Another problem for Pangaea. Score 1 for expanding earth.

Another problem for Pangaea. Score 1 for expanding earth.

Source

A vast collection of bees, termites, spiders, flies and ants dating back 53 million years has challenged assumptions about India's early history.
The bugs, preserved in lumps of amber, show that India was not cut off from the rest of the world before joining the Asian continent 50 million years ago.
For long periods when India was an island there must have been a flow of small creatures travelling between it and the mainland.

The statement that there was a flow of small creatures travelling between India and 'the mainland' when India 'was an island' makes some huge assumptions.

• That India was indeed an island - a suggestion that has not been proven and is only a part of the Pangaea super-continent theories.
  
• That somehow these small animals managed to travel. Would that have been by boat or did they catch a flight?
  

I think what it should have said is that the fact that there was a flow of small animals disproves the theory that India was an island and thus calls into question the Pangaea Super-continent, and the suggestion/theory that India managed to tear itself away from Africa and go floating around in the seas until it crashed into Asia and caused the Himalayan mountains.

GIF animation of Pangaea



Then, because the theory has been attacked, and the great God of Consensus has been enraged, the scientists attempt to pour oil on troubled waters and mitigate their crime of suggesting something that does not agree with the consensus:

Rust and his colleagues, whose findings appear in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, believe long chains of volcanic islands may have allowed the bugs to mingle by 'island hopping'.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0397453ad15.png[/atsimg]

The only long chain of Islands is actually on the wrong side of the plate boundary where material is being extruded and would not/does not lead to Africa. If you look at the GIF above you can see this to be the case even if you subscribe to Pangaea.

The fact that the relatives of these insects are found north of India, and in Europe which in case the 'scientists' had not noticed is also north of India and very definitely connected, leads me to believe that this discovery is another nail in the coffin of Pangaea and a score for the Expanding Earth or such theories that do not subscribe to the obvious nonsense of Pangaea.

Until now the generally accepted theory was that the Indian sub-continent broke off from the East African land mass some 160 million years ago and floated through the oceans at a speed of 20 cm a year. If this theory was correct, India would have been isolated for 100 million years. Because of this 50-million-year-old amber deposit, the theory doesn't stand any more

Pangaea or something else? What do you think?

Originally posted by PuterMan
Pangaea or something else? What do you think?

Not expanding Earth that's for sure.

So how did the Aborigines get to Australia again?

-m0r

reply to post by PuterMan


I find the expanding earth theory compelling. Neal Adams has done some interesting work on it.I wouldn't rule it out but it still has some kinks that need ironing out.



www.nealadams.com...

IRM

reply to post by PuterMan


Heya this may interest you.

Longest journey The dragonflies are clearly migrating from India across the open sea to the Maldives, says Anderson. "That by itself is fairly amazing, as it involves a journey of 600 to 800km across the ocean," he says. Quite how they do it was a bit of a mystery, as in October at least they appear to be flying against the prevailing winds. However, in October, and continuing into November and December, a weather system called the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone moves southwards over the Maldives. Ahead of the ITCZ the wind blows towards India, but above and behind it the winds blow from India. So it seems that the dragonflies are able to reach Maldives by flying on these winds at altitude above 1000m.

Longest insect migration

So quite possible for other insects that were around then to do something simliar ?

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by PuterMan
Pangaea or something else? What do you think?

Not expanding Earth that's for sure.

So how did the Aborigines get to Australia again?

-m0r

Across the land. Try reading up on expanding earth. Your dismissive question has no substance particularly since in either theory they would have had to have done the same.

The expanding earth theories do not preclude the possibilities of Aborigines in Australia, but in fact increase the likelihood.

Neal Adams Kiddies Cartoon

reply to post by PuterMan


To reply in a simpler fashion.

Where did the water come from?

-m0r

reply to post by Jamjar


Interesting yes. Of course the Maldives are in the 'long chain of islands', but that is very different matter by comparison to the distance to Africa. I am not ruling it out however.

Both of these are of course theories and neither can actually be proven although the 'scientists' might have you think otherwise.

reply to post by m0r1arty


OK, you really should go and read up on Neal Adams theory before asking any more questions especially since the Pangaea theory also has problems with regard to water.

Try this as a starting point for the theories and an answer to your question.

I have also found the expanding earth theory compelling, but I have some issues with expanding earth in combination with subduction zones. I am not sure we *would* have subduction zones if the earth were constantly expanding. Unless, of course, the mechanism is actually a combination of both expansion and drift.

reply to post by PuterMan


No I'm not wasting my time with a theory that has a supposed 'children's version' of the theory which clearly is mocking anyone who just doesn't buy into it.

Question number 1: Where the feck is the water?

Answer that and I might have a look at your idiotic* website.

-m0r

* A term used in the children's version of the theory - very progressive educationalist eh?

Idiot

reply to post by rogerstigers

I have also found the expanding earth theory compelling, but I have some issues with expanding earth in combination with subduction zones. I am not sure we *would* have subduction zones if the earth were constantly expanding. Unless, of course, the mechanism is actually a combination of both expansion and drift.

The pure expanding earth theorists (I believe Neal Adams included) would deny any possibility of subduction. There is however a feeling amongst some that a combination as you suggest of expanding earth and subduction answers a number of questions.

I for one believe this is a distinct possibility. It is very difficult to deny the expanding earth theories, especially when you look at moons like Europa when the effects are more visible, but it is also very difficult to deny subduction especially since most of the earthquakes and volcanoes occur within the zones that are deemed to be subduction zones. I don't have a problem with me believe that both are possible.

reply to post by m0r1arty


If you choose to be closed minded then I cannot help you to engage with all possibilities which is the course chosen by most intelligent people when examining a subject. To choose not to look at something because it was produced for children is ignorant and we are supposed to deny ignorance.

You will never learn anything by not looking at all aspects.

Answer that and I might have a look at your idiotic* website

I would also point out that it is not my website. The website belongs to Neal Adams.

Question number 1: Where the feck is the water?

Answer: Read and explore and you will learn. Retort with expletives without doing any work to find out on your part and you will remain in ignorance

reply to post by PuterMan


You appear to be keeping me in ignorance whilst pointing me to websites supposedly made for children which contain, according to your personal word filter, expletives.

Name where the water is, came from, or appeared and I will certainly give some thought to your ideas that expandin Earth is at least an interesting theory.

But beyond the Earth cooling down, attracting the matter around it and establishing an orbit with the moon I cannot see why it would expand.

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


Is there any reason why the water could not have been there in the first place? If expansion theory holds true, then perhaps the earth started as a ocean planet with the entire surface covered in water. Then as it expanded and basins formed where the plates cracked, the water filled the basins, ultimately expanding into oceans.

It's an idea anyway.

reply to post by PuterMan


Yeesh.. this guy you are referencing seems a bit on the angry side. Has he been the victim of a scientific witch hunt or something

reply to post by rogerstigers


It's an idea.

But polarity would have formed ice caps which would have set weather in motion.

This in turn would have formed tides and erosion and before long there would be no need for the Earth to expand.

Even supposing the Earth still did the mountains and such which are mentioned in the 'kiddies version' would have been formed via glacial movement and not just because it needed twisting to fit a theory.

I've seen evidence of glacial movement and it isn't some myth.

The lack of water is the number one reason why this theory falls flat on it's arse.

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


The site I directed you to was this.

www.nealadams.com...

This does not contain any expletives and that reference was to your use of the word 'feck' as an obvious replacement for another word as opposed to it's Irish usage of various different varieties - including that use in the vernacular.

