Crustal motion and adaption to the Earth's profile
oriel36
"As the tectonic plates move along the planetary profile which is not
a perfect sphere ( setting aside the internal mechanism for a moment )
there should hardly be any argument as to the distortion of surface
features via this factor alone."
I should have added that the adaption of the moving plates from one
geodesic to another across the Earth's deviation from a perfect sphere
would most likely be experienced as intraplate events.I would assume
that it would appeal to those who require a mechanism to explain
features beyond the scope of interplate action.
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
and I suppose you know well what that mechanism is ? jp
oriel36
The internal mechanism for overall crustal motion is set aside in this
instance,the mechanism for intraplate Earthquakes may arise from the
difference between the planetary profile as a perfect sphere and its
actual profile which amounts to a not inconsiderable 13 mile
difference between Equator and pole.The stresses in a continental
plate as it adapts to a new profile would tend to occur away from the
boundaries,after all,if the Earth were a perfect sphere ,the larger
plates moving across it would not have to adapt and no stress would
occur from this origin.
I feel it is an overlooked avenue and most already know it.I would
hate to see it diluted on a newsgroup or have the assertion thrown
back at me for a worthless agenda but that is what happens when good
ideas are left to drift.I hope this one can be worked and addressed
properly by people who support plate tectonics in its outlines.
don findlay
oriel36 wrote:
> On Dec 28, 7:39�am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
> <australia.mining-pion...@neuf.fr> wrote:
Not only your support for Plate Tectonics is mistaken, Gerald, Plate
Tectonics itself is inherently false (especially in its outlines).
Your idea of differential rotation will never get off the ground so
long as you include it. You are shooting yourself in the feet.
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is not one of these concepts that begs a response,the mechanism for
intraplate events using the adaption of crustal plates from one
planetary profile to a different profile as they move across the less
than spherical shape of the Earth should not provoke any reaction
other than an enjoyable possibility.
I have always said that the generalised rotational dynamics based on
differential rotation in generating the degree of spherical deviation
is not crucial for understanding and working with evolutionary
geology,merely that the trajectory of the reasoning explains crustal
motion and planetary shape simultaneously whereas the 'convection
cells' now tend to dilute the enjoyment of crustal motion and
subsequently the short term geological events and the long term
generation of surface features.
The people working with plate motion just forgot to take the planetary
profile as a physical consideration when working with crustal
motion,when they have a closer look they will find that this factor
can explain geological events and features away from the plate
boundaries,if they do not then it would be unusual .I ,for one, would
like to see what comes out of it.
don findlay
Well, we'll see. The problem for them comes entirely with the
integration of rotation. The structures that describe it also
axiomatically describe enlargement. The big problem for Plate
Tectonics is the Pacific, where continental crustal adjustment and
mantle extrusion are integrated as a single dynamic. (A spinning
opening 'flower' ...getting bigger..)
They can't afford now to take it into account. If they recognise spin
they deny convection, and the current control on Plate Tectonics is
all about supercomputer manipulations (geophysics). It's a cozy
funding and publication niche the likes of Stuart have carved out for
themselves. If they go down the logical road of recognising spin,
then they end up with expansional egg on their face, and having to ask
for funds with a foolish grin for not having answers to the questions
they've been asking for the last half century. Their other physics
friends will laugh at them. So no-sir, politics is the name of the
game from here in on their side of the fence. It can go nowhere from
the geophysics side. Change will either have to come from the
geological side, on the solid geological evidence, or from the
astrophysical side. But from geo/ quantum physics, forget it.
oriel36
I liked what Wegener had to say even as those who follow the outlines
of his ideas has fallen back into the bad old habits by managing to
forget that crustal motion had inter-disciplinary elements other than
just surface correlations ,fossile evidence being one example -
"Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all
earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of
our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only
be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the
information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to
determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets
out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has
the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared
always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what
science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw" Wegener
The motion of individual plates from one planetary profile to another
may aid the understanding of subduction whereas the absence of the
planetary profile allied with 'convection cells' have been the staple
of most explanations. and based on physical considerations it does not
look productive.
