It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Map of Pangea

page: 2
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leonidas
It is amazing that the continents made it to their present locations and shapes in less than 6,000 years! WoW


I was thinking along the same lines, but am a little more interested in find those four corners.

I noticed they don't show the edges very clear either.

And why do they always draw these maps round; we all know that ain't right!!




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr UAE
Excuse me for asking this question cuz I'm no expert , was earth smaller back then ? I mean separating those plates from each other would need a huge expansion , am I right ?


Yes, the world was far smaller - when the land masses were aligned like this there were basically no oceans. Perhaps in some years from now someone will actually engage their brain and realize that the earth is in fact expanding.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by QMask
reply to post by n00bUK
 



Basically, the earth, the sun, and any other planet (or star), is a node in space that traps and accumulate physical particles. These particles may perhaps even come from other dimensions.

As we know, in the vacuum of space, there constantly is particles that come into existence, and particles that fall out of existence at the same rate, so that the net effect is the vacuum of space.

This is different in the case of planets and stars. Every planet and star is a concentrated node of physical particles. When a particle comes into existence inside a planet or a star, it stays trapped in our 3D space, and cannot fall out of existence again. The gravity of the surrounding mass keeps it trapped in our 3D space.

That is the reason why planets and stars grow.

And that is the reason why our continents today, can still fit together to form Pangaea.

Cheers
QMask


I have been working on this problem for a few years, not exclusively - but enough to have developed an understanding of the formation of the planets, and their nature.

The following is not standard model, and I make no apology, neither will I go into the details of the underlying theory.

The earth has a large low frequency particle inside it - this particle, like all other particles contains a singularity.

The universe is comprised of a left and right handed helical vector, and these vectors are aligned into the axis and forced into the plane by rotation - when the vectors achieve perfect alignment, they undergo angular acceleration and a singularity is created. The acceleration causes a drop in amplitude, and amplitude determines their location on the time axis. So they are propelled into a future state.

A singularity is simply a place where vectors of dimensional amplitude and above (now and the past) can not exist.

The interaction of the lower amplitude (dimensional, and the coupled electromagnetic) vectors as they seek alignment can cause acceleration in nearby vectors, creating particles. Inside the earth this massive low amplitude particle is a nuclear engine, creating matter as a plasma, which cools to a fluid on the inside of the crust and is forced upwards through the cracks by the pressure of the plasma sphere surrounding the earths inner sun.

The sun also has a particle, and it was the slowing of the sun that created the planets. Inside the sun a coupled vector was locked inside its singularity (there are an infinite array of coupled vectors) until it slowed to a point where it escaped the radius of the singularity (these vectors are not energy or matter, they are force, time and dimension). Inside a singularity (such as our universe coincidentally) all vectors are falling in amplitude, and accelerating their angular rotation.

When that vector comes out, the entire array of coupled vectors is no longer in equilibrium - and it is shattered. The individual vectors arrive in our time, perpendicular to the plane of compressed vectors that intersects through the equatorial disk of the sun.

They are VERY hot - massive rotational velocity, and no coupling effects to slow them down, they smash through the plane of compressed vectors - causing more compression, and forming an array of singularities. These singularities are the cores of the modern planets.

The distribution of the planets is very orderly, and conforms to the coupling ratio's between the vectors.

If we observe Mars, we find that its singularity has burned out. Due to the massive residue of iron on Mars it is disturbing to me that at least some question is not raised as to the nuclear effects that caused the degradation of an entire planet into mostly iron. Iron by the way is mid point on an energy basis between fusion and fission. All material subjected to nuclear energies eventually will become iron.

I have gone further than intended here - however, suffice to say - the earth is creating matter, volcanism is an effect of new plasma formation. The magnetic fields of planets derive from the powerful low amplitude particles in their cores.
edit on 3-6-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by n00bUK
 


I always like looking at projections of how the Earth looked in the past, and future projections as well, just any maps really.
Cool stuff.


A map of the world as it might appear 250 mil. yrs. from now.

Source

I like the country borders in yours, pretty cool.


