Expanding Earth?

[Turtle]

Neal is like the Abbott to Turtle's Costello.

 

I don't know's on third... :weather_storm:

 

I don't know what that means, but if the implication is that Neal is a legend in his own mind, then I concur.

 

I have taken maps of the ancient world and created animations of them going back in time ,...in order to see what the theory from the USGS is all about .

These continental plates shift and squirm and twist like silly putty , certainly not granitic rock and basalts.

.

.

.

My work completely follows the worh of the USGS in every way, If their time frame is off then I need only speed up or slow down the work .

BUT it maths out , so I don;t percieve a problem. My interpretation simply leaves out subduction.

.

.

.

I'm wasting my breath??

 

Most assuredly a waste of your breath and our time. Subduction is a fact; the Cascades are sufficient to prove it. If the USGS and geologists worldwide are wrong about the shape and locations of plates over time, then the maps you based on their work would simply have to be wrong too. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't give a whit if you peddle your theory to those uninformed enough to challenge it, but I take umbrage at your coming here and pretending to real science. I don't suppose you would deign to take some collegiate level geology courses, would you Neal? :weather_rain:

[NAdams]

I don't know what that means, but if the implication is that Neal is a legend in his own mind, then I concur.

 

 

 

Most assuredly a waste of your breath and our time. Subduction is a fact; the Cascades are sufficient to prove it. If the USGS and geologists worldwide are wrong about the shape and locations of plates over time, then the maps you based on their work would simply have to be wrong too. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't give a whit if you peddle your theory to those uninformed enough to challenge it, but I take umbrage at your coming here and pretending to real science. I don't suppose you would deign to take some collegiate level geology courses, would you Neal? :shrug:

 

If they're wrong , why would I?

On a monthly basis I am in regular conversation with easily a dozen well respected Geologists . I will satisfy myself that they are dscriminating enough to trade full respect with.

You are simply not "listening" . I can't make you listen . So ,I will make one last effort to try for the "sake of others"

MY Pangea map and their map is the same . Their modern globe can be moved back to Pangea. Mine can be moved back directly and along the same pathways to pangea. The difference is ,.....MY Pangea wraps

completely around a smaller globe ,...and when it does the landmasses close completely. (And a lesser amount of water lies upon the surface of these

closed continental plates ,......Which is where we find all the ancient fish fossils of Earth, exclusively. The sea level of these seas on the continental plates was easily a half mile deeper all around the globe.

One codicil for anyone who thinks they understand what I am trying so desparately to say, is,....tho ' the Earth today would slide back to pangea as described . the field of Geology and tectonics has had to give a

local stop to this clear movement from point A. Earth today , to pont B.

Pangea. Instead of a straight line , and because of inconsistancies ( Like

how the heck did sub-tropical Antarctica get to the south pole and the northern contiments bend double , so that, each side faces each other?)

so they postulated that Pangea split in half . The two halves rode to the opposite poles , broke up and now the pieces are riding back to the equator ,to ,one day ,,um ...crash together. There is no subducting plate area that shows or justifies this , and no subduction zone anywhere around the

Antarctic continent 360 degrees . Not even speculated at, even though that surrounding ocean has grown 700 miles wide , in average only

the last 60 million years.

[Turtle]

If they're wrong , why would I?

So that you know what 'they' are wrong about & why.

You are simply not "listening" . I can't make you listen .

That I am responding to specific errors you make is evidence that I am listening.

 

I just lost a detailed response to the rest by a computer fluke, so I will be back after some coffee to recompose it. Sorry for the delay. :shrug:

[Turtle]

MY Pangea map and their map is the same . Their modern globe can be moved back to Pangea.

...

One codicil for anyone who thinks they understand what I am trying so desparately to say, is,....tho ' the Earth today would slide back to pangea as described . the field of Geology and tectonics has had to give a

local stop to this clear movement from point A. Earth today , to pont B.

Pangea.

 

Here is where you have a seriously mistaken concept of Pangea. It is (was?) only one of several supercontinent phases and at no time is there a 'stop point' in geologic processes. Plate movement is continuous and dynamic. Moreover, it did not simply break in 'two', rather it broke into a few large pieces and many smaller ones.

 

See 'tectonic microplates':

Enhanced by Google Web Search Results 1 - 10 of about 7,690 for tectonic microplates

 

http://ej.iop.org/links/rOtmJaOeL/Ki-mzH6M2xGY2S3hav5vpA/njp5_1_037.pdf

 

More to come; need more coffee. :shrug: :D

[Turtle]

,......Which is where we find all the ancient fish fossils of Earth, exclusively. The sea level of these seas on the continental plates was easily a half mile deeper all around the globe.

 

Ancient is a relative term. For one thing, fish evolved and so before they evolved it stands to reason they left no fossils. :D

 

Along my coast in the Pacific Northwest, the Coast Range of mountains is loaded with shell fossils. Where did they come from? Quite simply, the subducting Juan de Fuca plate pushed them up from the sea floor, and those not pushed up are dragging down to be recycled into the mantle.

Juan de Fuca Plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

:shrug: :eek_big:

[arkain101]

Niel Adams,

 

I have a hypothesis that supports your theory of a earth having the capability of changing size.

 

However, in contrary to your hypothesis that planets expand over time, this evidence is that planets are dynamic over time. That is, they go from larger, to smaller, to medium while maintaining the same overall mass and in doing so have varying values of gravity.

 

As such a smaller planet of the same mass would have a stronger gravity field and would infact hinder the Dinosaurs even more than they would be in todays gravitational force.

 

I have a hypothesis that when the earth was forming in the time it was hot and molten and had a possible high rotational moment it was gigantic in size. As such the earth was a)expanded significantly from its high tempeature and b)soft and ductile in the hot form, added with its rotation would be expanded even greater.

 

As the earth cooled it formed a thin crust, however would of been significantly larger in volume than today. This would lower gravitational force, allowing dinosaurs able to grow to such vast size and be functional.

 

Ice ages and as the planet cooled it shrunk to the size we see today, with a new gravity force.

 

However, whether the earth is heating back up and expanding or continuing to contract and shrink at this time. I could not guess.

 

Though if the earth were to lose gravity force it would explode would it not from the incredible pressure? Not that it would lose gravity.

 

I just mean to point out that if the earth were much much cooler it may have been smaller in the past, supporting your concept of land masses once being together.

 

Note: The earth would expand incredibly different than a small object. The small object is held together by chemical bonds, as you heat it up it expands slightly but not that much. However once it melts it becomes liquid. If you were to melt an object in the orbit of earth it would form a much much larger size. I couldnt predict exactly what behavior it would take on.

 

So earth, when in a molten form is very expansive, and has no chemical bond strength, thus the gravity is the only force which holds it together. Thus when the earth was soft and hot, it may of been extremely large.

 

The earth may have actually collapsed in the past. One could assume as it cooled into a solid large but less dense planet, gravity may have caused the earth to eventually collapse inwards. Causing catastrophic dust storms and exitinction of species, resulting in ice ages.

 

However, the earth is of such different scale, it is held together by gravity, which is a much weaker force and could support dyanmic earth size hypothesis.

[arkain101]

If the earth did happen to have a major collapse, it may have ejected massive amounts of magma and ash and dust out into space, forming the moon.

 

Assume there was large cracks or holes that burst open as the earth fell in on itself. As it hit maximum density, a unbelieveable amount of energy would of been released, creating an action not like squeezing an oragne and causes magma juices to spray out into space. You could imagine it to burst open chunks of land (like gulf of mexico) and spray a high pressure stream of magma / plasma out into space. Of course this material would be gather with vast amounts of ash like dust, not unlike the moon.

 

A very intriguing theory I think.

[Turtle]

Niel Adams,

 

I have a hypothesis that supports your theory of a earth having the capability of changing size.

 

However, in contrary to your hypothesis that planets expand over time, this evidence is that planets are dynamic over time. That is, they go from larger, to smaller, to medium while maintaining the same overall mass and in doing so have varying values of gravity.

 

This is no less ridiculous than Neals 'hypothesis' for all the same reasons I have given and for many I have yet to give. I humbly suggest you study geology before you set about to counter what science has uncovered about it. :shrug: :D

[NAdams]

Here is where you have a seriously mistaken concept of Pangea. It is (was?) only one of several supercontinent phases and at no time is there a 'stop point' in geologic processes. Plate movement is continuous and dynamic. Moreover, it did not simply break in 'two', rather it broke into a few large pieces and many smaller ones.

 

See 'tectonic microplates':

Enhanced by Google Web Search Results 1 - 10 of about 7,690 for tectonic microplates

 

http://ej.iop.org/links/rOtmJaOeL/Ki-mzH6M2xGY2S3hav5vpA/njp5_1_037.pdf

 

More to come; need more coffee. :cup:

Look Turtle

This is gibberish. Anyone can put anything on the internet. You are driving me to "wax microplates" as a model. WAX IS NOT GRANITIC ROCK !

and now you're counting Google entries. Call up Nostradamus , Flying saucers . Faces on the moon. It's gibberish and non scientific .

You have not tracked tectonic plates ever. I have .

You have not done the work. I have . You don't know the rules. I do.

Prove to me that you have done any of this work , in this area and I will listen carefully , to you. Until that happens , I will listen and answer to only questions and answer politely.

The Geological community has , until now , And I said the community,

not an individual , community, has never addressed the idea of islands . How

do I know ? I have their maps,....going back for 600 million years. They are a joke. We have thousands of islands now . Do you know what happens on ISLANDS?

Darwin knows . Evolution , Divergent evolution ! Gonna have to prove that one. Can't. Don't. You watch Discovery ? Nova ? Nat'l Geo? Do they talk about divergent evolution on islands? Big Islands? You know ,...the whole three quarters of the world , all one big sea,...gigantic ....no .....

Islands?? Anywhere? I mean ....one or two. medium sized ......islands??

New Zealand size????? Hmmmm?

The whole Pangea theory depends on the island of pangea being in one place for 600 million years.

I feel I am debating against the biggest crackpot idea in the history of man on Earth.

Ask a meteorologist what makes cold winters ? Don't tell him why you're asking him . He'll tell you it's because of the deep freezing cold oceans. If not for them it would be sub-tropical all year round all over the world. The deep oceans lie in wait for the sun to go away. then that half of the world gets frozen by the cold deep ocean.

During the ages of the reptiles and Dinosaurs and in fact for 600 million years there was no winter , There were no ice ages as there are now. The

world ,from Alaska to Antarctia was sub tropical . NO ISLANDS for divergent life to grow . No fish in deep oceans . No proof of deep oceans anywhere in the world . All,...all ancient fish fossils , all sea shells are found on the bottom of the shallow seas which are on the land that we live on , We are the bottom of the sea. Think of it. Utah ! You want megladont teeth, teeth from a monsterus fish 30 feet long that had a mouth like a steam shovel?Utah! Every fact I list proves Pangea didn't exist as an island on one side of the Earth. It's a cosmic joke . Three quarters of the upper tectonic plate is missing. Not moved around , Missing , Tectonics Proves it.

Fish families? There are more than twice as many fish families on the land in fresh water , than in the oceans . There are more than twice as many fish families in the shallow ocean than are in the deep oceans. (I'm being conservative.) What would Darwin say about that ?

The Pangea theory is unexplainable . It's nonsensical from a thousand points of view. So grasshopper ,...Turtle.,ask away. Don't assume . I've

done my homework.

[Turtle]

Look Turtle

This is gibberish. Anyone can put anything on the internet.

 

Kinda sounds like the pot calling the kettle black Neal. There's gibberish here o'plenty, but it's not mine. How you coming getting your work published in peer reviewed sources there buddy? To quote Borat, "not so much."

 

Here's an idea; rally up your supporters to join Hypography and enter the fray. :cup:

[NAdams]

Ancient is a relative term. For one thing, fish evolved and so before they evolved it stands to reason they left no fossils. :cup:

 

Along my coast in the Pacific Northwest, the Coast Range of mountains is loaded with shell fossils. Where did they come from? Quite simply, the subducting Juan de Fuca plate pushed them up from the sea floor, and those not pushed up are dragging down to be recycled into the mantle.

Juan de Fuca Plate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

:cup:

Para. 1. And then they evolved! And we have fossils of them on the LAND!

There was no Deep oceans!

2. They come from folded shallow sea . The deep ocean plate is 2 to 4 miles deep! Down there THERE IS NOTHING . Silt!

[arkain101]

This is no less ridiculous than Neals 'hypothesis' for all the same reasons I have given and for many I have yet to give. I humbly suggest you study geology before you set about to counter what science has uncovered about it.

 

Your probably right. I have not studed much in this field.

 

Its just a speculation, and I agree, its most likely silly.

[NAdams]

Kinda sounds like the pot calling the kettle black Neal. There's gibberish here o'plenty, but it's not mine. How you coming getting your work published in peer reviewed sources there buddy? To quote Borat, "not so much."

 

Here's an idea; rally up your supporters to join Hypography and enter the fray. :cup:

 

You are merely saying the first insulting thing that comes to your mind .

I can only take it as seriously as it is given.

Ask and I'll answer. Don't waste your time insulting me . It means nothing to me . I've had a whole career moving against the tide . I'm basically almost always right , cause I take the time to do the work. So you gotta know I'm pretty confident.

I don't get up and say ,"Hey, I got an idea. "

You know , I "thought " you guys communicated reasonably and not insult. It's pretty rude around here.

Hmmmm.

Neal Adams

[arkain101]

This is no less ridiculous than Neals 'hypothesis' for all the same reasons I have given and for many I have yet to give. I humbly suggest you study geology before you set about to counter what science has uncovered about it.

 

Turtle, did you read through to see why I proposed such a hypothesis?

[Turtle]

You know , I "thought " you guys communicated reasonably and not insult. It's pretty rude around here.

Hmmmm.

Neal Adams

 

Look Turtle

This is gibberish.

 

I see you chose to ignore my invitation to invite your supporters to join Hypography. :cup:

[NAdams]

I see you chose to ignore my invitation to invite your supporters to join Hypography. :cup:

 

If you have a problem with this , why are you commenting?

my" gibberish" comment was not a sleight to you , but to that Website.

Didn't you realize that?

Neal

[NAdams]

Kinda sounds like the pot calling the kettle black Neal. There's gibberish here o'plenty, but it's not mine. How you coming getting your work published in peer reviewed sources there buddy? To quote Borat, "not so much."

 

Here's an idea; rally up your supporters to join Hypography and enter the fray. :cup:

You know what . Those folks in the EE group are not supporters of me at all . Some totally agree , Some partially , Some would like to crawl up my nose and yank my brains out.

I doubt if you guys and they would have much fun together .

Your guys aren't interested to get down to important and slightly more intense

areas .....like the Earth's core , sub atomic particles and such. Just fluff.

If you think your group can make for a good exchange of ideas and your guys can treat them with respect ...and knock off the hipshots, you can go ahead and invite the group for a visit.

I, however, encourage a deeper introspection.

Neal Adams