Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

Originally posted by ZakOlongapo
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

does coming from a different country to someone make you somehow more intelligent or perceptive?

not exactly adding to the debate, is it?

reply to post by Shadow Herder

When you squish a foam ball and then release it, does it lose or gain mass?

It gains mass.

Sorry just had to answer

Interesting thread btw

I'm with ya op!

Every thing thats alive will grow!

The earth is indeed expanding/ growing.

She is evolving.

reply to post by skalla


in some way. i did answer to someone from UK. it means a lot cos UK school system is so bad... high school kids do not know even countrys of europe and they belong to europe... i know i am not alone with this opinion.

more intelligent? sure no. just more educated .

Originally posted by powerdrone

I'd go into detail why the expanding earth theory is a ridiculous one but this video does just fine.

If the part where the guy blows up the balloon doesn't convince you, then you must really be a skeptic!

reply to post by ZakOlongapo


my kid is five, british and could tell you the basics of how we believe the continents have moved as well as the names and locations of some european nations - take that prejudiced nonsense somewhere else and lets get back on topic.

Originally posted by ZakOlongapo
reply to post by skalla

 

in some way. i did answer to someone from UK. it means a lot cos UK school system is so bad... high school kids do not know even countrys of europe and they belong to europe...

i know i am not alone with this opinion.

more intelligent? sure no. just more educated .

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

I am sure that David Duke wasn't alone with his opinions too, doesn’t make him correct does it!

I am afraid that all your sweeping generalisations are doing is making you look like a bigoted fool.

Peace

reply to post by skalla


i live in UK over 8 years, dont tell me how Your kid is claver ok... i am originally from Czech and any time someone ask me where i am from... they think its part of Russia or non existing Yugoslavia, not all but most of them
but back to the point of the OP, Plate tectonics are moving for sure, but the question is... is it the way they teach us in school? look in the past and learn, schools did teach a lot of nonsense fore centurys... get my point now?

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
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.

That's just an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Doalrite

How would the Earth grow??? Is there that much space debris landing on us to make such a difference?

The earth grows by the combination of tectonic activity and cooling, based on the fact that rock at deeper layers in the earth (deeper than the crust) is at higher temperature and pressure. This highly pressurized rock, upon finding cracks etc in the lithosphere, makes it way to the surface in continental or oceanic volcanism, and expands and cools upon reaching the surface. Multiply this by millions of years and you have a significant expansion of rock - and the earth.

At times like this with increased tectonic activity, the expanding hypothesis can possibly explain this as well. The theory is more Sun activity energizes the deep rock and speeds up the expansion process, causing more earthquakes and volcanism.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
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.

That's just an oxymoron.

That's all you've got...

Shame. For a second I thought you knew what you were talking about.

reply to post by ZakOlongapo


if you read my posts in the thread you will see that this idea is one that i am exploring and actively debating and seeking more info about..
i am just taking issue with your use of pointless national stereotyping that has no basis in fact.

and your point wasnt about about how new theories need to be taught in schools, you were just doing some nationalist ego massaging, leave it out

I had a thought a while back.....If there are gas clouds of hydrogen in space, and the earth passed through them, Could some of that hydrogen enter our atmosphere and bind with oxygen to give us more water on Earth ?

That could be an explanation for expanding earth, less oxygen than previous and higher sea levels too.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

At times like this with increased tectonic activity, the expanding hypothesis can possibly explain this as well. The theory is more Sun activity energizes the deep rock and speeds up the expansion process, causing more earthquakes and volcanism.

Through what mechanism does the sun energise deep rock?

The only mass the Earth ever gains comes from two places: Bio mass reproducing, and from outer space in the form of meteors. If you were to half fill a balloon and then paint it, and then blow into the balloon you can see what happens.., we are basically just sitting on a big molten friction reactor, metal being heaviest gets pulled to the bottom into the core by gravity. Volcanic activity from the heat fills in the gaps of surface rock, from molten rock deeper within. Watch someone pan for gold it is very similar process of what is going on.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

That's all you've got...

Shame. For a second I thought you knew what you were talking about.

First of all, no offence. But you stated that life had not undergone any changes. For the past 100 million years. Well, actually it's undergone enormous changes ... so the arguement is self contradicting. That we can say that these changes are from life having to adapt to different environment, is a different debate entirely.

Second, I urge you to find two different materials of different density and try to push the lighter density one, into the creater density one. It's not merely a "lighter" material into a heavier one, or something floating on water. Because oil floats, not because of it's composition, but because of the shape of the oil molecule. It "can" sink ... the same applies to Iron ... it'll sink as a rock, even if a ship made of steel will float.

What we're talking about, is "impossible". It's like trying to have rock, sink into steel. Yes, it will sink into liquid steel wich is much hotter than rock. Because it will "melt". And the effect you will see, is eruption of gases. The mantle is pressurised and magma is magnetic. It's electromagnetism is evident, in volcanic eruptions. However, in case of the mantle. It is generally objected to that it is molten ... it is considered to be preassurised rock, slightly liquid, highly resistive.



Both magnetic and gravitational anomalies, can be seen near magma chambers. These anomalies, are used to observe magma movement.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Honestly, I'd never heard of the "expanding Earth" theory before. But looking at the diagrams, it makes sense.

Now, let's look a little deeper. You just said Pangaea makes no sense. But even if the process between the condition of the continents then and their condition now is different than what we were told, I believe that tiny little planet in the bottom picture of that graph showing an expanding Earth in different stages looks a LOT like Pangaea.

You're not arguing with the existence of Pangaea, you're arguing with the process of how it changed to what we have today. So instead of "Pangaea theory debunked", it should be "continental shift theory" debunked.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You're not arguing with the existence of Pangaea, you're arguing with the process of how it changed to what we have today. So instead of "Pangaea theory debunked", it should be "continental shift theory" debunked.

You obviously got it :-)

I´ve spent some time reading all the replies in the thread before I would throw in my own opinion, and I have to say that I´m pretty convinced the expanding earth hypothesis has no solid ground to go on. Not a single convincing argument has been presented, nor was the currently accepted Pangaea theory debunked in any way.

In my opinion a contracted earth would have a higher gravitational pull (higher density of mass) and this is directly contradicted by the fossil records.

So I would suggest changing the title of the thread...

Originally posted by magma
If the Earth is expanding, then what size did it start at to enable the seperation of the land masses.?

And if the earth is indeed expanding and if it is becoming hollow from the inside, then can we assume that someday if it reaches a point where the cracks within the land can result in all the ocean water flooding the inside and cooling and possibly stop the heat completely? Do you think other planets possibly have had the same issue where the water was not evaporated but absorbed within the earth and it froze the inner core and killed off the planet? Just a WAG and a Theory just like the others on ATS