Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

I just wanted to post to say that I 100% believe in the expanding Earth theory. Minus weather/water erosion on the coasts, all the continents fit together like a puzzle forming a smaller sphere. Anyone who could chalk that up to coincidence.......well......I don't want to get into insulting anyone, I'll put it that way.

It explains EVERYTHING
It explains why there are fossils of the same species on the coasts of neighboring continents. Pangea only acounts for half.

It also explains why there are ancient shark teeth and other water creatures on the tops of mountains far better than just "those mountains are being pushed up. With the expanding Earth theory, it makes much more sense. There was always the same amount of water, so if you you put the continent puzzle together into the smaller sphere, and displace all the water, even the highers mointains in the world would be under the surface of this "Water World Earth".

Whats making the Earth expand is cyntrifical force, slowing pulling ALL that earth apart, creating friction, sub surface lava, and as the Cyntrifical force pulls apart the continents from the weakest points (like the Marianas Trench), those cracks would be filled with the lava creating new Earth.

It all works with what we're seeing in the Earth. And if you look at the Moon for evidence of cyntrifical force on planets for an analog to prove the theory......: the moon doesn't spin, it's cynrifical force is all being directed towards the far side of the moon. And According to NASA, the Moon's center of mass is not in the center of the moon, it's farther towards the far side. This can only be explained by cyntrifical force working with the moon's geosyncrynous orbit.

I believe expanding Earth theory is at the very least more correct than continental drift as to our planet's life cycle. It makes more sense to me. The real problem is, we havn't been here NEARLY long enough to say which is correct. IMO they're both theories. One theory is just supported by more people who call themselves scientists at this point. But other scientists support expanding Earth, so it's not like only idiots support one or the other.

It's like religion to some people. And alot of times the "truth" to to people is based on nothing more than which theory (or religion) has the most followers. Personally I'm not listening to ANYONE who says they know for sure that one is absolutely right over the other. Because I know that's just not the truth. Our species hasn;t been here long enough to know for sure what's happening. We've only had hints to this point. It's all guesses, and which guess sounds best to people.


My worry about the whole expanding earth theory is....well, what happens when the planet runs out of sub surface earth in the form of lava to fill in the expanding cracks? Unless we stop spinning to stop cyntrifical force.......I think the only logical answer is.........we start breaking up. I fear this may be what the "asteroid belt" is. A planet that long ago hit that critical mass of expansion. The ballon popped. Think about it.....if the asteroid belt were really just leftovers from the solar system forming like we're told.....wouldn't it be a sphere of debris around all the inner planets? It's not.....it's literally a belt.....like the orbit of a planet.

Scary stuff imo

Pangea theory has so many holes it is unlikely.

I believe Expanding Earth theory more likely and it explains a lot of things, which I don't have the time for lengthy science discussions ATM but I wrote about it on some threads here before in more detail....needless to say I was majorly flamed, but science evolves and sticking with theories 'just because' is just digging in heels. Freedom to learn is advancement. Remember people believed the earth was flat once and sat on a giant elephant.

If the earth is expanding why can we see subduction in action?

If the real model is as an expanding earth all the continental plates should be parting as in the example given by the painted balloon but that is not what we see or measure.

For those talking about a solid iron core, that does not seem to be what is being researched or suggested

Crystals at the centre of the Earth

The rocks in Scotland either side of a fault line shows rocks that are the same as those found in Canada and are completely different from the rocks found on the other side. An expanding earth this would not be the case, in fact there should be an expanding gap not a mountain range.

Subduction happens and this is also seen by older rocks being above newer ones. All we see does not show inflation and the san andreas fault line does not produce earth quakes because it is moving apart which should be the case if inflation was true unless your balloon example had many layers of balloons all inflating at different rates.

Nice theory but does not work for me.

Originally posted by ezekielken
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?

About the earth's core

The Earth's inner core is a ball of solid iron about the size of our moon. This ball is surrounded by a highly dynamic outer core of a liquid iron-nickel alloy (and some other, lighter elements), a highly viscous mantle and a solid crust that forms the surface where we live.

The heat given off as the core cools flows from the core to the mantle to the Earth's crust through a process known as convection. Like a pan of water boiling on a stove, convection currents move warm mantle to the surface and send cool mantle back to the core. This escaping heat powers the geodynamo and coupled with the spinning of the Earth generates the magnetic field.

"Interestingly, not all dynamo models produce heat going into the inner core. So the possibility of inner core melting can also place a powerful constraint on the regime in which the Earth's dynamo operates." Co-author Dr Sebastian Rost from the University of Leeds added: "The standard view has been that the inner core is freezing all over and growing out progressively, but it appears that there are regions where the core is actually melting. The net flow of heat from core to mantle ensures that there's still overall freezing of outer core material and it's still growing over time, but by no means is this a uniform process. "Our model allows us to explain some seismic measurements which have shown that there is a dense layer of liquid surrounding the inner core. The localised melting theory could also explain other seismic observations, for example why seismic waves from earthquakes travel faster through some parts of the core than others."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, science finds that one side of the iron ball core is melting, and also, this has possibly happened every 100 million years, alternately freezing on one side of the core and melting on the other.This hypothesis isn't as easy to prove as the general melting due to timescales of humanity. The fact that the core affects Earth's magnetic forces is something that is of interest, especially if this is a new phenomena as geomagnetics play a major part in many major Earth events. Also, this find suggests the CORE and CRUST are more connected, it possibly also suggests the CORE could be affected by above surface magnetics, which influences the Earths magma and tectonics. Additionally this now gives the theory that in all probability, the crust and plate tectonics and the core ARE connected. This has major implications as, if the core affects plate tectonics and there could be something anew at the core, there could be surface effects. Also, if anyone knows anything of expanding Earth theory, the swelling of the melted areas of core, as these new studies also suggest a non spherical core, could affect heat convection in certain areas that could influence areas of mantle and subsequently crust. This could be affecting magma which could affect the surface.

This site seems pretty confident that the expanding earth theory is false they even went as far as to post research /gasp

expansion.geologist-1011.net...

reply to post by Whitewonder


nice link, well worth a read

reply to post by bjarneorn

Originally posted by bjarneorn

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.

You want to replace proven fact with this plasma theory of yours then you actually have to come up with some logical counter arguments of your own and prove these ‘textbook’ explanations wrong.

The ‘Expanding Earth’ theory would amongst render the entire of continental Earth as flat, featureless and as old as the Western side of Australia. You provide no explanation as to how all the features which could only be created through plate tectonics were formed and you provide no reference or even a logical explanation as to why you think the interior of the Earth is ‘plasma’. Instead you try and convince me that somehow the world expanded through what you term the ‘yeast effect’ as if somehow the Earth is synonymous with a loaf of bread.

Until such time as you do it is becoming more blatantly obvious with every post you write you are a troll or deluded to the point that you’re no longer engage in logical debate.

reply to post by Whitewonder


This relies on subduction being the determining factor in either theory.

Subduction is deemed such because of Beryllium isotope 10Be being only created in earths soil via reactions to the atmosphere and this being found in lava. However it can be made from other things, such as from nuclear explosions reacting with Co2. Radioactivity within the earth, reacting with Co2 in magma could be causing the 10Be found in lava.

Additionally, I believe neutrinos and dark matter / energy possibly play a part in this cosmic interaction.

expansion.geologist-1011.net...

How do we determine that oceanic crust is actually subducted into the mantle? The answer comes in the form of cosmogenic isotopes such as 10Beryllium (10Be) that are produced exclusively by the interaction of cosmic radiation with atoms in the earth's atmosphere and on the earth's surface. With a half-life of only 1.5 million years, 10Be's presence in the lava erupted in continental and island arc settings is only possible if it is carried down beneath the eruption site by subduction, and subsequently mobilised by partial melting to be incorporated into the source magma.

en.wikipedia.org...

The production of 10Be is inversely proportional to solar activity, because increased solar wind during periods of high solar activity decreases the flux of galactic cosmic rays that reach the Earth.[8] Nuclear explosions also form 10Be by the reaction of fast neutrons with 13C in the carbon dioxide in air. This is one of the indicators of past activity at nuclear weapon test sites.[10]

carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net...

The importance of juvenile (erupted and passively emitted) volcanic CO2 is due to the fact that carbon, and particularly carbon dioxide has a strong presence in mantle fluids, so much so that it is a more abundant volcanic gas than SO2 (Wilson, p. 181; Perfit et al., 1980). According to Symonds et al. (1994) CO2 is the second most abundantly emitted volcanic gas next to steam. Although you might imagine that there is no air in the mantle, the chemical conditions favour oxidation, and shortages of oxygen ions are rare enough to ensure a strong presence of CO2 (Schneider & Eggler, 1986). Oxidation of subducted carbon sources such as kerogen, coal, petroleum, oil shales, carbonaceous shales, carbonates, etc. into CO2 and H2O makes volcanic CO2 quite variable in back arc and continental margin volcanoes, where these volatile gases can be surprisingly abundant (eg. Vulcano & Mount Etna). Subduction isn't the only way CO2 enters magma. At continental rift zones, where an entire continent is being pulled apart by divergent mantle convection, magma rising to fill the rift is enriched in CO2 from deep mantle sources (Wilson, 1989, p. 333). Oldoinyo Lengai is an example of a continental rift zone volcano, which has above average CO2 outgassing at 2.64 megatons of CO2 or 720 KtC per annum (Koepenick et al., 1996). If volcanoes produce more CO2 than industry when they are not erupting, then variations in volcanic activity may go a long way towards explaining the present rise in CO2.

physicsworld.com...

About 50% of the heat given off by the Earth is generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as uranium and thorium, and their decay products. That is the conclusion of an international team of physicists that has used the KamLAND detector in Japan to measure the flux of antineutrinos emanating from deep within the Earth. The result, which agrees with previous calculations of the radioactive heating, should help physicists to improve models of how heat is generated in the Earth.

One possibility that has been mooted in the past is that a natural nuclear reactor exists deep within the Earth and produces heat via a fission chain reaction. Data from KamLAND and Borexino do not rule out the possibility of such an underground reactor but place upper limits on how much heat could be produced by the reactor deep, if it exists. KamLAND sets this limit at about 5 TW, while Borexino puts it at about 3 TW.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Whitewonder

 

This relies on subduction being the determining factor in either theory.

Subduction is deemed such because of Beryllium isotope 10Be being only created in earths soil via reactions to the atmosphere and this being found in lava.

What about earthquake plots showing the subduction like this one?

gomyclass.com...

www.bgs.ac.uk...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Firstly I was referring to an article where a geologist mentioned subduction as being the defining factor in either theories.

However this geologist goes on to say that subduction IS possible in expanding earth theory as well as plate tectonics. This is obvious. There are continental plates and sometimes they sink when the earth expands via magma chambers and geological upheavals.

Imagine the expanding earth balloon, but in reality earth isn't stretchy rubber so doesn't behave as such. If the ballon were covered somehow in a moving magma layer, like a liquidy custard, with a crispy crumble topping, when the balloon stretches, the crumble will crack and some of it will end up immersed in the liquidy custard layer. AKA subduction effect. and some will rise to form ridges. AKA mountains etc.

It is kinda weird how the expanding earth hypothesis does have all the continents fit rather nicely. However, there are too many holes in it. Where did the mass come from to expand, where was the water initially in a 40% smaller Earth? Wouldn't the worlds oceans necessarily be getting shallower overall as the Earth increases in size? If the mass of the Earth was different, wouldn't that translate into a different solar orbit initially? Why is there currently no expansion of the Earth detected now?

There is obvious subduction occurring around the globe, which would tend to not happen in an expanding Earth. Like I said, too many holes, but I do like how the Earth Shrinks in the videos. Is that the same Neal Adams who was a cartoonist for DC comics? It is, cool.

One of the questions I have always had about continental drift and Pangaea ect is: Why did it start? Has it always been going on or was there an event that triggered the start of the of it, ie something that shattered the crust into the separate tectonic plates? Why separate plates rather than just one? That part of it I don't know enough on, perhaps someone with more knowledge in the area could shed some light on it.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
However this geologist goes on to say that subduction IS possible in expanding earth theory as well as plate tectonics. This is obvious. There are continental plates and sometimes they sink when the earth expands

But I thought the whole idea behind expanding Earth was that everything fit together so nicely without subduction. If subduction is occurring then what's with these claims about the nice fit without subduction?

And what is causing the expansion in this theory?

Originally posted by pavil
It is kinda weird how the expanding earth hypothesis does have all the continents fit rather nicely. However, there are too many holes in it. Where did the mass come from to expand, where was the water initially in a 40% smaller Earth? Wouldn't the worlds oceans necessarily be getting shallower overall as the Earth increases in size? If the mass of the Earth was different, wouldn't that translate into a different solar orbit initially? Why is there currently no expansion of the Earth detected now?

There is obvious subduction occurring around the globe, which would tend to not happen in an expanding Earth. Like I said, too many holes, but I do like how the Earth Shrinks in the videos. Is that the same Neal Adams who was a cartoonist for DC comics? It is, cool.

One of the questions I have always had about continental drift and Pangaea ect is: Why did it start? Has it always been going on or was there an event that triggered the start of the of it, ie something that shattered the crust into the separate tectonic plates? Why separate plates rather than just one? That part of it I don't know enough on, perhaps someone with more knowledge in the area could shed some light on it.

Did any one at all read my pst a few pages back?

Take a look and see if it possibly makes any sense...

Link to Post

The Rat.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth

"Interestingly, not all dynamo models produce heat going into the inner core. So the possibility of inner core melting can also place a powerful constraint on the regime in which the Earth's dynamo operates." Co-author Dr Sebastian Rost from the University of Leeds added: "The standard view has been that the inner core is freezing all over and growing out progressively, but it appears that there are regions where the core is actually melting. The net flow of heat from core to mantle ensures that there's still overall freezing of outer core material and it's still growing over time, but by no means is this a uniform process. "Our model allows us to explain some seismic measurements which have shown that there is a dense layer of liquid surrounding the inner core. The localised melting theory could also explain other seismic observations, for example why seismic waves from earthquakes travel faster through some parts of the core than others."

Not too sure I understand what you were saying with this quote.

Are you saying that this is the mechanism for an "Expanding Earth" ?

The reason I asked is that in the article that you quoted it also says:

As the Earth cools from the inside out, the molten outer core is slowly freezing. This is leading the solid inner core to grow at a rate of approximately 1 millimeter per year.

Source

But at the same time it appears parts of it are melting:

"The net flow of heat from core to mantle ensures that there's still overall freezing of outer core material and it's still growing over time, but by no means is this a uniform process."

Could you please explain your line of thought on this.

So far I've not seen a reasonable mechanism to explain a expanding Earth yet. It's an interesting theory, but I see many flaws with it. Tectonic Plates has some flaws too, but fits better with what we know.

Originally posted by TucoTheRat
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.

I read that post and started to write a reply, but I only spent about 2 minutes doing it and stopped because I figured if you were too lazy to spend a few minutes Googling about those things to find out that lots of attention has been paid to them, you were probably also too lazy to read my reply.

Science is taking expanding earth theory seriously and doing serious research, so there isn't any purpose to ridiculing it. It could well be factual.

www.dinox.org...

But a small number of geologists are so convinced by the geological evidence for an Expanding Earth that they have investigated the facts in detail. Many of the supporters for an Expanding Earth are professors and doctors of geology who continue to present the supporting evidence today by publishing various scientific papers and books advocating the theory.

The discussions are still continuing today. In September 2011 a week long conference, organised by Giancarlo Scalera and Stefan Cwojdzinski with James Maxlow as the lead presenter, was held at the International School of Geophysics in Erice to discuss the latest research. This cross discipline conference allowed a range of scientists, engineers and others to present papers centred on the Expanding Earth theory and these will be further developed and explored in a post conference book in due course. Later this year in August 2012, further papers about recent progress in the Expanding Earth theory will also be presented at an International Geological Congress held in Brisbane.

www.grisda.org...

Typically, even with the best fits, there are some overlaps and/or gaps between the continents when the fits are made on a globe scaled to the present size of the earth. Carey, Owen and others have noticed that they could improve the fits and avoid a questionable Tethys ocean if the continents were cut out and fitted on a smaller globe (Carey 1976, pp. 27,40; Carey 1988, pp. 143, 164-167; Crawford 1986; Harland 1979; Owen 1979; Owen 1983a, p. 3; Owen 1984; Schmidt and Embelton 1981; Vogel 1984). This suggests an earth that has expanded over time. Carey, who has been most aggressive with this argument, suggests that the earth had a radius of about 60% of its current value during the Jurassic era, and hence no subduction need to occur. Owen starts with an earth with a Jurassic radius of 80% of its current value, so he has to allow for some subduction in his model. In a critique of Owen's work, Hallam allows that Owen's strong point is geometric but goes on to argue that the edges of the continents are not well defined and that there is evidence that some continental pieces have "subsided" or been "attenuated" (Hallam 1976). However, Harland states that "Owen's work is so thorough that it cannot be ignored" (Harland 1979).

Originally posted by TucoTheRat

Did any one at all read my pst a few pages back?

Take a look and see if it possibly makes any sense...

Link to Post

The Rat.

Ok, I've looked at it..... No it doesn't make sense to me. The sun is primarily two elements, that theory would only make some sort of sense (not much I'm afraid) for the Gas Giants, it doesn't explain the rocky planets. Sorry for being so blunt.

No one has disputed the claim that the continents were connected in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic but to admit this you would have to admit it would only work on a smaller globe.

Has anyone disagreed that the continents were connected in the Pacific?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I showed a video of how that happens on the present sized globe here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No smaller globe required.

I find it disappointing that none of the expanding Earth proponents here have wanted to address my comment about GPS data contradicting the theory.