How well did the earth spin in the Pangaea times?

reply to post by topherman420


why doesn't the moon hit the earth then?

what greater mass is keeping the moon from being effected by the earths mass?

it feels odd that we had enough gravity to pull it in, (or create it from dust) in the first place, but only enough to keep it at arms length..

ohhh i like that question hadnt really thought about that they actually say the moon is slowly pulling away

The expanding earth theory explains all this stuff better, to me, then saying all the landmasses were connected together on one side of the planet. It even explains the mountain ranges. Think about it for a second, what happens to an orange when you insert water (for example) into it? It splits, just like our mountain ranges getting pushed to the surface, interspersed with thinner places.

The dinosaurs were thought to be too big to survive, but if you have a planet that's smaller, with less gravity, then their size isn't a problem.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. It's probably wrong, but it still explains it better to me.

reply to post by Beavers


It might have something to do with the range of gravity:

The gravity of the Earth continues forever, but gets weaker as you go higher above the ground. The rule is as follows: every time that you get twice as far away from the center of the Earth, the gravity is only a quarter as strong. The radius of the Earth is about 6400 km so if you are 6400 km above the ground (and so twice 6400 km from the center of the Earth), then the gravity is only a quarter as strong as it was at the surface. The gravity of other things also continues forever and declines with the square of the distance. [98]

www.astro.uu.nl...

I suppose that is how we achieve an orbit and why specific orbits need to be achieved to excape the earths' gravity and sustain a constant orbital path.




Also, the formation of the moon is still debatable among some. Was it pulled in? Did we form it in earths early days from a collision? Did we just gather enough material in our orbit and it formed?

Interesting thought experiment. I am by no means an expert in these matters, however, I have a few things to offer.

Originally posted by Immune

If you take all the landmass's on the planet and smash them all together critical thinking would lead you to believe the distribution of all that weight on one side should have made for a nasty wobble
Time in relation to the earths rotation if the earth had a nasty wobble how long would a day been? how about season? Did the earth speed up and slow down on a consistent cycle like a free spinning wheel with a giant weight on one side or did the weight not effect anything at all?

As far as my limited capabilities can understand it, crust of the planet makes up roughly 1% of the total mass of the planet. This leads me to believe that regardless of where you place this percentage the effect would most likely be negligible. Perhaps noticeable, most likely not.

Originally posted by Immune

what is gravity- no one can explain gravity properly a rotating object tend to throw things off its surface not attract them think about it we rotate at 1035 miles an hour at the equator want to do an experiment go put your car on a jack tape a washer to your tire and hit the gas guess what... the washer will fly off so fast its dangerous (please don't actually do this you could hurt yourself or others) you can throw in the centrifugal force theory but if you think it out the material in a centrifuge pull away from the point of rotation

Although I understand where you are coming from here, I feel you are missing the big picture. The earth and it's composition does in no way resemble that of a air filled rubber tire. First of all, the tire is already ON the earth, which means it, and the washer, have to act within the parameters of this environment. The Earth, however, is hurling through the void of space. Secondly, the sheer mass of the earth (as opposed to an air filled tire) will invariable allow it to act with radical strength on all thing on or near it's surface. Every particle no matter it's size has an affect on any other particles that may happen by it. Put in one place the amount of particles needed to make the earth, and well, you have quite the influence. So much clout you could hold a few dozen things on the surface and perhaps keep a satellite or two in orbit.

Originally posted by Immune

and how can time be consistent at the poles and equator since supposedly time is based on the rotation of the planet and the planets poles rotation is almost zero and the equators speed is 1035 how does time move at all at the poles since there is no rotation.

Geo-centric time is indeed a bit skewed at the poles. However the poles go around the sun at the same rate the equator does. In fact, the whole planet goes around the sun at the same time.....interesting. Therefore, a year is a year, a month is a month, a day is a day and so on.
Time is not a constant. It never has been nor will it ever be. We can do our best to be consistent in the way we measure it. But if you want to see if time indeed moves at the poles, then move there and see if you get older?? wink wink.

P.S. wobble wobble

another thing to remember is that at the time of pangea there very well have been more or other land masses that are now sitting in the bottom of our oceans. you would think that if some earthly volcanic/whatever occurance happened to split Pangeatic world then there could possibly be a chance that other land masses were demolished into the ocean beds

Originally posted by Beavers
doesn't the earth already wobble?

i only made this post so i could legitimately use the word wobble.

wobble wobble wobble.

edit on 23-9-2011 by Beavers because: (no reason given)

I love the fact that we can rotate at 1035 mi/hr and never get thrown off this rock and that beavers eat wood!

Originally posted by Beavers
reply to post by topherman420

 

why doesn't the moon hit the earth then?

what greater mass is keeping the moon from being effected by the earths mass?

it feels odd that we had enough gravity to pull it in, (or create it from dust) in the first place, but only enough to keep it at arms length..

Geat question. I believe that is one of the best questions I have ever read on ATS.

Pangaea theory is highly flawed. The theory was based on information available and there wasnt too much real information available in the early 1900's before we had geo-satellites. Long of the short is that the west coast of the Americas were connected to the east coast of Asia as well.

P.S. wobble wobble

Originally posted by Turkenstein

Originally posted by Beavers
reply to post by topherman420

 

why doesn't the moon hit the earth then?

what greater mass is keeping the moon from being effected by the earths mass?

it feels odd that we had enough gravity to pull it in, (or create it from dust) in the first place, but only enough to keep it at arms length..

Geat question. I believe that is one of the best questions I have ever read on ATS.

i'm saving this...

(right next to all the complaints i have from the mods!!! )

Originally posted by Immune
reply to post by libertytoall

 

ok then so rephrase my question how bad would the earth wobble with all the water on one side and new question how bad did the tides effect the wobble

A complete guess, but I would imagine that for the Earth to spin at all the land mass and water has to be balanced, so if land shifts to another part of the planet water would find it's new level and re-balance the planet?