An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:17 am

webolife wrote:RM,

Robertus Maximus wrote:The link between Madagascar and India is reconstructed with an imaginary land- Mauritia. Past reconstructions depend on such imaginary lands Pangaea, Pannotia, Rodinia etc. are testament to geologists’ imagination.


I think you are still misreading the information.
Mauritius is not imaginary, it is a volcanic island east of Madagascar. The discovery of zircons [intrusive igneous formations that form the core of continental masses] beneath the lava surface is an indicator that the island was previously connected to a continent. The further identification of its continental bedrocks with those of
Madagascar is a very strong indicator of the two islands having once been joined; and further evidence of similarities with the African continent and Indian subcontinent would have jump-started the continental drift theory if it hadn't already been formulated.

Robertus Maximus wrote:The fact remains, evidence of continental crust is found where there should be none. Continental material is considered to have been recycled through deep mantle convection- how likely is this? Continental crust was originally thought to ‘float’ over the denser oceanic crust and upper mantle, now ‘lost continents’ are being recycled in the mantle. Over the past 50 years evidence that would subduct the theory has been woven into its fabric. From simple beginnings the plate tectonic paradigm, in the light of new evidence, has grown increasingly complex as geologists continue to add more and more epicycles, error is better than confusion.


Quite contrarily, the finding of continental crust on Mauritius is exactly what one would expect. The rest of your paragraph is simply not founded. What "epicycles" are you referring to? What evidence against continental drift are you reading about, and who are the researchers presenting it? I have been studying the continental drift theory since the publication of magnetic striping at the mid-ocean rifts in 1970, and am not aware of any controverting evidence for the concept of seafloor spreading. Alternate theories galore, and I have one of my own, but what evidence can you cite?

Mauritius is not imaginary, however Mauritia is. Mauritius, and the Mascarene Plateau are supposedly remnants of this imaginary land, here is the reconstruction: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14086/figures/1

Evidence of similarities between Africa, India and the Southern Continents was mistakenly used to initially support the idea of Gondwanaland. Discoveries since the early 20th century reveal many of the ‘unique’ Gondwana flora and fauna existed on the Northern Continents. There is evidence that India has never been anywhere else but its current location, moreover, the geology of the region is difficult for Plate Tectonics to explain- except in cartoons, for example: http://www.isaacpub.org/PaperInformation.aspx?ids=9&pid=1125&jqy=Volume%201,%20Number%201,%20November%202016&JShortName=GR

Plate Tectonics in its earliest form posited the existence of 12 plates comprising the Earth’s crust, at the last count it was 52. Tectonists add new plates to account for newly discovered features that require hitherto unknown and imaginary plate motions; so much for the predictive power of the theory.

Thankfully, alternative theories do exist. I lean towards the ideas of Russian geologists, for obvious political reasons the Plate Tectonic hysteria never made it to the former Soviet Union. Russian geologists never experienced the ‘Fear Of Missing Out’ need to publish papers on the subject. Western geologists who published evidence contrary to the consensus found themselves marginalised- today they would be labelled ‘deniers’. I’m interested in the work of V. N. Larin and I. A. Rezanov, see: http://www.ncgt.org/

One area I disagree with the geologists at the New Concepts in Global Tectonics group is that many continue to view the Earth as being essentially isolated from its environment (although there are signs of some changes) hence the requirement for a primordial internal heat source, Earth expansionist see the Earth as a closed system when it is know that Earth is losing material to its environment. I see the relationship between the Earth and its environment as an open system and THE driver of global tectonics.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:34 pm

RM,
I'm not sure what proposals about recycling continental material through the mantle you might be referring to, I don't hold to such a view. Aside from that, you and I are looking at [or at least reading about] the same geological evidences. I have kept up on NCGT articles over the years and appreciate the great contributions of geologists like CW Hunt, and Blot, et.al. I have disputed the gradualist interpretations of continental drift along with many others. But I part ways with what seems to be many of the authors' entrapment in the paradigm of 100-million-year ages for the earth and its formations. I disagree with many of Darwin's arguments and less with Kelvin's. I appreciate the open debate on the Plate Tectonics paradigm, and have participated on both sides of that debate for a number of years. Why "both sides"? Because when it comes to the catastrophist paradigm over the gradualist/uniformitarian view, there are some findings that support the catastrophist view from both camps. I am not definitively opposed to "subduction", but I'm not a supporter; it simply is not necessary in my view. So though I am a "mobilist" [ie. I support continental drift], I agree with not all but many of the arguments against the standard [uniformitarian] model of PT. I have a view of magnetic striping which does not require what I consider the impossible requirement of magnetic pole reversal, and have argued so numerous times around these threads.
My reading of much of the plate tectonics debate leaves me still an adherent to the drift scenario, albeit a rapid catastrophic version, though not as super rapid as the model proposed in Fischer's "shock dynamics."
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:41 pm

Thanks for the link to http://www.ncgt.org/ RM, I'll be looking at the site in depth. The mobile plate theory to me seems absolute madness, though it also seems there are a good number of TB members who fully accept the idea.

Plate Tectonics in its earliest form posited the existence of 12 plates comprising the Earth’s crust, at the last count it was 52.


As well as more plates, they are also now suggesting mid-plate cooling to account for motions determined by GPS that do not conform to the overall motion model. Whatever next.
The expansive, deep sediments at some locations are, IMO, not from mechanical erosion by floods or aeolian or glacial action, but are the material that was removed by the large scale electrical forces occurring at some unknown, but not necessarily millions of years ago events.
Everything you've learned in school as 'obvious' becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines. - Bucky
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:14 pm

Gary,
The NCGT stuff is good. Just remember they are fighting a paradigm within a paradigm. Applying gradualist conclusions to a catastrophic scenario can be very tricky. I've been sorting out that for over 40 years now.

But I'm a bit confused... why is the finding that there are more plates or subdivisions of plates a bad thing for plate tectonics theory?

And in a rapid drift scenario, why would mid continental "cooling" [ie. compaction/contraction] be a detractor from the concept of ongoing continental movement?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2314
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:04 am

webolife wrote:But I'm a bit confused... why is the finding that there are more plates or subdivisions of plates a bad thing for plate tectonics theory?

And in a rapid drift scenario, why would mid continental "cooling" [ie. compaction/contraction] be a detractor from the concept of ongoing continental movement?

No amount of contradictory evidence can falsify the theory- new plates are simply invented.

However, simple mathematics should have been enough to invalidate the theory, N. Christian Smoot writes: ‘Measurements with a compass yielded 74,000 km of midocean ridges. In theory, spreading is happening on both sides of the ridges, so new seafloor is produced is produced along 148,000 km of the spreading centers. In theory, that much linear distance in convergent margins must exist to keep Earth from having a middle-age spread leading to another “big-bang” situation. There is not; there are only 30,500 km of subduction zones and 9,000 km of collision zones, only about one fourth the amount of spreading ridges.’ Furthermore, ‘there is no rational explanation of why stresses involved in the up-welling of magma should suddenly turn from vertical to horizontal at the surface…’ .

The degree of coordination between mantle currents, ridge-push and slab-pull to maintain a constant radius Earth would be unimaginable. Of course, with Catastrophic Plate Tectonics the whole process is overseen by a supernatural being so this problem is easily resolved.

Any form of non-supernatural catastrophic Plate Tectonics would not only face the afore mentioned problem but the additional level of precise distant synchronous events needed during an accelerated phase of plate movement should, in my opinion, cast doubt on the whole process of plate movement in any scenario.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:14 am

Furthermore, ‘there is no rational explanation of why stresses involved in the up-welling of magma should suddenly turn from vertical to horizontal at the surface…’ .
That's what I was trying to get my head around a week or two ago. :)
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:51 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:
Furthermore, ‘there is no rational explanation of why stresses involved in the up-welling of magma should suddenly turn from vertical to horizontal at the surface…’ .
That's what I was trying to get my head around a week or two ago. :)

Haha, some theories to overcome this problem have suggested the force of gravity acting on each side of the mid oceanic ridges, which are sometimes 10000 feet above the approx 7 km thick basalt oceanic crust, these collapsing halves of the ridge are supposed to be subsiding downwards, thereby creating a lateral thrust away from the 'spreading' rift, the upwelling magma driving them apart like a wedge.....

To mess up this tidy theory are the lack of sufficient subduction zones, and the sometimes 20km wide mid ocean rift ***valleys....

and then at the sometimes non visible 'subduction zone' the oceanic crust which floats everywhere else, now sinks downwards steeply at approx 45 degrees, sinking down through the previously supporting magma, like a swimmer that has lost his floaties, and this 'sinking' pulls the 'slab away from the spreading 'divergent zones'... the overall mechanism is supposed to be friction, of 'magma cells' or 'convection' which is somehow turning like a rotary engine in just the right places... I think an expert on mythology should like this subject... :-)

I can't believe there would be enough energy in this model to drive the entire continents of Africa and South America apart especially when you consider there is rock wall to wall right round the planet, and there are no 'subduction' zones surrounding Africa or Antarctica...

In that model too, I wouldn't expect to see deep ocean trenches like the Marianas or Tongan trenches, which are very deep and ***empty... I would expect to see buckling like the Himalayan uplifting, instead the whole ocean bed is supposed to be quietly 'slipping under' the next 'plate'... I just can't believe this model of widespread subduction

"It is estimated that 20 volcanic eruptions occur each year along earth's mid-ocean ridges and that every year 2.5 km2 (0.97 sq mi) of new seafloor is formed by this process. With a crustal thickness of 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.24 mi), this amounts to about 4 km3 (0.96 cu mi) of new ocean crust formed every year." (these seem to be dodgy numbers to me... and probably understating how much crust is formed... the spreading in other studies seems to be about 5 to 10 cm per year all over the planet...
Global_plate_motion_2008-04-17 low res.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge
sketch1946
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby sketch1946 » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:57 pm

PS notice how the spreading vectors inside South America seem to suggest the west coast and the east coast are converging... must be mountain folding happening, but the west coast has a deep trench, the drifting movement of the Andes eastward shown on the map is away from the Chilean trench which is located to the west of the Andes.... yet the 'turning edge' of the Nazca plate takes a nose dive into the magma on the western side of the Chilean Trench, which remains deep and empty... what theory can account for this? :-)

I can sort of understand the proposed uplifting by the deep sea oceanic crust 'diving under' the Andes, but the Chilean trench remains ***empty, its western wall should feel the full force of the Nazca slab from the Pacific which is 'drifting' eastwards and simply butt up against the eastern wall... this whole Nazca plate has apparently enough force to 'uplift' the Andes. At the same time the plate just chickens out, leaves the trench intact and 'dives' into the underlying magma on the ***western edge of the Chilean trench... if the plate is moving laterally, meets a solid wall of continental crust, how can a trench not be squashed flat at it's crushed against the wall of the South American continental shelf?

...in the latest tectonic theory the plate is supposed to abruptly turn and start sinking when it 'crashes' into the continental plate with its Andean mountains, not start doing its diving thing to the west of the trench?... It has to still have enough energy to lift the mountains ***and move them eastwards, without collapsing the trench....

I would expect the Chilean trench to be filled to overflowing with rock from the base of the Andes if indeed the Nazca plate was 'lifting' the Andes by an west to east lateral movement originating far to the west of the trench...

I'm finding it hard to get my head around the feasibility of this hypothesis....
It's even harder to understand what is going on at the Mariana or Tonga trench, the same pre-trench diving is supposed to be happening at these trenches, the lateral floating drifting oceanic crust changes its mind and its physical properties, decides it wont float any more just because it butts up against a ***trench, so then becomes heavy, and sinks into tartarus, leaving the trench deep and empty :-)
sketch1946
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby moses » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:09 am

South America underwent uplift during a fly-by by another planet. Also the bottom of South America and the adjacent peninsular of Antarctica, appear to have undergone a horizontal stress. It is possible that South America and Antarctica were joined which would show in ocean bottom sediments.

There is world-wide evidence of subsidence and mountain forming in this one event. Although the datings probably won't match.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby sketch1946 » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:20 am

Hi Moses,
I've read a lot of bible, first time I've talked to Moses face to face so to speak :-)

I don't have a problem with expansion cracks in the earth's crust, I currently believe the reason for the expansion and mid ocean ridges is the result of a decay of the gravitational constant (big G) as explained by Pascual Jordan as a result of P A M Dirac's gravitational hypothesis...

I'm not a mathematician or physicist, but I feel that Dirac and Jordan have the best, simplest, most reasonable theory so far... They have to rank way up there amongst the best mathematicians the world has ever known.... The simple hypothesis of Dirac could even extend to a former moon of Jupiter becoming 'detached' and then moving to another orbit with severe shakeups on the way, as proposed by Immanuel Velikovsky, since Dirac's hypothesis leads to all sorts of time related changes in cosmology... including gradual increases in each moon's orbit, even planetary orbital changes. Dirac's theory leads to explosive vulcanism on the earth, why not an even bigger event on Jupiter?

Maybe the giant red spot on jupiter is the clouds swirling around a giant crater where Venus got ejected... I don't know...

I would also like to find out how close in theory a large planet could come, and then have some clever people explain to me why it could or couldn't have happened...

I've read about the problems of the possible capture of the moon by the earth, apparently it needs a third body, which straight away makes it more interesting :-) and then why not toss in Mars as well...

I've seen Maxlow's graphics on youtube, but they are a bit blurry and difficult to see what's going on, since I think he used cloth models or some physical modelling like that.. I've also seen that chappie in New York, the graphic artist Neil Adams? (from memory) Both these guys in my opinion get into difficulties because they have to have some exotic physics to explain where all the 'new' matter is coming from to expand the earth... Dirac's hypothesis doesn't have this difficulty, no new matter ex nihilo, no continent even moves, only expansionion in the ocean floors....Neil Adam's graphics seem like they could be tweaked up a bit, but that's just my eye, I haven't yet seen a good mountain folding demo yet as it would happen under an expansion model, I believe there is evidence just looking at the age of the ocean floors, in the southern latitudes, it seems obvious that as the original crust split like an orange peel as it was stretched over an expanding geometry, the southern tips of the continents are all pointed, the northern hemisphere has most of the continental crust, only 32% or so in the southern hemisphere, so the ocean floors in the south have had to do more stretching, you can see the previous mid pacific rift has split in many places, and the forces of this expansion have cause lateral tears ie rips, not the wet stuff that comes out of your eyes... :-) so the distortion at the pointy end of South America still fits in with this model without cosmic flybys... but who knows for sure, were you there? As God said to Job :-)
Earth from south pole land in southern hemisphere.jpg

(only 32% of continental shelves in southern hemisphere)

I read an arc welding mountain building web site recently which is extremely convincing, with harmonics built into the mountains as they were formed leaving hard rock evidence... I believe as someone said, can't remember at the moment, these forces that form and distort mountains leave hard evidence in the shapes and minerals and layers themselves'

To my eye, there is evidence of a big twist just northwest of Pakistan, and then over towards the headwaters of the Mekong northern Thailand and South West China, curved and folded mountains in a very definite pattern.. also the Tonga trench, near Samoa there is a big twister set in cement...
yeah and that pattern between Tierra del Fuego and Antarctica... I would like to do some modelling to see what it looks like in 3D (better than 2D) 4D is even better .... :-)

Does anyone know how to do a multiple planet scenario as a python script? I would like to see what it looks like in my 3D software, preferably sound gravitational for a start.. but I suppose that electric physics could be fun too :-)

As long as it's got some reasonable basis in physics, I want it to have been possible... then we can look at it and see what we think.. I'm an artist, I like to see things graphically

I read the people who had done a possible set of orbits for the planets in response to Velikovsky's proposal were called C H Ransom and L H Hoffee, but I only have them in 2D and no mathematical formula
sketch1946
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Previous

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests