Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

Originally posted by bjarneorn

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.

A physics degree does not a physicist make. I am not a physicist. Nor do I believe in coincidence, but then coincidence doesn't really apply here.

If you are unable to explain yourself in a cogent manner, it would be good to come right out and say so, rather than beat around the bush with pronouncements of "I'll just let you guess" - because there is no logical guess to explain my question.

Plate tectonics is not 2-D. The very nature of it requires 3 D motion - lateral movement as well as radial up and down motions at the plate boundaries.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by bjarneorn

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.

A physics degree does not a physicist make. I am not a physicist. Nor do I believe in coincidence, but then coincidence doesn't really apply here.

If you are unable to explain yourself in a cogent manner, it would be good to come right out and say so, rather than beat around the bush with pronouncements of "I'll just let you guess" - because there is no logical guess to explain my question.

Plate tectonics is not 2-D. The very nature of it requires 3 D motion - lateral movement as well as radial up and down motions at the plate boundaries.

Neno... Maybe the better way to put it (as I had to read the back and forth a few times myself to even understand it) would be that our representations of continental drift is 2-D whereas the reality is that is a 3 dimensional process. So far noone has adequately made a 3 dimensional representation of tectonic plate movement.

Originally posted by vkey08
Neno... Maybe the better way to put it (as I had to read the back and forth a few times myself to even understand it) would be that our representations of continental drift is 2-D whereas the reality is that is a 3 dimensional process. So far noone has adequately made a 3 dimensional representation of tectonic plate movement.

Oh come on, who are you trying to kid? Tectonic plate movement, and also it´s representation, is 3 dimensional in every aspect. The plates move in every direction. That´s why there are mountain ranges, among other phenomena. The plates moves east, west, north south as well up and down (subduction).

Originally posted by RationalDespair

Originally posted by vkey08
Neno... Maybe the better way to put it (as I had to read the back and forth a few times myself to even understand it) would be that our representations of continental drift is 2-D whereas the reality is that is a 3 dimensional process. So far noone has adequately made a 3 dimensional representation of tectonic plate movement.

Oh come on, who are you trying to kid? Tectonic plate movement, and also it´s representation, is 3 dimensional in every aspect. The plates move in every direction. That´s why there are mountain ranges, among other phenomena. The plates moves east, west, north south as well up and down (subduction).

I'm not sure what vkey08 is after either. I posted a 3D representation of plate tectonics earlier in this thread. Here is a one minute video showing the what you describe, except for the mountain range part:



This 22 second video shows mountain ranges forming:



This short video is another 3-D video of plate movement around the globe, and you can see mountain ranges form where plates collide:



If someone can assemble the content of those three videos in their mind, they will have a very basic 3D picture mentally of current mainstream theory.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Methinks you think I was agreeing with the OP, I was not.

What I was suggesting, (and those are pretty videos but they still don't give enough proof to the naysayers) is if there was a way, (I'm thinking Maya or LW, both have decent physics engines) a whole Earth (not cutaway, not section) CGI representation of what was going on, could help kill this argument once and for all. So far noone has made (to my knowledge, it's not possible with the computers or software of today, you'd need a renderfarm that would put ILM to shame) a full Earth simulation in full 3D of the tectonic movement of the planet, right now it's all 2D maps on a sphere. (that's how we do it in CG land)

So if this could be done, all land modeled, all seas modeled, and put it in motion from Pangaea to present, and beyond, with all the subduction, erosion and upwells (mountain building) as we went along. Maybe that would prove once and for all that Pangaea to Now is the truth and this expanding Earth theory can go the way of the dodo.

I know I certainly cannot make that happen, only in small animated chunks, not a world wide sim. My software and computer wouldn't handle it... But.. it's an interesting thought to be able to finally put this all to rest eh?

reply to post by vkey08
Thanks for the clarification...so you're talking about making some kind of enhanced version of the third video I posted?

No I didn't assume you agreed with the OP but I didn't understand what animation you were after, though now I might have a better idea with that clarification.

Unfortunately I don't think it will convince any expanding Earth believers if this simple illustration doesn't convince them.

It is supposedly showing how the continents fit together in the pacific, but since Alaska has been distorted beyond recognition in this illustration, what it really shows is a lack of fit. If this doesn't do it, a fancy video would be pointless for convincing expanding earth believers, though it might be helpful to others.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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?

reply to post by vkey08


Okay, I now understand better what you were after.

Thanks for the clarification!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by bjarneorn


No need to get personal if you can't convince everyone of your theories. I have neither seen an overwhelmingly convincing argument in favour of an expanding earth, nor an argument debunking plate tectonics. In a thread claiming to have done so, the arguments in favour of the proposed theory should be established and presented as fact, not other theories or hunches.

It's nothing personal, just an observation. Every debate here on ATS has people like you guys. They always linger until the last, when the discussion is more or less dead. Nobody cares to argue it, beyond the point. Then make up some make-up discussion, and then use that as a link in some other discussion, claim to have "debunked" something. When all they are referring to is a little conversation between like-minded.

And then, of course, you have the little child whose too sensitive and goes to momma to complain about someone making fun of him. There's an old saying, if you can't take the heat ...

When you come here, and claim you have some BS in physics, and you're advocating a perpetual machine, without reservations. Then you should be prepared to be made fun of. Niel Adams is not a physicist, and his models aren't absolutely correct ... but the fundamental basics are. He wrongly assumes the timeframe, from the age of the seabed ... wihtout reserving for "densation" of material. But all in all, he's got more "physics" in his models, than what you represented here before. Except for the lame music, but neither should the music enhance or reduce your ability to objectively watch the contents.

I stated you are advocating a flat earth model, in 2-Dimensions. What you come up with a simulation, the same kind ofr simulation Niel Adams came up with. Except, this is where Niel Adams is actually a pro ... and you guys were complaining about he shouldn't dabbing in physics. What Niel Adams comes with is a KISS model, that even a child can see. What you guys come up with is a computer simulation of an impossible thermo-dynamics ... that's more a movie, than Neils Adams was making. Except it lacks the good music ... hell, I can show you a movie of people travelling through worm holes, to distant galaxies ... and I can take the same, and put into computer graphics and call it a computer model. It's still just fiction. Paleomagnetic data can be interpreted in different ways, depending on whose doing the statistics. GPS readings, can be interpreted in different ways, depending on what your reference point is. Seizmic waves will give the same results if travelling through a dense plasma core, as an iron-nickel core.

Basically, it goes like this. If you come here and tell me you're looking for a "gravitron", I'll tell you it makes sense, but I'd maybe disagree on wether there is one. Tell me you're looking for "the God Particle" and it's "the answer for all". I'll tell you that your physics degree is just a BS.

You guys come here, and start argueing Expanding Earth. Nothing wrong with debating the issues, but your argueing for a perpetual machine. Lacking the fundemantal knowledge of the basics of spherical formation. Putting forth thermo-dynamics, that has no rational explanation as to the energies required and without an energy source to provide them. And accepting it as truth, without finding it's flaws. And the most notorious of all, you are argueing a Hypothesis, as it's an absolut truth. Maybe we can argue, that it's a theory ... but it is about as far from being correct as you amuse yourself of Expanding Earth to be. Yet you argue it, as it's an absolut truth ...

Your not a physicists, your a believer. And your argueing your beliefs, not scientific data. And that is also the reason I absolutely discard your arguements. I look at your data, but whatever arguements you provide with it, I ignore.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Your not a physicists, your a believer. And your argueing your beliefs, not scientific data. And that is also the reason I absolutely discard your arguements. I look at your data, but whatever arguements you provide with it, I ignore.

edit on 22/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

But that's just it: you don't ignore it.

You get abusive. Abrasive. Insulting, and belittling.

The other problem is you present something (backed with little to no links, source or anything to help back up your argument or idea) and expect everyone to just believe it, follow it, and not have a dissenting opinion on it.

No one comes to this forum to listen to someone preach.

They come to this forum to discuss things. Refusing to provide material other than your post and acting abusive to other members is not conductive to discussion at all. Quite the opposite.

You have presented your views on the Expanding Earth theory. Yet when others have asked for more detailed information from you, specifically on your ideas for it, you've refused by ignoring those requests.
When someone who has a difference of opinion about it, and both ask you to present the scientific data to help your claim, while at the same time presenting their sources, instead of answering them in a civilized way and countering their argument with researched documentation, you have instead:

Abused them. Insulted them. Been abrasive to them, and belittled the researched data that they brought to the table.

Try adding to the discussion with more information, instead of calling people on here that disagree with you "Stoogies". It might further the discussion, instead of getting your post reported for violating the T&Cs instead.

Just a reminded to help you:

16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

ATS Terms and Conditions

reply to post by bjarneorn


Look, I actually don't feel like replying to your arguments any more, because they are off-topic, are all about "guys like you", what's wrong with us and they are insulting. Nevertheless I couldn't resist replying once more before taking the thread off of my favourites and forget about it.

I'm an open minded person, willing to accept new theories brought forth when they have the mandatory evidence and/or convincing arguments, but I don't feel this theory has either of that. Therefore I disagree with the theory, try to tell you and other proponents what I think is wrong with the idea. You can simply counter the arguments and back them up, but you can't and you won't. Once you think you can, feel free to U2U me with the evidence or solid argument. Good luck.

This next image you can see the continents are connected and always have been.The Pacific looks like a swollen belly. This is where the earth greatest expansion took place. This also happened around the time of the great extinction of the dinosaurs. It is possible that the earths crust cracked and formed continents that eventually spread due to the meteor impact that wiped out most of earth life.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It is supposedly showing how the continents fit together in the pacific, but since Alaska has been distorted beyond recognition in this illustration, what it really shows is a lack of fit. If this doesn't do it, a fancy video would be pointless for convincing expanding earth believers, though it might be helpful to others.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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?

Your logic goes out the window and you debunked Pangaea theory as well. How do you explain this nightmare theory presented in the video?
Nothing seems to fit and the chaotic distortions and movements must be a joke.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
I think the expanding earth theory explains a lot. The Earth might not actually be growing as much as it's getting bigger due to the Centrifugal force. The spinning eventually makes the Earth larger and larger. Which would also make the Earth more and more hollow as time goes on. Uh Oh, now a hollow Earth theory.

edit on 11-9-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)

The centripetal force stops that.

And we are talking about force equilibrium here, combined with gravitational pressure.

The Earth is not hollow. And the Earth is not magically growing or gaining mass.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Your logic goes out the window and you debunked Pangaea theory as well. How do you explain this nightmare theory presented in the video?

It was your claim that it fit, not mine. I was pointing out that your claim is false, and not trying to say they should fit, since I posted evidence earlier of a connection between western North America and Antarctica.

Nothing seems to fit and the chaotic distortions and movements must be a joke.

The eastern bulge in South America fits into west africa, so I wouldn't say nothing fits; most schoolkids notice that fit, but not everything fits because yes the tectonic plate activity is dynamic and includes mountain range building. Did we talk about how mountain ranges get built in the expanding Earth theory? That would seem to be a huge hole in the EE theory which is answered by plate tectonics, and the video you posted.

Your logic goes out the window and you debunked Pangaea theory as well. How do you explain this nightmare theory presented in the video?
Nothing seems to fit and the chaotic distortions and movements must be a joke.

The pangaea model is a mess. Makes no sense and all who cling to it is delusional. Some may say that they lack the brain computing power to comprehend it. Go and explore Google eatht the program, download it. Free. You will see that all the continents were one land mass at one point.

In new Zealand there are rare vegitation that can only be found in South America when they both were connected. Antartica was also connected to Austrailia, Africa, South America. Onluy Possible on a smalle earth.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Personaly, i think a super-continent or Pangaea theory and an expansionist theory both have merits and frankly, either could be so.

But in support of the expansionist theory..it would be par for the course, almost every other object, from Stars, to the Universe itself is theorised to follow an expansionist evolution.

Inflation of the Universe following the big bang, Stars expanding into giants or super-giants...why not planets?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Your logic goes out the window and you debunked Pangaea theory as well. How do you explain this nightmare theory presented in the video?

Nothing seems to fit and the chaotic distortions and movements must be a joke.

I keep reading about this in your comments. Pardon if I missed it,, but what specifically in this is a nightmare? Not trying for a putdown, but the fallacy of argument from incredulity is what you seem to be doing.

The occurrences of new spreading zones and the resulting subductions are essentially random, and the time line shown here is very compressed, and the distortion caused by the Mercator projection is unfortunate. You expect the Earth to be logical in it's choice of spreading zones? Why a joke? Is it easier for you to invent whole orders of increases in mass from nothing than to see the earth like a slowly convecting cauldron?

dble post