You PT people are trying to FOOL us again by "explaining" just what happens in the Pacific. The Pacific ridge just seems to come out of nowhere and "subduct" seafloor mass. At that rate of expansion the Pacific ridge should have closed the Atlantic and pushed the Pangea continents back together.
In your animation, the Pacific Ocean expansion ridge just sort of "goes away" without any reason or explanation. Why don't you turn the globe around and do the same animation from the Pacific side?
strange as it may seem the simplist logical conclution is normaly the right one but we musent ignor it just because we dont yet understand it? we should not asume we know everything now as we realy no nothing to whats yet to be discoverd. unfortunatly for some the fact remains yes every land mass (inc that wich has been submerges duing ice age) connect exactly like a giant gigsaw? EE explans this but PTmust also explain this if it is to gain equel recogninion?
both sides should also take a wide look at the rest of planetery bodys & universe as a whole? why are planets small nearest sun and grow into gas giants as they move away? imagine if a planet say earth was expanding and loosing its density (logical conclution) what would hapen to it? YES the penny drops, now imagine if that gas giant kept expanding? compress gas enuf & ? YEP! im not saying this is fact but it dose raise some questions? now has PT been observed on any other body anywere ever?
few facts to consider? there has only been 1 case of subduction recorded and the whole PT theory was accepted due to that 1 incident? there are hundreds of cases of extraction recorded? even tho rifts clearly show contanants spreadind apart the lack of explination as to how all the water was formed or how the earth gains mass makes it very hard for any scientist to accept without any hard data?
this theory seems to get both sides realy worked up so everyone needs to take big step back and not asume anything is correct just because we have been told or because it makes sence looking at it. some things to ponder on? both sides agree rifts and volcanoes make new crust? both subduction & extraction would cause volcanisum? both have very limited evidence suporting either theory? both could cause mountain ranges? & both have holes in either argument due to physics we do not yet understand?
If this animation had included Antarctica, it would be obvious why the suggested solution is completely impossible;
As you rewind the time, the rift zone is moving closer to Antarctica, and Antarctica fuses with South America. This means the rift was closer to South America in the past. This again means that the only crust that could possibly have subducted under South America, is new crust, created by the rift.
Consequently, the subducted crust must be disappearing elsewhere. Funny, there does not seem to be any traces indicating where any such alternative location might be situsted!
So where are the 7000km of crust that subducted from the Atlantic spread alone?
@TREMILBERG So let me get this straight. You have been working on this for going on 2 years and you cannot see it?
Have you tried opening a geology textbook? Ugh, probably not.... Listen just check out USGS go to publications, click on technical and have fun. Your answers are right there and I haven't the time or motivation to teach you geology...
@danschaoticmind Actually I have read a few textbooks in geology, but I don´t agree with everything I read:P Mostly these days I get information from the net, e.g. ncgt .org
a place where new ideas are discussed.
I always question what I read! :)
I have been to USGS a number of times, but I don´t seem to find the "technical" button you mention. Maybe I am in the wrong place, or the page has changed. Could you please provide a link, so I can see what you mean ?
@TREMILBERG I'd be wary of the net to be honest. Your best bet would be finding an actual community (social community) where geology is the central focus and discussing it there. You will be pushed to provide our evidence.
Also for technical: go to earthquakes dot usgs and then go to research. It's not hard to find. If all else fails just use the search bar.
@TREMILBERG Also, how about attending a few lectures and coursework? It's how I found out about GPS arrays (And when I looked I found GPS readouts from the Pacific and edge of Japan, which is how they were able to calculate plate movement). Now a number of theories (Such as the formation of the rockies) Do seem out there. but I would rather do research, develop a theory, follow the scientific method and maybe get published than buy into Niel Adams who admits that what he proposed cannot be >
@TREMILBERG Observed and reproduced. But that is because I am curious about the world and have some critical thinking in me, enough so that I know the proper way to find answers. (Eg. the scientific method). Which is why I am still astounded that you have been researching geology so much and still have questions about subduction and thus buy into the Pseudo-scientific notion of an expanding earth.
@dan 1. I´m a born skeptic! I do not buy into anything if I cannot understand. Not a growing earth, nor subduction! But no matter how much geology I try to read, I am still not a geologist, so I have to use my own intuition, intellect or logic senses to try to understand the evidence. There are problems with a Growing Earth (what makes it grow), and there are problems with subduction (I´d give you a list, but I think you know). But even if subduction is a real phenomenon, it is not necessarily..
@TREMILBERG If you mean the mechanism for motion dynamics for subduction, there are a lot of debates in regards to the mechanism (Though convection is generally agreed upon. However the entire fluid model is flawed in a number of topographic ways. Which is why there are competing theories) Suffice to say it doesn't entirely explain the cascades (Which I would love to make a thesis out of) What is key though, is evidence OF subduction. Which, as you know, is numerous.
@dan 2.the answer to how the ocean floor ended up looking the way it does. Every large feature or small detail in the pattern we see is a clue! A clue that can tell us exactly what has happened, IF we read the information correctly! The story told by the geological community makes sense! ...in it´s own way. It´s a nice story. And I used to believe it! But I don´t anymore, because when I look at the Crustal Age Map, I cannot make it fit!
So either the geologists are extremely bad at explaining..
@TREMILBERG Indeed the features of the ocean floor are a clue. However, it is up to extrapolation of the data and the process of forming a good hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis that determines if it becomes a theory or not. This is exactly where EE broke down. The hypothesis' did not stand up to testing and in true scientific manner, it was cast aside. Please send me a PM in the future for these comment boxes are far too short to lay out the entire point.
@dan 3. how things work, or there must be another explanation to what I see. I can show you at least a dozen places, where the pattern, large or small, is difficult or (in my mind) impossible to explain in PT, whereas in GE/EE they are almost self evident. The evidence must be judged independently from what we think we know, and then compared. If it doesn´t fit with common knowledge, we have to consider whether our knowledge is wrong, or if there are other possible explanations. :)
@TREMILBERG There very well could be. However, your argument is actually a bare faced assertion. You assert that P.T. is wrong and E.E. is the only other option. I ask, did you ever consider that there could be a third route? A plate motion not yet fully explained (perhaps strike/slip transform faults, divergent, and convergent faults aren't the only options) Furthermore, as history has told us, a lot of things are counter intuitive. The trick is following the evidence to wherever it may lead.
@TREMILBERG To be fair, I could list off the top of my head. The reasons EE do not work (From orbital dynamics to the follies produced by working the earths size back its full 4.6 billion years (In which it would be a dot 1/4 the size of an atom) to pointing out that Matter is never truly created. The Big bang, after all, did not create matter at all. You can destroy matter (Anti-matter/matter reaction) but you cannot create matter from nothing) Just a few right off the top of my head. so pm me.
@TREMILBERG And before I forget again. To quote Carl Sagan "The history of science teaches us explicitly that what we assume to be self evident ends up not being the case. This is proven time and time again (He then goes into Albert Einstein and Physics)" Thus, you are wrong because it has been demonstrated time and again that often the facts do not fit with common knowledge. See quantum mechanics and hot spot theories. Also chaos theory and information theory and Thermodynamics.
this "white nothing" disappeared under continents in subductional zones ... it is mainstream science-fiction :P and they always show pictures of 2D simulation of subduction zone because it s impossible for them to do it on 3D earth... there s no other possibility than the earth is growing..
I have been working on finding a solution to how the Pacific seafloor was created. I have found little to nothing as for the details in the mainstream science. If the Earth grew, it´s easy, everything basically falls in the right place, but trying to make a model that works in standard PT, is virtually impossible. However I have made a simple model of how it must have happened IF we accept the PT-model.
You PT people are trying to FOOL us again by "explaining" just what happens in the Pacific. The Pacific ridge just seems to come out of nowhere and "subduct" seafloor mass. At that rate of expansion the Pacific ridge should have closed the Atlantic and pushed the Pangea continents back together.
Andrewlohbihler 3 weeks ago
In your animation, the Pacific Ocean expansion ridge just sort of "goes away" without any reason or explanation. Why don't you turn the globe around and do the same animation from the Pacific side?
Firesprink72 1 month ago
strange as it may seem the simplist logical conclution is normaly the right one but we musent ignor it just because we dont yet understand it? we should not asume we know everything now as we realy no nothing to whats yet to be discoverd. unfortunatly for some the fact remains yes every land mass (inc that wich has been submerges duing ice age) connect exactly like a giant gigsaw? EE explans this but PTmust also explain this if it is to gain equel recogninion?
ts3830 5 months ago
both sides should also take a wide look at the rest of planetery bodys & universe as a whole? why are planets small nearest sun and grow into gas giants as they move away? imagine if a planet say earth was expanding and loosing its density (logical conclution) what would hapen to it? YES the penny drops, now imagine if that gas giant kept expanding? compress gas enuf & ? YEP! im not saying this is fact but it dose raise some questions? now has PT been observed on any other body anywere ever?
ts3830 5 months ago
few facts to consider? there has only been 1 case of subduction recorded and the whole PT theory was accepted due to that 1 incident? there are hundreds of cases of extraction recorded? even tho rifts clearly show contanants spreadind apart the lack of explination as to how all the water was formed or how the earth gains mass makes it very hard for any scientist to accept without any hard data?
ts3830 5 months ago
this theory seems to get both sides realy worked up so everyone needs to take big step back and not asume anything is correct just because we have been told or because it makes sence looking at it. some things to ponder on? both sides agree rifts and volcanoes make new crust? both subduction & extraction would cause volcanisum? both have very limited evidence suporting either theory? both could cause mountain ranges? & both have holes in either argument due to physics we do not yet understand?
ts3830 5 months ago
Subduction is a ludicrous notion.
johnnysoporno 7 months ago
If this animation had included Antarctica, it would be obvious why the suggested solution is completely impossible;
As you rewind the time, the rift zone is moving closer to Antarctica, and Antarctica fuses with South America. This means the rift was closer to South America in the past. This again means that the only crust that could possibly have subducted under South America, is new crust, created by the rift.
TREMILBERG 11 months ago
Consequently, the subducted crust must be disappearing elsewhere. Funny, there does not seem to be any traces indicating where any such alternative location might be situsted!
So where are the 7000km of crust that subducted from the Atlantic spread alone?
Suggestions would be appreciated:-)
TREMILBERG 11 months ago
@TREMILBERG So let me get this straight. You have been working on this for going on 2 years and you cannot see it?
Have you tried opening a geology textbook? Ugh, probably not.... Listen just check out USGS go to publications, click on technical and have fun. Your answers are right there and I haven't the time or motivation to teach you geology...
danschaoticmind 8 months ago
@danschaoticmind Actually I have read a few textbooks in geology, but I don´t agree with everything I read:P Mostly these days I get information from the net, e.g. ncgt .org
a place where new ideas are discussed.
I always question what I read! :)
I have been to USGS a number of times, but I don´t seem to find the "technical" button you mention. Maybe I am in the wrong place, or the page has changed. Could you please provide a link, so I can see what you mean ?
TREMILBERG 8 months ago
@TREMILBERG I'd be wary of the net to be honest. Your best bet would be finding an actual community (social community) where geology is the central focus and discussing it there. You will be pushed to provide our evidence.
Also for technical: go to earthquakes dot usgs and then go to research. It's not hard to find. If all else fails just use the search bar.
danschaoticmind 8 months ago
@TREMILBERG Also, how about attending a few lectures and coursework? It's how I found out about GPS arrays (And when I looked I found GPS readouts from the Pacific and edge of Japan, which is how they were able to calculate plate movement). Now a number of theories (Such as the formation of the rockies) Do seem out there. but I would rather do research, develop a theory, follow the scientific method and maybe get published than buy into Niel Adams who admits that what he proposed cannot be >
danschaoticmind 8 months ago
@TREMILBERG Observed and reproduced. But that is because I am curious about the world and have some critical thinking in me, enough so that I know the proper way to find answers. (Eg. the scientific method). Which is why I am still astounded that you have been researching geology so much and still have questions about subduction and thus buy into the Pseudo-scientific notion of an expanding earth.
danschaoticmind 8 months ago
@dan 1. I´m a born skeptic! I do not buy into anything if I cannot understand. Not a growing earth, nor subduction! But no matter how much geology I try to read, I am still not a geologist, so I have to use my own intuition, intellect or logic senses to try to understand the evidence. There are problems with a Growing Earth (what makes it grow), and there are problems with subduction (I´d give you a list, but I think you know). But even if subduction is a real phenomenon, it is not necessarily..
TREMILBERG 7 months ago
@TREMILBERG If you mean the mechanism for motion dynamics for subduction, there are a lot of debates in regards to the mechanism (Though convection is generally agreed upon. However the entire fluid model is flawed in a number of topographic ways. Which is why there are competing theories) Suffice to say it doesn't entirely explain the cascades (Which I would love to make a thesis out of) What is key though, is evidence OF subduction. Which, as you know, is numerous.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@dan 2.the answer to how the ocean floor ended up looking the way it does. Every large feature or small detail in the pattern we see is a clue! A clue that can tell us exactly what has happened, IF we read the information correctly! The story told by the geological community makes sense! ...in it´s own way. It´s a nice story. And I used to believe it! But I don´t anymore, because when I look at the Crustal Age Map, I cannot make it fit!
So either the geologists are extremely bad at explaining..
TREMILBERG 7 months ago
@TREMILBERG Indeed the features of the ocean floor are a clue. However, it is up to extrapolation of the data and the process of forming a good hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis that determines if it becomes a theory or not. This is exactly where EE broke down. The hypothesis' did not stand up to testing and in true scientific manner, it was cast aside. Please send me a PM in the future for these comment boxes are far too short to lay out the entire point.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@dan 3. how things work, or there must be another explanation to what I see. I can show you at least a dozen places, where the pattern, large or small, is difficult or (in my mind) impossible to explain in PT, whereas in GE/EE they are almost self evident. The evidence must be judged independently from what we think we know, and then compared. If it doesn´t fit with common knowledge, we have to consider whether our knowledge is wrong, or if there are other possible explanations. :)
TREMILBERG 7 months ago
@TREMILBERG There very well could be. However, your argument is actually a bare faced assertion. You assert that P.T. is wrong and E.E. is the only other option. I ask, did you ever consider that there could be a third route? A plate motion not yet fully explained (perhaps strike/slip transform faults, divergent, and convergent faults aren't the only options) Furthermore, as history has told us, a lot of things are counter intuitive. The trick is following the evidence to wherever it may lead.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@TREMILBERG To be fair, I could list off the top of my head. The reasons EE do not work (From orbital dynamics to the follies produced by working the earths size back its full 4.6 billion years (In which it would be a dot 1/4 the size of an atom) to pointing out that Matter is never truly created. The Big bang, after all, did not create matter at all. You can destroy matter (Anti-matter/matter reaction) but you cannot create matter from nothing) Just a few right off the top of my head. so pm me.
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
@TREMILBERG And before I forget again. To quote Carl Sagan "The history of science teaches us explicitly that what we assume to be self evident ends up not being the case. This is proven time and time again (He then goes into Albert Einstein and Physics)" Thus, you are wrong because it has been demonstrated time and again that often the facts do not fit with common knowledge. See quantum mechanics and hot spot theories. Also chaos theory and information theory and Thermodynamics.
and evolution
danschaoticmind 7 months ago
i laugh every time i see India going on that epic mission.
r34ct 2 years ago
this "white nothing" disappeared under continents in subductional zones ... it is mainstream science-fiction :P and they always show pictures of 2D simulation of subduction zone because it s impossible for them to do it on 3D earth... there s no other possibility than the earth is growing..
flokot 2 years ago
I have been working on finding a solution to how the Pacific seafloor was created. I have found little to nothing as for the details in the mainstream science. If the Earth grew, it´s easy, everything basically falls in the right place, but trying to make a model that works in standard PT, is virtually impossible. However I have made a simple model of how it must have happened IF we accept the PT-model.
watch?v=_xD9xTjYUgg
You may have to paste it in after youtube . com
too new to use search
TREMILBERG 2 years ago
that doesn't make any sense. How can you remove 30myo sea floor and have nothing in it's place?
sidepr 2 years ago