This video (well, the first fifty seconds says it all) illustrates Neal Adams's theory that the Earth is a growing entity. Neal's not a big fan of Pangea (a single mass containing all the contemporary contintents just crammed together in a planet that's mostly ocean). This, for me, is a revelation - it's convincing as it uses evidence that's scientifically generated by geologists. Neal Adams' theories have been featured in the New York Times.
For me, there are two 'valid' mechanisms that could support a Growing Earth:
1) any solar system is primarily a gravity-driven mechanism that forms 'inter-dimensional leaks' where matter pours out in the form of a central star and orbiting planets of varying sizes. This gravity-driven mechanism dictates that all components of the solar system should be growing over time.
2) Earth's atmosphere is shrinking - in the time of the Pangeaic dinosaurs the atmosphere was MUCH bigger, higher, richer in the elements that fuelled 'plate techtonics'(sic). This implies that over time Earth's atmosphere will be eaten up and the Earth will stop growing, sorta like where Mars is now.
I'm also a BIG FAN of growing earth not merely BECAUSE of the cross-continent aspect of fossil finds but because LOGICALLY a smaller planet (i.e. less gravity) will support much larger land animals, like dinosaurs. I'm not totally convinced the largest dinosaurs can support their own weight and move around as effective predator/prey in our contemporary gravity field.
4 comments:
You posted this in 2008 and there are no comments???? Okay, I saw this for the first time yesterday on facebook of all places and as a professional soil scientist I consider myself to be at least literate in the geologic formation of the earth. This blew my mind. I've seen animations recreating the "mega-content" theory surrounded by ocean and it never looked quite right. This premise doesn't actually refute anything I know about speciation and dispersal. And he's not saying subduction and uplift don't occur but that it doesn't explain "continental drift". He just saying continental drift is wrong. My first thought was well how does this affect climate models and climate change? What do we need to re-evaluate? I like the ideas about gravity and atmosphere on your site and of course the Mars argument, very compelling.
HappyDeb,
hm, yes, I suspect people are just AFRAID. Full stop. They need to be comforted and wrapped in cotton wool so that they'll continue to slave themselves to death for the Corporate Slave Driver.
This GROWING EARTH theory, for me, was a proper revelation.
Glad you share my astonishment.
Your comment:
LOGICALLY a smaller planet (i.e. less gravity) will support much larger land animals, like dinosaurs. I'm not totally convinced the largest dinosaurs can support their own weight and move around as effective predator/prey in our contemporary gravity field.
This makes no sense. Assuming the mass of the earth is the same, and the only thing changing is volume, gravity will not increase, but in fact, it would decrease because you now have the same mass, but you are further from the center of the mass.
Roger,
please stop being so fucking clever, isn't it LOGICAL that a smaller/younger planet HAS TO HAVE less mass?
I think that's the crux of the Neal Adams concept, that the sun (or our galaxy) is pouring out radiation whose task is to make more matter.
All planets in the Solar System are GROWING, i.e. feeding.
:)
Post a Comment