Sun Tzu

This theory makes sense to me. Im not a geology expert, but the Pangea story that I have believed for long time has just gone out the window. This must also mean that the Earth was NOT cover by water at one time.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Plan9

So, wait... a marathon... 40 million years ago... was only... what... 9.356 miles?

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Jetée

He got really adamant about the topic at the end there; I did enjoy the viewing, and would look forward to the findings in coordinance with the statements presented here.

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

Willravel

It's not paranoia that the Earth is growing, but it's growing by such a small amount that it really doesn't matter.

The other stuff? Pangea (then ancient super-continent) is scientifically recognized (by people who graduated from a university). The other fitting is explained perfectly by continental divide being relatively equal. They didn't combine over the pacific. The pacific used to be bigger. This guy doesn't understand the Pacific 'rifts' (which are converging).

Ustwo

Ummm since we have fossil evidence of sea floors older than he claims should exist, well, whatever.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Sun Tzu

After researching a little more it appears that this theory stem from creationists (which Im not) or not in the traditional sense. Pangea certainly exlpains the oceans presence, but only accounts for the huge mass of land missing either from a collision that was slightly smaller than Earth, the moon was actually part of Earth at one time, or an extreme eruption on a grand scale. But Pangea would produce something larger than Hawaii wouldnt it?.

The mass of the Earth is quite precisely known now. The mass arriving from space is estimated.


How are they measuring subduction zones? Are they reachable?

The guy was not denying plate movement. The expanding Earth theory says that they were joined together on both sides rather than only one. This is supported by the fact that there are mid-ocean expansion ridges circling the earth and interconnected between _ALL_ of the continents.



" "Mobile magma plumes force us to reassess some of our most basic assumptions about the way the mantle operates," says John Tarduno, professor of earth and environmental sciences . "We’ve relied on them for a long time as unwavering markers, but now we’ll have to redefine our understanding of global geography." "
http://www.innovations-report.de/htm...cht-20701.html

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

robot_parade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory

Strangely enough, this theory was fairly well-respected not that long ago. I assumed it was another nutjob with a new crazy notion, but it turns out the notion is old, and was replaced in the 60's by modern geophysics.

Martian

Yeah, his logic falls apart entirely at the end, not that there was much there to begin with.

I'm not much of a geologist and I'll be the first to admit it. However, this theory still doesn't make sense. If the Earth is expanding at the rate he claims, then there would have to be either a large increase in mass or a similarly large decrease in density. An increase in mass would require a very large source or matter pouring into the Earth, which just isn't feasible while maintaining an environment hospitable to life. A decrease in volume runs counter to our current understanding of physics, since it would require a massive force to counter-act gravity. Also, as the Earth continued to expand (and again, assuming the same mass) the gravitational force on the surface would diminish. If the Earth were still expanding, then Galileo's observation that objects fall at a rate of ~9.8 m/s^2 in the 16th century should no longer be valid over 400 years later.

I'd also think that if the Earth were expanding and decreasing in volume as a consequence there'd be no reason for it to retain a spheroid shape. The Earth is round because that's the shape that allows it to achieve the highest possible density, thus it's a result of the gravitational pull. Without the constant exertion of gravitational forces to retain that spheroid shape, other forces would quickly cause the Earth to become irregular and, eventually, break apart.

In other words, if this guy is right either all science as we understand it is wrong or we're all doomed when the Earth hits the critical point where it's gravity is no longer sufficient to keep it coherent and explodes. While an exploding Earth does make for a nice visual, I won't be losing any sleep.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Ustwo

Some people consider the theory of plate tectonics to be perhaps one of the greatest of the twentieth century and very quickly accepted for a theory of its magnitude.

While an expanding earth would explain the oceans as they are and the shape of the continents, it leaves way to many gaping holes to be considered seriously.

The most obvious is that you can find sea shells in mountain ranges such as the alps. This requires no real advanced scientific knowledge to just shoot down right there.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Subtext: The Earth is expanding, but I can't or won't tell you why or how.

Sun Tzu

According to pangea the continents will eventually collide once again.



If it is a stretch that earth may have been 80% of its present size millions of years ago then it places an enormous amount of reliance on volcanic activity spouting out mass that just by chance fits together perfectly on all sides.

Looking at the model of pangea there was allot of ice connecting and disappearing mass. The accreation model loses almost none at all.




























I havent done any scientific research, I have to rely on the notes and findings of others and hopefully make some sense of it.

Is there any evidence of bottlenecking in the subduction zones? I also ust started looking so I dont know the answer to this
question; is there any other planet or moon in the solar system that has plate movement like Earth? Any that have been proven (theorized) to be expanding?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Ustwo

Ummm sea shells on mountain tops? Hello?

Rather than trying to explain science none here have studied in depth and few are even qualified to examine, lets cut to the chase.

The expanding earth theory not only doesn't explain things like the rocky mountains or the himalayan mountains it doesn't explain why there is ample evidence why the mountain ranges were once sea floor. They are not volcanic in nature, so something is driving them.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

The Pacific ranges are made up of basalt, an igneous (volcanic) rock. Your "chase" has taken you off a cliff. Game over.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Ustwo

Thats swell but what does that have to do with the non-volcanic mountain ranges?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Igneous rock often changes to metamorphic. That's every mountain range in the world.

Ustwo

Is this an answer to a question?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

Where does your certainty come from, ustwo? Was Geology another of your many majors?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Jinn

I can't speak for Ustwo, but..

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 249,000 for tectonics

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 75,900 for plate tectonics

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...on&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 175,000 for subduction

These are all educated individuals presenting thoroughly researched and cited studies in peer-reviewed journals. Some of their names are even recognizable as experts, or associated with institutions of higher education.

Who is the person in this video? Does he have a name? Credentials? Or is he just a clever individual with a working knowledge of photoshop and youtube?

I think the onus would be on the OP to demonstrate its validity, not ours to demonstrate invalidity.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Elphaba

JinnKai, I don't disagree with the generally accepted science. I object to shutting down the discussion with a less than modest or informed certainty.

But that's just me.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Ustwo

One of my major fields of study as an undergrad was evolution.

Evolution often deals with 'deep time', 100's of millions of years, enough time for continental drift.

Part of what caused that evolution are changing environments, from ice ages to mountain ranges.

More to the point, anyone who studied evolutionary biology beyond a bio 101 level would know about things such as the Burgess Shale. This rich fossil bed just happens to be located, wait for it, in the rocky mountains, which are not volcanic in nature.

This is of course just an example, I have found trilobite fossils in the rocks exposed by a creek in the back of my house as a child (about 20 miles from where I live currently) as well as other shells and animal tracks in sandstone, this would also be an example which would be contradictory to the expanding earth theory but less pronounced so I chose to not bother with it.

But still while my formal education more than covers this topic, I've learned perhaps more informally on my own. The formal education gave me the needed background in such matters that I can continue to expand my knowledge beyond what I learned, and focus on what I find interesting.

Since you seem so interested my last three books I read for pleasure were, The God Delusion, The Ancestors Tale, and Genome. While not 'expert' level books, they do keep your mind focused on the biological side of life. The Ancestors Tale happened to get into plate tectonics as it is key for understanding how some species evolved.

So my certainty comes from a life time of knowledge, not just at the institutional level but my own studies as well. I am not a geologist but I know the principles better than most people. I might not be able to tell you what level of seismic activity would indicate an impending volcanic eruption without looking it up, I do know enough that when some crackpot a few years ago predicted an earthquake for the Midwest based on the moon, that he was full of shit. Didn't happen and he was of course.

This theory is even more full of shit. You couldn't cram more shit in it without adding magic unicorns with intestinal issues. It doesn't fit easily observed data, it doesn't fit the measured tectonic movements, it requires giant leaps in logic in terms of mass and density, its just plain silly.

When the theory of plate tectonics was introduced it did meet a lot of resistance it shook the very foundations of geology. The idea that entire continents moved seemed to many absurd. The difference here though is that it answered SO many questions, it filled in so many gaps, that despite being an earth shattering theory it was very quickly and pretty much universally adapted.

The expanding earth theory, for a time, was used to explain why the shapes of the continents were so similar but that idea was quickly squashed under a mountain of evidence in favor of plate tectonics and a lack of evidence or explanation for an expanded earth theory.

Belief in this is the equivalent of thinking the earth is flat.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

You know that all Elphaba was saying is that one should not ignore any evidence because of preconceived notions, which is what was responsible for the flat Earth theory enduring for so long.

Ustwo

There is preconceived notions and then there is knowledge. If you approach every problem from the position of a tabula rasa then knowledge doesn't progress and you have to make stupid mistakes all over again.

The flat earth theory held for so long because it was nearly correct. Maybe plate tectonics isn't 100% correct, but it is far more correct than an expanding earth theory, which can be shot down so easily.

As such I can be certain in this, its a step backwards, its a flat earth.

Now if someone came forward and said telomere length had nothing to do with cellular aging I'd be willing to really examine each aspect of it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Again, you're stating the wrong case. I said (paraphrasing) "don't disallow evidence". In response you write, (again, paraphrased) "ah but previous evidence shouldn't be ignored". I fail to see how these ideas stand in contrast. In fact, I'd say that they rather on the same side. The side of being correct.

Ustwo

Not sure what this was suppose to mean but it doesn't apply to the question at all. It has nothing to do with what I presented as a simple refutation of the original theory. The fact that some mountain ranges are in fact volcanic in nature means nothing to those who are not and directly refute the expanding earth concept.

Again, what was your point with this? Was this in support of something or a random factoid?

I responded above.

Elphaba doesn't like may attitude, shocking I know. I won't be modest on something this basic. Its a completely debunked theory. I give it no more respect than a flat earther would deserve today.

So thats what she was saying? From that first quote to her last was really about that? I don't think it was so deep

What evidence do I disallow? There is nothing about volcanic areas which refutes plate tectonics, in fact they support it, but its also not important.

It takes but one fact to shoot down a theory. The fact that sea floors are now mountain ranges does that. The even bigger fact that we have directly measured the movements of the plates is another.

There is really nothing to see here, I simply presented the obvious evidence that I thought everyone would be able to easily understand, regardless of scientific backgrounds, but apparently didn't do so without enough humility.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

The igneous rock thing was a factoid. Elphaba was chiming in a reminder not to instantly dismiss something without looking at all the facts.

Sun Tzu

That's getting excessive. There is also another field of thought that there maybe a combination of the two theories. Pangea gives no address to accreation or Earth is flatter at the poles.

A hundred years ago the mainstream thought was one direction. It might be different a hundred years from now.

Its called having a discussion. Its called investigating. If you get so aggiatated why do you come into Tilted Paranoia? There has been plenty of people in Tilted Politics with who you told should be over here. Yet you come over here and ridicule them with statements about unicorns and vampires.

If its about sharing information from your expertise, great. If its about venting some frustration, that maybe just as well- I dont know if its wise giving someone's teeth an adjustment with an aggitated demeanor.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Martian

The Earth is flatter at the poles because it spins. Centrifugal force cause the equator to 'bulge,' creating an oblate spheroid. This is backed up by the other observable planets; the faster the rotation, the more oblate the body. No expansion necessary.

As to accretion.. well, as I said earlier, I don't know a whole lot about geology; however, I was under the impression that this is adequately explained via tectonics.

Wiki goodness.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Elphaba

Ustwo, I quoted you again to jog your memory of which statements I was responding to. You're welcome.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Sun Tzu

Cosmic material, multiplication of life + perpetual decay, and the gravitational bulge are factors. Subduction alone promotes the Earth will remain in volumous homeostasis. The same arguement is being applied now to mars and venus. They (scietific community) are especially looking at Europa because of its theoretical likeness to a once ocean covered Earth.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Ustwo

Yes, it does.

And we can be 100% sure it won't be an expanding earth theory.

You may be correct, but its because I'm expecting people HAVING a discussion to have some knowledge of the subject they are trying to discuss. Its obvious that my mistake was assuming that people wanting to talk about things and make statements about them would at least have done the basic 20 minutes of reading before posting.

Instead we get people taking the least likely explanation, ignoring evidence to the contrary and then getting upset when someone who does know what they are talking about brings it up.

I've been told by some that I should just give up here and they are obviously right. Continue on with your discussions.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Sun Tzu

The 4 Agreements:

1. Always do your best

2. Be impeccable with your word

3. Don't take things personally

4. Don't make assumptions

My life would be much less complicated if I strived a little harder towards these.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Elphaba

Given the forum, is it safe to say that I have been facinated by Europa since Clark's publication of '2001?' Sun Tzu, is there a possibility that we can infer earth's beginnings from data gathering probs of Europa, as we have done in the past with Mars? It strikes me as a tremendous scientific opportunity. (We can fund it with Bush's proposal to send men to Mars. )

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Sun Tzu

NASA's mission to send a landing probe on Europa and have it drill through the ice layer (if its as thin as some speculate) seems to have been put on a back burner. Ive been trying to understand why everything is focued on the Ares rocket. The VASIMR technology is said by many to be the next step, instead NASA seems to be going backwards. VASIMR has its critics, but there are a large amount of propulsion experts that see Ares as nothing new, except the higher price tag.

The probe wouldnt require a human operator though, I dont know why it has been set aside.

I hope to see a Mars expedition in my lifetime. Even a moon expedition, the last happend before I was born.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

ObieX

Actually if you think about it the expanding earth theory would point you toward a reason for why the seashells would be on mountains in the middle of continents. If the earth was smaller way back when then the oceans would have no place to go but into where the continents are now. If the earth was small enough (and it wouldn't take much) the oceans would flood up and over some mountains. As the Earth expanded the oceans would receed to their current levels/areas.

Also just because you're using an expanding earth theory does not meant that tectonics somehow goes right out the window. Even with an expanding earth there are still huge slabs of continent that need float on mantle that need to go someplace. As the earth expands they will break apart and move as they have been.

Other planets and moons in the solar system show extremely strong evidence for expansion and contraction. Contrary to what some people would have you believe the earth is a planet that follows the same laws as the other ones do.

The reason this kind of stuff has been pushed aside can be summed up with 1 name: Bush. Bush changed the priority of NASA to get us to the moon and then to Mars. Thats what the "new" rocket is for. If you're not a program that supports that (mars or lunar lander) you're pretty much not gettin' squat.

I've been waiting for a Europa lander for my whole life. I guess its gonna be another 20-40 years.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Ustwo

By that logic, ALL of the world would have had to have been under water at some point, and at the same time. There should be a universal underwater level which as you find higher ground would subside as the earth 'expanded', the problem is thats not what you find.

Well no you do. You see the expanding earth theory was used to explain why the continents fit together the way they do and how they spread apart (forming the seas). If you throw plate tectonics into there you don't need an expanding earth theory to explain anything. Its 'well the continents move, oh and the earth is getting magically bigger too'.

Please give some examples.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ObieX

Yep I'm saying that pretty much the entire globe would be covered over with water that then receded as the planet grew. Is it really that hard to imagine? I mean most of the planet is already covered by water.. with less space for the water it has to go onto land, and honestly it would not take a lot of lost space to flood over the continents. And back then there was a lot less ICE at the poles. As we all know currently the big thing with global warming is that the poles will melt and that water would flood over huge sections of land. And thats just a small part melting. With it all melted and the earth smaller.. yea the planet would be 95-100% covered by water.

And as for the tectonics.. this is what tectonics is. Earth broke up into continents as the planet expanded. These continents are still free floating on magma after breaking apart from a much larger chunk (the gaps being fill in by magma to create "new" earth. Just because the continents broke up from a different mass in this theory than from the other theory doesn't make it not tectonics.

Examples of expansion and contraction? k.. well the video gave the example of mars. That giant rift across the center doesn't come out of nowhere. The planet saturn is "squashed" into an oval shape and stretched out due to the speed of its spin. As that speed changes over the span of time the planets shape will change. Some of the moons like Europa are changing shape all the time as they are tugged by their parent planet's gravity, slightly stretching them and causing the planets to expand slightly toward the planet.

I'd give more but.. honestly.. do i have to? Things contract and expand all the time. Just because something is the size of a planet doesn't mean that it isn't subject to the same laws.

Earth is an extremely dynamic planet. There's the liquid magma that is churning and spinning under an extremely thin layer of crust. There's the moon tugging and spinning around the planet. All of that magma wants to bust its way through to the surface. Oceans flowing over the planet giant continents floating around.. etc etc.

If the first real theories coming out to explain our planet are incomplete or slightly off its understandable. We're getting new knowledge every day about or planet that will lead to these theories changing. 60 years ago there weren't satellites mapping the world mile by mile over land and under sea and ice to show what was what. The new knowledge may be pointing to our planet expanding. If they are they are, you can only take the sum of knowledge and form your own theories.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Ustwo

But thats the point, we would be able to see a universal ocean layer, all dated the same, for when this global ocean was, only we don't. There isn't a universal ocean layer.

Ummm sure you could make a imaginary world which magically got bigger, and bigger and had plate tectonics. That doesn't really answer any questions about our world though. It also doesn't explain HOW the earth is getting bigger, if it was.

So you are comparing tidal forces and such as equivalent to getting PHYSICALLY bigger out of no where? As you said the earth does have the same rules apply to it as the rest of the planets, it is stretched by the moon, it is altered by the suns gravity, and is in fact an ellipsoid, but that doesn't make it get bigger, only change shape slightly in the grand scheme of things. I thought you had extreme examples. As for the Mars rift valley...



This is a FAR cry from saying the earth is GROWING and growing enough to make the continents drift apart which is the original theory.

No the new knowledge isn't, in fact this was a very old theory before the theory of plate tectonics. There is nothing new about it, there is nothing to prove it, there is nothing to demonstrate it, there is nothing to support it that can't be better explained by the standard tectonic theory. Its a regression.

But lets get even more specific there are two expanding earth theories a 'slow' and a 'fast' one. The fast one is the one presented here, and part of it is denying the existence of subduction zones, which is just wrong.

The 'slow' expansion theory, from the 60's which is .05mm a year, is more plausible, mostly because its untestable. It also explains nothing, and is just a 'what if'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ObieX

I think you may believe that i'm supporting this video 100% (i may be wrong) but i'm not. I'm just saying this could very well be a part of the big picture.. not *the* big picture the video tries to make it out to be. As i mentioned in my last post i tend to take the sum of knowledge available and formulate my own view. Right now i'm still absorbing and assimilating this and was just kinda throwing out ideas to see what would come back.

Like right now i'm trying to think about how the impact which formed our moon could go with this theory since it explains the pangea theory partly. What i'm thinking now is that possibly after all this time the Earth has still been settling to fill the gap of blown off material, and since so much material was blown off all those billions of years ago that the material near the center of the planet that was once condensed and mashed into this extremely dense material due to the larger size of the planet before the impact has been very slowly releasing and expanding out trying to equalize pressure. Sorta like squishing a piece of foam rubber and then finally releasing the pressure it all wants to expand. And like with foam rubber even long after you release the pressure the piece will continue to expand very slowly afterwards.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

archetypal fool

I like how the video shows Hawaii splitting from North America and magically meandering into the Pacific Ocean, rather than being formed from volcanic activity....Anyways, the relative young age of the oceanic lithosphere compared to continental lithosphere is neatly explained by the Theory of Plate Tectonics. The speaker only mentions this fact that oceanic lithosphere is created at mid-oceanic ridges and at the same time "pulled" into the asthenosphere at subduction zones in jest, stating something along the lines that the asthenosphere is twice the density of solid granite or something, and so there's no way the oceanic lithosphere could be sinking into it...Of course, he forgets to mention that as oceanic lithosphere ages, it becomes denser than the underlying asthenosphere (but...but...the asthenosphere is twice as dense as solid granite!! That's really dense!!!1!), a fact that further supports the idea of subduction [excuse the sarcasm]. The speaker seems to have an incomplete understanding of the Theory of Plate Tectonics as it exists today. The "conspiracy" tone of the video is annoying, not only because of the conceited and paranoid ramblings, but also because it lacks any actual science (there were no oceans? Where did th water come from? Where did life originate if not the oceans?), flies in the face of all brands of evidence for Plate Tectonics, and defies plain, common reasoning...For example:

If the Earth was (is) expanding, and has doubled in volume since the extinction of the dinosaurs, that means that *whips out calculator* the acceleration caused by gravity would be 15.56 m/ss (instead of the 9.80 m/ss it is today) - this would have profound implications in almost everything. An average man (70 Kg) who weighs 154# would weigh 244# - never mind the poor dinosaurs (Argentinosaurus had a mass of 99,792 Kg - meaning its bones were capable of handling 977,961 N of force, not 1,552,417 N). Not to mention the profound effects on atmospheric pressure, hydrostatic pressure, and by extension, evolution, etc..

Everything this hypothesis claims to explain is explained and accounted for better by Plate Tectonics, which also has a huge amount of evidence going for it. We might as well be arguing creationism vs evolution.

__________________
I have my own particular sorrows, loves, delights; and you have yours. But sorrow, gladness, yearning, hope, love, belong to all of us, in all times and in all places. Music is the only means whereby we feel these emotions in their universality. ~H.A. Overstreet

Sun Tzu

Exactly. A bulge being a shift globally from the central mass, caused by spinning. This is one of the reasons why another area of theory is a combination of both schools of thought.

I dont know if plate tectonics fully denies accreation more than doesnt acknowledge it to be of significant effect.

Is the Earth is a constant state of homeostasis? Did fossil fuels exsist before oil? As things die is the decayed matter completely absorded thus never having any accumulation? Or cosmic material.

Perhaps I worded my first post poorly. Im not an expert in any of this so if I come across as argumentive, its just more of a devils advocate approach. The topic inspired me to learn more about, of which I did. I dont go about this or other topics that werent my major field of study specifically only trying to find information that supports a particular opinion I might carry. Actually the reason I even strating looking into this from the film is probably simplistic compared to the expertise being shown here. I just found it interesting (other than Hawaii- I didnt catch that) how with this theory the land visually fits together, better than Pangea. IMO

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking