Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?

[Doug Fisher]

On 1/28/2019 at 11:56 AM, John Cuthber said:

It struck me  since my last post that there's a bigger issue here.

How in the name of all that's holy is "breaking free of the Pacific Plate" from "the Asian mainland " anything but plate tectonics?

There's possibly an argument about where the boundaries are, but plates moving away from each other + carrying landmasses with them is exactly the "myth" that the OP objects to.
And that's before we remind him of his "rather fragile" idea about the Earth getting bigger.

Essentially, his equestion"Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?" is best answered by reference to his own use of shifting plates on the Earth's surface.

If it's a myth Doug, - it's one you believe in 

3

Just a little clarification. Plate tectonics and Earth expansion are derivatives of continental drift and up until the 1960s, they were still competing theories. Since both theories build off of continental drift there are obvious similarities; foremost among them the belief that plates fracture, separate and move across the surface of the Earth.

The two theories differ in that plate tectonics maintains that old seafloor crust is subducted into trenches as new seafloor crust is created, which allows Earth's size to remain static.

Earth expansion assumes that all seafloor crust remains on the planet’s surface which requires the Earth to expand to accommodate both old and new crust.

On 1/27/2019 at 10:57 PM, John Cuthber said:

All rotation is relative.

So what?
What caused it here?

So imagine you have a balloon, but this is no ordinary balloon…

 

The rotation was due to tensile and torsional stress on the continental crust during an expansion event. A portion of the torsional stress was applied as Africa pulled on the southern coast of Asia and eventually fractured and swung out 90° to Asia. The rotation is recorded in the surface of the Arabian Peninsula as well as the Sheba Ridge and the Owen Fracture Zone which reveal that Somalia was once joined to Pakistan and Iran. In the image below, the span between A1B1 is identical to A3B2, each measuring 590 miles long, which is significant, but more importantly, B1 and B2 sit at the base of a shared fracture zone equidistant, roughly 1,000 miles, from a divergent boundary, the Sheba Ridge.

Plate tectonics acknowledges this correlation between the Owen Fracture Zone, Somalia, and Pakistan, but in this one instance abandons principles adhered to everywhere else throughout the globe. Where fracture zones in all other instances extend out from divergent boundaries to continental mass, marking the trail of separation, in this one singular instance, geologists depict Somalia mysteriously attaching itself to a fracture zone that expands while moving toward another continent instead of with it. The unique adjustment was necessary to maintain the static Earth model.

If Africa sat up against Asia and South America simultaneously it would mean that Earth was once much smaller. On a planet Earth’s current size, such a fit would have been the equivalent of fitting a baseball cover over a basketball. So in order to reconcile the clear connection of the two coasts and the simultaneous opening up of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, unlike in the Atlantic and other oceans where fracture zones marked separation between spans of continental mass, geologists determined that India separated from Africa and plowed through an ancient ocean faster and with as much ease as the Pacific seafloor subducting into the Pacific Trench and the Owen Fracture Zone and the Sheba Ridge spontaneously appeared and expanded between converging plates. Check it out in this video that someone posted earlier. It starts around the 120mya mark.

Based on fracture zones elsewhere, Somalia at B1 fit into the Pakistani pocket at B2 prior to Africa separating and swinging free of Asia. Flowlines in the Gulf of Aden, specifically the Alula-Fartak Trough, dictate that the tip at Somalia A1 once joined with a point on Yemen at A2. Since Somalia’s A1 was common with A3 in Iran but also common with A2 in Yemen, we can discern that all three points were shared points before Africa rotated free. From this and the very clear pattern of 90° rotation recorded on Arabia’s surface, we can also deduce that the UAE and a portion of Oman were once a much narrower span—note the ductile fracture extending down from the UAE—that fit within and was extracted from the Persian Gulf then rotated 90° while expanding due the torsional stress placed on it as it rotated clockwise with Africa.

Based on this interpretation, Arabia has experienced some of the most extensive ductile deformation seen on the planet. Interestingly, Arabia possesses some of the world’s largest oil reserves and this is a trait shared with other ductile deformations and fractures throughout the globe including Cameroon, North Africa, Venezuela, and the Gulf of Mexico.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Doug Fisher

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Doug Fisher said:

Just a little clarification. Plate tectonics and Earth expansion are derivatives of continental drift and up until the 1960s, they were still competing theories.

Please provide a reference to a scientific paper on the "Earth expanding"

1 hour ago, Doug Fisher said:

Earth expansion assumes that all seafloor crust remains on the planet’s surface which requires the Earth to expand to accommodate both old and new crust.

And what is the mechanism for this? Unicorns?

1 hour ago, Doug Fisher said:

So imagine you have a balloon, but this is no ordinary balloon…

Made of unicorn intestines?

1 hour ago, Doug Fisher said:

The rotation was due to tensile and torsional stress on the continental crust during an expansion event.

What is the mechanism for this expansion?

1 hour ago, Doug Fisher said:

If Africa sat up against Asia and South America simultaneously it would mean that Earth was once much smaller.

What is the mechanism for this expansion?

 

So, after all that you still have not explained the mechanism for either expansion or rotation. How much longer do we need to put up with this drivel?

 

[studiot]

On 1/28/2019 at 2:44 AM, Doug Fisher said:

On 1/27/2019 at 10:07 AM, studiot said:

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time you have made this startling claim.

 

This is definitely not the first time I have made this ‘startling’ claim:

Quote

“Fractures occur where the bonds are weakest and that is between dissimilar materials. For example, concrete breaks around the aggregate, not through it. The fact that Kamchatka varies from the Asian coast makes perfect sense from the perspective of fracture mechanics.”  See it here.

 

On 1/27/2019 at 10:07 AM, studiot said:

This immediately contradicts you much referred to cheese example.

 

Sure it's not bacon, but can you make too many cheese references? And there is no contradiction. If the continents were made of strictly cheese, we would only see arcing coastlines with outstretched wisps of cheesy mass just like the fracture and torn cheese on the pizza. We would also see a welcome drop in the price of cheese.

 

Continental crust has both ductile and brittle features. It has a complex and varied structure as seen in your sedimentary/igneous rock image. You can look at the complex pattern of mixed rock in your image and virtually predict where fractures would occur if tensile stress were applied to the region. Consider a sheet of clay and stone. If we were to break the sheet apart, the fractures would occur between the rocks, but it would not be surprising to see instances where softer clay extends out between the two halves. Hence, Kamchatka and the aligning coastal point, which exhibits evidence of a ductile extension in the form of thinning, arcing, and internal ductile voids.

 

 

I apologise I had forgotten that part of that post as I had put aside discussion of failure mechanics until later.
Strictly speaking your cheese strips have not fractured since load bearing connections still remain.
They have indeed failed by most criteria: failure is a much wider term that includes the sort of response to load you require (ductile) without complete cleavage or breakage.

I also have to admit that I missed the significance of the following post when I read it.

On 1/16/2019 at 7:58 AM, Doug Fisher said:

On 1/15/2019 at 3:07 PM, studiot said:

1) How can you be sure Asia did not rotate the other way? Afterall the principal plate activity is rotation, not translation and the  Asian Plate is not different.

1

Excellent point. In Maps, Myths & Paradigms that is exactly my claim. I feel that initially explaining it relative to Kamchatka is far easier to grasp. Here is an image from the book depicting the rotation of the Asian continent to the west while downward-facing splinter fractures remain anchored to the Pacific Plate.

I have been taking your proposals seriously, for reasons outlined at the end of this post, and have been looking into possible rotations of Kamchatka.

I have already asked for the location of the 'hinge centre', without reply.

So whether you consider Kamchatka or Asia to have rotated, please identify your proposed centre of rotation by posting the latitude and longitude of this centre.

I ask this because, as I already noted more generally, I cannot find an arc of rotation allowing Kamchakata (or Asia) to move from your claimed original alignment to the present day one.
The only path I can find involves substantial lateral movement and enormous distortion of the eastern end of Siberia from longitude 130^oE to 170^oE - A huge area, many times that of Kamchatka itself.

