# Plate tectonic mechanism ?

## Recommended Posts

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.

Let us wait for other experts to analyze the work. Simply one user, like you, who we don't know has an actual degree in geology or geophysics(unless you present the evidence of such) or not and hasn't really, if at all, presented any evidence against the theory.

Therefore, simply declaring this theory, or hypothesis if you will, debunked should be left for us all to decide. I feel you have just said most of the time "This theory is wrong because of reasons without evidence or very little evidence that destroys the whole concept."

Again, let's wait for others to analyze it so there can be more, serious analysis done by people with either expertise in the field or who have presented enough evidence to make the conclusion that it is either true of false.

Edited by Unity+

##### Share on other sites

Let us wait for other experts to analyze the work. Simply one user, like you, who we don't know has an actual degree in geology or geophysics(unless you present the evidence of such) or not and hasn't really, if at all, presented any evidence against the theory.

Therefore, simply declaring this theory, or hypothesis if you will, debunked should be left for us all to decide. I feel you have just said most of the time "This theory is wrong because of reasons without evidence or very little evidence that destroys the whole concept."

Again, let's wait for others to analyze it so there can be more, serious analysis done by people with either expertise in the field or who have presented enough evidence to make the conclusion that it is either true of false.

Thank you Unity, I do not worry much about such criticisms at this time. The other contenders for this mystery lack even one direct observable prediction of surface phenomena. This has been the norm for so long that geophysics has assumed the answer must involve solutions of continually increasing complexity. It has fallen into the trap of "We just need an even bigger computer to run our models". Where are the predictions for all of the time and money spent! Any critic needs to show their own solution, their predictions of observations that are superior to the one they criticize so easily. You notice the lack of divulging a competing idea, the reason is they are so convoluted and complex that they cannot be described without sounding far fetched and even crazy. Plume theory is so over done and under preforming that if it was part of a research and development in the private sector it would have been shelved long ago. When they come to one of the continually appearing difficulties they simply invent an individualized mechanism for a solution and move ahead. What are the odds that mantle plume is correct?

" What now are the odds that theory is correct? One in a million? One in a billion? One in a trillion?"

My model is simple by comparison, its mechanism is far less tenuous than plume theory and it makes a series of very accurate predictions of observations. That is a troubling problem to some who may have spent many wasted years chasing the ghost of mantle plumes. It may be time to put up or shut up for those who have not a superior model.

Edited by arc

##### Share on other sites

Let us wait for other experts to analyze the work. Simply one user, like you, who we don't know has an actual degree in geology or geophysics(unless you present the evidence of such) or not and hasn't really, if at all, presented any evidence against the theory.

Therefore, simply declaring this theory, or hypothesis if you will, debunked should be left for us all to decide. I feel you have just said most of the time "This theory is wrong because of reasons without evidence or very little evidence that destroys the whole concept."

Again, let's wait for others to analyze it so there can be more, serious analysis done by people with either expertise in the field or who have presented enough evidence to make the conclusion that it is either true of false.

Unity,

The plates moved because there is a giant ant colony living in the mantle and they carry the plates on their backs. They live about 200 km deep and eat their way through the mantle material. They are evolved to withstand the tremendous pressure and temperatures found down there and never come up to the surface which is why we don't see them. They eat through the mantle leaving behind a soft residue thus -- my model predicts the existence of the asthenosphere -- this is a simple, accurate prediction not made by any of the competing theories. They converge at subduction zones to mate, and this process drags the plates behind them opening up rifts forming the new oceanic lithosphere.

Now I open it up to the floor for someone to PROVE my theory wrong. Until it has been proven wrong please give it the respect it deserves and treat it seriously. I have not done any number crunching here, but I have provided the skeletal framework for how the Earth works and have completely laid the groundwork for future generations. I believe my contribution to the field is complete. I leave it to others to fill in the details. My theory must be right because it is simple (note to self: insert patronising link to Occam's razor). My theory will be ignored by many experts but this is what happens when a genius like myself steps onto the scene from nowhere and shakes things up, I'm rather like the Einstein of the earth sciences and there will be people who will not like it. This is actually why my theory cannot be published, because it is being suppressed by the aristocracy who wish to hang onto their thrones.

##### Share on other sites

Unity,

The plates moved because there is a giant ant colony living in the mantle and they carry the plates on their backs. They live about 200 km deep and eat their way through the mantle material. They are evolved to withstand the tremendous pressure and temperatures found down there and never come up to the surface which is why we don't see them. They eat through the mantle leaving behind a soft residue thus -- my model predicts the existence of the asthenosphere -- this is a simple, accurate prediction not made by any of the competing theories. They converge at subduction zones to mate, and this process drags the plates behind them opening up rifts forming the new oceanic lithosphere.

