* Zane, did you see this page: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation16.html? They seem to account for the Ural Mountains with the Somali Basin impact. There's a video which shows it well at the top of that page. They say the Australia-India section of Pangea or whatever was forced northeast, it seems, then India hit Asia and built up the Himalayas, while Australia broke off from India and ricocheted ESE. Asia pivoted at Iran, which caused it to move north first, then west. The westward motion caused the Urals to fold up. * There were obviously lots of "impacts" besides the Somali Basin one, but it seems that was the first one and the biggest one. From EU theory we know that electrical impacts are what probably form tektites and they show a picture of a large area of tektites apparently from the impact site all the way to Australia. * They say the continents took 26 hours to break apart and run their whole courses on a wave of magma moving 150 meters/second to nearly their present positions. My impression is that 90% of all of the electrically formed features on Earth were formed in those 26 hours. That includes the sculpting of mountain ranges and the Grand Canyon, the formation of cratons, mesas, massifs, seamounts etc, impacts like at Yucatan, etc. They seem to say that the Hudson Bay craters and some others existed before the Somali Basin impact. * I"m not biased against other theories, but this one, Shock Dynamics, seems to explain more things about the continents and sea floors better than any other. I think EU theory will improve it quite a bit. Hydroplate theory seems to be similar only with respect to the idea that the continents slid to their present positions, but it says water was what they slid on, whereas Shock Dynamics says it was a magma wave. Water may be an important ingredient in magma, which may make it slicker than waterless rock. But I think electrical plasma properties likely contributed a lot to the reduced friction that allowed the continents to slide. The site mentions that landslides from continental shelf cliffs tend to slide much further on the sea floor than the height of their falls. This could also involve electrical effects. Piezoelectricity I think is mentioned on the site, but I don't remember if it's considered as a possible "lubricant". * I previously thought a combination of expanding planet theory and EU theory would best explain the continents and seafloors, but now Shock Dynamics impresses me much more. I don't know if expanding planet theory is needed any longer. At least it doesn't seem needed to explain how well the continents fit together or what caused the Atlantic etc to open up. Expanding Planet theory would suggest that the Atlantic should be the same width all the way from the Arctic to the Antarctic, whereas Shock Dynamics seems to explain elegantly that the reason the Atlantic is much wider toward the south is because South America received more of the energy of the impact than did North America. I know Expanding Planet theory says the continents would fit together on a smaller globe and fill in the entire Pacific Ocean as well as the Atlantic and the others, but I'll have to look at those pictures again to see if they're still convincing, if I get time. * Okay, I just looked at Neal Adams video at http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008/10/expanding-earth-ou~ and it's pretty impressive, but I think he makes the continents rather plastic in order to make them fit together on the Pacific side. I don't think they'd fit if they were more rigid. What say?
seasmith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Lloyd wrote:
I don't know if expanding planet theory is needed any longer.
Lloyd, So now do you think that Earth is done growing, or, as per the view of the David Pratt paper you cited above:
Surge tectonics postulates that the main cause of geodynamics is lithosphere compression, generated by the cooling and contraction of the earth.
that the planet is now a nearly entropic system ??
s
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
I'm with you on shock dynamics. Good seismic and tectonic evidence to support it. The expanding earth concept offers no reasonable explanation for ocean water or for the systematic distribution of mountain ranges, whereas shock based continental drift has several strengths, including the recognition of meteoric impacts/electric strikes as a major mechanism for planetary formation. I would add the proposition, as I mentioned elsewhere a long time ago, that the Pacific Basin itself is [possibly] a classic hexagonal crater; also the Gulf of Mexico is a prime candidate for continental-drift-starting impact(s) including the important Chixilub crater on its southern "rim."
allynh
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Check out the Neal Adams video about why Pangea as a starting point doesn't work.
You have to remember, that any discussion of subduction has to explain why there is no mountain of muck and silt along the subduction zone. No matter what the mechanism for subduction as described, there would be massive amounts of silt scraped off in the process.
As always, read the links and make up your own mind.
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
I've seen and enjoyed the remarkable expanding earth videos, and read and commented on Neal Adams theory elsewhere... here's my beef: First of all this video answers neither of objections I stated above. In addition, Adams' physics and math are screwed up. The ocean floor, comprising nearly 3/4 of the surface area of the planet, though thinner, is made of heavier rock [predominantly basalt] than the continents [mostly granitic]. Adams does not account for the denser aesthenosphere and mantle rock beneath the crust which, because of the same isostasy he depicts in the video, is going to be slightly more concentrated toward the "oceanic side" of the Pangaea earth. This, plus the heavier oceanic crust nicely counterbalance the lighter floating continental masses on the opposite side. Even if the barycenter of the earth is shifted somehow, which I disagree with Adams' depiction of same, there is no proof that this would disable the continental drift theory. I am reasonably content [though not absolutely] with "subduction", the seismic evidence is very good and clear. But silt deposits in subduction zones are a straw man... why would there be significant deposits if the material there is subducting? It would just be conveyed/incorporated into the lower aesthenosphere and mantle. The evidence is good for continental drift and seafloor spreading... there is no indication of major size inflation of the earth, certainly not enough to support the radical expansion required to affirm Adams videos... and no credible explanation for the arrival of oceans of water from who knows where during the process... the gravitational anomalies mentioned elsewhere as regarding the size of prehistoric animals are poorly founded, but even if possible, still do not correspond to the huge inflation needed by the expanding earth hypothesis. Finally, this video depicts Adams' assumption that the continents were centered on the equator. There is no reason for this whatsoever. Climate worldwide was tropical/subtropical during most of "prehistory", with good support that this was due to the lower albedo of a greenhouse type atmosphere. Because of this, the early earth's warm climate conditions left fossilized worldwide need not be attributed to equatorial placement. For the reasons I stated above, this is not a problem anyway.
Lloyd
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
seasmith said: So now do you think that Earth is done growing, or, as per the view of the David Pratt paper...
* TB plasma cosmology theory says the Earth, like Venus and other bodies, formed by ejection from Saturn, or possibly Jupiter etc. I think it's a different electrical process from how stars and galaxies form from plasma guns. Galaxies form from quasars and quasars form in the nuclei of active galaxies where the plasma guns exist. Quasars start out nearly massless, highly ionized, and with very high velocity, then gain mass and lose velocity. Stars form apparently in planetary nebulae in a similar way to quasars. So stars probably start out small, nearly massless, and at high velocity probably with high ionization. TB theory says they form in galaxy-scale z-pinches. But, just as quasars can form as several smaller bodies, rather than single larger quasars, and these smaller bodies become small galaxies, stars may sometimes form into several smaller bodies as well, such as planets, maybe gas giants. * If gas giants can produce solid planets in a way similar to how stars and galaxies form, then it seems likely that these solid planets would start out small and massless and grow to a maximum size. Galaxies and stars don't seem to keep growing forever, but reach a maximum and then maintain the same mass and volume thereafter indefinitely. If our local planets and moons started out in this way, then it seems likely that they have largely reached their maximum growth, because none seem highly ionized compared to their parent, Saturn. Quasars gain mass apparently by Marklund convection, which is like lightning, which scours the local space of much of its matter concentrating it all at a center, i.e. in the body of the quasar. This seems to be how stars gain mass too. So perhaps it's also how planets gain mass (and volume). * I didn't read a lot of the David Pratt paper. The part you quoted doesn't seem to be part of the Shock Dynamics theory. Pratt's material was used as evidence against conventional plate tectonics.
webolife said: the Pacific Basin itself is [possibly] a classic hexagonal crater; also the Gulf of Mexico is a prime candidate for continental-drift-starting impact(s)
* Re the Pacific Basin, I've also theorized that the continents are fulgamites, which are raised electrically like mesas and like Olympus Mons on Mars. That would mean the seafloors are what was not raised up. It may be that only the cratons within continents are fulgamites, rather than the whole continents. Anyway, I think we'll have more definite answers within a few years. * Re the Yucatan impact as a spreading center, I guess the Shock Dynamics video doesn't show that, does it? I forget.
allynh said: Pangea as a starting point doesn't work and any discussion of subduction has to explain why there is no mountain of muck and silt along the subduction zone
* Re why you can't start with Pangea, did you see the Shock Dynamics video, which showed how the Somali Basin impact would have started with a supercontinent? * Re subduction zones, Shock Dynamics doesn't need or accept subduction as the cause of seafloor spreading.
* webolife last said: 1. I am reasonably content [though not absolutely] with "subduction", the seismic evidence is very good and clear. and 2. there is no indication of major size inflation of the earth and 3. and no credible explanation for the arrival of oceans of water from who knows where during the process and 4. Climate worldwide was tropical/subtropical during most of "prehistory", with good support that this was due to the lower albedo of a greenhouse type atmosphere.
* 1. This seems to cover everything said about subduction on the newgeology.us site: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anewgeology.~. But this page http://www.newgeology.us/presentation10.html seems to explain the matter better with images including this one http://www.newgeology.us/WavStop.jpg and this quote: A crustal wave (red line) from the low angle impact was launched in the direction of travel of the meteorite, and "froze" in the end to form an inclined trench. In other words, the trenches or "subduction zones" are a result of the continents' motions and not the cause of their motions. * 2. I'm not very sure yet about expansion. * 3. Apparently you don't know Talbott and TB friends' theory, based on mythology, plasma cosmology and some geology, that most of the water of the present oceans was held in the plasma column that extended from Earth's north pole to Saturn until the Saturn configuration was disrupted about 5 thousand years ago by Jupiter. So the ocean basins were largely empty until then, which was the time of the Great Flood. This is evidenced by the canyons on the continental shelves and some seamounts, which extend from the shelves all the way to the seafloor. These canyons were probably carved by electrical discharges, but, even if they were formed by flowing water, we know that probably neither flowing water nor megalightning can form canyons under water. Thus, the ocean basins were largely empty. * 4. The idea of a greenhouse atmosphere comes from the discovery in the 60s I think that Venus is extremely hot, like over 700 degrees F, whereas scientists at the time expected it to be cold, because the thick atmosphere should prevent sunlight from penetrating very far. As usual, they jumped to the wrong conclusion. They didn't consider the possibility that Venus is a young planet, which has not yet cooled down from its initial molten state. They ignored Velikovsky's prior claim that Venus was incandescent in historical times and was a new-born planet, though he thought it was born from Jupiter. The reason Earth's entire climate was warm up to about 5 thousand years ago is because Earth was in the protected extended atmosphere of Saturn, which was a brown dwarf star. So the climates of Mars and Saturn's moons and our Moon, which probably came from Saturn, were also warm at that time. So says TB theory.
allynh
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
webolife wrote: I am reasonably content [though not absolutely] with "subduction", the seismic evidence is very good and clear. But silt deposits in subduction zones are a straw man... why would there be significant deposits if the material there is subducting? It would just be conveyed/incorporated into the lower aesthenosphere and mantle.
You have to remember, that the sea bottom is loose silt and muck, sometimes thousands of feet deep. There is no physical mechanism to pull that muck and silt into the crust along with any crust being subducted.
- The Wikipedia entry has a nice graphic; look at the full resolution and you will see what I mean.
Think in terms of a bulldozer blade moving along a construction site. The bite of the blade is shallow, but fills up quickly. The upper blade of the crust would be constantly scrapping sediments off the subducting crust with nowhere for the silt and muck to go. With the type of motion claimed by plate tectonics--with thousands of miles of sediment scrapped off, over 65 million years--every subduction zone would be buried under a large mass of sediment. There is no evidence of the sediment generated by that much subduction.
- I invite you to look at any construction site and you will be amazed at how quickly the dozer blade fills after only a shallow cut and such a short distance.
The other critical point, is that no part of the ocean floor is older than 70M years. If Pangea existed, then there should be older areas of the ocean floor.
I will be the first to admit that I have no clue how the Earth either expanded or grew, how the oceans filled as the continents pulled apart, but the science for over fifty years supports the Earth expanding/growing better than it does subduction. The only reason people have run screaming from the concept is the implication that what seems like a stable planet is really not.
As I said in a previous post:
- A Growing Earth, as shown by the Neal Adams videos, would continue to grow as energy is added. Think of the damage this can cause. Buildings are designed to stand up under a 1G field. If the planet keeps growing, look out, buildings will come down; plus, forget about ever losing weight.
- An Expanding Earth, as Herndon shows would be at the end of its expansion but subject to catastrophic crust melting the way NOVA describes happens in Venus Unveiled. When you read the transcript you will see that the debate was over uniformitarianism versus catastrophism. Basically, once the expansion stops, the heat builds up and melts the crust catastrophically because there is no convection to cool the system. Yikes!
Either description of the Earth; hollow and still growing, or solid and building up heat, is scary as hell. I love it!
As always, read the links and make up your own mind.
dahlenaz
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Lloyd wrote:
* There were obviously lots of "impacts" besides the Somali Basin one, but it seems that was the first one and the biggest one.
If the mechanics of an impact, which they apply, is not dependent on characteristics, such as water chambers of the hydroplate version, then wouldn't a common outcome result with some adjustments for planet size, realizing that a rupture would cause a dramatic increase to the basalt surface material?
Lloyd wrote: * This webpage http://www.newgeology.us/presentation20.html says the mid Atlantic ridge is under compression, i.e. the adjoining plates are pushing toward each other, rather than pulling apart.
I would expect those areas to be under compression, regardless of which theory is applied, simply because of the need to acheive equalibrium between the internal pressure of the earth and the mass resting on it. Large amounts of mass are added during the fracture event and then what follows should be the sinking of surface structures, against their physical bountries, to take up the space vacated by interior materials. The amntle is often drawn as a solid mass but has that really been validated. If the chicken is before the egg or after, the same physical reality should apply, material removed results in lateral forces against plate boundaries and that should amount to compression where the crust is thinner, the atlantic basin. Or so i'd expect. But asside from that is the upward buckling that should occur when the crust is shifted.
Returning to another point, so far i could not find any mention of consideration why Iceland is the only massive volcanic island, staddling with an outflow distribute to either side, along the entire rift system. This is no small detail, i can't imagine it being left out of their explanation.
I'd like to get back to the pacific seamounts because we have a potential timepiece in them, but first, what lies below them needs attention. That being, the covering of continental material by basalt, to sandwich it between basalt. A chain of events is described in the Hydroplate presentation . The necesity here is to look at the characteristics of the Atlantic basin and then consider why it is just basalt, while the pacific is continental material sandwiched by basalt. If the continents slid on only the magma, the exposed basalt of the Atlantic is understandable and could still agree with the Hydroplates explanation of the Pacific subsidence which is said to have caused it to be covered with basalt and form the high consentration of seamounts. Here is where i get the impression that Shock dynamic is a dehidrated version of the hydroplate theory yet i wonder how they are answering the detailed explanation of what will happen to the mantle when the weight of the continents is slid to another location exposing the basalt. The folding upward of the exposed sublayer is the 'primary' mechanism for plate movement in HP theory, without that folding there would be no acceleration, just slight movement. Has anyone come across Sk-dnmcs handling of this consequence? Without the weight of the continents it is said that the upward bulging has an effect on the pacific causing subsidence. I have a bit of a problem with this but this doesn't reduce the puzzle of the sandwiched pacific. There are so many more details to include. I just got the 8th edition of Dr.Browns book and more details have been added. His material is presented in a way that is detailed if you read throught it thoroughly, if you don't much is missed.
We need to be clear on something, this event happened within the last 10,000 years or even more recently. If either of the challenging theories is talking about anything differently then they are missing the historical component associated to this reconstruction. Isn't that what this whole discussion is about, the recent catastrophic events which formed the legends passed down through time? d...z
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
I appreciate and am familiar with all of the above stated objections to Pangaea theory. I simply disagree. The water column to Saturn makes no sense in light of the requirements for life on earth. The time scales for ocean age play only a minor part in my understanding of earth history since I am also a catastrophist, and strongly dispute radiometric dating. The muck and mire on the ocean floors today makes no difference to my Pangaea outlook, since I would allege that continental drift is no longer happening, except perhaps at a fingernail growth's pace.
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Posted my previous reply before reading DZ's nice synopsis. Good points.
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Contrary to what was stated above, the ocean bottom is not "silt and muck sometimes thousands of feet deep."
When the deep sea submersibles explored the mid-ocean ridge (supposedly as old as a few hundreds of million years, since that's where Pangea is supposed to have broken apart), they were shocked to find little in the way of terrigenous or pelagic sediments. Instead, they found sand or bedrock with a thin coating of muck.
The submersible explorations confirmed several past observations:
1. How do mountain ranges form if there is no compression of continents? No folding or uplift would be expected on a globe that has no points of contraction. The Expanding Earth theory states that the crust of the planet thins at certain points when the Earth expands, allowing the mantle material to balloon upward where it cools, forming a gravity slope. The elevated crustal blocks crack and slowly slide down, forming mountains and other structures that are said to originate due to tectonic folding and uplift. However, no mechanism to explain such phase changes in the mantle material has been forthcoming.
2. The Earth's crust is presumed to have been continental silica-alumina (sial) with ocean bottom crust only forming later as Pangaea began to crack apart 200 million years ago. No reason is given for why there was so much time needed for the process to begin. Nor is a source identified for the required energy.
3. The theoretical increase in expansion speed to 8 millimeters per year over the last 200 million years remains unexplained. It also corresponds to the margin of error in the calculations. No proof for continental movement has ever been provided, because the so-called "spreading" cannot be measured beyond the noise floor of the instrumentation.
Although the number of published objections to Earth expansion is not as great, their fatal nature is by no means diminished. In order for Carey's theory to work, it was necessary for him (and the Plate Tectonics school, as well) to add new processes and invent arcane energies that remain unclear.
I don't discount the electrodynamic influences of electrified plasma when it encounters a charged body. Since electricity acts in counter-intuitive ways, it can create forms and affect environments in ways that aren't easy to comprehend.
First, and most important, electricity is a "pull" phenomenon. Rather than impact from an ion beam causing explosive or evaporative effects, it is the return stroke back to the leader that causes most of the shock dynamics. Craters were not punched into the Earth, the missing material was yanked out of it.
A traveling subterranean discharge through conductive strata might cause explosive trenching — the Grand Canyon is often used to illustrate that effect — however, the primary force is chaining of multiple "pull" events. In other words, the Grand Canyon was formed through repeated circular plugs of material being drawn upward along the secondary discharge pathway into space.
Looking at the Grand Canyon in 3D shows how it conforms to what would be expected in electric discharge machining. It has vertical sidewalls with scalloped edges. It exhibits periodicity throughout its length. It has a narrow center channel surrounded by a wider, flat-floored canyon. It brachiates in ways that defy conventional theories of tributaries emptying into it by flowing over the sides.
When a Lichtenberg-shaped formation is seen (as they are on every celestial body in the Solar System), it is important to remember that it didn't begin at the widest point and then diverge into the smaller channels, it started in the smaller channels and then coalesced into the large one.
When an electrical leader approaches the ground, it draws the oppositely charged ions in the strata towards it until the two flux potentials meet and complete the circuit. At that point, the electric force rushes out of the ground and up to the oppositely charged step leader. Because the ions are within the rock, they pull the rock along with them — tearing it to pieces and dividing it into almost atomic-sized dust particles. It doesn't matter what the minerals are.
An excellent illustration of this effect are the "rays" surrounding circular formations on the Moon, such as Tycho. They aren't caused by explosive "push" effects, but are where the material in the lunar regolith rushed toward the center of the discharge and then out to space. Circular formations (previously known as craters) are actually output sites and not input.
The amazing "dendritic ridges" seen on the sides of chasms and circular formations on Mars are not what they look like. They didn't electrically flow down the sides and solidify into the embossed formations, they flowed UP the sidewalls. They brachiate upward and not downward. It is from the rims of the crater-chain canyons with the scalloped edges that the electric arcs shot into space.
In my view, the ocean bottoms were excavated by whatever object (or cloud of electrified plasma) approached Earth closely enough to initiate the upward discharges. The mid-ocean ridge is a classic example of the narrow center channel, uplifted into a dual-ridge structure, surrounded by a wide, flat-floored canyon. In this case the "canyon" is the width of the ocean basins.
All one has to do is spend the time reviewing the forms on the bottom of the ocean and notice that the mid-ocean ridge is highlighted by perpendicular "cracks" along its entire length. They were formed when the ions to the sides of the primary trackway were pulled into its outflow upward to space. The periodic nature of the transverse "cracks" is one clue to their formation.
seasmith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Lloyd wrote: "solid planets would start out small and massless and grow to a maximum size…If our local planets and moons started out in this way, then it seems likely that they have largely reached their maximum growth …
Growth in this discussion of continents dividing, would entail not just size, but evolution of structure and form as well. I think that our planet is still very much in a dynamic state; and like the sun, it heaves and pulses, tho due to its exoskeletal nature, it does so in a lumpier manner. Considering the continual impingement upon the orb (with its enveloping/layered mantle of atmospheres) , of 'space dust', ions, particles, waves, radiations and "stuff"; it seems reasonable to assume a gradual increase in something akin to mass.
As to your mentioned origins of the planets, and how those origins are related to the present states of the planets, I think that discussion remains wiiide open. ~
allynh
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Steve Smith wrote: Contrary to what was stated above, the ocean bottom is not "silt and muck sometimes thousands of feet deep."
When the deep sea submersibles explored the mid-ocean ridge (supposedly as old as a few hundreds of million years, since that's where Pangea is supposed to have broken apart), they were shocked to find little in the way of terrigenous or pelagic sediments. Instead, they found sand or bedrock with a thin coating of muck.
The submersible explorations confirmed several past observations:
That's strange, then how do labs all over the world have deep core samples from the ocean floor. Those core samples are up to thousands of feet long, and are soft enough to cut with a knife.
Even in the link you have, the second paragraph mentions long core samples, and that was from 1949.
In 1949, Professor Hans Pettersson led the first Swedish deep-sea expedition on board The Albatross. Equipped with instruments equivalent to any university's laboratory, Pettersson and his crew extracted long cores of ocean sediments and examined their contents. What they found contradicted the theoretical assumptions of meteoric nickel drifting to Earth.
That was sixty years ago, they have made extensive long core samples in that time. Why would you focus on a quote made over sixty years ago when the physical sciences have jumped forward leaps and bounds in exploring the Earth. Sure, the scientists today may be misinterpreting the evidence, but that sample taking has been done, and is real.
If you want to argue your point about long core samples at least find out what current physical evidence you can access. Watch any NOVA program discussing core samples and they show shelf after shelf of long cores in storage, so the evidence is out there.
Steve Smith wrote: 1. How do mountain ranges form if there is no compression of continents? No folding or uplift would be expected on a globe that has no points of contraction. The Expanding Earth theory states that the crust of the planet thins at certain points when the Earth expands, allowing the mantle material to balloon upward where it cools, forming a gravity slope. The elevated crustal blocks crack and slowly slide down, forming mountains and other structures that are said to originate due to tectonic folding and uplift. However, no mechanism to explain such phase changes in the mantle material has been forthcoming.
Here is a great video of how mountains form. If you check the videos on the Neal Adams site you will have a better idea about Growing Earth Theory.
As I mentioned in the Are the planets growing? thread, nothing in expanding or growing Earth theory conflicts with what you are saying about the way plasma can cut and shape the planets, except for the scale. It's obvious that both are occurring, all powered by the energy coming in from space. It's just that sculpting by plasma does not explain the physical, geological and fossil, evidence for Earth being smaller in the past.
They didn't just arbitrarily place Australia between Asia and North America. They did it because the rock and fossil evidence of Australia match Asia and North America. There is no way that could be possible if Australia has always been where it is toady. That's why Carey and the rest came up with the theory in the first place, over fifty years ago. They were faced with a mountain of evidence, and the one scary conclusion stared them in the face: the Earth was smaller in the past. Everybody blinked and only accepted part of the theory, and thus Plate Tectonics was born; by throwing out evidence that they did not want to be real.
- I am open to any theory that explains the facts better than existing theories; all of the facts.
I have always seen Plate Tectonics as false because of the simple question: Where are the sediments at the subduction zones. If there are no large deposits of sediments covering the subduction zones, then Plate Tectonics fails. Any theory that has the same size Earth and yet has the continents separate without dealing with, the very real, sediments is not valid.
Plasma sculpting is a beautiful explanation for many features on the Earth. I live in New Mexico and can see the evidence all around me, but it does not explain how Australia can match the geology of Asian and North America. That one inescapable fact shows that the Earth was once smaller and either grew or expanded to the current size.
I'm the first to admit that I don't know if any of this stuff is real. It just seems to fit the evidence better than existing theories. I'm simply asking, that we need to take what is real and interpret it better than existing theories. To do that we cannot throw out actual physical evidence simply because it doesn't fit some new theory.
As always, check the links and make up your own mind.
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
The mountaingrowing video from Adams is not convincing. Anyone can animate anything. You just leave out the ideas you don't want and exaggerate the ones you do. Why should there be all these supposed sediments over subduction zones? And exactly where are those cores coming from? Are they sampling offshore basins of turbidity currents from continental runoff? How does this fit with your alleged requirement regarding planet expansion? What about seismic data confirming the downward sloping seafloor below "leading continent edges?" I have seen nothing convincing in any video showing the expanding earth that can't also be explained in the standard continental drift scenario, and in a less "scary" way. On second thought, my own view regarding the continents is that they reached their current locations in a geologically very short period of time, a matter of thousands of years ago.... that's scary enough, I guess. Question: Do you believe that the core of the earth is hollow? If so, there is a huge amount of explaining to do about the nature of the mantle, and how conditions on such an earth could be suitable for life...
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Now the terminology has changed. Deep ocean core samples are not "silt and muck."
silt: earthy matter, fine sand, or the like carried by moving or running water and deposited as a sediment.
muck: 1. moist farmyard dung, decaying vegetable matter, etc.; manure. 2. a highly organic, dark or black soil, less than 50 percent combustible, often used as a manure. 3. mire; mud. 4. filth, dirt, or slime.
The seafloor cores contain almost anything one can imagine, but they are rock at the mid-ocean ridge. They do show some layers of silty sediments but that is because the seafloor is composed of fallback material from the electrical sculpting events.
Do you know why these "theories" of planetary expansion and sliding tectonic plates were invented? Because they know nothing about electricity.
Neal Adams is a cartoonist who happened to see continental fit just like I did when I was ten years old. And as Web states, anyone can animate anything and he has lots of practice. His animations of Europa were disingenuous at best as I pointed out.
I find it interesting that you focus on only one objection. It's fun to play with ideas and I don't mind irrational theories, but there has to be a modicum of common sense involved. I think more intensive research is necessary and not NOVA programs or the animations of a cartoonist.
