tectonics - it's time we remove this nonsense from our schools

Why? Do you want to enroll in it? .


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

No, I was just quite stunned. Granted I went to good schools, I can't think of anything that was taught wrong, be it physics or English. I'm still using that knowledge, to this day!

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Aelita]


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Another page notes:

www.suite101.com...
Proceeds from the sale of this book go to help finance Mr. Bowles exciting upcoming adventure to find answers and the gods on his expedition to Alaska!

How'd that go, btw?


Good job on Agent Smith finding the title of the book.

Originally posted by beforebc
And anyone can look at a mountain and see with the unaided eye that the rocks are the same age every where they look

Please cite the paper that shows there is no difference in age between different sections of the himalyas. The bending and folding of the rock will have occured at the same time, but the deposition of different strata are different.

And, again, please explain why the rocks that 'happen' to make up mountains' also 'just happen' to be faulted and folded, and why there 'just happens' to be observed movement of the plates in the same direction.

They DO NOT show a 20 cm growth rate per year!

So what?

The plates are moved by the gravitational forces that hold us in solar orbit.

Then why don't they show this 'flexing'? Why do they 'just happen' to be converging where mountains are?

heat cannot move anything except by thermal expansion. It's purely impossible.

Please explain why a convecting cell of mantle can't move the thin plates that rest upon them.

but we kept it all within known physical principle.

Unfortunately you've ignored the actual physical evidence.

First that isn't true. There are no plates anywhere near the Rockies, or anywhere near the Andes, or in Italy etc.

...

Those are plates. If you notice, there are some subducting and some compressing at the regions where mountains occur.
The Rockies and Andes are part of the Cordillian mountain range. They are not compressional mountains. They were formed via volcanism, as a result of subduction. Subduction also results in 'slab push-pull', which is another mechanism that drives plate movement.

If I were to speculate I suggest that frictional forces created by the constant movement of the plates by the solar (and lunar) gravitational forces was causing some of it.

Large scale volcanism, like the type that formed the cordillian mountain ranges, or that forms volcanic island arcs like japan, are the reslt of the subduction of plates. As the subducting plate sinks, water is chemically driven off of it. As this water rises through the over-riding plate, it causes a change in the solidius-liquidus phase of the minerals, causing them to change into forms that are unstable at those temperatures and pressures, thus, liquifying, becoming magma. The magma then rises to the surface, and eurpts as volcanos.

As for landmasses fitting together; all I can say is "So do my fingers!"

Your hypothesis is very unclear on this matter. Are you or are you not saying that the continents were, in the past, one 'super-continent' that got ripped up by "Rotational-Bending" forces?

Mountains do not have a gravitational profile - that means that they cannot be "seen" with an instrument that measures gravity

er
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

tjack
I'm at an impasse. The theories presented are interesting enough to me to warrant discussion

What do you find plausible in his hypothesis? The idea boils down to the tidal effect of the sun bending the crust of the earth. Do you think that it is reasonable that this effect is not noticed by anyone else in science?

crustas
So no one really knows what's under.

Excluding, of course, remote sensing techniques, lava eruptions, and lab experiments on how minerals behave under those temperaturs and pressures.

ALso, the mineralogical composition of the material is, in a sense, irrelevant to this discussion, all that is relevant, wrt plate tectonics, is that it can have convection cells set up within it (to drive plate tectonics), and whether or not the gravity of the sun is bending the crust of the earth (to force movement of the plates).

Second i think that we cannot set aside beforebc theorie, just because it's different of what we were told in school

Indeed, that would be a horrible reason to reject it. Rather, it should be rejected because it has no evidence to support it, has a flawed basis, and doesn't explain a lot of the physical evidence.

when he states that crust behave is in direct relation with gravitic fields from our planet surroundings. For me the G field is the number one factor on this.

Please explain why this field is strong enough to flex the crust and thus create sustained movement of the crust. Please explain why some planets and moons are tectonically active, and others are not, despite all being subjected to these forces. Please explain why convection cells within the mantle can't move the thin plates of crust.

Originally posted by Aelita
No, I was just quite stunned. Granted I went to good schools, I can't think of anything that was taught wrong, be it physics or English. I'm still using that knowledge, to this day!

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Aelita]

I just give you one, Human Evolution, but that is off topic

crustas

Originally posted by beforebc

One thing was of benefit. Mountains do not have a gravitational profile - that means that they cannot be "seen" with an instrument that measures gravity (hence the mass of a mountain is invisible). That was a huge benefit, because we could consider the earth's crust as a smooth surface.

if mountains don't have mass then surely they dont have gravity. the two are intertwined mass and gravity

how do you explain the radar imaging from space that shows the ocean bulging around under sea mountains. if not gravity then what

what about hawaii surely even you can agree that that is a mountain made from a volcano and not simply an island with a volcano

Hello all,

tjack wrote] First you keep saying that heat can't move anything except by thermal expansion, yet you've ignored the motion of my curtains when the heater is on and the rolling, boiling water observations another poster made.

bc here] tjack you are paying the Power Company by the kwt hour to pour fuel to your furnace and electricty to the fan - now if that won't move your curtains - I don't know what will.

It is clear that there is not a person monitoring this thread that hasn't gone out and googled their little ol hearts out. Some even with pictures!

So here's the plan - you go on believing that there's a molten layer that is pushing continents, go on believing you can push up mountains - go on believing that anticlines and synclines were made by continents that go bump in the night -

good day - good luck - and I'm sorry for your kids!

bc
.

Ok, just one of the blatant and willing untruths that the RB-theorist keeps postulating over and over:

heat cannot move anything except by thermal expansion. It's purely impossible.

How about a lava lamp? Ever seen one? What makes it move?



Or the rotating night lamp, with a small turbine on top? Why does it spin?



Hello? Do you have any RB-equations to explain this? Can't wait for your calculation. Please be sure to use scientific notation only and use the Planck's constant. Peace.

PS. In you post above, you admit that the convection will move curtains in somebody's room, but somehow it depends on how many kilowatts were used in heating the house. OMG this is some BS logic. No, I take it back, there is no logic there. Adios.


[edit on 28-4-2006 by Aelita]

Nygdan said:

Indeed, that would be a horrible reason to reject it. Rather, it should be rejected because it has no evidence to support it, has a flawed basis, and doesn't explain a lot of the physical evidence.

I find it should be rejected partly because he outright rejects plate tectonics in favour of his/her own theories.
I do believe the moon does pull the crust around, just like it creates high tides, but to say that it's all gravitational forces, I don't buy that.
It's a mix of that, a pinch of this and a whole lot of PT.

I must admit though, the sun could play a part in planetary warpage, but to deny PT goes too far. The planet has forces within and with-out.

Originally posted by beforebc
It is clear that there is not a person monitoring this thread that hasn't gone out and googled their little ol hearts out. Some even with pictures!

Sorry, would you prefer we make little cartoons with smiley sun faces?

good day - good luck

Buh bye! Don't let the door hit yer butt on the way out! *waves*

Wow, that was a quick meltdown! Oh wait, thermal forces can't accomplish anything, so you must not really be running away!

Originally posted by Nygdan

crustas
So no one really knows what's under.

Excluding, of course, remote sensing techniques, lava eruptions, and lab experiments on how minerals behave under those temperatures and pressures.

ALso, the mineralogical composition of the material is, in a sense, irrelevant to this discussion, all that is relevant, wrt plate tectonics, is that it can have convection cells set up within it (to drive plate tectonics), and whether or not the gravity of the sun is bending the crust of the earth (to force movement of the plates).

About the remote sensing techniques (suposing you are meaning radar spectrometry) the scientists are still trying to interpret the data in it, trying to create models, and more theories, just another method of indirect observation but nothing really real.


Lava and minerals are products of a long journey from the deep, like in a factory you have the final product but you have no ideia of how it was built, (could have been built in many different ways), another indirect observation and more theories.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Second i think that we cannot set aside beforebc theorie, just because it's different of what we were told in school

Indeed, that would be a horrible reason to reject it. Rather, it should be rejected because it has no evidence to support it, has a flawed basis, and doesn't explain a lot of the physical evidence.

when he states that crust behave is in direct relation with gravitic fields from our planet surroundings. For me the G field is the number one factor on this.

Please explain why this field is strong enough to flex the crust and thus create sustained movement of the crust. Please explain why some planets and moons are tectonically active, and others are not, despite all being subjected to these forces. Please explain why convection cells within the mantle can't move the thin plates of crust.

About beforebc, i agree with him on the G force and now adding the electromagnetic force, together they are the most powerfull forces that exists so far "in theorie" and those two forces rule everything we know and don't know.

How can you tell, that there are planets and moons tectonically inactive? Just because our technology doesn't sense any movement? All that exists in our universe is in permanent change(still expanding you know?), i see no other option, the universe is a living entity on is own way.

"why convection cells within the mantle can't move the thin plates of crust?" Because they are thinner(presuming, sea crust), the transfer of heat to water is much bigger than in bigger crust(continental) and therefore the convection cells loose strenght..

(I suggest you to read the book "electric universe")

Crustas

A brief visit to any mountain chain would just destroy the theory

30 yrs to disprove what every mountain chain proves easily...

Wow, i would have maybe a taken a field trip to death valley in the first year, and saved myself 29 to follow...

I also dont quite understand the problem of theory differences...

From what i can tell, he is saying the earth gets misshapen by the gravity of the sun& moon...
that has been PART of techtonic theory as long as i can remember, but yet, it is stated as a "new science"

He also says on another forum that the earth is far younger than what is theorized (hinting at where this theory comes from) I would like to know if he also knows about carbon dating? and what approx age of the earth, does he beleive...
maybe we can cut to the chase... (without getting personally insulting)

Originally posted by crustas
About the remote sensing techniques (suposing you are meaning radar spectrometry) the scientists are still trying to interpret the data in it, trying to create models, and more theories, just another method of indirect observation but nothing really real.

Your sense of sight is nothing more than a remote sensing technique that involves interpolation.

Lava and minerals are products [...] another indirect observation and more theories.

Until someone can come up with an alternative explanation for the observations, then they're the best theories that we have. The idea that germs cause disease is a theory, buts its a darned good one.

that there are planets and moons tectonically inactive?

The same way we can tell that earth is tectonically active, by observing it. There are no plates of crust on the moon. There isn't any crustal movement on mars, etc.

Because they are thinner(presuming, sea crust), the transfer of heat to water is much bigger than in bigger crust(continental) and therefore the convection cells loose strenght..

I fail to understand your explanation. The mantle is convecting. The crust is a thin layer on top of it. The crust moves because of this.

Originally posted by Nygdan

tjack
I'm at an impasse. The theories presented are interesting enough to me to warrant discussion

What do you find plausible in his hypothesis? The idea boils down to the tidal effect of the sun bending the crust of the earth. Do you think that it is reasonable that this effect is not noticed by anyone else in science?

I said interesting, not plausible.

I find it interesting, because I finally got the gist of what he's getting at regarding the sun pulling at the crust. Took me awhile due to I had to read between all the belittling remarks and inuendo. It must happen, (sun pulls on the crust) but I believe the earths gravitational field pulls the crust "in" much more than the sun pulls it "out". Probably explains why the gravitational pull of the sun doesn't move my curtains. Here on earth, it seems, the earths gravity dominates.

Originally posted by beforebc

bc here] tjack you are paying the Power Company by the kwt hour to pour fuel to your furnace and electricty to the fan - now if that won't move your curtains - I don't know what will.

So the money I pay for oil moves my curtains? Or is it the oil itself? I swear it seems as if you intentionally speak in subtle riddles, so when we don't "get it" you can laugh at us and be condescending. I find this incredibly annoying.

There is no fan, I have hydronic heat which is just hot water in a fricken pipe, and the CONVECTION CELL which establishes itself above the pipe rustles the curtains, showing me, at least, that yes indeed, heat can cause movement OUTSIDE of thermal expansion.

Now, where did I leave that IGNORE button.....

Originally posted by tjack
So the money I pay for oil moves my curtains? Or is it the oil itself? I swear it seems as if you intentionally speak in subtle riddles, so when we don't "get it" you can laugh at us and be condescending. I find this incredibly annoying.

Yup, the mention of money as being responsible for the movement of your curtains I also found very annoying as he basically refused to asnwer a simple question.

Truth be told, though, is that convection is accopaigned by thermal expansion of whatever substance is convecting. Upon reaching a point of heat transfer, it contracts again, and typically sinks. So it's a column of expanding air that's moving your curtains.

Upon reaching a point of heat transfer, it contracts again, and typically sinks. So it's a column of expanding air that's moving your curtains.

How is this different from convection cells in the mantle? Or do I misunderstand and you aren't saying its different?

People 'Google' things around here because we like and are expected to back things up with independant sources so people can examine the evidence for themselves. I often know things but have to find it repeated somewhere on the web just to show I'm not making it up, there are things I know which I've never used in arguments or published here because I can't find an independant source to back it up. It's the way we do things round here, otherwise anyone could come on with a crackpot theory/idea/'fact' and it would be impossible to seperate facts from fiction.
No offence, but your own book is hardly a 'reputable source', from what I've read I find your theories interesting - but why have the countless other highly intelligent people in the world not published these findings? Why are you a lonely whisper in a summer breeze?
Don't get me wrong, people used to think the world was flat and laughed at the idea it was round, so nothing is out of the question. But stop being so pompous and discuss your ideas civally without talking to us like we're children.
I don't care if you 'worked for NASA' when in reality you worked for NASA contractors, going by the same vain I could say I worked ofr the Ministry of Defence - when in reality I pushed a pen.
We can big ourselves up and sound grand on paper but the proof is in the pudding my friend.
Your theories sound interesting and are an alternative from what we understand and know, you can't expect people to just turn their backs on years of research and evidence.
Having an interest in the Pyramids I am particularly interested in how your theory relates to Giza and other ancient landmarks, why not talk to us properly and start again rather than tell us what we should believe in a patronising fashion?

Hello all,

Before leaving this thread - I'd like for all of you to see our ultimate goal!
.
.


bc
.\

Is that god or Merlin, are those kids students or disciples?

Well, good luck in your other posts.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Upon reaching a point of heat transfer, it contracts again, and typically sinks. So it's a column of expanding air that's moving your curtains.

How is this different from convection cells in the mantle? Or do I misunderstand and you aren't saying its different?

I'm not saying it's different at all. I'm just saying that while the poster (beforebc) was so adamant about thermal expansion being the unlikely source of the force moving the plates, he was only partially wrong (unbeknownst to himsilef, probably). And we all know how rare it is that "beforebc) is only partially wrong.

Originally posted by beforebc
Before leaving this thread - I'd like for all of you to see our ultimate goal!
.
.

Oh... That's a shame.. After my response above I hoped he would be interested in the topic he started.
I don't mnd admitting that from what I read this afternoon about his book and ideas it had captured my curiosity enough that I was considering buying the book or trying to source it through the library and actually wanted to dicuss the topic....
I am very interest in the pyramid theories being a fan of Hancock and Bauval and wanted to see if it tied up with anything they wrote about.

However, I think that response in the circumstances has made it up for me, at least I can be thankful for having the time I would have spent available again for doing something else...

[edit on 28-4-2006 by AgentSmith]