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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #386186

Idiocy of Plate Tectonics

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web