07-01-12, 10:04 AM #221
If I add the surface of the Atlantic ocean (which was closed at the time of Pangea) to the surface of the Pacific ocean, it give 165,000,000 kmē + 106,000,000 kmē = 271,000,000 kmē, which is more than 255,000,000 kmē. (adding surface of Southern Ocean and part of Indian Ocean would increase further)
So roughly speaking, the Pacific Ocean was more than one hemisphere at the time of Pangea. So after Pangea breakup, its perimeter increased whereas it surface decreased, and there is no topological issue here.
this page is about geology. The page about meteorology and climate is here (please notice "What's Wrong With Still Waiting For Greenhouse?" marked as "anticrank"). See also this.
that "all the continents have moved towards the north pole since the Permian [...] all the blocks moving from different directions converging on the Arctic by large angles"?
I still claim it is false/wrong according to mainstream science because I still see mainstream science's paleogeographic maps showing something else that "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic" (but North America, Europe and Siberia moving to the North side-by-side between Permian and Jurassic).
If that's so (and this is only an hypothetis, because until now I have never Carey explaning his "since the Permian [...] the Arctic has been an area of extension" in the way you say), then my previous comment about that would be obviously irrelevant.
If that's so, then i could answer that, according to mainstream science, since the Permian there has been mostly no change in the area currently inside the Arctic circle, some extensional activity (in the "Amerasian Basin" and at the Gakkel Ridge), some compressional activity (between Alaska and eastern Siberia).
And the sentence would be wrong as for my understanding of mainstream science.
Last edited by Gneiss2011; 07-01-12 at 10:10 AM. Reason: add a source
07-01-12, 01:29 PM #222
I tend to assume instead that they are human and ask questions rather than making assumptions.
But it seems like being asked questions is too much for some participants in this thread to bear.
07-01-12, 01:36 PM #223
07-01-12, 03:25 PM #224
this source, I saw something interesting.
Originally Posted by Carey
My explanation is that he made a mistake somewhere. What is your?
The fig. 21 to 25 show several converging lines (the lines with little triangles) inside the current Arctic during all Cretaceous.
About the "Pacific Pradox", I suggest to read Robert Meservey, Topological Inconsistency of Continental Drift on the Present-Sized Earth, Science, 31 October 1969, Vol. 166 no. 3905 pp. 609-611, DOI: 10.1126/science.166.3905.609; mentionned in S. W. Carey, The expanding earth an essay review, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 2, June 1975, Pages 105143, DOI: 10.1016/0012-8252(75)90097-5.
07-01-12, 04:09 PM #225
07-03-12, 05:18 PM #226
Idem with Gneiss2011.
You're wasting your time with these obscurantists. The only positive point with them is that we can easily expose their true side so that the general reader can rapidly understand on which side are the rational thinkers.
07-03-12, 05:34 PM #227
Some people can't get a point, though this one was quite simple.
The surface of the Pacific is currently about 165,000,000 kmē while it used to be half an hemisphere 255,000,000 kmē sometimes after the Pangea break-up according to Plate Tectonics.
It follows that it must have shrunk from 255,000,000 kmē to 165,000,000 kmē lately, so should have its perimeter.
Except that there are no evidence that its perimeter shrank lately, while there are plenty evidence that it expanded...
Hopefully, the general reader can get such a simple point... hopefully...
07-03-12, 06:33 PM #228
Stop telling porkies.
07-04-12, 02:58 PM #229
Originally Posted by Carey
07-05-12, 01:45 PM #230
The expanding earth an essay review, Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 2, June 1975, Pages 105143, DOI: 10.1016/0012-8252(75)90097-5, "On the plate model the present Pacific must be smaller than the Permian Pacific by the combined area of the Arctic, Atlantic and Indian Oceans." According to Wikipedia, the curent area of the Pacific, Arctic, Atlantic, Indian oceans are 165,200,000 kmē, 14,056,000 kmē, 106,400,000 kmē, 73,556,000 kmē. 165,200,000 + 14,056,000 + 106,400,000 + 73,556,000 = 359,212,000 kmē.
Last edited by Gneiss2011; 07-05-12 at 02:17 PM.
07-14-12, 02:50 PM #231
It show most of continent moving north during Permian, Triassic and Jurassic, stucked in the Pangea, and therefore moving side-by-side to the north. During Jurassic and Cenozoic, Pangea est broken, the continent do no more move side-by-side all together; Antarctica stay on south pole, Australia move to the north solely and later than other continents, North America and Eurasia do not move to the north anymore; etc.
I do not see in those maps that "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic by several tens of degrees since the Permian". Do you see that in those maps?
- If yes, then please tell me where and how exactly you do.
- If no, then please acknowledge that, since at least 1983, Carey's claims "all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic by several tens of degrees since the Permian", "[they] have moved [...] from different directions converging on the Arctic", "since the Permian, North America, Europe, and Siberia have each converged on the north pole by large angles", are not supported by mainstream science.
For the information of the readers: the last quote is from 1996 Carey book. 1996 - 1983 = 13 damned years.
08-24-12, 10:01 PM #232
One thing is for sure (obviously)... that the earth is either expanding or it is not...
and if it is... then it does not matter if multiple aspects of this revelation wildly conflict with our current consensus science world view...
Assuming for a moment that the earth is actually expanding (for the sake of the argument) then in this case it would be irrelevant that additional aspects of this revelation also can not be explained by conventional wisdom, the same "wisdom" that brought you to such a spectacularly erroneous conclusion in the first place.
So where the extra mass is coming from? If the earth is growing that is the least of your worries...
Because once this "lid has been peeled off" who knows what else lies in that can of worms that will sit like egg on the face of the intellectual authority of consensus reality scientific dogma.
Perhaps it comes from other dimensions of which you are also clueless... best to keep this one under the rug where it belongs.
By wynn in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 05-09-11, 12:39 AMReplies: 33
By MacGyver1968 in forum Site FeedbackLast Post: 07-27-08, 05:57 AMReplies: 26