Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386186 > unrolled thread

Idiocy of Plate Tectonics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-19 07:12 +0200
    Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 07:25 +0200
      Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-19 09:53 +0200
        Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 10:11 +0200
          Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-19 10:19 +0200
            Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 10:28 +0200
              Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-27 09:22 +0200
      Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-19 23:35 +0200
      Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-19 21:11 -0700
        Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-19 21:36 -0700
    Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 07:28 +0200
      Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-19 10:16 +0200
        Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 10:32 +0200
          Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-20 06:10 +0200
    Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-06-19 10:15 +0200
    Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:10 -0500
      Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-21 06:14 +0200
        Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:28 -0500
          Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-22 06:33 +0200
            Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 08:20 -0500
              Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-08 10:59 +0200
                Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 07:41 -0500
                Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 05:42 -0700
                  Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-09 06:52 +0200
                    Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 15:31 +0000
                      Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 22:33 +0200
    Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-21 13:32 -0700
      Re: Idiocy of Plate Tectonics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-23 06:21 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#386186 — Idiocy of Plate Tectonics

Hi Ng

after my little essay about plate tectonics stayed unnoticed somewhere 
at the end of another thread, I decided to open a new thread about this 
subject and paste my arguments against plate tectonics into it. So, 
since Tom Roberts went away without replying, I repeat this little essay 
about Plate Tectonics vs Growing Earth here:


Landmasses do not rise.

This hypothesis 'rising landmass' is a completely silly idea, since land 
is actually the crust of planet Earth. And the crust does not lift and 
float away.

So, if landmasses rise, than because something (the land is resting 
upon) if pushing that piece of Earth' crust up.

Plate tectonic assumes, that other plates perform this stunt, because 
they 'dive' under the lifted plates and therefore push it up. This is 
called 'subduction'.

But the mechanism does not work.

One reason: the Earth' mantle is not liquid.

So the 'diving' plate has actually a hard time in trying to dive into a 
solid, since not only is the mantle not liquid, it is also of higher 
density and of higher pressure than the material, what tries to enter.

And these plates have actually no good reason to try, since there ain't 
no force, that is pushing.

Plate tectonics assumes, these forces are applied by 'convection 
currents'. But that can't be the case, because the mantle is not liquid. 
And without being molten, the material will not float around and 
therefore would not apply a force to the crust.

Another serious problem, plate tectonics failed to explain, is the 
impossibility of a piece of the crust to move at all.

To illustrate the problem I suggest the following experiment:

take a water-melon and draw all the plate boundaries of Earth plates on 
it (with a felt pen). Then take a knife and make (shallow) cuts along 
these lines through the melon's 'crust'.

Now move the 'plates'.

You'll find: they can't be moved.

Reason: they 'stick' to the ground and there are other 'plates' in the way.


In real and on Earth' scale we have gravity, which tries to pull these 
plates to the centre. Since the Earth is spherical, the borders of these 
plates have conical angle, which are pressed against the other plates by 
gravity.

And since such plates are very large, the borders are thousands of 
kilometres long. Since plates could be about 40 kilometres thick, we 
have an area of several 40,000 km², upon which tremendous pressure 
rests. Now the force that tries to slide one piece along another has to 
overcome friction and friction is dependent of area, pressure and a 
certain factor for the material.

There is also the factor of form, which is hindering movement. And there 
are also plate in the way, since the Earth is - of course- totally 
covered with crust.

Since usually friction is calculated in mm² or possibly m², you have 
difficulty to imagine forces high enough do overcome friction over one 
km². But we have 100000+ km² and VERY high pressure.


In short: subduction does not work.

But plate tectonic without subduction IS 'Growing Earth'.


Growing Earth is also an alternative explanation to geological features, 
which are commonly ascribed to an Ice Age.

So: no ice age with GE!

The sand explained by the glaciers is assumed to have been caused by 
former ocean-floors, where now is land, covered with sand.

This is an alternative explanation and would make ice ages obsolete.

There might have been one or more ice ages, nevertheless, but the sand 
and pebbles are assumed to have been created and transported by liquid 
water, not by ice.



Land does not rise! Especially not rising are high mountains like the 
Himalayas.

G.E. has a different explanation for mountains: that they have been 
created under water, as 'sea-mounts'.

The creation of islands as consequence of volcanic activity is different 
in water than on land. Volcanoes  on land create conic shapes, while 
volcanoes in water create much steeper angles, since the water cools 
much faster than air.

If the sea-levels fall, the former islands sit on the land as a mountain 
(covered with oceanic fossils).


Globally sea-levels fall on average on a rate of of about 4m per millennium.

This rate is changing and is actually accelerating. But currently we 
seem to have this rate.

