posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The problem with geography and common knowledge is that we have been shown the same map for years and have a delusion of how the coninents really
look. Here is a different perspective which shows that the Pangaea theory is bunk on a lack of
You know, if you continue to throw around map projections willy-nilly like that you can prove almost anything, particularly when you change the
projection in mid-course.
Yes, obviously a Mercator projection is not good for talking about either plate tectonics or expanding earth. One needs a projection that is both
conformal (shape-preserving) and equal-area (areas of continents and oceans preserving), and there is only one such projection - a globe. If you argue
these questions on the basis of any other map projection, then you are asking your opponent to take things on faith.
Look at the projection you display; it is known as a transverse Mercator. Take a look at the shape of Africa on that projection, then take a look at
the shape on a globe. Do you see the difference? If you think it is realistic you are fooling yourself. And that's the problem - you projection
took the distortion the original Mercator projection displays for the north and south latitudes, and spreads it around in different parts of the
globe, but they are still not right. Just different.
And I contend when you apply Adam's theory to a real globe, you have to take an invisible knife to extensive parts of continents and oceans to allow
the to nestle so neatly.