Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG.

The only reason I persist is that I am interested in the Earth, and am fascinated by anything that seems not to make sense. E.g. you may just have noticed the same sort of persistence with the infinite.

I am not interested in faulting Mansfield's Hypothesis; I just want to understand if/how it works. Pre believes I accept things on "faith"; I gave that up a long time ago; now I question everything until I feel comfortable accepting or rejecting it.

My ideas may be rubbish, but if they are, I want to do something about it. Simply shouting "rubbish" does nothing to bring about a change.

Why was Pangea (plus Tethys) almost circular?

The following is a sketch map of Pangaea from the America Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG);



The above diagram can still be found at

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/9701904.gif
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/index.htm

The AAPG claim their maps of Pangaea, Gondwanaland, etc, from whence the sketch comes, are the best that have been produced.

Note that Pangaea (together with the shallow Tethys ocean) is neatly circumscribed by a circle.

Why do you think that Pangaea (plus Tethys) fits neatly within a circle?

Remember, the America Association of Petroleum Geologists drew the circle in this diagram, not me.

So; why do you think that Pangaea fits neatly within a circle?

Current geological theories provide no explanation.

However, the PreEarth-OldMoon collision provides a simple explanation.

Namely; The impacted area is contained within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

Therefore, the non-impacted area is also within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

The non-impacted area is by definition Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea).

Therefore, Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea) is circular.

To get from PreEarth-Pangea to Earth-Pangea you have to adjust for the fact that Earth has a smaller curvature than PreEarth (PreEarth has a larger curvature than Earth). This adjustment introduces splits. Indeed, if you reduce the curvature of a rigid circular cap (e.g., PreEarth-Pangea), i.e., you flatten it somewhat, then you necessarily introduce splits in the cap.

Therefore, Pangea (Earth-Pangea) is circular with splits.

Where the main split is, of course, the pie-shaped region, called the Tethys ocean.

Am I the only person on the Forum who does not follow the logic of this statement? If so, would someone please help me out.

I can acknowledge that if the impacted area is circular, and if the non-impacted area is considered as a "fringe" around it; then the non-impacted area could be consideren as a larger circle, but Pangea seems to be equated to the circle of the impact area.

Yes. It is not very well-explained. Here's (sort of) what I meant:

The impacted area is contained within a circle on the globe (i.e., maps under a certain mapping, to a disk, and thus can be thought of as circular).

Therefore, the non-impacted area is also within a circle on the globe (i.e., maps under another, different mapping, to a disk, and thus can be thought of as circular).

The first mapping referred to here is the azimuthal equidistant projection of PreEarth, with puncture point being the center of the non-impacted region. It is the map you get when you put a small hole in the centre of the non-impacted region and then stretch the planets skin to a flat disc.

Unfortunately, although this map projection shows that the impacted area can be thought of as circular, it is fairly misleading to even introduce it, as it is not necessary, the stated implication is not all that clear, and the map projection that we are really interested in is the one that is used in the AAPG map.

At some point I will rewrite the above post to remove this source of misunderstanding.

The mapping used in the AAPG sketch is the azimuthal equidistant projection of PreEarth, with puncture point being the centre of the impacted region (i.e., the "opposite" of the one just mentioned). It is the map you get when you put a small hole in the centre of the impacted region and then stretch the planets skin to a flat disc.

Under the AAPG mapping the non-impacted area (PreEarth-Pangea) maps to a disk and the impacted area maps to the annular area of ocean surrounding Pangea (as I stated on the other thread).

The AAPG circle corresponds to the boundary of the impacted and non-impacted regions.

Consider the following animation of PreEarth:



Under the AAPG mapping;

The impacted region, that which is within the ring in the above animation, maps to the annular area of ocean surrounding AAPG Pangea.

The non-impacted region, that which is "outside" the ring in the above animation, maps to AAPG Pangea.

The ring itself maps to the AAPG circle.

In the animation PreEarth-Pangea is pictured just as it fractures into continents, which then are expanded apart to their current positions on the newly renovated PreEarth (also known as Earth).

Is it clear now, why (under the collision theory) the boundary of Pangea must be circular?

Thanks for that explanation, Pre.

Would it not be the case that any azimuthal equidistant projection would map as a circle?

If Pre-Earth's (or Earth's) "continents" were close together, they would naturally fall (and fit) within such a circle if the centre of the azimuthal equidistant projection coincided with the centre of the land mass.

A great approach Bill; I take the same approach to the god-hypothesis.

AMEN!

Again I say, AMEN!

Interestingly, because of the creation stories--and there are actually two of them, in the first two chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible--almost all first-year theological students took, as their basic science, an introductory course in geology--focusing on the age of mother earth and her rock formations.

Me? Because--even in my early teens--I took evolution, and the findings of modern geology, biology, botany, and the like, for granted, at university I took basic physics and maths--focusing on the order and design of things as they have evolved. Later, I focused on psychology and philosophy.

BTW, a certain few (very few) of my fellow theological students in my four years (pre-seminary) at www.mta.ca --a university with a very modern and progressive approach--were fundamentalists.

IN SOME OF OUR BULL-SESSIONS, I listen to them say how shocked they were when they heard what the professor of geology said about the age of the earth. A few actually attempted to get a petition going to ask the university to teach creationism and close down the department of geology. This went no where, thank G~0~D!
=============================
WHERE TO FIND THE TWO CREATION STORIES in the Bible--here they are:

The first is in Genesis 1:1-2:3--the Hebrew for god is ELOHIM (literally, gods)
The second is in Genesis 2:4-25--the word for god is YAHWEH (I am) plus ADONAI (Lord--a title, meaning "keeper of the bread" (of life).
A VALUABLE EXPLANATION:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative#Chapter_2
==================
I LIKE THIS APPROACH:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm
ALSO THIS:
http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/284/genesis-creation/#names

=========================
I respect this approach, but I do not agree with it:
THE SO CALLED "ONE-TRUE-CHURCH" APPROACH
http://www.apologeticspress.org/AboutAP.aspx

Preearth, when you say, "You see..." are you addressing me?

Please, keep in mind that, when it comes to understanding what PLATE-TECTONICS is all about, I readily confess: I am a complete amateur--simply one who loves learning more about things of which I am ignorant.

Meanwhile, as long as I am given the freedom to ask questions, I willingly leave it to true experts to deliver the evidence we all need.

With this in mind, Preearth, I once again ask you: What do you think of the work of John Tuzo Wilson?

What do you think of the work of John Tuzo Wilson?

Obviously, I think it is wrong (that there was continental drift before Pangea). And, that should be apparent to anyone with even a vague idea of how continental drift fits into Mansfield's collision theory.

Pre, as I mentioned in your other current thread, I'm trying to do a bit of revision, so I would really appreciate some answers to questions.

A couple of points, the first of which is a question for Pre.

1. Satellite tracking seems to show, with a considerable degree of accuracy, that segments of the Earth’s crust, corresponding to generally accepted tectonic plates are constantly moving, and that this movement accords with what would be expected in terms of convergent and divergent plate boundaries. How does Mansfield’s theory account for this?

2. I have yet to find a convincing explanation for what happens to crustal material beneath Africa. I would appreciate knowing about anything anyone else might find.

The best suggestion I have had from an experienced geologist so far is that the African plate is being subducted under the Eurasian plate.

Initially this did not seem to make sense, but looking further I realised that an image of plates converging from East and West on either side of Africa was an oversimplification. As the map below shows, the movement is towards the North-East and North-West; giving a net movement in a northerly direction. Apparently satellite tracking indicates that the Med is closing. Oceanic crust must be going somewhere.

Rubbish.

No experienced geologist would tell you such rubbish. Your "geologist" is a total amateur.

The African plate is NOT being subducted (to any great extent) under the Eurasian plate. End of story.

An easy way to see that your "geologist" is wrong, is to note that if you have two continental plates colliding (like India and Asia) then the trenches and sea-areas between are squeezed out of existence. That is, no more Mediterranean Sea.

The currently accepted theory involves the African plate rotating into (and colliding with) the Eurasian plate which produced a few minor spots of subduction, but thats all.

The currently accepted theory has the African plate being carried east away from the mid-Atlantic ridge by thousands of kilometres and at the same time being carried west away from the Indian ocean ridge by thousands of kilometres (yeah, I know this doesn't make sense), which has produced millions of square kilometres of new sea-floor.

Now, if you produce all of these millions of square kilometres of new sea-floor, then you have to lose millions of square kilometres somewhere else (by subduction), and that certainly is not what is happening between Africa and Eurasia.

And, in any case, you must be really desperate to believe in plate tectonics, if you think that having the African plate being subducted under the Eurasian plate would somehow solve the problem you are trying to solve.

Why don't you try to draw a map of the mantle currents (which are supposedly causing the plates to move) beneath the plates, all of them. If you do try, you are doomed to failure (which is why such a map has never been drawn). You are doomed to failure, simply, because plate tectonics is wrong.

By the way, your statement "As the map below shows, the movement is towards the North-East and North-West; giving a net movement in a northerly direction." doesn't make any sense at all (its just wrong).

The little arrows on your map, are velocities (usually cms/yr). They say that the left side of the African plate is moving (at some non-zero velocity) towards the east (and also towards the north) and that the southern right side of the African plate is moving (at some non-zero velocity) towards the west (and also towards the north). But, this situation exhibits exactly the same problem that you are attempting to explain away.

Anyway, why do you think that the little arrows showing the direction of movement of the African plate, vary by close to 90 degrees? Two arrows on the African plate point NEE while the 3rd points NW. Don't you think that that is very strange? Two very different directions for the same plate.

LOL no Bill S the gps system is wrong things aren't moving at all ... didn't you know Preearth theory is much greater than actual observation.

Well I did get my laugh for the day so not all was lost.

Orac, that’s very unhelpful! I was going to suggest that you stick to QM, particles and the like; then I remembered that William McDonough plans to use neutrinos to probe the mysteries under our feet, so there’s hope for you yet.

Pre. Thanks for the response; there are a few things I would like to come back to, but time is in short supply at present, as you will appreciate if you are following the philosophy of religions thread in its meanderings.

You split your comments over two posts so I didn't initially notice this particular question.

Mantle rock can store tension for many thousands of years.

I guess you know that the ice caps (from the last ice age) depressed the mantle rock by hundreds of metres and that places like Scandinavia are still rising today (isostatic rebound) even though the ice that caused this depression completely melted more than 10,000 years ago.

Well the continents are still moving for the same reason (that Scandinavia is still rising).

The tension (energy stored) in the mantle rock from the collision was much, much greater and to a much greater depth, than the tension caused by the weight of the ice caps, so it will take a very long time for it to for it to be released. I would guess between 100,000 and a million years, but maybe less, maybe more.

And returning to the previous topic, here is a map showing GPS measuments that I use in one of my articles;



And,... Orac is a moron. Always was, always will be.

ROFL how old are you .. perhaps I have girl bugs as well.

But talking of moronic at least I didn't type this




Do you even remotely understand what you are saying with that stupidity perhaps you could give us the mathematics since you are a mathematician because you sure as hell fail at basic physics.

I would explain but it's actually more fun watching you discuss such garbage try doing the maths for an inverted stress force to the centre of the earths core this I gotta see.

Iterum, hic “ad hominem” cum vindicta venit!

It's a bit like living in a seismic zone. Just when you think its safe to plant your crops, here comes another b..... earthquake!

Is that not what is happening?



No. I just like to know what is going on, and why other people think what they think.

To return to the alleged movement of the African plate.
The directional arrows on the map look difficult to accept, but being of a practical turn of mind I tried to reproduce it using a book on a flat surface. The result was "northward" movement, with rotation.

Seriously Bill surely you can see the problem he has just turned the earth into a maxwell material with a deformation or density stress

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

However like all crackpots rather than scientists he doesn't do the most basic checks or calculations and anyone who disagrees is stupid.


Quick problem list:

How do you hold a deformation stress for any length of time in a fairly viscous material pressure just spreads think pumping a car tyre or hydrolic pump. So now your earth core has to be extremely non viscous to hold the deformation or density stress.

If you had a deformation or density stress in a round bubble like his lovely red circles think how the stress would release and what surface movement you would get.

For a density stress we should see it on the gravity of the earth from goce (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/SEM1AK6UPLG_1.html) we should also be able to see quite a few momemtum issues but alas nope we don't see those either.

So let take a closer look at deformation stress using continuum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics) and in particular look at the Clausius–Duhem formula which defines whether a material deformation is thermodynamically allowable or consistant. Oops problem if you consider the core hot and with alot of pressure you are going to have a hell of a time meeting that which is why planet and meteor composition is layered or shelled like.

So perhaps continuum mechanics is wrong what do the observation say http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428110810.htm

Nope they see the same thing => "Some scientists have proposed a region of sediment accumulation at the top of the core, or even distinct liquid layers, but this study shows that the outer core is, in fact, well mixed,"

Has anyone actually studied stress in the earth well yes back as early as 1980 (http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/55.pdf) and even they realized you can't develop much stress beyond 20km down in the core.

There are a hell of alot more problems but that should give you the basic idea.


Preearths whole idea is easily falsifiable, I can't prove plate tectonics for you but at least I can't falsify it.