Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

Stars and planets form from clouds of dust and gas, which were created in supernova explosions. Centers of gravity within such clouds attract particles. Gas accumulates in the very center and eventually enough mass is accumulated to trigger the nuclear processes needed for a star to be born.

Does anyone notice the circular argument here?

A "supernova" is a nova (Latin "new") explosion of a very large star, creating a nebula of illuminated gas that is one of the most visible of all celestial phenomena.

Hmm, so to create a star, you need material from a supernova ... but to have a supernova, you need a large star.

This is a circular argument, and is the basic flaw of every "view" of how the solar system was formed.

Putting it plainly ... it's an impossible way for the solar system to ever have been formed this way.

reply to post by violence=answer

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'

Many of the fossils we find are small. So by your logic that would mean the were minute when they lived and the microscopic fossils even smaller.

When the fossil remains of the blue whale are found in the future it will be even bigger than it is now and that is the biggest known animal ever to have lived.

reply to post by bjarneorn
Of course it is impossible the way you describe it so there is a chance you may have it wrong rather than everyone else. Just saying

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Stars and planets form from clouds of dust and gas, which were created in supernova explosions. Centers of gravity within such clouds attract particles. Gas accumulates in the very center and eventually enough mass is accumulated to trigger the nuclear processes needed for a star to be born.

Does anyone notice the circular argument here?

A "supernova" is a nova (Latin "new") explosion of a very large star, creating a nebula of illuminated gas that is one of the most visible of all celestial phenomena.

Hmm, so to create a star, you need material from a supernova ... but to have a supernova, you need a large star.

This is a circular argument, and is the basic flaw of every "view" of how the solar system was formed.

Putting it plainly ... it's an impossible way for the solar system to ever have been formed this way.

That's because you are not taking into account how the first stars formed. and their composition and the composition of our universe itself.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in our universe, and is both the simplest element and first to form.

The first stars were made mostly of nothing but hydrogen, who's stellar cores forged heavier elements. Smaller stars out gassed when they died, much more massive stars exploded in super novas. The detonation of those super novas forged even heavier elements that normally would not be able to form even in the largest super giants.

When a star dies, from either out gassing in a small star, or a massive explosion in a super nova from gigantic stars, there is lots of hydrogen still there that leaves the star when it dies.

The abundance of hydrogen in our universe is very apparent. All one has to do is look at the nebula in our galaxy and you'll see huge clouds of molecular hydrogen. These are called Stellar Nurseries

Originally posted by colin42
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?

It plays an enormous role ... it's what causes the core to rech the state it is in.

Stars and planets form from clouds of dust and gas, which were created in supernova explosions. Centers of gravity within such clouds attract particles. Gas accumulates in the very center and eventually enough mass is accumulated to trigger the nuclear processes needed for a star to be born

What we read here, is that stars and planets are basically formed the same way. That sort of makes sense, doesn't it ... but it also states, that the gases are collected in the center ... as it should ... the only thing that doesn't fit in hee, is the supernova part. So, you only have gas clouds originally making up stars and planets, and the center of these being plasma gas. The outer layers, are collection of material that comes later, from supernovas ...

But they don't make up the center of the earth ... it's still a plasma ball, and the preassure is not enough to start a nuclear fusion. But it's enough to make this planet alive ...

events in the history and evolution of the interior of Venus have left that planet with practically no intrinsic magnetic field

The pressure at the core, makes it give us our magnetic field and gives the earth it's "plasma" features.

The lightning is cloud-to-cloud and about 35 miles above the surface, said University of California, Los Angeles geophysics professor C.T. Russell, lead author of a paper on the Venusian fireworks

And while there is lightning on venus, it's cloud-to-cloud, and not cloud-to-ground. There is an essential difference, being the state of the core within the planet. The core of the earth, is at a stage, where it is highly electromagnetic and it's probably this feature that triggered life itself.

Here is a good read, on the subject. It even touches on "exploding planets". This is not a new subject, that planets can explode ... that it's the planets plasma core, that is the culprit, however is a new part and not really in the mainstream either.

Planets formation

reply to post by bjarneorn
reply to post by bjarneorn

What we read here, is that stars and planets are basically formed the same way. That sort of makes sense, doesn't it

No not really. The earth is a rocky planet and a star is a star. The dust particles that formed the earth may not be enough to start a nuclear reaction as in a sun but that does not mean they are not 'cooked' at the earths core and that would as far as I know cause the captured particles to change.

So, you only have gas clouds originally making up stars and planets, and the centre of these being plasma gas.

You are describing the universe as if it only formed once. Observations of the universe show it to be in constant flux so the particles of the proto universe are not the same as the particles now and probably not when our earth formed either.

The outer layers, are collection of material that comes later, from supernovas ...

I see no evidence for that claim or no logic behind it either. Jupiter is much more massive than the earth and so should have sucked in more of the materials you say came later and so should be a huge rocky planet. It is not.

Thanks for the link. Will read it now

reply to post by colin42


I didn't say I believed in an exploding earth, though this could be possible given the right conditions, I posted this link as it has valid information as to core studies.

I believe the core is melting as the link suggests. It could even be more of a nuclear reactor as the other link shows there is proof of nuclear fission within the earth. I also believe the interaction of the core with cosmic influences, radiation etc. mantle, magma convection and crust, affects the expansion of the earths surface area and geological events.

I believe the earth is probably expanding as is the universe, and I very strongly believe in cosmic influences having much more of an influence on earth than many presume. Such as the actions and interactions of neutrinos, dark energy and dark matter.

www.ouramazingplanet.com...

www.spacedaily.com...

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.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

Thank you . I really find warmth that you put some time to think about it.

In other periods when the land mass's did form new super continents not all of the mass's connected ; only a few times this occurred when all land masses connected Gondwanaland , Pangaea , and Rodina. Other times smaller continents didn't reconnect maybe got subducted. We have extinct plates that we can view on land still in some places on earth. This suggest they have be a number of land masses that don't exist today that and once exist in our ( Earths ) past.

Originally posted by lordbayfin
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Thank you .

I really find warmth that you put some time to think about it.

In other periods when the land mass's did form new super continents not all of the mass's connected ; only a few times this occurred when all land masses connected Gondwanaland , Pangaea , and Rodina. Other times smaller continents didn't reconnect maybe got subducted. We have extinct plates that we can view on land still in some places on earth. This suggest they have be a number of land masses that don't exist today that and once exist in our ( Earths ) past.

edit on 13-9-2012 by lordbayfin because: (no reason given)

That does sound very reasonable!

Originally posted by bjarneorn

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 ...

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...

And finally, the "plasma core" model.

... 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? ...

No, I was not referring to 'paleomagnetism'. I hardly ever handle rocks because my field of study is Astrophysics.

I was referring to the orbital and rotational details of the Earth and its place in the Solar System (which don't work for an expanding Earth).

If the Earth was 40% smaller (as some have suggested in other posts), then (assuming all other values have stayed the same) its rotational speed must have been significantly faster than it is now (like a ballerina pirouetting and pulling her arms in spins faster, if she started with her arms in and then extended them, she'd spin slower). The equatorial radius of the Earth is currently 40,074 km. 40% of that would be 16,029.6 km. I won't bore you with the maths, but this would give the Earth a 'day' of 2 hours 4 minutes and 15 seconds. Where is the evidence that the day was ever so short?

Also, the density of the smaller Earth, with the same mass, would be 3.4616 * 10^11 kg/m^3, which is greater than the density of a White Dwarf Star! There is no evidence of any forces that could have caused or maintained that density anywhere in our Solar System (including our Sun).

I was also referring to stuff that is directly observed today. You see, I live in New Zealand, a group of islands right on the 'ring of fire' in the Pacific. The city I live in is highly volcanic and geologically active. The New Zealand 'uplift' is actually created as a 'crumple zone' just where the Pacific Plate hits and subducts under the Australian Plate (called the Hikurangi Subduction Zone) and dives down at an angle of approximately 45 degrees. The Pacific Plate is not only subducting under the Australian Plate in a North-Westerly direction, it is also sliding across the Australian Plate towards the South-West at the same time. It is subducting at an average of 5 cm per year but the overall movement between the plates at the Hikurangi Trench is close to an average 45 cm per year with respect to each other. Similar subduction and expansion sites are noted all around the world. The movement of tectonic plates across the surface of a statically sized globe, where crustal areas are recycled into the molten magma below is called the Wilson Cycle and is observed everywhere on the planet without exception.

Similarly you cite plasma as if it was some mysterious unknown. It isn't, you heat any element enough and after going through any other phases (like gaseous) the atoms disassociate and it becomes a plasma. It is simply the fourth state of matter. There is no source of energy that could sustain a plasma core for the Earth and when a plasma cools, it simply becomes a gas. Plasmas do not generate vast amounts of energy, or transform one element into another. They require large amounts of energy to remain plasmas.

In your quote about Owen finding that a smaller Earth would give a better fit between the continents, he was (like others) trying to make a jigsaw puzzle out of the bits above the waterline. This assumes that there is no land under the oceans and shows that Dr Hugh Owen himself did not understand plate tectonics or some basics of geology. Since he seems to have missed this really very basic understanding, what ever he says about the core of the Earth being a plasma, hardly convinces me that he is qualified to propose such a theory.

The above is based upon repeatable, real-time measurable data, not some arguable 'paleomagnetic' stuff. It effectively debunks ALL the 'Expanding Earth' theories (except for 'accretion', which IS the current textbook theory for how the Earth came into being in the first place) and totally supports plate tectonics.

Face it, the 'Expanding Earth' is a particularly poor theory in the light of observation & actual physics.

Originally posted by lordbayfin
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

In other periods when the land mass's did form new super continents not all of the mass's connected

Prove it. Whos theory are you using or is this imagination?

only a few times this occurred when all land masses connected Gondwanaland , Pangaea , and Rodina. Other times smaller continents didn't reconnect maybe got subducted.

Most of those fairy tale locations are just imaginative theories. Its been debunked.

We have extinct plates that we can view on land still in some places on earth. This suggest they have be a number of land masses that don't exist today that and once exist in our ( Earths ) past.

Show us using google earth and bathymetry maps where these 'land masses' vanished?

Originally posted by chr0naut



The equatorial radius of the Earth is currently 40,074 km. 40% of that would be 16,029.6 km. I won't bore you with the maths, but this would give the Earth a 'day' of 2 hours 4 minutes and 15 seconds. Where is the evidence that the day was ever so short?

Has there every been any research into length of days 250 million years ago? I dont think there would be any way to find that out exactly how many times earth spins per orbit around the sun and it would be fair to say that it hasnt been 100% constant.

The proof is that the west coast of the Americas were in contact with Asia, Australia/New Zealand and of course Antarctica. I have data and images to show this.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by chr0naut



The equatorial radius of the Earth is currently 40,074 km. 40% of that would be 16,029.6 km. I won't bore you with the maths, but this would give the Earth a 'day' of 2 hours 4 minutes and 15 seconds. Where is the evidence that the day was ever so short?

Has there every been any research into length of days 250 million years ago? I dont think there would be any way to find that out exactly how many times earth spins per orbit around the sun and it would be fair to say that it hasnt been 100% constant.

250 million years is just a drop in the bucket compared with the age of the Earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years), but humans have only been around for about 2 million.

Humans, however, do appear to have a circadian rhythm of about 20 hours, as opposed to 24. This was verified in multiple studies where people were kept in rooms with no indication of the passage of time and their 'days' gradually got out of sync to the true day outside.

I'm pretty sure that such a fast day would heavily mess with temperatures and weather patterns as well as with biological systems, but I'm not sure of any specific studies.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by chr0naut



The equatorial radius of the Earth is currently 40,074 km. 40% of that would be 16,029.6 km. I won't bore you with the maths, but this would give the Earth a 'day' of 2 hours 4 minutes and 15 seconds. Where is the evidence that the day was ever so short?

Has there every been any research into length of days 250 million years ago? I dont think there would be any way to find that out exactly how many times earth spins per orbit around the sun and it would be fair to say that it hasnt been 100% constant.

Axial spin. Not orbit.

If the Earth had been smaller or only 60% of it's current size, then you have to look at it's axial spin. If it was still spinning at 1,000 Mph like it does now, the day would have been a lot shorter, because the circumference of the Earth would have been a lot smaller.
If the Earth then expanded, but maintained the same speed of spin, it's day would grow longer as the circumference becomes longer.

As chr0naut pointed out, we have to ask about he mass. If the Earth's mass was the same then as now, but it's size was 60% smaller, it's density would have been enormous.
If however, the mass was less as also it's size, then the question becomes: where did all that mass come from in only 250 million years? Growing from matter deposited from space makes no sense as the Earth would have to be bombarded with quite a bit of matter in that amount of time. We're talking meteors and comets on the scales of miles or tens of miles wide, and happening very often. I think we'd have seen a lot more ELEs if that were true.

If instead the Earth expanded because the core, inner and outer mantels expanded, that amount of expansion needed would mean that they were a lot more dense than they are now. What would have made them more dense then? What happened to make them less dense so that they expanded?

reply to post by chr0naut


Actually it has been studied with the moon impact theory for the formation of the moon. After the impact with the Mars size body, the Earth's spin is suppose to have been very fast. About a 5 hour day.

Giant Impact hypothesis

After the moon formed from the impact, it's believed that the gravitational relationship between the moon and the earth is what helped slow the earth down, as it also is what helped move the moon away (and is still moving away today).

If I remember correctly, even with a 10 hour day, the earth would have been a very violent place to live. The fast rotation helping make winds of over 1,000 Mph.

Originally posted by chr0naut

250 million years is just a drop in the bucket compared with the age of the Earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years), but humans have only been around for about 2 million.

Humans, however, do appear to have a circadian rhythm of about 20 hours, as opposed to 24. This was verified in multiple studies where people were kept in rooms with no indication of the passage of time and their 'days' gradually got out of sync to the true day outside.

I'm pretty sure that such a fast day would heavily mess with temperatures and weather patterns as well as with biological systems, but I'm not sure of any specific studies.

There's supposedly one such study showing a 18-20 hour day billions of years ago, but the time frame doesn't correlate with humans because it's far longer (and unfortunately the reference is vague):

www.astronomycafe.net...

Did the Earth rotate faster in the past?

Yes...There is actually geologic evidence for this in certain rocks which show a banded structure caused by water tides. About 10 years ago geologists discovered evidence for the day being shorter using some change in a signature, probably the layering widths, they found in ancient rocks dated from a few billion years ago. Apparently a 'day' back then was about 18-20 hours long, not 24-hours. In the future, billions of years from now, it will lengthen to 50 hours or longer.

The above figure shows the measured slow down of earth's rotation. You can see that it is not a regular decline, but the trend is in the direction of a longer length of day.

A good discussion about the changing length of the rotation period of the Earth can be found at the US Naval Observatory in their essay on leap seconds. The '24-hour' day actually increases by 0.0014 seconds every day, per century. Every year or so, one second has to be added to the official civilian day on New Years Eve. For more information on how the Earth's rotation rate changes, visit Variations of the Earth page at the USGS.

That doesn't really explain the reason for the slowdown, but this does:

eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The ocean tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the Moon and, to a lesser extent, the Sun. But as the tides are attracted to the Moon, the oceans appear to rise and fall while Earth rotates beneath them. This tidal friction gradually transfers angular momentum from Earth to the Moon. Earth looses energy and slows down while the Moon gains the energy and consequently its orbital period and distance from Earth increase.

And more recent studies on precise changes in the Earth's rotation:

Unfortunately, Earth's rotation is not slowing down at a uniform rate. Non-tidal effects of climate (global warming, polar ice caps and ocean depths) and the dynamics of Earth's molten core make it impossible to predict the exact value of delta-T in the remote past or distant future.

Good values of delta-T only exist sometime after the invention of the telescope (1610). Careful analysis of telescopic timings of stellar occultations by the Moon permits the direct measurement of delta-T during this time period. Prior to the 1600's, values of delta-T must rely on historical records of the naked eye observations of eclipses and occultations. Such observations are rare in the literature and of coarse precision. Ê

Stephenson and collaborators have made a number of important contributions concerning Earth's rotation during the past several millennia. In particular, they have identified hundreds of eclipse and occultation observations in early European, Middle Eastern and Chinese annals, manuscripts, canons and records. In spite of their relatively low precision, these data represent our only record of the value of delta-T during the past several millennia.

The point being it's a complicated topic, but on average the Earth's rotation is slowing a little due to tidal friction from the moon, though we know the rate of slowing is non-uniform for various reasons mentioned above.

I've always said there aren't enough hours in the day but unfortunately I won't be around a few billion years from now when there will be more hours in the day!

I've always looked at the coast of Asia and the west coast of N. & S. Americas and wondered. It never really clicked til now.
I think that theories are never perfect, but this makes a whole lot more sense than I could have imagined.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

Of course it is impossible the way you describe it so there is a chance you may have it wrong rather than everyone else. Just saying

Of course I can have it wrong ... and I absolutely don't have it all figured.

But if the "masses" has it right, now there is a real laugh. Popular theories, haven't been correct about anything, since the birth of man ... popular theories are almost always "flat earth theories". In teh same category as Genesis from the Bible, religions and the Big Bang. They "comfort" theories, that refer to people inner instinct of need for security. And people "adher" to them, because they don't want to be outside the box.

But, if you wanna have any brain for science ... you gotta get outta that box.

Stars are created from stellar clouds, from plasma ... that is what these stellar clouds are. Accretion of heavy material, comes long after the stars and planets have gathered their initial "plasma" cores.

Gas accumulates in the very center and eventually enough mass is accumulated to trigger the nuclear processes needed for a star to be born

Planets, are remnants of such creation that never gained enough mass to become a star ... and the star that got created in the stellar cloud, the smaller formations eventually fell into it, or fell into orbit around it.

This probably isn't 100% correct, but it is correct enough to absolutely throw out any notions that the cores of planets are iron-nickel combinations. And it doesn't matter how many billions are thrown into the work, of trying to prove that nonsense ... it's "conceptually" absurd. Wether they are "God is our father in heaven" and other similar "playing on your need for a father figure, and security" instincts. This false security, may be good enough for the masses ... but the rest, should spend their time finding a way to get off this time-bomb and expand life beyond it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The earth span faster, yes ... but again, you're ignoring conceptual data.

Man has looked at the stars, and discovered 24 hour clock, 60 minutes a long long time ago. But suddenly, less than a thousand years ago ... that time was all wrong. It needed to be adjusted more than just a few seconds. More than just a few minutes too ... even more than just a few hours, even more than merely a few days.

And that's a recorded historical fact ...

Your ignoring historical facts, observable facts ... to stick to your version of "flat earth". It's all gonna happen billions and billions of years from now ... nothing for you to worry about. Catastrophies happened billions and billions of years ago ... your safe.

That is basically the core of it all ... and that's just another "flat earth".

Sorry, but sooner or later your gonna be disappointed. Because there is nothing rock solid about this planet.