Is it really so?
As you know, the theory of continental drift was proposed back in 1912 by the German geographer Alfred Wegener on the basis of accumulated scientific data. It took a long time to gain general recognition. But by the middle of the last century, it began to be considered an unshakable axiom, on the basis of which all other conclusions are drawn. There are reports of the speed and where the continents are drifting now, what to expect in the future (based on computer models), etc. But what if it's all based on one big mistake?
The fact is that, according to the latest research at the end of the twentieth century, there is a very weak Mid-Atlantic updraft between South America and Africa. On the other side of South America - to the west of this continent - there is a powerful South Pacific hot ascending stream (the so-called plume).
It seems quite obvious, from the standpoint of elementary laws of physics, that the more powerful the ascending stream, the more it must move the crustal plates. In accordance with this, and according to Newton's laws, South America should not move from east to west (as it seems in the framework of plate tectonics theory), but in the opposite direction - from west to east!
If we take into account that Africa does not change its position in the east-west direction, it turns out that the Atlantic Ocean should not increase in size, but decrease! As a result, a kind of "paradox" arises, which indicates that the theory of plate tectonics contradicts either Newton's laws or the laws of geometry.
And similar "paradoxes" when analyzing the location of plate faults and convective flows can be easily found from a dozen or two.
But if the theory of continental drift contradicts the basic fact, then how then were the present continents created, how does the movement of continental plates actually occur?..
Promotional video:
Has the earth increased in size?
If you cast not even the closest, cursory glance at the map of the Earth and the outlines of the continents, one notable detail is striking: the stunning similarity of the outlines of the eastern shores of South America with the western coast of the African continent. From this alone, it is logical to assume that once upon a time two continents were one! And further geological and paleontological studies actually confirmed that South America and Africa are really two parts of a once single whole. And this applies not only to these continents, there are other pieces of the "puzzle" that coincide …
But, as we already know, the most popular theory of continental drift contradicts the facts - and then is hardly able to explain the processes taking place with the Earth. In parallel with it, there is another theory - the theory of the expanding Earth. But it is much more "revolutionary". Agree, it is difficult to imagine that once the Earth was different in size, smaller than today! Are there any arguments for this theory?
Let's take a look at mythology.
According to Zoroastrian legends, the legendary king Yima ruled long ago on Earth. When the first three hundred winters expired under the rule of Yimu, the supreme god Ahura Mazda warned him that the Earth was becoming too full and people had no place to live. Then Yima, with the help of some Spirit of the Earth, makes the Earth stretch out and increase by one third, after which new flocks and herds and people appear on it. Ahura Mazda warns him again, and Yima, with the help of the same magical power, makes the Earth one third larger. The Nine Hundred Zims expire and Yima is forced to do so for the third time.
All this, of course, looks like a complete fantasy or a fairy tale, and perhaps it would not be worth any attention if it were not for the following lines of Blavatsky:
“After great labors, she [Earth] threw off her old Three Coverings and put on Seven new ones …” (Book of Dzyan).
However, Blavatsky studied the ancient heritage primarily of the peoples of Tibet and India, and not Zoroastrianism. And at the same time, the 7/3 ratio given by it (seven new covers instead of three old ones) turns out to be extremely close to the 64/27 value, which can be obtained as the ratio of the size of the Earth, obtained as a result of Yima's threefold actions, to its initial size (if we take description literally, then we are dealing with a geometric progression, in which each member of the progression is one third larger than the previous one, i.e. 4 / 3.4 / 3.4 / 3 = 64/27). The difference between 7/3 and 64/27 is only 1/27, i.e. only one and a half percent of the named value!..
But as clearly follows from the text, we are talking about the surface area of the Earth, the main characteristic of which, as a spherical body, is the radius (the surface area is proportional to the square of the radius). And the difference in radius in the two ancient sources is already less than one percent!..
Could such a coincidence of the testimony of the two mythologies be absolutely accidental?.. This seems highly doubtful. Especially when you consider that the process in both cases is described by the simplest numbers, and any simplification already inevitably entails a certain error.