Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

reply to post by bjarneorn


Since you´re accusing others of ignoring your "facts", for which I see no conclusive proofs, I have to ask why you ignored this post by chr0naut. Maybe you missed it, but I think he makes a very good point about plasma not being able to sustain without a serious amount of energy feeding it. I´d like to hear what your explanation is for that. How can the Earth have a core of plasma? What´s keeping it so hot to allow this state of matter to exist? Even if there once was a plasma core, it would have certainly cooled down and therefore changed state.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
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.

Please provide links to this and other things that your are claiming.

This thread isn't in Skunk Works.

So let us see some links about time being wrong less than 1,000 years ago (which is going to be interesting since accurate time pieces were not invented until a couple of 100 years ago), and a link showing how all interstellar clouds are made of plasma.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
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".

So how about sharing this "recorded historical fact"?

By the way, scientists like Erastosthenes over 2000 years ago, didn't believe in "flat earth". He not only knew the Earth was round but he measured the size of it pretty accurately considering he just put some sticks in the ground in different locations, and measured their shadows. But maybe some non-scientists did believe flat earth, and if they were alive today they might be the ones believing in expanding earth

But it's pretty much a myth that scientists believed in a flat Earth, since the time of Erastosthenes, or at least Aristotle:

Myth of the Flat Earth

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.

Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

Maybe you missed it, but I think he makes a very good point about plasma not being able to sustain without a serious amount of energy feeding it. I´d like to hear what your explanation is for that. How can the Earth have a core of plasma? What´s keeping it so hot to allow this state of matter to exist? Even if there once was a plasma core, it would have certainly cooled down and therefore changed state.

Actually, I missed it.

And he's correct ...

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.

I'm not argueing these findings ... agree with ... but am argueing against the conclusion that there is no source, and I'm argueing the "interpretitation" of samples billions of years old. Both sides are using this same data, to argue their different views.

Wha I am argueing, that taking the "iron-nickel" as a pre-requisite is based on tendancy towards the secure. And I'm pretty aware, that the notion is that iron seeped down there. But "conceptually" it doesn't make sense, because iron is not the heaviest material, so seeping down there isn't likely. Just "accepted" in replacement of a plasma possibility.

The Plasma arguement he proposes, is valid for plasma we create. It can be created through energy emissions with gases, as well as through pressure. And pressure is what exists in the earth ... but the arguement, that there is no energy source to sustain the plasma is however "suspect". Because when yo look at the Universe, and with it's floating hot plasma all over it ... this arguement therefore falls apart, as we have evidence that it stays in it's plasma state. Furthermore, we also know that if plasma can retract itself and have an isolation boundary around it, retracting into a ball, it can be sustained.

When the iron core theory was created, plasma was not a known (or widely accepted) state.of matter. It was, then, the only explanation to earths magnetic field was iron. When seismic activity was first monitored, it did not support an iron core. So a iron-nickel-sulphur combination was used to explain it. Yet it does not explain the thermal activity, or the how it got down there. It was widely believed, that meteors brought it to earth ... however the origin of meteors being under question, and the fact that they do not have the combination required.

Not to mention the fact, that such combinations do nothing to explain the earth and what we know of it. Dynosaurs, ancient building blocks ... these aren't mysteries, just natural phenomenal.

A working model of the history of the planet, is just a pathed document that looks more like a rag with time, than history. The dynosaurs died, there was a meteor strike. No evidence of the crater, only evidence of irridium radiation. The moon gor created by a huge collition, there is evidence of such a crater ... but the moon is there. How did we get the water, the oxygen ... how do the therminal dynamics of the mantel work, what is the driving force. What is the source for the gases in the magma, etc. The crust collapses, and mountains rise into the air ... where on earth, is the thermodynamic source for such an exploding force. And don't say "iron" core ... please, don't parrot.

The iron core model, is like a swiss cheeze ... and as the holes get patched, it looks more and more like an old rag.

But, the "plasma" core does have a problem ... not in how it is sustained, but in "how it is contained". It would actually require it to be insulated from the surface, or the outer layers.

But, iff it is a plasma core ... then every piece in the world puzzle ... falls into place. And that's one hell of an arguement, for it to be a plasma core. While the arguement for an "iron core" just poses more questions and more mysteries ... which I can understand, if you're trying to sell books on mysteries, aliens and ancient phenomena.

reply to post by bjarneorn


It didn't "seep" down there. It came to be down there due to the Iron Catastrophe:

The iron catastrophe was a major event early in the history of Earth. After accumulation of the Earth's material into a spherical mass, the material was mostly uniform in composition. While residual heat from the collision of the material that formed the Earth was significant, heating from radioactive materials in this mass further increased the temperature until a critical condition was reached, when the material was molten enough to allow movement. At this point, the denser iron and nickel, evenly distributed throughout the mass, sank to the centre of the planet to form the core - an important process of planetary differentiation. The gravitational potential energy released by the sinking of the dense NiFe globules increased the temperature of the protoplanet above the melting point resulting in a global silicate magma which accelerated the process. This event occurred at about 500 million years into the formation of the planet.[1]

You are correct in that their are elements that are heavier than iron or nickle, but the abundance of those other elements is low as compared to iron and nickle.

The mass of an object will determine the strength of it's gravitation. Knowing the size and mass of an object helps determine it's density.

The Earth's mass is 5.9736×10^24 kg, it's size or volume is 1.08321×10^12 km^3. Gravitational strength here on Earth is 9.81 m/s^2

The force and acceleration of gravity here on Earth is a very measurable and observable thing. Because we know what it is, we can determine the mass of an object that is exerting that force: F = Ma where F is the force, M is the mass and "a" is the acceleration.

Now that you have the mass, we can measure the Earth, and know it's size in volume. Once you have the size of the Earth and it's mass, you can then calculate it's density.

The density of plasma is 10^7 m^-3 to 10^32 m^-3
The density of iron is 6.98 g·cm^−3 in it's liquid state, and 7.874 g·cm^−3

Those numbers right there speak for themselves.

Then there are P, S and K Seismic waves to consider.

We know how fast these waves travel when a earthquake happens. They are used to tell what is underground all the time.
The speed and behavior of the waves changes with the density and material that they are traveling through, just like sound waves.

If these waves were traveling through a core made of plasma, they would behave differently than we are observing. Case in point, the formula for sound waves traveling through plasma is different than for other states of matter.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
The density of plasma is 10^7 m^-3 to 10^32 m^-3
The density of iron is 6.98 g·cm^−3 in it's liquid state, and 7.874 g·cm^−3

Those numbers right there speak for themselves.

Not exactly. That's true for the density of iron, for anybody who knows what density is. However you're comparing apples and oranges because note the units you cite for plasma are different than the units for iron density. Density is mass per unit volume and those plasma density units do not include mass as the iron density units correctly do.

If you wanted the numbers to speak for themselves you'd need to convert the plasma density to the same units as the iron density to get any kind of real comparison.

One thing that's missing is a definition of what kind of atoms make up the the plasma. In space and even in the sun the plasma is mostly hydrogen. What elements make up this hypothesized plasma inside the Earth? Has anybody clarified that?

Plasma behaves differently from a normal gas in some respects, such as when it's subjected to EM fields, but otherwise it can behave similarly to a gas even though it's ionized. And we know what the pressures are at various depths within the Earth, and how gases behave at those pressures and what their densities would be, if we know what the elements are which compose the plasma, but we'd need to know the elements and the depth to calculate the density, in units comparable to the units shown for the density of iron. Once we do that calculation, we will see that if there is plasma inside the Earth, there can't be very much of it, because if there was a lot of plasma, the Earth wouldn't have the density we measure.

Personally I don't reject the idea that there could be some plasma inside the Earth, especially if there's a high concentration of fissionable materials somewhere providing the energy to sustain the plasma, however I think the people making the plasma claims have strange ideas about what plasma can and cannot do and don't have a clue how to do the math on what effects the plasma they propose would have. The plasma from the possible small natural nuclear reactor hypothesized inside the Earth mentioned in some posted sources would not be capable of expanding the Earth 40% in 200-250 million years, so it's really just grasping at straws for an explanation of what is driving the expansion. The geologist proponent of expanding Earth has a different explanation, and says the Earth is accreting additional mass, he just doesn't know where it's coming from. And the comic artist has a completely different explanation about what caused the expansion, though apparently nobody but him understands it. So these are three completely different guesses about what is driving the alleged expansion, and there are probably more.

It is apparent that there is no consistent hypothesis about what is driving the expansion and people are making up stuff they think sounds good (but don't really understand) to explain the expansion. This is a major problem with the expanding Earth hypothesis.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I referred to your previous posts as requested. They did nothing to answer my questions. The notion that the Earth is expanding at such a rate is patently ridiculous on the face of it. Where do you propose all the extra mass would come from, and how do you propose to get it to the center of the Earth to "expand" it without destroying the surface?

If Earth were expanding, why would there be subduction zones? Expansion ridges I could understand on that premise, but not the subduction zones. It's not likely to be expanding and eating itself at the same time.

Well is it official that Pangaea theory is debunked and flawed? Not really, but Pangaea explaines only half the world, the problem with Pangaea is even for that theory to work you would have to stretch the continents and you could never connect the continents in the Pacific.

Expanding earth theory seems correct. The arguments I am seeing is people trying to explain how expanding theory works or doesnt work but not arguing the fact that the continents did fit together in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic and this is only possible on a smaller globe.

Think of it this way. Most people dont know how the internet works but they use it and it exists just like most people dont know how the earth could expand doesnt mean the earth didnt expand.

This is the beauty of science. We are learning new things everyday and to say we understand the universe is the most ignorant thing one can say.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Well is it official that Pangaea theory is debunked and flawed? Not really, but Pangaea explaines only half the world, the problem with Pangaea is even for that theory to work you would have to stretch the continents and you could never connect the continents in the Pacific.

Expanding earth theory seems correct. The arguments I am seeing is people trying to explain how expanding theory works or doesnt work but not arguing the fact that the continents did fit together in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic and this is only possible on a smaller globe.

Think of it this way. Most people dont know how the internet works but they use it and it exists just like most people dont know how the earth could expand doesnt mean the earth didnt expand.

This is the beauty of science. We are learning new things everyday and to say we understand the universe is the most ignorant thing one can say.

edit on 16-9-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

The earth is a sphere, so when they are gathered together, the geometry changes. A little non-Euclidean Geometry is in order.

If you want a hands-on example, coat a ball of some sort (the smooth plastic ones would do best, or a basketball if you have one handy) with cooking oil. Make replicas of the continents with silly putty, then slide them around and see how the orientation changes as well as angles. If they are gathered in one spot, the orientation changes and it's much different than it would be on a flat surface.
If the Earth was flat, it would have had to expand to create the model, but it's spherical and don't have to due to the spherical geometry involved.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Well is it official that Pangaea theory is debunked and flawed? Not really, but Pangaea explaines only half the world, the problem with Pangaea is even for that theory to work you would have to stretch the continents and you could never connect the continents in the Pacific.

Expanding earth theory seems correct. The arguments I am seeing is people trying to explain how expanding theory works or doesnt work but not arguing the fact that the continents did fit together in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic and this is only possible on a smaller globe.

Perhaps your vision is too narrowly focused on Pangea. That only goes back a few hundred million years. The Earth is far more ancient than that, and there's every reason to believe that plate tectonics is not a recent phenomenon and has been happening for billions of years.

Thus, it appears there were also super continents before Pangea, but the evidence doesn't show them fitting together the way you suggest. In fact, here is an article about some evidence that the Western coast of North America was connected to Antarctica, not to Asia:

A Single Boulder May Prove that Antarctica and North America Were Once Connected

A lone granite boulder found against all odds high atop a glacier in Antarctica may provide additional key evidence to support a theory that parts of the southernmost continent once were connected to North America hundreds of millions of years ago....

"What this paper does is say that we have three main new lines of evidence that basically confirm the SWEAT idea," said John Goodge, an NSF-funded researcher with the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Minnesota-Duluth.

Added Scott Borg, director of the division of Antarctic sciences in NSF's Office of Polar Programs, "this is first-rate work and a fascinating example of scientists at work putting together the pieces of a much larger puzzle. Not only do the authors pull together a diverse array of data to address a long-standing question about the evolution of the Earth's crust during a critical time for biological evolution, but the research shows how the ideas surrounding the SWEAT hypothesis have developed over time."

How does this real science involving three new lines of evidence confirming the ancient connection between Antarctica and North America fit into your picture that North America was supposedly connected to Asia?

Besides, I think on a simpler note, anybody can see, the fit between the Americas and Asia just isn't there. Neal Adams claims he's not making distortions in his animations of the fit, when in fact he is making distortions.



Try to close the Pacific and Alaska and Russia crash into each other. So it doesn't even fit, even in Neal Adam's animation, he glosses over this huge problem and scrunches them up to force a fit.

So regarding your claim that mainstream proponents are "not arguing the fact that the continents did fit together in the Pacific" is false. Not only am I arguing they don't fit, it seems clear that they don't. Just look at the picture.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Well is it official that Pangaea theory is debunked and flawed? Not really, but Pangaea explaines only half the world, the problem with Pangaea is even for that theory to work you would have to stretch the continents and you could never connect the continents in the Pacific.

Expanding earth theory seems correct. The arguments I am seeing is people trying to explain how expanding theory works or doesnt work but not arguing the fact that the continents did fit together in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic and this is only possible on a smaller globe.

Think of it this way. Most people dont know how the internet works but they use it and it exists just like most people dont know how the earth could expand doesnt mean the earth didnt expand.

This is the beauty of science. We are learning new things everyday and to say we understand the universe is the most ignorant thing one can say.

edit on 16-9-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

The earth is a sphere, so when they are gathered together, the geometry changes. A little non-Euclidean Geometry is in order.

try getting a blanket, bag, sheet, or balloon, coat it in mud and let it dry then pull slightly on the fabric or expand it, You will eerily see continents appear. It seems that the model you and your opinion seems to like is in error but I dont blame you. Many people cant fathom it due to a limit on intellect or imagination as well as a lack understandable data for the lamen.

The continents were connected in the Pacific. What part of that didnt you get? Do you understand that this could only be possible on a smaller globe?

The earth billions of years ago was much smaller. Around 250 million years ago it began to expand as the dating of the ocean floor proves this. The almost solid continents were ripped apart by tears, rips and ridges as it expanded. The majority of the expansion happened in the Pacific.

Expanding earth has not debunked and but has been shown to be the new model for this century as geologists and physicists are now focusing their studies on this theory. The fact is that all the continents were connected and as there was no oceans. Yes there was a lot of water and at one point the earths land was almost completey submerged. Fossils of ocean, or water creatures from millions of years ago are all found deep inland.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur



So regarding your claim that mainstream proponents are "not arguing the fact that the continents did fit together in the Pacific" is false. Not only am I arguing they don't fit, it seems clear that they don't. Just look at the picture.

Your map is from 1910. Let me provide a more updated image.

Yes the continents connect at the pacific as the map and evidence shows. Hawaii and Baja California were connect in the middle of the ocean at one time then connected to Asia. As the geological and biological records show that South America and New Zealand/Australia were connected.

Here is another map. As you can see the continents are still connected on in the pacific. To have the continents fit together you would of to shrink the diameter of the Pacific ocean.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Well is it official that Pangaea theory is debunked and flawed? Not really, but Pangaea explaines only half the world, the problem with Pangaea is even for that theory to work you would have to stretch the continents and you could never connect the continents in the Pacific.

Expanding earth theory seems correct. The arguments I am seeing is people trying to explain how expanding theory works or doesnt work but not arguing the fact that the continents did fit together in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic and this is only possible on a smaller globe.

Think of it this way. Most people dont know how the internet works but they use it and it exists just like most people dont know how the earth could expand doesnt mean the earth didnt expand.

This is the beauty of science. We are learning new things everyday and to say we understand the universe is the most ignorant thing one can say.

edit on 16-9-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

The earth is a sphere, so when they are gathered together, the geometry changes. A little non-Euclidean Geometry is in order.

try getting a blanket, bag, sheet, or balloon, coat it in mud and let it dry then pull slightly on the fabric or expand it, You will eerily see continents appear. It seems that the model you and your opinion seems to like is in error but I dont blame you. Many people cant fathom it due to a limit on intellect or imagination as well as a lack understandable data for the lamen.

The continents were connected in the Pacific. What part of that didnt you get? Do you understand that this could only be possible on a smaller globe?

The earth billions of years ago was much smaller. Around 250 million years ago it began to expand as the dating of the ocean floor proves this. The almost solid continents were ripped apart by tears, rips and ridges as it expanded. The majority of the expansion happened in the Pacific.

Expanding earth has not debunked and but has been shown to be the new model for this century as geologists and physicists are now focusing their studies on this theory. The fact is that all the continents were connected and as there was no oceans. Yes there was a lot of water and at one point the earths land was almost completey submerged. Fossils of ocean, or water creatures from millions of years ago are all found deep inland.

The only problem would be that there isn't a continuing expansion. Although the size varies over the centuries, it goes both up and down but only in tiny amounts. There's no geological data to support the idea that it was much smaller at one time, only theoretical propositions.

What type of geological data would be needed to support this hypothesis?

Not saying either is right or wrong, just looking for data to support or disprove the ideas that are out there.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The truth is, you are making the "distortion" of truth this time ...

Neil Adams, is not a scientist ... but he is good at animations. And he has done good job, at creating an animation of the obvious, to make people understand that what is being tought, is just religion.

Earth seafloor age map

Anyone can see here, that the age of the sea floor on the Atlantic Side, and the Pacific side is equivalent. You have to remove "both" seafloors at the same time. No matter how you remove it, you end up with a distorted map ... UNLESS YOU MAKE A SMALLER GLOBE.

Modern geophysicists are in reality "religious priests" that should be "thrown out" of Universities, or at least their "theory" kicked out of the theory concept. The reason isn't merely, Niel Adams animation, that gives "motion" to the bloody obvious. But also the "iron core" atrocity. Compared to the iron core idiocy, even "Hollow Earth" has more logic to it. The iron core stupidity, defies physics and it defies gravitation concepts. The gravitational pull at the center of the earth ... is outward, towards the mass When mass is accredited to the earth, the density of the inner core, will seep out towards the mantle ... and the mantle would be the densest part of the earth. With the immense magnitute of earths magnetic field, and the enormous ionisation that must be occurring inside the earth ... a solid iron core, is about as absurd as "God made man in his own image".

Nobody says, that people aren't entitled to "religion", but certainly not to postulate this religious nonsense as truths to the children, in puclic schools, and public universitites. Or iff they are tought, then just like with religion, all the posibilites should be tought. Not just the preferred dogma. That Niel Adams isn't a scientist, isn't a problem here. His animation is self evident, and anyone can do the same thing. That Niel Adams other proposals, as to the creation of matter isn't correct, is another story completely. And has no relevance on the animation part.

The entire tectonics model is an absurdity, in it's entirety. Not because of an animation, but because for it to have been possible. You need to have iron seep down into the earth, and defy gravitational pull. There is no gravitational pull towards the center, at this core ... the gravitational pull at this center, is outwards towards the mass. And at the center of the earth ... the mass is towards the crust of the earth. And then, magically, you have to have some geo-thermal motion, that creats circular motion of the entire mass of the outer core. Around the inner core, that really shouldn't be there. Where the major "friction" is on the outside of these, and not on the inside of the core model.

Hollow earth theory, is more a parody toward the current model, than anything else. Expanding earth theory, is more an appeal to start to work on this, instead of the current stupidity, than it is accurate. I doubt the earth was 40% of its current size. But it raises serious questions, that demand to be looked at. The current "flat earth" theory of plate tectonics and it's nephew, shouldn't even be in the "theory" category. To claim, seriously, that iron from the face of the earth ... would just float up and into space, without even a space storm to sweep them out, or any "magnetics" to be drawing it ... isn't anything to be taken seriously. And that's just what is being claimed, when iron is supposed to have "seeped" into the core with time ... or claiming, that in a universe, where 99,99999% of everything is plasma ... evey planet in the universe has a core of iron ...

For anyone to take that seriously, is outrageous. I do not care, how many billions of people on this planet ... bow to Allah, God or Jahve ... it sure as hell, dösn't make them right... now does it. The "mob" hasn't been right about anything ... EVER. And popular theories, like Big Bang, are always presented with the "7 days of creation" as it's theme. And searches for "the God element" ... doesn't even sound funny.

This religious nonsense, supposed to be taken seriously?

It's becaue of religion, that we faced 2000 years of dark ages. Concepts, like "Earth, Water, Air and Fire" are the four elements ... isn't even funny. And their equivalent Solid, Liquid, Gas and Plasma is even less funny, as the four states of matter.

This here, isn't about wether Expanding Earth theory is correct. It's about doubting the dogma, you're dogmatized into. You aren't supposed to be here, coming up with rhetorics like "Expanding Earth is nonsense". Your supposed to "think" and then challenge what you were tought.

Niel Adams, raised a legitime question with his animation ... he is using his mind, to challenge things. What are you using your mind for? Following dogma? The title of this thread, doesn't say that "Earth expansion" is the answer, it states "Time for a new model". It's focusing on pointing out flaws with the current model, where the OP has pointed out the obvious, to support that statement.

Nobody in science, likes "followers" ... science is not about dogma, it's about critizing the standard models. And that is what is being done ... not claiming, that "Expanding earth" is the correct model.

reply to post by bjarneorn


Actually the title of the thread is:

Pangae Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

The point many are making here is that Pangae has not been debunked. Tectonic Plates have not been debunked. An iron core also has not been debunked.

An alternate theory has been offered (one which it seems people can not agree on the mechanism and what is actually at the Earth's core) only, but has not debunked Pangae or any other super landmass prior to it, or plate tectonics.

You also seem a bit confused about science and claim that people are following a religion. Here's a post about that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

---------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
As you can see the continents are still connected on in the pacific. To have the continents fit together you would of to shrink the diameter of the Pacific ocean.

This makes no sense. Read what you wrote.

The continents are already connected. So if you try to make them fit where they aren't connected then you have a problem where they are already connected.

Another way to look at it is you don't need to push them together to connect them, as they are already connected.
I'm not sure why the logic of this seems to escape some people.

It looks worse on the maps you showed than the one I showed.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

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!

Agreed Chiten

btw; where you been? you've been missing since the election?

reply to post by bjarneorn


You suggested that the gravitation at the core of the Earth is towards the crust.

It is not exactly the way it works.When you are to one side of the core, the mass of the Earth to which you are being attracted is always greater on the opposite side of the core, than it is on your side. So you are attracted towards the core if you are not already there.

When you reach the core, the masses on either side are in equilibrium. The sum of the gravitational forces is zero.

So, if you have a heavy molecule, in a liquid core, it will 'sink' towards the core, displacing any lighter liquid molecules.

In the case of objects the size of planets, the gravitational attraction on all those billions of tons of material creates enormous pressure, rising as you approach the core.

Plasmas are easy to create at near vacuum pressures, but if you compress a plasma, you get a gas (even at high temperatures).

If you further compress this (which will raise the temperature) you will get a liquid.

If you further compress the liquid the temperature will increase again and you will get a solid.

So you see, a solid inner core, floating in a liquid outer core, floating in a liquid mantle and capped with a solid crust, actually makes scientific sense. Some sort of hollow or low density are like a plasma, does not.

The average density of the Earth has been measured to be 5,515 kg/m^3 but the average density of the materials in the crust is only 3,000 kg/m^3. This indicates that the density inside the Earth must be greater.

There is evidence that the average abundance of elements in the Earth is the same as we have observed in chondrite meteorites (which are primarily iron and nickel). These meteorites were formed by the same processes as the Earth, in approximately the same section of space (within the Solar System).

The reason we don't find the same abundance of Iron and Nickel at the crust of the Earth is that, in their molten state, being heavy liquids, they would have sunk towards the core early in the life of the planet and the lighter elements would have risen towards the surface. This process is referred to as "The Iron Catastrophe" (mentioned in other posts) where, at the point where the planet became hot enough to melt its constituents sufficiently to begin the movement of the heavier elements to the core, that the additional friction of billions of tons of moving heavy elements produced even more heat, liquifying more of the Earth and accelerating the process violently.

Alternate to the "Iron Catastrophe" theory is the the "Rain Out" theory that states that the heat that melted the planets materials (@ 1,500 degrees C), began before the mass had fully accreted. This then allowed the heavier molten iron and nickel (NiFe), which was in emulsion (immiscible), with liquid silicates, to rain down towards the core faster than the lighter silicates.

... and finally, we can see seismically, that there are boundaries between different regions inside the Earth and that these regions fit well with the the stratification expected in planetary formation from the abundances expected from analysis of the chondrite meteorites.

So, please tell me where the current theories (Plate Tectonics & solid Nickel/Iron core) breaks down?

I like palinspastic reproductions.



The shape/configuration of the continents has not been constant over geologic time, so using a modern map to describe prehistoric configurations and try to debunk a theory shows a great deal of misunderstanding of the processes of plate tectonics and previous continental/supercontinent configurations. Many of the older plates have been consumed, or changed in size and shape. For example, look at the Phoenix plate, and its subsequent 'story'.

At this point in time, plate tectonics is the best fit theory and works well with observations. The expanding earth theory is not supported in the geologic record, despite people arguing that it is....

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So regarding your claim that mainstream proponents are "not arguing the fact that the continents did fit together in the Pacific" is false. Not only am I arguing they don't fit, it seems clear that they don't. Just look at the picture.

You just gave an example of mainstream science. "A single bolder proves they were connected".

What a bit of utter nonsense ... this is proof, at how far people are willing to go to prove their own assertions. A single bolder found on top of a glacier, has value as proof. If the entire mountain underneath had "fossil" records, that showed that animal life at the same layers was similar. Ok, then we might have something. BUt that some granite rock, has similar components is utter crap.

There are granite boulders all over the bloody planet, that have same, and similar composition. Is that proof, that once all the continents were a simple boulder?

Not to mention, the fact that this rock just magically walked all the way to the top of the glacier.

That's what you call a "hoax" in any other context. Or, at the very minimum ... extremely suspect convenient find.

Not very scientific ...