Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

Originally posted by mardukiscoming
reply to post by superman2012

 

Earth has,over billions of years been pounded by asteroids and comets and meteors,all of which contain some moisture in the form of ice.It is from these cosmic travellers that all the water on Earth originated.

Yes I do get that, but, the main problem I'm having is that if all these comets and meteors are smashing into the Earth with moisture in the form of ice, they most likely would have to be pretty big ones. Wouldn't this cause the land masses to not fit together as nicely as they do? I realize that the mass of the water makes up roughly 3% of the Earth, but, there is still a hell of a lot of water out there.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia

 

I like that perspective. Keep in mind also, Our moon was much closer in the past and may have contributed to that lower gravity scenario. The moon is slowly traveling away from us now. Could the expanding Earth be somehow pushing it farther away as it expands?

That thought just popped into my head

I think the moon has a part in the transformation of Earth at some point in its history.

I recollect reading about some ancient texts from , maybe indians or other civilisations, that spoke of a time when the moon "appeared".

Could the water have come from the moon while it was alot closer?

Far fetched maybe, not sure physically how it could have transferred without impact.

But think of it this way.

No moon, means no external gravitational pressure. So the world was smaller and more stable.

Moon appears, and starts "pushing and pulling" with its gravity against the earth.

This starts putting pressure onto the earth. Think of squashing a tennis ball one way, then the other....slowly slowly it gets hot.

This increase in internal heat of the earth, caused the inside to become more moleten and the cooler, external "plates", began to break up and move.

I wonder, if the moon was to disappear now....not only would the oceans not have tides and settles down a little, but I think the world, primarily the tectonic plates would slow down/settle and earthquakes would actually reduce.

reply to post by superman2012


How about....

A smaller expanding Earth with a large gaseous atmosphere that as the Earth started to expand the atmosphere started to condense into water?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thank you sir. This makes more sense to me than Pangaea.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by lonegurkha
If indeed the earth is expanding, then where is the additional mass coming from? I'm not seeing where the necessary mass Is being added. Can't get bigger without more mass.

Are you saying that Pangaea theory is correct?

When you squish a foam ball and then release it, does it lose or gain mass?

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

No I'm not saying that at all. These are both theories, and therefore automatically suspect. There is some fossil evidence for Pangaea.I have seen little evidence for the expanding earth, at least nothing I would describe as convincing.

Your analogy of the foam ball I would question, as what would have compressed it in the first place?
I'm not saying either is right but I'm not saying either is wrong.

Perhaps the best question would be why can't parts of both be true? A combination of both would perhaps fill in the blanks in both. They are, as I said theories.

reply to post by superman2012


Well,I would suppose many of them are quite large.But we are talking about Billions of years so no they wouldn't all have to be big.They don't even have to reach the Earths surface.Most burn up in the atmosphere and any moisture they contain is absorbed into the atmosphere to fall as precipitation.As for the "fit" of the continents,even the largest impact zones ever found were only a few hundred miles across.That is not likely to have a noticeable effect on the way they fit together.Furthermore,since most of the planet is covered by water,it is safe to assume that most impacts would be in bodies of water which would have little to no effect on the contour of the continents shorelines.

I wonder why they dont teach that the continents were connected at the Pacific as well. I suppose that once you come to that realization then you will come to the realization that it could only be possible if the continents were on a smaller diameter globe.

reply to post by SLAYER69

That is an interesting thought.And it does make some sense.Also,I have read that long ago the earths atmosphere was indeed much thicker and more dense than today.If what you say were true,this would explain the change in density of the atmosphere.

One needs to see the globe like this
Look at the Atlantic and imagine it coming together as we know it can, now imagine the Pacific spread coming together, this would only be possible on a smaller globe.

Also, the pacific Ocean bulge explains the Ring of fire. This is the area of earth where expansion has been the greatest and most likely where the ocean floor is the thinnest. The ocean floor is pushing against the continents. Hence the earthquakes.

So it is likely that it started out the diameter of a golf ball and now it is the diameter of a baseball.

analogy only.

This is a great image showing the dates of the ocean floor. So as you can see during the dinosaurs there was not Atlantic or Pacific.

We all know that the continents were connected at the Atlantic, they fit like a puzzle, well look at the Pacific and the same rule applies.

Originally posted by lonegurkha
If indeed the earth is expanding, then where is the additional mass coming from? I'm not seeing where the necessary mass Is being added. Can't get bigger without more mass.

When you bake a cupcake or a cake, brownie etc, the size always gets bigger even though you are not adding more mass. Isn't this what the earth could be doing.. considering there is a huge oven at it's core?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

When you bake a cupcake or a cake, brownie etc, the size always gets bigger even though you are not adding more mass. Isn't this what the earth could be doing.. considering there is a huge oven at it's core?

Baking something causes a chemical reaction which causes the material to expand at a rapid rate. I don't think that there is anything like baking a cake going on in the earth. The expanding earth is a theory and nothing more.

When I see some fossil or geologic evidence that it may be more than a theory then I will consider the possibility that there may be some truth to it. Until then it's just a theory, just like pangaea, except that there actually is evidence in the fossil record and the geologic record for pangaea. Both theories fail to explain every facit of the moving of the continents. However at this time neither is debunked nor is either confirmed.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I just dont see the bumping and crashing of continents or even conceive how it is possible, its almost impossible to envision.

