You are wasting everyone's time here as well...
If you think so, then don't reply.
Basically, the Earth has two crusts: the mostly basalt lower crust or the oceanic crust which is two to four miles deeper down than the higher upper continental crust.
The second upper crust (the continental crust) is made up mostly of granitic rock.
That's a very confused description. Can you try again in a language other than gibberish?
Didn't you assert later in this very post that the "basalt lower crust" doesn't exist?
Oceanic crust - 3 to 3.3 times heavier than water. Continental crust - 2.5 times heavier than water.
The word you're looking for is
denser. It's possible to deduce what you mean from context, but that's sloppy writing.
In the post starting this discussion you said of continental crust: "The mean weight [sic] of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water." Now you say it's 2.5 times, or is that a typo?
But, yes, oceanic crust is denser than continental crust. Thanks for acknowledging that. Now, why do you completely ignore it in your ridiculous claim that continents should unbalance the earth's crust because continental crust is denser than seawater?
Then, the continents would crash like bumper cars at a carnival.
This is the standard theory. Now, the problems.
Where did the granite come from? No one can explain. But we have the Polonium-218 halos problem.
<Several links to creationist websites>
You rely on YECs for geologic information? Seriously? LOL! No wonder you think so many things can't be explained and get so many things wrong.
Anyone who paid attention in a High School or later intro geology course would know that the oceans are underlain by oceanic crust that's denser than continental crust.
Scientists smarter than your high school geology teacher have figured out the basalt layer is just a myth. [Citation needed]
Yeah, there it is! Isn't this counter to what your earlier garbled description is trying to say? It's hard to tell for sure.
BTW, I studied geophysics through college and have a master's degree in it. I first learned about oceanic crust before that.
<Rambles about a couple of deep boreholes in continental crust.>
So what? Why are you getting into the weeds with stuff you cut'n'pasted about about the structure of continental crust, and what relevance does it have to the blunder where you compared density of continental crust with density of seawater and reached a preposterous conclusion (twice!) because you ignored the existence of oceanic crust (both times)? Trying to distract attention from your rookie error?
The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.
It's good to see you acknowledge the existence of oceanic crust! And, yes... geology is hard!
You again insist by this line of "reasoning" that you're still ignoring your ignorant blunder. Your whole premise that areas with continental crust weigh more than areas underlain by oceanic crust (because continental crust is denser than seawater, while completely ignoring oceanic crust) is meaningless.
You are as stupid as basalt rock.
LOL!
That is not my premise.
Hmmm...
Here is YOUR map:
<https://gknxt.com/world_map/interactive_map_of_the_world/Interactive_World_Map.webp>
Now, put your thinking cap on.
The distribution of the continents is possible only for FET.
You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.
Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).
"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.
The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.
But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."
The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.
The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.
It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.
At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.
For the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth.
That post has your name on it and contains no attributions to anyone else. [The "Quote from:" line at the beginning of the quote block is a link back to the quoted post; anyone can easily see the entire context.]
If you stole the idea from someone else (YE creationists maybe?), you should give them credit. That way you can share the blame, too, but even then you're still responsible here for what you post here.
It's yours. You posted it. You own it.
What you the RE have to deal with is this: the distribution of the continents means that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere (at least for the first few kilometers).
The Pangea massive continent means that the hemisphere which contained this geological formation was MUCH HEAVIER than the hemisphere which had the oceans.
A total defiance of Newtonian gravitation.
What gravitational force? The net gravitational force pulls the oceans' water down; down is toward the center of the earth. Why would seawater "be pulled" upward to cover the supercontinent?
You are as stupid as a basalt rock.
LOL again! Your schoolyard taunts are just killing me!! I may die laughing!!!
The pull from the Sun: that is why seawater would cover immediately the Pangea continent which would be facing the same Sun while the Earth was rotating.
The solar component of tides is a fraction of the moon's. We calculated this as an exercise when I was in grad school, and I recall that it was less than half. For what you say to be true, the entire supercontinent of Pangaea would have to be less than a few meters above sea level, which sounds about a far-fetched as the rest of your ideas in this discussion.
Explain to your readers how this Earth would rotate facing the Sun with the... North Pole:
<https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yzxGQrsNXDzWDcTKPFqFFf-1200-80.jpg>
I don't need to. The "problem" you imagine is entirely in your imagination; it doesn't exist in reality.
You're lapsing back into gibberish, though. What about the north pole in reference to the map showing Pangaea?
Have you lost your mind alpha?
I don't think so, but it's looking more and more like you have.
The center of gravity is right smack in Africa.
No, the center of gravity is a little less than 4,000 miles below the surface. Your map shows only the surface.