How's this for a summary of the supercontinent breakup?
*NG: All the continental land masses were originally a single supercontinent. * Then a large meteorite struck the Somali Basin, which shattered the supercontinent into several pieces.
*LK: This occurred 5,000 years ago. The impact was either electrical discharge, or both a meteorite and electrical discharge. * The impact occurred during the breakup of the Saturn System.
*NG: The pieces all moved away from the impact site, building small mountains first on the sides of continents nearest the impact, and lastly mountains on the far sides of the continents due to return of friction as they slowed down below a threshold level.
*LK: The bottoms of the continents were made frictionless, like ice, due to electrical heating and impact stresses.
*DZ: A second strike occurred at Iceland, which helped split off the Americas.
*WL: Chicxulub impact occurred on Yucatan, splitting off the West Indies.
*NG: Tektites fell in the area from the impact site to Australia.
*LK: The ocean basins had very little water, so canyons were carved into the sides of the continents and on their top surfaces by electrical discharge machining.
*NG: The trenches, or subduction zones, were formed as the continents ended their runs.
*LK: The dinosaurs etc were killed during this cataclysm. * The Great Flood occurred shortly after when the continents broke up and had finished their runs.
*SS: What little sediments are on the seafloors were mostly formed electrically.
* I'm not convinced of DZ's and WL's impact theories at Iceland and Yucatan, but they're plausible for now. I'd like to see evidence of a major impact at Iceland.
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
It's most likely that a large rock can't hit the Earth. They explode before they can impact and then shatter into incinerated fragments:
Electrical effects are capable of creating every large scale feature on Earth. Most of the other theories ignore the electrical nature of the mid-ocean ridge.
flyingcloud
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
how do ice core samples play into this idea?
it is proposed that the age of the ice core samples can be determined by the number of accumulated layers therein which appear to be greater than the 5,000 year time table suggested for this impact event
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
There is some question about the reliability of ice core data due to "migration."
The most crucial objection, though, is that for ice layers to be reliable, the snowfall has to have proceeded at a fairly uniform rate for a long time.
flyingcloud
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
that's about the response I expected,
layered ice and snow does not necessarily occur annually
I see it here by snowstorm, I too find these dating mechanisms fallible I once ate it up, but as I've grown, I no longer need spoonfed.
allynh
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Steve Smith wrote: Neal Adams is a cartoonist who happened to see continental fit just like I did when I was ten years old. And as Web states, anyone can animate anything and he has lots of practice. His animations of Europa were disingenuous at best as I pointed out.
This isn't about how Adams makes his living. He is simply using graphics packages to demonstrate the concept. All the earlier people had to use cutouts pasted on balloons to show the same result. He did exactly what I plan on doing; get up to speed on graphics software and duplicate Adams' results.
Adams being a cartoonist does not change the geological evidence that Carey and others used to understand that the Earth had to be smaller at one time. And nothing you've said in all of your TPOD posts explains how Australia matches geologically between Asia and North America.
- Until you resolve those very clear problems, that actual physical evidence represents, massive plasma scarring on the scale you propose is not valid.
What is ironic about all this, is that I have you to thank for finding all this great stuff about Neal Adams, Carey, etc..., because of the TPODs that you posted. All the links that you attacked in your TPODs led me straight to the mother lode.
Thank you for that.
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
I see that your mind was made up before you even posted anything, so good luck with the rabbit trails.
Lloyd
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
* Re Steve's statement that large bodies probably never strike the Earth, I've been saying that too, but, since it seems possible for a large body to strike the Earth under special circumstances, I don't think it should be ruled out. When I said impact above, I meant either the impact of lightning or meteorite and lightning. * One question is what would be the special circumstances and another question is could the supercontinent have shattered with only a megalightning strike and not the extra mass and momentum of a large meteorite(?). * The circumstances under which a large body could strike the Earth I think would be 1. if both bodies were uncharged, and 2. if they were charged the same in the right proportion. * I think 2 bodies of the same size that had the same charge would behave like neutral bodies, whereas if 2 bodies had the same charge but were of different sizes there would be a discharge. Does anyone know if that's true or not? By size, I don't know if volume or mass is meant, but I think volume. I think Juergens said a soap bubble and an iron sphere of the same diameter would hold the same charge, if connected by a wire. * As to whether a megalightning strike could cause a supercontinent to shatter and cause the pieces to fly apart in all directions, that's farther beyond my understanding so far. I read about lightning splitting huge boulders and throwing large parts for a few hundred feet or yards. I also just read that lightning can have 300 million amps and a billion volts and that recent lightning on Saturn was ten thousand times more powerful than Earthly lightning.
Lloyd
Impacts vs. EDM
* I overlooked this a little earlier from Steve:
First, and most important, electricity is a "pull" phenomenon. Rather than impact from an ion beam causing explosive or evaporative effects, it is the return stroke back to the leader that causes most of the shock dynamics. Craters were not punched into the Earth, the missing material was yanked out of it. ... In my view, the ocean bottoms were excavated by whatever object (or cloud of electrified plasma) approached Earth closely enough to initiate the upward discharges. The mid-ocean ridge is a classic example of the narrow center channel, uplifted into a dual-ridge structure, surrounded by a wide, flat-floored canyon. In this case the "canyon" is the width of the ocean basins. All one has to do is spend the time reviewing the forms on the bottom of the ocean and notice that the mid-ocean ridge is highlighted by perpendicular "cracks" along its entire length. They were formed when the ions to the sides of the primary trackway were pulled into its outflow upward to space. The periodic nature of the transverse "cracks" is one clue to their formation.
* It's plausible that electricity may be generally a pulling or attractive force, but does it also necessarily pulverize everything it pulls off of a planet? The Face on Mars is one among a large number of large rocks pulled apparently from Valles Marineris, which fell back down to the surface. Juergens thought it likely that Mars encountered the Moon in ancient times and one body acted as a cathode and the other as an anode. Isn't that possible? The discharge goes from one body to the other; does it not? So, if material is pulled from one, it's pulled onto the other. Right? And doesn't the material then impact the other body? * We know meteorites strike the Earth, but I don't know that they impact it with much force. I know they sometimes damage buildings etc. But I don't think I've heard of any making deep impacts. The largest meteorite is said to be about 60 tons, which I suppose would be about 400 to 600 cubic feet, the size of a car or small truck. Meteorites apparently come from meteor streams. TPODs said the Tunguska explosion probably involved a meteor from the Taurid stream, which is the stream Comet Encke follows. Apparently this meteor came within a close distance of impacting the Earth before it exploded electrically. The blast knocked down trees over a wide area. A blast is not an attractive or pulling force. Isn't it possible for a larger meteor to impact Earth, if going fast enough?
* I can't accept the idea that the Atlantic seafloor was all carved out electrically, until a few seeming contradictions are cleared up. * First, Comparing the Atlantic Ocean and Mars' Valles Marineris, see the following links. Full-length view of Valles Marineris: http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/MarsHemispheres/brows~ Full-length view of Atlantic seafloor: http://sos.noaa.gov/images/Land/sea_floor_age.jpg Large view of VM from the center to the West: http://www.imagico.de/pov/pict/mars04.jpg Whole Earth view: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Elevatio~ * Here is a comparison of features. * Atlantic Ocean is over 10,000 mi long from Spitsbergen to Antarctica, from 1770 to 4000 mi wide, and about 2 mi deep. Oriented north-south, it's very S-shape curved and connects with northern and southern oceans. The mid-Atlantic ridge is over 8,000 mi long or 4/5ths the length of the ocean. The ridge has a central rift along the entire length; ridge and rift are offset by numerous transverse faults. Opposite shores of the ocean match up like puzzle pieces. The rock types of opposite shores also match up well, according to Cardona. * Valles Marineris is over 2400 mi long, from 40 to 150 mi wide average, with 435 mile width near the center, and from 4 to 7 mi deep. The canyon is oriented east-west, is nearly straight, barely slightly sin-wave-shaped and connects with the northern basin; see http://web.pdx.edu/~ruzickaa/G456/Mars1lab/Mars1.htm . The mid-canyon ridge in Valles Marineris is nearly straight, is about 500 mi long or 1/5th the length of the canyon. The ridge has no apparent central rift and there are no apparent transverse faults or offsets. Opposite sides of the canyon do not seem to fit together like puzzle pieces. * In order for both depressions to have been formed in the same way, it seems that their features should have much more in common. For me, the fatal flaw in the theory that the Atlantic was completely formed by EDM is the fact that the opposite shores of the Atlantic fit together so perfectly, especially if the rock types also match up as Cardona said. The opposite banks of Valles Marineris don't match well at all. * The mid-Atlantic ridge doesn't seem to me to resemble the short interior ridge of Valles Marineris well either. I don't see the central rift, or the transverse fractures with their offsets in that ridge. Nor does the canyon have a broad flat floor like the Atlantic. * The proportions of the two depressions are also quite different. The Mars canyon is about 10 to 20 times as wide as it is deep. In fact it's much deeper than the Atlantic, even though the Atlantic is much wider and longer. The Atlantic is over 800 times as wide as it is deep. Why isn't it a lot deeper? * Other features are similar though. Both have a lot of gullies up and down their walls, which appear to be electrically carved.
* I think the Shock Dynamics theory (with an assist from electrical forces) explains the Atlantic and the other continental matchups and the mountain ranges etc much better than just EU theory alone.
dahlenaz
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Another detail to add to my synopsis, in reference to the upward buckling of the mantle in the Atlantic, is that even if an arc were to carve out material to expose a large enough portion of the mantle there should be an upward heave and this should lead to lateral sliding of the continents. An arc would not have needed to carve out the entire width of the atlantic, just enough to start either of several processes on their way, depending on the characteristics of the subterainian regions above the mantle, here is where the MOHO might play a significant role or be a consequence or the chaos. If the crust was also caverneous, as is suggested by ancient references, modern observation and logic, then any contained light fluids would blast out as all structural support became compromised, further loosening material.
Bottom line is if you take away load resting atop a material, of plastic characteristics, the surface will rebound and possibly rupture but it would push up first and anything that could move laterally would. Heavy machine die handlers know that even air would provide a cushion for lateral movement but the 'key' to the dramatic lateral reaction is upward relief-buckling. d...z
http://www.electric-spark-scars.com New experiment results added and more pages, from "What Electricity Is" James Roe's book of experiments, have been added.
Total Science
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Steve Smith wrote: There are many problems with planetary expansion
The only people who believe that are plate tectonics fundamentalists.
1. How do mountain ranges form if there is no compression of continents?
Vertical orogenesis.
No folding or uplift would be expected on a globe that has no points of contraction.
Not true. Any child playing with dirt in a sandbox can tell you that's not true.
The Expanding Earth theory states that the crust of the planet thins at certain points when the Earth expands, allowing the mantle material to balloon upward where it cools, forming a gravity slope. The elevated crustal blocks crack and slowly slide down, forming mountains and other structures that are said to originate due to tectonic folding and uplift. However, no mechanism to explain such phase changes in the mantle material has been forthcoming.
Your interpretation of the expanding Earth concept seems to be a sraw man.
2. The Earth's crust is presumed to have been continental silica-alumina (sial) with ocean bottom crust only forming later as Pangaea began to crack apart 200 million years ago. No reason is given for why there was so much time needed for the process to begin. Nor is a source identified for the required energy.
Not true. Expanding Earth does give an explanation. See here and here.
Rather it is fixism and plate tectonics that fails to give an explanation or cause of why Pangea broke up 200 mya.
3. The theoretical increase in expansion speed to 8 millimeters per year over the last 200 million years remains unexplained. It also corresponds to the margin of error in the calculations. No proof for continental movement has ever been provided, because the so-called "spreading" cannot be measured beyond the noise floor of the instrumentation.
Nonsense. The geological and biogeographical arguments for matching continental coastlines are overwhelming.
Although the number of published objections to Earth expansion is not as great, their fatal nature is by no means diminished. In order for Carey's theory to work, it was necessary for him (and the Plate Tectonics school, as well) to add new processes and invent arcane energies that remain unclear.
Electricity is arcane?
Total Science
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Steve Smith wrote: Neal Adams is a cartoonist who happened to see continental fit just like I did when I was ten years old. And as Web states, anyone can animate anything and he has lots of practice. His animations of Europa were disingenuous at best as I pointed out.
Ad hominem attacks are the first resort of people who have no logical or scientific argument.
What evidence do you have to support your fallacious claim that the Neal Adams animation of Europa is disingenuous at best?
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Someone seems to think plate tectonics and so-called "planetary expansion" are the only two theories out there.
seasmith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Lloyd wrote:
[size=85]How's this for a summary of the supercontinent breakup?
*NG: All the continental land masses were originally a single supercontinent. * Then a large meteorite struck the Somali Basin, which shattered the supercontinent into several pieces.
*LK: This occurred 5,000 years ago. The impact was either electrical discharge, or both a meteorite and electrical discharge. * The impact occurred during the breakup of the Saturn System.
*NG: The pieces all moved away from the impact site, building small mountains first on the sides of continents nearest the impact, and lastly mountains on the far sides of the continents due to return of friction as they slowed down below a threshold level.
*LK: The bottoms of the continents were made frictionless, like ice, due to electrical heating and impact stresses.
*DZ: A second strike occurred at Iceland, which helped split off the Americas.
*WL: Chicxulub impact occurred on Yucatan, splitting off the West Indies.
*NG: Tektites fell in the area from the impact site to Australia.
*LK: The ocean basins had very little water, so canyons were carved into the sides of the continents and on their top surfaces by electrical discharge machining.
*NG: The trenches, or subduction zones, were formed as the continents ended their runs.
*LK: The dinosaurs etc were killed during this cataclysm. * The Great Flood occurred shortly after when the continents broke up and had finished their runs.
*SS: What little sediments are on the seafloors were mostly formed electrically. [/size]
And where does your water come from, to fill up the oceans ?
seasmith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
~
*LK: The ocean basins had very little water, so canyons were carved into the sides of the continents and on their top surfaces by electrical discharge machining.
