Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Plates and plate movement

 Kiddies' Korner 
( .. the language of plates, .. as used in Plate Tectonics .. )



Nope. Plates don't "move".  Not the way Plate Tectonics says anyway, to "collide and build mountains".  And if the crust /continent on top does, then so what? The crust on top is not a plate, and may 'move' for reasons other than 'Plate Tectonics'.


Fig.1.  Caterpillar tracks.  Just because its trax are churning like billy-o doesn't mean this baby is going anywhere. .. just round-and-round like the lithospheric plate of  Plate Tectonics.  It's stuck in mud.  No way can it even make it to the edge of the page to "collide" with and "crumple" another plate'.  So plate *movement* as Plate Tectonics needs it to be, to "build mountains", is a non-starter.  When it comes to "crumpling", *PLATES* simply don't "move".   Not according to Plate Tectonics use of the language anyway.  Convection cells don't move any more than an escalator might move out from the shop on to the street to "collide" with buildings.  And if they're "moving" on the spot then they ain't goin' no-where - much less 'drfting /gliding /diving /riding /smashing /banging /bumping or travelling across the world to collide with other 'plates' (and build mountains). 

Google search


"plates move" + tectonics
~2006       2017 


"Plates move" 6,770         201,000
"plates collide 3,800           74,100
"plates slide 2,430           58,500
"plates converge" 1,630           69,300
"plates float" 1,170           28,100
"plates drift" 624              19,000
"plates dive" 624                1,020
"plates ride" 637                2,490
"plates grind" 600              22,000
"plates crash" 423              12,500
"plates crunch" 107                   371
"plates creep" 798                   287
"plates glide" 148                   670
"plates jostle" 78                  1,240
"plates slam" 198                   319
"plates ram" error                 216
"plates smash" error              3,800
"plates bang"lost                   139
"plates bump" 2,940 (2012-10-17)  1,510
"plates travel" 936                1,090
"plates migrate" 2,440                706
("plates scurry")

Did not match any documents (no legs!)

And the language that *should* be used (something like "cycling") (for convection) - or even 'convect' itself, is not used.


Plates don't do any of the above verbs (not even "scurry") (so they win one on that score at least).  So Plate Tectonics runs foul of semantics again (repeat link).  All the words used are words of *translation*, which convey a completely wrong meaning of "plate movement" - particularly when it comes to the Origin of Mountains.

Fig.2. One for that dinner table conversation - Plate movement according to the lingo of Plate Tectonics. If a plate with dinner on it collides with another plate (with dinner on it), then the dinners heap up around the collision ("/crashing /crumpling /creeping) .. (jostling /smashing /ramming /bashing"), .. while one of the plates slides /glides beneath the other.

Well, .. it's what they say, .. not me.  Do me a favour and tell me if that image is basically your understanding of "plate movement" according to the liturgy.)  We can cuddle each other for support in this post-Trumpian apocalyptic /apoplectic Armageddon we're headed for.


====================

[20180609]
I sketched that figure after listening to two programs today, 1 : Universities and private money  and 2 Bespoke bodies  (from about 29mins on the second one for the general overview), in order to highlight the question, how can such practical medical research co-exist with such dopey nonsense as Plate Tectonics?  Somebody tell me it's me that's the dope (I don't mind), because the alternative is unthinkable, except that it is (thinkable). Unfortunately.  Eventually it will be shrugged off as "the way science moves forward", but before that happens the parlous state of Plate Tectonics should be recorded for posterity.  It should not be allowed to slip under the radar and be forgotten about without being held to account, with which in mind the BBC science /Earth department got noticed for its take on "colliding plates building mountains".  [The link on that twitterpost has moved b.t.w. to https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fzsnd ]

 However, its reference to the wikipedia appears to be a disclaimer of sorts apologising for the clips being possibly factually incorrect, and suggesting some correction may be needed.

It's true. They do.

The Wikipedia is in a bit of a bind on that score, being skewered on the semantics of "mountain formation" v. "mountain building", which difference highlights something of the trap that Plate Tectonics has fallen into with its tectonics of crustal crumpling.  Fine, if primary school is the intended level of pitch, but for anything more they need a slap on the wrist because 1. they are abusing the public's intelligence, 2. casting aspersions on Professor Ian Stewart's standing as a science communicator (the script is just a generic consensus view)  and 3. knocking a hole in the public purse by taking him  all the way to New Zealand to read it. The offending passages (about moving plates, continental collisions buckling the crust and building mountains) are highlighted :-




Fig.3.  'Plates', the washing up, and who's doing it, .. the 'boing-boing' of plate collision (Fig.2 above)? .. or the gravitational instability of Earth expansion.  A toss-up?  (No that's not fair, .. just look at that mess on the left.)  In the interest of order, peace and  harmony, Earth expansion will volunteer.

=====================
.

Monday, October 23, 2017

The Misnomer of Mountain Building

 Blue Mountains, Australia
( ...  which are neither blue, nor particularly mountainous .. )



My dictionary says mountains are just big hills.   Geologists talk glibly enough of mountain building, ...so why don't we talk of hill-building? ...but we don't, ..do we?  Ever wonder why not...? The answer is couched in the biblical belief in Plate Tectonics


Fig.1. Blue Mountains, Australia .. (through a mist .. darkly). ["Plates and mountains" - (Cowboys - pulling the wool, drawing the long bow.) ]

Who remembers the good old days (Grampaw?) when mountains were just high bits of ground?  At least, higher than everywhere else.  Which was funny when you thought about it, ...because .. how come?   How did it happen that great chunks of land were higher than everywhere else?  And when you thought about it,  mountains were not really mountains at all, but just wot wuz left when there wuz valleys.  And you got valleys when it rained.    And that was what *really* made them pointy and steep (The mountains.)  The valleys.  Well, ... those fluffy clouds up there, .. sun, .. evaporation, .. condensation, ..rain-wind-and-weather, .. and climate (.. change) ..


(Then there wuz Geolorgie... an' Plate Tectonics)

"Now, ..WaaAit a Miiiinute!  What are we talking about here?  The mountains or the valleys?"
"NawwwWww, ....rain,  ....weather, ...erosion,  ... climate (change), global warming,  ..grass growing and slowing erosion and helping mountains grow, ..  Sea-level. ... "
"Sea-Level?  Is the sea level?   I thought it was round like the Earth."
"Yeah, ....Gravity.   It's been round for ever.  Ever since the planet."
"Yeah?"
"Yeah....  Well, ... sort of, ...it's kind of like, ..yeah, .. That's why its level.  At least, it's becoming level."
"Yeah?"
"Yeah, ... an' you get fossils everywhere, showing every so often the sea comes up and swamps the land.  ..I mean levels the land."
"Gee, . How?  Does it really rain that fast?"
"Yeah, ..  Forty days and forty nights.  It's true."


P.T.-ers, ..Pteros, Pterologists, Pteromancers, Pterrorists 
..and the avant garde, ..the Hill-Buildies,... 
...snoring away like Rip Van Winkle.. 


Sunday, October 22, 2017

Roadmap

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Plate Tectonics' nonsenses

 The logical fallacies of Plate Tectonics
( .. debunking the myths .. )



" When thoughts, logic and facts have the potential to humiliate and frighten, they will always be ignored. "  ~ Mister supernatural   (in comments)


Fig.1. The three fallacies of Plate Tectonics :-: 1. plates, 2. subduction, and 3. mountain building.

ps://twitter.com/EuroGeosciences/status/914829938917806081

Plate Tectonics is a theory that purports to explain geological features of the Earth's crust in terms of mantle convection.  Seen originally as a pancake of crust being fractured and displaced atop a roiling mantle boil ("ridge-push"), the picture currently being promulgated is one of "slab-pull", where  deformation is driven by a 'slab' of oceanic crust descending back into the mantle at so-called "subduction zones".  

Cycling convection, .. driving or pulling, and/or assisted by frictional drag, .. Plate Tectonics is not very clear on the point ).

The plate model is based on a denial of what is plain for all to see - that in recent geological times the Earth appears to have got hugely bigger by the extents of the ocean floors (/mantle). It is assumed that since there is no apparent explanation for this incredible 'biggering' it therefore cannot have happened (/be happening).  It is further assumed therefore that prior to mantle breakthrough there must have existed an ocean floor (/mantle crust) equal in areal extent to the sum of those existing today that has since been destroyed to make way for those present, and that this disappearance has happened down so-called "subduction zones" of which (just by the way) there is only one - that bordering the Pacific extending through Indonesia then along the Himalayan front to the Mediterranean Sea.  


The "just-by-the-way" is to highlight the casual effrontery of Plate Tectonics in proposing that although there is just one subduction zone separating the continental-collective from the oceans today, it has no qualms about proposing a plethora of them that have formed in the past, heaping up mountains willy-nilly wherever any (mountains) occur - even ones that have been eroded to exist now as mere hills - or even, in extremis, those that are represented now by planation surfaces. [x]  

Plate Tectonics' 'master stroke' therefore is to claim the once-existence of something for which there is no evidence (whatsoever), and in the fine Kuhnian tradition of scientific revolutions, further this astonishing claim by declaring it to be based on the assessment of "outsiders who didn't have a geological clue (.. and didn't need one)."

Plate Tectonics is unsupportable
even within its own frame of reference, particularly its emphasis on hypothesised gravitational collapse in mantle crust by subduction (that we can't see) rather than gravitational collapse in the continental crust (that we can see) - and by attributing crustal movements generally to (hypothesised) convection rather than to observed gravitational collapse and commensurate Earth rotation.

=>   Nonsenses list

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Flat (slab) Subduction

   ..Is the nemesis of Plate Tectonics 
         ( .. and spells its demise .. )

(From lst edition, archives ~ May, 2008)


The so-called 'cold subducting slab' of the Western Pacific 'slides under' the continental lithosphere and terminates on the asthenosphere, i.e., it is *not* being returned to the deep mantle.  No return to the deep mantle means that subduction (here, the type area of the mechanism) cannot be a driver for Plate Tectonics.
" The sinking of vast sheets of oceanic lithosphere back into the mantle is the primary driving force of plate tectonics."


Fig. 1.  Seismic tomography beneath the Japan Trench.  Showing 'FLAT' SUBDUCTION.  No sinking here...   The  'subducting slab' (blue/ cold) is simply being 'pushed' under the continental margin of Japan by so-called "ridge-push".  [Vertical cross-section beneath Japan produced from GAP-P1. This is the same figure as Fig 2(a) in Obayashi et al., 2006.)

Plate Tectonics would probably say,
"Well of course, only a fool would think the cold descending slab sinks into the mantle the way we've been showing it for years and years and years.  *THAT* angle is only the TOP of the going-down part in the upper mantle, ..you know, the lithosphere, ..the brittle bit where you get all the Earthquakes.  Now we know that what *really* happens is that the slab gets pushed flatly under the continents just so far, by the force of ridge-push (..you know, that ten centimetres of dyke that gets intruded at the ridge every year? ...the one forcing the ocean floors apart and pushing it across half the world? ... yes, that one), then it snaps off and sinks (flatly) allowing the part just emplaced to be overridden by the next length of subducting slab.  As it heats up it becomes less rigid (pale blue).   We've been telling you all along about FLAT SUBDUCTION,  haven't we?  So, ..well, ... now it's clear that is what we're dealing with - flat subduction.  We've known all along that the other subduction, the steep one, is really a bum steer.  But this one's a little beauty - because we thought of it."

"But didn't you think of the other one too?"
"Well, ...Not me, ..I didn't think of it.."

.... So that in time we have a whole lot of them (slabs), all stacked neatly one on top of the other descending 'flatly' into the mantle.  You see all those concentric, flatly orientated, pale-blue pixelated layers going right to the core-mantle boundary?  Well, they're all piles of flat slabs, all heaped one on top of the other, going down, zig-zagging into the mantle, ..getting heated up as they go down, which is why they're paler blue.  Not so brittle you see....

"But some of them are paler than others, and they're *above* darker blue ones.  In fact the one right at the bottom is the darkest blue of the lot."
"Well obviously that's because it was even darker blue to begin with.  You're obviously not getting what this science is about, are you."
"But it's even darker blue than the ones at the top.  Well, the ones underneath the asthenosphere."
"Obviously you need to read a book."

That's what's good about Plate Tectonics, it can be bent any way at all.  It's as bendable as whoever bending it is bent enough to be bent on making up bent explanations.  It is no more than sheer invention - a bent invention unto whomever is bent takes it upon themselves to bend. ..

Rubber numbers.

But how did we ever get the picture of steep "subducting slabs" in the first place, when tomography shows them to be so obviously flat?  Why? Because only ever shown was the broken lithospheric edge-effect down to about 600km, i.e., what happens at the edge between the continental lithosphere and the oceanic lithosphere, i.e., the upper mantle effect. Usually the bottom part is carefully trimmed off in case it spoils things.  There was a story going around, you see ...about how subducting slabs drive Plate Tectonics via the deep mantle and convection, so only ever shown was the data to support it (the steep bit), .. looking like it was returning to the mantle.

Bent, you see?

But now, with the spin-related, concentric structure of the mantle (=>) becoming ever more obvious through mantle tomography, this concentric, non-descending structure of mantle slabs is becoming something of a celebrity.

[ Celeb Tectonics (may need quoted text shown) (Celebtonics.) ('Coz it looks good.)]

Of course,  'flat' slab subduction is a contradiction of the spirit of original agreement as to the meaning of the term,  but what does that matter when there's a whole new gravy train of publication opportunity revving up, just waiting to leave the station?

 All Plate Tectonics has to explain now is how the subducted slab (flat subducted or no) gets colder (bluer) as it goes down, as in the figure.  And why the non-oceanic/ continental lithosphere is all hot on the landward side.  Well, we could say that's easy, is it not?  The friction of the slab going down and getting pushed along heats everything up and makes it rise, just like at the ridge, ...even melts it and gives volcanoes.  But the slab of course must stay cold because it has to sink to drive everything, but there are surely research opportunities there too, to pad out this gravy train.

I wonder if this flat slab grinding away underneath the continents, melting everything and making it rise, rises with the rise too...   Or does the slab stay cold while the friction it generates heats everything else up?

You can see from the figure it only gets cold when it meets a continental margin.   If there were no continental lithosphere to force the mantle down (=>) there would be no convection and no Plate Tectonics.  It wouldn't matter how hot the Earth was inside, with no continental lithosphere to push the mantle slabs down there would be no Plate Tectonics. (Got it?... the logic of the subducting slab against a continent? .... just by sitting there doing nothing the continental lithosphere is driving Plate
Tectonics.)

Now, ..that's the Western Pacific.  It's the same in the Eastern Pacific where the Americas are overriding the Pacific plates.  And it's the same under the Tonga trench.  And it's the same for India, now that it's not India colliding with Asia and crumpling up the Himalayas, but the Himalayas that are being bodily uplifted by India being driven (flatly) underneath causing the collapse of the Himalayas southwards over the Indian Craton.

So with all this so-called "flat subduction" going on (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) where's the subduction that returns stuff to the mantle to drive Plate Tectonics actually happening?  (Hey, ..More research!  Who said this Plate Tectonics stuff was boring??  Don't you just  luv-vit?)

"Flat subduction"  Googles about 2,860  (0.44 seconds)   June 3rd, 2008
"Flat subduction"  Googles about 7,840  (0.30 seconds) March 08, 2010.

Gee, this flat subduction is just crying out for research. That's more than thirty years ago since subduction (the genuine article) started. There's a wiki entry on the web too for just about everything to do with Plate Tectonics, but still no Wiki Entry for flat subduction (as at June, 2010). [seems to begin May, 2016 as 'Flat Slab Subduction' - I can hardly believe this!! df-20171004).]  How come?


[ Addendum 20171005 :- Well, .. it could have something to do with my objection to Flat (/Slab) Subduction (along with a whole lot of others being compiled having been up on the web from about 2001/2 till this year (2017) when I had to change service providers because the one I'm with was not part of the National Broadband Network - up until which point (thanks to google) it enjoyed virtually top-of-the-web status for any rationally conjoined search terms to do with Plate Tectonics / Earth expansion, since which time there has been the most muscular effort from the academic community to reinforce the idea of flat subduction. But how can I know?. Academics are obviously the last people to put a reference to their nemesis. And the public don't much like their holy cows being painted black.  Anyone thinking they can go against such a solid consensus as Plate Tectonics offers (and the hype that goes with it ; [1; 500,000 returns today)] [2]) without serious repercussions, is kidding themselves. [P.S. - Checking first link above, looks like it's been edited out too.]

The tomography depicting flat subduction is becoming more and more apparent, and has the potential to torpedo Plate Tectonics in its entirety.  (=>)  [see also.]  Could this possibly be the reason nobody wants to deal with it (except here)?  Subduction in its various guises is the central pillar of Plate Tectonics after all, .. and 'flat subduction' is its nemesis. [No convection = no Plate Tectonics.]

GeoFix apology for Plate Tectonics' subduction, .. from the University of Arizona:-


 "Plate tectonics, a theory which revolutionized our understanding of the earth. The theory however, failed to fully explain the formation of the Rocky Mountains, until the "flat subduction" model was developed. Dickinson and Snyder (1978) proposed that shallow-slab subduction could have transmitted tectonic stresses into the foreland and caused the Laramide-style block uplifts. Bird (1988) suggested that shear traction of the shallowly subducting plate stripped away the mantle lithosphere beneath the North American crust and transmitted shear stress capable of causing the foreland uplifts..." (http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo5xx/geo527/Rockies/flatsub.html)


 "Flat subduction" ... Sounds good when it's backed with the www.*.edu respectability that's been paid for, but it's really another failed root'n-toot'n, shoot'n the foot'n goalpost shift... because if subduction is flat then there is no return to the deep mantle as there is with the conceptualised steep variety, which is the lynchpin of Plate Tectonics. Flat subduction is the overriding of gravitationally collapsing, equilibrating Pangaean crust  ..of Earth expansion.  As Hugo of the Benioff zone had it.

In Plate Tectonics the message is the concept, .. not the facts.

And they call this ("bending") science??   You gotta laugh!   Some football!  The biggest con-job in Earth science.  But nobody wants to believe it. 

Or are they just dumb?  No.  They are hamstrung by the sterility of consensus politics, .. by keep trying to position the goalposts according to the pressures of funding.  And doing it without upsetting that $$$-applecart.  How about for the price of a beer (/a couple of apples just about) together we can keep this thing on the road -  (how simplicity trumps complexity) - and maintain some rage while we're at it, .. if you're bothered by the way experts keep bending the facts and leading people up the garden path by pulling dominoes out from off the bottom of the pack and deliberately putting them in the wrong order, so they can turn them around at will (or trying to do jigsaws without looking at the picture on the front of the box).


Fig.2. Flat subduction.  The picture on the front of the box ["Lithospheric boudinage".  1 = continental lithosphere + collapsing edge;  2 = 'out-from-under mantle growth; + = earthquakes;  3= oceanic crust. (From Earth expansion 1st edition)]

=> (links)



Sunday, September 24, 2017

Holding page


https://earthexpansion.blogspot.com.au/p/blog-page_2.html

Yes it does. It's just been returned to 'draft' for some small edits, or  or I think about where it goes in the road map.  Pages are constantly being edited (mostly in just small ways), and re-arranged, .. so just call back in a day or two if you see this message.  (Maybe longer if the 'road map' is the issue.)

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Earth, Billiard Balls and Mountains


 A question of scale ..
( .. Getting the message?) (Nope, .. not yet .. )



Fig.1.  Wikipedia entry.  After many years of me sledging Plate Tectonics - the logic being irrefutable (don's blog + sci.geo.geology),  this article finally folded.


 
Considering further the Zen OMountains and the possible enlightenment to be had from realising that we will probably have to go at least twice around the w.w.w. dot of Google's earth and a whole lot of stuff from misfits of institutional note like Nasa, Noaa, USGS, Unesco, National Geographic etc., who have still to scale the glass mountain, rescue the beautiful maiden (and therefore to our very considerable dismay also make it clear that they have not updated their definitions according to the semantics of the wikipedia), we discover to our very considerable surprise that not only is there no such thing as "mountain building", but also that there is logically (therefore) no such thing as mountains either (except for volcanoes, ".. the only mountains that get built.")

I mean, stands to reason, .. dunnit?

(more? .. =>) 





Monday, August 21, 2017

The Zen of Mountain Building

"First there is a mountain ..
( .. then there is no mountain then there is .." )



" .. Before I had studied Chan (Zen) for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers." (link)



Fig 1.  The Holy Mountain - Mount Kailash (alt view) (remind you of anywhere?)  with Everest (slightly tilted) in the background.   Both being pointy and steep show them once  to have been higher.  [So are these mountains ("tossed high by the collision of plates") .. or valleys due to erosion?  [Crust crumpling /"building" up due to 'tectonics'?  Or wearing down due to erosion?]   (Source : google images)

[More? .. ]  =>