Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
You don't need extra mass to increase the size of a body, you just need a greater vacuum.



Though highly unlikely that this is happening to everything in the universe it is theoretically possible

edit on 12-9-2012 by Jamjar because: spelling




posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha

No I'm not saying that at all. These are both theories, and therefore automatically suspect. There is some fossil evidence for Pangaea.I have seen little evidence for the expanding earth, at least nothing I would describe as convincing.



Which is nonsense ... there are no fossil evidence for Pangea. There are fossil evidence, for the continents being connected ... that does not mean, it's Pangea. And NASA has already stated, that the earth is growing the thickness of a hair, each year. Do you have any idea, of how much matter is being accredited to the earth every year, if it is growing by the thickness of a hair?

Basically, it's a statement that in the beginning, the earth was smaller than Venus and has grown to this size. So, it's a proof of the earth growing ...

The only disagreement is, how much ... have you ever heard anyone, who is a scientist, say that an error the size of 0.0001 is insignificant? That's not very scientific is it ... that's a political statement, saying an error in measurement is insignificant.

In any science, it's enormously significant.



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

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

True. And we can say the bread expands due to the yeast.

This is what the expanding earth theory is missing...any credible evidence of the "yeast" or whatever made the Earth expand. Come up with that and the theory might have some credibility. Without such a mechanism, it has no credibility.



And you think drifting continents have a credible mechanism?

Jesus Christ.

The continental drift is so absurd, it's self evident ... or should be to anything thinking straight.

Take a book, and put it on a table. Then take a thin paper, put it so it resides besides the book. Now, please explain, how you are going to have this paper, go under the book. It isn't just unlikely ... IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Please, be my guest ... use any lubricant you want.

And this meachinism, is the heart of your continental drift theory ... and you call this the product of scientific minds?

It's pure idiocy.

98% of the universe, is made of plasma ...

And you think, that the core of the earth ... the very thing, that first created "first" ... is not? The sun, does not spew out of it, iron cores ... so for the iron core theory to actually work, you'd have to have a universe, that was already working prior to the earths creation ... but if it was, you'd already have planets with iron cores, defined. And that's prior to them ever having been able to exist.

And that's an oxymoron ...it's a paradox.

When you see a volcanic eruption, you already know what happens ...


Volcanic eruptions arise through three main mechanisms:

Gas release under decompression causing magmatic eruptions.
Thermal contraction from chilling on contact with water causing phreatomagmatic eruptions.
Ejection of entrained particles during steam eruptions causing phreatic eruptions.[1]


These gases, come from the inner of the earth ... from it's Plasma core.

And these gases, that are the earths plasma inner core .... work, EXACTLY as yeast, in a volcanic eruption. And that, in and by itself, already tells you that the mechanism for such things, exists.

edit on 12/9/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
NASA has already stated, that the earth is growing the thickness of a hair, each year.
Link to this?


Do you have any idea, of how much matter is being accredited to the earth every year, if it is growing by the thickness of a hair?
You mean accreted? Yes it's 40 tons a day, times 365 days a year, or 14600 tons a year, or about 1.3245x10^7kg a year. Sounds like a lot, but even over a billion years it adds up to 1.3245x10^16kg which isn't much compared to the Earth:

Earth mass today, approximate = 5.9722x10^24kg
less mass added over last billion years: 1.3245x10^16kg
Earth mass one billion years ago= 5.9721999868x10^24kg

Percentage difference: 0.00000022177%

That's about two tenths of a millionth of one percent. Probably not as much as you thought?


Basically, it's a statement that in the beginning, the earth was smaller than Venus and has grown to this size. So, it's a proof of the earth growing ...
What statement? By who?
edit on 12-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mardukiscoming
reply to post by superman2012
 


Earth has,over billions of years been pounded by asteroids and comets and meteors,all of which contain some moisture in the form of ice.It is from these cosmic travellers that all the water on Earth originated.



you seriously believe that?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Take a book, and put it on a table. Then take a thin paper, put it so it resides besides the book. Now, please explain, how you are going to have this paper, go under the book. It isn't just unlikely ... IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Please, be my guest ... use any lubricant you want.

And this meachinism, is the heart of your continental drift theory ... and you call this the product of scientific minds?

It's pure idiocy.


Your model here is flawed; and I’m not even going to touch your plasma theory…...

Take a block of wood (continental crust) and a piece of water proof paper (oceanic crust) both floating on water (Earth’s molten mantle). Now push them together. The paper will subduct beneath the wood every time…



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Link to this?




The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.




You mean accreted? Yes it's 40 tons a day, times 365 days a year, or 14600 tons a year, or about 1.3245x10^7kg a year. Sounds like a lot, but even over a billion years it adds up to 1.3245x10^16kg which isn't much compared to the Earth:

Earth mass today, approximate = 5.9722x10^24kg
less mass added over last billion years: 1.3245x10^16kg
Earth mass one billion years ago= 5.9721999868x10^24kg



No, no ... you're working with old data. You haven't taken into account, the measurements done by NASA.

Let's, for a moment, ignore that the earth is growing from the inside out. And say it's all because of accredited mass.

density = m/V

Volume = 4/3 *pi*r^3

eRadius = 6362697

eMass = 5.97219 * 10^24

density(eMass,volume(eRadius)) = 5535

volume(eRadius+0.0001)-volume(eRadius) = 5 * 10^10

5535 * 5*10^10 = 2.8 * 10^14 kg.

But, let's ignore the mean density, and just use the crust density instead. The lowest of these values, are 2.3g/cm^3. Which is 2300 kg/m^3.

2300 * 5*10^10 = 1.14 * 10^14 kg.

And that must be the amount of mass, the earth is accrediting. If we totally and utterly ignore all of "Expanding earth" hypothesis.

And your 14600 tons, is just a fraction of this value.

So, continental drift theory ... as well as NASA's political statement. Doesn't hold water.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Your model here is flawed; and I’m not even going to touch your plasma theory…...



No, the falw is in your assumptions ...



Take a block of wood (continental crust) and a piece of water proof paper (oceanic crust) both floating on water (Earth’s molten mantle). Now push them together. The paper will subduct beneath the wood every time…


You think the earths mantle is water? or equivalent?

I mean seriously.


Oceanic crust is the part of Earth's lithosphere that surfaces in the ocean basins. Oceanic crust is primarily composed of mafic rocks, or sima, which is rich in iron and magnesium. It is thinner than continental crust, or sial, generally less than 10 kilometers thick, however it is denser, having a mean density of about 2.9 grams per cubic centimeter.



The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust.




Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0
Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3
Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7 (increasing with depth?)
Outer Core (liquid): 9.9 to 12.2
Inner Core (solid): 12.6 to 13.0


You are talking about increasing dinsity. Where the mantle is about twice the density of the crust. And even if that wasn't all, now you have to drag the crust, from below, under the continental crust. Which is several times the weight, of the oceanic crust you are moving.

A constant moving underneath the plates, would move the oceaning crust towards lesser density ... just as it does in real life. The oceanic floor, would rise, and not sink into the mantle. The only way for any mechanism, that would take the oceanic crust into the mantle ... would be if the mantle was "sucking" it down. That there was a movement inside the mantle, where the mantle was "sinking" into the core ...

You have such a mechanism? No.

Then what is being suggested, is impossible.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


No, the further away the moon gets from us the less gravity its exerting on the earth. In time the earth will wobble on its axis more and more.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 


Do you have a better explanation.I would love to hear it.Minus the attitude.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I swear there were fossil's found that support this theory. Certain animals that could not of moved along the different land masses



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

You took the quote out of context. The full quote says:

www.nasa.gov...

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.
All you've demonstrated is your ignorance of measurement uncertainty. You haven't demonstrated any change in the size of the Earth.

You know this is pretty low, to take a quote so out of context that the real quote says exactly the opposite of what you claim. Get a grip and stop twisting real science around to fit your fairy tale beliefs.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Obviously anything that floats on anything else is gonna be less dense than the thing it's floating on. That's how the whole thing works. Yes the mantle behaves like water in this example cos it's LIQUID. The fact that the oceanic plate is more dense but thinner than the continental plate makes it even more likely to slip beneath.

Also how do you explain all the natural phenomena which is caused by subduction as outlined in my initial post in this thread?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
i had not come across this theory before, and when starting to read th OP i was very dubious indeed. Whatching the vids tho, and reading further i find it fascinating and having previously accepted the whole supercontinent and plate tectonice explanation i'm now gonna look much more deeply into this as all that i have seen in the OP makes great sense.
as to where the mass for the expansion comes from, in the first vid it states that the earth's magma is twice the density of granite, on of our commonest and densest rocks. so, as this cools and changes into various rocks it would presumably expand to generally at least twice it's size? i assume that a lot of the expansion comes from this process, i think..
really cool thread, i may well have learned something new today that actually matters, many thanks!



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnonUK
I swear there were fossil's found that support this theory. Certain animals that could not of moved along the different land masses


Of course, you are right ... there are fossils that suggests that the landmasses were connected over the Atlantic. There are also fossils that connect landmasses over the Passific.

In Earth Expansion theory, that's quite normal ... since obviously both were connected once. The connection drifted first in the passific, and then later in the Atlantic. In plate tectonics theory, the continents being connected over the Atlantic is called Pangea. And being connected over the Pacific, is called Rodinia.

The problem with Rodinia and Pangea, is that the ocean floor that shows splitting of the bottom. There are equally young oceanic crust, both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific. Which means, that the ocean floor was moving apart in the Pacific and Atlantic at the same time. That's when people invented the idea of Subduction.

Both Earth Expansion and Plate tectonics are viewing the same data. They're just being interpreted in two different ways. In Plate Tectonics, the continents fit, because they bumped into each other so much, that the fitting was created. Silly really ... but it gets funnier as you go along.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Well you're half right.

They both are theories.

Hopefully this thread will have an actively open minded discussion.


I hope so as well.

And yes hey both are theories but then again very few thing are not when it come to planets, moons, our sun and how they formed.

One of the reasons the expanding Earth theory gets dismissed is because it does not makes sense on it's own alone with other incorrect theories.

For the expanding theory to make ore sense we would have to accept the Pangaea theory to be incorrect right? Obviously!

What is also obvious is that if we assume the expanding Earth theory to be correct not only does the Pangaea theory have to be incorrect but so to other theories of how planets and moons, the role of our sun and how our solar system works have to be incorrect or at least a little tweaking is needed for the theory to make much more sense just like the flat Earth theory needed other theories like the sun rotating around the Earth for the theory of we are the shiznit to be correct.

Ah but those authoritative religious establishments sure dreaded and even fought against such change much like our Scientific God particle thumping new authoritative theosophic institutions fights against the theory of an expanding Earth.

So lets think a bit what do we know yet over look about the sun, moons and planets and how can further inspection of what we know help the theory of an expanding Earth.

Well some obvious tings that come to my mind is the Earth is slowly moving away from the sun so i'm sure it has been for a long, long, long time.

Our moon is slowly moving away from Earth but why is it so close to Earth if it is moving away?

The Sun is known for shooting stuff out in huge amounts like it's spitting a wad of paper through a straw.

These are just tree well known things that we simply pay no attention to or how they could impact curent theory and show it's incorrectness.

Here's a theory and lets see if it makes sense and possibly any more sense that the current ones today fed to us by the grand church of science.

Lets say the sun spits out planets, these planets due to the huge gravitational pull of the sun are really small to start out and are very close to the sun in orbit. lets say these small dense planets are slowly pushed by the force of the sun very slowly over million and millions of years due to it's orbit (like a sail boat in the wind). As they move away from the sun and their orbit expanse the density drops and the planet grows in size, plus the stuff dumped on it from the sun and comets and such.

Lets say that moon like the one with Earth always sticks to any planet the moves into Earths current position like a conveyor belt. It does this by falling into orbit with lets say Venus once it moves away from Earth orbit far away enough to becomes the moon of Venus that is now in Earth position while earth is now where mars is and mars either had what it took to become a gas giant or just part of the asteroid belt.

But where id the moon come from? Well if the sun can spit out planets who it to say that those huge storms on gas giants cant hurl moons into space? and do this until they spit out so many moons that their gasiness kind of deflates and they become far off frozen dead planets exceeding the mass expansion of the lack of the suns gravitational pull.

But why are planets all different sizes? should not mars be bigger than Earth? Not if each spit wad from the sun is chewed and torn from the paper in diffident sizes.

Now I ask, why would what I have just said be wrong? and if I am wrong where will the earth and moon be in a billion years?

Finally I ask, does not the expanding earth theory work much better with the theory I have presented? Or does the theory of Pangaea hold more water with conventional scientific theory? Think about it.

The Rat.
edit on 12-9-2012 by TucoTheRat because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
in the first vid it states that the earth's magma is twice the density of granite, on of our commonest and densest rocks.
The video may state that, but is it true? First magma isn't a uniform substance of a uniform density. There are different magma compositions with different densities, but if you averaged them it would probably average a little over 3 while granite is a little under 3 g/cc, so it's more dense than granite but not twice as dense.

Since that claim is wrong, you should be suspicious of all the claims in the video.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


thank U for this post
S@F

i totally agree with what U say...
a lot of people have problem with expanding theory, where the extra mass come from? who knows
face it, we do not know 100% what is happening in the centre of earth, all we know is still only theory...
have simple question, where is all mass going in the middle of black hole? more theorys aroud right?!

expanding earth make sense for many reasons.... world was less mass before, so less gravity
bingo, that is why all grow large! a lot of animals and plants CANT SURVIVE in today gravity if they are around
just to BIG

thank U one more time

edit on 12-9-2012 by ZakOlongapo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


sure, i get your point. the angle of my approach there was trying to gain an understanding of one of my first questions on reading the OP, ie: "where is the mass for the expansion coming from?" i recognise that this is a theory (and not commonly accepted) but having previously read a reasonable amount on PT/pangeae (and gondwanaland/laurasia theories in the past etc) i have found a new idea to explore



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
i recognise that this is a theory (and not commonly accepted)
No, it is NOT a theory in the scientific sense of the word, it is a hypothesis. A scientific theory has supporting evidence. There is actually evidence AGAINST expanding earth.

And saying "not commonly accepted" is also not accurate.

This is more accurate:

en.wikipedia.org...

While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any expansion or contraction of the Earth....

The theory had never developed a plausible and verifiable mechanism of action, but neither had any of its competing theories. By the late 1970s the theory of plate tectonics made all other theories obsolete following the discovery of subduction, which was found to be an important part of a mechanism of action.

Generally, the scientific community finds that there is no evidence in support of the Expanding Earth theory, and there is evidence against it:

Measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size to within a measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm per year.[14] The lead author of the study stated "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties".[15] The motions of tectonic plates and subduction zones measured by a large range of geological, geodetic and geophysical techniques supports plate tectonics.[16][17][18]

Mass accretion on a scale required to change the Earth's radius is contradicted by the current accretion rate of the Earth, and by the Earth's average internal temperature: any accretion releases a lot of energy, which would warm the planet's interior.

Expanding Earth models based on thermal expansion contradict most modern principles from rheology, and fail to provide an acceptable explanation for the proposed melting and phase transitions.

Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[19][20]

Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years.






top topics



 
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join