CharlesChandler wrote: "For mountain-building to be a function of a changing degree of curvature, you have to assume that the degree of curvature is changing in the absence of expansion."
This doesn't make any sense. Why do we need to assume the degree of curvature is changing in the absence of expansion? In GET there is no absence of expansion. The curvature is changing while it expands. The rifting is occurring at the weakest points in the crust which are already established.
OK, there are two implications to expansion: 1) buckling at the joints, as you're saying, and 2) rifting at the joints, as I'm saying. But I "think" that the rifting will be more dramatic than the buckling. I'd have to plot out the geometry to get real numbers, but I "think" that you'd get a big gaping rift between the continents where they split apart where they were weakest, and which would preclude any lateral stress.
There are gaping rifts between the continents full of water called oceans. So check 1 for Expanding Earth.
CharlesChandler wrote: Also, for the upper portion of the crust to get scrunched at the joints, you're assuming that as the Earth expands, the crust maintains its former degree of curvature, while the larger Earth "flattens" underneath it (i.e., as the radius gets bigger). But this assumes no elasticity whatsoever in the crust, such that it cannot flatten out. I don't think that the crust is that rigid.
No. I'm assuming the crust flattens as the Earth expands as I've said about 4 or 5 times on this thread. Nothing I've said even gives the impression that I said it maintains curvature. The flattening crust causes mountains. Not sure how clearer I can be. So, as I'm stating the opposite of what you say I stated, your refutation is actually supporting Expanding Earth so check 2.
CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Also, have you found an explanation yet as to why every rift surrounding the Antarctic plate indicates that it is moving away from every other plate it borders? Where is it going? Off Earth like a blister? I think we would have noticed.
I didn't really understand the question until you posted the image. It certainly appears that everything is moving away from Antarctica. Then the question is: why?
Or, everything is moving away from everything else supporting Expanding Earth, as while diverging rifts are an observable phenomena, subduction is a complete myth.
Aardwolf
Re: Most Thorough Model
GaryN wrote:
This phenomena can only be explained by an expanding Earth.
But GTSM has the planets shrinking as they cool. What is the cause of the expansion?
GTSM lacks all scientific merit but as for the cause of expansion, that's something I'm hoping the EU will one day explain.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
EE Elsewhere Aardwolf, you need to take your discussion to the Expanding Earth thread, or whatever it's called, because you ignore much of the evidence stated here against EE. This thread is for discussing CC's model.
moonkoon
Re: Most Thorough Model
Hi Lloyd. I haven't seen the videos and haven't read much of Cardona, but I will endeavour to remedy the situation soon. Mythology is a pretty big subject and I'm no expert but I am always on the lookout for possible references to expansion. I am currently working my way through "Primal Myths" by Barbara Sproul and will post anything that I think might be relevant. I suppose a thread on the mythological evidence (for or against ) earth expansion is justified. If I come across anything in the book I will make a thread for the subject, or someone else may like to start one. Or maybe it would be better to add it to the "Are the planets expanding?" thread. It's hard to know what to do when you get "subject crossover".
Lloyd. ... The initial breakup of the supercontinent pushed the Americas, NAMER and SAMER, away from EURAS & AFRIC, until NAMER overran the Pacific Rise. ...
I consider that NAMER and SAMER also separated from what is now the western Pacific region, ...the separation being greatest in the Southern hemisphere. As others have noted, marsupials in Australia and Central and South America support this possibility, as do the distribution of the sweet potato and other botanical connections between North America and East/South-East Asia. There are also hints of a connection via obsidian technology between South America and Melanesia, in my opinion.
The geological situation on the west coast region of North America is hard to fathom. That section of the Pacific "Ring of Fire" experiences only/mainly shallow earthquakes and they are generally less frequent while South America and the Western Pacific region have those mysterious earthquakes that can be up to 800km deep. I would like to know what it is that fractures (presumably) that far below the surface.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Moonkoon said: I consider that NAMER and SAMER [AMER = America] also separated from what is now the western Pacific region, ...the separation being greatest in the Southern hemisphere. As others have noted, marsupials in Australia and Central and South America support this possibility, as do the distribution of the sweet potato and other botanical connections between North America and East/South-East Asia. There are also hints of a connection via obsidian technology between South America and Melanesia, in my opinion.
Apparently, you think the continents on opposite shores of the Pacific Ocean were initially joined together just as they were on opposite shores of the Atlantic Ocean. That would be important to show in order to prove Earth Expansion, but I don't think I've seen a detailed fit of the coasts of the Pacific, nor a fit of the fossils or strata there, unlike with the coasts of the Atlantic.
The geological situation on the west coast region of North America is hard to fathom. That section of the Pacific "Ring of Fire" experiences only/mainly shallow earthquakes and they are generally less frequent while South America and the Western Pacific region have those mysterious earthquakes that can be up to 800km deep. I would like to know what it is that fractures (presumably) that far below the surface.
Charles and I discussed earthquake depths a couple years ago on this forum. I had heard at that time of earthquakes as deep as 700 km. CC's paper on Earthquakes is at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/9981.html. He discusses the deep quakes about 2/3 of the way down the page by the illustration of "subduction". Subduction is the mainstream explanation of these quakes, but CC considers that explosive electric currents and ionization are the cause of these quakes. He explains this in considerable detail in various places on that page. He said he's committed to answering all questions to the best of his ability, so if you want to understand this better, feel free to ask questions here. Also, it would help to read parts of that paper first. He shows there good evidence that subduction is false and that CFDLs and tidal forces are and were involved in continental drift. I don't remember if he mentions there that an impact likely got the process started initially.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Tidal Locking Charles, here's a paraphrase from Wikipedia. Charon and Pluto revolve about each other every 6.4 days. The two objects are both gravitationally/tidally locked so each keeps the same face towards the other. []. The average distance between Charon and Pluto is 19,570 kilometres (12,160 mi). Pluto's diameter is 2,368 km. Charon's diameter is 1,207 km.
Do you have an explanation for tidal locking? I don't find the word "lock" in your Tides paper.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Mars Borealis Basin We were discussing the Lightning Scarred Planet Mars recently here at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374&start=60#p102011. Today I read Mike Fischer's ideas about the largest basins on the Moon and Mars at http://newgeology.us/presentation4.html#Asteroids. He references a number of papers that discuss formation of the Mars northern basin, Borealis, suggesting a large glancing impact was the cause. Charles, I think you're the only one who considers many impacts to involve thermonuclear explosion. If that's true, would your model then require much modification of those analyses? For example, a quote there from one of the referenced papers says: ""Simulation results show that "depending on impact angle, 50-70% of the melt stays inside the excavated boundary, 25-30% is deposited outside the boundary, and the remainder is ejected from the planet."3"" Do you think the CFDLs may tend to minimize how much material would leave the planet?
This article "A Vast Oceanus Borealis May have Once Covered 1/3 of Mars" at http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/02/a-vast-oceanus-borealis-may-have-once-covered-13-of-mars.html apparently shows an image of the Borealis basin as if it were covered with an ocean here: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef01a5116eaa23970c-800wi. The significance of the image for this discussion is the shape, i.e. elliptical, but with a side branch, like the letter "Y". It looks like the peninsula region between the two arms is the volcanic shield that holds 4 large volcanoes on a highland. Imagining a grazing impact causing the Y shape, I suppose the impacter would have carved out the leg of the Y first, and finished with the arms, but the area between the arms would have been somewhat removed too, but may have partly fallen back down and/or vulcanism may have produced flood basalt with the volcanoes poking through it at the end of the event. Any thoughts about that and whether the asteroids and comets could have come from that impact? Fischer implies that he thinks Phobos and Deimos came from it. The latter article with the ocean image has some speculation that many of the large boulders, probably including the "Face on Mars", came from underwater landslides like what have occurred in Earth's oceans.
By the way, the second biggest crater on Mars, seen in the lower part of this image in dark blue, or purple, at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/images/4531191a-f1.2.jpg looks to me like an object impacted at a steep angle, so that it buried itself deep inside Mars and left a deep basin, deeper than Borealis. Does that seem plausible? And would that have contributed to flood basalt and vulcanism in the shield area?
David
Re: Most Thorough Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
David wrote: Yes, I have a question. Chandler has stated: "I dismiss QM, GR, and anything based on them."
If he rejects General Relativity, then what theory of gravitation is he using? Newtonian? Or does he have his own gravitational theory that can accurately predict the elliptical orbits of the planets, and the anomalous precession of Mercury?
Newtonian gravity predicts the elliptical orbits of planets reasonably enough. I believe that the anomalies are evidence of electrostatic forces, since planets have a net charge, and so does the interplanetary medium. Thus fluctuations in the density of the IPM will exert electric forces on the planets, perturbing their orbits.
As concerns Mercury, I could think of a lot of things that could cause its orbit to precess, including electrostatic and electrodynamic forces, and drag forces from the somewhat denser solar wind in its neighborhood. So I don't consider Mercurial precession to be the monopoly of the GR camp.
The drag forces due to the solar wind have already been taken into account. The calculations produce negligible results, and the increased accuracy does not make enough of a difference in the calculation to be worthwhile.
So you may be able to think of a lot of things that contribute to orbital precession, but as far as I know General Relativity is the *only* theory whose actual calculations will give a near perfect match with the observed data.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Impacts Fallout? Charles, are there enough questions for you yet? In case not, here's another. In the "Nuclear bombs on mars" thread, the referenced article about possible former civilization on Mars says products of nuclear explosions are found on Mars: Xenon-129 in the atmosphere and uranium and thorium on the surface. Since you consider most craters to have formed by thermonuclear explosion, do you think those products could have formed from impacts?
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Aardwolf wrote: The flattening crust causes mountains. Not sure how clearer I can be.
Ummm... well... you could do some diagrams, or maybe do the geometry and say how much expansion would produce how much lateral pressure, and how much rifting, so the rest of us wouldn't get confused. You said that the rifting occurs at the weakest points in the crust. Mountain ranges sometimes have rifts (such as Death Valley in the Rockies). What makes the difference between a plain, a mountain range, and a rift, if all of it is getting flattened the same amount?
Lloyd wrote: Since you consider most craters to have formed by thermonuclear explosion, do you think those products could have formed from impacts?
Yes — any decent-sized meteor impacting at 30 km/s should generate the temperatures and pressures necessary for a nuclear explosion, so there is no need for any stupid life forms to be nuking each other in order to get those heavy elements.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Crater Formation
Charles explained that fast moving meteors or larger objects that impact a body will produce thermonuclear explosions like an H-bomb, which involves mostly electrical and some magnetic forces. Above he agreed that such explosions likely account for Xenon-129, uranium and thorium found on Mars. Formation of craters by electric thermonuclear explosions seems much more probable than by electric discharge machining, as Charles explained in several places, like: 1. , 2. http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4056&start=105#p76447 3. and especially http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=120#p76424. 4. Well, maybe his paper on his site is more thorough at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10634. He had other discussions of craters too, possibly with further elaboration.
Lloyd wrote: Charles explained that fast moving meteors or larger objects that impact a body will produce thermonuclear explosions like an H-bomb, which involves mostly electrical and some magnetic forces. Above he agreed that such explosions likely account for Xenon-129, uranium and thorium found on Mars.
BTW, this is also one of the reasons for thinking that the Earth's continents were of ET origin. If the granite simply bubbled up from below, due to its smaller density compared to the basaltic mantle, we'd expect a lot less chemical differentiation, and a whole lot less of the really heavy elements. By simple mass separation, it should be almost purely comprised of the lighter elements, such as oxygen, carbon, sulfur, etc. To me, the presence of heavier elements (e.g., iron, nickel, cobalt, and especially uranium) indicates that it wasn't simple mass separation. I guess the heavy elements could have arrived during the Late Heavy Bombardment, but as with the ET Ocean hypothesis (i.e., the water on Earth all came from dirty snowball impacts), I have a hard time believing that there could have been enough small impacts to do the job. I don't know how the Expanding Earth accounts for the formation of the crust in the first place, but if they think that it was just the lighter elements that bubbled up and cooled, that leaves the heavier elements in the crust unexplained. The Theia Skidmark hypothesis explains the chemical differentiation, and the presence of extremely heavy elements, as the consequence of a large impact that fused a lot of the heavier elements during the impact itself.
Aardwolf
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: EE Elsewhere Aardwolf, you need to take your discussion to the Expanding Earth thread, or whatever it's called, because you ignore much of the evidence stated here against EE. This thread is for discussing CC's model.
So you prefer to be dismissive of other possibilities in the same way the mainstream is dismissive of the EU. Science should actively pursue phenomena that disproves its theories, not hide from them.
Any news on where Antarctica is heading yet?
Aardwolf
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote:
Moonkoon said: I consider that NAMER and SAMER [AMER = America] also separated from what is now the western Pacific region, ...the separation being greatest in the Southern hemisphere. As others have noted, marsupials in Australia and Central and South America support this possibility, as do the distribution of the sweet potato and other botanical connections between North America and East/South-East Asia. There are also hints of a connection via obsidian technology between South America and Melanesia, in my opinion.
Apparently, you think the continents on opposite shores of the Pacific Ocean were initially joined together just as they were on opposite shores of the Atlantic Ocean. That would be important to show in order to prove Earth Expansion, but I don't think I've seen a detailed fit of the coasts of the Pacific, nor a fit of the fossils or strata there, unlike with the coasts of the Atlantic.
Well that map clearly shows that Glossopteris would have joined across the Pacific as well.
Also, marsupials are found predominantly in Australia and South America alone, proving they must have shared a border.
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Aardwolf wrote: So you prefer to be dismissive of other possibilities in the same way the mainstream is dismissive of the EU. Science should actively pursue phenomena that disproves its theories, not hide from them.
I'm committed to keeping an open mind, and I'd be happy to discuss just about anything with you. But if you're already locked down on something, and you're always arguing from that position, and especially if you're just arguing (i.e., not objectively analyzing the information, and always discrediting anything that doesn't agree with your pre-formed conclusions), you can't call it narrow-mindedness on somebody else's part if they don't go along with what you're saying. I said that the Expanding Earth Hypothesis was somewhere between intriguing and compelling, but that there were details still unexplained, which is why I don't think that it's the whole story, if it is, indeed, at least part of it. If that isn't good enough for you, that's your problem. The path forward from here is to take a closer look at the actual details, and see if the EEH can be modified to account for everything, or if the fine-grain detail really require a different paradigm. People who are already sold (for or against) won't be any help with that.
Aardwolf wrote: Any news on where Antarctica is heading yet?
The other continents are definitely moving away from Antarctica. But that doesn't prove the EEH — it could be simply that Pangaea is still rifting.
) earth expansion is justified. If I come across anything in the book I will make a thread for the subject, or someone else may like to start one. Or maybe it would be better to add it to the "Are the planets expanding?" thread. It's hard to know what to do when you get "subject crossover".
Lloyd.I consider that NAMER and SAMER also separated from what is now the western Pacific region, ...the separation being greatest in the Southern hemisphere. As others have noted, marsupials in Australia and Central and South America support this possibility, as do the distribution of the sweet potato and other botanical connections between North America and East/South-East Asia. There are also hints of a connection via obsidian technology between South America and Melanesia, in my opinion.You said that the rifting occurs at the weakest points in the crust. Mountain ranges sometimes have rifts (such as Death Valley in the Rockies). What makes the difference between a plain, a mountain range, and a rift, if all of it is getting flattened the same amount?
Lloyd wrote:Yes — any decent-sized meteor impacting at 30 km/s should generate the temperatures and pressures necessary for a nuclear explosion, so there is no need for any stupid life forms to be nuking each other in order to get those heavy elements.