That aside do please read that 'Open Letter'

This is one of the Pangaea theory problems

So anyway, suddenly, well, not suddenly we get water, and not just a little water. We got, according to science, so much water that we not only filled these gigantic basins 5 miles deep covering two-thirds no? Three quarters? You don't say? Okay 5 miles deep and covering three quarters of our Earth. What's that? Oh yeah, it also covered half to two thirds of our upper tectonic plate with another mile of water, to give us the shallow seas. "Warm seas? Salt water seas?"

Well, they couldn't be warm, right, cause they were connected with the oceans, and they also must be salt water, right?
No? Warm? Fresh water? I don't understand? They had to be connected with the oceans.. Had to be. Sea level would have to be a mile deeper.

This does not explain where all the water came from either - and this is the accepted scientific theory - yet all that water came from somewhere and science has no explanation for it?

The expanding earth theory has a solution and actually his solution applies to mainstream science as well. Neal Adams is NOT the best person to describe this - but here is his explanation.

The crust is constantly cracking and spreading exposing new young hard granite and silicate surface. Gasses are ejected (cause all elements are manufactured on the inside Earth, all elements. Yes. All. What else? All!! Some? No, all! ALL!)

As gravity increases gasses are held and fall as liquid water to the surface. This cools the Earth's surface more and the crust gets thicker.

Now there are better descriptions than this, but the principle applies to both scenarios, the difference between the two being the timing.

I am looking for the references I have for this and I will get back to you when I find them.

If you are interested in a more technical discussion of the merits and failings of both theories you could try looking at Bill Mundy's site.

www.grisda.org...

There is a mass of references at the end of that article.

Originally posted by PuterMan
This does not contain any expletives and that reference was to your use of the word 'feck' as an obvious replacement for another word as opposed to it's Irish usage of various different varieties - including that use in the vernacular.

No, I was using the Irish. I'm from Glasgow, Scotland - we share a lot of the same language.

Originally posted by PuterMan
If you are interested in a more technical discussion of the merits and failings of both theories you could try looking at Bill Mundy's site.

www.grisda.org...

There is a mass of references at the end of that article.

Thank you I will also look into it and come back here to give my thoughts upon it once I've read it.

I'm not against you PuterMan - I just think that fantastical ideas need reasoning to them and so far from what I have read there is none to this theory.

Perhaps I'll be swayed once I've read the Grisda material.

-m0r

reply to post by m0r1arty


You need to remember in all this that glaciation is a relatively recent thing - only half the history of the earth. The normal state of the earth if you take time over the 4.5 billion years as actually hot and tropical.

You are not going back far enough if you are considering glaciation, Wikipedia's article has good timeline.

Basically water has been around for much longer than is needed for either theory so how does this fit in?

The lack of water is the number one reason why this theory falls flat on it's arse.

Are you referring to the amount of water needed to fill the deep oceans? Remember how fossils (sea shells) are found ON LAND, up mountains and NOT on the ocean floor? Water has drained into the deeper oceans, it has also been added to by chemical processes. I believe you are making the assumption that all of the earth was dry land before the expansion, and this is not the case, nor has it ever been stated to be the case.

Edit:

Incidentally measurements were taken by satellite which showed that the earth was expanding by 18mm a year. Because the 'scientists' thought this was anomalous and could not be, they removed the 18mm - and continue to do so. (I will find the source for this) I guess that is science for you. Does that behaviour sound familiar???

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by m0r1arty

 

The crust is constantly cracking and spreading exposing new young hard granite and silicate surface. Gasses are ejected (cause all elements are manufactured on the inside Earth, all elements. Yes. All. What else? All!! Some? No, all! ALL!)

As gravity increases gasses are held and fall as liquid water to the surface. This cools the Earth's surface more and the crust gets thicker.

Now there are better descriptions than this, but the principle applies to both scenarios, the difference between the two being the timing.

Actually, my issue here is that the base gravity of the planet would not increase (notwithstanding new impacts from asteroids, etc.) so that would not be the reason for the water. I think the current theory as to where water came from on the planet is sound.. much of it rained down (pun intended) from comets and asteroids, and a lot of it came about as the chemistry of early earth happened.