Amazing, and it sure does look true. Some of it is just fact. I can't believe scientists don't agree with this.

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html


What I find fascinating is how do you get something from nothing? I mean, where does all the mass come from? This would mean that in the center of all planets, moons etc is some type of energy source, maybe even fusion based like out sun. self sustaining, and self creating. Amazing if its true.


Neal Adams also does Batman animated shows... weird professions together. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-17-2006, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

Wow! There is so much of it it's hard to think it could be a coincidence. If this is true, that guy is a genius.

I had my jaw dropping just watching it. wow.

Try reading Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. It kind explains how it could have happened [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color=skyblue>My geology teacher will get a kick outta this. I'll e-mail her the link today. Yes, I happen to be taking Geology this semester, and the tectonic plate theory was on the last exam.</font>

Yes, an interesting theory. Only it needs a rather massive change in the laws of physics.

Can't be fusion. I've never really studied it at school, but from what I know, if you bump hydrogen around until a kilogram of it has turned into energy you can make exactly one kilogram of rock from that energy. My guess is that a wizard did it. Or maybe earth is a little space turtle egg.

And he describes the birth of Himalayas in a somewhat strange fashion. "How can an island uproot itself from the ocean floor, seemingly float across the ocean and crash into Asia so forcefully that it created mountain ranges over millenia and continues to build these mountains today?" My geology is a bit rusty, but I was under the impression that India, on its own tectonic plate, started drifting into another direction from Africa and happened to move to the same location with Asia. One of them is slowly sinking under the other. And it took way more than a thousand years for it to happen.

I once read of a guy who thought that if you buy a magnetic ring from him, you will be immortal. I might try to find him.

edit: typo

Also, I found the person this reminded me of! Alex Chiu, the seller of magnetic immortality rings!

[ 03-17-2006, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Iron Greasel ]

I would like to second Iron Greasel's comment. The fusion in the sun, or any other star, doesn't create any mass. Heavier elements are created, certainly, but the lighter elements are used up. Two Hydrogen atoms and two neutrons create one Helium atom. Nothing is created...

Perhaps instead of mass being created, the existing mass is simply spreading out. I.e, the earth is becoming less dense.

I haven't gotten around to watching the clips yet, but I'm skeptical. I tend to regard rantings that look like a weblog as somewhat suspicious. Especially when they are poorly spelled.

But hey! Scientists have certainly been wrong before. The Tectonic plate theory was only widely accepted in the 1970s, despite it being around for decades before, with scientists stubbornly resisting. In nineteen eighty something a leading textbook (I forget the name) was still published with the theory that the earth's crust was all one piece.

Callum, don't read the text, watch the videos, the narrator explain way better.

that's pretty darn amazing. I was in awe for the most part. Hah, this is really cool. I wonder if it is true though, that'd be pretty neat.

And yeah,

Woah. I can't wait to use this against my history teacher who was just ranting for the last few days about the tectonic plate theory. Nice find, dude.

/me snorts

I really can't believe people are taking this seriously.

Firstly, the man isn't a scientist, he's a comic book illustrator.

Secondly, we can measure the contents of the earth by measuring the rates at which different waves travel through it - it is *not* hollow. Google for S and P waves.

The earth has a solid ferrous iron core - for evidence, see maps made of the electromagnetic field generated, as well as (eg) field patterns in stones.

Earth's magnetic field.

What isn't solid iron is either molten iron, molten rock or solid rock - all of it under high pressure. A smaller Earth would not be able to containt it all.

If the Earth was smaller in the past, in order to conserve angular momentum it would have had to spin much faster - the length of a day/year would have changed substantially - again there is no evidence for this.

If the Earth was hollow, how do we have a level of gravitational attraction that corresponds precisely to Newton's laws of gravitation? (which are modelled on a solid mass)

In response to his .pdf:

Hogwash!!! We don't know how gravity is produced - the graviton is the most likely, but theoretical, particle.

It certainly has bugger all to do with the inside of atoms - gravity is in fact the weakest (by a long long way) of the four fundamental forces - the strong & weak nuclear forces are the ones that dominate inside the nucleus - gravity is miniscule in comparison.

Continuing:
Yes it does, but it's no secret, and certainly no justification for his theories. The closer you get to the centre of the Earth, the less mass exists between you and the core and thus gravity will be less. It does not mean that the Earth's core is hollow or filled with this plasma he talks about.

Really guys - this is tripe. His basic science is flawed.
The scientific establishment is giving him short shrift for a very good reason here. Here's a wikipedia link on Hollow Earth Theory.

