Steve, I respect, like and am learning from your EDM explanations in general, as they offer a consistent way of looking at various planetary formations solar system wide. I like that it is an application of the EU specific enough to predict/test future observations. But I am looking at some very specific features in the Atlantic basin[s] and on the respective continental shelflines that don't match what I would expect from what you have said thus far. I truly need some more specific EDM-to-formation connections, for example both to the east and west of the so-called holeinthecrust spot, where the actual distance and floor features wrt the central rift matches continents sliding but not an EDM swath. It's one thing to have a nice generalization, but even more powerful if the generalization can be specifically applied.
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
"Continents sliding" is where I have a problem as I've repeatedly stated. No evidence exists that the continents can float. What gives you the impression that they can other than what you see on the ocean floor maps?
If everyone is interested in finding reasons to invalidate the EU theory, and trying to discover alternatives to how the features on Earth came to be, then what about the theory of a cold, rigid mantle? That would throw a Spaniard in the works for any continental movement. Can anyone prove the mantle is hot and molten? Can anyone prove the mantle's composition?
What specfic thing are you seeing that causes you such grave doubts?
I have Virtual Ocean from the USGS, with quite a bit of seafloor data, and I don't see anything that causes me to question the mid-ocean ridge being a lightning scar.
Figure 7. Diagram to show a real perspective of the crust, the oceans, and the atmosphere. It has been drawn to a natural scale. Note that the crust of the Earth, the atmosphere and the oceans are all very thin indeed in relation to the overall size of the Earth. Relative to radius, the crust of the Earth on the continents is only one third of the relative thickness of the shell of an ordinary hen's egg. The crust of the Earth over the floor of the oceans is very thin indeed, and is only one fifteenth the relative thickness of an egg shell. Similarly, the ionosphere, a layer of diffuse plasma above the atmosphere is also relatively thin in relation to the radius of the Earth. The Moho is a very thin layer of plasma forming an interface between the molten rock of the mantle and the crystalline rocks of the continental crust and the ocean floor. In geometric terms the Moho is exceptionally smooth. It shows no resistance at all to seismic shear waves; it behaves as a gas. The ionised gas in both the ionosphere and the Moho must be profoundly influenced by the electromagnetic radiation of the Sun. The electromagnetic influence of the Sun on the Earth is more understandable in the context of the actual geometry of the Earth. The ionosphere, well above the atmosphere, can be regarded as an electrically charged layer of plasma covering the Earth. It is part of the shield that protects the Earth from the direct and powerful electromagnetic radiation of the Sun. Similarly, the Moho, the smooth interface between the molten interior of the Earth and the rocks of the continents and oceans, is also a layer of plasma. These two layers of plasma, the ionosphere and the Moho, can be regarded as similar to the electrically charged plates of a giant capacitor, dominating electromagnetic behaviour of the atmosphere and the crust of the Earth. Lightning and thunderstorms can be understood as internal discharges within this giant capacitor. The geothermal heat flow from the interior of the Earth rising into the rocks of the continents, and into the rocks of the ocean floor, may be due to induction heating caused by electromagnetic flows within the Moho and the mantle. The Earth as we know it, from the deepest rocks to the top of the atmosphere, is contained and shielded within the electromagnetic field of these two features. Thus it is reasonable to postulate that the variable electromagnetic energy flows from the Sun have a powerful influence on the geotectonic, geothermal and geomagnetic behaviour of the Earth....
webolife
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Steve, not so defensive!! I've stayed on this forum for the past few years NOT because I'm interested in invalidating EU... my, my! But I have a working model based soundly on seismic and seafloor evidence... I need to understand more! HELP ME
Lloyd
EU vs EU
* Steve Smith said:
No evidence exists that the continents can float. ... If everyone is interested in finding reasons to invalidate the EU theory, and trying to discover alternatives to how the features on Earth came to be, then ....
* I showed that the continents may be able to "float" or slide electrically, since the Moho under the continents and seafloors is said by Peter James to be a plasma layer. * And I don't know how you can say I'm trying to invalidate EU theory.
