Jump to content
arc

Plate tectonic mechanism ?

Recommended Posts

I think I hit onto a really nice fit for plate tectonics. The Earth's core is an electro - magnetic field generator. I could not imagine that it wouldn't have variability in it's cycling of current and field. Nothing is going to be constant, especially magnitohydrodynamic generation as it cycles current and field. I thought the Sun's magnetic field could be imposing variation over longer time periods giving the Earth a historic variable thermal cycle to move the tectonic plates. So I started with a simple model, just a divergent plate boundary, a plate and a convergent boundary (trench). The cycle begins with a small thermal increase in the molten iron core from increased current due to induction from the strengthening of the Sun's magnetic field. As the molten core presses out from thermal expansion it expands the mantle ever so slightly which opens the divergent plate boundaries in the currently observed manner, filling with magma as they expand. After several million years of this solar increase induced cycle the Sun's magnetic field lowers and the Earth's field generator's core begins a cooler period of operation. As the core and mantle slowly recede the crust is put into compression against the newest divergent boundary deposits which leverages the crust towards the trench as the crust follows the mantle as it recedes from the cooling core. This is when the subduction takes place. The compression bleeds into the trenches until the next heat cycle increase. I have written a complete comprehensive version of this you can view by going to my profile page. This shows how the island arcs are formed, the Mariana Trench, mountain ranges and the basin and range area of S.W. United States and lots more. It is a match for every geologic mystery that I have applied it to. We can do the question and answer thing but its going to take a long time because I have a lot of accurate observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one major problem with your theory.

 

Subduction and (seafloor) spreading are both happening at the same time, right now. According to your theory, one should happen first, then the other. Observation does not seem to match your theory.

 

Care to discuss this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Panic has identified one major flaw in your speculation. Here is another.

 

Compute the energy involved in moving plates. Compute the energy involved in generating the Earth's magnetic field and the influence of solar wind/solar field on the Earth. Do you, perhaps, notice a difference in energy levels of more than an order of magnitude? How do you account for that?

 

Secondly, could we see the math's of your simple model please.

 

And just to emphasise the Captain's point. We know from precise GPS measurements that seafloor spreading is currently active. We know from events such as the Japanese and Boxing day tsunamis that subduction is active. How do you account for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good points. I hope you had time to read my work. I think the entire plate matrix has a uneven distribution of compression which causes the observed subduction in some trenches while others have less, Aleutian for example, while others have what appears to be none. I believe there is currently not any observed subduction in the Mediterranean which my model answers. But I stray. The reason there is varying amounts of subduction is due to the large difference in the plate sizes and masses. The model provides a means to preload the entire plate matrix simultaneously. Lets imagine that there is a small current/temperature variable over millions of years in the Earth's magnetohydrodynamic field generator ( that could and probably would also be expected in the current standard model I think) and it slowly raises the outer core's temperature a fraction of a degree over those millions of years. A fraction of a degree over millions of years. I believe almost everyone would expect the liquid outer core to thermally expand a proportionate amount to the degree of temperature rise. Now what would you expect from the mantle? Do you think it could contain the molecular level expansion forces of the core's liquid iron? The mantle is under extremely high pressures and temperatures especially the deeper you go. Would you think that it would move out a little making a little more room in its interior? Unlikely, I think in ether model most would expect the mantel would show a reflex at its outer boundary. But how much? I would think it would resemble the current seafloor spreading metrics.
So lets say this continues over a couple of million years building up a nice little slice of new divergent plate infill in the worlds entire divergent inventory. Now we start into that lower level part of the cycle with the core going down a fraction of a degree over millions of years. As the liquid iron lowers imperceptibly the mantle responds and moves in tandem. What will the crust do? It would likely move with the mantel but it can't because of the nice new slice of seafloor that now blocks its pathway down. The plates begin to preload like a Roman arch, slowly sliding to the opposite direction into the trench. Something neat is happening here tho, the plates all have different masses, from some of the largest like the Pacific or say Eurasia to the smaller down to the micro plates. The larger plates take the longest amount of time to unload while the smaller may be able to even slip some on the edges to release even faster. Refering to this claim; Plate tectonicists insist that the volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of midocean ridges are supposedly producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add the 9000 km of "collision zones," the figure is still only half that of the "spreading centers" (Smoot, 1997a).
​In my model this would indicate that the subduction lags behind the expansion portion of the cycle. It takes longer for the plates to melt into the asthenosphere than it does to create the infill that leverages the plate into the trench. So the answer to why is there some subduction happening now?, would be because not all of the plate compression (probably the largest ones) has bled out into the trenches before this current expansion cycle started. The outer core thermal cycle is variable throughout its cycle, even from one maximum to the next in both timing and duration. Now lets say we have a extra long thermal expansion cycle and the divergent plate boundaries build up a very large infill, one of those that only happens every 20 or 30 million years. When the outer core begins to cool and initiates the plates subduction the trenches will be, like before, slower to receive the plate material than the mantles withdraw.

The compression begins building on the plates, being only able to over come the trenches rates of resistances to a point. As the mantle continues down the plates are subjected to loads that require vertical movement of rock strata to relieve to massive compression building on the plates, this compression is in proportion to the length of time and degree of expansion in the previous cycle in relation to the degree of cooling in this cycle. I can only suggest this would work under the current standard model but I am aware that Gerard C. Bond noted that "when the Sun is at its most energetic, the Earths field is strengthened" http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html
This suggests to me that there is some mutual inductive coupling between the Sun's field and Earth's. Similar to the approximate 2 terrawatts of power that is generated between the surface of Jupiter and its moon Io by a similar dynamo mechanism.

Image courtesy of NASA
8012968.jpg?461

Or the other examples of mutual inductive coupling in the solar system http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf
Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field.

The Earth has approximately around 22 terra watts of unaccounted internal thermal flux, I would suggest that this could be the current level of induction.

You have me at a disadvantage, I do not possess the math skill you require. But my pen is as sharp as my will is strong, so lets continue.
Let me throw in a few extras to move things along, you can actually examine the Earth's thermal cycles by going to goggle maps and look at the Hawaiian Island chain and its undersea ancestors of the Emperor Seamount Chain that are maybe the best record of these cycles. You can see how long the individual expansion cycles were by the size of the Island that was built, then when the core cooled the plate slide into the trench and repositioned the plate over the hot spot where the next island could began, as this was the start of the next thermal increase and expansion. The distance between the individual islands and the sea mounts is indicative how long the cooling cycles were at each. This is all explained in detail on my site.

Thank you, I hope this was enough detail for your answers.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-35291-0-01931400-1375247848_thumb.png

 

(Image credited to Ryan, W. B. F., S.M. Carbotte, J. Coplan, S. O'Hara, A. Melkonian, R. Arko, R.A. Weissel, V. Ferrini, A. Goodwillie, F. Nitsche, J. Bonczkowski, and R. Zemsky (2009), Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) synthesis data set, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q03014, doi:10.1029/2008GC002332.
Data doi: 10.1594/IEDA.0001000, through http://creativecommo...y-nc-sa/3.0/us/ )


Well, I think I'll discuss some of the evidence of the crust being put under extreme tension for millions of years. In the S.W. United States there is the Basin and Range area, the lateral displacement varies between 60 to 300 km since the beginning of the extension in the early Miocene. The Miocene Epoch was 23.03 to 5.3 million years ago. Currently there is no clear and concise explanation for this event. The particular latitudinal section of sea floor that was subducted or overran by this area extends all the way to the Mariana Trench (A) in the western Pacific. Interesting isn't it. The deepest trench in the world is on one end and the largest example of extensional processes is on the other. The eastern side of this section of sea floor has defined fault slip edges referred to as the Mendocino Fracture Zone in the north and the Murray Fracture Zone in the south. The model has the Pacific Plate over ran and held by the North American continent due to a long period of contraction from the previously mentioned mechanism. As the cycle changes to thermal expansion the plate was loaded with slowly increasing tension from the plates inability to move through mechanisms such as a divergent plate boundary. The subduction under the N. American continent eliminated all or most of that tension release mechanism. The Basin and Range was pulled instead, possibly through several thermal cycles, while the Mariana Trench was pulled eastward. This is clearly observed in the image above.

Edited by hypervalent_iodine
Post edited to re-include a picture that had been somehow removed + citation and a minor correction to the last sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to credit that image above. Image above used and modified by this author was furnished through and in no way endorsed by://www.geomapapp.org using Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) Synthesis, Ryan, W. B. F., S.M. Carbotte, J. Coplan, S. O'Hara, A. Melkonian, R. Arko, R.A. Weissel, V. Ferrini, A. Goodwillie, F. Nitsche, J. Bonczkowski, and R. Zemsky (2009), Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) synthesis data set, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q03014, doi:10.1029/2008GC002332.

  • Data doi: 10.1594/IEDA.0001000, through http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/
  • I would recommend to anyone who hasn't tried geomapapp to check it out. It is really fun. Though I wish the seafloor images at closer range had as high of resolution as Google Earth.
  • I'm going to show another geomapapp image of the same area. I think it tells a story of the Earth's surface in a unique way.
  • post-88603-0-20406600-1363930464_thumb.png
  • That same section of seafloor mentioned above is now seen in this incredible thermal image. You can clearly see the Mendocino Fracture Zone on it's northern edge and the Murray fracture Zone on the southern. The blue cooler areas of the section contrast to those to the north and south. Why is this section cooler? The reason is it is older than the others to the north and south. The image below is a USGS seafloor age map. That black line along the coast above the Baja Peninsula is the San Andreas Fault that runs N.W. and intersects the Mendocino Fault. The darkest red indicates most recent age. As you can see its lagging behind the northern and southern sections by maybe a 1000 km and 15-20 million years. I wish these images had better resolution when enlarged.
  • post-88603-0-96556400-1363930595.png
  • post-88603-0-68772000-1363930696.png
  • post-88603-0-20406600-1363930464_thumb.png
  • Now referring back to that geoapp. The story that I see in these images is told by that big green depression just east of the San Andreas Fault, it's known as the Central Valley and it has an interesting alignment to the Mendocino and Murray Fault lines. Just beyond the valley is the Sierra Nevada Mountains and on past farther east is the Basin and Range extension. So we already according to the model have the Basin and Range pulled out to the west by the tension in the plate section due to the thermal cycles slow expansion of the crust, causing the retraction of the overran Pacific Plate. It looks to me that the plate section broke from the massive tension at the east side of the Central Valley. As the plate was slowly pulled west the overriding continental crust filled in the slowly developing void.
  • post-88603-0-53175400-1363930891_thumb.png
  • In this closer detail above one can see the Mendocino misalignment clearly. The ocean plate south of the fracture zone (E) has what appears to be a defined offset. The area forming the radius at (F) looks to have been retracted out from under the sunken Central Valley. The Juan de Fuca fracture (D) was probably a tear caused by the catastrophic plate failure. The Mendocino Fracture Zone (E) failed under the sudden release as did the Murray Fracture to the south.
    post-88603-0-96837700-1363930779_thumb.gif
  • Image courtesy of USGS
  • The Basin and range is a unique feature on the Earth. I believe it is actually the same type of planation that preceded the creation of the North American Cordillera (Rocky Mountains) just to it's east. The broken and decoupled plate will not stop the eventual compression of the thermal cycle that in millions of years from now will take this spread out assemblage of ranges and valleys and slowly over millions more bulldoze it into a pile of tilted rock and debris that will then require maybe 50 million years more to erode to resemble the current American Cordillera.
Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picture below was taken by Jesse Varner and was modified by Aza Toth both of whom have no connection with this author or this work.

post-88603-0-38166200-1364004815_thumb.jpg

The reason the Southwest U.S. seems to exhibit such large extensional processes is due to the great distance that the particular plate has to its primary anchoring point. Most ocean plates are ether directly connected to a continental land mass as is the case now with the Atlantic,which is how they all began, or they have broken free at some point and have multiple subducted edges at a variety of locations as is the case with the Pacific. The amount of movement in the non-connected or non-subducted plate edge, one that is an actively spreading Mid-Ocean Ridge or an overran plate edge as mentioned above, that amount is directly proportional to the distance to its anchor point. In the model more distance=more movement.

Can that be true? Imagine the Earth with one single belt of seafloor around the equator with one end considered attached, immovable. The other end a short distance away unconnected. Now we can apply the thermal increase and see the gap open a given degree. Now we all know that the belt divided in half and then in quarters would with each reduction in length show a proportional reduction in movement. So the Pacific plate having the widest expanse of material shows an unusually large amount of movement.

This simple illustration gives solution to the great mystery of the differences between the various infill amounts in the worlds divergent plate boundaries. There degree of infill is proportionate to their distance from their attachment point. It seems anti-intuitive because of the continents, but they are, according to there mass, imposing displacement of the mantle (nailed it) to under the ocean plates, increasing their proportional movement.

 

Tomorrow - How to make India run like a rabbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image below courtesy NASA Ames Research Center, World Wind. Himalayas as pictured by NASA Landsat 7 Satellite.

post-88603-0-25894000-1364105456_thumb.png

The models ability to raise the global tectonic plate matrix while shoring the retreating divergent plate boundaries with new magma provides a means where the initial thermal expansion energy can be stored in the raised mass as (short term) gravitational potential energy then slowly released as kinetic energy as the plates melt into the asthenosphere. Periods of excessive gravitational potential energy, the periods that exceed the trenches rates of resistance will produce (long term) storage of the kinetic energy as mass in mountain complexes.

