auntiegrav
Skilled Investigator
I wanted to start a new thread because the April 22 show thread was deteriorating about Arigo, who wasn't on that episode.
I found the Neal Adams talk annoying in his rhetorical questions and inappropriate laugh at his own statments (get him to take some valium before going on the show or something), but I was hoping for some counterpoints to be put to him. For one, he says that the reason iron is found in the mountain ranges is because of this matter falling from the sky and from the Earth manufacturing atoms of all types at some juncture between the plasma core and the ?mantle? ? We have a pretty solid explanation of the earths redistributed heavy elements from the collision which created the moon, stripping away the crust and reforming the earth with a combination of two planetary cores in one, with much debris raining back down on top, making Earth somewhat unique that way. (heavier than it should be, stronger mag field, and a moon to protect from asteroid collisions.)
I liked his statement of how mass/matter has a stable existence (paraphrasing) that just 'is'. If we don't discount ALL of modern science, this idea could be applied to older aether theories to create a different picture of how the universe coalesced out of hot energy (not investigating where the hot energy came from at this point) into basic particles, perhaps even a continuous popping in and out of existence which ZPoint theory addresses.
On to his dinosaurs: They may not have been constructed so much like elephants as birds. Their bodies might have been large in size, but high energy and lighter weight. Also living in a dense, moist atmosphere might mean they didn't need to retain as much moisture in their bodies (lower weight again). Bones that appear to be the same as modern bones might have had more magnesium, with higher strength than calcium, especially considering that much of the inland seas left dolomitic limestone behind instead of just chalk cliffs.
Earth formation from chunks of dust, then chunks of rock is the standard model, but it may not be true. One theory I've seen suggests that the solar system formed more as a spinning ball of gases and elements, and as it cooled and shrunk, it spun faster, throwing off first gas arms, which fomed gas planets, then heavier elements which formed rocky planets: always in pairs; mercury/venus, earth/proto-moon, asteroids/mars, jupiter/saturn, neptune/uranus. or mercury/missing planet, earth/venus, protoMoon/Mars, etc...
There is a lot of material to pick at with Mr. Adams, but the philosophy that generalism is important, I agree with him on. I just don't think he knows as much as he should before talking so pompously about his own theories. There is plenty of work he should be doing to refine his ideas with others that are already out there, and then he doesn't have to follow a line of crackpotism as a selling point.
I found the Neal Adams talk annoying in his rhetorical questions and inappropriate laugh at his own statments (get him to take some valium before going on the show or something), but I was hoping for some counterpoints to be put to him. For one, he says that the reason iron is found in the mountain ranges is because of this matter falling from the sky and from the Earth manufacturing atoms of all types at some juncture between the plasma core and the ?mantle? ? We have a pretty solid explanation of the earths redistributed heavy elements from the collision which created the moon, stripping away the crust and reforming the earth with a combination of two planetary cores in one, with much debris raining back down on top, making Earth somewhat unique that way. (heavier than it should be, stronger mag field, and a moon to protect from asteroid collisions.)
I liked his statement of how mass/matter has a stable existence (paraphrasing) that just 'is'. If we don't discount ALL of modern science, this idea could be applied to older aether theories to create a different picture of how the universe coalesced out of hot energy (not investigating where the hot energy came from at this point) into basic particles, perhaps even a continuous popping in and out of existence which ZPoint theory addresses.
On to his dinosaurs: They may not have been constructed so much like elephants as birds. Their bodies might have been large in size, but high energy and lighter weight. Also living in a dense, moist atmosphere might mean they didn't need to retain as much moisture in their bodies (lower weight again). Bones that appear to be the same as modern bones might have had more magnesium, with higher strength than calcium, especially considering that much of the inland seas left dolomitic limestone behind instead of just chalk cliffs.
Earth formation from chunks of dust, then chunks of rock is the standard model, but it may not be true. One theory I've seen suggests that the solar system formed more as a spinning ball of gases and elements, and as it cooled and shrunk, it spun faster, throwing off first gas arms, which fomed gas planets, then heavier elements which formed rocky planets: always in pairs; mercury/venus, earth/proto-moon, asteroids/mars, jupiter/saturn, neptune/uranus. or mercury/missing planet, earth/venus, protoMoon/Mars, etc...
There is a lot of material to pick at with Mr. Adams, but the philosophy that generalism is important, I agree with him on. I just don't think he knows as much as he should before talking so pompously about his own theories. There is plenty of work he should be doing to refine his ideas with others that are already out there, and then he doesn't have to follow a line of crackpotism as a selling point.