Comments on: Pangea http://www.yorrike.com If you lived online, you'd already be home. Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:13:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dark Knight Bob http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-2/#comment-19206 Dark Knight Bob Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:13:49 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-19206 Thanks for putting this site up Yorrike. A few of us have been ridculing neals theory for a long time now along with a lot of rather silly claims by neal that he's failed to uphold despite promises. Anywayz glad there's been some common sense science in this. Yet another conspiracy nut digging himself into a deephole that could be avoided just by retracting his theory. And no-one would think any less for him doing so. Oh well at least he does good comics. Thanks for putting this site up Yorrike.

A few of us have been ridculing neals theory for a long time now along with a lot of rather silly claims by neal that he’s failed to uphold despite promises.

Anywayz glad there’s been some common sense science in this.

Yet another conspiracy nut digging himself into a deephole that could be avoided just by retracting his theory. And no-one would think any less for him doing so.

Oh well at least he does good comics.

]]> By: Destroyer http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-2/#comment-19101 Destroyer Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:35:49 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-19101 Your moon goes around the earth once a day is correct its just that its the earth that rotates once every 24hours not the moon.that part is correct.Neal Adams did not include the mass of the earth.All he needed to make a good video was the surface area of the earth.knowing that 60% of the earth's surface is basalt and 40% granite the mass of basalt and granite.The depth of the granite continents and the basalt ocean floor.But even if there was a 4 to 1 mass ratio the effects would be small as the earth is large.So if the crust had a higher mass in one area the effects would be small as the earth has a mantle and core which has a mass many times that of the earth's crust. Your moon goes around the earth once a day is correct its just that its the earth that rotates once every 24hours not the moon.that part is correct.Neal Adams did not include the mass of the earth.All he needed to make a good video was the surface area of the earth.knowing that 60% of the earth’s surface is basalt and 40% granite the mass of basalt and granite.The depth of the granite continents and the basalt ocean floor.But even if there was a 4 to 1 mass ratio the effects would be small as the earth is large.So if the crust had a higher mass in one area the effects would be small as the earth has a mantle and core which has a mass many times that of the earth’s crust.

]]> By: ginckgo http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-2/#comment-19097 ginckgo Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:16:56 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-19097 regarding you're admission that the moon doesn't go round the earth in one day: It effectively does, but it's the earth that does the daily rotation, while the moon moves only slowly. This is why we get two tides a day, rather than two every 27 odd days. So you were basically right with the rate of change the moon induces in the earth, albeit you had the process not quite right. regarding you’re admission that the moon doesn’t go round the earth in one day: It effectively does, but it’s the earth that does the daily rotation, while the moon moves only slowly. This is why we get two tides a day, rather than two every 27 odd days. So you were basically right with the rate of change the moon induces in the earth, albeit you had the process not quite right.

]]> By: Sol http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18858 Sol Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:15:51 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18858 There's a pretty simple reason why his ratio is wrong, and it actually took me a while to figure out. It's blaringly obvious in his video presentation of this hypothesis, though. What Neal did is he calculated the mass ratio more or less correctly, <i>but only down to 4 kilometers</i>. He even says this out loud, but I somehow managed to miss it for weeks while arguing with him until it actually dawned on me today. Obviously, completely ignoring the oceanic crust makes the ratio rule much more in favor of the continents than it should. If he wanted to come up with a reliable ratio he should have done it down to the level of the mantle, as you did. Showing one's numbers helps clear things up too... but I suppose doing that would never rule in favor of Neal so there's no incentive there. There’s a pretty simple reason why his ratio is wrong, and it actually took me a while to figure out. It’s blaringly obvious in his video presentation of this hypothesis, though.

What Neal did is he calculated the mass ratio more or less correctly, but only down to 4 kilometers. He even says this out loud, but I somehow managed to miss it for weeks while arguing with him until it actually dawned on me today. Obviously, completely ignoring the oceanic crust makes the ratio rule much more in favor of the continents than it should.

If he wanted to come up with a reliable ratio he should have done it down to the level of the mantle, as you did. Showing one’s numbers helps clear things up too… but I suppose doing that would never rule in favor of Neal so there’s no incentive there.

]]> By: Marcello Jun de Oliveira http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18827 Marcello Jun de Oliveira Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:21:09 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18827 Where did Neal go? He offered no more replies at all? Thanks for the site. Very useful! Where did Neal go? He offered no more replies at all?

Thanks for the site. Very useful!

]]> By: Yorrike http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18774 Yorrike Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:09:31 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18774 @alex avery Pangea, in the Jurassic, was not the first Pangea. There have been multiple pangeas throughout the Earth's history and they will continue to form and breakup so long as there is enough heat to drive plate tectonics. It's a continuous cycle. The mass of the continents is not sufficient to affect the orbit or rotational angle of the Earth. If you'd like to learn about variation in the Earth's orbit look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles" rel="nofollow">Milankovitch cycles</a>. @alex avery Pangea, in the Jurassic, was not the first Pangea. There have been multiple pangeas throughout the Earth’s history and they will continue to form and breakup so long as there is enough heat to drive plate tectonics. It’s a continuous cycle. The mass of the continents is not sufficient to affect the orbit or rotational angle of the Earth.

If you’d like to learn about variation in the Earth’s orbit look up Milankovitch cycles.

]]> By: alex avery http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18751 alex avery Fri, 10 Apr 2009 04:09:46 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18751 ok i believe that it is because of the pangea that world is of orbit and because the pangea did excist means the world will create another pangea and the question is will the second pangea send the world back into thee original orbit or will it fuk it all up (pardon my french) but i havent found a site yet that justifies my thoughts!! so i was hoping that u might@!! ok i believe that it is because of the pangea that world is of orbit and because the pangea did excist means the world will create another pangea and the question is will the second pangea send the world back into thee original orbit or will it fuk it all up (pardon my french) but i havent found a site yet that justifies my thoughts!! so i was hoping that u might@!!

]]> By: Mark http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18715 Mark Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:04:23 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18715 Hey Yorrike, I want to get your opinion on something. I think there might be something to this growing earth thing after all, if not at least bizarre and abnormal. Check out this image based on elevation levels on the earth. http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/349/mapqnv.jpg I circled the areas in question. There are similar 'U' shaped areas in almost a straight line across Asia until the last two marked. Stretching from the Mediterranean to the Bering Straight are similar markings in elevated areas. Also, if you take into consideration aging, the further you go eastward, the more weathered the elevated areas become. The Himalayas are only thicker and more pronounced due to what I think would be the Indian plate pushing into the Asian plate. I find it hard to believe these markings are just a coincidence. Let me know what you think on this. Regards, Mark Hey Yorrike,

I want to get your opinion on something. I think there might be something to this growing earth thing after all, if not at least bizarre and abnormal.

Check out this image based on elevation levels on the earth.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/349/mapqnv.jpg

I circled the areas in question. There are similar ‘U’ shaped areas in almost a straight line across Asia until the last two marked.

Stretching from the Mediterranean to the Bering Straight are similar markings in elevated areas. Also, if you take into consideration aging, the further you go eastward, the more weathered the elevated areas become.

The Himalayas are only thicker and more pronounced due to what I think would be the Indian plate pushing into the Asian plate.

I find it hard to believe these markings are just a coincidence.

Let me know what you think on this.

Regards,
Mark

]]> By: Yorrike http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18597 Yorrike Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:22:40 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18597 Yes, I got the barycentre and the centre of the Earth's mass confused. I've admitted this no less than 6 times on the YouTube comment thread. But the cente of gravity mistake is not the main thesis of the video, the main point is if you just include the top 40 Km of crust in the calculation, then Neal's strawman argument simply falls away. I'd love to be able to produce a video showing the age of the sea floor in the context of PT, but creating scientifically accurate video which are visually appealing and understandable by a lay audience is incredibly time consuming and prone to mistakes (as in my video). I've got a few videos in various stages of production, but finding the time to get them finished (they'll take several days full time each), is a bit of a challenge. Yes, I got the barycentre and the centre of the Earth’s mass confused. I’ve admitted this no less than 6 times on the YouTube comment thread. But the cente of gravity mistake is not the main thesis of the video, the main point is if you just include the top 40 Km of crust in the calculation, then Neal’s strawman argument simply falls away.

I’d love to be able to produce a video showing the age of the sea floor in the context of PT, but creating scientifically accurate video which are visually appealing and understandable by a lay audience is incredibly time consuming and prone to mistakes (as in my video). I’ve got a few videos in various stages of production, but finding the time to get them finished (they’ll take several days full time each), is a bit of a challenge.

]]> By: Brohem http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18592 Brohem Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:53:52 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18592 I wouldn't count myself in the expanding earth crowd just yet, but the barycenter of the earth and moon is not even close to the effective gravitational center where tides are concerned - and that seems to be the main thesis of the video here. The barycenter is useful for distant objects. From the SURFACE of the earth, the earth's gravitational field overwhelms. Mm*(1/(Rm - Re)^2 - 1/(Rm + Re)^2 = -Me*(1/(Re + dr)^2 - 1/(Re - dR)^2) Mm = mass of moon, Me = mass of earth, Rm = orbital radius of the moon, Re = radius of earth, dr = effective delta radius. Binomial Expansion on both sides (Rm >> Re, Re >> dr) gives. Mm*2*Re/Rm^3 = Me*2*dr/Re^3 or dr = Mm/Me*Re^4/Rm^3 I believe it comes out on the order of 4 kilometers (not thousands of kilometers) but it's possible there's one or more factors of 2 missing in there. I think what I'd need to see to stop tacitly acknowledging the expanding earth theories would be a reasonable explanation of the ages of the sea floor in the context of modern PT theories. I wouldn’t count myself in the expanding earth crowd just yet, but the barycenter of the earth and moon is not even close to the effective gravitational center where tides are concerned – and that seems to be the main thesis of the video here.

The barycenter is useful for distant objects. From the SURFACE of the earth, the earth’s gravitational field overwhelms.

Mm*(1/(Rm – Re)^2 – 1/(Rm + Re)^2 = -Me*(1/(Re + dr)^2 – 1/(Re – dR)^2)

Mm = mass of moon, Me = mass of earth, Rm = orbital radius of the moon, Re = radius of earth, dr = effective delta radius. Binomial Expansion on both sides (Rm >> Re, Re >> dr) gives.

Mm*2*Re/Rm^3 = Me*2*dr/Re^3 or

dr = Mm/Me*Re^4/Rm^3

I believe it comes out on the order of 4 kilometers (not thousands of kilometers) but it’s possible there’s one or more factors of 2 missing in there. I think what I’d need to see to stop tacitly acknowledging the expanding earth theories would be a reasonable explanation of the ages of the sea floor in the context of modern PT theories.

]]> By: Timoshenko http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18519 Timoshenko Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:54:43 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18519 Um fair enough. Moving countries can be fairly exhausting. But not quite as difficult as moving continents... LOL. I think you may be better looking at similarities between their hypotheses. Adams would be the first to admit that he is not a scientist. I believe he has really only attempted to illustrate a hypothesis. Maxlow at least does attempt to present some worthwhile evidence. I look forward to hearing your comments whenyou have the time. Um fair enough. Moving countries can be fairly exhausting. But not quite as difficult as moving continents… LOL.
I think you may be better looking at similarities between their hypotheses. Adams would be the first to admit that he is not a scientist. I believe he has really only attempted to illustrate a hypothesis. Maxlow at least does attempt to present some worthwhile evidence. I look forward to hearing your comments whenyou have the time.

]]> By: Yorrike http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18517 Yorrike Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:04:05 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18517 Hi Timoshenko. Unfortuntely life has been getting in the way of me producing more content. It's on my list, and I will get to it, but in between completing my MSc thesis and moving countries tomorrow, I've been quite busy. Thanks for your patience. Rest assured I'm still interested in continuing this debate. Maxlow would be a good target to hit next. The Expanding Earth community has very little consistency between their hypotheses, so I'll have to do some serious reading in the case of Maxlow (even getting hold of his book), before I'm comfortable in disputing his claims. Something for the future after I've finished with Neal : ) Hi Timoshenko.

Unfortuntely life has been getting in the way of me producing more content. It’s on my list, and I will get to it, but in between completing my MSc thesis and moving countries tomorrow, I’ve been quite busy. Thanks for your patience. Rest assured I’m still interested in continuing this debate.

Maxlow would be a good target to hit next. The Expanding Earth community has very little consistency between their hypotheses, so I’ll have to do some serious reading in the case of Maxlow (even getting hold of his book), before I’m comfortable in disputing his claims. Something for the future after I’ve finished with Neal : )

]]> By: Timoshenko http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18516 Timoshenko Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:19:49 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18516 Hi Yorrike, You've been promising new videos and errata for a very long time. I'm still waiting with interest. How about starting with a debunk or Dr Maxlow's earth expansion hypothesis? Give Neal a break for a while... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f6hcGJbjL0 Ok, it's a fairly crap presentation but the argument is there. Please let us know what you think. Hi Yorrike,

You’ve been promising new videos and errata for a very long time. I’m still waiting with interest.

How about starting with a debunk or Dr Maxlow’s earth expansion hypothesis? Give Neal a break for a while…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f6hcGJbjL0

Ok, it’s a fairly crap presentation but the argument is there.

Please let us know what you think.

]]> By: alex http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18515 alex Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:23:56 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18515 what about the "YES Earth is expanding" youtube video? It seems that many people start to really think that this theory might work after all. link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f6hcGJbjL0 what about the “YES Earth is expanding” youtube video? It seems that many people start to really think that this theory might work after all.

link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f6hcGJbjL0

]]> By: Oh Hai http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/comment-page-1/#comment-18511 Oh Hai Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:03:04 +0000 http://www.yorrike.com/pangea/#comment-18511 Quick question on subducting. Would the Pacific Plate subducting under the North and South American continents force Hawaii to move closer to the continents? Has this ever been measured? I would think there would be enough activity where accurate measurements could be taken. Quick question on subducting. Would the Pacific Plate subducting under the North and South American continents force Hawaii to move closer to the continents?

Has this ever been measured? I would think there would be enough activity where accurate measurements could be taken.

]]>