arc

http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/Presidents/garfield.html "Garfield was the first ambidextrous president. He could even write Greek with one hand while writing Latin with the other." http://books.google.com/books?id=pX92AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=Thomas+Jefferson+was+ambidextrous&source=bl&ots=onnP5Z-X8a&sig=ZkxmN14QQGWSvyoPqA1iXM7IDoo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bKDuUo-1NtjeoASXpYDwDw&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBQ

They should be very cheap, a few cents U.S.

Hey, wait a minute . . . I think I saw that on the hood scoop of a Trans Am back in the 70's.

Hello yahya515, I want to commend you for your study of this phenomena, you have an inquisitive mind and that is what all of us here at SFN have in common. You can test your hypothesis from several directions. The first would be to use a single strand of mono-filament, also known as nylon fishing line, it will have a very small initial potential to spin due to its post-manufacturing storage on the spool or in a loose coil. You should see a very small amount of rotation under tension, maybe one or two slow revolutions and then stopping. The other would be to use a single strand of very thin copper wire, like that used in telephone lines. This solid wire should have little or no spin potential and would show the true "beginning at rest" rotational potential your hypothesis claims. Another way would be to use several devises called swivels; Using several of these (one at the top and one or two at the bottom) should eliminate any potential spin that exists in any string, wire or line.

It is the commonality in humankind’s perception and response to the world around them.

What you are not seeing in this demonstration is that the string is getting longer as the object begins to spin. The thread has a twisted weave-like structure. The individual strands are interwoven or twisted around each other and together reach a balanced state of no potential energy when at rest. When a string, rope or even steel cable is tensioned it will rotate as the individual strands are pulled straight between its two opposing ends. The mechanism for this rotational is the twist built into the thread. It is utilized when the weight is applied and causes the tension. As Sensei noticed the greater weight increased acceleration. The weight is in reality simply falling, but its acceleration is being delayed by the rotational potential energy built into the strings twisted weave. As the weight is increased the string's release of rotational potential energy increases. Eventually the rotational potential energy in the string reaches zero at the same time the string reaches its maximum length but the momentum in the spinning mass will now counter rotate the string against its original direction of weave and re impose or load rotational potential energy back into the string. So, the larger the weight means the longer this process will continue as the string is unwound and counter wound by the gravity pulling on the falling weight. If you want to disprove this new source of energy simply recreate the experiment using a monofilament string like fishing line.

No, but I have seen my share of women attracted to the big ape.

I think we need to credit the canines for their own initial approach to humans. I come by this opinion mainly from the research originally done in Russia by Dmitri Belyaev and continues currently under the supervision of Lyudmila Trut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox As Lyudmilla Trut says in her 1999 American Scientist article [1], The least domesticated foxes, those that flee from experimenters or bite when stroked or handled, are assigned to Class III. Foxes in Class II let themselves be petted and handled but show no emotionally friendly response to experimenters. Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining. In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the "domesticated elite," are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the tenth generation, 18 percent of fox pups were elite; by the 20th, the figure had reached 35 percent. Today elite foxes make up 70 to 80 percent of our experimentally selected population. I think it comes down to the way the prehistoric wild canines may have competed against these new human interlopers, initially keeping their distance lest they get a spear tossed their way. but within the canines there were individuals that took advantage of the humans particular characteristics. These new two legged predators were more efficient hunters, they had larger brains and with this advantage they developed strategies, flint tools and weapons. These advantages created a niche for any canine that could shadow these humans, carefully approaching the abandoned kills and then to move behind the band as they hunted and traveled. So, the less aggressive trait of just a few canines to follow and scavenge would lead to the self breeding of a line of continually less fearful and trusting canines. They would reinforce through generations a selection mechanism of gradually losing their fear of humans by rewards of food that would be attainable the closer you came to the humans. The least fear = the most food. I wonder when that first meaty bone was directly tossed out to that little pack of proto pets.

This was a sad day in our city. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/bookstore_in_120-year-old_form.html Many rare old books, some possibly one of a kind were lost. It is the digital technology that will most likely save all books forever, so many copies on hard drives and of course the national archives own digital copies that are deep underground in former mines. It is like most new technologies, it leaves us sentimentalists yearning for the long lost days that shaped us into who we are. I for one mourn for all those 8 year olds who will never find a stack of old National Geographics in their parents attic.

Hi, billiards, Well, let me ask you this. Do we agree that the defined boundary between mantle and the outer core is determined by; 1. The outer cores volume of molten material and the inner cores volume of its material, 2. The outer/inner cores temperature. 3. The given mass of the mantle that is compressing the outer/inner core. With this outlined, what would you suggest would happen if the temperature of the outer core's material was increased? What would happen if the inner cores temperature increased also? I would also assume the outer core is at a given pressure due to the mass of the mantle. So if the temperature of the outer core or even the inner/outer core was increased where would the room for that extra volume from thermal expansion occur? If this temperature increase occurred in a rather short time frame as my model proposes, then I would assume the mantle would be subjected to expansionary pressures requiring its highly viscous materials to displace outward resulting in strain energy. Maybe you were not aware that the model requires the mantle to follow solar magnetic fluctuation records, seeing that the solar magnetic 14C has changed greatly in short time frames that synchronized with climate, the model suggests a link between the warmer climates during geologic periods of surface extension like the Basin and Range Province that occurred during Miocene. This study below shows such an extensional event in Antarctica, also during the Miocene, but of course suggests a mantle upwelling in regards to plumes as a cause. http://geodynamics.usc.edu/~becker/preprints/frbdm08.pdf "Our study documents two subsequent episodes of deformation occurring from Middle Miocene onward, concurrently with the McMurdo volcanism in the Admiralty Mountains region. The first is dextral transtensional where as the second is purely extensional." And of coarse my model suggests the strain energy enters the ocean through the 80,000 km (49,700 mi) long Mid-Ocean ridge system and is then delivered by the thermohaline circulation of the world ocean. This NASA article about Antarctica warming in the Miocene expresses this nicely. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctica20120617.html "Scientists began to suspect that high-latitude temperatures during the middle Miocene epoch were warmer than previously believed " "The climate was suitable to support substantial vegetation -- including stunted trees -- along the edges of the frozen continent." "Along the edges" where all that ocean thermohaline circulation heat is warming the atmosphere. "the research team found summer temperatures along the Antarctic coast 15 to 20 million years ago were 20 degrees Fahrenheit (11 degrees Celsius) warmer than today, with temperatures reaching as high as 45 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius). Precipitation levels also were found to be several times higher than today." "The peak of this Antarctic greening occurred during the middle Miocene period, between 16.4 and 15.7 million years ago." So there appears to be a correlation between surface extensional events and warmer climate periods. And as I showed in post 227 a correlation to the mountain building period of the Himalayas and the cooling climate. Remember this graph; And then in post 229 I again showed the 14C and past 1100 years of climate link. To which you did not respond like always. This outer core expansion that you so adamantly opposed is just the most reasonable solution I can find to the plate movement in my model. The model requires an outward displacement to load the crust with enough gravitational energy to produce a range the size of the Himalayas in a time frame of less than 2 million years! ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, SUPPLEMENT TO VOL. 49, N. 1, 2006 Mountain uplift and the Neotectonic Period CLIFF D. OLLIER School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia They write: «The extreme geomorphic changes in the Kunlun Pass area reflect an abrupt uplift of the Tibet Plateau during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The Kunlun-Yellow River tectonic movement occurred 1.1-0.6 Million years.» Zheng et al. (2000) concluded from sediments at the foot of the Kunlun Mountains that uplift began around 4.5 Million years.) This model is based on this example. On this extreme amount of energy being required. This event and other mountain ranges should dictate what a tectonic model should provide. Not passive basil drag or ridge push. But an extreme amount of energy in a short period of time. If someone has a better idea on how to lift the Himalayas in 1.1 - 0.6 MY time frame then lets hear it. All there is now is plume theories and lower energy plate movement models. http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_ "none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. So again, this outer core or even outer/inner core temperature variation was my best solution for this. Seeing how their is evidence of solar magnetic synchronization to climate temperature, and through that, geologic resurfacing. Surface observations should dictate theory, not the other way around. billiards Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:29 PM Unity+, on 08 Jan 2014 - 06:11 AM, said: "So you would agree that plate tectonics is fundamentally driven by mantle convection?" "It is the requirement due to the laws of thermodynamics that the Earth tends towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium with space (i.e. it cools down) that drives plate motion. That is a loose mechanism. The dynamics have not been worked out. But the simplicity of the idea is elegant isn't it?" Simple? Yes. Elegant? That is grossly premature, they can't even make rudimentary connections between convection and surface observations. In all honesty this would be akin to assuming the wind is pushing the plates around. That would be simple and elegant too. Would it not. "Arc presented Doglioni's work which highlights a certain inadequacy of plate tectonics. The net westward lithospheric rotation (e.g. Doglioni, 2004; Becker et al. 2008). If this phenomenon turns out to be true (and I believe it might be) then we still can't explain it, and it really is a bit of a problem. There are ideas floating around, but none that have been numerically tested as far as I am aware. If arc is using this to discredit the standard theory then it would be expected that his theory can do a better job of explaining it. Otherwise his theory is equally discredited." "So I ask again, arc (if you're there) -- how does your theory explain this net westward lithospheric rotation?" "Otherwise his theory is equally discredited." So you are saying, all I have to do to win this is solve westward drift, since you imply Doglioni's work has discredited the Standard model already, right? You didn't comment, by the way, about my models solution to the westward drift phenomena. It fits rather well due to the way the mantle recedes, slowly reducing the friction between the mantle and the crust. The crust's movement down is delayed by the resistance in the trenches, its gravitational potential energy growing as the mantle drops away. If there is enough delay and reduction in friction you will get your westward drift as the crust unloads gravitational energy in the path of least resistance. A quite simple solution I think. Dare I say Elegant.

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_ "none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached." So, you take the spreading rates at the divergent boundary and assume it applies to the subduction metrics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izu-Bonin-Mariana_Arc "Subduction rates vary from ~2 cm (1 inch) per year in the south to 6 cm (~2.5 inches) in the north." http://www.unc.edu/~leesj/FETCH/GRAB/SEKS_Papers/GM01015CH12.pdf "~6.2 cm/yr in southern Alaska to ~7.2 cm/yr in the central Aleutians [DeMets et al., 1994]. In the Kuriles and Kamchatka, relative plate motions are ~8–9 cm/yr [DeMets, 1992]" Some trenches are less than there opposing spreading centers. Some Back-Arc basins are inactive or greatly reduced. Does your model explain any of this, mine does. "The model predicts where the plates are going to be in millions of years time." So, how does my model solve this mystery? One of the clues is the ocean plates all have different spreading rates. The Pacific being for example 80-120 mm a year while the Atlantic is a much smaller 25 mm a year. Another clue is the plates that are the widest have the largest spreading rates. Why would this be? Well, you know by now my model has the crust extending slowly outward from the displacing mantle for millions of years and then slowly subducting into the trenches as the mantle recedes for millions more with the recent divergent boundary infill leveraging the crust into the trenches. How do these two fit together and match observations? The Pacific divergent plate boundary expands more than the Atlantic's does. But why? Shouldn't they expand the same if the crust is being pushed out by the mantle. The answer is seen in a simple thought experiment that I use to illustrate the solution. Imagine the Earth with one single belt of seafloor around the equator with one end considered attached, immovable. The other end a short distance away unconnected. Now we apply the thermal increase that displaces the mantle and extends the crust. We can now see the gap between the plate ends open a given degree. Now we all know that if the belt was divided in half and then in quarters it would with each reduction in length show a proportional reduction in movement. This means that a wider ocean plate like the Pacific would show more movement than a narrower one. And the Pacific plate having the widest expanse of plate material shows an unusually large amount of movement resulting in more infill. While the Atlantic being narrower shows a proportionally smaller amount of movement. This is an accurate prediction using this model. This, by the way, is why the San Andres Fault is one of the most volatile in the world. That section of sea floor extends all the way across the Pacific to the Mariana Trench where it is anchored. The extreme distance multiplies the non-connected end's movement as shown in the example above. A very small outward movement in mantle will produce divergent boundary and fault movement proportionate to the plates distance from its trench or continental attachment point. I just did. And I have more than you are willing to read so I will wait. I think Earth science has lost its way to a certain extent. All I have done is make very careful field observations, and express what I feel is the most logical answer to the phenomena that I have studied. Do I need to attend a university to learn how to see with my own two eyes? Do you think that siting in front of a computer running endless models can accomplish what I did looking at the real world? "You can't just cover your eyes to the hard science, only focus on the soft bubbly clouds, and then claim you have a simpler theory." Who really is the one who has covered their eyes? "This kind of selective thinking is self-reinforcing, which leads to delusions of grandeur." Oh, and the reason the back arcs very in activity has to do with the size of the plate that is subducting into the adjacent trench. The modern Mediterranean basin of the African plate, lacking a large flexible oceanic crust like the Pacific plate, has less movement during the mantles displacement. But several tens of millions of years ago when the sea floor was much wider it was able to initiate and maintain the back arc basins that now sit dormant behind the island arcs. This allowable movement in that ancient sea floor could facilitate through its anchoring to the African plate the applied tension that pulled the arc’s towards the trenches. As the African continent moved forward, and the sea floor was subducted, its outward movement from the mantles displacement was slowly diminished until the current sea floor can no longer impart any noticeable tension. This illustrates how much of the allowable movement is in the ocean crusts as compared to the continents. The continents are so massive and by some research deep rooted. Really! I need to answer this? Haven't you ever bent or shaped very thick materials, there outside radius needs to stretch or they tear, or even break. You mean you can't imagine what the mantle would experience in this situation? The increasing strain applied to the material the farther away from the center you measure? arcPosted 19 March 2013 - 09:09 PM Post#4 Very good points. I think the entire plate matrix has a uneven distribution of compression which causes the observed subduction in some trenches while others have less, Aleutian for example, while others have what appears to be none. The reason there is varying amounts of subduction is due to the large difference in the plate sizes and masses. The model provides a means to preload the entire plate matrix simultaneously. Lets imagine that there is a small current/temperature variable over millions of years in the Earth's magnetohydrodynamic field generator ( that could and probably would also be expected in the current standard model I think) and it slowly raises the outer core's temperature a fraction of a degree over those millions of years. I believe almost everyone would expect the liquid outer core to thermally expand a proportionate amount to the degree of temperature rise. Now what would you expect from the mantle? Do you think it could contain the molecular level expansion forces of the core's liquid iron? The mantle is under extremely high pressures and temperatures especially the deeper you go. Would you think that it would move out a little making a little more room in its interior? Unlikely, I think in either model most would expect the mantle would show a reflex at its outer boundary. But how much? I would think it would resemble the current seafloor spreading metrics.