post-88603-0-61084100-1364105099_thumb.gifImage USGS

When the mass of the African Plate and Australian Plate produced increasing lateral compressive energy, India lying in between the two was compressed and moved in proportion to the release of gravitational potential energy in the global plate matrix. The Antarctic plate provided the compound mechanical leverage that produce variable rate of compression, forcing a rapid northward movement in the the direction of least resistance of the Indian plate. The Indian Plate was rapidly squeezed out from between the two continents by a compound scissor action from the unique mechanical leverage between the three massive continents on the smaller Indian Plate.

post-88603-0-71090900-1364106962.pngOriginal image courtesy of USGS, modified by this author.

post-88603-0-41681000-1364105806_thumb.png

Image above was furnished through and in no way endorsed by http://www.geomapapp.org using Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) Synthesis, Ryan, W. B. F., S.M. Carbotte, J. Coplan, S. O'Hara, A. Melkonian, R. Arko, R.A. Weissel, V. Ferrini, A. Goodwillie, F. Nitsche, J. Bonczkowski, and R. Zemsky (2009), Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) synthesis data set, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q03014, doi:10.1029/2008GC002332.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would now like to address the short comings of the current standard model and the solutions this hypothesis brings to the overall theory, improving its accuracy in describing this phenomenon. The current model relies primarily on several less than satisfactory mechanisms. Primarily what is mantle convection currents that are believed to produce a Basal drag mechanism that circulates in the asthenosphere providing frictional coupling to the crust. Other forces considered by some as primary and by others secondary or supplemental are gravity driven near the divergent boundaries (ridge push) and the trenches (slab suction). Recent difficulties in identifying large scale convection in the mantle has led to modifying PlumbTheory, that was first developed to explain the Hawaiian Islands, as a replacement for mantle convection; the Super-Plumb is now being searched for in the mantle.
None of these give satisfactory solution to the current list of difficult questions. North America has no subducting ocean plate to provide gravity driven movement. Ridge push at the Mid Atlantic Ridge seems inadequate to provide the gravitational energies required to not only move the massive N. American continent but to additionally override the Pacific Plate, leaving the still unobserved mantle convection or Super-Plumb as the most hopeful solution. This mechanism still require a Basal drag type coupling that seems inadequate to move a small continent let alone the overriding of the Pacific plate by the N. American plate. This mechanism seems even less likely to provide solution to worldwide mountain building. The simplicity of the thermal cycle provides, through leveraging the entire mass of the crust, a mechanism to move ocean and continental plates in the paths of least resistance, and provides an abundant amount of gravitational derived energies to move any crustal mass horizontal over and under any obstacle or even vertically as folded and fractured strata of the worlds mountains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s examine the behavior of the crust during the thermal cycle. The crust and mantle can be compared to laminated materials in their behavior. When the radius is changed the material on the outside is required to have ether resilient qualities such as the ability to stretch or compress, or allowable movement, which is the ability to move independent of the lower laminate to relieve compressive or tension stresses on the outer material. During a period of thermal increase the crust is required to continually move independent of the mantle to release what are primarily tension stresses. The Atlantic for example has two opposing continentally attached ocean crust sections that are slowly and incrementally being separated by the expanding mantle. This is simply a very large tension relieving mechanism that back-fills with magma. During each thermal cycle the width of the plates is continually increasing from the magma infill, as it has since their creation during the break-up of the super-continent. As it does this, the continually increasing tension from the drag or friction of that additional material imposes proportionally increasing tension stresses at the continental ends of the ocean plates. Eventually, when the plates are maybe twice as wide, the ocean plates will fracture from that tensional stress, adjacent to where they meet the continents. These new stress fractures will begin the process of becoming subduction zones during the following contraction portions of the cycles, and will develop trenches with depths proportionate to the drag created by the ever growing plates. The Pacific Plate and its now subducted twin the Farallon likely began in this manner. The Pacific Plate succumbed to this tension stress, probably shortly after the creation of what is now the oldest seafloor in the Pacific at maybe 180+ MYA. These ocean plates eventually get over ridden on one end and subducted on the other, imposing tensional forces that create structures like the Mariana Trench and the Basin and Range and developing stress relieving mechanisms such as the San Andreas Fault. This give and take of the thermal cycle will continue until the two opposing and closing continents meet, forming once again a combined continental structure.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s examine the behavior of the crust ...........

 

Marc,

 

I have been meaning to comb through your thesis on Plate Tectonics, but being older now, when I sit in a chair in front of the computer, after a double take read per paragraph, i start to fall asleep after a page or two.

 

That is no reflection on your subject, far from it, I am ' geology up to the nines' ( its an age thing.) Thats why i keep asking contributors to hit me with say ( six sentences that sum the essence all up. ) That's good for your subject anyway.

 

Could you do that with your ' New Take on Plate Tectonics' ( pour moi ) so that I am able to take part or duck as the case may be, "when the action starts"

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arc, I come back to my original concern: you object on the basis that you think such and such a mechanism would lack the energy to move the plates, or that the drive from ridge push would be inadequate, or the thermal effect would be sufficient. But nowhere is there a single piece of maths to back this up. Without that I don't see how your proposal can be taken seriously. Geology is no longer a refuge for those of us who cannot do arithmatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marc,

 

I have been meaning to comb through your thesis on Plate Tectonics, but being older now, when I sit in a chair in front of the computer, after a double take read per paragraph, i start to fall asleep after a page or two.

 

That is no reflection on your subject, far from it, I am ' geology up to the nines' ( its an age thing.) Thats why i keep asking contributors to hit me with say ( six sentences that sum the essence all up. ) That's good for your subject anyway.

 

Could you do that with your ' New Take on Plate Tectonics' ( pour moi ) so that I am able to take part or duck as the case may be, "when the action starts"

 

Mike, I know what you are talking about it’s hard for me also. I wish I could have made it more interesting but it is in good company with all of the research papers I have read in the last couple of years. The only encouragement I can give you is this plate tectonic model gives a very simple and direct cause and effect that is not dependent on auxiliary mechanisms to be added to answer the various phenomena that are found throughout geology. The current standard model is an accumulation of theories of many different geologists, all of which being dependent to a certain degree on the accuracy of the earlier works. It’s like everything that makes up current theory is limited by its genetic background. I wanted to build from scratch and see what could develop. I would like to say up front that Arthur Holmes was a scientist that I really admire but I said “from scratch” and his mantle convection is the foundation of the current model. It set the course that brought us to these complexities that generate solutions like mantle plumbs and the long list of “fix’s” that keep plumbs viable. Mr. Holmes himself early on referred to his mantle convection as a speculation.

With this freedom I was able to take a fresh look at the evidence. What stood out to me are the obvious signs of contraction by way of subduction trenches and mountain ranges that are balanced by the evidence of expansionary movements in various planations and extreme extensional processes such as the Basin and Range area. I realized the curving and movement of the Island Arcs towards the trenches could also be part of this expansion/extension from surface tension pulling on the arcs. From this beginning I was able to add each example that is now shown in this model. From the breakup of continents to the current sea floor spreading, a model using a multi-million year thermal expansion mechanism is one part of a thermal cycle that provides multi-million year contraction that produces large degrees of subduction and mountain building. It is a very simple model based on the outer core having a thermal cycle encompassing tens of millions of years from forcing by a very small and gradual variable current amplitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you are saying, is Rather than the normal convection current rise of mantle to the mid ocean ridges being the driver for ocean crust movement, You propose it is the Shrinkage of the overall surface area of the oceans area caused by a cooling caused by a change in the dynamo /generator change in internal currents of the earth.

 

( Have I understood your point correctly, or have i latched on to the wrong point, or missed it entirely

[ which could quite easily be the case ] ) ?

 

I am off to the Royal Albert Museum in Exeter with my Geology group today. I will see if I can find any thing that relates to your subject.

 

Mike

 

post-33514-0-40969800-1366357480_thumb.jpg

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ophiolite, on 17 Apr 2013 - 22:02, said:

arc, I come back to my original concern: you object on the basis that you think such and such a mechanism would lack the energy to move the plates, or that the drive from ridge push would be inadequate, or the thermal effect would be sufficient. But nowhere is there a single piece of maths to back this up. Without that I don't see how your proposal can be taken seriously. Geology is no longer a refuge for those of us who cannot do arithmatic.

Ouch. You really know how to hurt a guy. Well as I said before I do not posses the math skills you require. But I have done what you posted on April, 8 in "The Geology of South West England."

 

You said: ( I was trained on the basis that field work was an essential ingredient of geology: get out and hit the rocks with a hammer; see the lie of the land; sense the development of the environments and structures.)

 

I have done that. The problem I sense in this debate is the current model is stalled at not locating the convection that was originally speculated by Arthur Holmes, and now mantle plumb theory has been promoted as the hopeful replacement to validate convection. But if one was to be honest about convection theory you would have to admit the theory started as what seemed a brilliantly simple solution for what were simpler times. Times before plate tectonics, and as time has progressed more has been demanded of it.

