1. All of the studies prior to 1970-ish are based on comparatively very little data, so a strong case cannot be made either way from that information.
This is indeed correct Plate Tectonics was based on very little data, yet it steamrollered all opposition. Data published since the late 1960’s does not support continental drift or Plate Tectonics this includes a wealth of data from various oceanic drilling expeditions. Recently published data question India’s excursion from the imaginary Gondwanaland to its current location (https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot ... 5IKVbae.97
). Cartoons and CGI may reinforce the Plate Tectonic paradigm but they do not match reality.
I'm skeptical of the hollow earth hypothesis, as it explains far less about the rotation and revolution of the earth known from Newtonian mechanics, let alone having verification in seismology. Electrically driven surface gravitational variations should be much less "stable" than what is observed. On the other hand if electricity and gravitation are of the same [unified] origin, then we have a larger dilemma: the current state of affairs in the local universe is quite stable, so how can the plasma "machine" account for that? Clumsy wording... ie. how can a process which is by its
fundamental description highly variable account for the observed "stability" of the Earth and solar system?
Lamprecht’s model of a hollow Earth explicitly accounts for seismic data. Such a model is simpler than the standard crusty-mushy-liquid-solid interpretation which is still not settled. (See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2015/07 ... ging-moon/
and https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2015/07 ... wet-earth/
for consideration). Measurements of the gravitational constant on the Earth’s surface are far from ‘constant’ let alone stable. Evidence of an increase in G would support what I have suggested based on Wal Thornhill’s proposal (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... s-serious/
). Big Science resorts to ‘dark forces’ as usual but the inability to pin down a value of G coupled with the Earth’s increasing orbital radius and lengthening day point to, in this model, an ongoing electrical adjustment. Again, Wal Thornhill has accounted for the electrical ‘stability’ of the solar system which left to gravitation alone is chaotic (gravitation as understood by mainstream science).
In my opinion most of Earth’s adjustment to its environment occurred during a cataclysmic period one involving other solar system bodies and certainly the capture of the Moon. The ‘stability’ we see today is due to a more leisurely discharge rather than a catastrophic one.
seasmith wrote:What do you all think of the recurring thesis that most of the catastrophic disruption had occurred over the eastern hemisphere (Atlantic and Indian ocean basins generally), while the Pacific basin has remained relatively pacific?
The now fairly intact Pacific 'plate' surrounded by its "ring of fire", and the mid-ocean split right down the middle of the Atlantic basin could support this theory.
Fracture zones ~orthogonal to the Atlantic and Red Sea rifts, like the Himalayas and the Wallace Line (Sunda Shelf) are said to result from the spreading eastern hemisphere crustal ~slabs rotating up against the more stable Pacific crust.
After a lot of heaving and buckling, Earth's rotational forces have since then reestablished the basic spherical shape (like a glassblower spinning a round bowl).
If i'm remembering the main bits correctly.
I kinda go along with that... Another idea that has popped up a time or two: an impact in the Pacific basin somewhere creating the mantle hotspot that generates the Hawaiian Islands, also conducting a shock wave around or through the globe that "collided" and started the fracture in the center of the continental mass there... the rift that became the Mid-Atlantic Rift. Not my favorite theory, but it has some merits.
As I pointed out the Earth displays a hemispheric dichotomy, I suggest this dichotomy is a feature from the Earth’s formation and has not arisen by any other process, such lowland features are found on Mars, Mercury and the Moon bodies where Plate Tectonics has not occurred.
moses wrote:<(However, how would this differ in the case of an EDM gouged ocean?)
What does the EDM model account for that less exotic more evidencial models do not? webo>
Initially we would have the flat Earth (no mountains or oceans), and a 4 prong Birkeland Current went through and around Earth. Thus forming the Atlantic Ocean in particular.
Creatures might well have lived where the Atlantic Ocean is now. So some creatures might have lived on both sides of this area, as well. Explaining what happened as each EDM event cut out material from where the ocean is now, is complex. Certain areas seem to have missed some episodes of laminated deposition, and consequently many creatures might have survived in such areas. Also many creatures might survive such a deposition that would initially be quite wet.
The oceans have edges that very much suggest EDM. The Mid Atlantic Ridge beautifully fits the idea of a current passing upwards both raising the ridge and producing the volcanoes. This theory deserves attention.
I have suggested that Earth’s present continental distribution is a relic of a former hemispheric continent, the ‘lowland’ being the location of a hemispheric ocean. Being at equilibrium with its former environment Earth was geologically quiet. A ‘recent’ cataclysm has altered the pre-existing hemispheric arrangement. Large areas of the former continental landmass subsided, given what we know form superdeep drilling projects as the subsidence occurred large amounts of saline water were expelled from the upper crust. As I consider that the Atlantic and Indian Oceans formed in this manner then the mid-ocean ridges (MOR) found in these oceans may well have been initiated during a planetary scale discharge, perhaps the area resembled the Great Rift Valley of Africa and was susceptible to subsidence, all that was needed was an abrupt end to aeons of stability.
Hydrothermal Vents (HV) associated with MOR display abundant quantities of methane and ammonia, in my opinion these gases originate deep within the Earth- could they have been trapped in the cavity during the process that formed Earth itself? Did Earth’s nitrogen atmosphere originate from within?
Today, along with methane and ammonia issuing from HV we find water too, as Earth is losing material from its upper atmosphere as part of an electrical circuit we can consider MOR and associated HV as ‘charge channels’ from which material deep within the Earth ultimately participates in the global discharge.