Were the continents once gathered by Equator or were they united at one side of the Earth?

The Scientific Establishment has supposed that the continents are decidedly lighter than the heavier ocean plates. The further we go into the depths of the earth, the heavier becomes the material we find there. ( Fig.1 )

 

 ( Fig.1 ) The Continents on earth are a result of the lighter masses in the Earth's interior has come to the exterior very early in the history of the Planet. We know that the Continents are decidedly lighter than the heavier ocean plates. The density of the masses increase the closer you get to the centre of the earth.  

 

 

The Continental Plates and the Ocean Plates put together are 100-200 kilometres thick and constitute the outer, hard shell of the earth, "lithospheres".

 

The planet we live on is not completely round as supposed. It is pinched flat by the Poles and bulges out at Equator. This is also the way the main planets in our solar system are. The most widespread theory is that the earth and it's solar system's main planets came into being about 4.5 to 5 billion years ago, by condensation from a cosmic gas and a cloud of dust. It is supposed that the earth was not very warm by it's formation, but that it has gone through a period of intense heating period, close to the melting point of iron (1536c).

 

The heavier particles sank to the centre of the earth, and the lighter particles moved towards the top and formed the crust of the earth. The oldest crust-rock particles are about 3.8 billion years old.

 

If we consider that the lighter particles made their way to the top layer, it would be natural to believe that they would have gathered by Equator. This line lays about 15 kilometres farther out than the radius of the centre of the earth- and forward to the Poles.

 

The textbooks show something completely different. There we see that the Continents were united together as a group from Pole to Pole on one side of the Earth.

The Geologists of today base their research on the theory by the renowned Geophysics Alfred Lothar Wegener published in 1912 (fig.2).

(fig.2) 

 

Wegener's model. His theory caused vehement debate all over the world when it was published in 1912. The Arguments was that Wegener had "Cut out"(removed) some of the oldest land areas to get the continents gathered like shown in the picture. Here we see that the Central -America (bottom picture) doesn't appear until a later period. On the picture below we see the area that has been "cut off".

 

I don't believe there are many geologists today that would choose to come forth with theories of their own that would prove to disagree with this accepted theory. 

 

Wegener was met with much opposition from Geologists throughout the world when he revealed his theory. Mainly because he had "cut off" large areas of land that are among the oldest areas we know. Among those were large parts of Mexico, half of Central America and the Caribbean Islands. This, even though, these areas were as old, some older, than areas he had decided to keep. (fig.3)

 

(fig.3) 

 

A = Species of Rock from Precambrian time from 3,9 billion to 600 million yrs.ago.

B= Species of Rock from Carbon/Perm. 350 - 225 million yrs.ago.

C= Trias/Jura/Kritt. 225 - 65 million yrs.ago.

D= Tertiary. 65 million yrs. ago to today.

Note. You can see at photo number three (Fig. 2) the researcher's in their theory says that this area as shown in figure 3 did not exist for only 65millioner years ago. The truth is that the geological surveys of this area that the rocks are up to 3.9 billion years old.

 

Thereby none of these land areas can be removed, since they are older than those shown above. This alone ought to have been enough to reject this theory, but in a matter of a few years, it never the less became accepted as scientific knowledge with proof like that of the spreading of the bottom of the ocean, Earth magnetism- Fossils etc.

 

 

 

 

Wegener's theory proved that Antarctica, South America, Africa, Madagascar, India, and Australia have once been connected.

 

He chose to call this combined continent "Gondwanaland". (Fig.4) 

 

 

(Fig.4)

 Gondwanaland. This continent is the only one I have moved away from Eurasia in order to cause a collision sufficiently large enough to explain the chain of mountains in Europe and Asia. This resulted in the fitting of the continents around Equator and not from pole to pole.

 

This looks like that into my model:

The red dots on the map is the locations of the 32 places when the find the Ediacara fossils. Nearly all these locations ended up far out at this bar on this circle that is plotted here as a bow for some strange and mysterious reason. I have more about them here:

 

Link 1: Life started in north

Link 2: Extra

And as you see they still drift in this direction as you see at this picture NASA have used GPS to find the directions today:

 

The reason I think it's been a mistake here is that geologists have consistently assumed that all recent land mass has come up through the crust in different locations, but I think a lot of these new layers come from one or more meteorites that have broken up into the earth, and cast new layers on top of already existing rocks.

 

It was supposed then, as proof that North America had been positioned up against Europe, and it was therefore preferred to believe the theory as it was. Countless observations support this, but the theory must necessarily have a few faults and missing facts that most geologists do not seem to want to engage themselves in.

 

I also belive that this movement created the edge I have marked with read on this pictures. This line fits into the edgde of this group of continents Wegener called "Pangaea":

 

 

The research profession depend on the ability of the existing theory to stand on it's on merits.

We often read in different media about geologists who have brought out some of these weak points, but at best these attempts have often resulted on worse work conditions for the researchers in the future.

At the University of Bergen there is one person who has met with repressed resistance because of new thinking. His theories have been met with anger and much opposition within the research environment.

Storetvedt explains it this way:

"They believe so strongly in the existing theory that observations gets fitted into the old model instead of the other way around”.

Sorry, but you can only read the article here in Norwegian:

http://www.uib.no/elin/elpub/uibmag/1-98/geo.html

As it is mentioned in this article, perhaps we must start research anew when it becomes quite clear that this theory contains many faults and missing pieces. I quote Professor Roy Gabrielsen at the Geological Institute at Bergen University, who has expressed following: 

“There are many unanswered questions around the plate technology plate tectonic, and some of the things we work on today is to find the interplay between the driving forces behind the plate-movements. We have to date very little insight in this, and it might be that the answer to these questions will make it necessary to change the whole model.(UIB.MAGAZINE 1/98)”

 Next page: Ice in Sahara