What's funny is that the map maker has estimated land where the borders have been eroded away. However, the Hudson Bay (and/or the Great lakes?) is still present even though this map is supposed to predate even the Laurentide Ice Sheet. It's a nice attempt though, but just one example of how inaccurate they probably are. Gotta look at the plates as well as everything that has shaped the Earth since then. Truth is, we will probably never know exactly how Pangea looked.
edit on 3-6-2013 by thepainweaver because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2013 by thepainweaver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Nah, you just have to look at geological sediments to see the world is not 'expanding' are the fossils in those bands stretched? No, is there evidence of newer inclusions? No

The Pangea theory works just fine with the earth just about the size it was in 300 MYBN as it is now - however the earth is growing ever so slightly smaller as its cools but at the same time it gains many tons of dust each day from space.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dr UAE which Emirate are you in?
edit on 3/6/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Nah, you just have to look at geological sediments to see the world is not 'expanding' are the fossils in those bands stretched? No, is there evidence of newer inclusions? No

The Pangea theory works just fine with the earth just about the size it was in 300 MYBN as it is now - however the earth is growing ever so slightly smaller as its cools but at the same time it gains many tons of dust each day from space.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dr UAE which Emirate are you in?
edit on 3/6/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)


Why would the fossils or sediment be stretched? What a preposterous response.

The land masses that exist continue to exist, they are compressed somewhat as the surface flattens, this compression raises mountains, but the new earth arises as molten lava from the oceans. Nothing is 'stretched'.

Have a look at geological maps showing the age of the surface - new earth is arising from the volcanic cracks in the ocean floor.
edit on 3-6-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

Why would the fossils or sediment be stretched? What a preposterous response.


Why since you didn't explain where the additional mass is coming from?

Have a look at geological maps showing the age of the surface - new earth is arising from the volcanic cracks in the ocean floor.

So how does subduction work in your idea?

...and how much has the world expanded in 300 MY? Right now the diameter is about 12,750 kilometers with a circumference of about 40,000 km, what was it then?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The additional mass is created by the earths singularity. Subduction is in its general usage a myth.

The subduction like effect is caused by the thinnest edges, where ocean floor meets the original continents being bent as the arc of curvature is reduced. This will also cause mountains to be raised at the same time, as it is flexing, not subduction that is occurring. In those rare instances where there 'appears' to be actual subduction, the jacking effect of new magma, rising then freezing, constantly expanding the area of the ocean places extreme stress on the joints between thin (new) ocean floors and the higher (old) continents.

There are no 'plates' there is no 'sliding'. The forces are due to constant expansion of the ocean floor, compressing the entire surface - the weak points will flex, subduct, crack or raise mountains. The coastline of south america is a perfect example of compression mountains.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The additional mass is created by the earths singularity. Subduction is in its general usage a myth.


Oh and how do you know that? PRP or MTU?


The subduction like effect is caused by the thinnest edges, where ocean floor meets the original continents being bent as the arc of curvature is reduced. This will also cause mountains to be raised at the same time, as it is flexing, not subduction that is occurring. In those rare instances where there 'appears' to be actual subduction, the jacking effect of new magma, rising then freezing, constantly expanding the area of the ocean places extreme stress on the joints between thin (new) ocean floors and the higher (old) continents.

There are no 'plates' there is no 'sliding'. The forces are due to constant expansion of the ocean floor, compressing the entire surface - the weak points will flex, subduct, crack or raise mountains. The coastline of south america is a perfect example of compression mountains.


So can you point to where this constant expansion is occurring on the Moon and Mars?

I also noted that you didn't answer my previous question on diameters and circumference, please do.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by Hanslune
 


So can you point to where this constant expansion is occurring on the Moon and Mars?

I also noted that you didn't answer my previous question on diameters and circumference, please do.


Can you point to a magnetic field that would indicate a live singularity on Mars or the Moon?

As to the circumference and diameter - the calculations are complex, and the data required doesn't exist in most cases - the obviousness of this is not lost on you, however you want this to be a reason to cling to a failed model - I have no interest in changing your mind.


edit on 3-6-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
The calculations for spherical circumference and volume, or changes thereto, are not complicated, rather fairly easy. However, were the Earth to be expanding in size and mass, its angular momentum in its orbit would have to remain constant, so its year would lengthen - by physical law.

L= r x mv

as m (mass) increases, v (velocity) would have to slow, orbit for orbit all things being equal, OR (r) radius would have to decrease, making our world really hotter and hotter as we gained proximity with the sun.

We would see that slowing sidereal year in the Cyclostratigraphic records over this long period of time, when in fact, we do not. The ion depositions show that the orbit of the Earth has remained in its periodicity fairly constant for hundreds of millions of years. So precise is this record that we can see the variations attributable to 11 different orbit eccentricity factors therein.

Something as eccentric as a change in the mass and volume of the planet would show up very visibly in the strata.




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The additional mass is created by the earths singularity. Subduction is in its general usage a myth.

The subduction like effect is caused by the thinnest edges, where ocean floor meets the original continents being bent as the arc of curvature is reduced. This will also cause mountains to be raised at the same time, as it is flexing, not subduction that is occurring. In those rare instances where there 'appears' to be actual subduction, the jacking effect of new magma, rising then freezing, constantly expanding the area of the ocean places extreme stress on the joints between thin (new) ocean floors and the higher (old) continents.

There are no 'plates' there is no 'sliding'. The forces are due to constant expansion of the ocean floor, compressing the entire surface - the weak points will flex, subduct, crack or raise mountains. The coastline of south america is a perfect example of compression mountains.


If their are no plates and no sliding of the plates please explain well recorded fault lines like the San Andreas Fault Line showing quite visibly and has been recorded for many decades it's movement of plates (north and south), grinding against each other, with sudden slips causing earthquakes.

If the Earth were expanding, then these two masses would be moving apart from each other, yes? But instead, they are not, and are grinding in a lateral movement.

While the moon has no magnetic field, and Mars is virtually non-existant......both Venus and Mercury do.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
The calculations for spherical circumference and volume, or changes thereto, are not complicated, rather fairly easy. However, were the Earth to be expanding in size and mass, its angular momentum in its orbit would have to remain constant, so its year would lengthen - by physical law.

L= r x mv


Sure its easy to calculate the mass and radius of the earth at a particular time in the distant past when you simply assume that its the same as today.

As if I was talking about the calculations of volume of a sphere and momentum as being hard ..

The matter is first a plasma, gas, liquid then solid - and there is a cavity - which is determined by the plasma temperature and pressure, and/or whether or not the sphere is totally sealed. The distribution of elements is also a factor, as is the mass of the sun which is changing, although this is likely a mild effect over a few hundred million years.

Even if my understanding of the mathematical relationships between amplitude, temporal displacement (of vectors) and rate of rotation were complete - the rate of generation of particles for a planetary singularity is almost impossible to know, I would need a distribution of amplitudes and rotational velocities to even entertain the idea. At this stage, it would require empirical methods - perhaps some measurement of total magma flows, volcanic gas emission mass and concise measurements of the earth taken over a period of years.




as m (mass) increases, v (velocity) would have to slow, orbit for orbit all things being equal, OR (r) radius would have to decrease, making our world really hotter and hotter as we gained proximity with the sun.


Despite a change to orbital radius, the earth is still vulnerable to glaciation. The internal generation of heat from the earth is now distributed over a larger area, and is less intense than the ancient past with less volcanic activity, however the reduction of the orbital radius would compensate somewhat for the change of surface heat.



We would see that slowing sidereal year in the Cyclostratigraphic records over this long period of time, when in fact, we do not. The ion depositions show that the orbit of the Earth has remained in its periodicity fairly constant for hundreds of millions of years. So precise is this record that we can see the variations attributable to 11 different orbit eccentricity factors therein.

Something as eccentric as a change in the mass and volume of the planet would show up very visibly in the strata.


Im guessing strata at mid ocean ridges doesnt have much to report. I dont dispute that we can find a lot of information by studying strata, however data has a way of telling people the story they want to hear.

I never claimed any change in the orbital period, the primary change is that in surface area, mass and gravity. The relationship between surface area and mass is quite flexible.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The additional mass is created by the earths singularity. Subduction is in its general usage a myth.

The subduction like effect is caused by the thinnest edges, where ocean floor meets the original continents being bent as the arc of curvature is reduced. This will also cause mountains to be raised at the same time, as it is flexing, not subduction that is occurring. In those rare instances where there 'appears' to be actual subduction, the jacking effect of new magma, rising then freezing, constantly expanding the area of the ocean places extreme stress on the joints between thin (new) ocean floors and the higher (old) continents.

There are no 'plates' there is no 'sliding'. The forces are due to constant expansion of the ocean floor, compressing the entire surface - the weak points will flex, subduct, crack or raise mountains. The coastline of south america is a perfect example of compression mountains.


If their are no plates and no sliding of the plates please explain well recorded fault lines like the San Andreas Fault Line showing quite visibly and has been recorded for many decades it's movement of plates (north and south), grinding against each other, with sudden slips causing earthquakes.

If the Earth were expanding, then these two masses would be moving apart from each other, yes? But instead, they are not, and are grinding in a lateral movement.


Why would they be moving apart? Magma comes up through mid ocean ridges, and causes jacking - the whole surface is under compression, nothing is moving apart.

The fault line is not some great plates sitting on magma - it is a weak section that is being crushed together, there will be movement - no plate is sliding over another - it is pressure building from magma jacking.




While the moon has no magnetic field, and Mars is virtually non-existant......both Venus and Mercury do.


Correct - they do and both have volcanic activity - which is the process of expansion driven by internal singularities. Volcanism and magnetic fields are both features of internal particles.

From wiki:
Venus has several times as many volcanoes as Earth, and it possesses 167 large volcanoes that are over 100 km across.
Mercury:
During this time the planet was volcanically active; basins such as the Caloris Basin were filled by magma, producing smooth plains similar to the maria found on the Moon


edit on 3-6-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
The matter is first a plasma, gas, liquid then solid - and there is a cavity - which is determined by the plasma temperature and pressure, and/or whether or not the sphere is totally sealed. The distribution of elements is also a factor.

Despite a change to orbital radius, the earth is still vulnerable to glaciation. The internal generation of heat from the earth is now distributed over a larger area, and is less intense than the ancient past with less volcanic activity, however the reduction of the orbital radius would compensate somewhat for the change of surface heat.

I never claimed any change in the orbital period, the primary change is that in surface area, mass and gravity. The relationship between surface area and mass is quite flexible.


Thanks Amagnon, gotcha that you were referring to the calculation of contribution mass then and volume impact, not a static planetary mass. Not sure they are complicated calculations, rather non-existent ones. But I would love to have them if you figure them out.


I own several labs which form plasmas as part of our modifying research materials. Plasma is not a transitional state feature of an element, it is an energetic state of atoms, as a plasma can be reassembled directly into various forms of solids or gasses, but a liquid can only form its given state solid. Once an atomic mass gets heavy enough, there is really no 'liquid' - rather a Gamma Phase boundary - which is more akin to a 'highly energized solid' moreso than a true liquid. The material at that boundary is susceptible to plasma formation. So Plasma, and material transition states are not peer conditions.

Consequently, a solid liquid or gas can undergo a process called "sputtering" wherein dessication loss is realized through atomic/ion scatter and escape from a plasma state, when hit with a sufficiently high energy, while the solid or gas is juxtaposed to a low relative entropy domain, with communication.

The Moon and Mars were dessicated in just such a fashion, in various theories.

But you are speaking of a "reverse sputter" accretion process, with the accumulation of elemental solds from plasma (which we have done in our labs), BUT.......the creation of the plasma from.......??? Not conserved model energy because the planet would go cold dark and quiet from the energy loss (as well as the whole universe if it did this), not other matter because that would simply be alchemy....(magic) ...and we can use magic to explain anything........so, this energy would have to come from outside our time-space? Hyperdimensional Energy then, being inserted at the planet's center of gravity, inside something akin to a Schwarzschild radius mass, ....except not?

You gotta help me out on all these things because it is a very pluralistic stack of contentions. And I am not sure we have any necessity to posit that the planet has grown in mass and volume in the first place? The only time I see this argument is when we are trying to force the idea of a worldwide flood on history and then explain where all the water went 314 days after the flood started, so Noah could step out and barbecue some of those now rare (pun intended) animals.



You did not claim a change in orbital period, yes. I am saying that physical laws will force you to have to accept one, as a feature of your contentions. We simply do not see this or any sidereal periodicity change in the stratigraphic records, regardless of what one wants to see when they are examined....

We expected to see a Biblical Flood back in 1921 when Milankovitch observed these cycles. We did not see one.

Finally, merely exchanging orbital radius reduction as heat compensation for a loss in core temp is not a viable tradeoff. Solar radiation sputtering would erode the planet's atmosphere - as it is energy, not heat, and degree for degree, were it increased to compensate for loss in planetary core temperature.

Our head in the oven and our arse in the fridge..........so we must be OK. As the saying goes.




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by Amagnon
The matter is first a plasma, gas, liquid then solid ...


Thanks Amagnon, gotcha that you were referring to the calculation of contribution mass then and volume impact, not a static planetary mass. Not sure they are complicated calculations, rather non-existent ones. But I would love to have them if you figure them out.



Correct, they don't exist - and at this stage its very low on my list of things to try and work out - an empirical approach is probably warranted anyway.



