Author Topic: MF 2/24-3/29  (Read 37 times)

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
MF 2/24-3/29
« on: February 24, 2017, 10:58:32 pm »
Re: MF 2/24
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2017, 03:11:09 pm »
Sunday, February 26, 2017 9:37 PM
Hi Lloyd,
John Casey comes highly credentialed; perhaps he has some insight.  I always get a little apprehensive when interview guests are pushing a book, in the sense that when money is a motive claims may be exaggerated.  Meteorologists understand that the accuracy of their predictions decreases rapidly as they go beyond a few days because the interplay of forces is so complex.  For the same reason, geologists have been embarrassed for decades at their failure to predict earthquakes, even in terms of threat zones.

There is another guy who claims to predict earthquakes who calls himself dutchsinse.  He goes on YouTube almost daily, I guess, with a long show marking current global activity and his predictions.  Apparently he thinks energy waves spread slowly around the planet triggering faults.  Example:  youtube.com/watch?v=j4S2u1M0bTE  There seems to be controversy surrounding him as well.

Regarding Global Wrench Tectonics, I agree with him that Plate Tectonics has compounded problems over many years, and that as a field of research geology is moribund today.  But my goodness, GWT is just impossible.  It is not just a mountain of speculation, there seems to be no discernment for plausibility of the forces and events invoked.  Let me invent an example in terms of common experience:  A child lifts a limousine over its head and spins it on one finger.  As it spins faster and faster, cyclonic waves move away and remove the upper 7/8ths of surrounding buildings in a radius of 5.6 miles.  The reduced weight causes crustal uplift and heating of sublithospheric mantle.  Consequent adjustment in the geomagnetic field opens the ionosphere to an order of magnitude increase in cosmic ray penetration locally.  Resonant fluctuation of inorganic halites, ferric coprolites, and metamorphic peat trigger a field inversion and simultaneous jerk in Earth's rotation.  Your reaction to reading that is how I feel reading Global Wrench Tectonics.  And I say that as someone with a geology theory of sliding continents!

Submitting a discussion to NCGT journal sounds like a good idea.

-----

Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:06 pm
- I just read (M O) Michael Oard's "Analysis of Walt Brown’s Flood model" at http://creation.com/hydroplate-theory
- M O persuades me that the Grand Canyon was carved by Great Flood waters toward the end of the Flood, which likely means that the Colorado Plateau rose at that time.
- He shows numerous problems with Walter Brown's version, esp. insufficient water from the two hypothetical lakes to carve the canyon etc.
- M O also persuades me that mammoths were not flash frozen, which likely means that they lived during the Ice Age after the Flood.
- I think the thicker atmosphere before the Flood is highly probable.
- I don't think the icy canopy is necessary, since megatsunamis from an orbiting asteroid etc should suffice to produce the Flood.
- M O is apparently just missing the SD impact model to explain orogeny (and the preflood thicker atmosphere) to have a complete model.

I plan to try to contact Oard and others soon to discuss the SD model etc.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 12:44:31 pm by Admin »
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 07:22:39 pm by Admin »

Social Buttons


Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: MF 2/28-3/1
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2017, 12:55:44 pm »
Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:42 PM
Hi Lloyd,
Oard does a good analysis of Walter Brown's Flood model.  In doing so, he makes several points that best fit the Shock Dynamics model: 1) "the woolly mammoth population increased rapidly to millions in the first few hundred years after the Flood."  These and many other animals replaced the dinosaurs, and spread to their preferred habitats on the post-Flood protocontinent before it was divided.  And the timing of the SD event is about 300 years after the Flood, in the "days of Peleg" (Septuagint); 2) in SD, Siberia was forced far north in one day by the collision of India and Southeast Asia with the Asia mainland, producing the sudden cold climate Brown referred to without rolling the whole Earth, for which there is no evidence; 3) "The woolly mammoths were buried in loess (wind-blown silt), commonly found up to 60 m (200 ft) thick in the lowlands of Siberia and Alaska."  That is an enormous amount of wind-blown silt suddenly burying mammoths.  The SD event is an ideal generator of such a storm, and it is hard to imagine any other source.

I have no interest in contacting Michael Oard.  The basic Shock Dynamics theory was published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly in 1992, and there was no response from any of the readers.  I presented it at the Third International Conference on Creation in 1994, being on stage as the second piece of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was falling into Jupiter, quite a coincidence for a meteorite-impact theory, and there was no interest from anyone at the conference.  Everyone was enthralled, however, with the rollout of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics by 5 creationist Ph.D.s at that conference, and the YEC love affair with it continues.  I was not allowed to submit either of two papers on SD at the next conference, being told by creationist Ph.D. reviewers that it would just "confuse" the people.  My discussions with YEC speakers at the 1994 conference had no consequence, except with Wycliffe Bible translator Bernard Northrup.  He told me that he had been struggling without success for years to convince YEC leaders that they were packing too much Earth history into the Flood event.  He showed me his biblical time line of events, and I found SD fit his post-Flood catastrophic requirements.  Bernard died a few years ago without having made a difference in creationist thinking.  I am not going to waste my time with members of the creationist intelligentsia.  Their severe oppression by the evolutionist establishment over decades seems to have hardened their positions against any significant changes, even those proposed by allies.  I am content to have SD explained on the internet, open to "new wineskins" who run across it.  Regrettably, very few people know enough about geology to judge it fairly, and most who do know something were taught it in the context of Plate Tectonics theory.

-----

3/1/17; 2:41 PM
Hi Mike. If the SD impact raised the Colorado Plateau 300 years after the Great Flood, was the Grand Canyon eroded during the Flood, or at the time of the SD event? Oard said the upper strata were eroded by sheet erosion. Would that have occurred during the Flood? And then would the rest of the Grand Canyon have eroded during the SD event? Oard said Grand and Hopi Lakes didn't exist and much more water was needed to erode the Canyon than what would have been in those lakes. The SD impact should have caused a lot of flooding, so is that how the Canyon eroded? Do you know how to determine whether the upper strata at the Grand Canyon were eroded during the Great Flood or during the SD event?

Dong Choi sent me several PDF files. The first one showed their findings that the global temperature was gradually rising until about 1996, then there was a sudden jump several tenths of a degree Celsius, then it continued to rise gradually since then. They show that #4-6 earthquake activity jumped about two years earlier and followed the same trends. They show a map of Earth heat, mostly from the ocean ridge system, which they say is responsible for Earth's temperature. I posted their map and graphs at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m/msg150/#msg150 where you can view them. The map shows Antarctica and Greenland as rather warm too, so I don't understand that. I guess I need to ask Mr. Choi about that. Or do you understand it?

They also showed graphs indicating that major quakes and volcanic eruptions have occurred during low sunspot periods, esp. during little ice ages. Today Mr. Choi sent me more stuff. This includes a paper on the New Madrid fault. The paper has a world map showing two major anticlines in the western and eastern hemispheres. See the same post link above. The eastern one runs along near the northern edge of the Australian plate through Indonesia then north to the central tip of Siberia. The western anticline runs from SE of Brazil NW to the Gulf of Mexico, then north through New Madrid and up through Hudson's Bay and Baffin Island I think. They call the anticlines antipodal. Can you see the map of the two anticlines? They have very nearly the same shapes. Do you have an idea how they were formed? Would they have formed before, during or after the SD event? If you can figure out the likely cause of those two anticlines, we could probably make a better impression on Mr. Choi for the SD model.

I'll try to send an attachment soon of their New Madrid paper.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 04:34:54 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: MF 3/1-3/2
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2017, 08:27:56 pm »
Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017, 8:15 PM
Hi Lloyd,Thanks for bringing up the Grand Canyon.  Perhaps surprisingly, I have not paid much attention to it in the past, aside from purchasing Steve Austin's book on the subject.  On a global scale it is a small feature despite being a geologic monument.  The YEC scenario for the lowest sedimentary rock layers (Unkar to Chuar Groups) awkwardly attributes them to the Creation Week, so that block faulting, tilting, erosion, and deposition of overlying sedimentary layers can happen during the Flood (or near the end?).  Since I have two global catastrophes at hand instead of one, I assume the lowest sedimentary rock layers are Flood deposits.  Uplift and block faulting of the Colorado Plateau would occur as North America moved west during the SD event, eroding the Great Unconformity as tsunamis rushed eastward from the coast, then depositing all the sedimentary layers above it.  A large quantity of ocean water trapped inland of the new western mountain chain eventually eroded the canyon either as runoff or as a consequence of the subsequent ice age, such as dam breaching. You will have to rely on Dong Choi to explain his reports.  I am unfamiliar with his claims about
Earth's temperature, and have never heard of two major hemispheric anticlines.  The map on which the anticlines are drawn illustrates some undefined data, yet it shows no apparent support for the position of the blue lines.

--------------------------------

Date: Thu, March 02, 2017 12:14 am
Mike, I just found their New Madrid paper online as a PDF at:
https://larouchepac.com/sites/default/files/GCSR1-2015NewMadridChoi%26Casey%20(8).pdf
 
So you can see the caption for the map of the super anticlines there. It references Choi 2013, so I'll try to check the 2013 issues of NCGT and maybe I'll find it there. It'll be interesting to see his data or source for the map.

-----

On Thu, 3/2/17, mike@newgeology.us <mike@newgeology.us> wrote:
Subject: RE: Submit NCGT Discussion?
 Lloyd, it does help to see the paper - thanks.  The "super anticline" concept seems to be a minority construct; I have not encountered it before, and I still don't see what identifies one.  On the other hand, Figure 3 in the Choi and Casey paper (New Madrid earthquakes compared to solar minimums or “solar hibernations”) is sobering if the data is accurate.  It is counterintuitive, yet deserves further study.

-----

Thu 3/2/17 8:30PM
Hi Mike. I'm finding Choi's & Co's ideas pretty far-fetched. I spent much of today copying and reading some of his and other papers from NCGT.org. I posted them on my forum at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82 so you can read what I found. I did find one of the papers Choi had referenced in one of the illustrations in that separate paper that I found online. So that's one of the papers I now posted at that link above. It's actually a few of his papers all collected together in the first two posts on that page. I also posted Tassos' paper there about 5 myths in geology. I had read one of Tassos' papers online a few years ago, but not one that's in NCGT, as far as I know.

By the way, I left the most interesting parts in black text, although Tassos' paper was too brief to color. The rest, less interesting parts, I colored limegreen. So you can skip most of the green text and concentrate on the black, probably.

Then I copied the Norwegian guy's Wrench Tectonics, that you made light of the other day, along with his criticisms of Surge Tectonics. Following his paper are a couple of papers criticizing Wrench Tectonics and defending Surge Tectonics. I thought it might be good to see what kinds of theories are circulating in NCGT, so maybe we can address their flaws while discussing your model there. I didn't have time to highlight the best parts of those last papers yet, assuming there are any best parts, Haha.

I think the reason those folks feel so confident about their, what's it called, non-mobilist?, models is they've apparently been making a lot of progress at predicting earthquakes. Choi mentions surges in his papers a little and I think it refers to surges of energy that are detectable and the surges migrate along those geanticlines and it's predictable where and when they'll cause serious quakes. I think the geanticlines are supposed to be in the bedrock precambrian granite etc. They have some interesting maps on that, but they're hard to read. Choi says heat is a major driver of geodynamics. One of the wierdest ideas he mentioned is that the continents and oceans rise and fall over millions of years. They call subsidence of land oceanization, I think. Choi started off by criticizing Plate Tectonics. The problems with PT are what got these guys going off on this rebel path. They say the ocean floors have a lot of evidence of being continental sedimentary rock. They talk about plumes coming up from the outer core.

If you have time to read it over, I'll be interested in your comments. I haven't read much of the debate between Wrench and Surge Tectonics yet, but I assume that the surging is what I mentioned above, but not sure yet. They favor the theory of vertical mobility over horizontal mobility, of course.

When I first wrote to you years ago, I suggested that lightning is what produced the SD impact and others, but Charles Chandler helped convince me that bolides are the real impactors. He found that electrical forces do seem to be mainly responsible for star and planet formation, which store electrical energy in internal double layers. He found reasonable explanations of how earthquakes and volcanoes are due to electrical ohmic heating. He learned from Tassos that bedrock contains microfractures, so that's where the electrical energy goes to make quakes etc. See his papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6199 He's great at debating, so I wish he would get involved, but he's not been into science as much lately. If he thought it might help save lives, I think he may be more inclined to get interested.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2017, 01:50:08 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: MF 3/6-3/8
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2017, 12:16:52 am »
Monday, March 6, 2017, 5:35 PM
Hi Lloyd, You have been doing a lot of reading I see, and finding more chaff than wheat. So Choi agrees with Plate Tectonics that heat is a major driver of geodynamics?  Supposedly the greatest remaining concentration of heat is in the core, giving rise to alleged mantle plumes, and most of the rest is from radioactive decay in the mantle, distributed homogeneously.  Calculations I have seen show Earth convects 44 terawatts of heat, but only half would be produced by these sources, suggesting residual heat is also being vented.  I agree with those who attribute slow lithospheric motion to tidal forces rather than heat, due mainly to the Moon but to other bodies as well.  Oceanic transgression and regression are essential mechanisms for producing sequence stratigraphy in Plate Tectonics and stasis theories.  That may be easy for their supporters to accept, yet I wish they would think about what would have to happen at depth for all this repeated fluctuation of hundreds of feet to occur globally.  And I agree with Tassos that Plate Tectonics, Heat Engine Earth, and the Organic Origin of Hydrocarbon Reserves are mistaken.  However, that does not lead to "therefore Expanding Earth".  Earthquakes are firing every second around the world, usually in well-defined zones, and the two hemispheric geanticlines don't seem to be in those zones.  What everyone is striving for is prediction of the biggest earthquakes.  Anyone who can consistently do that deserves our attention.

Monday, March 6, 2017 5:43 PM
When I launched the newgeology website in 2003 I was looking for a broadscope rebuttal to Plate Tectonics theory for visitors to read, and Pratt's 2000 article fit the bill.  While passing judgement on PT, it did not advocate an alternative theory.  I have not paid much attention to Surge Tectonics since then or communicated with David Pratt.

---

Wed, March 08, 2017 1:08 am
Hi Mike. Do you have any idea how many times the locations of sedimentary rock strata would have had to move up and down in order to deposit at least close to 2 km of strata by the regular geologists' means? There are at least dozens of strata in most locations. The Surge Tectonics folks think the seafloors also are covered with sedimentary strata and granite, at least under the basalt. What do you think would have to happen in the asthenosphere or mantle for such up and down motions?
- I think my best argument is that it wouldn't be possible for just one or two kinds of sediments to be deposited for thousands of years followed by one or two other kinds. They'd have to mix together. Wouldn't they?
- I found an NCGT article that seems to explain Surge Tectonics theory pretty well, which I posted at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82/msg156/#msg156
- I highlighted the most relevant parts in Bold Type.
- It describes a worldwide network of surge channels and mentions some evidence for that.

---

Wednesday, March 8, 2017 9:41 PM

Hi Lloyd, As you can imagine, sedimentary strata vary considerably according to location.  The two attached pictures provide some general insight.

The Surge Tectonics statements strike me as unrelated to reality.  While the rotational lag of the lithosphere relative to the mantle is correct, the "strictosphere" (upper mantle), and consequently Earth's radius, has not been found to be shrinking (nor expanding)  https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110816.html  Without shrinking, lithosphere will not be compressed for "tectogenesis".  The lithosphere is buoyant anyway, and would not "collapse" into denser asthenosphere and mantle, even at Benioff zones   http://www.academia.edu/18543181/Continents_as_lithological_icebergs_the_importance_of_buoyant_lithospheric_roots  Without shrinking, magma in channels, if they exist, will not be pumped to "surge".

I think the late geophysicist Don Anderson was right in his view that near-surface mantle (at least) is not homogeneous but contains scattered hot or wet pools.  This is unexpected if the mantle has been churning from top to bottom for billions of years, yet seismic tomographic images reveal a generous distribution of dense and less dense anomalies.  However, I have not seen any that support the surge channel concept.  If you have any such images at hand, I would like to see them.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2017, 01:26:44 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
MF 3/16
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2017, 02:33:25 pm »
RE: Submit NCGT Discussion
Thu, March 16, 2017 2:23 pm
    Hi Mike.
- Info overload is making it a little hard for me to sort out how to proceed, but I don't see any brick walls yet. I asked Dong Choi which NCGT issues show the best evidence for Surge Tectonics, but he said I should get Art Meyerhoff's book, although it's from the early 90s. I think Meyerhoff died in 94. Dr. Choi said he was Meyerhoff's main student or something like that. I ordered Meyerhoff's book at the local library and it should be there tomorrow or Tuesday.
- I found an NCGT article from around 2004 that favors an electrical battery model for Earth and I found out Dr. Choi favors that model too and he said it helps explain the major earthquake correlation with sunspot minima. My friend, Charles Chandler, has a similar model and is working on submitting a manuscript to NCGT for publication.
- The scariest thing I read in John Casey's book, Dark Winter, is that the Sun's diameter has been measured since 1979 and is found to be losing over 2 km in radius every year. In 4,000 years it may have lost over 8,000 km in radius. I think Charles Chandler's model of the Sun is probably correct that it is powered by electrical double layers and solar flare electric discharges, instead of a nuclear furnace. If the Sun shrinks too fast, humans may need to terreform Venus and move there.
- Charles' model of the Earth has it as similar electrical double layers of high density matter in the center. Some of the NCGT people seem to favor a cold formation model of the Earth, but Charles argued that gravity alone could not have formed Earth from whatever material was available. Electrical forces must have been the primary cause.
- It seems that our discussion with NCGT may need to argue against cold formation of Earth, transgressing/regressing oceans, major vertical uplift/subsidence and radiometric dating, at least. Since they seem to be able to predict earthquakes based on detection of some kind of surges that supposedly migrate north or south along the major geanticlines etc, there must be something to the surges, but I'll have to wait till I get the book soon to see if it explains evidence for surges etc meaningfully.
- I did some more reading on the Kola Borehole yesterday and found some interesting statements. I posted much of it at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/k/
- The pressure was found to be 92% to 29% of the expected value for most of the first 8800 m, with the exception of the ca. 3200 m mark, where it was over twice the expected amount. Fracturing of the rock was said to be the cause of the low pressures. Below 8800 m I guess the pressure was as expected. But the temperature at 12000 m was 180 C, instead of 100 as expected. The main scientist for the project seems to say that the rock below 7000 m was sedimentary rock from weathered granite that metamorphosed back to granite. Plankton fossils were found about 6400 m deep.

-----

Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:28 PM
Hi Lloyd,
Some quick notes: the word "radiocarbon" in your post where it reads "Radiocarbon dating places the culmination of the Archean metamorphism in the Kola Peninsula at 2.7 to 2.8 billion years ago." should be changed to "radiometric" or "radioisotope", since radiocarbon reaches back only 55,000 years.  Also, metamorphosed granite is "granite gneiss", and metamorphosed sedimentary rock is just gneiss.  And this analysis from Stanford concerns the Sun's diameter (conclusion at bottom of page)  http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
- It will be interesting to learn more about electrical activity regarding Earth.  That's all new to me.  Anyone who can predict earthquakes has my respect.

---

Wed, March 22, 2017 1:36 pm
Hi Mike. I got the Surge Tectonics book from the library yesterday and I copied most of Chapter 3 onto my forum at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/s/msg178/#msg178
- I'm copying some more from other chapters and will probably post it later today or tomorrow.
- It looks like they have pretty good evidence for the surge channels, at least from the Moho level. I don't know if there's evidence of channels below that. Charles has figured out that vertical channels from the Moho likely produce volcanism and earthquakes, but lava doesn't come from the Moho. It comes from the crust around the channel. The Moho is ionized and provides a path for ionization through the vertical channels. The tides keep the electrical circuits charged, first in one direction (up), then in the other (down), each day. Did you get a chance to read any of Charles' material?
- I hope you have time to read what I copied on Surge Tectonics. If so, I'd like to hear your comments. If the channels are real, it would be nice if you or we can determine if SD can explain them. They talk about Pascal's Law, which seems likely to be important for SD, although I don't know how well that law would apply to ionized matter within a planet. So far, I haven't noticed any mention of the Earth having formed from cold matter.

---

Thu, March 23, 2017 10:54 am
Thanks for the paper, Mike. I'll look at it soon. Meyerhoff claimed that the shrinkage of the Earth is very gradual and episodic. I read that the Earth loses maybe twice as much mass every year via hydrogen as it gains via meteors. The shrinkage and cooling is plausible, but probably not by gravity causing surge channels. Instead, Charles' model has tidal forces constantly moving electric double layers in the Earth up and down about 1 meter every day, so electric forces seem to be the cause of surge channels, but probably not below the Moho. Tidal forces are electrical too, as Charles explains. And Dong Choi agrees with electrical forces in the Earth. Meyerhoff's book doesn't seem to mention electrical forces, so Choi seems to accept an Italian geologist's ideas about that, although NCGT papers and discussions don't seem to discuss electrical forces, other than the Italian geologist's paper from about 2004. So I think the surge channels are explained by Charles' electrical model.
- The book seems to express doubt that catastrophism has had much influence on geological events or features, but I think we have plenty of evidence that it has had major influence. Charles and Gordon both accept the Shock Dynamics model in large part; they just don't think the continents would have moved apart at the speeds that you have determined. Gordon thinks it took months. Charles probably thinks at least months and maybe years. I on the other hand think it's obvious they had to move very quickly as you suggest. If they didn't move quickly enough, fluidization would have been overcome too soon by friction

---

Fri, March 24, 2017, 9:42 PM
Good for you, Lloyd.  The fluid, swirling interaction of the crustal pressure wave with moving landmasses during the Shock Dynamics event is clearest in Oceania (attached image), explained at  http://www.newgeology.us/presentation13.html  It all must have been quite rapid. Are Earth's electrical forces considered by Charles to be due to the piezoelectric effect? Cheers, Mike

---

Sat, March 25/17 5:33PM
Hi Mike. Re: "Are Earth's electrical forces considered by  Charles to be due to the piezoelectric effect?"
- No. The piezoelectric effect is so minor, that I don't think he even discusses it in his model. If he were to discuss the Shock Dynamics impact more in his model, he might then need to discuss the piezoelectric effect, but he hasn't mentioned thinking about doing that. Anyway, if piezoelectricity is involved in fluidization, that seems to be the only time it would be very significant. Well, I guess during impacts too.
- Here are the main topics in his Astrophysics & Geophysics papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5660-6031 and I'll describe briefly what some of them explain in brackets: Introduction . Accretion [that gravity can't cause it, but static electricity must] . Filaments [that static electricity in space forms galactic filaments] . Tokamaks [that faster rotating filament collapses form ring stars] . Egg Nebula . Supernovae [that supernovas are star births, not deaths, usually, - & that successive supernovas form increasingly heavy elements]
Quasars [that quasars are ring stars] . The Sun - Motivation - Surface [that the Sun has current-free electrical double-layers] - Interior - Elements [that the layers consist mainly of 6th, 4th & 1st period elements] - Potentials [the layers are shown at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/17493.png ] - Conversions - Energy Budget - Radiation - Granules - Sunspots - CMEs - Arcades - Corona - Heliosphere - Cycles - Conclusion - Appendices ... The Planets - Introduction - Titius-Bode Law - Remelted Crusts [that impacts remelted crusts] - Geomagnetism [that electrical double-layers cause Earth's magnetic field] - Tidal Forces [that tides are electrical] - The Moho [that the Moho is constantly electrified by tides] - Earthquakes [that electrical forces cause them] - Volcanoes [that ohmic heating from the Moho causes eruptions]
- Seneca Guns - Miscellaneous - Discussion ... Main Sequence . Light Curves . Galaxies . Conclusion . Credits . Changes . Discussions . In Progress
- Mike, have you come up with any explanations for continental roots? I think the Surge Tectonics book says they prove that continents have not moved. I figured maybe the roots must have formed as the continents began to encounter significant friction toward the ends of the sliding. If that's the case, then Africa shouldn't have roots and Eurasia should have very little, unless the entire supercontinent had slid previously. It seems that melting often separates heavier material from lighter, so it seems that could account for the roots. Do you have a better explanation? If so, I'd like to know what it is for the NCGT discussion.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 06:08:55 pm by Admin »

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
Re: MF 3/25-3/26
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2017, 12:31:25 pm »
MF: Sat, March 25, 2017 10:31 PM
- In SD, all the mountain ranges were raised quickly by compressing continental crust.  Bending crust to form the Andes, the Rockies, the Himalayas, the Alps, etc. would activate the piezoelectric effect on a large scale, I would think.
- My website addresses cratons and continental roots on this page  http://www.newgeology.us/presentation41.html  from which excerpts are written below (quotes are sourced):
- Research is challenging the neat definitions of cratons.  "Generalizations of Archean cratons do not capture the variability between cratonic regions or the complexity within a single craton assemblage.  For example, not every craton is underlain by high-velocity roots, and the deepest roots do not always occur under Archean cratons."
- "Most geochemical characteristics of lithospheric mantle peridotites are most easily reconciled with a relatively low-pressure melting origin, albeit in the case of cratonic peridotites one taken to very high degrees of melting."
- "The geochemical evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that the roots are the residue of partial melting".
- "The North Atlantic Cratonic sub-continental lithospheric mantle and all other cratonic continental mantle roots studied here are the product of extreme melt extraction at relatively shallow depths (~90 km or less)."
- "The boundary between the lower crust and mantle may be open.  When magmatic or tectonic activity destabilizes and deforms the lithosphere, ultramafic cumulates tend to move downward.  This 'foundering' occurs during orogeny, rifting, and continental breakup."
- "Intracrustal melting produces granitoid magmas and dense mafic restites that return to the mantle.  The foundering of mafic restites from granitoid magmas is likely a major process."
- High temperature is required for dense lower crustal mafic-ultramafic cumulates to sink into the mantle.  Results of experiments show that "an initial strain rate can significantly reduce the Moho temperature required for an instability to develop."  "Instability times decrease because the initial effective viscosity is lower."
- In the Shock Dynamics model, lateral stress (pivoting or compression followed by extension) melted continental crust, and the residue foundered, producing a mantle root.  Melting and founder of dense residue must have occurred after the motion of the continents (which lasted only about 26 hours) had ceased.

---

LK: Sun, March 26, 12:22PM
- That's great, Mike. I did a search on your site, but I didn't persist long enough to find that page about cratons and continental roots. It sounds like my suspicion about how the roots formed was correct. Now if we find which continents have roots and which don't, that will hopefully confirm SD further.
- I agree that a lot of piezoelectricity likely occurred during continental sliding and orogeny etc, but I was thinking it probably didn't contribute much to the SD and continental drift events. It's hard for me to distinguish in my mind between piezoelectricity, telluric currents, electron flow from tidal forces acting on current-free double-layers, and shock waves, etc. A few months ago I showed you an article about the shock effects of the Chixulub impact and you said you had read the same findings from last summer, I think. It talked about how the pressure from the impact shock waves caused solid rock to melt briefly and thus bend, similar to the bending seen in foldbelts or orogeny, I think. I don't think piezoelectricity was mentioned, but obviously it would have been involved, but I don't understand such things well enough to figure out exactly what it would have done. The momentum of an impact would do a lot. The shockwaves would cause brief melting and bending. I guess the piezoelectricity would be part of the ionization and melting. Do you think we should try to understand more thoroughly how piezoelectricity was involved?
- Another matter that seems important is to account for the surge channels that apparently exist in many locations, such as under ocean ridges, mountain ranges, foldbelts etc. Have you read what I copied from the Surge Tectonics book? They seem to detect the channels as lenses. If a lens has the same velocity P-waves all the way through, they call them inactive. If they had I think slower waves in the center, they call them active. That's if I understood what I read correctly. If their identification of active surge channels is correct, then it seems that the channels must have formed during the SD and continental drift events. Do you have an idea how molten channels would have formed in such locations during those events and why many of them would remain active/molten? I think Charles' model can help explain why they would remain active, i.e. because of tidal forces keeping the channels electrified each day. The channels under ocean ridges are said to be a few hundred km wide, but those within continents are much narrower.

---

Sunday, March 26, 2017 7:26 PM
- Hi Lloyd, Continental "roots" are associated with cratons.  Radiometric dating of cratons puts them in particular eons.  Oldest to recent they are: archon, proton, tecton (see attached image).
- Meteorite shock effects should be separate from piezoelectric effects.  In the former, the crust is temporarily fluidized, which is confirmed by the report you mention about Chicxulub.  In the latter, the combination of momentum and sudden braking or collision (Himalayas) result in brittle folding/breaking.  My guess is that this would influence the geomagnetic field and magnetic striping that reflects alternating polarization of re-worked oceanic crust.

---

LK: Thu, 3/29/17 9:50PM
- In the quote below from the book, Surge Tectonics, you can see they say the surge channels form at the top of the Moho.
- Here from the book is a Surge Channels Map I found online:
http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/images/ECNews/HeatFlow/WorldHeatFlowMap750.jpg
- The Webpage which seems religious is: http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/article.php?a_id=93
- They say the surge channels are within those warm bands. Many are said to be active channels and some are inactive, which I think means solidified.
- 3.9.3 ROLE OF THE MOHOROVIC DISCONTINUITY
Thus, when the postulated tholeiitic picrite magma reachs the Moho- (... between  8.0-km/s ... and 6.6-km/s ...), it has reached its level of neutral buoyancy and  spreads laterally. Under the proper conditions---abundant magma supply and  favorable crustal structure---a surge channel can form. We suggest the possibility  that the entire 7.0-7.8-km/s layer may have formed in this way. In support of this  suggestion, we note that the main channel of every surge channel studied, from the  Archean to the Cenozoic, is located precisely at the surface of the Moho-. This  indicates that the discontinuity is very ancient, perhaps as old as the Earth  itself. This fact and the great difference in P-wave velocities above and below the  Moho- surface suggest in turn that the discontinuity originated during the initial  cooling of the Earth.
- Here's a quote from the Conclusions section of the book.
9. Surge channels, active or inactive, underlie nearly every major feature of the  Earth's surface, including all rifts, foldbelts, metamorphic belts, and strike-slip  zones. These belts are roughly bisymmetrical, have linear surface swaths of faults,  fractures, and fissures, and belt-parallel stretching lineations. Aligned plutons,  ophiolites, melange belts, volcanic centers, kimberlite dikes, diatremes, ring  structures and mineral belts are characteristic. Zoned metamorphic belts are also  characteristic. In some areas, linear river valleys, flood basalts, and/or vortex  structures may be present. A lens of 7.8-7.0 km/s material always underlies the  belt.
- QUESTION #1: Does it make sense to you that these magma "surge" channels would have formed at the top of the Moho under those many belts, bands etc? My guess is yes, starting during the SD event.  I wonder if the folding, rifting, fracturing etc caused the channels, instead of vice versa. Hmm?
- Here's a webpage of Pratt's on oceanization: http://davidpratt.info/sunken.htm
- Here's a map from there: http://davidpratt.info/earth/fig10.jpg
- The caption says Figure 13. Worldwide distribution of oceanic plateaus (black)
- The article says those locations on the seafloors have granite or continental rock. They think it means those are former continental areas and that there was no continental drift.
- QUESTION #2: How do you think that is best explained?
- I was surprised to see that Pratt seems to believe in Theosophy, which also seems to be his reason for having interest in geology.
- I posted the main points of the Surge Tectonics book on the forum at:
http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/s/msg184/#msg184
- So it's a quicker read now.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2017, 09:55:54 pm by Admin »