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 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:12 pm

webolife wrote:I've been away from TB forum for a while now... this thread has gained some new splices while I was gone, and I have limited time to address them all. But I would like to address the misplaced comparison of the alleged 148,000 km of spreading with the alleged 40,000 km of subduction/collision zones. This comparison simply has no basis... why?
1. The midocean ridges are 3-dimensional zones of upwelling, not just horizontal [linear] spreading. Overlapping flows of upwelling basalt form a large thickening of the rift, as well as the accompanying spreading of the seafloor.
2. The zones of collision are are also 3-dimensional; involving very wide belts of uplift, eg. the Rockies of the US and the Himalayas of central Asia, as well as very high ranges.
3. The increased thickness of the collision zones of the continental crust, ie. the "roots" of the boundary mountain ranges, are more than sufficient to make up for the linear "frontal" figures.
4. If subduction must be invoked [however I feel it is unnecessary to do so], immeasurable amounts of seafloor would have been re-assimulated into the mantle.
The linear comparison is just not appropriate.

The quote came from a sceptical geologist and made perfect sense to me. Assuming basalt is upwelling surely it would flow along a path of least resistance? To do so twice the amount of basalt has to solidify to push apart the two halves of the plate apart. The assumption is that this process is actually occurring; consider the following from the Geological Society:

‘The mechanism by which tectonic plates move is still a subject of much debate among Earth scientists. The Earth is dynamic thanks to its internal heat, which comes from deep within the mantle from the breakdown of radioactive isotopes. This causes convection in the mantle – hot rocks rise and cold rocks descend. This very slow motion in the solid state transfers stresses to the lithosphere, just as convection in a boiling pan of thick soup will cause the skin to buckle where the convection cells meet.

‘As the theory of plate tectonics developed, mantle convection was long thought to be responsible for the movement of tectonic plates across the Earth’s surface. This theory is now largely out of favour, with modern imaging techniques unable to identify convection cells in the mantle sufficiently large to drive plate movement. Instead, it is thought to be caused by 'slab pull'. Newly formed oceanic lithosphere at mid ocean ridges is less dense than the asthenosphere, but becomes denser with age as it cools and thickens. This causes it to sink into the mantle at subduction zones, pulling slabs of lithosphere apart at divergent boundaries and resulting in sea floor spreading or rifting. How plate movement operates in detail, however, is highly controversial.’ (my emphasis)

(https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap2-What-is-a-Plate/Plate-Movement)

First we lean of convection currents in the mantle then we learn that this explanation is now defunct. Plate movement is now though to be due to the hypothesised ‘slab-pull’- another unproven concept.

Now, let’s consider a spreading centre.

‘The Mid Atlantic Ridge, like other ocean ridge systems, has developed as a consequence of the divergent motion between the Eurasian and North American, and African and South American Plates. As the mantle rises towards the surface below the ridge the pressure is lowered (decompression) and the hot rock starts to partially melt. This produces basaltic volcanoes when an eruption occurs above the surface (Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland) and characteristic basalt “pillow lava” in underwater eruptions. In this way, as the plates move further apart new ocean lithosphere is formed at the ridge and the ocean basin gets wider. This process is known as “sea floor spreading” and results in a symmetrical alignment of the rocks of the ocean floor which get older with distance from the ridge crest. (my emphasis)

(https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap3-Plate-Margins/Divergent/Mid-Atlantic-Ridge)

In this explanation notice how we get from the mantle rising having previously been told mantle convection currents do not exist, to not being told how the plates move apart! The MAR just fills in a growing gap between the two plate halves! But where does slab-pull occur in the Atlantic Ocean?

This explanation seems to be popular as it can be found at the NOAA website: (http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05galapagos/background/mid_ocean_ridge/mid_ocean_ridge.html)

Where we learn that; ‘Like the rest of the deep ocean floor, we have explored less of the mountains of the mid-ocean ridge system than the surface of Venus or Mars, or the dark side of the moon. Use of submersible or remotely operated vehicles to explore the mid-ocean ridge has provided information on less than 0.1% of the mid-ocean ridge! Much of the mid-ocean ridge still remains a mystery, and we will continue to explore it.’
Mantle convection ergo ‘ridge-push’ has been quietly dropped but no doubt explanatory cartoons will not reflect this. Plate Tectonicists are just as inventive as Wile E. Coyote- one ACME spreading centre, no problem!

