POST-PANGAEAN WORLD

[Anonymous No.2398985]

So, it's practically established that the world's continents will gather in a new Pangaea within 200 million years.

Also, there might be squid monkeys in the trees, if you think The Future is Wild is a good source for information. It might be, I have no idea.

BUT! What about the world after those 200 million years? Will the continents drift apart again? How _might_ our atmosphere be?
And for how long can life as we know it exist on Earth before the sun gets too hot?

[Anonymous No.2398994]

http://thefutureofourworld.ytmnd.com/

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2399003]

>>2398985
Expanding earth theory disagrees

[Anonymous No.2399008]

>>2399003
>implying expanding earth isn't idiotic bullshit

[Anonymous No.2399004]

Fucking Wilson Cycle, how does it work?!

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2399023]

>>2399008
It could well be idiotic bullshit. But since 90% of the support for plate tectonics is observed correlations, expanding earth should have equal attention until disproven.

[Anonymous No.2399060]

There weren't humans 200 million years ago, I can't imagine there being any left on earth in 200 million years either

[Anonymous No.2399113]

>>2399023
Can't we calculate that the total vectorial movement of the plates equal 0 ?

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2399179]

>>2399113
I'm sorry, I do not know what vectorial movement is, so am unable to answer your question.

[Anonymous No.2399195]

>looks boss

[Anonymous No.2399228]

>>2399023
>implying there is anywhere near as much evidence of bullshit expanding earth as there is for plate tectonics.
>mfw we can measure the new lithosphere being created and the lithosphere being destroyed and they are roughly equal.

[Anonymous No.2399248]

I thought the earth was getting smaller.

Don't we lose energy which is matter?

[Anonymous No.2399270]

>>2399003

Wat?

[Anonymous No.2399278]

Some models predict that 500 million years from now all plants and trees will be extinct, and that in 1 billion years there will be no oxygen left in our atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.2399288]

Hey, dipshits.

The Earth IS expanding, but only through the constant bombardment of asteroids, cosmic dust and whatever. Goes without saying that the extra mass isn't large and it doesn't account for the Earth's changes in the past.

The theory of plate tectonics, however, do. They account for them nearly perfectly.

What is this 'expanding earth' bullshit, anyway?
Do you seriously believe that Earth is expanding just like a balloon that is filled with air or something?

[Anonymous No.2399308]

>>2399023
>expanding earth should have equal attention until disproven

Translation:
YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT SO IT MIGHT BE TRUE

Even though it is easily disproven, the Earth can't arbitrarily gain mass.

[Anonymous No.2399321]

>>2399288
Hello there Captain Obvious.

Also, gases are constantly escaping from the atmopshere. I don't have any idea about their respective rates, but they could balance out.

[Anonymous No.2399332]

>>2398985


>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years
>within 200 million years

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2399342]

>>2399228
Less evidence is not conclusive, there have been no good studies. That is like saying an apple pie can't be delicious because you haven't tasted it yet.

As for the lithosphere, as far as I know there is no accurate way to measure the size. And there have never been any accurate measurements. Just adding in the unexplored trenches in the ocean could throw off estimates by thousands of square meters.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2399368]

>>2399308 easily disproven

They say our satellites are accurate enough to measure the earth's average diameter. Yet never have they been used for this task.

That all I'm asking for, just an annual measurement 3 years in a row.

[Anonymous No.2399370]

>>2399003

>Expanding earth theory

[Anonymous No.2399375]

>>2399342
>I am not aware of any studies therefore there have been no studies

The entire sea floor has been mapped, phyiscally, magnetically, gravitationally, and tectonically. Just because you don't know anything doesn't mean geologists don't know anything.

[Anonymous No.2399388]

>>2399368
>Hurr what is geodesy

Again, just because you don't know anything doesn't mean geologists don't know anything.

[Anonymous No.2399446]

>>2398994

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2399487]

>>2399375
>>2399388
If such studies exist, why can no one provide me with one?

You are providing as much proof as Russells.

[Anonymous No.2399509]

Just to get a hang of it, where do you think that mass comes from Pascal?

I know Earth gets peppered with tiny amounts of cosmic dust all the time, but that could never cause such rapid expansion as what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.2399512]

>>2399487
Could say the same of you.

[Anonymous No.2399600]

>>2399487
Because it's hard for me to sum up EVERYTHING from ENTIRE FIELDS OF NATURAL SCIENCE.

Look up geodesy little manchild, geodesists have been calculating the size of the geoid for centuries now. Not one single geodesist has suggested the Earth is growing.

[Anonymous No.2399621]

>Hurr world is expanding through thermal expansion

Even though it is contracting through thermal contraction.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2399730]

>>2399509
No idea. But when people were saying plane fuel couldn't melt steel girders, people went on YouTube with steel bars blow torches and pliers.

With this all I hear is dismissal not disproof. Geodesists use nasa's vlbi readings to prove subduction in the pacific basin. Which was fine when there were 10 plates. Now that they have defined over 100 plates, an island moving toward japan at 2 inches per year, doesn't really work as proof that the entire American continent is moving that direction. Also there are questions about the age of rock around supposed subduction zones.

But back to the question of how the earth is growing. Estimates on new material from outer space very from a few tones a day to 50000 tones. If the estimates can vary by 10000%, can any of then be trusted without further investigation?

[Anonymous No.2399749]

Pascal, please read this and the given source links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth#Scientific_consensus

[Anonymous No.2399837]

>>2399730
Even with the higher boundary, the amount of debris entering the atmosphere would have raised the mass of Earth about .0048% since the planet coalesced from rock dust.

Thermal expansion is ridiculous since the planet is cooling down instead of heating up.

Also, from the faunt of knowledge:
>Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius. Furthermore, examinations of earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years.

And furthermore, if the Earth was expanding, the world inside the hollow globe would be cooling down, making life there impossible. And since we're not being swamped by invading snakemen from from underground, I can safely say that Expanding-Earth meme is bullshit.

And finally, fucking captcha.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2399974]

>>2399749
I'm confused on a few parts. If Paleomagnetism Let's us know that rocks changed directions in reference to magnetic north, how Does this give us information on the earths size?

Also one argument against expanding earth is that the earth heating up would cause it to become smaller.

A second argument says that the earth isn't heating up, it is cooling down. If both of these arguments are true, wouldn't that mean a cooling earth must be expanding?

Also one of the referenced articles is talking about measured subduction in the alps. But I thought the alps were a Divergent boundary?

[Anonymous No.2399987]

captcha: tRNA quintsget

Continental drift plays hell with evolution. :D

[Anonymous No.2400015]

>>2399974
>how Does this give us information on the earths size?

Essentially, bigger earth = stronger field.

>Also one argument against expanding earth is that the earth heating up would cause it to become smaller.

Uh no, heating up an object makes it expand. The earth is slowly contracting because the core is loosing energy, getting colder.

>But I thought the alps were a Divergent boundary?

No, convergent. Africa is slowly moving northward into Europe. Mountain ranges don't form at divergent boundaries.

[Anonymous No.2400021]

>>2400015
>Implying water take up more room than ice

[Anonymous No.2400035]

>>2400021
>implying rock has hydrogen bonding

[Anonymous No.2400063]

>>2400015
>Mountain ranges don't form at divergent boundaries.
Mid-Atlantic ridge would like a word with you... Although you are right so far as continental plates are concerned.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2400080]

>>2400015 bigger earth bigger field

That's only if it retains the same density correct? A less dense bigger earth would actually have a weaker field?

[Anonymous No.2400105]

>>2400063
Indeed I should have qualified my statement but I didn't want to confuse pascal with block, fold and volcanic ranges.

[Anonymous No.2400112]

>>2400035
>Implying that was implied
>Implying you're not butthurt

[Anonymous No.2400137]

>>2400112
>implying your point wasn't irrelevant

[Anonymous No.2400144]

>>2400137
>Implying correcting mistake is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.2400149]

>>2400080
Yes but the density of the Earth doesn't change.

[Anonymous No.2400158]

>>2400144
>implying naming one exception that is completely irrelevant when talking about rocks is relevant

[Anonymous No.2400166]

>>2399003

[Anonymous No.2400167]

>>2400144
>hurr durr i r smart i no an exception
>Rocks aren't made of ice
>STIL RELAVENT

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2400175]

>>2400149
Parts of it changes. Do we know that it isn't true for the entire planet?

[Anonymous No.2400187]

>>2400158
>Implying brass doesn't expand just before solidifying
>Implying battling ignorance is ever irrelevant

[Anonymous No.2400196]

>>2400167

[Anonymous No.2400200]

Oh my god. Why did this turn into a troll debate on expanding Earth theory? That is utter bullshit, you cannot create mass from nothing which is the simplest way to disprove expanding Earth. End of troll debate.

In 200 million years OP the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda. There is a remote chance that Earth and the entire solar system for that matter will cease to exist at that time.

[Anonymous No.2400197]

>>2400175
Yes, it does vary locally. However, if one part of the Earth gets more denser then somewhere else in the Earth has got to get less denser.

Unless we involve things like asteroid impact, escape of gases from atmosphere etc but those are relatively small scale.

[Anonymous No.2400229]

>>2400187
>implying pedantism isn't a sign of assburgers

Enjoy your assburgers.

[Anonymous No.2400242]

>>2400229
>He likes to wallow in ignorance and apathy because any new information would challenge his beliefs

[Anonymous No.2400245]

>Expanding Earth theory is being discussed on science and math
>Expanding earth theory is being discussed on science
>expanding earth theory
>science
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2400251]

>>2400242
>implying I was disagreeing with you
>implying I wasn't just saying it's irrelevant when talking about the thermal contraction of the Earth

[Anonymous No.2400261]

>>2400251
>Get TOLD
>Move the goal posts
>Ignores my posts pointing out ignorance should always be fought
>Typical creationist behaviour

[Anonymous No.2400270]

>>2400242
>new information
>He thinks expansion due to hydrogen bonding in ice is new information!

[Anonymous No.2400273]

To be fair, by the time all the continents have come together, some of them will have sunk under the sea and others may have come up from the ocean's floor.

[Anonymous No.2400279]

Continental lithosphere does not subduct, it's too thick and low density. Also new continental lithosphere does continue to form, which makes me wonder if eventually all the Earth will be covered in continental lithosphere?

[Anonymous No.2400283]

>>2400261
>Someone talks about contraction of Earth due to cooling
>throw in point about hydrogen bonding in water
>get told it's irrelevant
>LOLUMAD IGNORANT CREATIONIST

4/10

[sage goes in one field. No.2400298]

ITT: a childish argument between two anons when I don't give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.2400315]

>>2400279
Continental lithosphere does subduct if it is pushing against other continental lithosphere. The Himalayas formed from the Indian plate subducting underneath the Asian plate.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2400318]

>>2400197
I was thinking along the lines of acretion. The earth expands without much new material. It becomes bigger, but less dense.

[Anonymous No.2400338]

>>2400318
Yeah, and if you actually glanced at the refutations offered to you, you might have noticed that that's not the case.

But of course you already know the truth and will gain nothing from such pedestrian considerations.

[Anonymous No.2400343]

>>2400318
But the rate of accretion isn't very high at all. If it was really high then the phase transitions within the Earth would be completely different to what's been measured, as accretion releases energy.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2400374]

>>2400338
You are going in a circle here. The earth is the same size because of magnetic fields. The magnetic fields are the same strength because of the earth density. The earths density is the same because of the earths size.

We are in agreement that one of these three variables can change if the other 2 did. But nothing has been forthcoming about why the 3 variable stayed the same, versus all three changing.

Acretion happens. No one disputes it. How much happens varies upon the scientist. Magnetic strength fluctuates. Everyone agrees, what causes the fluctuation, is under debate. Since we do not know the cause of strength changing, we can not rule out multiple sources causing the change.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2400384]

>>2400343
What is a phase transition?

[Anonymous No.2400389]

>>2400374
>But nothing has been forthcoming about why the 3 variable stayed the same

Becuase we have a vast geological record of events that have happened in the past. All the modern conclusions have been drawn from THEM, the fact that they are all inter-dependent on one another does not say anything about their validity.

The point is that all the things that contradict the expanding Earth theory are backed up by observed and/or measured evidence. None of the things required to be true for the expanding Earth theory to be true are backed up by any evidence.

[Anonymous No.2400409]

>>2400384
When rock transitions from one state to another (solid, rheid or liquid), caused by the natural thermal gradient within the Earth. The exact depths at which these phase transitions take place are measurable with seismological data.

If the rate of mass accretion was high the Earth would have a warmer interior, changing the depths that the phase transitions take place.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2400442]

>>2400389 backed by evidence
Not so much in this thread. I was told that the earth was the same size because of magnetic fields and magnetic field were the same strength due to earth density. And that the density must be the same because the earth did not grow. If there is supporting data for these 3 measurements, wonderful. But you cannot complain about me bring ing orient, when A. I was unaware of such data and B. The data had not been presented to me.
>>2400409
How does seismological data let us know these depths? I thought seismology did not work well through liquids.

[Anonymous No.2400480]

>>2400442
>How does seismological data let us know these depths

Again, touching on a very large subject but this looks like a nice summary:

http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/waves_and_interior.html

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2400527]

>>2400480
So because they don't travel well through liquid is how we k now there is liquid down there. That makes sense. And because the core is spherical we can send waves through at different angles to determine that the center is still solid.

And because we can see waves, just displaced we know it's liquid and not gas down there.

So how do we know the temperature is too cool for mass accretion?

[Anonymous No.2400578]

>>2400527
Because the temperature of the material changes the way soundwaves travel through it.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.2400732]

>>2400578
As does density, how do we know that its the temperature not the density that gives us the different result?

[Anonymous No.2402117]

>>2398994

That was a huge break from anything I've ever seen on that site.

[Anonymous No.2402139]

well has anyone considered there might be a compltely new dominant species
i mean we are all syaing humans will die out,
but what if tehre is this whole new advance society of humaniods

[Anonymous No.2402141]

In roughly 200 million years, if intelligent beings like us are not there to prevent it, the increasing luminosity of the sun will boil off the Earth's oceans and life on the planet will die.

This could be averted by an orbital star shade as well as other, simpler planetary engineering techniques (increasing albedo to reflect more sunlight). Nonetheless, without us, life on Earth is probably doomed to an ignominious end, one that could have been easily averted.