Don't be taken in by fancy videos! It's this guys job to be good at moving audiences with visual aids.

Edit: Fixed a link.

[ 03-17-2006, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Uh, just because he is a comicbook illustrator makes his theory untrue? That is extremely naïve of you. Do you know HOW MANY peoples theories have been proven correct and never went to school or were a scientist? Some were farmers for gods sake, but ideas such as this must be taken into account, or we will never learn a thing.

Remember, so called 'scientists' in the days long past thought the earth was flat. lol. come on. ;)

And Einstein did poorly in school, and had left school early. Then went off to study on his own (like this man did). So a genius can come in ANY flavor, even a comicbook illustrator.

Science today is so close minded. scientists are so close minded on so many new theories because they don't wanna be proven wrong. period. They would look like fools.

You can see, CLEARLY that the planet is expanding on those videos, and that if you piece them back together, the land features on each side fit perfectly.

This is just another theory. take it as such. But a damn good one, and one that should be looked into without prejudiced.

[ 03-18-2006, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

Yep, and he was a postal clerk. Although he only took the job as a clerk because it involved plenty of time sitting around, which he wanted so that he could work on his theories...

And certianly scientists have a history of sticking to what they believe they know, and rejecting anything that is too far removed from those theories. And yes, scientists have been wrong before.

But this is something quite different from scientists refusing to accept that the earth's crust was not one solid crust, but was in fact tectonic plates. This is asking us to go against most, or at least a very great deal of what we already know (or think we know) about the earth and the solar system and how it works.

And it sounds VERY sarcastic, and "I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you-are. The greatest scientists in the world have never seen any hint of this, but I have discovered something that overrides all previous theories, from scratch."

And that doesn't sounds particularly scientific to me.

Uh, just because he is a comicbook illustrator makes his theory untrue? That is extremely naïve of you. Do you know HOW MANY peoples theories have been proven correct and never went to school or were a scientist? Some were farmers for gods sake, but ideas such as this must be taken into account, or we will never learn a thing.

Remember, so called 'scientists' in the days long past thought the earth was flat. lol. come on. ;)

And Einstein did poorly in school, and had left school early. Then went off to study on his own (like this man did). So a genius can come in ANY flavor, even a comicbook illustrator.

Science today is so close minded. scientists are so close minded on so many new theories because they don't wanna be proven wrong. period. They would look like fools.

You can see, CLEARLY that the planet is expanding on those videos, and that if you piece them back together, the land features on each side fit perfectly.

This is just another theory. take it as such. But a damn good one, and one that should be looked into without prejudiced. </font>[/QUOTE]Ziroc, if you're calling someone else naive, then watch out what things you air yourself, 'mkay? ;)

Saying it is "CLEAR that the planet is expanding in those video's and that if you piece them back together, the land features on each side fit perfectly" is as much hogwash as the factual material any given Hollywood-movie has.
Mind you, I'm not here to solely take down this (so-called) theory, but some video's of cleverly pieced together moving pictures DO NOT - I may even repeat these last two words - make things clear all of the sudden as to what is happening to tectonic plates and the (true or not) shrinking of the earth. In all objectivity: the narrator simply says "I'm not fooling you, I'm just piecing together things that were together, just watch the video", and therefore is devoid of any substantial arguments and/or logic. He never explains how we are supposed to actually KNOW that he is speaking the truth, except for pointing out (over and over again) that the plates match (something easily goofed - the human eye/brain cannot comprehend that the video does NOT seem to work, as the video in itself is too complicated for that) using elaborate worthing and tiny dots and arrows that are supposed to back up his thoughts.

All in all: you can hardly call this a theory, or even a theoritically supported stream of thoughts. The way science works in this world, is that we have to have arguments to back up our claims, especially in an objective field such as physics.

Well, it is. [img]smile.gif[/img] I have an open mind. Just because someone is a comic book artist doesn't necessarily mean his theory is wrong---or right.

Just sharing a cool idea. If you don't believe in it, cool. no worries. I'm sure as soon as we get more probes out there, we will learn many new things. It may take 50 years to learn about all the secrets out there (the more simple secrets) ;) But it should be interesting!

Heh, sorry Z. After only finding out about scientology this week I couldn't help a rant ;)

I for one would like to see whether an independent computer simulation would display the same results as his videos though.

A truer word has never been spoken!

