Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Plate tectonics in california.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,801

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,801
    Introduction
    Whether the Earth is expanding or contracting at present is an interesting problem in science. Some scientists support the viewpoint of Earth expansion, and some are against this viewpoint. The expanding Earth hypothesis is mainly supported by paleontology, paleomagnetism, paleoclimatology and geology data [e.g., Scalera 2003a]. Wilson [1960] declared that the Earth is expanding based on geological evidence and the Wegener’s continental drift hypothesis. By simulating the expansion process of the Earth, Creer [1965] concluded that the Earth radius RE was around 0.55R in the early Precambrian (ca. 3,800 Myr ago), around 0.94R to 0.96R in the early Paleozoic (ca. 544 Myr ago), and around 0.96R to 0.97R in the early Mesozoic (ca. 230 Myr ago), where R = 6371 km, the mean radius of the Earth at present. Based on various geological evidence, Dearnley [1965] showed that RE was around 4400 km before 270 Myr ago, and around 6000 km before 6.5 Myr ago, and that the mean radius has increased at a rate of about 0.6 mm/yr. Carey [1976, 1988] concluded that the Earth is expanding within the ocean-floor expansion framework, and Chen [2000] reported that the Earth started to expand around 4300 Myr ago, with a radius of about 4651 km and at an increased rate of around 0.4 mm/yr at that time, compared with the radius increase at a rate of around 0.1 mm/yr at present. A study by Müller [2010, http://zeitexpansion/de] suggested that not only is the universe expanding, but also the Earth, and the radius of the Earth increases at a rate of about 0.6 mm/yr. Following a series of studies of three paleogeographical reconstructions for the Paleocene, Cretaceous and Jurassic, Scalera [1998, 2001] carried out a further reconstruction for the Triassic period with the assistance of paleomagnetic data. He found that the data are best reconciled if they are treated in an expanding Earth framework, and the mean rate of increase of the Earth radius is 15 mm/yr. Based on analyses of the Laser Geodynamics Satellites and very-long baseline interferometry (VLBI) data for stable nonorogenic continental regions, Gerasimenko (1993) indicated an increase in the Earth radius of 4.15 ± 0.27 mm/yr. However, later studies of Gerasimenko [1996, 1997] showed that the rate of increase of the Earth radius does not exceed 1 mm/yr, by analyzing the VLBI data. Further, Gerasimenko [2003] reprocessed the NASA VLBI data (NASA GSFC solution number 1122, June 1999) and obtained a possible radius increase of 0.2 mm/yr after removing the network points that influenced their heights by as much as ±4.0 mm/yr.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,801
    Based on various geological evidences, many scientists have concluded that the Earth is expanding at a rate ranging from 0.1 mm/yr to several millimeters every year. Our investigations show that the Earth is expanding, at least at present, at a rate of about 0.2 mm/yr, and the evidences come from both temporal gravity fields and space geodetic data. Based on the EGM2008 temporal gravity field model, calculations show that the PIMs are gradually increasing, at a mean rate of 1.73 ×10-11/yr (i.e., I, which demonstrates the present expansion of the Earth at a rate of about 0.18 mm/yr. From another aspect, based on the coordinates and vertical velocities of 629 space geodetic stations that are spread over the globe, we find that the average radius of the Earth is increasing at a rate of about 0.24 mm/yr. Whether our conclusion can be extended to the geological time scale is a problem to be investigated further.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,801
    © 1988, William Carnell Erickson
    the receipt of a copy from Sam Carey of his mimeographed paper18 from the [1956] Tasmanian [drift] symposium.”19 And Bullard never denied Carey's priority.20 Carey embraced the expansion hypothesis in the mid-fifties after attempting, without success, to reconstruct Pangaea, the ancestral supercontinent, on a globe of modern dimensions. No matter how the continents were arranged, huge 'gaping gores' would appear between regions with known geological connections. “I could make satisfactory sketches like Wegener's classic assembly [Carey recalls], but never accurately on the globe, or a rigorous projection. Starting from the assembly of Africa and South America, [...] a yawning gulf* appeared between Indonesia and Australia [which] belonged together.” Years of frustration tempted Carey to abandon his ambitious project. “A crucial link seemed to be missing from the global synthesis.”
    But in the end, Carey's zeal for accuracy paid off, and the solution was surprisingly simple. “It was not my method that was at fault, but my implicit assumption that the Earth of Pangaea was the same size as the Earth today. The assembly of Pangaea was not possible on a globe of present radius, but on a smaller globe, ...these difficulties vanished.” 21 Carey had found the missing link. The gaping gores reveal huge gaps in current thinking about the earth. Though psychologically comforting, the assumption of a constant-sized Earth is fraught with paradox – contradictions of geological fact – when attempts are made to reassemble Pangaea. In addition to the gaping gores, (subsequently verified by Owen in his Atlas of Continental Drift22) Carey also discovered many other geological impossibilities when Pangaea is assembled on a globe of present size. These include the Pacific Paradox,23,24 the Arctic Paradox,25 the India-Gondwana Paradox26 and the Double Equator Paradox,27 to name but a few. All of these enigmas disappear when the continents are assembled on a smaller globe. And they helped convince Carey that the Earth had expanded. None of the positive evidence marshaled in support of Plate Tectonics is incompatible with Earth expansion. The expansion hypothesis can easily account for continental displacement, the creation of new oceanic crust, transform faults, the concentration of
    earthquakes at plate boundaries,† and many other well known geological phenomena. But which explanation is correct? One way of judging two competing theories is by measuring their predictive power; and in this respect the expansion hypothesis demonstrates its superiority. Crucial facts that Plate Tectonics must 'explain' – such as the youthful age of the Pacific floor, intraplate seismic activity (e.g. the New Madrid quake of 1823), or the Paleozoic geological links between India and Asia28 – are predictable consequences of Earth expansion. (Indeed, the relative displacement of the continents is perhaps its most compelling prediction.) Conversely, many important predictions deduced from Plate Tectonics – such as the existence of accretionary * This is the mythical Tethyan 'gore', still depicted on most maps of Pangaea, which falsely separates peninsular India from Asia and Australia, and Australia from Indonesia. Tethys certainly existed, but as a narrow equatorial sea separating Gondwanaland from Laurasia and not as a yawning gulf. Its closest modem analogs are the Mediterranean and Caribbean. † Seismic tomography has shown that continental lithosphere is wedded to the mantle to a depth of several hundred kilometers. Accordingly, Carey rejects the term 'plate' because it implies that the lithosphere acts independently of the underlying mantle and instead favors 'polygonal prism' that includes the deep mantle and in which the lithosphere is merely the uppermost layer. prisms of sediments scraped off subducted plates and the alleged compressional origin of oceanic trenches – have been refuted.29 Plate subduction is believed to occur primarily in the Pacific at the deep trenches in midocean and along the continental margins. According to the plate theory, seafloor spreading in the Atlantic, Indian and Arctic oceans causes the plates to converge on the Pacific where they collide and overlap. When this occurs, one of the plates is subducted beneath the other and it descends back into the earth's interior (where it is 'made mantle again') along the seismically active Benioff-Wadati Zone. Subduction into the trenches supposedly eliminates crust as quickly as seafloor spreading creates it. For every square mile of new crust created by seafloor spreading, an equal amount of old crust must be consumed by subduction. Without subduction, or some other crust disposal mechanism, the earth's surface area would increase and the Earth would expand.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 02-25-2014 at 04:53 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,801
    When the 'conveyor-belt' model of seafloor spreading cum subduction was first conceived in the 1960s, it was confidently predicted that the trenches would exhibit signs of compression, caused by the convergence of lithospheric plates and the subduction of thousands of square miles of oceanic crust. But this prediction proved wrong. “The seafloor spreading hypothesis may, for some geologists, require compression in the vicinity of trenches, but the data require horizontal tension.”30 According to H. W. Menard, a specialist in Pacific geology, “the most troublesome aspect of the sea-floor spreading hypothesis was the absence of direct evidence of convergence. There was no problem if the Earth was expanding, but if it was not, enormous areas of old oceanic crust had to be plunging into the mantle along the line of oceanic trenches. It was generally expected that the sediment in trenches would show signs of this violent phenomena, but none could be found.”31 In trench after trench, the sediments turned out to be completely undisturbed; and there were no outcrops from the subducted plates. Menard and his fellow oceanographer Maurice Ewing were mystified by all this. “Neither of us believed for a moment in an expanding earth, so we were left with a puzzle.”32 But in the end, both men endorsed the troublesome subduction hypothesis. Perhaps they believed they had no choice.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 02-25-2014 at 04:53 AM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,801
    The continental drift debate lasted, off and on, for nearly half a century. The reality of drift was proven geologically in the 1930s by the South African geologist Alexander L. Du Toit33, but it was not until the 1960s that the majority of geologists (and the Americans in particular) were finally converted. Given the prolonged and agonizing struggle over continental drift – an idea with overwhelming evidence in its favor – it is rather surprising that subduction – an untested if not untestable hypothesis with practically no empirical support – was accepted sight unseen, and practically overnight. Geology is a science renowned for its conservatism. Why, then, did so many geologists convert so quickly to an idea so radical and unfounded? The reason is simple: subduction was the lesser of two evils. The alternative – Earth expansion – was “anathema to most geophysicists,” and it still is. Evidently, it is easier to believe in a superefficient crust disposal mechanism that consumes oceanic crust at precisely the same rate as it is formed without leaving any evidence in its wake, than it is to consider the simpler (albeit still unexplained) alternative of Earth expansion. The universal rejection of Earth expansion led inexorably to the reification of plate subduction. Today, subduction is portrayed as though it were The Gospel Truth more gospel than truth. Carey is more blunt. Subduction, he writes, “is a myth that exists only in the minds of its creators.”

    34 Another point of contention between Plate Tectonics and Earth expansion is orogenesis – the origin of mountains and fold belts. According to the Plate Tectonic theory, orogenesis is a compressional phenomenon: folding results from crustal foreshortening caused by the collision of two lithospheric plates. But Carey denies this; he attributes orogenesis to vertical uplift and gravitational collapse on an expanding sphere. Once again, Carey has the geological evidence on his side. The Himalaya, the very archetype of compressional plate tectonics, “could not have been born of collision nor of subduction, but resulted from vertical uplift.”35 And in the Andes, “the fundamental tectonic style is extensional (east-west).”36 Unfortunately, when faced with the choice between fact and doctrine – the fact of extension and vertical uplift versus the doctrine of compression and crustal foreshortening – most Anglo-American plate theorists opt for the latter. Naturally, they have devised all sorts of ad hoc explanations for these anomalous facts, a tactic that appalls many field workers37 and which philosophers of science consider symptomatic of a 'degenerating research program.'38 Noting that most German and Russian-speaking geologists
    have abandoned this doctrine, Carey dismisses compressional orogenesis as an “Englishlanguage obsession” – a legacy of Newton's Earth contraction theory.

    The pioneers of the 'new global tectonics' have helped revolutionize Earth science. Unfortunately, they are still encumbered with many obsolete dogmas. The adherence to dogma in the face of contrary evidence, and the proliferation of ad hoc hypotheses to account for that evidence, is not at all unusual in science – especially during a scientific revolution. Consider, for example, Galileo. A courageous advocate of the new Copernican system, the great Italian scientist could never bring himself to accept Kepler's evidence that the orbits of the planets are elliptical and not circular. Still entranced by the ancient Greek idea of heavenly perfection, Galileo believed that the planets move around the Sun in perfectly circular orbits. Unable or unwilling to abandon this archaic doctrine – despite the evidence against it – Galileo, like Ptolemy and Copernicus before him, was compelled to invoke epicycles 'to save the appearances' of planetary motion. A similar situation exists in geology today. Advocates of Plate Tectonics have con

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,801
    Continental rocks from the Rio Grande Ridge, South Atlantic

    As introduced in the News section of this issue (page 108), a piece of exciting news ran around the world in early May: GRANITE WAS DISCOVERED FROM THE RIO GRANDE RIDGE, SOUTH ATLANTIC.
    The Geology Service of Brazil (CPRM) dredged granite from the Rio Grande Rise two years ago. This was confirmed by the Japanese submersible ‘Shinkai 6500’ shortly before the announcement in May this year. The evidence for a sunken continent in that part of the South Atlantic is of extreme importance in considering the formation of the world’s oceans, which has been one of the major focuses of the NCGT group. Many articles have appeared on this subject in the NCGT Newsletter, such as the article by Yano et al. in no. 53, “Ancient and continental rocks in the Atlantic Ocean”. So today I am going to write about the significance of this discovery.
    The Rio Grande Ridge is the southern extension of the South American Geanticlinal Trend (SAGT), as seen in the figure below (Choi, NCGT Newsletter, no. 24, 2002). It is situated in an antipodal position to the BorneoVanuatu Geanticline in the South Pacific and SE Asia. The SAGT’s northern extension runs through the
    Caribbean dome, Gulf of Mexico and reaches the collapsed axis of the Canadian Shield in the north. It is a Precambrian structural trend but has been repeatedly reactivated in the Phanerozoic especially in the Central America region where mantle upwelling occurred in Meso-Cenozoic time.
    The discovery of granite from the Rio Grande Ridge has established a strong case that a wide area with positive gravity anomalies in the South Atlantic, including the Walvis Ridge, is underlain by continental rocks. The Geology Service of Brazil is said to be planning to drill the Rio Grande Ridge this year to confirm thei discovery. If granite is recovered in the cores, it will sound the death knell of plate tectonics.
    However, to explain away the presence of granite, plate tectonics proponents have, as usual, resorted to ad hoc adjustments: “The area in question may have been left in the water as the continent separated in line with the movements of plates” (The Japan Times, 7 May 2013) – a standard claim that is never backed up by the proposal of a convincing mechanism. Another bizarre claim is the following: “… as those ice rafts were melting, large blocks of rock dropped down all over the seafloor” (National Geographic News, 9 May 2013).
    It must be emphasized that the granite discovery was made by a Brazilian government authority that oversees the geology of offshore basins where hydrocarbons are currently being produced and active exploration is taking place. They are well aware that the deep basins offshore Brazil are underlain by continental rocks. As Keith James ably put it: “…extended offshore parts of the South American continent have subsided deeply. … unrecognized large areas of subsided and extended continent offer great hydrocarbon potential, and … the plate tectonic paradigm underpinning much geological thinking of the last 45 years needs revision” (Oil and Gas Journal, v. 109, p. 22-29, 7 Mar 2011; N

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,801
    7. Conclusions
    This paper described one of the most outstanding geological structures seen at the Earth’s surface; a globalscale, deep-rooted geanticlinal structure extending from the South Pacific to the Siberian Craton. It was formed in the Archean and, together with the antipodal N-S American Geanticline, undoubtedly affected the structural and magmatic development of the Earth. Together they place constraints on global tectonic models. The Yunnan surge channel sits on the axis of the Geanticline. It is one of the most active surge channels today, characterized by strong energy discharge (earthquakes) and active rise in the Cenozoic. These activities can be regarded as the early stage of the oceanization process. The existence of such large-scale, deep-rooted, Archean-origin geological structures on opposite sides of the globe, both without large horizontal dislocation, means that no large-scale horizontal movement of the crust and mantle as claimed by plate tectonics has occurred since Proterozoic to Cenozoic time.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Glenville, WV
    Posts
    344
    We got some plates here in the slim house but they aint from calfornia. We got them in gattlinburg tenesee.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •