombardment of light from the Sun. So not all surfaces of the Earth face the Sun directly, and those that due vary in how much exposure they experience. So over the course of the hundreds of millions of years of tons of matter accumulating on the surface each year, the distribution of that new matter should be biased: most of it should be located at and near the equator, with little at the poles. Thus, the Earth should be enormously bulged around the equator, yet we don't see that (there's only a slight oblateness to the Earth). So how does your theory explain the nearly perfectly even distribution of all of these tons of matter per year, accumulated over the course of hundreds of millions of years - or billions of years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 This is off topic, but here is a quick response:http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=619 Tormud, I guess I fail to find TeleMads questions in among his attack. Perhaps I am blinded by the light. If that question is, what my theory. Is it? That is a very big question. It began 40 years or so ago when in my love for science I heard, as we all did, about the pangaea theory. Though it wasn't called that for three years or so. It seemed a bit whacky to me. one big gigantic island surrounded by water 5 miles deep and 2/3rds of th eplanet. In fact, that island was covered with shallow seas. The more I thought about it, the odder it seemed. I was taught, as you were, that earth began as a molten ball, sort of smooth, melted by impact of accreting stuff in out new galaxy. Granitic rock covered the planet. Probably below that basalt. How did we lose that gigantic continental plate material over 20 miles deep, for four fifths of the planet. Where did it go? That's an awful lot. Worse, since it was granitic rock at 2.5, how could it possibly subduct. Even geologists would say that was impossible. back then, I discovered a group of geologists who pressed for the clear and obvious theory that the earth grew and the continents didn't move about, but simply stayed within their portion of under-sea oceanic plate and didn't actually move at all. This made much more sense. And matched the known facts, if not the theory. I always looked upon our old "creation of the solar system theory" with suspicion. You know a whole bunch of stuff was floating out there and along comes gravity to gather it up into moons, planets and suns. Within all the sciences are clues to a growing earth. So very many. Didn't matter those geologists were simply geologists and their geology might have been good, their physics wasn't, they couldn't prove HOW the earth grew. That it grew, was was self-evident. My videos show this and suffer extreme examination, and I invite it every day. As for the physics of it. Well that took many years. Since I'm tired and it needs alot of absorbing and discussing back and forth, I can give you some guiding principles before I sack out. One, man's science produced many theories of what things are made of. When we got to the gist of it, it resolved into something quite simple. Everything, (except hydrogen) is made of three things. Protons, electrons, and neutrons. Very sensible. Since then, we have discovered particles out the wazoo. But this makes no sense. The logic is that it gets simpler and simpler as we get closer to the truth, not that we get to 25 or 35 things, but that we get to 2 then, if possible, to one thing. That's the sense of it. Two: Solar systems, galaxies and all that seem to have a structure, and it must have a meaning like everything else. Suns are 90% hydrogen and 10 % helium. There's some heavier stuff, but condsidering stuff crashing into the sun, it could be that. Yet solar systems have many, many, different kinds of atoms with many particles. How does this make sense. If you just have a sun first. How do you get planets and moons and stuff. Ah, yesss, there was already "stuff". But where did this stuff come from? If there was gravity, why didn't if just collect the stuff? Or was there a process that made the stuff...From say, helium and hydrogen? In fact, was there a simple process that made hydrogen and from that hydrogen helium...all from nothing. Then along came Carl David Anderson. G'Night Guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams, gotta question for you. Okay, you say all these tons of matter from the Sun, each year, have been accumulating on Earth's surface for hundreds of millions of years (it's not clear yet if you accept that the Earth is the 4.55 billion years old that scientists calculate - and since you are anti-science, we can't just assume that you do). The Earth rotates on its axis, which is slightly tilted and "wobbles" only slightly. Overall, certain regions of the Earth - the equator and regions just north and south of it - would experience more bombardment from matter from the sun, just as they experience the greatest bombardment of light from the Sun. So not all surfaces of the Earth face the Sun directly, and those that due vary in how much exposure they experience. So over the course of the hundreds of millions of years of tons of matter accumulating on the surface each year, the distribution of that new matter should be biased: most of it should be located at and near the equator, with little at the poles. Thus, the Earth should be enormously bulged around the equator, yet we don't see that (there's only a slight oblateness to the Earth). So how does your theory explain the nearly perfectly even distribution of all of these tons of matter per year, accumulated over the course of hundreds of millions of years - or billions of years? TelMad, Please read my other notes, please. No, stuff from sun starts the process. Then LIKE GEODES, planets grow from the INSIDE! I'm not anti-science. I'm pro-science. I'm not pro-non integrated science. If a dinosaur can't walk in our gravity, it's a clue, and can't be ignored. If no ancient ocean can be found, it's a clue. If I can re-connect the continental plates PERFECTLY. perfectly on a smaller perfect sphere, that's a clue. And when you have enough clues, you find the truth. And that's what I'm looking for. That and that alone. there's alot TeleMad. Alot. Think about a geode. It grows. How. It's core is empty. Why? I'm not messing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 5, 2005 Report Share Posted July 5, 2005 I think what you are referring to as "clues" are proof of another theory - tectonics - rather than the growing earth theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts