Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Magma from inside the earth, basically, liquid rock/metal in a high pressure environment.

As it comes to the surface it expands and cools.

Over time this has caused the earth to grow.

This is one of my theories too that I beleive is being kept hidden.

When dinosaurs were around, the world was a much smaller place physically....to go along with the smaller mass was less gravity, thus resulting in creatures being able to grow much larger than now.

Gravity had an effect on the growth rate of creatures on average.

Is there a way to measure the rate of gravity geologically to verify/debunk this like ice core samples?

Most substances expand when they are heated and contract when they cool. Magma is like most substances.

Originally posted by chr0naut
Most substances expand when they are heated and contract when they cool. Magma is like most substances.

For solid magma, yes.

However, when lava erupts, the gases dissolved in it expand and form bubbles. If the magma is very fluid and cooling is slow, the gases can escape, but if the magma is very viscous or the cooling is too fast, then the gases can't escape, and you can end up with voids in the cooled igneous rock. So what you can end up with in the overall lava rock can be empty spaces in the rock, which of course makes it seem less dense.

Here's an extreme example:
en.wikipedia.org...


Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the expanding Earth theory, but I'm just saying I understand the nature of this claim. However the scientific evidence contradicts it, and suggests the Earth may have shrunk slightly as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I know for a fact that ATS is split into two camps. That of the creationist and the evolutionist. Could someone from the creationist camp find me the scripture that refers to hell having an increase from all the lost souls that end up there? I know I read it , and I'll probably get flamed for bringing this up, but consider this; how much heat and energy does a soul create when it burns for eternity?

Originally posted by Oannes
Pangea may still hold some weight and heres why. One of the Earth's oldest names is Ti.Amat. The termcomes form Sumeria and means "Watery Monster". One of Nibiru's (yes that Nibiru/Planet x etc...) moons smashed into this planet eons ago. The the lower half of the impact created the Hammered Out Bracelet (asteroid belt). The upper half became Gaia. The term Gaia means "cleaved planet". We all know that to cleave something is to take a chunk out of it. This Is the Part in Gensis when the "lights fell upon the waters and caused all of the water to be drawn to one place". This very discription means that only one piece of land was visible at that time.

Tiamat was the mother goddess (whose name means 'salt water'). She was married to Apsu (whose name means 'fresh water'). To create the Earth and heavens, she had to be cut in two, one half became the Earth the other the heavens. So Tiamat is NOT the name of the Earth any more than it is the name for the heavens.

Please quote where you got the idea that one of Nibiru's moons collided with the Earth (Sitchin never claimed that, and he's where we got all this mistranslated 'Nibiru' nonsense), and also, while you're at it, explain how a collision with the Earth resulted in debris out in the asteroid belt, on the other side of the orbit of Mars and not in Earth's orbit.

Gaia was the Earth goddess. Her name means 'Earth' or 'land', not 'cleaved planet'.


... and finally

Genesis 1:6-10 states:
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good." (King James Bible, Cambridge Edition.)

This would seem to be quite different from your quote.

You can't just make stuff up and then spout it as if it was the truth because we'll call you out on it.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
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?

All the continents do connect still. But the connection points are mostly under water.

Continental drift, where the bits of the continents above the waterline all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle is nonsense.

The ocean level is largely arbitrary in terms of continental drift due to plate tectonics!

Plate Tectonics was suggested by the fact that there seemed to be similarities in the edges of adjacent landforms.

The plates are solidified bits on the surface of a largely molten (liquid) Earth. Giant convection currents (Brownian Motion) in the liquid underneath the plates, push them across the surface of the Earth.

In some places, this moves the plates apart. This causes thin spots and holes in the crust, allowing molten magma to rush into the gap and cool, thereby adding to the edge of the retreating crust.

In other places, the bits of the crust collide and eventually one part of the crust slides under the other (subduction). The side that slides underneath gets pushed back down into the hot molten magma and this then re-melts into the liquid core.

The continents are just unevenness on the surface crust, usually caused by the pressures behind plate tectonics causing the crust to buckle in places, the raised bits poking out above the oceans are continents and islands.

reply to post by lonegurkha


If the earth were actually growing, it wouldn't be from space junk. I think it would be a process similiar to what suns go through when they are 'dying'. Something at the core of Earth is losing mass as crust.

reply to post by superman2012

This may be a bit more religious for most here but this theory accounts for the question of
Where did the water come from? Hydorplate Theory proposed by Walt Brown

The Hydroplate theory asserts that before the Flood, approximately 50% of the water in present oceans was contained in underground reservoirs, a huge underground body of water about 10miles under the surface. One huge supercontinent would have covered the surface of the Earth, including some small mountains and small oceans

Nutshell view of Walt Browns perspective:

1) A shell of granite surrounded the Earth, resting on a layer of water under great pressure. Below the water was besalt rock (or whatever is pre-melted oceanic rock).

2) The shell ruptured a shot out water alone a line that we now call the mid-oceanic ridge (a feature which must be explained in any Flood model)

3) This rupture phase widened to about 800 miles width shooting up rocks, sediments and water (some into space, giving birth to comets, a whole other topic)

4) The removed crust created a vacuum to be filled. This caused the Mantle to move to fill the vacuum. This movement began in the Atlantic.

5) The move towards the Atlantic caused the Mantle to start a chain event that went through the Mantle sucking down the Pacific as the Atlantic rose.

6) This sucking down of the Pacific caused the Pacific plate to be sucked into the Earth (already detached along the mid-oceanic ridge). Also created the trenches, extensive volcanic activity and Ring of Fire.

7) As the Atlantic rose the plates started to slide away from the rising ridge in both directions in the Atlantic.

8) As the moving plates slowed and piled up on themselves, they thickened and created the present continents which are about 3 times as thick as the original granite shell

It was also discussed on a thread here on ATS back in 2007. Link

as for me Im not a big fan of mainstream science, I have arrived at my own understand that most of what is discussed and debated in science is theory based, with most evidenced presented as proof based on the biases of wanting to prove a theory. I was a poor student growing up, so I cant refute or add much of what is discussed here. I enjoy learning now, and appreciate the OPs effort in putting together his information.

I do believe in creationism, but not too sure if this theory is reaching.

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
Looking for a New Model?

If the theory of expanding earth worked, the Pacific would not be shrinking as the Atlantic expands.

It's not moving the way you say ...

Movement, north america

These show, that the north american plate, the seaside is moving west ... not east.

The problem with these measurement tools, is that they are open to interpretations. Since these tools, use a single reference point, to measure all other points, relative to this one. You might say, that the reference point is moving east ... while you are also saying, that the other points, are moving west.

When it comes to japan, and Eurasia. Then the pacific movement towards japan, causes a "landslide", that causes the japans to slide over the pacific plate.

IFF things were, like you state ... we would in fact have a "shrinking" planet, not a growing one (hell, who knows, maybe that's the case after all). Because the movement around the pacific, is greater than in the atlantic Ocean, which is only about 1cm a year.

Originally posted by chr0naut

All the continents do connect still. But the connection points are mostly under water.

Continental drift, where the bits of the continents above the waterline all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle is nonsense.

Another "textbook" rhetoric.

We can all go, read our old schoolbook, we had in school when we 12 year olds. I can understand you believing this as a 12 year old. But, seriously, don't echo this nonsense ... we all read the same books. If you don't wanna move on, don't. It's your choice.

I believe this is a discussion of data, that aren't in your classic schoolbook.

There is an old saying, "there is no smoke, without fire". And this a case, that applies. Saying that the earths surface fits like a jigsaw puzzle, is just a coincidence, is the most idiotic rhetoric I've ever come across. Who on earth, thinks science is about "coincidence". A "coincidence" is a political statement, when a politician has a "plausable denial". But coming out and saying "hey, there's a volcano there ... what a coincidence". Sure as hell isn't an intelligent statement, now is it.

The arguement, the above "gentleman" is pointing out, is actually an arguement used by Earth Expansionists, to prove that Plate Tectonics and Continental drift, can't be the real deal. Because, as this gentleman pointed out, the plates don't fit, according to the "pangean" drawings. So, the continents, don't drift along the way they're supposed to have.

The jigsaw puzzle, was just a hint that men took and noticed. And like any man, with a brain, bigger than that of an ant. Didn't just go around and say "wow, what a coincidence". Because there are no "coincidences" in nature. People discarded that they could have fitted, based on the above "textbook rhetoric". Resulting in Plate Tectonics. Later, people discovered that the ocean floors are younger than the continents. This is when the Earth Expansion theory, had its "re-awakening". But, that's when "creationists", invented plate tectonics.

The problem with continental drift, and plate tectonics theories, is that the ocean floor is proof of them being wrong, at least in their current form.. And the denial of this, is proof, that either people are plain stupid, blind or ... yeah, well. If you look at the ocean floors, they tell a history. History, where the mantle has pushed up to the surface. If you wanna do plate tectonics, continental drift. You'll have to look at the fact, that there are equally old (or new) ocean sediments, in the pacific and in the atlantic. So, if you wanna move backwards in time, you'll have to remove both of these sediments ... and the only conclusion you'll get to, is a smaller planet. We can argue, wether it actually was 40% of the current size, and we can argue a lot of stuff ... but to continue continental drift, or plate tectonics, in spite of the evidence ... is just WOW.

You wanna believe in your bible, go ahead ... I read the bible too, when I was 12. But I certainly am not going to argue the fact, that God, as he has been represented does not exist. I do not argue, that maybe there is one ... but I can argue with confidence, that he is not the way we were tought. And the same goes for continental drift, and plate tectonics ...So, if you wanna come up and argue these theories, then please come up with an arguement, as how "Pangea" could have drifted apart, when the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific were both "spreading apart", with the pacific doing even more of the same, than the Atlantic. You wanna stick to "subduction zones", that the new sediment in the Pacific was actually "sliding under" Eurasia and America. Ok, but please provide some solid proof, that you can sink air into water ... because any basic physics study, will tell you ... that ain't gonna work. Low density material, isn't gonna sink into solid "plastic" rock, of greater density. You wanna come up with some "sucking" theory, down there ... then please come up with a mechanism for that, because that sort of mechanism is far more "unlikely", than the expanding earth nonsense.

That's just putting the cards on the table.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
IFF things were, like you state ... we would in fact have a "shrinking" planet, not a growing one (hell, who knows, maybe that's the case after all).

There is this measurement:

en.wikipedia.org...

Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.

According to that it could have been anywhere from 0.8% smaller to 4.8% larger, 400 million years ago. So we can't really rule out a little shrinking.

Not sure if this has been posted before. I'm only on page 7.

www.expanding-earth.org...

www.4threvolt.com...

www.science-frontiers.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
According to that it could have been anywhere from 0.8% smaller to 4.8% larger, 400 million years ago. So we can't really rule out a little shrinking.

That's screaming into the eyes of the evidence ... not saying, that this can't be the case. But it sure is unlikely to say the least.

First, yoou can observe for yourself that the sediment you are walking on will get higher about 1cm per year. There is new sediment being "accredited" where we walk. Which is why we "dig" for ancient cities.

Does that suggest that the radius was constant? no, it sure as hell doesn't.

Now, coming up with radiologic data is another wildcard. It's like dating C14 ... yes, it appears to work. While at the same time, as this is being said, fingers are pointing out enormous neutron bombing of the earth, decades after decades. For your information, neutron bombing effects the decay of radio active material. One of the classics, being the death of the dynosaur, which is pointed out to be because of a metorstrike. This supported by the fact, that there is enormous irridium radiation from this time, etc.

