Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:28 pm

* At http://kronia.com/thoth/thoth04.txt Thornhill said 12 years ago the following:
March 2, 1997 issue of THOTH - A Catastrophics Newsletter -
CRATORS: IMPACT OR DISCHARGE............................Wal Thornhill
... I have absolutely nothing against impact cratering. I would expect that almost all non-circular craters, that are not comprised of near co-incident circular craters, are caused that way - and maybe even a few circular ones too. Something less than 1% of the craters on the Moon, I would guess. - Wal Thornhill

* It's possible he's changed his mind by now, but, if so, I'd like to see a quote to that effect.
* Steve says:
If you get a piece of paper and tear a jagged strip out of it -- say about two inches wide -- the two edges of the torn sheet will fit back together as if they were once a smaller piece of paper.

* If you have a piece of paper and put a bunch of randomly placed geometric figures of various sizes on it and you then cut out a one or two inch swath from the middle and try to put the remaining pieces together to close the gap, it's highly unlikely that the figures remaining will then match. It's similar if you print a lot of text from an article on a page and cut out a swath. The remaining text is almost guaranteed to have a lot of incomplete words and sentences.
* So, if you find two pieces of paper setting a few inches apart with text or figures on them, and you put them together and the figures or text match up perfectly, it's almost certain that the two pieces of paper were initially intact, but were then split and separated. If you find two pieces of paper a few inches apart and they don't match when placed together, it's likely that they were never adjoined. And you may be able to determine how big a swath was removed by analyzing the figures or text.
* I see no flaws in my reasoning here, so, please explain the flaws to me, if you see them.
* Now here are some links to images that strongly suggest that some of the continents were once adjoined.
Cratons
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/2717/S279_1_003i.jpg
Fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snider-Pellegrini_Wegener_fossil_map.gif
Glaciation [or something resembling it]
http://blue.utb.edu/paullgj/physci1417/Lectures/Gondwanaland_Glaciations.JPG
Mountain ranges
http://www.lee.edu/~cguldenzopf/Images/Historical/Historicalmw32.jpg
Coal, fossils, glaciation
http://quakeinfo.ucsd.edu/~gabi/sio15/supps/cdrift.gif
Rock types, fossils, mountains etc
http://maps.unomaha.edu/maher/plate/week1/Taylor.jpeg
* Since another one of our TB experts on Nov. 15, 2007, when asked about how well the rock and fossil types all the way up and down the opposite shores of the Atlantic match up, said "They match very well", I think it's reasonable to suppose that they do match, just as the above images also suggest, and, therefore, it's extremely likely that those continents were once adjoined.
* If the Atlantic basin was scooped out and the continents never moved, the rock and fossil types etc on opposite shores wouldn't match up well at all.
* Your gripe about some of us "unnecessarily" calling on other forces besides electrical forces to shape the Earth seems illogical, because I don't think any event on Earth can involve just one type of force.
* The rift and transverse faults in the mid-Atlantic ridge don't appear to me to have involved primarily electrical forces, because I haven't seen images of anything else that looks like that, that's known to have been formed electrically. The newgeology.us site, on the other hand, shows an illustration of an experiment involving paraffin, which apparently is able to produce such a rift with transverse "faults". See http://www.newgeology.us/Paraffin.jpg on this page: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation44.html.
* Thanks for your comments, but I hope you folks won't regard me as an enemy. You don't want me to be silent about things I don't understand in your theories, do you? And do you not want me to share what seems like breakthrough information?
* I first read Worlds in Collision, Earth in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos in 1969 and I subscribed to Pensee' and Kronos magazines after that and some of Aeon and Catastrophism and Ancient History later and then Thoth online and so on. So I've been reading and thinking about these things for a long time. And I've adjusted my ideas to fit the new findings that our experts kept uncovering. I'm not one to adhere to ideas that are unrealistic or have fatal flaws. Just explain the flaws to me, and I'll change my mind. But I won't change it without first hearing good explanations.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Magnetic Striping & Moho

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:16 pm

* NewGeology also disputes the conventional view on magnetic striping. It postulates that changing magnetism was caused by stresses involved in mountain building at the beginning and ending of the continental movements.
* On this page, http://newgeology.us/presentation25.html, 3/4ths of the way down, under "The Shock Dynamics correlation" it says:
- Fracturing of quartz and igneous rock produces electromagnetic emissions in the lab and has been associated with earthquakes. The range of emitted frequencies is broad, and includes ultra-low. Rock fracturing during the lateral crush of rapid mountain building throughout the Shock Dynamics event would have been on a colossal scale. The consequent electromagnetic activity may have been sufficient to perturb the global magnetic field (Fraser-Smith, 1990; Freund, 2002; Takeuchi, 2002; Yoshida, 2004).
- Whether the cause was compression of the crust while raising thousands of miles of mountain chains in a matter of hours, or jolts transferred from the lithosphere to the core, or some other effect as yet unknown (and too large for man to experiment with) that shook the geomagnetic field, the correlation of the Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale with Shock Dynamics mountain building is intriguing.
- Another phenomenon should be noted in passing. "It has long been known that volcanic eruptions can produce vigorous lightning."

* Thanks DZ for the link to the Moho info from Peter James' article. I believe James is a long-time catastrophist. His info indicating that the Moho is electrified plasma seems to be along the lines I was imagining for how the continents could slide.
http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php?action=download&id=6
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Earthquakes Can Heal Faults?

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:31 pm

* Here's a little something else to consider with regard to tectonic activity. Had you ever thought that earthquakes cause faults, rather than faults causing earthquakes? Fred said I could post this.
INNOVATIVE NOTEBOOK: Moon over Miasma
... Just around a Full Moon and again around a New Moon funny things seem to occur.
- But not all tectonic activity takes place in fault zones. There are some 30-40 tectonic plates shattering Earth’s crust, with the Hawaiian Islands sitting in the middle of the Pacific plate and Charleston, South Carolina, perched on the North American plate, where no so-called fault zones are in evidence. Yet these two have had their share of seismic shivers.
Georgia Tech seismologist Leland T. Long had take the unconventional view that faults don’t cause earth¬quakes, but that earthquakes cause faults. Because such anomalous zones appear to be fault-free, Long’s model looks somewhat deeper where subcrustal magma movement manifests hydraulic and thermal disturbances in the crust it¬self, creating stresses that are relieved when the more rigid crust ruptures.
- Faults denote zones of weakness that, according to Long, can actually disappear after a quake, leaving only healed scars for geologists to interpret. Where shallow quakes might be attributed to hydrostatic pressure on water-porous crustal structures, deep quakes denote a more serious hydraulic movement, which brings us to the thrust of this essay’s argument.
- There has to be an underlying mechanism for crustal movement and tectonic plate formation, for only Earth among the terrestrial planets shows evidence of such plate movement. Only Earth among the terrestrial planets has a major satellite of significant size and mass.
- The Earth-Moon binary in and of itself is a dynamic planetary system. This system is in a somewhat elliptical orbit about the Sun, each rotating on separate axes, and each revolving around a mutual center of gravity, the barycenter, located some 1600 km beneath Earth’s surface.
- The Moon, as we all know, rotates on its axis once each month, always showing the same face toward Earth, although nodding libration gives us a view of little more than half of its surface as it rocks back and forth and up and down. The Moon also orbits Earth at some 18 degrees to our equator, so that at one time or another it hovers over a 36-degree spread of Earth’s surface.
- Meanwhile, Earth rotates on its own axis, so that every day the Moon appears to an observer to have moved some 13 degrees toward the east. So, each month the Moon returns to the same general area of the sky, although at a higher or lower celestial latitude. Moreover, the lunar orbit is slightly elliptical, bringing it closer to Earth during part of its monthly excursion.
What this means is that the position of the barycen¬ter of the Earth-Moon system is constantly changing, and virtually describing a sort-of hollow barrel-shaped cylinder some 9400 km in diameter within the body of Earth itself.. This cylindrical figure would also have about a 600 km wall thickness, another virtual effect due to the Moon approaching toward and receding from Earth it its orbital ellipse.
- Viewed from above in space, the revolution of the Earth-Moon system about this barycenter and both being in orbit about the Sun would appear somewhat similar to the movement of a reflector on the spokes of a bicycle. Such a reflector seems to bounce along the ground in a scalloped pattern, with the concave part of the curved figure facing the ground. In like manner, the Earth-Moon barycenter would form scallops to the observer in space with the con¬cave parts facing the Sun.
- But the image of a bicycle wheel is two dimensional, while the Earth-Moon system has a three-dimensional barycenter, which varies from about 1400 to some 2000 km below Earth’s surface, as well as ±18 degrees, in effect sweeping out a cylindrical-wall volume of this barrel of about 34 billion cubic kilometers.
- This shifting center of gravity therefore acts as a massive inertial pump. slowly driving Earth’s internal magmatic strata and setting tectonic plates into motion. Its depth approaches the fluid interface with the asthenosphere.
- So, as long as we have the Moon as a satellite, we will be living on the surface of a dynamic subsystem, and will continue to have earthquakes in all the usual areas for such things, as well as in the most unlikely places. ...
© 1990 by Frederic B. Jueneman
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby StefanR » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:47 am

Steve Smith wrote:Electrical banana
is bound to be a sudden craze.
Electrical banana
is bound to be the very next phase.
--- Donovan Lietch

I've heard of those tectonic bananas before. Extremely powerful holding forces.


Love the poem 8-)

Personally I liked the idea of Tectonics being compared to black hole cosmology, like this guy does. :lol:
Do you think, Steve, it is a workable idea, the tectonic bananas? It does destroy the whole concept of continents racing around the planet, but it gives some nice possibilities in return.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:01 pm

DZ,
The link you suggested offers a view similar to mine.
I'm still looking for an EDM explanation.
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: 2532
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby allynh » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:38 pm

Wow, you guys have been really busy since I last posted. I'm falling farther behind each day. There is a definite banana gap forming.

I found some basic sites discussing the concepts of how the fossil and geological evidence was used to show how the continents matched up. Hopefully this will get you guys started on the concepts of how the various plates seem to match up; not just as puzzle pieces that "fit", but the "picture" on the puzzle as well.

This is the USGS book, The Dynamic Earth. They have a PDF version for download of the entire site, plus links to interactive maps.

This Dynamic Planet: World Map of Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Impact Craters, and Plate Tectonics and the interactive version of the map.

Then there is THIS DYNAMIC PLANET: A TEACHING COMPANION that has links to maps and Plate Tectonics in a Nutshell and Wegener's Puzzling Evidence Exercise (6th Grade).

BTW, if anybody finds maps showing uplift or subsidence of regions let me know. Stuff like this is mentioned in the book Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky, by Charles Ginenthal, they talk about mountain building. Around page 125-126 they mention Darwin's observations about the Andes, how he found what looks like a brand new coastline. The comments in the Sagan/Velikovsky make me want to add that kind of data to any model I make.

Thanks...
allynh
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:57 pm

* I'll try to check out your links before long, Allyn.
* Stefan said:
Personally I liked the idea of Tectonics being compared to black hole cosmology, like this guy does. :lol:
Do you think, Steve, it is a workable idea, the tectonic bananas? It does destroy the whole concept of continents racing around the planet, but it gives some nice possibilities in return.

* It's not helpful to insult people's intelligence. What's helpful is explaining what the flaws are in the reasoning that, since the continents' shapes and the rock types etc in them match up extremely well, they surely must once have been adjoining.
* I saw the banana theory on this forum probably over a year ago and I think it seemed flawed at that time, but I don't remember why yet and haven't had time yet to analyze your post on it or read the links.
* Well, I just looked over the banana theory and I can't make sense of it. Unless you provide a link to a sensible theory, I suspect that you're just trying to disrupt serious discussion here and you're anti-scientific.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby StefanR » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:09 pm

Lloyd wrote:
Personally I liked the idea of Tectonics being compared to black hole cosmology, like this guy does. :lol:
Do you think, Steve, it is a workable idea, the tectonic bananas? It does destroy the whole concept of continents racing around the planet, but it gives some nice possibilities in return.

* It's not helpful to insult people's intelligence. What's helpful is explaining what the flaws are in the reasoning that, since the continents' shapes and the rock types etc in them match up extremely well, they surely must once have been adjoining.
* I saw the banana theory on this forum probably over a year ago and I think it seemed flawed at that time, but I don't remember why yet and haven't had time yet to analyze your post on it or read the links.
* Well, I just looked over the banana theory and I can't make sense of it. Unless you provide a link to a sensible theory, I suspect that you're just trying to disrupt serious discussion here and you're anti-scientific.


*It is not me who is insulting or should I say, it is not helpful for people's intelligence to feel insulted by something. ;) Please do explain were you feel insulted, maybe I don't see the insult through the language barrier, and I'll be willing to apologize.
*I'm sorry you could not make sense out of it. But is that my fault?
*I do feel glad you took some time to check it out. Maybe you could have seen that no theory is offered there. So how will it be a sensible theory?
*As a last point, if you think I'm disrupting serious discussion here, no problem, please do continue, I will refrain from interrupting. And allthough I'm not at all offended, I do think you're going on a slippery road calling me something like anti-scientific. :lol:
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:34 pm

* Stefan, I could try to explain why you're comment sounded insulting, but if you seriously didn't intend any insults, I won't press charges. Since your banana thing now apparently wasn't serious, it's sometimes hard to tell when you are serious.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:40 pm

Personally I found this link from Dahlenaz insulting to my intelligence:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view3.html :roll:
I'll admit I didn't read the 'science' parts but only the parts about Noah's Ark and the time of Peleg. They were so poor, they didn't even have any comedy value.

I also think the guy with the fruit and veg site raises some interesting points. Not least because he does away with nomadic continents. Have lithosphere, will travel?
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: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:29 pm

* I'm sorry I got the insulting of intelligences idea started. Let's not be insulted and just have friendly discussion.
* The creation science link says this about magnetic striping:
... The so-called reversals are simply regions of lower magnetic intensity. ... There are no magnetic reversals on the ocean floor, and no compass would reverse direction if brought near an alleged reversed band. However, as one moves across the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, magnetic intensities fluctuate, as shown in Figure 47. Someone merely drew a line through these fluctuations and labeled everything below this average intensity as a “reversal.” The false but widespread impression exists that these slight deviations below the average represent a reversed magnetic field millions of years ago.

* Is that passage correct? It seems that it probably is. If not, what's not correct about it?
* The article goes on:
The hydroplate theory offers an explanation for these magnetic anomalies. On the continents, rapid but limited changes in earth’s magnetic field have occurred. Lava cools at known rates, from the outside of the flow toward its center. Magnetic particles floating in lava align themselves with the earth’s magnetic field. When the lava cools and solidifies, that orientation becomes fixed. Knowing this cooling rate and measuring the changing direction of the magnetic fields within several solidified lava flows, we can see that at one time the orientation of the earth’s magnetic field changed rapidly—by up to 6 degrees per day for several days.11

* I don't understand that passage well. Is it saying the seafloor magnetic "striping" indicates a changing orientation of the Earth's magnetic field? I don't understand how the stripes can be both a variation in magnetic field intensity and magnetic field orientation.
* I quoted the Shock Dynamics theory about magnetic striping a few posts back. It suggests that mountain building was responsible for the variations in the magnetism, due to extreme piezoelectric effects, severe lightning etc, which, if great enough, might effect Earth's magnetic field intensity.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby StefanR » Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:43 am

Lloyd wrote:* Stefan, I could try to explain why you're comment sounded insulting, but if you seriously didn't intend any insults, I won't press charges. Since your banana thing now apparently wasn't serious, it's sometimes hard to tell when you are serious.


*I don't wish to derail this thread, but you still have to explain were the insult lies, please.
*And although I do not intend to insult, I'm very serious about what you call my banana 'thing' (why so rude?). To make things clear it is not my thing, and I bring it here for people to have a chance to have a look at as it conforms in its subject to the subject of the thread. As to what one does or is able to do with the information is out of my hands.
*The fact that it doesn't conform to the general idea of presentation, doesn't make it not serious. Maybe you should ask yourself why it is done this way, maybe there is more intelligence needed to make it that way than meets the eye.
*Did you notice that it doesn't talk in the standard vocabulary of geology at all, and still manages to bring across an idea concerning geology.
*Did you notice that that site has no book to sell or t-shirts to give away? It merely wants to make you think for yourself, without badgering one with concepts and ideas which might be part of the swindle pointed at by the banana-man.
*Did you notice that Thunderbolts points to a similar kind of swindle in cosmology. Did you notice that the same swindle is present in the Global Warming Cult? Did you notice the swindle present in economics? There are more swindles in science and culture and religion, it seems to be a human way of dealing with things. What makes Geology exempt from that? Nothing. Just as the Banana site says: bluf + fraud = swindle.
*If seeing that something is a swindle, why would one go build a new 'theory' on the basis of the bluf or the fraud? It doesn't get one one iota further.
*If you have questions about it, ask them, and I'll try to give my opinion. But as it is not my site and I have no book to sell, I'm not going to 'defend' it as a mine.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:15 am

* I was not rude by calling them banana things. I didn't see a term used in your excerpt to describe them, other than banana. So I said banana thing, so readers wouldn't think I was talking about normal bananas.
* All I got out of the excerpt and the site was that there are supposedly banana things, cucumber things and pumpkin things in many places in the crust of the Earth, that the bananas are strong, the cucumbers are weak and I didn't notice a description of the pumpkins.
* To me the excerpt and the site are both very incoherent and seem to completely lack references to any sources.
* If you're able to comprehend anything on the site that's relevant to Shock Dynamics, why not explain it to us in terms we might understand?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:38 am

* Steve may have given up trying to explain how electrical forces may have carved out the Atlantic, rather than the continents having been moved apart to open up the Atlantic. But I'm still open to any attempted explanations. I managed to find the following by accident at
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotIV07.txt
Instead of moving the Americas, we can leave them be. A "thunderbolt"--an interplanetary electrical discharge--just a bit more energetic than that alleged to have machined Valles Marineris out of Mars' surface, arcs along the Earth from pole to pole. It blasts out and lifts large chunks of lithosphere along each side of the more sinuous central channel. It melts the bottom and leaves stripes of reversed magnetism every time the oscillations in the discharge channel reverse polarity. The pinching of the discharge channel [not the Atlantic ocean channel - Lloyd] confines the excavation to a parallel-sided gouge in the Earth that afterward fills with water.

* That doesn't answer the question, though, of how the continents match up so well in several ways on opposite shores of the Atlantic.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Steve Smith » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:31 pm

I've written plenty. It's up to you now.
Steve Smith
Guest
 

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests