Talk:Growing Earth hypothesis

message: 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)
thread_title: Hollywood Movie

message: 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)
thread_title: earlier comments

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

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *Likewise added primary source notice to GE Consortium source and removing tag. MichaelNetzer 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: mass and decay

message: 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)
thread_title:  Creation of matter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Animation 

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

message: 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. 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: David Carl Anderson

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: No Basis for Merging or NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed reference to Adams method of developing theory

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: "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)
thread_title:  False unsourced criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  renamed and cut some unrelated stuff 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section either OR or SYN 

message: As  every planet in every galaxy, even our Earth is formed from cosmic processes from the matter transformation of the particles and subparticles from their energetic wave corpuscular motion into ultradense state and through giga cosmic explosion it transits into formation of the stars and planets independently or in planetary systems. Consequently, the Earth, as a planet is formed from the dispersed ultradense matter in cosmic rotating nebula of the potetial planetary system, where begun the accretion of dispersed cosmic matter forming firstly ultradense kernels of  the star-like cores of the potential planets orbiting the star-like Sun as a gigantic core. Then as a planet has been formed the Earth from core kernel transformation spontaneously and matter attraction from space. The kernel of the core is positioned above solid inner core, as a center spherical ultra-thin layer in transforming, burning state causing production of atom molecular matter in molten state of outer molten core. The lighter upper differenced portion of molten mass is gone out through inhered ways, and stiffened in differnt ways and poured as volcanic lava in surface, it causes Earth growth. This is my gigantic theory overturning Plate Tectonics and Big Bang.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B002:9C09:8CD8:CEF:BD9C:5B33 (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essence of Earth as an cosmic with energetic core.