arc

I'm going with a star hopping self determinate technology that out lived and possibly killed off its creators. Along the lines of the Borg meets Skynet, having a single centralized brain or command that can quickly glean out any usable technology, knowledge and resources from the host civilization/planet while efficiently rendering it all to self perpetuating purposes. This takes care of the need to live long enough for interstellar travel, it could be as old as some stars and as large as a planet. It can slowly move through the galaxy while systematically plundering planets with cold clinical logic. Wait, wasn't that the first Star Trek movie?

I've always thought the "Independence Day" scenario was interesting, the invaders being like locusts, using up the planet and moving on. Could that level of indifference be also technologically capable of interstellar travel? Could that level of technological capacity look at not just a dead planet like Mars or Venus, but a living biosphere in all of its entirety as simply a source of raw materials? Animals, vegetables and minerals to be recycled into whatever the invaders require. Wait a minute, that's exactly what the Nazis would have done to our planet and any others they got their hands on.

This is the way it works, little skirmishes, major battles and an occasional sniper all spread out over time. I also seem to wear people out, they need a holiday after trying to help me. And I'm waiting for Unity to rework the maths when he gets a chance, it's up to his discretion, I know he's busy and I am in no hurry. My web sites see a steady stream of viewers so the idea is circulating, I get a little curious when the daily count is 35 or so, maybe a classroom somewhere. Hey, someone can take a shot at those 14C graphs, explain that the multiple sourced evidence of solar magnetic forcing of the planet's thermal content is just a coincidence.

That would be used to put a spudnik satellite into orbit, right.

I'm not a scientist but I love a good mystery. I have seen this also, I believe it is more common than you might think. If the potato is positioned where it can slightly rock to one side from a very small amount of momentary force and then move back as the force is ended, an intermittent steam jet from from a puncture in the potato will provide the needed energy to cause the movement. I'm sure you can recreate this phenomena with a little experimentation. You will need a potato with no holes or punctures to begin with. Start with several candidates and try finding a position that incurs a rock back movement when slightly pushed in the opposite direction. It must be a very balanced position needing little force to roll it against the gravity that will bring it back to its starting point. Once you find that perfect position make a puncture on the bottom of the potato to the side of that positions vertical center of balance, you want the puncture to be on the same side of center as that of the potato's start position. The puncture must face downward to the pan that it will be sitting on and as close to the pan as possible with the pan actually covering the puncture, this is critical. As the potato is heated, steam builds inside until it escapes out through the puncture as a steam jet which pushes the potato over its center of balance momentarily. The potato then moves back as the internal pressure subsides, resetting the puncture onto the pan and creating a sufficient seal until the pressure once again reaches critical levels. This will continue as long as the potato has the moisture to produce adequate steam. Be careful and good luck.

Ummm . . . . . wow

I would agree that working backwards from all modern languages would seem to be an approach open to speculative interpretations. I feel our experiences in the development of our own technology gives a reasonable hint as how an original idea can lead to a revolution in communication. The development of electronics, and computers to be more exact, is a reasonable analog to extrapolate a loose hypothesis as to the origins of language. It would only take the seemingly small original idea of identify a single object by a specific vocal sound to begin the rather logical process of developing spoken language. The novel idea once shared divides the groups members into those that can understand this abstract idea and those that cannot. Those that will learn and those that never can. This is all that is needed for specialization to slowly modify this group through evolutionary means. It is a reasonable assumption that this process over time would allow the selection of increased intelligence over, say, physical strength and even maybe health, that prior was the dominant determining factor before the development of language. It could also be assumed that in time language could equal and over take physical strength as the dominate trait, making language and its accompanying intelligence the eventual dominating factor in determining survival over time. You can speculate multiple scenarios with this model. What would be the reason that evolution allowed some to be farsighted (Hyperopia) and Nearsighted (myopic)? Being myopic in a world full of predators would seem an evolutionary oversight. (no pun intended) Could language have allowed this trait to be passed on more readily? Could verbal communication have created a safer or more equitable tribal environment for those possessing this condition? They would have been poorly suited for sighting game or throwing spears. But with language and the communication of ideas these members may have added the larger share of innovative ideas to survival.

The introduction of a proto spoken language into a hominid group provided a mechanism that promoted an abstract concept of communication, the identification of a subject by a specific spoken sound. Those with the natural abilities to understand and learn this concept benefited by it, while those that could not struggled to keep up within the learning curve that the entire group experienced. Imagine the differences that would be experienced between the oldest and youngest members, the little ones adapting more easily while many of the older members may have been incapable of even learning a simple one syllable sound representing a common object. The advantages possessed by those who were capable would probably be passed on to at least some of their offspring. They may even have experience a higher rate of birth due to the advantages of verbal collaboration between them and the others of similar or greater aptitude. The groups cohesion could have been challenged by the verbal disparity within its members, if the group diverged it would undoubtedly be between those who could and those who could not understand the concept of verbal communication. The invention of a spoken language may be the single greatest evolutionary advancement by humankind that was instigated by a conscious creative idea of an individual hominid, simply associating a given verbal sound to a specific subject, a name for something that possibly garnered a great amount of attention by this individual. Something he/she may have feared or possibly had hunted. What would have been named first? Water, a predator, lightning or maybe it was fire. But once this name was given and used the die was cast to a process that drove the physiologic and cognitive development that progressed early hominids into a successively smarter and successful animal of adaptability, a credit no doubt to their growing mastery of language.

I don't believe it required a specific mutation to kick-start human speech. We are all probably descended from the one single tribal group that developed speech, the one and only group out of the many others that did not do so. I believe it simply took a situation where a few members of this group developed (invented) a very basic proto language of a few consonants that probably represented what they hunted or what hunted them. A vocabulary like "ka" and "ba" and similarly simple proto words. Over time this language concept would unify the entire group and create an information revolution within that group. By possessing the concept of a unifying verbal language it would allow them, in coming generations, to gain advantage over the other none verbal groups. And over the following uncounted generations, it would slowly overlay their world with increasingly more complex constructs and concepts of verbal communication that in turn would drive brain development. Beginning with words to describe what they ate or what ate them, it grew to include places they hunted and gathered and the names of the many animals and plants in their quickly expanding verbal world. With this engine of change in place, time and natural variation in the subtle differences between generations would be enough to select the intellectually and anatomically predispositioned for success in this verbal communication defined paradigm of survival and reproduction. It would seem more likely that the capacity for verbal communication would improve through time because of the advantages it gave to those that inherited the same benefits from their parents. More so than a random vocal mutation that would seem rather useless unless it was coupled to an intellect capable of utilizing it. I believe it was the invention of the first proto words that started the engine that in turn developed the intellect that drove this self feeding cycle of increasing intellect, vocabulary and evolutionary success. This idea is analogous to the other much later historic information revolutions such as writing, the printing press, computers and the internet.

I'm kinda with ewmon on this one. It makes for a rather more realistic log, the nice grouping of multiple branches, the one on the end just begging to be had. It's both bait and camouflage. This guy/gal is a true pro. Their forelegs do not look particularly well suited for hat making, do they find a pile of floating debris and just rise up under it? I could see that happening on accident the first couple of times, the gator not really caring about some sticks on it's nose, then some bird just walks up and stands there tilting its head back and forth trying to decide which stick looks the most appealing. . . . . . Then bang! After several repeat events ending with a "to your door dinner delivery" it would seem like an old habit. But do the other gators learn this from older gators or is it instinctual? I'm going with learned. I know it seems a little crazy, but if this location has the environment to maintain a stable multi generational group I can see it as more of a possibility.

Well, thank you for starting such an interesting thread. This is a subject that has always caught my interest, I look forward to reading ewmon's links, this is great fun.

I have discussed this subject before in biology. I think the first human language, more than just those single proto words sounded when gesturing while hunting for example, but the first constructs of language began when our very early ancestors became aware of time, the first understanding of the concept of yesterday, today and tomorrow. I have debated whether a past/present/future awareness would have been in place prior or would it have developed in tandem with language as simply a tool they constructed to communicate more clearly. It would seem to be a natural development in language, to refer to for example, what happened on a hunt, and then extend those "stories" out over time. And with these early humans, that knowledge of past/present/future makes way for experiences of regret and hope that could develop into primitive religion and then into philosophy. This to me is possibly the driver of our brain evolution. Those who could communicate and imagine the images in stories and use that information could understand the world around them better and improve their chances to survive. This could be the engine that would progress brain development quickly. I could see it being almost inevitable that once the concept of the past is understandable, a hunter injured for example, would contemplate that traumatic moment and feel the regret of the mistake. He would possibly reexamine the events leading up to the accident searching for a answer to his regret. These experiences would lead to either fear or hope for tomorrow depending on the severity of his wounds and his knowledge of the fate of others with similar injuries. If the injured had been considered one of importance this could be quite traumatic for all those involved. This would likely create fertile grounds for superstition and the need to anticipate the possible dangers lying in wait for them tomorrow. This is an inevitable byproduct of increasing brain size. The increase of imagination that visualizes the stories with increasing complexity would also drive the superstition that would increasingly be included in those stories. Those that could process this flow of information and apply it to survival would likely pass their more advantageous brain and possibly even their cultural "education system" of language and stories on to their offspring. This model of evolution is one that has an internal mechanism of an information feedback creating an accelerated development of brain size in human ancestors. I think language, the concept of past/present/future and the stories that advanced human understanding, developed together through mutual reinforcement, accelerating our ancestors development.

Ophiolite, you are the consummate professional. Thank you also. I am forever grateful for Unity's help in this endeavor. I have neither the intellect and/or abilities to navigate these difficult areas of this thesis and his continued help is indispensable to me. This model is based largely on the information below. I know I have posted this material repeatedly but it has been largely ignored by everyone. This variable shown below is possibly the change in the core that is needed. Whether attributed to the Sun or not would not change it's causation if it can be attributed to thermal expansion of the core, and by that, the displacement of the mantle. http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/ A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core. Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy. This article states that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2. ​ I am also encouraged by these observations below. http://www.igpp.ucla...CRUS1572507.pdf Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field. This is mutual inductive coupling between a planet's field and it's moons, it seems very possible and even more likely than not to be occurring between our Sun and Earth when you consider the following evidence. I keep posting this material below but never get a response to it, it shows evidence of solar magnetic induced warming of the planet. Bond showed a correlation between 14C content and the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, he then identified a link of these observations to the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic. According to my model this could be a result of a variability within the planet's already unaccounted heat flow. http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times. This is pretty clear that there is ample reason to suspect a correlation between solar magnetic caused inductive coupling of the Earth's magnetic field generator and that of climate variability. Then there is these graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content that track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Solar magnetic flux is the only mechanism controlling the 14C content and timing. The 10 million dollar question is why does this content follow very accurately the climate history of the last 1100 years, coincidence? Image below courtesy of USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf Image below modified by this author. As you can see this is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, again this is not temperature shown here, it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating magnetic field strength. (the 14C content is inverted) It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, it's content is inverted compared to the currently observed and debated temperature rise. An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux. The Sun's varying magnetic field is the only mechanism controlling 14C content and timing. Now, for me to suggest there is a correlation between the solar magnetic field strength and the current abnormal temperature increase I will have to show evidence of extraordinarily unusual magnetic field strength that will correlate the 14C content in the graph with the atmospheric warming since The Little Ice Age. http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004. S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4 1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany 2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland 3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland "According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades." The researchers are limited by the current standard model to solar thermal radiation variability as the only possible cause. They are so close to the answer, even admitting a possible link between the unusual "rarity" of high sunspot numbers and "the unusual climate change during the twentieth century" I leave it up to anyone to explain this data above. I also have a fit of climate variability to the Basin and Range extension (warm period) and the subsequent mountain building period that followed that was a cooler period in the geologic record. It is a nice fit and a valid prediction of observations. I look forward to Unity's continued help in completing a model that can incorporate these unexplained phenomena. I really can't do it without him.

