Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Draco
So in order for his theory to work, water couldn't have existed on Earth until it grew. But this goes against the scientific findings that prove water existed on earth for a billion years.
|
No, he didn't say for it to work...he said for it to make
sense. He's proposing an entirely new theory about the earth's history, and current tendancys. It would become a tad confusing if then started to explain how the entire planet was once covered with water....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Draco
Another thing, with his shrunk Earth, Earth would not have had enough gravity to hold on to much less create the atmosphere that it did when it did.
|
Mmm...but who said the 'mini'-earth had the same size atmosphere as we have right now? When the planet was formed, presumably it had NO atmosphere to speak of...And remember -- the whole premise for this theory has to be that the mantle is becoming less dense, and expanding. As it does so, it releases lots of gases, contributing to our atmosphere and growing
it, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Draco
In order for his theory to be partial correct, the Earth would have had to reach the size it is now hundreds of millions of years before Pangaea existed as there was an atmosphere and animals living on Pangaea. This would had 1 billion - 1.5 billion years to the age of the Earth. Since we know with fairly scientific certainty the age of the Earth and the length of time it takes for the processes to take place, there isn't enough time in the time frame for this theory to do what he claims it does. Considering Neal's main goal of creating this theory was to debunk what we currently believe about tectonics and about Pangaea, this little detail collides with this theory.
|
His theory says that the entire planet was pangaea at one point. Technically...he's stating that there was no super-continent called pangaea. It's not entirely unbelievable that this was the case.
As the atmosphere formed, and the animals evolved, they too could have existed. Plus -- his theory states that this was a time-curved process; it started very slow and accelerated.
Also...what do we really know? I'm not being a smartass...I've often wondered about this. Science...is theory. There are no 'facts', but 99.9% conclusive theories. Is it completely impossible to think that the earth is older than we think it is? Most definitely not!! This idea is
meant to collide with exisiting theories -- clearly there's an influential faction who widely discounts this idea as false and silly. Otherwise it would at least be a footnote in science classes....but we said the same when it was proposed the earth was round -- "what foolishness, I can clearly see it ends at the horizon"...and the same when it was proposed that we weren't actually at the center of the universe "But I see the sun move, and I don't feel myself moving!".