NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Posted July 5, 2005 If not subduction, what drives the volcanic activity along plate boundaries? If not orogeny, the result of subduction, what creates the mountain ranges along plate boundaries? What drives volcanic activity along plate boundaries is new rifting and spreading in long time inactive land. If you look at maps, this is the "old ocean area". Remember our common clear rifting takes place in already rifting oceanic plate which has been rifting and spreading regularly for 150 million years.. The Pacific has spread so wide now, that a new/old release value is needed, except this oceanic plate is incredibly thick, 4 miles in some areas. So this is not a peaceful rifting and spreading. And so we have new trenches, and earthquakes and volcanoes. Mountains. Usually the question concerns volcanoes, but that is self evident from my previous answer, do you agree? If we take a growing planet as our model mountains have a clear and simple explanation. As earth's skin gets thicker over the millennia. It of course rifts deeper and deeper, leaving the ancient shallow seas behind to drain into the new deeper oceans. Ridges and flatlands are the old shallow seas. But with thicker and thicker continental plates broken now into continents, as the earth grows and re curves the upper surface is longer than the 30 mile down plate. The surface with re curving buckles into folds....that we call mountains. (The edges of course split and crack). See mountain link: http://www.continuitystudios.net/mountains.html
NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Posted July 5, 2005 hey this got me thinking... say we really were able to do a "jurassic park" scenario and grow a dinosaur today from old dinosaur dna. assuming the earth has more gravity now, HOW WOULD THE DINOSAUR DEAL WITH EARTH'S CURRENT GRAVITY? could it even grow correctly? if it did grow, would it be able to function on today's earth??? I don't think it's expand. It's growth. As long ago as 40 years, a minority of geologists believed this. Carey, Maxlow et al. But they presented only geology and they were correct. They were ridiculed because they didn't have the physics and the rest to explain it. They were right. But specialization knocked them out of the box.
NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Posted July 5, 2005 Chaos, Yes, i think the Grand Canyon is a tectonic spread. I've examined it superficially and the sides fit together, the V shaped canyons to the sides are additional rift/spreads. And no one explains then otherwise. If a rift/spread appears water seeks to run in. Water, except under extreme conditions does not cut canyons. All rivers lay down silt and fill in rivers. That's why rivers must be commonly dredged. And as the Mississippi, the Tigris and Euphretes and the Nile constantly change their course because of filling. Above and asside from the Grand Canyon are two more levels of spread culminating in the Zion Canyon area, all rifts and spreads. Mass is made, or, heh, how else did it get here? These are physics questions, but they start in 1932 with Carl David Anderson, the youngest man to win the Nobel Prize. Expand? yuk, yuk. If a dinosaur were sent here they would collapse internally...first. Worse yet, imagine a Tyrannosaur in Chicago...in winter. Clay, I'm sorry, Clay? Volcanos? Am I being dense? I apologise. -Neal
C1ay Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 What drives volcanic activity along plate boundaries is new rifting and spreading in long time inactive land. If you look at maps, this is the "old ocean area".So the volcanoes of the Cascade mountains like Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Ranier are old areas of ocean floor? Yellowstone too?
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 our own sun is going to get bigger (red giant) before it gets smaller. to get an idea of what i'm saying, say the earth's core has reactions like the sun. now say these reactions go into a red giant phase so the core increases in size and so the outer layers and surface have to expand too. Doubt that could happen for the Earth. A star becomes a red giant when it's core collapses. Once most of hydrogen nuclei have been fused into helium nuclei (with the latter "sinking" below the hydrogen, displacing it from the very core), fusion slows down so the outward pressure is reduced: the star can no longer support itself against gravity by fusing hydrogen, and it isn't hot enough to fuse the helium. So the core collapses. The release of gravitational potential energy as the vast amount of matter falls inward heats the core up to a temperature sufficient for it to begin fusing the helium. Now that the core has begun nuclear reactions again, the energy released speeds up the fusion of the overlying hydrogen shell just outside of the core. Between the fusion of helium in the core and the faster burning of hydrogen in the overlying shell, the net energy production increases greatly. This exerts are much greater outward radiatiion pressure and the star's envelope expands greatly. Now, how large is the core of the Earth? How much energy could be released by gravitational collapse? Would it be enough to reach temperatures capable of fusing helium nuclei? Would there be any overlying hydrogen shell to throw into high gear?
Chaos Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 this may be far-fetched, but maybe the dinosaurs went extinct due to an explosion of the earth's gravity increasing.
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 this may be far-fetched, but maybe the dinosaurs went extinct due to an explosion of the earth's gravity increasing. Uhm, what about the SMALL dinosaurs?
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams: How do other folks feel about this, I keep wondering? How do we feel about WHAT? You haven't SAID anything. You posted a link to some videos that take lord only knows how long to download for someone with dial up. The science discussions here are not limited to people with broadband: if you have a position to discuss HERE, then POST IT HERE.
NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Posted July 5, 2005 Clay, Incredible when you think about it, isn't it. Remember seashells on mountaintops in the Rockies? You sort of have to view it as a whole story book. What was shallow sea?.....When? What pulled? What bent? The middle of North America is being pulled apart. But has settled for a time. The Pacific Rift rides directly under the middle and West North America. Rift material slides out from under the West Coast. The Great Lakes were not made by glaciers. It's a silly idea. They are rift spread areas that continue up and left with lesser lakes proscribing and arc West-North West through Canada. The North East has the St. Lawrence Seaway punching its North Coast upward. The pulling spread North is the Hudson Bay spread area. Then onto Greenland, then to Asia. Nor does land have to be under water at a particular time to be volcanic. Certainly the whole center of America and much of the Rocky Mountain area was under water. In fact, the U.S.G.S. has maps that show land under water at given times. I certainly have no secret knowledge, but when geology tells me all the continents were once one big giant island on one side of the planet, and the rest of the planet 3/4's of it was water, 5 miles deep, it is time to put one's thinking cap on, and say "What's wrong with this picture?" Can it be that science can't investigate the possibility that there's a physics that will explain a growing planet. Because all the other clues point that way. No exceptions. So for 35 years while I went about my career, I plied my second favorite vocation and studied all the other sciences to find that theory.
NAdams Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Posted July 5, 2005 How do we feel about WHAT? You haven't SAID anything. You posted a link to some videos that take lord only knows how long to download for someone with dial up. The science discussions here are not limited to people with broadband: if you have a position to discuss HERE, then POST IT HERE. Telemad, Yes? What about small dinosaurs. Telemad. You have to look on pg. 1 & 2. Sorry. I can't post vids any other way. They are a sort of jumping off point. Again, sorry.
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 Gentlemen and ladies I'm new to this site and intrigued, I have some rather bombastic animations of tectonic movement that might just blow yoour minds, or not, but I gaurantee you'll be entertained. http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html -Neal Adams Nothing.
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 I have been told that only a few Geologists in Australia and a couple of flakes buy this concept... You've provided no concept. Your statement makes no sense. NAdams: ... some folks are stunned by the simplicity and the obvious fact that the continents fit perfectly. Not sorta, but perfectly. No cheating in anyway, as disciplined as I could do it. More over, I followed the undersea maps that act like a road map to the continent’s original positions. Continents fit together? Big deal. Known about for decades. NAdams: The implications of this are a bit epic if it is true. Yeah, plate tectonics was a bit epic. NAdams: Suns, small note, our Sun is throwing off a hundred million tons of ions, electrons, and hydrogen atoms per second into our solar system, math that back five billion years. I think there is a new science out there, but that’s just me. Yeah, the sun spews out matter. Big deal. Nothing new here. No new science. NAdams: How do other folks feel about this, I keep wondering? Feel about what?
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams: ... matter must have been created inside the planet as it is apparently on the Sun ... Matter is not produced inside the Sun. Nuclei are transmuted and mass is lot in the process. NAdams: The question we must ask is did all the matter in the Universe always exist, same amount then, now, and in the future, or was there none, then some was made, then more and more until we have the Universe we have now. If your answer is the second, there is one more question to consider, who turned off the off switch? Gee, I guess there MUST be a God afterall? Is that all your "theory" is? Another attempt to show science is wrong and that God exists?
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams: You’re looking for subduction for your answer. Subduction is a theory existing for forty years that has no verifiable proof of being correct. Even Geologists have buried this theory by discovering most of the asthenosphere is solid and only .04 percent is molten. Are you claiming that even geologists have abandoned subduction? Your support.
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 NAdams: Sauropods wieghing five times elephants which are our largest land mammal and they can cope, not run, and their shoulder blades protect their heads from snapping off. Paleantology and other sciences indicate the gravity has increased profoundly. Today's gravity would have been too strong for dinosaurs? Isn't that a Young-Earth Creationist argument? NAdams: In fact, the easy answer is that the Sun as you may be saying like the whole universe is growing by increasing matter at its coore. Stars don't grow because they've dramatically increased how much matter is at their cores, they grow (become red giants) because their cores COLLAPSE. I explained how this causes an increase in stellar size a few posts back. NAdams: Surely nothing but nothing is getting smaller. Uhm, what about the Appalachian mountains. Oh, I get it, they haven't eroded away over the years, but instead, the Earth's gravity has grown so much that they've been sucked down into the Earth. NAdams: This does mean no Big Bang More anti-science.
Chaos Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 Today's gravity would have been too strong for dinosaurs? Isn't that a Young-Earth Creationist argument?you seem to just want to attack this guy. i think he makes great points and i'm glad he posted the link to his videos. anyway, i'm as far from religious as you can get and i totally think it's possible earth once had less gravity.
TeleMad Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 Chaos: you seem to just want to attack this guy. I didn't attack this guy, I attacked his statements. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do. Now, I did ask this guy to post his theory here, and he refused. Instead, he told me read pages 1 and 2 of this thread. I did. He doesn't explain his "theory" there. So what kind of game is this guy playing? What I did find here posted by him were some scientifically ignorant statements, and others that were anti-science. Chaos: i think he makes great points ... So you don't know science either?
Recommended Posts