Author Topic: Adams interview  (Read 20967 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Adams interview
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2006, 09:32:30 PM »
Quote from: "Steven Novella"
Well, I have to remind myself that I am not responding for him. I have no expectation of penetrating his delusion. He is far too invested in it.

The purpose of the exchange is twofold
1 - to entertain and inform all of you
2 - research into the nature of pseudosciece, there is definitely an article in all of this raw material.

The hardest thing in responding is going back and removing all the sarcastic comments I would like to make.


Well it is very entertaining so thank you. If you keep this up you will become the leading authority at debunking Expanding Earth theory. I can see it now....Steven Novella, Bad geologist.
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline Ze Kraggash

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 9
Adams interview
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2006, 10:58:25 AM »
Quote
Because a hydrogen atom IS a Neutron.

YOU ARE NOT READY FOR THIS , YET , STEVEN.

It is good that Neal Adams has brought this to our attention. Now the government push towards a hydrogen fueled car makes sense. Since a neutron has a half life of about ten minutes, you will constantly have to refill your tank even if you don’t use your car. The government will have more fuel tax money than it can spend. Sorry, that last part really is science fiction. ;-)

Offline Ze Kraggash

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 9
Adams interview
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2006, 11:02:28 AM »
I am not an expert in plate tectonics, but it is fairly easy to see what the standard model says happened to Adams’ “missing crust”.

The speed of the plates relative to each other is in the range of about 1 to 10 cm per year. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml
Let’s be conservative and call it one inch (2.54 cm) of subduction per year. One foot of movement would take 12 years.
One mile 12 x 5280 = 63,360 years. Call it 60,000 years.
The Earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old. The amount of subduction over that length of time would be roughly 4,500,000,000 / 60,000 = 75,000 miles. This is about 3 times the circumference of the Earth.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Adams interview
« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2006, 01:55:34 PM »
Quote from: "Ze Kraggash"
I am not an expert in plate tectonics, but it is fairly easy to see what the standard model says happened to Adams’ “missing crust”.

The speed of the plates relative to each other is in the range of about 1 to 10 cm per year. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml
Let’s be conservative and call it one inch (2.54 cm) of subduction per year. One foot of movement would take 12 years.
One mile 12 x 5280 = 63,360 years. Call it 60,000 years.
The Earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old. The amount of subduction over that length of time would be roughly 4,500,000,000 / 60,000 = 75,000 miles. This is about 3 times the circumference of the Earth.


And remember that that is for each plate
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline Kerry Maxwell

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
    • http://www.bwanasonic.com
Adams interview
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2006, 02:59:55 AM »
Quote from: "JohnMaddox"
*Sigh*  Oh well, I guess we'll always have that incredible image of Batman running in "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge" in Batman #251.


Finally, another comic book geek's perspective on the pain this interview induced! As much as I am amused and entertained by crackpot delusions, it was with a heavy heart I listened to one of my childhood heroes reveal himself as a wacko. It really shouldn't bother me though, as many of my comic book *heroes* are/were bona fide loons (Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Jim Steranko, Alan Moore, etc.)

Kerry M

Offline msmith

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 3
    • http://msmith13.blogspot.com
Adams interview
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2006, 11:14:20 AM »
What interests me about Adams is how adamantly he evades falsifiability.  (That's got to be one of the worst sentences I ever wrote.)  Not only is there no physical evidence in support of his theory, there's no conceivable evidence that would disprove it.  You can't confirm what he says is happening, and you can't rule it out.  Those attributes by themselves are enough to set off a well-calibrated baloney detector.

Too bad Adams didn't take his ideas, as clever and creative as they are, and use them as the basis for a science fiction story.  In fact, for a while I was convinced that he was doing exactly that, and was only pretending to believe what he was saying as a marketing ploy.  His depth of commitment seems to rule that out.

The phrase from Futurama keeps popping into my head: it's weapons-grade balonium.

