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

[Omega892R09]

Here is my favorite arrogant science/engineering quote of all time:



http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/22779.html

Just WOW!!!

Well yes!

Any such definitive statement is likely to be quickly shown up.

However that does not mean that declaring the demonstration of apparent similarity of two images proves the hypothesis in question as false is invalid.

[Omega892R09]

Back to things that, I think, we can agree upon,

There is no subduction,
there never was, and there never will be,
within the layers of stucco, on a house.

And that has to do witrh the earth what exactly?

A piece of un-buttered, cold, toast, will buckle on one side
and rip apart, on the other side, if slowly bent.

Well yes. I have seen cold folded aluminium do that. Also the inside of the bend has a tendency to push material sideways in a kind of bulge. With duralamin things are more interesting as the aluminium coating on both sides highlights the tears along the outside of the bend and it does not extrude at the sides on the bend.

The pieces of a flattened eggshell, will not exactly fit,
back together, if glued to a flat piece of cardboard,
even with the help of the all kings horses and men.

Are paleogeographers trying to fit together continents on a globe by considering two dimensional plans?

No.

Furthermore it is because of the spherical nature of the earth that subduction zones form arcs. Look at a map of the Pacific Ring of Fire for example.

Without subduction zones there would be no andesite volcanoes.

Please explain the various falts and folds evident in the rock strata arround the world using an expanding earth model?

Have you never seen such geological features? Go study them.

[lunk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountai...phy_and_geology

The younger ranges of the Rocky Mountains uplifted during the late Cretaceous period (100 million – 65 million years ago)

http://geology.com/press-release/age-of-the-andes-mountains/

“The geologic faults responsible for the rise of the eastern Andes mountains in Colombia became active 25 million years ago—18 million years before the previously accepted start date for the Andes’ rise, according to researchers at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, the University of Potsdam in Germany and Ecopetrol in Colombia.” Quoted from the STRI release.

Very little ocean floor is older than 125 million years

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/maps/blseafloorage.htm

Hmm, so this must mean, that both mountain ranges, happened after the ocean floors, first started to form?

...my forehead's wrinkling,
but my head isn't shrinking.

[dMz]

Pretty week arguments there dM. Of course I wasn't there but my own eyes have seen fossils weathering out of the cliffs nearby. I have noted the lie of the land with the Triassic-Jurassic-Cretacious progression from west to east along our southern coast. I have noted the folded rocks as mountain building happened in Scotland (where some of the oldest rock formations on earth are located), and North Wales, and the Jurassic remnants that are the Malvern Hills. I have also seen the folded rocks in Cornwall where tectonic forces have been at work.

Can you explain these features by an expanding earth theory?
...

Using your logic.

I have fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Can you prove that I do not?

I can make an elephant scaring whistle. I know it works because I have never seen an elephant in my garden. Can you prove otherwise?

Actually, those were 3-4 questions, not arguments O892 if you read them carefully. There was an allusion/metaphor to the "hearsay" nature of science (which is the way that many sciences have been taught for the last 150 years or so). One professor once wrote a book or gave a lecture, and his students took some notes, and a few of them wrote some books, and so forth... There are now theories, there are "models," and there are various hypotheses. There are precious few scientific "Laws," and Ohm's isn't one BTW. There is also very loose use of the word "proof" by most people IMHO.

I have never been to Scotland, North Wales, the Malvern Hills, or Cornwall firsthand, so I can make no reasonable judgments or conclusions about those, as I have seen no evidence presented. Perhaps you have not seen the many faults, canyons, buttes, arroyos, mesas, and mountains of the Western U.S firsthand. I have, and there are many very "unique" geologic formations I have been told by many geologists and geophysicists (I was considering graduate work in geophysics and/or petrochemical engineering for a while, and I know several of each, living in "mining country").

Faults are actually quite easy to explain with lunk's "tree bark" (or stretch mark- yuk!) model, however and he provided photos on this thread (the trees were much more pleasant BTW (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ).

Again, I asked several questions (about evidence specifically), I did not make an explicit logical argument. You however made a logical fallacy (or more) with the faeries and the whistle.

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

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true.

The expanding earth is not my theory (or my position, which has apparently been misrepresented above). Nor is plate "tectonics." My position is the Socratic/agnostic "null hypothesis-" we don't know for certain about expanding planets or plate tectonics (nor are we likely ever to know IMHO), because we do NOT have empirical data, firsthand eyewitness accounts, etc. To "profess" to know is a thing very common, but is it valid?

EDIT: And to answer your 2 questions directly, no & no, on the faeries and elephant whistle, respectively.

[lunk]

I was told that I have fairies in the bottom of my garden too!

They go by the names, Subduction, Continental drift, and Plate Tectonics.

People keep asking me about the fairies, and I keep telling them that they are really, just cutouts, from a story-book, pinned onto the trunks of trees.

cheers, lunk

[Omega892R09]

Actually, those were 3-4 questions, not arguments O892 if you read them carefully.

Ah! A decent into semantics.

There was an allusion/metaphor to the "hearsay" nature of science (which is the way that many sciences have been taught for the last 150 years or so).

Sheesh!
Not all science is based on hearsay, otherwise your GPS, auto and the A/C that you fly in would never work. I really think you need a shift in perspective here else I'll think your are paranoid about all science amounting to cooked books.

One professor once wrote a book or gave a lecture, and his students took some notes, and a few of them wrote some books, and so forth... There are now theories, there are "models," and there are various hypotheses. There are precious few scientific "Laws," and Ohm's isn't one BTW. There is also very loose use of the word "proof" by most people IMHO.

Be all that as it may, and that is a very broad whitewash brush that you have used there, without some fair certainties about how things work then you would not be living the life you do now. And I would not be entering these words into an electronic form rather than putting ink, or slip planes of graphite, on paper.

There is a difference between evidence and proof I'll grant you, but when the balance of evidence for a particular theory is overwhelming then only the curmudgeon would resist accepting that theory as fact.

I have never been to Scotland, North Wales, the Malvern Hills, or Cornwall firsthand, so I can make no reasonable judgments or conclusions about those, as I have seen no evidence presented.

So on that basis you refuse to acknowledge the facts of their existence even though you could find photographs of these features?

Please don't use the excuse that a photograph is only an indication not actual proof as I could say the same about lunk's pictures of tree bark, i.e., that wasn't tree bark at all just a trick of the light.

Perhaps you have not seen the many faults, canyons, buttes, arroyos, mesas, and mountains of the Western U.S firsthand.

You are correct, I have not. But then I don't use that as a reason to dismiss their existence or the manner of their formation. Not many folds in that structure AFAIK not until you get down to deeper layers perhaps. The existence of folds there would be evidence for the antiquity of plate tectonics.

Faults are actually quite easy to explain with lunk's "tree bark" (or stretch mark- yuk!) model, however and he provided photos on this thread (the trees were much more pleasant BTW (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ).

Faults maybe but not folds which was my main case in point.

Again, I asked several questions (about evidence specifically), I did not make an explicit logical argument. You however made a logical fallacy (or more) with the faeries and the whistle.

I used those examples for specifically that reason. I knew they were such. And lunk's argument for an expanding earth is also, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, demonstrably false and I have indicated several areas where this is shown to be so.

The problem with lunk's argument is that it is one of those things very easy to state but which, considering the complications of reality, takes much more effort to refute and requires reference to numerous sources which you can deign to whitewash at a stroke.

Creationists and climate change deniers use similar tactics and is typified in your statement:

Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true.

This the attempt at balancing both sides of an argument as being equally worthy of belief in spite of overwhelming evidence for one side.

We have seen this attempt at balance by the mainstream media over the last near twenty years WRT the climate change debate and it has certainly been a theme in the court battles to get Creationism into the science curriculum in US schools.

The expanding earth is not my theory (or my position, which has apparently been misrepresented above).

By whom and how?

[Omega892R09]

Continental drift

I am glad that you mentioned that one lunk because that was a belief before other scientific advances allowed progress to be made in formulating a whole theory of crustal behaviour and supplying the missing pieces that allowed a hypothesis to become fact - subduction (Benioff) zones.

These advances paleomagnetism, radiometric dating and seismic studies, amongst others, reinforce the findings in the other fields of science, much as many fields of science, including some of those mentioned, come to support evolution.

And what allows the whole process to proceed smoothly, relatively speaking of course, is water which acts as a 'lubricant' at crustal boundaries.

It is the gases exuded from andesitic volcanoes, which I have mentioned previously, that proves the presence of sea water which can only have one source - the ocean floor as it subducts.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jun 16 2009, 12:43 PM

[lunk]

(edit) I can't agree with this though,

Water as a lubricant between 30 and 70 km thick slabs of solid rock floating on an endless sub-ocean of semi-liquid magma?


What sort of specific gravities are all these slippery things?
What are their densities relative to water?

You would think that with all these enormous pressures at play, there should be a massive amount of steam bubbling up where the continental plates meet the ocean floor. Yet, other than the odd, intermittent, inland, volcano, the oceans seem fairly old and cool at the continental shelves. Though, there is continuous geothermal activity at the mid ocean rifts.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 14 2009, 12:44 PM

[lunk]

Ok, I'll check:

http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html

water s.p. 1.00
granite 2.69
magma 2.70
basalt 3.01
I guess magma must shrink a bit as it cools into basalt.

Curious that basalt is micro crystals and granite is big crystals.
the basalt of the ocean floors is young, and the continents of granite, are old.
And bigger crystals take longer to grow then smaller crystals.

It's almost looks like basalt given enough time (billions of years) grows into a granite.

Thanks Dmole, for pointing out that crystals, self organize and grow the opposite of (the arrow of time) entropy.

[Omega892R09]

You would think that with all these enormous pressures at play, there should be a massive amount of steam bubbling up where the continental plates meet the ocean floor.

The higher the pressure then the higher the temperature at which water boils but the correct pressure/temperature ratio is reached whilst the magma is rising from the subducting floor and up through the continental crust above. This was the driving force behind the Mount St Helens blast for example.

Conversely, ever tried to make a good pot of tea whilst up a mountain? You cannot. A correct infusion of tea requires the water to be at sea level boiling point. Just a little under and the tea isn't that good. this is why teapots are warmed before adding tea and boiling water - so that the water is not cooled too quickly as it hits the tea.

[Omega892R09]

I guess magma must shrink a bit as it cools into basalt.

Please note that magma produced at subduction zones is different in composition to that which arises at the mid ocean ridge (which encircles the Antarctic and has branches up through the other oceans) and hot spots under either the ocean floor e.g., Hawaiian and Aleutian chains, or under continents e.g., Yellowstone.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jun 16 2009, 12:37 PM

[lunk]

Volcanoes, interesting topic.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17457/volcanoes/types.php

I remember hearing Mt St. Helens erupt, in 1980.
it sounded like somebody blasting a few doors away...

that was in Vancouver BC!

[lunk]

Hmm, maybe not the best research site.
There seems to be many assumptional mistakes. for instance they say that the mid ocean rifts are coming together?!

(Fig 1.12) Subduction forms
oceanic trench.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17457/platetectonics/5.php

This is not true.

Even Omega, I think, must agree,
that this is a factual error,
at the very least.

[lunk]

Here is a map of the thickness of the Earths' crust:

(IMG:http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/structure/crust/images/topo.jpg)

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/struct...crust/index.php

(edit) added

Here is a picture of a continental shelf, meeting the basaltic ocean floor.

(IMG:http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/Shelf_rivers.jpg)

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 17 2009, 03:50 PM

[lunk]

Hmm, that last picture reminds me of the 3D pictures from Mars of the Hale crater. I wonder if there are geometric relics left behind by the software, that look like farmland.

Anyhow, I found a new picture of the crustal age of the Earths' floor:

(IMG:http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_noplates.jpg)

most of the oceans, seem to be less than 180 million years old.
The ocean floors are new, compared to anything inland, from the continental shelves.

(edit)added
notice the title of the above map

Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust

side note-Those ridges in the Atlantic, sure look a lot like Painters' art.

(edit) added even more.

The lines, in the ocean floor, crossing the Atlantic, indicate the parts of Africa and South American coastline, that were once, together. The southern lines, starting from South Americas' tail, go past to the other side of Africa. Showing that the North-East side of S. Americas' tail was on the East side of Africa!

The only way that this is possible,
(think about it,) is if the Earth grew.

Like an orange that has grown twice as big
as its' peel.

orange=sea floors
peel=continents.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 20 2009, 08:33 AM

[lunk]

OK, if the Earth is growing, and the continents are all moving apart, because the ocean floors are widening between them, and mountains are caused by the re-curving of the Earth...so what really happened here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8162628.stm

A massive earthquake last week has brought New Zealand closer to Australia, scientists say.
The 7.8 magnitude quake in the Tasman Sea has expanded New Zealand's South Island westwards by about 30cm (12in).
(snip)
While the south-west of the South Island moved about 30cm towards Australia, the east coast moved only one centimetre westwards, Dr Gledhill said."Basically, New Zealand just got a little bit bigger is another way to think about it," he told AFP news agency.

Hmmm, It looks to me, like New Zealand hasn't moved but has stretched or twisted. I wonder if they are assuming that the Earth doesn't grow and they calculated it a foot closer to Australia, by subtraction, not by an actual measurement from Australia.

Ah, this quote may be closer to the truth.

But correspondents say that with more than 2,250km (1,400 miles) separating the countries, the narrowing will not exactly be visible.

I have my suspicions that New Zealand and Australia are still the same distance apart, and New Zealand just got a little bigger (stretched).

You see, if New Zealand is now 29 cm bigger to the west than it was, and one did not know that the Earth was growing then, they would have to assume that it got a foot closer to Australia.

...but I don't think it did, or could have.

(edit) my usual mistakes corrected.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jul 24 2009, 09:34 AM

[lunk]

Ever tried to peel an orange, so the peel comes off in one piece?

There are many ways that this can be done.
The removed single peel can be an almost infinite number of shapes,
but if, all the edges of that peel are put back together, they will form
the original round orange.
Now if I take that same single entire peel of an orange,
and flattened it out, on the surface of a much larger watermelon,
I would have Pangaea!

a little reverse logic, to about think.

[lunk]

I made a little video, I thought I would try my hand at continental drift.
I tried to slide South America back together with Africa, on the same size globe.
I lined up corresponding shore lines but even though they appeared to match, everything else went out of place, at every angle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mSfaX5V2Sw

The only way to get these two continents to fit back together is on a smaller globe.

[Omega892R09]

I made a little video, I thought I would try my hand at continental drift.
I tried to slide South America back together with Africa, on the same size globe.
The only way to get these two continents to fit back together is on a smaller globe.

With all due respect lunk you are ignoring many geological processes.

If you factor in the fractured nature of the mid-Atlantic ridge which is split by transform faults, running in general west-east, into many sections, erosion of mountains and the resultant silt expunged into the ocean by rivers and submarine canyons (check out turbidity currents) and erosion of coastal areas from ocean currents and storms then there is little mystery left. Africa and South America were not separated by a band-saw.

Oceanic sediment age, as I explained in an earlier post WRT the Pacific, is consistent with plate tectonics. It is worth pointing out that the weight of evidence supporting plate tectonics makes as strong a case as those for evolution. Both are no longer just theories in the general sense they are both powerful theories in the predictive sense.

The earth is not expanding. I have explained at length the evidence which supports that statement but it seems that you would rather ignore all that.

On an expanding earth would one expect high mountain ridges such as the Himalayas and Alps with rocks formed from ocean sediments at the tops?

It is known that the earth's tectonic plates are moving in a fashion consistent with tectonic theory of constructive (spreading centres e.g., mid-Atlantic ridge), destructive (subduction or Waditi-Benioff zones) and transform faults. Boundaries of the Pacific plate are moving apart or coming together at rates measured in centimeters per year, this from satellite data.

IIRC you are located in the Vancouver area. If so this is on one boundary of a very complex tectonic system of subduction, spreading zones and transform faults around the Nazca Plate.

There is a superb account of the details, including some of the unanswered question, in Tom Garrison's books on Oceanography the scope of which is wide and most interesting. Some superb contour charts of the world's ocean and sea beds have been produced which will illucidate many of the pertinent points.

[Omega892R09]

Ever tried to peel an orange, so the peel comes off in one piece?

There are many ways that this can be done.
The removed single peel can be an almost infinite number of shapes,
but if, all the edges of that peel are put back together, they will form
the original round orange.
Now if I take that same single entire peel of an orange,
and flattened it out, on the surface of a much larger watermelon,
I would have Pangaea!

a little reverse logic, to about think.

OK. Do the orange skin piece profiles match that of the melon?

No of course they don't. There is similar difficulty as when trying to obtain an accurate representation of all land masses by flattening out the skin of a globe onto a flat piece of paper. Hence the creation of the many cartographic projections.

A little practical methodology to consider.