Ah, but he who controls the central heating controls the world!

Hi billiards, thanks for coming down to my new digs. WOW, I step out of my 14th floor office for one minute and the next thing I know all my stuff is waiting for me in the basement. All that time with all those people working at it, if it was really simpler they would have at least some predictions observations to show for it by now. Right? I'm just one guy who in 1 years time produced a mechanical model that has made more predictions of surface observations than they have in 30+ years. Can that be any simpler? I think that is the basic problem and why there has not been any rock solid predictions of observation is geology. (pun intended) I hate to use that tired phrase but, they built a box around their field of science and didn't look outside of it. "expects that plate motion is a phase of planetary evolution that exists under the right conditions". I take that statement to mean planetary evolution primarily involves starting out hot and slowly cooling for billions of years. All results are then expected to be derived through thermal and fluid dynamics. I think it was an unavoidable consequence of an earlier time when geniuses like Arthur Holmes could only view geology from the dry surfaces at close range. Once the mid-ocean ridge was revealed, convection was solidly in place to be the best model for movement when tectonics took hold. Unfortunately satellite images like Google Earth were not available in the 1930's, if they had I believe we would not be discussing convection right now. They had to turn to modeling the Earth's interior to find answers to surface observations. Even flying in aircraft would only reveal erosional landforms with no real hint of the dynamics that lay below. This is a new era in geology, you can now view the ocean floor and study it as you would any ancient artifact, looking for clues as to its birth, life and eventual death. There is so many details that tell an accurate story of the Earth if you take the time to read it. The story it tells is of a surface unto itself. A surface crust that deforms due to the same physics that wrinkles the skin of an apple as its interior recedes. That doesn't sound too complicated does it? If that surface was more of a rigid rock and was subjected to magma from below the dynamics of mountain ranges would be modeled accurately. Sure, like I said before my model can accommodate convection, it does not need it for plate movement and that is good, because it is clear from Doglioni that there is no direct cause and effect between convection and surface observations. http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-15-03-13-TXT.aspx.html#10._Plate_Kinematics_versus_Mantle_Dynamics_ "At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached." This is a partial list of the phenomena that this model can accurately predict. The plaination that occurs before mountain ranges form The formation of mountain ranges - both continental margin and the difficult to understand until now continental interior The formation of divergent plate boundaries The formation of convergent plate boundaries The variation in ridge infill among the worlds divergent plate boundaries The basin and range area in the SW of N. America Mariana Trench and why it is the deepest in the world Continental break-up Mid-ocean ridge offset faulting. Island chains such as the Hawaiians and the Emperor sea mounts Formation of island arcs Why some convergent plate boundaries are currently active while some are less and others now dormant And you can add that mantle westward drift to it also. So I guess its a choice between a standard model containing no predictions of surface observations and based on several mathematical models proposing a freezing core and convection currents, all unseen and unproven by direct observation. Or a much simpler model based on gravitational potential energy being loaded and unloaded into and out of the crust; a displacing mantle as can be observed at all divergent plate boundaries at this moment; the mantle displacement due to thermal expansion of the outer core's molten iron by a yet undefined variable energy increase, by a yet undefined source. I think my model is doing pretty good.

Hi billiards, That statement rings out in a rather "Glass is almost full" resonance. The fact is we all know that in the standard model there is little common connection, in the way of understanding, between what is proposed to be happening unseen in the Earth's depths and what is observed at its surface. http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_ "none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape." The value of a hypothesis, theory or model is directly proportional to its ability to make predictions. To accurately explain in the simplest terms what is happening and why. This can also be a stumbling block for any idea that runs counter to popular belief or understanding. Weight or value is given to the complex solution, for it shows at face value the work that was extracted from its creator. It shows clearly the great expense of both time and money expended. Simple solutions on the other hand look somewhat as a lazy man's load and are too quickly dismissed as amateur. If given the clear understanding of all details their should be an obvious advantage to the simplest explanation. But can it be too simple for its own good, making it difficult for most to accept at first? Very likely. OK, lets see if I can do this in less than 20,000 words. This is not a complicated problem to solve with my model. All of the plates, both continental and oceanic are subjected to movement. The heavier the plate the more resistance that plate will have to the mantle. This is because the thickness and weight of a continent is on top of it, actually depressing the mantle and even displacing it out to under the lighter ocean plates. As you know, in my model the mantle is periodically displaced outward and the divergent plate boundaries are the proof of that, slowly infilling with magma as they separate. When the cycle changes to contraction the mantle will recede or return towards the core. D. L. ANDERSON*, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (2013): The persistent mantle plume myth, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, DOI: 10.1080/08120099.2013.835283 Published online: 26 Sep 2013. * Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10...099.2013.835283 Seismology, thermodynamics and classical physics—the physics associated with the names of Fourier, Debye, Born, Gr€uneisen, Kelvin, Rayleigh, Rutherford, Ramberg and Birch—show that ambient shallow mantle under large long-lived plates is hundreds of degrees hotter* than in the passive upwellings that fuel the global spreading ridge system, that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth** and that deep mantle low shear wave-speed features are broad, sluggish and dome-like rather than narrow and mantle-plume-like.The surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes.** *[because the thickness and weight of a continent is on top of it increasing friction, its thickness slowing heat migration as compared to ocean plates where the heat can dissipate more easily into a thinner crust and in turn the adjacent ocean] My model is predictive of the statement highlighted above; The thermal expansion will displace the mantle and release strain energy in the form of heat during its outward movement. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension and shear stresses. As the mantle is displaced outward the divergent plate boundaries are slowly separated, and as they do magma *created from the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary is forced under pressure into the slowly opening gap. The strain energy thermal content is produce as the mantle is forced to expand against gravity and its own viscosity, tearing its outer surface area and releasing the thermal energy. This part is really important to note. This heat is not migrating from the core, which would take considerable time, this thermal content is produced at the crust/mantle boundary. The mantle makes up 85% of the Earth's volume, its thickness requires its outer surface to expand in proportion to its distance from the core creating tremendous strain energy in very small amounts of outer core/mantle boundary displacement. **This means that the level of strain energy thermal content produced anywhere throughout the mantle is greater the farther from the core its place of origin resides. And thus makes it in agreement with and predictive of the article’s statement above. "that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth" ** The surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes.** Let me outline what the crust is doing according to my model so we can all stay together in this discussion. But first I need to Apologize to studiot. Please bear with me billiards I'm getting to it. Below is studiot's post #191 Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:56 PM We've been through this before, and I asked for a force diagram showing (proving) this statement. Since it was not forthcoming, I started to build up to this situation with my diagrams in post 178, that you seem to want to ignore. I started with the simplest possible. Your scenario is more complicated. In force terms it is: Take a block, restrain one end, and apply a tangential force to one surface only acting away from the fixed end. This will induce shear, not tension in the block. Wow, I really screwed up there. I was rather overwhelmed by the amount of traffic at that time. I'm not very fast and get behind easily. I now understand where I went wrong in this. I have misnamed forces, causing confusion and understandable frustration. Take for example the post below, I have imagined that the force that is applied to an ocean plate, as the mantle displaces outward, as something resembling the force you experience on your arms as you drag something across the floor like a carpet. I assumed this was tension because of the pull applied to one's arms, studiot explained this as shear force between the ocean plate and the mantle. Let me rewrite this post below and see if that works better. Let’s examine the behavior of the crust during the thermal cycle. The crust and mantle can be compared to laminated materials in their behavior. When the radius is changed the material on the outside is required to have either resilient qualities such as the ability to stretch or compress, or allowable movement, which is the ability to move independent of the lower laminate to relieve compressive or tension shear stresses on the outer material. During a period of thermal increase the crust is required to continually move independent of the mantle to release what are primarily tension shear stresses. The Atlantic for example has two opposing continental attached ocean crust sections that are slowly and incrementally being separated by the expanding mantle. This is simply a very large stress relieving mechanism that back-fills with magma. During each thermal cycle the width of the plates are continually increasing from the magma infill, as it has since their creation during the break-up of the super-continent. As it does this, the continually increasing drag or friction of that additional material imposes proportionally increasing tension shear stresses at the continental ends of the ocean plates. Eventually, when the plates are maybe twice as wide, the ocean plates will fracture from that extra stress placed on the plate adjacent to where they meet the continents. These new stress fractures will begin the process of becoming subduction zones during the following contraction portions of the cycles, and will develop trenches with depths proportionate to the frictional drag created by the ever growing plates. The Pacific Plate and its now subducted twin the Farallon likely began in this manner. The Pacific Plate succumbed to this tension shear stress, probably shortly after the creation of what is now the oldest section of seafloor in the Pacific at maybe 180+ MYA. These ocean plates eventually get over ridden on one end and subducted on the other, imposing tensional shear forces that create structures like the Mariana Trench and the Basin and Range and developing stress relieving mechanisms such as the San Andreas Fault. This give and take of the thermal cycle will continue until opposing and closing continents meet on the other side of the planet, forming once again a combined continental structure. I hope that makes more sense, taking away some of the confusion about this. Its important to note that this shear force is what eventually causes the ocean plates to break from the continent. The increasing drag during the expansion periods from the additional infill at the divergent boundaries eventually overtaxes the plates strength. Either side of the Atlantic has not broke yet and they will probably not break at the same time. Though when one side does completely break free it will likely subduct. This due to the remaining short ocean crust section that is connected to the continent, it will rise as the continent settles lower due to the release of compression in the mantle under the new fracture. The new fracture will begin filling with magma as the expansion continues, but it will eventually direct the ocean plate down when the contraction period starts. Now to address the westward drift phenomena. Anyone trying to get their mind wrapped around this idea first needs to to understand this one concept. When you think about the current standard model you conceptualize the crust as floating around the surface, being pushed around from below by convection currents. The larger plates are then pushing around the smaller ones with all this resulting in the physical world we now observe. This model of mine is quite different. The mantle displaces the crust outward as in studiot's drawing, all of the divergent boundaries receive magma during this time. That infill is what requires the plate to subduct when the mantle subsides, requiring the plates to shift in the direction of least resistance into the trenches or in rare instances mountain complexes. It is the gravitational potential energy of the combined plate matrix that moves the plate around the surface of the Earth. So with this in mind, you simply need to understand that the direction of movement of the entire plate matrix as in reference to the mantle is the product of these dynamics. Lets start with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR), it is the result of continental break-up caused by the mantle's displacement, (see studiot's drawing) what is important to notice about this geographic area is; the crust is missing large scale trenches, aka convergent boundaries where the ocean crust is subducting. When there is contraction in the mantle a very large portion of the mass of the global plate matrix is imposed on the MAR, compressing it into the raised structure quite unlike any other mid-ocean ridge section. The total amount of the last expansion period's combined divergent boundary infill requires all convergent boundaries in other locations to receive a proportionate amount of ocean plate material as subduction. This subducted plate material must compensate for the previous divergent infill. So, this westward drift is the combined global plate matrix redistributing and releasing its compressive load, its gravitational potential energy, into the trenches with the westward drift being the result of this process. What is the primary engine in the crust that does this? You simply need to look at the Pacific Plate to have your answer. The Pacific Plate's primary subduction takes place along its western edge and there is not any convergent trench anywhere in the world that opposes this in equal measure. There is no other plate of equal size to the Pacific that has a comparable convergent boundary to its east that can counter the movement and force of the gravitational potential energy in the plate matrix as it is converted to kinetic energy by the mantle's subsidence. It is during times of extraordinary gravitational potential energy that provides the crust's observed offset to the east in relation to the mantle, as the global plate matrix pushes itself against the western Pacific's convergent trenches. This in turn provides the observed westward drift in the mantle. It is not unlike pushing a gondola with a pole. At a given period during just select period(s) of contraction, the global plate matrix's total available gravitational potential energy exceeded the total friction that the matrix had to the mantle. The traction provided by and/of the resistance in the Pacific's convergent plate boundaries produced the westward drift phenomena. This is almost certainly to have occurred simultaneously with a period of mountain building. So this defined westward drift is a rare occurrence during which time an extraordinary amount of gravitational potential energy of the crust is in play, a large enough amount to overcome the friction of the crust/mantle boundary. The Pacific plate's trenches provide the traction, the push off point for the movement of the crust to the east in relation to the mantle, thus providing the observed mantle westward drift. This rare westward drift should not be confused with the regular motions of my model. Where normally the Pacific crust is moved westward as the mantle subsides, the most recent infill leveraging the Pacific ocean plate into its western convergent boundary trenches as the mantle subsides. This movement is currently observed in the Hawaiian Island chain and its predecessors the Emperor sea mount chain. Westward drift may have been a one time event, but could also have happened simultaneously with all mountain building periods that occurred within the currently understood lifespan of the Pacific plate, an accumulation of many small drifts into one. This may also be seen within Island chains as a course change. And of course there were many other plates now long subducted that probably did the same. This thesis is really defined by the surface observations. In the current model the divergent plate boundaries gradual movement apart from each other is equaled by the plates subduction into trenches somewhere else. But in reality there is half as many kilometers of trenches as there is divergent boundaries. This discrepancy needs to be solved. This model does this through extending the subduction period by storing this energy as raised mass, put there as the mantle subsides and the plates are loaded like a arch between the newest divergent infill and the trenches resistance to subduction. According to the model the infill is a measured increase of the Earth's circumference, which gives an accurate figure of displacement of the mantle. This mantle surface increase is in proportion to, and dependent on, the mantle's thickness. There is a type of mechanical energy transfer involved. Not unlike what gears accomplish in a transmission. So the thermal expansion of the outer core applies a type of leverage to convert an infinitesimal variation of circumference at the outer core/mantle boundary to measurable movement at the divergent plate boundaries. The models ability to raise the global tectonic plate matrix while shoring the retreating divergent plate boundaries with new magma provides a means where the initial thermal expansion energy ( the magnetic field generator's molten iron's thermal expansion) can be stored in the raised mass as (short term) gravitational potential energy, then slowly released as kinetic energy as the plates melt into the asthenosphere. Periods of excessive gravitational potential energy, the periods that exceed the trenches rates of resistance, will produce (long term) storage of the kinetic energy as mass in mountain complexes. Now compare what I have wrote in this post above to what are very accurate short falls in the standard model. http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_ Mantle convection is expected, because Earth is cooling and because material is uprising along oceanic ridges and down going along subduction zones. Moreover, lateral variations and gradients in temperature, density, fluid content, and viscosity should determine slow creeps within the mantle. However we do not know the constraints on the velocity of these movements, and none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. <(My model predicts this by the way) Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape. Earth’s rotation is also able to generate a possible polarity in the kinematics of the cores, mantle, and lithosphere, a sort of railway path. Plates may be more detached on a relatively less viscous mantle than on a relatively more viscous mantle, therefore lateral heterogeneity in the asthenospheric mantle may determine different decoupling from the overlying lithosphere. Variations in decoupling are in turn responsible for differential velocity among plates and plate tectonics. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle. <(My model predicts this by the way) Mantle convection models show the upraise and sinking of the mantle with fixed cells, with steady vertical plumes and polygonal shapes in an horizontal view; plate tectonics rather show linear features at the surface, and plate boundaries moving one respect to the other, and unstable. These tectonics are erroneously linked to horizontally moving uprising plumes and subduction zones, which are not predicted by physical convection models. In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics. A more robust contribution of the Earth’s rotation in combination with mantle convection could be envisaged. This is a very accurate description of the standard models ability to make predictions, which amount to about "0". I have read many times here at SFN that all a hypothesis has to do is make predictions better than the standard model. I have done that. Repeatedly! I may have neglected answering timely and even correctly in the past as mentioned above in regards to studiot's queries, and that was not excusable, but it was due to my personal ability to process so many simultaneous posts, I am very slow at this and it takes me hours to write most posts. This one has taken a week, I have been thinking about this westward drift every day, working out the model in my mind over and over. It seem rather odd that my model can be so powerful at describing the present observational evidence of the Earth's surface, better than the standard model ever has, and did it in rather simple methods in general. Shouldn't the standard model be subjected to the same scrutiny with the same evidence? What exactly gives the standard model its empirical status? It is obviously not its predictive ability.

No problem, some of us go way back the middle of the last century, a few even to its first half. Just think, that movie came out only 10 years after man first walked on the moon.

OK, guys take it easy. I'm going as fast as I can. I've had a tough week at work and its left me with little to work with at night in terms of concentration. I've had to do some reading to make sure I can nail down this "westward drift". Please be patient. Thanks, arc

arc, on 13 Dec 2013 - 9:33 PM, said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a 1979 American science fiction film released by Paramount Pictures. It is the first film based on Star Trek, and a sequel to the Star Trek television series. The film is set in the twenty-third century, when a mysterious and immensely powerful alien cloud called V'Ger approaches Earth, destroying everything in its path. Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) assumes command of his previous starship—the recently refitted USS Enterprise—to lead it on a mission to save the planet and determine V'Ger's origins. Enterprise intercepts the energy cloud and is attacked by an alien vessel within. A probe appears on the bridge, attacks Spock and abducts the navigator, Ilia. She is replaced by a robotic doppelgänger, a probe sent by "V'Ger" to study the crew. Decker is distraught over the loss of Ilia, with whom he had a romantic history. He becomes troubled as he attempts to extract information from the doppelgänger, which has Ilia's memories and feelings buried within. Spock takes a spacewalk to the alien vessel's surface and attempts a telepathic mind meld with it. In doing so, he learns that the vessel is V'Ger itself, a living machine. At the heart of the massive ship, V'Ger is revealed to be Voyager 6, a 20th-century Earth space probe believed lost. The damaged probe was found by an alien race of living machines that interpreted its programming as instructions to learn all that can be learned, and return that information to its creator. The machines upgraded the probe to fulfill its mission, and on its journey the probe gathered so much knowledge that it achieved consciousness. Spock realizes that V'Ger lacks the ability to give itself a focus other than its original mission; having learned what it could on its journey home, it finds its existence empty and without purpose. Before transmitting all its information, V'Ger insists that the Creator come in person to finish the sequence. Realizing that the machine wants to merge with its creator, Decker offers himself to V'Ger; he merges with the Ilia probe and V'Ger, creating a new form of life that disappears into another dimension. With Earth saved, Kirk directs Enterprise out to space for future missions. Whale?

Could it be defined as a medium through which all matter can interrelate?

I hope all will be alright. How did your sons handle the situation, its surprising how well many children deal with such sudden mayhem.

I had a nice 60+ km drive this morning so I spent a little time thinking on this, I saw michel's post during lunch and it matched up pretty well with what I came up with. I now withdraw my earlier conclusion. These modern food processing plants are really well designed to avoid anything but the most determined intentional tampering. Automated detection is used throughout so the odds are pretty low that accidental contamination by foreign objects could occur. I think it is due to improper packaging and maybe pasteurizing. I'm going to assume this juice has pulp. I would also guess it was pasteurized and instructed the buyer to refrigerate after opening and maybe even shake before using. I had thought the juice may have been opened and partially used before being allowed to sit at room temperature, giving ample opportunity for the pulp to culture mold within the new atmosphere now inside the warming container of juice. But michel's link had showed that the particular example had never been opened. The containers look similar so the contamination is probably related to defective packaging that allowed air to enter or again improper pasteurizing. The pulp would float like a raft, the top of it molding in the air as the bottom was exposed to the acid. My guess is the black stuff was down and the white side was up. Carmen's sample had been opened and partially consumed, this would have lowered the fluid level down to where the container has a continually larger cross sectional area, increasing the pulps available surface area and thereby explaining the apparent greater quantity of contaminated matter. The raft would easily float out of the way to allow the juice below to pour out when container was tilted.

Does inbreeding prove evolution? Yes!

I think it looks like a peel that may have been somehow relocated farther down the production line, probably, unfortunately, on purpose if this facility is anything modern. Was this some kind of organic brand, a smaller regional operation? +1 on the pics by the way, how did you take the micro's?

You're right, but how often do you get a double entendre as sweet as that.

Unless she changes her name to hypervalent_bromide*. *As in chemistry of course. You think i'm crazy Not intended as; bromide - a phrase having been employed excessively, suggests insincerity or a lack of originality in the speaker.

I would have never imagined those two sentiments would appear in the same paragraph let alone in tandem. Well . . . . . . this should be interesting.