NationStates Jolt Archive

I was slumming around on stumbleupon, and I ran across this: http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html

Is there any merit to this? I am not sciencey enough to crunch the numbers or point out the flaws in his logic.

He might want to tell me again how exactly the ocean dropped away to leave that big bald spot. :rolleyes:

That made no sense.

WYTYG: He was saying the water left the spot because of the pull of the gravity created by all that rock on one side.


Here's some infos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle#Effects_on_sea_level) that talk about it.

What the guy is trying to say, I think, is that all the continents being on one side of the earth would shift the center of gravity, and the sea would follow. I'm not sure if it really works out well, but hey...

Is there any merit to this?

not so much, no

WYTYG: He was saying the water left the spot because of the pull of the gravity created by all that rock on one side.Yeah, but that's... stupid.

It would have some merit if 4km of rock on one side of the earth would shift the centre of gravity of the Earth any significant distance compared to the 6300km radius of the Earth itself.

i don't think i know enough of the physics of it to understand what he's saying, but i really can't imagine geologists and other physical scientists would not have considered whatever he's suggesting if it was plausable. sounds pretty stupid anyway.

I was slumming around on stumbleupon, and I ran across this: http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html

Is there any merit to this? I am not sciencey enough to crunch the numbers or point out the flaws in his logic.

...what the hell was that?! It made my brain literally rot! Seriously, I could smell the horrible stench coming out of my ears.

I suppose he ignores all of the evidence in support of Pangaea, along with the simple fact that continent crust or oceanic crust has nothing to do with gravity so much as the freaking ridiculously huge molton iron core in the center of the planet!

bwahahaha

quick, hit the back link on that page and check out the other videos.

fucking hilarious

Look. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pangaea_%28230_million_years_ago%29.png)

I don't think there was as much water back then. Maybe.

bwahahaha

quick, hit the back link on that page and check out the other videos.

fucking hilarious
...oh dear...such idiocy...I cannot help but laugh...

...oh dear...such idiocy...I cannot help but laugh...

my favorite so far
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip07.html

though this one (http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html) sums up the idiocy pretty well

my favorite so far
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip07.html

though this one (http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html) sums up the idiocy pretty well

I like how all of his pages on that website are entitled 'Untitled Document" which only makes him look like more of an idiot.

bwahahaha

quick, hit the back link on that page and check out the other videos.

fucking hilarious
I hate you.

I just watched the whole first video on that site which is about 7 minutes long and claims the earth was once covered completely with today's continents - which threw me for about half of the video until he explained that that was possible because the earth was smaller then.

...

I watched the whole damn thing to the very end hoping to get an explanation how exactly it had gotten bigger since, but he never said. :(

I watched the whole damn thing to the very end hoping to get an explanation how exactly it had gotten bigger since, but he never said. :(

i don't know, but whatever the answer is, apparently it means there was no big bang, and the dinosaurs didn't die because of a meteor.

I hate you.
...

I watched the whole damn thing to the very end hoping to get an explanation how exactly it had gotten bigger since, but he never said. :(

If you click the 'Back' link under the videos there's a long text page going into that. I didn't bother to read it all, but he mentioned something about particle-pairing(?), somehow causing matter to literally "grow" (multiply) in the environment in the centre of the earth, and in stars... :rolleyes:

Wait, he says that the Earth, Moon, Mars, and everything else is growing?

Of course the continents will all fit together. In case you haven't noticed, they are all roughly boomerang-shaped (I don't know why they are, ask a geologist), in other words, given natural erosion and expansion, they will pretty much tesselate in whatever position you put them in.

As for the OP video, I'm no physicist, but isn't talking about weight in the context of an object floating in space kind of meaningless?

I hate you.

I just watched the whole first video on that site which is about 7 minutes long and claims the earth was once covered completely with today's continents - which threw me for about half of the video until he explained that that was possible because the earth was smaller then.

...

I watched the whole damn thing to the very end hoping to get an explanation how exactly it had gotten bigger since, but he never said. :(

Yah, he's a proponent of this theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

It's idiotic, to say the least.

This...I am dumbfounded by this man. In Clip #7 he is basically saying that the Earth EXPANDED over time. Like...was his mother punched in the got while he was still unborn or something? Christ on a crutch the loonies in this world.

I haven't yet seen him show how subduction is impossible. He keeps saying it couldn't be happening, but never shows his proof that it is impossible, as he says.

It's not that hard. Relative to size the little dimples on a golf ball are much deeper than Mt. Everest is high. The ocean is nothing but a shallow puddle when you consider the size of the earth. Basically the difference is negligible.

Curious question here: Where in the nine hells did all the water magically appear from? I mean seriously... it can't just come out of nowhere, and if back then the earth was all land, with little to no standing, where did the water that covers 75% of the surface of the earth now come from?

That's what strikes me odd.

Why the hell does this guy have an axe to grind about Pangaea?

I mean, I didn't think people got so worked up about a 250-million year old supercontinent. Really, I didn't see it coming.

Why the hell does this guy have an axe to grind about Pangaea?

I mean, I didn't think people got so worked up about a 250-million year old supercontinent. Really, I didn't see it coming.It's because he fears the implication is the world wasn't created for him. At least, that's my guess.

It's because he fears the implication is the world wasn't created for him. At least, that's my guess.

Couldn't he just look at continental drift as being designed to produce the continents in the exact shapes needed for evolution and human history to fall in to the exact order that led to him existing on Earth? Hell, you can put yourself at the center of any process if you want too.

I mean, that's one hell of a Panglossian interpretation, but it is feasible...

Adams has very publicly promoted a theory (credited to Samuel Warren Carey) that the Earth is hollow and (along with every other celestial body) is growing. He has spoken at length on this through articles and animations on his official site, www.NealAdams.com, and participated in an article about the subject in Wired Magazine. (See References, below.) You can hear Adams expound upon his model on the The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast.

Ah okay. So he believes in Hollow Earth. That fills the huge gaping hole in his argument as to what is causing the celestial bodies to expand.

Of course, it doesn't even touch on How or Why...

And fun fact, his day job is DC Comics illustrating. So maybe its Red Kryptonite or something...

EDIT: PLUS! He wrote the series finale of Bucky O'Hare! That's enough for me to agree with any cockeyed theory he may come up with!!!

Couldn't he just ... One'd think so..I mean, that's one hell of a Panglossian interpretation, but ...Then again, it's probably interpreting the evidence that's his real problem, it's that the evidence conflicts with his convictions. At least, that's my guess.

Ah okay. So he believes in Hollow Earth. That fills the huge gaping hole in his argument as to what is causing the celestial bodies to expand.

Of course, it doesn't even touch on How or Why...

And fun fact, his day job is DC Comics illustrating. So maybe its Red Kryptonite or something...

EDIT: PLUS! He wrote the series finale of Bucky O'Hare! That's enough for me to agree with any cockeyed theory he may come up with!!!
How does he explain volcanos? Or earthquakes?

How does he explain volcanos? Or earthquakes?

Evil Toad Empire?

He says earthquakes are caused by tectonic plates moving apart. Which I suppose is 25% right...

As for volcanoes, you'd have to ask him. Something tells me at some point that his argument ends in "because of magic".

As for volcanoes, you'd have to ask him. Something tells me at some point that his argument ends in "because of magic".

I wouldn't bother. Judging from his main page, his argument is pitched at people who are persuaded by anything which is written in bold letters.

I was slumming around on stumbleupon, and I ran across this: http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html

Is there any merit to this? I am not sciencey enough to crunch the numbers or point out the flaws in his logic.Flaws in his logic: Pangaea, according to geologists, looks nothing like his rendition of modern continents in different alignment. Besides, there probably isn't one single version of Pangea that everyone universally agrees on.
Secondly, the water would need to get into Pangaea. To know whether this was possible, you would need to know the elevation during the time, which neither he nor any geologists could possibly know. That his elevations are utter bullshit becomes apparent when you take a look at the Himalayas. Current theory believes that they stem from India colliding with the rest of Asia, so they wouldn't be present on Pangaea.
His entire calculation of what the world would look like is flawed, since it uses false assumptions to begin with.
This of course ignores the reasons why geology postulates that the continents were once connected: There is a fossil record of animals concentrated in certain areas on modern continents that currently aren't connected. These animals do not appear seaworthy, so migration other than by landway appears impossible. Likewise, rock formations on the coast of South America fit into Africa. Furthermore, there is evidence of continental drift. None of these are explained away with his scenario.

Brain... Hurty... Urge to hunt this waste of oxygen down and set fire to him... increasing...

The way he says it, the centre of gravity just magically shifts to the right, then the water moves across... but with that explination, as the water moves across, the right side becomes more massive again, shifting the centre of gravity further right, bringing more water in, shifting the centre of gravity again, until there's absolutely no water on one side, and all the water on the other, reaching, what does he say, about 8.5 kilometres high in total?
Sure, his maths might hold out in an instantaneous sense, but over time, the way things ~really~ happen, his idea of that system is a desert on one side and a big hemisphere of water on the other, with the flows of the mantle and outer core in complete turmoil from the centre of gravity shifting around an absolutely rediculous distance, considering how little mass the crust of the earth really has, compared to the whole planet...

HATE!

He clearly doesn't have any understanding of the subjects he so confidently talks about like he's some kind of expert. He even admits it:

This is not quantum physics here, it’s simple. You learn this kind of math in grade school. This is undeniable and clear. Pangea could not have existed as described.

The Pangea theory says the Earth was assembled 4.5 billion years ago in a “universal instant” from debris … that was collected in our galaxy, to this size, (by a method that is never … I repeat never explained

Umm...gravity?

Wait, he says that the Earth, Moon, Mars, and everything else is growing?

Well, he says the earth is growing.

Let’s clear some thing up. The only kind of meteorites that we’ve identified to be 4.5 billion years old are colondrite meteorites. Condrite meteorites are assembled from mineral dust and pencil tip tiny meteorites called chondrules. More importantly, chondrite meteorites cannot assemble, accrete on a gravitational body … like a planet or a sun! So where did they come from? Where did all the other meteorites come from?3 different spellings for "chondrite" in one paragraph...

So if the earth is growing, where does the extra material come from? Or is the earth supposed to be hollow as a giant balloon?

Let me just say: Neal Adams is full of shit.

Let me just say: Neal Adams is full of shit.
Nevertheless, there will be USAmericans to believe him.

Nevertheless, there will be USAmericans to believe him.You'll probably be able to find illeducated people in any country with internet access that believe crap like that.

I was slumming around on stumbleupon, and I ran across this: http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html


Is there any merit to this? I am not sciencey enough to crunch the numbers or point out the flaws in his logic.
Aw crap. I'm convinced - my degree is worthless

Look. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pangaea_%28230_million_years_ago%29.png)

I don't think there was as much water back then. Maybe.
The total amount of water in the crust/atmosphere/ocean system has been fairly constant since way before the Permian Triassic period when Pangaea was about (~250 million years ago)
...what the hell was that?! It made my brain literally rot! Seriously, I could smell the horrible stench coming out of my ears.

I suppose he ignores all of the evidence in support of Pangaea, along with the simple fact that continent crust or oceanic crust has nothing to do with gravity so much as the freaking ridiculously huge molton iron core in the center of the planet!

Flaws in his logic: Pangaea, according to geologists, looks nothing like his rendition of modern continents in different alignment. Besides, there probably isn't one single version of Pangea that everyone universally agrees on.
Secondly, the water would need to get into Pangaea. To know whether this was possible, you would need to know the elevation during the time, which neither he nor any geologists could possibly know. That his elevations are utter bullshit becomes apparent when you take a look at the Himalayas. Current theory believes that they stem from India colliding with the rest of Asia, so they wouldn't be present on Pangaea.
His entire calculation of what the world would look like is flawed, since it uses false assumptions to begin with.
This of course ignores the reasons why geology postulates that the continents were once connected: There is a fossil record of animals concentrated in certain areas on modern continents that currently aren't connected. These animals do not appear seaworthy, so migration other than by landway appears impossible. Likewise, rock formations on the coast of South America fit into Africa. Furthermore, there is evidence of continental drift. None of these are explained away with his scenario.

Makes your brain hurt, doesn't it. This is going on the department noticeboard. :D

Makes your brain hurt, doesn't it. This is going on the department noticeboard. :DHe contradicts himself! On one map he shows the a "world as the geologists see it" where there are Himalayas before the Indian sub-continent crashes into Asia, and then later on he has a whole clip about how geology claims that the Himalayas were created...

He contradicts himself! On one map he shows the a "world as the geologists see it" where there are Himalayas before the Indian sub-continent crashes into Asia, and then later on he has a whole clip about how geology claims that the Himalayas were created...

Well, yeah, sure, he contradicts himself. But if you hold your breath long enough, the contradiction vanishes. It's a simple, elementary technique that any creator of absurd pseudoscientific theories knows about. :D

(And yes, I like creating absurd, self-contradictory pseudoscientific theories myself. But unlike this guy, I don't believe the crap I make up. That's what makes me a guy with a vivid imagination and him a lunatic.)

my favorite so far
http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip07.html

though this one (http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html) sums up the idiocy pretty well

He fails.
Is he suggesting the Earth grew? Like, it was a baby Earth, then it became a big mummy or daddy Earth?

He fails.
Is he suggesting the Earth grew? Like, it was a baby Earth, then it became a big mummy or daddy Earth?
And what happens when a mommy and daddy Earth make babie Earths?

.....

And what happens when a mommy and daddy Earth make babie Earths?

.....

I'm too young to know. :p

The earth is expanding because of....... all the rubbish we bury in tips! Yeah thats it!

Also all the volcanos can be simply explained as a miniature white hole in the centre of the earth(tm) spewing out last week's molten rubbish!

Well, he says the earth is growing.

And he emphasises everything else is as well. Even the sun. How he managed to play his fancy computer trick along the "tectonic plates of the sun" is beyond imagining...

So if the earth is growing, where does the extra material come from? Or is the earth supposed to be hollow as a giant balloon?

That's what he's saying, yes.

And he emphasises everything else is as well. Even the sun. How he managed to play his fancy computer trick along the "tectonic plates of the sun" is beyond imagining...



That's what he's saying, yes.

Deep sea drilling is the single greatest threat to mankind! Think of the consequences were we to drill too deep!

This is all soooooo wrong in soooooo many ways. Someone please get that man off the internet before people start to believe him.

Now, does anyone know how to get your semi-rotten brain back into your head?

This is all soooooo wrong in soooooo many ways. Someone please get that man off the internet before people start to believe him.

Now, does anyone know how to get your semi-rotten brain back into your head?

I'm still trying. It almost got me, it did....but then he suggested the Earth is like a balloon, and I stopped listening. Remember kids, not listening saves your life.

Deep sea drilling is the single greatest threat to mankind! Think of the consequences were we to drill too deep!

Forget global warming, we've got us some oil rigs to shut down! Or the world will EXPLODE!

Forget global warming, we've got us some oil rigs to shut down! Or the world will EXPLODE!

Or at least fly around the solar system making an embarrassing 'thhrrrrrpp' noise.
:D

Forget global warming, we've got us some oil rigs to shut down! Or the world will EXPLODE!

Not explode, deflate. The world will shrink again, and rather than the oceans covering us all, they'll all disappear and we'll be left with nothing but shallow seas.

Not explode, deflate. The world will shrink again, and rather than the oceans covering us all, they'll all disappear and we'll be left with nothing but shallow seas.

...So we'll go back in time?

Is is just me or in his video for the argument against Pangea (The one with the Earth's bald spot) does he make the ocean too big? I tried following where the land mass would re-appear on the screen as the globe rotated and there was just more ocean.

He probably made a mistake in his maths somewhere when calculating the size of the Earth.

Along with the mistake in his Geography.

...So we'll go back in time?
I don't see why not.
Is is just me or in his video for the argument against Pangea (The one with the Earth's bald spot) does he make the ocean too big? I tried following where the land mass would re-appear on the screen as the globe rotated and there was just more ocean.

He probably made a mistake in his maths somewhere when calculating the size of the Earth.

Along with the mistake in his Geography.

He made quite a few mistakes. In many areas. One of the more amusing being that all his videos are called Untitled Document.

Actually, the key flaw in his proposal is in Clip 0. He's refusing to accept the subduction occurs and that contenental plates are a fixed shape and size "allowing for erosion" of course.

Oh, and his model for the Earth is the wrong shape. The propotions appear to be out by quite a bit. Africa is way too big, and the America's comparativly tiny. However, if he got his dimensions right, it might muck up is nice little theory, and that would be a shame.

Oh, and his model for the Earth is the wrong shape. The propotions appear to be out by quite a bit. Africa is way too big, and the America's comparativly tiny.

I suspect the problem there is your map, rather than his globe. The Mercator projection (which most modern maps use) greatly exaggerates the size of Europe and North America, and makes Africa look much smaller than it is.

If the earth was smaller but retained the same mass, wouldn't the force of gravity be significantly larger?

If the earth was smaller but retained the same mass, wouldn't the force of gravity be significantly larger?

Yes and no. At a specific istance from center mass, gravity would be the same because mass is the same. But since the surface of Earth would be closer to the center, gravity would be stronger on the surface.

What I wonder most about this nincompoop's wacky theory is how he explains the thermal catastrophe that would be the Earth if the superheated core of the earth's center were concentrated in a smaller volume.

:)

I suspect the problem there is your map, rather than his globe. The Mercator projection (which most modern maps use) greatly exaggerates the size of Europe and North America, and makes Africa look much smaller than it is.
It does?

It does?

Mmhmm, check out the size of Greenland relative to North America on a Mercator projection, then compare it to Google earth or something.

Mmhmm, check out the size of Greenland relative to North America on a Mercator projection, then compare it to Google earth or something.

A better test is looking at Greenland and Saudi Arabia. In real life they are almost exactly the same size and shape. You can tell how biased your map is by looking at the difference in size and shape of these two nations.

It does?

It's a huge conspiracy, the illuminati are fucking with our maps.

Mmhmm, check out the size of Greenland relative to North America on a Mercator projection, then compare it to Google earth or something.

Or look at Alaska compared to Texas. In real life, it's twice as large.

And he emphasises everything else is as well. Even the sun. How he managed to play his fancy computer trick along the "tectonic plates of the sun" is beyond imagining...

Well, the sun is expanding, but that's more of a consequence of nuclear fusion than anything else.

It does?

Oh yes. To get that unique feeling of 'What the hell is going on here?' take a look at
http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/carta/Assign/ProjectionPage/ProjectionPage.htm

Some cynics suggest that the reason the Mercator Projection is so popular in the western world is because it makes Europe and the US look ridiculously big. And disguises the fact that the US and Russia are neighbours.

I suspect the problem there is your map, rather than his globe. The Mercator projection (which most modern maps use) greatly exaggerates the size of Europe and North America, and makes Africa look much smaller than it is.


I was actually using Google Earth as a comparison, although I am well aware of the problems with the Mercator projection.

I still think his globe is wrong.

I was actually using Google Earth as a comparison, although I am well aware of the problems with the Mercator projection.

I doubt you can't get a fair comparison on a flat screen - optical illusions will start to kick in. Have you got a globe? That would help.

His globe may be wrong - it looks a bit odd to me too - but what's one more seed of disinformation in amongst such a rich harvest?

...what the hell was that?! It made my brain literally rot! Seriously, I could smell the horrible stench coming out of my ears.

I suppose he ignores all of the evidence in support of Pangaea, along with the simple fact that continent crust or oceanic crust has nothing to do with gravity so much as the freaking ridiculously huge molton iron core in the center of the planet!

Anyone else notice how he seemed to forget that continental crust is actually lighter than oceanic crust?

Anyone else notice how he seemed to forget that continental crust is actually lighter than oceanic crust?

Yes.

I hate you.

I just watched the whole first video on that site which is about 7 minutes long and claims the earth was once covered completely with today's continents - which threw me for about half of the video until he explained that that was possible because the earth was smaller then.

...

I watched the whole damn thing to the very end hoping to get an explanation how exactly it had gotten bigger since, but he never said. :(

the core overheated a wee bit and then they started having an epidemic of volcanic eruptions which caused Pangea to split to apart cause the areas where the supercontinent split are areas where the earth's crust began to expand. The earth's crust is still expanding today at certain spots, such as the mid Atlantic rift which cause America and Europe to further apart each year by about one inch on average.

the core overheated a wee bit and then they started having an epidemic of volcanic eruptions which caused Pangea to split to apart cause the areas where the supercontinent split are areas where the earth's crust began to expand. The earth's crust is still expanding today at certain spots, such as the mid Atlantic rift which cause America and Europe to further apart each year by about one inch on average.

Which is accounted for by the subduction of the Pacific plate.

Which is accounted for by the subduction of the Pacific plate.

yes. And that gives credence to the plate tectonic theory which is more supportable than this guy's ever expanding earth theory. I think there was some expansion but not as much as this guy is saying. If he was right, the earth would still be expanding today and we would see direct evidence of it. But there isn't really any such evidence of what he is saying.
The EE theory does not account for subduction. It treats it as if there was no such thing.

Look at video 0. He admits that he deliberately ignores subduction and mountain building.

Look at video 0. He admits that he deliberately ignores subduction and mountain building.

"sure, you may have physical measurements of subduction and you may have demonstrated that mt everest is getting taller each year, but i don't see why that shows that such things really happen"

"sure, you may have physical measurements of subduction and you may have demonstrated that mt everest is getting taller each year, but i don't see why that shows that such things really happen"

My god, it's like debating climate change!

"sure, you may have physical measurements of subduction and you may have demonstrated that mt everest is getting taller each year, but i don't see why that shows that such things really happen"

Actually, Mt. Everest is no longer getting any taller, IIRC. It's getting broader, but I believe it's hit the maximum height above sea level that any formation made out of those materials can reach. Any higher and the excess just collapses.

Actually, Mt. Everest is no longer getting any taller, IIRC. It's getting broader, but I believe it's hit the maximum height above sea level that any formation made out of those materials can reach. Any higher and the excess just collapses.

Like Jupiter!

Well, not exactly like Jupiter, I just wanted to say that.

Actually, Mt. Everest is no longer getting any taller, IIRC. It's getting broader, but I believe it's hit the maximum height above sea level that any formation made out of those materials can reach. Any higher and the excess just collapses.

Hmm, maximum strength of the asthenosphere? You got a link? The only results I can find on google are about climate change melting all the ice.

Hmm, maximum strength of the asthenosphere? You got a link? The only results I can find on google are about climate change melting all the ice.

I have no idea what it's called and no idea where to begin looking.