What specific thing are you seeing that causes you such grave doubts? I have Virtual Ocean from the USGS, with quite a bit of seafloor data, and I don't see anything that causes me to question the mid-ocean ridge being a lightning scar.
* I'm seeing opposite banks of the Grand Canyon, Valles Marineris and other EDM features not being able to fit together well the way the opposite shores of the Atlantic do, plus the matching rock and fossil types etc on the Atlantic's opposite shores. I'm seeing other things too, but the fit and the rock types is the main thing. Show me some other EDM feature that has those traits. * My version of Shock Dynamics is largely if not entirely electric discharge effects. * The meteor was accelerated to Earth by electric discharge. * The explosion in the crust of the supercontinent was electrical. * The Moho plasma layer was plasma on which the continents slid. * The fracturing of the crust at what is now the mid-Atlantic ridge was a combination of shock and electrical discharge. * The mountain building during the slide involved folding of sedimentary layers, which was helped by plasma and electric discharge. * So mine is just a different EU scenario that takes more of the evidence into account. See http://newgeology.us for most of that evidence.
bboyer
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Steve Smith wrote: That would throw a Spaniard in the works for any continental movement.
It would probably be best to leave our Spanish amigos out of any Ex-Lax'ish sounding continental movements.
You're taking me too literally...I see that it was one of those "airplane jokes."
"A Spaniard in the Works" is the title of a book by John Lennon.
Brigit Bara
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
If the deep ocean trenches are not subduction zones, then what else could they be?
Could the Pacific Coasts of N America and S America have fit along those Asian trenches (along with the one north of NZ)? Is it possible that the expansion event was so wrenching that it left these trenches?
If the earth expanded, then the uplift of the mountains and high deserts happened radially--and I think it may have happened quickly. The great tableau in China used to be a pretty nice place to live. Things died quickly and I am wondering if some of the dinosaur bones are not even fossilized... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288044,00.html
The Aluetians would then be long lived hotspots under the ocean floor, tracing the route that Alaska followed from its place along the Poluostrov Kamchatka Penn. and Koryakkoye Nogorye.*
I don't mind if Steve Smith comes by and calls me a cartoonist. Not at all, that would be a promotion for me. :)
*ref: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/nemo/exp ... mount.html "Hot spot plumes are long lived. Therefore, as a moving tectonic plate passes over a mantle hot spot, a chain of volcanoes is produced with a systematic age progression - from older to younger. The Hawaiian Islands, the Galapagos Islands, the Azores, and the Cobb-Eikelberg chain that includes Axial volcano are all examples of hot spot chains. When a hot spot interacts with a mid-ocean ridge, the affected ridge segments tend to receive a greater-than-normal supply of magma from the mantle, leading to more frequent eruptions, and formation of volcanic edifices right on the ridge. Iceland and Axial Seamount are both examples of a hot spot located on the axis of a mid-ocean ridge."
Steve Smith
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
I can tell you this: no principle member of the Thunderbolts Project or the authors of the Electric Universe think that continents can float. No one thinks that plate tectonics, or subduction, or the Earth blowing up like a balloon is the correct approach. Plate movement is a fraud, to borrow the most appropos term I can think of.
As I wrote to Nick C on another thread, the Earth is "relaxing" from its previous electrical encounter(s) between 2500 and 5000 years ago. Lab experiments have proven that massive electrical input causes objects to shrink, not expand. The Earth shrank slightly (however much it was it was a tiny percentage), and is continuing to return to equilibrium even to this day.
What's lacking here is an investigation of what has been written by those EU principles, as well as what has been written, reviewed and supported in the Picture of the Day. I don't mind if you all want to believe what you believe. Like I said, it's up to you now. I've written enough.
I think that Steve's TPODs are great, and I'm finding gold by following all the links he gives. It's going to take me weeks to work through them all. I need to point out that on the other thread, Are the planets growing?, I posted a fun lecture series I found on YouTube that goes into greater detail about the Expanding Earth concept, from a geologist's perspective; not just mine or Neal Adams. I wish I had the complete video of Maxlow's examples. I definitely want this on DVD, and will track down his book ASAP.
