It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Map of Pangea

page: 3
32
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Amagnon
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.

This is quite true during the formation of the planet from the initial accretion disk and during times when the Earth was unstable. However, it's been in a solid state for over 4 billion years.

And analysis of the Moon's rocks show that the Moon was created from the Earth's mantle (by something large hitting the Earth.)

The simple answer is the universe cheats - it borrows the necessary energy from the future to create the particles now.

Given that things are entropic, this does not follow.

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.

Decreasing orbital radius (because of the interaction of gravity), I believe.
edit on 4-6-2013 by Byrd because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Amagnon

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

Since there is no evidence of one on earth that would be pointless wouldn't it?

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.

Really complicated or simply never done by you? Since your idea doesn't solve problems and cannot be expressed in maths - why should we believe it?

How have you proved that the traditional explanation is incorrect? Again I ask PRP or MTU?

How do you explain Ophiolites in your theory?

How do you explain the age of rocks that make up the ocean bottoms most date to around 200 million years and no older (there are a few places were remants exist that go back 3.8 billion.

Also how do you explain the relationship between the measured flips in the poles recorded in the rocks of the ocean bottom also point to the dates I mentioned

One last question how old do you think the earth is?
edit on 4/6/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Byrd

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.

Interesting Byrd I thought the expanding earth was a creationist attempt to explain (besides magic) why there was enough water to flood the planet....

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Hanslune
Interesting Byrd I thought the expanding earth was a creationist attempt to explain (besides magic) why there was enough water to flood the planet....

Nope.

It's by Neal Adams. While he's a fabulous artist, his understanding of other subjects is not on the same level as your understanding or mine. However, it's grapically presented so people don't notice the inherent problems in the concept. en.wikipedia.org...

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Hanslune
Interesting Byrd I thought the expanding earth was a creationist attempt to explain (besides magic) why there was enough water to flood the planet....

Nope.

It's by Neal Adams. While he's a fabulous artist, his understanding of other subjects is not on the same level as your understanding or mine. However, it's grapically presented so people don't notice the inherent problems in the concept. en.wikipedia.org...

I stand corrected!

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Byrd

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.

Ive heard of the theory and guy you are talking about, but Im working on high amplitude particles and .. well other stuff.

Im not any expert on paleontology and its not really part of my thesis.

I do however have a question, can you explain the fossil evidence in terms of it not aligning with an expanding earth? When we look at the age of the rocks we see that rocks get younger as they approach mid oceanic ridges.

Off the top of my head Im trying to think how fossil evidence is applicable and cant come up with anything, so if you can elucidate perhaps I can get my head around it.

The expansion theory is that lava comes from out of the oceans where the crust is thin, it freezes, then does the same thing again - jacking the crust apart. If you have a look at the patterns of ridges it certainly appears that its a valid way of looking at it.

To prove this isnt happening using fossil evidence would somehow require finding fossils older than the rocks that contain them?

I dont mean to appear dismissive, thats the only thing I could come up with - obviously you have something else in mind, and Im interested to hear what you mean.

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Amagnon

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

Since there is no evidence of one on earth that would be pointless wouldn't it?

There is however volcanism and a magnetic field on earth. I'm suggesting these things are not independent, rather they are related by a common cause. So the point of looking is to determine if there is a relationship.

Really complicated or simply never done by you? Since your idea doesn't solve problems and cannot be expressed in maths - why should we believe it?

My idea's are related to particle physics, the generation of new particles and therefore accumulation of what we call matter by high amplitude particles is simply an outcome. How the earth redistributes the matter over time, I don't really know - but I do find it interesting - but not interesting enough to go running off to try and figure out all the relationships.

Math is a tool used to quantify relationships, nothing more. We can establish the existence of a relationship well before we are able to quantify it.

If I teach a group of people to become mechanics by teaching them how to use a blow torch, welder, flat spanner, screw driver and so on - then I present them with a car that doesnt go - they might run out and start cutting, grinding, screwing and so on with great skill - but if they dont have a conceptual understanding of what makes the car run - then its all a waste of time.

First you need to theorize a relationship between things, then you can test whether or not there is a relationship - then you can gather some data and go about quantifying them.

As to whether or not my line of thought solves problems, well, ultimately I dont know - but I think if we are able to understand things better then theres always a chance we will be better off.

How have you proved that the traditional explanation is incorrect? Again I ask PRP or MTU?

How do you explain Ophiolites in your theory?

How do you explain the age of rocks that make up the ocean bottoms most date to around 200 million years and no older (there are a few places were remants exist that go back 3.8 billion.

Well, Im not familiar with the theories you are referencing there, however I would ask - if the crust is not expanding, where does all the newly created matter go? You see, if the people making these theories dont know theres new matter to deal with, then they are going to try and explain things in a different way.

So - all I'm suggesting is that the earth is creating new matter, that this new matter enters its existence as a plasma, that it eventually becomes a more ordinary sort of matter and that this new matter is distributed into the substantial portion of the earth - the crust.

As for ophiolites, it seems reasonable that water is easily displaced as the crust tries to find a comfortable position in light of being under immense compressive forces. So some is displaced, and buckling and bending can occur as new ranges are pushed up. As I stated, the joints between thin ocean floors and thicker land masses is where the most buckling and movement is likely to occur - so you could well have mountains raised over ocean beds - or even from ocean beds.

As for the rock of the ocean floor being young, this is one of the pillars of the thesis Im discussing. New rock enters the world as lava pushed up through the mid oceanic ridges.

Just quickly then - here is a quick description of the life of the earth from my point of view.

It entered life as a rapidly rotating high amplitude particle, created by one of a group of vectors that escaped the the singularity of the sun. When the singularity of the sun contracted, a vector escaped, along with all the vectors coupled with it - and they smashed into a plane of compressed vectors, creating new particles.

It quickly finds an equilibrium point to orbit, and generates a plasma corona - which would look exactly like a small star. It runs at lower energies than the sun (with respect to matter) so matter cools and condenses - eventually creating a thin shell of solid, over a thicker layer of fluid with super heated gasses and eventually pure plasma near the core.

This process continues to the present day.

Also how do you explain the relationship between the measured flips in the poles recorded in the rocks of the ocean bottom also point to the dates I mentioned

One last question how old do you think the earth is?
edit on 4/6/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

OK - youd have to restate your question about flips in the poles, I didnt get the info or the dates. If you could also briefly explain what you consider is the significance.

As for the age of the earth, its estimated by various techniques to be about 4.5 billion years or so if I recall correctly.

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Amagnon
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.

This is quite true during the formation of the planet from the initial accretion disk and during times when the Earth was unstable. However, it's been in a solid state for over 4 billion years.

And analysis of the Moon's rocks show that the Moon was created from the Earth's mantle (by something large hitting the Earth.)

The crust of the earth is solid - the entire earth is not solid, and never has been.

Yeah - I know of the analysis of moon rocks, but there is only one source of moon rocks and small sample set. Even if I had unquestioning faith in those who did the analysis it would still not be a reliable data set. As it is - I don't trust the source in the slightest.

The simple answer is the universe cheats - it borrows the necessary energy from the future to create the particles now.

Given that things are entropic, this does not follow.

Ya - you are eventually going to win points hitting here, because I dont really want to go into it.

However, there is no violation, the 'stuff' stolen from the future still exists distributed across time - it is however segregated by the singularity and redistributed at the same rate it was removed.

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.

Decreasing orbital radius (because of the interaction of gravity), I believe.
edit on 4-6-2013 by Byrd because: (no reason given)

The mass of the earth is not large enough to have any significant effect on periodicity. The radius may change, but its not likely. The mass created is already moving, theres not going to be some inertial effect.

For basic info on single body orbit;

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Excerpt:
There is an important concept evident in all three of these equations - the period, speed and the acceleration of an orbiting satellite are not dependent upon the mass of the satellite.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2013 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Amagnon
Ive heard of the theory and guy you are talking about, but Im working on high amplitude particles and .. well other stuff.

Im not any expert on paleontology and its not really part of my thesis.

The evidence here is from geology as well.

I do however have a question, can you explain the fossil evidence in terms of it not aligning with an expanding earth? When we look at the age of the rocks we see that rocks get younger as they approach mid oceanic ridges.

I have to go to the dinosaur lab now, but the oceanic ridges are not the only place where we find rocks. While they are pulling apart, in other places the rocks are diving BELOW each other (subduction zone.)

pansion theory is that lava comes from out of the oceans where the crust is thin, it freezes, then does the same thing again - jacking the crust apart. If you have a look at the patterns of ridges it certainly appears that its a valid way of looking at it.

...
I dont mean to appear dismissive, thats the only thing I could come up with - obviously you have something else in mind, and Im interested to hear what you mean.

I think someone must have just presented the "expanding earth" to you and didn't actually mention things I taught in high school Earth Science classes. I have to run off to the paleo lab, but a brief review of it is here: geology.about.com... (Neal Adams simply popularized the idea within the past decade, Carey was an original proponent) and I'll answer more questions later.

However, I should note that we know a huge amount about the Earth and geology. You might find it interesting to learn about the rock layers in your area and how we know how old they are.

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 11:22 AM

You have the mechanism approximately correct but are not taking into account the subduction.

I noticed you continue to ignored my questions, I believe you are doing that because you simply have no answer to them. Which rather undermines you pretensions to having a new 'theory'.

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Hanslune

You have the mechanism approximately correct but are not taking into account the subduction.

I noticed you continue to ignored my questions, I believe you are doing that because you simply have no answer to them. Which rather undermines you pretensions to having a new 'theory'.

Ive certainly tried to answer all your questions - which questions specifically are you referring to?

As I mentioned before, I dont think 'continental plates' are sliding under each other - there seems to be plenty of explanation for rock layers getting compressed and moving in relation to each other without the whole crust of the earth sliding over itself. The continents seem to be fairly stable and quite old in comparison to ocean floors, if material is being crushed downwards - it seems most likely to very localized phenomenon - mainly along the edges of the thicker continents - due to flexing, not floating over solid rock.

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:06 AM

When you look at the "expanding Earth" (EE) idea, its principle statement is "the continents look just as they do today but there were no oceans. As the planet expanded (from internal pressure), the continents moved apart and oceans filled the gaps.

The rocks here in Dallas disprove this. Dallas is a good 250 miles away from the nearest coastline (Houston) and in the EE model it was never under water. But when you look at the geology of Dallas, Texas you see a history of old mountains that were eroded and a landscape that was submerged in the ocean -- and the whole thing tilted downward to the east. The oldest that we see are remains of mountains from the Washata Orogeny (formed when continents collided to form Pangaea) and clays and sands and there are three distinct types which differ in chemical composition (and age) and fossils present and depth where they're found. Over this is the Edwards Limestone (formed in deep water), a bed of clay (shallow water) then over THAT is the Ft. Worth limestone (characteristic of shallow seas) and over THAT is still more layers, indicating a shallow sea and then a much deeper ocean and a shallow sea. Covering that is the erosional soil of more modern times washed down from the center fo the continent.

(source: Wikimedia Commons)

A longer discussion is here: en.wikipedia.org...

This was discovered by bringing up drill cores when they drill for oil... and yes, you can see these cores on exhibit at museums and oil companies and confirm it for yourself. All you have to do is learn what the rocks look like and what their names are.

Now... Dallas isn't unique. This kind of rock layering occurs everywhere on Earth. The salt mines in the mountains of Germany are from an ancient ocean. There are ocean fossils in layers of rocks on tall mountains (such as the Himalayas.) Plate tectonics and continental drift do explain this... the EE idea doesn't.

And yes, the rocks continue in layers in the ocean and tell the same kind of story.

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

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:25 AM
The fossils in the limestones around Dallas include trilobites in the western (older) area, shark teeth in the Eagle Ford shales (but not other formations), deep sea diatoms in the Edwards formation, mososaurs and clams and aquatic turtles and fish from 90 million years ago, and dinosaurs and crocs and turtles in the Woodbine formation (along with the first bird on the continent.)

I work as a volunteer at a dinosaur dig site and in the paleontology lab for the Perot museum and have hand collected some of the fossils in these formations that I'm mentioning... so I know directly that we have different fossils in different layers.

(what I see (the evidence of old beaches, evidence of the deep sea) is much more detailed than what I'm presenting... but I don't want to post 8 pages of links to papers, pictures, definitions of the rocks and so on and so forth.)

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Amagnon
As I mentioned before, I dont think 'continental plates' are sliding under each other - there seems to be plenty of explanation for rock layers getting compressed and moving in relation to each other without the whole crust of the earth sliding over itself. The continents seem to be fairly stable and quite old in comparison to ocean floors, if material is being crushed downwards - it seems most likely to very localized phenomenon - mainly along the edges of the thicker continents - due to flexing, not floating over solid rock.

Except that the picture presented by cores from drilling very clearly show subduction going on, and not as a localized phenomenon.

Here's an article from HuffPo about the recent discovery of oceanic trenches that existed BEFORE Pangaea -- as seen in the image below. Again, there's real physical evidence for this in the form of drill cores from the ocean and land (should you be so inclined, you could do as my husband did and spend a season working as a roughneck for a drill company and see the cores as they come fresh out of the ground).

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

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:42 AM
I mean... every living thing grows... why wouldn't the Earth?

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Alda1981
I mean... every living thing grows... why wouldn't the Earth?

In classic physics, the law of conservation of mass and energy prevents this. It contends that the sum of matter and energy in a closed system cannot spontaneously increase. So, in order to cite that the Earth is growing, a new physics must be postulated which provides a heretofore missing component of matter and energy creation.

But not only matter, rather specific momentum matter, with just the right velocity and mass contribution, so that our orbit does not alter. If 10,000,000 flies suddenly appear inside the cabin of an airliner in flight, in an instant, all the flies would have to be flying the same velocity as the airplane, or the airplane would crash from the imparted inertial moment. Having them appear over a long period of time, does the same thing, we just have to watch for a longer period of time.

This is a tall tall tall stack of plurality to swallow, even if we have a good reason to have to swallow it.

But, if the only reason to cite that the Earth is expanding, is to make a literal interpretation of a rather ludicrous Bible Story more sell-able and believable, so that we can overcome the arguments our children postulate against our religion as soon as they are old enough to think for themselves, I am not sure that we should re-invent all of science so that we can explain how all Noah's water disappeared in 314 days.

Our economic systems would collapse if we were that gullible.

"Dad, how DOES Santa make all those toys he delivers to the children of the world?"
"He has an army of elves son."
"Oh."

"Dad, where did all the water go from the Bible flood?"
"The Earth got bigger son."
"Oh."

edit on 8-6-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

32