You revealed part of the problem.

You are supposed to be looking at the movement of tectonic plates to understand the plate tectonics theory. Some plates are underwater, so you can't just look at continents.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I wonder why they dont teach that the continents were connected at the Pacific as well. I suppose that once you come to that realization then you will come to the realization that it could only be possible if the continents were on a smaller diameter globe.

Part of the problem may be you looking at 2D animations which distort the Earth. Look at a 3D animation and you see it does show a relatively unchanged distance between Alaska and modern Russia:

Animation showing Pangaea and movement of the plates - from MOUNTAIN BUILDING LESSON 11

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by lonegurkha
If indeed the earth is expanding, then where is the additional mass coming from? I'm not seeing where the necessary mass Is being added. Can't get bigger without more mass.

When you bake a cupcake or a cake, brownie etc, the size always gets bigger even though you are not adding more mass. Isn't this what the earth could be doing.. considering there is a huge oven at it's core?

True. And we can say the bread expands due to the yeast.

This is what the expanding earth theory is missing...any credible evidence of the "yeast" or whatever made the Earth expand. Come up with that and the theory might have some credibility. Without such a mechanism, it has no credibility.

Remember, plate tectonics was initially rejected because there was insufficient evidence to support it. It was only many years later, when evidence was gathered to support it, that it was accepted. Some people see this as a failure of science to reject an idea with insufficient evidence, but it's actually a success story.

Originally posted by lonegurkha

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
When you squish a foam ball and then release it, does it lose or gain mass?

Your analogy of the foam ball I would question, as what would have compressed it in the first place?

And the answer is?

Did something squeeze and then release the Earth as if it was a foam ball? And if so, then what? Where is the evidence for this?

I've been intrigued by the expanding Earth theory and think it is worth researching...but, one hiccup. Despite GPS accuracy exceeding one centimeter (0.394 inches) for some years now, there is no indication of the Earth expanding today.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


My vote would be the formation/ accumulation of hydrogen.

very interesting topic, I for one have heard both theories and try and see both sides.
people have been throwing in the cup cake analogy and the sponge, I may throw one into the mix if I may.

Popcorn, nothing added, nothing removed, just a heat source and expansion takes place,

The theory would be more compelling if someone had thought to explain subduction of the plates. Where does the ongoing recycling of the plates fit in to an expanding planet theory? If it's expanding to make room for more crustal area, what's the purpose of...re-purposing the material like that?

The fact that subduction of oceanic plates beneath the continental crust happens is the reason we have many deep sea trenches, mountain ranges such as the Himalayas and many volcanically active areas such as the Pacific Ring of Fire. If this ‘Expanding Earth’ theory were in any way true we would not have nearly as many of the volcanically active areas that we do today; and the Earth would be very much flat for there would be no crustal activity to push up the mountain ranges.

How do proponents of this theory explain why the Earth ‘expanded’ like a foam ball despite the fact it is still incredibly dense. How do they explain that prehistoric gravity signatures remain the same for an Earth of the same diameter in prehistoric times as it is today? I would assume that if the Earth were the same mass but much more compact then gravity would be almost double in the age of the dinosaurs than it is today due to our closer proximity to far more mass. This would also make it unlikely that dinosaurs would have ever reached the size that they did.

The coming together and separating of continents cyclical in nature and happens approximately every 250 million years. The reason why most of the sea floor is under 100 million years old is because we are not even halfway through a phase of separation and any seafloor older than that age has long ago been subducted.

This theory raises far too many questions which can only be answered through a series of unlikely explanations and does not answer anything that does not already have a good explanation with the Pangaea model.

Originally posted by lonegurkha
If indeed the earth is expanding, then where is the additional mass coming from? I'm not seeing where the necessary mass Is being added. Can't get bigger without more mass.

Because your mind is still back in 1915.

Back in 1915, we only knew of 3 stages of matter. Gas, liquid and solid. Which is why the earths core was considered a solid, because it was the only explanation possible, why it was magnetic.

Now, go to a store and buy a plasma ball. Look at that little rod in it, and see how when you touch it, there are small lightnings coming from your finger. Fanstic isn't it? Just like the earth ... when a volcano erupts, there are thousands of lightnings strikes within it ...

Because the inside of the earth, is plasma. The most abundant matter in the universe, is plasma, or some 98% of it.

Then look at the Sun, it's growing ... it's constantly growing to its next stage of existance. Why? because it's cooling down ... just like the earth.

In the center, there is plasma. Magnetic gases, that are denser than the densest steel you can find. But they're gases, and the only thing that keeps them together in their state, is the heat. When it cools down, it expands.

All the water, and gases on this planet, comes from within ... they're not "accredited".

This is also why you have volcanic eruptions. As the magma below cools down, the gases inside it expand, causing the pressure that is needed for eruption.

Since almost all the mass of the earth, is actually at the center ... the enormous dense plasma center, as the earth grows. The distance to this epic center, will increase. As it increases, the radius to the mass, increases. As radius increases, so does the g you expierience, decrease. This is evident, from the fact, that where magma flows below, the g force is greater.

And you shouldn't laugh at "hollow earth" theory ... because, since the center of the earth is plasma. Which in reality is gas. The earths center, has both the properties of gas, and solids.