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

[lunk]

http://geology.com/nasa/mars-plate-tectonics.shtml

The entire article is based on the assumption of subduction.

They clearly point out points of expansion,
yet, it assumes that there must be subduction,
and fails in pointing out these places of subduction.

This is what happens, when our fundamental understanding
of geological history is based on incorrect theories.

Mars grew.

(IMG:http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/assets/images/2003/Oct-27-2003/Mars_planet.jpg)

imo, lunk

"Valles Marineris, a large canyon six times as long as the Grand Canyon and eight times as deep, looks just like a rift formed on Earth by a plate being pulled apart. Even more, it is oriented just as one would expect from plate motions implied by the magnetic map."
I figure that the rifts are being pushed apart.
As this runs contrary to what they stated earlier in this article,
"Stripes form whenever two plates are being pushed apart by molten rock coming up from the mantle, such as along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge."

Don't you think it curious
that they (inadvertently) compared
the Grand Canyon
to a tectonic spread?

imo, lunk



(edit) for even more, and more, greater clarification.

I'm not making this up.

Imo, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: May 21 2008, 05:07 PM

[dMz]

What do crystals do from solution? They don't appear to have much respect for that vaunted 2nd "Law" of Thermodynamics either.

On the subduction thing- if the "plates" subduct down into that magma "sea" that I remember reading about, what happens to the plate(s)? Ever squeeze a toothpaste or medicine tube too hard, or step on a packet of catsup?

Something(s) to ponder-

just ask lunk

[lunk]

What do crystals do from solution? They don't appear to have much respect for that vaunted 2nd "Law" of Thermodynamics either.

On the subduction thing- if the "plates" subduct down into that magma "sea" that I remember reading about, what happens to the plate(s)? Ever squeeze a toothpaste or medicine tube too hard, or step on a packet of catsup?

Something(s) to ponder-

just ask lunk

Basalt is almost twice as dense as granite.
How could the latter subduct under the denser?

The bark of a tree does not subduct.
...though a nail (hammered into it) will appear to,
over time.

from experience, lunk

...Actually it was my laundry line,
the bark, and then the tree eventually, encapsulated it.

[dMz]

Basalt is almost twice as dense as granite.
How could the latter subduct under the denser?

I've seen springtime winds and solar heating crack, ramp, pile, and subduct ice sheets often with considerable force and energy. Of course wind or ?? might not get as much lateral force on say a continental [crustal?] "plate" as on a floating sheet of relatively thin ice. Then of course the density of ice and ice are the same, so... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

What is the "OT" for the source of the subducting lateral forces in MSG (mainstream geology)? [Only knows that MSG makes Chinese food taste yummy.]

[Geologist not listed on my resume: d]

[lunk]

It appears that when planets are small,
growth looks like meteor strikes.
The edges push against the surrounding older crust.
As the planet increases in size, its' growth accelerates,
causing the upper crust to break apart and rift, in bigger chunks.
The re curving of the solid upper crust causes it to compress at the surface, in places, forming mountains and V shaped valleys, that are in turn pushed apart in places, forming flattened U shaped valleys, if glaciers, water, landslides and erosion have smoothed the edges.
Otherwise the sides of these rifting areas have a stepped appearance.

Parts are being stretched
parts are being compressed
parts are being ripped apart
as the entire planet grows.

imo, lunk

[lunk]

OK, you're still not convinced that the Earth is growing.
Suspend disbelief for a moment, and let's say that it is.

Now, keep that in mind,
and try watching this:

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Pangea_animation_03.gif)


What seemed, a perfectly reasonable learned explanation, now seems, absolutely ridiculous.

There are parts of the Earth that are descending but this is minor, I think, this is mainly due to the solid crust crumpling and the stretching out at the surface...

as it grows.

imo, lunk

[lunk]

Here is a challenge:

Trace and cut out a picture of Pangea, (without the water)
and see if you can connect the edges and create a ball.

It shouldn't if there was subduction and the continents are just "floating" around.
But it will, if the Earth grew.

Ever notice how every picture of Pangea is a little different?

I can make a "pangea" where the East coast of South America and the West coast of Africa were the outer coastlines of my "pangea."
And every thing will still fit,
sort of,
but not quite.

That's because all the continents were together,
on a smaller planet.

Next, I'll show you how to make a triangle with 270 degrees in it.
(pilots should know this one)

cheers, lunk

[lunk]

Next, I'll show you how to make a triangle with 270 degrees in it.

cheers, lunk

The sum of the inside angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees.

Start on the equator and follow it a quarter of the way around the globe,
make a right angle turn and go North to the pole, Now go back to where you first started on the equator.
to complete the triangle with three inside angles of 90 degrees.
3*90=270

Notice how the rules for a shape change, when brought into 3 dimensions.

Most creatures think in 3D. But most people seem to think only in 2D...
...except pilots, but most other people see
everything as a 2 dimensional road map.

So it is difficult for most people to visualize 3 dimensional growth in their head.

The mid ocean rifts all connect,
like stretch marks,
or the newer underlaying growth of bark on a tree.

Earth grows.

imo, lunk

[lunk]

If the Earth was the size of an apple,
the skin of the apple would be much
thicker than the Earths' crust.

Well I guess you would say that
the crust of the Earth is not the skin of an apple...
...and definitely not the skin of a human.

If the rate of growth of a body is greater than the stretching ability of its' covering than you will get "stretch marks," in that covering:

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Belly_Strech_Marks.jpg)

These stretch marks have been caused by the rifting of the surface membrane due to rapid growth of the body.

There is no "subduction"...

Well, OK, the belly-button might get a little deeper.

They seem to resemble mountain valleys.

imo, lunk

Here is another "stretch mark,"
notice it's widest at the equator...:

(IMG:http://www.physast.uga.edu/~jss/1010/ch9/ridge.jpg)

What would you expect to see
on a growing oblate spheroid, anyway?

This post has been edited by lunk: May 29 2008, 05:44 PM

[lunk]

Stretch marks,
on our sister planet?

(IMG:http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA00104_modest.jpg)

[dMz]

That's fairly convincing so far lunk, but the stretch-mark photo won't be a crowd-pleaser IMHO.

My immediate question is what are the implications for Earth's mass and Solar System gravitiational dynamics? Newton and Kepler might not be too happy with such an idea, but they wouldn't have liked QM either, I suspect.

[lunk]

That's fairly convincing so far lunk, but the stretch-mark photo won't be a crowd-pleaser IMHO.

My immediate question is what are the implications for Earth's mass and Solar System gravitiational dynamics? Newton and Kepler might not be too happy with such an idea, but they wouldn't have liked QM either, I suspect.

Sorry about the photo, but I was trying to get away from the tree bark analogy, and find something more spherical.

I think our present understanding of physics just needs to be added to, not necessarily changed.

They say that the moon is moving away from Earth
at about an inch a year.
Could this be because it is getting heavier?

The Earth is getting heavier too,
presumably at a faster rate then the moon,
What would happen if an orbiting body gets heavier?

The density of the planets seem to decrease with size.
Could this mean they are hollow?
If they are, what happens to gravity, in the center of a planet?

And are there any studies on the tensile strength of different types of rock?

Then, the big question is,
if we know that it is, for sure, growing...

What is causing it to grow?

[dMz]

From:

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/nester1/sandreas.htm

"The San Andreas fault is one of only a few examples of a transform boundary between two tectonic plates that is exposed on a continent. Some other continental transforms are the Alpine fault in New Zealand and the Dead Sea Transform fault system in the Middle East. The San Andreas fault zone includes the main fault trace and many other major and minor fault strands. The width of the fault zone varies from a few meters to a few kilometers. The relative rate of motion between the North American plate and the Pacific plate is approximately 3.5 to 4.6 cm per year, most of which (2.0 to 3.5 cm per year) is accounted for by horizontal displacement along the San Andreas fault zone. The remainder is expressed by displacement along other, subparallel faults such as the Imperial and the San Jacinto fault zones in southern California."

From:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html

"Perhaps the best known of the divergent boundaries is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This submerged mountain range, which extends from the Arctic Ocean to beyond the southern tip of Africa, is but one segment of the global mid-ocean ridge system that encircles the Earth. The rate of spreading along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge averages about 2.5 centimeters per year (cm/yr), or 25 km in a million years. This rate may seem slow by human standards, but because this process has been going on for millions of years, it has resulted in plate movement of thousands of kilometers. Seafloor spreading over the past 100 to 200 million years has caused the Atlantic Ocean to grow from a tiny inlet of water between the continents of Europe, Africa, and the Americas into the vast ocean that exists today."

From:

http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/preli...l/185strat.html

"The crust subducting into the Mariana Trench includes Jurassic seafloor of the East Mariana and Pigafetta Basins (Fig. 5). Based on magnetic anomaly lineations, this region was thought to contain the Earth's oldest in situ oceanic crust formed at ultra fast spreading rates (160 km/m.y. at Site 801)."

OK- to summarize:
Atlantic Ocean- spreading
San Andreas Fault- spreading
Pacific Ocean/Marianas Trench- spreading

Hmmm.... but
[Geologist not listed on my resume: d]

Hey, speaking of San Andreas Fault:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M49NxSsdQcw

[lunk]

65 million yeas ago the not much of the ocean floor existed, the continents would have been just splitting apart, so, the Earth would have been much smaller and lighter, and pterosaurs (not airplanes) flew through the air.

"The largest of the pterosaurs was Quetzalcoatlus northropi, which lived in what is now Texas, USA about 65 million years ago. Partial remains found in Big Bend National Park, West Texas in 1971 were of a creature with a wingspan of 11 - 12m (36 - 39 feet) and weighing an estimated 86kg (190lb). Its wingspan-to-weight ratio was therefore 0.13. Pterosaur trackways discovered recently in Mexico suggest some had wingspans of 18m (60ft) — the size of a fighter aircraft such as the General Dynamics F-111— while fossils from Romania and Brazil are from creatures that reached 13 or 14m (42-45ft) across."

The Earth is much larger now, so, I was wondering if an aviation expert could figure out if it even possible for these very large creatures to fly, if they were around today?

Let alone hold their wings extended, without having them drag along on the ground!

Think about it.

(edit) forgot to link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A16537205

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 2 2008, 04:23 PM

[lunk]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all


"The pterosaurs eventually went into a decline that lasted several million years, according to Dr. Wann Langston Jr. of the Texas Memorial Museum in Austin, and then died out about the same time as their reptile cousins, the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. There is little agreement as to why."

They went extinct because the continents were breaking up, at this time, and they could no longer migrate, across the whole surface of the Earth, as they always had been able to, in the past.

This is the main reason why the dinosaurs went extinct.

imo, lunk

[lunk]

(IMG:http://www.dinosaur.net.cn/Museum/dino141/Quetzalcoatlus2.jpg)

(edit) added

http://www.hmnh.org/archives/2005/09/10/giant-pterosaurs/

"the crested pterodactyl Pteranodon was believed to be the largest creature that ever flew, with unfurled wings stretching 25 feet from tip to tip. Then, the Texan pterosaur Quetzalcoatlus topped the charts with a wingspan of 40 feet or more.

Now, pterosaur tracks from Mexico point to a Mesozoic aerialist with a wingspan of 60 feet"

Ever tried to lift an extended 24 foot aluminum ladder by one end?

These creatures could fly, and did fly, but it would be impossible for the largest of them to fly, today, because now, the Earth is much bigger and there is more gravity, so their wings would be too heavy.

imo, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 4 2008, 09:23 AM

[lunk]

If only they knew then, what we know now:

http://dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html

"Using wings that give only half as much lift while attempting to lift twice the weight, the Quetzalcoatlus has only two percent of the minimum power required for flight. Thus, among educated scientists this issue should not even be considered controversial; the Quetzalcoatlus could not have flown in today’s atmospheric environment.

There is no point in continuing to try to explain away the problems presented by the exceptionally large dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Clearly there was something different about the Mesozoic world that allowed these vertebrates to grow significantly larger that what is possible today. But finding what that difference is has always been the problem. For at least a couple of centuries, if not longer, researchers have had little if any success in their attempts to solve this problem. But now, there is a solution to the big dinosaur paradox."



What did I say?


ROFL!, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 4 2008, 05:20 PM

[lunk]

What do you think;
did the Earth grow,
or was there just a way more atmosphere?:

http://dinosaurtheory.com/solution.html

"However, it is difficult to imagine how either the universal gravitational constant G, the mass of the Earth M-E, or the radius of the Earth R-E could have changed significantly between the Mesozoic era and the present."

Yes, it is difficult to imagine,
but the Earth grew...
that fast, too.

imo, lunk

[lunk]

"Geologic periods

Following the Paleozoic, the Mesozoic extended roughly 180 million years: from 251 million years ago (Mya) to when the Cenozoic era began 65 Mya. This time frame is separated into three geologic periods. From oldest to youngest:

* Triassic (251.0 Mya to 199.6 Mya)
* Jurassic (199.6 Mya to 145.5 Mya)
* Cretaceous (145.5 Mya to 65.5 Mya)"

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

According to this map:

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

Most of the ocean floor wasn't there 65 million years ago.
and I don't think that the gravitational constant changed.

The Earth must have gotten bigger...
quite a bit bigger.
accelerating in it's growth, to where we are now.

imo, lunk

[JFK]

What do you think;
did the Earth grow,
or was there just a way more atmosphere?:

Honestly I think the earth was spinning much faster way back when and the centrifugal forces made everything lighter.

It would seem to me that the tides which the moon generates, acts as a massive "brake" and is continually slowing the spin of the earth ever so slightly.

Of course I accept the fact that I may be full of crap with that idea. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)