nealadamsdotcom
barney, A year ago I took the time to prove Yorkie wrong 100%. Once done, I asked him to take the vids down. He chose not to. I have no interest to chew it over again with you, given your admitted gross lack of Knowledge.
I too invite anyone to read any and all arguments against this theory. I’d rather discuss these things with knowledgeable people.
Honor? Honor is NOT attacking, in this ignorance a person who has studied his subject for 35years,… as if you were knowledgeable.

MorituriMax
yeah barney, neal has no honor. he is in fact a boldfaced LIAR. He says he doesn’t believe there IS a conspiracy, but all 11 of his youtube videos are titled, wait for it…. wait for it…. CONSPIRACY OF.. etc.

barneysoy
Here Folks, go and check out sound scientific reasoning, complete with reference to research conducted supporting the claims, regarding PT versus the EE claims of Neal.
yorrike[dot]com/pangea

barneysoy
…. and Honor??!? What in the hell would you know about honor? The honorable thing to do would be actually having research to back up your outlandish claims, but instead you continually attack and belittle those that challenge these assumptions. You dont question your own beliefs, nor acknowledge the thousands of hours from hundreds of scientists that work on these problems daily. Instead you mock their efforts with your pompous claims of FACTS FACTS FACTS. You have no facts.Theres YOUR honor.

barneysoy

Neal Neal Neal, the sources I checked on were all on Yorrike’s site like I said. Read what I wrote for gods sake man before you spout off in another of your verbal diarrheas. Go to HIS site and click on the links he has nicely footnoted for reference. Interesting stuff and it just blows holes in this interesting but faulty conglomeration of ramblings you have assembled.
Neal, I am leaving because I just dont care to waste time here. This just lacks validity, and any basic scientific approach.

“As you well know he is not the person to take to task for a scientific debate on this. There are real geologists who support this theory. Why do you not debate with them ?”

I don’t debate them because I haven’t encountered them. The only people I have encountered pushing this flawed hypothesis are artists or laymen with no relevant expertise what-so-ever. I may seem like an angry, aggressive individual, but I’ve better things to do than actively seek out and debate the tiny minority of people who call themselves geologists and support the expanding earth fantasy. Why haven’t they found me in order to debate?

“Neals part is to represent the expanding earth visually. And what an amazing thing it is to see, in comparison to the awkward pangea animations which emerge from geophysics institutes. Enough to have many of us asking questions.”

The animations are not what the theory of Plate Tectonics is based on. It’s based on on-the-ground research. Picking up rocks on one continent and seeing they are exactly the same as rocks on another (through geochemistry). Looking at the palaeontological record on continents to see that Gondwana had an endemic population of particular plants and animals that Laurasia did not. Looking at GPS measurements that show the tectonic plates rotating away AND towards one another (an expanding earth would require they all (ALL) move away from one another, no?). Looking at the very structure of the earth using deep-earth seismic profiling to model the structure of the entire planet.

This isn’t child’s play. This is serious, difficult science conducted by serious scientists. Geologists aren’t playing around here. If you knew any academic geologist you’d know just how serious they are about their science. And competitive – if there was evidence that’d overturn the last 40 years of geological advances, someone would have raised it, just to one up everyone else.

“The fact that you have spent all your academic energy into making Neal adams look like a fool”

Seriously, this debate over the last 18 months has been minor in the extreme, but anyway…

“yet ignored repeated questions from me to explain the points about building geophysical animations and how it could work so well in neals favour.”

I get so many messages from people demanding (yes, demanding), that I explain this and that to them, that it seriously takes a back seat to real life. When I do take the effort to explain things, people either plain out ignore it and keep complaining, or raise plainly ridiculous objections that only show them to be well out of their depth in a subject they barely understand. If you’d like to repost your question here, I’ll happily answer it when I have some spare time. You need to appreciate that the signal to noise I get on this subject is daunting.

“Also you ignored questions about the work of real scientists in this area.”

Who? Who specifically? I try and assess the credentials of most people I debate on this subject, but obviously no one turns up with a resume when they start bitching and moaning at me. So who are these “real” scientists that I’ve ignored?

“It appears like you are hellbent on mispresenting this subject.”

Rubbish. I’m after a proper scientific debate following the debunking of a ridiculous hypothesis. What possible motive would I have to misrepresent the science I’m actively involved in?

HE may very well hold wrong beliefs in many areas, and this may not say much for his general scientific knowledge. As you well know he is not the person to take to task for a scientific debate on this. There are real geologists who support this theory. Why do you not debate with them ?

Neals part is to represent the expanding earth visually. And what an amazing thing it is to see, in comparison to the awkward pangea animations which emerge from geophysics institutes. Enough to have many of us asking questions.

The fact that you have spent all your academic energy into making Neal adams look like a fool, yet ignored repeated questions from me to explain the points about building geophysical animations and how it could work so well in neals favour. Also you ignored questions about the work of real scientists in this area.

It appears like you are hellbent on mispresenting this subject.

I thought they did. This article suggests they have found evidence that the polar ice caps are responsible for increasing the gravity field around the earths equator.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002_217.cfm

However this article suggests that pacific sea levels are decreasing at rate of -11.2 mm/yr.

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/143

I am not as advanced as you are with this sort of information but it’s really upsetting to me that your link to the German scientists who claim the earth is now 5mm smaller than originally thought could potentially be distorting everything we could possibly want to know about the earth and it’s dynamics.

Do you honestly think this is all I have? I’m a post graduate geologist studying the geochemistry of the early solar system. But if I started yacking on about rare earth elements in volcanoes at various distances from subduction trenches and water changing melting temperatures and causing partial melts, who would listen to me?

I’d be committing discussion suicide by beat down via terminology overload. Neal wouldn’t understand any of it, and neither would the public at large. neither party has the scientific training needed to debate this idea on the level it needs to be debated. The level it WAS debated in the late 60s. The debate Plate Tectonics won.

I try to make my retorts accessible, understandable by people with no science training, and simple to grasp. Getting to the high level science that would make Neal look like the absolute fool he is, would require an educated audience. And if the audience were there already, I wouldn’t have to produce any videos, because no one would believe Neal.

Neal does not have an interesting hypothesis, because he has no data backing him up. Nor does he have the adequate background in the required sciences to actually make any sense with what he’s trying to push on the masses.

Let me make this abundantly clear for you (Please understand I’m not putting you down here, I’m just tiring of this debate).

When you look at Neal’s videos and ideas, do the first things that jump to your mind include any of the following:

• The mm accuracy we can measure the radius of the globe to these days would surely show this, why has the size of the globe recently be decreased due to high precision satellites? (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1428)
• How does Neal explain Lanthanum and Platinum group elements having a cross-trench correlation between the subducting sea floor composition and resulting subduction-driven volcanoes?
• Neal claims that there’s a “plasma core” at the Earth’s centre which produces, quote “all chemicals up and down the periodic table”. yet, long lived isotopes such as 146Samarium (half life 103 million years), are nowhere to be found. That’s exactly what you’d expect if there had been no new heavy short-lived isotopes produced since the solar system’s formation. How can Neal explain something like that with his driving force of an expanding Earth producing “all chemicals up and down the periodic table”?
• Short-live isotopic systems such as 26Al/27Al dating work for high precision relative dating of really ancient meteorites (the work I did for my thesis has produced the most accurate measurement to date – look out for the paper to be printed sometime this year). Even If Neal wiggles out of heavy isotopes, what about light isotopes like 26Al?
• Why are the deepest, strongest earthquakes in the world alond areas where plates are subducting, rather than the mid-ocean-ridges, where Neal and Co say the Earth is splitting? No seismic activity exists below 30 Km at the MORs, yet earthquakes happen down to 600 Km along the South-American-Nazca plate boundary and other boundaries. Should this be the other way around if the MORs are DRIVING the expansion?
• Why haven’t the precise gravity measurements geologists have been doing over the last 60+ years shown a general upward trend?

If none of those questions, or any questions similar in complexity even slightly crossed your mind after you heard Neal’s ideas, you may not have the required scientific knowledge to be debating this issue. Again, I’m not trying to insult you here. If there was a debate on evolutionary biology, I’d never step in because I simply don’t have the knowledge to make a valid point. The same with Physics, Pure Chemistry, or vector calculus. Neal, on the other hand, with no real knowledge of ANY science, claims he has everyone out thought. He has not.

And believe me, I’ve tried. I’ve given him the problems with his theory, and even given him lists of material he absolutely requires to have a full grasp of. Yet, he refuses to even begin with something as simple as green and blue schist metamorphism, which on its own, disproves his idea, and proves plate tectonics as an active, working system.

Geology is not an easy science. It is ALL science wrapped up in a lot of time. You have to be multi-disciplined and onto it to go out and start overturning small things like how a certain rock formed (plus years of actual in-the-lab research).

The expanding earth vs plate tectonics debate is over. It was over in 1970. If you’re actually interested in why, I can point you in the right direction to get an understanding of the topic. It’s absolutely huge and there’s so much supporting evidence it is truly in parallel with the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentric solar system and the theory of evolution. That is, a scientific theory – as close as science will get to saying something is fact.

In defence of Neil Adams – his theory is based on continental shelfs rifting therefore the area’s which need to fit together may not all be above sea level – they just need not to be deep Ocean sea floor.

I think you need to get past simplistic analysis – Neil seems to be onto something to me though his theory does not have to be 100% at this stage.

If Neil was generating “land” from Deep Ocean floor then you have a point but from what I’ve looked at he was not.

Regards

Andrew

I would like to hear an explanation of why Pangea formed as a single mass on one (relative) side of the earth. I think the most compelling idea he presents is the idea that the Earth formed in a uniform manner. Then as it expanded (see below) the water filled the gaps and we got the oceans. This is compelling for two reasons. (1) it would make a larger part of the globe a ’shallow sea’ as we were told so many times in Earth science, and (2) it is conceptually more appealing to think that as the earth formed it did so in a uniform manner.

Expanding: Yes, the least compelling part of his explanation is that the Earth expands. Many people have pointed out that it would take a colossal amount of matter to do so, but there is another explanation. There need not be more matter, just more space. There are many theories that the universe is expanding, which might support a theory that everything in the universe is expanding at the same time. I know, this sounds like the God-machine, and it is impossible to prove a negative, but there really are such theories. In any case, simply showing that it would take much more mass than could be expected to accumulate, or laughing off the idea that something could expand is unpersuasive.

Anyway, why would we have a polar land-water wold after formation instead of a more uniform world?

Thanks.

You’re perhaps right when it comes to the average person’s views of the state of our respective sciences, but I think it’s symptomatic of an overall misunderstanding of science among the general public. The people who state there’s little, or at least not conclusive evidence for plate tectonics are on parallel with those who say the same about evolution.

The real issue, in my opinion, is that a science as broad and varied as geology/geophysics, can’t be summarised into 60-180 second sound bites. The same is true for all other major natural sciences and I’m not sure this can be overcome unless the person viewing has a desire to learn.

Education through entertainment is so very difficult. Even groups like the Discovery Channel and National Geographic, who try to bring complex science to the masses, are so often guilty of soundbite science and dumbing things down to a too great extent. It’s often impossible to get difficult subject matter, like seismic tomography or back arc volcanic geochemistry, across to an audience without prior expertise.

I’ve been following the youtube comments debate between you and Mr. Adams et al., and trying to contribute here and there on a couple points. One of the things that I find most disturbing is the impression many of the posters have that there is little evidence for plate tectonics or subduction. It betrays a certain ignorance and perhaps means that we scientists (I’m a seismologist) haven’t done as good a job as we can in communicating with the general public. Anyways, I’m not sure where I’m going with this but keep up the good fight. I doubt that Mr. Adams will budge from his position but maybe some neutral viewers might be convinced by science rather than fitting shapes on spheres. Great job with your videos, by the way.

Adam (aka Adrock828)

If you’re going to go out there and tell science it’s wrong, you’re not going to get very far being that sloppy. If you’re trying to suggest that the Chatham rise and other plateaus around NZ twisted, turned and sank, you covered them up with ocean water to hide the mess that’d cause and you still broke your own rules – no sinking or rising of plates.

The map you provided (the pdf) is accurate, but I don’t see how you went from that to the terrible outline you produced on your earth expansion video. Did you even bother looking at Google Earth?

I’m moving these comments to the post I made on my replies so far, to keep the Pangea video info page clean.

Were these the upper Continental Plate areas that you were speaking of in your video that I crated out of nothing?

http://www.itslikecool.com/yorrike/TharpMap.jpg

This is the geolog history of New Zealand. Do you agree with it? I borrowed my map from a small map from the United States Geological Survey a couple of years ago. I don’t know if they were indicating New Zealand at a past geologic time, or they just were drawing crudely, and the lines came together. Perhaps being from New Zealand, you took it personally. I apologize to New Zealand in place of the United States Geological Survey.

http://www.itslikecool.com/yorrike (New Zealand pdf.)

Neal