a reply to: Byrd
What are you saying Proven wrong or the contradictory data found that put the theory into dispute also while I do also ascribe to continental drift
theory I am open to it despite being the currently standard accepted theory being just that a THEORY, a Scientific Model - a Theorem used to predict -
with ample success as it so happens but since our current model of the earth's core is still far from complete lacking sufficient date to construct an
absolutely accurate theory or to predict with absolute certainly earthquakes and volcanic eruptions'.
We are getting better at it all the time as we compile more and more date and computer model's are also getting better at predictive analysis based
on an increasing data base of geological data.
BUT it remains' a THEORY.
As does ECD.
To prove that the THEORY of ECD is wrong would require PROOF that such an event has NEVER occurred and guess what proof that it has NEVER occurred
does not exist and so despite losing adherent's over time and indeed going out of fashion it still remains' a valid concept and it is mechanically
Just to remind you it all has to do with the concept of centrifugal force and imbalance were the planet's outer crust is seen as floating on a semi
liquid internal layer and being potentially able to slip in it's entirety over those semi liquid layers when extreme imbalance is created such as by
the build up of solid ice asymmetrically at least at one of the pole's, if this build up of mass is sufficient it would then provide a centrifugal
mechanical force sufficient to create a THRUST upon the outer crust as the asymmetric mass tried to move toward the equator of the planet.
However it misses another point, pressure equalization can also occur and while I personally do not believe that any recent (geologically speaking at
least in the last half a billion years or so) ECD has occurred and that pressure equalization would then mean the semi liquid layers of the earth's
interior would shift to counterbalance the asymmetry which at least would compensate for the rotation of the planet around it's own axis though it
would perhaps not cancel out the potential mechanical force that could have caused such a planet wide crust displacement.
I mean come on man do YOU really think you are in the same league as the guy that created this theory or indeed Einstein whom thought it was at least
That said I do not Ascribe to the theory but I stand well and truly by my statement that it has NEVER been disproved only been superseded by the now
far more accepted theory of continental drift.
But what if I was to point out to you even with continental drift ECD remains' plausible.
Think about it like this, when we are making some oatmeal and get a skin on the top that can be broken into part's with hot bubbling oatmeal coming
up through the cracks in the skin that is a bit like one over simplified model of the earth's crust were those crack's are rift's and fault lines and
volcano's but under certain circumstance the entire skin can move now can it not, for example imagine your big spoon dipping into the oatmeal at an
angle so as to move the skin in one piece as a really huge whopping comet or asteroid striking the earth at an angle comet or even though far less
cataclysmic a massive build up of ice at the poles off axis and providing an impetus for such a slippage.
Now as it stand's as I pointed out I do not accept that any recent ECD has occurred and indeed it is possible that non has occurred at all for
several billion years though perhaps the most likely time in that duration for one to have potentially occurred would be during the Snow Ball earth
which as you know is also gaining support and also remains' simply a theory though a much younger theory.
AND as I pointed out to contradict ECD I personally would point out the geological features such as the chain of island's and former island's that
show a gradual and not a rapid or huge shift in the earth's crust OR AT LEAST the Hawaiian plate over the THERMAL plume that is the source of the
volcanic energy that created the island's and those now extinct former island's that have slowly slipped back beneath the waves over time.
Now what you may ask is a Thermal plume, looked at they have the usual hexagonal form of a heat plume but rise up from somewhere deep beneath the
Crust, these power Super volcano's and other volcanic features such as the Hawaiian Islands were there is no obvious Crustal subduction taking
This is as opposed to Friction powered volcano's such as those that can be created were plates are in collision sliding one over another and there
the source of the magma is actually were the plates slide is creating heat and this heat is melting the rock which then under extreme pressure of
course seeks a way out which if it find's one to the surface then pushes up the mother of all mole hill's a volcano before erupting out of it.
Of course the source of the heat for super volcano's and of course Hawaii and other such active volcanic features that seem to be very far from
active plate interaction zone's is still only theory and it may and could be that for instance Hawaii could simply be a still semi solid proto plate
sliding under the still very ancient but perhaps much younger Hawaiian plate but if so then were are the old crumple zone mountain's, are there any in
(oh damn it well fair enough I am the one that argued the true tenet's of science going back, any theory can be supported but NEVER proven absolutely
but ANY theory can be disproven if any contradictory evidence can be presented, still has true contradictory evidence for the theory in general or
only for the theory in recent geological history been provided and if so has the theory been disproved or not?).
Sometimes fringe sites have very interesting data, did you know for example Hapgood was not the first to propose ECD.
And there is some potential evidence that during an extreme epoch rapid polar geological wandering in line with a possible ECD may indeed have
Which of course would prove the THEORY but not Hapgood's 40.000 year hypothesis which I think we can safely put to bed.
Or can we.
But you know Byrd neither of us were there so it is all just hot smoke and word's and neither of us actually KNOW what has occurred that far back in
the past we only have an idea about it built atop a stack of other people's ideas and guess what they too were not really that different to us when
all is said and done.
edit on 4-4-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)