It is simply derived from the Lake Trajan near Rome.

This is now 8m higher than the Mediterranean Sea and roughly 2000 years 
old. Since we have no reason to assume, that the Romans didn't know, 
where the mean level of the Mediterranean Sea was, we can safely assume 
it was exactly where the surface of that lake is now.

The rate of 4m/1000 years gives a precise 'clock' for 
geological/historical events.

E.g. the ancient city of Troy was once a harbour, which controlled the 
entrance to the Dardanelles. Now the former port sits on a hill, 30m 
above the Mediterranean Sea.

This gives an age of certain structures of about 7500 years.

The source of sand in the ocean is not only the shores. The coast is 
roughly a line. But you must think about the ocean in three dimensions. 
  The water would erode any material within reach. There are also 
rivers, which bring sediments.

Then the stuff sinks to the ground. Also rocks roll in currents and get 
grind round. So we get sand and boulders, that cover the ground.

Now imagine the water goes away and compare this with typical landscapes.




After you think about it for a while you will find, that many landscapes 
could be interpreted that way:

If sea-levels fall, the former ocean floor turns into marshes.

Then comes grass and trees, that could grow on former organic sediments.

But than the process goes on and the fruitful vegetation vanishes, after 
the are dried out. Then we get the sand back and see it without cover.

(This is mainly  a natural process and what causes deserts).

Internal seas, that have been cut off, turn into lakes and once the 
lakes dry out, the area turns into a salt pan in the mountains.

Typical example: Utah or Atacama desert or Goby desert.

The Sahara could be explained as former ocean, too, where we find former 
islands, that are now hills on a flat sandy area.

Also important: air erosion does not create flat landscapes. All sorts 
of planes require liquid water, what had levelled out differences in 
hight by grinding off things.

Air erodes, too, but WAY less than water. So mountains could stand for 
eaons, while coastlines change relatively fast.

The typical form created by water is rounded. We find pebbles and 
boulders, but also rounded islands. Such rounded forms of rock could 
hardly be explained without some sort of ocean.

And now we find such formations in high regions, like in mountains.

Similar formations are so common, that we hardly recognise them. But if 
you ask yourself, how e.g.horizontal line manage to occur in hill-sides, 
than former shorelines would be an explanation.

Other hints for former water are sediment rocks, like sandstone or 
chalk. Sediments required a body of water above, where stuff sank to the 
ground in former times.


Mountains could be interpreted as former sea-mounts, like e.g. the 
Canary Island of the Hawaii chain of islands.

Typical is the slightly curved form of a chain of island, we find in 
similar fashion in the Alps or the Himalayas.


Now let's compare this with what plate tectonics assumes as explanation 
for the same observation:

Plate tectonics assumes, the mountains are folded up by the pressure of 
the approaching plate. That is in the case of the Alps the African plate.


But that is flat wrong, since between Europe and Africa is the 
Mediterranean Sea, where we find volcanoes (like e.g. Stromboli). And 
such volcanoes are indication of spreading.

At least the pressure applied by the African plate could not be too 
significant, since we find Italy in direction of this pressure. And 
Italy does not look like being folded upwards.

We also have the Adriatic Sea as kind of rift in North->South direction. 
And that does not fit to an approach of the African plate.

Then we find marine fossils on the Alps, like shells and fish-bones. 
This would be another hint for former water.  PT assumes, these fossils 
had been lifted up together with the rock, by the pressure, which folded 
the rocks upwards, that Alps are made of.

But crystalline rock is difficult to fold.

Actually it cannot be folded at all, not even in geologic times, since a 
massive block of stone will not bent, even under tremendous pressure.

If pressure exceeds the strength of the rock, it will break, since that 
is the behaviour of almost all crystals. And the Alps don't look like 
broken to pieces.

Growing Earth assumes - in contrast - a feasible way of creation of 
mountains, but created under water.

The water is the key to creation of mountains, since it cools lava much 
faster than air. So volcanoes in the oceans rise fast to the surface.

Then the plates move a little bit and the next volcano rises above the 
same hotspot and builds another island. This gives a typical curved 
chain, we find in many mountains.

 >> Land does not rise! Especially not rising are high mountains like the
 >> Himalayas.
 >
 > Except, of course, that GPS measurements show the Indian subcontinent
 > moving north at precisely the right rate to account for the uplifting of
 > the Himalayas. And there are literally zillions of GPS measurements
 > showing continental drift.
 >

How long does GPS exist? Maybe twenty years, possibly a little more.

But geological timescale has a grid of millennia or million years. You 
simply don't  measure changes of the Earth itself in a year, because 
that is equivalent to a milliseconds in human life. And you would not 
measure hair growth in milliseconds, but e.g. in mm per month.


So we need a million year as typical grid in geology and not a year. And 
since the Earth is about 4,5 billion years old , we get 4500 
data-points, if we 'measure' once a million years. And that would 
actually be enough. But shorter intervals would deliver a finer grain, 
so eventually a millennium is also acceptable.

The year is way too short for typical changes of the Earth, hence cannot 
be seen at such a pace.


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#386187

Dne 19/06/2016 v 07:12 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> Hi Ng
> 
> after my little essay about plate tectonics stayed unnoticed somewhere 
> at the end of another thread, I decided to open a new thread about this 
> subject and paste my arguments against plate tectonics into it. So, 
> since Tom Roberts went away without replying, I repeat this little essay 
> about Plate Tectonics vs Growing Earth here:
> 
> 
> Landmasses do not rise.
> 

What particular relativistic effects manifests here ?
Otherwise sci.physics suits better to the topic.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386197

Am 19.06.2016 07:25, schrieb Poutnik:

>> Hi Ng
>>
>> after my little essay about plate tectonics stayed unnoticed
>> somewhere at the end of another thread, I decided to open a new
>> thread about this subject and paste my arguments against plate
>> tectonics into it. So, since Tom Roberts went away without
>> replying, I repeat this little essay about Plate Tectonics vs
>> Growing Earth here:
>>
>>
>> Landmasses do not rise.
>>
>
> What particular relativistic effects manifests here ? Otherwise
> sci.physics suits better to the topic.
>

The text above was copied from a thread in this forum with the title 
'Time and Gravity' and that was mainly about the interpretation of 
General Relativity.

I insisted on my own assumption, that -besides space and time - matter 
also had to be treated relativistic.

As equivalent to experiment I made the claim, that Earth would grow and 
this growth would prove my claim.

Tom Roberts rejected the idea, by rejecting the assumption of a growing 
Earth.

My reply stayed unanswered. So I decided to open  a new thread about 
'Growing Earth vs. Plate tectonics'.

But it's actually a question from the realm of relativity, since it 
would answer the question, whether or not matter is also 'relative'.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386203

Dne 19/06/2016 v 09:53 Thomas Heger napsal(a):


> 
> But it's actually a question from the realm of relativity, since it 
> would answer the question, whether or not matter is also 'relative'.
> 
Relativistic treatment of matter does not mean
matter is relative.





-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386206

Am 19.06.2016 10:11, schrieb Poutnik:
> Dne 19/06/2016 v 09:53 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>
>
>>
>> But it's actually a question from the realm of relativity, since it
>> would answer the question, whether or not matter is also 'relative'.
>>
> Relativistic treatment of matter does not mean
> matter is relative.

Well, yes. But I wanted to provide evidence to my own idea, that matter 
actually is.

I call that concept 'structured spacetime' and have written kind of 
'book' about it, that you find here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386207

Dne 19/06/2016 v 10:19 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> Am 19.06.2016 10:11, schrieb Poutnik:
>> Dne 19/06/2016 v 09:53 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>>
>>
>>>
>>> But it's actually a question from the realm of relativity, since it
>>> would answer the question, whether or not matter is also 'relative'.
>>>
>> Relativistic treatment of matter does not mean
>> matter is relative.
> 
> Well, yes. But I wanted to provide evidence to my own idea, that matter 
> actually is.
> 
> I call that concept 'structured spacetime' and have written kind of 
> 'book' about it, that you find here:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> 

I see. Then, good luck  with evidence.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386725

Am 19.06.2016 10:28, schrieb Poutnik:
> Dne 19/06/2016 v 10:19 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>> Am 19.06.2016 10:11, schrieb Poutnik:
>>> Dne 19/06/2016 v 09:53 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it's actually a question from the realm of relativity, since it
>>>> would answer the question, whether or not matter is also 'relative'.
>>>>
>>> Relativistic treatment of matter does not mean
>>> matter is relative.
>>
>> Well, yes. But I wanted to provide evidence to my own idea, that matter
>> actually is.
>>
>> I call that concept 'structured spacetime' and have written kind of
>> 'book' about it, that you find here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>
> I see. Then, good luck  with evidence.
>

Evidence in favour of 'Growing Earth' would be hints for falling sea-levels.

And we have a lot of hints, which would support such an assumptions.

Since the process is extremely slow, we need to find evidence for 
sea-levels much higher several hundred million years ago.

Former sea-floor would contain sand and pebbles. We only need to search 
for sand and pebbles in mountains.

And, sure, we find such places.

My favourite example is the Atacama desert. This is 'only' about 15 
million years old. But it is accepted knowledge, the Atacama desert was 
once part of the ocean. Then the area got cut off as internal sea and 
later dried out.

The former sea-floor then became a desert. And we can still view that 
desert as former ocean bottom, since it has next to never rained in all 
these years. Actually we can find former shores with petrified Guano. We 
find dried out rivers and former islands. And all of this we find 1200 m 
above sea-level.

Similar findings are possible all around the globe. E.g. the Sahara 
could be explained as former sea-floor. Fish-fossils are found in the 
Alps. Atolls are remains of corals and those are ocean animals.

Also harbours have existed, where today is no ocean or other body of 
water, the harbour could possibly have served.

To see why sea-levels drop by growth, it is possible to use the Atacama 
desert and its geological features as example.

Growth means: the interior of the planet gets larger. This would make 
the crust too small, hence it gets stretched and breaks apart.

Into these cracks the water flows, hence sea-levels fall.

Such cracks are found in the Atacama desert.


Now this does not happen in one big step, but in many subsequent steps.

This would change former sea-floor to marshes and later to deserts.

The subsequent steps would gain parallel horizontal lines in hill-sides 
and step-like terraces of former marshes.

Former river could be seen in hills, that seemingly have ended in such 
plains (because there was once ocean).

Even more astonishing are remains of former settlements. Humans actually 
like to settle at the coast. And if the coastlines change, they would 
move and leave ruins of former cities behind.

And actually such ruins of cities are found in places, that are 
completely inhabitable now or are quite illogic to chose.

Other hints for 'Growing Earth' are matching coastlines over the Pacific 
Ocean or the age of sea-floors.

There is also the fact, that the continental shelfs could be fit 
together to a single ball. But that ball is much smaller than the Earth 
is now.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386244

Poutnik wrote:

> What particular relativistic effects manifests here ?

None.

> Otherwise sci.physics suits better to the topic.

Heger’s pseudo-scientific nonsense is only on-topic in alt.kooks.

Please do not feed him.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386266

Poutnik said:

What particular relativistic effects manifests here ? 
Otherwise sci.physics suits better to the topic. 

Growing Earth is tied to the Red Dhift of Hubble Constant 

Additional 4.093552e-14 joules per meter^3 per second^2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386269

Poutnik said: 

What particular relativistic effects manifests here ? 
Otherwise sci.physics suits better to the topic. 

Growing Earth is tied to the Red Shift of Hubble Constant 

Additional 4.093552e-14 joules per meter^3 per second^2 

10^50 joules per meter^3 / 4.093552e-14 joules per meter^3 per second

(10^50) / 4.093552e-14 = 2.4428662e63 seconds =?7.75e+55 years 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386188

Dne 19/06/2016 v 07:12 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> 
> Land does not rise! Especially not rising are high mountains like the 
> Himalayas.
> 
Especially this claim is refuted experimentally.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386205

Am 19.06.2016 07:28, schrieb Poutnik:
> Dne 19/06/2016 v 07:12 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>>
>> Land does not rise! Especially not rising are high mountains like the
>> Himalayas.
>>
> Especially this claim is refuted experimentally.

What kind of experiment do you have in mind?

Certainly you don't want to say, the experimenter had lifted the 
Himalayas a little bit.

Most likely you mean: the lifting has been measured.

Well, maybe, but measurements are 'relative'. This can been seen very 
nicely on this example:

What is changing, if you measure the rise of a mountain?

Certainly the mountain could not rise and -in extreme- fly away.

But possibly the mountain is pushed up by some sort of force.

This would require a reference and as such a reference we use the mean 
levels of the oceans.

If the Earth would grow, this would certainly have an effect on the 
hight of the mountain in respect to the Earth centre and in respect to 
the sea-level.

This is so, because growth would bring a gain in radius, hence lift 
mountains. But it would also bring additional surface (mainly as 
cracks), into which the water could flow.

Now plate tectonics assumes 'steady state Earth', hence no growth.

To explain a similar effect, PT assumes 'subduction'.

So we need to discuss subduction and only that, because GE and PT only 
differ in growth vs subduction.

BTW: Without considering observations, it would be kind of 'promising 
idea', if planet could actually grow. This would allow to understand how 
they have formed and why there are there.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386208

Dne 19/06/2016 v 10:16 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
> 
> This would require a reference and as such a reference we use the mean 
> levels of the oceans.

Not necesserily oceans, surrounding land areas is enough.
But they grow wrt both, several cm per year.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386265

Am 19.06.2016 10:32, schrieb Poutnik:
> Dne 19/06/2016 v 10:16 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>>
>> This would require a reference and as such a reference we use the mean
>> levels of the oceans.
>
> Not necesserily oceans, surrounding land areas is enough.
> But they grow wrt both, several cm per year.
>

Growth of the Earth would be difficult to measure, since it would effect 
the base of measurement, too.