In truth it is all very well showing curvy arrows along a proposed path, but these are just wishful thinking without proper identification of their centre.

Talking of these curvy arrows as shown in your latest post

4 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

Based on this interpretation, Arabia has experienced some of the most extensive ductile deformation seen on the planet. Interestingly, Arabia possesses some of the world’s largest oil reserves and this is a trait shared with other ductile deformations and fractures throughout the globe including Cameroon, North Africa, Venezuela, and the Gulf of Mexico.

So, if Saudi Arabia rotated away from Pakistan, why Pakistan is not one of the World's greatest Oil producing nations?

Could it be because the rocks in SA are quiite different from those in Pakistan (They are) , despite your apparent claim they were once welded together?

 

Back to Kamchatka.

If, as you suggest, Kamchatka is actually a bit of Asia, stuck to the pacific plate, Why is there a bloody great ocean trench between Kamchatka and the pacific plate?

Can you explain the difference in rock type (and age)  between the western side of Kamchatka and the rocks on the other side of the Sea of Okhotsk?
The western edge of Kamchatka (where your map shows the end 'ka'  of Kamchatka is clastic (sedimentary). The opposing shore is igneous metamorphic.

 

I don't know how much you know about the history of tectonics as applied to geology, but the internet is not the best place to look.

Continental drift was first proposed in a publication in 1855 by Snider.
Taylor was next in 1908 (pamphlet) and paper 1910.
Wegener's important paper came along in 1915.
These were largely due to 'map fits' like yours.
Holmes and Carey promoted the continental drift idea and various models both mathematical and physical were made.
and the argument between the expansionist and contractionists continuing the the 19th century view  was played out.
This one by Carey might interest you.

https://eprints.utas.edu.au/13965/1/1955_Carey_Orocline_Concept_Geotectonics_Pt1.pdf

Carey proposed a full blown mathematical theory of an expanding Earth to account for continental drift.

 

In the half century to 1965 proper experimental eveidence bagan to accumulate, I'm sure you must have read some of this as it is the popular story of how plate tectonics grew out of these hypotheses.

Evidence such as

A) Direct measurement of seafloor spreading today
B) Magnetic alignment data
C) Direct satellite measurement
D) Accumulation and matching of fossilised coastline evidence, with retro tidal predictions and the distance to Moon, coupled with modern monitoring of that distance.
E) Modern dating methods.

Quote

Holmes

There never was a single hypothesis in this vast field. Of the large number of hypotheses involved, some were inadequate and some were wrong. But some have turned out to be far more fruitful than even Wegener himself could have expected. ........................

...........................

..........Beloussov, as one of the leading exponents of the geological importance of vertical earth movements, has fallen into the all too common fallacy of  either...or...
In the case either the predominence of vertical and oscillatory movements or the predominence of the horizontal movements required for continental drift. It need only be added that neither type of movement precludes the other.

Plate tectonics is not without its difficulties for instance things you have not mentioned.

1) The iberian peninsula seriously does not fit in the cross atlantic alignment of continental profiles, without rotation.

2) Most of the african plate has a spreading ridge either side of it. So any theory must explain how both the Atlantic and Indian oceans are moving towards Africa, but in opposite directions.

4 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

Just a little clarification. Plate tectonics and Earth expansion are derivatives of continental drift and up until the 1960s, they were still competing theories. Since both theories build off of continental drift there are obvious similarities; foremost among them the belief that plates fracture, separate and move across the surface of the Earth.

The two theories differ in that plate tectonics maintains that old seafloor crust is subducted into trenches as new seafloor crust is created, which allows Earth's size to remain static.

 

Yes more or less.

So your bete noir - subduction.

4 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

Earth expansion assumes that all seafloor crust remains on the planet’s surface which requires the Earth to expand to accommodate both old and new crust. 

Here is the killer question.

If this is true where is it?
(That is where is all this oceanic crust?)

The age of continental crust is measured in thousands of millions of years, the oldes being around 4,000 million years old.
But, apart from odd fragments, most of the oceanic crust in the world is less than 200 million years old - the oldest known is only about 400 million years old.

So without subduction,

Where has all the older oceanic crust that formed during the first 4,000 million years of the the Earth's history gone?

[John Cuthber]

12 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

Just a little clarification. ...

Earth expansion ...

Thanks.

That's clear enough.

We know  the Earth's not expanding so we know we can discount one of the theories.

I suggest you hold a vigil for the lost soul of your idea and then lay it peacefully to rest.

It's not coming back.

[Doug Fisher]

19 hours ago, studiot said:

I have been taking your proposals seriously, for reasons outlined at the end of this post, and have been looking into possible rotations of Kamchatka.

I have already asked for the location of the 'hinge centre', without reply.

So whether you consider Kamchatka or Asia to have rotated, please identify your proposed centre of rotation by posting the latitude and longitude of this centre.

I ask this because, as I already noted more generally, I cannot find an arc of rotation allowing Kamchakata (or Asia) to move from your claimed original alignment to the present day one.

4

Thanks Studiot. Your posts have proved to be the most thought-provoking and well thought out.

Regarding the pivot point, it appears to be along the mainland and is defined by a sharp bend in the Kolyma Mountains. The two ductile fractures highlighted in the image below would be a direct result of stress along the coast generated by the interior bend. Closing the two fractures would pivot Kamchatka back into the coastal pocket and remove a 300-mile gap making the Asian coastline virtually the same length as the western coast of Kamchatka.

19 hours ago, studiot said:

If, as you suggest, Kamchatka is actually a bit of Asia, stuck to the pacific plate, Why is there a bloody great ocean trench between Kamchatka and the pacific plate?

4

I was starting to think no one was going to ask. Great question.

One possible explanation for the trench fold is convergence after one of the expansion events.

I believe that it is very significant that the Pacific Plate lies on a lower plane than the plates opposite the trench.

If the plates were pressed up against each other while on the same plane, the plates would engage each other with equal strength along their rigid length.

The Pacific Plate, however, lies at around 18,000 feet below sea level while the plates along the other side of the trench lie at around 11,000 feet. If convergence were to occur between the plates, which geologists agree is occurring at an incremental rate, the plate lying on the lower plane would fold underneath the higher plate.

This very basic principle can be replicated by placing a sheet of paper across offset parallel planes and pushing the sheet together. The lower side of the paper will always fold beneath the side sitting on the higher plane.

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Here is the killer question.

If this is true where is it?
(That is where is all this oceanic crust?)

The age of continental crust is measured in thousands of millions of years, the oldes being around 4,000 million years old.
But, apart from odd fragments, most of the oceanic crust in the world is less than 200 million years old - the oldest known is only about 400 million years old.

So without subduction,

Where has all the older oceanic crust that formed during the first 4,000 million years of the the Earth's history gone?

4

Earth expansion proposes that the planet initially existed as a unified continental crust until it fractured and the earth expanded. As the planet expanded, seafloor crust filled the voids between continents. Hence all continental crust predates seafloor crust.

I believe what sets my theory apart from the rest is that I do not believe the planet is necessarily expanding at this time. The seafloor exhibits two very clear periods of expansion. The first expansion saw the continents fracture and separate with seafloor boundaries extending off major fracture points and expanding out as fully formed V-shaped ridges. The second expansion occurred after these seafloor boundaries had time to fully bond. Therefore, during the second expansion, seafloor ridges extending out into the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans split and moved off of each seafloor’s associated expansion ridge or divergent boundary and we find little to no ridge extension into crust currently dating out to 40mya.

During periods between expansion events, as we are experiencing now, the planet remains fairly static in size and the fragmented continental plates and seafloor succumb to movement beneath Earth's surface.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

Thanks Studiot. Your posts have proved to be the most thought-provoking and well thought out.

Regarding the pivot point, it appears to be along the mainland and is defined by a sharp bend in the Kolyma Mountains. The two ductile fractures highlighted in the image below would be a direct result of stress along the coast generated by the interior bend. Closing the two fractures would pivot Kamchatka back into the coastal pocket and remove a 300-mile gap making the Asian coastline virtually the same length as the western coast of Kamchatka.

 

I was starting to think no one was going to ask. Great question.

One possible explanation for the trench fold is convergence after one of the expansion events.

I believe that it is very significant that the Pacific Plate lies on a lower plane than the plates opposite the trench.

If the plates were pressed up against each other while on the same plane, the plates would engage each other with equal strength along their rigid length.

The Pacific Plate, however, lies at around 18,000 feet below sea level while the plates along the other side of the trench lie at around 11,000 feet. If convergence were to occur between the plates, which geologists agree is occurring at an incremental rate, the plate lying on the lower plane would fold underneath the higher plate.

This very basic principle can be replicated by placing a sheet of paper across offset parallel planes and pushing the sheet together. The lower side of the paper will always fold beneath the side sitting on the higher plane.

 

 

 

Quote

This very basic principle can be replicated by placing a sheet of paper across offset parallel planes and pushing the sheet together. The lower side of the paper will always fold beneath the side sitting on the higher plane.

 

But your diagram does not reflect this state of affairs.

All the blocks (red, blue and yellow) are shown sitting on the same base.

Talking of that base, what is it made of in your theory?

Is it more or less dense than continental crust?

Is it more or less dense than oceanic crust?

 

Whatever, I disagree that blocks of solid Earth material will fold downwards into even more dense supporting solid material, rather than folding upwards into thin air.

 

Where do these compressive forces come from in an expanding Earth?

You now claim there are bursts of expansion.
Can you date these?

Edited January 31, 2019 by studiot

[Doug Fisher]

16 hours ago, studiot said:

But your diagram does not reflect this state of affairs.

All the blocks (red, blue and yellow) are shown sitting on the same base.

Talking of that base, what is it made of in your theory?

Is it more or less dense than continental crust?

Is it more or less dense than oceanic crust?

Whatever, I disagree that blocks of solid Earth material will fold downwards into even more dense supporting solid material, rather than folding upwards into thin air.

1

I will admit that, had I not been attempting to conserve space, it could have been better illustrated, but the theory itself borrows from the subduction model which proposes that cooler, older oceanic crust increases in density and sinks into the mantle. The subduction theory proposes an initial sinking of the Pacific Plate along the entire Pacific Trench followed by convergence driving and even bending the Pacific plate beneath the adjacent plate, while this alternate theory proposes that an initial convergence drove the older denser crust into the mantle which softened the crust facilitating the fold.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Where do these compressive forces come from in an expanding Earth?

1

While tension would be mostly at work during expansion, these would not necessarily be the case between such events.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

You now claim there are bursts of expansion.

1

I believe that I have consistently made this claim.

Quote

“fractured apart during a second expansion event.” - Link

“stress on the continental crust during an expansion event.” - Link

 

 

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Can you date these?

1

The first event would coincide with the oldest seafloor crust and as for the second event, it is tied to the global separation of oceanic ridges.

“According to current dating methods, about 40 million years ago major ridges in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans were linked in the south creating V-shaped ridge formations which falls in line with opening-mode fractures” - Link

 

By the way, any thoughts on the proposed rotation center point for  Kamchatka?

[John Cuthber]

21 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

Earth expansion proposes that the planet initially existed as a unified continental crust until it fractured and the earth expanded. As the planet expanded, seafloor crust filled the voids between continents. Hence all continental crust predates seafloor crust.

The Earth is not actually expanding, nor could it ever have done so in the way you are talking about..

Stop ignoring reality.

[Strange]

22 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

Earth expansion proposes that the planet initially existed as a unified continental crust until it fractured and the earth expanded.

What is the mechanism for this expansion?

22 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

I believe what sets my theory apart from the rest is that I do not believe the planet is necessarily expanding at this time.

It is not a theory if it is based on magic. 

22 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

The seafloor exhibits two very clear periods of expansion.

What is the mechanism for this expansion?

