Sun Tzu

This theory makes sense to me. Im not a geology expert, but the Pangea story that I have believed for long time has just gone out the window. This must also mean that the Earth was NOT cover by water at one time.

__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang Goethe

Crompsin

So, wait... a marathon... 40 million years ago... was only... what... 9.356 miles?

__________________
C19H28O2 = C6H2(NO2)3CH3

Merleniau: "Your face is old and moldy!"

Jetée

He got really adamant about the topic at the end there; I did enjoy the viewing, and would look forward to the findings in coordinance with the statements presented here.

__________________
The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers. —M. Scott Peck

Willravel

It's not paranoia that the Earth is growing, but it's growing by such a small amount that it really doesn't matter.

The other stuff? Pangea (then ancient super-continent) is scientifically recognized (by people who graduated from a university). The other fitting is explained perfectly by continental divide being relatively equal. They didn't combine over the pacific. The pacific used to be bigger. This guy doesn't understand the Pacific 'rifts' (which are converging).

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Ustwo

Ummm since we have fossil evidence of sea floors older than he claims should exist, well, whatever.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Sun Tzu

After researching a little more it appears that this theory stem from creationists (which Im not) or not in the traditional sense. Pangea certainly exlpains the oceans presence, but only accounts for the huge mass of land missing either from a collision that was slightly smaller than Earth, the moon was actually part of Earth at one time, or an extreme eruption on a grand scale. But Pangea would produce something larger than Hawaii wouldnt it?.

The mass of the Earth is quite precisely known now. The mass arriving from space is estimated.


How are they measuring subduction zones? Are they reachable?

The guy was not denying plate movement. The expanding Earth theory says that they were joined together on both sides rather than only one. This is supported by the fact that there are mid-ocean expansion ridges circling the earth and interconnected between _ALL_ of the continents.



" "Mobile magma plumes force us to reassess some of our most basic assumptions about the way the mantle operates," says John Tarduno, professor of earth and environmental sciences . "We’ve relied on them for a long time as unwavering markers, but now we’ll have to redefine our understanding of global geography." "
http://www.innovations-report.de/htm...cht-20701.html

__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang Goethe

robot_parade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

Strangely enough, this theory was fairly well-respected not that long ago. I assumed it was another nutjob with a new crazy notion, but it turns out the notion is old, and was replaced in the 60's by modern geophysics.

Martian

Yeah, his logic falls apart entirely at the end, not that there was much there to begin with.

I'm not much of a geologist and I'll be the first to admit it. However, this theory still doesn't make sense. If the Earth is expanding at the rate he claims, then there would have to be either a large increase in mass or a similarly large decrease in density. An increase in mass would require a very large source or matter pouring into the Earth, which just isn't feasible while maintaining an environment hospitable to life. A decrease in volume runs counter to our current understanding of physics, since it would require a massive force to counter-act gravity. Also, as the Earth continued to expand (and again, assuming the same mass) the gravitational force on the surface would diminish. If the Earth were still expanding, then Galileo's observation that objects fall at a rate of ~9.8 m/s^2 in the 16th century should no longer be valid over 400 years later.

I'd also think that if the Earth were expanding and decreasing in volume as a consequence there'd be no reason for it to retain a spheroid shape. The Earth is round because that's the shape that allows it to achieve the highest possible density, thus it's a result of the gravitational pull. Without the constant exertion of gravitational forces to retain that spheroid shape, other forces would quickly cause the Earth to become irregular and, eventually, break apart.

In other words, if this guy is right either all science as we understand it is wrong or we're all doomed when the Earth hits the critical point where it's gravity is no longer sufficient to keep it coherent and explodes. While an exploding Earth does make for a nice visual, I won't be losing any sleep.

__________________
Some will win, some will lose
Some were born to sing the blues
Oh, the movie never ends
It goes on and on and on and on

- Journey, Don't Stop Believein'

Ustwo

Some people consider the theory of plate tectonics to be perhaps one of the greatest of the twentieth century and very quickly accepted for a theory of its magnitude.

While an expanding earth would explain the oceans as they are and the shape of the continents, it leaves way to many gaping holes to be considered seriously.

The most obvious is that you can find sea shells in mountain ranges such as the alps. This requires no real advanced scientific knowledge to just shoot down right there.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Subtext: The Earth is expanding, but I can't or won't tell you why or how.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Sun Tzu

According to pangea the continents will eventually collide once again.



If it is a stretch that earth may have been 80% of its present size millions of years ago then it places an enormous amount of reliance on volcanic activity spouting out mass that just by chance fits together perfectly on all sides.

Looking at the model of pangea there was allot of ice connecting and disappearing mass. The accreation model loses almost none at all.




























I havent done any scientific research, I have to rely on the notes and findings of others and hopefully make some sense of it.

Is there any evidence of bottlenecking in the subduction zones? I also ust started looking so I dont know the answer to this
question; is there any other planet or moon in the solar system that has plate movement like Earth? Any that have been proven (theorized) to be expanding?

__________________
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang Goethe

Ustwo

Ummm sea shells on mountain tops? Hello?

Rather than trying to explain science none here have studied in depth and few are even qualified to examine, lets cut to the chase.

The expanding earth theory not only doesn't explain things like the rocky mountains or the himalayan mountains it doesn't explain why there is ample evidence why the mountain ranges were once sea floor. They are not volcanic in nature, so something is driving them.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

The Pacific ranges are made up of basalt, an igneous (volcanic) rock. Your "chase" has taken you off a cliff. Game over.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Ustwo

Thats swell but what does that have to do with the non-volcanic mountain ranges?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Igneous rock often changes to metamorphic. That's every mountain range in the world.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Ustwo

Is this an answer to a question?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

Where does your certainty come from, ustwo? Was Geology another of your many majors?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Jinn

I can't speak for Ustwo, but..

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 249,000 for tectonics

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 75,900 for plate tectonics

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...on&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 175,000 for subduction

These are all educated individuals presenting thoroughly researched and cited studies in peer-reviewed journals. Some of their names are even recognizable as experts, or associated with institutions of higher education.

Who is the person in this video? Does he have a name? Credentials? Or is he just a clever individual with a working knowledge of photoshop and youtube?

I think the onus would be on the OP to demonstrate its validity, not ours to demonstrate invalidity.

__________________
If you struggle with something your entire life, try harder.
Awareness without action is worthless, and failure is not an accident.

Elphaba

JinnKai, I don't disagree with the generally accepted science. I object to shutting down the discussion with a less than modest or informed certainty.

But that's just me.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Ustwo

One of my major fields of study as an undergrad was evolution.

Evolution often deals with 'deep time', 100's of millions of years, enough time for continental drift.

Part of what caused that evolution are changing environments, from ice ages to mountain ranges.

More to the point, anyone who studied evolutionary biology beyond a bio 101 level would know about things such as the Burgess Shale. This rich fossil bed just happens to be located, wait for it, in the rocky mountains, which are not volcanic in nature.

This is of course just an example, I have found trilobite fossils in the rocks exposed by a creek in the back of my house as a child (about 20 miles from where I live currently) as well as other shells and animal tracks in sandstone, this would also be an example which would be contradictory to the expanding earth theory but less pronounced so I chose to not bother with it.

But still while my formal education more than covers this topic, I've learned perhaps more informally on my own. The formal education gave me the needed background in such matters that I can continue to expand my knowledge beyond what I learned, and focus on what I find interesting.

Since you seem so interested my last three books I read for pleasure were, The God Delusion, The Ancestors Tale, and Genome. While not 'expert' level books, they do keep your mind focused on the biological side of life. The Ancestors Tale happened to get into plate tectonics as it is key for understanding how some species evolved.

So my certainty comes from a life time of knowledge, not just at the institutional level but my own studies as well. I am not a geologist but I know the principles better than most people. I might not be able to tell you what level of seismic activity would indicate an impending volcanic eruption without looking it up, I do know enough that when some crackpot a few years ago predicted an earthquake for the Midwest based on the moon, that he was full of shit. Didn't happen and he was of course.

This theory is even more full of shit. You couldn't cram more shit in it without adding magic unicorns with intestinal issues. It doesn't fit easily observed data, it doesn't fit the measured tectonic movements, it requires giant leaps in logic in terms of mass and density, its just plain silly.

When the theory of plate tectonics was introduced it did meet a lot of resistance it shook the very foundations of geology. The idea that entire continents moved seemed to many absurd. The difference here though is that it answered SO many questions, it filled in so many gaps, that despite being an earth shattering theory it was very quickly and pretty much universally adapted.

The expanding earth theory, for a time, was used to explain why the shapes of the continents were so similar but that idea was quickly squashed under a mountain of evidence in favor of plate tectonics and a lack of evidence or explanation for an expanded earth theory.

Belief in this is the equivalent of thinking the earth is flat.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

You know that all Elphaba was saying is that one should not ignore any evidence because of preconceived notions, which is what was responsible for the flat Earth theory enduring for so long.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Ustwo

There is preconceived notions and then there is knowledge. If you approach every problem from the position of a tabula rasa then knowledge doesn't progress and you have to make stupid mistakes all over again.

The flat earth theory held for so long because it was nearly correct. Maybe plate tectonics isn't 100% correct, but it is far more correct than an expanding earth theory, which can be shot down so easily.

As such I can be certain in this, its a step backwards, its a flat earth.

Now if someone came forward and said telomere length had nothing to do with cellular aging I'd be willing to really examine each aspect of it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Again, you're stating the wrong case. I said (paraphrasing) "don't disallow evidence". In response you write, (again, paraphrased) "ah but previous evidence shouldn't be ignored". I fail to see how these ideas stand in contrast. In fact, I'd say that they rather on the same side. The side of being correct.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Ustwo

Not sure what this was suppose to mean but it doesn't apply to the question at all. It has nothing to do with what I presented as a simple refutation of the original theory. The fact that some mountain ranges are in fact volcanic in nature means nothing to those who are not and directly refute the expanding earth concept.

Again, what was your point with this? Was this in support of something or a random factoid?

I responded above.