Now I open it up to the floor for someone to PROVE my theory wrong. Until it has been proven wrong please give it the respect it deserves and treat it seriously. I have not done any number crunching here, but I have provided the skeletal framework for how the Earth works and have completely laid the groundwork for future generations. I believe my contribution to the field is complete. I leave it to others to fill in the details. My theory must be right because it is simple (note to self: insert patronising link to Occam's razor). My theory will be ignored by many experts but this is what happens when a genius like myself steps onto the scene from nowhere and shakes things up, I'm rather like the Einstein of the earth sciences and there will be people who will not like it. This is actually why my theory cannot be published, because it is being suppressed by the aristocracy who wish to hang onto their thrones.

Given the choice you have between your plumes or your ants, I think you made your safest bet. But why don't you put up your predictions of observations for your plume's anyway. You seem to be avoiding sharing your models implied superior accuracy. Show us there is a clear and decisive difference. Occam's razor is a rather finicky tool isn't it. It doesn't like what cannot be simplified. Let's use it to dissect your plume theory. . . . . . Well, we are waiting.

##### Share on other sites

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.

I appreciate what you say, but that does not explain why or how a plate is held stationary in a trench or how it gets there in the first place.

I am trying to avoid being involved in the squabble over the 'theory of theories' that seems to be running in this thread and simply accept as a premise your theory that the mantle slowly expands and contracts slightly (without asking how or why) and see if the laws of mechanics applied to loosly attached 'plates' leads to the activities we observe.

In order to communcate this using the correct terminoliogy is important.

Further the material at even reasonable depth is under such a large compressive force that our usual surface mechanics do not apply directly. Often it is a question of partial unloading, just as with prestressed structures.

I think a few sketches of the mechanics of plates on expanding/contracting surfaces are in order.

I am really trying to help you get your story straight here for the court of inquiry

##### Share on other sites

I'd like to see some evidence that the amount of necessary energy could come from magnetic interactions between the Earth and the Sun, if you can't show that then the whole idea falls apart...

##### Share on other sites

I'd like to see some evidence that the amount of necessary energy could come from magnetic interactions between the Earth and the Sun, if you can't show that then the whole idea falls apart...

Well, I can see a correlation between Earthquake activity(movement of plates) and solar activity(which would cause fluctuations in the Sun's electromagnetic field).

In these graphs, in can be seen that has Solar activity had increased during 1996 and ongoing and in the same time span there was in increase in the movement of plates, or Earthquake activity.

It may not prove directly that the Sun's and Earth's electromagnetic field allow the energy of one to affect the other, but as many would know with two electromagnetic field there is something called the Lorentz Effect(please correct me if I got the wrong name of it) which involves to coils(Tesla coils if you will) which involves the connection of two Tesla coils and their electromagnetic fields. This allows the transfer of energy between the two coils, whether one is powered or not. This can cause one side two gain energy from the other that has an energy source, which is why you can power one object by the interaction between one Tesla coil with no power source and the Tesla coil that does have a power source, which allows the electromagnetic field interaction between the two Tesla coils.

The same property and effects could be occurring between the Sun and the Earth, where the Sun is a bigger power source which means the increase in Solar activity(solar flares, Sun spot increases) could be involves in the increase of Earthquake activity because the hypothesis Arc has presented here.

Just an idea.

Edited by Unity+

##### Share on other sites

Well, I can see a correlation between Earthquake activity(movement of plates) and solar activity(which would cause fluctuations in the Sun's electromagnetic field).

In these graphs, in can be seen that has Solar activity had increased during 1996 and ongoing and in the same time span there was in increase in the movement of plates, or Earthquake activity.

It may not prove directly that the Sun's and Earth's electromagnetic field allow the energy of one to affect the other, but as many would know with two electromagnetic field there is something called the Lorentz Effect(please correct me if I got the wrong name of it) which involves to coils(Tesla coils if you will) which involves the connection of two Tesla coils and their electromagnetic fields. This allows the transfer of energy between the two coils, whether one is powered or not. This can cause one side two gain energy from the other that has an energy source, which is why you can power one object by the interaction between one Tesla coil with no power source and the Tesla coil that does have a power source, which allows the electromagnetic field interaction between the two Tesla coils.

The same property and effects could be occurring between the Sun and the Earth, where the Sun is a bigger power source which means the increase in Solar activity(solar flares, Sun spot increases) could be involves in the increase of Earthquake activity because the hypothesis Arc has presented here.

Just an idea.

I understand the correlation but correlation does not equal causation, if the intense magnetic field and literal extreme high tension electrical current that runs between Io (I know you don't like the comparison Arc) and Jupiter is not of significance in the vulcanism on Io then I can't see the much weaker connection between the Earth and the Sun doing anything significant to the Earth.

