Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva, Tom Blackshear and Sean O'Brien who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT ELSE TO CONCLUDE FROM OBVIOUS FACT THAT ALL CONTINENTS FIT INTO EACH OTHER COVERING THE WHOLE SURFACE OF THE - LOT SMALLER - GLOBE???
The earth was partially destroyed by an impact early in its life and quickly reassembled along with the new offending material, thanks to gravity.
Anyway, I don't agree that the continents "fit together" as you describe. Nor do I understand continental drift theory as "floating continents". What I learned in college was that plates are involved in either subduction or rifting or whatever the other thing was (mountain building?). The rifts are seen on earth both on land and on the ocean floor. The under water "ridge" already prooves this is happening, regardless if you want to try to say earth is "growing". Logic tells me that the ocean floor and the continents are the same thing, cooled magma. (magma is real, go to hawaii). Contintent shape is only incidental because of the amount of water we have that lets them protrude. In the case that all the water on earth was gone, or all in liquid form at all times, or we had a more water over all, your eye would no longer be biased into thinking the continents "fit together" much at all.
But I am no scientist. Maybe the earth is hollow. But much like the myth that picado is powered by middle knuckles thanks to front on vids of PDL, I feel the optical illusion of continents that fit together like a jigsaw is also an illusion.
the pteranodon photo I think is a job for scooby doo and friends to solve.
In the late eighties this case appeared valuable enough for German states TV to report on it in the news as spectacular invention. Maybe the other interesting aspect was that such a motor was not much bigger than ~ 12 cm long and ~ 2 cm in diameter, readily designed so that hundreds of it could be combined to a powerful motor unit.
Also I guess that your data refer to todays battery capacity, which might differ from that of batteries from over 20 years ago.
Ruphus
I have a souvenir copy of "Scientific American" on a shelf near my desk. I kept it because it contains an article on the U.S. Space Surveillance Network that is free of major errors. It is the only such article I have read in the general press, about a major government research project that I had personal knowledge of, in more than 40 years of engineering, that did not contain significant errors of both fact and emphasis. I'm talking about the New York Times, Scientific American, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and so on. I will except Aviation Week and Space Technology, who were often accurate. I have no knowledge of the German state TV service, but I find the press very unreliable when it comes to evaluating science and technology.
The alkaline battery technology I indicated has changed very little in the past 30 years. Rechargeable batteries employing lithium, lithium ion and nickel metal hydride technologies have penetrated the market in the last 20 years, but I was not referring to them.
LOL looks like you are 14 if you didn't understand from that sentence that it was meant as a joke... and your informational value of this post is ZERO. phuk off you yappie..
Whoa there little one, don't get so riled up. I promise you I'm not part of any conspiracy aimed at discrediting your opinions (I think you've already done that with the 9/11 thread).
Remember - 'Serenity Now'. Just keep repeating it to yourself...
the rest of you, rustics, are surprisingly close-minded and pathetic, but I should have known you won't be any different
That must include me
Both the accepted continental drift theory and your preferred theory of an exponentially expanding Earth both agree that the continents were conjoined during geological history - no argument here.
Both theories agree that oceanic crust is created.
The major difference is that the continental drift theory, which relies on destructive plate margins, has a HUGE amount of accumulated geophysical and geochemical evidence to support it.
Thus far you have presented no evidence, other than your firmly entrenched beliefs, a few Youtube clips and extremely vague alternative scientific processes that are in no way quantifiable. The exponentially expanding Earth theory, I strongly believe, is NOT a viable alternative theory.
By the way, stooping to abuse anyone who doesn't agree with your alternative views on the world isn't likely to change anyone's mind and certainly loses friends
Printable Version
But much like the myth that picado is powered by middle knuckles thanks to front on vids of PDL, I feel the optical illusion of continents that fit together like a jigsaw is also an illusion. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread