<< > Actually the planet has been growing, when the planet was one land mass,
it
> was 80% the size of what it is today. They can tell by the way the
> continents fit.
>
micheal said:
Danny, the continental plates may only cover 80% of the earth's area
(which I doubt), but the rest is taken up by the pacific and indian
ocean plates which are subducting under the North American, SOuth
American, Australian, and Asian plates. If what you suggest is true,
then we would have a much greater meteoric impact record than we do and
be living under much greater greenhouse conditions. Thus only the
continental plates have grown as divergence continued, but those growing
plates rode over older plates that subducted under them.
20% of the earth's surface covers a volumebelow it in a cone shape to
the core of approximately 25 billion cubic miles. Given that Pangea was
in existence as late as a couple hundred million years ago, we would
have to be seeing around 100 cubic miles of meteoric accretion to our
planet EVERY YEAR to equate to a 20% increase in earth's surface area.
As this is obviously not true, then the idea that our earth's surface is
20% greater than in the time of Pangea is ludicrous. We would have to
experience the equivalent of 10 Yucatan extinction asteroids every year.
This obviously would have exterminated life...a long, long time ago.
>>
No, Im saying the whole planet was 80% the size that it is now. And
scientists can tell this by the way the continents fit right now. When you
put them together there are spaces between them which grow in size the
further north and south you go, but this space is no longer there when you
shrink the whole planet to 80% of what it is now, then they fit perfectly.
danny