Great Lakes region water did flow down the Mississippi into the Gulf ... but they weren't all that great back then. Their basin was carved last around 12 thousand years ago by Laurentide ice
The Expanding Earth
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
I was looking far into the future, the Mississippi is a fault line, since it is a river already the land has been sinking rather than being uplifted. With those two rifts North America should be getting wider over time and with the Atlantic and Pacific rifts also expanding the sea level will go down just from the Oceans getting wider. Those two American rifts could end up being dry shallow valleys.
Mississippi valley has been shaking for centuries. Plates don't move all that fast. Heck, we're still waiting for California to go surfing.
NEW MADRID FAULT BEWARE
Same speed as fingernails grow on a long-term scale. What is the max thy could move at any one time?
With the Wind River situation I'm not sure why it being a rift is so alien, in the program it certainly looks like a crack. That could come from a solid having to adapt to a new radia when it is 20 mi further from where it started.
With the Wind River situation I'm not sure why it being a rift is so alien, in the program it certainly looks like a crack. That could come from a solid having to adapt to a new radia when it is 20 mi further from where it started.
Well, there are so many odd little typos in there that I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. I think you've got mood for moon and fift for rift, and it's far from obvious why you'd think a rift, or fift, within 1000 miles of a subduction zone is an oddity, rifts can happen for lots of reasons. I dunno about a river flowing at right angles to the natural valleys, I'll have to think about that one a bit, but off the top I'd have to agree that the explanation offered in the video seems reasonable. I know of no theory that says the Great Lakes and the Gulf will share a common waterway, but there's not much doubt that much of the drainage in what is now western Canada that currently goes north and east at one time went south. And yes I remember seeing that video about the expanding earth, but I thought it was nonsense. It's true that there's a bulge on the side of the moon facing the earth, and there's also a bulge on the far side, that's an entirely predictable tidal effect and the earth displays the same features. It's not true that the moon has no rotation of its own, it does rotate, but it's tidally locked to the earth, its rotation period is the same as its orbital period. Eannassir never got that either.
If a typo is going to throw you off you might as well stop right here. They weren't the first and they won't be the last. The picture at 20:20-40 shows a mountain ridge that has plains on both sides, not only would the mountain valleys have to be filled with material that is as solid as the mountains themselves put the plains in both sides would need to be that height also. where would that material come from.
Another point they made was sea shells in an area that needed to be about 30,000 ft to supply the material needed so water could flow across the Owl Mountains. That doesn't make sense does it? If the land visible today (Canadian Rockies) held life that was in the sea then the uplifting brought it up when it was close to the surface. I don't think the Canadian Rockies are said to have been thrust up to 30,000 ft and wore down so they filled in all the valleys and then water cleaned out all that debris only after it was level for some time. There are still a few paths that let you travel against the 'normal flow of the valleys'. Allowing this spot to be a rift would be admitting the Grand Canyon is also a rift. I can see why it wasn't put forward as a suggestion even though a rift is covered later in the show.
I totally agree that whole mountains can be of nothing but limestone so the sea floor can be that deep. The fossils in the show are as young as 20 million years, is that enough time to erode 2 miles of mostly granite? The Canadian Shield doesn't seem to be eroding very quickly and it as also a form of granite.
Anyway the rest of the series will be worth watching.
""and there's also a bulge on the far side""
There is nothing to cause a bulge on the far side of the moon, the only gravitational abnormality is the earth and only one side is bulging because of her gravity.
Another point they made was sea shells in an area that needed to be about 30,000 ft to supply the material needed so water could flow across the Owl Mountains. That doesn't make sense does it? If the land visible today (Canadian Rockies) held life that was in the sea then the uplifting brought it up when it was close to the surface. I don't think the Canadian Rockies are said to have been thrust up to 30,000 ft and wore down so they filled in all the valleys and then water cleaned out all that debris only after it was level for some time. There are still a few paths that let you travel against the 'normal flow of the valleys'. Allowing this spot to be a rift would be admitting the Grand Canyon is also a rift. I can see why it wasn't put forward as a suggestion even though a rift is covered later in the show.
I totally agree that whole mountains can be of nothing but limestone so the sea floor can be that deep. The fossils in the show are as young as 20 million years, is that enough time to erode 2 miles of mostly granite? The Canadian Shield doesn't seem to be eroding very quickly and it as also a form of granite.
Anyway the rest of the series will be worth watching.
""and there's also a bulge on the far side""
There is nothing to cause a bulge on the far side of the moon, the only gravitational abnormality is the earth and only one side is bulging because of her gravity.
Last edited:
lol, you should have supplied the link. Listen to how this scientist describes the reason for the high tide on the opposite side of the earth.
"Another way of thinking about this is that the gravitational force of the Moon causes the Earth to accelerate slightly towards the Moon causing the water to get pulled towards the Moon faster than the solid rock on the side nearest the Moon. On the far side, the solid Earth 'leaves behind' some of the water which is not as strongly accelerated towards the Moon as the Earth is. This produces the bulge on the 'back side' of the Earth."- Dr. Odenwald's ASK THE ASTRONOMER"
Please say it ain't so
I don't think the acceleration of the earth towards the moon is the reason for a two bulges. lol It would seem to be an effect of 'rocking the boat'. For this next little bit try to remember that your scientist part doesn't get to judge on the quality of the question. Water is much more affected to small forces of gravity than lava. The moon and earth were much closer in the past so magma could have shown effect of the moon's gravity. The opposite is also true, the earth could cause lunar tides on the lave on the moon. The moon had a greater tide and since it was magma it didn't flow as fast as water so it stiffened in that it no longer flowed across the surface of the moon. It could still increase the height of the now stationary bulge. The creation of that bulge also set the rotational speed of the moon which is apparently zero when viewed from any point on the earth. The smoothest land masses on the moon face earth, being free from many impacts is one theory that says it is younger, another possibility is that it was molten for a longer period of time because of heat radiated out from the much closer also molten earth. Either way if the moon was measured from the earth and 3 points were established, first contact, center of the core, last contact on the far side. If the closest portion has a bulge the that portion also contains more than 50% of the mass of the moon. With no expansion the bulge that grew must have been counter-balanced by a subduction zone. The far side already had a crust of lighter material that was floating on lava. Say it showed marks of many impacts. Being made of the lightest elements in magma was to start to sink under it the crust would stay afloat. Remember the balloon that is inflated a tiny bit and some dots are put on it and then it is inflated even more the dots gets further apart from each other. The far side of the moon would be the opposite. When inflated the 'impacts' would be painted on and then air would be released (compression of the existing crust due being above a subduction zone in the magma) The far side of the moon donated some of its half of the ball to make the bulge on the near side, how could it bulge. All those impact marks should have been a tiny bit further apart when originally made. One last point, would earth's tides have changed once the western mountains of the Americas stopped the flow of the tides, the 2nd 'high tide' would seem to be nothing more than a rebound wave in a very big bathtub.
"Another way of thinking about this is that the gravitational force of the Moon causes the Earth to accelerate slightly towards the Moon causing the water to get pulled towards the Moon faster than the solid rock on the side nearest the Moon. On the far side, the solid Earth 'leaves behind' some of the water which is not as strongly accelerated towards the Moon as the Earth is. This produces the bulge on the 'back side' of the Earth."- Dr. Odenwald's ASK THE ASTRONOMER"
Please say it ain't so
I don't think the acceleration of the earth towards the moon is the reason for a two bulges. lol It would seem to be an effect of 'rocking the boat'. For this next little bit try to remember that your scientist part doesn't get to judge on the quality of the question. Water is much more affected to small forces of gravity than lava. The moon and earth were much closer in the past so magma could have shown effect of the moon's gravity. The opposite is also true, the earth could cause lunar tides on the lave on the moon. The moon had a greater tide and since it was magma it didn't flow as fast as water so it stiffened in that it no longer flowed across the surface of the moon. It could still increase the height of the now stationary bulge. The creation of that bulge also set the rotational speed of the moon which is apparently zero when viewed from any point on the earth. The smoothest land masses on the moon face earth, being free from many impacts is one theory that says it is younger, another possibility is that it was molten for a longer period of time because of heat radiated out from the much closer also molten earth. Either way if the moon was measured from the earth and 3 points were established, first contact, center of the core, last contact on the far side. If the closest portion has a bulge the that portion also contains more than 50% of the mass of the moon. With no expansion the bulge that grew must have been counter-balanced by a subduction zone. The far side already had a crust of lighter material that was floating on lava. Say it showed marks of many impacts. Being made of the lightest elements in magma was to start to sink under it the crust would stay afloat. Remember the balloon that is inflated a tiny bit and some dots are put on it and then it is inflated even more the dots gets further apart from each other. The far side of the moon would be the opposite. When inflated the 'impacts' would be painted on and then air would be released (compression of the existing crust due being above a subduction zone in the magma) The far side of the moon donated some of its half of the ball to make the bulge on the near side, how could it bulge. All those impact marks should have been a tiny bit further apart when originally made. One last point, would earth's tides have changed once the western mountains of the Americas stopped the flow of the tides, the 2nd 'high tide' would seem to be nothing more than a rebound wave in a very big bathtub.