Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Hundreds of TPODs have been published since the summer of 2004. In particular, we invite discussion of present and recent TPODs, perhaps with additional links to earlier TPOD pages. Suggestions for future pages will be welcome. Effective TPOD drafts will be MORE than welcome and could be your opportunity to become a more active part of the Thunderbolts team.
User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by Brigit » Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:34 am

Original Post June 8, 2012
David Pratt’s publication in the year 2000 enumerates multiple problems affecting the theory of plate tectonics and seafloor spreading.
I am once again filled with appreciation for Stephen Smith's wide reading, analysis, summaries, and Electric Universe perspective offered for comparison at the end of each POTD.

Here he is suggesting that since the seafloors don't spread and the continents don't move about on the oceanic crust,

then the mountains were not simply "folded up" on the leading edge of the N and S American continent, nor simply the result of volcanism via subduction. I am aware of some of the theories re mountain formation of other EU contributors, but I would like to locate and put together Steve Smith's own personal research and statements on the subject.

What is interesting is that in Earth in Upheaval, Velikovsky assumes continental drift.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

moses
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by moses » Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:04 am

I am happy to read that Stephen Smith has come out against Plate Tectonics. I concluded this years ago, along with another Earth scientist on this forum. The Atlantic ocean was formed by a Birkeland Current that went basically north-south and the mid Atlantic ridge is one result of that, a theory that Steve Smith proposed on this forum also years ago.

However I think that the mountains of the Rockies and Andes were formed by one part of the crust crashing into another part. The exotic terranes of Alaska testify to the exotic formation of all sediment on Earth and certainly not slow. It indicates that Alaska was the north pole and the north (or south) magnetic pole during the formation of the sediment (and the formation of the Atlantic Ocean).

So our thinking is very similar except for that Saturn System stuff.
Mo

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by Brigit » Fri Jun 25, 2021 7:21 pm

by moses » Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:04 pm

"I am happy to read that Stephen Smith has come out against Plate Tectonics. I concluded this years ago, along with another Earth scientist on this forum. The Atlantic ocean was formed by a Birkeland Current that went basically north-south and the mid Atlantic ridge is one result of that, a theory that Steve Smith proposed on this forum also years ago."

Sorry for the delay moses. You're just the man I want to see about this then! With your history here perhaps we can find a few additional clues about the most important features of electrical scarring on the earth's surface -- in particular, according to Stephen Smith.

I have been reading the published works of Thunderbolts Project for over a decade, and while it has grown to be quite voluminous over the years, I still believe there are some missing pieces to be found regarding Stephen Smith's personal ideas about the mid-ocean ridges, and mountain formation.

I do remember he used to visit the forum sometimes! And I also remember he once began to post about the mid-ocean ridges. But we weren't that receptive. ): (I think I was even working in the direction of the expanding earth at the time, which obviously requires sea floor spreading and plate tectonics, so that was a missed opportunity.)

I really want to retrieve what he said on the forum. If I can get signed in to the original forum (good luck! ha), I can pull up every one of his posts, and we can cobble something together.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by Brigit » Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:12 pm

moses says, "However I think that the mountains of the Rockies and Andes were formed by one part of the crust crashing into another part."

How good of you to start off in my hemisphere mo. (:

The Rockies are a bit inland, so the leading edge of the North American continent that corresponds with the Andes in South America are actually the Cascades.

Now just to fire a few shots in that general direction, there are some problems with the idea that the Cascades simply buckled up like bolts of cloth as the continent slid merrily along.

One. The little ranges all up and down the coast of Oregon, and some in Washington, actually do not run north to south like the Cascades. Many of them run east-west. A small but bedeviling detail.

Two. The ranges that make up the Cascade Mountains have distinctly dendritic forms along their summits, running in all directions.

Three. The geophysical oddity of mountains running north-south across two continents would seem to militate that they were pushed up by the slow movement of the plate boundaries along the subducting ocean floor. --And it is true that the active volcanoes in those ranges also adds to the circumstantial evidence for subduction underneath those ranges. The heat and pressure of tectonic plates moving allows the molten rock to express itself volcanically above those zones. However, the space age has brought us many more cute little planets, moons and minor planets to look at, and a small minority of these have equatorial ridges which span the entire diameter of the moons. This raises the question, "Can the earth have had, at the time of its electrical formation, an equatorial ridge of its own?"

A few nerf balls across the bow for now.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

moses
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by moses » Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:16 am

Hi Brigit,
I have a very dim recollection of a discussion about mid-ocean ridges. Clearly these ridges agree with the raised section in the middle of craters being due to electrical discharge that travels in a spiral direction consistent with it being a Birkeland Current that produced these ridges.

As regards mountain formation one has to consider what retarded one section of the crust so that an adjacent section would run into it. So a meteorite won't do it, neither will a flood, in my view it must have been electrical interaction from a nearby planet or moon. And we recently had those explanations from Andy Hall about the electrical effects on the mountains. We just need to add in a retardation action of these electrical interactions and plus an uplifting effect.

Of course I could have mentioned the East coast mountains of Australia or New Zealand or other places. But there are complications here whereas the Americas and the Atlantic Ocean depict the situation clearly.

On equatorial ridges I can think of two ways they formed. One, a fly-by by a moon or planet and the associated electrical discharge to the rotating moon lifted up a circular section, or two, the moon had one hemisphere always facing a moon of planet and the electrical discharge eroded one hemisphere and then the moon flipped and the other hemisphere was eroded.

Thanks for your enquiry into these issues.
Mo

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by Brigit » Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:45 am

I made an attempt at signing in to thunderbolts forum 2.0 but did not succeed. I completely lost my nerve when thinking of a second try. Too risky; I may get locked out of both.

mo says, "I have a very dim recollection of a discussion about mid-ocean ridges. Clearly these ridges agree with the raised section in the middle of craters being due to electrical discharge that travels in a spiral direction consistent with it being a Birkeland Current that produced these ridges."

That is the conversation with S Smith I would like to locate! And yes, I would say a very strong case for electrical scarring can be made for the mid-ocean ridges. In fact, I believe there is no contest. It is electrical scarring.

This will eventually lead to discussions about 1. the means of formation and
2. the original, primal form of the earth. That is,
  • if we begin by assuming the ocean basins and continents were primeval geological features imparted at the time of the electrical birth of the new earth,
  • than which global electrical scarring occurred in later epochs?
Of course, it is possible that the mid-ocean ridges were formed at the same time the earth was formed. However, for the sake of advancing arguments, a provisional assumption of the later timing of the formation of the mid-ocean ridges will be helpful. In that case, I would just make clear that we have taken the ocean basins and continents in their present location as a starting point, rather than using a super-continent/Pangea starting point.

It is a perfectly reasonable alternative. After all, in either case you have the hemispheric differences, as well as the stark and abrupt changes in elevation. (Electrical theorists have so often pointed out that these differences in hemispheric elevation are a common feature of electrical excavation and deposition, on a global scale -- as seen on Mars for example.) There is no reason to favor a supercontinent as a starting point. Nearly everything may be assumed to have formed right where it is now.

And in the end, there is some extraordinary evidence for the mid-ocean ridges having been formed after the earth had aged and cooled a bit.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

moses
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by moses » Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:39 am

Hi Brigit,
Yes it gets interesting when one wonders how the Atlantic Ocean formed by means of a Birkeland Current travelling basically North - South. The material that was where the ocean is now was likely lifted up and then most of it formed a laminated flow that deposited on other areas of Earth. But some of this material would have escaped Earth and the asteroids look a very likely candidate for this escaped material.

Then there is the question of what planetary configuration could have produced the proposed Birkeland Current. So was it an electric current from the Sun with the North Pole of Earth pointing at the Sun. Or was it some stable planetary configuration that promoted such a Birkeland Current or was there many instances of such currents.

Personally the asteroids are just too likely plus we are harvesting material from some asteroids and if this material suggests that some of the asteroids came from Earth then it would be wise to consider now the theory on how this happened. This would be a great promotion of EU.

Of course I have expanded on all this previously on this forum as well as the possible orbit of Earth as it travelled from out where the asteroids are now to it's present position in a very elliptical orbit which would have caused the ice ages. However I would be happy to go through all this step by step. The simple observation that the mid-ocean ridges are like the centre of craters can take us far.

Mo

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by Brigit » Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:57 am

by moses » Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:39 pm

Hi Brigit,
Yes it gets interesting when one wonders how the Atlantic Ocean formed by means of a Birkeland Current travelling basically North - South. The material that was where the ocean is now was likely lifted up and then most of it formed a laminated flow that deposited on other areas of Earth. But some of this material would have escaped Earth and the asteroids look a very likely candidate for this escaped material.


Yes that gets interesting indeed.

I think that the electrical deposition of the continents is one possibility. For further information about the electrical deposition of vast amounts of material from one hemisphere to another, readers can search for EU publications on the electrical scarring of Mars. And it is not a solitary example electrical deposition in the solar system either. (Please excuse me for not leaving links at this time.)

But there is a more fundamental question, and that is, "What was the original structure of the earth after it was compressed in an electrical z-pinch?" There are various ways of answering this question from an Electric Universe perspective. We would first look at the younger moons and planets in the solar system, and also we would utilize results from the lab.

