Geology - cosmetics corrections

[rangerover777]

Just some thoughts I had about geology :

1. If there was Pangaea (the old continent that included all of today’s continent), then
earth could not spin on it’s axis due to the imbalanced weight that positioned on
one side only. The earth axis would be circles (not axis), in this case it will collide
with the moon and it’s orbit around the sun and in relation to other planets - would
be chaotic. It seems that more balanced solution needs to be found (maybe earth
gradual growth, etc.).

2. The tectonic plates are not “drifting” because there is not enough lateral force (sideways)
that can push a plate. If there is a force that act upon the plates, cause earthquakes, mountains
valleys and oceans it’s the force of gravity, which stream out from the center. It can lift,
pull down and at the same time creates some lateral movement.

3. Also, there is a contradiction in the simulation and animation of how the continents were
drifted over the years to form today’s formation. Since the plates are part of the continents
and the continents are part of the ocean floor, it’s impossible to “float” a continent and separate
it from the ocean floor, just for the simulation.

4. Since gravity force is changing over different places on earth, different area are pulled down
by varying degrees of force, while other are “squeezed up”, which cause “crakes” and fault
lines to happen between those areas and since gravity (which is like a wave that streams
constantly from the center - out) can change it’s strength, change it’s “reflection” on earth
crust and creates the patterns of plates, that is constantly changing), it also can cause lateral
movement and friction between the plates, since it’s a projected wave that can move sidewise
as well. According to my belief Gravity is a magnetic force that is constantly created in the
Center of the earth….but that’s for another discussion).

5. Science tells us that earthquakes happen due to growing pressure between tectonic plates,
that suddenly snaps and release immense amount of energy. First, earthquakes happen not
only along fault lines… they can happen in the middle of a plate tectonic…
Second, earth crust does not composed of hard steel with the elasticity and the accompanied
characteristics, though it’s very strong and dense. It all the time being adjusted and on the
move constantly, but if gravity would take into consideration as the major player, maybe
a different picture appear…

6. Earth Lithosphere layers theory also suffers great misconceptions, but I’ll get to that in later posts.


This section is more about the “switching poles” idea, that become accepted theory for some
strange reason :

Earth North and South poles are part of a greater scheme of magnetic formation. For instance
the moon and earth poles are at the same side (if North earth pole is up, so the Moon’s North
Pole and same with the South poles). And there is a reason for that : to push and pull at the
same time, keep the distance between them more or less the same and allow the moon to orbit
earth in a stable way. This is the moon / earth magnetic relations, but what about earth / sun ?
What about earth and other planets ? Most of the planets in our solar system have their North
and South poles at the same side like the sun and that’s for the same reasons like earth /moon.
If someone claiming the Earth or Sun’s magnetic poles are switching sides - he/she are better
prepare for the coming collision, otherwise it just cannot happen as a “cycle”, like I heard
some theories claimed to be the case.

My prediction is that soon, a much more precise model of gravity which made by Magnetism
only (not electricity), will take place of the old “Mass / attraction” one (by the way magnetism
Is also what mass and matter is composed of…) and geology and other physics will look very
different, I hope this “spring season” for science will come sooner then later….

Cheers

[Heftruck]

Just some thoughts I had about geology :

1. If there was Pangaea (the old continent that included all of today’s continent), then
earth could not spin on it’s axis due to the imbalanced weight that positioned on
one side only. The earth axis would be circles (not axis), in this case it will collide
with the moon and it’s orbit around the sun and in relation to other planets - would
be chaotic. It seems that more balanced solution needs to be found (maybe earth
gradual growth, etc.).

What makes planets and moons spin?

[redeye]

What makes planets and moons spin?

I like to think that the differences between Venus and Earth might hold the key to this problem. Earth completes a revolution in 24hrs whereas Venus is locked in orbital resonance with the sun (and Mercury) causing Venus to have a slow retrograde rotation on it's axis.

I think that this retrograde rotation, against the flow of the local heliospheric current sheet, could be the cause of Venus' heat and other planetary conditions that cannot be explained by mainstream theories.

So, in answer to the question, I believe the axial rotation of planets is simply a manifestation of the movement of the local heliospheric current sheet.

(usual disclaimer applies...ie...I don't know what I'm talking about)

Cheers!

[Rick]

"Just some thoughts I had about geology :

1. If there was Pangaea (the old continent that included all of today’s continent), then
earth could not spin on it’s axis due to the imbalanced weight that positioned on
one side only. The earth axis would be circles (not axis), in this case it will collide
with the moon and it’s orbit around the sun and in relation to other planets - would
be chaotic. It seems that more balanced solution needs to be found (maybe earth
gradual growth, etc.)."

"One side only"? Why stipulate a "side"? Pangaea is thought to have been in the southern hemisphere - likely "centered" at that pole.

[Grey Cloud]

"Just some thoughts I had about geology :

1. If there was Pangaea (the old continent that included all of today’s continent), then
earth could not spin on it’s axis due to the imbalanced weight that positioned on
one side only. The earth axis would be circles (not axis), in this case it will collide
with the moon and it’s orbit around the sun and in relation to other planets - would
be chaotic. It seems that more balanced solution needs to be found (maybe earth
gradual growth, etc.)."

"One side only"? Why stipulate a "side"? Pangaea is thought to have been in the southern hemisphere - likely "centered" at that pole.

That's how I understand things but what proof 'they' have, I don't know.

[rangerover777]

Thanks for the responses,

My point about Pangaea is that you cannot theorize on geology based on geology only.
Astrophysics should be included, same with Gravity, thermodynamic, Angular momentum
laws and even biology, botanic and other seemingly unrelated branches of science.
There is no way to compose a puzzle game with missing pieces…
And more then that, many of the other basic missing pieces were not understood yet…
So why jumping to Pangaea too early ?

Now, if there was Pangaea and if it was centered at the Southern pole, then :
1. What is the major force that split it and pushed it side wise ?
2. Why this one continent “gathered” itself centered around the Southern pole, in the first place ?
3. If it was in the Southern pole, why it’s still not there ?
4. How the ocean tides would look like ?
5. How the earth orbit around the sun would look like ? How the moon orbit would be ?
6. How the transformation of rocks, soil and minerals between the interior layers of
earth and earth's crust, would look like ?
7. Why the tectonic plate shapes look like they are today and not differently ?

Why science come up with so radical theories (Big Bang, Pangaea, Black Holes, Etc. Etc.) ?
Why there is no gradual process ? Why there is no transformation and co-relations between
phenomenas ? Why the universe and earth a like, are made of isolated events, independently
from another (or attached only by a thin thread) ? Why theories are not based on Balance,
Imbalanced and adjustments ?

Answer to Halftruck (“What makes planets and moons spin?”) :
The magnetic circulation of each individual and Gravity (which is magnetic as well) of planets,
moons, sun, other stars, galaxy / ies, and other objects. The relations (very far reach magnetic
fields) of each individual object,
Are the major cause for orbits, movements and transformation of matter in the universe.

The ties are important as the characteristics of each phenomena, but once it’s isolated, rest
a sure it’s “shooting in the dark”. Since we did not decided yet if the universe is more magnetic
or electric - we have some homework to do here… What is for sure, is that it’s still a transparent
force / s acting behind the scene, that we translate to thousands of names and theories,
but actually it’s all based on some very basic building blocks and that’s were all the confusion
coming from (including Geology and Pangaea)…

Cheers

[Grey Cloud]

Rangerover777 wrote

Now, if there was Pangaea and if it was centered at the Southern pole, then :
1. What is the major force that split it and pushed it side wise ?
2. Why this one continent “gathered” itself centered around the Southern pole, in the first place ?
3. If it was in the Southern pole, why it’s still not there ?
4. How the ocean tides would look like ?
5. How the earth orbit around the sun would look like ? How the moon orbit would be ?
6. How the transformation of rocks, soil and minerals between the interior layers of
earth and earth's crust, would look like ?
7. Why the tectonic plate shapes look like they are today and not differently ?

That's exactly the sort of questions I ask myself.

Why science come up with so radical theories (Big Bang, Pangaea, Black Holes, Etc. Etc.) ?
Why there is no gradual process ? Why there is no transformation and co-relations between
phenomenas ? Why the universe and earth a like, are made of isolated events, independently
from another (or attached only by a thin thread) ? Why theories are not based on Balance,
Imbalanced and adjustments ?

Exactly. Why this hotch-potch of random and orderly; orderly and random? Why not view the Universe as a whole, holistic, organic or whatever label you want to use, and view the various parts and phenomena as parts or sub-sets or sub-systems of the larger system?

The ties are important as the characteristics of each phenomena, but once it’s isolated, rest a sure it’s “shooting in the dark”. Since we did not decided yet if the universe is more magnetic or electric - we have some homework to do here… What is for sure, is that it’s still a transparent force / s acting behind the scene, that we translate to thousands of names and theories, but actually it’s all based on some very basic building blocks and that’s were all the confusion coming from (including Geology and Pangaea)…

I agree again. The Universe is simple, it is us who are complicating things with all our academic subjects and disciplines (all of which think they are the most important) and the blizzard of theories, each with their own vocabulary.

[webolife]

OK... here's Earthsciencemajorman to the rescue...
Grey Cloud, I am a teacher... what do you have against "academics"? If by that you mean "academia" [as the PR arm of the so-called "scientific consensus"] then I get your drift and I agree somewhat, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!
PANGAEA --
First of all, Pangaea theory is supported largley by the 80% fit of the continents together, with about a 97% fit on either side of the Atlantic Ocean, when taking into acccount lower sea levels and the fit of the continental shelves versus present coastlines. It is more common suggested that Pangaea centered roughly on the equator, not the south pole. When the supercontinent was splitting, it was accompanied by worldwide meteoric activity, suggestive of all kinds of catastrophic astronomic activity well within the pervue of EU and PC musings.
CONTINENTAL DRIFT --
The splitting apart of the continents may have been itself the "balancing" of the earth's rotation you are looking for. The continental crust is thicker, but relatively less dense than the more abundant oceanic crust, so the earth is pretty balanced wherever the continents are located any way. In addition the lithosphere/crust is significantly less dense than the core and mantle of the earth, by seismic finding, so its contribution to any spin imbalance you may be concerned about is not very significant.
PLATE TECTONICS and SEISMIC ACTIVITY --
The lion's share [and she's a mighty big lion] of earthquake/volcanic/orogenic activity happens on plate boundaries, where one would expect.
Earthquakes not happening on those boundaries are due to a variety of other causes, such as the collapse of undergound caverns, the emptying of oil reservoirs, and also to undetermined sub-lithosphere processes... perhaps "hotspots" or maybe due to telluric currents...
EARTH SPIN --
The spin of the earth through space is much more affected by the gravitational effects of the moon and sun... regardless of your gravitational theory, these effects are real and cause significant wobble... it is appropriate to say that both the earth and moon rotate around the barycenter of the earth/moon system once each month.
MAGNETIC REVERSALS --
... are more supportable as local magnetic field phenomena than by geo-magnetic reversals of the so-called disk dynamo. I don't believe in the latter, for several reasons, one being that to work that out mathematically requires the use of imaginary numbers, which I don't buy.
But if reversals are happening they would have to be due to oscillations in the solar/cosmic electromagnetics, in my view.

[rangerover777]

Thanks Webolife for your input.

Sorry to answer the question you asked Grey Cloud (what do you have against "academics"?).
Maybe he will also have what to say.

First I want to point out that there are many good things about academics and science in general.
It provide wonderful observations of nature, it provoke thinking and creativity. In terms of technology
it is fascinating and sometimes undeliverable what machines / devices and technical advancement
were being achieved so far.

On the other hand you can view it as tower 2 miles in the sky, with weak foundations…
And why I’m saying that ? If you take academy and science as a whole, and look at it from an
objective point of view (say for instance you are not a human and you was born on one of
Sirius solar system planets). What you would see is a great confusion going on :
1. Too many names, terms, theories - that are actually reflection of a few building blocks that
are the roots for all the phenomenas we are witnessing.
2. Lack of integration between the different branches of academia and science.
3. Focusing on isolated events and phenomenas without “seeing the bigger picture”
4. When you say Plasma, 10 other people will understand it in 7 different ways, though the
discussion will continue without a hitch…
5. Science just jumped over the first building blocks without figure them out completely.
That happen during 1800 - 1900. Since then Atom is Atom, Electron is Electron - and
everybody are happy, ready to continue on… Show me one person that don’t know these
two things… But what if something went wrong back then ? What if we missed something
major ? Well, it’s too late - look how advanced we are - that’s the proof !!!
6. Instead of conducting researches and exploration of nature, science is inventing nature !!!
Or to be exact re-inventing nature. This not a joke. It’s done by “mass convincement” and
Propaganda - if everybody say there is a Black Hole and science already explained 80% of it, why
shouldn’t believe in that ? What left to understand, let’s just take this Black Hole, make
a few manipulations and come up with “Blue Holes”, “Red Cavities” and promote it…
7. Science have to follow nature laws, not the other way around. Nature is wise, integrated,
simple, elegant, supporting all it’s sides and it have a flow, natural flow. Nature is not
a bunch of terms, theories and names.

Well, looking down on earth, could be shocking…


Now back to Pangaea. The continents fit nicely, no doubt about that. But who said it was not
done by earth growing from the center - out ? Or maybe be chiefly by vertical forces, that can
cause lateral movement as well ?

About the meteorite rain that splits Pangaea.
I’m not saying that a meteorites did not hit Pangaea, but here come again the “Big Bang Syndrome”.
Why not a gradual process ? Why not a long term solution ? Why not focusing on explaining
gravity and jumping straight to Pangaea ? Why not researching what the Atom really is, and then
How Pangaea was born or split ?

The Mid Atlantic ridge was sunk in a catastrophic event approx. 10,000 BC. It’s not my invention,
just read 1,200 or so ancient stories, from cultures all around earth - about the great flood.
Or ask yourself, what does a mountain ridge along the bottom of the Atlantic ocean ?
It was not done by “Plate Tectonic” activity (side wise), but by some vertical force, very strong one.
One that can fracture the earth crust, create mountains, earthquakes and volcanoes.

If you said that the Lithosphere / crust is significantly less dense than the core and mantle of
the earth, then how they can snaps when earthquake occur ? If they are relatively soft, when
tension occur they suppose to adjust accordingly and not snaps… Or maybe earthquake is
a burst of gravity ?

As of today earth continents are spread in a relatively balanced way. Imagine the ramifications
of a grand continent at the equator ? It may sound fiction, but I believe nature balance itself all
the time, so why nature started in the first place with such a major imbalanced situation (Pangaea) ?

I have great doubts as to earth core theory. I believe it made of very dense matter, much denser then
science ever witness, definitely not molten iron… Gravity squeezed everything towards the center and
there is great pressure and heat going on there.

Cheers

[kevin]

Rangerover 777,
Your mention of gravity focussed to the centre of mass, surely this is not possible?
I woul;d respectfully suggest that gravity is at or near the surface, with a push in all directions , but a net downward push focussed near the surface.
If then that push in all directions alters because of influences on the source of the push out in universe, with localised greater force and weaker force of that push, then continents could sink , and seas could raise?
The main core of this planet may be a liquid, hydrogen must be favorite?
Then just think of the planets surface as a thick crust, pushed into a sphere by an omni present sea of aether.

I would suggest that there is a predominant flow of aether along an east/west direction, but many other flows exist due to the combined influences of the circulations of the flows around all of masses.
Those circulations will be akin to the cogs in a clockwork system, with each formed mass having a counter circulation direction in relation to its neighbour, very complicated when everything is in all directions about you the observer on just one formed mass.
Gravity will merely be a consequence of the electrical transfer across and circulating in this cauldren.

I was given a message about science and religion, "Forgive them, for they could not KNOW, time , as such as time is, what not ready, it is now"
Your posts are refreshing to read.
kevin

[Heftruck]

Answer to Heftruck (“What makes planets and moons spin?”) :
The magnetic circulation of each individual and Gravity (which is magnetic as well) of planets,
moons, sun, other stars, galaxy / ies, and other objects. The relations (very far reach magnetic
fields) of each individual object,
Are the major cause for orbits, movements and transformation of matter in the universe.

I'm not sure if I'm getting it right. I get the impression that you're using some kind of circular reasoning here. Are you suggesting the movement of celestial bodies has to do with what matter is rather than what it is doing?

I am probably mistaken. Could you or anyone else translate this piece of text to common English?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi people,

My problem with academics or ivory-towered academe is simple - money and Truth don't mix. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that science or technology has produced which has moved humanity forward.

Rangerover777 wrote:

Well, looking down on earth, could be shocking…

It's not shocking mate, it's depressing.

Anyway, never mind me - carry on.

[Grey Cloud]

There are some animated gifs showing the continents moving around, here
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/?C=M;O=D

[webolife]

Kevin said:
"Your mention of gravity focussed to the centre of mass, surely this is not possible?
I woul;d respectfully suggest that gravity is at or near the surface, with a push in all directions , but a net downward push focussed near the surface.
If then that push in all directions alters because of influences on the source of the push out in universe, with localised greater force and weaker force of that push, then continents could sink , and seas could raise?
The main core of this planet may be a liquid, hydrogen must be favorite?
Then just think of the planets surface as a thick crust, pushed into a sphere by an omni present sea of aether."

I suggest that not only our evidence of greater pressure and heat as we delve deeper into the crust, as well as evidence from volcanism, but also the very fact of increased water pressure with depth in the ocean are plenty of plain incontrovertible findings for gravitation having a barycenter... this is not a very contoversial statement... how we view the origin of gravity or its relation to electrostics is an independent issue; what we observe gravity doing is not controversial. By the way, I do see gravity as a function of the "external" field pushing "inward"... the virtual point at the center of this push is what is referred to as a centroid, or barycenter, or center of gravity

Rangerover said, of academics:
"1. Too many names, terms, theories - that are actually reflection of a few building blocks that
are the roots for all the phenomenas we are witnessing.
2. Lack of integration between the different branches of academia and science.
3. Focusing on isolated events and phenomenas without “seeing the bigger picture”
4. When you say Plasma, 10 other people will understand it in 7 different ways, though the
discussion will continue without a hitch…
5. Science just jumped over the first building blocks without figure them out completely.
That happen during 1800 - 1900. Since then Atom is Atom, Electron is Electron - and
everybody are happy, ready to continue on… Show me one person that don’t know these
two things… But what if something went wrong back then ? What if we missed something
major?"

I agree 100% .

Rangerover said:
"Now back to Pangaea. The continents fit nicely, no doubt about that. But who said it was not
done by earth growing from the center - out ? Or maybe be chiefly by vertical forces, that can
cause lateral movement as well ?

Continental drift/plate tectonics is a very elegant theory which explains virtually every geologic phenomenon happening on the surface of the earth: Volcanism,mountain building, earthquakes, seafloor spreading... The exact mechanism of continent drift is unknown, perhaps your view is the correct mechanism.

About the meteorite rain that splits Pangaea.
I’m not saying that a meteorites did not hit Pangaea, but here come again the “Big Bang Syndrome”.
Why not a gradual process ? Why not a long term solution ? Why not focusing on explaining
gravity and jumping straight to Pangaea ? Why not researching what the Atom really is, and then
How Pangaea was born or split ?

I didn't say the meteorites split Pangaea, per se, but it certainly is suggestive of catastrophic cosmic/astronomical electrical activity as a part of the process.

The Mid Atlantic ridge was sunk in a catastrophic event approx. 10,000 BC. It’s not my invention,
just read 1,200 or so ancient stories, from cultures all around earth - about the great flood.
Or ask yourself, what does a mountain ridge along the bottom of the Atlantic ocean ?
It was not done by “Plate Tectonic” activity (side wise), but by some vertical force, very strong one.
One that can fracture the earth crust, create mountains, earthquakes and volcanoes."

I agree... it is likely that the mechanism is a vertical process of some sort, but convection fits the bill as well.

"If you said that the Lithosphere / crust is significantly less dense than the core and mantle of
the earth, then how they can snaps when earthquake occur ? If they are relatively soft, when
tension occur they suppose to adjust accordingly and not snaps… Or maybe earthquake is
a burst of gravity ?

Less dense does not mean more soft. More brittle yes. Landslides are known to cause earthquakes, but earthquakes are also known to cause landslides... so gravity plays a part either way... but also electrical conductivity and telluric currents in the crust perhaps?

As of today earth continents are spread in a relatively balanced way. Imagine the ramifications
of a grand continent at the equator ? It may sound fiction, but I believe nature balance itself all
the time, so why nature started in the first place with such a major imbalanced situation (Pangaea) ?

As I said before, the crust, and particularly the continent crust, is less dense, much lighter than the rest of the earth...
angular momentum prevails... balance is not an issue.

I have great doubts as to earth core theory. I believe it made of very dense matter, much denser then
science ever witness, definitely not molten iron… Gravity squeezed everything towards the center and
there is great pressure and heat going on there."

That's the basic picture of the earth's core currently. Why isn't molten iron dense enough for you?

[kevin]

Weboflife, hello.
There will be a central point of reference, but not of gravity.
Wherever the surface is, is the surface, so wherever they dig down to, its the surface.
Water pressure is interesting, and I consider is due to compound push upon push.
That is the push of the aether trying to get to the surface ( we call bottom of sea )
interacting especially with the hydrogen part of water, basically clipping onto the water and forming compound gravity.
The pressure we call normal at sea level is still a compound of gravity as the aether also interacts with the atmosphere, the more water vapour , the more gravity, so it will feel heavy, as this mounts and mounts up, it will eventually overload and thus strike the earth as it tries to earth.
I consider that we are missing things that are right under our noses, litterally.

The heat build up in the crust will be because of resistance to the freeflow of the eather through the planet, and the volcano errupting will be due to the buildup of this potential of resistance, not pressure focussed from some central point.
if gravity was centred into this central point, it would surely implode, its nonesense.

The localised erruptions at volcanos will be in line with increased flows on the other side of the globe, litterally.
There will not be any force known as gravity, it will all be electrical as negative chases towards the turned opposite we call positive, the condition here upon the surface of this planet will create that level of gravity in conjunction with the height of the ionosphere.
The ionosphere will be a circulaing flow of positive spin space, the increase in created mass will be measurable as per what we call gravity, this constant inflow will result in constant creation , at the surface, and the surface is wherever it is, if thats under the sea or in a mine, its still the surface .
All my own little opinion of course.
Kevin