| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
-43
#15 - justadude has deleted their comment. [-]
#80 to #15 - sovietmaxx (08/03/2012) [-]
It is entirely possible for there to be a shitton of landmass opposite of shitton of water mass.. pic related it's the pacific ocean
#19 to #15 - CorporalObvious (08/02/2012) [-]
you realise how insignificant landmass is, right?
-22
#21 to #19 - justadude has deleted their comment. [-]
User avatar #23 to #21 - CorporalObvious (08/02/2012) [-]
You don't understand science.
-20
#24 to #23 - justadude has deleted their comment. [-]
User avatar #25 to #24 - CorporalObvious (08/02/2012) [-]
I understand what you're saying. You don't realise how insignicant the mass of the surface crust is compared to the much heavier oceanic plates.
-20
#26 to #25 - justadude has deleted their comment. [-]
User avatar #63 to #26 - anog (08/03/2012) [-]
"Theory"
User avatar #28 to #26 - whycanticaps ONLINE (08/02/2012) [-]
right at the top of your own article

While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any expansion or contraction of the Earth.

Would that not make your point moot? Because though it is an interesting theory, it can not be proven, at least on Earth.
User avatar #27 to #26 - CorporalObvious (08/02/2012) [-]
"While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any expansion or contraction of the Earth."

it's the third line down, come on man, you're not even trying.
-20
#29 to #27 - justadude has deleted their comment. [-]
#51 to #29 - chosenonex (08/03/2012) [-]
Not trying to be rude or anything. but sometimes being quiet is better then the sea of red thumbs you've unleashed on yourself.
Not trying to be rude or anything. but sometimes being quiet is better then the sea of red thumbs you've unleashed on yourself.
User avatar #41 to #29 - TestesFly (08/03/2012) [-]
That's partially false. Church doctrine during the first millennium rejected that the planet was round, but we've had (innacurate) measures of the earth's circumference for over 4000 years.

Also, you're referencing centrifugal force, rather than centripetal force. Centrifugal force doesn't technically exist.
#40 to #29 - part (08/03/2012) [-]
First of all, it was religious consensus that stated that Sol orbited Earth and not the other way around, and it was common knowledge since the Greek philosophers that the world was round, it's just a common misconception that the Flat Earth Theory recently stopped being widespread.
#42 to #40 - TestesFly (08/03/2012) [-]
Dammit, you snuck that response in before me...
Dammit, you snuck that response in before me...
#43 to #42 - part (08/03/2012) [-]
Muahahaha. It's cool bro, you included a bit more detail than I did on the round Earth thing, and added the fact that centrifugal force is an "imaginary" force. Our replies together paint a more complete picture.
User avatar #30 to #29 - CorporalObvious (08/02/2012) [-]
Honestly, it makes no difference to me. My job doesn't require me to have an opinion of whether or not plate tectonics are the correct theory regarding the super positioning of the continents.
-15
#31 to #30 - justadude has deleted their comment. [-]
#73 to #31 - N. Korean citizen (08/03/2012) [-]
I found this ironic considering how smart you thought you were.

#33 to #31 - flowgo (08/02/2012) [-]
My balls are itchy.
-8
#44 to #33 - justadude has deleted their comment. [-]
#49 to #44 - N. Korean citizen (08/03/2012) [-]
You didn't speak your mind. You tried to argue about something. Then, when you were proven wrong, you tried to say that it's only a theory and that the other person was 'criticizing.' Accept the fact that you made a mistake and accept your thumbs. It has nothing to do with speaking your mind. Don't try to blame the stereotypical FJ for your mistake.
 Friends (0)