| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"don findlay" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2004 03:27:15 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
don findlay wrote:
EARTH EXPANSION - Axioms on which to lay down Parameters for
discussion:
________________________________
1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes (Or:- how might it be
conceived that differentiation could occur and 'whole-Earth Crust'
not
form?)
3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific
and
exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break
up,
same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
tectonics.
4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean floor?
No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3.
....and
are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in any
way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
Anyone got anything else to add?
5. The energy imbalance between spreading ridges and subduction zones
is much too great (subduction >>^^ greater than spreading) to be
accounted for by any 'cycling/ recycling mechanism. Qualitatively,
'fat boy' explosive power is compared to a pea-shooter. The structures
releasing the energy at the crust mantle (litho/ astheno) interface
have an architecture symmetrical with a differential offsetting of the
northern and southern hemispheres of the Earth, and with the planet's
rotation. Hemispherical off-setting and overriding are integrally
linked. The explosive power of so-called 'subduction' is part of this
picture, and though related to spreading, is not intrinsically coupled
to it.
Axiom:- the energy imbalance precludes linkage.
(With regard to terminology, ...as an interim measure it is
recommended that the term 'overriding', already being used
synonymously with subduction (though the dynamics of the two are widely
different), replace 'subduction' and that the latter term be entirely
dropped from the lexicon.)
(Readers wishing to follow this thread in the future may do so on
sci.geo.geology)
.
|
|
| User: "robert casey" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
27 Dec 2004 07:14:21 PM |
|
|
don findlay wrote:
1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
Okay.
2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes
Most likely yes. But when plate tetonics got started,
the granate rock is too light to get subducted. And
thus it gets piled up in contenent sized lumps over
say the first 100 million years. Then these lumps
essentially float around as plate tetonics keeps going.
Whatever erosion off the land masses that ends up on
the sea floors gets scraped off at subduction zones and
gets added to shorelines of contenents. That explains
why we still have land masses after 4.5 billion years
of erosion.
3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
Pangaea didn't cover the entire Earth. It only covered
about the same amount of area land covers today
Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific
and
exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break
up,
same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
tectonics.
?
4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean floor?
No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3.
Funding another possible way to make that stuff doesn't
necessarly disprove the first way.
...and
are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in any
way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
Anyone got anything else to add?
Not sure what you mean to say here.
5. The energy imbalance between spreading ridges and subduction zones
is much too great (subduction >>^^ greater than spreading) to be
accounted for by any 'cycling/ recycling mechanism.
Axiom:- the energy imbalance precludes linkage.
I don't think this arguement actually means anything.
It depends on the amount of friction there is to overcome
at subduction zones vs that force it takes to make the
spreading zones. Maybe there isn't much friction at
subduction zones, so that would make more energy
is disapated at spreading zones?
How do you make the Earth expand anyway? The mass
of the Earth has been pretty steady for billions of
years, and there's nothing to make the density of
the Earth change. Thus the size of the Earth
could not have changed significantly. You can't have
large voids deep in the core; strength of materials
is way too weak to withstand the high pressures
down there. Besides materials get weaker at those
high temperatures anyway. Same reason planets are
round, and not shaped like say a cube. The points
of the cube are further away from the center than
other parts of the cube, and the points would have
more material to be supported by underlying material
than other areas. The material is way too weak to
keep from being squished down and sideways, and thus the
points would sink down. Sure we have tall mountians,
but you can't get them much taller because the material
underneath would just squish from under.
You're probably hoping to create the next blockbuster
scientific theory, but all the easy science has
already been done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eigenvector" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
27 Dec 2004 08:55:59 PM |
|
|
"robert casey" <wa2ise@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Nr2Ad.14281$Z47.10971@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
don findlay wrote:
1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
Okay.
2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes
Most likely yes. But when plate tetonics got started,
the granate rock is too light to get subducted. And
thus it gets piled up in contenent sized lumps over
say the first 100 million years. Then these lumps
essentially float around as plate tetonics keeps going.
Whatever erosion off the land masses that ends up on
the sea floors gets scraped off at subduction zones and
gets added to shorelines of contenents. That explains
why we still have land masses after 4.5 billion years
of erosion.
3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
Pangaea didn't cover the entire Earth. It only covered
about the same amount of area land covers today
Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific
and
exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break
up,
same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
tectonics.
?
4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean floor?
No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3.
Funding another possible way to make that stuff doesn't
necessarly disprove the first way.
...and
are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in any
way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
Anyone got anything else to add?
Not sure what you mean to say here.
5. The energy imbalance between spreading ridges and subduction zones
is much too great (subduction >>^^ greater than spreading) to be
accounted for by any 'cycling/ recycling mechanism.
Axiom:- the energy imbalance precludes linkage.
I don't think this arguement actually means anything.
It depends on the amount of friction there is to overcome
at subduction zones vs that force it takes to make the
spreading zones. Maybe there isn't much friction at
subduction zones, so that would make more energy
is disapated at spreading zones?
How do you make the Earth expand anyway? The mass
of the Earth has been pretty steady for billions of
years, and there's nothing to make the density of
the Earth change. Thus the size of the Earth
could not have changed significantly. You can't have
large voids deep in the core; strength of materials
is way too weak to withstand the high pressures
down there. Besides materials get weaker at those
high temperatures anyway. Same reason planets are
round, and not shaped like say a cube. The points
of the cube are further away from the center than
other parts of the cube, and the points would have
more material to be supported by underlying material
than other areas. The material is way too weak to
keep from being squished down and sideways, and thus the
points would sink down. Sure we have tall mountians,
but you can't get them much taller because the material
underneath would just squish from under.
Not to butt in, but my understanding is that the earth's surface is much
much smoother than a billard ball - relatively speaking. Meaning those
tall, tall mountains are absolutely flat compared to the overall diameter of
the earth itself. Did I get that right?
You're probably hoping to create the next blockbuster
scientific theory, but all the easy science has
already been done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
28 Dec 2004 04:12:57 PM |
|
|
Eigenvector wrote:
"robert casey" <wa2ise@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Nr2Ad.14281$Z47.10971@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
don findlay wrote:
Not to butt in, but my understanding is that the earth's surface is
much
much smoother than a billard ball - relatively speaking. Meaning
those
tall, tall mountains are absolutely flat compared to the overall
diameter of
the earth itself. Did I get that right?
Yes and no. 'No' because when we talk about 'flat' in geology we mean
that the strata are flat; but 'yes' because the high mountains of
so-called collisional zones of plate tectonics are flat - meaning 'not
crumpled and folded like a mad Platie's tablecloth', high, ..but nice
and flat. Flat as a tack in fact. Mt Everest, the highest mountain on
the planet, right up against the battering ram of India - flat. And
K2, and a whole lot of others. FLAT. Plate tectonics doesn't even
regard this piece of inconsequential detail, much less what it means.
("F@#$' em all. Have plate, will tectonise")
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan Karley" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
28 Dec 2004 09:52:02 AM |
|
|
In article <8X3Ad.1291$Is5.2345@news.uswest.net>, Eigenvector wrote:
Not to butt in, but my understanding is that the earth's surface is much
much smoother than a billard ball - relatively speaking. Meaning those
tall, tall mountains are absolutely flat compared to the overall diameter of
the earth itself. Did I get that right?
Surface roughness is approximately 20km (Marianas trench @ -11km to
Everest @ +8.8km); radius is 6370km to a schoolboy approximation; that's a
roughness of approximately 1 part in 316. Probably good for a billiard ball,
but not up to scratch for a bearing ball.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eigenvector" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
28 Dec 2004 11:49:20 AM |
|
|
"Aidan Karley" <aidan@mynameplus1.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:VA.000003be.00033a6c@mynameplus1.demon.co.uk.invalid...
In article <8X3Ad.1291$Is5.2345@news.uswest.net>, Eigenvector wrote:
Not to butt in, but my understanding is that the earth's surface is much
much smoother than a billard ball - relatively speaking. Meaning those
tall, tall mountains are absolutely flat compared to the overall
diameter of
the earth itself. Did I get that right?
Surface roughness is approximately 20km (Marianas trench @ -11km to
Everest @ +8.8km); radius is 6370km to a schoolboy approximation; that's a
roughness of approximately 1 part in 316. Probably good for a billiard
ball,
but not up to scratch for a bearing ball.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Good enough for government work, the earth ain't a neutron star.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
30 Dec 2004 03:12:22 PM |
|
|
In sci.space.policy Aidan Karley <aidan@mynameplus1.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
In article <8X3Ad.1291$Is5.2345@news.uswest.net>, Eigenvector wrote:
Not to butt in, but my understanding is that the earth's surface is much
much smoother than a billard ball - relatively speaking. Meaning those
tall, tall mountains are absolutely flat compared to the overall diameter of
the earth itself. Did I get that right?
Surface roughness is approximately 20km (Marianas trench @ -11km to
Everest @ +8.8km); radius is 6370km to a schoolboy approximation; that's a
roughness of approximately 1 part in 316. Probably good for a billiard ball,
but not up to scratch for a bearing ball.
Billiard balls are shiny, big scratches would be obvious.
They are what, 6cm in diameter?
So that'd make .2mm relief.
That's enough to be perceptibly rough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan Karley" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
01 Jan 2005 10:00:07 AM |
|
|
In article <41d46f35$0$45620$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, Ian
Stirling wrote:
Billiard balls are shiny, big scratches would be obvious.
They are what, 6cm in diameter?
So that'd make .2mm relief.
That's enough to be perceptibly rough.
As anyone who has tried to make an astronomical mirror (or
polish a rock) would tell you, you can make a glaringly obvious scratch
with a grit particle a *lot* smaller than 0.2mm ; in the final
pre-polish stage, a single grain of 400 or 600 grit can leave a scratch
which under the microscope looks like an aerial photograph of Clapham
Junction after the bombing.
Remember the issue of separation between the high and low points
of a "rough bit" : on Earth the relief is between the Marianas Trench
and Everest, which is ... (40 degrees of longitude @ 30N on radius
6370km) ... about 4000km. But let's look back at the latitude/
longitude - the 0.2mm surface roughness will be spread across about a
eighth-turn of the ball. Are you sure that you would notice that? I'm
not.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
01 Jan 2005 11:06:44 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Aidan Karley <aidan@mynameplus1.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
In article <41d46f35$0$45620$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, Ian
Stirling wrote:
Billiard balls are shiny, big scratches would be obvious.
They are what, 6cm in diameter?
So that'd make .2mm relief.
That's enough to be perceptibly rough.
As anyone who has tried to make an astronomical mirror (or
polish a rock) would tell you, you can make a glaringly obvious scratch
with a grit particle a *lot* smaller than 0.2mm ; in the final
pre-polish stage, a single grain of 400 or 600 grit can leave a scratch
which under the microscope looks like an aerial photograph of Clapham
Junction after the bombing.
Remember the issue of separation between the high and low points
of a "rough bit" : on Earth the relief is between the Marianas Trench
and Everest, which is ... (40 degrees of longitude @ 30N on radius
6370km) ... about 4000km. But let's look back at the latitude/
longitude - the 0.2mm surface roughness will be spread across about a
eighth-turn of the ball. Are you sure that you would notice that? I'm
not.
Ok, call it half that, .1mm (mountain ranges) is feelable, even .05mm
probably is, if the ball is smooth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan Karley" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
01 Jan 2005 07:00:09 PM |
|
|
In article <41d6d8a4$0$74276$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Ian
Stirling wrote:
longitude - the 0.2mm surface roughness will be spread across about a
eighth-turn of the ball. Are you sure that you would notice that? I'm
not.
Ok, call it half that, .1mm (mountain ranges) is feelable, even .05mm
probably is, if the ball is smooth.
If you're talking about a *step* of 0.1mm, yes certainly feelible.
Dig around in your old box of car spares and find a "feeler gauge" which
you're meant to use to set your spark plug gaps. Put the feelers onto a
smooth surface and you can reproducibly estimate the thinnest *step* edge
that you can feel:
____________________________
|
| 0.1mm feeler foil
|
-------------------------------------------------------
The point that I'm trying to make is that this shape is *not* the
shape of mountains.
The steepest big slope on the planet is from the summit of Nanga
Parbat to the Indus - about 7km drop in about 25km. That's less than
1-in-3. Try feeling that.
Few slopes of any significant extent on the planet are steeper than
1-in-10 ; the most widespread large slopes (the continental slopes from a
little below sea level to abyssal plain level) are about 1-in-100. In a
subduction trench a slope of 1-in-25 is pretty steep. The reason is pretty
simple - the materials are not very strong, they're subject to frequent
agitation, and they're in a well-lubricated environment.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rolo" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
27 Dec 2004 11:19:44 PM |
|
|
it depends on how much surface area you use foryour dcomparison -
Eigenvector wrote:
"robert casey" <wa2ise@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Nr2Ad.14281$Z47.10971@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
don findlay wrote:
1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
Okay.
2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes
Most likely yes. But when plate tetonics got started,
the granate rock is too light to get subducted. And
thus it gets piled up in contenent sized lumps over
say the first 100 million years. Then these lumps
essentially float around as plate tetonics keeps going.
Whatever erosion off the land masses that ends up on
the sea floors gets scraped off at subduction zones and
gets added to shorelines of contenents. That explains
why we still have land masses after 4.5 billion years
of erosion.
3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
Pangaea didn't cover the entire Earth. It only covered
about the same amount of area land covers today
Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific
and
exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break
up,
same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
tectonics.
?
4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean floor?
No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3.
Funding another possible way to make that stuff doesn't
necessarly disprove the first way.
...and
are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in any
way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
Anyone got anything else to add?
Not sure what you mean to say here.
5. The energy imbalance between spreading ridges and subduction zones
is much too great (subduction >>^^ greater than spreading) to be
accounted for by any 'cycling/ recycling mechanism.
Axiom:- the energy imbalance precludes linkage.
I don't think this arguement actually means anything.
It depends on the amount of friction there is to overcome
at subduction zones vs that force it takes to make the
spreading zones. Maybe there isn't much friction at
subduction zones, so that would make more energy
is disapated at spreading zones?
How do you make the Earth expand anyway? The mass
of the Earth has been pretty steady for billions of
years, and there's nothing to make the density of
the Earth change. Thus the size of the Earth
could not have changed significantly. You can't have
large voids deep in the core; strength of materials
is way too weak to withstand the high pressures
down there. Besides materials get weaker at those
high temperatures anyway. Same reason planets are
round, and not shaped like say a cube. The points
of the cube are further away from the center than
other parts of the cube, and the points would have
more material to be supported by underlying material
than other areas. The material is way too weak to
keep from being squished down and sideways, and thus the
points would sink down. Sure we have tall mountians,
but you can't get them much taller because the material
underneath would just squish from under.
Not to butt in, but my understanding is that the earth's surface is much
much smoother than a billard ball - relatively speaking. Meaning those
tall, tall mountains are absolutely flat compared to the overall diameter of
the earth itself. Did I get that right?
You're probably hoping to create the next blockbuster
scientific theory, but all the easy science has
already been done.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
28 Dec 2004 04:10:32 PM |
|
|
robert casey wrote:
don findlay wrote:
1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
Okay.
2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes
Most likely yes. But when plate tetonics got started,
the granate rock is too light to get subducted. And
thus it gets piled up in contenent sized lumps over
say the first 100 million years.
Makes the assumption that plate tectonics began earlier than the
evidence for it we see it today (Ocean floors, spreading ridges
transforms etc). Extrapolating may not be justified. E.g., find an
old spreading ridge ('fossilised'). Shouldn'[t be difficult; first
find an old (fossilised) ocean floor.
Then these lumps
essentially float around as plate tetonics keeps going.
Whatever erosion off the land masses that ends up on
the sea floors
With the exception of the Yellow River, virtually all the major rivers
at the present day empty into the 'trailing' edge. (away from
subduction zones). Slope of continental landmasses a feature of THE
(circum-Pacific) SUBDUCTION ZONE we see at the present time? Yellow
River empties into
back arc basins which are not getting 'scraped'.
gets scraped off at subduction zones and
gets added to shorelines of contenents. That explains
why we still have land masses after 4.5 billion years
of erosion.
So it doesn't explain it. The planet's current behaviour might be
rather described not as 'plate tectonics' but as 'oceanisation'. Can't
think of a era in the past when similar, with the possible exception of
the Archaean (maybe) )(greenstone belts; but have lots of terrestrial
sediments as well,
mixed in with)
AXIOM SUMMARY: NO EVIDENCE FOR PLATE TECTONICS 'GETTING STARTED'
PRIOR TO ITS REASSEMBLY into the Gondwanaland / Laurasia of 300m years
ago.
3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
Pangaea didn't cover the entire Earth. It only covered
about the same amount of area land covers today
ASSUMES PANTHALASSA. FATAL ASSUMPTION FOR PLATE TECTONICS.
Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific
and
exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break
up,
same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
tectonics.
?
4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean
floor?
No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3.
Funding another possible way to make that stuff doesn't
necessarly disprove the first way.
True, but emphasises alternative. First way no longer 'proved'.
...and
are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in
any
way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
Anyone got anything else to add?
Not sure what you mean to say here.
What's happening is first and foremost a process of making ocean floors
(pulling apart continents) - before it is a process of colliding them,
building mountain belts, subducting, scraping/ accreting etc. How wide
does an ocean floor have to get (the boring bit) before 'plate
tectonics' (the exciting bit) starts up? Why do ocean floors get
exposed/ created in the first place? Why doesn't it all start when
separation is about a hundred feet, instead of nearly a hundred
thousand kilometres? (SCALE
PROBLEM FOR PLATE TECTONICS.)
5. The energy imbalance between spreading ridges and subduction
zones
is much too great (subduction >>^^ greater than spreading) to be
accounted for by any 'cycling/ recycling mechanism.
Axiom:- the energy imbalance precludes linkage.
I don't think this arguement actually means anything.
It depends on the amount of friction there is to overcome
at subduction zones vs that force it takes to make the
spreading zones. Maybe there isn't much friction at
subduction zones, so that would make more energy
is disapated at spreading zones?
The friction argument is consequent on cooling slabs ("cold in space").
Cooling means contraction. Not movement. Think about it.
AXIOM SUMMARY:- SUBDUCTION ("SLAB-PULL") DRIVING PLATE TECTONICS IS
TANTAMOUNT TO THE CONTRACTION HYPOTHESIS.
How do you make the Earth expand anyway? The mass
of the Earth has been pretty steady for billions of
years, and there's nothing to make the density of
the Earth change. Thus the size of the Earth
could not have changed significantly. You can't have
large voids deep in the core; strength of materials
is way too weak to withstand the high pressures
down there. Besides materials get weaker at those
high temperatures anyway. Same reason planets are
round, and not shaped like say a cube. The points
of the cube are further away from the center than
other parts of the cube, and the points would have
more material to be supported by underlying material
than other areas. The material is way too weak to
keep from being squished down and sideways, and thus the
points would sink down.
Don't know. This is the destination we are trying to arrive at, by
first laying down the parameters for consideration. Plate tectonics is
grossly inadequate to explain what we see. Needs reappraisal.
Sure we have tall mountians,
but you can't get them much taller because the material
underneath would just squish from under.
(A lot i*s being squished out from under them. )
You're probably hoping to create the next blockbuster
scientific theory, but all the easy science has
already been done.
There is already a blockbuster. It needs a mechanism (finally), but
first it needs proper formulation vis-a-vis plate tectonics. That is,
people need to honestly appraise the nonsense of plate tectonics for
what it is - assumptive balderdash, and look at rational alternative
explanation for component parts. Plate tectonics is too ad hoc. The
point of arrival, when we can **start looking** for an explanation,
is that the ocean floors have **GROWN**, ..they haven't 'moved'.
Growth does not mean movement, and overriding does not mean
convection.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion |
28 Dec 2004 06:48:01 AM |
|
|
robert casey wrote:
don findlay wrote:
1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
Okay.
2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes
Most likely yes. But when plate tetonics got started,
the granate rock is too light to get subducted. And
thus it gets piled up in contenent sized lumps over
say the first 100 million years. Then these lumps
essentially float around as plate tetonics keeps going.
Whatever erosion off the land masses that ends up on
the sea floors gets scraped off at subduction zones and
gets added to shorelines of contenents. That explains
why we still have land masses after 4.5 billion years
of erosion.
3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
Pangaea didn't cover the entire Earth. It only covered
about the same amount of area land covers today
Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific
and
exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break
up,
same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
tectonics.
?
4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean
floor?
No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3.
Funding another possible way to make that stuff doesn't
necessarly disprove the first way.
...and
are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in
any
way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
Anyone got anything else to add?
Not sure what you mean to say here.
5. The energy imbalance between spreading ridges and subduction
zones
is much too great (subduction >>^^ greater than spreading) to be
accounted for by any 'cycling/ recycling mechanism.
Axiom:- the energy imbalance precludes linkage.
I don't think this arguement actually means anything.
It depends on the amount of friction there is to overcome
at subduction zones vs that force it takes to make the
spreading zones. Maybe there isn't much friction at
subduction zones, so that would make more energy
is disapated at spreading zones?
How do you make the Earth expand anyway? The mass
of the Earth has been pretty steady for billions of
years, and there's nothing to make the density of
the Earth change. Thus the size of the Earth
could not have changed significantly. You can't have
large voids deep in the core; strength of materials
is way too weak to withstand the high pressures
down there. Besides materials get weaker at those
high temperatures anyway. Same reason planets are
round, and not shaped like say a cube. The points
of the cube are further away from the center than
other parts of the cube, and the points would have
more material to be supported by underlying material
than other areas. The material is way too weak to
keep from being squished down and sideways, and thus the
points would sink down. Sure we have tall mountians,
but you can't get them much taller because the material
underneath would just squish from under.
You're probably hoping to create the next blockbuster
scientific theory, but all the easy science has
already been done.
With all due respect all the easy science has'nt been done! and while
agreeing with you on the matter of constant mass of the Earth
prohibiting any significant expansion beyond the transfer of denser
material to lighter crustal material,there is no facility availible
within the Newtonian system to account for the imbalance between the
Earth's axial and orbital motion.
The 'easy' science of the Newtonian system is actually an illegal
shortcut, for the orbital motion of the planet is calculated in tandem
with its axial rotation as a single sidereal motion whereas in
actuality both motions are independent of each other.
Geologically there is nowhere left to go within the Newtonian
scheme,under normal circumstances men would recognise the axial and
orbital imbalance and see how it fits into the geological scheme of
things but as these are not normal times.
Keplerian motion which best expresses the orbital imbalance against
axial rotation and further into crustal displacement is sure easier to
grasp by dropping the analogy to terrestial ballistics as Newton did
and by adopting modern observations of the solar system's galactic
orbital motion as influencing heliocentric orbital motion.
It becomes easier to explain the equatorial bulge AND crustal motion by
appealing to astronomical influences on terrestial surface features
than just ignoring them as geologists appear intent in doing so before
you pass judgement on others perhaps it would be better to review the
erroneous view you inherited by way of Newtonian perspectives.Good and
all as that perspective was for its time when the solar system's
galactic orbital motion was discovered (80 years ago) it should have
altered things accordingly,it did'nt and it still has'nt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
