Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

page: 14
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


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



Yes.



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.


This arguement of yours, is in reality a logical fallacy. The normal manner, that people think "gravity" is that they compare it with an object sinking into the sea. That is, preassure... this isn't correct. If you jump into the sea, you will sink to the point, where you body's weight will be equivalent to the wieght of mass it displaces. You can force yourself further down, at which time, the weight of your body is less, than the weight of water it displaces. At which time, the preassure is greater ...

This is how you expierience preassure. But the fallacy is, tht no matter how far you sink into the ocean, the chane in g is so minimal, it can be ignored. All the matte in the ocean, is still being pulled down.

However, the further you get down to the center ... g will decrease. And when you enter the very epic center, at best you'd have g/2 in every direction. You'd have "zero" density experience, and youd be ripped apart, literally..

I hope this part is clear?

The arguement you propose, is only valid if you have a perfect sphere ... where there is a one single point in the center of mass. I'm stating, that this center body would be ripped apart and there would never be such a point. Giving you a hollow center, which increases with the objects mass. The outside spherical form of the earth, does suggest that there is an equal "pull" towards the center ...

But, since the g at the very center, can at most be g/2 in every direction. The greatest density of the earth ... can NEVER be at the center.

That is, not with our current working model of accredited earth ...

And if there is lesser density at the very center, than you have the very picture where g towards the surface can be creater at the very structural center.

Please understand, i am not saying this model is correct ... I am just pointing out the controversies, of the current working model. I am pointin out, that it doesn't fit ...

I'm also proposing, that this is why matter cristalises ... because the very epic center of gravity (magnetic or electric charge), cannot exist.
edit on 17/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


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



Yes, but when this element sits in the core it will be, with increasing mass, put to the test of equal gravitational force in all directions. That will "hasten" it's elemental decay.

We're not talking about "water pressure" here.



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.


Well, let's assume the Universe is a room. If you fill this room with gases, up to the same preassure as is found in the universe ... are you telling me, that planets will evolve?

Simply put, No.



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.


And theoretically, if you further compress it, it will develope into a superconductive material where all the electrons are free floating.

Not disaggreeing here



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.


I disagree ... you are talking about a dynamo. The electricity, created by a dynamo, is created through friction. When you use a car, the general thing is to create as little friction as possible so that the energy needed to continue motion is approaching zero. The only energy needed for the car, is for the acceleration and to counter the friction of air resistance.

We're not talking about a well oiled gear system, at the center of the earth. We're talking about a plastecized mantle, liquid outer core, and solid inner core. We're talking about system, with the highest possible friction.

So far, what you've come with are the only solid arguements that have been presented here, so far. But for the system to work, you need an energy source, and the heat is not enough. The heat dissipation process would have stabilized a long time ago. That is why I've answered that many of the arguements are nonsense, because the mechanics involved are just as much "nonsense" as the plasma core is. Even more so, because a "plasma core" would actually explain the energy process involved, given that the suns keeping it alive ...




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).



Yes, but that there "exists" iron and nickel in these meteorites, does not serve as proof that the core of the earth is of this compound.



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.


These aren't theories, they are hypothesis.

When a volcanic eruption occurs, Fe is among the elements that erupts Amongst other elements, but the most abundant element of all in lava ... is oxygen. Oxygen is binding all elements, at the lava and volcanic eruption levels. It proves that gases, are the working factor of eruptions ...



... 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.


Seizmic information is not proof ... it can easily be interpreted differently.




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



It breaks up on multiple levels.

The very first level, is the formation of stars and planets. The arguement used, as I pointed in another post, is circular.

The second, is the asteroid belt. It is not proof, that iron-nickel is the core of the earth. As the mass of the asteroid belt, is currently the mass of the moon (mercury) and hasn't yet made a planet. Initially the mass in this field, was much more, more than enough to create a planet.

Wether it is remnants of a planet, or a planet that never formed is irrelevant. It's iron-nickel compound never made a planet. Or if it was one, that planet never made it to the level of being a real planet.

Most importantly, you have to have a gravitational pull towards the center of mass to form a planet. Long before iron or nickel ever existed.

The sun itself, and all stars have a magnetic field. These magnetic fields are "erratic" at the surface, but so is the magnetic field of the earth. It is very common, that a compass can go avry at many places on the surface of the earth.

Sun activity

All planets and moons, have a magnetic field ... and the only part in this solar system, that apparently hasn't become a planet, is the part of the solar system, that has abundance of iron-nickel combination.

If iron-nickel was such a common part in the formation of the Universe, yet some planets like Venus and Mars, don't have a working magnetic field. While planets like Mercury do, which is a planet that wouldn't have an abundance of iron-nickel, being so closed to the sun. At the same time, the gas planets have a strong magnetic field.

Irridium is also in abundance in meteorites. It's a much heavier metal than iron ... so if the compounds that made up the earths core, seeped in while it was a melted hot place, then irridium would had gone to the core.

However I maintain the view, that there can never be that very center of mass ... because materials crystalize at the molecular level. Because this "center" point, can't exist. There has to be an "equal" contraction at all joints, of any formation ... unless it collapses upon itself. And if you increase the mass, of an object. The elements either build a stronger formation to stop the collapse (like daimond) or they collapse, which would lead to a completely different scenario.

edit on 17/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
And when you enter the very epic center, at best you'd have g/2 in every direction. You'd have "zero" density experience, and youd be ripped apart, literally..

I hope this part is clear?
It sounds completely ridiculous to say you'd be ripped apart.

First, if you ignore the pressure from all the mass outside the center and say make a crushproof bubble at the center, you won't get ripped apart.

An ice skater can do spins with her hands approaching 2g of acceleration, yet her hands don't fly off. And as you said the acceleration would only be g/2 in any direction so it certainly wouldn't rip you apart.

btc.montana.edu...

One of the limiting factors of skaters being able to perform a jump is arm strength. Skaters can produce such high angular momenta at take-off, that they may not be physically strong enough to counteract the g-forces experienced during the rotation to bring their arms into a tight rotating position. The g-force felt by the arms during a jump or spin may exceed 4 G's.


However you are right that in fluids, objects will sink as long as they are more dense than the materials they are displacing. However I fail to see any contradiction between this and mainstream theory.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

First, if you ignore the pressure from all the mass outside the center and say make a crushproof bubble at the center, you won't get ripped apart.

An ice skater can do spins with her hands approaching 2g of acceleration, yet her hands don't fly off. And as you said the acceleration would only be g/2 in any direction so it certainly wouldn't rip you apart.


The ballerina, experiences two different forces. And one is an inward force, that helps keep her alive. The inward force, keeping you together will increase, countering the outward force.

And you are right about the bubble ... that's actually where I wanted to get to.



However you are right that in fluids, objects will sink as long as they are more dense than the materials they are displacing. However I fail to see any contradiction between this and mainstream theory.


As you move down, gravity will decrease. As you sink into water, pressure will increase. However, as you get close to the core ... gravity decreases. In gravitational form, it would similar to the diver swimming up towards the surface. And when you reach the very center ... all the pressure would be "outward".

It would be like if you were between two cars, each trying to accelarate away from you at 4,5 m/s. And you are tied to them. The cells in your body, are burning fuel to keep you together ... eventually, they'll run out fuel.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 
Gravity decreases and even reaches zero at some "point" with emphasis on "point", meaning even one molecule or atom is larger than that mathematical concept.

Therefore in reality every other atom or molecule of the Earth, aside from the one corresponding to that "zero-g-point" will experience some gravity, even if it gets weaker toward the center as you suggest. And denser molecules in a liquid will still descend until they are blocked by a solid. With lower gravity, they may descend more slowly, but they will still descend.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by bjarneorn
 
Gravity decreases and even reaches zero at some "point" with emphasis on "point", meaning even one molecule or atom is larger than that mathematical concept.


Reconsider that ...

If you are between two tension points that try to pull you apart. Even if you are strong enough to withstand it, the tension requires work on your part.

Simply put, this center pont is under tension and there is no equilibrium ... it needs work, to maintain it's point. Meaning, there is accelerated decay.

Any tension on any molecule or atom, is work ... it doesn't matter, wether it's on a molecular, atomic or subatomic level. Such system, needs fuel ... without it, it will decay.

It's not an iff.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 

The fault in this logic is that the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic forces are both many orders of magnitudes stronger than gravity. Let me guess: you're not a physicist, because every physicist knows this, am I right?

Your argument is a bit like saying two ants connected to opposite ends of an elephant by threads will rip the elephant in two. The elephant can't even tell the ants exist, so weak is their force. In this analogy, gravity is the ants, and the elephant is the other forces:

Strong interaction

the strong interaction is the "strongest" of the four fundamental forces; its strength is 100 times that of the electromagnetic force, some 1000000 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that of gravitation.
Gravity is very, very weak compared to the other forces.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Gravity is very, very weak compared to the other forces.



Even at subatomic levels, quarks and electrons are still doing work. It's NOT a perpetual machine ... if such a center exists, then it is either a zero kelevin point, or it's an accelerated decaying point.

I urge you to spend time in reconsidering this part of the equation, as I said earlier ... this is the "heart" of it all.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I personally think that Earth was a crusted over at some early formation point.

Earths density is greater than any other planet in our system .. hmm...why ? Close to the core of the System .. ?

I think that an another Star crossed our system and obliterated one planet .. and affected every planet nearby ..

A fragment of a N class star could affect things in our solar system that may not account for all theories ..

Some choose to limit ourselves to the current state of the solar system as we know it ..but It might not have been that way all the time ( perfect solar system theory )..

JG



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

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.


I've still not seen WHY you believe this to be so. WHY would the continents have the "stretch", WHY could the continents never connect in the pacific, and mot the least of all, WHY do you believe the continents connecte in the Pacific when there was not even a pacific ocean in existence?



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.


WHY would this "only be possible on a smaller globe"?



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

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.


A little spherical trig might be in order as well - the angles open up as they are measuers on a non-flat surface, such as a sphere.

Also, no one seems to have taken into account that the shapes of the continents change over time with uplift, orogenic events, and erosion.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
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


Link did not work for me.



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


No.



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.


No.

I don't know where you got your Physics degree. Mine is from the University of North Carolina. You should demand a refund. that isn't how gravity works. At all. At the EXACT center of the Earth, you would have no gravity at all - it would be balanced by the surrounding mass pulling in every direction from there. A molecule or two in any direction from that EXACT center would tip the balance, and you would have gravitational pull towards the exact center, because of the greater mass pulling from te other side of it. this is why gravity of any mass appears to act as a point in the geographical center. This is why at ahy point o the sirface of the Earth, gravity is pullin YOUR mass towards the center of the Earth, and so you stick to the surface.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Also, no one seems to have taken into account that the shapes of the continents change over time with uplift, orogenic events, and erosion.



Again, correct ... but it only makes a case, against plate tectonics. Which is kinda amusing



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
A little spherical trig might be in order as well - the angles open up as they are measuers on a non-flat surface, such as a sphere.

Also, no one seems to have taken into account that the shapes of the continents change over time with uplift, orogenic events, and erosion.


There you go. Just what you asked for. As you can see the continents also join in the Pacific. Only possible if the earth expanded.
edit on 19-9-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by nenothtu

Also, no one seems to have taken into account that the shapes of the continents change over time with uplift, orogenic events, and erosion.



Again, correct ... but it only makes a case, against plate tectonics. Which is kinda amusing


How so? Are you somehow equating the plates with the continents on them?

I can change the shape of a North America-shaped steak sitting on a dinner plate with only a knife and fork, and not affect the plate at all. I can them slide the plate pretty much anywhere without affecting the shape of the steak. Its two entirely different mechanisms.



edit on 2012/9/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 




I'm not sure how that relates to what I asked for.

Neither am I seeing how continental drift would only be possible with an expanding sphere.

I'll probably just leave you to your thread - you seem incapable of dumbing it down enough for me to grasp your contention, so I'm probably just wasting time here.

Seriously, just saying "because I said so" isn't really enough justification to base a new theory on, especially when that theory violates all the known laws of physics.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Neither am I seeing how continental drift would only be possible with an expanding sphere.



Since you are the one, who "waved" your physics degree around to proclaim superior knowledge and "apparently" as a physicist think "coincidences" are the norm.

I'll leave it to you, to "know" how a 3-D expanding or contracting globe will always have a fit, where corosion, uplift, cracking of the continents is a part of it. Whereas in a 2-D "flat earth" drift, they don't fit. And I'll also leave it to you, to "know" how "tectonics plate hypothesis" is 2-D in it's nature.
edit on 19/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
There you go. Just what you asked for. As you can see the continents also join in the Pacific. Only possible if the earth expanded.
What happened to Alaska? I thought you said it fit?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 


i have come to those conclusions also after hearing about the expanding earth theory ...

and I would be interested in seeing if your question gets an answer..

such a device surely must exist..
edit on 19-9-2012 by reeferman because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
54
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join