Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Krackonis » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:53 pm

pavlink wrote:
During a presentation at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in San Francisco in December, GPS expert Ben Harris (of the University of Texas at Arlington) described some tricky measurements of the Earth’s mass using the armada of GPS satellites that are in orbit around our planet. He noticed a mass discrepancy when compared with “official” mass measurements as quoted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU).
“The nice thing about GPS satellites is that we know their orbits really, really well,” said Harris. This orbital knowledge helped Harris calculate the Earth’s vital statistic to a very high degree of precision. After analyzing 9 months of data from the GLONASS, GPS and Galileo satellite systems, he found that his measurement of Earth’s mass came in at between 0.005 and 0.008 percent larger than the IAU measurement.

http://news.discovery.com/space/is-eart ... gn=rssnws1

That's official, Earth is growing.



As someone who admires Form following Function and natural philosophy, I have no doubt. I have been expanding how I believe the earth "works", the electric current powering the planet and the power for expansion seems to be related to the fact that we have a powerful magnetic field. The reason we have a magnetic field is related to the reason we are growing. All planets have an electric field, not all have a magnetic field. Some, only have a crustal field, and some have an off-center partial field. Birkeland would love the simplicity of it I feel.

Neil
Neil Thompson

EET

"We are the universe trying to understand itself." - Delen, Babylon 5
User avatar
Krackonis
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Moncton, NB, Canada

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:21 pm

Geophysicists Discover How Rocks Produce Magnetic Pulses
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... f9fc95f5aa

Geophysicists Discover How Rocks Produce Magnetic Pulses — The Physics arXiv Blog — Medium

Geophysicists Discover How Rocks Produce Magnetic Pulses

…and how they might use these pulses to predict earthquakes

One of the most intriguing and puzzling of the many phenomena associated with earthquakes are magnetic pulses. For some years, geophysicists have been measuring these pulses in the days and weeks before certain tremors.

For example, during the weeks before the Alum Rock earthquake near San Jose, California, geophysicists recorded a series of unusual low-frequency magnetic pulses with amplitudes of up to 30 nanoTesla. (By comparison, the Earth’s magnetic field has an intensity of about 40,000 nanoTesla.) These pulses increased in number until the day of the earthquake on 30 October 2007.

That raises an interesting question. What causes these magnetic pulses?

Today, we get an answer thanks to the work of John Scoville at San Jose State University and a couple of pals. These guys suggest that certain kinds of rocks behave like semiconductors when placed under huge pressures and temperatures. It is the way these rocks conduct current that then causes them to emit magnetic pulses in the run up to a quake.

Scoville and co begin by explaining the chemistry that leads to igneous rocks behaving like semiconductors. They point out that when magma crystallises in the presence of water, the resulting silicates contain peroxy bonds consisting of OH groups.

Under huge pressures and temperatures, these bonds can break to form electron-hole pairs. The electrons become trapped near broken peroxy bonds but the holes are free to travel through the crystal structure. The natural diffusion of these holes leads to a separation of charge, creating regions of the rock that are positively and negatively charged.

The boundary between these regions behaves like the p-n junction of a diode, say Scoville and co. This allows current to flow in one direction but not the other. At least not until the potential difference reaches a certain value when the boundary breaks down allowing a sudden increase in current.

It is this sudden increase that generates a magnetic field. The sheer scale of this process over a volume of hundreds of cubic metres ensures that these magnetic pulses have an extremely low frequency. And since low-frequency fields can travel through the Earth’s crust, they can be detected on the surface.

Having described this effect, Scoville and co go on to create a model of the processes involved and then calculate the shape of the pulses that ought to be produced. It turns out that the predicted pulse shapes bear a remarkable similarity to ones that geophysicists have observed.

In particular, they show that the magnetic pulses measured in the lead up to a series of earthquakes near Lima in Peru have great similarities to the pulse shapes that Scoville and co calculated. “This suggests that pre-earthquake ultra-low frequency activity may be the result of geophysical semiconductor processes,” they say.

That’s interesting work that provides a realistic explanation for a phenomenon that has puzzled geophysicists for many decades. Ultra-low-frequency magnetic pulses have been observed in the run-up to earthquakes since the 1960s. What’s more, scientists have measured low-frequency electric currents associated with earthquakes for several centuries.

The great promise of this new model is that it points to a straightforward way of identifying regions of the crust that are at imminent risk. The idea is to use a number of ground stations to listen for magnetic pulses and then triangulate the source. Indeed, exactly this technique has already been tested in Peru with some success.

Any significant increase in the production of magnetic pulses suggests an increase in pressure and the sudden breakdown currents that Scoville and co have modelled. This in turn points to the strong possibility of an imminent quake.

“By triangulating the source of these magnetic pulses, the increased buildup of stress around future earthquake epicenters may be identified weeks in advance of seismicity,” they say.

Of course, there is no shortage of ideas for predicting earthquakes. Geophysicists can certainly give accurate probabilities of earthquakes over a timescale of decades to hundreds of years. That is useful for long-term strategies such as determining building standards and so on.

They can also predict earthquakes on a timescale of seconds. That’s useful for shutting down high-speed railways in Japan, for example.

What’s needed is a way of predicting earthquakes on a timescale of hours, days and weeks. That’s never been possible with any reliability. The prospect raised by this new mechanism is that magnetic pulses could provide warnings over that kind of timescale.

That’s an exciting vision. However, there is significant work ahead before that kind of prediction can even be contemplated. For a start, geophysicists will want to characterise the magnetic environment that exists in the crust when it is not stressed as well as when it is. That should tell them exactly how unusual these kinds of pulses are and whether they uniquely predict earthquakes.

Another question that will need answering is whether vulnerable rocks emit these kinds of pulses when an earthquake is not imminent. One or two false positives would dramatically reduce the confidence that any population might have in such a predictive technique.

Scoville and co have hit on an interesting and important course of further research. Nevertheless it is too early to say whether useful predictions using this method will ever be possible.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1405.4482 : Pre-earthquake magnetic pulses

Suggest a link for further reading
Published in


The Physics arXiv Blog

An alternative view of the best new ideas in science. About: http://tinyurl.com/p6ypk56

Pre-earthquake Magnetic Pulses
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.4482
allynh
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:41 pm

Growing Earth, Shrinking Dinosaurs. HA!

Dinosaurs shrank for 50 million years to become birds - life - 31 July 2014 - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... birds.html
dn25982-3_900.jpg

From left to right: a neotheropod, a tetanuran, a coelurosaur, a paravian and Archaeopteryx (Image: Davide Bonnadonna)

It took 50 million years of continual shrinking to turn massive, lumbering dinosaurs into the first small flying birds.

"No other dinosaur group has undergone such a long and extended period of miniaturisation," says Mike Lee of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide. "Statistically this trend was far stronger than by chance, analogous to flipping a coin a dozen times and getting all heads."

Lee and his colleagues have performed the most comprehensive analysis yet of fossil theropods, the two-footed meat-eating dinosaurs, like Velociraptor, from which birds evolved. They have charted how 224-million-year-old dinosaurs weighing 238 kilograms evolved into proto-birds, including Archaeopteryx, that weighed just 0.8 kg.

The analysis reveals that the ancestors of birds shrank without interruption. "What was impressive was the consistency of the size change along the dinosaur-to-bird transition, with every descendant smaller than its ancestor," says Lee. Getting smaller must have offered advantages at every turn.

Incredible shrinking raptor

Lee tracked how 1549 skeletal features changed in 120 species of theropod from all over the world, spanning the 50-million-year period over which theropods evolved into Archaeopteryx and modern birds.

He identified 12 major evolutionary steps when groups of theropods split to form new kinds of dinosaur.

At each of these break points, the theropods that ended up as birds shrank. They also changed four times as fast as other theropods that did not become birds.

"This study provides compelling evidence that the iconic small size of birds results from a chance but sustained pattern of selection for smaller body size spanning millions of years," says Gregory Erickson of Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Good to be small

Lee says each wave of shrinkage added survival traits we now see in birds. "The gradual evolution of smaller and smaller body size would have allowed the bird predecessors to explore novel niches and body plans off limits to their larger relatives," he says. "It would have permitted them to chase insects, climb trees, leap and glide, and eventually develop powered flight."

One crucial change happened in theropods called Tetanurae, which include famous predators like Allosaurus. They evolved an obliquely angled thigh bone. This shifted their centre of gravity forward, pushing their bodies into a tilted posture like that of modern birds and ensuring that their wings were near the centre of gravity. "It paves the way for flight, and would not have been possible at a larger body size," says Lee.

While their bodies got smaller, theropods' skulls stayed relatively large. That meant they could carry larger brains relative to their body size. Smaller dinosaurs were also more likely than large ones to develop insulating feathers, enabling them to hunt at night.

"Size reduction, whatever processes drove it, certainly seems to have allowed the bird lineage to fill niches that small-bodied animals can, and to undergo a fairly extensive radiation into these," says Bhart-Anjan Bhullar of Yale University.

Their small size may also have helped birds survive the mass extinction that wiped out all the other dinosaurs 65 million years ago, says Bhullar. "We have mounting evidence that the end-Cretaceous extinction simply took out all landlocked animals above a certain size, say a few kilograms," he says. "Birds happened to be among those dinosaurs that were small, and were lucky to boot."
allynh
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:38 pm

allynh wrote:
"No other dinosaur group has undergone such a long and extended period of miniaturisation," says Mike Lee of the South Australian Museum in Adelaide. "Statistically this trend was far stronger than by chance, analogous to flipping a coin a dozen times and getting all heads."
Actually its analogous to getting all heads hundreds of thousands of times but their biased viewpoints wont allow them to process that information. The fact is each generations offspring would have covered a range of possibilities, some smaller and some larger just as would be expected according to evolution theory. It just so happens that because gravity slowly increased, the smaller offspring had an advantage over their heavier siblings, hence an ongoing reduction in size. And it's happening with every air/land based species but is more obvious with flying animals as they are hit hardest by an increase in gravity.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Sun Aug 10, 2014 2:37 pm

Here's a fun video spark found.

Jan Lamprecht Hollow Earth Theory Inner Earth Science Evidence Hollow Planets Proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHEAEJLmqTw

The book is available from Amazon.

Hollow Planets: A Feasibility Study of Possible Hollow Worlds by Jan Lamprecht (Mar 26, 2014)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/099134975X/

I have problems listening to lectures like this. Too many years spent having to sit in the back of the room controling the lights while people drone on. HA!
allynh
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:01 am

HA!

Epic Drought in West Is Literally Moving Mountains
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... mountains/
Water that used to hold down land masses in California is now being lost, so some parts of the state's mountains are being uplifted by a surprising amount

Climate change is driving the Greenland Ice Sheet to melt, which is contributing to sea level rise. But imagine that the same amount of water melting from Greenland each year is being lost in California and the rest of the West because of the epic drought there.

What happens? The land in the West begins to rise.

In fact, some parts of California’s mountains have been uplifted as much as 15 millimeters (about 0.6 inches) in the past 18 months because the massive amount of water lost in the drought is no longer weighing down the land, causing it to rise a bit like an uncoiled spring, a new study shows.

For the first time, scientists are now able to measure how much surface and groundwater is lost during droughts by measuring how much the land rises as it dries. Those are the conclusions of the new study published Aug. 21 in the journal Science by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the the University of California-San Diego.

The drought that is devastating California and much of the West has dried the region so much that 240 gigatons worth of surface and groundwater have been lost, roughly the equivalent to a 3.9-inch layer of water over the entire West, or the annual loss of mass from the Greenland Ice Sheet, according to the study.

While some of California’s mountains have risen by about 0.6 inches since early 2013, the West overall has risen by an average of about 0.157 inches.

“Groundwater is a load on the Earth’s crust,” said Klaus Jacob, a seismologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., who is unaffiliated with the study. “A load compresses the crust elastically, hence it subsides. When you take that load away (by the drought) the crust decompresses and the surface rises. From the amount of rising, one can estimate the amount of the water deficit.”

The drought-related uplifting was discovered when researchers were analyzing data from GPS stations within the National Science Foundation’s Plate Boundary Observatory. One researcher noticed that all of the GPS stations moved upward since 2003, coinciding with the timing of the current drought.

But most of the movement occurred since last year as the West’s drought has become more and more extreme, said Duncan Agnew, a professor at the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC-San Diego, and a study co-author.

“The implications of this have yet to play out,” Agnew said. “What we’ve shown is that there is a measurement technique we can use to get a total water loss — water loss in places where we have no direct measurements.”

He said such uplifting likely occurs in every drought, but it has never been observed before because scientists did not have the tools to detect the uplifting until now.

“That’s why this study is interesting,” Agnew said. “We can use this set of tools, which were installed for a different purpose in order to monitor water changes.”

He said the uplifting likely has no significant effect on earthquake potential in California and elsewhere even though loss of ground and surface water has added stress to major faults in the region.

“The total amount of stress that’s been added in the last 18 months from drought is the same amount of stress that’s added every week because of plate techtonics,” he said.

Jacob said the study shows that the changes in the elevation of the landscape and the stress on faults are so small the effect will be extremely minor.

But, Jacob said, the significance of the study is that it shows a new way for scientists to estimate total water loss during times of drought, which would be more difficult to estimate without being able to detect how much the land is being uplifted in dry years.

This article is reproduced with permission from Climate Central. The article was first published on August 21, 2014.
allynh
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:27 pm

Anybody!? What consensus has been reached here??!!!

Thanks.... :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby 601L1n9FR09 » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:21 pm

Sparky wrote:Anybody!? What consensus has been reached here??!!!

Thanks.... :?


I have reached my own consensus:
I am planning to get spontaneous with myself later. Right after I quit procrastinating :?
601L1n9FR09
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:32 am

Enormous New Dinosaur as Formidable as Its Namesake Battleship
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -argentina
At 60 tons, the newly named "Dreadnoughtus" is the most complete of the giant titanosaurs yet found.

Ken Lacovara is shown with 22 tail vertebrae (out of 32 collected) of the massive sauropod Dreadnoughtus schrani. The dinosaur has the largest calculable weight of any known land animal.

PHOTOGRAPH BY ROBERT CLARK, EXCEL MAGAZINE, DREXEL UNIVERSITY

Brian Switek
for National Geographic
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

After nine years of excavation and study, paleontologists have unveiled one of the largest creatures ever to walk the Earth. The most complete skeleton of a giant titanosaur will provide new insights into how these giants lived large.

The new dinosaur is named Dreadnoughtus schrani, a reference to the armored battleship and a tribute to the dinosaur's perceived fearlessness. Details on the dinosaur are announced Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports.
comparison.jpg

ART: EMILY M. ENG, NG STAFF SOURCE: MATTHEW C. LAMANNA, CARNEGIE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

In life, Dreadnoughtus would have been about 86 feet (26 meters) long and weigh nearly 60 tons, heavier than a Chieftan tank, Drexel University paleontologist Ken Lacovara and colleagues calculate. That's so big, the scientists write, that adults of the species would have been "nearly impervious to attack" by predators that stalked the same floodplains between 84 million and 66 million years ago.

Among the largest of dinosaurs, titanosaurs like Dreadnoughtus were hefty herbivores with tiny heads, long necks, and tapering tails. This body type marks titanosaurs as part of a group called sauropods, to which classic dinosaurs such as Apatosaurus also belonged. Sauropods spent their days feeding high and low, plucking greens from patches of ferns and trees alike, as they browsed the prehistoric salad bar.

What makes Dreadnoughtus a remarkable new addition to this prehistoric family is the amount of material recovered from the dinosaur. The remains, representing two individual animals, include both the humerus and femur of Dreadnoughtus, and Lacovara and colleagues used the circumference of these bones to estimate the dinosaur's weight.

So far, Lacovara says, "Dreadnoughtus has the largest calculable mass of any land animal."

The humerus, or upper arm bone, of Dreadnoughtus shows muscle scarring.
PHOTOGRAPH BY ROBERT CLARK, EXCEL MAGAZINE, DREXEL UNIVERSITY

A Big Find

At first, though, Dreadnoughtus didn't seem so impressive. "In 2005, we were prospecting in the desert [of southern Argentina]," Lacovara says, "and the first day of that field season I found a collection of bones." They just looked like a pile of fragments, but when Lacovara and collaborators returned to the site, they started uncovering big limb bones.

"By the end of the day we had ten bones exposed," Lacovara says. "At that point we were pretty excited." Four field seasons later, the team had excavated 145 bones.

Altogether the bones represent about 45 percent of a complete skeleton, and because some of the bones have mirror images on the other side of the body, Lacovara and colleagues were able to reconstruct about 70 percent of a Dreadnoughtus skeleton. The best large titanosaur find previously, Futalognkosaurus, was only about 27 percent complete.

"Now we can start talking intelligently about the body proportions of these giant titanosaurs," says Western University of Health Sciences paleontologist Mathew Wedel.
scale.jpg

EMILY M. ENG, NG STAFF

And Dreadnoughtus could have grown even bigger than the new estimate. "Since the authors provide data that illustrate that Dreadnoughtus was still growing when it died," says Macalester College paleontologist Kristi Curry Rogers, "we can be fairly certain that there were other heavier dinosaurs out there."

Mysterious Lives

But size isn't everything. "If we want to really begin to understand how these big dinosaurs grew, and how long it took them to reach their massive sizes, these are the perfect kinds of data to begin with," Curry Rogers says. Having two individuals is a good start, she says, but scientists will need to find more of the dinosaurs to begin piecing together their lifestyles.

"There are so many fundamental things we don't know about sauropods," Lacovara says, such as the arrangement of their muscles and how they moved. Turning to muscle scars on the bones of Dreadnoughtus, Lacovara and others are figuring out the dinosaur's muscle anatomy and how those soft tissues translated to movement.

This is just the sort of effort other paleontologists are hoping to see. "It's all about building toward a more complete picture of the living animal," Wedel says.

The 5.6-foot (1.7-meter) scapula of Dreadnoughtus is the longest yet reported for any titanosaur.
PHOTOGRAPH BY ROBERT CLARK, EXCEL MAGAZINE, DREXEL UNIVERSITY
For now, though, Lacovara is glad to see Dreadnoughtus finally emerge after all the years of fieldwork and study. "This is like Christmas and my birthday and my wedding combined."

Read Brian Switek's blog Laelaps on NationalGeographic.com. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

RELATED:

— "Catching a Titanosaur By a Tooth"
— "From Punting to Tromping"
— "Uncovering Patagonia's Lost World"
allynh
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby allynh » Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:18 pm

Ooops, they got half of it right. Now they just have to drop tectonic plates and convection as well. HA!

Popular Theory About Volcanoes Is All Wrong, Scientists Say
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... 91358.html
Have scientists had volcanoes all wrong?

A popular theory has it that, at least in certain types of volcanos, eruptions occur when molten rock known as magma gushes up from deep inside the earth via narrow jets known as mantle plumes. But a new study of seismic data has identified one very big hole in the theory:

Mantle plumes don't exist.

"Mantle plumes have never had a sound physical or logical basis," study co-author Dr. Don L. Anderson, professor emeritus of geophysics at Caltech in Pasadena, California, said in a written statement released by the university. "They are akin to Rudyard Kipling's 'Just So Stories,' a reference to the British author's tales offering silly explanations for how giraffes and other animals got their peculiar anatomies."
VOLCANO-MODEL-570.jpg

This illustration shows the upper part of a volcano. Scientists have long hypothesized that 'pipes' of molten rock (magma) extend to the Earth's core, but new data suggest they don't actually exist.

Mantle plumes were first hypothesized in 1971 and widely adopted among geologists around 1990, Anderson told The Huffington Post in an email. But despite significant research activity over the past couple of decades, the seismic data available to researchers were too spotty either to prove or disprove the existence of the plumes.

According to the new study--co-authored by Dr. James Natland, a professor emeritus of marine geology and geophysics at the University of Miami--robust new data and improved theory show once and for all that those plumes are nowhere to be seen.

So if magma plumes aren't sending molten rock to the surface, how does it get there?

Via gigantic "chunks" of mantle that rise toward the Earth's surface, according to the new theory. These upwellings aren't narrow but can be thousands of kilometers across, Anderson said in the email; as heat from inside the earth pushes them up, narrow channels of cooler material called slabs sink.

"This is a simple demonstration that volcanoes are the result of normal broad-scale convection and plate tectonics," Anderson said in the statement.{Wrong. HA!}

But if you're thinking the new study might improve our ability to predict when eruptions will occur, you're in for a disappointment.

The new research "does not have any connection to the timing of volcanic eruptions," Anderson said in the email. "It is an important step to understanding how the Earth has cooled and changed since its formation."

The study was published online September 8, 2014, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
allynh
 
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Unified Geological Hypothesis

Unread postby Sparky » Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:09 am

There are strong arguments for the expanding Earth hypothesis:
http://youtu.be/U3rholKox10

And the tectonic plate subduction hypothesis has strong arguments:
http://youtu.be/yODlRbpv2PA

What if both are processes that are currently underway? How would that work?

What if the Earth expanded for a time to separate the continents, then subduction became a factor to consider? How would that work?

Thanks ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Unified Geological Hypothesis

Unread postby Aardwolf » Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:19 pm

Sparky wrote:And the tectonic plate subduction hypothesis has strong arguments
Except that there isn't any evidence of subduction anywhere. It's entirely hypothetical.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Unified Geological Hypothesis

Unread postby Sparky » Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:28 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
Sparky wrote:And the tectonic plate subduction hypothesis has strong arguments
Except that there isn't any evidence of subduction anywhere. It's entirely hypothetical.


Well, excuuuse me. But I prefer to accept, to a degree, the rational of those who study geology, even with it's flaws. http://youtu.be/6EdsBabSZ4g
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Unified Geological Hypothesis

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:52 am

Sparky wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
Sparky wrote:And the tectonic plate subduction hypothesis has strong arguments
Except that there isn't any evidence of subduction anywhere. It's entirely hypothetical.


Well, excuuuse me. But I prefer to accept, to a degree, the rational of those who study geology, even with it's flaws. http://youtu.be/6EdsBabSZ4g

A few points about that map on the link.

1) How is it possible for some of the plates to move in multiple directions? For example, the eastern edge of the African plate is moving west, the western edge is moving east, and the southern edge is moving north. How is that possible? Is Africa shrinking? Doubtful considering the Great Rift Valley is splitting the African plate apart. Where is all this land going? There's no subduction within the continent, someone would have noticed.

2) Why are the expansion areas 6 or 7 times longer than the subduction zones? Logically this shouldn't be possible.

3) Where is the subduction within the Antarctic plate? Antartica is completely surrounded by expanding zones. With no central subduction it should protude off the planet like a blister.

Of course none of this is a problem for an expanding Earth.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:22 am

Sparky,

If sea floor spreading is just evidence of plates moving then from the image below which direction is the Antartic moving?
Antarctic.jpg
Antarctic.jpg (13.81 KiB) Viewed 6779 times
All directions at once?

Or maybe there's a black hole in the middle of the continent?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests