Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 148
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Were the continents once gathered by Equator?

  1. #1 Were the continents once gathered by Equator? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    7
    Here is a theory there I suggests
    that instead of Pangaea the continents formed a
    belt around the equator, spun out as the earth cooled,
    as a centrifuge would.

    I presents redrawn maps
    to show how this concept would handle the magnetic
    orientations and transcontinental chemical parallel
    features, etc. I am sure that this is
    the only way the continents could possibly form.

    If you take a closer look at Gondwanaland who is the best evidence for Wegener`s theory, you can see the ONLY thing I have done, that is to move Gondwanaland away from Eurasia to explain those heavy
    mountain ranges there. The geoligist today have no explanation for this mountains over Eurasia today!

    To get North-America close to Europa, I only had to move Gondwanaland so far that all landmass on earth form a belt along Equator before N. America and Europa fits togheter as Wegener told us.

    That is the only thing I have done to get an explanation for the enormous mountain ranges we talk about. The result of this total necessary movement:

    Pangaea did NOT stretch from pol to pole on one side of the Earth, but was a belt along Equator. That explain tropical forest there where we find ice today as Svalbard and Antartica and so on.

    My theory is only a litle movement at Gonwanaland and that`s all.

    It takes 28 minutes to read the theory. You can find it here: www.aspevik.net


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    do i understand you correctly that you seem to think that Pangaea has always been in existence and has only recently broken up ?

    has it occurred to you that the problem of ice cover distribution disappears when you use a map where in the Ordovicium Gondwana was nowhere near North America ? which is the paleomap most geologists use and which is based on paleomagnetic measurements, not a map constructed by Wegener nearly 100 years ago and which was not meant to look past the recent break-up of Pangaea


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    do i understand you correctly that you seem to think that Pangaea has always been in existence and has only recently broken up ?

    has it occurred to you that the problem of ice cover distribution disappears when you use a map where in the Ordovicium Gondwana was nowhere near North America ? which is the paleomap most geologists use and which is based on paleomagnetic measurements, not a map constructed by Wegener nearly 100 years ago and which was not meant to look past the recent break-up of Pangaea
    I think you've pegged it, marnixR ...

    it's something of a rehash of old (public consumption) news, including the dipole/octopole debate which emerged out of some studies of Archean and Proterozoic magnetics, mixed with a confusion between the Phanerozoic Pangaea and Proterozoic Rodinia supercontinents, and an implied disbelief that the combined convergences of Africa, Arabia, and India with Eurasia could not have formed the Alpine-Himalayan orogenic belt; and annoyance that the Yucatan was not clearly shown on some of the pre-convergence North American sketches ...

    and some disregard for the global warm/cool cycles ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Helge,
    you have obviously spent a considerable time researching this issue. Any quick response to your ideas would not do justice to that effort. Therefore I have picked out a paragraph from early in your site about which I have some reservations. If we can address these I may move further into your document.

    The paragraph that concerns me is this one:

    During the recent years there have been some discussions around the correctness of the model used today. This model has been set by the German Geophysicist Alfred Wegener in 1915, and was accepted in 1960.

    This is simply wrong. Certainly continental drift was actively promoted by the meteorologist Alfred Wegner following his publication of the theory in 1915 (1). His favoured mechanism (differential centrifugal ‘force’) was faulty, as was that (tidal forces) of an earlier proposal by Taylor(2) in 1910.

    Although some researchers flirted with the idea of convection as the driving force, Arthur Holmes(3) was the first to place it on a solid footing (pun intended), as early as 1931. Despite his work and that of other visionaries, the idea continued to be rejected by the majority of Earth scientists. This began to change in the late 1950s and early 1960s as growing evidence forced a reevaluation.

    There were two strands to this. Firstly, there was now clear evidence for divergent polar wandering, best explained by continental drift, from the research of scientists such as Blackett(4) and Runcorn(5). Secondly, seafloor spreading from mid-ocean ridges was posited by Hess(6) and expanded upon by Dietz(7), and demonstrated through the analysis of magnetic anomalies, first by Vine and Mathews(. (White text: I know, I know – Morgan found some first in the late 1950s, but I can’t be assed to find the reference.)

    By the end of the 1960s these threads had been pulled together, by the pioneering work of the likes of Wilson(9), Morgan(10), McKenzie and Parker(11), and Le Pinchon(12). Plate tectonics was born. (The phrase was first used in print by Morgan and McKenzie(13) in a 1969 paper in Nature.)

    So, plate tectonics does not follow Wegner's model and it was certainly not accepted in 1960.

    I'll wait for your response before proceeding more deeply into your hypothesis.

    References:
    1. Wegener, A. (1915) Die Enstehungder Kontinenteund Ozeane. Vieweg, Braunschweig,
    2. Taylor, F.B. (1910) Bearing of the Tertiary mountain belt on the origin of the Earth’s plan. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 21, 179–226.
    3. Holmes, A. (1931) Radioactivity and Earth movements, XVII. Trans.Geol.Soc.Glasgow, Vol.XVIII–Part III, 1928–3118, 559–606.
    4. Blackett, P.M.S.(1956). Lectures on Rock Magnetism. Weizmann Sci. Press of Israel, Jerusalem, 131pp.
    5. Runcorn, S.K. (1956). Palaeomagnetic Comparisons between Europe and North America. Proc. Geol. Assoc. Canada 8, 77–85.
    6. Hess, H.H. (1962). History of Ocean Basins. In Petrologic Studies –A Volume in Honor of A.F. Buddington, pp.599–620
    7. Dietz, R.S. (1961). Continent and ocean basin evolution by spreading of the sea floor. Nature 190, 854–7.
    8. Vine, F.J. & Matthews, D.H. (1963). Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature 199, 947–9.
    9. Wilson, J.T. (1963). Hypothesis of Earth’s behaviour. Nature 198, 925–9.
    10. Morgan, W.J. (1968). Rises, trenches, great faults, and crustal blocks. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 1959–82.
    11. McKenzie, D.P. & Parker, R.L. (1967). The north Pacific, an example of tectonics on a sphere. Nature 216, 1276–80.
    12. Le Pichon, X. (1968). Sea-floor spreading and continental drift. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 3661–97.
    13. McKenzie, D.P. & Morgan, W.J. (1969). Evolution of triple junctions. Nature 224, 125–33.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    So much for hit and run posters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    So much for hit and run posters.
    I suspect her link in the first post was the main reason for making the post. :?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    in short, a spammer who is just sufficiently unprofessional not to get banned ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    not quite - though it might seem that way ...

    the OP has tried to enlighten we poor rockhounds elsewhere,
    posted replies (which didn't really answer the questions, criticisms or challenges - which were mostly shorter simpler versions of the Ophiolite treatment ... ),
    and then ran out of steam ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    I'm beginning to consider the Expanding Earth Theory as a better explanation than plate tectonics. Need a mechanism though!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    I'm beginning to consider the Expanding Earth Theory as a better explanation than plate tectonics. Need a mechanism though!
    You also need a suspension of reality and accuracy. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i seem to remember we had someone posting on that topic some time ago
    the only way he could deny the reality of plate tectonics was by denying the existence of subduction

    btw, if you're short of a mechanism, remember that competing theories are usually judged by how well they explain a wide variety of evidence - not having a believable mechanism is a major hurdle towards the acceptance of any theory
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    I'm beginning to consider the Expanding Earth Theory as a better explanation than plate tectonics. Need a mechanism though!
    need a lot more than that, I'm afraid ...
    not one of the various Expanding Earth ideas (Slow EE; Fast EE; Cyclic EE) has made it past the most basic of challenges in four or five decades ...
    it's not just plate tectonics (which has stood up to every test so far), but also thermodynamics, geochemistry, and geophysics that you'll be arguing against ...

    good luck ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Actually all that you say is exactly what I used to think - secure in my belief of Plate Tectonics - until on a whim I decided to look further into the ludicrous theory of EET.

    The problem is that all the evidence for plate tectonics so far collated can also be explained by EET. Evidence for plate tectonics is not necessarily evidence against EET. It's all down to how that evidence is interpreted (including evidence for subduction) and that's down to what one believes - so it ends up being a rather circular argument.

    The lack of a mechanism for EET (rather than a lack of evidence) was actually the reason why plate tectonics won the argument.

    Interestingly NASA did allegedly find evidence of Earth Expansion quite recently from satellite data, but naturally assumed it was an error, as it can't possibly be true now can it!

    I'm not going to defend EET here. I don't know enough about it to do that, but I am not so quick to ridicule or ignore it as I once was. Time will surely tell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    Interestingly NASA did allegedly find evidence of Earth Expansion quite recently from satellite data, but naturally assumed it was an error, as it can't possibly be true now can it!
    source ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    From:http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/inde...N_position=7:4

    I have contacted Dr. Maxlow to ask if he would tell me the name/authors of the NASA report he has quoted.

    What about space geodetic measurements?
    Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.

    This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

    These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    indeed - i would like to see how that figure was achieved at and how it compares with the potential error of measurement

    another thing i picked up is the comment : "The ancient coastlines, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic models, show that large Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Oceans are not required during reconstruction."

    i've already said that for a theory to replace another theory, it needs to do a better job at explaining the full set of evidence, but i'd be hard pressed to find a geologist who finds the existence of a large Panthallasa, Tethys and Iapetus oceans a problem that requires any further explanation
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    7
    I am sorry, but I didn`t see those posts before now. Here is two movies I have made to illustrate my point:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94AiYYgtIEw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbohcDnlQdo

    You can aso find these movies on my page: www.aspevik.net[/img]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    sorry, but your theory doesn't become more convincing just because you've posted it on youtube - after all, most of us can read, so have got the gist of your theory

    in short attacking Wegener for not being totally right is bit like complaining that Newton didn't foresee Einstein's improvements
    how about judging plate tectonics as it is understood now, not a century ago ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Awesome site 
    Forum Freshman Amy Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ark.
    Posts
    27
    If your theory is right or wrong it does not detract from the fact you put a lot of research and work into your model. These are matters way over my head but I do appreciate the effort you put forth.
    Amy
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
    "E pur si muove,"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    I fail to understand why Helge doesn't project uniformitarianism backwards in time in regards to the shifting of continental plates we see today. Am I to understand
    that because wegner didn't put in central america the whole continental drift theory is therefore WRONG?!?
    __________________________________________________ ______

    I must take issue with:
    It's all down to how that evidence is interpreted (including evidence for subduction) and that's down to what one believes
    If a Geologist does not believe; but instead proceeds from facts and evidence the whole way, this clearly falsifies your statement. Perhaps you should keep it to "how the evidence is interpreted" which I certainly agree with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Helge Aspevik
    I am sorry, but I didn`t see those posts before now.
    You have seen them now. Would you care to answer the points I raised in mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    From:http://www.jamesmaxlow.com/main/inde...N_position=7:4

    I have contacted Dr. Maxlow to ask if he would tell me the name/authors of the NASA report he has quoted.

    What about space geodetic measurements?
    Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to sub-centimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year.

    This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact "expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr" and went on to recommend the vertical motion be "restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr". This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

    These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading.
    The studies and reports* have been around for the past two decades, and I've not encountered one instance where NASA (or anyone) tried to discount the data - the practice of zeroing an effect/variable is widely known and is used to make determinations of other variables.

    There are two major (and a number of minor) time-variable components within a measurement of the Earth's radius:

    1 - the overall sphericity (or oblateness or oblation) with respect to the mean geoid - this caused quite a stir in the late 1990s when it changed from increasing sphericity to increasing oblation (yes, the mean radius at the equator has increased over the past decade, while the poles have "flattened");

    2 - the dynamic topography - mostly, this term (dynamic topography) is found in relation to changes in the global sea surface (and again, showed a relatively dramatic increase in 1998 coincident with El Nino), but it is also used (and studied) with respect to the solid Earth (ie, continents and seafloor) ...

    in order to obtain a direct measurement of one, the other must be "zeroed" - in other words, its value must be incorporated as a "constant" for the purpose of that particular exercise; it does not imply nor endorse any invalidation of the data nor the component effect.

    Neither component effect is constant in velocity or direction - hence "time-variable". There is no NASA conspiracy to hide the fact that the equatorial radius has increased, nor has there ever been any imperative within Plate Tectonics that the Earth's radius or surface area remain constant (actually, an enormous amount of graduate time and resources are spent studying and quantifying the opposite).

    The problem with EE is the same as that with CE (Contracting Earth, a 19th century idea that also looked good on paper, and at least had thermodynamics on its side) and with CD (continental drift), uniformitarianism, catastrophism, neptunism and plutonism -

    it is just one part of the story trying to be the whole book ...


    *eg:
    Earth's expanding girth
    Katie Pennicott (Editor of PhysicsWeb)
    Aug 1, 2002
    It is well known that the Earth is slightly flattened at its poles, but a US study shows that it has become even less spherical since 1998. Analysing recent satellite laser data, Christopher Cox of Raytheon and Benjamin Chao of NASA were surprised to see a substantial shift of mass away from the poles and towards the equator. The researchers think that a flip in the Earth’s magnetic field or the strong El Niño effect of 1998 could have caused this jump in ‘oblateness’ (C Cox and B Chao 2002 Science 297 831)...

    Geophysicists know from such measurements that the Earth had slowly been getting more spherical, an effect thought to arise from "post-glacial rebound". This occurs at the end of an ice age, when ice melts into water and returns to the sea and the atmosphere. This reduces the pressure on the land beneath the glaciers, and this land is slowly pushed back to its former position by the Earth’s mantle.

    But when Cox and Chao studied laser-ranging data collected between 1979 and 2001, they found that this trend reversed sharply in 1998. This means that mass must be moving away from the poles and towards the equator – and any such process must involve either the atmosphere, the ocean or the Earth’s mantle...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    indeed - i would like to see how that figure was achieved at and how it compares with the potential error of measurement
    Dr. Maxlow replied to me with the following paper:

    ROBAUDO S. & HARRISON C. G. A. 1993. Plate tectonics from SLR and VLBIglobal data. In: Smith D. E., & Turcotte D. L. eds. Contributions of SpaceGeodesy to Geodynamics: Crustal Dynamics. Geodynamics Series, Volume23. American Geophysical Union

    Re the post above. I don't think Dr Maxlow is suggesting a conspiracy, merely that interpretations of the data - and therefore the resultant conclusions - are based on the accepted paradigm.

    From what I have read, it would seem that all the evidence that supports Plate Tectonics can be interpreted to support EE. In each case it depends upon what accepts as the paradigm top begin with.

    Personally I have no opinion either way - but I think EE should be investigated further and not just dismissed as a whacky idea. Plate Tectonics is a pretty whacky idea, and so is relativity. This does not mean they are incorrect however.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    From what I have read, it would seem that all the evidence that supports Plate Tectonics can be interpreted to support EE.
    Not really. Only if you discount all the evidence for subduction. As you may imagine from my chosen name I believe this would be difficult to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    Personally I have no opinion either way - but I think EE should be investigated further and not just dismissed as a whacky idea. Plate Tectonics is a pretty whacky idea, and so is relativity. This does not mean they are incorrect however.
    Perhaps not. On the Physics Forum I got slapped with an infraction for being a crackpot. My 'crime'? I had argued that a) Earth Expansion Theory had at one time been a viable hypothesis for consideration and was so considered. b) We can learn a great deal by contemplating the development of any theory, including consideration of rival concepts that were rejected. The reason for the rejection can afford considerable insight into the victorious theory.

    According to the moderators at the Physics forum this was equivalent to being a crackpot. To add insult to injury they slapped another infraction on me for copyright infringement. I made a post reviewing, in detail, the evolution of plate tectonic theory, complete with about twenty references. No polite pm asking if this was my own work, but an automatic assumption that I had copied it from somewhere.

    (Do I sound bitter and twisted about the foregoing? I certainly hope so. It pissed me right off. )

    All that is by way of background to demonstrate I know a little of EE theory and am not unsympathetic to it in principle, but primarily in the past. Unless we eliminate subduction it just can't fly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    A degree of subduction is consistent with some versions of the EE theory - at the very least, enough to explain the volcanic activity at subduction zones.

    Its interesting what you say about being branded a 'crank'. Few realise how seriously EET was taken. The ONLY reason why it was not adopted was because nobody could come up with a mechanism for it.

    However, the Plate Tectonic theory is now so embedded that even if a mechanism were discovered it's unlikely EET it would be investigated as it's branded a whacko theory.

    Sciencific advancement is too often delayed by 'received incredulity' rather than objective analysis of evidence.

    Plate Tectonics may well be correct, but like many accepted theories, it could also be wrong, and we scientists should always have room for doubt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    funny enough, when you have to decide between competing theories the question that is not being asked is "which of the 2 is correct?", but instead "which of the 2 does the best job at explaining all the available evidence?"

    plate tectonics has trumped the expanding earth theory because it does a better job of explaining all the available evidence
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Ophiolite -
    that's a rotten thing to have experienced (anything else I might add would be [CENSORED]) ...



    zzpluralz -

    I can only iterate: The problem with EE is the same as that with CE (Contracting Earth, a 19th century idea that also looked good on paper, and at least had thermodynamics on its side) and with CD (continental drift), uniformitarianism, catastrophism, neptunism and plutonism -

    it is just one part of the story trying to be the whole book ...

    if you get beyond the public consumption (pablum) version*, or even the high school version**, of Plate Tectonics, you'll find that the key aspects of EE are right there; the same is true of CE, CD, etc ...

    *which stays pretty much on simplified stuff related to plate motions ...
    ** which usually adds in some introduction to accretion, differentiation, and tectonic cycles, maybe some Bowen's Reaction Series, etc ...

    and the mechanisms are known - protoplanetary accretion and differentiation were the dominant drivers for expansion; thermodynamics and mineralogical phase/density changes likewise for contraction; mantle dynamics for plate motions; etc ... what Plate Tectonics did was eliminate all of the "either/or" arguments and said: "Each has its part and this is how it all works to bring about the planet we see here" ...

    Trying to replace PT with EE is like saying - "get rid of the car, we only need the drive chain and axle" - which is why such proposals are viewed with derision ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    If you are a geologist I sm sure you know better than me, and I wouldn't pretend to know as much as you.

    However, there is one thing that puzzles me.

    It seems to me from what I have read, that if the sequence of expansion from mid atlantic ridges (etc) is played backwards (something easily done as the rocks can be quite accurately aged) and we allow the earth to shrink, 'Pangea' forms but instead of it being on just one side of the Earth, the continents meet up entirely at every edge - i.e., there is a perfect fit.

