Talk:Growing Earth hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Growing Earth hypothesis article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-02-24. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

Contents

[edit] Hollywood Movie

Neal Adams should really make a Hollywood Movie about this. Just like the Core. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozy (talk • contribs) 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Pseudoscience

I was surprised to find this page on wikipedia. I immediately created a Wikipedia account so I could propose its deletion - but to my surprise this motion has already been attempted and rejected.

It presents the pseudoscientific ideas of a single comic book artist as scientific theory. There is barely any mention of its complete eccentric departure from the vast amount of established science of countless different fields - from geology, to geography, to cosmology and many others. The page is a complete embarrassment to wikipedia and a clear violation of the NPOV philosophy.Chatts 06:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly stated that the theory is not supported by mainstream science. It's also clear that there are academic geologists and physicists who support the theory and that it's not only the ideas of a single comic book artist. The true embarrassment to science may well be the closing of doors on discovery by strong-arming science theory into one possible model in complete exclusion of others. It is truly more scientific to allow some (perhaps low) percentage possibilities to other models that have not yet been fully falsified. MichaelNetzer 07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


The reason it was kept was, as I read it from the discussion, that it was considered notable enough to be included in wikipedia. True that this is mostly a result of Adams' work promoting his theory. I agree with the NPOV problem though, as well as the fact that it reads more like an article on Adams views than on the theory itself. Epameinondas 11:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can show exactly what makes this article biased rather than simply disputing NPOV. No such comments were made by the board in voting to keep the article. It is written to reflect the theory in the manner it's achieved it's notability based on the theorist's opinion. This is not bias, rather verifiable notable content. MichaelNetzer 07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Whether it's notable or not, the problem is that is is written as a valid scientific theory. And I'm not sure if it can be saved...Chatts 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It it written as it truly is. There is enough information there regarding its rejection by the scientific community. Though this is not the place to discuss the nature of science theory, it is very unscientific for mainstream science aficionados to hold exclusively to one theory model as an undisputed exclusive one when the evidence available makes some allowance for other possibilities. That is all this theory does. Science is meant to be objective about varying possibilities that the evidence suggests. I sense more bias from the criticism here than the theory itself, which makes it clear that it is a notable one based on the theorist's opinion and nothing more. MichaelNetzer 07:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to title the article "Expanding Earth Hypothesis", as it is not a theory. Having an entry claiming something is a scientific theory is paramount to claiming it is fact. For example; "Theory of Evolution" and "Intellgent Design Hypothesis" would both be accurate. The idea of an expanding earth is a hypothesis, not a theory. --Yorrike 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The idea exist, so catalog it debunked or not. The idea is note worthy, historically speaking, even if only as an example of pseudoscience made popular. We are not on a crusade to rid the world of imperfect ideas. We just properly catalog them and show why they did not work or if time proves otherwise revise. On the basis of most of the arguments here we would have to delete half of the articles dealing with the history of science and theory. As for the criticism in the article, General Relativity, the Standard Model are both theory, widely excepted yes, but theory none the less. The "huge amounts of experimental evidence" as well as "geodetic and geophysical observations" are just evidences and observations, not proof. The said theories have been torn down and rebuilt by additions of new evidences and observations since their inception. thehiddenpanda 05:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] earlier comments

The article is a preliminary accounting of the theory which covers a vast range of issues. It aspires to cover topics of Geology, paleontology, Physics, Cosmology and other areas of science relevant to the threory. More third party unaffilliated sources are being compiled to support the primary sources cited. MichaelNetzer 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neal Adams?

Are you sure? I could have sworn I read it in a book by Dilbert's Scot Adams.


[edit] NOTE

There is an afd proposal for this article - you should direct your energies there- not here SatuSuro 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Several of the sources cited appear to be self-published and large sections of the text does not cite its sources.Epameinondas 12:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've added secondary and third party unaffiliated sources for Maxlow, noted his web page as a primary source and removing the tag warning for it. MichaelNetzer 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Likewise added primary source notice to GE Consortium source and removing tag. MichaelNetzer 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Everything else in the article is attributable to the reliable sources cited in the footnotes and references. Please take the time to review the material and then, if you find something that isn't attributable to any one of all the sources given, come back and make a specific reference to such issues, preferably on the talk page so it may be reviewed before placing a tag. A sweeping unstudied statement is not sufficient here, the article has passed an AFD review and no such recommendation was given.MichaelNetzer 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mass and decay

cant the mass problem be solved by simple atomic decay, a more dence material decays into less dence material with takes up more room then the dence material allready did. might explain why mars has stoped growing since its core went cold. getting late, i might be rambling but it makes sence to me. --85.226.11.157 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of matter

Does the article give undue weight to the theories presented in the "Pair production and the creation of matter" and "Building blocks of matter" sections? I am skeptical of the reasoning used to get from pair production (producing sub-atomic particles) to the creation of ordinary matter such as the core of the earth is composed of. The theory invokes something called "prime matter," which sounds made up. Reeks of pseudoscience. Alksub 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The problem is that science isn't all science. It deals with people, opinions and emotions. Science is supposed to based on hypothesis and conclusions. The hypothesis was that all the continents at one time joined up. If this holds up, the conclusion would be that the Earth was smaller at some point in the past. It's the only way this would be possible. That's the entirety of the theory. If this were all that was to science, it'd be as valid as any other theory because you could test it. Unfortunately, if this theory were to hold true, then thermodynamics is invalid as well as tons of other theories and laws (theories proven to be true). That would be a serious blow. So the scientific community started to ask how this matter was being created if the Earth was smaller. A valid question, but one that has nothing to do with the original theory or the scientific method. Anyways, Adams made up another theory, without any hypothesis or conclusion, with the sole purpose of pleasing those asking these further questions. So call it pseudoscience if you want to, but it's not Adams fault. It's a consequences of the how science works these days. In fact, there was even another recent deceitful attempt at discrediting other theories with an article on BBC about how subduction was somehow proven. Yet, there was nothing in that article that proved anything. It was one scientist's interpretation and jumped the gun by implying that there were no other possible explanations. -V

[edit] Animation

this article could really use a GIF of Adams' animated model, rather than the attractive yet much less illuminating series of panels currently on the article... has he released the animation under a free license? --PopeFauveXXIII 10:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging the articles

See this discussion: Merging Growing Earth Theory and Expanding Earth theory. Please say your opinion. --D.H (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Carl Anderson

William Bragg was the youngest Nobel Laureate at 25 years old. Carl David Anderson was he 4th youngest, at 32. Also, Anderson did not discover pair-production, he was the he discovered the positron.[1] Baron Patrick Blackett discovered pair production (called pair creation in the Nobel award speech) in 1932-33 when he followed up on Anderson's observations of the "positive electron", for which Baron Blackett was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.[2] I suspect Adams does not discuss Baron Blackett because he later became a proponent of continental drift. --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change to the 4th youngest. However, the article does not state that Anderson discovered pair production. MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Basis for Merging or NPOV

Growing Earth Theory began as a section in Expanding Earth theory. It was felt then that this bogged down EE and thus it became an independent entry. As it is, its presence is controversial. In Growing Earth Theory deletion-debate:Keep, it was also suggested that it be merged again. The decision to keep it gave no such endorsement and made no note of bias in its presentation. It would seem then that the argument is mute and unfounded because the article carries its own criticism within itself. Wikipedia is not a place for a mainstream science bias towards GET. It has already been officially decided that the entry is notable and worthy of its own page. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it was premature to remove the merger tag, so I have re-added it. Indeed, the debate on the Merging Growing Earth Theory and Expanding Earth theory. page rages on, with a number of posts in the last couple days.Adrock828 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed reference to Adams method of developing theory

The claim was that the theory is considered Pseudoscience because of a statement Adams made about researching existing scientific evidence for the creation of matter. This is simply not true. It is considered such because the theory itself contradicts the conclusions of the current scientific model. Not because of a statement made by Adams. MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support by geologists

Are the professional qualifications of Vedat Shehu, James Maxlow, and Stavros Tassos as geologists verifiable (e.g., a graduate degree from a university, membership in a professional organization, a list of publications in peer-reviewed journals)? What is the evidence that also other geologists besides these three support the theory? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Some googling reveals that James Maxlow has a Ph. D. from Curtin University in Australia in Applied Geology, Stavros Tassos is a Assistant Researcher at the Institute of Geodynamics at National Observatory of Athens, and Vedat Shehu appears to have written a book entitled "The Growing and Developing Earth" so I think it's fair to call them geologists. I don't know about other geologists who support this theory.Adrock828 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Vedat Shehu has a Ph. D. from VSB College in Albania and is founder of the Geoengineering Research Unit there, with extensive field research as seen here. Full credentials in the introduction to his book. Other geologists and physicists are also listed in EET and some in Growing Earth Consortium, including William Carnell Erickson and Fred Mrozek, a physics engineer who designed the Spirex telescope. Both among others who have contributed to the forum from which material was used for the GE Consortium site. MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The full autobiographical statement from Vedat Shehu on Amazon is this:
May background Gymnasium (1954 in Albania); Collage VSB (1959 in Former Czechoslovakia); Qualification through uninterrupted- field research works, geologic mapping (mostly the rivers' valleys), etc and simultaneously through collaboration with scientific and didactic institutions of the country.My major studies include: Study of cave terrains where the waterpower station was built on Drin river in Vau i Dejes, Shkodra, Albania; Study of intensive tectonically broken region of volcanoes-sedimentary series penetrated from a granite dike, where waterpower station of Fierza on Drin river was built; Study of a very intensively folded region of Cukali Tectonic Zone in contact with the Mirdita over-thrusting one, where Komani waterpower station on Drin river was built; Study on Geological Research Methods on Large B for post-universitary specialization.building Constructions; A book on " Engineering Geology" for middle hydro-technical specialists ; An article about geologic concept of Helen-ides as a limited part of Dinarides. A book on Growing and Developing Earth My actual activity: I am the founder of the "Geoengineering Research Unit" which supports building projects and construction works in every field of building activity; I am engaged and try to stay very involved with the problems of The Growing and Developing Earth
In short, college, yes, but no hint of a graduate degree in any field. (Actually, he says "collage". Maybe he's an artist, like Neal Adams.) The "Geoengineering Research Unit" sounds like a construction company. We might mention his book, but we can't call him a geologist. --Art Carlson (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The book is a reference which carries his credentials as a geologist within it. Read the book and see it. It is not required that his credentials appear on his Amazon author description. MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Although on-line sources are preferred, you are correct that any book with an ISBN number is a verifiable source (though not automatically reliable for the purpose at hand). As specified in WP:BURDEN, I would like to ask you to provide from the book the direct quote you are referring to. (Please don't be offended, but after seeing what how you paraphrased some of the information from the Amazon source, I think this would help ensure the accuracy of Wikipedia.) I am particularly interested in any information on
  • any degree in geology
  • a graduate degree in any subject
  • membership in any scientific organization, in particular one for professional geologists
  • any peer-reviewed articles.
Based on the verifiable information, what do you think is the most accurate description of Shehu's professional status? Professional geologist? Amateur geologist? Independent researcher?
--Art Carlson (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are two online third party sources verifying Vedat Shehu's professional status.
  • ISCS Qulaified Endorsers. Scroll down to #273, "Vedat Shehu, Prof. Dr. Eng., Geologist, Engineering Geology, Tectonics, Geoingineering, Sharon, Massachusetts, U.S.A. and Professor "Geoingineering Research Unit" in Tirana, Albania."
  • Infra TransProject Ltd. Staff Member "8. Prof.Dr.Eng.Vedat Shehu Geology and geo technical engineer, 44 years of experience."
Based on this verifiable information, I would consider the most accurate description of Shehu's professional status as being a Professor, professional geologist and geologic engineer. I am searching for the book which I elusively misplaced after reading last year, in order to find further verification for what was paraphrased from the Amazon reference. In the meantime, these online third party sources should help settle the question.
OK. That looks like prima facie evidence that Shehu (as well as Maxlow and Tassos) can be described as geologists. If his credentials can be picked apart, it will have to be by someone more knowledgeable of the geologist community than I. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken at all, our interests in accuracy and fair representation are mutual.
Regards, MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but non of these persons seem to me encyclopedic enough to be mentioned at all. The sentence in which they are mentioned is obviously meant to show there is some scientific background to GET. Science, however, is (mostly) not a matter of names or even majorities, but of publications. Rather than mentioning names we should have refs to books or peer reviewed articles, preferrably in magazines on geophysics. Woodwalker (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

I've removed a couple of Geocities links used as sources as non-reliable. Also removed a site run by User:MichaelNetzer which he added, per don't promote your own stuff. Vsmith (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no self promotion. This is merely a valid reference for content appearing in the article, it is marked as "primary source", which is enough. The Geocites references are reliable in that they reference the people mentioned, that's all. MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False unsourced criticism

"Adams believes there is no such thing as gravity and so-called "electromagnetic lines" are responsible for the orbit of planets, because they contain iron. Yet, man-made non-ferromagnetic objects still manage to stay in orbit. Also, the world's ocean tide can be observed to be under the influence of gravity every day, even though water is not ferromagnetic." This is a false and unsourced criticism because Adams has never said that there is no such thing as gravity, rather he believes that gravity is electromagnetic in nature. And he has never been cited as saying that gravity holds the orbit of planets because they contain iron. Based on Adams' actual statements, electromagnetic gravity acts on non-ferromagnetic objects because he attributes the electromagnetic charge of positrons and electrons as being the fundemental source force of gravity. This electromagnetic charge exists in all atomic structures, including non-ferromagnetic objects such as wood, water, etc... which facilitates the influence of electromagnetic gravity on all physical matter in the universe, including non-ferromagnetic forms. MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] renamed and cut some unrelated stuff

I've renamed the article to hypothesis as it was not a theory - speculations would be an even better word. Also cut the cosmology sections pair production... and building blocks.. as those sections were not about the growing Earth, but rather Adams' more wide ranging cosmology speculations. This is in preparation for a merge per consensus to either EET or Neal Adams. The cosmology bits could be included as a part of a merger to Neal Adams if deemed appropriate, but would have no place in expanding Earth. Vsmith (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section either OR or SYN

The criticism section contains several impressive looking references - however, on checking many do not mention or even pertain to the subject. Seems to be a quite blatant case of WP:SYN or WP:OR. I've removed an instrument maker website as irrelevant and many others should also go. Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)