Neal Adams expanding Earth

[aaronfransen]

I've read quite a bit of the Half Past Human web site, but I've never come across anything by Neal Adams before.

Here's a link to a to a talk he gave (never tried posting a link, so hopefully this works!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=uQ0JTdHIsX8

Basically Neal is a comic book artist who's also been dabbling in geology and physics for 35 years and has come up with a fairly comprehensive theory that at first blush is just about the expansion of the Earth, but actually speaks to the construction of the entire universe. And darned if it doesn't make complete sense.

Part of this theory is that there is no gravity, it's all electromagnetism. Now, I know the C's have said that all there is is gravity, so the only way I can reconcile this is that there is a difference of understanding of terminology due to differences in understanding of "the way things are", for lack of a better term.

I don't often get blown away by information. Reading Laura's books for the first time was one case where it happened, and it felt like a whole bank of switches in my brain got switched to the on position. Hearing Neal talk, it's happened again.

Maybe I'm just getting carried away, and I'm not even going to try to do his theory justice, but I did want to ask the question: I have searched and not found a reference to Neal anywhere...has his name come up before? Any thoughts on what he's come up with?

 

[Path27]

I'm not sure what to think about how the whole process is supposed to work as Neal Adams describes it, but the clips below add new meaning to "food for the moon" -- since when something eats, it's supposed to grow:

Earth's moon
Europa
Ganymede

Thanks for the link, aaronfransen.

 

[Meager1]

Is it growing.. the video kinda made it look like we`re just accumulating water, that is covering the land masses!
And where the heck does all the water keep coming from?
It didn`t look like it was there to begin with.

 

[aaronfransen]

My guess is that whatever this process is that's creating matter at the center of the Earth, some of that matter must be turning into water. Hydrogen would clearly be the most abundant result of the process he describes, but perhaps it's also creating other materials in large quantities...in this case Oxygen, Nitrogen would have to be a component (since the planet's twice the size, wouldn't the atmosphere have to be as well?), and perhaps this is where we're getting a lot of our hydrocarbons and helium, since I can't possibly have imagine a situation where helium would still be present on Earth under the standard model.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Is it growing.. the video kinda made it look like we`re just accumulating water, that is covering the land masses!
And where the heck does all the water keep coming from?
It didn`t look like it was there to begin with.

Well, according to McCanney's work, water is channeled into our atmosphere via electric connections, at the poles and in storms, as in a comet tail.

 

[Path27]

Well, according to McCanney's work, water is channeled into our atmosphere via electric connections, at the poles and in storms, as in a comet tail.

Right -- we don't seem to need an internal explanation to explain where more water comes from (some of it could be internal, but there seem to be enough external sources available to explain it -- including the Earth stealing water from other bodies which make a close pass -- if it doesn't). Clif High also factors water in unnecessarily in his own view of how this works (summary from one of his radio interviews):

The middle of the earth (plasma) gets energetic particle (neutrino) from sun and turns it into an ion – it takes two ions and creates hydrogen, then creates elements from helium up to oxygen, and finally creates water out of hydrogen and oxygen.

Water aside, the clips above make it look like planets grow by shedding their skin like a reptile (although in this case the oldest layer stays attached to the newer layer underneath), and that they go through various stages -- kind of reminds me of what Mouravieff describes in some of his discussion about planets and solar systems as though they were part of larger organisms, like what might be implied here (especially if planets could be considered "living"):

A: Matter is, in macrocosmic terms, somewhat different than you suppose.

Q: What do you mean by that? Matter in terms of stars and solar systems? It is what?
A: How about "larger."

Q: So, when we think of matter as being atoms and molecules, solar system and cosmic matter is composed of larger units?
A: Yes.

Q: What are the smallest of these larger units?
A: Living things.

Q: (A) Living things extending through densities?
A: Yes.

Q: (A) Wait. Are there beings composed of stars like we are composed of atoms?
A: In a certain sense, yes.

Q: (A) So, larger, we added living things as not just built of matter, but as units of matter.
A: Yes.

If you look at it that way, then the “periodic cleansing” associated with comets almost sounds like a sort of function of a cosmic immune system.

I’d also wondered how the moon could be a second density planet:

Q: (L) Georges Gurdjieff proposed the idea that the earth is, in a sense, food for the moon. What he meant was, what he had learned from these ancient teachers was that earth was a food source for some level of being, and that possibly these beings had encampments or bases on the moon, but that earth was eventually to become a star and that then the moon would become an inhabited planet as the earth was, and so on... Is this a fairly...
A: Close.

Q: (L) Is the Moon a second density planet?
A: Yes.

Especially since:

Q: (L) Are there 2nd density beings that inhabit the moon in a full time way?
A: No.

But this raises the question of how ‘density’ would be defined for planets – would it have to do largely with awareness in their case too? Could it refer in part to literal physical density, with the densest layer on the surface and less dense layers being generated underneath as the planet grew (Jupiter is supposed to be fourth density, and it’s a lot less ‘dense’ than the rocky planets)?

 

[denekin]

Neil Adams: A New Model of the Earth and the Universe

So what do Forum geologists think of this man's ideas?
His work was mentioned by several speakers at the Electric Universe conference in Las Vegas last weekend.
I'd be interested to know what forum members more versed in geology than I think of his vision?

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

Moderator note: this post was merged with the thread above on the same topic

 

[lake_george]

For what it is worth, I have seen this theory of Neal Adams before and it has always made a huge amount of sense to me. Yesterday, somewhere (here maybe even - not remembering exactly where) I read that the Sun, and all stars, have at their centers 'singularity points' that are portals into other dimensions. So why could there not be singularity points in the centers of planets - where maybe the existence and type of the portal access is determined by some aspect of the development of the planet or moon (size maybe for example) ?

So what if these growing planetary bodies are growing from the inside, from this singularity point?

If you look at more of the videos that Neal Adams has made you will find much more information that makes it easier to understand how the spheres are growing, although as far as I know, he does not theorize just what makes them grow. But he shows that the current land masses have been dated to be far older than the ocean floor- and the ocean floor is younger, and the dating of it shows that the ocean floor is growing. The current land masses all fit together to cover the sphere completely if the sphere is a good deal smaller.

So.... (my speculation), maybe after meteors or whatever accumulated together and then consolidated together to form a sphere, something occurred - some critical point in the mass maybe - that caused the sphere to begin growing.

Also from Neal Adams -- The force of gravity would have been much less on the smaller 'pre-ocean' Earth - so the creatures living there at the time could be a lot bigger: the huge dinosaurs and insects. He even speculates that when the Earth started growing, it happened quickly enough that the dinosaurs were not able to return to their nesting grounds to protect their young from prey (mammals mostly I think) and this is at least part of the cause of their extinction.

 

[lake_george]

I am reading "The Wave" (WOW!!!) and came across this in Part 1 Chapter 4:

"Q: (RS) Is it true that the same recycling occurs in the center of the earth. There is a theory that the earth is expanding. I heard this at a congress; that the earth is expanding in diameter precisely because the center of the earth is in process of the creation of matter. Is this correct?

A: Off base, but all concepts are valid within unified dimensionality."

R.S. is Professor Ruggero Santilli.