What if the earth started as a cell (or is one big cell) and continental drift was a result of it growing/splitting as it expanded. All the inland undersea places, like the Grand Canyon, could've been "underwater" while it was smaller, and it cracked as it grew... I can't help but find the idea of the continents being all cuddled up as Pangaea then pushing apart while being the same mass as illogical.Also there are very distinct polar properties (air and water currents going opposite directions, for example) between the north/southern hemispheres.
>>16281696>Pangaea then pushing apart>growing/splitting as it expandedYou haven't described how the thing you don't like is different from the thing you do like.
>>16281704Simply that, when its been described to me, is that the continents used to be together with the ocean basically being on the opposite side of the earth. It wasn't taught to me as a growth/splitting model
>>16281718But what's the difference between the model you remember and the model that you're saying supersedes it? I don't see the difference from what you've written so far.
>>16281725I'm saying that the earth could have been smaller, and as its mass grew, it split. I guess a better image would be a cracked egg, but if water were on the outside (the ancient seas), and as the earth grew the mass of ground shifted as is generally taught (plates pushing against one another to create mountain ranges, trenches, etc.)It's a rough idea. But an idea that I'd like to talk about
>>16281738But I suppose it would be more that it stretched out, as new mass was being created from the core. The core being similar to a heart. All animals start as nothing but a sperm and egg, and grow from an external source feeding it energy through an umbilical cord as it floats around in amniotic fluid. Space might be something like amniotic fluid for a planet... and the sun could be something like an umbilical cord (figuratively speaking), directing energy towards our planetary sphere informing its growth. The earth has a sort of gravitational tether to it, as the moon does to the earth.
>>16281738I'd also like to talk about it. Thank you for bringing it up. There's something wrong about Pangea but I still don't understand the difference: what flaw do you see and what reconciliation do you see?
>>16281754I don't think Pangaea is wrong. What I'm suggesting is a step before the models they show.I've always been taught that eventually enough dust and gas gathered together after the big bang that earth happened. Then pangaea.I want to explore that informational gap between "big bang", "star dust" and "pangaea"
>>16281771That's a big gap. I'm not an astrophysist. The first two are sky and the last one is earth. What does the earth Pangea have to do with the sky Pangea
>>16281781The earth pangaea is trying to show it expanding like a balloon.I suppose, a way to imagine it would be compared to pregnancy. I'm going to use 2 terms, "aquasphere" to describe the ocean before land pierced through it, and "terrasphere" to describe the dirt/ground/land/etc. When a woman is pregnant they may not look pregnant until they're 16-20 weeks along. There could have been a period in the earth's development where the stratosphere (air/sky) and "aquasphere" were larger than the ground/terrasphere.As the earth continued to grow (hypothetically), it would be similar to when a embryo outgrows its womb or egg.
>>16281781The initial growth would happen rapidly (during the extremely volatile parts of earth's history) and would stabilize as it entered a "mature" state. Humans live up to ~120 years at best (1440 months) but pregnancy is only ~9 months of that timespan. So in earth's timeline, something like this would probably happen fairly quickly...even if quickly means thousands of years. Also with time relativity, we always measure time through "human time" and our understanding of years. If you think about real time, there is a large range of subjectivity. A small animal, like a mouse, has a 20-day pregnancy and usually only lives about 2 years. They have smaller hearts (rapid bpm) and because of the faster bpm, their processing/reaction speeds are faster. I would imagine humans would look quite slow. An organism/cell like the earth would have a much longer lifespan and time would be extremely slow for it, relative to our lifespans. And that we, perhaps, are a part of the earth as an organism in a way that microbes are a part of us. Others have suggested the earth as being a super-being while comparing humanity to a cancer. But I actually think humans would be a natural part of the earth, like microbes are natural in our bodies. Maybe we're like a neuron. Humans all want to connect, share ideas, and progress. We do so remarkably well... Creating tribes, towns, cities, printing presses, the internet, and more. We keep developing more and more efficient ways to convey information, to the specific groups of people we need to reach. It would make humans purpose in life to connect, tend, and grow... Rather than being some random destructive force that appeared through chance. I don't believe in God but don't believe in random chance either. It's a slightly larger-reaching idea than just pangaea, butpbig-bang pangaea is a big gap that annoys at me.
>>16281823>>16281839I read the first post 3 times and the later one twice.I don't understand the connection to Pangea or to the movement of the ground under our feet. If the ground is expanding like Pangea, or expanding like a very subtle balloon, I don't understand the difference.?
>>16281848Pangaea is the theory of continental drift with plate tectonics, and how the continents are separated when they used to be connected. I agree with this. The only difference is the starting point of the theory. I just want to rewind a bit to understand what happened before Pangaea started existing. Everything we understand about pre-history is based on taking evidence and building a retro-active narrative. We rely on ancient texts to fill in the gap on human history. We rely on fossil records, erosion patterns, etc. to build out our understanding of the earth's development. Archaeology comes in when humans start showing up, and the further back you go the spottier the records go.I don't think the earth would still be expanding, but that it reached it's genetic-growth limit. A human only grows to a certain size because of our genes/DNA telling us when to stop. The earth would have also stopped growing, hence the stabilization of our climate (compared to the ice ages, etc.)In all beings there is a period of rapid growth, followed by moderate growth, then slow to no growth, or even a decline as it enters into its "old age"Pangaea looks like the landmass was clustered on one side of the earth, and had the landmass redistribute along the same amount of mass. What I'm proposing is that the mass of the earth changed, causing the drift. The landmass's name is less important in the discussion than "how it got there"
>>16281696thats obviously what happened.tectonic plate theory is fake
>>16281867That's an excellent diagram and should be the model everyone sees. Thanks for sharing>>16282045I don't think tectonic plate theory is fake. Simply that it could have been as a result of the development suggested
>>16281867Another thing about the idea of the earth having grown, would be that gravity would have been different. I think this could have actually contributed to the size of the dinosaurs, insects, etc. being so huge. Like how on the moon, we are much "lighter". Perhaps a different gravity would encourage things to evolve larger. For example, there wouldn't be as strong of a pull against dragonflies, allowing them to grow larger. But as the gravity changed (becoming a tighter pull) it became necessary for things to evolve into smaller forms... Rather than evolving smaller because their food sources changed. We find lots of massive animals in the ocean, where gravity is far different than on land. The pressure of the ocean allows animals like whiles and giant squid to grow to massive sizes.
Another oddity that I find interesting is how at altitude, it's colder despite being closer to the sun.I've heard scientists say if the earth were just a smidge closer to the sun the whole earth would burn up... so why are mountain peaks so cold, and the lower elevations (closer to sea level, bottom of canyons) so damn hot? I realize the atmosphere is thinner, but it's so counter to the "closer to sun=hotter" idea. It's more like "closer to core = hotter"
>>16281696mental illness thread
>>16283017What everyone says about a thread not sucking Newton or Einstein's dick
>>16283010No scientist says that, that's literally a creationist fine-tuning talking point. The earth in millions of kilometers closer to the sun in the north-hemisphere winter and farther in the north-hemisphere summer.>>16281696Where does the extra mass come from?
>>16283025if you think the Earth is le living cell that magically produces mass from its core you are a schizoespecially when all your justifications for your insane "theories" are "uhh well it just feels right to me"case in point:>>16283010>I realize the atmosphere is thinner, but it's so counter to the "closer to sun=hotter" idea. It's more like "closer to core = hotter"just because it's counter-intuitive to your small brain doesn't mean it isn't true.
>>16283030And the north/south poles never fully melt either, despite being the only part of the planet that gets a 24hour day during the summer solstice. Of course the sun is the primary generator of heat but I have never had anyone take the time to explain the temperature anomalies regarding altitude/poles sufficiently. The extra mass would accumulate from extraterrestrial "nutrients", so to speak. Something doesn't come from nothing. you plant a seed it takes nutrients from the surrounding soil. The soil quality is of paramount importance in growing quality crops, as well as the amount of sunlight and water received. the earth receives plenty of sunlight, which stimulates the production of various hormones, etc in living things. the black matter of space could perhaps hold some "nutritional" value that stars and planets need to grow. Except unlike soil it's very fluid, and everything moves within an orbital vortexIts commonly accepted that stars have lifespans, and die. If anything I've said is in unscientific besides "feeling" like theres a lot of unexplained plotholes in our standard curriculum, please point it out. Give me a different model of what happened between big bang and pangaea>>16283038Well it's not magical. Under your wording...Humans magically grow from a microscopic combination of a sperm and egg. A seed looks nothing like the tree it grows into. Basically everything has some sort of seed at its origin. It's just taking a pattern observed in biology and applying it to out planet. Life begets life, and treating the earth as a dead, unliving thing except for the critters that just-so-happened to randomly mutate on its surface from inorganic matter is also illogical schizo shit, perpetuated by the misconception that life could only be created by 1. Random chance or 2. A big brain in the sky playing dolls.I dont get why it has to be so black and white, one or the other. I would call my belief system closer to an organic-pattern model.
>>16283101>Of course the sun is the primary generator of heat but I have never had anyone take the time to explain the temperature anomalies regarding altitude/poles sufficiently.It's due to the angle that it is at. For example, the poles, per square meter, get less sunlight that the equator per square meter. If you take a piece of paper and stare straight at it, you see the whole sheet and it looks "big," but if you tilt the paper at a high angle then you still see the whole thing but it looks "smaller." Less light energy hits the poles. >it comes from sunlight!E=mc^2, to get just a little bit of mass you need a FUCKTON of energy. The earth doesn't absorb enough to even think about creating matter, and if it did, it'd just be super hot rather than grow bigger, because there is no mechanism inside the earth to produce matter. If you think that light is the stuff that the plant uses to grow physically larger, you're wrong. It get nutrients from the water and root-system it has, and light is used in a chemical reaction to create sugar that they can store.Do note, by taking this idea at all seriously, I am giving you a massive benifit of the doubt. Don't just brush off these criticisms, think about them.
>>16281855Not wanting to put words in your mouth. The difference between Pangea and what you're advocating is genetic. That the rocks and iron of the earth are (in a sense) sexual in terms of the outcome?
>>16283103Thanks for your feedback and the information. Yes, the angle of the light makes a huge difference. Long light is much cooler than acute/direct light. Such as, where you would see a specular highlight/glare. Also how lenses can be used to direct sunlight into every kids favorite ant-burning tool is another example of sunlight's properties. The equator is much more stable year round, and gets both more direct sunlight and more stable day/night ratios due to the tilt. It would need a fuckton of energy. Pretty much all of life requires a disproportionate amount of energy to be taken in to be sustained. How many chickens have you eaten in your life, vs how much do you weigh? How much grain did each of those chickens have to eat to reach their (let's say) 5lb weight? You're right about the plants, I'm not saying they use light to grow. They use nutrients from the soil and, like you said, water. But, as a gardener, I'm keenly aware of how light affects plants. They actively move towards it. Earth, as it rotates, is like a rotisserie chicken. The sunlight gets evenly distributed all around, via a day's rotation and seasonal rotations.Thanks for the massive benefit of the doubt and criticisms. No idea should go unchallenged, and for it to be unquestioned is antithetical to science. Doubt is an awesome thing that spurs curiosity and understanding. The earth hosts all life, so it has some mechanism of creation. >>16283131Sexual might be an overstatement. If you look at creatures like plants, many of them can be cloned by cutting off branches, which will regrow roots. Also starfish can be dismembered and become multiple starfish. Corals can be sliced into discs, grafted to reefs and grown asexually. The earth would probably be more akin to a coral, or something. Rather than being gendered male or female.
>>16283142Right, but you've proposed that the split of the continents should be modeled by growth rather than by drift. I don't see why asexual growth should be dinstinct from sexual growth.
>>16283142>The earth hosts all life, so it has some mechanism of creation.I think you're distributing both intentionality and chemistry. Earth is a rock, that has water and lots of sunlight. It could very well have just stayed that way for its whole existance with no life.
>>16283101>Well it's not magicalYes it is, because you're acting like the Earth is a giant fucking amoeba or some shit.>I dont get why it has to be so black and whiteBecause rocks are not alive.
>>16283149Yes. There could be drift as a result of growth. If you think about stretch marks, the skin (organ) expands in predictable ways. Pregnancy is a great example, but my brother got stretch marks on his back during puberty because he grew so fast. Things stretch out and shift proportionately. So drift could be due to expansion, hypothetically.They don't have to be distinct in their ability to grow. Both asexual and sexual beings grow. You asked if the rocks and iron are to a degree sexual, so I wanted to clarify that because "sexual" is a very species- specific term. Barnacles for example, broadcast spawn and have no sexual contact while breeding. I think it's important to be aware of the array of how reproduction works when talking about a concept like the Earth and minerals from a genetic standpoint. Genetics all boils down to how things generate and regenerate. I would like to study geology in greater depth, to speak more on this idea. But I have some minerals in my collection, such as prenite which looks bubbly, and garnet which are rhombic dodecahedra in their natural states. Minerals are very orderly.>>16283166It could be like a giant amoeba. We have billions of micro-organisms inside our bodies. If you step outside there is life everywhere. In the cracks of the sidewalks, in the air, in the water. Its actually harder to find places on earth that are sterile than fertile.
>>16283171Yes, but how does growth look different than drift in your model? If I'm looking at how the continents move, what should indicate growth and disindicate drift?
>>16283171Do you have any positive evidence that suggests earth is growing? We currently see, in real time, continental drift of about 3cm/year, but we have no evidence of earth expanding at all since we've been measuring. You bring up ideas and say "maybe it's like this." But, right now, I'm asking you "is it like that?" Do you have any evidence?You thanked me for my feedback here >>16283142 but didn't actually respond to any of it. To create matter from pure energy takes more energy than earth receives, so it can't be how earth gets its mass. To counter, you talk about how it requires a lot of energy to sustain life. Yes, it does, but that doesn't support your argument at all. How do you think earth gains its mass? If you're willing to accept it's not light from the sun, then how?At least you accepted the explanation of the light hitting the poles, that seems to have improved your understanding.
>>16283171>It could be like a giant amoebaUh, no?>We have billions of micro-organisms inside our bodies. If you step outside there is life everywhere. In the cracks of the sidewalks, in the air, in the water. Its actually harder to find places on earth that are sterile than fertile.That doesn't mean that the Earth ITSELF is alive you weird fucking schizo.
>>16283184>>16283186I don't think it would still be actively growing, except with volcanic activity (Pacific Hotspots, etc.) The growth would have happened fairly early in earth's history. The mass extinctions could have been a result of changing mass, gravitation and climate, as opposed to a collision. If the planet changed size the distribution of heat would have changed as well, so hypothetically. I can't go back in time and record the earth's prehistory any better than I can go back to my own infancy to record it. But most growth occurs in a way that is rapid in vitro and infancy, then slows down in childhood, speeds up during puberty, then plateaus at maturity/adulthood. Most creatures stop growing at a specific size, that is species-specific. Why giraffes have short hair with spots is also genetic. The measurable drift of 3cm a year would be its motion as an adult, not its growth. >>16283184I don't think continental drift is wrong. I dont think the earth is actively still growing, or we would see harshly changing conditions on the level of the ice age and we'd all be very fucked. It would gain mass similar to how plants gain mass through pulling nutrients from their surroundings. They dont move around eating things, but have ways of pulling nutrients into themselves through their roots. They also filter the air, and studies have shown that increased CO2 levels make trees grow larger, faster, but that they also have shorter lifespans. So, in lieu of being something that can hunt, the earth would filter out something from space, but plants would be more like the planets "villi" (if using our bodies as an analogy) pulling in nutrients. Peas fix nitrogen in the soil, and other crops do other things. Practices like monocropping in the US completely destroyed the topsoil leading to the great dust bowl. >>16283187Ok
>>16283187I made a meme for you bro
>>16283448If you believe continental drift was caused by it growing, and it's no longer growing, explain why continents still drift. The mass extinctions show no evidence of any changes in gravity. There is evidence of massive changes to the atmosphere, which could point to a collision.We can't go back in time either, but there's no evidence of expansion, no mechanism to cause it, and no reason to think it happened. There is evidence of tectonics, impacts, and deep time.You repeat yourself, if it's possible for continents to move without growth, then why assume growth for the initial movement?There are no nutrients surrounding earth post-accession. It's in the void, a vacuum. To say "earth is like a plant" you must first show why the analogy is accurate, in this case that it IS in fact growing, before hypothesizing where the growth came from. You haven't done this, and you cannot. Analogy is useless unless you show the two are actually analogous.
>>16283733Everything is in motion because energy, at a fundamental level, is a wave. Not the 2D flat wave diagram, but an omnidirectional wave-field. Energy is transferred through matter, which has various densities. Space being the lowest density (vacuum), air being slightly denser (varying based on altitude), water being denser but still fluid, and earth/minerals being the most dense. Fluid dynamics are most apparent in liquid, but air acts in a similar way. Mud would act similarly, and likely whatever material that fills space would be fluid given the look of galaxies, nebulas, etc.There isnt nothing in space. While "nutrients" might be a generous word for the matter out there... Something had to coalesce after the big bang, and evolve, into everything around us. Even the big bang theory requires expansion. Quoting wikipedia, "The Big Bang is a physical theory that describes how the universe *expanded* from an initial state of high density and temperature". If the whole universe expanded from a point, the earth would also have to expand *or* coalesce from some smaller state. It would be physically impossible for it to have appeared at it's current mass, unless there was a big sky man making things appear into existence. The universe still moves, despite its initial growth. All things, even "motionless " things are still compromised of slow-moving atoms. I haven't "grown" visibly since my teen years, but still am able to move. The earth subtly expands and contracts. Every year we have to patch up roads in our city after they freeze and thaw. I think the size of creatures reducing, especially insects, could have to do with our gravity shifting. If nobody has been looking for evidence of course it wouldn't be considered while gathering data. If you're out in the field tracking monarch populations, you're not documenting the pines. The focus of research is important. The massive change in the atmosphere could be done by either growth or a collision.
>>16284062You have no evidenceI gave you counterevidence, and you don't actually read, understand, or respond to it. You are useless, and worth less than I am.
>>16284062>I thinkIs not proof or evidence of anything other than your own retardation.Your entire "theory" is based on your feelings. You have nothing to back it up other than empty words.
>>16284083>>16284085The evidence you brought up is there's 3cm of continental drift/movement each year, and evidence of atmospheric changes. Also the angles of light relating to climate. I'm saying you're right about all those things. I'm showing you patterns that occur in nature at every level, and using that as evidence to extrapolate past events. That's all archaeologists, paleontologists, and geologists do. Use available information to build a plausible, retroactive narrative. I am observing things that are repeatable and common, and using that information to form conclusions about things that cannot be observed due to being in the past.Where did personal worth even come from?What do you suggest happened between "big bang" and "pangaea?"
>>16284107No evidence of expansion. You have none.
>>16284112The big bang begins with expansion. Are you a creationist?
>>16284114You are by far the densest person I've ever argued with. Show that EARTH is expanding, dipshit, not spacetime.
>>16284117I said, its not *still* expanding. It's fixed, as is. But how do you suggest it got to its current, fixed mass?
>>16284138When I explain it you will not listen, so I'll keep it clipped. Early solar system, accession disk, leftover matter, gravity, planets.
>>16284138How about you fucking google it, retard?
>>16284140Cool, and then RNA suddenly made life out of a bunch of inorganic material. >>16284143Because I have, and dead, inorganic material doesn't suddenly become alive and evolve into millions of different species.
>>16284145fallacy of incredulity. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=abiogenisis
>>16284148"The study of abiogenesis uses tools from biology and chemistry to understand how pre-life chemical reactions led to the development of life. However, the transition from non-life to life has never been observed in an experiment, and much of the historic information about the process may never be known."They don't have any evidence either. We're all spitballing, lol
>>16284158Imagine comparing yourself to abiogenesis when we've actually made progress on the theory and you're sitting here scratching your asshole.
>>16284160At least I'm playing around with a new idea while you guys are stuck defending another unprovable theory. Either way its unprovable how life originated, but rock definitely dont evolve cocks
>>16284162It's not any more unprovable than anything else in science. You faggotYou fucking retardYou dumbass
>>16284169;)Go fuck a rock and let me know how it goes
>>16284174I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you were a creationist the whole time. Your hypothesis has no evideceYou are deflectingYou deflect because you have no evidence.
>>16284162>At least I'm playing around with a new ideaNot all new ideas are valuable or worth playing around with.Here's a new idea: The moon is actually my left testicle.No I'm not going to provide any evidence to prove that is actually the case, because apparently speculating is enough to make something true in your eyes.
>>16284169https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/is-there-anywhere-thats-completely-bacteria-freeBasically lava is the only thing that would have no bacteria at all
>>16284181Unrelated to your claim.Show evidence of your hypothesis.
shut upp there is no point to these questions. Believe in giving all women to each other like sneaker bars and enjoy fucking as many cunts as possible fucking nerds. I know you will get your little asshole triggered because you fap with little fucking kids, fucking jew white pedo ass mothafuckasss
>>16284182Very related. As far down as we have been able to sample, we have found microbes. There is life in all levels of the earth, even in permafrost. We might find dormant microscopic life, but we still haven't seen non-life turn into life.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/deep-life-microbes-underground-bacteria-earth-surface-carbon-observatory-science-study-a8677521.html
>>16284190We see no microbes or evidence of any life until 500 million years after earth's creation. Can you show that earth is expanding? Your claim, not mine.You claim it's expanding, but measurements show it's not. How do you feel about that?
>>16284192I said several times it is not still expanding. Stop asking the same question over and over again, dumbass.That's false that it only dates back 500 million years. Micro fossils have been found dating back to 3.5 billion years
>>16284197>I said several times it is not still expanding. Stop asking the same question over and over again, dumbass.You're the one making a false claim and seething you can't support it. So go on, show earth expanded from the time of pangea. Disprove tectonics, go ahead. >That's false that it only dates back 500 million years. Micro fossils have been found dating back to 3.5 billion yearsreading comprehension. Reread my statement and try again.
>>16284197>I said several times it is not still expandingThat isn't the question you're being asked.You are being asked to provide evidence to support your claim that the Earth grew since the breakup of Pangea. Not that it is CURRENTLY growing. That it DID grow.Your screenshot is not evidence because they are not saying the Earth grew like a fucking amoeba or that it has grown at all since Pangea. The Earth grew during the very, very early period of its formation by accreting matter from the dust in the protoplanetary disk and then accreting matter from other larger bodies that had also formed in that disk. This growth stopped over 4 billion years ago because there was no longer enough material left in the inner solar system for Earth to continue accreting any meaningful amount of mass.
