▲ 447 ▼ Bring it back (thelemmy.club) submitted 3 days ago by Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child) Not sure if troll, too lazy to respond just in case. If not troll, tldr: no, the energy required would liquify (or worse) the earth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jaaake@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children) Not trolling, just ignorant on most related sciences. Honestly, that much continental drift (Pangea to modern geography) seems so unbelievable to me. For some reason it's easier to wrap my head around the globe expanding from a roughly Pangea sized sphere and the cracks between the continental shelves filling with water as the sphere got bigger. I feel like to someone who is familiar with this science, this probably sounds like me saying "Yeah, but a flat earth just makes more sense." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 4 points 3 days ago Yeah it does sound like that lmao If the world were to get, say, twice as big, that would require a lot of matter, like smacking into an equally sized protoplanet. Your first problem is, such a collision would impart a lot of energy and turn the earth into a smoking mass of lava and volcanoes like it was when it formed. But the second problem is: How would the continents all be the same shape, and only the low-lying water regions have expanded? This would imply all the new matter went down inside the sphere of the current continents. permalink fedilink source parent [–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago I think part of the issue is that, you are right in a way, but your timescale is just so off. The earth did start off very small, and over the course of the entire life of the universe, it's changed into what you see today. Obviously there's no photos of Pangaea, but we have the plates themselves as evidence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jaaake@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (2 children) Not trolling, just ignorant on most related sciences. Honestly, that much continental drift (Pangea to modern geography) seems so unbelievable to me. For some reason it's easier to wrap my head around the globe expanding from a roughly Pangea sized sphere and the cracks between the continental shelves filling with water as the sphere got bigger. I feel like to someone who is familiar with this science, this probably sounds like me saying "Yeah, but a flat earth just makes more sense." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 4 points 3 days ago Yeah it does sound like that lmao If the world were to get, say, twice as big, that would require a lot of matter, like smacking into an equally sized protoplanet. Your first problem is, such a collision would impart a lot of energy and turn the earth into a smoking mass of lava and volcanoes like it was when it formed. But the second problem is: How would the continents all be the same shape, and only the low-lying water regions have expanded? This would imply all the new matter went down inside the sphere of the current continents. permalink fedilink source parent [–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago I think part of the issue is that, you are right in a way, but your timescale is just so off. The earth did start off very small, and over the course of the entire life of the universe, it's changed into what you see today. Obviously there's no photos of Pangaea, but we have the plates themselves as evidence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 4 points 3 days ago Yeah it does sound like that lmao If the world were to get, say, twice as big, that would require a lot of matter, like smacking into an equally sized protoplanet. Your first problem is, such a collision would impart a lot of energy and turn the earth into a smoking mass of lava and volcanoes like it was when it formed. But the second problem is: How would the continents all be the same shape, and only the low-lying water regions have expanded? This would imply all the new matter went down inside the sphere of the current continents. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago I think part of the issue is that, you are right in a way, but your timescale is just so off. The earth did start off very small, and over the course of the entire life of the universe, it's changed into what you see today. Obviously there's no photos of Pangaea, but we have the plates themselves as evidence. permalink fedilink source parent
