12,980 years ago when TSHTF Big time.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That's the trouble with faith based approach to science. Faith means you believe against the evidence, instead of with it, until you are confronted with absolute proof and finally have no choice but to concede.

That's why I usually don't do much more than skim the stuff religious people write on sites like this. I'm not going to try and disprove their god. If they want to believe, they will find a way. If it brings them spiritual comfort to believe a (likely) false story, then why would I want to ruin that for them anyway?




But subduction, although certainly accurate in some cases, may not be a complete accounting of all that happens with crustal interaction.

Maybe it happens sometimes, but not others. Certainly the Himalayas are an example of plates colliding without subduction (instead forming a mountain range.)

Perhaps both theories will be found to have been accurate in different situations?

There is no "perhaps"....everything is INCLUSIVE of the VGCDW Model....because it is a cyclical component of life on this Planet....it is not a one-off....anything that does not fall into the Model is pure BS and in 99% of the cases it is intentionally propagated BS put there to sandbag anyone who wishes to learn MORE than we are allowed to learn.
[/QUOTE]

I don't buy into the idea of "everything is included in one model".

How's the saying go? "Truth is stranger than fiction".

Reality is more complicated than ""this model describes everything everywhere." A model should be able to describe some things that happen, but random events should sometimes end up falling outside of it, or requiring a revision.

If a model is so perfect that that never happens, then I would say it is "too perfect". And doubt its credibility.

There are no negotiations in truth finding....both theories are not accurate in different situations....the puzzle pieces only fit in THEIR OWN SPOTS....both theories are accurate in that they both fall under the auspices of the VGCDW Model.

The evidence that subduction is happening in some places on Earth today is overwhelming. They've done everything short of drilling down there and looking.

But the interactions between a hot mantle and surface plates should be expected to have quite a lot of chaos to it. Things aren't going to follow a neat, predictable, order all the time.

There is ONLY ONE TRUTH ONE PHYSICAL PLANETARY REALITY WE ALL SHARE.....this supercedes in every way personal opinion and theories....and you DO NOT NEED A DEGREE IN ANYTHING to learn the totality of this reality.You need to give yourself permission.

One truth, but not a simple truth.

That single truth is composed of quite a lot of other truths, piled on top of each other, sliding around, intermingling, rearranging... the thing they collectively form is complicated beyond belief, and whenever we are able to identify a unifiying rule to some of it, we're incredibly lucky.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

But subduction, although certainly accurate in some cases, may not be a complete accounting of all that happens with crustal interaction.

Maybe it happens sometimes, but not others. Certainly the Himalayas are an example of plates colliding without subduction (instead forming a mountain range.)

Perhaps both theories will be found to have been accurate in different situations?

Agreeable.

The Crust must respond to the pressures its subjected to, there can be no argument against this. The argument then goes to how the crust will react to any given force. And as you point out with the Himalayas, it builds mountains, pressure ridges. But that happens on dry land with dry rock. What chance does seabeds, wet muddy ocean bed have, to be forced under dry land? The alternative is that the crust must alleviate that pressure the only way it can, it expands. And their is far more evidence for this, than the current theory of Subduction.

My choice in following one over the other is not based on any religious views, it the evidence that guides the choice.

And it is the evidence, regardless of what science presently teaches, that guides my train of thought. The Earth has gone through catastrophic events, multiple times in the past. And "Some" of that evidence is in your face. You just can't see it for what it really is.........

The crust could only permanently expand if the stuff under it permanently expands.

I dont doubt that maybe sometimes one plate expands and another contracts. But the total surface area of the Earth should be expected to remain about the same by the end of it all.


So are you proposing that? Do plates sometimes contract as well as expand?

Subduction theory isn't too different. It proposes that when volcanos in say.... the mid Atlantic, cause expansion of the Atlantic seabed, colliding plates elsewhere sudbuct to make room.

Is there evidence that sometimes a plate simply shrinks in size to make room?

Actually there is a Model which was used in part to envision my Model....its called the Chaos Theory.Everything is included in it.Simply put the Earths skin is ripped open prior to and during VGCDW Events.When it heals it EXPANDS...the pacific rim is akin to a bunch of infected wounds that refuse to heal located along the leading egge of massive Continental Movement from the last VGCDW.Nothing complicated about it

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

One truth, but not a simple truth.

That single truth is composed of quite a lot of other truths, piled on top of each other, sliding around, intermingling, rearranging... the thing they collectively form is complicated beyond belief, and whenever we are able to identify a unifiying rule to some of it, we're incredibly lucky.

This, I must agree with, completely.

Yes, the history of our planet, has one truth, one way, one time. All the evidence, observations must co-inside with that truth. And to complicate that, our planetary history is 4.5 5 billion years long.

One of the major setbacks in Science is that when faced with a lack of information or evidence, we naturally create scientific assumptions to bridge the gap. Some call it a leap of faith. That ability itself seems to be possessed by human beings alone. But the real problem isn't scientific assumptions, its when we forget about them, and turn them into fact, forgetting, they still need to be proven. That is, the Theory of Subduction. At least the Flat Earth was dis-proven.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Klassified

It has been postulated this is a cycle the earth has gone through several times. Life thrives for thousands of years, is then reduced to near extinction, and thrives again until the next ELE. If it's true, our days are numbered, and the next civilization to arise will consider the stories of an advanced technological civilization once thriving on earth mere fantasy and mythology. They will believe, just as we do now, they are the most advanced civilization to have ever walked the earth and eschew any evidence to the contrary. Wash, Rinse, Repeat

I have seen the "Evidence" for these cycles" At least, 15 times the Earth has been through "Wash. Rinse, repeat". But, the "Evidence" may not all belong to earth, as the evidence seems to have the ability to move. That evidence may partially belong to another "Orb".

As in Mars?

Briefly going over Mars there does appear to be evidence of a "Contact" on the surface, several times. But, the footprint does not look exactly like on Earth, with water. Those large round indentations that are circled by fissures and broken terrain, sometimes called rebound rings.

No, I was thinking of the Asteroid Belt, and what may have caused it. When the planet's crust is too thin, or excessive pressure is applied, or both, you can get planetary failure. And a bunch of meteors for a very long time. I hope that makes sense...

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The crust could only permanently expand if the stuff under it permanently expands.

I dont doubt that maybe sometimes one plate expands and another contracts. But the total surface area of the Earth should be expected to remain about the same by the end of it all.


So are you proposing that? Do plates sometimes contract as well as expand?

Subduction theory isn't too different. It proposes that when volcanos in say.... the mid Atlantic, cause expansion of the Atlantic seabed, colliding plates elsewhere sudbuct to make room.

Is there evidence that sometimes a plate simply shrinks in size to make room?

If you notice the Hawaiian Island Chain it has a odd course. It appears to start at the western most point of the Aleutian Island Chain, next to Russia. It is a footprint of the Volcano itself, not the Islands.

It appears to follow the expanding Pacific Ocean bed to a point, at which time makes a sharp turn into the center of the ocean.

If this volcano had its origin in our outer crust you could imagine the line would be fairly strait. But it isn't. This indicates to me that this particular Volcano actually has its origins deeper in the Crust, but because it changed directions, is actually in a deeper crust that completely or partially separated from our outer crust, and expanding at the same, or slightly slower rate than the exterior crust.

So, the "Stuff Under" is being squeezed in the same manner. Gravity, is centered in center mass.

Like anything, continents can be compressed, but not for long. They can not be "shrunk", but can be displaced. In other words, two plates pushing on one actually make the distance apart shorter, but the height in the compressed continent will bow up, and eventually break, causing a Earth Quake. The release of pressure will always take the path of least resistance. Air is much less dense, than rock.

And again, another reason for Subduction not to be taking place. To Subduct, it must take the path, of most resistance. Just not going to happen.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
But subduction, although certainly accurate in some cases, may not be a complete accounting of all that happens with crustal interaction.

Maybe it happens sometimes, but not others. Certainly the Himalayas are an example of plates colliding without subduction (instead forming a mountain range.)

The Himalayas are absolutely the product of subduction.

eological investigations in the Himalayas have revealed evidence that when India and Asia collided some 90 million years ago, the continental crust of the Indian tectonic plate was forced down under the Asian plate, sinking down into the Earth's mantle to a depth of at least 200 km kilometres.

Deep subduction of Indian subcontinent

ubduction theory isn't too different. It proposes that when volcanos in say.... the mid Atlantic, cause expansion of the Atlantic seabed, colliding plates elsewhere sudbuct to make room.

In subduction plates are not "pushed" under the adjacent plate by a spreading mid ocean ridge. No, the subducting plate is dragging new hotter lighter material up through the spreading oceanic ridge.

Subduction seems to happen either only on sea beds, or mostly on seabeds.

Looking at a map of dinosaur finds, it doesn't look like any new land has formed since the dinosaur era, because at least a few bones have been found pretty much everywhere on the dry land areas of Earth.

www.dailymail.co.uk...


I would think that, if new land were forming, then there should be some areas that are too new to have dinosaur bones. And we know the continents have moved all the way from Gondwana (the 2 continent setup that came after Pangea) to their present state in the last 200 million years, with quite a lot of that drift still happening in the last 65 million years after dinosaurs went extinct.

www.livescience.com...

That means the sea floor has moved quite a lot. North America separating from Europe. Australia separating from Antarctica.

But no large sections of new land coming out of it?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Subduction does not happen "on seabeds", it happens at continental margins.

This brings up a point that seems to have been missed, and one that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of geology.
Oceanic crust is thinner and denser than continental crust, which is "floating" on the denser, deeper material.
And the cores of contingents are stable pieces of basement rocks called cratons.
This is a great description of cratons,

Cratons are stable because they are strong. The geology of the Himalayas illustrates this – the modern day plate  boundary between Indian and Asia is at the southern edge of the Himalayas. The cratonic Indian plate is barely deformed, in great contrast to the vast pile of deformed soft young crust in the Tibetan Plateau to the north.

Cratonic crust is strong, being unusually cold and dry, but that is only part of the picture. Continental crust is the upper portion of continental lithosphere. It’s lithosphere that puts the plates into plate tectonics, it’s a rigid layer on the earth’s surface, as opposed to the hot flowing mantle that lies beneath (the asthenosphere). Lithosphere consists of the crust and an underlying layer of mantle that has  become ‘stuck on’. This layer of lithospheric mantle can be 2 to 3 times thicker than the crust above and so contributes a great deal to the strength and stability of continental lithosphere.

all-geo.org...


The rocks are differentiated because of the impact that formed the Moon melted the surface of the Earth and the heavier rocks sank, while the lighter rocks floated on top of them.
And why the blotchy placement of lighter contingents?, because the majority of the material was vaporized and re condensed as the Moon.
The Pacific basin is the remaining scar of that impact.

So we could look at land masses as being a plate on top of a plate, kind of?

After a sufficient amount of ocean plate area slides under a land mass, can it later on break off, and carry some of that land mass away, breaking up a continent? Or does the subducted section of plate just melt away into the magma below and vanish forever?

It's odd to me that Pangea could ever form in the first place, because it must have given the planet an lopsided center of gravity to have all the land on one side. It's kind of a big, gaping hole in the model for me.

Also, we see in the case of the Pacific Islands, that new land masses can climb up out of the ocean floor. But there is no visible way for old land masses to disappear. Or, is there?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So we could look at land masses as being a plate on top of a plate, kind of? 

No, think of the continents as lighter chunks floating on the semi molten upper mantle, with oceanic crust being the cooled solidified skin of the upper mantle, which being cooler and denser wants to sink back in, dragging the oceanic crust with it, thereby pulling hot lighter material up at the mid oceanic ridges.

After a sufficient amount of ocean plate area slides under a land mass, can it later on break off, and carry some of that land mass away, breaking up a continent? Or does the subducted section of plate just melt away into the magma below and vanish forever? 

Yes and no. it depends on the particluar geological situation.
In places where the subducted material is being immediately melted, you have volcanoes, ie the Ring Of Fire.
Recently I have read an article about a chunk of subducting crust that broke off and didnt melt and is doing something now, but I don't remember what or where.
Continents are broken up by rifting and by the creation of large igneous provinces caused by mantle plumes.
Mantle plumes have been directly associated with large oceanic impacts. More than 50% of mantle plumes can be associated to an anti-podal impact feature. Chixilub's anti podal hot spot is the Deccan Traps in India. The Siberian traps are the anti-podal hot spot to the impact that caused the Permian-Triasic extinction.
As no oceanic crust is more than ~130 million years old, the crater is long gone.
I know a researcher who is making an argument, and a pretty good one, that the Hawaiian volcanic arc is the hot spot for an impact some 90-130 million years ago.
And no subducted material doesn't always melt away and disappear.
California is a perfect example, It has been on the continental margin, litterally forever, at least 600ish? million years.
300 million years ago, where the Sierra Nevada is now, was the continental margin and vast rivers were draining the continent. Rivers of amazonian scale, and those rivers were washing sediments out to sea. In those sediements were boulders, gravels, and sands, eroded from mountains that were made from metamorphic rocks. Those rocks started as seafloor sediments that subducted, metamorphosed by the heat and pressure, and were then uplifted into mountains.
And when that ancient seafloor was being subducted and metamorphosed, dissolved metals solidified out of solution and formed veins gold and silver. Which was eroded out with the mountains and settled into riverbeds and the nearby seafloor.
When enough of the continental overburden had eroded away the giant block of granite that was underneath "floated" to the surface and created the Sierra Nevada. As they rose they uplifted the 300 myo sea floor and riverbeds with them and its those deposits that were filled with the old gold, that eroded away and settled into the rivers of the sierra that were mined in the Gold Rush.
The crazy part those towering modern Sierra Nevada Mtns are just the skeleton of what was once there.
There is a mtn., not far from here, Spanish Mtn elev. 10,500' ish, at about 8500' you climb past the granite that makes up the sierra and you get into the ancient sea floor. You will find fossilized sea life, 300 million year old sea life.
The Sierra were once the tallest mtns in the world, and what was eroded off of them fills a trench 12-15,000' deep, forming the San Joaquin Valley.

a reply to: 727Sky

I once had a very clear dream about a catastrophic incident which occurred at 10,983BC, and involved a war between factions of which at least one had an outpost on Phobos. The dream was very clear, unambiguous, and seemed to involve an ancient alien/human civilisation which occupied the entire solar system to some measure. Interesting that there seems to be evidence coming forward which confirms that date almost to the year.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


As no oceanic crust is more than ~130 million years old, the crater is long gone.

That's what I was wondering.

The land masses have clearly been here much longer than 130 million years, and I was wondering if plate subduct, then their surfaces should get recycled completely after a sufficient length of time.

That answers that question.

Thanks!

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: 727Sky

I once had a very clear dream about a catastrophic incident which occurred at 10,983BC, and involved a war between factions of which at least one had an outpost on Phobos. The dream was very clear, unambiguous, and seemed to involve an ancient alien/human civilisation which occupied the entire solar system to some measure. Interesting that there seems to be evidence coming forward which confirms that date almost to the year.

There is a good test to know if a dream like that was real, or a creative interpretation by your subconscious mind from something you've seen in sci- fi .

What was the gravity like? On the surface of Phobos the gravity is so light you can hardly tell the difference between standing on Phobos and being in zero G.

While Earth gravity is 9.8 meters per second per second, Phobos surface gravity is 0.0057 meters per second per second. Less than one thousandth that of Earth.

en.wikipedia.org...(moon)

Its gravity is so light that escape velocity from the surface (the speed where you can fly off into space and never come back) is 11.39 meter per second. Or about 26 miles per hour. About the speed your car is moving when you roll through a residential area. A particularly good athlete could physically jump off the surface into orbit.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: 727Sky

I once had a very clear dream about a catastrophic incident which occurred at 10,983BC, and involved a war between factions of which at least one had an outpost on Phobos. The dream was very clear, unambiguous, and seemed to involve an ancient alien/human civilisation which occupied the entire solar system to some measure. Interesting that there seems to be evidence coming forward which confirms that date almost to the year.

The radius of Phobos is 7 miles, and doesn't have enough mass to create its own gravity It would be a terrible place for a base. You'd do better to park a ship above the solar plane and certainly not in orbit, where your view of whatever is constantly changing. And not on a target where one hit would turn the thing into powder.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: one4all

So, you still have nothing but ranting about TPTB etc.

No comment on the documentary I posted for you on the Ring of Fire, which you asked for?

@54sec the usefulness of the video was outlived.

Do the words "leading edge" mean anything to you?

Seriously? That's all you got? Very lame indeed.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: one4all

So, you still have nothing but ranting about TPTB etc.

No comment on the documentary I posted for you on the Ring of Fire, which you asked for?

@54sec the usefulness of the video was outlived.

Do the words "leading edge" mean anything to you?

Seriously? That's all you got? Very lame indeed.

That is your observation ? No explanation ?Why not?

That's all it takes Carpy….just one single visual....you cannot even get past step #1....I mean the FIRST barrier stops you.

Why are there leading and trailing Continental Edges ? Seriously....show us your majic Carpy….where is your status quo peer approved evidence that explains these things....this is about to get really enjoyable Carpy...I await your further observations and excuses.

a reply to: one4all

Oh dear. I have no idea what you are on about nor do I frankly care so, I will say good day to you. As for excuses - pot, kettle etc.

Goodbye.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

And again, another reason for Subduction not to be taking place. To Subduct, it must take the path, of most resistance. Just not going to happen.

But it does happen and the science is well understood, just not by you.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

And again, another reason for Subduction not to be taking place. To Subduct, it must take the path, of most resistance. Just not going to happen.

But it does happen and the science is well understood, just not by you.

Oh but I do, understand it. What you don't understand is, I reject it! I reject it as Science! But accept it as Fiction!

I tend to follow this chaps train of thought.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You may well follow his train of thought but things have moved on a bit since the early 1900's.

Begs the question, why does the overwhelming body of scientific knowledge concur with the current model? You talking some conspiracy by TTPTB to cover up your "truth" (belief) if so, why?

If you are going to reject the overwhelming body of scientific knowledge it is really up to you to prove it wrong so, over to you and good luck.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You may well follow his train of thought but things have moved on a bit since the early 1900's.

Begs the question, why does the overwhelming body of scientific knowledge concur with the current model? You talking some conspiracy by TTPTB to cover up your "truth" (belief) if so, why?

If you are going to reject the overwhelming body of scientific knowledge it is really up to you to prove it wrong so, over to you and good luck.

I thought you were leaving the thread? Guess not.

The original "Plate Tectonics" theory was one of a Expanding Earth. It wasn't until the word Subduction was created that it changed. Can you share the name of the theorist, inventor, of that word? Who's theory is it?

Since the thread has just about ran its course I will post this video that explains how the north American continent became lifeless around 13,000 years ago.. That seems to be pretty darn close to 12,980 IMO. This is the latest theory (2007) of how an air burst comet 3 miles wide exploded and burned North America and all the inhabitants to ashes. youtu.be...