Offline Gilnei

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Resident Brazilian Skeptic
Adams interview
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2006, 12:40:59 PM »
Quote
What interests me about Adams is how adamantly he evades falsifiability. (That's got to be one of the worst sentences I ever wrote.) Not only is there no physical evidence in support of his theory, there's no conceivable evidence that would disprove it. You can't confirm what he says is happening, and you can't rule it out. Those attributes by themselves are enough to set off a well-calibrated baloney detector.


I assume you mean "In his mind, those theories cannot be disproved". In the real world, ha can't cope with the easily proven fact that electromagnetism just doesn't reach far enough, or that the plate tectonics movement has been objectively measured and proven, for instance.
Scientists are the leading cause of cancer in lab rats.

Offline msmith

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 3
    • http://msmith13.blogspot.com
Adams interview
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2006, 05:07:11 PM »
Quote from: "Gilnei"
I assume you mean "In his mind, those theories cannot be disproved". In the real world, ha can't cope with the easily proven fact that electromagnetism just doesn't reach far enough, or that the plate tectonics movement has been objectively measured and proven, for instance.


Yeah, you're right.  I was thinking in particular—and I admit here that I found his explanations very hard to follow—that his whole argument seems to rest on the existence of particles which, even if they did exist, could not be detected by any known or proposed means.  So therefore his fallback position becomes that you can't show that he's wrong, you can only demonstrate that his already wide-ranging theory merely doesn't yet range widely enough.  The answer to any objection would be that we need to learn more about how such a seemingly impossible thing can possibly be true.  You can tapdance like that all day and never have to admit that your argument is plainly wrong.

Offline Anders Nilsson

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 8
Adams interview
« Reply #38 on: October 28, 2006, 08:23:46 AM »
When I relistened to this episode with my wife I had to mumble "pain, pain" and hold my ears when Adams musings were starting to degrade my gray matter.

Offline Larry Coon

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 208
Adams interview
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2006, 01:29:21 PM »
I'm fairly recent to the podcasts, and slowly working my way through the archive.  I just got to the Neal Adams interview, and the subsequent exchange between Adams & Novella in the notes.  Un-friggin-believable.

One comment that I didn't see addressed -- Adams asserts that there's not so much as a square yard (or whatever term he used) of older ocean crust to be found.  In fact, there are many examples of older oceanic crust, in the form of ophiolite.

I believe it's also true (but it's been a long time since I took Geology) that ocean crust has been dated, and it shows a consistent pattern of being younger near the seafloor spreading centers, and gets progressively older as you move tangentially away, with the oldest crust near the subduction zones.  This is all perfectly consistent with plate tectonics, but inconsistent with Adams' model.  But I'm no expert in this area, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, a question about the smaller Earth idea -- I saw in one of Steve's responses a reference to the air being thinner in a lighter gravity.  My question: would the smaller Earth have had enough mass to have an atmosphere at all?  If not, forget about whether they could fly; I suppose their more pressing concern would have been breathing.

Offline reedonly

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 6
Keep it simple, stupid
« Reply #40 on: January 02, 2007, 08:35:25 PM »
The Adams interview is a classic case of pseudoscience run amok. At every turn, he wants to introduce new "theories" into the mix, but one fact remains - his basic premise is wrong based on observable geology.

If EVERY fault on earth resulted in a rift valley, then you could take the next step to explain why. But a hypothesis about an expanding earth - for whatever reason - cannot explain strike-slip faults (which move side-to-side relative to each other) and especially not thrust faults (such as the 1964 Anchorage quake) where the land masses PUSH TOGETHER until one jumps up and slides OVER the other one. How does that happen if the surface of the earth is being stretched?

There's no need to argue the point of dinosaur bones or matter creation or any of that other hooey if the basic hypothesis taken at face value fails to account for observable phenomena.

--Brad
e are all star stuff.

 

personate-rain