FUNDAY

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.