+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10525
Total Topics: 246
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Weird Science  (Read 3175 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12947
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Weird Science
« Reply #75 on: May 20, 2017, 03:33:17 pm »


The main types of mountains — Earth’s ups and downs

Last updated on May 15th, 2017 at 5:19 pm by Mihai Andrei

There’s no geological model to fully explain how uplifted passive margins formed, but we do see them in the world. The Scandinavian Mountains, Eastern Greenland, the Brazilian Highlands or Australia’s Great Dividing Range are such examples, owing their existence to some uplifting mechanism.

Hotspot mountains


The trail of underwater mountains created as the tectonic plate moved across the Hawaii hotspot over millions of years. Image credits: USGS.

Although once thought to be identical to volcanic mountains, new research has shed some light on this belief. Hotspots are volcanic regions thought to be fed by a part of the underlying mantle which is significantly hotter than its surroundings. However, even though that hot area is fixed, the plates move around it — causing it to leave a hotspot trail of mountains.

http://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/main-types-mountains-earths-ups-downs/

Discussion with article Author:  ;D


agelbert •
Great article! I know that it is very controversial in main stream academic geology circles, but what do you think of the theory of global expansion causing mountain formation as the surface of the sphere becomes less curved? There is indisputable geologic evidence that all the ocean basins are much younger than the earth's crust on continents. Tectonic plate theory does not have an answer to that but the expanding earth theory fits the planetary geology much better. I am not saying that plate tectonics are not involved in mountain formation; I am saying that an expanding globe combined with plate tectonics is a more comprehensive theory of our geology.



 Mihai > ⦁   agelbert ⦁   
I'm not particularly familiar with this theory, but the tectonic mechanism of orogeny is pretty well established.

agelbert > Andrei Mihai •
Well, the maximum age of the ocean basins is about 190 million years. But the thing that is most convincing to me that something besides plate tectonics is at work is the distance of the oceanic rifts from the land masses of Australia and Antarctica. It makes no sense UNLESS they stretched apart without any subduction whatsoever.

Also, the closer you get to the oceanic volcanic ridges, the younger the crust is. Finally the crust of the earth is thinner in the ocean basins than on continents. All of that argues for global expansion.

I know you will think this unscientific, but I am familiar with stretch marks on human female breasts when they grow too quickly for the skin to adjust normally. The ocean basin topography looks uncannily like these types of stretch marks. But the stretching of landscape on land is a known geologic feature that also appears to be identical, though in much smaller scale to the oceanic "stretch mark" like topography.

Please watch the video and tell me what you think is inaccurate about global expansion theory.

Two intriguing screen shots from the Expanding Earth video:

Expanding Earth versus Plate Tectonics

Continental fit only on a smaller earth globe


Andrei Mihai > agelbert  • a day ago 

I do think this is pretty unscientific, yes. I'll agree that plate tectonics is not a perfect, all-encompassing theory. It's an area of active research, and the sheer complexity of the subject will have us learning new things years and years from now... but.

The video starts from some truthful, and some false premises. For instance, the oldest oceanic crust isn't 140 million years old. In the west Pacific and north-west Atlantic, oceanic crust is 180-200 million years old. These are pretty big areas, not isolated patches, but it gets even better. In the Eastern parts of the Mediterranean, there are remnants of the former Tethys Ocean, which are 270 million years old (some studies put bits of it at 340 million years old). This is the most commonly referenced map, which I recommend having a look at.
 

There's a mountain of evidence supporting plate tectonics, so we know it's happening, it's very much real, though we're not exactly sure what's the exact mechanism of movement, and how all of it happens. This is always the case when you're studying phenomena on this scale, and working only with indirect evidence. As for the disappearance of plates, look up subduction. Oceanic plates are denser and "heavier" than continental plates, which is why they tend to subduce and get consumed in the lithosphere.

Cheers!

agelbert > Andrei Mihai •

Thank you for your polite and respectful response. It is rare to see an erudite person like yourself treat a person who is not credentialed this way. So, I am grateful for this conversation with you.

I respect your opinion, and that of the geologic mainstream scientific community. I agree with you that more research and experimentation is required to fully understand plate tectonics.

The only question I have, judging from your comment about the ocean basin age mentioned in the video, is why didn't you watch the full video? The different ocean basin age crusts issue was explained in detail, along with a discussion of the Mediterranean Sea basin.

I have studied subduction theory. I remain unconvinced that such a crustal "conveyer belt" actually exists simply because of the nearly equidistant volcanic rifts from the continental plates on either side in the Atlantic Ocean and between Australia and Antarctica.

Furthermore, subduction is a rather convenient excuse to claim that ocean basin crust is "reformed" with such high temperatures that its age simply "appears" to be much younger than the 4.5 billion year, much older dated continental land areas. The 4.5 billon year dating versus the much younger age for ocean basins as you stated, citing a maximum of 340 million years for one basin age versus 190 million years for others (with various documented ages in between), is not explained by subduction theory.

I am of the belief that the dating methods used by geologists are accurate, at least within an error margin of 100 million years.

So, the gigantic age gap problem between continents and ocean basins remains to be answered.

agelbert > Andrei Mihai •

If the Mckenzie model works for continental crust, why isn't it also clear that the same mechanism is at work in oceanic basin crust (i.e. stretching from expansion, not contraction)?  ???



Well, it is clear to the geologists. But that's where the controversy begins as to the CAUSE of that indisputable evidence of stretching.

In the graphic below, accepted by mainstream geologists, the stretching of the ocean basins is not in question. They admit that the basins are stretching; they simply require the subduction theory to explain that crustal stretching in order to avoid dealing with the ocean basin stretching based evidence of global expansion.

And as to crustal compression, as alleged to be the cause of continents moving towards one another, thereby causing mountain ranges to be formed, a less curved sphere of the earths surface, the result of an expanding globe, is a better explanation of how absolutely every mountain range on earth was formed. Just look, with unbiased eyes, at the location of mountain ranges and you will see what I mean.

Mountain range creation can be modeled on a tiny scale by arcing a 4' by 8' piece of plywood, fixing it in position, and applying plaster of Paris at varying thicknesses over it. After the plaster is hard in a day or so, gradually reduce the curvature and observe the "crustal compression", NOT from "continental plate collisions", but from a less curved surface.

This effect can also be observed in an inflated balloon covered with mud that is allowed to dry. When the balloon is further inflated the compression of the mud to form miniature "mountain ranges" and "ocean basins, where the added balloon area appears, is obvious to anyone but a mainstream geologist. I think they are just stubborn and set in their ways. But someday the obvious reality of an expanding globe will be accepted over the convenient theory of subduction invented to avoid accepting the reality of an expanding globe.

Cheers!









« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 04:42:28 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Money by AGelbert
September 21, 2018, 04:56:13 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
September 20, 2018, 08:30:47 am

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 04:50:53 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 04:49:11 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 04:33:49 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 02:40:29 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 02:08:44 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
September 18, 2018, 05:03:12 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
September 18, 2018, 04:28:22 pm

Pain Relief by AGelbert
September 17, 2018, 11:46:16 am