all continents on earth used to join on all sides

PHoNyMiKe · Post by **PHoNyMiKe** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:21 am

when the earth was smaller...

how come nobody told me about this? I was always uncomfortable thinking that pangea was just hanging out on one side of the planet.

Post by **grinvader** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:03 pm

Oh man, what a load of crock. I want a refund for the neurons that commited suicide while processing this shit.

I have nothing against doubts and alternative theories. Hell, -I- don't like the main consensus on several issues at all and follow the debates closely for any consistent proof.
But that's plain retarded. Subduction always happened. Going against clear facts is just fucking ludicrous.
His conclusion is moronic as well. There's no subduction on Mars because the tectonics stopped there (too cold). Same with Mercury and Venus (too hot). The Earth is indeed unique in a large amount of solar systems, but that doesn't mean it's unique in the whole frigging universe.
Not even talking about the 'center of the universe', which is meaningless since we don't even clearly know its full size or if a center actually exists (the observable universe, however, is a sphere roughly 15 billion lightyears wide centered on the observator, but you need a brain to actually differentiate the two, oops).

Crackpot should be lobotomized, wouldn't hurt him more than he already is, and would save us the raving antics.

phOnYmIkE wrote:how come nobody told me about this? I was always uncomfortable thinking that pangea was just hanging out on one side of the planet.

The planet itself was uncomfortable as well, it's shit like that that makes the rotation axis move like crazy (well, that and major meteorite impacts). Some say that without the influence of the moon on the resulting one-block ocean the tilt would have gone way past 24 degrees. <3 gyroscopic stabilisation.

PHoNyMiKe · Post by **PHoNyMiKe** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:14 pm

so mars is too cold for tectonic movement? how about europa, a moon around jupiter, is that too cold for tectonic movement? cause there seems to be plenty on europa.

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:53 pm

The continents are pretty much still gathered on one side of the planet. Grab a globe and view it from a certain angle and you'll see almost nothing but water.

Post by **badinsults** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:56 am

Correction Grinvader, there is very little evidence for subduction processes until about 3.5 billion years ago. Even as late as 2.7 billion years ago, it was probably not the same situation as at present, due to the mantle being too hot to allow the crust to descend.

As for Europa, plate tectonic processes are not evident at the surface, and I really doubt that it undergoes true plate tectonics. And the reason why Mars didn't have plate tectonics was the combination of lack of heat and lack of water. Venus has no water on the surface, and a very slow rotation rate, so it doesn't happen there either (instead, every few hundred million years, the entire surface of Venus melts as the radioactive heat needs to be let out.

Neo Kaiser · Post by **Neo Kaiser** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:24 am

Venus - If a ship arrives it will melt and dissolve in hot sulfuric acid.

Mercury - See The Chronicles of Riddick (Planet Crematoria)

Jupiter - If a ship tries to land it will crush to death by the pressure and the gravity. If you fall in the eye and the winds are strong enough the crushed remains will travel in the wind forever.

It seems that the only planets where a person can land is Earth and Mars.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:18 am

badinsults wrote:Venus has no water on the surface, and a very slow rotation rate, so it doesn't happen there either (instead, every few hundred million years, the entire surface of Venus melts as the radioactive heat needs to be let out.

And that is why we WILL colonize Venus at some point.

And when the evacuation notices start coming in:
"HOGWASH! I've lived here for 3 centuries and the ground's never liquified beneath my feet! You scientists are full of it!"

Neo Kaiser wrote:Venus - If a ship arrives it will melt and dissolve in hot sulfuric acid.

Mercury - See The Chronicles of Riddick (Planet Crematoria)

Jupiter - If a ship tries to land it will crush to death by the pressure and the gravity. If you fall in the eye and the winds are strong enough the crushed remains will travel in the wind forever.

It seems that the only planets where a person can land is Earth and Mars.

You forgot Pluto... wait, that doesn't count anymore.
Though Jupiter doesn't HAVE a proper surface(nor do Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune).

Venus is landable. The russians landed MULTIPLE probes on Venus(Venera 7-14). NASA's planning a lander to launch in 2013.
You probably wouldn't want to open the door, though.

PHoNyMiKe · Post by **PHoNyMiKe** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:33 am

you guys are totally missing the point. the maps of the earth that show the surface underwater are different than pictures taken from space. from space you got clouds in the way, and water of course. so if you get all this stuff out of the way, and look at the actual crust of the planet it's pretty easy to see that they grow. imagine you take a baloon, and blow it up a little, then paint it, then blow it up more. the paint is gonna crack and break apart as the baloon expands, like what this guy is demonstrating with planets and moons.

now if you honestly look at the crust of our planet, you don't see any huge impact crators, and with all the continents fitting together pretty much rules out that the moon was a busted piece of the planet.

this guy's also got a dinosaur theory. take a look at the age of the ocean floor map. some sites I pulled up say the dinosaurs roamed the earth almost 200 million years ago. at that time, all the land on earth would have been one big piece. look when they died off, about 65 million years ago. according to that map, all the yellow, green, and blue areas would have been created (but not orange to red yet). this could cut off their migration routes, as dinosaurs are closest related to birds and birds are migratory. separating them from food sources, so they die off. this would also debunk the theory that a meteorite hit the planet and killed the dinosaurs, because I don't see any large impacts on our planet like others (look at mars, it's covered with hits, it doesn't have the atmosphere we have to disolve meteors).

make any sense? it explains a hell of a lot more than pangea and meteorites. look at that video of europa, you can see it in other bodies in our galaxy.

Johan_H · Post by **Johan_H** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:17 pm

Are you high or performing advanced irony?

DEFIANT · Post by **DEFIANT** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:37 pm

Lv8 Meteo + Earth = Impact Crater

Impact Crater x Billions of years + X = Little to No Visible Traces of Meteo.

X=Erosion

simple math.

Mars has very little erosion in the form of dust storms. Thats why impact craters are still visible after eons of time. But I'm sure a smart guy like you already knows this.

casualsax3 · Post by **casualsax3** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:08 pm

This video is fucking retarded. It's full of bad science and a bunch of non-related assumptions. Example, he says that the Earth has nearly doubled in size in the last 65 million years, and makes no mention of how or why that may have happened.

PHoNyMiKe · Post by **PHoNyMiKe** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:41 pm

so what's up with that age of the ocean floors map? it clearly shows how the age of the ocean floor can be used to show how the americas 'floated' away from africa and europe. using that evidence if you look at the pacific ocean, it shows how they also 'floated' away from australia and antarctica. why is that crust newer than other areas? did hot magma burst out of those cracks in the tectonic plates and cover it with newer material? if so, this material came from inside the planet, and now the inside of the planet has less mass inside thus the planet is shrinking? I'm surprised how people find this idea hard to believe.

look at that ocean floor map, it clearly shows that yes the ocean floor expanded almost 200% in the past 100 million years. shouldn't the tectonic plates be as old as the continents? yet they are 20 times newer. is this data falsified?

Post by **grinvader** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:05 pm

badinsults wrote:Correction

Duly noted. *ka-chink*

As for the age of stuff, the lighter continental crust kinda floats over the heavier oceanic crust which rolls like a treadmill (yes, it is produced from the inner magma, but the same amount is recovered from the subduction), so there's a maximum age for the oceanic crust but not for the continental... which is why we find old fossils in it and zilch in oceanic crust.

Just look up tectonics on wiki, I doubt they'd leave any detail like that uncovered.

lockharte · Post by **lockharte** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:55 pm

the earth is growing, not because of that reason, but because the universe is expanding. since the universe's space-time is expanding everywhere, not just at the "edges" (if there is such a thing), it means that distance between stars and galaxies not only increase, but their size as well.

think of the balloom analogy. imagine a black balloon with bunch of white dots on it; as the balloon expands, the white dots get further apart, but they also increase in size a lil bit as well.

creaothceann · Post by **creaothceann** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:48 pm

I'm not sure about that conclusion. Wouldn't Earth's matter "fall back" to the core? IMO the distance between stars may grow, but the size of stars, planets etc stays the same.

lockharte · Post by **lockharte** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:19 am

no because, the entire fabric of the universe is expanding. think of the balloon as the "fabric" of the universe.

Post by **grinvader** » Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:31 pm

Although expansion indeed increases the distances between main galactic structures, at lower scales (read: galaxy radii) gravity overwhelms expansion and keeps everything at the 'classic' distances.

So yes, galaxies that are far away get farther and farther, but each block keeps the rough size it would if there was no expansion to begin with.