We would first make clear that in the Electric Universe, new planets and moons, having been formed in an electrical z-pinch, are not just lava bombs. In fact, the surface temperatures in a newly electrically formed planet or moon will not even reach the melting points of most minerals. The surface could be quite cool. And the form of the planet or moon will be reliably spherical, though sometimes hollow.

Having established some idea of the structure of the newly formed earth, we would be able to discuss the subsequent electrical scarring, such as the mountains, rivers, and the mid-ocean ridges. But the available evidence we have, as already mentioned, does not allow us to start with a perfect sphere, either.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

moses
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by moses » Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:01 am

"What was the original structure of the earth after it was compressed in an electrical z-pinch?" Brigit

I guess in terms of plate tectonics this question becomes was there a crust when Earth originally formed. If the crust built up over billions of years then plate formation becomes more understandable. Electrical or gravitational stresses cracked the crust.

However theory of planetary formation has dim significance compared with a recent electrical ocean formation. Even in terms of plate tectonics, for whatever caused the oceans to form may also have cracked the crust.

Mo

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by Brigit » Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:14 am

by moses » Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:01 pm

"What was the original structure of the earth after it was compressed in an electrical z-pinch?" Brigit

I guess in terms of plate tectonics this question becomes was there a crust when Earth originally formed. If the crust built up over billions of years then plate formation becomes more understandable. Electrical or gravitational stresses cracked the crust. Mo


Love your comment -- let's say we started a flow chart and we wanted to include everyone on the forum in its design. We would start at the very top with the compression of a powerful z-pinch which rapidly formed the earth.

One answer would have the earth electrically formed from interstellar dust, one answer would have the earth electrically formed in the interior of another celestial body, and one answer would be "neither".

How many people here would take a left, how many would take a right, and how many would go down the middle, in the flow chart, at the top?

Oh great, now I am really curious.

We would then proceed with choices which included plate tectonics, or a mobile crust, or another option. And that is that no, there are no mobile pieces of earth drifting over lower layers. Our expanding earth team and broken crust team would have moving continents, but no subduction; our lyellian friends would have plate movement with subduction; but a tiny minority, which may even include Stephen Smith, would proceed on another course, with no assumptions about any crustal side-to-side movement at all. Rather, the surface of the earth would be fixed.

moses
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by moses » Mon Jul 26, 2021 1:55 am

Hi again Brigit.
We have the crust sliding over the inner part of the Earth due to evidence that the pole of the Earth moved. That is the axis of the Earth is now in the arctic and points to somewhere in the sky but in the past the axis was in Canada or Alaska and pointed to somewhere else. The energy involved in such a shift would have been unimaginable unless the crust slid.

Another point is crustal plates being blocks that are separate from each other. One can theorise that electrical forces produced the cracks of separation rather than electrical forces causing the crust to slide and this sliding cracked the crust. So still a matter of whether there was a poleshift.

On the issue of first formation, geodes have a crust which is not built up over time by cosmic dust accumulation so the Earth may well have been formed in a similar manner. Other planets and moons will eventually tell us more. Such crusts seem more likely to crack up and not slide but heat may change this.

Personally the evidence of a poleshift is compelling and I have written about this previously. I have also described probably Mars electrically grabbing a hold on the Americas causing the crust to slide but also collide with adjacent sections of the crust.

Mo

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics & Dynamos

Unread post by Brigit » Mon Jul 26, 2021 8:40 pm

Mo says, "That is the axis of the Earth is now in the arctic and points to somewhere in the sky but in the past the axis was in Canada or Alaska and pointed to somewhere else. The energy involved in such a shift would have been unimaginable unless the crust slid."

Good time to bring up earth's polar wandering and polar shifts. This is another essential detail on which people, esp. catastrophists, differ.

While many here may be fairly well convinced of the existence of dynamos within all bodies with magnetic fields, including stars, gas and ice giants, planets and moons, the Electric Universe model does not include interior metal alloy or metallic hydrogen dynamos for magnetic fields. The magnetic fields may be imparted at the formation of these planets and they may be maintained through continued electrical connections with other bodies in the solar system. They may be externally powered or at least externally sustained.

Just for example, Steven Smith criticized the dynamo theory for Jupiter in the POTD of Dec 21, 2020:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2020/1 ... on-dynamo/

And the polar shifts/wandering is extremely important to the argument for the seafloor spreading or growing sea beds, because of the appearance of opposite magnetic fields along the mid-ocean ridges.

This however could be an artifact or the remains of an intense electric arc having passed through the seafloor in the past. Remnant magnetism is to be expected from electrically scarred planets. And to address Mo's point, a change in electrical environment could cause poles to wander or even flip.

So this is another difference we are working with. Something for the flow chart...
Last edited by Brigit on Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Issues with Plate Tectonics&Dynamos

Unread post by Brigit » Mon Jul 26, 2021 9:21 pm

Mo says, "On the issue of first formation, geodes have a crust which is not built up over time by cosmic dust accumulation so the Earth may well have been formed in a similar manner. Other planets and moons will eventually tell us more. Such crusts seem more likely to crack up and not slide but heat may change this."

So exciting that you bring that up! While many may be convinced that geodes are igneous or even sedimentary, at least we are on the same page that they are clearly formed electrically. But without changing the subject of the thread to demonstrate the electrical formation of geodes and even concretions and vugs and thundereggs, we could at least discuss what happens when electric arcs pass through various materials and form spherules in the lab.

The structure of these spherules should inform the Electric Universe discussion of the formation of planets and moons. They show that hollow spheres are not uncommon, and solid spheres sometimes result.

And like I said, by looking at these spherules as well as fulgurites, it is very clear that not all of the materials that are electrically compressed are melted. New planets and moons are not lava bombs. The surfaces are sometimes covered with minerals that are not melted at all.

The high temps of lab created spheres were reached in the center of the sphere and they fall off pretty quickly towards the surface.

The lab spheres display, I believe, polar markings, as well as equatorial ridges and some evidence of stratification. They share much in common with our neighbors in space.

But we just plain differ on the presence of a dynamo and on the fixed surface!
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

moses
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by moses » Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:31 am

Hi again Brigit,
Jupiter's magnetic field is a mystery to me. However the magnetic field of Earth is likely related to the oceans being gouged out. The magnetic fields along the mid-ocean ridges are likely formed by the Birkeland Current that formed the oceans and those ridges. And if we have that Current being 4-pronged then one prong would be through the centre of Earth and the resulting remanent field would explain much of the Earth's magnetic field including it's decay.

Yes geodes do suggest that planets, and stars, that form from galactic core discharges may well be hollow. And the surfaces of these bodies are geologically very different to the insides. I know little about any lab experiments on sphere formation.

So again I say that planet and star formation is insignificant compared with what happened recently and to humanity. It is something to study after we have healed from the effects of these recent cataclysms. Humanity is at a crossroads and we need to focus on this.

Mo

moonkoon
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:37 am

Re: Serious Issues with Plate Tectonics

Unread post by moonkoon » Thu Jul 29, 2021 9:50 am

At the link below there is an interesting discussion about the validity of current thinking about plate tectonics

CardiffEarthSciences
Speaker: Professor Christopher MacLeod
Have we got plate tectonics wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKAGVY6fDac

Among other things he discusses the discovery of detachment faults (aka core complexes) at slow spreading mid ocean ridges. These are very large displacement (about 10km) low angle convex foot wall exposures that feature surface striations in the direction of movement. He speculates that up to 25% of the ocean floor may be sepentinite that has been exhumed in this way.

Spreading ridges are not the only regions that feature extensional detachment faults. They have also been found close to subduction trenches and on continental land. e.g.

Oceanic trenches, which are the deepest chasms in the ocean, are formed during the subduction of two tectonic plates – basically, when they collide and one slides under the other. However, the Weber Deep is a forearc basin, which is basically a depression located in front of the Banda arc, a curved chain of volcanic islands. So how did this basin end up becoming like a trench? ...
Further analysis of high-resolution maps of the Banda Sea floor shows hundreds of straight parallel scars marring the rocks on the seabed. These wounds point to the likelihood that the abyss was formed when a piece of crust bigger than Belgium or Tasmania was ripped apart by 120 km (75 mi) of extension along a low-angle crack, or detachment fault.

According to the researchers, the fault, which they dubbed the Banda Detachment, represents a rip in the ocean floor exposed over 60,000 sq km (23,166 sq m). So extreme was the amount of extension that in some spots there was no longer any trace of oceanic crust. ...

https://newatlas.com/banda-detachment-f ... eep/46660/

... In the Western Alps, ultra high pressure rocks were exhumed from the greatest depth ... during motion of the
upper plate away from the trench. Exhumation was extremely fast, and associated with very low geothermal
gradients ...

https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/22734586

Oceanic core complexes were first noted along the mid-Atlantic Ridge based on their corrugated, domal bathymetry. Analogies were made with continental core complexes and their associated detachment fault systems. ... Both continental and oceanic detachment fault systems are characterized by corrugated, domal topography ... Oceanic detachment fault systems are likely influenced by a serpentine, olivine and/or plagioclase dominated rheology compared to a quartz and feldspar rheology in continental settings. Oceanic detachment faults are `new' faults, which do not interact with pre-existing weaknesses/older faults ...
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Continents

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest