IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

17 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Plate Tectonics And Continental Drift., And I thought I knew all about it...

Omega892R09
post Nov 4 2008, 11:58 AM
Post #61





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 2 2008, 02:55 AM) *
Are there any closed systems in the universe? I'm not aware of a scientific consensus of what shape/size one of those is either. Didn't the cosmologists just need to stuff a bunch of "dark matter" everywhere to get their mouldy theory of gravity to work?

Oh dM! This is not like you.

Suggesting that there is something else in the universe to account for the perceived lack of mass to satisfy new theories is not to suddenly add something. It was 'possibly' already there just not noticed.

Different scenario entirely.

Besides you did notice my qualifier, 'too a large extent', didn't you? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 12 2008, 08:06 AM
Post #62



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Nov 4 2008, 07:58 AM) *
Suggesting that there is something else in the universe to account for the perceived lack of mass to satisfy new theories is not to suddenly add something. It was 'possibly' already there just not noticed.


Matter in the aether is like fish in the ocean.

The aether isn't immaterial,
it just doesn't interact with material,
because of it's tiny size and electromagnetic cancellation
between it's two equal/opposite halfs,
the electron and the positron.

I think Einstein was the first,
to make it vanish from scientific inquiry
by making it seem unfashionable.

...for lack of a better scientific term

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 14 2008, 02:09 AM
Post #63



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 3 2008, 07:54 PM) *
There are other forces of geological change too,
For instance if one undermines a mountain...



http://www.arthon.com/projects/summerland/RoadClosures2.html






The road they were trying to widen,
is now closed until further notice.

300 000 cubic meters of mountain is sliding at 10-20 mm/day.
If this falls into the lake, it could make a very big wave.

...thinking of building an ark.


Update;
The 1.5 million tons of rock has stopped sliding.
The highway is open again, with delays, as the company
continues to widen the road by undermining a mountain,
along the western edge of a tectonic spread.

...maybe, I'll just get an inflatable rubber dingy.

cheers, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Dec 22 2008, 09:21 PM
Post #64





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



OK here goes, they reckon that the big bang wasn't an explosion of matter but rather an expansion of space and time. This fits into the Lunk theory of an expanding Earth and planets because the expansion of space and time has never stopped, it's just that the formation of matter and the gravity created therein has either slowed it down and that we inhabitants on the Earth will have to keep evolving smaller as our battle against universal expansion continues or we are about to get real big fast.

http://www.astronomybuff.com/the-big-bang-...e-not-in-space/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 22 2008, 11:23 PM
Post #65



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Interesting explanation of the big bang.

But I don't think there was a beginning.
Or, by the same reasoning, an end.

What we call space, is full of virtually
undetectable particles, and a little bit of energy,
in the form light and other invisible frequencies.
These undetectable particles, can be broken apart,
by this energy, and form electrons or photons and
proton centers. These particles can form
hydrogen atoms, the fundamental stable detectable particle,
and basic building block of all the matter,
in this universe that we inhabit.

So I would conclude that time and space,
have always existed and are infinite,
and matter is growing within these mediums
always has, and can always continue to do so.

Though I'm not quite sure how to explain
the accelerated growing space, between matter,
but I think it may have something to do
with some sort of zero division,
caused by the lack of physical matter,
in the space between the galaxies.
There is always a little matter in space,
but the less there is, the vaster the space seems to be.
...or perhaps become?
And it is logical to conclude that, if there
was no matter at all, space would have to be infinite.

Unlike Einstein, who claimed that
without matter, space would not exist.
Logically impossible, imho.

There seems to be a theme of logarithmic expansion,
to almost all scales, in the universe.

imo, lunk

(edit) added punctuation, to

This post has been edited by lunk: Dec 22 2008, 11:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 26 2008, 08:06 PM
Post #66



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Here is another explanation,
for the obvious and easily provable fact
that the Earth has grown over time.

http://www.wincom.net/earthexp/n/opdrift.htm

QUOTE
According to continental drift, the movement of the continents to their current positions rests upon a process of intricate causality -- one without a guiding mechanism.
That the random forces of continental drift could produce the precision in the pattern of continents seen today is beyond the probability range. The odds are astronomical. The theory thrives on the observation of isolated points without looking at the whole picture. The precision of continental placement can logically be attributed to global expansion, as a singular event. The model answers:
Why are the continents where they are?


If matter can be changed to energy;
energy should be able to change into matter.

The Earth is constantly being bombarded with energy, from space.
...could much of this energy, (remember the visible spectrum, is just a tiny part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum), be being transformed, somehow, inside the Earth, into matter?

(edit) forgot to link

This post has been edited by lunk: Dec 26 2008, 08:15 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 28 2008, 09:49 PM
Post #67



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I was thinking of the different ways that energy can be contained,
Wood, for instance, is stored sunlight,
the energy from the sun that shines on the tree,
is stored in its' wood and released, once it is burned.

It seems strange to realize that the heat from a fire
is the quick release of years of chemically stored sunlight.

Anyhow, energy can be stored in a chemical battery,
it can be stored in an electrical capacitor,
a coil of wire (for a short time), which is in essence,
a sort of physical manifestation of the vortex.
(there should be other methods, I haven't thought of)

Otherwise, most energy will radiate and dissipate away from the source,
at the speed of light.

...I have no idea where I'm going with this.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 26 2009, 10:45 PM
Post #68



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I thought that I would try to fit Africa and South America together, they look like they fit, one sliding right together with the other.
All amateur, and professional plate technicians should try this:

Like puzzle pieces, they should fit, but they don't.

Now, if the globe was a little smaller they would couple perfectly!

(edit added more explanation)
I'm trying for the best possible fit. at each angle a different part of the coasts fit, pretty well, but then the other corresponding shorelines, further away, went out of position.
All the shoreline shapes, of both continents,
would fit together perfectly on a smaller globe.

Remember, the same size continents, on a smaller globe, would have more of a curve in them. For instance, a triangle curved over the surface of a globe, can have 270 degrees in it, instead of just 180 on a plain.

As a balloon is inflated, the curve of any given area decreases.
Sort of strange to think, that as a balloon inflates,
the curve in its' surface, flattens.

This post has been edited by lunk: May 27 2009, 12:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 27 2009, 08:28 AM
Post #69





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 25 2009, 12:45 AM) *
Now, if the globe was a little smaller they would couple perfectly!

No need for that as there are many geophysical processes than can explain any discrepancies and squash this nonsense.

I have been explaining some if it in the global warming thread. Perhaps the relevant posts should be moved in here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 27 2009, 09:09 AM
Post #70



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ May 27 2009, 05:28 AM) *
No need for that as there are many geophysical processes than can explain any discrepancies and squash this nonsense.

I have been explaining some if it in the global warming thread. Perhaps the relevant posts should be moved in here.


Nonsense?
It makes more sense,
than a complicated explanation of plate tectonics.

The Earth must have grown,
as Africa and South America will fit together,
with no overlap and no subduction,
on a smaller globe.

They don't fit anymore,
because they are flatter now,
then they were, when they broke apart.

The shoe fits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 28 2009, 03:16 AM
Post #71



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I made this 4 part picture, where I tried to fit South America on different angles on to Africa. They look like the two continents should match, and the features do,
but, when I try and align the corresponding features, other parts, that match, go out of place.
If one could bend the continents in the middle, toward you, then they would fit together perfectly.

There is no other simple explanation.
Africa and South America have not drifted anywhere,
they have stayed put.

And the Atlantic ocean has widened between them.

As the Earth grew, the size of the continents stayed the same size, but the curve of the Earth decreased and flattened the continents. This "flattening" of the continents caused the surface of them, in some places, to bend and rumple up, forming mountain ranges, in places, and the great pressure of Geo-growth forces great chunks of rock, together in places where the heat becomes so intense that rock will liquefy and cause a volcano.

Anyhow, notice how all the points of South America match the coast of Africa, but each, at different angles.
They would all match and fit if the Earth was smaller, as the angles of the continents would be tighter, on the surface, of a smaller Earth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 28 2009, 07:52 AM
Post #72





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 26 2009, 06:16 AM) *
I made this 4 part picture, where I tried to fit South America on different angles on to Africa.

Hum! When I first went to this page I though my last post had been deleted but then realised that you were just repeating these images to support this nonsense. Repetition does not make them any more valid than not.

Make up your mind. At one point you say the earth is expanding because all the continents fit neatly together but now suddenly they don't!

Of course any such neat fit ignores the fact that the continents have moved around the globe since Archean times and with varied shapes and in differet relative postions but set in oceans nonetheless. Wides spread oceans as indicated by the fossil record, let alone data from many other areas of scientific study.

I invite readers to explore this particular can of worms by starting here:

Subduction Denialism, Part 1: The Backstory
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 28 2009, 08:00 AM
Post #73





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



To save people dodging about between threads I have decided to bring my replies to lunk in here. It is up to lunk if he wishes to follow suit.

This is the first relevent.

QUOTE
QUOTE (lunk @ May 20 2009, 04:02 PM)
But I looked everywhere, and couldn't find any actual specific location on this globe, as to where to build a radioactive disposal site, that would be subducted under the continent, ...any continent.



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ May 21 2009, 02:43 PM) *
It would probably have to be done at sea where the basalt underlayer, i.e. below the sediment, is located. If it is tried on the continental side of the Beniof zone then one would have to go through a layer of molten magma before reaching the descending basalt ocean base.

Subduction zones do exist, many sciences support the fact. Geologists, minerologists and biogeographers, and others, support plate tectonics and the features produced by them.

Do you really believe in this expanding earth hypothesis or is it just a discussion point?
I ask that because I cannot believe that anybody who has a grasp of the current knowledge in the fields of geology, evolutionary biology, oceanography, stratography to name a few could think there is anything in it.

Explain high mountain ocean sediments and the rock formations that explain how the shape of the continents, and their very coherence, over the life of the earth have changed. Where was there space for oceans on a smaller globe. Oceans of water are know to have existed in hadean times. The great size of some land creatures should not be taken as an indicator of less gravity for smaller volume does not indicate less mass. Size is often a function of some other quality such as temperature or balance of gases in the atmosphere, it is also related to metabolic rate. After the large dinosaurs most creatures were small. Did the earth suddenly expand only to shrink again in the Eocene when large mammals abounded?

No, there is much nonsense in the expanding earth idea, much knowledge quietly ignored.

Hum. It looks like I have picked a bad time to do this as my internet connection has just become like wading through treacle (molasses).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 28 2009, 08:04 AM
Post #74





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE
QUOTE (lunk @ May 20 2009, 04:02 PM)
But I ran into a problem,
...I couldn't find an actual subduction zone.



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ May 22 2009, 10:51 AM) *
Here is a little something that will help you out there:

GeoMapApp

Runs fine if a little slow but then it is a Java app'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 28 2009, 08:06 AM
Post #75





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 22 2009, 12:54 PM) *
I was brought up with the theory of plate tectonics, like everyone else.
It wasn't until I started looking
deeper into it, that I saw that it is just a theory.

It is a theory in the scientific sense where there is a high degree of confidence in the correctness of plate tectonics as provided by the current state of knowledge in many scientific fields. Paleontology, bio-paleontology, stratigraphy, geology, mineralogy, oceanography, seismology (including seismological tomography, radiometric dating and paleomagnatism.

Warren S Carey's theory of expanding earth did not survive the assaults from the last three of those namely seismology, radiometric dating and paleomagnatism, except in his own continuing boistrous presentations up until he died.

Thus multi-dimensional scientific analysis supports plate tectonics.

Expanding earth is simply so far out that it isn't even wrong, it fails on so many points not least of which in explaining the existence of large oceans such as the Panthalassa evidence of the existence of which is widely spread because of the break up of Pangea whereby sub-continents of Australia/New Guinea/New Zealand, India, Africa, Laurasia and Baltica, South America and Antarctica moved asunder in varied different ways involving moving across and up the globe with varied rotations as they went.

The known age of the Pacific sea floor is also against an expanding earth and the fact that there was water there is proven by the under sea mounts, and guyots that exist in the wake of the hot spot currently in the region of Hawaii.

I could go into lengthy explanations of theory behind the above statements but feel this is the wrong thread, and maybe even the wrong forum for such detailed discourse.

There for I will use the shorthand method of a few web pointers:

That Neal Adams has used sleight of hand, aka artistic license, is provided in these clips:

Re: Neal Adams Conspiracy of Science: Pangea

RE: Neal Adams Science Project

The following forums provide interesting and enlightening exchanges:

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

In this next one read the replies by SkinWalker
SciForums.com

In that above the banned Oil is Master is responsible for a web site promoting Expanding Earth and Abiogenic oil. Hum!:

oilismastery.blogspot.com

I could go on in similar vein but that would be to over-egg the pudding at this stage.

It should be noted that in the later part of the 19th and early 20th centuries that some proposed a shrinking earth hypothesis.

QUOTE
Historically, many land creatures were massively bigger than land creatures can be today, today, the reason for this is that there must be more gravity today then there was before.

False assumption.

There are other reasons for the development of large creatures such as metabolic rate, temperature (large creatures have a more favorable volume to surface area ratio in cold climes and vice versa) and availability of suitable nutrients amongst them.

QUOTE
The only way that this could happen is if the Earth is more massive today. In fact, if you take away the oceans the world would be 1.7 times smaller ((edit) I mean the Earth today is 1.7 times as big as it was, without the oceans), if you put all the continents back together, without them, on a smaller globe.

So when were there no oceans?

QUOTE
The continents of today, will fit together perfectly on a much smaller globe.

No they don't actually, besides see my notes about the age of the Pacific sea floor above and the movements of the Pangea fragments post break up.


QUOTE
The fossil records show that the same dinosaurs were on every continent, world wide.

That only proves that the continents were once joined but you are aware that during the age of the dinosaurs there was a growing gulf between many of the subcontinents.

Also the fossil record WRT small oceanic organisms and those pre-Pangea is damning of any expanding earth theory.

You are aware that there were oceans as far back in time as the Hadean.

EDIT:

BTW lunk. Do I have it right that you are in the Vancouver Island area?

If so there is much interesting geology near and under you which supports the existance of Benioff Zones.

Also I read a book, still have it around, that may interest you. It is "Passage to Juneau" by Jonathan Raban.

Passage to Juneau: A Sea and Its Meanings

I picked it up and read because I had done sailing like the author and was interested in that part of the world particularly because of its maritime history. It is an interesting account that provides much colour in the way of local history and geography.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 28 2009, 08:08 AM
Post #76





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 23 2009, 03:28 PM) *
Yes that is a good question, where did all the salt water come from?
Short answer: from fresh water mixed with salt.

Long answer: the crystalline salt domes grew, the earth expanded, fresh water rushed down into the gaps and dissolved some of these previously underground salt domes.

Salt water existed before salt domes, that is where the salt in the domes came from when shallow seas evaporated. This allowed salt domes to rise, more like pillars in reality, through the less dense overlaying crust. So where did all that salt come from originally?

QUOTE
Hydrogen is the simplest and most common element in the galaxy,
water is 2/3rds hydrogen.
There is a considerable amount of oxygen chemically locked into the Earth.
Sounds good but it does not work like that.
The most abundant element [on the earth] is oxygen existing as O2 in the free state where it comprises 20.9 by volume and 23% by weight of the atmosphere.

46.6% by weight of the earth's crust is oxygen being the major constituent of silica materials, this tends to make continental crust lighter than the underlying lithosphere and thus supported by isostasy. This is why continents can float about on the lithosphere plates driven by the convection currents in the asthenosphere and also by the pull of the more dense undersea basalt floors as they move into destructive margins. Oceans cover about three quarters of the globe and oxygen comprises about 89% by weight of the water in those oceans. Proportions of oxygen from J.D.Lee, 'Concise Inorganic Chemistry'.

QUOTE
So it is conceivable that water could be generated within the Earth itself, as a chemical byproduct of Earth Growth, and the oceans are constantly being added to, at the mid ocean rifts.
...but they aren't changing much because the mid ocean rifts are widening.


Water could indeed be generated from within the earth but not as a byproduct of earth growth.
Mineralogist JD Smyth has calculated that spinel structure woodsleyite, found at depth in the mantle, could contain a water molecule. This would amount to there being more water below the earths surface than above it. This information comes from R. Fortey, 'The Earth: An Intimate History' (worth a read BTW) but I have been unable to track down the article in which these calculations are laid out. However the nature of the work of Smyth can be judged from:

[Thermodynamics of mantle minerals – I. Physical properties

I will have more to say about this in a future post, hopefully.

QUOTE
The age of the ocean floors is a good indicator of the directions the continents, should appear to be moving. (see attachment)

Notice that the age of the oldest part of the ocean floor is less than 200 million years old, most of it is less than 65 million years old, which is new, compared to the and the continents that are as old as 5000 million years?

(in reality they move the same way that the last years bark on a tree does, as that tree, grows.)

All the continents are moving away from each other, this is logically impossible without growth of the Earth.

Only if you ignore the existence of subduction, Benioff, zones which is a big IF and here is why.

Austrian geologist Leonore Hoke has spent time in the high Andes of Bolivia taking and evaluating gas samples from almost every volcanic fumerole in that area. She found large quantities of water vapour, sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide. In lesser quantities, but of great significance, she found helium and nitrogen.

There were two forms of helium. The lighter Helium-3 and the heavier Helium-4 the later results from the decay of uranium and thorium both of which enrich the earth's crust. In average continental crust there is about 100 million times more heavy than light helium. At deeper levels in the earth the ration shrinks to about 100000 times more heavy helium than light helium. Thus the source of helium can be traced.

Hoke found that the helium escaping in the Andean volcanoes was enriched in helium-3, by up to 500 times. Thus some helium comes from the mantle. No kicker to your 'there are no subduction zones' theory yet you think.

But the large quantities of water vapour suggested a wet source. This coupled with the finding of nitrogen, which could only have come from the sediment on the sea floor, indicated that the volcanic activity along the Andes, and around the remainder of the Pacific Ring of Fire (and a few other zones on earth) had to come from sea floor being subsumed near the junction with the ocean.

Cenozoic behind-arc volcanism in the Bolivian Andes, South America: implications for mantle melt generation and lithospheric structure. Leonore Hoke & Simon Lamb

Cenozoic behind-arc volcanism in the Bolivian Andes, South America: implications for mantle melt generation and lithospheric structure. Leonore Hoke & Simon Lamb

Note the reference to Charles Lyell in that URL.

Seismic records re-enforce the idea that the ocean floor is descending into the mantle along these zones.

The Western Cordillera of North America provides more evidence for subdction zones and right on your doorstep lunk so to speak with a subduction zone running along the western edge of Vancouver Island. This zone is couple with the Juan de Fuca Ridge further out and to the transform faults to the north and south. The San Andreas to the South and the Queen Charlotte to the North and this one runs from the South of Alaska into the Aleutian Trench. This fault has provided evidence of its activity in recent times and many times.

The higher silica content of magma typical of eruptions along such faults is responsible for the increased pressure that builds, due to large amounts of gas, which then results in such a violant event as typified by Mt St. Helens, Popocatépetl, Pinatubo, Pelée, Krakatoa, Ngauruhoe (NZ), Unzen (near Nagasaki), one of the series of explosions from which killed the french vulcanologists Maurice and Katia Krafft.

As the Western Cordillera zone develops then ocean sediments are also scrapped off to form an uplifted wedge along the edge of the continent. Such is the extent of these exotic terranes, over 200 in number having been formed from Alaska to Mexico each having a distinct lithography with one having been formed by the impress of a back island arc, making this area geologically complex. At some time in the future Vancouver Island itself will be pushed into union with the continent.

That really is enough for one post but I am planning something on the images that you have included, the second being normally used in conjunction with explanations of paleomagnetism.

As for the gratuitous provision of portraits of Wegener and Carey. That is interesting for one had ideas ahead of his time about continental drift and which theory had drifted into obscurity at his death. Which was sad because all he lacked were the tools to prove that some of his thinking had merit.

As for Carey, his expanding earth has now been discredited. Discredited may be a strong term where undermined would be a kinder choice but then Carey did continue to push his theory in spite of increasing scientific evidence reinforcing the validity of plate tectonics, and thus discredited sticks. A true scientist should be open minded enough to embrace scientific ideas based on solid findings.

PS. I had started a cross-sectional diagram to aid visual grasp of subduction zone as particularly applied to the Western Cordiller but other events and time caught up with me and I doubt that you have not seen the like.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 28 2009, 08:10 AM
Post #77





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 23 2009, 02:28 PM) *
But lets see what the experts say about the direction that they must assume each continent is going relative to each other:

Does anyone else see a discrepancy between the theorized past movement of the continents and the actual documented historical facts?!


I am danged if I can see a comparison being made there. Is the animation supposed to be the 'theorized past movement' and if so where have you laid out the 'actual documented historical facts'?

QUOTE
Think of how heavy a continent must be, how much inertia it must have,

If you had studied this topic in any detail you would know that the continents have a much lower density than the ocean crust and that the oceanic crust becomes denser as you travel away from the mid-ocean ridges. This density gradient is one of the mechanisms driving the subduction particularly as the basaltic crust at the subduction boundaries is denser than the mantle.

QUOTE
just slipping about, changing directions, la tee da,

Such flippant dismissal of the volumes of literature produced by dedicated scientific researchers is, to put it mildly, irritating. To use a well know expression, from tennis, 'You cannot be serious!'

QUOTE
perhaps we should gear a generator to their movement, think of how much energy we could harness, and by us, slowing down all these continents, we would be stopping earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes, with all the energy we could ever need.
...if plate tectonics was true, that is.

Please explain how India managed to move away from being a small wedge between the horn of Africa and the Antarctic continent situated in the southern half of the globe. Move in an easterly, then north easterly and finally northerly direction (creating the long Ninety East Ridge as it went) until closing on the southern edge of Asia about 55 million years ago and in the process provide an uplifted region known as the Himalayas, the Tibetan Plateau and the Kunlan Mountains rich in oceanic fossils.

You may be surprised to learn that even continents can behave in a fluid manner as demonstrated by the collapse of that Tibetan Plateau.

When Pangea began to break up, the rifts beginning in the late Triassic, most of the continental mass was on one side of the earth globe with a huge body of water, the Panthalassa Ocean stretching between the coasts.

QUOTE
The crustal age of the ocean floor disprove the current theory of plate tectonics.

Oh! My! What can be said about that? Quit the contrary!

The ages of the ocean floor re-enforce the theory of plate tectonics particularly when allied with seismic data, the fossil record and paleomagnetism.

How do you account for the fact that the contours of ocean floor age in the Pacific, as mapped using sediment cores, show an imbalance in age between east and west? For example the floor in an area bounded by the Mariana Trench and Southern Bonin Trough and extending eastwards in an arc to a point tangential with the longitude of North Island New Zealand is of Jurassic age and that the ocean bed off the western seaboard of the Americas is of Oligocene age.

This demonstrates clearly that things are not as simple as 'the earth expanded' creating a space for the Pacific.

You should also consider that the continents of the earth have formed, fragmented and reformed, each time with different sutures, over the history of the globe (look up Rodinia for example). Geological evidence demonstrates this and bears witness to the existence of an Iapetus Ocean between Baltica/Avalonia and Laurentia. Geological study of the varied rock formations across the island Newfoundland demonstrates this clearly and shows that at one time Avalonia was also in the vicinity of what is North Africa.

Some rock formations on Newfoundland and the very western edge of the Scottish Highland (from Durness to Skye) have much in common, having come from the same ancient orogeny.

Also check out the existence of the Rheic ocean when Gondwana had its African 'western bulge' over the Southern Pole.

Frankly an expanding earth theory is as impoverished an idea as creationism is to evolution being mightily disappointing at any level. It simply cannot accommodate all current scientific information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 28 2009, 08:16 AM
Post #78





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 24 2008, 11:06 PM) *
Here is another explanation,
for the obvious and easily provable fact

But you have not proven anything as yet lunk.

Except that you are immune to suggestions of consulting authoritative sources.

Besides you have failed to answer a number of my direct questions and simply ploughed on with arguing for an expanding earth.

Not the least of the questions was, do you really believe all this stuff you write or is it that you just like debating controversies?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 28 2009, 08:30 AM
Post #79





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 25 2009, 12:09 PM) *
They don't fit anymore,
because they are flatter now,
then they were, when they broke apart.

The shoe fits.

Which ignores the processes of erosion creating continental shelves. If you add such shelves you will see an extraordinary close fit.

But remember that the south american continent, because of the curved line of the proto growing ridge, rotated clockwise as it drifted away so as to unlock the curl of the SA tip around what is now the Cape of Good Hope.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 28 2009, 11:46 AM
Post #80



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Yes, if it wasn't for erosion, Earth growth would be more obvious. Continents are "stuck" in place to the crust of the Earth. They cannot move. But the Earth is getting bigger, and they just "look" like they move, as the ocean floors widen between them, from the new basalt added at the mid ocean rifts.

I tried to bring these two continents together at their continental shelf.
Here is how they (the shelves) fit together with South America at a 60 degrees.


It is interesting how the Earth rifts, it seems to do so in steps, each step rifts near the center, of a previous rift, at a deeper level. At one time the continental shelve connected forming a "U" shaped valley.

So you are correct, when you say that the continental shelves are a better match than the, out of ocean, part of the continents themselves.
I took this into consideration when I tried to match up the now, spread, sprawling, coastlines of the continents.

(edit) added clarification.

This post has been edited by lunk: May 28 2009, 11:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

17 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2014 - 12:45 PM