> They can't afford now to take it into account. If they recognise spin
> they deny convection, and the current control on Plate Tectonics is
> all about supercomputer manipulations (geophysics). It's a cozy
> funding and publication niche the likes of Stuart have carved out for
> themselves. If they go down the logical road of recognising spin,
> then they end up with expansional egg on their face, and having to ask
> for funds with a foolish grin for not having answers to the questions
> they've been asking for the last half century. Their other physics
> friends will laugh at them. So no-sir, politics is the name of the
> game from here in on their side of the fence. It can go nowhere from
> the geophysics side. Change will either have to come from the
> geological side, on the solid geological evidence, or from the
> astrophysical side. But from geo/ quantum physics, forget it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Earth's less than spherical profile and rotational dynamics have
been known for centuries so when you talk about 'spin' it is an
assault on the eyes,it is nothing new to anyone here and least of all
those who work with a flawed 'convection cell' mechanism.
Conceptual changes are made based on the amount of productive avenues
it leads to rather than looking for conclusions and it is here that I
agree with Wegener most,concpts are transitory and subject to
modification or change. The worst possible outcome is that plate
tectonics would go to support a conclusional dead end like the
internal 'convection' mechanism never mind the nonsensical conclusion
you have reached.
On the poetical front,the concept of shifting crustal profiles and its
consequences would help prevent the idea of plate tectonics from
stagnating as a concept even though it presents precious little
definition at this time other than a possible mechanism for intraplate
events.
Any other comment on this matter would be repetitive and counter-
productive,at least for a while
don findlay
This starts out with the premise that you can't possibly be
right, ..you can only be less wrong. It's not a very optimistic or
even productive way of going about things, always expecting to
discover wrong stuff, and only rising to mousey heights to make it
less wrong.
"Productive" means adding to consensus, ..securing next years funding,
passing the 'What's-in-it-for-me' word around that there's something
in it for everybody. There's nothing 'productive' about knocking the
whole edifice down and starting over, ..puting everybody's nose out of
joint, ..now is there? Not in the short term anyway. How long do
you think it will take for the Plate Tectonic notion of building
mountain belts by crumpling the crust at the leading edges of so-
called 'plates' to wither and die, in the face of the new 'flat
subduction' - just "shove-it-under and lift-it-up" (and forget about
the crumpling)
Put it another way: 'Science' as it is popularly understood ("The
teams of scientists" references in every rag-mag) *IS* consensus. The
real breakthroughs are not done by those 'scientists'.
> and it is here that I
> agree with Wegener most,concepts are transitory and subject to
> modification or change.
Sure they are, .."most", ....like the concept of Plates. Those babies
should go out with the bathwater every time. Thankfully those are not
the ones that count. It's the ones that are not "most" we're
concerned with here. Like the Earth being round, ..or spinning, ..or
suspended in space.. People have fought and died for them and their
like (Real scientists never die). And getting bigger. So the Earth
is spinning. So its deformation reflects it. What does that add to
what we know? In a phrase of "differential rotation" you have already
stitched all of that up (apart from a bit of fine dressing). It's
already all there anyway in their convectional 'poloidal/toroidal'
jargon - though that is not what was meant by it when it was
introduced. All they need are a few more rubber numbers and they've
done it. The super-puter will do the rest, ..give it black-box
legitimacy.
> The worst possible outcome is that plate
> tectonics would go to support a conclusional dead end like the
> internal 'convection' mechanism never mind the nonsensical conclusion
> you have reached.
Why? According to you this 'chase after wrongness" is what it's all
about. It can always be finagled to be 'less wrong'. There's good
money in that, in research justification/ expectations The other sort
though, being right, poses the question what to do for an encore.
It's a real party-pooper of a thing to do is it not, pass the picture
on the front of the box around, when the name of the game is doing
jigsaws. What's a poor jigsaw-player to do, when he gets handed the
picture already, ..when it's already all worked out , hardly even any
tweaking needed? That is precisely the position in universities
now, ..they are not getting the enrollments and therefore the funding
because the word is out that Plate Tectonics has geology all solved.
Geology has cut its own throat talking about 'plates' and convection
and subduction, and 'movement', .. As if checking out this 'Big Idea'
is what geology is all about. Everything has become so mired in it
it's no longer possible (hardly) to sort out the fact from the
fiction, which is why teachers are copping the flack they are for
teaching it all wrong. What are students supposed to think about it
all? They have money to invest in a potential career - and money to
pay back when they get there. Why choose a bag of contradictory crap
which is virtually what geology has become? What sort of a career
does knowing about the rubber numbers of Plate Tectonics offer? And
which, exactly, is the 'right' story they are supposed to supply to
get there? Shit, we've had physicists and astronomers here saying
they learned all there is to know about Plate Tectonics when they were
children, before they went to school... If that's the case, so what
therefore use is the likes of a 'Stuart' to anybody, reciting rubbery
numbers as the justification for stuff that everybody knows anyway?
We've already read the complaints of John Dewey on that score. And
that from a successful player right at the heart of the whole thing.
>
> On the poetical front,the concept of shifting crustal profiles and its
> consequences would help prevent the idea of plate tectonics from
> stagnating as a concept even though it presents precious little
> definition at this time other than a possible mechanism for intraplate
> events.
That 'poetry' was all passe more than half a century ago. There was
at least then still some mystery in it. Plate Tectonics purports to
have given it the rubber stamp (who needs an 'authorized' version? ),
but it hasn't. The big questions are still all there - and Plate
Tectonics just (in your words) "intellectual rubble".
The truth is, ..(truth) these guys are not even close, ..not even by
their own standards, and of course they know it. but you with the
stars in your eyes don't even see that being close is not the
point, ..it's the Gift that Keeps on Giving, ..that is. Money/
careers/ and elitism keeping them apart and a further sinecure. And
they know perfectly well that the farther they can keep from getting
close, so much the better for them. How else do *YOU* explain their
failure to properly integrate what you say to recognise is plain and
simple, that the Earth is spinning/ rotating. Do *you* think they are
just being dumb? It's not rocket science, working out that
subduction is a contradiction in terms - just about every term that
Plate Tectonics itself provides shoots it down, ..but if subduction
goes they have nothing to build on, and then *THE GREAT UNKNOWN*
stares them in the face. An opportunity to do Bloody Science for
real. And what use is that, when it comes to funding and careers?
Who'll bet the money/ who'll *get* the money then, poor things.
Probably not *this* university. Time you saw consensus for what it is
- a Milk Cow, ..Stuart's "gift that keeps on giving", courtesy of the
students (and whoever else is paying - certainly not that Nicolas
wallah, who believes Love and everything else should be free; ..wonder
what banyan tree he's camped under this morning, now that the police
have moved him on a few times)
Hah, ..already the type areas of the world have become "Flat
Subduction" - which is not subduction at all.
>
> Any other comment on this matter would be repetitive and counter-
> productive,at least for a while
I think your sights are focussed on the wrong target.
oriel36
> oriel36 wrote:
> > On the poetical front,the concept of shifting crustal profiles and its
> > consequences would help prevent the idea of plate tectonics from
> > stagnating as a concept even though it presents precious little
> > definition at this time other than a possible mechanism for intraplate
> > events.
>
> That 'poetry' was all passe more than half a century ago. There was
> at least then still some mystery in it. Plate Tectonics purports to
> have given it the rubber stamp (who needs an 'authorized' version? ),
> but it hasn't. The big questions are still all there - and Plate
> Tectonics just (in your words) "intellectual rubble".
>
Naughty,naughty,!You remind me of the true statement of Galileo,not
just you personally but rather your empirical kind. -
"I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo
It is unfortunate that the balance has shifted and plate tectonics may
go into supporting a 'convection cell' conclusion whereas there is
enough in outlines for plate tectonics to stand on its own without
the need to speculate on an internal mechanism or rather allow enough
data for rotating celestial objects to approach the internal mechanism
with greater certainty.
Don't you ever dare reply to my threads for a long,long while.
don findlay
-----------------------
:-)
brad
if the planets' rotation were the mechanism behind continental drift
it would imply that the plates motion lagged behind the rotation of
the earth , but the mass of the plates is almost insignificant in
relation to the rest of the planet. ( ave D = 5.5 even without the
crust) that implies some mechanism applying a force from outside the
surface. is the moon adequate ? the moon certainly doesn't hurt but
the earth is large enough that its own gravity is sufficient to supply
its internal heat sans moon. heat implies convection and that
convection is going to do work. we see that work as PT.
oriel36
> On Jan 4, 1:39 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 12:01 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > oriel36 wrote:
> > > > On the poetical front,the concept of shifting crustal profiles and its
> > > > consequences would help prevent the idea of plate tectonics from
> > > > stagnating as a concept even though it presents precious little
> > > > definition at this time other than a possible mechanism for intraplate
> > > > events.
> > > That 'poetry' was all passe more than half a century ago. There was
> > > at least then still some mystery in it. Plate Tectonics purports to
> > > have given it the rubber stamp (who needs an 'authorized' version? ),
> > > but it hasn't. The big questions are still all there - and Plate
> > > Tectonics just (in your words) "intellectual rubble".
>
> > Naughty,naughty,!You remind me of the true statement of Galileo,not
> > just you personally but rather your empirical kind. -
>
> > "I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
> > establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
> > discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
> > for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
> > dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
> > may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo
>
> > It is unfortunate that the balance has shifted and plate tectonics may
> > go into supporting a 'convection cell' conclusion whereas there is
> > enough in outlines for plate tectonics to stand on its own without
> > the need to speculate on an internal mechanism or rather allow enough
> > data for rotating celestial objects to approach the internal mechanism
> > with greater certainty.
>
> > Don't you ever dare reply to my threads for a long,long while.
>
> if the planets' rotation were the mechanism behind continental drift
> it would imply that the plates motion lagged behind the rotation of
> the earth ,
Differential rotation in the Earth's interior causes the planet to
deviate from a perfect sphere and subsequently would cause the
fractured crust to move,what is being done is to bring the observed
principles for rotating stellar objects in terms of the correlation
between maximum Equatorial speed and overall shape and apply it to the
Earth's interior .The generalised dynamics are based on the behavior
of a rotating molten/flexible composition regardless of what type of
celestial object -
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr06/images/vega-vs-sun.gif
You jump to a conclusion on plate motion without bothering to take
into account the reasoning which links planetary shape and crustal
motion and considering that this thread is based on the motion of
crustal plates over the less than spherical geometry of the planet and
subsequently the influence on surface deformations and events,I would
say that you are better off coming back to me with a more
comprehensive understanding of what is going on
conceptually,physically and bottom line.
but the mass of the plates is almost insignificant in
> relation to the rest of the planet. ( ave D = 5.5 even without the
> crust) that implies some mechanism applying a force from outside the
> surface. is the moon adequate ? the moon certainly doesn't hurt but
> the earth is large enough that its own gravity is sufficient to supply
> its internal heat sans moon. heat implies convection and that
> convection is going to do work. we see that work as PT.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
'Convection cells' require no reference to an axially rotating Earth
and can rightly be considered a stationary Earth notion,I would say
that the correlation between crustal motion and planetary shape is
overlooked even without considering the internal mechanism based on
differential rotation but ultimately the whole reasoning fits together
in a very neat package,even with scant details as to the actual
composition and behavior of the rotating interior.
If you are happy with your stationary Earh mechanism of 'convection
cells' then good for you,who am I to disturb such a fine example of an
ad hoc solution to plate motion without taking into account a
wider,more astronomical view.I respect that in order for plate
tectonics to work,some sort of internal mechanism was required
however,judging by the standard of your reasoning,I would say that the
outlines of plate motion which Wegener provided through a multi-
disciplined approach is not served by a narrow view which is mentally
incompetent in ignoring the astronomical components and specifically
rotational dynamics.
brad
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jupiter,Sol,Saturn,Uranus) they all show rotational banding . which if
extrapolated to earth implies your point. and please note these
features are horizontal . where are the equivalent features on earth ?
convection cells are hotspots , not spreading ridges. the oblate earth
may very well be the reaon for the first crustal weaknesses .
however , gravitational heating and fractionation in the mantle until
it became opaque to upwelling heat, is a more likely reason for the
formation of and continued movement of the crust . and geophysics
encompasses both our viewpoints just more you ; and more me depending
on ..... please don't impune my mental competence i'm the best french
frier in the place and i never confuse orders.
don findlay
Hey you! ..You told me it was all pre-sorted, with all the core
accumulating from handy iron, then handy mantle, then handy crust.
What's this about gravitational heating? And how do you see
spreading ridges then if they are not convection-driven?
oriel36
, gravitational heating and fractionation in the mantle until
> it became opaque to upwelling heat, is a more likely reason for the
> formation of and continued movement of the crust .
> - Show quoted text -
I think you are better suited to remain with the 'convection cells'
concept for crustal motion,many who try to handle the rotational
aspects tend to lose the run of themselves and make all sorts of silly
correlaions and conclusions.I have always stated that an internal
mechanism is not particularly crucial for progress in the matter of
interplate/intraplate tectonics however the title of this thread may
be a conceptual lead in to tie crustal dynamics across the less than
spherical Earth with known rotational dynamics.
The usenet is great but sometimes I wish I had the comfort of a
recognised treatise to stop a productive avenue being diluted by
people who cannot take anything serious.
don findlay
What do you mean - "Can't take anything seriously"? This is a
serious business, teaching children how Plate Tectonics works. Plate
Tectonics ranks with space flight as the foremost achievement of the
twentieth century.
"Now Stuart, this time when all these oceanic floors move towards you
we want to see you, instead of rising up, we want to see you
burrowing under all the mountains, .."
"But Miss, .. you said I could be the subduction zone the last
time.."
"Well, Andro, .. Let Stuart. He's been a volcano five times now..
and important he knows what subduction is all about.
<trench suck - ridge push next term>
JHR
brad wrote:
>
> if the planets' rotation were the mechanism behind continental drift
> it would imply that the plates motion lagged behind the rotation of
> the earth , but the mass of the plates is almost insignificant in
> relation to the rest of the planet. ( ave D = 5.5 even without the
> crust) that implies some mechanism applying a force from outside the
> surface. is the moon adequate ? the moon certainly doesn't hurt but
> the earth is large enough that its own gravity is sufficient to supply
> its internal heat sans moon. heat implies convection and that
> convection is going to do work. we see that work as PT.
Hi.
All stellar objects in the universe probably impose a crustal drag on
every other rotating stellar object within the reach of their gravity,
and not just their surface. The strength of this force should depend
on the (square of?) the distance and the mass of the objects and cause
multiple effects, depending, among other things , on position and tilt
of the axis etc. See
http://home.pages.at/jhinrichs/wobble.txt for some examples.
For instance, there seems to be evidence that our own moon is dragging
the oceans, at the least, over the surface of our planet, to put it
simply, and is therefore slowing down its rotation. And I suppose it
is also exerting a relative pull on the crust (and, indeed, the core,
and, yes, even the crust on the other side).
However, without trying to put a figure on this, the moon is smaller
than the earth, and I personally would point to the sun as the stellar
object to have the most marked gravitational effect on the earth's
rotation (and, with that, possibly the crust as well). After all, it
keeps the whole planet in its path.
What keeps stellar objects moving and rotating (and even, in part, the
universe from collapsing altogether) despite this mutual drag seems to
be the other great force in the universe: momentum. And that, too,
depends on mass.
JHR
don findlay
JHR wrote:
> brad wrote:
>
> >
> > if the planets' rotation were the mechanism behind continental drift
> > it would imply that the plates motion lagged behind the rotation of
> > the earth , but the mass of the plates is almost insignificant in
> > relation to the rest of the planet. ( ave D = 5.5 even without the
> > crust) that implies some mechanism applying a force from outside the
> > surface. is the moon adequate ? the moon certainly doesn't hurt but
> > the earth is large enough that its own gravity is sufficient to supply
> > its internal heat sans moon. heat implies convection and that
> > convection is going to do work. we see that work as PT.
>
> Hi.
>
> All stellar objects in the universe probably impose a crustal drag on
> every other rotating stellar object within the reach of their gravity,
> and not just their surface.
Nyaaahhh! Yew Doan know *how* gravity works, do you? How it
manages to exert a force from a distance. Therefore you've got
nothing to say.
Shit! Next you'll be saying that the Earth is round, ..without having
a cluUee how it gets to *BE* round.
<See what I mean? Just like the Earth is round, so it's getting
bigger. Fact. How it does it, nobody knows. Just is. Doesn't
detract from the fact.>
> The strength of this force should depend
> on the (square of?) the distance and the mass of the objects and cause
> multiple effects, depending, among other things , on position and tilt
> of the axis etc. See
> http://home.pages.at/jhinrichs/wobble.txt for some examples.
>
> For instance, there seems to be evidence that our own moon is dragging
> the oceans, at the least, over the surface of our planet, to put it
> simply, and is therefore slowing down its rotation. And I suppose it
> is also exerting a relative pull on the crust (and, indeed, the core,
> and, yes, even the crust on the other side).
>
> However, without trying to put a figure on this, the moon is smaller
> than the earth, and I personally would point to the sun as the stellar
> object to have the most marked gravitational effect on the earth's
> rotation (and, with that, possibly the crust as well). After all, it
> keeps the whole planet in its path.
>
> What keeps stellar objects moving and rotating (and even, in part, the
> universe from collapsing altogether) despite this mutual drag seems to
> be the other great force in the universe: momentum. And that, too,
> depends on mass.
(But it has something to do with depending on mass - whatever that
is.)
>
> JHR
JHR
> manages to exert a force from a distance. Therefore you've got
> nothing to say.
>
No. Do you? :-)
JHR
brad
well then is PT recognized on mars? wouldn't you expect rotational
dynamics to be evident ? why hasn't the plate moved over mons
olympus ? all we see is a giant volcano. i am aware of the wobble in
the earths rotationand the oblate shape of the earth. but the
deviation from sphericity is only 1 part in 300 (80 miles?) ! the
earth -moon barycenter is in the mantle and seems a likely source of
energy. no? ( though not necessarily the only one ) i do recognize
tidal effects as the source of eruptions on io. however, i'm still
reticent to attribute plate motion entirely to external or rotational
effects. consider , the crust is thinner and lighter at ridges and
becomes progressively thicker and denser (heavier) as you move away .
in effect there is a gravitational gradient drawing the plate away
from the ridge. combine that with extruding magma and then what needs
explaining is ... why any ridge is where it is . i guess i need more
evidence on your part.
oriel36
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again,judging from your response,you are better off sticking with
'convection cells' and good luck to you and your kind
don findlay
:-) No, ..I don't. And what's more, neither does Stu, nor anybody
else here And yet he/ they is/are quite happy to raise the same
argument against Earth expansion, even though it is the core of their
own belief in convection, subduction and the rest.
That's what they don't get: Earth Expansion is a fact, not a
theory, ..a fact every bit as obvious as that the Earth is round - and
that roundness is changing over time.
And probably the reasons for both are related. Everybody can
speculate about theory once they know what mass is, how it comes into
existence, and how it manages to exert the force it does. And call
themselves scientists if they like. But the first job of science is
to document the facts, not launch into unsubstantiated theories -
based on "convenient assumptions" as Plate Tectonics does.
>
> JHR
Nicolas Krebs
news:997c9140-9e41-49ef...@m77g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> Earth Expansion is a fact
Evidences?
> a fact every bit as obvious as that the Earth is round
No.
--
« You say there is evidence. We are all waiting to see it. »