The First Map of the Depths
moreintelligentlife.com
moreintelligentlife.com
Though many of the ideas of plate tectonics were several decades old (including Emile Argand's beautiful and prescient ideas, including continental collision is the biggest driver of mountain range formation, and that subducted Indian crust underlies the Tibetan plateau [1]), until the 70s they were still widely disbelieved, even by straight up geniuses like the great Bayesian geophysicist Harold Jeffreys (he of the Jeffreys prior).
Tectonics is the grand unifying theory of geology, and wasn't really accepted until the 70s. How old was 'modern' physics at this point? Darwinian evolution?
What else do we still have to discover? I like to keep this in mind when I hear the doubters doubting (e.g., [2]).
[1] Argand, E. (1924), "La Tectonique de l'Asie", Extrait du Compte-rendu du XIIIe Congrès géologique international 1922 (Liège), 1(5), pp. 171-372.
[2]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6694932/Have-we-discovere...
The major differences in elevation/bathymetry are dominantly due to the density change that accompanies the change from continental crust to oceanic crust. Continents are basically rafts of granite that float on more dense mantle rocks; oceanic crust is pretty close chemically and physically to the mantle, and is a lot thinner and more dense, and basically floats lower. This equilibrium is called isostasy[1], which is more or less Archimedes' principle[2] applied to the earth.
It's basically happenstance that the volume of water on earth is enough to just barely overtop the ocean basin. Very fortuitous happenstance, though (life might have evolved pretty differently if the ocean/land transition was several km high).
[0]: http://ows.edb.utexas.edu/site/hight-kreitman/land-bridge-th...
If you took the Earth and shrunk it to the size of a billiard ball, it would be smoother than a billiard ball.
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/246579/slide_246579...
If someone has a larger one, that'd be awesome.