We're not Earthlings -- we're colonists from Ceres!

[Norman]

@CharlesChandler,

I don't know what induces the rotation within the galaxies, but they tend to be aligned with each other, in a ring around an extra-galactic void. So perhaps there is an extra-galactic magnetic field that induces the rotation.

If galaxies are created on strings which are electrically connected (helical motions) with some central knots, these knots specifically produces perpendicular magnetic fields which subsequently creates the galactic disks and gives these the rotational momentum.

You are talking of implosion/explosion but the very similar motions can be acchieved by electromagnetics. In my ideas of galactic formations, the initial motion is magnetic attraction of gas and particles via the galactic poles (holes) and assembled to large prototype spheres in the galactic core via the Bennet Z-Pinch effect (nuclear force) and slung perpendicularly of the electric current out of the galactic center, out in the bars (dispersion to stars, planets and moons here) and further out in the galactic arms as the Solar System.

Edit: If so, all issues of our Solar System should take this formation into consideration.

The barred structure in or galaxy shows an overall outgoing motion from the galactic center (just like a two arm rotating garden sprinkler) This motion confirms the observed galactic rotation curve and also the formation via an electromagnetic circuit.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Charles,

Grey Cloud wrote:
Why do people take 'Pangaea' as a given?

I haven't studied it much, but there are similarities in rock composition, and in the fossil record, that only make sense if the present continents were all once part of a single super-continent. What is the evidence against?

Sorry, it was just a general question, I don't have any evidence one way or t'other. It just seems to me that virtually everyone proceeds from the Pangaea scenario.

If there are similarities in the composition, could it not also suggest that they were formed at the same time but not necessarily as one unit? As for the fossils, I would guess that for every similarity there was at least one dissimilarity, i.e. a fossil critter that didn't fit the Pangaea hypothesis.

I would suggest that the fossil record shows that the land goes up and down not side to side.

[CharlesChandler]

Hey Grey,

It just seems to me that virtually everyone proceeds from the Pangaea scenario.

Well, I sorta do, but I'm currently trying to reconcile my Ceres meteorite hypothesis with the various supercontinent theories, and I have more questions than answers at this point.

I'm saying that the granites and the oceans arrived at the same time, roughly 4 billion years ago (?) during the Late Heavy Bombardment. But the supercontinent that I should be looking at, for that timeframe, shouldn't be Pangaea, which was supposedly just the last in a series of them. Rather, I should be looking at Vaalbara, the first (alleged) supercontinent to form.

Code: Select all

Supercontinent name 	  Age (millions of years ago)
----------------------------------------------------
Ur (Vaalbara)            ~3,600–2,800
Kenorland                ~2,700–2,100
Protopangea-Paleopangea  ~2,700-2,600
Columbia (Nuna)          ~1,800–1,500
Rodinia                  ~1,250–750
Pannotia                 ~600
Pangaea                  ~300

The other thing is that any chunk of debris that large should have had some chemical differentiation, so I'd sorta expect the granites to be laterally variegated. In other words, I'd expect the original supercontinent to look like a fried egg, with a big lump of the core of the meteorite in the middle, and with the lighter stuff in concentric circles around the center. But that variegation doesn't exist, or at the very least, it isn't that simple. So were there actually that many different supercontinents, and did all of the different chemicals all get remixed?

I really don't want to embark on any kind of major study of supercontinents, since the data are so sketchy. Maybe I should leave well enough alone, and just say that the granites and seas all arrived courtesy of the LHB, but there isn't much direct evidence because the continents have been reformulated so many times.

[john666]

When I imagine the super-continent, I imagine it covering the Entire Northern Hemisphere.
I also imagine it having rivers with huge width, and semi circular shape.

Paradise on earth.

There really is no scientific reason whatsoever to believe that our planet is more then a few thousand years old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZbpDnYZ2Y

I am no Christian, but when geology is concerned, the creationists are the best scientists in the world.

I think that the truth of our world and the catastrophe that befell it - the catastrophe that created the present day mountain ranges - lies in combining the strict biblical creationist worldview with ELECTRICAL UNIVERSE WILD THEORIES.

In another words, we should have appreciation for the many scientifically valid discoveries in the field of geology that the creationists have made, but have no faith in their dogmatic nonsense, such as... the Noah's ark.

No way a ship could have survived the huge electrical currents that created the present day mountain ranges.
If only the creationists would free themselves from the biblical nonsense, they would revolutionize the field of science forever.