It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

page: 11
54
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

While stating these things, I also am not denying observed characteristics of geology like tectonic movement and the apparent average constancy of the Earth's diameter.



You mean, paleomagnetic data ...

Excuse me, that's rubbish ... that is, paleomagnetic data is right there besides radioactive decay in dating of material. Commonly accepted, yet commonly known as unreliable.

The inclination of the magnetic field, will be changed everywhere ... with the exception of highly rich iron rocks, on the continents, that have suffered an "exceptional" magnetic field that is greater than the constant magnetic field, the earth undertakes.

Paleomagnetism, is a study where there are too many "prerequisites", that all are done from specific statistic, that have no other purpose, than to prove a specific point.

In the heat of things, it's worthless. And you can read magnetic anomalies, all over the world ... which suggest strong magnetic "anomalies" that have taken place over the earth, even in recent years. In all other places, the inclination of the sediment rock, will always adapt itself to the magnetic field ... if it didn't, we wouldn't have one.

It's like the measure of radioactive decay in material. Yes, it works ... within specific delimiters. But dating rocks and sediments, billions of years back in time, even if only in the millions. Is far outside the safety parameters, and really becomes an "educated guess", rather than factual science. Using these methods, within the safety parameters of a hundred thousand years, or so ... can be said to be a well educated guess. Outside that ... it's becoming more a lottery ticket, than science.

Philosophically, and abstract, there is far too much desire to "preserve" than there is to discover.

Light rock

This is a very light rock, connected with volcanic activity. In it you can observe, that gaseous elements that are within the earths inner. They aren't a theory, they are directly observable.


Magma contains crystals , unmelted rock, and dissolved gasses, but it is primarily a liquid. Oxygen , silica, aluminum , iron , magnesium, calcium, sodium, potassium, titanium, and manganese are the primary elements found in magma, but other trace elements may be present in small amounts


When down in it's lava chamber, and below, the gases are compressed to such a degree that the lava is more dense than it is on the surface.

Eruption model

And finally, the "plasma core" model.


A first approach with this thesis to a renown magazine ended with a refusal and the words "interesting, but here it is returned... and best wishes". In other words, "try to sell it". Two months later, Spectrum Ref 9 ran a treatment of Dr. Hugh Owen's Atlas of Continental Displacement: 200 Million Years to the Present Ref 10 published in 1983. While at the British Museum (Natural History) Owen found, after painstaking research, that "a reduced curvature of the Earth would give a better fitting of the separated continents if they were brought together", the same conclusion garnered here. At the same time, Owen also introduced an ingenious idea: "Are the pressure and heat in the interior of the Earth enough to maintain a plasma core? They probably are, and the solid nickel-iron core of the textbooks may be a myth". According to the transmission of seismic waves through the Earth's core and the composition of meteorites, it had previously been thought that the inner core was solid, composed of nickel, iron and probably sulphur. The outer core was assumed to be molten. Owen explains that "the behaviour of waves passing through a plasma core would be similar to that in a solid iron-sulphur core". He suggests that if the inner core is plasma there is a potential for expansion when the core changes from a plasma into an atomic state. The Earth's outer core may be molten because it has already changed into its atomic state. (This author adds that an explosion potential would also be present if the gravity envelope had been broken by an impact catastrophe.) Mercury, Mars and the Moon appear too low in mass to sustain plasma cores much after their formation. On the other hand, Venus is almost as massive as the Earth and may still have a plasma core. Information about its surface so far indicates a highly mobile crust. Owen points out that a plasma core provides a better explanation for the behaviour of the mantle which surrounds the Earth's outer core. The mantle lies directly beneath the crust and its convection currents are responsible for the creation of new crust and continental movement.


And the waters of the ocean, are the result of condensation effect ... between the oxygen and hydrogen, released from volcanic eruptions. Which were much more frequent in the past.



edit on 13/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



5:20

On as to why scientists are hesitant to admit the earth is growing.

"that viewers is a very big deal. That would change everything in sciemnce. From the smallest particle to the whole universe. 100 years of scientific theory out the window. Thats a lot to give up.

Whats up with that?
Isn't the pursuit of knowledge what science is all about. Whats wrong with letting go of faulty theories and embracing the sound ones...even if we need to start all over again?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
More information on how the core affects the crust and geological activity.

bioresonant.com...



The last few years were the WARMEST ever recorded on Earth. The trend continues. Huge parts of Antarctic and Arctic ice have already melted. Key Antarctic glaciers (Hektoria, Green and Evans for example) increased their melting rate 8 times in 3 years (between 2000 and 2003, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L18401). When glaciers begin to slide to the ocean, the sea level rise will cause not only tsunamis but a global planetary flood.

Volcanoes become active under Arctic Ocean and in Antarctica In the past, volcanic activity was followed by decades of dormancy. Today, when volcanoes erupt they remain active and the neighboring volcanoes erupt... The Largest Volcanoes on Earth have lost their snow-caps Oceans are warmer than ever. Their increased evaporation produces large amount of clouds, rain and widespread flooding Oceans around Antarctica at depths of 5 km are less salty and less dense confirming that Antarctica is melting from underneath. The fresh water is lighter than salt water, so it should be on top...

In heated oceans all currents are severely disrupted Mountain glaciers melt around the globe The weather around the globe becomes more violent every month Trees begun to BLOOM in winter. Photos on the left show Australian blackwood trees blooming in August (Mt Best, Victoria). This is equivalent to European and USA trees blooming in February. Plants detect "season" by monitoring the soil temperature.

Energy of earthquakes systematically increases. The graph on the left depicts the annual quake energy since record begun in 1973, computed on the basis of USGS scientific data from all quakes above 4.0 magnitude since 1973. The data is compared (scaled) to 1973 quake energy. The energy of earthquakes 7.0 and above increased 6 times in this period... Trend computed in 2007 is still true...

According to the current "scientific" dogmas, the planetary interior "crystallizes" and becomes less liquid as the time goes on. So, tectonic plate motion should become slower in time and quakes should become less frequent and less energetic. The evidence presented in the graph on the left demonstrates exactly the opposite. In the period of time when the planetary climate changed by a small fraction of one degree, earthquakes have become 5 to 7 times more energetic.

I wonder why no one on Earth makes any notice of this? WHY ??? NASA publications confirm (Science 308, 1431-1435) that Earth absorbs more energy from the Sun that it is able to reflect to space - about 0.85 MegaWatt per square kilometer more. Pollution increases daily and Solar activity is on the increase until 2012. Global increase in tectonic, volcanic and seismic activity seems certain. Some people claim that the observable earthquake energy rise is due to "improved equpiment" and/or "increasing the number of seismic stations". This claim cannot be true.

Waves from large quakes travel around the globe and are detectable ANYWHERE. Since time of Cold War there is enough seismic stations on Earth to pin-point location of a nuclear explosion (a quake 4.0) within a few km. Increasing number of seismic stations and better equipment can only be responsible for the increase in the number of "small" quakes being detected. The global energy of "small" earthquakes (below 7.0) increased only by 40% since 1973. In contrast, the global energy of quakes 7.0 and above increased 6 times in the same period. This is not any theory. It is an observable FACT.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Redoing theories, how this affects other theories, re teaching teachers, rewriting books, I guess there are a lot of people including governments and universities that might not like this idea.

Anyhow, if humanity is doomed, would there be any point?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I personally think the universe started from gasses, from there in conversion from one state of matter to another solids arrived......So with that i would say the Earth grew as more and more gaseous matter changed to solid.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
The graphic illustration in the op shows all the land mass conected.

If inflation were true then shouldnt all the now seperate continents be the exact same distance from each other. ie Africa should be the same distance from the Americas as it is from Europe and that certainly is not the case.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
The graphic illustration in the op shows all the land mass conected.

If inflation were true then shouldnt all the now seperate continents be the exact same distance from each other. ie Africa should be the same distance from the Americas as it is from Europe and that certainly is not the case.



Not necessarily at all. There are variations within the core, the mantle, magma convection and crust including weak spots and fissures that facilitate magma flow under the oceans and sea that causes variations in the distribution of landmass above sea level.

More information here

______beforeitsnews/environment/2011/04/doomsday-earths-core-spinning-out-of-control-598822.html


Yet, advocates counter by pointing to deep ocean fissures that continue to split and widen while being "patched" by material upsurging from the planet's mantle. It's evidence, they argue, that the Earth is expanding, blowing up like a balloon, and will eventually explode many millions of years from now. The shifting, aberrant, unstable core is a symptom of the process and causes geomagnetic field instability.




The core shift affects the deep sea plates—the mega-continent sized plates the land masses sit on. As the core shifts the mantle pressure builds and the plates crack and move generating mega-thrust quakes like the ones that devastated Japan during March 2011. And as the magnetic field shifts it causes an electromagnetic flux affecting climate. Its interaction with the sun's electrical field, they claim, will fuel the outbreak of superstorms across the planet from Russia to Australia, from the United States to northern Europe. And there is evidence of that with the two back-to-back superstorms that pummeled Australia, the giant storms that lashed the UK and Russia and the titanic snowstorms that slammed America during the winter of 2010.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
This thread is fascinating.

Wish I had time for full involvement in threads like this.

thanks OP - - and all who contributed to me learning new stuff.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
I personally think the universe started from gasses, from there in conversion from one state of matter to another solids arrived......So with that i would say the Earth grew as more and more gaseous matter changed to solid.
Nobody doubts that, but the question is whether the accretion happened over 4 billion years ago, or in the last 200 million years. If the Earth had really grown 40% in the last 200 million years due to mass accretion, as some claim, the accretion process would have dramatically affected the environment. Look at the effect just one rock had 65 million years ago that made the dinosaurs extinct! How many rocks like that would have to hit the Earth to cause a 40% gain in mass?

Have you thought about that or tried to calculate it?

So why am I talking about rocks hitting Earth instead of just gas? Because we've modeled how the gas behaves in simulations like this one:

Planetary System Formation Simulation (200 AU View)


That shows that the gas forms clumps, like planets and asteroids, and it doesn't stay a dispersed gas for long.
edit on 13-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Yep I posted a thread about this a while ago too, the theory actually makes sense, instead of a huge planet of water where continents boil up from below. I can see that happening too in small areas that are volcanically active, but most planets out there look just like ours without water.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
1. What's causing the distention?
2. Does this theory imply another doubling of the Earth's size in 30 million years?
3. How big can the Earth get?
4. Will the Earth be one day 100% covered in water?
5. Does this somehow play into the whole 'Global Warming' / oceans rising hubbub?
6. How does this reconcile with earthquake theory?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Rather than expansion just from space debris, it is possible that nuclear reactions and gases formed in the magma have caused the expansion and the resulting magma flows from fissures is patching areas of expansion.

www.spacedaily.com...


On June 2 1972 a French analyst named Bougzigues discovered spent uranium in an ore sample later found to have originated from the Oklo deposits of Gabon in South West Africa. A number of ancient natural reactors were consequently discovered in the middle of this ore deposit. Scientists investigating the site confirmed that fission had taken place there approximately 2 billion years ago. U-235, the fissionable isotope of uranium, was more abundant in natural deposits of that era than at present. So ancient ores were in fact quite similar to enriched uranium and could fission under the right circumstances. With water acting as a moderator on particularly porous ores a sustained reaction became possible. The existence of natural reactors such as these had been theoretically predicted by P. K. Kuroda in 1956; Oklo was the first actual evidence of them to have been found.




Results of the first numerical simulation of a deep-Earth reactor were published in 2001 by Marvin Herndon and Daniel Hollenbach. Confirming everything Herndon had published in the eight years prior to it, the calculations showed for the very first time how a deep-Earth nuclear reactor would produce both helium-3 and helium-4 in similar ratios to what is actually found in volcanic lavas and basalts. This is extremely strong evidence for a deep earth reactor. Recently, nuclear engineers and scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory made further numerical simulations which refine and extend the original findings of Herndon and Hollenbach. A 4.5 billion year old planetary scale georeactor with a heat output of approximately four terawatts looks increasingly likely as more evidence keeps mounting. The variable energy output expected with such a natural reactor has some supportive evidence also. Earth's geomagnetic field has over the course of history weakened, increased, reversed and even temporarily shutdown. Activity which makes very little sense if you ascribe to the traditional assumed heat generation from an assumed cooling and growing nickel iron inner core.




Nuclear georeactor numerical simulation results reveal increasingly higher ratios of helium-3 to helium-4 fission products occurring as the world ages. A sign of uranium fuel depletion at the core. This trend combined with the high helium ratios observed today in fresh lavas from Hawaii and Iceland indicates the end of the georeactor's lifetime to be rapidly approaching(geologically speaking). Dr. Herndon is now working to narrow down a more specific date for this event currently estimated to happen anytime from the next century to a billion years in the future. Beryllium-9 and beryllium-10 samples from the core, if locatable, might contain vital information to help with predictions. When combined with other data it could provide us with an answer to 'when'. After the georeactor does die, the Earths magnetic field will follow, having no source of energy to power it. This collapse will have an adverse global effect on animal and plant life, from birds getting lost to solar radiation stripping off our atmosphere. It's questionable if life could in fact survive at all. We do know that the sterile looking surface of Mars presently has no geomagnetic field. This theory undoubtedly deserves serious scrutiny from the scientific community. Like so many other 'earthshaking' new ideas in science it has sadly been largely ignored to date. Plate tectonics suffered the same 'pariah' status for fully half a century with experts refusing even to consider it. Radical new ideas in science frequently face hostility because scientists themselves are only human. Geophysicists who have spent the better part of their lives writing papers on the dynamics of Earth's inner structure do not want to hear about how they might have been wasting their lives chasing the wrong theory. Building up a reputation as being an authority on a subject is extremely difficult. It requires enormous dedication and long years of study with little pay and perhaps mounting debts. Many of us imagine the scientific community to be extremely logical and fair-minded in assessing new ideas. We see these people in their spotless white frocks taking exceedingly precise measurements of the universe and its easy to think they must administer themselves in the same way.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
More on accretion.

www.expanding-earth.org...


+Passive daily accretion of mass from extraterrestrial meteorites and dust. This was the only source of planetary growth until the proto-planet reached spherical shape.

+ Dynamic core expansion due to gravitationally-generated compressive heating and phase change of originally cold solid matter to molten magma after the proto-planet reached spherical shape. The tectonic force of expanding magma is now the primary mechanism of expansion, and greatly exceeds the slow external growth rate of surface accretion of mass.

+ Magma extrusion via volcanoes and midocean ridges creates new continental crust and oceanic seafloor that increases the planet’s total surface area and diameter.

+ Emission of virgin H2O, gases and minerals via terrestrial volcanoes that gradually generated an atmosphere and hydrosphere, and via underwater hydrothermal vents ("black smoker vents") that filled the expanding ocean basins.

+ Solar insolation of additional mass by photosynthesis after H2O and organic life emerged on the planet.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Plate tectonics suffered the same 'pariah' status for fully half a century with experts refusing even to consider it.
This is partially true. They basically asked the same questions that are being asked now:
"Where's the evidence" There was evidence of similar fossils on opposite sides of the Atlantic, but that alone wasn't convincing. There had to be evidence of plate movement to support the plate tectonics theory that just wasn't there. So it was rejected.



Radical new ideas in science frequently face hostility because scientists themselves are only human.
It's because the plate tectonics theory lacked sufficient evidence that it was rejected. Once sufficient evidence was provided, it was accepted. Scientists may be human, but they are convinced by valid evidence.

So if you understand why plate tectonics was rejected, you should understand why expanding Earth is rejected. Not only is there insufficient evidence to support expanding Earth, there is plenty of evidence that directly contradicts the EE claims.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No, I would propose that the Earth started out as a gas planet that acquired an engine (plasma/fusion) at its centre that converted gasses (the atmosphere) into solids (earth) and water (oceans) till where we are today.....that could also involve subduction in the process as well as accretion from outer space.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nobody doubts that, but the question is whether the accretion happened over 4 billion years ago, or in the last 200 million years.


The true question, is not about accretion ... it's about the nature of the earths core.

The iron-nickel theory, has a fundamental flaw. Well, it's about as flawed as a swiss cheeze, but the fundamental flaw is that you're talking accretion of material, that could not have existed at the time. The sun, doesn't spew out any iron or nickel. And all the meteorites, must have come from somewhere ... and it aint stars, or even dead stars.

The earths core, and any core in the entire Universe ... MUST, and I insist it must, start from a plasma body. The question is how it evolvs from there.

And the heart of it all is, that we maintain the view, that the core is still plasma ... and that the enlargement, and maybe even possible occasional contraction, has to do with this plasma body, and not accretion of material.

That is the true "core" of it all.



If the Earth had really grown 40% in the last 200 million years due to mass accretion, as some claim, the accretion process would have dramatically affected the environment. Look at the effect just one rock had 65 million years ago that made the dinosaurs extinct! How many rocks like that would have to hit the Earth to cause a 40% gain in mass?


There has been dramatic effect in the environment. The dynosaurs died ... and it's NOT because of the fable little meteor that landed on earth.

For the dynosaurs to ever have been able to walk this earth, you need lesser gravity and/or increased density of the air. The answer, is both. Increase density of the air, would mean that dynosaurs could fly with lesser wing span, than they did. So, density that is 2/3rd that of water, is not possible. Evolution provides evidence against it ... the answer must therefore be gravity. Or, as I stated, most likely a combination of both. As you know, my dear watson ... everything else removed, whatever remains must be the truth.

These conditions vanished ... now, that is a HUGE and dramatic change in the environment, if there ever was one.



Have you thought about that or tried to calculate it?


You need to have a "conceptual" understanding of the Universe. Start with "hydrogen" plasma ... and work from there ... we already know, that 99% of the universe is plasma. Knowing it to be the heart of the Universe, it's conceptually impossible, that the heart of all planets ... is an iron-nickel combination.

So, putting up a math concept with elements that didn't exist at the time ... has no value.



So why am I talking about rocks hitting Earth instead of just gas? Because we've modeled how the gas behaves in simulations like this one:


It's just another "flat earth" theory. Or a new "genesis" theory ... it's far more confortable to think you are living on solid rock, than to live with the horror of standing on a plasma bomb, that may go boom boom.

Seriously ... that's what "flat earth" theory is ... it's "comforting" theory, that the world is what you can comprehend and nothing beyond that.

If you wanna make a "planet" simulation ... do it, with ONlY PLASMA GAS, as a starter. Now make a sun, that doesn't create any heavy materia, only helium or at most ... oxygen. And try to make rocks build planets from there.

Can't.

edit on 13/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 13/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Actually that comment was part of a quote from a science site, I didn't post it as personal opinion therefore won't defend or criticize it.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 



Yet, advocates counter by pointing to deep ocean fissures that continue to split and widen while being "patched" by material upsurging from the planet's mantle. It's evidence, they argue, that the Earth is expanding, blowing up like a balloon, and will eventually explode many millions of years from now. The shifting, aberrant, unstable core is a symptom of the process and causes geomagnetic field instability.
Thanks for your answer but what is described is certainly NOT expanding like a balloon. In fact it is expanding in a way that has no known parallels I know of. Venus is high volcanically active, does Venus show signs of inflation. It should?

Your supplied quote above. Why would the earth eventually explode? Mars shows a history of violent and volcanically active past but shows little activity now. It has not exploded. Why would the earth?

The two earthquakes (Indian Ocean, the cause of the tsunami) and Japan the plates moved and acted just how plate tectonics describe and not how you say inflation works.

All the measurements of these two events confirm tectonics.

You write with such confidence about what is happening in the deep core of this planet when my understanding is at the moment it is still in the best guess stages, a crystal core being one of them guesses

Why is it that when samples of steam coming from various volcanoes many miles inland has the signature signs that show the source of the water for the steam is the pacific ocean that they are associated with?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 
You never factor in pressure. What part do you think do you think the pressures that increase with metre you move towards the core plays in your description?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Expanding earth makes sense... I remember reading about this a long time ago and thinking that if the universe is expanding, and we are part of the universe we expand too....


But what does this say about dinosaurs and fossils?

if the earth is expanding and fossils are part of the earth does that make what ever has been fossilized smaller when it existed and if so can we use this rate of growth as a measurement to date'



new topics




 
54
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join