22 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

The first expansion saw 

What is the mechanism for this expansion?

22 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

The second expansion 

What is the mechanism for this expansion?

Why did the expansion start and stop? Was it (a) magic or (b) magic?

 

34 minutes ago, Doug Fisher said:

By the way, any thoughts on the proposed rotation center point for  Kamchatka?

It’s magic

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

By the way, any thoughts on the proposed rotation center point for  Kamchatka?

Yes I am still looking at that.

Can you clarify a point for me please.

It looks to me as though you are proposing folding with a vertical or near vertical hinge axis. This would account for the two contra rotating sections indicated, the reotation being about a common centre.

Have I understood this proposal correctly?

5 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

The first event would coincide with the oldest seafloor crust and as for the second event, it is tied to the global separation of oceanic ridges.

“According to current dating methods, about 40 million years ago major ridges in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans were linked in the south creating V-shaped ridge formations which falls in line with opening-mode fractures”

So you are proposing two expansions, the second one 40MYA - Again have I understood this correctly.

When was the first one proposed to have occurred?

5 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

The subduction theory proposes an initial sinking of the Pacific Plate along the entire Pacific Trench

 

5 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

but the theory itself borrows from the subduction model which proposes that cooler, older oceanic crust increases in density and sinks into the mantle

No and No.

Subduction does not occur because anything sinks into the mantle.

Sinking is just not possible, although doubtless many have used this word carelessly.

Here is some data from the US GS which demonstrates why this is.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Geophys/earthstruct.html

As an aside, the realisation by geologists that sinking of crustal material into the mantle by itself, is just not possible dispelled a whole category of 'sunken continent' theories that were popular (for hundreds if not thousands of years) up to the early 20th century.
In the same vein, the theory of continental drift which peaked in the mid 20th century, had to be abandoned for a variety of reasons, some big, some smaller but they all stacked up against CD.

Plate tectonics itself has not been immune from these questions and has changed quite radically since its inception, not least with the most modern understanding of the role played by water within the rocks.

Things (both geological process and our theories about them)  move slowly in Geology but the subject is a shining example of the ongoing scientific method testing out proposals and weeding out those which cannot be supported by the preponderance of observations, starting right at the beginning with uniformitarianism, some parts of which we still retain today.

So it has been with Earth expansion, both expansion in past geological history, and subsequently.
As Strange points out (if a little stridently), any proposal needs to be backed up by a viable (consistent with the known laws of Physics) mechanism, and also testable since it may not violate Physics laws but may just not be what is going on.
Expansion in modern times (say from 500MYA)  would necessitate a decrease in overall density, since the time the Earth stopped accreting appreciably.
In turn this would affect gravity and other astronomical bodies.
Observations to check both of these effects has yielded results that has ruled out expansion (and by the way earlier shrinking Earth theories - yes there have been these as well)

I have many older books and papers which have had their conclusions superceeded or even overturned in the light of later observations.
Yet theya re worth retaining because they also contain much valuable data for those able to discern the sheep from the goats.

I may yet obtain your work, especially if it is the source of some of your diagrams posted here, since it seems to contain much of cartographic interest.

Which brings us back to the beginning of this post and the fold hinge.

 

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

As Strange points out (if a little stridently)

Sorry, but in my opinion any theory that is entirely dependent on the existence of invisible flying unicorns is not worth discussing on a science forum.

[Phi for All]

On 1/31/2019 at 2:09 AM, Doug Fisher said:

Earth expansion proposes that the planet initially existed as a unified continental crust until it fractured and the earth expanded. As the planet expanded, seafloor crust filled the voids between continents. Hence all continental crust predates seafloor crust.

!

Moderator Note

Doug Fisher, making this particular extraordinary claim without adequate support, especially in the face of all the evidence against it, is soapboxing, and we don't allow it since it's very frustrating for those trying to help, and it doesn't help you persuade a skeptical discussion group. You need to address the offered criticisms of an expanding Earth before making the conclusions you're making. 

This is the third page of preaching. If you have no evidence for your claims, by the rules of this section I need to close the topic.