    Now either that is just plain incorrect (and if it is it should be easy to show this) or it is truly a shocking coincidence.

    Any ideas whether this has been done?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    If you are a geologist I sm sure you know better than me, and I wouldn't pretend to know as much as you.

    However, there is one thing that puzzles me.

    It seems to me from what I have read, that if the sequence of expansion from mid atlantic ridges (etc) is played backwards (something easily done as the rocks can be quite accurately aged) and we allow the earth to shrink, 'Pangea' forms but instead of it being on just one side of the Earth, the continents meet up entirely at every edge - i.e., there is a perfect fit.

    Now either that is just plain incorrect (and if it is it should be easy to show this) or it is truly a shocking coincidence.

    Any ideas whether this has been done?
    Ok cool, we've formed Pangea, but how do you account for the other supercontinents that have existed, eg Rhodinia?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    If you are a geologist I sm sure you know better than me, and I wouldn't pretend to know as much as you.

    However, there is one thing that puzzles me.

    It seems to me from what I have read, that if the sequence of expansion from mid atlantic ridges (etc) is played backwards (something easily done as the rocks can be quite accurately aged) and we allow the earth to shrink, 'Pangea' forms but instead of it being on just one side of the Earth, the continents meet up entirely at every edge - i.e., there is a perfect fit.

    Now either that is just plain incorrect (and if it is it should be easy to show this) or it is truly a shocking coincidence.

    Any ideas whether this has been done?
    Pangaea doesn't form from the reversal of movement in the Atlantic - the Southern Atlantic isn't that old; the South America-Africa breakup is one of the rift episodes of the deconstruction of Gondwana (II) roughly 100 million years after Pangaea ... did you notice that the Atlantic ocean has almost no active subduction at this time - just small zones around the Caribbean and Scotia Ridge?

    The "perfect fit" claim really only applies to the post-Gondwanan Atlantic and Indian ocean boundaries.


    How does net global expansion since Pangaea take into account:

    - that South America and North America are converging, forming the Central American Isthmus?

    - that Africa is converging upon Europe and the Arabian plate, forming the Italian peninsula and Sicily (and much of Greece and surrounding islands), and uplifting the Alpine region, and forcing the Iberian convergence with France to form the Pyrenees?

    - that India is now so up close and personal with Asia that their common boundary is currently the world's highest mountain range, and the still-rising Tibetan plateau is another consequence?

    - that more than 80% of what should be the the Eastern Pacific floor is missing; subducted beneath the Americas so that the Pacific Mid-Ocean Ridge is not in the middle of the ocean, but close to its eastern boundary?

    - that the now-rifted but still northward moving Indo-Australian plates have been building the largest island arc outside of the Pacific Rim; ie, Indonesia and New Guinea (plus numerous smaller bits)?

    - the sharp directional shift in the Emperor-Hawaiian volcanic chain?

    it's not hard to show that there are as many convergences as rifts going on around the world; that continental plates are closing up as much as they are moving apart, and that odd bits of ocean floors uplifted onto continental plates (just ask Ophiolite) are the remains of oceans that don't exist anymore ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Ok cool, we've formed Pangea, but how do you account for the other supercontinents that have existed, eg Rhodinia?
    Good point.

    Discussions of Expanding Earth 'theory' revolve around the past 200-250 million years, discounting 95% of Earth history.

    The problem is that non-specialists are so clueless about the state of tectonics research that they actually believe they are saying something relevent when discussing EET. I can't tell whether this is populism run amok, or just a comment on our inability to educate the general public.

    I suppose I should be thankful that such discussions have absolutely no effect on geoscientific research.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    While several have pointed out that EET was a contender to explain orogenesis and the Atlantic coastline matches, it was not a serious contender. I base this on an informal survey of textbooks, review monographs and research papers pre-dating the emergence of plate tectonics in the 60's. EET plays a very small role in these.

    EET had its chance. It was found wanting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    103
    Queston, in what direction did this contenital driff take place, was it South to North or East to west or any combination therof.?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    curious1,

    The shifts were in many directions. Perhaps a simulation like those below will help you understand how:

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim1.html
    http://www.suu.edu/faculty/colberg/H...8_Pangaea.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by curious1
    Queston, in what direction did this contenital driff take place, was it South to North or East to west or any combination therof.?
    If you mean Wegener's continental drift, then it was mostly east and west around the Atlantic, and mostly north and south around the Indian ...

    if you mean continental plate tectonic motion, then it's different directions affecting different plates at different times (ie, "any combination" comes closest) ... and those directions can and do include vertical (relative elevation shift), and rotation (orientation shift) around time-dependent points ...

    for oceanic plates, lateral motion tends to be orthogonal to its MOR (ie, spreading out at right angles to the orientation of the contributing ridge) - elevation trends are more consistently related to age and spreading rate ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 yes, sometimes 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3
    Getting back to the original question and away from the off track stuff about an expanding earth and centrifugally driven "continental drift" that followed, yes continents have been concentrated by the equator during earth's geologic history.

    I assume that "by the equator" was meant to be "at the equator". "on the equator" or "along the equator", not "by" as in "caused by" (the equator didn't grab on to them and pull them in) or as in " along side", although some may have at some time

    A large supercontinent known as Gondwana, straddled the equator from north to south during the Ordovician while at the same time North America and Siberia were smaller continents that lay along the equator during that time. North America, known as Laurasia, was rotated about 90 deg clockwise from its present orientation. Much later during the Pennsylvanian North America and Gondwana collided and formed Pangia, which lasted through the Permian until the Triassic when it began to break up and the proto- atlantic began to open up. I'm unaware of any time that a supercontinental mass , such as Eurasia today or larger, lay on the equator stretching from east to west.

    The well established and understood plate tectonics, obsolete continental drift and ridiculous idea about an expanding earth can perhaps be better discussed in separate threads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: yes, sometimes 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by John M
    The well established and understood plate tectonics, ...........
    So, does plate motion occur primarily because of push from MORs, or pull from plummeting slabs? What is the proportion of energy derived from each mechanism? Do other mechanisms exist?

    What initiates a triple junction?

    When did plate tectonics begin? How has it changed in character over time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Ophiolite, are you teasing our new member?



    OK, so he didn't read the OP through properly -
    and therefore missed the bits he thought were off track -
    and makes the odd generalisation ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    Ophiolite, are you teasing our new member?
    Not really. If I had been teasing him I would have probed the use of the adjective 'ridiculous' to describe what was, in its day, a perfectly viable theory.

    He seems to know something of plate tectonics and so may well be much more abreast of current thinking than I, hence my questions. (Of course if he has no more idea than I what the answers are, then perhaps what I was doing could be considered teasing.
    :wink: )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    The problem is that non-specialists are so clueless about the state of tectonics research that they actually believe they are saying something relevent when discussing EET. I can't tell whether this is populism run amok, or just a comment on our inability to educate the general public.
    Mmm. But are you seriously suggesting that professional geologists who have PhDs in geology such as Dr. James Maxlow, Dr Giancarlo Scalera, Stavros Tassos and the rest are unaware of 'the state of tectonics research'?

    The issue is whether the data used in/produced by current research is interpreted with the assumption that PT is correct. It could be like how the movement of the stars was interpreted when it was taken for granted that the Earth was the centre of the universe.

    Has anyone ever read?

    Owen, H.G. (1983), "The Earth is expanding and we don't know why", New Scientist 22: 27–2

    I haven't - I'm trying to track it down!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt

    EET had its chance. It was found wanting.
    From what I have discovered the only way in which it was 'found wanting' was that no explanation for the expansion could be imagined.

    The theory can explain all the pheomena currently considered to be proof for PTT.

    Remember that PTT was developed when it was believed that continents were very shallow rooted, enabling them to easily 'float' around on the Earth's surface. It has since been shown that continents are far more deeply rooted than originally thought. Would PTT have been so popular if this was known at the time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    Ophiolite, are you teasing our new member?
    Not really. If I had been teasing him I would have probed the use of the adjective 'ridiculous' to describe what was, in its day, a perfectly viable theory.
    :wink: )
    Hear hear! Not as ridiculous as that preposterous idea some German came up with that time slows down as objects move. Who in their right mind could believe such twaddle. And don't get me started on Quantum Theory!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    Mmm. But are you seriously suggesting that professional geologists who have PhDs in geology such as Dr. James Maxlow, Dr Giancarlo Scalera, Stavros Tassos and the rest are unaware of 'the state of tectonics research'?
    Dr. James Maxlow

    "Maxlow J" and "Maxlow" return no results on an author search on the ISI Web of Knowledge, one of the premier scholarly databases featuring 23,000 peer-reviewed journals and used by 20 million researchers worldwide. In contrast, "tectonics" as a topic nets 20,954 results.

    It would appear your Dr. Maxlow has some trouble getting his work published. Can you say, "lack of credibility'?

    Dr. Giancarlo Scalera

    "Scalera G" yields 99 results, and involves results from geology and life sciences. Of the G. Scalera we're concerned with, the relevent results are 12 in total, which are published in only two journals:

    -GEOFISICA INTERNACIONAL
    -ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS

    The bulk of Scalera's publications are not cited, or are cited by his own later works. Take note for your own future understanding: citing your own work doesn't lend it legitimacy. Supporting citations by others include just one: Lavecchia (2006), who references a conference talk/abstract in... wait for it... Annals of Geophysics. Bad incestual science, and not even a legit reference.

    The single legitimate reference of Scalera's publications is in a paper about the tectonic history of India in which Briggs (2003) devotes a single paragraph to explain in polite terms that Expanding Earth theory is bunk and no one takes it seriously.

    Unlike Maxlow, Scalera is published, but evidently no one takes his 'research' seriously. This amounts to a lack of credibility.

    Dr. Stavros Tassos

    "Tassos S" yields five results from geology, environmental science, and water resources. The single result for geology is titled, "LITHOSPHERE MODEL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF MICRO-EARTHQUAKE HYPOCENTERS AS DETERMINED FROM SEA-BOTTOM GEOPHONE OBSERVATIONS" - from 1994 in what I assume is a Russian or Finnish journal - which says nothing either about tectonics or EE, and is cited zero times.

    ---

    Is the picture clear, yet?

    Now take any tectonics researcher, such as David Corrigan: prominant Geological Survey of Canada researcher on Grenville tectonics

    -"SW Grenville Province, Canada: the case against post-1.4 Ga accretionary tectonics" Cited: 27 times
    -"Anorthosites and related granitoids in the Grenville orogen: A product of convective thinning of the lithosphere?" Cited: 60 times

    Or how about Marie Sanborn-Barrie, also from the GSC?:

    -"Tectonic evolution of the western superior province from NATMAP and lithoprobe studies" Cited: 18 times
    -"Geochronological constraints on metamorphism, magmatism and exhumation of deep-crustal rocks of the Kramanituar Complex, with implications for the Paleoproterozoic evolution of the Archean western Churchill Province, Canada" Cited: 23 times

    Or how about any of the thousands of researchers I can access with the click of the button that do actual, legitimate research and understand the current state of geoscience in the 21st century?

    You have no case. NONE.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    From what I have discovered the only way in which it was 'found wanting' was that no explanation for the expansion could be imagined.
    it's a big "want" if it requires a complete rewrite of physics as we know it

    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    It has since been shown that continents are far more deeply rooted than originally thought. Would PTT have been so popular if this was known at the time?
    why do you consider this a problem for PTT ? i can make the prediction that smaller continents will be shallower rooted and hence will move faster than large, deep-rooted continents - example in case : India
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    it's a big "want" if it requires a complete rewrite of physics as we know it
    Well maybe - perhaps that's why no-one wants to consider it as a possibility? Actually there do seem to be a few contenders for mechanisms that don't require a complete re-write of physics - just of cosmic history

    But regardless, one should remember that Darwin had no idea how evolution by natural selection could have worked - he knew nothing about genes - but it didn't prevent him coming up with his theory.

    why do you consider this a problem for PTT ? i can make the prediction that smaller continents will be shallower rooted and hence will move faster than large, deep-rooted continents - example in case : India
    I think the issue is that it makes subduction more of a problem as more energy is required to push oceanic plates beneath continental ones.

    The main issue with PTT as far as I can see is that it's not as 'neat' as EET, and involves far more messing around with the data to makes things fit than EET does - which can be demonstrated by playing the oceanic rock emergence sequence backwards but allowing for Earth shrinkage.

    The more people resist (and ridicule) even speculating that there might be something in it, the more suspicious I become that incredulity rather than scientific investigation is dictating the paradigm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    it's a big "want" if it requires a complete rewrite of physics as we know it
    Well maybe - perhaps that's why no-one wants to consider it as a possibility? Actually there do seem to be a few contenders for mechanisms that don't require a complete re-write of physics - just of cosmic history

    But regardless, one should remember that Darwin had no idea how evolution by natural selection could have worked - he knew nothing about genes - but it didn't prevent him coming up with his theory.

    why do you consider this a problem for PTT ? i can make the prediction that smaller continents will be shallower rooted and hence will move faster than large, deep-rooted continents - example in case : India
    I think the issue is that it makes subduction more of a problem as more energy is required to push oceanic plates beneath continental ones.

    The main issue with PTT as far as I can see is that it's not as 'neat' as EET, and involves far more messing around with the data to makes things fit than EET does - which can be demonstrated by playing the oceanic rock emergence sequence backwards but allowing for Earth shrinkage.

    The more people resist (and ridicule) even speculating that there might be something in it, the more suspicious I become that incredulity rather than scientific investigation is dictating the paradigm.
    The problem with the "playing the oceanic rock emergence sequence backwards" is that it only gets you to Pangea, but is at a complete loss when having to deal with the other supercontinets that existed prior to Pangea, such as Rhodinia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear

    You have no case. NONE.
    Tenderheart,

    the fact is that it's hard to get unfashionable ideas published so it becomes a bit of a catch 22 situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    The problem with the "playing the oceanic rock emergence sequence backwards" is that it only gets you to Pangea, but is at a complete loss when having to deal with the other supercontinets that existed prior to Pangea, such as Rhodinia
    .

    It's not actually, it can explain them as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    The problem with the "playing the oceanic rock emergence sequence backwards" is that it only gets you to Pangea, but is at a complete loss when having to deal with the other supercontinets that existed prior to Pangea, such as Rhodinia
    .

    It's not actually, it can explain them as well.
    How?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    Ophiolite -


    Trying to replace PT with EE is like saying - "get rid of the car, we only need the drive chain and axle" - which is why such proposals are viewed with derision ...
    Cran,

    your post is very interesting - are you saying that PTT does not discount an expanding earth?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    The problem with the "playing the oceanic rock emergence sequence backwards" is that it only gets you to Pangea, but is at a complete loss when having to deal with the other supercontinets that existed prior to Pangea, such as Rhodinia
    .

    It's not actually, it can explain them as well.
    How?
    see below:

    Reconstructions of the conventional Pangaea, Gondwana and Rodinia supercontinents and smaller sub-continents on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrate that, instead of being the result of random dispersion-amalgamation or collisional events, each continental assemblage is progressive, and represents an evolutionary crustal-forming process. The distinguishing feature of continents constructed on each Expansion Tectonic model is the inter-relationship of continental sedimentary basins, the network of continental seas and network of crustal movements. The variation of each of these in time has resulted in changes to the distribution of exposed continental land. Supercontinent configuration is then defined by a progressive extension of continental sedimentary basins, by ongoing crustal movements, and changes in sea-levels as the modern oceans opened and rapidly increased in area to the present-day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52 and this... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    What about the Supercontinents?

    On an Expansion Tectonic Earth, prior to the Triassic period, about 200 million years ago, the modern deep oceans did not exist. All continental crust was united to form a single supercontinent called Pangaea, enclosing the entire ancient Earth at about 3,200 kilometres radius – approximately 52% of the present Earth radius. Geographical studies show oceans prior to the Triassic period were then represented by a network of continental seas, with sediments deposited within continental basins masking all evidence of sea floor spreading. Exposed lands and varying coastal outlines prior to this time were similarly represented by the ancient Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltica and Laurussia supercontinents, and prior to that again by the ancient Rodinia supercontinent and smaller sub-continents
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Re: and this... 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    What about the Supercontinents?

    On an Expansion Tectonic Earth, prior to the Triassic period, about 200 million years ago, the modern deep oceans did not exist. All continental crust was united to form a single supercontinent called Pangaea, enclosing the entire ancient Earth at about 3,200 kilometres radius – approximately 52% of the present Earth radius. Geographical studies show oceans prior to the Triassic period were then represented by a network of continental seas, with sediments deposited within continental basins masking all evidence of sea floor spreading. Exposed lands and varying coastal outlines prior to this time were similarly represented by the ancient Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltica and Laurussia supercontinents, and prior to that again by the ancient Rodinia supercontinent and smaller sub-continents
    This doesn't work though, as it does not account for related geology formations on different continental masses from prior to Pangea that do not match up to the position they were in while assembled in Pangea. The Grenville and related orogenies match each other but were not associated during Pangea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Could they 'match up' chronologically rather than spatially - i.e., do we just interpret the data on the assumption that they were once physically connected?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    Could they 'match up' chronologically rather than spatially - i.e., do we just interpret the data on the assumption that they were once physically connected?
    yes - they match up chronologically, as do all convergent orogenies -
    which accounts for most, and the largest, continental mountain chains -
    expansion cannot produce these ...

    What about the Supercontinents?

    On an Expansion Tectonic Earth, prior to the Triassic period, about 200 million years ago, the modern deep oceans did not exist. All continental crust was united to form a single supercontinent called Pangaea, enclosing the entire ancient Earth at about 3,200 kilometres radius – approximately 52% of the present Earth radius.
    that's the bit that doesn't work - half the radius means 1/8th of the volume ...
    so, either the Earth had the density of osmium,
    or you have to repeal the laws of physics and thermodynamics to show a 750% increase in mass -
    without busting up the surface (ie, more impacts than the protoplanetary stage).


    Geographical studies show oceans prior to the Triassic period were then represented by a network of continental seas, with sediments deposited within continental basins masking all evidence of sea floor spreading.
    there's something of a confusion here -
    almost all Phanerozoic (and most Proterozoic) sediments are continental -
    whether terrestrial or shallow marine
    (ie: continental seas are just that - submerged continental shelves and basins) -
    because almost all of the ocean floor was in deep basins ...

    however, enough ophiolites from these earlier times had been uplifted onto continental margins to prove:
    1) that basaltic ocean crusts (deep ocean floors) existed prior to Pangaea (indeed, prior to Rodinia); and
    2) large scale convergences occurred prior to all supercontinents -
    ie, the Earth was not expanding overall, and has not since the end-Hadean (~3.9 Ga BP) ...


    ... - are you saying that PTT does not discount an expanding earth?
    that's right - more importantly, it does not discount a time-variable geoid
    (commonly called a variable radius Earth) -
    since at least the Mid-Proterozoic (and probably earlier), the variation range -
    whether globally or regionally - has not been greater than
    a fraction of 1% of radius ... in either direction ...

    however, under PT and accretionary formation theory
    (which includes fractionation and differentiation, volatile out-gassing, etc),
    expansion ceased being the dominant driver of Earth evolution by the end-Hadean
    (which is also the end-LHB) -

    after that time, and throughout the Early-Mid Archaean,
    microplate tectonics and mantle thermal dynamics dominated ...

    so, again, the radius-doubling Phanerozoic EE runs into problems -
    it must explain the convergent orogenies (if the surface is pulling apart, how do convergent mountains form?);
    it must explain pieces of ocean (not sea) floor that predate Pangaea, etc;
    it must explain Archaean greenstone belts (microplate spreading ridges and convergence zones); and
    it must explain where the extra mass came from, without disrupting the sedimentary surfaces ...


    [ETA] and before you try on a Permian Earth with a bulk density equivalent to osmium, consider what that would do to surface gravity, and that people already argue over the improbability of giant dinosaur and pterosaur survival under normal Earth gravity conditions ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear

    You have no case. NONE.
    Tenderheart,

    the fact is that it's hard to get unfashionable ideas published so it becomes a bit of a catch 22 situation.
    In this case, EE is unfashionable because it lacks credible evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    Actually there do seem to be a few contenders for mechanisms that don't require a complete re-write of physics - just of cosmic history
    Would you give an example please. This appears new to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    But regardless, one should remember that Darwin had no idea how evolution by natural selection could have worked - he knew nothing about genes - but it didn't prevent him coming up with his theory.
    The situations are not comparable. We have observations that contradict the possibility of EET. Such was not the case for Darwin. and evolution.

    I think the issue is that it makes subduction more of a problem as more energy is required to push oceanic plates beneath continental ones.
    OK. I'll argue that since a large part of plate motion is generated by slab pull, not MORB push, this would work more efficiently below continental plates, where the slab is deflected downward more efficiently.
    Anyway, on a different tack, why is a different energy requirement relevant? I fail to see any significance in this. Rates of subduction can be different in the two scenarios.

    The main issue with PTT as far as I can see is that it's not as 'neat' as EET, and involves far more messing around with the data to makes things fit than EET does -
    The first point is a subjective opinion and therefore of no value.
    The second point is simply wrong.

    The more people resist (and ridicule) even speculating that there might be something in it, the more suspicious I become that incredulity rather than scientific investigation is dictating the paradigm.
    The idea is wrong. It is disproved by a vast amount of data. It was not ridiculous when it was first proposed. It is ridiculous to propose it now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    so, again, the radius-doubling Phanerozoic EE runs into problems -
    it must explain the convergent orogenies (if the surface is pulling apart, how do convergent mountains form?);
    By lateral spreading from an upwelling center.

    it must explain pieces of ocean (not sea) floor that predate Pangaea, etc;
    Basaltic seafloor systematically formed along extension center, but did not evolved into large scale ocean before 200 My because the growth rate was too slow. See for example the Red Sea. It is a ocean, but it is only a few hundred km wide. This are the type of oceanic seaway that existed before the growth became so fast.

    it must explain Archaean greenstone belts (microplate spreading ridges and convergence zones);
    Again, the byproducts of diapirism, aka surfaceward migration of mantle material.

    and it must explain where the extra mass came from, without disrupting the sedimentary surfaces ...
    No it must not. As long as the observations are compatible with the model, there is no requirement for a first principle description of the underlying mechanism. This is a serious epistemological mistake to consider that a physical mechanism is required.
    All observations lead to the conclusion that the planets that are growing, have grown or will grow, do so by accumulation of matter inside them, leading to a redistribution of material toward the surface.

    You're welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You're welcome.
    No one's thanking you for your useless 'contribution'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You're welcome.
    No one's thanking you for your useless 'contribution'.
    hmm, I appreciate the quality of your arguments. I thought that was a scientific forum...

    Listen kid, I spent sufficient time to debunk that theory. My conclusion is that this theory is correct and a big step forward because it is broader than plate tectonics and will push many fields forward.

    But you're free to believe to whatever you want, flatearth, fixed earth, creationism and so on...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    (Referring to greenstone belts.)Again, the byproducts of diapirism, aka surfaceward migration of mantle material.
    I know of no instance in which denser rocks become involved in diaparism as the intruding body. The whole point of diaparism is that the less dense material rises through the denser. Greenstone belts, composed as they are of basic and ultra-mafic materials are not lighter than the granitic crust through which you claim they have risen.
    You forget that a diapir is dynamic. It depends on relative density of the whole column and its surrounding. If the whole column is less dense that its surrounding on the full heigth, the top of the diapir will continue to move up despite it is more dense than the material it is intruding. This is actually often observed for salt diapirs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    That may well be how things are on your world - welcome to Earth - it's a bit different here ...
    Obviously, your Earth is different than mine. On mine, theories do not dictate facts but facts inspire theories and rational/critical thinking dominates wishful thinking.

    Let's quit the rhetoric, and let's talk about some interesting Science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You forget that a diapir is dynamic. It depends on relative density of the whole column and its surrounding. If the whole column is less dense that its surrounding on the full heigth, the top of the diapir will continue to move up despite it is more dense than the material it is intruding. This is actually often observed for salt diapirs.
    Demonstrate in what way, with specific numbers and dimensions, how a column of greenstone can in any way be less dense than the 30kms+ of sial through which it is allegedly being intruded.

    While you are at it explain where the associated clastics came from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Demonstrate in what way, with specific numbers and dimensions, how a column of greenstone can in any way be less dense than the 30kms+ of sial through which it is allegedly being intruded.
    It looks like I was no clear enough.

    Let's say there is a 300 km-high column of stuff X which density averages 3.
    The density of the surrounding stuff Y is around 4 from -300 to -30 with stuff Z about 2.5 sitting at the top (from -30 to 0). It means that the density of the whole column of X is less than that of Y+Z, so that X will continue to rise through stuff Z. Is that clear enough or do you need a scheme?

    This happens quite often for salt diapirs. Their top intrudes sediments that are less dense, because of the energy of the whole column of salt. Now, keep in mind that in the Growing Earth model, stuff does not sink, but is engulfed/buried. When stuff gets buried, it can reach relatively great depth as more materials accumulate above. but the stuff might finally rise because the density of the surrounding material become denser. This is not much different than salts getting buried under sediments, but that will finally rise when the sediments above becomes denser.

    You must make the effort to think in term of Growing Earth or you won't make any progress in your understanding of this theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Demonstrate in what way, with specific numbers and dimensions, how a column of greenstone can in any way be less dense than the 30kms+ of sial through which it is allegedly being intruded.
    It looks like I was no clear enough.

    Let's say there is a 300 km-high column of stuff X which density averages 3.
    The density of the surrounding stuff Y is around 4 from -300 to -30 with stuff Z about 2.5 sitting at the top (from -30 to 0). It means that the density of the whole column of X is less than that of Y+Z, so that X will continue to rise through stuff Z. Is that clear enough or do you need a scheme?

    This happens quite often for salt diapirs. Their top intrudes sediments that are less dense, because of the energy of the whole column of salt. Now, keep in mind that in the Growing Earth model, stuff does not sink, but is engulfed/buried. When stuff gets buried, it can reach relatively great depth as more materials accumulate above. but the stuff might finally rise because the density of the surrounding material become denser. This is not much different than salts getting buried under sediments, but that will finally rise when the sediments above becomes denser.

    You must make the effort to think in term of Growing Earth or you won't make any progress in your understanding of this theory.
    Ignoring for the moment that greenstone belts are not a single rock type,
    but cyclic layers, you've provided a couple of questions -

    keep in mind that in the Growing Earth model, stuff does not sink, but is engulfed/buried. When stuff gets buried, it can reach relatively great depth as more materials accumulate above.
    how does it get buried if it includes primary igneous and metamorphic rocks,
    and starts out on the surface?
    how does it reach a relatively great depth if nothing sinks?
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You're welcome.
    No one's thanking you for your useless 'contribution'.
    May I be the first then!

    I am no expert in EET - and I am far from being convinced by it - but I am very grateful to have the contribution of someone who seems to understand the theory. Tenderheart, really, issues about EET were raised and Florian addressed them. You appear threatened by EET!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    Another issue related perhaps to EET is the size of dinosaurs.

    Calculations have been done by some that suggest that dinosaurs are 'impossible' in our current gravity, and that gravity may have needed to be less (up to 1/4 less) than it is today for dinosaurs to have existed at the size suggested by their fossils.

    I think EET suggests that Earth Expansion is exponential, and that the rate of growth only 'steepened' after dinos became extinct...

    Anyone else know anything about dinosaurs and gravity? Have the puzzles been solved?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    Another issue related perhaps to EET is the size of dinosaurs.

    Calculations have been done by some that suggest that dinosaurs are 'impossible' in our current gravity, and that gravity may have needed to be less (up to 1/4 less) than it is today for dinosaurs to have existed at the size suggested by their fossils.

    I think EET suggests that Earth Expansion is exponential, and that the rate of growth only 'steepened' after dinos became extinct...

    Anyone else know anything about dinosaurs and gravity? Have the puzzles been solved?
    tricky - much more is preserved and known about the Tertiary,
    including some mammals which approached the dimensions of the great dinosaurs ...
    and birds (like the moa) which survived until the evolution of fast food franchises ...
    or maybe it was spears, nets, and traps?

    arguing for a lower surface gravity in the Mesozoic compared to the Tertiary is either
    arguing for a contracting Earth, or setting up the missing mass paradox ...

    another piece of evidence against the introduction of mass to the Earth is the Moon -
    it would be closing in, not moving away ...

    so, I don't think you want to go there ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by zzpluralz
    Calculations have been done by some that suggest that dinosaurs are 'impossible' in our current gravity, and that gravity may have needed to be less (up to 1/4 less) than it is today for dinosaurs to have existed at the size suggested by their fossils.
    and Lord Kelvin's calculations proved that heavier-than-air craft could never fly
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    how does it get buried if it includes primary igneous and metamorphic rocks,
    and starts out on the surface?
    how does it reach a relatively great depth if nothing sinks?
    It does not have to sink if it is buried. You must keep in mind that earth's radius increased about 400 km during the last 25 My, according to the age of seafloor. It means that the surface 25 My ago was relatively 400 km below the current surface. Of course, most of the crust "float" over the denser mantle as the later grow, but it is expected that part of the crust get deeply buried at some margins along the rising mantle, i.e. Benioff zone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran

    another piece of evidence against the introduction of mass to the Earth is the Moon -
    it would be closing in, not moving away ...

    so, I don't think you want to go there ...
    I don't think you want to go there either, because you have absolutely no clues about the gain in momentum associated to the gain in mass. If the gain is sufficient, it is expected that the Moon should move away from Earth due to tidal effects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    how does it get buried if it includes primary igneous and metamorphic rocks,
    and starts out on the surface?
    how does it reach a relatively great depth if nothing sinks?
    It does not have to sink if it is buried. You must keep in mind that earth's radius increased about 400 km during the last 25 My, according to the age of seafloor. It means that the surface 25 My ago was relatively 400 km below the current surface. Of course, most of the crust "float" over the denser mantle as the later grow, but it is expected that part of the crust get deeply buried at some margins along the rising mantle, i.e. Benioff zone.
    so, you're telling me that less dense material gets buried - by what?
    then spends how much time at depths around 400 km?
    then becomes diapiric?
    and that the mantle is growing by some means beyond our science?

    and you think that's a simpler explanation than the one supported by deep seismic studies?

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran

    another piece of evidence against the introduction of mass to the Earth is the Moon -
    it would be closing in, not moving away ...

    so, I don't think you want to go there ...
    I don't think you want to go there either, because you have absolutely no clues about the gain in momentum associated to the gain in mass. If the gain is sufficient, it is expected that the Moon should move away from Earth due to tidal effects.
    you're right - I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this ...

    so please explain it in detail -
    and the inertial effects on Earth rotation under increasing mass and radius ...
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    so, you're telling me that less dense material gets buried - by what?
    then spends how much time at depths around 400 km?
    then becomes diapiric?
    and that the mantle is growing by some means beyond our science?
    LOL, you're really struggling. Probably my lack of communication skills.

    Let's try again:

    Let's assume that the growth is related to the accumulation of matter inside Earth. Part of this matter forms new mantle which translates into a mantle growth. As the mantle grows part of it will redistribute toward the surface and Earth radius will increase.

    Now, the redistribution of mantle toward the surface is not uniform, and some mantle is channeled to the surface (mantle diapirs). These mantle diapirs can intrude the surface, pierce it and finally spread with their margin engulfing the crust nearby. This happens in the Philippine Sea as shown in the figure I posted earlier. In this figure, you can see that a fresh diapir (which margin forms the Mariannas Benioff zone) is engulfing the old pacific crust that is 140-150 My old:



    Note that the oldest crust (170 My) is still far away from being engulfed whereas Plate tectonics predicts that the older the crust the more likely it should sink. In truth none of the oldest oceanic crust in the world (>150 My) is near a Benioff zone. That is yet another failed prediction of plate tectonics.

    As the mantle continue to extrude, the crust can eventually get buried, metasomatized, releasing its water leading to partial melting and arc volcanism.
    This is not different at all from the plate tectonics interpretation except that the slab does not actively sink, it get simply and passively buried.


    Another point. If you look at the Banda arc (lower left part of the figure) you can see that the arc extends over 180°, which implies that subducting crust would converge from 180°. This is non sense. By contrast, a diapir centered on the back arc (5 My old crust in red) makes perfect sense as it is spreading outward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    you're right - I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this ...

    so please explain it in detail -
    and the inertial effects on Earth rotation under increasing mass and radius ...
    If the matter accumulating inside Earth has momentum, Earth's momentum can increase. In this case Earth can transfer part of this momentum to the Moon which will recede. So the fact that the Moon is receding is not an argument at all against earth's growth.[img][/img]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Let's assume that the growth is related to the accumulation of matter inside Earth. Part of this matter forms new mantle which translates into a mantle growth. As the mantle grows part of it will redistribute toward the surface and Earth radius will increase.
    Are you suggesting that matter is being created within Earth? I'm not sure how else you are suggesting the mantle can be "growing".

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    As the mantle continue to extrude, the crust can eventually get buried, metasomatized, releasing its water leading to partial melting and arc volcanism.
    This is not different at all from the plate tectonics interpretation except that the slab does not actively sink, it get simply and passively buried.
    Do you honestly think that the depositional processes occuring at the edge of the continental shelf could actively bury oceanic crust deep enough to where it could melt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Goomalling, Western Australia
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    ...

    Now, the redistribution of mantle toward the surface is not uniform, and some mantle is channeled to the surface (mantle diapirs). These mantle diapirs can intrude the surface, pierce it and finally spread with their margin engulfing the crust nearby. This happens in the Philippine Sea as shown in the figure I posted earlier. In this figure, you can see that a fresh diapir (which margin forms the Mariannas Benioff zone) is engulfing the old pacific crust that is 140-150 My old:



    Note that the oldest crust (170 My) is still far away from being engulfed whereas Plate tectonics predicts that the older the crust the more likely it should sink. In truth none of the oldest oceanic crust in the world (>150 My) is near a Benioff zone. That is yet another failed prediction of plate tectonics.
    sorry - the oldest mobile oceanic crust is a Tethyan remnant in the Mediterranean Sea, and it is immediately bounded to the north by the Aegean island arc ...
    most of the oldest oceanic crust have already been lost; the parts that remain are either not bounded by a convergence zone (passive margins) or result from a shift in plate direction ...

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    As the mantle continue to extrude, the crust can eventually get buried, metasomatized, releasing its water leading to partial melting and arc volcanism.
    This is not different at all from the plate tectonics interpretation except that the slab does not actively sink, it get simply and passively buried.

    Another point. If you look at the Banda arc (lower left part of the figure) you can see that the arc extends over 180°, which implies that subducting crust would converge from 180°. This is non sense. By contrast, a diapir centered on the back arc (5 My old crust in red) makes perfect sense as it is spreading outward.
    The Banda arc is the junction of two convergence zones; you're ignoring the NE-moving Australian plate and eastern limb of the Java Trench, which lie immediately south of the Banda microplate ...

    just as you've ignored the shift in direction of the Pacific plate, which is why the oldest part is now a wedge - what you've been calling diapirs in and around the Philippines collection of microplates are the broken remnants of spreading ridge (other sections lie in the Tasman Sea, the China Sea, and off the coast of Korea);
    all sorts of interesting things are happening there, including one microplate which is overriding another older one, even as it is forced under a neighbouring younger one ... the Marianas includes both transform and convergence boundaries ...

    [quote="florian"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    you're right - I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this ...

    so please explain it in detail -
    and the inertial effects on Earth rotation under increasing mass and radius ...
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    If the matter accumulating inside Earth has momentum, Earth's momentum can increase. In this case Earth can transfer part of this momentum to the Moon which will recede. So the fact that the Moon is receding is not an argument at all against earth's growth.
    what?
    the only way the Earth's momentum can increase is if this mythical mass appears inside the Earth with more intrinsic momentum than the Earth's ...

    what evidence is there for increases in the Earth's intrinsic momentum over time?
    Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.

    "I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by markhaldane
    Are you suggesting that matter is being created within Earth? I'm not sure how else you are suggesting the mantle can be "growing".
    This is not a suggestion, this is what facts tell us.

    Quote Originally Posted by markhaldane
    Do you honestly think that the depositional processes occuring at the edge of the continental shelf could actively bury oceanic crust deep enough to where it could melt?
    This is a massive extrusion that buries the oceanic crust, not depositional processes!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    sorry - the oldest mobile oceanic crust is a Tethyan remnant in the Mediterranean Sea, and it is immediately bounded to the north by the Aegean island arc ...
    Not exactly. The oldest Tethyan crust is along the coast of Africa. Anyway, the Hellenic arc is the migration front of a flow emerging from an uplift center located under eastern anatolia. This is crystal clear from GPS data:



    Nothing else is moving, no plates, just a beautiful lithospheric glacier.

    most of the oldest oceanic crust have already been lost; the parts that remain are either not bounded by a convergence zone (passive margins) or result from a shift in plate direction ...
    Wrong. Most of the oldest oceanic crust of modern ocean basin is still present; Pacific (sea figure) ; Indian ocean => in between Madagascar and Ethiopia ; Atlantic => east coast of North America and west coast of North Africa.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    The Banda arc is the junction of two convergence zones; you're ignoring the NE-moving Australian plate and eastern limb of the Java Trench, which lie immediately south of the Banda microplate ...
    Yawn, The Banda arc is a turbulence at the extremity of the flow extending from Tibet to Indonesia.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    what you've been calling diapirs in and around the Philippines collection of microplates are the broken remnants of spreading ridge (other sections lie in the Tasman Sea, the China Sea, and off the coast of Korea);
    Microplates are Plate tectonic's epicycles.
    There are no such thing as "microplates". In reality, the eastern margins of Asia/australia are sheared apart by the underlying eastward mantle flow. Carey described it in details more than 50 years ago. You're a bit late. I've the impression to discuss with a flatearther or some kind of creationist...


    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    what?
    the only way the Earth's momentum can increase is if this mythical mass appears inside the Earth with more intrinsic momentum than the Earth's ...
    Very good! It took you time but you finally got it :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cran
    what evidence is there for increases in the Earth's intrinsic momentum over time?
    Over geological time? Come on, You said that the Moon would spiral down toward Earth if it was not the case...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    25
    This is great stuff guys - please continue!

    We might crack it here on this very website!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Yawn, The Banda arc is a turbulence at the extremity of the flow extending from Tibet to Indonesia.

    Just to let you know. There are now many papers reporting observations that support the existence of a large crustal flow (and likely mantle flow).

    For example, this Science paper by van der Hilst, this review by Nigel Harris, or this paper freshly published in Nature Geosciences.

    This concept is totally at odd with plate tectonics theory which assumes that the lithosphere is divided into rigid blocks moving uniformly.
    But it is expected by the growing earth model which predicts that the growth translates into surfaceward mantle flow, that spread at the surface. Once again the Growing Earth theory is much more powerful than Plate Tectonics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    This concept is totally at odd with plate tectonics theory which assumes that the lithosphere is divided into rigid blocks moving uniformly.
    You have a simplified and outdated perception of what constitutes plate tectonic theory. Please provide half a dozen mainstream citations from the last fifteen years that reflect this view of plate tectonics and I will withdraw that criticism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    This concept is totally at odd with plate tectonics theory which assumes that the lithosphere is divided into rigid blocks moving uniformly.
    You have a simplified and outdated perception of what constitutes plate tectonic theory. Please provide half a dozen mainstream citations from the last fifteen years that reflect this view of plate tectonics and I will withdraw that criticism.

    You're probably not very familiar with Nuvel-1A, or Plate Tectonics reconstructions based on rotations around Euler poles, because if we don't assume that the "lithosphere is divided into rigid blocks moving uniformly", then we can put these models directly to the trash (to which they have to go anyway).

    PS: You should read your signature again. It should be helpful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    This concept is totally at odd with plate tectonics theory which assumes that the lithosphere is divided into rigid blocks moving uniformly.
    You have a simplified and outdated perception of what constitutes plate tectonic theory. Please provide half a dozen mainstream citations from the last fifteen years that reflect this view of plate tectonics and I will withdraw that criticism.

    You're probably not very familiar with Nuvel-1A, or Plate Tectonics reconstructions based on rotations around Euler poles, because if we don't assume that the "lithosphere is divided into rigid blocks moving uniformly", then we can put these models directly to the trash (to which they have to go anyway).

    PS: You should read your signature again. It should be helpful.
    1. I was familiar with the concepts of plate tectonics before they were called plate tectonics.
    2. I take it you are unable to provide citations that support your bizarre position. It would have been simpler if you had simply said so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    1. I was familiar with the concepts of plate tectonics before they were called plate tectonics.
    2. I take it you are unable to provide citations that support your bizarre position. It would have been simpler if you had simply said so.
    So, you really don't know how nuvel-1A and plate reconstructions are built. Very interesting.

    If Don Anderson wrote a quite recent paper, partly discussing the assumption of plate rigidity and its importance for the models, then it is certainly not a resolved issue!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    You consistently confuse areas of discussion with areas of unresovable dichotomy. It reminds me of creationist tactics and thinking. I imagine you are better than that. Do you want to start demonstrating it?

    I am aware of the Nuvel model. Could I run it? Not without some training? However I fail to see what that has to do with the price of eggs?

    Do you notice that word? Model? In seeking to elucidate plate movement our models currently assume plate rigidity. Are you seriously suggesting that geophysicists are unaware and have been unaware for decades that this is a flawed assumption? It allows us to model the process. One day we will be able to model the process more accurately allowing for non-rigid plates. I'm pretty sure someone is already playing with this.

    And while we are at it - the patronising tone and all - the sentence "So, you really don't know how nuvel-1A and plate reconstructions are built." is pointless. Why would I wish to know how Nuvel is built? As an ex-programmer, yes. As a geologist, no.

    And how many plate movements have your reconstructed with it? One , ten, forty?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You consistently confuse areas of discussion with areas of unresovable dichotomy. It reminds me of creationist tactics and thinking. I imagine you are better than that. Do you want to start demonstrating it?

    I am aware of the Nuvel model. Could I run it? Not without some training? However I fail to see what that has to do with the price of eggs?
    What kind of game do you play?

    The point is that this flawed assumption definitively kills the model because there is no way to use rotations around Euler poles. The model is not only inaccurate, it is dead.
    As a consequence, any convergence rate calculated from this model is wrong. Spreading rate can be calculated from palaeomagnetic data, but the only reliable data to measure convergence rates are geodetic measurements. Unless the ITRF is flawed by some other bad assumptions, in which case only relative geodetic measurements at the regional scale should not be much affected by the flaw.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    What kind of game do you play?
    I play no game. Your question suggests you may be. I hope not.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The point is that this flawed assumption definitively kills the model because there is no way to use rotations around Euler poles. The model is not only inaccurate, it is dead.
    I simply don't see this conclusion as being valid. Please detail how you arrive at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The point is that this flawed assumption definitively kills the model because there is no way to use rotations around Euler poles. The model is not only inaccurate, it is dead.
    I simply don't see this conclusion as being valid. Please detail how you arrive at it.
    I'm a bit surprised that you don't see why this is an issue.

    Again plate velocities are calculated using accretion rates at the spreading ridges assuming that plates move as uniform rigid blocks: if one edge of the plate move at rate x, then the edge at the other side move at rate x as well. I simplify a bit because we determine displacement at the surface of a sphere, hence the use of rotations around Euler poles, but it does not change the conclusion.
    The spreading rate values are easily determined from paleomagnetic data, but convergent rates are deduced from spreading rate, assuming that the rate at one edge (the ridge) is related to the rate at an other edge of the plate (a transform, or a WBZ), i.e., assuming that the plate is rigid. Reciprocally, if the plate is not rigid, then the rate at one edge cannot be used to calculate the rate at another edge of the same plate, you cannot calculate convergence rate, you can't conclude that convergence rates balance spreading rate, you cannot conclude that a plate sled over millions years toward a WBZ, or that plates collide... and thus, the plate model is dead.

    Additionally, John Tadurno has showed that even hotspots cannot be used as a reference frame to determine absolute plate velocities, because they move as well (the hawaiian hot spot clearly changed of latitude over time). Actually, they do not really move, their change of latitude (and longitude) is simply a consequence of the asymmetric growth (more important in the southern hemisphere).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Thank you for clarifying your position. Your error in thinking is now clear to me. My understanding is that the assumption of rigidity is a convenient and valid approximation that simplifies calculations of relative plate motions, which are the issue of importance. The recognition that this is an assumption dates back to the start of plate tectonics. For example:

    In practice, plates are elastic and can take up small variations of velocity between different parts of the same plate. Earthquakes are the result of the equalisation of these variations in displacement. Small anelastic displacements must also occur within all plates, and though all such events could be described as earthquakes and the slip planes as plate boundaries, the resulting description would be useless because of the number of plates that would be then required.


    Source: McKenzie, D.P. "Plate Tectonics", in The Nature of the Solid Earth (Roberstson, E.C. editor) McGraw-Hill 1972, p326-327.

    Anderson, in his non-peer reviewed paper which you offered for consideration, attacks a strawman - the alleged rigidity of the major plates. I prefer to take McKenzie at his word when he asserts that the rigidity of the plates is a convenience, not a reality. After all it was McKenzie who - along with Parker - coined the phrase plate tectonics.



    Please excuse the delay in this reply. I quite forgot the discussion was ongoing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I prefer to take McKenzie at his word when he asserts that the rigidity of the plates is a convenience, not a reality. After all it was McKenzie who - along with Parker - coined the phrase plate tectonics.
    That's the point. It is a "convenient" assumption that leads to lethal flaws in any calculations of plate convergence or motion from spreading rates using Euler poles. It is useless except if one wants to make fancy figures without realistic meaning. Sorry, but that's not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman jlhredshift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Madison, Ohio
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    If the matter accumulating inside Earth has momentum, Earth's momentum can increase. In this case Earth can transfer part of this momentum to the Moon which will recede. So the fact that the Moon is receding is not an argument at all against earth's growth.
    Wow that is interesting. Can you equate the growth of mass with the rate of angular momentum transfer to the moon in a rigorous manner mathematically? If so, that would be a paper in itself!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by jlhredshift
    Can you equate the growth of mass with the rate of angular momentum transfer to the moon in a rigorous manner mathematically? If so, that would be a paper in itself!
    We can't as long as we don't know what is the gain in momentum coming from the gained mass.
    But one can certainly build a model and try some parameters in simulations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i seem to remember we had someone posting on that topic some time ago
    the only way he could deny the reality of plate tectonics was by denying the existence of subduction

    btw, if you're short of a mechanism, remember that competing theories are usually judged by how well they explain a wide variety of evidence - not having a believable mechanism is a major hurdle towards the acceptance of any theory
    I do not understand how lighter crust sinks into denser mantle. Is a little volcano in the mid-atlantic sufficient force to push the floating ocean floor into the denser mantle? Should'nt the ocean floor just crumple upwards instead of sinking down into a more dense mantle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I do not understand how lighter crust sinks into denser mantle. Is a little volcano in the mid-atlantic sufficient force to push the floating ocean floor into the denser mantle? Should'nt the ocean floor just crumple upwards instead of sinking down into a more dense mantle?
    It gets pushed in, it doesn't sink. AFAIK the volcano is caused by the subduction, not the other way around.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I do not understand how lighter crust sinks into denser mantle. Is a little volcano in the mid-atlantic sufficient force to push the floating ocean floor into the denser mantle? Should'nt the ocean floor just crumple upwards instead of sinking down into a more dense mantle?
    It gets pushed in, it doesn't sink. AFAIK the volcano is caused by the subduction, not the other way around.
    It gets pushed in by ...currents in the mantle? A current parallel to the ocean floor. I thought the mantle was a relatively hard and brittle rock.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    I do not understand how lighter crust sinks into denser mantle. Is a little volcano in the mid-atlantic sufficient force to push the floating ocean floor into the denser mantle? Should'nt the ocean floor just crumple upwards instead of sinking down into a more dense mantle?
    The plate tectonics explanation is that the lithosphere (crust+lithospheric mantle) does become denser than the upper asthenosphere as it cools down over million years. Thus it sinks and drives the whole global tectonic. see for example Stern's review in EPSL: http://www.utdallas.edu/~rjstern/pdfs/SternEPSL04.pdf

    In the growing Earth theory, some mantle currents rise up to the surface, spread, and intrude/bury the lithosphere they found on their way. A seismic Wadati-Benioff zone (subduction zone in plate tectonics) forms at the front of the current where it meets the old lithosphere. Arc volcanism happens at the front of the current because the lithosphere that get progressively buried by the current wedge get dehydrated as it reaches some depth, and the fluids released decrease the melting point of the mantle located in the wedge, leading to formation of magma that rises up to the surface (volcanoes). Here is an example of these currents, intruding the atlantic in between South America and Antartica, with a volcanic arc (Sandwich Islands) and a benioff zone at the tongue of the current:



    The colors code for the age of the lithosphere (red=young, bleu=old).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    I do not understand how lighter crust sinks into denser mantle. Is a little volcano in the mid-atlantic sufficient force to push the floating ocean floor into the denser mantle? Should'nt the ocean floor just crumple upwards instead of sinking down into a more dense mantle?
    The plate tectonics explanation is that the lithosphere (crust+lithospheric mantle) does become denser than the upper asthenosphere as it cools down over million years. Thus it sinks and drives the whole global tectonic. see for example Stern's review in EPSL: http://www.utdallas.edu/~rjstern/pdfs/SternEPSL04.pdf

    In the growing Earth theory, some mantle currents rise up to the surface, spread, and intrude/bury the lithosphere they found on their way. A seismic Wadati-Benioff zone (subduction zone in plate tectonics) forms at the front of the current where it meets the old lithosphere. Arc volcanism happens at the front of the current because the lithosphere that get progressively buried by the current wedge get dehydrated as it reaches some depth, and the fluids released decrease the melting point of the mantle located in the wedge, leading to formation of magma that rises up to the surface (volcanoes). Here is an example of these currents, intruding the atlantic in between South America and Antartica, with a volcanic arc (Sandwich Islands) and a benioff zone at the tongue of the current:



    The colors code for the age of the lithosphere (red=young, bleu=old).
    In relation to plate tectonics, do you think an asteroid could have hit earth 175 million years ago and initiated plate movements?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    I do not understand how lighter crust sinks into denser mantle. Is a little volcano in the mid-atlantic sufficient force to push the floating ocean floor into the denser mantle? Should'nt the ocean floor just crumple upwards instead of sinking down into a more dense mantle?
    The plate tectonics explanation is that the lithosphere (crust+lithospheric mantle) does become denser than the upper asthenosphere as it cools down over million years. Thus it sinks and drives the whole global tectonic. see for example Stern's review in EPSL: http://www.utdallas.edu/~rjstern/pdfs/SternEPSL04.pdf

    In the growing Earth theory, some mantle currents rise up to the surface, spread, and intrude/bury the lithosphere they found on their way. A seismic Wadati-Benioff zone (subduction zone in plate tectonics) forms at the front of the current where it meets the old lithosphere. Arc volcanism happens at the front of the current because the lithosphere that get progressively buried by the current wedge get dehydrated as it reaches some depth, and the fluids released decrease the melting point of the mantle located in the wedge, leading to formation of magma that rises up to the surface (volcanoes). Here is an example of these currents, intruding the atlantic in between South America and Antartica, with a volcanic arc (Sandwich Islands) and a benioff zone at the tongue of the current:


    The colors code for the age of the lithosphere (red=young, bleu=old).
    In relation to plate tectonics, do you think an asteroid could have hit earth 175 million years ago and initiated plate movements?
    Is there evidence for an impact 175 mya and what about the paleomagnetic, lithographic, and fossil evidence of older supercontinents such as Rhodinia?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    I do not understand how lighter crust sinks into denser mantle. Is a little volcano in the mid-atlantic sufficient force to push the floating ocean floor into the denser mantle? Should'nt the ocean floor just crumple upwards instead of sinking down into a more dense mantle?
    The plate tectonics explanation is that the lithosphere (crust+lithospheric mantle) does become denser than the upper asthenosphere as it cools down over million years. Thus it sinks and drives the whole global tectonic. see for example Stern's review in EPSL: http://www.utdallas.edu/~rjstern/pdfs/SternEPSL04.pdf

    In the growing Earth theory, some mantle currents rise up to the surface, spread, and intrude/bury the lithosphere they found on their way. A seismic Wadati-Benioff zone (subduction zone in plate tectonics) forms at the front of the current where it meets the old lithosphere. Arc volcanism happens at the front of the current because the lithosphere that get progressively buried by the current wedge get dehydrated as it reaches some depth, and the fluids released decrease the melting point of the mantle located in the wedge, leading to formation of magma that rises up to the surface (volcanoes). Here is an example of these currents, intruding the atlantic in between South America and Antartica, with a volcanic arc (Sandwich Islands) and a benioff zone at the tongue of the current:


    The colors code for the age of the lithosphere (red=young, bleu=old).
    In relation to plate tectonics, do you think an asteroid could have hit earth 175 million years ago and initiated plate movements?
    Is there evidence for an impact 175 mya and what about the paleomagnetic, lithographic, and fossil evidence of older supercontinents such as Rhodinia?
    was rhodinia significantly different to pangea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    I do not understand how lighter crust sinks into denser mantle. Is a little volcano in the mid-atlantic sufficient force to push the floating ocean floor into the denser mantle? Should'nt the ocean floor just crumple upwards instead of sinking down into a more dense mantle?
    The plate tectonics explanation is that the lithosphere (crust+lithospheric mantle) does become denser than the upper asthenosphere as it cools down over million years. Thus it sinks and drives the whole global tectonic. see for example Stern's review in EPSL: http://www.utdallas.edu/~rjstern/pdfs/SternEPSL04.pdf

    In the growing Earth theory, some mantle currents rise up to the surface, spread, and intrude/bury the lithosphere they found on their way. A seismic Wadati-Benioff zone (subduction zone in plate tectonics) forms at the front of the current where it meets the old lithosphere. Arc volcanism happens at the front of the current because the lithosphere that get progressively buried by the current wedge get dehydrated as it reaches some depth, and the fluids released decrease the melting point of the mantle located in the wedge, leading to formation of magma that rises up to the surface (volcanoes). Here is an example of these currents, intruding the atlantic in between South America and Antartica, with a volcanic arc (Sandwich Islands) and a benioff zone at the tongue of the current:


    The colors code for the age of the lithosphere (red=young, bleu=old).
    In relation to plate tectonics, do you think an asteroid could have hit earth 175 million years ago and initiated plate movements?
    Is there evidence for an impact 175 mya and what about the paleomagnetic, lithographic, and fossil evidence of older supercontinents such as Rhodinia?
    was rhodinia significantly different to pangea?
    yes, the landmass was composed of different continental masses, in a different position reletive to the poles. And much older
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by mise
    In relation to plate tectonics, do you think an asteroid could have hit earth 175 million years ago and initiated plate movements?
    No, the lithosphere has been moving for billions years according to evidence of tectonic activity, asteroid impact or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •