Is Alfred Wegener the guy who suggested continental drift?
536734
Alfred Wegener, German meteorologist, was gathering climate information with a partner when he started noticing glacial deposits that matched on different continents.\n\nThis led to more study of course. Why were similar deposits found in such far removed places?\n\nWhile looking into this, he also noticed that rocks & fossils on different continents were also identical.\n\nThis, along w/ the "continent puzzle" led to his hypothesis of continental drift. Notice, it is referred to as a hypothesis. This is because Wegener could never provide a driving mechanism for continental drift.\n\nWegener tried explaining how continents could move but to no avail. His explanation that the continental crust literally plowed through oceanic crust did not "cut" it. PUN intended. This was not possible w/o leaving torn crustal plates behind & there was no evidence of that.\n\nMost scientists rejected his hypothesis. Some, however, kept searching for the "driving mechanism" behind continental drift.\n\nIn 1968, scientists could finally provide this force behind the movement of the crust. It was named the theory of plate tectonics.\n\nThis theory stated that the earth's crust was broken down into many major & minor lithospheric plates. These plates moved due to uneven heating of the molten magma in the earth's mantle.\n\nConvection currents w/in the mantle are created by cooler magma sinking & hotter magma rising. As the hotter magma rises towards the asthenosphere, it will cool & then sink. This principle works in the same manner as it does in the atmosphere.\n\nPlates were either pulled apart at divergent boundaries or subducted at convergent boundaries unless it is at two continental convergent boundaries. In this case the two crusts are less dense than the magma below & will deform rather than be subducted.\n\nSo yes, Alfred Wegener did suggest the theory of continental drift. But it was not actually taken seriously until the theory of plate tectonics came along.
322694
Albert Einstein. \n\nTime travel is kind of like standing at the north pole you can travel but only south. Time is a perception of the mind (as is all of the universe!), as Albert said "Time is an illusion, although persistent still just an illusion!". We can only travel forward in time, we CAN distort time however as we do so our perception (which is a factor of time) is also distorted so that we cannot detect the distortion. The best reading is Einsteins theories.
1044156
Einstien came up with a theory which was by moving very quickly, beyond humans fathomable grip on speed, you can actually stop time and if faster then that, go BACK in time. crazy huh? well if its ever true, we wont know, cause no one in the future in their right MIND would ever want to go back in time to the 20th century. come on. why not stand in the crowd and watch jesus being stoned while carrying the cross or go back further to live amongst the first civilzation of man.
356538
Two main reasons:\n\nFirst, he could not explain *how* continents were able to move.\n\nSecond, he suggested that the reate of drift was ten to a hundred times faster than we now know to be true.\n\nI would suggest that, third, the idea is so counterintuitive -- because human lives are so short, in geological terms, continents seem to us to be utterly constant and permanent.
553136
I dont think the early map makers were the ones thinking the continents moved.. \n\nI think it was geologists who discovered the tectonic plates and how the earth's crust is moving, then they analyze ancient rocks from two continents and compare them, if they are the same then they must come from the same continent
68012
Not really, especially on that scale, because at the time that most of the world was "discovered," Europe was really the only area that had decent seafaring technology.\n\nHowever, there were probably discoverers on a more local scale.
348742
Most likely no.  On both continental groups Eurasia/Afica nad the Americas there were many similarities in technology and scientific process.  This jsut shows that if we as humans really need (or want) something, that we will find a way to get it.  Every great ancient culture was great because they tackled the problems that everyone needed solved.  Writing happened on both continental groups becaus a need to archive history in a condensed form, the same way as the compess, boat and agriculture developed, out of a universla need.
231313
outside of the "reptilian" notion his theories have merit, both logical and historical. for more fun theories check out the linx below:
1092611
Can't find a reference to such a person.\n\nThe Jesuits normally have a brother Xavier in their ranks. Maybe one of them did some digging.\n\nThe Chinese paleontologists mentioned at dinodata are pretty recent.
324380
ahh ... yes i know the guy used to go pass him alot in my time travel days... on dis one occassion we both stumbled ont o the same time wave and land in an area where there were quite a lot of eggs.... the eggs hatched and 2day they are know as americans.......... quite strange i must say as we never saw wat layed the eggs. hmmm o yeah john titor really clever chap.
1144939
A. True.\nThe concept of continental drift was first proposed by Alfred Wegener. In 1912 he noticed that the shapes of continents on either side of the Atlantic Ocean seem to fit together (for example, Africa and South America). Francis Bacon, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, Benjamin Franklin, and others had noted much the same thing earlier. The similarity of southern continent fossil faunae and some geological formations had led a relatively small number of Southern hemisphere geologists to conjecture as early as 1900 that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent known as Pangaea. The concept was initially ridiculed by most geologists, who felt that an explanation of how a continent drifted was a prerequisite and that the lack of one made the idea of drifting continents wholly unreasonable. The theory received support through the controversial years from South African geologist Alexander Du Toit as well as from Arthur Holmes. The idea of continental drift did not become widely accepted as theory until the 1950s in Europe. By the 1960s, geological research conducted by Robert S. Dietz, Bruce Heezen, and Harry Hess along with a rekindling of the theory including a mechanism by J. Tuzo Wilson led to acceptance among North American geologists.\n\nThe hypothesis of continental drift became part of the larger theory of plate tectonics. This article deals mainly with the historical development of the continental drift hypothesis before 1950. See: plate tectonics for information on current ideas underlying concepts of continental drift.
71958
muromets is correct. You can model this yourself using clay. On a cookie sheet, put a half inch of water. On top, put a 1/2 layer of rolled clay. This is what the earth was liked pre-flood. The earth was watered from below. Now break open the center and the water will burst forth (as Genesis describes) and now the clay is covered by the water as the clay sinks. Now pull the clay out toward the corners and the water will display into seas.\nIn order for the continental drift to occur properly, the earth would have had to expand, thus making physics of the covering of the earth with water and its later displacement to be quite possible.
238705
One. It was called pangaea heres some more info:\n\nPangaea or Pangea (derived from Παγγαία, Greek for "all earth") is the name given to the supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, before the process of plate tectonics separated each of the component continents into their current configuration. The name was coined by Alfred Wegener, chief proponent of Continental Drift in 1915.\n\nThe continents apparently first coalesced to form Pangaea about 300 Mya (million years ago), giving rise to several prominent mountain ranges by the process known as orogeny. Several of these ranges still exist, although they have become much lower by means of erosion. The Appalachians of eastern North America, the Atlas Mountains of North Africa, and the Urals of Eurasia are prime examples. The mantle under Pangaea's former location seemingly remained very hot even after coalescence, convection currents within the underlying magma pushing the centre of the supercontinent upward. As a result, the area that is now the continent of Africa was situated tens of meters higher than the surrounding continents.\n\nIn configuration, Pangaea was a C-shaped landmass that spread across the equator. The body of water that was enclosed within the resulting crescent has been named the Tethys Sea. Owing to Pangaea's massive size, the inland regions appear to have been very dry due to the lack of precipitation. The large supercontinent would potentially have allowed terrestrial animals to migrate freely all the way from the South Pole to the North Pole.\n\nThe vast ocean that once surrounded the supercontinent of Pangaea has been named Panthalassa. Pangaea, it seems, broke up about 180 Ma in the Jurassic Period, firstly into two supercontinents (Gondwana to the south and Laurasia to the north), thereafter into the continents as we understand them today.\n\nPangaea was not the first supercontinent. From the evidence available, scientists reconstruct that a predecessor, termed Pannotia, formed about 600 Ma, before dividing again some 50 million years later. Another, Rodinia, apparently formed approximately 1,100 Ma and divided 750 Ma.
109870
Nope. Ben just got it wrong.\n\nWhen he came up with "positive" and "negative" he wasn't even thinking in terms of current they way we do today. Frankline did have an "fluid theory" of electricity, but it was much different in scope with anything we would think of. It was not until 1897 that the electron was discovered.\n\nSo, Ben, can be forgiven. When he was working he wrote in a letter that "I feel a Want of Terms here and doubt much whether I shall be able to make this intelligible," and he supposed to have come up with a variety of terms in use today:     \n\n    * battery\n    * charge\n    * condensor\n    * conductor\n    * plus\n    * minus\n    * positively\n    * negatively\n    * armature\n\nUsing a positve flow is useful in that it keeps a lot of the quantities positive. (Though I confess, in Physics grad school we always used the electrons moving bit.)\n\nAlso moving protons are good if one wants to use special relativity to show that electricy and magnetism are the same.
944027
*sigh* Another debatable query enslaved to the limited senses of us mortals, yet forced in all its calamity by our fascination. Here goes.\n\nEinstein shook the fundaments of the Scientific Community when he introduced his Theory Of Relativity and Special Theory Of Relativity back in 1905. He was considered everything from Nostradamus to Jesus. This pinnacle of his life was not attained in mere pondering. Let me expalin to you this fragment of his theory.\n\n  In theoretical suppositions, the space-time connoction bear themselves in alliance. Any change inflicted on one dimension is prone to affect another.\n\n When we say that we will only age a bit, while the Earth has conquered years and decades, we mean to say, that, time being relative to every individual, along with its flow, may hasten up, if we start to function at a velocity of extremes.\n\n If time IS relative (No humane way to confirm), then a higher velocity achieved could result in a hastened flow in the fluid of the "Fourth Dimension" of time. Such relativity was all that he wished to make us understand.\n\n As far as the aging is concerned, provided that we have armour to protect us from the friction effects of such a speed, we are going to age alright. Since our molecules are being relative to the molecules of the rest of the universe, they are not going to change much. Yet RELATIVELY they will alter a decade or more (backwards)!\n\n*sniff* Einstein, I salute you!
130164
A wacko theory of Fred Hoyles.\n\nHoyle, who is currently dead, was a very good astrophysics guy. He did a lot of work on stellar structure. He also had a theory about the origin of the universe called the Steady State theory which was a scientific rival of the Big Bang. Eventually a lot of evidence came in supporting the Big Bang, but Hoyle could never shake his belief in Steady State.\n\nThe same thing happened with evolution. He didn't think it was true - not for religious reasons - but he simply didn't believe the evidence. Towards the end of his life he was really losing it, and was very much along on science issues. He even thought the Archaeopteryx\n(http://images.google.com/images?q=archaeopteryx&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest)\nwas a fraud, based on absolutely no real evidence.\n\nHe thought that life originated in space, and that complex compounds in space would rain down on planets and seed them with life. There is a serious discussion as to whether or not that helped or caused the origin of life on Earth. Right now that is a minority opinion (I don't agree with it), but not a wacky one.\n\nHoyle though went further. He thought that the fossil record, which to others shows clear and solid evidence of evolution, really recorded changes that occured after "space storms" that lead to massive amounts of space chemicals falling down and mutating existing animals. He even though that human noses point down because that way we are less likely to inhale space born chemicals!\n\nHe got attention for this idea, which is nuts and based on a complete lack of understanding of genetics, among many other things, because of his excellent scientific work earlier in his career.\n\nHe was a nut, but in more ways it was sort of a tragic case. Parallelling Einstein in some respects (Einstein didn't have such wacked out ideas) but both were stuck at dead ends at the end of scientific careers that started out very well.\n\n\nOh, in terms of looking on the internet you need to be careful. Panspermia is one of those ideas which is very popular with scientific cranks. So make sure you have a real science source before taking it seriously.
441977
Actually, they have found half and half fossils.  Read this:\n\nFish with legs and lungs\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/science/05cnd-fossil.html?ex=1301889600&en=43e5c9ecb1dd0cd6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss\n\nFossil that links modern man with Homo erectus\nhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/25/missing.link.ap/index.html\n\nBy the way, to the people that say it's still a "theory".  In the scientific community, a theroy is something that has been backed up by countless experiments, records, discoveries, etc.  It DOES NOT MEAN something that is yet to be proven, that is a called an hypothesis.