This is post #2 challenging my thesis, Quote; Subduction and (seafloor) spreading are both happening at the same time, right now. According to your theory, one should happen first, then the other. Observation does not seem to match your theory. This is post #4 in response; Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:09 PM 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. I believe there is currently not any observed subduction in the Mediterranean which my model answers. But I stray. 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. A fraction of a degree over 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. So lets say this continues over a couple of million years building up a nice little slice of new divergent plate infill in the worlds entire divergent inventory. Now we start into that lower level part of the cycle with the core going down a fraction of a degree over millions of years. As the liquid iron lowers imperceptibly the mantle responds and moves in tandem. What will the crust do? It would likely move with the mantle but it can't because of the nice new slice of seafloor that now blocks its pathway down. The plates begin to preload like a Roman arch, slowly sliding to the opposite direction into the trench. Something neat is happening here though, the plates all have different masses, from some of the largest like the Pacific or say Eurasia to the smaller down to the micro plates. The larger plates take the longest amount of time to unload while the smaller may be able to even slip some on the edges to release even faster. Referring to this claim; Plate tectonicists insist that the volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of midocean ridges are supposedly producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add the 9000 km of "collision zones," the figure is still only half that of the "spreading centers" (Smoot, 1997a). ​In my model this would indicate that the subduction lags behind the expansion portion of the cycle. It takes longer for the plates to melt into the asthenosphere than it does to create the infill that leverages the plate into the trench. So the answer to why is there some subduction happening now?, would be because not all of the plate compression (probably the largest ones) has bled out into the trenches before this current expansion cycle started. The outer core thermal cycle is variable throughout its cycle, even from one maximum to the next in both timing and duration. Now lets say we have a extra long thermal expansion cycle and the divergent plate boundaries build up a very large infill, one of those that only happens every 20 or 30 million years. When the outer core begins to cool and initiates the plates subduction the trenches will be, like before, slower to receive the plate material than the mantles withdraw. The compression begins building on the plates, being only able to over come the trenches rates of resistances to a point. As the mantle continues down the plates are subjected to loads that require vertical movement of rock strata to relieve to massive compression building on the plates, this compression is in proportion to the length of time and degree of expansion in the previous cycle in relation to the degree of cooling in this cycle. So, at the very beginning the model proposed that currently, both divergent and convergent boundaries are active. The reason this is possible is the plates are in various degrees of stored mass in the form of gravitational potential energy. So, currently there is a balance, the subduction roughly equals the divergent boundary metrics. And by the way, how long have we measured this constant? Misrepresentation of what someone says is not a nice way to conduct a discussion. billiards is a repeat offender on this. He criticized me for posting too much text. I set a trap and he stuck his leg in it. He only read the first paragraph and then made a bogus post. He admitted it in post #122, I quote; My misinterpretation of your number may make the geometrical argument invalid, but let's be clear -- you're still wrong. You really have to read something before you can claim you misinterpreted it. So why keep arguing about something you admitted you were wrong about???? You can clearly read it below. I clearly gave the lateral displacement of the Basin and Range for an example. Then I preceded to to disqualify it as a measurable quantity in my model. I quote from below; This process is not unlike a mechanical jack place on soft ground, you jack up a few inches and return to find it lower than where you started. You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from? This is not like a balloon, going up a lot and then back down. Its like running on a conveyor, you may move ahead a little or move back the same, but your gains and losses are smoothed out over the distance covered. And this is post # 119; Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:46 PM "Total lateral displacement" . . . . . "varies from 60 – 300 km" . . . . . . "So, the total could be as great as 500 km." . . . . . . "reduction of circumference." "You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from? " So, I gave you lateral displacement. I didn't say it was radius, and if you would have read what I knew you wouldn't, you would have seen it. You would have figured out that 500 km +/- in relation to 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55 miles) out of the Earth’s circumference is 80 km of radius ~. "But here's the rub" "This process is not unlike a mechanical jack placed on soft ground, you jack up a few inches and return to find it lower than where you started." "this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting" Which means that 80 km +/- change cannot happen either, and I can only guess at the amount that it actually does change, 5-? I don't know, just like a lot of things in plume theory. "Its like running on a conveyor, you may move ahead a little or move back the same, but your gains and losses are smoothed out over the distance covered." So, you see it gains and loses in a cycle, but at some point it loses enough to convert the plates mass to gravitational potential energy, which will then overcome the trenches rates of resistance and require the movement of rock into mountain complexes. It is really that simple. He just keeps repeating this. . . . . . lets just call it his little misrepresentation of the facts. But that's OK because every time it shows up I will just copy and paste this post as a reply. Which I think I will have to do repeatedly. This model has always proposed a constant between the divergent a convergent boundaries, with mountain building taking up the imbalances; 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. The constant attempt of individuals to inject an inaccurate representation of this model has grown tedious, it does not involve the Earth changing in size and never did, it was never stated and it has been explained that it does not. Those that proceed to do so are apparently, in all determinable ways, simply trolling. And I'm still waiting for someone to respond to those 14C graphs, and some predictions of observations according to the current model. I won't be holding my breath.

Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping up. What did I not address correctly. The plate section that is held on one edge in a trench will experience a tension as the mantle increases its radius, there is friction between the two materials as they reposition to each other.

Yes, I think the outer surface is placed in tension. When very thick, high viscosity materials are deformed don't they release strain energy? I imagined the viscosity, due to pressure, being greater than the displacement rate. The mantle actually needs to tear to release the strain it is put under. The question that I don't have an answer to is; will the tearing result in the melting of the boundary area material.

I would say a free floating plate would behave as such, and a plate that is subducted on one edge would experience tension as the outward displacing mantle and plate reposition in relation to each other.

Yes, radius increase may possible, but I imagine it as tearing and melting of the mantle surface area, releasing strain energy while raising the plate matrix by evidence of the divergent boundary infill. Could this mantle surface material be required to melt as the tearing causes momentary reduction of pressure? This is how I originally thought it would need to work, that the strain energy melts the crust/ mantle boundary area material, providing a hydraulic fluid in the form of magma. It makes for a nice supporting element in this model. reducing the energy needed to overcome the friction of the continents to the mantle.

But would that be measurable in anything less than millions of years, and/or would it be lost in the compression that already is present in the entire plate matrix. I struggle to place this in any context other than increased or decreased gravitational potential energy. This question is for greater minds than mine.

Thank you studiot, I take responsibility for my rather clumsy presentation of this material. It is rather spread out and disconnected, so to speak, but as I have said before it is just a framework. Nowhere in this entire thread or the links at the bottom of this page have I expressed any indication that the Earth has changed it's size. If you believe adding mountains increases the size of the Earth than yes, but this model simply uses a repeating cycle of divergent boundary movement to create gravitational potential energy in the Earth's crust. This energy as raised mass will over time subduct into trenches, and in rare incidences produce mountains. This does not involve changing the size of the Earth. I hope everyone understands this. I have from the beginning expressed it in this manner. People have improperly associated this model, in some manner or another, to an expanding Earth Idea, it is not and has never been. Again, this is a result of my inability to express this idea properly, but it is also the result of a large quantity of prior theories that have left their imprint on everyone's mind. People are transferring predetermined and prior concepts into this model. They do not belong here if they involve a change in the Earth's size. Please go read post #1 and post #4. My apologies for my improper use of the two terms, this will require some retraining on my part in their application, I'm afraid you will need to read between the lines occasionally, I have quite literally overran my abilities.

I'm sorry studiot, but I don't see that I expressed it that way, I quote: So we have a reasonable example that the crust would fracture at it's weakest points to relieve the tension caused by the outward mantle displacement. I did not say the mantle had fractured, I said it had displaced. I use the term "displaced" to indicate that the expansive force that moves the mantle does not originate in the mantle, it is in the core. The mantle is akin to a mechanical energy transfer device, it applies multiplied force to to the crust. An infinitesimal movement in the core is transferred and multiplied by the mantle to the crust, and is observed as divergent boundary movement.

That's quite all right, I enjoy this conversation we're having. Sorry about the length of this answer but you ask. let's imagine several different scenarios that a crust like Earth's could be put into if such a subtle variation in the mantles outer boundary was possible. It must be understood that the crust is rather rigid and does not take tension stresses without fracturing. The mantle in contrast is flexible as it is slowly displaced outward and inward in periodic events of slow increase and decrease in circumference. As an illustration of what a crust would be subjected to, let's imagine we were to observe the Earth with a single crustal plate with no divergent or convergent boundaries. The first increase in the mantle would require at least one very large stress relieving fracture, and more likely would resemble the fractured shell of a hard boiled egg. So we have a reasonable example that the crust would fracture at it's weakest points to relieve the tension caused by the outward mantle displacement. I think we now could expect, as these new fractures opened, magma would continually infill the voids as the crust slowly diverged. This model looks to be resembling the current divergent boundaries. Now let's say it has been in an extended period of outward displacement and all of the divergent boundaries have acquired an infill in proportion to the mantles displacement, now the cycle has changed and the mantle is beginning to recede while the crust is slowly loading with compression. As the mantle moves down it is incrementally leaving the crust unsupported, loading it up with gravitational potential energy as time passes. At some point the compression will overload a weak area in the crust. It would probably be an area of the crust that is thinner and maybe already has a fracture, such as a divergent plate boundary. As the compression reaches a critical point in the crust, the weak section fails, slowly folding and maybe even rupturing with the two sides bypassing each other. This would establish a convergent boundary with one plate subducting and the other overriding it, a reasonable prediction of observations. As the mantle cycles, and the crustal extension and compression repeats, the subducted crust will be driven far under the other sections of crust. The first of many plates to become thicker from the fracturing and the subsequent overriding. At some point the crust reaches an equilibrium between the continental and ocean crust. The continental mass becomes to heavy to take any more subducted basement ocean plate. The continents eventually break apart, and the energies of the cycles can only compress so much rock until an ocean plate fractures and subducts next to the continent, angling down sharper than it did before it was jacked in under the first proto continent. A large composite continent is doomed in this model, it's thickness is unable to conform to the cycle's changes, and as the mantle displaces under it it's the center area is subjected to divergent stresses from the mantle's frictional energies. To see this modeled, take a balloon and put wet paper of varying lengths on it, slowly inflate and watch the longest lengths tear from the divergent stress. A nice prediction of continental breakup. So now you have a stress fracture between two former halves of a continent. As the mantle displaces outward in each cycle the fracture gains infill, as this repeats the continent is slowly jacked apart and the rift is filled by the ocean. Currently this is happening in the Atlantic basin. The infill of the mid-ocean ridge is what is leveraging the North American continent over on top of the Pacific plate during the mantles subsidence. The immense compression of this process has subjected the Atlantic ridge to the weight of North America on one side and Eurasia on the other. As the mantle subsides these two massive continents have pushed the ocean floor towards the ridge, raising the divergent boundary into a much higher ridge structure than is common in most other locations. Another prediction of observation. What will happen as the Atlantic continues to diverge and it widens? At some point the ocean plate portion adjacent to the continents will fracture from the stresses of the compression cycles and the tension of the outward displacement, the continually growing ridge edge adds increasing frictional drag during outward displacement, adding additional tension to the continental end with every cycle. At some point, maybe when the Atlantic is twice as wide, the ocean section will fracture and separate from the continents, establishing a convergent boundary trench like the Pacific has. As the ocean plates grow in width the trench will be pulled open in greater degrees as the enlarging plate applies increasing tension with every cycle. This model has elements of a Wilson cycle. As the Atlantic widens the Pacific is reduced until it disappears when the opposing continents close. Not necessarily, this variable shown below is possible the change needed. Whether attributed to the Sun or not would not change it's causation if it can be attributed. http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/ A supercomputer model showing flow patterns in Earth's liquid core. Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier - Los Alamos National Laboratory - U.S. Department of Energy. This article states that globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2. ​ If this energy increase and decrease can be incorporated into the model as thermal expansion of the outer cores molten iron it could stand alone at this time, without the Suns causation of it. And I keep posting this material below but you never respond to it, it shows evidence of solar magnetic induced warming of the planet. http://www.igpp.ucla...CRUS1572507.pdf Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field. I made this real big so you can't miss it this time. This is mutual inductive coupling between a planet's field and it's moons, it seems very possible and even more likely than not to be occurring between our Sun and Earth when you consider the following evidence. As I had noted, Bond showed a correlation between 14C content and the Sun's level of electromagnetic activity, he then identified a link of these observations to the 1500 year cycle of ice buildup in the N. Atlantic. According to my model this could be a result of a variability within the planet's already unaccounted heat flow. http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times. This is pretty clear that there is ample reason to suspect correlation between solar magnetic caused inductive coupling of the Earth's magnetic field generator and that of climate variability. Then there is these graphs that show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content that track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Solar magnetic flux is the only mechanism controlling the 14C content and timing. The 10 million dollar question is why does this content follow very accurately the climate history of the last 1100 years, coincidence? Image below courtesy of USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf Image below modified by this author. As you can see this is correlated very convincingly. On the right side of the graph the line moves up out of the little ice age, again this is not temperature shown here it is 14C content in tree ring samples indicating magnetic field strength. (the 14C content is inverted) It is actually declining due to increasing solar magnetic flux, it's content is inverted compared to the currently observed and debated temperature rise. An important point is this 14C variation is not due to any Earth bound forcing agent. The vertical rise (reduction in content) from about 1820 for example, is entirely the product of solar magnetic flux. The Sun's varying magnetic field is the only mechanism controlling 14C content and timing. Now, for me to suggest there is a correlation between the solar magnetic field strength and the current abnormal temperature increase I will have to show evidence of extraordinarily unusual magnetic field strength that will correlate the 14C content in the graph with the atmospheric warming since The Little Ice Age. http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004. S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4 1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany 2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland 3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland "According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades." The researchers are limited by the current standard model to solar thermal radiation variability as the only possible cause. Their so close to the answer, even admitting a possible link between the unusual "rarity" of high sunspot numbers and "the unusual climate change during the twentieth century" I leave it up to anyone to explain this data above. I also have a fit of climate variability to the Basin and Range extension (warm period) and the subsequent mountain building period that followed that was a cooler period in the geologic record. It is a nice fit and a valid prediction of observations.

Given the choice you have between your plumes or your ants, I think you made your safest bet. But why don't you put up your predictions of observations for your plume's anyway. You seem to be avoiding sharing your models implied superior accuracy. Show us there is a clear and decisive difference. Occam's razor is a rather finicky tool isn't it. It doesn't like what cannot be simplified. Let's use it to dissect your plume theory. . . . . . Well, we are waiting.

Thank you Unity, I do not worry much about such criticisms at this time. The other contenders for this mystery lack even one direct observable prediction of surface phenomena. This has been the norm for so long that geophysics has assumed the answer must involve solutions of continually increasing complexity. It has fallen into the trap of "We just need an even bigger computer to run our models". Where are the predictions for all of the time and money spent! Any critic needs to show their own solution, their predictions of observations that are superior to the one they criticize so easily. You notice the lack of divulging a competing idea, the reason is they are so convoluted and complex that they cannot be described without sounding far fetched and even crazy. Plume theory is so over done and under preforming that if it was part of a research and development in the private sector it would have been shelved long ago. When they come to one of the continually appearing difficulties they simply invent an individualized mechanism for a solution and move ahead. What are the odds that mantle plume is correct? " What now are the odds that theory is correct? One in a million? One in a billion? One in a trillion?" My model is simple by comparison, its mechanism is far less tenuous than plume theory and it makes a series of very accurate predictions of observations. That is a troubling problem to some who may have spent many wasted years chasing the ghost of mantle plumes. It may be time to put up or shut up for those who have not a superior model.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AC-240V-3A-Normal-Closed-Red-Self-Locking-Emergency-Push-Button-Switch-Switching-/310568246072?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item484f4f5b38