Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 115
view profile
History
the earth is growingPage 3 of 29    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)

Ignoring the oceans.... when you put all the great landmasses together, and shrink the planet down until they (and they do) form a perfect solid sphere as if the first crust of the earth had cooled for the first time, it's estimated that solid sphere would be about the size of mars.... about half the diameter it is now.

WTF? Where do you suggest the water went? That makes about as much sense as saying "If you hide half the planet, it will be smaller"
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 116
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/29/2008 8:06:52 AM
^^^

Well... he *might* assume that water doesn't follow the same rules, and doesn't expand the same way that rock does. (I have yet to see him propose a MECHANISM for this... let alone that particular contradiction... ) In that case, there were no continents at all originally - everything was covered by water. It was only when the crust started expanding that we got oceans separated by land.

I don't believe this happened - it's just something it sounds like he's say.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 118
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/29/2008 10:44:41 AM

it's going to fall and chances are it will hurt.


Oh heck, now you're bringing the laws of physiology into it, too.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 120
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/30/2008 10:35:18 PM

Solutions to these questions would advance your conjecture greatly.


... or deepen his psychosis...
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 122
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 10/31/2008 10:10:40 AM

so go on, the earth is obviously flat... ignore tell tell signs like the shadow on the moon being round.


That's the most telling argument you've made. It's been known that the Earth is round since at LEAST the time of the Greeks. Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of the earth within a few percent in about 250-200 B.C. Cristóbal Colón knew the Earth was round, and so did any sailor of the day.

My point being that "everyone believed the Earth was flat" is another myth. Don't get me wrong, there are people who believe the Earth is flat to this day, but there are delusional idiots in every era. Getting back on-point, you seem to attach yourself to convenient myths, including that the Earth is growing.

"It feels right to me" is not an argument for a logical discussion, especially one centered on competing scientific theories. There's very little evidence to support the "Growing Earth" hypothesis, and only if you ignore all the seismic and geologic evidence that supports Plate Tectonics. You can't just throw away 99% of the existent evidence because you "feel" one hypothesis is correct. The only real "evidence" is that the continents fit together, roughly... which is also explained by Plate Tectonics. e.g. http://www.sio.ucsd.edu/voyager/earth_puzzle/

Take the Hawaiian Islands as an example of evidence that you just have to throw away to make the "Growing Earth" hypothesis work:

It's well-established that the Hawaiian Islands exist because the Pacific plate is moving northwest at 5-10 cm/year over a "hot spot" in the mantle beneath. This drives volcanic activity, which creates new islands every ten to hundred thousand years or so. Once the plate moves further from the hot spot, the older islands gradually erode away. If you look at a map of the Pacific, you can clearly see the progression. Here's a useful link on that topic: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

One of many. This argument is tiresome and old. The only people who believe it are those who want the Earth itself to be some sort of living organism, which it is not. It is a giant, mostly-molten, ball of really hot rock and metal. We live on a very, very thin crust of cooled rock on the outside of this big ball. Which is great, trust me, I like being alive, and I like having living things all around me. The Earth itself is a big not-alive melty rock. If and when we move to another planet, we'll be on the outside of another big not-alive (less melty, probably, but still melty) rock. Oh, and the people who proposed the Growing Earth hypothesis also held out for a long, long time... but the evidence was OVERWHELMINGLY in support of Plate Tectonics.

Incidentally, your Borehole topic also supports Plate Tectonics... pressure and temperature increase as you go in, just as predicted by the Plate Tectonics model. Growing Earth requires either spontaneous creation of new mass in the core of the Earth, (which is crazy, since some of the heat keeping it molten comes from DESTRUCTION of mass in radioactive decay and the amount of energy required to create as much mass as you would need is on the order of the output of all the stars in the GALAXY) or the Earth to be hollow. Hot, high-pressure, melting rocks don't exactly support a geode-like state... it would be like building a bridge from non-drying clay. A giant bridge across the Pacific.

It's just the way it is, and no amount of "feeling" will make it different. Now, if you have any real science to present, I'd be glad to look at it and discuss it. Note this does not include further computer-generated time-morphs... any idiot can use morphing software to make pretty much any transition look reasonable. Until then, I'm so done with this annoying, pseudo-scientific, beat-to-death-horse of a topic. http://forums.beyondunreal.com/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 128
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/5/2008 11:06:02 AM

I never cease to be astonished by the crap that some people will believe, not so much in spite of it being flakey as because of it!
I'll bet that if I made up some completely random nonsense (the more ridiculous the better) and started a thread about it, there would be people all over the world believing every word of it within a week!

It worked for L Ron Hubbard....
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 130
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/6/2008 11:57:01 PM

Growing earth is a new theory with a small following, even some very credible sources are emerging to say the possibility needs looking into.

Uhhhh, Growing Earth predates Plate Tectonics. I'd look into the history of a supposedly "new" idea. It's been fully and completely discredited because there was no real evidence for the theory. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory (Lots and lots of good, solid PRIMARY data sources. Read a few. Seriously.)


modern day ocean mapping certainly doesn't support it.

If you're going to post something as definitive as this statement, provide some primary source for the claim. If it's true, it's out there, right? All you have to do is link to it for us. Easy-peasy.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6520/

Also, you should READ the supposed evidence you post. It is ALL supposition and hypothesis, with no scientific content whatsoever. It also stated the earth is growing 21 mm/year in radius. We could easily detect this systematic increase with current measurement equipment. And yet nobody has measured any such thing. Weird, huh? (See the Wiki link above for primary data sources on the LACK of expansion of the Earth.)


I've looked at this subject on other forums, and it's often brought up in the science section only to be moved to 'off topic', 'pseudoscience' or 'nonscience' sections. Sometimes well established science sites that even suggest the idea get blasted by hate mail until it's removed. Why this theory causes so much controversy is very interesting!

That's also part of the reason it generates so much controversy: it's based on a complete LACK of evidence. Anyone with any background knowledge in any related field knows it is complete hogwash, and says so. The people who support this OLD, discredited theory then pipe up and defend it regardless of any offered evidence to the contrary, because it FEELS right to them.

Booooooring. And stupid, all at the same time. How exciting!

As has been proposed to you many times in this very thread, you should educate yourself in the field, and THEN if you think you've got some real evidence to present, get yourself famous, dude! You could be like the next Einstein, if you can pull off PROVING this piece of garbage. (and if you can, I'll gladly stand up and admit I was wrong. Go for it!)
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 131
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 11/7/2008 7:57:17 AM
Okay, so Google took me to this page, based on your pasted paragraph:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html

However, there is no primary source reference on that page. The discussion states that Owens' work was incomplete due to a lack of ocean floor mapping, and that this info "will now be used to quantify" Global Expansion Tectonics.


These reconstructions of continents on small Earth models outlined above all suffer from a lack of precise cartographic methods, and quantitative constraint of both palaeoradius and time. Only Owen used a careful, quantitative, non-computerised cartographic method to generate his models, however, even Owen's method predates modern oceanic mapping which, if available, would have permitted him to possibly explore much smaller Earth radii.

and


With the completion of modern bathymetric and oceanic magnetic isochron mapping, the technology and global database is now such that the problem of constraining both palaeoradius and plate configuration with time can now be addressed and accurately quantified. This published oceanic database will now be used to quantify the introduction of Global Expansion Tectonics as a viable alternative global tectonic concept.


Here's a nice, easy-to-read page that simplifies and provides graphics for several of the supposed GET complaints about Plate Tectonics, including the India-Tethys Sea/Asia subduction/impact event that gives rise to the Himilayas:

http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/tectonic.htm
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 136
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/21/2009 6:18:46 PM
Expansion theory doesn't explain subduction zones. If it can't explain something so well-characterized and modeled, how can you expect anyone with any understanding of how scientific theories WORK to accept it in any way?

It's like a theory of stellar evolution that doesn't account for helium production. What is the point?

Edit: And that Prime Matter video is a joke, right? It's not intended to be serious, is it?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 137
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/21/2009 6:28:39 PM
but all planets is found in pair production. Personally... I refrain from commenting on that theory as I am not a nuclear physicist and am to ignorant to understand how pair production works

Natch. So it's not actually supported by the evidence, but you're willing to believe because it's simplistic and "sexy" and you don't actually have to understand it to think it's plausible. Argumentum ad ignorantium.


In short he says that the question of how the earth increases in mass is speculative at best.

Meaning the claims are not supported by the evidence, and tend to be contradicted by it.


it's not being taken very seriously. If there where ways to test for the actual cause of growth expansionist reports are proving... I would love to hear them.

They've been tested and refuted. Lateral movements of tectonic plates are measured to be many times the reputed "expansion" rates, and the expansion and mechanism for it have not been demonstrated. I'd like to see them first prove an actual average overall expansion, and then see them explain it with resorting to appeals to undemonstrated mechanisms not known to exist.


if we went back 250,000 million years... your saying the atmosphere wasn't way different than it is to day?

I'd be saying the Earth didn't exist...the sun didn't exist...the universe as we know it didn't exist. Math keeps refuting your arguments.


easily explaining WHY we don't understand how those monsters could support their body weight, or even hold their heads up.

We understand quite well. The old assumptions were wrong, and it's been a while since we made the faulty assumptions of these modes of life.


it's the biggest of natural satellites that we know of...

Not even close. Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, and Io are all larger, and this is not news.


it was deleted because like so many other forum moderators... the subject of growing earth was so ridicules to them, they didn't even want it on the forum

It's pseudoscience. It's not supported by evidence, and the claimants rarely argue rationally. It's likely such threads were redundant and/or voted off by the viewers.

You consistantly misspell "ridiculous". Why would we think you have any understanding of ths science involved if you can't spell common non-scientific words? This isn't meant to be an attack on your spelling [I've seen much worse] - it's intended to be a relevant point regarding the discussion and argumentation of scientific concepts.


Before you get into the math of debunking James Maxlow... I strongly suggest you give his theory a chance and read it over. His theory is pretty clear about how the earth expands, and that rate of expansion is increasing

Except for the "evidence" and "mechanisms" parts. Science does not work by entertaining debunked concepts. Arguing for things which are demonstrably false or which are at least unsupported, is not science.


His theory is pretty clear about how the earth expands,

Except for the evidence or mechanisms. He's got nothing which isn't already explained by and consistent with known phenomena.


What does it mean for humans living on earth

Nothing. Even if this were more than fancy, we'd be long-extinct.
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 140
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/22/2009 7:17:07 PM
Cosmologists have long struggled to avoid this bad dream by looking for explanations of the universe that avoided a beginning Apparently Einstein refused to believe the implications of his own equations ... that the universe is expanding and must have had a beginning ... i believe that science will move ever closer to the moment of creation .. there is greater simplicity in this... apparently things in physics become simpler as we near the moment of creation. Philosophically it boils down to that God had no choice in how the universe would be and therefore need not exist ? Or that God was very smart and got it just right ? To quote from "Wrinkles in Time "... 'There is a clear order to the evolution of the Universe, moving from simplicity and symmetry to greater complexity and structure ."
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 143
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/22/2009 7:32:32 PM
Yes apparently initially Einstein refused to believe the implications etc . ... I should have said that . Fred Hoyle "Frontiers of Astronomy" ....'It is a suspiciuos feature of the big bang theory that no obvious relics of a superdense state of the universe can be found '. I am a beginner in the sense that I was not allowed to study these fields but I can suppose things , I can think my own hypotheses . I therefore do not need to read any book , let alone a new one ... However if you have one to suggest to put me on a different path it would be welcome ... all knowledge is food for my brain . I may even agree with you someday .. who knows ?
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 146
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/22/2009 7:46:42 PM
Well then .. you provide me with better fodder for thought as it seems I am , according to you , on the wrong path . No it is not 'faith' in the way you use the word ... some limp wristed concept I want to believe in . Give me credit . Let's just pretend you never said that . And now YOU tell me your theories and why they are 'superior' . is it ? .. to my searchings for truth.
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 149
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/22/2009 8:53:24 PM
Don't equate my beliefs with some limp wristed concept you call 'Faith' ...hmmm , with a capital 'F' ...... I have a passionate conviction in those things I believe to be true ... I am not an absolute beginner in many other fields but science was not one I was allowed to pursue .. it's a long story ... and so I join in here to learn more ...... if my source is incorrect then obviously you must be familiar with it . When is your thesis on these matters to be published ? Hopefully you will be able to enlighten me .
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 153
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/24/2009 2:17:39 PM

