In other words no proof but hearsay.

That isn't true rodin. The coastline of each continent is determined by sea level. What was joined is the continental shelf. Please don't make a mockery out of plate tectonics and try to stick to subjects you know something about.

I did not claim I had proof of the statement. But I think there is truth to the tale.

Bring it up in another thread not here. Even though this is your thread according to the rules you cant bring up nor promote your other ATM (or CT) ideas in this thread.

Pangea debunked by CoG argument

http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html

Please look at all the animations provided by Neal here and tell me you cannot see evidence for surfaces spreading as 6new growth shows thru

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

Who brought this up here, you or Neal? Do you have any words of your own on the matter?

ETA - Debunked? Then why is it an accepted scientific theory?

I use Neal's work as a source for illustrative purposes. I do not agree with his theory of HOW. However I cannot fault his argument about sea distribution on a Pangeic Earth and am interested to see if others can.

I have never been in contact with Neal though I would like to be

Are you aware that in ATM a link is not considered an answer to an argument?

So I have to repeat in words what is better visualised?

OK

A Pangeatic Earth would be lopsided. The CoG would shift towards the heavier landmass. Ocean would distribute symmetrically/radially about the CoG submerging parts of Pangea revealing new land on the opposing side.

However the really convincing evidence comes from the similarity of old/new surface on all the components of the SS with visible crust. All show same pattern of growth

edit

And matching of opposing tracts of old surface

In your words...yes. That is what the rules say and if you have a problem with them speak to the mods or the admins.
Proof of this please. Remember links to other peoples words do not constitute proof and neither does asking questions or personal conjecture.Your proof please.Your proof please. Everything you wrote above was personal conjecture not science. Do you have any science that "debunks" plate tectonics?Matching continental shelf is what is seen in plate tectonics. What are you talking about?

Above sea level land masses match across the Atlantic and also the Pacific (coastal regions). This is not predicted by plate tectonics.

As for the lopsided Earth. If all land mass was to one side, that would unbalance the Earth. In order to support the Pangea argument you have to argue that the oceanic side was much more dense than the Pangea side, to produce a CoG that would result in the Oceanic distribution of the Pangea model. A counterbalancing weight to Pangea.

It doesn't? that is news to all the geologists in the world. Sure it does, it just doesn't go on to blindly say that ALL coastline should match since coastlines are determined by sea level and the true edges of the continents are at the continental shelf. Do you know where the continental shelf is located?Again, you argue from personal incredulity. Do you have any scientific arguments or just a repeat of the same old logical fallacy?

I know what the shelf is shallow water around continent showing where the sea has encroached on the old land. Pangea says only the east was connected, not the west. It is clear all land masses were connected and have drifted apart. I wonder if Neal Adams accounted for shelves in his model? I presume so. While the principle of expansion would still be in evidence, if Neal omitted the shelves then the expansion would not have been quite as much.

As for the off-centre Earth of Pangea. Let's remove the ocean. We have a very lop-sided Earth do we not? How to account for this?

Earth is not a hard asteroid. It is mobile, mostly molten, and tends to spherical.

Water being much less dense merely distributes about the CoG

You are confusing continental shelf with continental slope.Really?!? I see northern continents connected to southern continents also. I must have north confused with east. Yes, at the continental shelf.Do you have any original thoughts about this because if you don't, there is no sense talking to you about this.Oh so removing an ocean is scientific to you?Once again you argue from personal incredulity. What exactly do you think continental drift means?

I don't see any reason for that, remember that you are bumping not the steel blocks, but relatively soft piles of sand. any bump will immediately join them and if that formation decides to split again it will split in some new place.

in any case this is more sensible than suggesting that aliens sliced continents with big laser.
there is no way that earth could expand with no reason and expecially no reason why such theory would be required, because you will have harder time to explain that expansion mechanism and rewrite half of physic than just accepting some more practical solution.

Back after enforced absence

To get on with the business of answering points I want to put this idea that the continents bumping around can explain the coastline matches to rest.

Imagine if Pangea started on the other side of the Earth, and that Pacific spread resulted in the present approach of Europe/Africa towards the Americas. Now, despite the match of coastlines, we must argue that they approach and match by co-incidence, or because they had been previously joined in some previous migration.

The standard Earth model argues in the same way for the matching of Pacific coastlines.

Now as we accept that Stars grow and contract without invoking aliens and big lasers why not consider some nuclear mechanism that does the same for planets? After all, the evidence for expansion is compelling.

Why do you ignore that plate tectonics claims the continents joined at the continental shelf and not on the seacoast?

Regarding the Pangeatic Earth can you suggest a viable structure in which the centre of gravity of the planet is such that one side is entirely sea? Bear in mind that Magma is less dense than crustal rock and that under the sea the crust is thinner.

I suggest you find out what the continental shelf is and where it is located then you can rephrase your question.

ETA - Isn't it you who is attempting to "overthrow" a mainstream theory? Why are you asking me for evidence to disprove your ATM idea. It is your job to prove it.

http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/...ter04/P08.html

Link to my previous post

Continental Shelf = extended continents



As I said I do not know if Neal took the CS into account with his animation. The prescence of the shelves do not discredit the idea of spreading. If Neal forgot to include them his animations will show a smaller Earth with a lower radius than actual.

My point is that there is no mainstream theory to account for the distribution of water on a Pangeatic Earth. Maybe a large iron meteorite embedded itself in the Seaward side but I have never heard of such a theory.

Gravity will tend to distribute mass evenly about a CoG

I re-viewed and it seems Neal omits to account for the CS. The basic shapes however will still fit together.

If I can contact Mr Adams I will suggest he produce another animation

I understand that technology now exists to assay the crust by remote means.

An excellent experiment would be to find matching readings across the Atlantic (which we accept has spread) and look for similar correlation across the Pacific (which is supposed not to have)

Continental shelf is not extended continents. Why do you think continents end at the seacoast which is determined by sea level?

There is no mainstream theory that meets your ridiculous ideas about water distribution. As I said (and plate tectonics says), the continents were joined at the continental shelf. How does that fit in your "water distribution scheme?

Yes it is

Though the continental shelf is treated as a physiographic province of the ocean, it is not part of the deep ocean basin proper, but the flooded margins of the continent.

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

There is a good Pangea animation here

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

Why was the sea to one side? Water would distribute radially about the planet CoG. This means the submerged land mass must be very much denser than the continent to produce a centre of gravity commensurate with water distribution

You want me to explain an animation on an open encyclopedia on the internet? When you explain where the continental shelf is and why the continents were joined there then you can answer your own question. As of now all I see from you is baseless conjecture and non-expert opinion that goes against mainstream science and to top it off you misrepresent mainstream science. Start making some effort to get what mainstream science claims correct and please start using math otherwise I fear nobody will ever take you seriously besides the handful of people that believe everything mainstream is a conspiracy.

Plate Tectonics and Continental drift are establisherd, we can measure the continents and plates moving, we can measure the mountains increasing in size. we can measure the subduction and spreading. what evidence do you want to bring to the party?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

maybe covered already, maybe not, and maybe yo u already gave up on the "lopsided earth" thing- i skipped most of this page- but how thick is the crust in relation to the diameter of the earth? how far "off balance" would the earth be if all the continents were lumped together on one side of the planet?

there was a thread here a few months back about how deep the deepest valley in the bottom of the deepest ocean would be if you scaled the earth down to the size of a basketball or something similar. i seem to recall that at that scale, the difference of the height of Everest to the bottom of the deepest hole in the ocean would be measured in the thousandths of an inch.
so, to use that analogy, putting all the land mass that pokes out of the ocean on one side would be about the same as the amount of sand that sticks to the one side of a volley when you drop it in the sand- in other words, insignificant. maybe an undrilled bowling ball dropped in the sand would be a better analog, since that type of ball is solid where the volley ball is hollow and filled with air.
hell, look at the distribution of the land masses on earth right now- it is mostly on about half of the surface, and concentrated more towards the northern hemisphere. the earth should be wobbling all over the place, but it isn't. how do you account for that? does having Antarctica with all that ice on the south pole somehow balance it all out?

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

Average ocean depth 4 km

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/HelenLi.shtml

Average land height nearly a kilometer

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

Difference = about 5 Km

I agree across 12.5K Km diameter not such a big deal. Also thin undersea crust is denser than land and magma is denser than continents, therefore I concede the wobbly Earth hypothesis does not hold water...