The lectures were from the NEXUS 2005 conference conference where Thornhill also spoke. If the EU group gets serious about looking into the Expanding/Growing Earth concepts Thornhill should contact Maxlow, since they are both based in Austalia.
If Steve is right, and the EU group is dismissing or ignoring the concepts of the Expanding or Growing Earth, then I have my work laid out before me. I have to put enough real stuff together so that even Steve will have to admit to the facts.
That's a fun challenge.
Lloyd
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
* Allyn, why are you discussing earth expansion on this thread? There's another thread for it. Why aren't you discussing Shock Dynamics, which explains a lot more than expansion? * Brigit Bara asked:
If the deep ocean trenches are not subduction zones, then what else could they be?
* Here's where Shock Dynamics discusses subduction the most. http://newgeology.us/presentation10.html http://newgeology.us/presentation8.html http://newgeology.us/presentation20.html * Shock Dynamics says the continental movements occurred in a period of just over one day, or 26 hours, a few thousand years ago. What little movement goes on now is trivial and some suppose that the lunar tides could be keeping these small movements going, e.g. Jueneman whose article I posted a few pages earlier.
Is it possible that the expansion event was so wrenching that it left these trenches? If the earth expanded, then the uplift of the mountains and high deserts happened radially--and I think it may have happened quickly.
* This thread is about Shock Dynamics. There's another thread on expansion. Shock Dynamics would have been the wrenching event that left the trenches. It also explains the mountain ranges very well. See part 5 & 6 at http://newgeology.us/presentation1.html. And, like I just said, the continental movements after the impact happened in just over a day. Earth expansion doesn't explain the mountain ranges nearly as well as Shock Dynamics. And there's no evidence that planets have expanded so recently. EU theory does admit to expansion for quasars and possibly stars, so, if planets are formed in the same way as quasars and stars, from "plasma guns", then the planets probably expanded early on, but not recently.
I did not care for the highly conceptualized image and explanation of trenches. That is not what they look like. They are steep drops, on both sides.
Thank you also for the freindly reminder that this is not an expanding earth thread. I shall try to remember. Here is what I would like to ask about Shock Dynamics then.
An EU approach I have found on holoscience.com is that we should look at scarring and features of other planets/moons and apply the observations to earth, rather than apply earthly forces to what we see in the solar system.
For example, if you look at a topographical map of Mars, it has much lower terrain that also has fewer craters.* So does the moon. SAnd this matches the lower, newer ocean floor we see on earth. Do Shock Dynamic events occur on other planets? If they did, would not the higher elevations been moved around in the same way? It seems to me that the most striking feature to be discussed is the lower, more recent sea beds.
Cheers, Brigit Bara
*ref: "The striking difference in elevation between the northern and southern hemispheres is dramatized in a relief map produced from measurements by the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA). Southern uplands rise an average of three miles above the northern plains." C 2001 National Geographic Society
Total Science
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
Steve Smith wrote: I need to see the observations that prove the continents are "floating" on another material.
You'll sooner see invisible pink unicorns on Noah's Ark.
The mantle is cold and it's rigidity increases with depth.
Total Science
Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided
"...no matter what the temperature of the outer core is, and most likely it is quite high, the mantle is cold, and its rigidity increases with depth, because otherwise seismic wave velocity cannot increase with depth, for example for P waves from 6-7 km/sec in the surface layers to about 14 km/sec at the mantle-core boundary." — Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, October 2008
"It is established fact, however, that there is not any physically observed discontinuity between deep crust and upper mantle at around 100 km depth, and the continents are observed to have continuous mantle rock roots extending as deep as 600 km (Grand, 1987; Grand et al., 1997). So the question is naturally raised: How is it possible for the upper 100 km of a continent, e.g., North America, to move horizontally by several thousand kilometers at all, under any circumstances, when global seismic tomography data indicate deep continuous roots from the surface down to 600 km depth?" — Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005
"Observations at certain points on the Earth's surface, or very close to it, e.g., down mine shafts and from deep continental drilling projects, show that temperature increases by 20° to 30°C per kilometer. If that thermal gradient continues unchanged down to a depth of 40 km, the temperature would be from 800° to 1200°C, which is around the melting point of all rocks. Similarly, at the mantle-core boundary, at about 2900 km, it would be from 58,000° to 87,000°C. Nobody claims such absurd ambient temperatures exist in Earth's lower crust or mantle. Actually, considering the amount of heat energy conventionally proposed to do the mechanical work, e.g. to motivate the supposed bulk convection of semi-fluid rocks, the thermal gradient and, therefore, the temperature inside the Earth, should be much greater than is physically reasonable." — Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005
"Below we will show some of the simple physical reasons why the present geodynamic and geotectonic paradigms are so dramatically wrong, and why continents cannot move like 'rafts' on a 'sea' of convecting semifluid hot mantle." — Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005
I did not care for the highly conceptualized image and explanation of trenches. That is not what they look like. They are steep drops, on both sides.
* Well, close up they look like they have steep walls, but zooming out they just look like creases. I gathered a bunch of Google images of "ocean trench"es, but my computer messed up and I lost them all. But you can find them there, if you like.
An EU approach I have found on http://holoscience.com is that we should look at scarring and features of other planets/moons and apply the observations to earth, rather than apply earthly forces to what we see in the solar system.
* I do that quite a bit, but it has some limitations, because the Earth is pretty unique.
Southern uplands rise an average of three miles above the northern plains." C 2001 National Geographic Society
* The Earth's uplands are the continents and they're not all on one side of the planet [like they used to be?]. Our continents have fairly steep sides, but I don't think the Mars uplands do; do they?
* So-called Total Science said:
You'll sooner see invisible pink unicorns on Noah's Ark.
Such a statement appears to be an attempt to belittle or degrade your opponent in the hope of embarrassing himher, so as to win a debate by default rather than with better evidence and reasoning.
"It is established fact, however, that there is not any physically observed discontinuity between deep crust and upper mantle at around 100 km depth, and the continents are observed to have continuous mantle rock roots extending as deep as 600 km (Grand, 1987; Grand et al., 1997). So the question is naturally raised: How is it possible for the upper 100 km of a continent, e.g., North America, to move horizontally by several thousand kilometers at all, under any circumstances, when global seismic tomography data indicate deep continuous roots from the surface down to 600 km depth?"
* But there's a discontinuity 3 miles under the seafloors and up to 30 miles under the continents, called the Moho, which is a fluid or a plasma, which I've been discussing here recently, but which you apparently haven't read. As for the deep roots, I think Steve Smith agrees that the data from the s- and p-waves is not definitive at such depths.
the mantle is cold, and its rigidity increases with depth, because otherwise seismic wave velocity cannot increase with depth .... [and so] continents cannot move like 'rafts' on a 'sea' of convecting semifluid hot mantle.
* But they can move like rafts on the hot fluid or plasma Moho layer. Do you deny that there are magma chambers under the continents in the Pacific "ring of fire" and other places? Here's a world map of volcanoes: http://www.iss.k12.nc.us/schools/wms/WorldVolcanoes.JPG. Looks like the magma built up under the edges of the continents where the most sliding friction occurred.
* I had said earlier to Steve:
* You seem to favor the idea that the ocean basins were carved out by EDM, but, if electrical forces can raise mesas, instead of carving out all the sedimentary rock around mesas, why can't they raise continents, instead of having to carve out 3/4ths of the Earth's crust to leave basins behind?
* See, conventional science supposes that the mesas are what are left after all the surrounding sedimentary rock layers eroded away over millions of years, but our EU theorists have a better argument that the mesas were raised up electrically from the surroundings, so there likely has been very little erosion since then. The continents have pretty steep sides like mesas too, so why couldn't a supercontinent have been raised up electrically under Saturn from the surrounding seafloor? And then a thunderbolt from Saturn could have split the supercontinent into pieces. * The EDM that apparently carved out Valles Marineris on Mars is thought to have dropped large blocks in various places on Mars, like the Face on Mars at Cydonia. Are there such blocks on Earth associated with the carving out of the Atlantic, Pacific, etc?
