[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse3', 'Y')es, I had 5th grade science and like to watch tv too for my science, like Nova. I have seen all the plate tectonic videos of the continents drifting apart. What captured my attention in this video is all the plates fitting together in a nice but smaller ball. So, do they all fit together as suggested by the video? The fact I'm asking means I don't necessarily believe of accept it. However, plate tectonic theory also says all the plates broke apart, but what it doesn't cover is did they all fit together in a nice little ball, north, south, east and west, as suggested by the video. Seems simple enough and I'm sure plate tetctonics must have covered it somewhere. Anybody?

[Kryptonite]

The experts who recently published a book entitled “Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs” dismiss some of the reasons suggested, such as high oxygen levels, for sauropod gigantism. The intro to the book can be viewed on Amazon.com.

How could the surface gravity change? Not because of an expanding Earth or the addition of mass. Not by nullifying the theory of plate tectonics which is so well established that we omit the word “theory.”

Most people believe the only way surface “g” could change is with a change in Earth’s mass or volume. This is not true. The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction explains how a shift in the position of the Earth’s core(s) and densest part of the lower mantle would have a profound effect on surface gravity, which is dependent on the inverse square of distance.

Why would those components shift? In response to the position of the continents. The formation of Pangea consolidated the continents into a relatively small part of the globe. The core elements shifted in a “counterbalancing” way. I won’t go into the scientific explanation which would require explaining conservation of angular momentum, etc.

It is not a coincidence that not only the oversized dragonflies and dinosaurs existed when Pangea was at near or full consolidation and don’t, and couldn’t, exist today. BTW, the sauropod book mentioned doesn’t appear to consider the possibility of gravitational change.

[seahorse3]

Now no need to apologize for your tone bc your link, which I did read does not answer the question about "Pangea." And that is, do all borders of Pangea perfectly match if wrapped around. Your link shows Pangea as being a floating mass with water on all sides, but the premise of the entire video is that the east boundary of Pangea would make a perfect fit with the west boundary. I want to know if that is true and despite your tone and nova research the question remains unanswered.

[seahorse3]

And please everyone know that I have no motive, no religious bent, nothing but morbid curiosity about the minutia to pass the time wondering about things which are of no cosequence in my life simply for enjoyment of pondering.

[Oakley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'Y')ou have no understanding of physics.

The reality is you visited some very appealing scam websites which scam people like yourself to sell books or promote other scammers. It's a business and you are confused. That's all.

[Sixstrings]

Did the Earth grow any since this thread was started?

[PrestonSturges]

The last 10 years has shown a definite increase in the mass of my butt, but not as result of interstellar collisions as far as I can tell.

[diemos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnRM', 'G')iven Mr. Adams claims, if the Earth were half its diameter 65 million years ago, it would have to have grown only 1/3 of a foot (10 cm) per year, since then.

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnRM', 'G')iven Mr. Adams claims, if the Earth were half its diameter 65 million years ago, it would have to have grown only 1/3 of a foot (10 cm) per year, since then.

[seahorse3]

What was interesting about the video and what captured my attention, and the reason I asked about it was the simple "fact" that the east coast of Pangea matches perfectly with the west coast and thus implies they were at one time connected. Now, the current accepted theory, to my limited understanding, has never mentioned that fact that the two opposing borders are perfect matches and doesn't explain the odds of that happening. It seems like for a theory to be accepted, it would have to account for that simple fact and explain it, but it doesn't. And, despite all the shouting here, no one here has either denied that fact as true or explained it under the current theory. I've tried lots of cases in court, and understand the importance of making sure a theory accounts for all the facts. If you just leave one of them out, it's not very persuasive.

[vision-master]

Most ppl here are very conventional with their thinking and belief systems and tend to be what I call sheeple. Looking outside 'the box' is unacceptable behavior. Just look at the 'cold fusion' thread.

[rockdoc123]

I've read through the comments and haven't jumped in to a topic I am quite familiar with simply because it is interesting to observe discussions of this nature.
It is important, I think, that prior to outright dismissing people who ask questions about expanding earth theory that we remember this was a theory held by a number of well-known earth scientists up until the seventies when much of the paleomagnetic data was becoming mainstream. The debate was quite strong through the sixties and is explained well in a book about Plate Tectonics and paleomagnetism that Dan Mackenzie (one of the more famous geophysicists responsible for shaping current thoughts on plate tectonics) wrote and which currently sits in my den bookshelf. The fact that ocean crust was created at mid ocean rises was known quite early on and the problem becomes if you are creating crust either the earth is expanding or somewhere that crust has to be destroyed. There were hypotheses at the time that the very large gravity lows around sea trenches off Tonga and Japan might be areas where crust could be consumed but it was only speculation at the time. It wasn't until researchers began to put together the link between earthquake epicentres around trenches and their appearance as a slab-like swarm that the notion became that these trenches were a place where oceanic crust created at spreading centres was consumed in subduction zones where the crust would be melted and reconstituted into the upper asthenosphere and lower crust. It was an elegant theory with many fathers (some who I had the pleasure of knowing as a grad student) but there were still some scientists who argued there were holes. One of these was Art Meyerhoff, a famous Russian geologist who felt that a lot of plate tectonic theory was oversold and pointed to some of the inconsistencies. I knew Art and corresponded with him up until just before he passed away nearly a decade ago. Up until his death he still believed in catastrophism and the fact that plate tectonic theory was incomplete. Indeed S. Warren Carey an Australian geologist was perhaps the most famous for his views on the expanding earth, a theory that he expounded on into the mid eighties. He published a book Theories of the earth and universe: a history of dogma in the earth sciences in the mid eighties and participated in at least two conferences that specifically dealt with the subject in the early eighties. Carey was not a light weight by any stretch of the imagination and had arrived at the threads of early plate tectonic theory well before Tuzo Wilson brought it into the mainstream.
The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that the theory isn't all that "crackpottish" and was debated amoungst respected earth scientists for several decades. There is no shame in revisiting the questions in my opinion.

Seahorse with regards to plate motions you might want to take a look at Chris Scotese's paleomap project on his website (I think it is http://www.scotese.com) where he shows plate reconstructions from the PreCambrian to recent. This information is pretty well constrained based on paleomagnetic data.
The paleomagnetic arguments against an expanding earth are fairly cogent

[vision-master]

I heard those large dinosaurs could not exist today due to the pull of Earths gravity?

[Cog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'I') heard those large dinosaurs could not exist today due to the pull of Earths gravity?

[vision-master]

So I ask questions about things I do know? WTF you smoken cheech? lsol

[Cog]

Don't you have an E-Cat thread to spin your fantasies about unlimited growth in?

[vision-master]

Like yer love of money, eh cheech?

[seahorse3]

Rockdoc I was hoping you would take the time to post here. When I first came across the idea if an expanding earth I saw just enough to know that at one time people believed it then they didn't. What I was left wondering was if the plates matched together so nicely they would form a nice little ball. That was a curious "fact" to me that I never heard and isn't explained in the 8th Grade Earth Sciences diagrams of Pangea.

I'm glad you don't mind revisiting the issue. It seems as I've gotten older the internet has allowed me the opportunity to take time revisiting a lot of things I've been told and either as a kid never had the desire to understand or learn, and certainly without the internet never had the opportunity to pass ideas with people who know more than I do on the various subjects. I will look at those maps.

[sureshbansal342]

PLS SEE THE DEPTH .

first let me introduce myself as a independent scientist researching on earth formation . i have very much different idea for earth formation as below . i need help to continue my work.


1) Earth is itself a single living organism like a tree. And covered by crust like a trunk covered by bark. crust = bark

2) some type of meteoroids contains amino acid and biological chemistry are seeds of planets. one planet is a result of one meteoroid as one tree is a result of one seed.

3) out these meteoroids some can germinate in asteroids only and out of these asteroids some can convert in big planets .

4) continents separated from each other like a puzzle is very much clear visual evidence for its growth and expansion. PT is playing vital role for this and same type of PT is also playing vital role for the growth and expansion of trunk of tree.

5) Crude oil (an organic compound ) is produce by earth itself due to metabolism in the earth only. fossil oil theory is not true. it is linked with living organism because it is produced by earth only and earth is itself a single living organism.


pls observe the following links for more clarification with depth only.

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark & Continents



http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust

http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.

http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj Meteoroids Seeds

http://yfrog.com/5rasteoidplantj Asteroid Plant

http://yfrog.com/5xvalcano2j Volcano Lava

http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree

http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS



http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

http://www.mediafire.com/?va0pjtfjjn4m2md Pdf theory complete

http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7i5CY6XNo&NR=1 fossil oil theory is not true and oil is producing in crust as this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lG3FX9D68


regs
suresh bansal
sureshbansal342@gmail.com

[Sys1]

Expanding Earth is nonsense. We have GPS which proove tectonic thory.
It's impossible for Earth to grow because its mass is the same. You can't create mass out of nowhere. Moreover, growing earth can't explain mountains. Third, if Earth mass changes constantly, its speed of revolution around would have to change accordly in order to stay on the same orbit. Forth, you can't have oceans coming out of nowhere. Fifth, if Earth mass expands, then moon would crash on us.
This theory is super BS and those believing in it should get back to school, period.