I own several labs which form plasmas as part of our modifying research materials. Plasma is not a transitional state feature of an element, it is an energetic state of atoms ...


The matter I was discussing is formed as a plasma, - and may or may not end up in any particular state. The point was to demonstrate the impossibility of trying to determine a radius for the earth at a particular time when the state of matter, and its distribution across various states is unknown.



The Moon and Mars were dessicated in just such a fashion, in various theories.


I think this may have been the fate of Mars, but the Moon I think was subject to something altogether different - but that is an entirely different line of conjecture.



But you are speaking of a "reverse sputter" accretion process, with the accumulation of elemental solds from plasma (which we have done in our labs), BUT.......the creation of the plasma from.......??? Not conserved model energy because the planet would go cold dark and quiet from the energy loss (as well as the whole universe if it did this), not other matter because that would simply be alchemy....(magic) ...and we can use magic to explain anything........so, this energy would have to come from outside our time-space? Hyperdimensional Energy then, being inserted at the planet's center of gravity, inside something akin to a Schwarzschild radius mass, ....except not?

As far as the standard model is concerned, it is magic - and truthfully Id rather not talk about it - guess Ive come this far. - hmm - I dont really want to continue here.

OK - I spent a few hrs thinking whether or not Id explain, and I thought of a way to explain without revealing stuff I dont want to.

The simple answer is the universe cheats - it borrows the necessary energy from the future to create the particles now. From the point of view of the universe this happens instantaneously, it wouldnt even consider it a loan - it just doesnt see time the way we do.

The answer is intentionally vague, and I apologize for that, but I have good reasons.



The only time I see this argument is when we are trying to force the idea of a worldwide flood on history and then explain where all the water went 314 days after the flood started, so Noah could step out and barbecue some of those now rare (pun intended) animals.

Not related to Noah I can assure you - this is a consequence of an underlying theory.


You did not claim a change in orbital period, yes. I am saying that physical laws will force you to have to accept one, as a feature of your contentions.


As discussed, the orbital radius can comfortably be altered without effecting periodicity, also you will find an increase of mass requires an increase in orbital radius to maintain periodicity, not vice versa.

So an object with a fixed period that was increasing in mass would have an increasing orbital radius and the direct relationship between mass and velocity tends to diminish the total increase necessary.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Any Canadians notice we got left out of the label?

Bunch of countrists!



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
Yes, the world was far smaller - when the land masses were aligned like this there were basically no oceans.


The presence of fossils of clams, fish, jellyfish, and more oceanic lifeforms from that time period and before disputes your claim.


Perhaps in some years from now someone will actually engage their brain and realize that the earth is in fact expanding.

The "expanding earth" idea was the creation of an artist (I know him slightly) who doesn't know beans about geology, but has a very ... strong ... belief that he can look at things and explain them by the power of his own brain. Having studied these matters (instead of believing I can answer everything by looking at them) I think that his own opinion of his own abilities is quite overrated.

Looking at the rock layers on the continents (and what relates to what) is very interesting.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
Any Canadians notice we got left out of the label?

Bunch of countrists!


Hey now!!! Everyone knows that Canada was on a spy mission for the Albertosauruses! Don't be givin' away no secrets, now!



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
The simple answer is the universe cheats - it borrows the necessary energy from the future to create the particles now. From the point of view of the universe this happens instantaneously, it wouldnt even consider it a loan - it just doesnt see time the way we do.

The answer is intentionally vague, and I apologize for that, but I have good reasons.



OK, good enough on that then. Thanks for straightforward responses. Being an ethical skeptic I never look askance at thinking along new avenues, unless it is simply a desperate attempt at trying a new way to enforce an old dogma. The Universe might cheat in the quantum realm, I will leave that to the theoretical physicists. On the macro scale, we have been told repeatedly in academia that the Universe does not cheat. But it is not the Universe cheating which is our challenge.

Humans cheat. Even highly educated and otherwise 'moral' humans. Even large groups of them. Humans all cheat. Especially arch skeptics. They are expert cheaters.

So, as an ethical skeptic, I always watch for the cheating hypothesis. Thinking outside the box, gets cheaters uncomfortable and almost angry. Cheaters possess specific habits they undertake in order to squelch a topic, data or subject. You do not display those, which is refreshing.

Love to see developmental thinking Amagnon. Borrowing quantum states from the future is an interesting topic. Have you considered a David Deutch - Horizontal Borrowing alternative? And Perhaps there is no difference?




edit on 4-6-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join