Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

 
I specified changes in the diameter of the Earth. The fossil record does not reflect this. It reflects all other significant Earth changes but there is zero evidence that life ever had to cope with an increase in the Earths diameter of 40% or more

That's just more nonsense ... you're just echoing basic textbook stuff, without so much as spending a sincere thought on it.

If this was correct, why would you be digging up ancient cities? This question is just to point out to you, the self evident incorrectness of your statement. Every year, leaves die, and add to the fossil ... therefore everywhere round the world, the fossils are downward with time.

That you are digging for ancient fossils, most certainly suggests that the earths diameter is increasing ... about 2cm per year. It isn't, of course, but that's another issue. The fossils most certainly do suggest increase in diameter.

 
As stated before anything that floats does so because it is less dense than the liquid which it floats upon.
 
You present a case where a dense but thin plate slips under a much bulkier but slightly less dense plate into a liquid which is even more dense before finally melting away.
 
YES, This is how it happens. Fill up your sink, get a scrunched up ball of paper and a relatively flat (but denser) piece of cardboard. Put them so they’re both floating in the water then push them together. This is plate tectonics.

Again, you're just echoing textbook stuff ...

Again this is exactly what we see. The oceanic crust is subducted under the continental crust into the molten ductile aethenosphere where it eventually melts.

Nothing of what I said, registered ... alll I get back, is an echo from a textbook.

These textbooks, are basically wrong ... well, not just basically. Completely. You can see the effect of plasma, from the cloud that spews out of the volcano. You can see the "yeast" effect, in the lava that comes out ... the effect of captured gases within it. You can measure the magnetic, and gravitational effects of the magma in it's chambers.

All this supports, that there is plasma beneath ...

If you still want to revert to your textbook rhetoric, then be my guest. If so, it's just another religious fanatic, sticking to his or her bible.

When you start to look at the concepts involved, without sticking to your bible (plate tectonics) belief, give me a holler.

We know that new seafloor is being made on a regular basis. With that in mind, it seems to me that the only thing that could keep the Earth from expanding would be subduction of plates. If you take subduction out of the equation then the Expanding Earth theory makes more sense.

I haven't looked through every post but what I haven't seen mentioned is how water levels are taken into account. The first video states that a smaller Earth only had shallow seas and no oceans but it's not taking into account that we have countless gallons of water in our oceans today and it had to come from somewhere.

Unless there is a reasonable explanation as to why we have so much water today then a tiny Earth would have essentially been a water planet until it reached a certain size.

reply to post by RedmoonMWC

So the earth will be scalped ? Very interesting.

Pangaea theory sounds right so it will remain until a better theory comes up, and even if its not right its not going to be someone on ATS who changes a major theory of how the earth has formed today. I like to think that Pangaea theory has been developed and discussed by real professionals unlike this thread.... But I dunno call me old fashioned.

Granted! it IS only a theory, but its answer is not relevant to you or anyone else in this thread anyway...How could it be? Better just leave it the the university types who study this more intensely then just youtube videos and conspiracy forums.

Originally posted by hp1229
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

 

So the earth will be scalped ?

Very interesting.

No, Was
If you wish to put it that way.

Originally posted by Atzil321
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?

What's sad is that our knowledge still, in 2012,
is ALL theory.
Subduction Theory etc... Even the movement of plates.
They don't know.
Even in 2012. It's all subject to change.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
One needs to see the globe like this

Look at the Atlantic and imagine it coming together as we know it can, now imagine the Pacific spread coming together, this would only be possible on a smaller globe.

Also, the pacific Ocean bulge explains the Ring of fire. This is the area of earth where expansion has been the greatest and most likely where the ocean floor is the thinnest. The ocean floor is pushing against the continents. Hence the earthquakes.

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

Expanding Earth the Flat Earth 2, where was all the water during this process and we would be able to measure the expansion don't you think.

Originally posted by Hudson69
But I dunno call me old fashioned.

Nobody is forbidding you to stick to your old bible theory ... there are thousands of religious sects out there, ranging from plate tectonics, to Big Bang, and from Christianity, to Buddism.

If you're waiting for a Messiah, to come along and tell you what's right and wrong ...

Amen.

reply to post by JayTaylor


How about the possibility of geo-engieering?

reply to post by sealing


Every thing in science is subject to change.

the·o·ry
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

Origin:
1590–1600; < Late Latin theōria < Greek theōría a viewing, contemplating, equivalent to theōr ( eîn ) to view + -ia -y3

Can be confused: hypothesis, law, theory.

Synonyms
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

dictionary.reference.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Expanding Earth the Flat Earth 2, where was all the water during this process and we would be able to measure the expansion don't you think.

The flat model earth, version 2. Would be plate tectonics ... it's the unchangable earth. The consant earth. Thousands of years ago, it was flat ... not changable. Now it's constant size. Not changable. Because it was put into the heavens, by God himself ... and the plates, are steered by Noha.

Sort of comical, really.

The water, has it's origin from the plasmatic inners of the Earth. Some of it is accredited, but the vast majority, comes from vulcanic activity, and the fact that the gases that spew out into the atmosphere, condense into water. That's where our atmosphere, comes from as well ... sorta basic, really, if you think about it.

People just have to stick to their "constant" belief, for security. It's really silly, that we're living on a balloon, you know ... it's much more credible, that God put the earth and stars into place. And it's much more credible that air can sink into water. Probably will, under certain preassure too ... maybe Suns grow from one size to another, but planets can't ...they can't be formed the same way ... it's impossible, too simple.

We know that more than 99% of the Universe is Plasma. But the Earth is an exception to the rule ... because God made it. It couldn't have been made out of the most abundant matter in the Universe I mean, that's absurde ... God put the earth there, maybe he dug up an Iron core out of the Universe and put it there ... but it's much more reliable ... more convenient.

All over the Universe we see stars exploding, and turning into supernovas, and black holes. We see remnants of planets ... but this planet, can explode like a balloon? how absurd. That's impossible ... didn't you get the memo from God? he said it's a stable planet ... rock solid..

It's much simpler to believe God did it ... Amen.

Oh, holy plate tectonic ... bump thy not into thy neighbour plate, unless thee neighbor bump into thee.

reply to post by bjarneorn


Um did you even read my post? You quoted me way out of context. Where did you get that I was religious because i'm not...

Seriously really confusing...I said nothing about god...I was just saying:
-Pangaea Theory doesn't affect your life in any way shape or form
-Trying to change theories via Youtube and ATS makes you come across as uneducated and uninformed
-The current Pangaea theory has more credibility, as its accepted by modern INFORMED scientists and your ATS post is not credible...at all.

This is a fine discussion and I enjoy considering all of the suggestions brought up.

I am not convinced of any one theory, but I will remain open to all of them at least until I can find reasons to reject them.

As it is now, there are multiple possibilities of why things are the way they are today.
It's hard to tell considering we have little to no data to work with.

Anyhow, carry on. I am enjoying the thread and the comments.

Originally posted by Doalrite
What if its completely wrong... what if the earth use to be much bigger.

We have heard them say that somthing big hit the earth and made the moon.. what if when that happened a big chuch of the earth was removed like biting the side of an apple.. the water would fill the void then the crust of the earth would shift slowly.

You nailed it for me at least!

Earth was much larger in the past (see the scale of living beings in ages past i.e. Dinosaurs, giant insects etc.). Then something major occured and life was extinguished across the face of the planet. The planet was but a small portion of itself, it was reshaped into what we live on today, I believe the asteriod belt is part of this theory personally.

But this thread is great, thanks OP!

God Bless,

I haven't read all the posts so I don't know if this has been touched upon. Isn't it popular scientific belief that the earth's core is molten iron? Isn't it also true that molten iron will not show a magnetic field due to the disorder of the molecules? So where does our north south magnetosphere originate from? I am definitely not a scientist, so if anyone more knowledgeable could help out?

reply to post by Melbourne_Militia


Hey, hey, hey! I gotta stop you there. Unless another massive body crashed into the earth and added to its mass, we cannot say that the mass of the earth increased. You say that it has increased in size and that to me translated into an increase in volume.

Therefore it has nothing to do with increase in mass and consequentially has nothing to do with increase in gravity or gravitational force. Gravitational force shall only increase with a corresponding increase in mass. Ans so your hypothesis that Dinosaurs were able to grow as the were due to experiencing lower gravity is erroneous.

Volume is different from mass. Thus we have concepts of weight and density. Research this and you will agree i suppose. An expanding earth does not necessarily mean and increasing mass of earth.

well ... in the supercontinent theory there were few supercontinents before Pangea so it is logical that continents were broke apart on both sides

Interesting theory though

The earth almost certainly has expanded and increased in mass - and will surely continue to do so.

The question of the extra mass is simple to explain. if you ask the question, what creates the earths magnetic field, you would currently be met by blanks looks across the board by the scientific 'establishment'.

The simplest way to try and understand something is to first look for other examples, and in the case of magnetic fields - the sun is the 'star' example. The sun and the earth both exhibit magnetic fields which differ primarily in their strength - otherwise they are basically identical. The questions then become, what causes the magnetic field in the sun, and why should the earth exhibit the same type of field?

The answer is fairly simple, the earth and sun are basically the same fundamental type of object - the most common type of object in the universe - they are black holes.

At the center of both the fluid of the vacuum (in itself a massively controversial thing to posit) is rotating at very high speed, and is creating a very low density singularity - at the so called event horizon, the vacuum is torn apart, and what we call matter (in the form of charged particles) and energy is ejected.

The spinning of the polar fluid that comprises the vacuum creates a powerful magnetic field which traps the energetic particles.

In the case of the sun, these are trapped in the suns corona, for the earth - which is much lower energy - these particles were trapped in the corona - until the corona cooled. The material in the corona of a black hole is constantly subjected to radiation and tends to undergo fusion, creating heavier materials. THis formed the crust of the earth.

The earth then is a shell, and the black hole inside (black is a misnomer, these objects emit lots of energy including visible light) is continuing to eject material. The heat it produces causes the inner surfaces to become molten, and it also creates pressures -forcing this new matter to the surface of the earth - where it arrives in the form of molten rock.

All sorts of matter is being created by the nuclear engine of the black hole, including air, water, metals and oil and so on.

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Originally posted by Doalrite
What if its completely wrong... what if the earth use to be much bigger.

We have heard them say that somthing big hit the earth and made the moon.. what if when that happened a big chuch of the earth was removed like biting the side of an apple.. the water would fill the void then the crust of the earth would shift slowly.

You nailed it for me at least!

Earth was much larger in the past (see the scale of living beings in ages past i.e. Dinosaurs, giant insects etc.). Then something major occured and life was extinguished across the face of the planet. The planet was but a small portion of itself, it was reshaped into what we live on today, I believe the asteriod belt is part of this theory personally.

But this thread is great, thanks OP!

God Bless,

You suggest the earth was much larger in the past - therefore having higher gravity. it might interest you to know that the giraffe is at the limits of biological engineering. What I mean by this is as follows; the material from which the ligament that runs down the neck of a giraffe is at its limit in terms of load bearing. If the giraffe were increased in height by say 25% this ligament could no longer support the neck. The other constraint on the giraffe is the walls of arteries. The height of the head, and the length of the legs requires a very powerful heart, and a high blood pressure. If the giraffe were much larger, then the blood vessels, especially those of the eye and brain would not be able to contain the blood - the blood would just permeate them - killing the animal.

If we consider the giraffe to be the pinnacle of engineering with respect to materials and complexity - which we would expect after the very lengthy evolutionary process -then how does one explain massive animals like the brontosaurus for example?

It cannot be explained if we assume gravity remained constant - these animals are impossible. Likewise the largest flying animal that exists today is a paltry 30-35lbs. Where we are expected to believe creatures fly in the age of dinosaurs which weighed 200lbs or more - and did so under the same gravity. Impossible - simple as that - it is not possible for pterosaurs to fly under our current gravity.

You could draw a bunch of wild conclusions - aliens brought the bones here - the bones came from another world in a collision .. etc - but really, the conclusion that is obvious and consistent is that the earths gravity was much lower in the past.


Gravity during the dinosaurs time was as low as 25% of our current gravity.

reply to post by bjarneorn


Who exactly is this god character you mention?

If it were expanding we could measure that so why don't one of the expanding Earth guys show us.

Also just because some people in the past thought the Earth was flat and they were wrong doesn't mean the constant size Earth is wrong!