It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Desertopa
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
As for techtonic theory - where to begin? - what force is it do you suppose that moves continents about like dogem cars over the planets surface, such that India wanders about willy nilly then crashes into Asia with such force that it creates the Himalayas - geologists certainly don't know, they gave up on magma convection a while ago then ludicrously proposed subduction as the driving force, seeing as thats thier only other possibility, though why a less dense ocean floor would 'sink' into a denser medium requires some very creative physics!
There is very little direct evidence for subduction and certainly nowhere near enough of it to account for the massive (and accelerating) increase in continental seafloor over the last 250 million yrs.
Strangely enough though if you were to watch one of Niel Adams animations - the whole of the continal land masses contact neatly into a complete crust, one third of the present size, without traveling anywhere or rotating. www.youtube.com...
Just as compelling (and not mutualy condtradictory) is the triple geospheres model of the earth blog.hasslberger.com...
Can you provide any citations for the claim that scientists have "given up on" convection as a driving force for plate tectonics? We can observe sea floor spreading at mid ocean ridges, measure the age of sea floor through radiometric dating (it's oldest near continental margins, where subduction occurs, with the oldest sea floor dating back roughly 250 million years.)
Slab Pull is considered by many to be the dominant, or even the only, driving mechanism for plate tectonics. Subduction zones typically occur a long distance away from spreading centers, where the plates have had plenty of time to cool off. Lower temperature makes the plate more dense than the material beneath it, causing it to subduct into the mantle. As the plate edge is drawn under, it pulls the remainder of the plate behind it.
webspinners.com...
The continental crust is not denser than oceanic crust. It's thicker, but the felsic rock of which it is composed is less dense than the basaltic rock of the oceanic crust.
I said oceanic floor was supposed to be subducted down into the mantle, not continental crust.
The decay of radioactive elements in Earth's mantle and core (most naturally occurring radioactive elements are very dense and are much more abundant in the mantle and core than the crust), and heat released from solidification of molten matter onto earth's core, could readily provide the energy to drive magma convection. What do you suppose would cause the Earth to continually expand? For it to expand several time over over time without generating new mass, or for it to create new matter, both require processes unknown to modern physics. What makes you consider this hypothesis less problematic than plate tectonics?
see the triple geospheres model, where the interior is of ultrametal hydrides, with the protons forced into the electron shells of the metal lattice, resulting in a very dense material - when plumes of metal hydrides ascend to the 5Gpa pressure region (continental crust) the hydrides dissociate, and react with the oxidised crust producing vocanism etc - there is plenty of room for expansive processes there, though I personally tend to believe there is some unknown process of direct condensation of matter going on in the interior of the earth, maybe direct condensation from the astral realms at the end of an age (yugas)
Also, if the earth were expanding over time, then we should expect that either 1) surface gravity has decreased over time, as the surface has become further from the center of mass without the total mass increasing, or 2) surface gravity has increased over time, since mass has a cubic relationship with volume, and surface gravity is proportional to the square of the distance from the center of mass. If I can devise an experiment to test whether Earth's surface gravity was significantly different in the past, and the results indicate that it was not, would you accept the expanding Earth hypothesis as falsified?
Originally posted by Desertopa
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
You assume wrongly. Also, you didn't answer my question. If I can devise an experiment that would determine whether the surface gravity of Earth has changed over time, and the results indicate that it has not, would you accept the expanding Earth hypothesis as falsified? It's easy to cherrypick data points that seem to be in accordance with a model, but that doesn't mean that the model is correct. It's not as if the size of dinosaurs is inexplicable if we assume that Earth's surface gravity hasn't changed over time, and if you assume a lesser surface gravity in the past, you're defying conservation of energy on a tremendous scale.
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Originally posted by Desertopa
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
You assume wrongly. Also, you didn't answer my question. If I can devise an experiment that would determine whether the surface gravity of Earth has changed over time, and the results indicate that it has not, would you accept the expanding Earth hypothesis as falsified? It's easy to cherrypick data points that seem to be in accordance with a model, but that doesn't mean that the model is correct. It's not as if the size of dinosaurs is inexplicable if we assume that Earth's surface gravity hasn't changed over time, and if you assume a lesser surface gravity in the past, you're defying conservation of energy on a tremendous scale.
I look at the evidence for expansion and conclude that it is overwhelming - there is no doubt in my mind that this has occured - the mechanism for it, and how to explain it, is another matter entirely. I understand that scientists academics, have theories, reputations and positions to defend - and will simply ignore the blatantly obvious unlessl they have a mechanism to explain it.
As for your experiment - sure, I simply go wherever the evidence points - I presume you have something up your sleeve here, so fire away!
I started reading that and was looking for a modern map of Antarctica showing it matches the The Bauche Map of 1737 as claimed in that pdf, have you got one? I have been unable to confirm the actual shape of Antarctica is like that map as the pdf claims it is, I even searched for the 1958 surveys it referenced and can't find anywhere they documented that shape.
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
here is an excellent page to convince yourself beyond doubt that this is in fact so: www.thecrowhouse.com...
That's the outline of the Piri Reis map in purple, and that coast is way too high to be Antarctica.
an azimuthal equidistant map centered on 0, 0. The fit of Africa and Spain is far better and the fit with Brazil is surprisingly good. Features on the South American coast down to southern Brazil can be identified with certainty. Beyond that, though, the map is fantasy. It doesn't match either South America or Antarctica very well.
What difference?
Originally posted by RaKais
I think theres a difference between shifting a few blocks compared to... say... 2.5 million 20-200+ tonne blocks 480ft high. (AKA the Pyramids.)
Originally posted by Desertopa
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Originally posted by Desertopa
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
You assume wrongly. Also, you didn't answer my question. If I can devise an experiment that would determine whether the surface gravity of Earth has changed over time, and the results indicate that it has not, would you accept the expanding Earth hypothesis as falsified? It's easy to cherrypick data points that seem to be in accordance with a model, but that doesn't mean that the model is correct. It's not as if the size of dinosaurs is inexplicable if we assume that Earth's surface gravity hasn't changed over time, and if you assume a lesser surface gravity in the past, you're defying conservation of energy on a tremendous scale.
I look at the evidence for expansion and conclude that it is overwhelming - there is no doubt in my mind that this has occured - the mechanism for it, and how to explain it, is another matter entirely. I understand that scientists academics, have theories, reputations and positions to defend - and will simply ignore the blatantly obvious unlessl they have a mechanism to explain it.
As for your experiment - sure, I simply go wherever the evidence points - I presume you have something up your sleeve here, so fire away!
I haven't come up with anything in advance, no. If I had already come up with the experiments and performed them, I would have said so.
Generally speaking, scientists do not ignore the blatantly obvious even if they don't have a mechanism to explain it. Few things bring a scientist more status than replacing an old model with a new one that resolves discrepancies. As a result, there are nearly always at least a few scientists trying to pick apart models and replace them, and occasionally they turn out to be right, and gain considerable renown in the scientific community. But far more often, the new hypotheses are simply wrong.
Originally posted by Desertopa
One point of evidence which I forgot to bring up before strongly favors continental drift over expanding Earth.
Most rock contains at least trace amounts of iron. When the rock solidifies from a molten state, the iron becomes magnetized due to Earth's ambient magnetic field. It's possible to determine what latitude a piece of igneous rock formed at by measuring the degree to which the iron in it is magnetized. Since we can only look so far back by measuring sea floor, this is one of the main methods we use to trace the movement of continental plates over time; by checking igneous rocks that were extruded in the time period we want to look at, and measuring what latitude it formed at.
Not only would we not see the patterns of latitude shift in continental plates that we observe if the Earth were expanding in a uniform manner (which would be necessary for it to retain a spheroid shape,) if the Earth had been smaller in the past, then its magnetic field at the surface would have been more intense, and this would have been reflected in the geological record. The record indicates no such decrease.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I started reading that and was looking for a modern map of Antarctica showing it matches the The Bauche Map of 1737 as claimed in that pdf, have you got one? I have been unable to confirm the actual shape of Antarctica is like that map as the pdf claims it is, I even searched for the 1958 surveys it referenced and can't find anywhere they documented that shape.
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
here is an excellent page to convince yourself beyond doubt that this is in fact so: www.thecrowhouse.com...
Also the Piri Reis map probably shows the distorted coastline of South America, not Antarctica as claimed, but it clearly doesn't show either very realistically:
www.uwgb.edu...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14bcc7586158.gif[/atsimg]
That's the outline of the Piri Reis map in purple, and that coast is way too high to be Antarctica.
an azimuthal equidistant map centered on 0, 0. The fit of Africa and Spain is far better and the fit with Brazil is surprisingly good. Features on the South American coast down to southern Brazil can be identified with certainty. Beyond that, though, the map is fantasy. It doesn't match either South America or Antarctica very well.
The author of that pdf says not to take his word for it and to research his evidence for yourself. Unfortunately when I do that, the "evidence" falls apart and doesn't show what he claims.
Of course he also claims our ancestors ("the dummies"), were too stupid to figure out how to cut big rocks and move them around(among other things). I've seen Wally Wallington move huge stones around all by himself using nothing but sticks and stones and sand. The brains of people that lived a few thousand years before us were about as intelligent as ours so why is it so hard to think they could have cut some big rocks and moved them around?
That has to be the worst possible reason to invoke "aliens must have done it" I can think of.
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
(snip)
Ant that is exactly how they keep the public from ever being told the truth,
The Shrike: "I have a problem when I read words such as yours. Who is they? What truth is being withheld? How do you know who is holding what truth?"
take for example 'out of place artifacts' any one of which once verified ought to be enough to destroy the whole conventional view of human history.
The Shrike: "Some OOPAs have been "verified" but there has been no aftershock from their discoveries, just interest from some individuals and organizations. The impact has never been a major news item and when it is reported it is more of a curiosity."
(snip)
There are unambiguous pictures and models of planes helicopters, vivid descriptions of nuclear weapons in the Vedas, and the Sumerian tablets, vast sheets of sand fused to glass in the Sinai deserts, radioactive masses of skeletons in india as well as radioactive cities, hundreds of ancient ruins with vitrified walls - 1200 ton blocks of stone that are immpossible to move, - all this is the tip of the ice-berg what you have seen on MSM is just 'gatekeeping' an 'innoculation' to get you to automatically dimiss it as speculative or hearsay.
The Shrike: "You are making mistakes and assumptions not supported by evidence. For example, the objects you quote are not necessarily OOPAs, or have the reality that you surmise. You are reading into them your fantasies. OOPAs are real, you can hold them, they can be x-rayed, they are physical objects than can be examined in a laboratory. The rest are pure conjecture."
(snip)
1. Surely a race such as this is capable of replicating what they need from one single sample, no?
2. DNA Bovine Acquisitions: See above..a Cow's, a Cow's, a Cow.....they (Aliens) haven't figured this out yet?
3. Visitation: It is HIGHLY implausible that of all the races i read about, from the Reptoids on down to the lowly Greys, and beyond (i have read COUNTLESS different species descriptions in books and media from over the years) would all adapt and adhere to the single Mandate of 'hiding' from the Human species/world population. This just makes no sense to me, and surprisingly I've never read anyone else even mention this as It's so simple. Why would every race of Alien, from God knows where, with no connection to one another even in the Political sense, stick to the same process?
4. Craft Lighting: Ok, why in Hell would any race of beings, hiding from the public, even run a single light aboard these craft? Surely they have a HUD screen where they can see anything they wish, including star system charts (reports over the years describe just this)...so why the anti-collision lights?
5. Power & Diplomacy: Any race able to transverse the interstellar muck MUST have a process of Diplomacy
Where?
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Well here is a bedrock map of Antartica
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Where?
Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Well here is a bedrock map of Antartica
I don't see any picture or link? Except for the link to the pdf.