Jump to content
arc

Plate tectonic mechanism ?

Recommended Posts

 

  1. The amount of difficulty for retrieving something doesn't make it anymore right or wrong. Sometimes, looking harder can make us see things that just aren't there.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would have to say this discussion is getting off topic,

 

I think it's fine to include this in discussion. It is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn. Arc, if you had simply answered my question *with a straight answer* all this would have been avoided.

 

Post # 109, my first reply, was 528 words. And did answer your question, but your ignorance of the model left you unaware of it. Post #114, my second response, was 429 words, which for you was apparently 428 words too many. Well, at least the 384 words that you ignored. My thesis is over 40,000 words, why do you think you can read a few posts and ask a question as if you were ordering a Starbucks. Then when given an answer act rude ungrateful and insulting. When I gave the shortest answer possible in post # 114, considering the complexity needed to reply, almost all of it was ignored.

 

I'm afraid I can't keep up with your ramblings. My misinterpretation of your number may make the geometrical argument invalid, but let's be clear -- you're still wrong.

 

So an accurate prediction of observations is ramblings and wrong.

 

This is from post #109, that would have helped answer your question, if you had a genuine interest to know.

 

We are observing it currently at the divergent plate boundaries, the spreading rates of the mid-ocean ridges are small, the Pacific being 80-120 mm per year while the North Atlantic being 25 mm per year. This is the current rate of displacement, an expansion total of maybe 20 cm’s a year out of almost 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55miles) of the Earth’s circumference.

How does this match observations?

The Pacific divergent plate boundary expands more than the Atlantic's does. But why? Shouldn't they expand the same if the crust is being pushed out by the mantle. The answer is seen in a simple thought experiment that I use to illustrate the solution.

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 that displaces the mantle and extends the crust. We can now see the gap between the plate ends open a given degree.

Now we all know that if the belt was divided in half and then in quarters it would with each reduction in length show a proportional reduction in movement. This means that a wider ocean plate like the Pacific would show more movement than a narrower one. And the Pacific plate having the widest expanse of plate material shows an unusually large amount of movement resulting in more infill. While the Atlantic being narrower shows a proportionally smaller amount of movement. This is an accurate prediction using this model.

Do I really need this to be a mathematical equation for you to understand and accept it.

I'm not working a drive thru answer stand, you must do your own heavy lifting, it is your job to learn this model so you can understand the answers. As one of the great ones here at SFN once posted; "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you." *

This is a partial list of the phenomena that this model can accurately predict.

The plaination that occurs before mountain ranges form

The formation of mountain ranges - both continental margin and the difficult to understand until now continental interior

The formation of divergent plate boundaries

The formation of convergent plate boundaries

The variation in ridge infill among the worlds divergent plate boundaries

The basin and range area in the SW of N. America

Mariana Trench and why it is the deepest in the world

Continental break-up

Mid-ocean ridge offset faulting.

Island chains such as the Hawaiians and the Emperor sea mounts

Formation of island arcs

Why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant

 

you're still wrong.

 

I don't recall any of these being predicted by plume theory. And I suppose you believe plume theory is a superior model because?

 

*Yes iNow, it was you. happy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

, it is your job to learn this model so you can understand the answers.

But it is your job to explain the model clearly and concisely and to address queries in a similar fashion. This you typically fail to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is your job to explain the model clearly and concisely and to address queries in a similar fashion. This you typically fail to do.

In my opinion, he clearly explains his hypothesis and presents the evidence for which he arrived at such a conclusion of the hypothesis. He has also addressed the problems before, which billard states that his assumption or example was incorrect, therefore such a query was completed and dealt with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. Then you can point me to his clear concise abstract. I look forward to reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I believe I've found the solution to a geological mystery. What drives the tectonic plates? It fits perfect, wherever on the planet I look it explains the related geologic phenomena. I'm confident I found the mechanism that geologists have been looking for. The mechanical actuation of the plate movement in my model is dependent of an almost undetectably minuscule, extremely slow expansion and then contraction in the Earth’s mantle just below the crust. The only driving force that fits the parameters is a thermal expansion caused by an internal heat source. All thermal, mechanical and electrical systems both natural and man made have variability, a rhythm, a cycle, a harmonic balance. I believe our planet's magnetic field generator produces a small temperature rise and decline on varying time scales.

Though the abstract could be reformed, it still gives summarized information of the hypothesis(theory), where the rest of the paper goes into the specifics.

Edited by Unity+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree with you that the abstract could be reformed. All the words preceding my model is dependent on could be removed without loss.

 

However, he makes no mention in here of other points that he laters places great emphasis on. One immediately springs to mind: unless I am seriously mistaken he claims that subduction and crustal generation do not proceed simultaneously. That ought to be in his abstract.

 

And as one works through his material ideas are thrown out haphardly. They are not integrated into a cohesive whole. Other research is cherry picked to provide support. And more ideas are thrown around. An Australian friend used to use an expression that seems apposite here: all over the place like a mad woman's shit.

 

One has to be impressed by the volume of material he has explored. I am simply not convinced, on what is presented here, that he has actually assimilated any of it.However, I'll give it another go.

 

Arc, is the statement above still applicable? You claim that subduction and crustal generation do not proceed simultaneously. Remember, I cannot handle anything other than a short, simpel answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree with you that the abstract could be reformed. All the words preceding my model is dependent on could be removed without loss.

 

However, he makes no mention in here of other points that he laters places great emphasis on. One immediately springs to mind: unless I am seriously mistaken he claims that subduction and crustal generation do not proceed simultaneously. That ought to be in his abstract.

 

And as one works through his material ideas are thrown out haphardly. They are not integrated into a cohesive whole. Other research is cherry picked to provide support. And more ideas are thrown around. An Australian friend used to use an expression that seems apposite here: all over the place like a mad woman's shit.

 

One has to be impressed by the volume of material he has explored. I am simply not convinced, on what is presented here, that he has actually assimilated any of it.However, I'll give it another go.

 

Arc, is the statement above still applicable? You claim that subduction and crustal generation do not proceed simultaneously. Remember, I cannot handle anything other than a short, simpel answer.

If I am correct, the information can be found here where he has his hypothesis: http://electrotectonics.weebly.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not wading through thirty pages to try to find a yes/no answer. I'll wiat for arc to respond. But thank you for the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arc, is the statement above still applicable? You claim that subduction and crustal generation do not proceed simultaneously.

 

They can occur simultaneously. I explained this in post #4 in response to CaptainPanic's post #2. Post #3 is yours by the way.

 

You asked this question in post #83;

 

If my understanding is correct, please state what phase we are in at present and how you reconcile the fact that both conditions are presently occuring and are measurable.

My very technically accurate and well written answer is post #84.
Hey, maybe I have already written an abstract and you forgot. smile.png
Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arc, is the statement above still applicable? You claim that subduction and crustal generation do not proceed simultaneously. Remember, I cannot handle anything other than a short, simpel answer.

 

 

This thesis is really defined by the surface observations. In the current model the divergent plate boundaries gradual movement apart from each other is equaled by the plates subduction into trenches somewhere else. But in reality there is half as many kilometers of trenches as there is divergent boundaries. This discrepancy needs to be solved. This model does this through extending the subduction period by storing this energy as raised mass, put there as the mantle subsides and the plates are loaded like a arch between the newest divergent infill and the trenches resistance to subduction.

 

According to the model the infill is a measured increase of the Earth's circumference, which gives an accurate figure of displacement of the mantle. This mantle surface increase is in proportion to, and dependent on, the mantle's thickness. There is a type of mechanical energy transfer involved. Not unlike what gears accomplish in a transmission. So the thermal expansion of the outer core applies a type of leverage to convert an infinitesimal variation of circumference at the outer core/mantle boundary to measurable movement at the divergent plate boundaries.

 

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 ( the magnetic field generator's molten iron's thermal expansion) 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.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the plates are loaded like a arch between the newest divergent infill and the trenches resistance to subduction.

 

Hello, arc, would you like to explain this arch loading a bit further?

 

Arching action in beams, plates and shells is well known and accounts for the increased strength of members in bending as comapred to simple theory.

Further the arching action leads to a lower energy state for the loaded member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, I gave you lateral displacement. I didn't say it was radius, and if you would have read what I knew you wouldn't, you would have seen it. You would have figured out that 500 km +/- in relation to 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55 miles) out of the Earth’s circumference is 80 km of radius ~.

 

 

OK so 500 km of circumference, just for fun let's consider the geometry of this. According to my calculations you need to contract the core volume by 25% its present volume to account for that kind of circumference change. That is HUGE! So your task now is to calculate the temperature changes needed to invoke this kind of volume change through thermal expansion. How much energy would this take? What would happen to the inner core? Would it not need to freeze and melt? Where is all this energy coming from?

 

 

 

 

In the current model the divergent plate boundaries gradual movement apart from each other is equaled by the plates subduction into trenches somewhere else. But in reality there is half as many kilometers of trenches as there is divergent boundaries. This discrepancy needs to be solved.

 

First off I haven't independently checked that there really is half the length of convergent margin as there is divergent margin. Let's assume you're right for now. This implies that per unit of length an average convergent margin (trench) swallows up twice the volume of material being produced at the average divergent margin (ridge). Or if you prefer there are two ridges doing the work of one trench. At first glance this does seem weird, but it is not inconceivable that there could just be lots of "slow ridges" bringing the ridge average production down. That would account for it.

 

Now it is your job to prove that there really is a problem. Or as you put it "a discrepancy". You cannot just throw out words like "technical", "accurate","clear", "discrepancy". They do not convince scientists. Scientists prefer to see data.

 

I'll give you a recipe for what would convince me there is a problem:

(1) take a recognised database of plate boundaries

(2) take a recognised model of plate motion (a good one would be HS3 NUVEL 1a (Gripp and Gordan 2002))

(3) integrate the convergent plate motion along the length of all convergent margins.

(4) integrate the divergent plate motion along the length of all divergent plate boundaries.

(5) show that they do not balance.

 

That would probably be a day's work for me. (i.e. something I'm not prepared to do when I have real science that needs doing for publication in real journals.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

 

I stumbled upon an interesting sentence in a paper while doing some reading:

 

R J Stern (2002), Subduction zones, Rev Geophys.

 

The cumulative length of convergent plate margins is > 55,000 km [Lallemand, 1999], almost equal to that of mid-ocean ridges (60,000 km [Kearey and Vine, 1990]).

 

 

So arc, please, check your facts.

Edited by billiards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hello, arc, would you like to explain this arch loading a bit further?

 

Arching action in beams, plates and shells is well known and accounts for the increased strength of members in bending as comapred to simple theory.

 

The plates are already in an arched formation due to the Earth's curvature. During the periods of the mantle's outward displacement the plates are supported uniformly by the mantle and the magma that is simultaneously produced by the concurrent and resultant strain energy, the divergent boundary is slowly opening and receiving infill while the opposing subducted edges are put in tension with energies proportionate to the plate's width. More width = more tension. This is what forms the island arc's curved shape, pulling the trenches toward the larger plate.

 

When the mantle begins to incrementally subside the plates mass weight will be slowly applied to it's boundary areas. The plate's current tension will slowly change to compression as the gravitational potential energy slowly increases. And the rising compression will continue to slowly build on the divergent and convergent boundaries. The pre-arched form of the plates is ideal for this cycling, repeatedly loading and unloading tension, then compression as the mantle displaces repeatedly.

 

Further the arching action leads to a lower energy state for the loaded member.

 

That may be so, but I do not see the plates really increasing or decreasing in radius appreciably. The compression is somewhat passive, rather below that which would apply a positive loading like a beam being squeezed in a clamp. The plate is slowly loaded by the removal of the mantles support while the trenches are receiving as much material as they physically can, slowly bleeding off the gravitational potential energy as the compression is created by the mantles subsidence. It requires subduction for the plate to follow the mantle down. If the trenches resistance exceeds the mantles rate of withdraw, or subsidence, compression features like hills or mountain formations will result.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK so 500 km of circumference, just for fun let's consider the geometry of this. According to my calculations you need to contract the core volume by 25% its present volume to account for that kind of circumference change. That is HUGE! So your task now is to calculate the temperature changes needed to invoke this kind of volume change through thermal expansion. How much energy would this take? What would happen to the inner core? Would it not need to freeze and melt? Where is all this energy coming from?

 

So, we went over this. You didn't read the whole post, you made an erroneous claim, I showed you were mistaken, you admitted it in post #122

 

 

 

Yawn. Arc, if you had simply answered my question *with a straight answer* all this would have been avoided.

 

I'm afraid I can't keep up with your ramblings. My misinterpretation of your number may make the geometrical argument invalid, but let's be clear -- you're still wrong.

 

At the end of the day I say this ... believe what you want to believe ... I for one am in search of a more believable truth.

 

 

Here it is again for the second time. Make sure you catch the line - "So, the total could be as great as 500 km. But here's the rub, this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting and imposing compression in the crust which produces subduction and reduction of circumference. You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from?"

 

Hold on there cowboy, you better round up your horses and put em back in the barn. You didn't read that entire post did you? I knew if I set that number out there you would grab it and run. happy.png Let's take a look at what you didn't care to read.

arc, on 11 Nov 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:snapback.png

 

My apologies billiards that I did not directly answer your question. Maybe 500 km from min to max over 5-10 million years. Your question is difficult to answer because it is difficult to determine. You would like hard numbers and I do not have them.

 

This explanation below is for anyone who would like more information.

I believe the compression in the crust that produces the mountain ranges such as the Himalayas would give your best chance at an accurate figure. If you were to flatten out all mountain ranges that occurred during the last 10 million years it would give you a divergent boundary infill that occurred during the preceding large thermal increase, minus the unknown subduction values that occurred concurrently.

 

This process is not unlike a mechanical jack place on soft ground, you jack up a few inches and return to find it lower than where you started. I have only observed and reinterpreted what is already known and available. The Basin and range extension is estimated to have had possibly a 100% extension.

 

According to Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia...._Range_Province

 

Total lateral displacement in the Basin and Range varies from 60 – 300 km since the onset of extension in the Early Miocene with the southern portion of the province representing a greater degree of displacement than the north.

 

This could give a rough estimate for the movement in the Pacific divergent plate boundary that was directly beneath and which provided the traction mechanism to pull the Basin and Range during the displacement. The Atlantic would have been in the same proportion to the Pacific divergent boundary as it is now, let's just say its 1/3 of the 300 km, so 100 km for the Atlantic divergent boundary. Now you need the total stretch imposed on all plates and the other divergent plate boundary metrics. I believe the Basin and Range ended prematurely and the thermal displacement continued on further. It could have been as much as another 100 km or more.

 

So, the total could be as great as 500 km. But here's the rub, this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting and imposing compression in the crust which produces subduction and reduction of circumference. You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from? This is not like a balloon, going up a lot and then back down. Its like running on a conveyor, you may move ahead a little or move back the same, but your gains and losses are smoothed out over the distance covered.

"Total lateral displacement" . . . . . "varies from 60 – 300 km" . . . . . . "So, the total could be as great as 500 km." . . . . . . "reduction of circumference."

"You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from? "

So, I gave you lateral displacement. I didn't say it was radius, and if you would have read what I knew you wouldn't, you would have seen it. You would have figured out that 500 km +/- in relation to 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55 miles) out of the Earth’s circumference is 80 km of radius ~.

"But here's the rub"

"This process is not unlike a mechanical jack placed on soft ground, you jack up a few inches and return to find it lower than where you started."

"this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting"

Which means that 80 km +/- change cannot happen either, and I can only guess at the amount that it actually does change, 5-? I don't know, just like a lot of things in plume theory.

"Its like running on a conveyor, you may move ahead a little or move back the same, but your gains and losses are smoothed out over the distance covered."

So, you see it gains and loses in a cycle, but at some point it loses enough to convert the plates mass to gravitational potential energy, which will then overcome the trenches rates of resistance and require the movement of rock into mountain complexes. It is really that simple.

"If you were to flatten out all mountain ranges that occurred during the last 10 million years it would give you a divergent boundary infill that occurred"

'"minus the unknown subduction values that occurred concurrently."

This is really probably the easiest way to figure it out. But I'm not that smart. cool.png

Well, I don't see a problem here, your lack of knowledge regarding the model leads you to make continuous erroneous challenges. But look on the bright side, someone is giving you up votes for being wrong! smile.png

 

 

 

 

First off I haven't independently checked that there really is half the length of convergent margin as there is divergent margin. Let's assume you're right for now. This implies that per unit of length an average convergent margin (trench) swallows up twice the volume of material being produced at the average divergent margin (ridge). Or if you prefer there are two ridges doing the work of one trench. At first glance this does seem weird, but it is not inconceivable that there could just be lots of "slow ridges" bringing the ridge average production down. That would account for it.

 

http://74.220.215.88/~earlgada/tags21/Mission/Documents/Smoot_OSP_Bathymetry_History.pdf

 

Ocean Survey Program (OSP) Bathymetry History :

Jousting with Tectonic windmills
N. CHRISTIAN SMOOT
GEOSTREAMS, Ltd, 104 Williamsburg Rd., Picayune, MS 39466, USA

 

"Measurements with a compass yielded 74,000 km of midocean ridges. In theory, spreading is happening on both sides of the ridges, so new seafloor is produced along 148,000 km of the spreading centers. In theory, that much linear distance in convergent margins must exist to keep Earth from having a middle-age spread leading to another "big bang" situation. There is not; there are only 30,500 km of subduction zones and 9000 km of collision zones, only about one-fourth the amount of spreading ridges. This disparity in linear distance is probably an embellishment of the obvious. However, in an apparent community-wide failure to grasp the epitome of the situation, this fact has gone almost unnoticed by all but a few."

 

"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)."

 

 

http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/bios/BioSketch_Smoot.html

N. Christian Smoot

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND:

Employed by the Ocean Survey Program of the US Naval Oceanographic Office 1966-1975, 1977-1998- career consisted of 20 years of deep-ocean data collection (took 67 cruises and logged over 600,000 nautical miles at sea) in bathymetry, gravity, magnetics, and physical oceanography; progressing through state of the art technology of data collection from hand surveying and processing methods to full computer suite including transponders, inertial navigation, Transit and GPS satellite navigation, LORAN-C and Omega; single-beam sonar; SASS, Seabeam, and Simrad multibeam sonars; SeaMARC II side-scan sonar; sound velocity studies using Nansen casts, salinometers, Niskin samplers, and expendable bathythermo-graphs; found missing submarine, USS SCORPION, in June 1968; was senior scientist from 1981 until 1988–30 years of office work consisted of data compilation of thousands of point charts and a couple of hundred regional charts over the years, training others including updating the training manual four times, many special projects, and publishing results; 34 feature names accepted by US Board on Geographic Names; retired April 1998 with 18 work-related awards

 

Cruises:

1. 20 Jun-11 Nov 66 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- NELant, GibStraits, and WestMed, Lisbon, Rota, Lisbon, Belfast, Belfast, Belfast, Barcelona

2. 11 Jan-10 Mar 67 USNS MICHELSON- grunt- NWPac (Marianas region, Challenger Deep), Yokosuka, Yokosuka, Yokosuka

3. 22 Jun 67-19 Oct 67 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- NELant and WestMed (Sargasso Sea, Straits of Sicily and Gibraltar, Skerki and Pantellaria Banks), Belfast, Lisbon, Swansea, Rota, Valetta

4. 15 Nov 67-13 Mar 68 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- WestMed and NELant (Tagus Plain, GibStraits), Valetta, Naples, Barcelona, Barcelona, Lisbon

5. 26 May-12 Aug 68 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- NELant (found USS SCORPION, ran transponder OPS for the USNS MIZAR, and surveyed the area), Bremerhaven, Amsterdam, Plymouth

6. 21 Jan-25 May 69 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- NELant (Bay of Biscay, Atlantic Voyageur, GibStraits), Bayonne, Lisbon, Lisbon, Belfast, Rota

7. 15 Jun-25 Aug 69 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- WestMed and NELant (GibStraits), Livorno, Livorno, Rota, Glasgow

8. 26 Dec 69-26 Jan 70 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NELant (Faeroes, G/I/UK Gap, Atlantic Voyageur), Edinburgh, Hoboken

9. 25 May-31 Jul 70 USNS DUTTON- grunt- Arctic (Eastern Iceland through Jan Mayan Ridge, Bluenose), Trondheim, Amsterdam, Belfast, Chatham

10. 1 Feb-15 Apr 71 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NELant (Maury Seachannel, Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone, Rockall Plateau), Newcastle, Newcastle, Newcastle, Newcastle, Southampton

11. 20 Mar-12 May 72 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NLant (Atlantic Voyageur; GibStraits), Norfolk, Rota, Rota

12. 10 Dec 72-18 Jan 73 USNS DUTTON- grunt- WestMed, Barcelona, Barcelona, Barcelona

13. 17 Jan-30 Mar 75 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NLant (found TITANIC for Bob Ballard, Azores Platform, Atlantic Voyageur), Brooklyn, Baltimore, Norfolk, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Ponta Delgada

14. 25 Oct-23 Dec 77 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NEPac (Gulf of Alaska), Seattle, Seattle, Seattle

15. 5 Jul-8 Sep 78 USNS DUTTON- Hydroplot Supervisor- NEPac (Gulf of Alaska, exploratory- Golden Dragon), Seattle, Seattle, Honolulu

16. 27 Jul-6 Oct 79 USNS DUTTON- Hydroplot Supervisor- NPac (Emperor Seamounts- Golden Dragon), Yokosuka, Honolulu, Honolulu

17. 31 Dec 80-22 Jan 81 USNS DUTTON- Hydroplot Supervisor- NEPac (Gulf of Alaska), Port Hueneme, San Francisco

18. 10-29 May 82 USNS KANE- visiting scientist- Gulf of Mexico (Yucatan Straits), Gulfport, Port Everglades

19. 25 Jun-2 Sep 82 USNS DUTTON- Senior Scientist- NPac (Surveyor, Mendocino, and Murray Fracture Zones and Musicians Seamounts), Honolulu, Honolulu, Honolulu

20. 26 Sep-1 Dec 83 USNS DUTTON- Senior Scientist- NWPac (Emperor Seamounts, Western extensions of Surveyor and Mendocino Fracture Zones- Golden Dragon), Honolulu, Yokosuka, Guam

21. 11 May-2 Jun 84 R/V KANA KEOKI- visiting scientist- NWPac (Mariana Trough and Bonin Ridge), Guam, Chichijima

22. 23 Nov-24 Dec 85 USNS HESS- Senior Scientist- Lant (Romanche Fracture Zone and Mid-Atlantic Ridge- Shellback), Curacao, Curacao

23. 25 May-31 Jul 87 USNS HESS- Senior Scientist- NEPac (Murray Fracture Zone, Fieberling and Erben Seamounts), San Diego, San Diego, Portland

24. 12 Jun-18 Aug 88 USNS HESS- Senior Scientist- SLant (Romanche, Charcot, and Ascension Fracture Zones, Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and exploratory lines- Shellback), Curacao, Roosevelt Roads, Rio de Janiero, Rio de Janiero

25. 29-30 Mar 96 USS WEST VIRGINIA- Tiger cruise- NWLant- King's Bay

26. 25 Aug-24 Oct 97 USNS SUMNER- grunt- WPac (SChinaSea, Straits of Johor and Luzon), Singapore, Singapore, Yokohama

 

Fun-in-the-Sun Things: worked on the JOIDES/USSAC Seamount Working Group for the Ocean Drilling Program; reviewed many NSF and ONR proposals during the 1980s and 1990s; was selected to get classified SASS bathymetry published in the 1970s, my part initially being guyots; moved into subduction zones and fracture zones by the mid-1980s; discovered orthogonally intersecting fracture zones in 1990, lack of deep earthquakes at subduction zones in 1991; adopted surge tectonic hypothesis for all writing in 1994; kept publishing after retirement, including the two books on ocean floor geomorphology; other papers published on anthropology

 

Honors: Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, 4th Edition (Marquis; 1998)

Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, 5th Edition (Marquis; 2000)

Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century (International Biographical

Centre; 2000)

 

PAPERS:

 

1. Smoot, N.C., 1980. Interpretation of Deep Sea Sounding Data, Technical Papers of the American Congress of Surveying and Mapping, Fall Tech. Meeting, pp. MS‑2‑D‑1‑10.

2. Smoot, N.C., 1981. Multi‑beam sonar surveys of guyots of the Gulf of Alaska, Marine Geology, Vol. 43, N. 3-4, pp. M87‑M94, (also translated into Chinese and published in Haiyang Dizhi Yu Disiji Dizhi Qingdao).

3. Smoot, N.C., 1982. Guyots of the Mid‑Emperor chain: swath mapped with multi‑ beam sonar, Marine Geology, Vol. 47, pp. 153‑163.

4. Smoot, N.C., 1982. Northern Hess Rise extended by multi‑beam sonar, Tectonophysics, Vol. 89, pp. T27‑T32.

5. Smoot, N.C., 1983. Guyots of the Dutton Ridge at the Bonin/ Mariana trench juncture as shown by multi‑beam surveys, Journal of Geology, Vol. 91, pp. 211‑220.

6. Smoot, N.C., 1983. Ogasawara Plateau: multi‑beam sonar bathymetry and possible tectonic implications, Journal of Geology, Vol. 92, pp. 591‑598.

7. Smoot, N.C., 1983. Ninigi and Godaigo Seamounts: Twins of the Emperor chain by multi‑beam sonar, Tectonophysics, Vol. 98, pp. T1‑T5.

8. Smoot, N.C., 1983. Detailed bathymetry of guyot summits in the North Pacific by multi‑beam sonar, Surveying and Mapping, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 53‑60.

9. Smoot, N.C., 1984. Multi‑beam surveys of the Michelson Ridge guyots: subduction or obduction, In: Convergence and Subduction, T.W.C. Hilde and S. Uyeda, eds., Tectonophysics, Vol. 99, pp. 363‑380.

10. Smoot, N.C., 1984. Guyots and tectonics of the Mid‑Emperor chain, In: Proceedings of the 27th International Geological Congress, Vol. 6, Geology of Ocean Basins (VNU Science Press, Utrecht), pp. 135‑152.

11. Stern, R.J., Smoot, N.C., and Rubin, M., 1984. Unzipping of the volcano arc: implications for the evolution of back‑arc basins, In: R.L. Carlson and K. Kobayashi (eds), Geodynamics of backarc regions, Tectonophysics, Vol. 102, pp. 153‑174.

12. Vogt, P.R. and Smoot, N.C., 1984. The Geisha Guyots: multi‑beam bathymetry and morphometric interpretation, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 89, No. B13, pp. 11,085‑11,107.

13. Fryer, P. and Smoot, N.C., 1985. Processes of seamount subduction in the Mariana and Izu‑Bonin trenches, Marine Geology, Vol. 64, pp. 77‑90.

14. Smoot, N.C., 1985. Guyots and seamount morphology and tectonics of the Hawaiian‑Emperor elbow, Marine Geology, Vol. 64, pp. 203‑215.

15. Smoot, N.C., and Lowrie, A., 1985. Emperor Fracture Zone morphology by multi‑ beam sonar, Journal of Geology, Vol. 93, pp. 196‑204.

16. Smoot, N.C., 1985. Observations on Gulf of Alaska seamount chains by multi‑beam sonar, Tectonophysics, Vol. 115, pp. 235‑246.

17. Smoot, N.C., and Sharman, G.F., 1985. Charlie‑Gibbs: a fracture zone ridge, In: G.F. Sharman, III and J. Francheteau (eds), Oceanic Lithosphere, Tectonophysics, Vol. 116, pp. 137‑142.

18. Smoot, N.C., Delaine, K., and Gregory, R.L., 1985. A 3‑D model of Nintoku Guyot to predict paleo‑island morphology, ACSM Bulletin, pp. 23‑27.

19. Lowrie, A., Smoot, N.C., and Batiza, R., 1986. Are oceanic fracture zones locked and strong or weak ?: New evidence for volcanic activity and weakness, Geology, Vol. 14, pp. 242‑245.

20. Smoot, N.C. and Heffner, K.J., 1986. Bathymetry and possible tectonic interaction of the Uyeda Ridge with its environment, Tectonophysics, Vol. 124, pp. 23‑36.

21. Smoot, N.C., 1986. Seamounts by SASS‑chains through forearc seamounts, In: Proceedings MDS '86, Gulf Coast Marine Technology Society, pp. 470‑477.

22. Smoot, N.C. and Richardson, D.B., 1988. Multi‑beam based 3D geomorphology of the Ogasawara Plateau region, Marine Geology, Vol. 79, pp. 141‑147.

23. Smoot, N.C., 1988. The growth rate of submarine volcanoes on the South Honshu and East Mariana ridges, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol. 35, pp. 1‑15.

24. Epp, D. and Smoot, N.C., 1989. Distribution of seamounts in the North Atlantic, Nature, Vol. 337, pp. 254‑257.

25. Stern, R.J., Bloomer, S.H., Lin, P‑N., and Smoot, N.C. 1989. Submarine arc volcanism in the southern Mariana arc as an ophiolite analogue, Tectonophysics, Vol. 168, pp. 151‑170.

26. Smoot, N.C., 1989. The Marcus‑Wake seamounts and guyots as paleofracture indicators and their relation to the Dutton Ridge, Marine Geology, Vol. 88, pp. 117‑131.

27. Smoot, N.C., 1989. North Atlantic fracture-zone distribution and patterns shown by multibeam sonar, Geology, Vol. 17, pp. 1119‑1122.

28. Bloomer, S.H., Stern, R.J., and Smoot, N.C., 1989. Physical volcanology of the submarine Mariana and Volcano arcs, Bulletin of Volcanology, Vol. 51, pp. 210‑224.

29. Smoot, N.C., 1990. Mariana Trough morphology by multi‑beam sonar, Geo‑Marine Letters, Vol. 10, pp. 137‑144.

30. Smoot, N.C., 1990. North Atlantic fracture-zone distribution and patterns shown by multibeam sonar (Reply), Geology, Vol. 18, pp. 912‑914.

31. Smoot, N.C., 1991. The growth rate of submarine volcanoes on the South Honshu and East Mariana Ridges (Reply), Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol. 45, pp. 341‑345.

32. Smoot, N.C., 1991. The Mariana Trench convergent margin at the Magellan Seamounts: tectonics and geomorphology, Marine Technology Society '91 Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 85‑91.

33. Smoot, N.C., and King, R.E., 1992. Three‑dimensional surface geomorphology of submarine landslides on NW Pacific plate guyots, Geomorphology, Vol. 6, pp. 151‑174.

34. Smoot, N.C. and Meyerhoff, A.A., 1995. Tectonic fabric of the North Atlantic Ocean floor: speculation vs. reality, Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 207-222.

35. Smoot, N.C., 1995. Mass wasting and subaerial weathering in guyot formation: the Hawaiian and Canary Ridges as examples, Geomorphology, Vol. 14, pp. 29-41.

36. Smoot, N.C., 1995. The Chinook Trough: a trans-Pacific fracture zone, in: Proceedings of the Third Thematic Conference on Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, Vol. II, pp. 539-550.

37. Smoot, N.C., 1997. Seafloor fabric and surge tectonics, Proceedings of the Fourth Thematic Conference for Remote Sensing in Marine and Coastal Environments, Vol. II, pp. 518-527.

38. Smoot, N.C., 1997. Aligned aseismic buoyant highs, across-trench deformation, clustered volcanoes, and deep earthquakes are not aligned with the current plate-tectonic theory,Geomorphology, Vol. 18, Nos. 3/4, pp. 199-222.

39. Smoot, N.C. and King, R.E., 1997. The Darwin Rise demise: The western Pacific guyot heights trace the trans-Pacific Mendocino Fracture Zone, Geomorphology, Vol. 18, Nos. 3/4, pp. 223-236.

40. Smoot, N.C., 1997. Earthquakes at convergent margins, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 4, pp. 10-12.

41. Smoot, N.C. and Leybourne, B.A., 1997. Vortex structures on the world-encircling vortex street: Case study of the South Adriatic basin, Marine Technology Society Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 21-35.

42. Smoot, N.C., 1997. Magma floods, microplates, and orthogonal intersections, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 5, pp. 8-13.

43. Leybourne, B.A. and Smoot, N.C., 1997. Ocean basin structural trends based on GEOSAT altimetry data, in: Ocean Technology at Stennis Space Center: Proceedings of the Gulf Coast Chapter Marine Technology Society, pp. 135-140.

44. Smoot, N.C. and Murchison, R.R., 1998. Deep-ocean technology, bathymetry, and tectonics, Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Concepts in Global Tectonics, pp. 178-183.

45. Smoot, N.C. and Leybourne, B.A., 1998. Remotely sensed data contribute to the paradigm shift of ocean basin tectonics: the Banda Sea vortex structure as an example, Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Concepts in Global Tectonics, pp. 262-267.

46. Smoot, N.C., 1998. The trans-Pacific Chinook Trough megatrend, Geomorphology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 333-351.

47. Stern, R.J. and Smoot, N.C., 1998. A bathymetric overview of the Mariana forearc. In: R.J. Stern and M. Arima (eds), Special Issue: Geophysical and Geochemical Studies of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc System, The Island Arc, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 525-540.

48. Smoot, N.C., 1998. Multibeam bathymetry and the public, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 8, pp. 4-8.

49. Smoot, N.C., 1998. WNW-ESE Pacific lineations, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 9, pp. 7-11.

50. Smoot, N.C., 1999. An appeal for using some sense, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 13, pp. 23-25.

51. Smoot, N.C., 1999. Orthogonal intersections of megatrends in the Mesozoic Pacific Ocean basin: a case study of the Mid-Pacific Mountains, Geomorphology, Vol. 30, pp. 323-356.

52. Smoot, N.C., 2000. The Darwin phoenix rises yet again. New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, Vol. 14, pp. 2-4.

53. Smoot, N.C., 2001. Ocean Survey Program (OSP) bathymetry history: Jousting with tectonic windmills. In: J.M. Dickins, A.K. Dubey, D.R. Choi, and Y. Fujita (eds) Special Volume on New Concepts in Global Tectonics, Himalayan Geology, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 65-80.

54. Leybourne, B.A. and Smoot, N.C., 2001. Surge hypothesis implies gravitational teleconnection of tectonics to climate: El Nino and the central Pacific geostream/jet-stream. In: J.M. Dickins, A.K. Dubey, D.R. Choi, and Y. Fujita (eds) Special Volume on New Concepts in Global Tectonics, Himalayan Geology, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 139-152.

55. Smoot, N.C. and Leybourne, B.A., 2001. The Central Pacific Megatrend. International Geology Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 341-365.

56. Smoot, N.C., 2001. Earth geodynamics hypotheses updated. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 465-494.

57. Smoot, N.C., 2001. Fingernails, GPS, and Pacific basin closure. New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 21, pp. 24-25. This one was also reprinted in The Australian Geologist, No. 123, June 2002.

58. Smoot, N.C. and Choi, D.R., 2003. The North Pacific Megatrend, International Geology Review. Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 346-370.

 

 

Yeah, that should cover it.

 

 

Now it is your job to prove that there really is a problem. Or as you put it "a discrepancy". You cannot just throw out words like "technical", "accurate","clear", "discrepancy". They do not convince scientists. Scientists prefer to see data.

 

Well, I'm not a scientist. So you won't see much data here. But a model that makes clear predictions of observations is better than a pile of data that is ambiguous. Plume theory is drowning in data, but poor in predictions. Why is that, shouldn't it according to your claim take all that data and make a pile of predictions? Where are they. It is data rich, predictions of observations poor.

 

I'd like to introduce you to something that's missing in plume theory, but has made a home in my model.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate.

Empirical

Occam's razor has gained strong empirical support as far as helping to converge on better theories.

In the related concept of overfitting, excessively complex models are affected by statistical noise (a problem also known as the bias-variance trade-off), whereas simpler models may capture the underlying structure better and may thus have better predictive performance.

 

"whereas simpler models may capture the underlying structure better and may thus have better PREDICTIVE performance."

 

At this point in the development of this hypothesis it would seem that the model is both simple and adequate at it's predictive abilities. It would appear to be more than obvious that it should continue to be worked and strengthened.

 

I'll give you a recipe for what would convince me there is a problem:

(1) take a recognised database of plate boundaries

(2) take a recognised model of plate motion (a good one would be HS3 NUVEL 1a (Gripp and Gordan 2002))

(3) integrate the convergent plate motion along the length of all convergent margins.

(4) integrate the divergent plate motion along the length of all divergent plate boundaries.

(5) show that they do not balance.

 

That would probably be a day's work for me. (i.e. something I'm not prepared to do when I have real science that needs doing for publication in real journals.)

 

Oh, there's the problem, applying unneeded complexity to everything you examine. I just like the old fashioned ways of Darwin, J Harlen Bretz, and others that emphasized field observations. Google Earth has given me a very valuable field research tool.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The plates are already in an arched formation due to the Earth's curvature.

 

Curved, yes.

 

Arched, I would like to explore further. There is a big difference between arched and curved in my book.

 

An arch is a purely compression structure that cannot support tension. Its unique claim to fame is that it transposes transverse loads to circumferential compression, so long as there is a compressive reaction at both ends. That is it rotates the line of action of the load through 90 degrees.

 

If you have tension at one end of a plate due to an opening (a trench?) and compression at the other due to a closing how do you achieve arching action?

 

I'm not saying it doesn't happen I'm saying you need to think this aspect through in more detail.

 

In particular an arch has compression on the underside, whereas a beam has tension on the underside.

If you are clever, or conditions are suitable, you can arrange for full or partial cancellation of one by the other.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Curved, yes.

 

Arched, I would like to explore further. There is a big difference between arched and curved in my book.

 

An arch is a purely compression structure that cannot support tension. Its unique claim to fame is that it transposes transverse loads to circumferential compression, so long as there is a compressive reaction at both ends. That is it rotates the line of action of the load through 90 degrees.

 

If you have tension at one end of a plate due to an opening (a trench?) and compression at the other due to a closing how do you achieve arching action?

 

I'm not saying it doesn't happen I'm saying you need to think this aspect through in more detail.

 

In particular an arch has compression on the underside, whereas a beam has tension on the underside.

If you are clever, or conditions are suitable, you can arrange for full or partial cancellation of one by the other.

 

 

Read through my description again, you will see that the trench end and the divergent ridge edge both attain the same forces during the cycle's transitions. The plate is slowly supported from beneath causing tension, then slowly unsupported from beneath causing compression into the trench and at the divergent ridge, which in turn leverages the plate into the trench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I don't see this.

 

Take an uninflated balloon.

 

The skin is floppy since it is in neither tension nor compression.

 

Now blow it up. The outward radial forces due to the pressure lead to tension in the skin.

The balloon takes on a round shape, with radius and tension increasing with pressure.

 

Now let some air out to reduce some pressure.

 

This does not lead to compression, merely a reduction of tension.

 

In fact you can reduce the pressure all the way back to zero without introducing compression.

 

Now inflate the balloon again and then stick some plates to the outside surface of the balloon, so that there are gaps betweeen the plate edges.

 

Again partially deflate the balloon to simulate mantle shrinking.

 

The object will shrink and two plate edges will eventually touch.

At this stage this introduces neither longitudinal tension nor compression into the plates.

 

Further shrinking will introduce a reaction force between the two plate edges in contact, but this will only serve to nudge the two plates aside, it will not yet introduce internal longitudinal forces in the plates.

 

Now reduce the pressure still further and eventually one of the plates will encounter a second plate edge.

 

This still will not induce longitudinal forces as the other edge of the third plate is still free to move so can be pushed aside.

 

Further pressure reduction will eventually lead to a complete ring of plates and at this point pressure reduction starts to induce longitudinal compression forces in the plate ring.

 

The plates now have several possible actions or even a combination them.

 

They can hinge, thrusting the junction of two plates outwards.

 

They can squash.

 

Overlap can occur.

 

They they increase their curvature pushing outwards a section of plate between the plate junctions. This is presumably what you mean by arching.

 

This simplistic picture is complicated by any shear forces between the surface of the ballon (mantle surface) and the plates.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(7)* So, we went over this. You didn't read the whole post, you made an erroneous claim, I showed you were mistaken, you admitted it in post #122

 

Arc, you are really unbelievable. Let's review the timeline:

 

1) I asked you for the change in Earth's radius needed for your theory.

2) you gave the number 500 km (+ a load of incomprehensible waffle.)

3) I used the number 500 km to show that the required change in Earth volume to account for this radius change was greater than the volume of Earth's core. i.e. your theory fell through the ground.

4) you then stated that actually the 500 km was for the circumference change in Earth, NOT the radius! (even though that was not what I asked for)

5) I got a bit peeved that you couldn't answer a simple question with a straight answer and "admitted" that I was "mistaken" (I would rephrase that to: I conceded that you might have actually meant the circumference rather than radius and perhaps you got confused and perhaps made an honest mistake, and therefore I would need to revisit the numbers.)

6) I revisited the numbers -- this time using the 500 km as the CIRCUMFERENCE of the Earth and found that the core would need to DRAMATICALLY change its volume (shrinking by 25% at a conservative estimate).

7) You sweep away my criticism with the above remark.

 

WHAT DO WE LEARN? Either you don't know the difference between the radius and the circumference of a circle, or you are succumbing to the logical downfall of your argument and you have nothing left to do but use diversion tactics.

 

 

 

Well, I don't see a problem here, your lack of knowledge regarding the model leads you to make continuous erroneous challenges. But look on the bright side, someone is giving you up votes for being wrong! smile.png

 

Have you ever considered the possibility -- for even a second -- that you might be the one who is wrong?

 

N. Christian Smoot

PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND:

Employed by the Ocean Survey Program of the US Naval Oceanographic Office 1966-1975, 1977-1998- career consisted of 20 years of deep-ocean data collection (took 67 cruises and logged over 600,000 nautical miles at sea) in bathymetry, gravity, magnetics, and physical oceanography; progressing through state of the art technology of data collection from hand surveying and processing methods to full computer suite including transponders, inertial navigation, Transit and GPS satellite navigation, LORAN-C and Omega; single-beam sonar; SASS, Seabeam, and Simrad multibeam sonars; SeaMARC II side-scan sonar; sound velocity studies using Nansen casts, salinometers, Niskin samplers, and expendable bathythermo-graphs; found missing submarine, USS SCORPION, in June 1968; was senior scientist from 1981 until 1988–30 years of office work consisted of data compilation of thousands of point charts and a couple of hundred regional charts over the years, training others including updating the training manual four times, many special projects, and publishing results; 34 feature names accepted by US Board on Geographic Names; retired April 1998 with 18 work-related awards

*** THIS IS UPPOSED TO BE THE END OF THE QUOTE *** (The editor on this forum seems really buggy -- I can't fix these quote boxes)

So this is in response to my finding some numbers that didn't agree with yours You are here displaying blatantly obvious:

(1) Authority fallacy. (except your authority is less of an authority than you seem to think)

(2) Cherry picking.

 

Do I need to elaborate?

 

 

 

Well, I'm not a scientist.

 

Clearly!

 

 

 

I'd like to introduce you to something that's missing in plume theory, but has made a home in my model.

whereas simpler models may capture the underlying structure better and may thus have better PREDICTIVE performance."

At this point in the development of this hypothesis it would seem that the model is both simple and adequate at it's predictive abilities. It would appear to be more than obvious that it should continue to be worked and strengthened.

Oh, there's the problem, applying unneeded complexity to everything you examine. I just like the old fashioned ways of Darwin, J Harlen Bretz, and others that emphasized field observations. Google Earth has given me a very valuable field research tool.

Comparing yourself to the likes of Newton and Darwin. You do realise this is absolutely classic, this will launch you way up the crackpot index.

Edited by billiards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I don't see this.

 

Take an uninflated balloon.

 

The skin is floppy since it is in neither tension nor compression.

 

Now blow it up. The outward radial forces due to the pressure lead to tension in the skin.

The balloon takes on a round shape, with radius and tension increasing with pressure.

 

Now let some air out to reduce some pressure.

 

This does not lead to compression, merely a reduction of tension.

 

In fact you can reduce the pressure all the way back to zero without introducing compression.

 

Now inflate the balloon again and then stick some plates to the outside surface of the balloon, so that there are gaps betweeen the plate edges.

 

Again partially deflate the balloon to simulate mantle shrinking.

 

The object will shrink and two plate edges will eventually touch.

At this stage this introduces neither longitudinal tension nor compression into the plates.

 

Further shrinking will introduce a reaction force between the two plate edges in contact, but this will only serve to nudge the two plates aside, it will not yet introduce internal longitudinal forces in the plates.

 

Now reduce the pressure still further and eventually one of the plates will encounter a second plate edge.

 

This still will not induce longitudinal forces as the other edge of the third plate is still free to move so can be pushed aside.

 

Further pressure reduction will eventually lead to a complete ring of plates and at this point pressure reduction starts to induce longitudinal compression forces in the plate ring.

 

The plates now have several possible actions or even a combination them.

 

They can hinge, thrusting the junction of two plates outwards.

 

They can squash.

 

Overlap can occur.

 

They they increase their curvature pushing outwards a section of plate between the plate junctions. This is presumably what you mean by arching.

 

This simplistic picture is complicated by any shear forces between the surface of the ballon (mantle surface) and the plates.

 

The tension I refer to is due to one edged of the plate being placed in a trench and held stationary. As the mantle slowly displaces outward the plate will be required to move independent (to slip, or to slide if you prefer) in relation to the increasing mantle circumference. This contact friction between these two differentiated materials will provide tension in the plate. An interesting prediction of this observation is that the Mariana Trench is the deepest trench in the world and happens to be subducting the widest expanse of ocean plate, the Pacific. If the model is correct, the friction between the displacing mantle and the fixed plate will provide a degree of tension proportional to the plates width. This is the traction that pulls the trench open. The widest plates should provide for the deepest trenches. And by this the narrower the plate, the lesser the tension applied, and the resultant trench depth should moderate accordingly. This plate tension prediction is additionally supported by the physical arc shape that the trenches and their accompanying island arcs attain. This appears to be the case, by the way, around the world.

 

While the tension is being applied to the plate, with the greatest degree at the fixed trench end and reducing proportionally the farther you measure away from it, the divergent edge will be moving or diverging at speeds proportionate to the plate width. Again, the Pacific, being the widest from its fixed point, has the fastest spreading rates in the world, 80 - 120 mm a year, providing another prediction of this model. The divergent edges movement is of coarse accompanied by continuous infill of magma at the ridge axis, the total of which will later equate the degree of compression and by that the gravitational potential energy the plate will attain in proportion to the degree of the mantles subsidence.

 

I hope this more detailed and predictive explanation will clear up many misconceptions people have to this very accurate model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This thesis is really defined by the surface observations. In the current model the divergent plate boundaries gradual movement apart from each other is equaled by the plates subduction into trenches somewhere else. But in reality there is half as many kilometers of trenches as there is divergent boundaries. This discrepancy needs to be solved. This model does this through extending the subduction period by storing this energy as raised mass, put there as the mantle subsides and the plates are loaded like a arch between the newest divergent infill and the trenches resistance to subduction.

 

According to the model the infill is a measured increase of the Earth's circumference, which gives an accurate figure of displacement of the mantle. This mantle surface increase is in proportion to, and dependent on, the mantle's thickness. There is a type of mechanical energy transfer involved. Not unlike what gears accomplish in a transmission. So the thermal expansion of the outer core applies a type of leverage to convert an infinitesimal variation of circumference at the outer core/mantle boundary to measurable movement at the divergent plate boundaries.

 

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 ( the magnetic field generator's molten iron's thermal expansion) 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.

I'll try again. Do the subduction and sea floor creation occur simultaneously, or largely at separate times, in your model?

 

Your answer above has some implications as to the answer, but introduces ambiguities, and is certainly not a simple, direct answer. Please provide one now. When you have written it, please review it to ensure it is simple and direct, or amend as necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try again. Do the subduction and sea floor creation occur simultaneously, or largely at separate times, in your model?

 

Your answer above has some implications as to the answer, but introduces ambiguities, and is certainly not a simple, direct answer. Please provide one now. When you have written it, please review it to ensure it is simple and direct, or amend as necessary.

 

Glad to.

 

Yes, they do occur simultaneously.

 

The divergent boundary activity that is now currently seen is due to this current outer core thermal increase period. This is currently seen at the margins of the largest plates as divergent plate infill. The current rate of mantle displacement is gradually removing much of that gravitational potential energy of the crust, energy that is currently in the form of stored raised mass that produces compression in the crust and the currently observed subduction. As the mantle continues to displace outward much of this crustal compression from the last subsidence will be decreased before it can bleed away as subduction into the trenches. As stated before, the large difference between convergence and divergence boundaries requires mitigation through some means, this model accomplishes this by the short term storage of these plates as raised mass.

 

There is much overlap in this process, there is not as one might think a clear change from divergent and subduction modes. They are overlapped with each other and with each ones outcome quite dependent on the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arc, given your lack of response to my serious criticisms of your theory (post #146), are we to take it that you have admitted defeat?

 

To any readers who still have their doubts that the theory is debunked. If a theory requires extremely elaborate basic physics, of the likes never seen before, just to reconcile it with the basic geometry -- what is the likelihood that the theory is correct? Add the fact that the theory has seemingly come from nowhere, based entirely on the intuition of a non-expert. (Human intuition is a notoriously bad guide for discovering nature -- cf quantum mechanics.) What now are the odds that theory is correct? One in a million? One in a billion? One in a trillion?

 

This is a theory that is supposed to explain plate tectonics, but the theory has so much missing. For example I have not seen a single sentence that explains how this theory explains the kinematics of plate movement. That is the fundamental tenet of plate tectonics, that the plates move in solid body rotations about Euler poles. And there is a wealth of evidence to show that this theory holds, at least to first order. All of this is simply ignored in this theory. Now what are the odds that this theory is correct? One in a quadrillion?

 

Basically the chances of this random theory being correct are about as high as any old theory that you or I could make up tomorrow after a couple of pints in the pub. It's good for a laugh but that's about it.

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.