There is *NOTHING* constant about this planet. And when you look at sediments, and you see a 10 foot layer of newly accredited sediment, over ancient data, on every side of the planet. And still come to the conclusion that the earth is the same size or shrinking.

Then there is definately something wrong with how you are processing your data. Because you're not looking at the evidence, you are discarding evidence, to support your own creationist theories. Yes, I say creationists, because we're actually talking about ideas, that date back to the middle ages.

And, that's saying it in gentle terms.

First of all, did they bring about their meter stick and measure the earth radius 400 million years ago? No? This measurement of the earth radius, 400 million years ago. Isn't even worth looking at ... it's a definite proof, that people are looking to prove their theory. They're not looking at the evidence. Because there is nothing there, that can tell you what the earths radius was ... back then. That's beyond crap ...

Maybe the curvature of the sediments, back 400 million years ago are the same as today? really? You think, that if you take a piece of wood ... make it a little wet, and then bend it ... that all the layers of the wood, are still gonna have the same curvature? wow.

I mean, that's really something ... looks like some geologists need to go and learn how to make a wooden boat. They learned this trick, several thousand years ago.

Maybe they think the crus is going to break up, bend and create mountains and vast cracks in the earth? Isn't that just a silly thought?

Wait ... isn't that what really happened? ... and happening still.

reply to post by eriktheawful


This particular post was to give light to subduction theories. Basically subduction premise is built upon 10Be from the soil getting to the magma. I explained how 10Be could be created from radioactivity interacting with Co2 in magma and how the fact the earth's core is melting on one side and freezing on another, it isn't consistent or round as previously presumed, could also be affecting magma in ways previously unrealised.

It also alluded to a potential nuclear reactor deep inside earth, natural obviously, this is being tested by scientists, and could give further light to the melting / freezing core and it's interaction with cosmic influences, magma and the crust. Hence it's direct influence on tectonics and geological events.

I just cant believe the non sense most of you believe in ....
Theirs tons plates dont exist. plates are not underwater... dont believe in textbooks...
My facts come from during Soft and Hard rock geology going out to the field and study deformations and folding and other structural aspects of geology. I am not in a corner of a room with a candle praying to textbooks or finding tons of links online and saying here are the facts.. GO outside and look at some formations.

Whats next you guys are going to say hey the earth is flat.. and neal adams needs to just stick to drawing Batman.

reply to post by lordbayfin


As I said, I don't buy into the expanding earth theory. I also don't fully embrace the pangea theory although I do see the continental drift and plate tectonics parts of it being viable.
I believe I could ascribe more easily to the concept of having two or more large landmasses as opposed to only one large land mass as with the pangea theory. Perhaps one centered at the North Pole that moved down and one centered at the South Pole that moved up. Of course if we go even further back in the geologic record, they possibly could have been a single mass, but with the evidence we presently have, the two land masses would account for the "holes" that appear with just the idea of a single super-continent. All of the plate tectonics and continental drift theories would still apply, there would only be a modification of the original land mass... or one of the subsequent land masses anyway.


...I guess with the scale of time, it would be reasonable .... I'm not much of an "earth science" type, more Chemistry and Physics, but with thinking it through, yes, I can see where it would be viable since we didn't jump immediately from one time to another. I suppose the oversimplifications that have come about have caused me to question it greatly and I've never put the effort into thinking it through. ... not that I've thought it through completely in just a few minutes, but it is starting to fall into place a bit better now that I've given it a bit of attention...

Originally posted by TucoTheRat

Dude we don't even know if mars has water, keep in mind we have sent a few rovers over there too, and your going to tell me we know what the sun is made of?

That's a serious question.

Can you say the the sun is primarily comprised mostly of two elements? If you can should I get NASA on the line? because they should be asking you is mars has water instead of spending so much money n trying to figure out of mars has water.

Every thing you see on our solar system came from the sun my friend, everything.

Even if you where right the sun is so huge that the small amount of other elements besides the primary two would still be enough to spit out millions and million of planets.

So how exactly does it not make sens?

The Rat.

edit on 12-9-2012 by TucoTheRat because: ?

edit on 12-9-2012 by TucoTheRat because: (no reason given)

ummmm, did you ever take a chemistry class? We CAN tell what the sun is made of due to the light it puts off. Primarily Hydrogen and Helium (the two lightest elements). They exist in the plasma state where nuclear fission and fusion takes place on a massive level. Through the fission and fusion, the other elements come into existance due to electrons, protons and neutrons interacting in the processes. This does NOT mean that everything else in the universe came from the sun (before you try to jump in and go there). It means that our elements interact with one another and can be converted from one to another by fission or fusion (not magic or alchemy...before you jump in and try to go there).

Just because you don't understand something or haven't been exposed to it doesn't mean nobody else knows it or hasn't been exposed to it either.

Originally posted by lordbayfin
I just cant believe the non sense most of you believe in ....
Theirs tons plates dont exist. plates are not underwater... dont believe in textbooks...
My facts come from during Soft and Hard rock geology going out to the field and study deformations and folding and other structural aspects of geology. I am not in a corner of a room with a candle praying to textbooks or finding tons of links online and saying here are the facts.. GO outside and look at some formations.

Whats next you guys are going to say hey the earth is flat.. and neal adams needs to just stick to drawing Batman.

Unfortunately, there are several who are saying just that

It's absolutely CRAZY over there!!! The very existance of that thread has lowered the collective IQ of the site by at least 20 points

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by chr0naut
Most substances expand when they are heated and contract when they cool. Magma is like most substances.

For solid magma, yes.

However, when lava erupts, the gases dissolved in it expand and form bubbles. If the magma is very fluid and cooling is slow, the gases can escape, but if the magma is very viscous or the cooling is too fast, then the gases can't escape, and you can end up with voids in the cooled igneous rock. So what you can end up with in the overall lava rock can be empty spaces in the rock, which of course makes it seem less dense.

Here's an extreme example:
en.wikipedia.org...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the expanding Earth theory, but I'm just saying I understand the nature of this claim. However the scientific evidence contradicts it, and suggests the Earth may have shrunk slightly as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

edit on 13-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

I suppose if we consider all the volcanic action on the earth during it's long history, we could see small amounts of expansion both positive and negative over time, but not the extreme expansion that they are claiming. It would be more of a "recycling" type of action where the molten core comes to the surface through volcanic eruptions, hardens and the lower layers are then molten and return to the core in a constant cycle that may or may not be balanced at all times yet do not produce an extreme expansion or compression.
Even with any questions that persist, the plate tectonics theory has much more viability than an expansion theory to the extreme they are wanting to attribute to it.

reply to post by bjarneorn


I never said that Pangea, a single supercontinent existed.

I clearly said that the continents above the waterline fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle was nonsense.

I said that cavitation through centrifugal forces was not happening.

I also said that the Earth was not adding any significant mass through accretion.

While stating these things, I also am not denying observed characteristics of geology like tectonic movement and the apparent average constancy of the Earth's diameter.

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Magma from inside the earth, basically, liquid rock/metal in a high pressure environment.

As it comes to the surface it expands and cools.

Over time this has caused the earth to grow.

This is one of my theories too that I beleive is being kept hidden.

When dinosaurs were around, the world was a much smaller place physically....to go along with the smaller mass was less gravity, thus resulting in creatures being able to grow much larger than now.

Gravity had an effect on the growth rate of creatures on average.

Is there a way to measure the rate of gravity geologically to verify/debunk this like ice core samples?

That's brilliant, I haven't thought about the expansion of magma... do consider though that there could be, should be (or, is ) a cycle here; volcanoes spew to 'increase' land volume, but it's recycled by magma convection 'eating' the crust