Okay, rebuttal to the rebuttal.
Does this person have a name or a handle? It'll be easier to address him...
He said:
When we put the 10 mph theory to the test of a 3d animated segment, it may become evident that 50 mph is more likely than 10.
Saying, "The proof of my theory is that I saw how some animators illustrated my theory, and it looked to me like my theory was right" isn't very scientific, or logical. It's like the people who believe in ETs saying, "The proof of our theory that aliens visited Earth is that
Close Encounters of the Third Kind looked just like we always visualized it, and so that proves that aliens visited Earth."
I understand the point he's making, about sometimes when you can
see something, it helps to clarify your thinking, but in this case I'm wondering if he understood my point about the different types of dinosaurs. Nobody in science is claiming that the big lumbering giants like Brontosaurus and Triceratops could run fast. So Neal's claim that they would have broken their bones if they had tried to run is just pointless--nobody has ever claimed they could run in the first place. Neal is rebutting an argument that nobody has made.
Compare this to a kite. I made many large home made kites as a child and I remember the problem we had with making the old fashioned home made ones fly. The body was large but light, it needed a counter balance however, so it wouldn’t flail from side to side because of it’s large size which was light in weight and easily gets carried away in movement. That’s why it needs a long and heavy tail in order to keep it from flailing and it doesn’t really have a fulcrum either because it’s not the same as a weight offset but rather a mass offset.
This betrays a lack of understanding of basic physics.
A kite's tail is not a counter-balance or a lever resting on a fulcrum. Kites are all "about " aerodynamics (flying), not leverage (pushing and lifting).
http://shahrazad.bd.psu.edu/Baxter/classes/phys215/215oct131997.html]The physics of a kite's tail.[/url]
...Kites are an interesting mechanical system from a physics perspective. A kite `hanging' motionless in the sky is in static equilibrium under the forces acting on it. When the forces, change by someone pulling on the string or the wind changing, then the kite is no longer in equilibrium and it moves up or down or left or right.
This figure is a simple model of the forces acting on a kite. Most kites are very light, so the weight is extremely small. However, the tension can be very large and the strength of the lift force will vary with wind strength and kite design. Not all kites have tails, but a tail generally adds a force to the bottom of the kite that makes it more stable.
A tail adds an
aerodynamic force that makes the kite more stable, not a "counterbalance" like with a seesaw.
A cheetah's tail, when it swerves, pushes the opposite way against the cheetah's hindquarters, thus acting as a lever balanced on the fulcrum of the cat's tailbone. However, a kite's tail cannot
push the kite in a different direction from the direction the kite is currently flying, as there is nothing that can serve as a fulcrum--the tail is merely lightly fastened to the end of the kite.
Here is a diagram of how a lever and fulcrum work. This is how a seesaw works. This is not how a kite works. A kite flies. Air flowing over the kite and its tail determines how it flies, not "leverage".
There is no such thing in physics as a difference between a "weight offset" and a "mass offset" when it comes to levers and fulcrums. That's because they're working against gravity, and when you're pushing something against gravity, it doesn't matter whether you're pushing a pound of lead or a pound of feathers on the end of the seesaw--it's still a pound that you need to lift.
The kite's tail works not because it has "mass" but because it has
size.
How to make a kite tail.
Tails: Match your tail to the wind. A streamer tail may be fine in moderate winds, but not enough for strong winds. If your kite loops an dives, add more streamers or change to a tail with more drag or catches more wind. If your kite flies low and won't climb, reduce or remove the tail.
A kite tail is a factor of "size", not "mass". If "mass" were a factor in kite tails, then the advice would be to add a
heavier tail in certain winds. But the advice is to add a
longer tail or a
bigger tail, so that it catches more wind, not so that it becomes heavier or has more mass.
More on how kites work.
A tail should be the first consideration in stabilizing a kite. The tail only impedes the kites lift minimally while providing excellent stability against spins, dives as well as twist.
A tail functions because it produces drag directed in line along with the tail. This in effect lends to the stability of the kite by keeping the kite along a stabilized axis of flight. It is easier to rotate objects of shorter (less force required) length than objects of longer lengths (greater force required). In stronger winds, the forces on the kite is greater, therefore a tail of suitably longer length is demanded to stabilize the kite.
See? It's not "leverage", but "aerodynamics". What the tail is made out of doesn't matter, as long as it's not too heavy and weighs down the kite so much that it won't fly. You can make kite tails out of any kind of fabric, from silk to nylon to cotton sheets, or even plastic. If "mass" made a difference in kite tails, then the kind of fabric you used in the tail would make a difference, because pieces from a cotton sheet would have a different mass than silk. But it doesn't. What matters is the size of the tail, not its weight or mass.
**************
the earth is growing as new molten matter is created in the center
Where is this "molten matter" coming from? How is it being "created" in the center? Suggest a physical mechanism whereby new matter is being created in the center of the Earth.
This new molten matter then hardens and becomes as another segment of the oceon floor.
Yes, there is molten matter coming up in places like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. But in the plate tectonics theory, this molten matter is created when continents subduct and their rock is shoved back down into the mantle, where it re-melts and then is moved around to come back up somewhere else as molten rock.
In the Expanding Earth theory, where is the molten matter that comes up from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge coming from? The mantle, yes? Question: if the mantle has been squeezing molten matter up from the center of the Earth for billions of years, it would have squeezed itself dry after a certain period of time, yes? The center of the Earth would be basically empty of new molten matter, unless some more is going to come in from somewhere else. So where is the new "molten matter" coming from?
That’s why Neal indicates that the oceon floor is much younger than the continents on the surface of the planet. If science truly examines these cracks in the oceon floor, they’ll discover that certain matter there is as young as the last 100 years. But they have to find the cracks first and examine them.
Um, I've got a news flash for you: Neal didn't "discover" this. This is not a radical new theory that Neal Adams, or indeed, the whole Expanding Earth theory, have come up with. Mainstream scientists have known for a long time that the ocean floors are younger than the continents. It's called
Seafloor spreading.
And, it's no secret that there is matter on the ocean floor as young as 100 years--again, mainstream science has known this for a long time. And, in fact, there is matter there that is only a few minutes old, in places like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
And, finally--so what? Not only is this not an earth-shattering discovery, being known for a long time, but also, it doesn't prove anything to support the Expanding Earth theory.
I'll discuss those with him. His name is Michael, btw.