I think this one things needs to be addressed before the idea can go forward...

Edited by Moontanman

##### Share on other sites

I understand the correlation but correlation does not equal causation, if the intense magnetic field and literal extreme high tension electrical current that runs between Io (I know you don't like the comparison Arc) and Jupiter is not of significance in the vulcanism on Io then I can't see the much weaker connection between the Earth and the Sun doing anything significant to the Earth.

I think this one things needs to be addressed before the idea can go forward...

The Image of the Sun has an uncanny similarity to The Dr Who performance at The Albert Hall 2 days ago. This is not trying to make light of the subject , but rather coincidental. !

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80227-dr-who-take-on-start-and-end-of-universe/

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

##### Share on other sites

I understand the correlation but correlation does not equal causation, if the intense magnetic field and literal extreme high tension electrical current that runs between Io (I know you don't like the comparison Arc) and Jupiter is not of significance in the vulcanism on Io then I can't see the much weaker connection between the Earth and the Sun doing anything significant to the Earth.

I think this one things needs to be addressed before the idea can go forward...

But then how can causation be proved then if the correlation is evident? Maybe the changes in the electromagnetic field and the changes in the Sun's magnetic field be evidence that there is causation? Or could an experiment be conducted where a simulation can be done, where there is an iron core representation that would be affected, according to the hypothesis, where there is an expansion due to the increase in energy of one Tesla coil, leading to the expansion of the iron core representation? It would be an experiment to consider, unless the amount of energy needed would be to drastic.

##### Share on other sites

But then how can causation be proved then if the correlation is evident? Maybe the changes in the electromagnetic field and the changes in the Sun's magnetic field be evidence that there is causation? Or could an experiment be conducted where a simulation can be done, where there is an iron core representation that would be affected, according to the hypothesis, where there is an expansion due to the increase in energy of one Tesla coil, leading to the expansion of the iron core representation? It would be an experiment to consider, unless the amount of energy needed would be to drastic.

Just showing there could be enough energy transferred from the Sun to the Earth through magnetic fields would be a start. magnetism is not magic and cannot be invoked with out some justification...

Edited by Moontanman

##### Share on other sites

Just showing there could enough energy being transferred from the Sun to the Earth through magnetic fields would be a start. magnetism is not magic and cannot be invoked with out some justification...

I'm not suggesting that magnetism is magic. I am simply providing ideas with some evidence of correlation, and maybe even causality. If I find evidence related to the amount of energy needed then I can provide some(unless Arc finds it first).

EDIT: Let's consider the following:

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/spring98/ast1002/sun/

So, from this source(and many other sources) the Sun produces $3.9\times 10^{26}$ Joules(or Watts per second). Now, from this piece of information, the same amount of energy(assuming that all the energy is in the electromagnetic field of the Sun) would be transferred through the electromagnetic field of the Earth(since we assume that the Earth's and Sun's electromagnetic fields interact with each other), which then is transferred to(if this is correct) the inner core of the Earth. Since the mass of the inner core, made out of both iron, nickle, and sulfur(on small scales), is $9.675\times 10^25$ grams, at least based on the source below. Please correct me on this if this is incorrect:

http://nineplanets.org/earth.html

Knowing this information, here is more information. Let us use the following equations of chemistry to determine if it is possible to use the Sun's energy from its electromagnetic field to expand the iron core from the thermal energy.

It may seem as if the amount of energy needed is too low for the amount displayed here. However, notice it only takes that amount of energy to increase the temperature from 0 to approximately 38 degrees Celsius.

If it were to increase exponentially, the Sun, would in fact, have enough energy to cause the effects referred to in the other post.

Now, I will expand on this post to show how much energy is needed to cause thermal expansion in the inner core of the Earth, which would in effect cause movement as stated in the other post.

Edited by Unity+

##### Share on other sites

I appreciate what you say, but that does not explain why or how a plate is held stationary in a trench or how it gets there in the first place.

I am trying to avoid being involved in the squabble over the 'theory of theories' that seems to be running in this thread and simply accept as a premise your theory that the mantle slowly expands and contracts slightly (without asking how or why) and see if the laws of mechanics applied to loosly attached 'plates' leads to the activities we observe.

That's quite all right, I enjoy this conversation we're having. Sorry about the length of this answer but you ask.

let's imagine several different scenarios that a crust like Earth's could be put into if such a subtle variation in the mantles outer boundary was possible. It must be understood that the crust is rather rigid and does not take tension stresses without fracturing. The mantle in contrast is flexible as it is slowly displaced outward and inward in periodic events of slow increase and decrease in circumference. As an illustration of what a crust would be subjected to, let's imagine we were to observe the Earth with a single crustal plate with no divergent or convergent boundaries. The first increase in the mantle would require at least one very large stress relieving fracture, and more likely would resemble the fractured shell of a hard boiled egg. So we have a reasonable example that the crust would fracture at it's weakest points to relieve the tension caused by the outward mantle displacement.

I think we now could expect, as these new fractures opened, magma would continually infill the voids as the crust slowly diverged. This model looks to be resembling the current divergent boundaries. Now let's say it has been in an extended period of outward displacement and all of the divergent boundaries have acquired an infill in proportion to the mantles displacement, now the cycle has changed and the mantle is beginning to recede while the crust is slowly loading with compression. As the mantle moves down it is incrementally leaving the crust unsupported, loading it up with gravitational potential energy as time passes. At some point the compression will overload a weak area in the crust. It would probably be an area of the crust that is thinner and maybe already has a fracture, such as a divergent plate boundary. As the compression reaches a critical point in the crust, the weak section fails, slowly folding and maybe even rupturing with the two sides bypassing each other. This would establish a convergent boundary with one plate subducting and the other overriding it, a reasonable prediction of observations.

As the mantle cycles, and the crustal extension and compression repeats, the subducted crust will be driven far under the other sections of crust. The first of many plates to become thicker from the fracturing and the subsequent overriding. At some point the crust reaches an equilibrium between the continental and ocean crust. The continental mass becomes to heavy to take any more subducted basement ocean plate. The continents eventually break apart, and the energies of the cycles can only compress so much rock until an ocean plate fractures and subducts next to the continent, angling down sharper than it did before it was jacked in under the first proto continent. A large composite continent is doomed in this model, it's thickness is unable to conform to the cycle's changes, and as the mantle displaces under it it's the center area is subjected to divergent stresses from the mantle's frictional energies. To see this modeled, take a balloon and put wet paper of varying lengths on it, slowly inflate and watch the longest lengths tear from the divergent stress. A nice prediction of continental breakup.

So now you have a stress fracture between two former halves of a continent. As the mantle displaces outward in each cycle the fracture gains infill, as this repeats the continent is slowly jacked apart and the rift is filled by the ocean. Currently this is happening in the Atlantic basin. The infill of the mid-ocean ridge is what is leveraging the North American continent over on top of the Pacific plate during the mantles subsidence. The immense compression of this process has subjected the Atlantic ridge to the weight of North America on one side and Eurasia on the other. As the mantle subsides these two massive continents have pushed the ocean floor towards the ridge, raising the divergent boundary into a much higher ridge structure than is common in most other locations. Another prediction of observation.

What will happen as the Atlantic continues to diverge and it widens? At some point the ocean plate portion adjacent to the continents will fracture from the stresses of the compression cycles and the tension of the outward displacement, the continually growing ridge edge adds increasing frictional drag during outward displacement, adding additional tension to the continental end with every cycle. At some point, maybe when the Atlantic is twice as wide, the ocean section will fracture and separate from the continents, establishing a convergent boundary trench like the Pacific has. As the ocean plates grow in width the trench will be pulled open in greater degrees as the enlarging plate applies increasing tension with every cycle.

This model has elements of a Wilson cycle. As the Atlantic widens the Pacific is reduced until it disappears when the opposing continents close.

I'd like to see some evidence that the amount of necessary energy could come from magnetic interactions between the Earth and the Sun, if you can't show that then the whole idea falls apart...

Not necessarily, this variable shown below is possible the change needed. Whether attributed to the Sun or not would not change it's causation if it can be attributed.

A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core.

Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy.

This article states that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2.

​ If this energy increase and decrease can be incorporated into the model as thermal expansion of the outer cores molten iron it could stand alone at this time, without the Suns causation of it.

And I keep posting this material below but you never respond to it, it shows evidence of solar magnetic induced warming of the planet.

http://www.igpp.ucla...CRUS1572507.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.

I made this real big so you can't miss it this time. This is mutual inductive coupling between a planet's field and it's moons, it seems very possible and even more likely than not to be occurring between our Sun and Earth when you consider the following evidence.

As I had noted, Bond showed a correlation between 14C content and the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, he then identified a link of these observations to the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic. According to my model this could be a result of a variability within the planet's already unaccounted heat flow.

Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times.

This is pretty clear that there is ample reason to suspect correlation between solar magnetic caused inductive coupling of the Earth's magnetic field generator and that of climate variability.

Then there is these graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content that track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Solar magnetic flux is the only mechanism controlling the 14C content and timing. The 10 million dollar question is why does this content follow very accurately the climate history of the last 1100 years, coincidence?

Image below courtesy of USGS

Image below modified by this author.

As you can see this is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, again this is not temperature shown here it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating magnetic field strength. (the 14C content is inverted) It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, it's content is inverted compared to the currently observed and debated temperature rise. An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux. The Sun's varying magnetic field is the only mechanism controlling 14C content and timing.

Now, for me to suggest there is a correlation between the solar magnetic field strength and the current abnormal temperature increase I will have to show evidence of extraordinarily unusual magnetic field strength that will correlate the 14C content in the graph with the atmospheric warming since The Little Ice Age.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years

Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.

S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4

1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany

2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland

3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

The researchers are limited by the current standard model to solar thermal radiation variability as the only possible cause. Their so close to the answer, even admitting a possible link between the unusual "rarity" of high sunspot numbers and "the unusual climate change during the twentieth century"

I leave it up to anyone to explain this data above. I also have a fit of climate variability to the Basin and Range extension (warm period) and the subsequent mountain building period that followed that was a cooler period in the geologic record. It is a nice fit and a valid prediction of observations.

Edited by arc

##### Share on other sites

let's imagine several different scenarios that a crust like Earth's could be put into if such a subtle variation in the mantles outer boundary was possible. It must be understood that the crust is rather rigid and does not take tension stresses without fracturing. The mantle in contrast is flexible as it is slowly displaced outward and inward in periodic events of slow increase and decrease in circumference. As an illustration of what a crust would be subjected to, let's imagine we were to observe the Earth with a single crustal plate with no divergent or convergent boundaries. The first increase in the mantle would require at least one very large stress relieving fracture, and more likely would resemble the fractured shell of a hard boiled egg. So we have a reasonable example that the crust would fracture at it's weakest points to relieve the tension caused by the outward mantle displacement.

I'm sorry this does not make sense.

You start the paragraph by saying the mantle is not rigid, but flexible.

You end the paragraph by claiming that the mantle must be subect to a 'stress relieving fracture'.

Surely these two statements oppose each other?

I am worried that plus the the rest of the paragraph suggests some unfamiliarity with mechanics, that I want to help you address.

So let me put up my sketches for discussion.

I promised some sketches (sorry I can't match your skill or resources with the colour diagrams) but they will suffice.

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites

That's quite all right, I enjoy this conversation we're having. Sorry about the length of this answer but you ask.

let's imagine several different scenarios that a crust like Earth's could be put into if such a subtle variation in the mantles outer boundary was possible. It must be understood that the crust is rather rigid and does not take tension stresses without fracturing. The mantle in contrast is flexible as it is slowly displaced outward and inward in periodic events of slow increase and decrease in circumference. As an illustration of what a crust would be subjected to, let's imagine we were to observe the Earth with a single crustal plate with no divergent or convergent boundaries. The first increase in the mantle would require at least one very large stress relieving fracture, and more likely would resemble the fractured shell of a hard boiled egg. So we have a reasonable example that the crust would fracture at it's weakest points to relieve the tension caused by the outward mantle displacement.

I think we now could expect, as these new fractures opened, magma would continually infill the voids as the crust slowly diverged. This model looks to be resembling the current divergent boundaries. Now let's say it has been in an extended period of outward displacement and all of the divergent boundaries have acquired an infill in proportion to the mantles displacement, now the cycle has changed and the mantle is beginning to recede while the crust is slowly loading with compression. As the mantle moves down it is incrementally leaving the crust unsupported, loading it up with gravitational potential energy as time passes. At some point the compression will overload a weak area in the crust. It would probably be an area of the crust that is thinner and maybe already has a fracture, such as a divergent plate boundary. As the compression reaches a critical point in the crust, the weak section fails, slowly folding and maybe even rupturing with the two sides bypassing each other. This would establish a convergent boundary with one plate subducting and the other overriding it, a reasonable prediction of observations.

As the mantle cycles, and the crustal extension and compression repeats, the subducted crust will be driven far under the other sections of crust. The first of many plates to become thicker from the fracturing and the subsequent overriding. At some point the crust reaches an equilibrium between the continental and ocean crust. The continental mass becomes to heavy to take any more subducted basement ocean plate. The continents eventually break apart, and the energies of the cycles can only compress so much rock until an ocean plate fractures and subducts next to the continent, angling down sharper than it did before it was jacked in under the first proto continent. A large composite continent is doomed in this model, it's thickness is unable to conform to the cycle's changes, and as the mantle displaces under it it's the center area is subjected to divergent stresses from the mantle's frictional energies. To see this modeled, take a balloon and put wet paper of varying lengths on it, slowly inflate and watch the longest lengths tear from the divergent stress. A nice prediction of continental breakup.

So now you have a stress fracture between two former halves of a continent. As the mantle displaces outward in each cycle the fracture gains infill, as this repeats the continent is slowly jacked apart and the rift is filled by the ocean. Currently this is happening in the Atlantic basin. The infill of the mid-ocean ridge is what is leveraging the North American continent over on top of the Pacific plate during the mantles subsidence. The immense compression of this process has subjected the Atlantic ridge to the weight of North America on one side and Eurasia on the other. As the mantle subsides these two massive continents have pushed the ocean floor towards the ridge, raising the divergent boundary into a much higher ridge structure than is common in most other locations. Another prediction of observation.

What will happen as the Atlantic continues to diverge and it widens? At some point the ocean plate portion adjacent to the continents will fracture from the stresses of the compression cycles and the tension of the outward displacement, the continually growing ridge edge adds increasing frictional drag during outward displacement, adding additional tension to the continental end with every cycle. At some point, maybe when the Atlantic is twice as wide, the ocean section will fracture and separate from the continents, establishing a convergent boundary trench like the Pacific has. As the ocean plates grow in width the trench will be pulled open in greater degrees as the enlarging plate applies increasing tension with every cycle.

This model has elements of a Wilson cycle. As the Atlantic widens the Pacific is reduced until it disappears when the opposing continents close.

Not necessarily, this variable shown below is possible the change needed. Whether attributed to the Sun or not would not change it's causation if it can be attributed.

A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core.

Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy.

This article states that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2.

​ If this energy increase and decrease can be incorporated into the model as thermal expansion of the outer cores molten iron it could stand alone at this time, without the Suns causation of it.

And I keep posting this material below but you never respond to it, it shows evidence of solar magnetic induced warming of the planet.

http://www.igpp.ucla...CRUS1572507.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.

I made this real big so you can't miss it this time. This is mutual inductive coupling between a planet's field and it's moons, it seems very possible and even more likely than not to be occurring between our Sun and Earth when you consider the following evidence.

As I had noted, Bond showed a correlation between 14C content and the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, he then identified a link of these observations to the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic. According to my model this could be a result of a variability within the planet's already unaccounted heat flow.

Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times.

This is pretty clear that there is ample reason to suspect correlation between solar magnetic caused inductive coupling of the Earth's magnetic field generator and that of climate variability.

Then there is these graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content that track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Solar magnetic flux is the only mechanism controlling the 14C content and timing. The 10 million dollar question is why does this content follow very accurately the climate history of the last 1100 years, coincidence?

Image below courtesy of USGS

Image below modified by this author.

As you can see this is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, again this is not temperature shown here it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating magnetic field strength. (the 14C content is inverted) It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, it's content is inverted compared to the currently observed and debated temperature rise. An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux. The Sun's varying magnetic field is the only mechanism controlling 14C content and timing.

Now, for me to suggest there is a correlation between the solar magnetic field strength and the current abnormal temperature increase I will have to show evidence of extraordinarily unusual magnetic field strength that will correlate the 14C content in the graph with the atmospheric warming since The Little Ice Age.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years

Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.

S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4

1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany

2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland

3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

The researchers are limited by the current standard model to solar thermal radiation variability as the only possible cause. Their so close to the answer, even admitting a possible link between the unusual "rarity" of high sunspot numbers and "the unusual climate change during the twentieth century"

I leave it up to anyone to explain this data above. I also have a fit of climate variability to the Basin and Range extension (warm period) and the subsequent mountain building period that followed that was a cooler period in the geologic record. It is a nice fit and a valid prediction of observations.

So... In other words you have no idea if the energy necessary is being conducted between the sun and the earth only a pattern of correlation? Your example of Ganymede doesn't suggest how much energy is being transferred or what it's effects on Ganymede amount to.

This is a potentially fatal flaw and needs to be addressed, a pretty good case can be made for an expanding Earth being responsible for what appears to be continental drift but there is no mechanism to allow the Earth to expand from the size of Mars to it's current size even though such expansion would explain many things.

You have to have a mechanism to transfer the amount of energy your idea requires and you have yet to show that magnetic coupling between the Earth and the Sun can provide that amount of Energy... In fact unless I've missed it you have not shown how much energy it would take to accomplish the effect you are asserting...

I'm betting that the torque from such a high energy effect would significantly slow the Earth in it's orbit over geologic time.. just a guess of course but it makes sense... but we would have to know how much energy it takes to cause the effect you are claiming so far that has been left out...

##### Share on other sites

This is a potentially fatal flaw and needs to be addressed, a pretty good case can be made for an expanding Earth being responsible for what appears to be continental drift but there is no mechanism to allow the Earth to expand from the size of Mars to it's current size even though such expansion would explain many things.

Surely this is an antiscientific approach?

An appropriate scientific approach would be to say I observe these effects. They can be explained by mechanisms A, B or C (etc).

I also observe these other effects, contrary to mechanisms A, B, C etc. Therefore I conclude that there must be another mechanism in play that I have not listed.

