Came across this video while doing some research on tilak’s ‘Arctic home in the vedas’ which says that during the Vedic Age India was alongside current arctic region.
According to the continental drift theory, all present 7 continents we see now were once attached to each other (as a giant continent called pangea) and then started moving apart giving rise to current geographical structure of continents separated by oceans.
The video below proves this theory wrong, instead it says that when earth had a single huge land mass called pangea, the size of the earth was much smaller than it is today and so all continents were together as a single huge land mass then and as earth continued grow in size all these continents looked like as if they are moving apart and have reached their current positions!
In other words Continental drift happened not because continents moved away in a earth which was the same size as today, but because a smaller earth became big making continents appear as if they moved apart!
The video says that the volume of earth is increasing and so the land mass which once covered the entire earth now covers only a part of it as the earth has nearly doubled its size in the past 65 million years. Note that it was 65 million years ago that dinosaurs were wiped out of this planet. And we have dinosaur fossils all over the world which means that it had to be a single giant land mass back then as dinosaurs can definitely not swim in oceans.
This theory of earth growing in size makes lot more sense than the continental drift theory to me because, this explains the finding of fossils of sea and ocean’s creatures on top of mountains today. The finding of these fossils definitely means that those moutains were once under sea/ocean bed. This could only be possible if earth had been much smaller during those days when the moutains were under the sea, so that all water that is in the oceans today had submerged a smaller earth then overflowing the moutains of today. As earth grew bigger, the water level went down and we have today’s moutains with fossils of oceanic creatures on the top! Perfect, right?
Continental drift theory cannot explain the findings of fossils of sea and ocean creatures on top of mountains. If earth were as big earlier as it is today, then how was it possible for the same amount of water that is there today in the oceans to submerge today’s moutains in them millions of years ago? Where as if we accept that the earth was smaller earlier, then the water then would have been enough to submerge the mountains we see today, which clearly explains why we can see fossils of sea creatures on top of some moutains today.
Also, as mentioned rightly in the video, the oldest under sea fossils have been found not under sea/oceans, but on land, and this is because the current land mass existed under sea in a smaller earth millions of years back, where as the current sea and ocean bed are much later creations due to the increase in size of the earth.
Hence I agree with the theory put forward in this video below.
Apart from this I noticed an interesting thing here, which was the actual purpose of my research. It is shown that the present India was linked to Antarctica when all continents were together earlier. This disputes tilak’s theory of the Arctic Home of the Vedas. Tilak had said that during the vedic age (which infact was also the end of the last ice age) India was next to the current arctic region. But here it looks like it was antarctic and not arctic, in other words it has to be ‘The Antarctic Home of the Vedas’! More research under progress,…
One more thing struck me here. When we say, earth is increasing in size what does it mean? Is it the mass of the earth? I dont think so, where is that new mass coming from? It looks like only the volume of the earth is increasing, in other words, the space occupied by earth is increasing. How?
Well, I think is it related to big bang, that the universe itself is expanding, and this expansion is happening everywhere, so it has to have a local expansion too. I had this question in my mind ever since I read about the expanding universe in my high school, I had then thought that since we live inside this universe, our humans bodies should also be expanding 
Similarly even the earth is expanding, although at a slower late, it took 65 million years for it to double in volume the last time.. we humans expand at a much much more smaller rate, that we die much before our expansion could reach an observable level. Well, I am not talking about eating junk food and becoming obese. Well, hope earth doesn’t need to do dieting and fitness exercise like some humans do 
One final thing, we could check for such expansions in other planets and stars as well !
enjoy the video
May 11, 2007 at 6:45 pm |
I am reading all ur blogs in spite of the time crossing midnight. R u an allien or an enlightened soul gifted with the entire universal knowledge ? ur blogs speaks about geography, chemistry, IT, mettalurgy, astronomy, theology, mathematics etc etc. U r a great inspiration. Keep ur good work going my friend.
May 11, 2007 at 7:46 pm |
A bit surprised that you called me an alien, most of my friends call me so too..
Well, I am a simple man, just extraordinarily curious about things and passionate abt whatever I do
May 18, 2007 at 1:41 pm |
The underlying theory of plate tectonics successfully explains phenomena such as continental drift and tsunamis and is a widely accepted theory. It also explains why marine fossils are found on mountain tops. The reason is, when plate collisions occur, they can cause a rise in the land mass which were earlier submerged. This is made possible by the action of enoromous forces that arise during such collisions.
You might be surprised to find out that all such mountains where marine fossils were found are all close to sea shores.
May 18, 2007 at 5:06 pm |
Nobody is denying Plate tectonics. It does exist. It causes earth quakes and related tsunamis etc which is correct.
What we are denying is the theory that this same plate tectonics caused continents to drift like boats in the oceans of earth from pangea to today’s 7 continents.
The reason being that if all contintents were once united at Pangea and earth was the same size as it is today, then the huge land mass on one side and only oceans on the other side would have caused a huge gravitational imbalance on earth, evidence of which is clearly not found. Nor does continental drift explain how this imbalance was handled. Do you have any idea on this?
I am not surprised that mountains where marine fossils are found are all close to sea shores, for the simple reason that when the sea level was high in a smaller earth in those days these moutains tops were under sea shores
It is not feasible that marine fossils came on top of mountains due to collisions of plates. When plates collide how on earth can marine creatures living in the underwater sea bed get projectiled to moutain tops? Even if we assume that it happened, then the collision forces should have also caused these moutains to break down due to the collision and collapse!
Also, how can it be explained that in a smaller earth all current continents fit exactly to cover the entire planet with land mass ?
Also if oceans existed below the current sea level with Pangea on one side and ocean on the other side of the earth then, why havent we found any marine fossils of the Pangea period at these sea/ocean beds ?
Finally lets look at the basics of how land on earth formed. Earth initially was in a complete molten state. This is obviously hot magma liquid which as it cools spreads down evenly on the entire surface of the earth forming a land mass which would cover the entire planet. Not just half of it in the form of Pangea as explained by continental drift theory. Doesnt this explain clearly then that the cooled land mass covered the entire planet and as the planet grew in size gaps occured between these land masses causing current oceans and seas ?
Also note that there is no explanation of how Pangea was formed. It is just an assumption that it did exist. But the theory of ancient earth being completely covered by land could be easily explained by the fact that initially whole of earth was covered by molten liquid which as it solidified formed the land mass cover for the whole planet.
May 23, 2007 at 1:34 pm |
You are an idiot. Get an education.
May 23, 2007 at 5:21 pm |
@Guess
Yep I am an idiot (since always there are things that I dont know), getting education (learning new things) is a life long process
May 24, 2007 at 12:34 pm |
You have curious theories!! So what if there is a gravitational imbalance? Mars has a valcano thrice the size of mount everest large enough to cause a wobble. There is enough evidence of continental drift but what’s your take on the earth ballooning 2 times its size in 15 Mahayug time?
May 24, 2007 at 5:39 pm |
@Dev – “So what if there is a gravitational imbalance?”
Well, I am surprised that you are asking this question. If you really mean it, then we should probably revisit the basics. First of all, there is a lot of difference between a giant volcano on some planet (your mars example) and entire land mass of a planet being on one side of the planet (pangea and earth example)
The existence of pangea on one side and entire oceans on other side would have caused the ocean waters to flow down towards the pangea due to the weight on pangea side, there by causing the land mass below ocean level on non-pangea side to be exposed. Obviously life would have evolved independently on this 8th continent too.. Where is the proof of that?
Simple 3D model reversal of current continents to Pangea based on continental drift theory would reveal the above fact. But there is no proof of that other land mass.
Moreover, a simple 3D model based on ballooning earth would reveal how exactly all 7 continents fit into each other to cover the entire planet when the size of earth was small. This definitely cant be a mere coincidence!
In Pangea model, the continents fit into each other that too with gaps in between and more over not cover the planet as such.
Coming back to an even more basic question. How did the Pangea form? How did entire land mass move to one part of the planet? Do you have an answer to that question?
Ballooning earth explains everything that continental drift explains. And it explains even more. It even explains how the entire earth was covered by one single land mass. Continental drift doesnt explain how Pangea was formed!!
Before land was formed on earth, the entire planet was made up of hot molten liquid. This was spread out evenly on the planet’s surface, as any other liquid would do. Then as earth cooled down, the hot liquid became solid land mass, and naturally it was covering the entire earth.
As for the proof of ballooning earth, first thing is the very fact that all continents perfectly fit into a smaller earth covering the whole planet, pangea doesnt fit so well into earth!
The second take is that the universe itself is expanding. When we say its expanding, its not expanding somewhere only out there. Its expanding everywhere! So why not on earth over a few billion years?? Or it could as well be that the internal heat at the core is causing the outer earth to expand. The outer surface is cool and the inner surface is molten hot high pressure area. Why shouldn’t it be causing earth to expand over a period of 2-3 billion years?? The core was a lot more hotter than it is today as earth cooled down on its surface.
The approach would be, that if you have two theories which explain the same thing, then take up that theory which makes more sense first and try to prove it wrong. THe theory that makes more sense would be the one that supports more facts than the other. Ballooning supports more facts than Pangea as I have explained above. Ballooning accounts for the absense of 8th continent, it accounts for the perfect jugsaw puzzle covering the whole planet (unlike pangea).
I will be really interested if you can prove pangea model by answering unanswered question OR disprove ballooning. I am more interested in the truth, not in any prejudices. I cant believe something without proof and without making sense, just because people have been believing things since ages. Einstein doesnt allow me to do that
June 10, 2007 at 12:34 am |
The breaking up of the one land mass can just as easily be explained by Dr. Brown”s Hydroplates theory as well which is similar to contenetial drift. It explains all of the geological phenomenon we forencically witness today…without the need for a growing earth concept the gravitational pull of the moon upon the earth causes a slight but measurable bulge at the earth’s near center and i suspect this interplay plays a role in the conteniental drift and pull apart of the one land mass. In addition your theory as far as I can see does not adiquitely explain the existance of oceans. If the whole earth is growing and the land masses are being pulled apart by this growth..but at one point the entire earth was land mass before this break apart…where did all the water come from that filled in the gaps created by the break up. I think given all the geophysical evidences taken together the best explanation is that of a Global flood similar to what is mentioned in the book of Genesis. A brief explanation by Dr. Brown can be seen at the following:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nIBWMig3dCw
June 10, 2007 at 8:22 am |
@TheVineRhyme
Well first let me clariify. Expanding earth is NOT MY THEORY. I just happened to see the video posted above, in youtube, and got interested by the theory.
I think it made sense because, as the earth cooled, IT HAD TO BE A LAND MASS THAT COVERED THE ENTIRE PLANET. How do you explain Pangea’s formation??
About the ocean, the water already existed in smaller earth too.. it could be easily explained that in small earth earlier, total land was submerged inside the oceans, which is why primitive life started in water, not on land, then as earth expanded, ocean’s water moved down to where it is today to replace vaccuum created by land loss due to expansion, which on the other hand created continental land mass above water level.
Also, this is supported by the fact that on the top of mountains we have marine fossils!! This is because in early smaller earth these mountains were below ocean water!!
August 20, 2007 at 3:41 pm |
u said above entire earth was covered with molten liquid, and now you sau the entire land was under ocean or water..doesnt both contradict ???
August 20, 2007 at 8:26 pm |
no its not like that..
initially the entire earth was hot molten liquid.. there was no land formed yet.. the land today was also molten and a part of that hot molten liquid.. molten liquid is not water.. its melted land, lava, magma…
then as earth cooled the outer layer of this molten liquid became solid land.. and then as earth evolved, had an atmosphere, cloud formation etc, the first heavy rains poured which flooded this entire land with ocean water…
then the wear and tear started, probably new land mass also got added due to falling asteroids etc… some land continued to be under water which is the current ocean bed, and some land came above water, which is current continents.. the one single land mass pangea broke into pieces due to earth’s rotation and/or impacts , and we have continental plates today, that move freely, causing earthquakes, etc!!!
August 20, 2007 at 8:40 pm |
thats ok now…was wondering how come rain is not mentioned anywhere..it looked incomplete with it.:)
August 21, 2007 at 1:18 am |
Kind of funny, Ive been thinking about this very subject for awhile. This just lines up with what Ive been thinking.
August 21, 2007 at 6:56 am |
Hi Gurudev,
I got to know this forum through one of my friends. Your articles are good and most important of all sensible . I am curious to know your educational details and your career in general.
All the best
August 21, 2007 at 7:20 am |
Hi Daniel,
nice to know that your thinking is in these lines too. Yes, its better to consider all options however improbable they might seem now, because as Einstein said “common sense is the list of all prejudices acquired by the age of 18″!, we should be able to think BEYOND common sense
As I have been always thinking, the best way to prove a theory is to keep trying to disprove it in every way!
August 21, 2007 at 7:22 am |
Hi jayashree
Thanks for your comments and wishes. I am a simple BSc computers graduate, and a software architect by profession
August 21, 2007 at 1:44 pm |
@DEV
adding to the common sense comment by einsten
“Common sense is not Common” may be the reason why not all are able to think beyond
October 7, 2007 at 7:31 pm |
If you pursue your inquiries into the science of geology, I think you will find that many of the questions you have raised can be easily and completely answered by current geologic theory, which relies on plate tectonics and continental drift as an important cornerstone. I urge you to seek deeper than a ten-minute YouTube video for evidence before forming your opinion.
As teacher of geology I am familiar with the concept of Earth expansion, and can point out at least some of its significant flaws. To begin, no mechanism known can account for the increase in mass necessary to account for a swelling of Earth. The ‘expansion of the universe’ you mention does not suggest that objects are simply getting larger; physical law insists that mass be conserved. If the young Earth were so significantly smaller as to suture the continents together in a single surface, it would be more dense than similarly sized ball of pure uranium.
You mention in one of the follow-up posts that dinosaurs are found on every continent, and this is evidence for continuity of continents. Please remember that the dinosaurs were a very diverse group, as varied as any of the major groups of animals today, and as endemic. Members of a single species–Triceratops horridus, for example–are not known to cover the Earth, but in this case inhabited a narrow strip of land from Alberta down the front range of the Rockies into Montana. Species of densely feathered theropod dinosaurs appear to have been restricted to eastern China. To say that ‘dinosaurs covered the earth’ is the same as to note that birds or mammals cover the Earth today–and clearly the continents are not a continuous landmass at the moment.
Both concepts–Tectonics and Expanding Earth–provide for places around the Earth at which new planetary crust is produced. At these divergent boundaries, massive sheets of oceanic crust slide apart, driven by convection within the mantle, allowing magma to rise and form new sea floor. An example of this type of boundary tracks right down the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, north to south. However, a different kind of plate boundary exists around nearly the entire circumference of the Pacific Ocean. At this boundary, plates are in collision. The denser plate slides beneath the lighter, usually continental, one. This process is called subduction, and it is responsible for both profound earthquakes and, as the plunging plate partially melts, magmas rising to the surface to produce volcanoes on the edge of the ‘winning’ plate. The Ring of Fire around the Pacific marks these subduction boundaries with a deep marine trench flanked by active volcanoes, including the Aleutians, Kurils, Japan, Phillipines, New Zealand, the Andes, the Central American isthmus, and Cascades in western North America. These boundaries consume old crust, destroying plate material at the same rate it is being produced at the divergent boudaries. The depths of earthquake activity exactly predict the position of the downhanging plate edge as it breaks up in the mantle. The presence of these boundaries is counter-evidence for EE, because crust should not need to be destroyed in quantity in an Expanding Earth.
You mention that having a supercontinent on one side of Earth might create a wobble in Earth’s rotation. The crust is a tiny fraction of Earth’s mass, so its effect on Earth’s movement would be slight… but it is there. In fact, Earth’s rotation and revolution are not stable, and have left evidence of this in over 2 billion years of accumulated sediments. The polar tilt, the continental distribution, the volume of ice, the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, all play a role in a bit of orbital wobble–and we have good records to show this. Fortunately for Earth’s biosphere, the effects on the surface have been relatively slight.
Continental plates thicken greatly as they grow. Mountain ranges form as continents converge and rumple up like fenders in a car crash. These continents essentially float on a semimolten mantle, with the thicker parts–the mountain ranges–riding deeper in the mantle mush almost like icebergs in water. Rocks in which fossils of past life that were deposited in a shallow sea can be buried when continents converge to build a new mountain range. The process of erosion, however, only works on the top of these mountains, just as the sun’s heat melts the ice only on the top of the icefloe. Like those icebergs, as the top of the mountain is removed, the continent rises a bit to compensate for the lost mass. This process, called unroofing, repeats for millions of years, turning miles of rock into gravel and washing it away; and the continent rises up underneath. In this way, rocks that were once on the bottom of a sea floor, and include some of the very oldest fossils of sea life, can gradually be elevated to the tops of mountains. Expanding Earth can explain none of this, because continents can’t collide if the planet is expanding–so there’s no way for it to make new mountain ranges.
The most profound piece of evidence for the drift of continental masses over time is that now we can measure it directly. Satellite and reflected laser-light technology allow us to plot the stately western march of North America at roughly 7 cm per year, for example. We can watch the unroofing processes at work in new mountain ranges like the Himalayas of northern India. We can measure the rate of subduction, the depth of island arc magma production, and the deep movement of consumed plates in the interior of the Earth. The Christmas 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean was caused by a massive movement along one of these subduction zones that made the Earth measureably and instantaneously *smaller*, with enough power to perturb its rotation and make it shudder in its orbit. At present, the data geologists have collected better supports Tectonic Theory than it does the concept of an Expanding Earth.
I appreciate your interest and your imagination, and am encouraged by your open discussion. I suggest that if you’re truly interested in this idea, take a course in basic physical geology. I think you’ll find that the concepts on which geologists base tectonics and the age of the Earth are well supported and awe-inspiring.
Will Straight, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Geology
NoVA, Virginia
October 7, 2007 at 8:33 pm |
Thank you very much professor for all this wonderful information. I didnt know about unroofing! That pretty comfortably answers about marine fossils being seen on top of mountains.
Yes, sure will pick up some material on physical geology and study them.
But I was surprised to see as shown in the above video, that if we deflate the current globe, all continental land mass would almost perfectly fit into a single land mass covering the entire planetary sphere? That looks a bit highly coincidental? So if earth was small earlier, then it probably grew to today’s size as it started acquiring more mass by asteroid collisions, meteorites etc…
Isnt it possible that continents evolved as per EE, and today they move according to plate tectonics?
Is there any mention in the current geological theory about how the initial continental land mass was formed? Because if earth had hot molten surface when it initially formed, it looks logical to think that, as the liquid cooled, the resultant land would cover the entire planet almost uniformly, instead of forming a land mass only on a part of the planet!
Was wondering how the earth could expand based on physical laws, and thought might be due to the universal expansion, because since the entire universe is expanding the expansion should be happening everywhere in the universe, and thought so this might be the reason for EE
But yes, now I think it doesnt make real sense because in that case the density of earth should have decreased! Expansion probably happens only out in empty space, not within mass itself because atomic structures and molecular bondings are not permanent, but are constantly changing, breaking and realigning.
But isnt it possible that earth grew as more planetary objects collided onto it adding more mass? And also probably these collisions caused the giant continent to break away and also gave a momentum for movement?
I am just curious to know the answers and believe that the best way to prove a theory is to try to disprove it in every possible way
Once again, thank you very much professor for sharing the information and for the guidance.
October 8, 2007 at 1:23 am |
The process you describe–the construction of the planet through the accumulation of asteroidal debris–is called accretion. In the very early days of young Earth, 4.6 billion years ago, this process very significantly increased the size of our planet. The process of bombardment would however, have imparted so much heat that the planet initially would have been completely molten. Growth by bombardment lasted about 400 million years, tapering off as the young solar system simply ran out of asteroids; but still the Earth was molten and somewhat significantly smaller than it is today.
The process of building planets from a nebula of gas and dust is a messy, catastrophic process. Dozens of small worlds formed in close to the sun; and, if the Giant Impact Hypothesis now in the textbooks is correct, one of them, a little Mars-sized world referred to as Theia, formed in the same orbit as Earth. Two worlds in an orbit aren’t gravitationally stable, and the larger of the two, Earth, eventually reeled the smaller one in. They collided, some time about 100 or 200 million years into Earth’s life, an unimaginable cosmic event. The significance of this crash to us is that Earth was radically enlarged and entirely remelted (if it indeed had become solid by this time), and a sheet of our planet’s mantle was blasted off into space. This wreath of debris may have formed, for a short time, a ring around Earth; later, some of the residue that did not return to the surface consolidated into our Moon. Evidence of Theia’s sacrifice is apparent in the movement, geology, and orbital character of our little lunar companion; it helps explain why Earth, a relatively small planet, rates the fifth largest natural satellite in the solar system, and why we have a balmy 24-hour day, instead of the hellish day length shared by Venus and Mercury.
Both of these planetary growth processes were over before the formation of continents. The early crust would have been thin, iron-rich, and very similar to mantle material in its composition. Early in Earth’s history, possibly as soon as this thin crust formed, the tectonic processes began, and those subduction boundaries I mentioned began to recycle the old crust. The old crust travels a long circle to be renewed: partial melting of the subducted plate produces a new magma; the magma rises and erupts as a new volcano; the volcano dies and erodes into new sediment; the sediment gets carried by water out into the sea, where it forms a new layer; and the plate covered by the layer subducts. Each time crust gets recycled this way, the part of it that returns to the surface is more concentrated in silica and less concentrated in iron than the previous version. It takes several ‘wash and rinse’ cycles to make even the smallest block of continent.
Continental crust is different than oceanic crust in an important compositional way: it contains more silica and less iron than oceanic crust. This makes it much less dense than oceanic crust. Its density is so low that it cannot be subducted. Instead, tectonic processes transport these little slivers of continent around the Early Earth’s surface until they meet and stick together. Continents grew in this way, assembled from tiny islands that simply can’t subduct. This is why oceanic crust is all very young–the oldest ocean floor on Earth is only about 220 million years old–while continents contain rocks of 2+ billion years of age. It took over 2 billion years for tectonic processes to produce the first modest continent, a land mass about the size of Greenland today. The first supercontinent, a fusion of many smaller continents, occurred only about 800 million years ago. It has happened twice since then, most recently the Pangaea you mentioned, which formed up about 320 million years ago and began to break up about 150 million years ago. It will happen again, possibly some 250 million years from now.
About the coincidental fit of continents on that video: watch it again and notice that as they ‘run the globe backward through time,’ the continents stay the same shape as they are today. If you think about that for a moment, you’ll see that it can’t be right. The Mississippi River delta is 11 kilometers thick, an all-sediment apron added to the continent over the last 100 million years or so. If they’re really taking us back to the origins of Earth, the Gulf lowlands shouldn’t last a frame! Nor the Amazon delta; or the Ganges. As the Earth shrinks back toward its original size in the video, the continents *should* change shape, at least get smaller, as all that sediment deposited along their edges runs back up into the mountains. The coincidental fit of continents is only a function of the way the video animation has been drawn, not because of any underlying geologic evidence.
It’s worth noting that Alfred Wegener also saw the coincidental fit of certain coastlines–particularly between South America and Africa–as he began working on the concept of Continental Drift in the 1910s. His idea wasn’t regarded as good science until it was coupled with a mechanism and supporting evidence by Harry Hess in the 1960s. This is the way scientific discourse works. In principle, the EE concept could some day replace plate tectonics (the theory that continental drift became), but it must first provide (1) a coherent mechanism, (2) some supporting evidence that plate tectonics cannot explain, and, most importantly, (3) a *better* explanation of existing geologic phenomena than plate tectonics. While I think it unlikely in the extreme, it is not impossible.
Hope this helps.
Will
October 8, 2007 at 5:47 am |
Thank you very much professor. That helped a lot in understanding things better. Got to know a lot more about moon and earth.
In the animation, as you said, the continents should have changed shape at the edges!
Yes, as you said the main missing ingredient of the EE theory is a *mechanism* for EE.
Probably in the future if we can master worm hole technology, then we can open up a worm home few billion light years away from earth, and peep into the past light rays from earth reaching there, and can actually *see* how all this happened
October 9, 2007 at 1:42 am |
For that show, I hope to have a front row seat!
October 9, 2007 at 5:54 am |
I was thrilled at the possibility of an expanding earth where initially it was submerged in water. and I know why it appeals to me as we have a similar allegory in vishnu purana
Also hear a screaming voice in my head which says how little we know about anything. Anyways it is always wonderfully interesting to challenge an established theory. Have to be careful that it is not mere speculation though.