Continental Drift...

It's common in life that many happenings we can see or understand have repeating cycles. The earth spinning on it's axis, the earths revolution of the sun, maybe global warming has repeating cycles etc.

Most of what we can understand of repeating cycles is that which we can see evidence of in our lifetime, and the longer term cycles that these give proof too. To understand and prove repeating cycles that take millions, billions or even a longer amount of years to evolve may be somewhat more difficult to give a sure proof to support it.

Continental drift is theory in science, but one I believe in. It comes under the suspicions that basically ALL land was formed in the one area many, many eons ago, and then due to "x" has been spreading out across the globe. My thoughts are that the land will eventually join back together again like bubbles in a bath, and the resulting effect of the imbalanced land-mass will cause the same effect to repeat again.

Do you agree with this?

Originally posted by Orange Peel
It's common in life that many happenings we can see or understand have repeating cycles. The earth spinning on it's axis, the earths revolution of the sun, maybe global warming has repeating cycles etc.

Most of what we can understand of repeating cycles is that which we can see evidence of in our lifetime, and the longer term cycles that these give p ...[text shortened]... imbalanced land-mass will cause the same effect to repeat again.

Do you agree with this?

That the continents are moving and mountains going up or down is a measurable fact. To see the effects this is having one has only to look at a world map of earthquakes and volcanoes and there is no doubt that there are cracks in the earths surface.
Creationists often claim that we cannot know anything about what happened in the past because we weren't there so they prefer to rely on the speculations of a few Hebrew writers.
You say continental drift is theory implying it is not considered fact. This is not the case. A scientific Theory is fact. No belief is required. I am not sure that any theory states that all land was formed in one area, but it is thought that at one time the land was mostly in one great continent.
The current movements of continents is driven by convection in the earths core which may or may not result in all land masses coalescing into one continent in the future.

To understand and prove repeating cycles that take millions, billions or even a longer amount of years to evolve may be somewhat more difficult to give a sure proof to support it.
I disagree. The proof is the same whatever the time line. Evidence is provided and analyzed. Have you traveled around the world? How do you know it is round? You do not have to see something to know it is a fact. All you need is hard evidence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That the continents are moving and mountains going up or down is a measurable fact. To see the effects this is having one has only to look at a world map of earthquakes and volcanoes and there is no doubt that there are cracks in the earths surface.
Creationists often claim that we cannot know anything about what happened in the past because we weren't t ...[text shortened]... is round? You do not have to see something to know it is a fact. All you need is hard evidence.

I disagree. The proof is the same whatever the time line. Evidence is provided and analyzed. Have you traveled around the world? How do you know it is round? You do not have to see something to know it is a fact. All you need is hard evidence.

**It's harder to prove a long-term repeating cycle as the evidence we see(like day, night or seasons) is very limited. The evidence we find millions+ years ago gets vague the longer the time period goes. Proof through dating systems has margins of error, yet what's living can be given a more definite age.

The current movements of continents is driven by convection in the earths core which may or may not result in all land masses coalescing into one continent in the future.

**It's irrelevant what drives the land(as such), but what joins land masses together that would give proof to the continents joining back together. If it is a cycle then a spreading effect would not give that much evidence of uniting land-masses, until it resorts back towards it's first stage.

Originally posted by Orange Peel
**It's harder to prove a long-term repeating cycle as the evidence we see(like day, night or seasons) is very limited. The evidence we find millions+ years ago gets vague the longer the time period goes. Proof through dating systems has margins of error, yet what's living can be given a more definite age.

The difficulty of the proof is not necessarily dependent on the time line but more related to the amount of evidence available. All measurement methods have margins of error, dating methods are not necessarily more error prone than any other measurement. It is true that a dating method whose margin of error is dependent on the length of time is less accurate the longer the time period, but when that margin of error is still insignificant in relation to the thing being measured it doesn't matter.

**It's irrelevant what drives the land(as such), but what joins land masses together that would give proof to the continents joining back together. If it is a cycle then a spreading effect would not give that much evidence of uniting land-masses, until it resorts back towards it's first stage.
It is essential to know what drives land masses if you are to know what pattern their movement is likely to follow in the future. I personally don't see any reason to conclude that the movement is cyclical but rather it is probably random. However a simulation could probably tell us whether or not turbulence in the earths core is likely to lead to the land masses collecting into one continent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The difficulty of the proof is not necessarily dependent on the time line but more related to the amount of evidence available. All measurement methods have margins of error, dating methods are not necessarily more error prone than any other measurement. It is true that a dating method whose margin of error is dependent on the length of time is less accur ...[text shortened]... lence in the earths core is likely to lead to the land masses collecting into one continent.

Spot on. rec'd

Originally posted by twhitehead
The difficulty of the proof is not necessarily dependent on the time line but more related to the amount of evidence available. All measurement methods have margins of error, dating methods are not necessarily more error prone than any other measurement. It is true that a dating method whose margin of error is dependent on the length of time is less accur ...[text shortened]... lence in the earths core is likely to lead to the land masses collecting into one continent.

It is essential to know what drives land masses if you are to know what pattern their movement is likely to follow in the future. I personally don't see any reason to conclude that the movement is cyclical but rather it is probably random. However a simulation could probably tell us whether or not turbulence in the earths core is likely to lead to the land masses collecting into one continent.

** Yeah, I know it's essential which is why I said "as such". In theory our evidence would only point to a small portion of data, which would not point to CD being a cycle, but one of continuing spreading. If our good data only gave us 1 millionth(whatever) of a complete cycle, then it would be near on impossible to form simulation.

Originally posted by Orange Peel
but one of continuing spreading.

You do know that the planet is spherical, right?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You do know that the planet is spherical, right?

Yes.

Originally posted by Orange Peel
** Yeah, I know it's essential which is why I said "as such". In theory our evidence would only point to a small portion of data, which would not point to CD being a cycle, but one of continuing spreading. If our good data only gave us 1 millionth(whatever) of a complete cycle, then it would be near on impossible to form simulation.

Turbulence is a branch of physics/mathematics involving chaotic motion. Despite the name, patterns do emerge from chaos. To simulate continental drift, one could approximate the possible motion of fluid in the earth core and give it a starting point and see what happens while adjusting various variables. One could then get an idea of the likelihood of the continents coalescing into a super continent in future. In fact it may turn out that knowing the past or even the current situation is irrelevant to the dynamics. For example, put some soap suds in a sink and swirl the water around and you will find most of them collecting in the center.

What does any of this have to do with spirituality? (apart from the fact that Creationists think the earth is much younger than that and will not last much longer)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Turbulence is a branch of physics/mathematics involving chaotic motion. Despite the name, patterns do emerge from chaos. To simulate continental drift, one could approximate the possible motion of fluid in the earth core and give it a starting point and see what happens while adjusting various variables. One could then get an idea of the likelihood of the ...[text shortened]... fact that Creationists think the earth is much younger than that and will not last much longer)

Creationists vs. evolution thing. (but science based).

I guess I'm looking at a revolving cycle having different stages.

1) One land-mass spliting.

2) A slowing of the split, where the earth's natural effects takes a balanced shape.

3) Re-joining.

Depending on what stage we are at, the earth and how it lives and it is shaped would be very different.

Soap suds seem a good example, yet they fail to identify a split when they become one. If a split did happen with the earth, then the majority of the globe's crust could be weak making movement faster at a starting stage of a cycle. Something would have to split the land apart though....

I guess what interests me is the effects that one land mass would have on the globe. It would be very unbalanced, causing much of what we know to be out of order I would think.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Turbulence is a branch of physics/mathematics involving chaotic motion. Despite the name, patterns do emerge from chaos. To simulate continental drift, one could approximate the possible motion of fluid in the earth core and give it a starting point and see what happens while adjusting various variables. One could then get an idea of the likelihood of the ...[text shortened]... fact that Creationists think the earth is much younger than that and will not last much longer)

Monte-Carlo simulation would be suitable for this.

Originally posted by Orange Peel
Yes.

Then it follows that the spreading out of continents cannot continue forever. Eventually, they, at least some of them, will crash back together. I realise that you realise this, but your use of English didn't indicate that at the time.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Then it follows that the spreading out of continents cannot continue forever. Eventually, they, at least some of them, will crash back together. I realise that you realise this, but your use of English didn't indicate that at the time.

Oh well, I try my best. 🙂.

It's also common sense that what happens(spreading out), it will also happen again. If so, then something would seem to cause the one land mass to split apart.

Originally posted by Orange Peel
Soap suds seem a good example, yet they fail to identify a split when they become one. If a split did happen with the earth, then the majority of the globe's crust could be weak making movement faster at a starting stage of a cycle. Something would have to split the land apart though....

Water spinning in the sink isn't quite the best analogy. Even better would be convection currents. Try putting a pot on the stove with some powdery substance on the surface. You will notice that the substance has a tendency to gather into 'continents'. I suspect that whether or not it all collects into one super continent is a function of the size of the 'pot' and the consistency of both the fluid and the flotsam (floating particles).
A sphere would have slightly different dynamics but there are a lot of similarities.

One interesting aspect of chaos is that it often exhibits fractal like behavior. That is, patterns that can be seen as one scale are very similar to the patterns at a much larger or smaller scale. One can simulate waves, ocean currents and continental drift using scale models which replicate very accurately the features of much larger physical effects. However simulating the spherical globe complete with effects of gravity and magnetism using a model would be difficult. Implementing a computer simulation however would not be that difficult.
Similar to weather forecasting the results of a computer simulation would identify possible patterns, longterm trends and very short term predictions but not exact long term predictions as continental drift is a chaotic system like the weather.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Water spinning in the sink isn't quite the best analogy. Even better would be convection currents. Try putting a pot on the stove with some powdery substance on the surface. You will notice that the substance has a tendency to gather into 'continents'. I suspect that whether or not it all collects into one super continent is a function of the size of the not exact long term predictions as continental drift is a chaotic system like the weather.

Yeah, you could implement a computer simulation which could possibly show land masses moving/joining together(?) through the basic scientific knowledge we have today. I don't think we are that advanced to show the possible effects that could cause a land-mass split to repeat a cycle though.

If a split is possible, then the effects caused during a split could affect what happens at a later stages in a cycle...