Did Lord Kelvin not make this mistake?

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/134/lectures/ages-of-earth-sun.pdf

I do not know whethere I support or disagree with Arc's hypothesis, it is bold, large and possibly revolutionary.

Arc did, however, start out by saying there were areas in which he lacks expertise and requesting help.

That suggests to me a necessary humility his opponents seem to lack.

If he is correct would we not be proud to say, we had a (very small) hand in that?

And surely that is one important function of this forum.

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites

I'm sorry this does not make sense.

You start the paragraph by saying the mantle is not rigid, but flexible.

You end the paragraph by claiming that the mantle must be subect to a 'stress relieving fracture'.

I'm sorry studiot, but I don't see that I expressed it that way, I quote: So we have a reasonable example that the crust would fracture at it's weakest points to relieve the tension caused by the outward mantle displacement.

I did not say the mantle had fractured, I said it had displaced. I use the term "displaced" to indicate that the expansive force that moves the mantle does not originate in the mantle, it is in the core. The mantle is akin to a mechanical energy transfer device, it applies multiplied force to to the crust. An infinitesimal movement in the core is transferred and multiplied by the mantle to the crust, and is observed as divergent boundary movement.

##### Share on other sites

I am sorry arc, upon re reading your paragraph I did indeed misunderstand.

Thank you for correcting that part. I was just trying to get you to wait until I have time to make the sketches sufficiently presentable, to avoid abortive work.

You are still not quite right about tension and tension cracks. Tension cracks only occur in sufficiently brittle materials. Rigidity is a response to bending and a function of the size and shape of the object and the disposition of the loads. This is unlike tension (brittle) cracking which is purely a function of stress intensity.

##### Share on other sites

Surely this is an antiscientific approach?

An appropriate scientific approach would be to say I observe these effects. They can be explained by mechanisms A, B or C (etc).

I also observe these other effects, contrary to mechanisms A, B, C etc. Therefore I conclude that there must be another mechanism in play that I have not listed.

Did Lord Kelvin not make this mistake?

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/134/lectures/ages-of-earth-sun.pdf

I do not know whethere I support or disagree with Arc's hypothesis, it is bold, large and possibly revolutionary.

Arc did, however, start out by saying there were areas in which he lacks expertise and requesting help.

That suggests to me a necessary humility his opponents seem to lack.

If he is correct would we not be proud to say, we had a (very small) hand in that?

And surely that is one important function of this forum.

The whole expanding earth thing is silly on many levels but mostly because there is a better answer and no mechanism to explain how the Earth can expand in that manner. I think the idea first popped up after lord kelvin but I'm not sure but it still has it's disciples even today.

Arc's idea, while not silly like expanding earth theory, still lacks some important bits not the least of which is the amount of energy it would take to have the effects he asserts.

##### Share on other sites

Surely this is an antiscientific approach?

An appropriate scientific approach would be to say I observe these effects. They can be explained by mechanisms A, B or C (etc).

I also observe these other effects, contrary to mechanisms A, B, C etc. Therefore I conclude that there must be another mechanism in play that I have not listed.

Did Lord Kelvin not make this mistake?

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/134/lectures/ages-of-earth-sun.pdf

I do not know whethere I support or disagree with Arc's hypothesis, it is bold, large and possibly revolutionary.

Arc did, however, start out by saying there were areas in which he lacks expertise and requesting help.

That suggests to me a necessary humility his opponents seem to lack.

If he is correct would we not be proud to say, we had a (very small) hand in that?

And surely that is one important function of this forum.

Thank you studiot, I take responsibility for my rather clumsy presentation of this material. It is rather spread out and disconnected, so to speak, but as I have said before it is just a framework.

So... In other words you have no idea if the energy necessary is being conducted between the sun and the earth only a pattern of correlation? Your example of Ganymede doesn't suggest how much energy is being transferred or what it's effects on Ganymede amount to.

This is a potentially fatal flaw and needs to be addressed, a pretty good case can be made for an expanding Earth being responsible for what appears to be continental drift but there is no mechanism to allow the Earth to expand from the size of Mars to it's current size even though such expansion would explain many things.

You have to have a mechanism to transfer the amount of energy your idea requires and you have yet to show that magnetic coupling between the Earth and the Sun can provide that amount of Energy... In fact unless I've missed it you have not shown how much energy it would take to accomplish the effect you are asserting...

I'm betting that the torque from such a high energy effect would significantly slow the Earth in it's orbit over geologic time.. just a guess of course but it makes sense... but we would have to know how much energy it takes to cause the effect you are claiming so far that has been left out...

Nowhere in this entire thread or the links at the bottom of this page have I expressed any indication that the Earth has changed it's size. If you believe adding mountains increases the size of the Earth than yes, but this model simply uses a repeating cycle of divergent boundary movement to create gravitational potential energy in the Earth's crust. This energy as raised mass will over time subduct into trenches, and in rare incidences produce mountains. This does not involve changing the size of the Earth. I hope everyone understands this. I have from the beginning expressed it in this manner. People have improperly associated this model, in some manner or another, to an expanding Earth Idea, it is not and has never been.

Again, this is a result of my inability to express this idea properly, but it is also the result of a large quantity of prior theories that have left their imprint on everyone's mind. People are transferring predetermined and prior concepts into this model. They do not belong here if they involve a change in the Earth's size. Please go read post #1 and post #4.

I am sorry arc, upon re reading your paragraph I did indeed misunderstand.

Thank you for correcting that part. I was just trying to get you to wait until I have time to make the sketches sufficiently presentable, to avoid abortive work.

You are still not quite right about tension and tension cracks. Tension cracks only occur in sufficiently brittle materials. Rigidity is a response to bending and a function of the size and shape of the object and the disposition of the loads. This is unlike tension (brittle) cracking which is purely a function of stress intensity.

My apologies for my improper use of the two terms, this will require some retraining on my part in their application, I'm afraid you will need to read between the lines occasionally, I have quite literally overran my abilities.

##### Share on other sites

Thank you studiot, I take responsibility for my rather clumsy presentation of this material. It is rather spread out and disconnected, so to speak, but as I have said before it is just a framework.

Nowhere in this entire thread or the links at the bottom of this page have I expressed any indication that the Earth has changed it's size. If you believe adding mountains increases the size of the Earth than yes, but this model simply uses a repeating cycle of divergent boundary movement to create gravitational potential energy in the Earth's crust. This energy as raised mass will over time subduct into trenches, and in rare incidences produce mountains. This does not involve changing the size of the Earth. I hope everyone understands this. I have from the beginning expressed it in this manner. People have improperly associated this model, in some manner or another, to an expanding Earth Idea, it is not and has never been.

Again, this is a result of my inability to express this idea properly, but it is also the result of a large quantity of prior theories that have left their imprint on everyone's mind. People are transferring predetermined and prior concepts into this model. They do not belong here if they involve a change in the Earth's size. Please go read post #1 and post #4.

My apologies for my improper use of the two terms, this will require some retraining on my part in their application, I'm afraid you will need to read between the lines occasionally, I have quite literally overran my abilities.

Well, I don't know if Moontaman completely ignored my post or not because I provided the mathematical proof that the amount of energy needed from the magnetic coupling of the Sun and Earth is enough to fit the idea.

##### Share on other sites

No arc, we have a communication break down, i wasn't suggesting the expanding Earth idea was part of your idea in any way, just trying to show that to propose something correlates with out a mechanism isn't evidence of a mechanism. The expanding Earth "theory" is silly and has no part in your idea and i wasn't suggesting it did...

Unity+ it may very well be that you are beyond me in a significant way and I concede that possibility but I read it as showing an energy transfer was possible not that an energy transfer of sufficient magnitude was possible. Obviously an energy transfer is possible and as I said about Ganymede there is no reason to suggest it is anything but an insignificant effect in Ganymede's case or the Earth's... I'm not sure why Ganymede is somehow a better example than Io but I'll let Arc tell his own mind, i am not privy to his thoughts...

Saying the magnetic fields interact in some fashion is a far cry from showing an actual physical effect on a planet enough so to allow heating of the planets core in a way that would result in the planet actually expanding and contracting enough to cause plate tectonics... That is a huge step and 38 degrees C isn't near enough energy on any level...

Then there is the actual torque this effect would have on planetary orbital motion, converting the magnetic field to heat would result in physical forces other than just a tiny expansion and contraction of the Earth. I would expect an actual physical drag on the Earth's orbital speed...

I would expect the tidal effects of the Moon to have far greater impact than the magnetic coupling of the Earth and the Sun...

If my thoughts on this are easily dismissed then let me know and I'll just continue to watch and learn...

##### Share on other sites

arc post#1

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.

Forgive me but I have taken this statement to mean that your thesis requires the earth to expand, albeit ever so slightly, throughout my reading of this thread.

##### Share on other sites

Forgive me but I have taken this statement to mean that your thesis requires the earth to expand, albeit ever so slightly, throughout my reading of this thread.

Not anything like the expanding Earth "theory" which postulates the Earth was the size of Mars 500,000,000 million years ago...

##### Share on other sites

I am not interested John Carter stories. edit: except as entertainment.

I thought arc's theory depended upon the asthenosphere radius increasing (and decreasing) by small amounts.

Arc please clarify before I do these sketches.

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×