[img]smile.gif[/img] Yeh Scientology is an odd thing... ;)

BTW, when I meant secrets--I meant in our small solar system--not outside of it.. that'll take.. well, infinity. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I can't wait to see the data that comes back on the New Horizons mission to the kuiper belt. (The Pluto mission). It will be awesome! Actually, I am looking forward more to kuiper belt & Oort Cloud data than the Pluto data. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-18-2006, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

Yeah, the main thing the Pluto data will probably show is that it's cold...Kinda like my doctor telling me, after 8 months of treatment, that I have Chronic Daily Headaches, well, duh. I already knew all that. But there is no why.
Now, for all the solid crust theorists out there, why, how do continents shift? I just read an interesting article about Afar Africa sinking, and forming a new ocean, submerging the horn on Africa. I'm no physicist, not much of a geologist either, but I am a carpenter, and machinist, and I do know that solid things can't move that far. Wood and metal both expand and contract in relation to temperature variances, why would the planet be any different? Does a rock not become more dense when it's cold? To blindly state that all science is more correct than any individual can ever be overlooks a major portion of discovery that has taken place on this world since man first crawled out the caves.
My understanding of a theory is that one comes up with an idea, and some at least consequential proofs. If you prove it beyond any doubt, it is no longer a theory, but fact. Definitions can be dicey, but hey, there is proof a plenty to put forth a theory. Just because it goes against everything one thinks one knows does not make it any less valid, as a theory.

An idea is not necessarily a theory, Robert. All science must adhere to certain laws, that's how we defined 'science' in the first place. Purely based on what we saw in the multitude of video's on that site, we can hardly speak of a theory, because there was a lack of well... arguments!

All he has to do is put forward the information that led to the theory, other scientists will have to find stuff to argue about, and judging by the responses here, there should be no shortage of those. I'm no scientist, nor do I play one on tv, but if I make enough careful observations of something, and draw conclusions based on those observations, that would be a theory. The problem is, the last time I did that, I was totally wrong. It was a theory, but it didn't hold up to other facts of which I was not aware.

The very basics of his theory stand up though.

As in, take a balloon wrapped in a thin sheet of paper, blow it up some more and watch the paper tear.

A better example would be a balloon with a strong electromagnet inside, and a thin sheet of magnetic matieral covering the ouside, but not otherwise anchored to the balloon.

Blow up the balloon and the covering sheet would rip, and as the balloon got bigger and the curve changed the sheets would mound up in places.


A theory does not have to follow any laws if it is challenging them in part or full.

<font color=skyblue>I've lost my test notes because this was a few weeks ago that I had this test, but the man who first discovered Tectonic Plate Movement (and is actually given credit for it by geologists) was a German meteorologist...a weather man. He was laughed out of the meeting when he proposed his idea because at the time, he could not prove "how" the plates were moving. </font>

I don't think you guys understand what I'm trying to say: there's a difference between just a theory (as in; a hunch, a thought, an idea) and a scientific theory (which, as I stated above needs to follow a certain strict set of rules before it can call itself a theory).

<font color=skyblue>No need to defend yourself...We all understand the difference you're trying to illustrate because we've all heard it before at least by high school...except for whatever middle-school-aged kids that might be interested in this thread. </font>

I'd say Link has an interesting point on this one. Intelligent Design advocates in the US play on public misconceptions of what a scientific theory is when they say, over and over again, "Evolution is just a theory."

In fact, a Pennsylvania school district was struck down in its attempt to have a biology classroom disclaimer that said 'Evolution is just a theory' and pointed to a creationist textbook.

These guys are at least posing questions about the physical realm. We have a hypothesis, so let's have some testing :D

<font color=skyblue>No need to defend yourself...We all understand the difference you're trying to illustrate because we've all heard it before at least by high school...except for whatever middle-school-aged kids that might be interested in this thread. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]I want to be one of those middle school kids!!! You think it's too late?

<font color=skyblue>No need to defend yourself...We all understand the difference you're trying to illustrate because we've all heard it before at least by high school...except for whatever middle-school-aged kids that might be interested in this thread. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]I want to be one of those middle school kids!!! You think it's too late? </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=skyblue>You mean you're not? :confused: </font>

<font color=skyblue>No need to defend yourself...We all understand the difference you're trying to illustrate because we've all heard it before at least by high school...except for whatever middle-school-aged kids that might be interested in this thread. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]I want to be one of those middle school kids!!! You think it's too late? </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=skyblue>You mean you're not? :confused: </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Er, no, not by a long shot. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to be though.