Long before I came to know about the Continental Drift at the age of 9, I got a globe from my Dad. I loved it so much that I only kept playing with it. I noticed that the shorelines of Africa fits exactly on the shorelines of America. As a kid I was fascinated how perfectly it fits into it and wondered why it is so?
During school I found myself again in an argument with my geography teacher who was threatening me to fail and telling me how stupid and retarded my approach was about my text books. It started when he started telling us about “Continental – Hypothesis”. According to him the Earth is a molten lava and the continents are floating ship upon it. Even though it was quite shocking to know there was nothing permanent on this planet the problem which I couldn’t understand during that time was “How do you explain all the land and the ocean if the Continent is floating then why doesn’t it show movement in different direction and if Storms and wind are able to move it?” I was thrown out of the class. Even though I had to go through punishment for that, I was as usual focused on the solution. Which was not there in the text book.
In the same geography book they also explained that the ocean ground floor is relatively newer then the land on the continent. Which they explained by saying there are many volcanoes inside of the ocean and they keep forming another continent. If you were hooked to Discovery Channel in those time, you must have seen a lot of documentary on volcanoes under the ocean and the volcanoes near the ocean-floor. Explaining this is the way continents were formed.
One of the interesting things about paradigm is that they stubbornly refuse to die. Wegener’s plate tectonic theory was the new paradigm. Sure, new crust was being formed in the mid-ocean ridges and this was moving the continents, but the size of the planet wouldn’t change– would it?
To maintain a planet of the same size, there has to be a method to compensate for the new crust being made in the ridges. To solve this dilemma, scientists theorized that the plates sometimes move under other plates in a process called subduction
There is no “direct” proof of subduction. No experimental objects have been placed to measure it and no land masses have ever been observed moving towards each other. So the question arises: is there an alternate theory?
Shortly after Wegener’s continental drift theory was introduced, many people tried to piece together the continents. Some pieces (like South America and Africa) were an obvious fit, but others did not fit together because of the belief that a vast ocean had to be accommodated in the models. Sam Carey, an Australian, dared to solve the puzzle without an ocean and found that the continents fit together perfectly. Of course, this was in the 1930s at a time when Wegener’s theory was still being ridiculed and mocked.
But Carey was on to something big… or small. His solution only worked if the Earth was a fraction of its present size.
There is strong evidence that the oceans are a relatively recent addition to planet Earth. All the present ocean floors are geologically young. Present-day continents, such as Australia, were formed about 4.3 billion years ago. In contrast, the geologically oldest seafloor formed only 180 million years ago.
The Plate Tectonic model assumes this is because older oceanic crust has been subducted. For this assumption to be correct, an area equivalent to the Pacific Ocean would have had to be subducted under the Americas since the Jurassic period, with no debris or remnants of older oceanic crust left behind. We just don’t see that kind of vigorous subduction taking place anywhere on the planet today.
Biologists have looked at ancient plant and animal fossils to determine which continents and oceans they once inhabited. They concluded that, “The balance of evidence seems to require an expanding earth…”
Carey suggested that an experiment should be conducted to measure the expansion and, in 1986, his suggestion was carried out.
A pair of receivers [A & B below] were set up at different locations on the earth, each looking at the same quasar and listening to its radio emissions. Quasars are radio sources which serve as a universal beacon. Because of the curvature of the Earth, one location (A) was slightly nearer to the quasar signal and so received it first. Using the time delay and a little geometry, the difference in the distance between the two stations and the quasar can be determined. If the same measurements are taken at a later time, when the two receivers are oriented with respect to the quasar as before, if receiver B has moved closer to the quasar, the delay time between them will be less.
Since we know that the distance between the two receivers [A and B] has not changed, evidence of their apparent change in distance from the Quasar [C] must be attributed to the fact that the curvature of the Earth has lessened from expansion. Over a ten year period, experimental results showed an earth expansion of about two centimeters per year (2.0 cm/yr), while the actual surface separation [A and B] remained constant.
This may sound small, but the volume is enormous. Here this Video will clear up any doubts which remains, watch it with an open mind.