Actually the real distance, that is changing, that cannot be measured: 
the radius of the Earth' surface.

You could eventually measure the circumference directly. But that is 
extremely difficult, since the Earth is so large.

But it is possible to look for evidence in the geological remains, like 
fossils or landscapes.

This could be interpreted under the assumption, that Earth would grow 
and whether (or not) this would fit to 'Growing Earth'.

And to the best of my knowledge the findings fit very well to GE, while 
plate tectonics doesn't seem to work at all.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386204

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 07:12:55 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Hi Ng
>
>after my little essay about plate tectonics stayed unnoticed somewhere 
>at the end of another thread, I decided to open a new thread about this 
>subject and paste my arguments against plate tectonics into it. So, 
>since Tom Roberts went away without replying, I repeat this little essay 
>about Plate Tectonics vs Growing Earth here:
>
>
>Landmasses do not rise.
>
>This hypothesis 'rising landmass' is a completely silly idea, since land 
>is actually the crust of planet Earth. And the crust does not lift and 
>float away.
>
>So, if landmasses rise, than because something (the land is resting 
>upon) if pushing that piece of Earth' crust up.
>
>Plate tectonic assumes, that other plates perform this stunt, because 
>they 'dive' under the lifted plates and therefore push it up. This is 
>called 'subduction'.
>
>But the mechanism does not work.
>
>One reason: the Earth' mantle is not liquid.
>
>So the 'diving' plate has actually a hard time in trying to dive into a 
>solid, since not only is the mantle not liquid, it is also of higher 
>density and of higher pressure than the material, what tries to enter.
>
>And these plates have actually no good reason to try, since there ain't 
>no force, that is pushing.
>
>Plate tectonics assumes, these forces are applied by 'convection 
>currents'. But that can't be the case, because the mantle is not liquid. 
>And without being molten, the material will not float around and 
>therefore would not apply a force to the crust.
>
>Another serious problem, plate tectonics failed to explain, is the 
>impossibility of a piece of the crust to move at all.
>
>To illustrate the problem I suggest the following experiment:
>
>take a water-melon and draw all the plate boundaries of Earth plates on 
>it (with a felt pen). Then take a knife and make (shallow) cuts along 
>these lines through the melon's 'crust'.
>
>Now move the 'plates'.
>
>You'll find: they can't be moved.
>
>Reason: they 'stick' to the ground and there are other 'plates' in the way.
>
>
>In real and on Earth' scale we have gravity, which tries to pull these 
>plates to the centre. Since the Earth is spherical, the borders of these 
>plates have conical angle, which are pressed against the other plates by 
>gravity.
>
>And since such plates are very large, the borders are thousands of 
>kilometres long. Since plates could be about 40 kilometres thick, we 
>have an area of several 40,000 km², upon which tremendous pressure 
>rests. Now the force that tries to slide one piece along another has to 
>overcome friction and friction is dependent of area, pressure and a 
>certain factor for the material.
>
>There is also the factor of form, which is hindering movement. And there 
>are also plate in the way, since the Earth is - of course- totally 
>covered with crust.
>
>Since usually friction is calculated in mm² or possibly m², you have 
>difficulty to imagine forces high enough do overcome friction over one 
>km². But we have 100000+ km² and VERY high pressure.
>
>
>In short: subduction does not work.
>
>But plate tectonic without subduction IS 'Growing Earth'.
>
>
>Growing Earth is also an alternative explanation to geological features, 
>which are commonly ascribed to an Ice Age.
>
>So: no ice age with GE!
>
>The sand explained by the glaciers is assumed to have been caused by 
>former ocean-floors, where now is land, covered with sand.
>
>This is an alternative explanation and would make ice ages obsolete.
>
>There might have been one or more ice ages, nevertheless, but the sand 
>and pebbles are assumed to have been created and transported by liquid 
>water, not by ice.
>
>
>
>Land does not rise! Especially not rising are high mountains like the 
>Himalayas.
>
>G.E. has a different explanation for mountains: that they have been 
>created under water, as 'sea-mounts'.
>
>The creation of islands as consequence of volcanic activity is different 
>in water than on land. Volcanoes  on land create conic shapes, while 
>volcanoes in water create much steeper angles, since the water cools 
>much faster than air.
>
>If the sea-levels fall, the former islands sit on the land as a mountain 
>(covered with oceanic fossils).
>
>
>Globally sea-levels fall on average on a rate of of about 4m per millennium.
>
>This rate is changing and is actually accelerating. But currently we 
>seem to have this rate.
>
>It is simply derived from the Lake Trajan near Rome.
>
>This is now 8m higher than the Mediterranean Sea and roughly 2000 years 
>old. Since we have no reason to assume, that the Romans didn't know, 
>where the mean level of the Mediterranean Sea was, we can safely assume 
>it was exactly where the surface of that lake is now.
>
>The rate of 4m/1000 years gives a precise 'clock' for 
>geological/historical events.
>
>E.g. the ancient city of Troy was once a harbour, which controlled the 
>entrance to the Dardanelles. Now the former port sits on a hill, 30m 
>above the Mediterranean Sea.
>
>This gives an age of certain structures of about 7500 years.
>
>The source of sand in the ocean is not only the shores. The coast is 
>roughly a line. But you must think about the ocean in three dimensions. 
>  The water would erode any material within reach. There are also 
>rivers, which bring sediments.
>
>Then the stuff sinks to the ground. Also rocks roll in currents and get 
>grind round. So we get sand and boulders, that cover the ground.
>
>Now imagine the water goes away and compare this with typical landscapes.
>
>
>
>
>After you think about it for a while you will find, that many landscapes 
>could be interpreted that way:
>
>If sea-levels fall, the former ocean floor turns into marshes.
>
>Then comes grass and trees, that could grow on former organic sediments.
>
>But than the process goes on and the fruitful vegetation vanishes, after 
>the are dried out. Then we get the sand back and see it without cover.
>
>(This is mainly  a natural process and what causes deserts).
>
>Internal seas, that have been cut off, turn into lakes and once the 
>lakes dry out, the area turns into a salt pan in the mountains.
>
>Typical example: Utah or Atacama desert or Goby desert.
>
>The Sahara could be explained as former ocean, too, where we find former 
>islands, that are now hills on a flat sandy area.
>
>Also important: air erosion does not create flat landscapes. All sorts 
>of planes require liquid water, what had levelled out differences in 
>hight by grinding off things.
>
>Air erodes, too, but WAY less than water. So mountains could stand for 
>eaons, while coastlines change relatively fast.
>
>The typical form created by water is rounded. We find pebbles and 
>boulders, but also rounded islands. Such rounded forms of rock could 
>hardly be explained without some sort of ocean.
>
>And now we find such formations in high regions, like in mountains.
>
>Similar formations are so common, that we hardly recognise them. But if 
>you ask yourself, how e.g.horizontal line manage to occur in hill-sides, 
>than former shorelines would be an explanation.
>
>Other hints for former water are sediment rocks, like sandstone or 
>chalk. Sediments required a body of water above, where stuff sank to the 
>ground in former times.
>
>
>Mountains could be interpreted as former sea-mounts, like e.g. the 
>Canary Island of the Hawaii chain of islands.
>
>Typical is the slightly curved form of a chain of island, we find in 
>similar fashion in the Alps or the Himalayas.
>
>
>Now let's compare this with what plate tectonics assumes as explanation 
>for the same observation:
>
>Plate tectonics assumes, the mountains are folded up by the pressure of 
>the approaching plate. That is in the case of the Alps the African plate.
>
>
>But that is flat wrong, since between Europe and Africa is the 
>Mediterranean Sea, where we find volcanoes (like e.g. Stromboli). And 
>such volcanoes are indication of spreading.
>
>At least the pressure applied by the African plate could not be too 
>significant, since we find Italy in direction of this pressure. And 
>Italy does not look like being folded upwards.
>
>We also have the Adriatic Sea as kind of rift in North->South direction. 
>And that does not fit to an approach of the African plate.
>
>Then we find marine fossils on the Alps, like shells and fish-bones. 
>This would be another hint for former water.  PT assumes, these fossils 
>had been lifted up together with the rock, by the pressure, which folded 
>the rocks upwards, that Alps are made of.
>
>But crystalline rock is difficult to fold.
>
>Actually it cannot be folded at all, not even in geologic times, since a 
>massive block of stone will not bent, even under tremendous pressure.
>
>If pressure exceeds the strength of the rock, it will break, since that 
>is the behaviour of almost all crystals. And the Alps don't look like 
>broken to pieces.
>
>Growing Earth assumes - in contrast - a feasible way of creation of 
>mountains, but created under water.
>
>The water is the key to creation of mountains, since it cools lava much 
>faster than air. So volcanoes in the oceans rise fast to the surface.
>
>Then the plates move a little bit and the next volcano rises above the 
>same hotspot and builds another island. This gives a typical curved 
>chain, we find in many mountains.
>
> >> Land does not rise! Especially not rising are high mountains like the
> >> Himalayas.
> >
> > Except, of course, that GPS measurements show the Indian subcontinent
> > moving north at precisely the right rate to account for the uplifting of
> > the Himalayas. And there are literally zillions of GPS measurements
> > showing continental drift.
> >
>
>How long does GPS exist? Maybe twenty years, possibly a little more.
>
>But geological timescale has a grid of millennia or million years. You 
>simply don't  measure changes of the Earth itself in a year, because 
>that is equivalent to a milliseconds in human life. And you would not 
>measure hair growth in milliseconds, but e.g. in mm per month.
>
>
>So we need a million year as typical grid in geology and not a year. And 
>since the Earth is about 4,5 billion years old , we get 4500 
>data-points, if we 'measure' once a million years. And that would 
>actually be enough. But shorter intervals would deliver a finer grain, 
>so eventually a millennium is also acceptable.
>
>The year is way too short for typical changes of the Earth, hence cannot 
>be seen at such a pace.
>
>
>TH


You are right. EARTH is a flat disk.


w.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386228

On 6/19/16 6/19/16   12:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Landmasses do not rise.

Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many landmasses do indeed 
rise, and are MEASURED to do so.

     The Himalayas are rising by 5-6 cm/year.


> Another serious problem, plate tectonics failed to explain, is the impossibility
> of a piece of the crust to move at all.

Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many plates and landmasses 
do indeed move, and are MEASURED to do so.

     See all the movement vectors here; most plates (and the
     associated continents) move a few cm/year.
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
     The sea floor of the Atlantic ocean, between the South America
     and Africa plates, has been diverging for hundreds of millions
     of years, and the magnetic striping of the sea floor agrees
     with independent measurements of the reversals of earth's
     magnetic poles.


> [... much more denying of reality]

As I have said so often: ignorance of the EXPERIMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS is a 
fatal flaw in your arguments (and in the arguments by other fools and idiots 
around here).


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386356

Am 19.06.2016 19:10, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 6/19/16 6/19/16 12:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Landmasses do not rise.
>
> Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many landmasses do
> indeed rise, and are MEASURED to do so.
>
> The Himalayas are rising by 5-6 cm/year.
>

So, than how was the distance of a spot on the Earth' surface to the 
centre of the Earth measured?

Answer: it wasn't.

You measure the distance to the assumed mean sea-level and call that 
'hight above mean sea-level'.

But Growing Earth would make mean sea-levels drop at a rate, which is 
about 4m per millennium in our present era.

This would make ALL spots on the Earth' surface rise, because of growth 
and because of drop of mean sea-levels.


Btw: Growth has another effect, with is also related to mountains:

in the course of time and with increasing radius of the surface, the 
curvature of the crust declines.

In other words, if you inflate a ball, the surface gets more 'flat'.

Since the surface of the Earth is very rigid, the increase of diameter 
would make the crust break. This would cause certain deformations and 
these we do find on the real planet.

A piece of the spherical shell on top of a growing ball would build 
A-shaped cracks on the inner side of the crust.

The effect could easily be seen in an experiment:
Take a piece of egg-shell and reduce curvature by pressing it flat.


This would cause several cracks, which are larger on the inner side (or: 
have the form of a standing A).

In such cracks the interior of the Earth would push to the surface.

And: do we find such spots?

Answer: actually yes, since a volcano could be understood in that way. 
Also the plate borders like the 'ring of fire' could be interpreted as 
such cracks.



> Deny all you want, that does not change the FACT that many plates and
> landmasses do indeed move, and are MEASURED to do so.

Growing Earth and plate tectonics agree in plates and movement. The 
difference is the steady state assumption of plate tectonics.

 From this constant size assumption comes the necessity of 'subduction' 
in plate tectonics.

So let's talk about 'steady state vs. growth' or about 'subduction'. In 
all other aspects both theories are similar.

'Steady state' means: the Earth has always been as large as it is now.

This is - in a way - not a very satisfying assumption, since if planets 
pop into existence in full size, than how did that happen?

Growing Earth would be similar to all other forms of growth, which are 
abundant in nature.

So things in nature start small and would grow, even stars and planets.

Only this would violate several 'laws', which are assumed valid: like 
conservation of mass and energy.

But the question is, whether or not they are in fact valid, or if nature 
would function according to other rules than we think.

To find out, what is true and what is not, it is essential to follow 
such hints like mine about 'Growing Earth', since otherwise you would 
reject evidence because it does not fit to predetermined assumptions.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386379

On 6/20/2016 11:14 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> So, than how was the distance of a spot on the Earth' surface to the
> centre of the Earth measured?