Plate movement is now reliant on slab-pull at subduction zones, worse still 40,000 km of slab-pull now has to ‘pull’ 148,000 km of spreading centres! Quoting Peter James writing in ‘The Tectonics of Geoid Changes’: ‘A horizontal force acting at the base of a plate cannot physically produce any downward sliding of the plate, particularly where the plate is of slightly less density than the material it is required to penetrate. The most likely effect of the horizontal drag would be to force the oceanic plate up over the edge of the continental plate, as a thrust fault.’

Can it seriously be considered that an oceanic plate whilst sinking is able to push aside denser lithospheric material, push up continental crust or form island arcs and pull thousands of square kilometres of cold oceanic crust all at the same time! Unimaginable!

Will this stop the ever inventive Plate Tectonicists? No, one ACME subduction zone coming right up!
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:31 pm

No need to respond to this but it seems to me that they have gone from an upwardly moving vertical movement causing horizontal movement to a downwardly vertical movement causing horizontal movement. :?
Maybe it's just me. :oops:
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: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:15 pm

Can it seriously be considered that an oceanic plate whilst sinking is able to push aside denser lithospheric material, push up continental crust or form island arcs and pull thousands of square kilometres of cold oceanic crust all at the same time! Unimaginable!


Well said. This is also why, despite our knowledge of the mechanical and thermal properties of all the rock/magma types involved, that there are no numerical simulations that can show the proposed processes in action. The computer program would not get far before it was obvious that it just can not work. Similarly with glaciers carving steep, deep canyons in solid rock, or glacial dam bursts carving the Grand Canyon, or wind blown sand and grit producing the odd geological features, or mountains being pushed up into sharp peaks, or the glacial cirques being worn into some of thsse peaks, just to name a few. We see artists impressions or cartoons, no simulations using known values.
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: 2522
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:52 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:No need to respond to this but it seems to me that they have gone from an upwardly moving vertical movement causing horizontal movement to a downwardly vertical movement causing horizontal movement. :?
Maybe it's just me. :oops:

It looks that way but the whole idea of subduction is rife with problems. Some trenches, areas where subduction is supposedly occurring, contain very little or no sediment; other sediment filled trenches show no evidence of compression, plus the sediment itself tends to be turbidites and not the expected pelagic sediment. There is a lack of seismic activity within 30 to 60 km of the trench axis and this is where plates are colliding!? The physical appearance of trenches differs from that portrayed in cartoons- trenches have the characteristics of downfaulted graben and normal faults which are associated with extension not compression.

To quote geomorphologist Cliff Ollier: ‘The very weakness of plate tectonics is that the power of explanation is too great. Subduction, for example, may be called upon to create an island arc, a deep sea trench, or a mountain range; it may lead to sediments being scraped off a down-going slab, or subduction of the sediments under the continent…Most of the input into plate tectonic speculation appears to come from geophysicists, who have models which may be elegant mathematically but do not take landforms into account at all.’

Now, subduction has to do much more.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:57 pm

GaryN wrote:
Can it seriously be considered that an oceanic plate whilst sinking is able to push aside denser lithospheric material, push up continental crust or form island arcs and pull thousands of square kilometres of cold oceanic crust all at the same time! Unimaginable!


Well said. This is also why, despite our knowledge of the mechanical and thermal properties of all the rock/magma types involved, that there are no numerical simulations that can show the proposed processes in action. The computer program would not get far before it was obvious that it just can not work. Similarly with glaciers carving steep, deep canyons in solid rock, or glacial dam bursts carving the Grand Canyon, or wind blown sand and grit producing the odd geological features, or mountains being pushed up into sharp peaks, or the glacial cirques being worn into some of thsse peaks, just to name a few. We see artists impressions or cartoons, no simulations using known values.

Yes, sometimes the cartoons are completely misleading, for example Plate Tectonic cartoons showing the formation of ‘fold-mountains’.

From ‘The Origin of Mountains’ by geomorphologists Ollier and Pain, we learn that ‘fold-mountains’ don’t exist. ‘…mountains are made by uplift of originally low-lying continental areas. If the uplifted area remains undissected it is a plateau; if it is deeply dissected it will be a typical mountain chain with isolated peaks rather than a continuous high surface.’

The original continental surface strata were originally folded, planated then uplifted and dissected.

Plate Tectonic cartoons ‘explain’ a process that has never happened- there are no ‘fold-mountains’!
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:37 pm

Tails of Magnetospheres and Stringy Things

In this thread I have suggested that an electrical discharge drives global tectonics. Similar discharges drive tectonic and atmospheric activity on other terrestrial bodies; but where is the source of the postulated discharge?

In 1973 Ralph Juergens, in a remark that to my knowledge has largely gone unnoticed, stated that he thought it possible that planetary magnetospheres intercept electrons bound for the Sun: ‘I would speculate, therefore, that the earth's negative charge represents that of electrons intercepted on their way to the sun by the earth's tail-like sheath, and that this charge is built up to a point where the earth re-emits electrons into the solar discharge. If so, variations in earth-sun electric currents may be held accountable for such phenomena as geomagnetic disturbances, ionospheric disturbances, high-altitude expansions and contractions of the terrestrial atmosphere, and variations in the cosmic-ray flux reaching the earth.’ (1)

Earth’s tail-like sheath, the magnetotail, intercepts electrons headed toward the Sun, is Juergens correct?
It is known that particles can enter and leave the magnetosphere at the Polar Cusps, conventionally it is thought that this is due to a Sun-Earth connection but is this really the case?

Stringy Things

The discovery of ‘stringy things’ or flux ropes connecting Venus to the heliospheric plasma has been well documented. The structures were initially revealed by the Pioneer Venus Orbiter and later detected by the SOHO spacecraft 1.5 million kilometres from Earth. (2, 3)

The Venusian tail was found to exhibit a ‘double-lobed’ structure and researchers were puzzled by the fact that the tail held together over tens of millions of kilometres.

Earth’s Magnetosphere

Descriptions of Earth’s magnetosphere understandably tend to focus on the near-Earth environment but should we be focussing our attention further afield? Events in the magnetotail are known to influence the evolution of the magnetosphere as a whole. ‘The magnetotail is also the main source of the polar aurora. Even before the space age observers noted that in the arctic winter, when the sky was dark much of the time, the brightest auroras were seen in the hours around midnight. It was widely believed then that auroral electrons came from the Sun, and the fact that aurora seemed concentrated on the side facing away from the Sun puzzled everyone. Those observations made much more sense after satellites discovered and mapped the magnetosphere's long tail.’ (4)

Notice that it was ‘widely believed’ that electrons came from the Sun- it was not confirmed.

The magnetotail displays a ‘lobed’ structure but we could just as easily replace this term with ‘double-lobed’ which is the terminology used at Venus. ‘Most of the volume of the tail is taken up by two large bundles of nearly parallel magnetic field lines. The bundle north of the equator points earthwards and leads to a roughly circular region including the northern magnetic pole, while the southern bundle points away from Earth and is linked to the southern polar region.

‘These two bundles, known as the "tail lobes", extend far from Earth: ISEE-3 and Geotail found them well-defined even at 200-220 RE (Earth radii) from Earth. At those distances the lobes are already penetrated by some solar wind plasma, but near Earth they are almost empty.’ (4)

Furthermore, the tail lobes connect the distant magnetotail to the Auroral Ovals at the Earth’s poles. ‘Field lines starting from points…inside the auroral oval, which includes the magnetic pole, extend to even greater distances. Early researchers, who believed auroral electrons came from the Sun could not understand why the aurora was absent from the vicinity of the magnetic pole itself. From satellite data we now know that field lines inside the oval extend to the "tail lobes," the twin bundles of field lines that extend down the Earth's magnetic tail. Ultimately they probably lead into the solar wind, somewhere far on the nightside of the Earth. But the wind there is flowing rapidly away from Earth and its ions are not likely to reverse their direction and head upstream, back towards the Earth. Hence one expects very little plasma to come from that direction.

‘Yet something does flow earthwards on those field lines, a thin "polar rain" of fast electrons, with energies around 500 electron volts (ev). Solar wind protons have about 1000 ev each, but the electrons which move along with them, being about 2000 times lighter, also have a much smaller average energy. Electrons of 500 ev are a completely different population, easily able to outrace the solar wind and follow field lines in any direction. They are too few to produce a visible aurora, but instruments aboard satellites readily observe them. They provide the best evidence that the tail lobes are indeed connected to the solar wind.’ (5)

From the distant magnetotail electrons flow toward the Earth, ‘In 1976 it was discovered that when the interplanetary field lines pointed away from the Sun, the polar rain was much more intense in the northern cap then in the southern one, while when they pointed towards the Sun, the southern cap received the bigger share. Clearly, those electrons must have come from the Sun, and favored the pole with the direct sunward connection. It was also evident that the interplanetary field lines were somehow linked through the tail lobes to the appropriate polar caps, although how and where that connection is made is still not known for sure.’ (5)

Notice that the electrons are assumed to come from the Sun this is despite the fact that the electrons arrive at Earth from the anti-sunward direction. I suggest that this assumption should be challenged and Juergens’ proposal be given some consideration.

Virtual Cathode

Following Juergens each planet is highly negatively charged. Although in this thread we have considered some planets to be electron deficient it must be remembered that we are referring to relative potentials. Each planet is immersed in a plasma that carries an even greater charge in the negative sense- we can consider a planet to be a ‘virtual anode’. A planet then, attempts to intercept electrons taking part in the solar discharge but to do so the planet is compelled to ‘reach-out’ in the anti-sunward direction to a ‘virtual cathode’. At the virtual cathode electrons are available in greater quantities, to meet the requirements of the planetary discharge, than at a planets’ local environment, it is these electrons that are mistakenly believed to come from the Sun. The extent of the magnetotail is a reflection of the potential difference between a planet and its environment, to paraphrase Juergens: ‘this happens, not because the electrified sun repels the tail material, but because voltage differences between the planet and the interplanetary plasma vary sharply with direction, and because sheath thicknesses are dictated not only by voltage differences, but by gas pressure as well.’ (6)

Travelling over interplanetary distances inflowing electrons become organised into stringy things or double-lobes i.e. Birkeland current filaments, which then arrive at a planets’ polar regions.

The Sun-Earth connection is somewhat of a misnomer, the electrical characteristics of a planets’ environment change in response to changes in the local heliospheric plasma, although these changes may originate with the Sun itself there is no direct connection as such, therefore the Earth’s magnetic polarity does not alternate in step with the solar cycle.

Magnetosphere Characteristics: Earth and Venus

Planetary magnetotails form in essentially the same manner but individual characteristics are determined at the virtual anode i.e. the planet. A planet such as the Earth as I have suggested has an abundance of free electrons which leads to an active magnetic field and magnetosphere. Venus, however, would appear to have a deficit of free electrons- the result is a ‘collapsed’ magnetosphere (induced magnetosphere) residing in the Venusian atmosphere and a comet-like tail.

Popular explanations of how aurorae occur invoke the concept of ‘magnetic reconnection’, from an Electric Universe position this is somewhat problematic.

I would suggest that magnetotails are formed by current flowing from a virtual cathode to a virtual anode, electrons participating in the solar discharge are intercepted by magnetotails. Acceleration of particles in the tail region and not magnetic reconnection generate aurora. Magnetospheres are not directly connected to the Sun, rather they respond to varying changes in potential over their length, for example when encountering an expanding Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) although, as Juergens suggested, magnetospheres may re-emit electrons to participate in the solar discharge- we could speculate that this would occur during changes in the dynamic pressure and hence potential of the solar wind- just as would be expected during a CME event.

When we observe a comet we see that when the comet is not at ‘rest’ with its environment tails form and the comet’s surface becomes ‘geologically’ active. Activity subsides when the comet leaves the inner solar system and is electrically at ‘rest’ with its environment. With this in mind we can think of Earth’s geological activity as being driven by a similar electrical discharge the origin of which lies in the magnetotail.

References:

1. Juergens. Ralph. E, et al., ‘On Cosmic Electricity’ Pensee, Vol. 3 No 3: (Fall 1973) “Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered V”
2. http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/
3. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420842.900-science--planets-tail-of-the-unexpected/
4. https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtail.html
5. https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wpcap.html
6. Juergens. Ralph. E, ‘Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism’ Pensee, Vol. 2 No 3: (Fall 1972) “Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered II”
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:34 am

Robertus wrote:
The extent of the magnetotail is a reflection of the potential difference between a planet and its environment, to paraphrase Juergens: ‘this happens, not because the electrified sun repels the tail material, but because voltage differences between the planet and the interplanetary plasma vary sharply with direction, and because sheath thicknesses are dictated not only by voltage differences, but by gas pressure as well.’


The "gas pressure" part is is pretty clear, as just mechanically speaking the solar wind will blow the magnetotail out like a windsock.
Could you please elucidate the 'voltage difference variation between planet and interplanetary plasma by direction", please.
In what directions, over the whole length of the magnetosheath, and why ?

Image
seasmith
 
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:54 am

With IMF vectors:
Image
seasmith
 
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:43 pm

seasmith wrote:
Robertus wrote:
The extent of the magnetotail is a reflection of the potential difference between a planet and its environment, to paraphrase Juergens: ‘this happens, not because the electrified sun repels the tail material, but because voltage differences between the planet and the interplanetary plasma vary sharply with direction, and because sheath thicknesses are dictated not only by voltage differences, but by gas pressure as well.’


The "gas pressure" part is is pretty clear, as just mechanically speaking the solar wind will blow the magnetotail out like a windsock.
Could you please elucidate the 'voltage difference variation between planet and interplanetary plasma by direction", please.
In what directions, over the whole length of the magnetosheath, and why ?

Mainstream explanations of what the magnetosphere is and how it behaves usually focus on magnetic fields- with less attention paid to the electric currents generating those magnetic fields.

Recall that researchers were puzzled that the Venusian ‘stringy things’ remained coherent over the distance they covered. We know of such structures that keep their form over vast distances- Birkeland currents. This suggests, in my opinion, that all magnetospheres are Birkeland currents, as such we should investigate the electrical nature of these structures and not just assume they form due to solar wind ‘pressure’.

From an Electrical Universe perspective we should consider electric currents as the primary cause of magnetospheres as hinted at by Juergens.

Michael Clarage in his presentation ‘SAFIRE as Astrophysical Laboratory’ provides a useful diagram (beginning at the 2 minute 48 second point) highlighting a changing voltage potential of the heliospheric plasma between the Sun and Earth.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoyHHHTwAyM)

We could extend that diagram to include the whole solar system, distant parts of the solar system would be at different potentials to, say, that found at Earth’s orbit. In reality the real picture is in a constant state of flux, as the Earth moves on an elliptical orbit it encounters regular and sporadic variations in the heliospheric plasma. The magnetosphere fluctuates in size in response to such variations i.e. changes in potential.

In part I see these changes occurring by variations in the location of the ‘virtual cathode’ sometimes moving closer to Earth sometimes farther away.

A sudden change in potential (e.g. CME) rippling through the heliospheric plasma may result in a rapid change in Earth’s environment, this rapid period of change and re-adjustment- exchange of charge- may result in earthquakes for example. Various groups are researching such associations. It would be interesting to see if any studies exist that can identify if changes in the magnetotail occur before any tectonic changes at the Earth itself or if tectonic activity is more or less likely to occur during the hours the Moon spends crossing the magnetotail.

In the case of the Moon, which appears to share the potential of the local heliospheric plasma (or the plasma potential is at least equal to that of the Moon), during time spent in the magnetotail the Moon would acquire charge which would then ‘drain’ away over the remainder of it’s orbit.

A comet shows similar variations of a more extreme nature- because a comet usually spends most of its time in the distant solar system. In the inner solar system the speed of the comet increases along its orbit the result is a dramatic change in the potential between the nucleus of the comet and the rapidly changing potential of its rapidly changing environment. The rapid changes can be quite explosive.

In my opinion we are looking at essentially one electrical phenomenon that manifests in different forms according to the idiosyncratic nature of the bodies concerned, the examples I have used here are Earth, Venus and comets to keep the discussion limited to the theme of this thread i.e. global tectonics.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:09 pm

Further to my earlier post but not wishing to depart too far from the theme of this thread i.e. global tectonics, a brief comment on the outer planets is appropriate, specifically their magnetospheres.

Some of the highest planetary wind speeds in the solar system can be found in the atmosphere of Neptune perhaps equally puzzling is that the planet displays at least one ‘hot’ pole.

(http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070928neptunepoles.htm#)

Using data returned by Voyager 2 in 1989, scientists have remodelled Neptune’s magnetosphere and it is very different from the original ‘cartoons’ to quote the scientists.

(https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2660-neptune-s-badly-behaved-magnetic-field)

Neptune’s magnetosphere appears less of a magnetosphere and, in my opinion, it could be interpreted as two Birkeland currents rotating around the planet (the Uranian magnetosphere exhibits a similar helical configuration).

As with all magnetospheres the magnetotail extends anti-sunward, this suggests that Neptune is intercepting electrons unhindered and it is this input of electrical energy from the outer regions of the heliosphere that drives Neptune’s atmospheric activity.

‘Smoking gun’ evidence that aurora originate due to changes in Saturn’s magnetotail has been documented. Researchers, again, invoke magnetic reconnection as a cause but if current is flowing along Saturn’s magnetotail then more current may simply flow along the tail from the ‘virtual cathode’, as the wave of differing potential ripples past Saturn, to adjust to the temporary change in potential.

(https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140519090407.htm)

Most of the outer giant planets have ‘hot’ and/ or active polar regions suggesting all of the outer planets are able to intercept electrons from ‘virtual cathodes’ in the outer solar system.

Despite intercepting electrons by the same process, the polar regions of the terrestrial planets in the inner solar system are relatively cold, even part of the polar atmosphere of Venus!

(http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/57735-venus-express-swansong-experiment-sheds-light-on-venus-polar-atmosphere/)

We can speculate that this dichotomy arises because the outer planets are able to intercept an ample supply of free electrons to account for their thermal characteristics and active atmospheres.

With a greater number of electrons available in the outer solar system compared to the inner solar system it is unlikely that the planets have any influence on solar activity and any perceived connection is accidental.

(http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2013/09/aa21713-13.pdf)
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby webolife » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:51 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:Some of the highest planetary wind speeds in the solar system can be found in the atmosphere of Neptune perhaps equally puzzling is that the planet displays at least one ‘hot’ pole.

Robertus Maximus wrote:With a greater number of electrons available in the outer solar system compared to the inner solar system it is unlikely that the planets have any influence on solar activity and any perceived connection is accidental.

I'm a bit confused where you are going with this relative to the thread topic and EU. Is someone claiming a greater influence of the planets on solar activity? What [or whose] claim are you disputing here? Also, "hot" is generally connected to resistance [electrical or otherwise]... with respect to gigantic EDM swaths producing the ocean basins and their associated rift zones, where does the resistance come in to play. The relatively thin atmospheric sheath?
:?:
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: 2372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby webolife » Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:19 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:Can it seriously be considered that an oceanic plate whilst sinking is able to push aside denser lithospheric material, push up continental crust or form island arcs and pull thousands of square kilometres of cold oceanic crust all at the same time! Unimaginable!

Who is making or where are you finding this unimaginable claim? Generally the ocean crust is not seen as pushing anything aside while sinking... not sure what you're seeing there. If you're talking subduction, that is a non-essential element of continental drift theory. Since oceanic crust is denser than the continental crust it will "bulldoze" and compress the less dense continental boundary that impinges upon it [in the view that the continental crust is doing the moving rather than the oceanic crust... in the case of Atlantic crustal members they would be visualized as being dragged behind [and along with] the moving continental plates, while the denser Pacific plate is resisting the horizontal movements of the less dense continental masses. [[[If subduction is involved, it would be a natural consequence of denser [eg. basaltic] materials displacing the less dense [eg. granitic], and melting due to the resistance of the underlying aethenosphere. This would naturally give rise to Island arcs and volcanic chains that comprise the Pacific "Ring of Fire".]]]* Convection is a decent model for this... do you think our inability to detect significant mantle convection with current technology is somehow proof that it's not happening? Nor, on the same basis, can I say it is; I'm just saying that convection presents a significantly elegant model for the as yet "unknown" mechanism for tectonics. Can you say your model explains more, has significant supporting evidence, is demonstrable or able to be simulated?
* Again, I would claim that subduction is not a required vehicle for this Ring of Fire phenomenon, as compression and friction are adequate and demonstrable players.
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: 2372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:29 pm

webolife wrote:
Robertus Maximus wrote:Some of the highest planetary wind speeds in the solar system can be found in the atmosphere of Neptune perhaps equally puzzling is that the planet displays at least one ‘hot’ pole.

Robertus Maximus wrote:With a greater number of electrons available in the outer solar system compared to the inner solar system it is unlikely that the planets have any influence on solar activity and any perceived connection is accidental.

I'm a bit confused where you are going with this relative to the thread topic and EU. Is someone claiming a greater influence of the planets on solar activity? What [or whose] claim are you disputing here? Also, "hot" is generally connected to resistance [electrical or otherwise]... with respect to gigantic EDM swaths producing the ocean basins and their associated rift zones, where does the resistance come in to play. The relatively thin atmospheric sheath?
:?:

In this thread I have suggested that an electrical discharge drives global tectonics.

‘Similar discharges drive tectonic and atmospheric activity on other terrestrial bodies; but where is the source of the postulated discharge?’

From this initial proposal I went on to suggest a source of the discharge.

‘In 1973 Ralph Juergens, in a remark that to my knowledge has largely gone unnoticed, stated that he thought it possible that planetary magnetospheres intercept electrons bound for the Sun: ‘I would speculate, therefore, that the earth's negative charge represents that of electrons intercepted on their way to the sun by the earth's tail-like sheath, and that this charge is built up to a point where the earth re-emits electrons into the solar discharge. If so, variations in earth-sun electric currents may be held accountable for such phenomena as geomagnetic disturbances, ionospheric disturbances, high-altitude expansions and contractions of the terrestrial atmosphere, and variations in the cosmic-ray flux reaching the earth.’’

I then expanded this theme to include, as an example, the planet Venus and later to illustrate that, in essence, it is the same mechanism that ‘powers’ all planetary activity whether that be terrestrial or gas-giant, tectonic or atmospheric. We do not need a separate theory for each planet. As I stated:

‘Further to my earlier post but not wishing to depart too far from the theme of this thread i.e. global tectonics, a brief comment on the outer planets is appropriate, specifically their magnetospheres.’

This post was for illustrative purposes briefly outlining how the same postulated electrical discharge can take on different forms.

Elsewhere on this forum it has been suggested that the planets influence the solar cycle. Forum members interested in this hypothesis may consider their views if they have also read this thread.

(http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16299&start=60)

An electrical discharge between two celestial bodies involves breakdown of the media between and material constituting the interacting bodies. The emission of electrons occurs in the presence of strong electric fields. The electrons are literally pulled out of the body functioning as the cathode and flow toward the body functioning as the anode. On reaching the anode they liberate gas and ionise it, ions thus formed will stream back toward the electron source. Features would be formed as electrons are removed or as ions are added to the respective surfaces. 'Resistance' in this process comes into play when we consider the point at which surface material breaks down during the discharge.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:22 pm

In the following I have referred to Wikipedia for commonly accepted interpretations of both Plate Tectonics and Continental Drift. These interpretations are derived from the scientific consensus and feature in the popular scientific press as standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction

webolife wrote:Who is making or where are you finding this unimaginable claim? Generally the ocean crust is not seen as pushing anything aside while sinking... not sure what you're seeing there.

I am making this claim, as it is a logical conclusion from the claims of tectonicists.

‘Plate movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of the seafloor away from the spreading ridge (due to variations in topography and density of the crust, which result in differences in gravitational forces) and drag, with downward suction, at the subduction zones.’

At the subduction zone ‘…the density of the oceanic crust increases and provides additional negative buoyancy (downwards force).’

What happens to the displaced mantle material initially providing upward buoyancy? It cannot be already accounted for as the amount of oceanic lithosphere being subducted is not equal to that forming at spreading centres.

webolife wrote:If you're talking subduction, that is a non-essential element of continental drift theory.

‘The idea of continental drift has been subsumed by the theory of plate tectonics, which explains how the continents move.’

‘Subduction is the driving force behind plate tectonics, and without it, plate tectonics could not occur.’

The idea of Continental Drift floundered through a lack of a mechanism to move the continents and was eventually rescued by the advent of Plate Tectonics. We could play with words but Continental Drift has drifted into Plate Tectonic lore and is considered no more than an historic stepping-stone to the ‘new global tectonics’. Subduction due to gravity, as I have previously noted, is essential to Plate Tectonics.

webolife wrote:Since oceanic crust is denser than the continental crust it will "bulldoze" and compress the less dense continental boundary that impinges upon it [in the view that the continental crust is doing the moving rather than the oceanic crust... in the case of Atlantic crustal members they would be visualized as being dragged behind [and along with] the moving continental plates, while the denser Pacific plate is resisting the horizontal movements of the less dense continental masses.

If we look at the African Plate, in which direction are the continental and oceanic crust components being dragged? The African Plate is surrounded by spreading centres yet exhibits extensional features.

Image

Which way is the North American plate being dragged? This plate consists of what is essentially one continental landmass- North America and Asia- despite the defined extent of the Eurasian plate, the eastern boundary of which runs through Siberia, a region of little seismic activity.

Image

The fact that North America and Asia are essentially one continental landmass was one of the reasons Russian geologist V. V. Belousov rejected mobile tectonics.

Oceanic crust is 6 km thick, continental crust is 35 km thick, how are continents ‘bulldozed’? Oceanic lithosphere is 100 km thick, continental lithosphere is 250 km thick some studies extend this depth to 400km. How does continental lithosphere move through the mantle, the density of which, increases with depth?

webolife wrote:[[[If subduction is involved, it would be a natural consequence of denser [eg. basaltic] materials displacing the less dense [eg. granitic], and melting due to the resistance of the underlying aethenosphere. This would naturally give rise to Island arcs and volcanic chains that comprise the Pacific "Ring of Fire".]]]*

The scientific consensus and popular view is that it is the convergence of two oceanic plates that gives rise to island arcs, subduction is the only process by which this is achieved.

The exact process by which the descending plate melts is vague, however, it is able to ‘sink’ because the asthenosphere is considered to be highly viscous, mechanically weak, ductile and flows due to convection currents. For subduction to work it must provide little resistance.

webolife wrote:Convection is a decent model for this... do you think our inability to detect significant mantle convection with current technology is somehow proof that it's not happening? Nor, on the same basis, can I say it is; I'm just saying that convection presents a significantly elegant model for the as yet "unknown" mechanism for tectonics.

Elegance is usually claimed by theoreticians when their models have no connection with reality. In many cases elegant mathematical models have hindered our understanding of the universe for nearly one hundred years.

As it appears that mantle convection has been quietly dropped by tectonicists all that remains is ‘slab pull’ with which many problems exist. Is not the appeal to ‘unknown’ mechanisms clutching at straws? Who knows, perhaps tectonicists will arrive at their own version of ‘dark energy’ to move plates.

webolife wrote:Can you say your model explains more, has significant supporting evidence, is demonstrable or able to be simulated?

Yes. I have presented evidence in this thread from the initial post onward. A significant departure between my views and mainstream geology is that Earth’s geologic activity arises due to its electrical relationship with the heliospheric plasma. Activity does not arise due to an internal heat source. As such Earth will respond to changes in its local plasma environment most of which occur due to changes in the Sun’s activity- this is measurable; some studies have been published in the NCGT Journal. As a private citizen I do not have the resources to conduct experiments and simulate the process I envisage but I imagine suitably funded groups or organisations with the right experimental set-up could very well do so.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics

Unread postby webolife » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:37 pm

RM,
I don't want you to get me wrong. I applaud your efforts in this arena. It takes guts and no little stamina to stand up to the mainstream science community/paradigms. But my own model of rapid drift slowed now to a near stop is not a mainstream concept by any means. Subduction is an essential of mainstream plate tectonics because they must offer a vehicle to maintain a process for hundreds of millions of years, which is not the case in the catastrophic scenario. The plate movement vectors in your referenced diagram aptly describe a process which has virtually halted by the sheer simple force of frictional resistance. The movement I describe is no longer happening, nor can it under the present conditions. This is where both your electrical discharge machine and my rapid mechanical drift model depart from the uniformitarian presuppositions of mainstream geology. The model to which you object is the SM version of plate tectonics, with which I find as many objections!
But I will leave off this discussion for now and let your thread proceed without further debate from me.
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: 2372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests