Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Hello all,

tectonics: .. Why do we allow them to teach this (drifting continents) nonsense in our schools?

Do you realize that tectonics does not host a single physical principle that we can find in a physics book? {Not one} There are no mathematical formulations! There is no way to demonstrate the driving forces. They claim the processes are driven by heat .. but since when can heat drive anything except by thermal expansion?

Once the material has expanded, there's no more movement .. it's over - done!

They say that oceanic crust subducts at the continental margins. How does rock sink into rock! And isn't the outside layer of a sphere larger in volume than anything that lays below? So where's all the room coming from to allow this (subduction) to happen? And where in all this wide world is there one single example of this type of (rock sinking into rock) out in the open so's we can see it?

They say that up-flowing magma at the mid-ocean ridges is forcing the continental plates apart! Last time I looked those continental plates were thousands of miles wide .. so how does this (up-flowing magma) that has no resistance to flowing upward and onto the ocean floor .. suddenly get the expansion capability to push huge blocks of ocean crust?

One last point: Structural foundations in all nations around the world, are designed on the established knowledge that compression forces {hence their associated compression stresses} are dissipated through shear by a leading "compression cone!" So my question is this:

"How is it then that tectonics is able to push up mountains in apparent defiance to this well established physical principle?"

tectonics is pure nonsense and we need to think of our children first .. and get it out of our schools

beforebc

.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by beforebc]




posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
the tsunami in 04 was caused by what careless people cannonballing into the indian ocean?

the volcano's of the ring of fire are made by what, evil trolls under the earth?

the san andreas fault moves north by what magic?





the san andreas fault. a rip in the earth caused by what careless scissors?

nisqually quake south of seattle caused places around the state of washington to move up to 8mm. or maybe they got tired of their old locations and wanted a change



The ground in the Puget Sound region didn't just shake during the magnitude 6.8 Nisqually earthquake, it moved -- literally.

"Not only that, but it moved in completely the opposite direction of what we've observed from year to year," said Anthony Qamar, a University of Washington research associate professor in Earth and space sciences and the state seismologist.




PANGA's measurements have shown that typically the central Puget Sound region moves to the east-northeast at about 3 to 5 millimeters per year. By contrast, at Neah Bay on the state's northwest coast the movement is about 10 millimeters, or a half-inch, per year. That's because the coast is much closer to the zone where the Juan de Fuca plate dives beneath the North American Plate, and the pressure moving the land surface is much greater than farther inland.

In the Nisqually earthquake, GPS sensors showed a Coast Guard station at Point Robinson on the east edge of Maury Island moved 8 millimeters to the south-southwest and the UW campus moved 5 millimeters -- about two-tenths of an inch -- south-southwest. The data showed that Satsop, which is about midway between the epicenter and the Washington coast, moved west about 6 millimeters and Pacific Beach, on the coast, moved northwest about 4 millimeters.

Though currently there are no measurements, Qamar also expects that data eventually will show that areas west of the earthquake's focus deep beneath the Nisqually River delta north of Olympia rose as much as a half-inch in the quake. He expects that areas to the east will have dropped about one-third of an inch. (An earthquake's epicenter is the area on the surface that lies directly above the hypocenter, or focus.)

The actual movement of the fault at the focus of the earthquake was probably about 1 meter, more than 3 feet, Qamar said. But the fact that the focus was some 34 miles deep in the Earth means the displacement at the surface is far less.



Source: UW news.org

because of where the la dodgers and the sf giants play, in about a million years or so they will once again be cross town rivals

of course you probably think the world is flat and there are dragons at the edge

[edit on 23-4-2006 by bigx01]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
They say that oceanic crust subducts at the continental margins. How does rock sink into rock! And isn't the outside layer of a sphere larger in volume than anything that lays below? So where's all the room coming from to allow this (subduction) to happen? And where in all this wide world is there one single example of this type of (rock sinking into rock) out in the open so's we can see it?


"They" dont say that oceanic crust subducts at all continental margins, and that is big difference.

Also, if there is some material entering the lower layers at the subduction areas, there is some material getting out at other regions, especialy at the ocean ridges.



They say that up-flowing magma at the mid-ocean ridges is forcing the continental plates apart! Last time I looked those continental plates were thousands of miles wide .. so how does this (up-flowing magma) that has no resistance to flowing upward and onto the ocean floor .. suddenly get the expansion capability to push huge blocks of ocean crust?


That can be easily sean in Iceland, that it is cut in two parts and it is expanding. Also, the distance between the continents has been measured some times and the drifting appart has been measured.



One last point: Structural foundations in all nations around the world, are designed on the established knowledge that compression forces {hence their associated compression stresses} are dissipated through shear by a leading "compression cone!" So my question is this:

"How is it then that tectonics is able to push up mountains in apparent defiance to this well established physical principle?"


To that I can not answer because I do not know what a "compression cone" is.



tectonics is pure nonsense and we need to think of our children first .. and get it out of our schools
[edit on 23-4-2006 by beforebc]


So, what do you think?

The continents have allways been where they are now?
If no, what has made them move?
If yes, how do you explain all the things that are only explained by the movement of the continents?



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
What would be the alternate theory then, for the formation of the Himalaya's?
How did they get so high, and what mechanism is making them continue to grow?

Maybe a better word than "plates" is appropriate..
Maybe they should call them "conveyors"? Continental conveyors..



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Hello all,

First of all spacedoubt, you're right! There is a mechanism that is making the mountains grow- and it's NOT tectonics! But allow me to answer the comments from ArMaP and bigx01 first.

ArMaP and bigx01} - what you're posting is simple orthodox "Descriptive Jargon!" The difference between "Physical Principle" & "Descriptive Jargon" is a matter of what Universe you live in. Equations can be written, and problems solved, and predictions made from Physical Principle.

-- These are the scientists that gave us Physical Principles:

* Archimedes, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Einstein, Bernoulli, Boyle and
Charles (i.e., the gas laws), Gay-Lussac and Gauss, etc.

-- While this is Descriptive Jargon:

* The Earth's surface is covered ..
* The ocean floors are continually moving ..
* Convection currents ..
* The source of heat ..
* Subduction
* Continental drift

-- tectonics is in a different Universe! NO physical principles - No mathematical formulations, NO verifiable engine or driving forces. Just old fashion (on and on) forever - "Descriptive Jargon!"

bc.
.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Have you taken any University level courses in Plate Tectonics or are you just basing this on High School text books?



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Im not sure about this but I think beforebc has a biblical
fundamental ax to grind here.

Sort of an bishop Usher approach to geology if I'm not mistaken.

So beforebc, how did I do?

Do we need to protect our children from science or merely just
change public education into a more fundy friendly curriculum?



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc


bigx01 - what you're posting is simple orthodox "Descriptive Jargon!"




except that once again you are wrong. this is not "Descriptive Jargon!"



PANGA's measurements have shown that typically the central Puget Sound region moves to the east-northeast at about 3 to 5 millimeters per year. By contrast, at Neah Bay on the state's northwest coast the movement is about 10 millimeters, or a half-inch, per year. That's because the coast is much closer to the zone where the Juan de Fuca plate dives beneath the North American Plate, and the pressure moving the land surface is much greater than farther inland.

In the Nisqually earthquake, GPS sensors showed a Coast Guard station at Point Robinson on the east edge of Maury Island moved 8 millimeters to the south-southwest and the UW campus moved 5 millimeters -- about two-tenths of an inch -- south-southwest. The data showed that Satsop, which is about midway between the epicenter and the Washington coast, moved west about 6 millimeters and Pacific Beach, on the coast, moved northwest about 4 millimeters.

Though currently there are no measurements, Qamar also expects that data eventually will show that areas west of the earthquake's focus deep beneath the Nisqually River delta north of Olympia rose as much as a half-inch in the quake. He expects that areas to the east will have dropped about one-third of an inch. (An earthquake's epicenter is the area on the surface that lies directly above the hypocenter, or focus.)

The actual movement of the fault at the focus of the earthquake was probably about 1 meter, more than 3 feet, Qamar said. But the fact that the focus was some 34 miles deep in the Earth means the displacement at the surface is far less.



Source: UW news.org

this is hard indisputable fact made by, and get this, direct measurement

in fact direct measurement confirms the "plate tectonic theory"

but see you conveniently left out the hard fact that i referenced b/c it doesen't support your theory or argument.

many people when confronted with hard facts leave them out b/c they don't want to be embarrassed by being wrong





[edit on 23-4-2006 by bigx01]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I'm curious whether you've considered the environment in which the action is taking place, we're talking about enormous heat and pressure, completely out of sight, and beyond our technological capabilities to measure. How does one prepare mathematical models for processes once can neither see nor effectively measure? How does one go about building calculations, when all the variables remain unaccounted for, lying at the bottom of the ocean and the center of the earth?

I mean, it's one thing to use a star's observed brightness to calculate temperature, and distance and trajectory, and whatever else, it's a whole different ball game trying to build models for an action that takes place primarily out of sight, in a medium that defies our measurements.

We're talking about a planet-sized ball of highly magnetic, molten meltal, spinning at outrageous speeds. A few miles thickness of crust does not present a problem, I would think, for that kind of energy. Or do you dispute the fact that there is molten metal in the earth? I was under the impression that a viscous medium, with bands of polar magnetic material, was documented.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Im not sure about this but I think beforebc has a biblical
fundamental ax to grind here.


he does indeed have a biblical axe to grind.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by bigx01]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
beforebc,

I wasn't really trying to be right, or wrong.
I'm simply looking for a feasible, alternate theory to
crustal movement, that could raise seabeds to 10's of thousands
of feet.
I look forward to reading your alternative!



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
beforebc said:



First of all spacedoubt, you're right! There is a mechanism that is making the mountains grow- and it's NOT tectonics!

Uh, it is tectonics, instead of being subducted, the plates are forced up by plates coming together, thus forming mountains.

Tectonics is real! My favourite subject in high school



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
let's compromise; we'll keep tectonics, but from now on we'll refer to the mechanism as "Jesus plates".

honestly, people. this kind of thing has no place on ATS.

there is no point in attempting to contend with decades of well-established scientific research, not in earth science, not in medicine, not in physics... and yet every day i see half a dozen threads where some fundamentalist loony thinks he or she has found a paragraph in the Bible that supersedes some natural law.

this is frustrating.

why does it continue to happen?

[edit on 23-4-2006 by The Parallelogram]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Hello spacedoubt,

bc here} Your observation is totally correct and it is what stops tectonics in it's (un-principled} tracks: You asked for (an) alternate theory to crustal movement, that could raise seabeds to 10's of thousands of feet.

tectonics obviously cannot raise anything .. let alone a mountain!

The alternative you're looking for is what I've coined "the RB-Effect." The concept is that geo-physical forces are those that hold the earth in solar orbit! Planets don't orbit .. because that's what planets do! --- Planets orbit because they are forced to by gravitational attraction. Left on their own they'd go straight out into deep space in accordance with Newton's First Law.



a body in motion will follow a straight line unless acted upon by an external force


Schools should teach this! We're told that planets orbit the sun, and that's true enough .. but what's not emphased is that the orbit is forced!

Each part of the Earth responds to these orbital-gravitational forces in a different way. The iron core, for instance, is massive in comparison to earth's rocky interior .. and the presence of a surrounding molten layer gives the core a degree of freedom of it's own.

So as solar-gravitational forces cause the earth into curvilinear-orbital motion .. The independence of the core causes it to lag a bit.

Hence a unique rotational rate of it's own. This was discussed in a 1996 article by William J. Broad reports :: "Earth’s Core, a Planet Within the Planet, Is Spun by Twin Streams of Molten Iron," The New York Times, Tue, Dec. 17, 1996, Pg. C1

We can see immediately that it's NOT -- "Twin Streams of Molten Iron," that causes the core to rotate on it's own .. it's Newton's First Law.

bc
.


[edit on 23-4-2006 by beforebc]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc

what you're posting is simple orthodox "Descriptive Jargon!"

-- While this is Descriptive Jargon:

* The Earth's surface is covered ..
* The ocean floors are continually moving ..
* Convection currents ..
* The source of heat ..
* Subduction
* Continental drift

-- tectonics is in a different Universe! NO physical principles - No mathematical formulations, NO verifiable engine or driving forces. Just old fashion (on and on) forever - "Descriptive Jargon!"

bc.
.



what's causing the three sisters up lift in oregon


external image



This radar interferogram shows a pattern of ground uplift centered about 3 miles (5 km) west of South Sister volcano in central Oregon. Each full color band from blue to red represents about 2.8 cm (slightly more than 1 inch) of ground movement in the direction of the radar satellite. In this case, four concentric color bands show that the surface moved toward the satellite (mostly upward) by as much as 10 cm (about 4 inches) sometime between August 1996 and October 2000. No information is available for uncolored areas, where forest vegetation or other factors hinder the acquisition of useful radar data. A numerical model places the source of the uplift about 4 miles (7 km) beneath the ground surface. The most likely cause is magma accumulation in the Earth's crust, a process that has been observed with radar interferometry at several other volcanoes worldwide. There is no immediate danger of a volcanic eruption or other hazardous activity. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, is analyzing additional information and installing new monitoring instruments to determine if the uplift is continuing. The interferogram was produced by Wicks and others (2001) using radar images from the European Space Agency's ERS satellites.


Source: USGS Ground Uplift Near South Sister Volcano, Central Oregon Cascade Range

this is also hard facts by direct measurement

or maybe it's "Descriptive Jargon!" causing this to happen

[edit on 24-4-2006 by TheBandit795]

[edit on 24-4-2006 by bigx01]

[edit on 24-4-2006 by bigx01]

[edit on 27-4-2006 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 27-4-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc


t
The alternative you're looking for is what I've coined "the RB-Effect." The concept is that geo-physical forces are those that hold the earth in solar orbit! Planets don't orbit .. because that's what planets do! --- Planets orbit because they are forced to by gravitational attraction. Left on their own they'd go straight out into deep space in accordance with Newton's First Law.



Each part of the Earth responds to these orbital-gravitational forces in a different way. The iron core, for instance, is massive in comparison to earth's rocky interior .. and the presence of a surrounding molten layer gives the core a degree of freedom of it's own.

So as solar-gravitational forces cause the earth into curvilinear-orbital motion .. The independence of the core causes it to lag a bit.

Hence a unique rotational rate of it's own. This was discussed in a 1996 article by William J. Broad reports :: "Earth’s Core, a Planet Within the Planet, Is Spun by Twin Streams of Molten Iron," The New York Times, Tue, Dec. 17, 1996, Pg. C1

We can see immediately that it's NOT -- "Twin Streams of Molten Iron," that causes the core to rotate on it's own .. it's Newton's First Law.


actually the consrvation of angular momentum is what causes the earth to spin, and when the large gas cloud coalesced into the solar system we know have today, and the planets to orbit.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Wait.
Two concepts here..Rotation, and Revolution.
Are you saying that the core lags behind as the Earth revolves, and the rotation of the Earth brings about a wobble within.
Does this mean the core functions as an agitator (like a washing machine agitator) as it wobbles around it's surrounding sea of molten rock?



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
but since when can heat drive anything except by thermal expansion?

Convection.

Once the material has expanded, there's no more movement .. it's over - done!

Unless its convecting. There is also a 'slab-push/pull' effect.


How does rock sink into rock!

How does anything sink? Becuase its heavier. Continental crust is lighter than oceanic crust, and this, when the two meet, the oceanic crust down thrusts. We can 'see' this by looking at the epicenters at depth of shallow focus earthquakes, which trace out the pattern of a descending slab of oceaninc crust. We can also examine the chemical composition of lava erupting out of volcanoes that form on the continent, above the subductin crust, which indicates that its composed, in part, of melting oceanic crustal material. Not to mention that the existence of arcs of volcanoes behind subduction zones in itself also indicates that there is a down thrusting and melting slab, the melt of which percolates to the surface and exposes as volcanoes.

The physics behind this volcanism is also why indicates that its a subducting plate. When the wet oceanic crust is forced down, it is exposed to great pressure. That causes water to be driven off the subducting slab. That water now mixes with the continental crust, and causes a chemical reaction, which results in the minerals changing, which shifts the solidus-liquidus phase of the minerals, and thus causes them to melt at those pressures and temperatures. This melt, (molten hot magma) percolates to the surface as these chains of Volcanoes associated with subduction zones.


so how does this (up-flowing magma) that has no resistance to flowing upward and onto the ocean floor .. suddenly get the expansion capability to push huge blocks of ocean crust?

It melts the oceanic crust, thins it, and weakens it. If you look at the Mid Ocean Ridges, you can see that its an extensional formation. In closer detail, its composed of a series of faults, the same type of faults that occur if you take a peice of putty and pull it apart, they indicate extensional forces at work.

Also, how else do you explain the magnetic anomalies that spread out from MORs, in symmettry across the more, if there is no spreading? How do you explain the lack of truly ancient oceanic crustal material, if there hasn't been subduction and destruction of oeanic crust?


How is it then that tectonics is able to push up mountains in apparent defiance to this well established physical principle

Please explain your question in more detail. If I take two peices of putty, and push them together, they bludge at the place at which they meet.We can see that this is what is happening at mountain ranges, because the ranges are composed of rocks that are folder and faulted in correspondance to the movement of the plates.



How do you explain, if tectonics is not occuring:

  1. the pressence of ophiolites welded on to previous plate margins,
  2. the inclusion of exotic terranes within continental crust
  3. Accretionary Prisms at the edge of subduction zones, composed of highly folded and broken up peices of oceanic crust and oceanic sediments
  4. Island Arcs composed of melted oceanic crustal material in the oceans
  5. The biogeographic distribution of organisms like Mesosaurus
  6. Polar Wander

etc, etc???

Let alone phsyical verification of the movement of plates.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Hello Nygdan and all,

bc here} Convection is a means of heat {transfer} NOT a means of delivering a force!


You ask "How does anything sink?" .. easy it follows Archimedes principle .. but recall that the object must be freely suspended in the medium. But unfortunately that rock you want to sink into other rock .. is attached to 3000 miles of ocean basin!

In the words of an ancient Chinese prophet (whose name I don't recall) "I don't think so!"

As for (up-flowing magma) melting the oceanic crust, thining it, and weaking it .. that is ignoring the tremendous cooling capability of 1000 feet of over-laying ocean water!

No Nygdan, trying to make something work to fit the paradigm just doesn't work!

The truth is that all the geo-physical phenomenon that you've been addressing are caused by the solar gravitational forces that keep us in solar orbit!

bc
.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Plate tectonics is also effected by the moon, and tides. Convection does make things move, believe it or not.
beforebc, seems to me you are creating a strawman argument, complicating it and
making the logic seem illogical and demolishing it.
Gravity does play it's part, it creates enough movement and friction to make things melt and stuff, but to say that plate tectonics is false and it's the sun's gravity sucking out bulges and mountains on Earth is going too far .




You ask "How does anything sink?" .. easy it follows Archimedes principle .. but recall that the object must be freely suspended in the medium. But unfortunately that rock you want to sink into other rock .. is attached to 3000 miles of ocean basin!

Well, it's got 3000miles worth of rock plate floating on magma forcing it under, not hard to understand at all. And what goes under, forces new stuff up.

PT is real!





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join