 

I personally believe if Hannes Alfven's Magnetohydrodynamics generation theory MHD, that is the standard model of the Earth's core and field generator, had preceded mantle convection theory this outer core thermal cycle I am now promoting would have been obvious considering the earlier work of Austrian Edward Suess (1831-1914) and American James Dwight Dana (1813-1895) who both independently observed mountain structures as the result of contraction. I think the additional evidence 50 years ago that included extensional processes such as the Basin and Range area would have led to formation of this idea maybe 40-50 years ago. Geology has been preoccupied with convection and it is still an unconfirmed mathematical model. Could an over reliance in complex maths have obstructed what would have been observed by simple field work?

 

I do not promote this due to some personal need to appear smart, I have been reading your's and the other experts and moderators posts, I do not know how you people have learned and retained so much. Its been extremely humbling to experience this site. I have had a lucky break because I was not formally educated in geology and because of this I am not of that mold. It is my nature to not assume anything is correct. And I have a long standing history of finding a better way of doing something, aka stubborn. Whether I convince anyone of this will not depend on my mathematical skills. It will be because of its simplicity. That it sells itself. That it fits every geologic mystery it is applied to. That it can predict observable geologic phenomena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you are saying, is Rather than the normal convection current rise of mantle to the mid ocean ridges being the driver for ocean crust movement, You propose it is the Shrinkage of the overall surface area of the oceans area caused by a cooling caused by a change in the dynamo /generator change in internal currents of the earth.

 

( Have I understood your point correctly, or have i latched on to the wrong point, or missed it entirely

[ which could quite easily be the case ] ) ?

 

I am off to the Royal Albert Museum in Exeter with my Geology group today. I will see if I can find any thing that relates to your subject.

 

Mike

 

attachicon.gifEarth Currents1.jpg

Yes Mike, the shrinkage as subduction. It would be hard for anyone to make the case that the dynamo generation components of the Earth's field generator would operate over millions of years and not vary in the amplitude of its current/magnetic field output. Given that, it would be highly unlikely that the amperage change would not involve a thermal content variation of the outer core's liquid iron, and in that not produce a thermally imposed expansion/contraction of the outer core's molten material.

This slow and continuous two directional thermally imposed expansion/contraction movement over millions of years requires the mantle to move in tandem. The thickness of the mantle provides a proportionate mechanical increase to its outer boundary that multiplies the minute outer core expansion into the observed spreading rates of the worlds mid-ocean ridges. Currently the Pacific being 80-120 mm per year and the North Atlantic being 25 mm per year. An expansion total of maybe 20 cm's out of 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55 miles) of the Earth's circumference.

The subduction of seafloor into ocean trenches and the folding and vertical movement of the crust into mountains is due to the decrease of amplitude in the field generator. The core's molten iron decreases in temperature and thereby reduces in volume and in doing so permits the mantle to move inward. This loads the crust against the most recent mid-ocean ridge infill, forcing movement of the ocean crust towards the path of least resistance into the trenches and with enough ridge infill or longer periods of cooling, the construction of mountain structures.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes Mike, the shrinkage as subduction ........

 

Yes, well, I get your reasoning. Sounds quite plausible to me.

Do you imagine the descending mantle falling under gravity at all , or do you imagine only being pushed by the contraction process you describe.

 

Lower current; lower heat in molten outer core; lower heat in mantle , contraction of upper mantle, Ocean crust too big for space; pushes against mid ridge; gives at trenches; and down the mantle and ocean crust goes causing friction and melt heat for volcano's mountain building. and re-amalgamation with the inner mantle, convection only renewing mid ocean ridges as required, but NOT pushing ocean crusts sideways.

 

And will you still speak to me , when you are famous.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you imagine the descending mantle falling under gravity at all , or do you imagine only being pushed by the contraction process you describe.

 

Lower current; lower heat in molten outer core; lower heat in mantle , contraction of upper mantle, Ocean crust too big for space; pushes against mid ridge; gives at trenches; and down the mantle and ocean crust goes causing friction and melt heat for volcano's mountain building. and re-amalgamation with the inner mantle, convection only renewing mid ocean ridges as required, but NOT pushing ocean crusts sideways.

 

I see very little chance of the crust getting to move down due to gravity acting on the subducted portion. There would have to be a pause between the phases of the cycle. It would have to be at least long enough to allow all compression to bleed out so gravity could be a single quantitative force before the next expansion period extends the crust creating surface tension that pulls on the subducted plate, reducing the subducted sections gravitational potential.

 

I imagine the crust's movement as an ebb and flow. The subducted plates are slowly melting into the asthenosphere, as they do they slowly reduce the inventory of the gravitational potential energy that became increasingly stored the global plate matrix during the contraction cycle. Yet the mantle may continue to recede increasing the inventory. With each plate having a specific mass, expanse and unique association to its neighboring plates there would be a complex dance of movement as lighter plates may be displaced by the heavier while thinner and/or compressible plates may deform into hills or on rare occasions mountains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I am out of my depth here but I chip in to try to put it in simple terms and see what you all make of it.

The idea is that the core of the earth heats and cools over long periods due to changes in the magnetic influence of the Sun. I don't think that bits too solid, "arc" will have to do the maths to demonstrate that. However, if we say that we don't know what mechanisim is doing the heating and cooling then...

The subduction and expansion of the earth's crust can (by this idea) be explained more than by the idea of the more dense crust sinking into the mantle in a subduction zone.

I am a total novice here but the idea that the surface crust is constantly falling into the more liquid mantle at a reasonably constant rate which does not show the tendancy to do it all of a sudden and then regenerate a new crust seems odd. The weight of the decending crust would surely increase after it's sliped a bit which would add to the force draging it down and thus you would have a positive feed back loop. Once it started it would all tumble down sinking into the depths. Something else is at work making the whole process go reasonably smoothly.

As a mechanisim to explain the subduction and compression of the crust I think this has merrit as an idea, if the convection currents in the mantle are not there. The day somone finds the currents of smi-liquid rock flowing along under the crust we are back to plan A . That the whole thing is driven by friction against the underside of the crust. Although I would expect this to find a sticking point and stop. The plates would have to wait untill the currents changed to move again.

Is that about right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I am out of my depth here but I chip in to try to put it in simple terms and see what you all make of it.

 

Hello Tim, welcome to this thread. I think you are going to do fine.

 

 

 

The idea is that the core of the earth heats and cools over long periods due to changes in the magnetic influence of the Sun. I don't think that bits too solid, "arc" will have to do the maths to demonstrate that.

 

Tim, in post # 4, I said;

I can only suggest this would work under the current standard model but I am aware that Gerard C. Bond noted that "when the Sun is at its most energetic, the Earths field is strengthened" http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html

This suggests to me that there is some mutual inductive coupling between the Sun's field and Earth's. Similar to the approximate 2 terrawatts of power that is generated between the surface of Jupiter and its moon Io by a similar dynamo mechanism.

 

Or the other examples of mutual inductive coupling in the solar system;

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf

"Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field."

The Earth has approximately around 22 terra watts of unaccounted internal thermal flux, I would suggest that this could be the current level of induction.

 

As I said before it would be more likely than not there would be a small variation in the Earth's field generator over time. Small as in incremental, as in a fraction of a degree over millions of years. This is all this mechanism needs. I am just implying that there could be some mutual induction that may account for some and/or all of the variation. Just as it has been observed in other coupled systems of a neighboring gas giant.

 

This is the way I see this math issue. The current model is not very descriptive of overall geologic phenomena at all. But it has maths. While it doesn't explain extensional processes like the Basin and Range Area or periods of intense mountain building like that of the Himalayan or the Andes staggering proportions. Nor does it answer very well why Island Arcs progress the way they do. Why Mediterranean Back Arc basins have stopped completely? Why the Atlantic ridge diverges only 25 mm while the Pacific is 80-120 mm a year? Why the sea floor remnants of the Emperor Sea-mounts vary in size and periodicity? Why the older Mid-Ocean ridges develop that serpentine "S" shape? What causes ocean plates to separate from continents, what builds mountains in continental interiors? Or what breaks up continental land masses? This hypothesis has those answers and more.

 

Tim, for a comprehensive study of what this very simple mechanism can do go to my profile page and visit my site on Plate Tectonics and then you will see the level of detail this thesis delivers to geology.

 

 

 

I am a total novice here but the idea that the surface crust is constantly falling into the more liquid mantle at a reasonably constant rate which does not show the tendancy to do it all of a sudden and then regenerate a new crust seems odd. The weight of the decending crust would surely increase after it's sliped a bit which would add to the force draging it down and thus you would have a positive feed back loop. Once it started it would all tumble down sinking into the depths. Something else is at work making the whole process go reasonably smoothly.

 

As a mechanisim to explain the subduction and compression of the crust I think this has merrit as an idea, if the convection currents in the mantle are not there. The day somone finds the currents of smi-liquid rock flowing along under the crust we are back to plan A . That the whole thing is driven by friction against the underside of the crust. Although I would expect this to find a sticking point and stop. The plates would have to wait untill the currents changed to move again.

Tim, In ether model the crust has to melt incrementally into the upper mantle's Asthenosphere. The mantle in the current standard model and my thesis are identical, and the possibilities that convection currents are present are the same in both. The mantle is closer to the viscosity of cold glass than to hot thick magma. Older windows 100+ years and older show the glass as moving downward, thickening towards the bottom and becoming wavy. In the mantle convection would move incrementally up, think of a mushroom cloud in multi-million year time scales. These convection currents would be massive in size and would be difficult to arrange in position to accomplish the currently observed plate movements without canceling out some of each others surface effects.

The mantle is adiabatic, impermeable to heat transfer. It makes up 85% of the Earth's volume. Its density is the product of gravity acting on its mass weight in combination with the heat that has an estimated temperature at the outer core-mantle boundary of 4400 C (7952 F) The mantle's thickness of 2900 km (1800 miles) allows the theory of convection to be possible. But surface observation do not align with convection in many ways as I stated above and in post # 9.

 

Accurate prediction of observable surface structures is what this thesis brings to the fight. The convection current model has some nice maths but in the last half century produced a disappointing few predictable results.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mantle is adiabatic, impermeable to heat transfer

 

Please explain this statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Tim, welcome to this thread. I think you are going to do fine.

 

 

Tim, in post # 4, I said;

 

As I said before it would be more likely than not there would be a small variation in the Earth's field generator over time. Small as in incremental, as in a fraction of a degree over millions of years. This is all this mechanism needs. I am just implying that there could be some mutual induction that may account for some and/or all of the variation. Just as it has been observed in other coupled systems of a neighboring gas giant.

 

This is the way I see this math issue. The current model is not very descriptive of overall geologic phenomena at all. But it has maths. While it doesn't explain extensional processes like the Basin and Range Area or periods of intense mountain building like that of the Himalayan or the Andes staggering proportions. Nor does it answer very well why Island Arcs progress the way they do. Why Mediterranean Back Arc basins have stopped completely? Why the Atlantic ridge diverges only 25 mm while the Pacific is 80-120 mm a year? Why the sea floor remnants of the Emperor Sea-mounts vary in size and periodicity? Why the older Mid-Ocean ridges develop that serpentine "S" shape? What causes ocean plates to separate from continents, what builds mountains in continental interiors? Or what breaks up continental land masses? This hypothesis has those answers and more.

 

Tim, for a comprehensive study of what this very simple mechanism can do go to my profile page and visit my site on Plate Tectonics and then you will see the level of detail this thesis delivers to geology.

 

 

Tim, In ether model the crust has to melt incrementally into the upper mantle's Asthenosphere. The mantle in the current standard model and my thesis are identical, and the possibilities that convection currents are present are the same in both. The mantle is closer to the viscosity of cold glass than to hot thick magma. Older windows 100+ years and older show the glass as moving downward, thickening towards the bottom and becoming wavy. In the mantle convection would move incrementally up, think of a mushroom cloud in multi-million year time scales. These convection currents would be massive in size and would be difficult to arrange in position to accomplish the currently observed plate movements without canceling out some of each others surface effects.

The mantle is adiabatic, impermeable to heat transfer. It makes up 85% of the Earth's volume. Its density is the product of gravity acting on its mass weight in combination with the heat that has an estimated temperature at the outer core-mantle boundary of 4400 C (7952 F) The mantle's thickness of 2900 km (1800 miles) allows the theory of convection to be possible. But surface observation do not align with convection in many ways as I stated above and in post # 9.

 

Accurate prediction of observable surface structures is what this thesis brings to the fight. The convection current model has some nice maths but in the last half century produced a disappointing few predictable results.

 

 

post-33514-0-41398000-1366584173_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain this statement.

 

Hello studiot, In my model I use this to imply (maybe incorrectly) that the mantle by moving in tandem with the outer core's thermal expansion/contraction is primarily a kinetic energy transfer device, even a mechanical advantage device due to its ability to produce an almost immediate response in increased kinetic movement to its outer boundary surface area with the crust. Leaving the heat transfer through conduction not an immediate or even a longer term (less than a half million years) player in comparison. I think I need a better term, sorry about the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am brought up old school. Can you prove plate tectonics is not still driven by the impact between theia and gaia once upon a long time ago or can you prove it is? I didn't think so.


ron~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am brought up old school. Can you prove plate tectonics is not still driven by the impact between theia and gaia once upon a long time ago or can you prove it is? I didn't think so.
ron~

 

Ron, I'm kind of old school also. But science has made incredible progress in volcanism, mineralogy and all other aspects of geology. But we seem complacent with plate tectonics, we got the big idea but without the subsequent development of a fine resolution of understanding of surface phenomena. Think what has been taking place over the last 40-50 years in other sciences inside and outside of geology, while in plate tectonics we continue wait for someone to find the engine.

 

 

Yerrrr a reeeeal funny guy mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.