The Earth is expanding as can be seen by the way that the continents have similar coastal shapes which lock into one another almost perfectly when you shrink the Earth and take away the oceans. The ocean floor has lateral ridges which show the expanding and stretching of the planets surface. The existence of mountain ridges on the coastal areas of most continents shows the same raised effect of a tree scar when the tree is damaged as a sapling. The expanding trunk of the tree leaves a gap area with a raised edge similar to mountain formation on the edge of continents. The equator regions have S shaped swirling islands which is indicative of a twisting action caused by the uneven rotation of the planet. Note - The Malaysian and Caribbean Islands twist in the same general direction. Thus, it is clearly evident that the Earth is expanding and has been doing so since the beginning of its creation. Note - All the other planets and moons are expanding also.
The Pangea Theory is moronic. If all the continents were stuck together, then, the Earth would be unstable and would wobble. It is also runs against the mathematical theory of probability, logic, common sense, evidence and rationality. Did you watch the video or did you just decide to spew out the generally accepted consensus theory as a matter of perceived citizenship duty to the authoritarian cause?
I remember proposing the idea of what they now call “Pangea” back in the sixties and got ridiculed. The Earth really is very “unstable” and being constantly kneaded and mushed around by the effects from the Sun and the Moon. If left long enough, the Earth would become covered completely with water as all mountains and continents gradually crumbled into the oceans - entropy. The inevitable end result of the Earth’s orbiting Moon is that the Earth becomes very smooth surfaced and covered with water. There is nothing to counter natural entropy of all complex forms, other than intelligent life itself.
The German geologist, meteorologist, and polar explorer Alfred Wegener was the founder of the theory of the continental drift (1912). At first the people of the international institutes and symposia laughed at him, whereas another German scientist, the father of the nuclear fission (splitting of the atom), Otto Hahn, acknowledged Wegener’s theory (cp. “Was lehrt uns die Radioaktivität über die Geschichte der Erde?”, 1926). Decades later the people of the international institutes and symposia accepted Wegener’s theory, so that it became the most accepted theory of geology: the plate tectonics.
There are other geotectonic theories, but they are not as well accepted as the theory of the continental drift (plate tectonics). Besides the theory of the continental drift (plate tectonics) there are the theory of contraction (Saussure, Sueß, Stille, a.o.), the theory of expansion (von Richthofen, Hilgenberg, a.o.), the theory of undercurrent and swallowing (Ampferer, Schwinner, Cloos, a.o.), the theory of stream-stretching (Gutenberg, Wiechert, a.o.), the theory of oscillation (Haarmann a.o.), the theory of thermal cycles (Joly a.o.), the theory of undation (Stille a.o.) and some other theories.
The main fundamentals of thoughts in geology are (in alphabetical order): actualism, cataclysm (catastrophism), exceptionalism, theory of cycles. So the geotectonic theories are based on one or more than one of this fundamentals of thoughts. And of course: they all should be and are consistent with the fundamental knowledge of physics (cosmology / astronomy) and chemistry, because physics and chemistry are the two fundamental science branches of geology.
The Earth can only be affected by the aether flow pushing the Earth. There are no pulling forces in the universe, it is an illusion. The moon casts an aether flow shadow onto the Earth which is what the tides are all about. The tides are caused by a lack of aether flow when the moon is nearest.
More than what? It might have wobbled more back then than it does now, so what?
Well, as always in your case, you keep guessing all around the truth, but never quite on target. There is none of what you are calling “aether”. But there is affectance and the Earth is affected by it as well as affecting it. Mass is merely a concentration of the affectance field. As the field shifts in density, the concentrations shift. And as the concentrations shift, the field shifts.
And there is no “pushing” just like there is no pulling.
The tides are caused by the increase of affectance density between the Earth and Moon (further affected by the Sun).
The difference between you and I is that you are merely guessing at things that might be true from your minimum education, whereas I am not guessing because I have a means to actually know.
I am just stating the obvious. There is no trick involved.
What is holding your ‘affectance’ together? Why didn’t your ‘affectance’ resolve itself a long time ago? Where is the trilogy of unresolvable elements in your theory? Sorry, but your theory is too vague to be a science theory and belongs in the religious category.
Please explain how you typed this post without pushing the keys of your key pad?
The difference between you and me is that you think you have attained demigod status and are thus beyond mere mortal analysis. But, I am sorry to have to inform you that I don’t believe in gods of any description. Note - I am an expert in fraud detection. Note - This world we live in, is mostly a living breathing fraud of some description. The government is a fraud. Science is a fraud. Fraud is everywhere, you can’t really afford to believe anyone. In summary - the world is run by gangsters and frauds.
Affectance “holds to” affectance by causing delays in propagation.
There isn’t any “resolving” to it. It is in constant motion, merely changing propagation speed as it encounters greater density of its own kind. A particle of mass is merely a spot of very high density affectance, like a traffic jam on an otherwise high speed highway. And like the cars in an actual traffic jam, affectance is leaving and entering such that the jam itself remains stable even though the affectance is always exchanging.
You have no idea how vague or detailed it is. You know almost nothing about it. And it is beyond merely a theory.
Sub-atomic particles migrate due to higher density ambient fields on one side vs the other. The impression from far above is that they are being attracted or pushed. In fact, they never touch each other and are merely responding to variation of the surrounding density. Your muscles appear to pull. Your fingers appear to push. But down on the smallest level of material existence, nothing is pushing or pulling, merely swaying with the field density.
And literally every point in space can be totally described by this equation:
Your not so good at English. You can’t use the same word to describe a word. Example - Yellow is a yellowish colour. Naughty boy! Did I tell you that I am a crossword puzzle master too?
You are an old fox, but I think I have you snared in my little trap, Mr Fox. Note - You used the word, ‘affectance’ three times that time to explain what ‘affectance’ is, amazing!
This is a dialogue extract from the movie Men In Black - Note - The famous line on the bottom!
Edgar: Hey! This is my truck!
Tow Truck Driver: Yeah. And make sure you tell them that down at the impound.
Edgar: Agh! [reaches for his double barrel shotgun and cocks it]
Tow Truck Driver: [whips out his revolver from his shirt] Please…
J: [talking to the recently neutralized Beatrice] Why don’t you go shopping, get some new clothes, pretty yourself up a bit… Oh! And, get a decorator in her quick, cause… D*MN.
K: You sold a reverberating carbonizer with mutate capacities to an unlicensed, unauthorized cephalopoid? Jeebs, you piece of s***!
Jeebs: He looked alright to me.
J: Unlimited technology from the whole universe, and we cruise 'round in a Ford P.O.S.
J: You do know Elvis is dead, right?
K: No, Elvis is not dead. He just went home.
J: You know the difference between you and me? I make this look good.
That is like saying, “You ain’t got no ideer how to talk proper.”
“You do not speak English very well” is what you intended to say.
Although I certainly agree with that standard of forming definitions, I didn’t use the same word for explaining a word.
No, you twit. I wasn’t explaining “what affectance is”. You asked of why it holds together and hasn’t “resolved” (or I have to assume that you meant “dissipated”).
Oh, so THAT is how you leaned your version of English??
Its all a matter of style. There are two different styles of writing, formal or informal. Your style is typically a British formal style which could be considered intellectual, stuck-up, constipated, old hat; while my style is modern and up to date.
For example - You and I - old hat; you and me - modern. Run-down - old hat; low-down - modern. Thus, your writing style is old hat, stuffy, typically British old school and boring.
