The age of the Antarctic Ice Cap questioned

[stereologist]

Peter B,

I forgot to answer the last part of your post...

But continuing, can you prove that all life on the planet would be wiped out ??? Because i can prove that it would not, although i agree that

generalized extinctions would take place.

So far you've done nothing but attempt to place Australia in a position where the overwhelming evidence shows that Australia never was.

You claim to be able to prove something? Please show us.

[Thorvir]

Is this debunked Expanded Earth craziness actually still being considered? In this day and age?

Well, people still think the Earth flat, and that the Moon Landing was a hoax, and that the Moon is artificial, so my shock is a bit feigned...

[Mario Dantas]

That is hardly a match. The contact zone is very small portion of the perimeter of Australia. It looks to me more like someone doig a jigsaw puzzle and trying to place a piece where it does not fit. You are also supposing that this fit as you call it represents the shape of these continents tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. More importantly, you are attempting to fit pieces despite the fact that the geology across the proposed gap does not match and paleomagnetic studies show that these land masses were never in that configuration.

The continents do not fit together as you propose. Shape is only a small part of the puzzle and what we do know is that you are attempting to match up shapes that do not represent the ancient shapes of the land masses.

You suggest that the continental land masses fit on a smaller Earth radius. That's wrong. You really need to try this yourself. Try this. Cut up the peel of an orange and then try to place these pieces on the surface of a grapefruit. Notice how the "continents" have a 3D shape that do not fit.

But the real problem of course is that paleomagnetic studies and geology across boundaries show that these matches you are proposing are utterly wrong.

The expanding Earth theory is wrong for many reasons and not the ideas you propose. There is nothing to lose in academia by promoting a new idea. That is the kiddie logic tossed out by fringies to cover up ridiculous ideas. It appeals to those that have no idea how science works. The expanding Earth theory is a long since refuted idea that went the way of phlogiston, spontaneoues generation, geocentric universe, impetus, etc.

Before i forget, let me sincere apologize the OP for the intrusion…

http://oilismastery....ication-of.html

Stereologist,

When you affirm that the actual continental fit is very small compared to the whole perimeter of Australia, i have to remind you that i have never proposed a fit between the entirety of the australian continent and south america (if that is possible at all). The above image is taken from an interesting blog (Oil is master) dealing with a myriad of subjects such as earth expansion theories and shows exactly how the two landmasses could have been joined. Notice how the orogeny in southwestern America is located where the two continents “appear” to meet. Another coincidence?

More importantly, you are attempting to fit pieces despite the fact that the geology across the proposed gap does not match and paleomagnetic studies show that these land masses were never in that configuration.

When you say that i am attempting to fit pieces despite geologic and paleomagnetic data not matching, i should argue that many of that information probably isn’t yet discovered and/or is not being well interpreted. Why would science even bother to look for any other evidence since they already have simple and working answer for fundamental issues in plate tectonics?

The continents do not fit together as you propose. Shape is only a small part of the puzzle and what we do know is that you are attempting to match up shapes that do not represent the ancient shapes of the land masses.

You suggest that the continental land masses fit on a smaller Earth radius. That's wrong. You really need to try this yourself. Try this. Cut up the peel of an orange and then try to place these pieces on the surface of a grapefruit. Notice how the "continents" have a 3D shape that do not fit.

You are talking like those folks on the hill that denied Wegener’s due credit of having done so much with so little data…

I can really imagine some of the inexplicable anger from his contemporary peers. Can you? Here at UM i guess one can taste some of that bitterness feeling…

You say that continental fit is only a small part of the puzzle… what can i say?

The continental fit puzzle is very important, imo. It is from that continent “re-mapping” that things got together in the first place, biomarkers as evidence of earlier connections, as well as geologic similarities…

Regarding the “peeling of an orange” in order to fit it in a grapefruit’s surface, what i can tell you is that other people already did it (although i myself have thought of it sometimes).

But the real problem of course is that paleomagnetic studies and geology across boundaries show that these matches you are proposing are utterly wrong.

You call it utterly wrong, i say they only show that science did not want to dig further as it is its science's motto to leave it be once you got the simpler and working answer to the problem:

But instead, and i am not a believer of any known theory of earth expansionism, there can't be no other true and only possible Pangaean configuration, as is the smaller radius fit which is undeniably there and even if said continental fit wasn’t as important, as you put it, it should be regarded not as a mere coincidence, but as a possible explanation for plate tectonics concept altogether, and consequently as pieces that once formed not only a single continental but also planetary kernel that broke up.

The expanding Earth theory is wrong for many reasons and not the ideas you propose. There is nothing to lose in academia by promoting a new idea. That is the kiddie logic tossed out by fringies to cover up ridiculous ideas. It appeals to those that have no idea how science works. The expanding Earth theory is a long since refuted idea that went the way of phlogiston, spontaneoues generation, geocentric universe, impetus, etc.

Imo, the expanding theory is wrong, but not completely. Remember Wegener’s denial ? Never say never…

M

Edited May 15, 2014 by Mario Dantas

[Everdred]

Before i forget, let me sincere apologize the OP for the intrusion…

http://oilismastery....ication-of.html

Stereologist,

When you affirm that the actual continental fit is very small compared to the whole perimeter of Australia, i have to remind you that i have never proposed a fit between the entirety of the australian continent and south america (if that is possible at all). The above image is taken from an interesting blog (Oil is master) dealing with a myriad of subjects such as earth expansion theories and shows exactly how the two landmasses could have been joined. Notice how the orogeny in southwestern America is located where the two continents “appear” to meet. Another coincidence?

Exactly why should a mountain range indicate a previous join? If Australia and South America were once joined, they would have been split by a rift. Rifts do not create mountain ranges on continental crust. A mountain range in this location is exactly what we wouldn't expect if Australia and South America were once joined.

As for the fit, as you have repeatedly failed to understand, continental crust is not defined as being above water. It is defined by the composition of the crust. Large portions of continental crust are currently submerged, so looking at modern coastlines does not reveal the actual extent of continental crust.

Here's a map of continental crust:

Looking at Australia, you'll note two things. First of all, there is a huge bulge of continental crust on the Northeastern portion of Australia that would prevent the fit that's being proposed on the basis of modern coastlines. Second, as I previously mentioned in this thread, there is a massive chunk of continental crust (named Zealandia since New Zealand constitutes the majority of its exposed surface) just off the eastern coast of Australia. This was once connected to Australia. Any proposed join that ignores this huge mass is necessarily incorrect.

[stereologist]

Before i forget, let me sincere apologize the OP for the intrusion…

Stereologist,

When you affirm that the actual continental fit is very small compared to the whole perimeter of Australia, i have to remind you that i have never proposed a fit between the entirety of the australian continent and south america (if that is possible at all). The above image is taken f

...

When you say that i am attempting to fit pieces despite geologic and paleomagnetic data not matching, i should argue that many of that information probably isn’t yet discovered and/or is not being well interpreted. Why would science even bother to look for any other evidence since they already have simple and working answer for fundamental issues in plate tectonics?

So despite the fact that 100% of the geological evidence shows you are dead wrong you continue to play this game? How ridiculous.

You appear to have zero knowledge of geology. The evidence, 100% of evidence, shows that this Australia-SA match up is wrong, dead wrong. Your argument of information not being known shows that you are arguing from a position of personal ignorance. Obviously!

I've read Wegener's book. Have you? There are many problems with Wegener's ideas, which is why his continental drift was abandoned. Your suggestion that he angered people is again clear evidence that you know nothing at all about how science works. It didn't anger people it brought out many arguments, and quite valid arguments about the problems with continental drift. Plate tectonics does not have those problems.

So after you make a worthless claim that "science did not want to dig further" you post an image showing you are dead wrong! You've done that repeatedly. Aren't you getting embarrassed by posting clear evidence that your idea is nonsense?

There is no smaller radius fit. That's another of your rather drab jokes.

Wegener was wrong. Continental drift does not work. Plate tectonics does. The expanding Earth theory is wrong and that has been known for a century.

[Van Gorp]

Take a deep breath Stereo.

It's only an exchange of idea's, nothing serious ;-)

[jaylemurph]

Take a deep breath Stereo.

It's only an exchange of idea's, nothing serious ;-)

I think his frustation is valid. Mario shows no interest in /exchanging/ ideas. He wants to present whatever it is that crosses his mind and take a rather affected form of umbrage when people point out he doesn't actually seem to know what he's talking about.

--Jaylemurph

[Van Gorp]

I at least don't have any problems with stuff and style brought by Mario.

Honestly don't see why one must be irritated.

Related to topic: i never saw it like this but maybe there is a point that parts of scientific community are sometimes more interested in a simple and workable theory than extra evidence that puts it all into question again.

Good thought to ponder on.

[stereologist]

Take a deep breath Stereo.

It's only an exchange of idea's, nothing serious ;-)

You are assuming that there is an exchange of ideas. Is there?

In an exchange of ideas we have something like the recent exchange I had with another poster on the Kennedy assassination. My idea of an exchange is where I get to click like on an opposing view as I did there.

Back to this thread. Mario Dantas posts an image showing Australia attached to the east side of the continental mass and yet claims it is actually on the west side. MD also denies the existence of over a century of geological research showing that DM's idea is wrong.

A more interesting question is why was continental drift wrong, but plate tectonics right? They are not the same although some people believe they are.

[Van Gorp]

You are assuming that there is an exchange of ideas. Is there?

In an exchange of ideas we have something like the recent exchange I had with another poster on the Kennedy assassination. My idea of an exchange is where I get to click like on an opposing view as I did there.

Back to this thread. Mario Dantas posts an image showing Australia attached to the east side of the continental mass and yet claims it is actually on the west side. MD also denies the existence of over a century of geological research showing that DM's idea is wrong.

A more interesting question is why was continental drift wrong, but plate tectonics right? They are not the same although some people believe they are.

Are you being posted about Mario's idea's and he about yours?

Well, then yes for me this accounts for an exchange of idea's.

If a kind of conversion or agreement (even understanding) is needed before we can speak about exchanging idea's then we have idd a different idea about it.

I don't understand why some posters hold on to their opinions, but it still is an exchange idea's no?

But that definition play let alone:

An interesting point you raise: why is continental drift considered to be less right then plate tectonics?

I don't understand. The latter seem to explain better what the force behind the propelling could be, because this was the major hole in Ortelius/Wegner's story.

[stereologist]

Continental drift supposes that the continents are floating in an ocean of rock. It might be easier to imagine that the continents are pieces of stone placed on sand in a sand box. Through some mechanism these rocks are pushed around on top of the sand. Wegener supposes that the tip of South America is bent back and the islands off that point are pieces of continent broken off as South America floats across the surface of the Earth.

Continental drift has a number of problems. First it is not physically possible for the continents to drift across the face of the Earth. The material is not strong enough. Second, it would not leave the pattern of sediments seen in the oceans. Along Africa would be the oldest opening of the the Atlantic with progressively newer ocean to the west. Sedimentation in the oceans does not show that pattern. South America is not leaving behind bits of continent that break off as it floats across the Earth. Later on the pattern of magnetic striping on the ocean floor would indicate something other than a progressively younger ocean floor to the west. If the continents were floating across the Earth we'd expect to find instances where the continent is headed towards islands, but the islands are moving with the continent.

Just as a geocentric and a heliocentric theory leads to different predictions so do continental drift and plate tectonics. Both geological theories try to explain the apparent similarity in distant continental margins. After that there are very different predictions about many issues. That is why they are different theories and continental drift by Wegener is not the same as plate tectonics.

Some of the work I recently learned about plate tectonics was research into determining when the plates first started to move. Unlike continental drift, plate tectonics can describe how and why continents formed. Although continental drift has been shown to not be a viable theory some of the ideas have been brought into plate tectonics such as continents do indeed move. It is possible to determine the ancient positions of continents. The joining of continents in the past can be verified by examining the geology across the hypothesized join. Moving continents can explain the distribution of fossils. Land bridges are not required to explain things like the distribution of lemur fossils, nor the distribution of cichlids in Madagascar and India.

[Van Gorp]

Thnx Stereo,

This gives me a good idea of what is involved!

[stereologist]

Thnx Stereo,

This gives me a good idea of what is involved!

One of the really important points to remember in this is that Wegener's work [recedes WWII. Up until then the oceans which lie over 69% of the Earth's surface were unknown. In other words, most of the Earth's surface was unknown. During WWII and after the ocean maps and aerial maps revolutionized out understanding of the world. I'm sure Wegener would have been on the forefront of plate tectonics research, but he happened to do his work beforehand.

Years ago I met someone looking for bedrock in Maine. They were looking for samples of bedrock to try and map the location of the boundary between Africa and North America. These continents collided to form Pangaea and later split apart. The break was not where the margins had been. Part of Maine had once been a part of Africa.

[Van Gorp]

Concerning science and being more interested in having a workable and simple theory, rather than being confronted with 'unproductive' questions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Bengtsson and the workable theory of global warming.

Believe and science coming together: i for me don't believe in the all objective scientific base of the global warming theory.

I can imagine this can be also relevant for other aspects like age of ice.

[Mario Dantas]

The fact that you "have never read nothing to do with these aspects" shows that an obvious problem with the expanding earth theory has been avoided by the proponents.

The main problem with the expanding Earth theory is that it is a failure when it comes to physics and geology. It was an old proposal for the apparent matching of continental outlines. And science has not overlooked anything. In fact, science shows that the Earth is not expanding. The use of devices to determine sea floor spreading rates, and GPS data shows that the Earth is not changing size.

I have to tell you that i am not an expert in geology, actually i am pretty ignorant...

But, and there must be always a "but" in life, i too can think logically regarding aspects concerning geology!

Having said that, i will point out the possibility of an expansion of the earth by an sudden impacting accretion! And therefore, in this line of thought, the expansion of the earth, should have been a "isolated" event rather than any sort of expansionary "trick" to make the earth, gradually, grow to its present size.

Of course the earth is not expanding anymore, but it could have in the recent past...

M

[Mario Dantas]

So far you've done nothing but attempt to place Australia in a position where the overwhelming evidence shows that Australia never was.

You claim to be able to prove something? Please show us.

What a coincidence that South america and Australia shared same a common fern fossil...

The geoid map show that an expansion took place, since it captures earthquakes and therefore any stronger crust upheaval, in general.

The region of the Indian Geoid Low (IGLO) are probably indicating a possible impacting region, and consequent expansion...

Continents could float on expanding magma, until the crust hardened and impeached further continental progression. Today's plate tectonics would have been the inertial magma flows that were created, during this supposed tectonic "unrest".

M

[Mario Dantas]

The impact i am proposing could have teared continental cohesion and while expanding further continents apart as we know them today.

M

[Peter B]

I have to tell you that i am not an expert in geology, actually i am pretty ignorant...

But, and there must be always a "but" in life, i too can think logically regarding aspects concerning geology!

In the case of my own ignorance, I'm generally going to go with the experts in any subject I'm unfamiliar with. My reasoning is that no matter how good my own ability to think logically I see no reason to assume I'm any better at it than those experts.

Having said that, i will point out the possibility of an expansion of the earth by an sudden impacting accretion! And therefore, in this line of thought, the expansion of the earth, should have been a "isolated" event rather than any sort of expansionary "trick" to make the earth, gradually, grow to its present size.

Of course the earth is not expanding anymore, but it could have in the recent past...

M

Could you, er, expand on that a bit please. Are you saying that a single impact event caused the Earth to increase in size? By what means? Was it that the volume of the impactor was added to the volume of the pre-impact Earth? Or did the impact bring to an end some sort of compacting power so the Earth could expand? Something else?

[Peter B]

What a coincidence that South america and Australia shared same a common fern fossil...

What in the slightest is coincidental about this? It's generally accepted that the marsupials which dominate mammalian wildlife in Australia had their origins in South America too.

But please note the map you have displayed does not have South America adjacent to Australia.

[Mario Dantas]

I did some quick math.

The Earth has a Radius of about 3963 miles. And a surface area of 196.9 million square miles. And a land mass area of 57.5 million square miles. And a volume of water about 332.5 million cubic miles. Which means if the Earth was flat, it would be 1.7 miles of ocean everywhere.

So if you reduced the Earth to just the the landmass, that is a Radius of 2139 miles, and the sphere would be about 54% of the height/width/depth of the Earth. Just bigger then 1/2 the "size". Then assuming that the volume of water is the same, you'd have a average depth of 5.8 miles.

So without the ocean basins, very few of even the tallest mountains would peak (peek?) above the water.

If you actually use the number 1/2 R (Radius) you get a depth of 6.7 miles.

I just don't see how the Shrunken Earth theory could account for all this miles of water?

DieChecker,

Very good thinking...

And my answer is that Oceanus, the world encircling river might have existed in reality:

Imo, the most evident answer would also be that a great deal of it (water) was in the form of ice, that would have made part of the last ice age.

Worth of notice is how Greenland was extremely close to Gibraltar...

M

[Mario Dantas]

Exactly why should a mountain range indicate a previous join? If Australia and South America were once joined, they would have been split by a rift. Rifts do not create mountain ranges on continental crust. A mountain range in this location is exactly what we wouldn't expect if Australia and South America were once joined.

As for the fit, as you have repeatedly failed to understand, continental crust is not defined as being above water. It is defined by the composition of the crust. Large portions of continental crust are currently submerged, so looking at modern coastlines does not reveal the actual extent of continental crust.

Here's a map of continental crust:

Looking at Australia, you'll note two things. First of all, there is a huge bulge of continental crust on the Northeastern portion of Australia that would prevent the fit that's being proposed on the basis of modern coastlines. Second, as I previously mentioned in this thread, there is a massive chunk of continental crust (named Zealandia since New Zealand constitutes the majority of its exposed surface) just off the eastern coast of Australia. This was once connected to Australia. Any proposed join that ignores this huge mass is necessarily incorrect.

Everdred,

You surely raised an interesting point...

You are correct that huge pieces of continental landmasses are in between Australia and south America, but that could have been one of many geologic "byproducts", believe it or not, consequence of an impact in the IOGL region, expanding earth, but also engaging different continental motions, as can be attested by the only available "earthquake" map, the geoid:

It is apparent to me that New Zealand and the western part of south America are parallel... and also a lot of activity between Australia and New Zealand.

Australia and New Zealand might have been connected to South America, and in a sudden expanding event were re-located nearly 10.000 miles from one another.

Thanks for pointing out Zealandia for me, i just did not know that...

M

[Gingitsune]

But it's North America which they place West of South America, Australia is not even close...

Looking at this map, there's too much free coast on Antartica, There most have been some other plate between Australia and South America...

[Mario Dantas]

In the case of my own ignorance, I'm generally going to go with the experts in any subject I'm unfamiliar with. My reasoning is that no matter how good my own ability to think logically I see no reason to assume I'm any better at it than those experts.

Could you, er, expand on that a bit please. Are you saying that a single impact event caused the Earth to increase in size? By what means? Was it that the volume of the impactor was added to the volume of the pre-impact Earth? Or did the impact bring to an end some sort of compacting power so the Earth could expand? Something else?

Peter B,

I understand what you are saying...

Nevertheless, it is Plato that informed us that a huge island existed in the north Atlantic. It is him who is, ultimately, sort of questioning modern geology...

I just followed or try to follow that logic.

Regarding the expansion of the earth, yes, a single impact (of a moon sized object, as previously shown in impacting software online), could provoke an impacting accretion, increasing the volume of the planet.

M

[Mario Dantas]

What in the slightest is coincidental about this? It's generally accepted that the marsupials which dominate mammalian wildlife in Australia had their origins in South America too.

But please note the map you have displayed does not have South America adjacent to Australia.

Peter B,

Well for all that matters, it is a coincident fact that similar bio markers happen in both regions (south America Australia).

Yes, in fact it doesn't show Australia linked to south America (maybe another interpretation? who knows), but this does:

http://tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html

http://tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html

http://tmgnow.com/repository/global/expanding_earth.html

M

[bdoon]

Many of you will remember my posts about Terra Australis Incognita being Plato's Atlantis. In essence, I argue that Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica were all part of this super continent, and that it was inhabited 12 000 years ago (see the summary here). That would imply that Antarctica would have been ice free at that time. Scientist have dated the age of the ice cap to several hundred thousand years, which would seemingly blow a big hole in my theory (there are several other aspects of my theory that nobody has been able to explain away so far).

It has been brought to my attention that the dating of the ice cap is not universally accepted, as for example argued here. Although the author of this article obviously has a different motive for questioning the age of the ice cap (he is a Creationist), the article nevertheless appears to have valid scientific arguments.

How do or did scientists respond to the issues highlighted in the article, if at all? Is anyone aware of similar articles in scientific circles (that question the age of the ice caps)? No scientist appears to have considered the possibility that the ice cap had developed following a comet or asteroid impact (at the Scotia plate) 12 000 years ago.

What I want to know is why the "Top Hat " happened? Why did the US and UK send all those troops and ships to Antarctica after the war (WW2). Is it true Admiral Byrd made statements about the USA facing attack from the skies in the future?

Scotia is what the Romans called Ireland.