Asking questions is good... But first you must listen so that you CAN ask the right questions.


There's no such thing as a WRONG question... as long as the person asking is willing to listen and consider the answer.

It's the people who ask the questions, and then look for loopholes within the answers given, that I take issue with...
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 154
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/24/2009 7:11:21 PM

Why is subduction unique to earth?


The way I understand the concept, is that the abundant liquid water on this planet acts as a 'lubricant' that aids the plates in sliding over one another.


While growing earth is saying... hey look... surface spreading on other planets...


Which planets are growing? Venus? Mars? Radar images from Venus don't detect anything LIKE the mid-ocean ridges, which would be critical for expansion upwellings...


They are starting to find planets near their stars in other solar system... when I say closer... I'm talking 1/8th the distance mercury is from our own sun. Hey... did you happen to catch the size of those planets? Where talking the size of Jupiter and bigger.


That doesn't mean that these exo-planets began in those orbits and grew. It's also plausible that those are recently-formed systems, and the planet is SHEDDING mass due to the stellar wind. In a million years' time, they may be as tiny as Mercury.


On a final note... I've never seen a full scale model of the earth and plate tectonic movements... I'm sure someone out there has created one, and I would love to see it if you could please link it... anyone?


http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/ofr-99-0132/

And if you're really interested, take a trip to Hawaii and see subduction happening - LIVE - within the crater of the volcano.
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 156
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/25/2009 2:11:53 AM
LightStorm .. i might be able to print out a tectonic plate type map .... Problem is the computer is magic to me and haven't ever copied and pasted but then I could always give you the link ... gotta go .Watch this space orI'll contact you about it . Cheers .... you have a sense of humour .. such agood thing and such a change .
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 158
view profile
History
the earth is growing?
Posted: 8/25/2009 10:43:33 AM
I found a couple looking around on you tube for them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dINrKjuX6DA&feature=related

The one above is pretty good

This next one however.... This is what Tectonic believes say is valid and true and nod their heads in agreement with?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ah3HK9SKo&feature=related

You realize the second one is running backwards, right? Actually, if you watch the first one, you can see the Indian plate move up along the far right of the globe, the same as the second clip, but the opposite direction. I'm sure it's also a little confusing that the clip includes a LOT of land surface information like erosion, sea level, rift valley expansion of Africa, etc...

Critical analysis is a lot more than head-nodding, and a lot more than "belief." You'll note that I was able to deduce within seconds that the clip was running in reverse. Nice try sliding in a slap at "Tectonic believers."


Oh, and Light? Earlier, I was saying that a model for crustal mechanics that doesn't explain subduction IS LIKE a model for the sun that doesn't explain helium production. You understand similes, yes? Meaning, of course, they would both be, and are, worthless. Scientific theories are tossed in the dustbin when it is clearly shown they don't include/explain a significant part of the process they are alleged to model. Just like if Sign could actually cough up something significant, WITH PROOF, that isn't explained by the ToE in that other thread.
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 159
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/26/2009 2:49:03 AM
I'm still lost as to what I should read to get me informed more and up to date .. apparently 'Wrinkles in Time' was not the ticket but as I live in a little insular town , I doubt I'll find a book that meets my needs ... maybe the Library , Icould ask the librarian to get a book in for me ... BUT what book ? Can anybody help me ?
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 160
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/26/2009 5:42:23 AM
Light_Storm...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo&feature=channel_page <-- Europa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d44Jj_3gp-M&feature=related <-- Mars with color based on age of land
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBT8KyWVxj8&feature=related <-- Moon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fsg1XJTbKA&feature=related <--- Ganymede
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeUEzM7hsmY <--- Mars


I watched a couple of those videos. While an interesting slant on things, I didn't hear him propose a *mechanism* by which this expansion would take place. Has he figured out a HOW for the expansion...?

(Oh, and I tried to go to the link provided with the videos... it doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps he's given up...? )
 Bill Chill
Joined: 6/27/2009
Msg: 162
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/26/2009 9:15:28 AM
"Lister to this 'Stargazer' dude, his facts ACTUALLY check out (100% accurately). Yeah, so the Earth's moon is the 5th largest natural satellite in the solar system. Ganymede & Titan (which are larger than Mercury), then Callisto, Io, then our Moon. I found a helpful photo because I like proof! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Relative_satellite_sizes.jpg

And as far as the original post of the Earth growing.... Is that even supposed to be serious??...Ridiculous!! I guess people just assume that the theorized Pangaea supercontinent was the oceanless surface of the planet, instead of a CONTINENT surrounded by an ocean (the vast Panthalassic Ocean). I bet the person who first came up with this theroy also beleives the earth was formed in 7 days a couple thousand years ago by a sprit!

...Not even going to get into Tectonic Plate Theroy (Crust 'floating' on fluid Mantle) to answer the original poster's doubt that the continent could break apart.

...And I didn't read the posts about some giant lizard, whose large size couldn't hold its own head up... but if it was so large, it would have had larger bones, muscles, and tendons. After all, how big could it have really been? Seeing as how the largest known creature ever (dinos included) is the massive Blue Whale.

Wow, sorry for babbling on like that..."
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 164
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/26/2009 11:04:05 AM
Storm...

Until he can demonstrate this Prime Matter, the theory is just wishful thinking.

I wonder how he explains the uplift-quake that caused the 2004 tsunami - undersea imagery shows that one side of the fault has jumped up several tens of meters... rather clearly indicating that one plate is dropping beneath the other.

What I found most telling about the site - as you go through the progression of links, it inevitably leads to a webstore for his comics.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 167
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/27/2009 11:19:50 AM
If Pangea supposedly formed the modern continents as a result of global expansion, how the hell did Pangea form in the first place? Or Pannotia? Is someone blowing into the magical balloon to break up Rodinia, then letting some magical air out to form Pannotia, then inflating some more, letting some out...

Thus far, their formulations appear to be roughly equivalent to 2^3=18^-3
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 169
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/28/2009 12:42:56 AM
John Cleese called his' backwards walk' part of the 'Silly Walks' dept. ... this is just off the top of my awakening brain , thank you all for putting up with it , but it really would be 'against nature ' and silly wouldn't it if things went backwards and not forwards ? It seems to my 'baby steps' mind that there is a pattern to the way life and living things and living processes go .. and it is always forwards or it wants to go forwards and in this process one hopes that human kind co operates .. I worry because I have a bit of a dim view of humanity ... we are perverse in all sorts of ways and even showing us clearly that 'this' is going to lead to a catastrophic 'that' doesn't seem to impinge on our arrogance . To really believe that we were the authors of our own existance is not logical . Something happened to change the way things were and there we were evolving ... homo sapiens sapiens [is this right ] bumbling along fighting our worse ideas for existence , rejecting the idea of harmony and we still do ... it's only by getting along together that we or the little planet we inhabit will survive . And there are an awful lot of cynical , uncreative , destructive , grandiose people amongst us .Got the flu , maybe I won't see Hitler under the bed tomorrow .
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 171
view profile
History
the earth is growing
Posted: 8/28/2009 10:07:30 AM
Re: FrogO_Oeyes

If Pangea supposedly formed the modern continents as a result of global expansion, how the hell did Pangea form in the first place? Or Pannotia? Is someone blowing into the magical balloon to break up Rodinia, then letting some magical air out to form Pannotia, then inflating some more, letting some out...

Pangea forms a perfect globe... on a much smaller planet... much better than it does a giant island in the middle of a vast ocean.

You missed my point, yet made it again for me. Go figure.

Pangea is not the only supercontinent, nor was it the first. The evidence for continental drift and the existence of previous landmasses isn't simply a case of assembling modern continents like a jigsaw puzzle. There are shared fossils, shared rock layers, magnetic minerals which would align the same way if the land masses were combined.

Okay, that's great. So where am I going with this?

Pangea can be assembled by matching rocks, fossils, and minerals of a specific age, as well as [more or less] the modern continents. Likewise, Gondwana and Laurasia can be mapped from the same continents, but using younger geology.

However, doing that, there are still many OLDER geological elements which DO NOT align. There are older marine deposits which were already part of the Pangean landmass!

So we use the exact same methods, and work back further. The result shows that Pangea formed by the joining of several SEPARATE continents which had been separated by seas and oceans. Going back further, some of those continents formed from the break-up of supercontinent Pannotia, which itself formed after the breakup of Rodinia. All of which were surrounded by oceans which left deposits, some of which remain as rocks left high and dry for hundreds of millions of years.

Was Pangea surrounded by oceans? Of course it was. The very fact that rocks which were part of Pangea include marine sediments formed BEFORE Pangea makes it fairly obvious that oceans existed long before, and that Pangea was not a simple dry little globe, but a continent assembled from pre-existing landmasses. Even Rodinia was not the first landmass, since it appears to have been formed partly from the uplift of mountains over a billion years ago. That would seem to indicate the collision of pre-existing plates, including parts of the earlier supercontinent Columbia.

The same evidence which shows that Pangea existed also shows that oceans existed and that Pangea was preceded by island-continents and the supercontinents of Pannotia, Rodinia, and Columbia. The evidence does not support an expansionist model.

Some interesting animations, though I haven't yet found the animations which include Rodinia or Pangea-ultima
http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Land/paleo.html
lots more here:
http://sos.noaa.gov/download/dataset_table.html

On the subject of sea beds...The oldest beds are at the margins of the continents, which is fairly consistently where separate plates are in contact and moving. Where they move towards one another [as they are often measured to do], the "easiest" solution is for one plate to rise and the other to subside. The oldest sea bed of one plate therefore disappears beneath the other. The oldest sea bed of the other rises.

You want old sea beds? Look on land. Try the Burgess shale or Ediacara. Both are marine deposits which FAR pre-date Pangea.

I would also suggest that any large crustal plate which starts to slide under another, is likely to continue to do so, while those which ride high will continue as well. That's not likely to change unless the movements and rifting cause them to break up, in which case a smaller plate may be more quickly obliterated. Such small plates may also form the nuclei of new plates. North America, for instance, is formed around Laurentia, which is one of the leftover bits of Rodinia, "handed down" by way of Laurussia, Pangea, and Laurasia. Accumulated around the edges of it are various pieces which were pushed up from the sea beds surrounding it, or broken off from other parts of these larger landmasses. In any case, sea floor plates, by definition are unlikely to attain great age. They are sea floors because they are low altitude. They rift because they are thinner. They subduct for both reasons. However, subduction isn't absolute, and pieces do get scraped off and uplifted, such as the Coast and Olympic Mountains of western North America. When the colliding crusts are both land masses, simple compression may be the result. Most of the Tethys Sea was compacted and lifted as the Himalaya because of this, and something nearly identical happened in arctic Canada far longer ago [I found an intriguing reference to this by accident and can't find it now].


Expansion Tectonics explains everything plate tectonics does... only it's simpler... elegant and less confusing

It should be plain to see by now that this is simply not true. At least three supercontinents pre-date Pangea, they account for less than half of Earth's history, and they are all associated with oceans. That alone refutes expansionism, though I have spelled out a number of associated problems for expansionism which are completely coherent with continental drift.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >