Most Thorough Model

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: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:37 pm

Lloyd wrote:How would the western volcanoes have linked to the Moho with the Pacific plate in between vertically? The Pacific plate would have had to fracture too. Wouldn't it? In order to get vulcanism started? Oh, wait. You said those basalt volcanoes are from melting of the Pacific plate, which is basalt. Would that have been a different kind of vulcanism that did not connect to the Moho? Or would electrical conduits to the Moho have been needed for those basalt flows too?

Yes, I believe that all lava flows originate as magma in the Moho, and that they follow conduits opened up by electric currents. So for there to be a basaltic flow at a continental margin, the overlying continental plate has to be fractured, and the underlying oceanic plate also has to get fractured, such that electric currents can get started. Under the circumstances, we'd expect both plates to be heavily fractured.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:53 pm

Lloyd wrote:Marsupials
This image comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snider-Pellegrini_Wegener_fossil_map.gif
Image
This one if from Mike Fischer's video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9SJSkr9V8
Image
I don't know what evidence there is that marsupials lived in South America, other than possums, which also live in North America,
Odd comment as it's now considered that all marsupials originated in South America.

Lloyd wrote:but from either of the Pangea images above, you can see that Australia and South America were close together on Pangea, so that would not have been a problem for either of the above theories.
Your Pangea problem is why are Cynognathus, Mesosaurus and Glossopterris found in abundance either side of the 6,000 km border between America and Africa yet not a single marsupial managed it across. They did however manage to massively populate a continent with no shared border. How?

As a side note it may not be ideal to show both of those images as mutual evidence because they dispute each other. Fisher's Pangea doesn't have the same configuration as Wegeners. One of them must be wrong. Which are you actually supporting?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:13 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:The circumference of the Earth at the surface is 24902 miles so has a radius of 24902/PI/2 = 3963. The crust is 25 miles thick so the circumference at the bottom of the crust is 3963-25 = 3938xPIx2 = 24743. Therefore at the surface there is 159 more miles of land at the top of the crust than there is at the bottom. What do you think happens to the land at the surface if you were to start flattening that structure?


Well, that would depend on whether or not it was also being stretched.
To stretch something you need to pull it from either side. What force could be pulling the continents from their edges?

CharlesChandler wrote:I think that you're neglecting the very force that is causing the flattening -- expansion -- which produces tensile stress, not compressive stress. I think that it's a more complicated problem than you realize, and only if you do the geometry will you know for sure whether the surface is getting pushed together, or pulled apart, given the amount of expansion, and the amount of flattening. As an analogy, consider a ceramic cereal bowl. If we turn it over and lay it down on the kitchen table (like this: /\ ), and press down on it hard enough to fracture it, and if we examine the fractures, we'll find that we exerted compressive stress on the outer surface of the bowl, and tensile stress on the inside. Cool. For our next thought experiment, let's put clamps on the edges of a bowl and pull it apart. Again we find that tensile force was delivered to the inside of the bowl, and compressive force to the outside. Ah, but for our last experiment, let's rig up some hydraulic pistons to press on the inside surface of the bowl, at as many different points as possible all at once. Now what are the forces? In that scenario, the lateral forces are all tensile. Interestingly, the case of the crust getting flattened due to an expanding Earth is a scenario that is somewhere in-between those other cases. But just like the defenseless cereal bowls in our thought experiments, granite is much better at handling compressive stress than tensile stress, so even in the first case (of pressing inward on the bowl to make it fail) we'll see a lot of tensile strain, and very little compressive strain.
Your analogy may be valid if the entire crust was solid granite/rock. However, as the Russians discovered when they drilled the Kola Superdeep Borehole, at around 7 miles the rock turns "plastic";

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-deepest-hole/
The Russian researchers were also surprised at how quickly the temperatures rose as the borehole deepened, which is the factor that ultimately halted the project's progress. Despite the scientists' efforts to combat the heat by refrigerating the drilling mud before pumping it down, at twelve kilometers the drill began to approach its maximum heat tolerance. At that depth researchers had estimated that they would encounter rocks at 100°C (212°F), but the actual temperature was about 180°C (356°F)-- much higher than anticipated. At that level of heat and pressure, the rocks began to act more like a plastic than a solid, and the hole had a tendency to flow closed whenever the drill bit was pulled out for replacement. Forward progress became impossible without some technological breakthroughs and major renovations of the equipment on hand, so drilling stopped on the SG-3 branch. If the hole had reached the initial goal of 15,000 meters, temperatures would have reached a projected 300°C (572°F).


CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Initially the major rifts, now mainly in oceans, would have split under pressure.

Do you mean "under tensile stress"?
Tensile stress caused by the pressure of internal expansion.

CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:What are the unexplained details? As far as I can remember I've answered every query apart from the cause of expansion.

Aside from the issues raised above, you haven't answered for why you think that the fossil record favors global expansion, and not simply a supercontinent that has since split apart.
Yes I did. Extinct and extant marsupials do not share a common border in Pangea, only in a smaller Earth where Austalia is joined to the west coast of South America.

CharlesChandler wrote: I can ask more...
Go ahead.

CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:The other continents are definitely moving away from Antarctica. But that doesn't prove the EEH -- it could be simply that Pangaea is still rifting.

So are you arguing all the other continents are heading North?

Yes, that's what it looks like to me.
Interesting. Therefore, considering the Eurasian and North American plate boundary is increasing through the North Pole, would you also argue that these 2 plates are both heading south?

CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Marsupial history cannot be joined across Pangea. Only a cross-Pacfic linking is possible.

Please explain.
Look at Wegeners fossil history map. Where is the common border the marsupials shared?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:45 pm

How about discussing expansion on the Expanding Earth thread? Hasn't it been talked to death yet? Yes, it has.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:07 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:Well, that would depend on whether or not it was also being stretched.

To stretch something you need to pull it from either side. What force could be pulling the continents from their edges?

Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:But just like the defenseless cereal bowls in our thought experiments, granite is much better at handling compressive stress than tensile stress, so even in the first case (of pressing inward on the bowl to make it fail) we'll see a lot of tensile strain, and very little compressive strain.

Your analogy may be valid if the entire crust was solid granite/rock. However, as the Russians discovered when they drilled the Kola Superdeep Borehole, at around 7 miles the rock turns "plastic";

Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Initially the major rifts, now mainly in oceans, would have split under pressure.

Do you mean "under tensile stress"?

Tensile stress caused by the pressure of internal expansion.

Ummm, you're questioning whether or not the continents are being stretched. And you're saying that they're under tensile stress, which causes rifts. And you're saying that compressive/tensile analysis is inappropriate, because 7 miles below the surface, the rock is plastic. That leaves me unsure of your position.

Aardwolf wrote:Extinct and extant marsupials do not share a common border in Pangea, only in a smaller Earth where Australia is joined to the west coast of South America.

If the marsupials marched across Antarctica to get to Australia, the fossil record is there, but it's under a bunch of ice right now.

Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:The other continents are definitely moving away from Antarctica. But that doesn't prove the EEH -- it could be simply that Pangaea is still rifting.

So are you arguing all the other continents are heading North?

Yes, that's what it looks like to me.
Interesting. Therefore, considering the Eurasian and North American plate boundary is increasing through the North Pole, would you also argue that these 2 plates are both heading south?

No, the North American plate is twisting.

BTW, in my model, the Moho is a supercritical fluid that presents a frictionless boundary on which the plates can slide around. This makes plate motion possible just under tidal forcing, and without the need for mantle plumes, which are problematic for a lot of reasons. Anyway, tidal forcing suggests why the continents are moving generally northward, away from Antarctica, and why so much of the Earth's land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere already. If the continents are just floating on a frictionless boundary, they're behaving like inflatable toys in a swimming pool -- all other factors being the same, wave action will push them away from the source of the waves. And tidal forces are the greatest when the Earth is nearest to the Sun, and this is also when the Southern Hemisphere is more directly facing the Sun. Thus the tidal wave action is stronger in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern. Consequently, the continents are drifting away from the most intense waves, which prescribes a northerly drift. They left Antarctica behind, because it straddles the South Pole, and therefore can't figure out which way to fall.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:35 am

Continental Roots
Charles, what do you make of continental roots? If the plates slid over the Moho layer, why would these "roots" of the continents have moved along with the continents? Why would there be a difference in the rock under the continental Moho layers and under the oceanic Moho layers? I think the only evidence they have to go by for their conclusions is seismic waves, because the Moho is deeper than any drilling has ever gone. Are seismic waves so different in the two areas? The second paper below mentions several observation methods besides seismic waves to go by. They apparently show some slight density variations in roots. What do you make of that too?

Continental roots go deep, but not as deep as some people thought
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/04/17_roots.shtml
By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 17 April 2003

BERKELEY – The roots of the continents go down between 200 and 250 kilometers (125-160 miles), forming a distinct boundary with the underlying mantle like that seen under the oceans, according to a team of seismologists at the University of California, Berkeley.

[] Romanowicz and UC Berkeley graduate students Yuancheng Gung and Mark Panning claim in a paper in the April 17 issue of Nature that some estimates of the thickness of the continental lithosphere are based on a misinterpretation of the earthquake-generated seismic waves recorded after they pass through the base of the lithosphere and the top of the mantle. These waves are used by geophysicists to image the Earth's interior, like X-rays in computed tomography (CT) scans.

The continental lithosphere is composed of a thin, 30-50 kilometer-thick layer of crust atop a hot layer of rock. Seismic waves tend to travel faster through the lithosphere, then slow down when they pass through the asthenosphere.

The UC Berkeley team argues that only the vertically polarized seismic shear waves slow down in the asthenosphere, while the horizontally polarized waves continue to travel faster down to a depth of about 400 kilometers. This has confused geophysicists looking only at horizontally polarized shear waves, leading them to conclude that the lithosphere descends down to 400 kilometers.

By taking into account the different shear wave velocities, the boundary between the lithosphere and asthenosphere works out to be between 200 and 250 kilometers, in agreement with other methods. []

Density of the continental roots: Compositional and thermal contributions
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70025721

Abstract:
The origin and evolution of cratonic roots has been debated for many years. Precambrian cratons are underlain by cold lithospheric roots that are chemically depleted. Thermal and petrologic data indicate that Archean roots are colder and more chemically depleted than Proterozoic roots. This observation has led to the hypothesis that the degree of depletion in a lithospheric root depends mostly on its age. Here we test this hypothesis using gravity, thermal, petrologic, and seismic data to quantify differences in the density of cratonic roots globally. In the first step in our analysis we use a global crustal model to remove the crustal contribution to the observed gravity. The result is the mantle gravity anomaly field, which varies over cratonic areas from -100 to +100 mGal. Positive mantle gravity anomalies are observed for cratons in the northern hemisphere: the Baltic shield, East European Platform, and the Siberian Platform. Negative anomalies are observed over cratons in the southern hemisphere: Western Australia, South America, the Indian shield, and Southern Africa. This indicates that there are significant differences in the density of cratonic roots, even for those of similar age. Root density depends on temperature and chemical depletion. In order to separate these effects we apply a lithospheric temperature correction using thermal estimates from a combination of geothermal modeling and global seismic tomography models. Gravity anomalies induced by temperature variations in the uppermost mantle range from -200 to +300 mGal, with the strongest negative anomalies associated with mid-ocean ridges and the strongest positive anomalies associated with cratons. After correcting for thermal effects, we obtain a map of density variations due to lithospheric compositional variations. These maps indicate that the average density decrease due to the chemical depletion within cratonic roots varies from 1.1% to 1.5%, assuming the chemical boundary layer has the same thickness as the thermal boundary layer. The maximal values of the density drop are in the range 1.7-2.5%, and correspond to the Archean portion of each craton. Temperatures within cratonic roots vary strongly, and our analysis indicates that density variations in the roots due to temperature are larger than the variations due to chemical differences. ??
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:56 am

@CC
BTW, in my model, the Moho is a supercritical fluid that presents a frictionless boundary on which the plates can slide around.


If there is a frictionless boundary, how does the lateral force that supposedly pushed the India plate under the Eurasian plate, lifting up the Himalays in the process, come about?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:27 pm

Lloyd wrote:Charles, what do you make of continental roots?

I think that continental roots are a condition in the mantle, not a chemical difference, nor an isobar. When one plate rides over the other, the "subducted" plate has to deform. The oceanic crust is only roughly 6 km deep, while the continental crust averages 35 km deep, and can go over 80 km deep under mountain ranges. Thus the advance of the continent causes deformation in the oceanic plate, and in the mantle. The effects of plate convergence aren't going to be felt just at 6 km, or 35 km, or even 80 km -- the convergence will cause shear stress far deeper than that. Most significantly, the deformation will fracture the rock. The fractures slow down seismic waves. If the fractures are mainly vertical, due to the plate being bent downward at the convergent margin, this will affect horizontal seismic waves differently from vertical waves. Homogeneous rock shows no such differentiation in vertical/horizontal wave transmission speeds. The fractures are also conduits for electric currents, which is what causes earthquakes in subduction zones, including deep focus quakes (as deep as 750 km). So the matter in a continental root doesn't move with the continent -- the effect that the continent has on the mantle moves with the continent, while the mantle stays where it is.

GaryN wrote:If there is a frictionless boundary, how does the lateral force that supposedly pushed the India plate under the Eurasian plate, lifting up the Himalayas in the process, come about?

In the Shock Dynamics model, all of that force came from an impact at the NW end of Madagascar. Mike Fischer believes that it was all over and done in 26 hours. I agree that such is a good explanation for what threw up mountain ranges such as the Himalayas. If the rest of what we know about hydrostatic equilibria is correct, as applied throughout the discipline of geophysics, there isn't any force to hoist that much matter to that kind of elevation. The standard model doesn't even identify the force -- it just says that cooler oceanic crust sinks because it is heavier (even though it is actually warmer, and thus should be lighter). That would have the over-riding plate sucked forward by the void left by the sunken oceanic crust, which probably wouldn't throw up mountain ranges. So some other force had to be involved. Fischer made a detailed study of ALL of the plate motions, and demonstrated that it all makes sense if there was an impact between Madagascar and Africa.

IMO, that explains how mountain ranges could have gotten thrown up, but it doesn't explain the ongoing plate motions. So I think that the force that sustains plate convergence is tectonic ratcheting. Essentially, when there is an earthquake, the plates in the subduction zone get hot. (There is pre-heating, and then there is the friction from the quake itself.) After the quake, when traction is restored between the plates, the cooling generates a tensile force that pulls the plates together. This creates the momentum for the next quake. Of course, that tensile force isn't greater than the compressive force that builds up, after the cooling is done, and when the momentum overshoots the equilibrium. But the cooling phase is long, while the quake phase is short. If the tensile force acts over a long period of time, while the equal-but-opposite compressive force only acts over a short period, the net force is tensile, and overall, this force will pull the continents together, even if there are brief episodes of compression.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:09 pm

Well Charles, no offence, but you are sounding very mainstream, with impactors being used to explain so much. I haven't looked into the content of this site, but will soon. Growing Earth proponents will like it, and I'd take that over tectonics/drift anytime, even though I'm not happy with that idea either. It's all EM forces at huge (to us) magnitudes, and if gravity is an EM force, then changes in solar system dynamics since the dinosaur days may be why animals just don't get that large any more, gravity has increased, and DNA has responded accordingly.

Debunking the myths of Plate Tectonics-S.W.Carey(1911-2002)
Sam Carey taught subduction, the essence of which later became known as Plate Tectonics, decades before Johnnies- come-lately hailed it (and appropriated it) as the 'New Global Tectonics', but he discarded it as unworkable in favour of an earth getting bigger.

http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:52 pm

Read Shock Dynamics
Gary, have you ever read Fischer's site, http://NewGeology.us? I've been discussing it for a few years now, starting with Breakthrough on How Continents Divided.

Superficial Resemblances
You say Charles sounds like the mainstream. That shows how superficially you read his stuff. We don't accept subduction, nor does Fischer. The idea that the Moho layer is a nearly frictionless plasma was first mentioned by a Velikovskian catastrophist, Peter James, of SIS Review, as far as I know. So it's compatible with EU theory. Cardona accepts that model and agrees that the continents slid over the Moho layer. But he got fooled by the magnetic striping on the seafloors and thinks that periodic Saturn flares are what caused the continents to move apart relatively gradually.

Supercontinent
Cardona correctly agrees that the continents across the Atlantic were once joined together as is shown by similar rock strata and fossils etc on both coasts. That disproves Wal Thornhill's hypothesis of ED having carved out the Atlantic.

Expansion Disproof
I've covered this earlier, but the East Pacific Rise disproves expansion. Expansion would have left the Rise in the middle of the Pacific, instead of near South America and under much of North America. (Some expansion may have occurred, such as via Earth changing shape, or a large impactor penetrating deep into the Earth, but it's likely to have been very limited. Cardona thinks Earth expanded by receiving detritus periodically from Saturn.)

Impact Proof
Fischer's Shock Dynamics model explains that the Americas broke off of the supercontinent and slid on the Moho layer and then partly over the pre-existing (from an earlier impact) East Pacific Rise, which built up the Rockies and the higher terrain of the West. Fischer doesn't say it, but the great flood likely occurred when the continents moved rapidly apart. The Americas, Australia and part of Antarctica moved the farthest and likely flooded the most. Africa and Eurasia moved the least, except for India. By the way, I agree now that most of what is considered effects of glaciation actually seems to be evidence of the great flood. Fischer's site has abundant proof of an impact as the cause of the splitting of the continents.

EM Forces
In Charles' model, the powerful EM forces are what collapsed the solar system's Giant Molecular Cloud electrically into the Sun, planets and debris, the Sun and planets being held together by electric double layers, which release or re-store energy at the DL boundaries due to electrical tidal forces between solar system bodies.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:12 pm

CMEs
Charles, did you see this video of the big 2012 CME?
http://www.space.com/27996-solar-storm-2012-video.html
MattEU posted the link on the EU board. It shows 3 small CMEs occurred right before the big one. It has a lot of detail, so maybe it can help to understand them. The small ones made thin bright outlines in small areas on the solar surface as they ejected, then the big one made a thin bright expanding outline almost all the way around the Sun as it ejected. Do you think you understand them well enough yet to understand how the outline would go nearly all the way around the Sun? I presume that the brightness is due to charge recombination.
Last edited by Lloyd on Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:50 pm

Lloyd wrote:EM Forces
In Charles' model, the powerful EM forces are what collapsed the solar system's Giant Molecular Cloud electrically into the Sun, planets and debris, the Sun and planets being held together by electric double layers, which release or re-store energy at the DL boundaries due to electrical tidal forces between solar system bodies.

Yep, and @GaryN, that ain't your daddy's mainstream astrophysics either. :D

Lloyd wrote:CMEs
Do you think you understand them well enough yet to understand how the outline would go nearly all the way around the Sun?

The "ballooning" of CMEs is relatively common, and entirely outside of Newtonian mechanics, since the outward expansion is way beyond the speed of sound at that temperature, which is the maximum that a gas can expand into a pure vacuum. I consider this to be proof that the plasma is charged, and is expanding due to the Coulomb force. In my model, the top layer of the Sun (actually the topmost 20 Mm) is positively charged, and it's clinging tightly to a negative layer that goes from 20 Mm down to 125 Mm. An explosion within the top layer will break the matter away from that underlying negative layer. Then it is no longer being kept compact by its attraction to the negative layer, since it's too far away, and the electric force obeys the inverse square law. So the internal repulsion takes over, and the matter balloons outward.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:11 am

Oops, I added this to my last post, but since you replied already, I'm making it a separate post.

Moho Layer
Here's CC's paper on the Moho: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/11093.html.
Charles, Wikipedia says "The Moho is characterized by a transition zone of up to 500 m thick.[6] Ancient Moho zones are exposed above-ground in numerous ophiolites around the world." Do you agree that the thickness is about 500 m? And what about the ancient Moho zones with ophiolites? If those are really ancient Moho zones, they should tell you what the present Moho layer is likely to consist of. Don't you think? Or could it vary? I'm looking to see if you mention in the paper what chemical/s the Moho consists of.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:32 am

Lloyd wrote:Moho Layer
Here's CC's paper on the Moho: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/11093.html.
Charles, Wikipedia says "The Moho is characterized by a transition zone of up to 500 m thick.[6] Ancient Moho zones are exposed above-ground in numerous ophiolites around the world." Do you agree that the thickness is about 500 m? And what about the ancient Moho zones with ophiolites? If those are really ancient Moho zones, they should tell you what the present Moho layer is likely to consist of. Don't you think? Or could it vary? I'm looking to see if you mention in the paper what chemical/s the Moho consists of.

I recently calculated that the fluctuation in tidal forces raises and lowers the isobars within the Earth only about 1 m. The significance for the CFDL model is that whenever the pressure is relaxed, and thus the isobars shift downward, matter on the threshold for electron degeneracy pressure (EDP) can re-uptake electrons, since it is no longer forcibly ionized. Likewise, when the pressure is restored, the matter is re-ionized. Either way, whether electrons are flowing back into the matter, or flowing out, that's an electric current. And the matter that is between the upper & lower limits gets subjected to this current 4 times a day (2 ebbs and 2 flows). So the ohmic heating will build up. So this 1 m layer is likely the most accurate description of the Moho. I actually think that it has gotten so hot that it has become a supercritical fluid. As concerns the Moho being 500 m thick, I can see how some of that heat radiates into the surrounding rock, creating a somewhat thicker high-temperature zone. After all, the heat is fully contained, without any heat sinks, except for volcanoes. So it isn't going to be just 1 m of super-hot magma right next to ice cold solid rock -- the temperature will relax gradually moving away from the heat source. But the heat itself is all coming from that 1 m layer.

I don't know what to make of ophiolites.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:48 am

Moho and Basalt Layers

I suppose the mainstream idea that ophiolites show former Moho zones is likely based on faulty reasoning from their model, since they likely have a wrong idea of what the Moho layer is.

The illustration in Figure 1 in your Moho paper led me to wonder if there is basalt under the granite continents. Do you think that's likely? Since the seafloors are mainly basalt, it seems likely that the entire Earth's surface or subsurface was basalt before the lunar impact produced the supercontinent. I suppose the basalt in the central area of the impact under the supercontinent was likely transformed chemically by the impact, but I'm guessing that most of the rest of the basalt under the supercontinent would have remained intact. Right?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests