Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

reply to post by bjarneorn


No, plasma is not a gas, it is disassociated subatomic particles. Under sufficient pressure, these particles would undergo fusion reactions, as they do in the Sun. If the Earth's core were plasma, the surface would be bombarded by gamma and neutron radiation from below.

As for the Earth growing, as has been pointed out, its gravity would either decrease if the mass remained constant, or increase if it was due to the accumulation of mass. How fast would the Earth need to expand to account for the separation of the continents we see today?

Finally, the tectonic plate theory not only explains a wide range of observations on Earth, there is increasing evidence of plate tectonics on other planets. The Valle Marineris on Mars is now believed to be the result of tectonic activity, and there are signs of tectonic activity on the larger Moons in the outer Solar System, albeit in ice rather than rock.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

Obviously anything that floats on anything else is gonna be less dense than the thing it's floating on.

So, good luck into sinking the crust into the mantle ...

Of course, you think that you can have something push into the lighter density, if it's shaped correctly curing the sinking. Thinking a pointed effect here ...

This is much more complicated than that ...you see, when the mantle melts the crust, it creates magma. Magma is molted rock, from the crust ... blended with plasma, from the mantle. The plasma here, is magnetic gases, very dense. But they're gases ... because the energy state of each molecule is incredibly high. Moving extremely fast, when they cool, they make the magma instantly expand and seek to lesser dense areas, as the magmas desnity will shrink ... so the crust that sinks, is actually instantly melting and therefore moving upwards, and not downwards.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


cool, thats very interesting and thanks for the extra info.... does anyone know how much it is suggested that the earth has expanded, and in how long?

Fantastic subject.

Just one Quesiton, read earlier on that its believed that this theory (Expandinhg Earth) which in my opinion makes far mores sense is being kept from the public.

Why would the governments of the world want to keep this theory secret?

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

cool, thats very interesting and thanks for the extra info.... does anyone know how much it is suggested that the earth has expanded, and in how long?

You're welcome.

I think the claims vary somewhat but here's one:

www.expanding-earth.org...

The evidence is empirical and the conclusions are obvious—the Earth ~200-250 million years ago was a single planetary landmass ~40% smaller than it is today, and at that moment in geologic time there were NO OCEANS!

Funny how we seem to have fossils from the oceans when there were no oceans, isn't it?

www.youtube.com...

(I couldn't get the video to work right, sorry!)

I'd go into detail why the expanding earth theory is a ridiculous one but this video does just fine. You can easily promote something that makes sense if you throw out accepted science and reason, however unfortunately that's not how things are done.

It's like telling people that Panda's are bears because they look like bears and ignoring the DNA evidence that says they are actually raccoons because the visual evidence makes more sense and claiming it to just be a conspiracy for bear lovers.

Sorry. But no.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


well to suggest that the earth has increased from being 40% smaller is a bit of a stretch the bad pun was intentional btw..

as for fossils, i really dont know how old the oldest sea bed fossils are or the locations where they found. but in an off the cuff reckoning i guess i cant see the cooling and expansion of magma into other rocks adding a truely significant amount of mass to cause the stretching required.. i think.

jolly interesting tho!

reply to post by bluloa

Why would the governments of the world want to keep this theory secret?

If the governments of the Earth are keeping this secret, why are we able to discuss it?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

No, plasma is not a gas, it is disassociated subatomic particles. Under sufficient pressure, these particles would undergo fusion reactions, as they do in the Sun. If the Earth's core were plasma, the surface would be bombarded by gamma and neutron radiation from below.

There isn't sufficient preassure for that to occurr inside the earth ... for that you'd need the density of the Sun, which is around 150000 kg/m^3. Instead of the mere 13000 kg/m^3 inside the earth. Sufficient to cause the plasmatic effect of the planet, but nowhere sufficient to cause the core to turn it into a sun.

Plasma is so energetic or "hot" that in space it consists soley of ions and electrons. It is only when plasma is cooled that the atoms or molecules that are so predominant in forming gases, liquids, and solids that we are so accustomed to on Earth, is possible.

Plasma, is the state of matter ... that is "above" the state of Gas. When it cools, it will drop-down to the other states of matter, where Gas is the first stage it will reach. But, before that ... it will "increase" it's volume.

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

well to suggest that the earth has increased from being 40% smaller is a bit of a stretch

the bad pun was intentional btw..

That's a silly thing to say ... why should it be a bit of a stretch?

In the beginning, there was no earth ... there was only plasma in the Universe. Then, small gravity pockets existed, where plasma got collected into... just like the plasma clouds, you see in a telescope. When these increased, they got drawn into it's gravitational center ...

That is basically how any body in the universe must have been formed. Every celestial body, must have formed from nothing ... into the size of Bettlejuide ... and larger.



And you think, that bodies that grew into these size, that the earth growing from 40% to current size is a big deal?

reply to post by Shadow Herder

A couple of thing i found out about the East Coast and its formation.

Heres something i found about the formation of the Appalachian Mountains;
Pangea

The natural history of North Carolina;
North Carolina

The Natural History of New York;
New York

This hypothesis is complete nonsense. It is such nonsense in fact, that even debunking it would be frowned upon by fellow experts. It would be like an astronomer debunking the idea that the moon is made of cheese ......Just ludicrous

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

In other words it's balls**t....

reply to post by Atzil321


so how U explain that america is every year few cm more fare from europe? and asia even more cm fare from america in pacific in year time?

dont ask for proof, do education Your self...

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

Obviously anything that floats on anything else is gonna be less dense than the thing it's floating on.

So, good luck into sinking the crust into the mantle ...

Of course, you think that you can have something push into the lighter density, if it's shaped correctly curing the sinking. Thinking a pointed effect here ...

This is much more complicated than that ...you see, when the mantle melts the crust, it creates magma. Magma is molted rock, from the crust ... blended with plasma, from the mantle. The plasma here, is magnetic gases, very dense. But they're gases ... because the energy state of each molecule is incredibly high. Moving extremely fast, when they cool, they make the magma instantly expand and seek to lesser dense areas, as the magmas desnity will shrink ... so the crust that sinks, is actually instantly melting and therefore moving upwards, and not downwards.

This last post make no sense at all. You give no good reason at all why the oceanic plate cannot be subducted. Obviously after a some time the oceanic plate will melt before it is subducted too far and be reabsorbed back into the mantle.
 
Please also answer the questions I raised in my initial post regarding all the features which are present on Earth today that can only be explained if subduction is fact.
 
Please also provide some link apart from your own word that the Earth’s core is full of ‘plasma’

Originally posted by bjarneorn


And you think, that bodies that grew into these size, that the earth growing from 40% to current size is a big deal?

It is if you are also going to assume that life not only survived relatively unscathed throughout this 'expansion' but in fact diversified even more...

All the while leaving no trace in the fossil record that life ever had to adapt to any changes one would expect to see if Earth had changed significantly in diameter from the Proterozoic Era onwards.

reply to post by ZakOlongapo
Plate tectonics.... en.wikipedia.org...

I find it kind of depressing that you 'or anyone else' don't even have a simple working understanding of plate tectonics in the year 2012..... what the hell did you learn in school?

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

well to suggest that the earth has increased from being 40% smaller is a bit of a stretch

the bad pun was intentional btw..

That's a silly thing to say ... why should it be a bit of a stretch?

because it was a pun, and because that's a heck of a lot of expansion and i am trying to understand where the extra mass has come from. this is a very interesting idea and is new to me and if anyone has answers/ideas to add to this then i'd be keen to find out more, but the info i am referencing from the op suggests a great deal of expansion taking place when the earth was populated with trees and beasties, presumably when this planet was no longer a ball/collection of plasma.

am i incorrect in thinking that the earth's core is not plasma? it's just that i'm trying to see where the mass comes from, and the vid referenced magma expansion which is my only point of reference on this issue at present - i'd welcome more info from anyone to clear that question up

i also dont see how the vid you posted applies to whats being discussed, these are different bodies and different amounts of differing material forming them would have to be the obvious explanation for their differing sizes?

reply to post by 1littlewolf


fossil records do prove that gravity was different! or density of the atmosphere was higher... what U think is truth? there are fossil records of species of all kind that CAN'T walk on earth today! they will just collapse basic physics*

reply to post by Atzil321


i learn how to use a BRAIN, not just believe what THEY told U to believe... i am from different country then U

Originally posted by ZakOlongapo
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

fossil records do prove that gravity was different! or density of the atmosphere was higher... what U think is truth? there are fossil records of species of all kind that CAN'T walk on earth today! they will just collapse

basic physics*

This is due to the higher levels of oxygen present in the atmosphere able to support larger life forms.

It has nothing to do with gravity anomalies due to the Earth expanding. If the Earth were smaller in size but equal in mass as it is today gravity at the surface would actually be greater meaning the large life forms present in the dinosaur era probably would not be able to survive.