GPS

>
> Answer: it wasn't.

Yes, it was.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386455

Am 21.06.2016 15:28, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> So, than how was the distance of a spot on the Earth' surface to the
>> centre of the Earth measured?
>
> GPS
>
>>
>> Answer: it wasn't.
>
> Yes, it was.
>
GPS does not measure the interior of the Earth, since the satellites 
circle around in orbit, what is outside of the Earth.

The interior is impossible to access.

But it would be eventually be possible to measure changes of the 
diameter of the Earth indirectly.

How could the GPS system be used to measure such changes?


Changes in the radius of the mean surface is actually quite hard to 
measure, since you have nothing to compare it with, because it IS the 
reference surface of the GPS system.

Another serious problem is the extremely slow change of the radius and 
the extremely long periods, over which such changes occur.

We can observe changes on the surface and estimate from such changes 
indirectly on the relations inside the planet, which is not observable 
directly.

Such changes, we could possibly observe, are spreading of plates, 
formation of cracks and rifts and the associated changes in the mean 
sea-level.

Since surface of a ball is A= 4 pi r², we have a quadratic relation in 
the changes of the surface. So surface area changes faster than radius 
and is also easier to observe.

But still the changes are VERY slow.

And, as a matter of fact, spreading is observed and measured.

We could also see changes of sea-level in the fossil record and in 
geological observations.

The location of former harbours I have already mentioned (Troy and 
Portus Romae).

To see evidence for former changes of the radius we would need to search 
for hints for smaller surface of the Earth in earlier times (several 
hundred million years ago).

The best hint you could possibly find is actually a animation created by 
Neal Adams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

An older examples of the same theory stems from the German geologist Ott 
Christoph Hilgenberg, who wrote in 1930 a book with the title 'Vom 
wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German).

He was actually the inventor of the 'Growing Earth theory' - as far as I 
know.

Unfortunately German science fell out of fashion in those days, for 
reasons, which are not predominantly scientific.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386480

On 6/21/2016 11:33 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 21.06.2016 15:28, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>> So, than how was the distance of a spot on the Earth' surface to the
>>> centre of the Earth measured?
>>
>> GPS
>>
>>>
>>> Answer: it wasn't.
>>
>> Yes, it was.
>>
> GPS does not measure the interior of the Earth, since the satellites
> circle around in orbit, what is outside of the Earth.
>
> The interior is impossible to access.
>
> But it would be eventually be possible to measure changes of the
> diameter of the Earth indirectly.
>
> How could the GPS system be used to measure such changes?

Thomas, please.
The GPS orbit is well known, including the orbit path circumference and 
its diameter, which means that the location of the center of the earth 
is well known just because of the circle the satellites travel through.

>
>
> Changes in the radius of the mean surface is actually quite hard to
> measure, since you have nothing to compare it with, because it IS the
> reference surface of the GPS system.

No sir. The Earth's surface IS NOT the reference for the GPS position. 
If that were so, it would be impossible for GPS to tell you your altitude.

If you don't know how GPS works, then read up on it, rather than making 
assumptions.

Also, please don't assume that the mountains are measured relative to 
sea level, when that is simply not true.

>
> Another serious problem is the extremely slow change of the radius and
> the extremely long periods, over which such changes occur.
>
> We can observe changes on the surface and estimate from such changes
> indirectly on the relations inside the planet, which is not observable
> directly.
>
> Such changes, we could possibly observe, are spreading of plates,
> formation of cracks and rifts and the associated changes in the mean
> sea-level.
>
> Since surface of a ball is A= 4 pi r², we have a quadratic relation in
> the changes of the surface. So surface area changes faster than radius
> and is also easier to observe.
>
> But still the changes are VERY slow.

But definitely measurable.

>
> And, as a matter of fact, spreading is observed and measured.
>
> We could also see changes of sea-level in the fossil record and in
> geological observations.
>
> The location of former harbours I have already mentioned (Troy and
> Portus Romae).

And I've given you better, broader data to look at.

>
> To see evidence for former changes of the radius we would need to search
> for hints for smaller surface of the Earth in earlier times (several
> hundred million years ago).
>
> The best hint you could possibly find is actually a animation created by
> Neal Adams:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
>
> An older examples of the same theory stems from the German geologist Ott
> Christoph Hilgenberg, who wrote in 1930 a book with the title 'Vom
> wachsenden Erdball' (only available in German).
>
> He was actually the inventor of the 'Growing Earth theory' - as far as I
> know.
>
> Unfortunately German science fell out of fashion in those days, for
> reasons, which are not predominantly scientific.
>
>
> TH
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web