Sunday, March 10, 2013

Proclaiming : five hundred miles

(.. well, .. kilometers anyway ..)
(of vertical curvature adjustment by gravitational collapse of the crust and erosion.. )
[From the archives (=>e-book first edition + "Don's blog").]

"Proclaiming" - ('It's in the dna')

  Fig.1.  Pangaea and Present-Day comparedLeft:- Antarctic view highlights the three-way fragmentation of Earth's continental crust in the southern hemisphere to accommodate the extrusion of the mantle. Right:- Compare segments; double ring around the green centre represents Pangaean crust, partitioned by the straight black lines; red segments = Pangaean ring corrected to present day Earth curvature (black arc = original Pangaean curvature moved outwards for comparison).  Bottom. Black segment on red for easy comparison.  A and B represent the locations where the curvature difference between Pangaean and Present Day crust and the potential for collapse is greatest.

Five hundred kilometres.  That's the vertical height (roughly: check arithmetic) between the cusp of the black arc and the red one in the lower figure. Gravitational adjustment causes compression at the nodes (A and B) and extension at the cusp, causing partitioning of the Pangaean crust (black) and the segments to slide away from each other and ride out (/collapse) over (/overthrust)  the 'foreland' (e.g., Fig 2e here)

As the Earth gets bigger its surface area increases.  Now, imagine what happens. A crack opens up as the ground falls away, first in front of you, then another behind,  then another and another to each side, till finally the only high ground left is the piece you are standing on, when eventually that too collapses.

Therein is the quirky conundrum of Earth expansion, because except for the sorts of overthrusts representing collapse in that example just referenced (repeat link) and at the spreading ridge there is no uplift of the Earth's surface (anywhere), .. only collapse, .. (everywhere),  .. as the surface area of the Earth increases.  And nowhere is this more apparent than on the ocean floors which are riddled with evidence of collapse in the relationship between the spreading ridges and transform faults.

But what about those exceptions?  Well, consider, .. If somehow we could take a slice of crust out of its Pangaean context and stand it on top of today's flattened-out equivalent (Fig.1), there would be about 500km of vertical height differential between its cusp and the present day crust that needed  collapsing.  Which is to say that collapsing (in the middle) is (to some extent) balanced by compression at the periphery.  "To some extent", because once the crust starts to slide down a slope it's something like an avalanche, and the push from behind can very easily overtake the whole show if it's inertial energy is big enough and conditions are such that the slip facilitates it.  [Of course on the scale of the Earth's circumference that scenario will be divided up into lots of little increments, but the biggest one will be at the crust-mantle interface, .. what used to be known as the "weak zone", overtaken now by the deeper asthensophere.]

Of course that five hundred kilometres of vertical correction is spread out over something like two hundred million years and amounts only to about 2.5mm a year [Doesn't sound a lot, does it, so check arithmetic here; mine's hopeless, and anyway 'qualitatively' is the point, not quantitatively], and basically (since it's moving 'up' /outwards from the Earth's centre - at the same time as it's moving down - collapsing) it basically just flexes. There is no physical hole underneath it for it to collapse into because it is supported by the mantle but nevertheless there's a whole lot of shaking going on (link) And it does this by :-
1. Collapse of the rock according to the dynamics of gravitational adjustment (sliding down that slope of curvature differential),
2. Erosion.

 Fig.2. Collapsing curvature of the Pangaean Earth develops the Himalayan Front overriding India, the Tarim Basin, the Mongolian Plateau, and the swivelled-open Lena River (/Russian Peninsula) region (Fig.3) - as well as the American Cordilleras scissored-open about the Caribbean Pivot (here).

Again, the two reference frames are different.  The forces underlying erosion are governed mainly sea-level, but also by lakes in regions of higher topography or anywhere there is a barrier to the gradient between mountain top and flat land.  However gravitational collapse goes much deeper, .. right down to the mantle, and even to the asthenosphere.

Fig.3 "Small-scale structures are the key to the larger scale". Slump folds become progressively more flattened and sheeted towards the zone at the base of the crust known as the 'weak zone', facilitating sliding (e.g., points A or B in Fig.1).  The rock is about 20cm across and a microcosm of slump folding in the upper crust. Lower down in the middle crust the folds become more orientated. Lower down still, in the zone of more intense metamorphism and sliding, the folds become tighter and sheared out. (White lines show configuration of the fold axes.)

Virtually nothing of the Plate Tectonics story holds up, .. no mountains (of the sort advocated by Plate Tectonics,  i.e., no "orogenesis"), no subduction, no moving, no collision of plates, .. virtually nothing. Even the ocean floors 'do it differently'.

And that's just about it - gravitational collapse and erosion on an ever-expanding, rotating Earth defines the geological process. It's the inevitable conclusion reached when the denial of the significance of the wysiwyg 2/3rds ocean floor is set aside, the assumption that the Earth cannot get bigger is also seen as inadequate , and the "guess" about subduction as a way of destroying the evidence is recast as "overriding".  Indeed, Plate Tectonics has had to invoke exactly this overriding in order to explain its first-order contradiction in its type area - the Western Pacific - namely the formation of extensional ("back-arc") basins in the collisional vice between the Pacific plate and the buttress of the Asian mainland, whence it has progressed to invent ever more contradictions (link)

There are hardly words to describe this lunacy.
(Well, one does come to mind - ... 'Ello-Elle'.)


Click image for a bigger figure
 Fig.3.  Gravitational collapse - Folds and Pediments (erosion).   Rivers lace the landscape in the mountains of Baluchistan, reducing them to ever-flatter pediments as the erosional profile adjusts to dropping sea-level.  Now exhumed by erosion, the folds are slumps of the upper-middle crust, detaching from the 'heel' marked by the Registan Desert (top left).  The curving into the far distance describes part of larger-scale global collapse.  (See also.)  All over the Himalayas, the inexorable drive to flatness of pediments precludes *any* "plate collision".  Compare present -day curvature of the horizon with (Link)   [ Location :- Google Fly-to lat=28.866667, lon=65.483333]

So that in a nutshell is the geological story of Gravity and the Relentless Imperative of Flatness as it relates to the continents.  We could keep filling it out of course, and as we keep saying, it's not a theory, but an integrated observation of many parts.  All that we see of geology describes it.  Nothing(that I can see) contradicts it.  There's just that bugbear about mechanism, the one for quantum physics to address - exactly how the other half of  Einstein's E=mc^2 equation works to transmute energy to mass in a way we can understand and replicate.  That done, humanity is on a whole new plane to which nothing prior compares. All that's needed is some Feynminds to do a bit more guessing than the present mob are apparently capable of.  Because that part most certainly does appear to be theory.  But the geological story of 'how' it is happening is a fact, and an easily observed and (geo-)logical one too!

But the real story is the one written *between* the lines, .. which has yet to be told - why the nonsense of Plate Tectonics can hold such sway in both the academic and the public mind for more than half a century.  It's not rocket science.  What are we looking at there?  In more than ten years of writing about this and putting it on the net (and many years before that) there has been *not one* single refutation on geological grounds of *any* point made, .. only comments of the "what's wrong-with-you /go-and-read-books" degradation sort.  I find that to be very illuminating as an example of the subtexts revealed, given the lessons of history, because firstly the answer is not in "the books".  And that is the challenge for science.  Anybody pursuing Plate Tectonic 'theory' must immediately realise that despite the Earth's surface staring them in the face, that theory in fact ignores so many of the pieces. 

(Ok., so evidently the LOL-mirror doesn't work. We need to try something else.)

You could write a book about it but I very much doubt anybody would read it.  In a last resort the public don't like their sacred cows being rubbished, particularly ones that have built their reputations on branding and ivory towers they know that the public likes to look up to. But by abrogating their responsibility to dissect the many conundrums of Plate Tectonics they are doing themselves no_favours what_so_ever.

Just my view.

[Source :- "Don's Blog" + e-book first edition.]

[ The only tectonic collision in sight =  running up against the brick wall of flat-earthers.]
['Happycoder' has a go (discovered 20170616), and has an encounter of the Mooeypoo kind]
[Plug here for Dennis McCarthy and the 4th Revolt.] 

[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :- ]

No comments:

Post a Comment