Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

On a related note:

Up until very recently, the accepted scientific theory for monkeys in South America was that they "rafted" there from Africa around 120 million years ago!! ( yes- monkeys on rafts was taught in schools).

Primate research is pretty advanced and accurate in relation to any other field of molecular clock biology (which is more accurate than carbon dating) due to the obvious links with Human evolution.

The latest research and theories in this field seems to prove there was more likely to be a "widesrpead common ancestor" around 185 million years ago: www.sciencedaily.com...
which does require some sort of connection between Africa and America.

Although Pangea is mentioned in the primate theory I tend to agree with the theories doubters as expanding earth is only silly if you disregard the well researched topic of scale invariance (en.wikipedia.org...) and apply it to quantum world where we can imagine the Earths core as a quantum singularity/micro black hole that collects matter.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Seriously if the Earth was expanding we would probably be able to detect that !!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Seriously if the Earth was expanding we would probably be able to detect that !!!

Yup, you're quite correct. Also the Expanding Earth theory fails to take into account subduction. Which we know is happening.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Unfortunately (for you) it hasn't been debunked in the scientific community. This website is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's a website that contains some pretty interesting (and insane) theories.

Aw ya then you should mail them a letter telling them to change Pangaea "theory" to "fact". Its still called a theory for a reason.

i've been happy to have a fairly open mind so far, but you really are being disingenuous now.
it's beyond obvious that you are easily intelligent and educated enough to know the difference between scientific theory and hypothesis (or even a working hypothesis) - dont pretend, dude

pangaea - scientific theory

expanding earth - hypothesis/working hypothesis

it's easy, and i'm not even sciency

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Seriously if the Earth was expanding we would probably be able to detect that !!!

They can, they have, and they do. It is about 1 mm a year. Which is enough to explain what we see. But modern science chalks it up to space dust and not an expanding planet.

Originally posted by Robonakka

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Seriously if the Earth was expanding we would probably be able to detect that !!!

They can, they have, and they do. It is about 1 mm a year. Which is enough to explain what we see. But modern science chalks it up to space dust and not an expanding planet.

You do realize that 1mm a year means that 65 million years ago at the KT boundry, that would make the Earth only 65km smaller in diameter, yes?

Or 250 million years ago, it would have been only 250km smaller..........

Not really getting those plates too much closer with that math........

Originally posted by Robonakka
They can, they have, and they do. It is about 1 mm a year. Which is enough to explain what we see. But modern science chalks it up to space dust and not an expanding planet.

I calculated what the expansion due to the current rate of space dust would be, and it came out to 4.72mm, not 1mm, and this is over a period of a billion years, not 1 year. My math is here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So what is the source for this 1mm a year?

Originally posted by eriktheawful
You do realize that 1mm a year means that 65 million years ago at the KT boundry, that would make the Earth only 65km smaller in diameter, yes?

Or 250 million years ago, it would have been only 250km smaller..........

Not really getting those plates too much closer with that math........

Yes, even if it was 1mm a year (which it's not), the math still doesn't work.

Originally posted by Robonakka

Originally posted by DoalriteHow would the Earth grow??? Is there that much space debris landing on us to make such a difference?

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

Nuclear decay. As radioactive elements decay they turn into less dense elements. Those less dense elements take more space up. So the volume increases.

Do you have any idea about the math of this? Do you know anything about the proportions of stable vs unstable isotopes (apparently only unstable ones can "grow"), or about how fast they decay, or what decay means in terms of a loss in mass and/or volume? And what happens to the debris of the decay, the alpha and beta particles? Do they just disappear?

No, you don't, and neither does anyone else, most assuredly Adams. The picture you present is that of a small proportion of the substance of the planet going from lead to helium in 100 million years. Do you sense the absurdity of that?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The problem with geography and common knowledge is that we have been shown the same map for years and have a delusion of how the coninents really look. Here is a different perspective which shows that the Pangaea theory is bunk on a lack of data.

You know, if you continue to throw around map projections willy-nilly like that you can prove almost anything, particularly when you change the projection in mid-course.

Yes, obviously a Mercator projection is not good for talking about either plate tectonics or expanding earth. One needs a projection that is both conformal (shape-preserving) and equal-area (areas of continents and oceans preserving), and there is only one such projection - a globe. If you argue these questions on the basis of any other map projection, then you are asking your opponent to take things on faith.

Look at the projection you display; it is known as a transverse Mercator. Take a look at the shape of Africa on that projection, then take a look at the shape on a globe. Do you see the difference? If you think it is realistic you are fooling yourself. And that's the problem - you projection took the distortion the original Mercator projection displays for the north and south latitudes, and spreads it around in different parts of the globe, but they are still not right. Just different.

And I contend when you apply Adam's theory to a real globe, you have to take an invisible knife to extensive parts of continents and oceans to allow the to nestle so neatly.

Originally posted by Robonakka

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Seriously if the Earth was expanding we would probably be able to detect that !!!

They can, they have, and they do. It is about 1 mm a year. Which is enough to explain what we see. But modern science chalks it up to space dust and not an expanding planet.

One mm a year isn't going to buy you anything. Adams website shows a doubling of the earth's circumference (which is an unexplained 8-fold increase in volume) in the last 65 millions years. That's 3 cm / year. That's enough to bury a house in 100 years. All over the world, land and ocean areas alike. Obviously we do get dust from space; are you saying that that amounts to nothing, since you have another use for the space that that takes?

I couldn`t even finish reading what you wrote let alone any of the comments, so if this has already been said, or if the latter portion of the article attempted to ameliorate your complete brainlessness I saw in the first 3 paragraphs, my apologies. Wow.......