Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 1:11:34 GMT
[JW: Proof of Plate Tectonics]
Re: What would prove your tectonics model?
Tuesday, December 5, 2017 10:04 AM
From: "John Weirich" <jweirich@psi.edu>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
_Hi Lloyd, ... In short, proving the tasks below on your own would be a huge endeavor. To me, "proving" means repeating many experiments that have already been done. Or are you just looking to compile the information into a single source? The latter is much easier. I'll give a one or two sentence response to each, which won't really be an answer but more of a teaser to other things. Much of the actual answers won't be on the internet (so I can't just provide a link), but would be in various books and or textbooks. Reading textbooks for geology courses isn't riveting, but I have done it many times before. $100 for a textbook is much cheaper than paying for a class and then taking the time to attend it and do the work. You get less knowledge by just reading the textbook, but you do get a feel for what is important and what is not.
_John Weirich
_On Dec 4, 2017, at 9:55 PM, lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com> wrote:
_... John and Doug, regarding Plate Tectonics, do you agree that this is what's needed to definitively prove the model?
_1. show convincing evidence of mantle convection & total plate subduction;
_If I remember correctly most of this comes from seismic studies. There are various oceanic plates that we can actually "see" going under the contential plates. The seismic studies are picking up differences in density (the continental plates have a lower density than the oceanic plates). As you look further interior to the continental plate (i.e., go from the continental shelf edge toward the beach, and then further in towards cities), the oceanic plate is deeper and deeper. It keeps diving down until eventually the density difference is no more; this occurs around the depth at which the temperature of the plate would reach the melting point of basalt. I should mention that the seismic studies are seeing a snapshot in time; I'm not aware of actual measurements showing the plates moving underneath the continent. Though I do vaguely remember hearing about how satellite measurements have tracking plate movement, but I think that's in the ocean and not under the continents.
_2. show energy source for convection and calculations that show convection provides enough energy to pull plates apart, subduct them and build mountains etc.
_The pulling of the plates apart is mostly passive; the subduction is the driving force. I did a google search for "ridge push slab pull" and found this, which when I skimmed it appears to line up with my class that covered plate tectonics. www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/web%20pages/Driv_tectonics.html
The rest of that page may also be good. The plates subduct because they are cold and dense. This pulls apart the plate, which reduces the pressure over the mantle at the point where the plate is pulled apart. This reduced pressure causes melting, which then erupts onto the surface as basalt and creates warm oceanic plates that don't sink. This temperature difference between the spreading center and the subducting center has been measured and lines up with predictions.
_3. prove sedimentation was gradual, occurring over millions of years, instead of sudden, occurring over months or years.
_I could be wrong, but I'm almost certain this comes from radiometric dating. Not carbon dating because that won't work (carbon dating doesn't go back far enough). I'm not sure what you would use for sediment. I did a quick google search and couldn't find anything conclusive. Sediment doesn't have the elements like K or Pb that are normally used for radiogenic dating of old rocks. It probably comes from fossil dating. I know there are some thick sedimentary layers that have some fossils at the bottom on the sequence, and then other fossils at the top of the sequence. It's also possible that those numbers come from looking at how quickly sediment builds up currently, and then extrapolating that backwards for the thick layers. I'm not getting anything from memory, but I know there's lots of people who've worked on this topic. I would imagine the answer is in several sedimentology textbooks. It's a fundamental question that early geologists would have wanted answered.
[DE: Proof of PT]
Attempts to confirm models
Tuesday, December 5, 2017 10:51 AM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> weirich@psi.edu
_Hello Lloyd, I will briefly answer your modeling needs on my terms:
_1. I believe continental drift is evidence of mantle convection. Continental drift is indicated by ocean ridges, likeness of shorelines, continuation of various rock formations from one continent to the other, and separation of certain animal species. The edges of many identified plates match with earthquakes, explosive-type volcanism, and young mountain ridges.
_2. Fancy computer programs could possibly show how energy sources could move granitic continental crust. I am not a computer programmer or associated with any university funding. The possible energy sources are as previously discussed: (a) the imbalance of concentrated continental crusts on a spinning object that is perturbed by the tidal acceleration of a repeatable orbiting body such as the Moon; (b) the somewhat frictionless Moho layer between the crust and upper mantle; and (c) other anomalous disturbances of close encounters through both electromagnetic and gravitational forces. My belief is that individual asteroid strikes do not have the power to accelerate entire continental crusts even striking at a sharp oblique angle - except for Earth's first major Great Impact that created its mega-continent which involved a Ganymede-size body.
_3. Sedimentation by today's existing processes is very gradual. Sedimentation evidenced by thick distinct layering and with fossils is caused by sudden catastrophic processes.
_Lloyd, if you would like to contact me by phone about any particular details, please do so. 412-302-1993
_Best regards, Doug Ettinger
Re: Do I have your model right?
Sunday, January 7, 2018 9:48 PM
From: "John Weirich" <jweirich@psi.edu>
John Weirich
>On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:25 AM, lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I mainly want to see if I have your model correct. For the table of comparisons I've reduced the number of questions to 4 by eliminating the glaciation question. I'm calling your model "Mainstream" now, instead of Plate Tectonics and I'm abbreviating it as MS. Do you agree that these 4 answers correctly describe the mainstream model? If I have any of the answers wrong or incomplete, please explain.
>1C. How and when did the largely granitic/sedimentary continents and the largely basaltic ocean basins form?
MS: ~3.9-0 Ga Mantle Convection]]
_I’m not sure scientists know when Mantle convection started. The Jack Hills zircons are older than 4 Ga, and indicate the presence of continental crust at that time. The rocks they are found in are younger sedimentary rocks, but the zircons we see where weathered out of the original rock they formed in (zircon is pretty durable and outlasts most other minerals). Some of the zircons are as a old as 4.4 Ga. You can read more here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hills. Also, it’s not mantle convection that creates the continents and oceans, but plate tectonics. The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Mercury all had mantle convection in the past as well. They just never had plate tectonics. Many of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn also have mantle convection, as well as asteroid Vesta, and perhaps some other asteroids. The smaller asteroids never had mantle convection because they never melted. They have what is called “stagnant lid convection” link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-642-11274-4_1499, but it’s still a form of mantle convection.
>2S. How and when did sedimentary rock strata form?
>MS: ~200-0 Ma Shallow Seas Deposition
_Well the sedimentary rock in the oceans will be younger because the oceanic crust is continually destroyed. So for the oceanic plates that number might be right. I’m not sure the oldest oceanic crust, but I think it's 100’s of Ma. There is much older sedimentary rock found on the continents, like the Jack Hills rocks I mentioned above which are 4.1 Ga. The rocks themselves formed at 4.1Ga, but they have individual zircons in them that are as old as 4.4 Ga. Oh and for what it’s worth most of the shallow seas are still on top of the continental crust. It’s not until you get further out that you reach the oceanic crust. This area where the sediment is deposited is known as the continental shelf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf
>3M. How and when did mountains form?
>MS: ~200-0 Ma Slow Plate Collisions
_The mountains are much older than that. I don’t have good numbers, but did a google search and found this www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/112979-oldest-mountain-range which says the oldest mountains are 3.6Ga. I’m not sure how accurate that is though.
>4F. How and when did the Earth form?
>MS: ~4.6 Ga Nebular Hypothesis Gravitational Accretion
_Yep, that’s correct.
>Would you be interested in hearing challenges to any of your answers to those 4 questions?
_Sure, but I doubt I’ll be able to devote much time to formulating a response.
Re: What would prove your tectonics model?
Tuesday, December 5, 2017 10:04 AM
From: "John Weirich" <jweirich@psi.edu>
To: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
_Hi Lloyd, ... In short, proving the tasks below on your own would be a huge endeavor. To me, "proving" means repeating many experiments that have already been done. Or are you just looking to compile the information into a single source? The latter is much easier. I'll give a one or two sentence response to each, which won't really be an answer but more of a teaser to other things. Much of the actual answers won't be on the internet (so I can't just provide a link), but would be in various books and or textbooks. Reading textbooks for geology courses isn't riveting, but I have done it many times before. $100 for a textbook is much cheaper than paying for a class and then taking the time to attend it and do the work. You get less knowledge by just reading the textbook, but you do get a feel for what is important and what is not.
_John Weirich
_On Dec 4, 2017, at 9:55 PM, lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com> wrote:
_... John and Doug, regarding Plate Tectonics, do you agree that this is what's needed to definitively prove the model?
_1. show convincing evidence of mantle convection & total plate subduction;
_If I remember correctly most of this comes from seismic studies. There are various oceanic plates that we can actually "see" going under the contential plates. The seismic studies are picking up differences in density (the continental plates have a lower density than the oceanic plates). As you look further interior to the continental plate (i.e., go from the continental shelf edge toward the beach, and then further in towards cities), the oceanic plate is deeper and deeper. It keeps diving down until eventually the density difference is no more; this occurs around the depth at which the temperature of the plate would reach the melting point of basalt. I should mention that the seismic studies are seeing a snapshot in time; I'm not aware of actual measurements showing the plates moving underneath the continent. Though I do vaguely remember hearing about how satellite measurements have tracking plate movement, but I think that's in the ocean and not under the continents.
_2. show energy source for convection and calculations that show convection provides enough energy to pull plates apart, subduct them and build mountains etc.
_The pulling of the plates apart is mostly passive; the subduction is the driving force. I did a google search for "ridge push slab pull" and found this, which when I skimmed it appears to line up with my class that covered plate tectonics. www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/web%20pages/Driv_tectonics.html
The rest of that page may also be good. The plates subduct because they are cold and dense. This pulls apart the plate, which reduces the pressure over the mantle at the point where the plate is pulled apart. This reduced pressure causes melting, which then erupts onto the surface as basalt and creates warm oceanic plates that don't sink. This temperature difference between the spreading center and the subducting center has been measured and lines up with predictions.
_3. prove sedimentation was gradual, occurring over millions of years, instead of sudden, occurring over months or years.
_I could be wrong, but I'm almost certain this comes from radiometric dating. Not carbon dating because that won't work (carbon dating doesn't go back far enough). I'm not sure what you would use for sediment. I did a quick google search and couldn't find anything conclusive. Sediment doesn't have the elements like K or Pb that are normally used for radiogenic dating of old rocks. It probably comes from fossil dating. I know there are some thick sedimentary layers that have some fossils at the bottom on the sequence, and then other fossils at the top of the sequence. It's also possible that those numbers come from looking at how quickly sediment builds up currently, and then extrapolating that backwards for the thick layers. I'm not getting anything from memory, but I know there's lots of people who've worked on this topic. I would imagine the answer is in several sedimentology textbooks. It's a fundamental question that early geologists would have wanted answered.
[DE: Proof of PT]
Attempts to confirm models
Tuesday, December 5, 2017 10:51 AM
From: "Doug Ettinger" <dougettinger@verizon.net>
To: "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> weirich@psi.edu
_Hello Lloyd, I will briefly answer your modeling needs on my terms:
_1. I believe continental drift is evidence of mantle convection. Continental drift is indicated by ocean ridges, likeness of shorelines, continuation of various rock formations from one continent to the other, and separation of certain animal species. The edges of many identified plates match with earthquakes, explosive-type volcanism, and young mountain ridges.
_2. Fancy computer programs could possibly show how energy sources could move granitic continental crust. I am not a computer programmer or associated with any university funding. The possible energy sources are as previously discussed: (a) the imbalance of concentrated continental crusts on a spinning object that is perturbed by the tidal acceleration of a repeatable orbiting body such as the Moon; (b) the somewhat frictionless Moho layer between the crust and upper mantle; and (c) other anomalous disturbances of close encounters through both electromagnetic and gravitational forces. My belief is that individual asteroid strikes do not have the power to accelerate entire continental crusts even striking at a sharp oblique angle - except for Earth's first major Great Impact that created its mega-continent which involved a Ganymede-size body.
_3. Sedimentation by today's existing processes is very gradual. Sedimentation evidenced by thick distinct layering and with fossils is caused by sudden catastrophic processes.
_Lloyd, if you would like to contact me by phone about any particular details, please do so. 412-302-1993
_Best regards, Doug Ettinger
Re: Do I have your model right?
Sunday, January 7, 2018 9:48 PM
From: "John Weirich" <jweirich@psi.edu>
John Weirich
>On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:25 AM, lloyd kinder <lkindr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I mainly want to see if I have your model correct. For the table of comparisons I've reduced the number of questions to 4 by eliminating the glaciation question. I'm calling your model "Mainstream" now, instead of Plate Tectonics and I'm abbreviating it as MS. Do you agree that these 4 answers correctly describe the mainstream model? If I have any of the answers wrong or incomplete, please explain.
>1C. How and when did the largely granitic/sedimentary continents and the largely basaltic ocean basins form?
MS: ~3.9-0 Ga Mantle Convection]]
_I’m not sure scientists know when Mantle convection started. The Jack Hills zircons are older than 4 Ga, and indicate the presence of continental crust at that time. The rocks they are found in are younger sedimentary rocks, but the zircons we see where weathered out of the original rock they formed in (zircon is pretty durable and outlasts most other minerals). Some of the zircons are as a old as 4.4 Ga. You can read more here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hills. Also, it’s not mantle convection that creates the continents and oceans, but plate tectonics. The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Mercury all had mantle convection in the past as well. They just never had plate tectonics. Many of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn also have mantle convection, as well as asteroid Vesta, and perhaps some other asteroids. The smaller asteroids never had mantle convection because they never melted. They have what is called “stagnant lid convection” link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-642-11274-4_1499, but it’s still a form of mantle convection.
>2S. How and when did sedimentary rock strata form?
>MS: ~200-0 Ma Shallow Seas Deposition
_Well the sedimentary rock in the oceans will be younger because the oceanic crust is continually destroyed. So for the oceanic plates that number might be right. I’m not sure the oldest oceanic crust, but I think it's 100’s of Ma. There is much older sedimentary rock found on the continents, like the Jack Hills rocks I mentioned above which are 4.1 Ga. The rocks themselves formed at 4.1Ga, but they have individual zircons in them that are as old as 4.4 Ga. Oh and for what it’s worth most of the shallow seas are still on top of the continental crust. It’s not until you get further out that you reach the oceanic crust. This area where the sediment is deposited is known as the continental shelf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf
>3M. How and when did mountains form?
>MS: ~200-0 Ma Slow Plate Collisions
_The mountains are much older than that. I don’t have good numbers, but did a google search and found this www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/112979-oldest-mountain-range which says the oldest mountains are 3.6Ga. I’m not sure how accurate that is though.
>4F. How and when did the Earth form?
>MS: ~4.6 Ga Nebular Hypothesis Gravitational Accretion
_Yep, that’s correct.
>Would you be interested in hearing challenges to any of your answers to those 4 questions?
_Sure, but I doubt I’ll be able to devote much time to formulating a response.