Most people are familiar with neal adams interesting animations.



My interest is actually psychological regarding this. I am training in neuropsychology and am interested in the mechanism behind the reaction of disbelief itself. I am presuming there will be not be many here in favour of expanding earth hypothesis.

The point is can this thread force readers to answer the primary question of the thread first. i.e. Can the poll question itself actually be answered with a yes or no ? EDIT. The question is "Do the continents "look" as if they wind back to a sphere ?"


Most of us would agree it is a simple visual question. Either it does or does not. Anybody who answers the poll can state buts after the question has been answered with a yes or no. So the buts would presumably explain away the trickery behind the animation itself, and add some geological data.

I am interested in the mechanism of denial itself. Do we fight ourselves to deny. For example you could take an allergic reaction to a toxin, and hallucinate without drowsiness. Many people may believe their hallucination for a while at least. Some would experience some deep discomfort, if they had a high level of baseline rationality and keep it to themselves.

SO this thread is primarily about psychology. You can post on how the video itself made you feel. Conflicted, angry etc.

I would also like to make these following points to introduce that the topic has an educated, reasoning and respectable proponent. The point of this thread is not to debate the geology though. These points are just stated to offset the damage having an artist proposing the subject has done. It should be remembered though that in spite of his background Neal Adams claims that the plates were not shrunk or altered in the 3d modeller. The ins and outs of geology is a different subject from this and should be started on the earth sciences section.

http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj_JTn4o ... r_embedded

Maxlow claims that

A. Traditional tectonics can validate pangea model of continental drift because earth expansion is really just a variant of tectonics. i.e. Expansion tectonics. So that is why it is not hard for paleomagnetic data to fit a traditional model.

B. Physics does not need to be rewritten for earth expansion, and he provides more practical geological mechanisms.

C. Expanding earth is consistent with the 1990 paleomagnetic dataset, where as traditional tectonics has never been checked in this regard.

I am not trying to push this theory, nor do i endorse it. I am interested in the processes at play when faced with difficult questions in a social setting.

So if we can stick to the topic poll question first and not derail or trash the thread.

Thank You

How does one inflate a planet, again?

I can only admit that in that animation the continents wind back into a sphere.

Animavore wrote:I can only admit that in that animation the continents wind back into a sphere.

And there's a heavy fudge factor in the video, "ignoring the bits that don't fit". Fringers get to do that.

Gawdzilla wrote:

Animavore wrote:I can only admit that in that animation the continents wind back into a sphere.

And there's a heavy fudge factor in the video, "ignoring the bits that don't fit". Fringers get to do that.

But the OP clearly states it is a visual question. I think what he is driving at is Do we fight with ourselves against what we can clearly see due to what we already believe to be true that we would turn around and say "No. It does not turn into a sphere." In other words deny what we see.

Ah shit. I see what you mean. My eyes were more drawn towards the left-hand pic. The right-hand one is far less convincing.

Animavore wrote:

Gawdzilla wrote:

Animavore wrote:I can only admit that in that animation the continents wind back into a sphere.

And there's a heavy fudge factor in the video, "ignoring the bits that don't fit". Fringers get to do that.

But the OP clearly states it is a visual question. I think what he is driving at is Do we fight with ourselves against what we can clearly see due to what we already believe to be true that we would turn around and say "No. It does not turn into a sphere." In other words deny what we see.

I would say, "Do you believe what you see in 'Avatar'?" The continents shrink and expand in that vid to achieve their "fit". It's been looked at by several people and dismissed as "wishful thinking".

Animavore wrote:Ah shit. I see what you mean. My eyes were more drawn towards the left-hand pic. The right-hand one is far less convincing.

The right had one should be more convincing from a data point of view, as it winds back the plates according to the age of ocean floor expansion. Visually the left one grabs the attention though.

Gawdzilla wrote:
I would say, "Do you believe what you see in 'Avatar'?" The continents shrink and expand in that vid to achieve their "fit". It's been looked at by several people and dismissed as "wishful thinking".

The continents don't shrink and expand at all. Its the ocean floor that expands, and it expands in a progressive manner according to paleomagnetic age which are the colors.

Dont want to get too into the geology. However its interesting that even with these aspects stated clearly in the video they are still missed.

Animavore wrote:

Gawdzilla wrote:

Animavore wrote:I can only admit that in that animation the continents wind back into a sphere.

And there's a heavy fudge factor in the video, "ignoring the bits that don't fit". Fringers get to do that.

But the OP clearly states it is a visual question. I think what he is driving at is Do we fight with ourselves against what we can clearly see due to what we already believe to be true that we would turn around and say "No. It does not turn into a sphere." In other words deny what we see.

Thats it precisely. I am interested with how emotional rational people get when they are presented with such a major piece of novel information. Denial is often an emotional reaction to loss.

Animavore wrote:I can only admit that in that animation the continents wind back into a sphere.

It also winds back this way in the geologist james maxlows video. Just not as nicely rendered though.

Gawdzilla wrote:

Animavore wrote:I can only admit that in that animation the continents wind back into a sphere.

And there's a heavy fudge factor in the video, "ignoring the bits that don't fit". Fringers get to do that.

The bits that dont fit precisely are fractional. Earth science isnt that completely precise over such long time scales.

Did being asked to vote elicited an emotional reaction can you describe it ?

Would it be similiar to a magician pulling a visual trick and the paranioa that its a con. That the information is not right.

They dont have to shrink or expand any continents in these models.

Brain man wrote:

Gawdzilla wrote:
I would say, "Do you believe what you see in 'Avatar'?" The continents shrink and expand in that vid to achieve their "fit". It's been looked at by several people and dismissed as "wishful thinking".

The continents don't shrink and expand at all. Its the ocean floor that expands, and it expands in a progressive manner according to paleomagnetic age which are the colors.

Without fudging the continents don't fit together so neatly. The guy who made that cheated them in.

Dont want to get too into the geology.

"Dont want to get too into the geology." FFS, what else is that about?

However its interesting that even with these aspects stated clearly in the video they are still missed.

Wrong, they weren't missed. I nearly herniated myself laughing at the concepts he proposed.

Gawdzilla wrote:

Brain man wrote:

Gawdzilla wrote:
I would say, "Do you believe what you see in 'Avatar'?" The continents shrink and expand in that vid to achieve their "fit". It's been looked at by several people and dismissed as "wishful thinking".

The continents don't shrink and expand at all. Its the ocean floor that expands, and it expands in a progressive manner according to paleomagnetic age which are the colors.

Without fudging the continents don't fit together so neatly. The guy who made that cheated them in.

Dont want to get too into the geology.

"Dont want to get too into the geology." FFS, what else is that about?

However its interesting that even with these aspects stated clearly in the video they are still missed.

Wrong, they weren't missed. I nearly herniated myself laughing at the concepts he proposed.

I presume you didnt vote as the other poster on this thread said Yes but..

I am not sure how to put this without sounding corny, and am sure we can turn this into humour of some kind.
Clearly the fitting is very minor in comparison to the whole picture presented over time. So why do you choose not to answer ?

Can you describe what you feel when pressed to answer yes or no on this question ? Now now, couch ready..

Seriously though can you pin down what is the actual pressure that moves you to avoiding the question. Is it that you don't know enough geology but would prefer to trust a consensus of opinion to guide your own opinion ? Until its presented from the mainstream scientific press you don't want to have to even think about it ?

Remember i am not advocating this theory. I find it interesting. Geology isn't my field. I cant say whether expanding earth, pangea or some integration we don't know of explains all the information.

Its the reactions to the theory that are more interesting than the theory itself.

I don't debate this kind of crap. I laugh at it.

Oh not the magical expanding Earth again...

Brain man wrote:I am interested in the mechanism of denial itself. Do we fight ourselves to deny.

I'm not in "denial" about this, I'm just not in "acceptance". There's a very big difference between the two.

On require some degree of supporting evidence which is required by me to dismiss (for whatever reason), the other is merely not accepting made up shit that has no business in reality.

HughMcB wrote:Oh not the magical expanding Earth again...

Brain man wrote:I am interested in the mechanism of denial itself. Do we fight ourselves to deny.

I'm not in "denial" about this, I'm just not in "acceptance". There's a very big difference between the two.

It's another hi-jackable word, like "debunk". Fringers use denial the way some people here use "troll", to claim the high ground for themselves before somebody beats them to it. I call this Godwin's Second Law.

Gawdzilla wrote:It's another hi-jackable word, like "debunk". Fringers use denial the way some people here use "troll", to claim the high ground for themselves before somebody beats them to it. I call this Godwin's Second Law.

You know what, I very much like that.

So how this does theory explain volcano formation?

HughMcB wrote:

Gawdzilla wrote:It's another hi-jackable word, like "debunk". Fringers use denial the way some people here use "troll", to claim the high ground for themselves before somebody beats them to it. I call this Godwin's Second Law.

You know what, I very much like that.

It goes well with Godwin's Third Law, also called The Pee Wee Herman Defense. "I know you are, but what am I?"