Plate Tectonics And Continental Drift., And I thought I knew all about it... Options

[lunk]

Plate tectonics and continental drift have been taught to me from a very early age.
I frequently found myself staring at geological formations, wondering how on earth, they were formed.
It sort of made sense, and what I didn't understand, I figured that it had all been studied, and some expert had already figured it all out, and there was no point in exploring the subject any further.
Now, I have recently discovered that there were other theories floating around:

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lau...98/EARTHEXP.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Warren_Carey

Now there are stories, of the Earth being only 6000 years old,
and a huge flood that covered the world, and predictions of a firery future...
However, I find little, outside a few human scribbles,
to support these stories.

But, I do see a grain of truth in the demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJzic3kk4_g

Proof that the Earth has become larger.
...and that's about all.

imo, lunk

[sb5walker]

The increase in the Earth's diameter that has lately been observed likely results from a redistribution of mass: not an overall increase.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere but is slightly oblate - flattened at the poles. The equatorial diameter is about 40 km greater than the polar diameter. This fact is thought to result from the force of the Earth's rotation and the fact that the vast majority of the Earth's mass is fluid rock. Except for a few areas, most of the crust is remarkably thin: only 30-40 km thick in most continents and less than 10 km (6 miles) in much of the ocean basins. At this moment you are likely closer to a gigantic ocean of red hot liquid magma than you are to a town a half-hour's drive away.

What this means is that the crust is remarkably sensitive to the gravitational effects of external bodies like the Sun and to any other galactic gravitational forces that may exist. It also means it will move in response to any changes in the poorly-understood dynamics of core and magmatic motion within the Earth. And apparently, in 1998, something about those inner dynamics did change.

Satellite-based laser range-finders had been showing for two decades that there was a steady redistribution of mass within the Earth from the equatorial to the polar regions: Mother Earth was becoming thinner and taller. In late 1998, that trend abruptly reversed and since that time the opposite has been happening: the equatorial diameter has been increasing and the polar diameter decreasing. This news was reported by scientists Christopher Cox and Benjamin Chao, in the August 2, 2002 issue of Science magazine. If you want to find info on this try searching "dynamic oblateness" but most of the information is on pay sites.

There is no consensus regarding WHY this change occurred. Most scientists believed the slimming trend resulted from melting of the polar ice caps and called their theory "postglacial rebound". I'm not sure how they explain the abrupt change in 1998: while in a few areas increased ice mass has been observed, in other areas fairly dramatic melting continues to occur.

I believe the change in 1998 to be connected to changes in the Earth's magnetic field. I have quite a lot of information about this and Painter has been bugging me for some time to share it with you. I will do so one of these days when I have the energy: it's a LOT of information. The short version is that there is a magnetic pole shift underway in the Earth and the Earth's magnetic field has very much more physical effects in the Earth than is generally understood.

[Omega892R09]

The increase in the Earth's diameter that has lately been observed likely results from a redistribution of mass: not an overall increase.

I agree with that but the increase is not of a sufficient magnitude to account for the gaps between earth’s land masses as some here seem to be trying to suggest.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere but is slightly oblate - flattened at the poles.

As a child, quite a few moons ago now, I understood the term to be 'oblate spheroid'

I believe the change in 1998 to be connected to changes in the Earth's magnetic field. I have quite a lot of information about this and Painter has been bugging me for some time to share it with you. I will do so one of these days when I have the energy: it's a LOT of information. The short version is that there is a magnetic pole shift underway in the Earth and the Earth's magnetic field has very much more physical effects in the Earth than is generally understood.

This is my take on it too, with the earth's magnetic field currently becoming weaker which is thought to be the pre-cursor.

However how long we have before the flip, if indeed it is a sudden flip or more of a weakening to nothing and then a gaining in strength reversed is uncertain, AFAIK.

Interesting experiments have been done by spinning globes full of molten sodium and monitoring the magnetic flux produced.

[sb5walker]

The increase in the Earth's diameter that has lately been observed likely results from a redistribution of mass: not an overall increase.

I agree with that but the increase is not of a sufficient magnitude to account for the gaps between earth’s land masses as some here seem to be trying to suggest.

Yes, there do seem to be some rather large tears in the crust - more than can be accounted for by a few km movement here or there. The rip running down the middle of the Atlantic Basin for instance. However I just have a hard time believing the Earth could have grown in mass enough to cause that rend: I tend instead to believe the Earth is a much more dynamic place than we realize.

Look at the alternating layers of red and yellow sandstone in the Grand Canyon, for example: red laid down when the area was under water, yellow when above. The crust there has risen and sunk countless times over the past several hundred millions of years. Look at topo maps of Pennsylvania, southern New York state and Connecticut and you see signs of lateral compression of the crust into parallel wrinkles of ridges and valleys. I live in such an area and the local geology is EXTREMELY youthful: the surface was obviously violently changed very recently: no more than a few tens of thousands of years ago. The crust recently sank all along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard: the coast of the former continent can now be seen under water 50 to 100 miles out from the current coastline, and the former bed of the lower Hudson river can be seen along the sea floor before it drops off the former edge of the continent. Most geologists seem to claim that as evidence of an increase in sea level, but where would all the extra water have come from? I think it's much more likely that instead of the sea rising, the crust sank. At least in that spot. It rose in others, as in southern California, Nevada and Utah deserts, for example, which are covered in salt flats where land-locked sea water evaporated.

As a child, quite a few moons ago now, I understood the term to be 'oblate spheroid'

As a child you were running around spouting terms like 'oblate spheroid'? Sheesh!

This is my take on it too, with the earth's magnetic field currently becoming weaker which is thought to be the pre-cursor.

However how long we have before the flip, if indeed it is a sudden flip or more of a weakening to nothing and then a gaining in strength reversed is uncertain, AFAIK.

Interesting experiments have been done by spinning globes full of molten sodium and monitoring the magnetic flux produced.

I think the weakening may be in average field strength and may reflect a loss in coherence of the poloidal field, rather than a weakening of magnetic activity in general. There may be as much magnetic energy as ever but it's all discombobulated with stray loops popping out all willy-nilly. And causing some locally spectacular weather effects, by the way.

[lunk]

Most geologists seem to claim that as evidence of an increase in sea level, but where would all the extra water have come from? I think it's much more likely that instead of the sea rising, the crust sank. At least in that spot. It rose in others, as in southern California, Nevada and Utah deserts, for example, which are covered in salt flats where land-locked sea water evaporated.

North America had the weight of kilometers of thick ice sheets on top, during the last ice age. That would sink the continent down a little, I should imagine.

How pure is that salt? If it is from the evaporation of sea water there should be lots of organic impurities in it, is there?

The continental crust is hard, and as the Earth grew, the surface needs to re-curve, or flatten.
As a result the surface buckles up, forming mountains.
If this is the case, then one would expect to find the tallest mountains on the largest continent, as this continent would need to do the most buckling, because it covers the greatest percentage of the globe.

Asia = largest continent.
Mt. Everest = tallest mountain.

Look at your hand when you unmake your fist, it wrinkles where it flattens the most, at the knuckles.
On a global scale these would be mountains.

It must be growing from the inside.
I don't fully understand how.

One explanation is that a natural atomic reaction is happening within the Earth and the daughter elements formed are adding to the volume of the Earth.

I don't think this is the correct explanation though.

But there is no point in discussing how it grew until
we have confirmed that it has grown.

That's what I'm trying to do, first.