arc

That's a sure sign it has been up someone's nose.

Glad to. Yes, they do occur simultaneously. The divergent boundary activity that is now currently seen is due to this current outer core thermal increase period. This is currently seen at the margins of the largest plates as divergent plate infill. The current rate of mantle displacement is gradually removing much of that gravitational potential energy of the crust, energy that is currently in the form of stored raised mass that produces compression in the crust and the currently observed subduction. As the mantle continues to displace outward much of this crustal compression from the last subsidence will be decreased before it can bleed away as subduction into the trenches. As stated before, the large difference between convergence and divergence boundaries requires mitigation through some means, this model accomplishes this by the short term storage of these plates as raised mass. There is much overlap in this process, there is not as one might think a clear change from divergent and subduction modes. They are overlapped with each other and with each ones outcome quite dependent on the other.

The tension I refer to is due to one edged of the plate being placed in a trench and held stationary. As the mantle slowly displaces outward the plate will be required to move independent (to slip, or to slide if you prefer) in relation to the increasing mantle circumference. This contact friction between these two differentiated materials will provide tension in the plate. An interesting prediction of this observation is that the Mariana Trench is the deepest trench in the world and happens to be subducting the widest expanse of ocean plate, the Pacific. If the model is correct, the friction between the displacing mantle and the fixed plate will provide a degree of tension proportional to the plates width. This is the traction that pulls the trench open. The widest plates should provide for the deepest trenches. And by this the narrower the plate, the lesser the tension applied, and the resultant trench depth should moderate accordingly. This plate tension prediction is additionally supported by the physical arc shape that the trenches and their accompanying island arcs attain. This appears to be the case, by the way, around the world. While the tension is being applied to the plate, with the greatest degree at the fixed trench end and reducing proportionally the farther you measure away from it, the divergent edge will be moving or diverging at speeds proportionate to the plate width. Again, the Pacific, being the widest from its fixed point, has the fastest spreading rates in the world, 80 - 120 mm a year, providing another prediction of this model. The divergent edges movement is of coarse accompanied by continuous infill of magma at the ridge axis, the total of which will later equate the degree of compression and by that the gravitational potential energy the plate will attain in proportion to the degree of the mantles subsidence. I hope this more detailed and predictive explanation will clear up many misconceptions people have to this very accurate model.

Read through my description again, you will see that the trench end and the divergent ridge edge both attain the same forces during the cycle's transitions. The plate is slowly supported from beneath causing tension, then slowly unsupported from beneath causing compression into the trench and at the divergent ridge, which in turn leverages the plate into the trench.

So, we went over this. You didn't read the whole post, you made an erroneous claim, I showed you were mistaken, you admitted it in post #122 Here it is again for the second time. Make sure you catch the line - "So, the total could be as great as 500 km. But here's the rub, this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting and imposing compression in the crust which produces subduction and reduction of circumference. You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from?" Hold on there cowboy, you better round up your horses and put em back in the barn. You didn't read that entire post did you? I knew if I set that number out there you would grab it and run. Let's take a look at what you didn't care to read. arc, on 11 Nov 2013 - 01:16 AM, said: "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. "If you were to flatten out all mountain ranges that occurred during the last 10 million years it would give you a divergent boundary infill that occurred" '"minus the unknown subduction values that occurred concurrently." This is really probably the easiest way to figure it out. But I'm not that smart. Well, I don't see a problem here, your lack of knowledge regarding the model leads you to make continuous erroneous challenges. But look on the bright side, someone is giving you up votes for being wrong! http://74.220.215.88/~earlgada/tags21/Mission/Documents/Smoot_OSP_Bathymetry_History.pdf Ocean Survey Program (OSP) Bathymetry History : Jousting with Tectonic windmills N. CHRISTIAN SMOOT GEOSTREAMS, Ltd, 104 Williamsburg Rd., Picayune, MS 39466, USA "Measurements with a compass yielded 74,000 km of midocean ridges. In theory, spreading is happening on both sides of the ridges, so new seafloor is produced along 148,000 km of the spreading centers. In theory, that much linear distance in convergent margins must exist to keep Earth from having a middle-age spread leading to another "big bang" situation. There is not; there are only 30,500 km of subduction zones and 9000 km of collision zones, only about one-fourth the amount of spreading ridges. This disparity in linear distance is probably an embellishment of the obvious. However, in an apparent community-wide failure to grasp the epitome of the situation, this fact has gone almost unnoticed by all but a few." "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)." http://www.geostreamconsulting.com/bios/BioSketch_Smoot.html N. Christian Smoot PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND: Employed by the Ocean Survey Program of the US Naval Oceanographic Office 1966-1975, 1977-1998- career consisted of 20 years of deep-ocean data collection (took 67 cruises and logged over 600,000 nautical miles at sea) in bathymetry, gravity, magnetics, and physical oceanography; progressing through state of the art technology of data collection from hand surveying and processing methods to full computer suite including transponders, inertial navigation, Transit and GPS satellite navigation, LORAN-C and Omega; single-beam sonar; SASS, Seabeam, and Simrad multibeam sonars; SeaMARC II side-scan sonar; sound velocity studies using Nansen casts, salinometers, Niskin samplers, and expendable bathythermo-graphs; found missing submarine, USS SCORPION, in June 1968; was senior scientist from 1981 until 1988–30 years of office work consisted of data compilation of thousands of point charts and a couple of hundred regional charts over the years, training others including updating the training manual four times, many special projects, and publishing results; 34 feature names accepted by US Board on Geographic Names; retired April 1998 with 18 work-related awards Cruises: 1. 20 Jun-11 Nov 66 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- NELant, GibStraits, and WestMed, Lisbon, Rota, Lisbon, Belfast, Belfast, Belfast, Barcelona 2. 11 Jan-10 Mar 67 USNS MICHELSON- grunt- NWPac (Marianas region, Challenger Deep), Yokosuka, Yokosuka, Yokosuka 3. 22 Jun 67-19 Oct 67 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- NELant and WestMed (Sargasso Sea, Straits of Sicily and Gibraltar, Skerki and Pantellaria Banks), Belfast, Lisbon, Swansea, Rota, Valetta 4. 15 Nov 67-13 Mar 68 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- WestMed and NELant (Tagus Plain, GibStraits), Valetta, Naples, Barcelona, Barcelona, Lisbon 5. 26 May-12 Aug 68 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- NELant (found USS SCORPION, ran transponder OPS for the USNS MIZAR, and surveyed the area), Bremerhaven, Amsterdam, Plymouth 6. 21 Jan-25 May 69 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- NELant (Bay of Biscay, Atlantic Voyageur, GibStraits), Bayonne, Lisbon, Lisbon, Belfast, Rota 7. 15 Jun-25 Aug 69 USNS BOWDITCH- grunt- WestMed and NELant (GibStraits), Livorno, Livorno, Rota, Glasgow 8. 26 Dec 69-26 Jan 70 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NELant (Faeroes, G/I/UK Gap, Atlantic Voyageur), Edinburgh, Hoboken 9. 25 May-31 Jul 70 USNS DUTTON- grunt- Arctic (Eastern Iceland through Jan Mayan Ridge, Bluenose), Trondheim, Amsterdam, Belfast, Chatham 10. 1 Feb-15 Apr 71 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NELant (Maury Seachannel, Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone, Rockall Plateau), Newcastle, Newcastle, Newcastle, Newcastle, Southampton 11. 20 Mar-12 May 72 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NLant (Atlantic Voyageur; GibStraits), Norfolk, Rota, Rota 12. 10 Dec 72-18 Jan 73 USNS DUTTON- grunt- WestMed, Barcelona, Barcelona, Barcelona 13. 17 Jan-30 Mar 75 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NLant (found TITANIC for Bob Ballard, Azores Platform, Atlantic Voyageur), Brooklyn, Baltimore, Norfolk, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Ponta Delgada 14. 25 Oct-23 Dec 77 USNS DUTTON- grunt- NEPac (Gulf of Alaska), Seattle, Seattle, Seattle 15. 5 Jul-8 Sep 78 USNS DUTTON- Hydroplot Supervisor- NEPac (Gulf of Alaska, exploratory- Golden Dragon), Seattle, Seattle, Honolulu 16. 27 Jul-6 Oct 79 USNS DUTTON- Hydroplot Supervisor- NPac (Emperor Seamounts- Golden Dragon), Yokosuka, Honolulu, Honolulu 17. 31 Dec 80-22 Jan 81 USNS DUTTON- Hydroplot Supervisor- NEPac (Gulf of Alaska), Port Hueneme, San Francisco 18. 10-29 May 82 USNS KANE- visiting scientist- Gulf of Mexico (Yucatan Straits), Gulfport, Port Everglades 19. 25 Jun-2 Sep 82 USNS DUTTON- Senior Scientist- NPac (Surveyor, Mendocino, and Murray Fracture Zones and Musicians Seamounts), Honolulu, Honolulu, Honolulu 20. 26 Sep-1 Dec 83 USNS DUTTON- Senior Scientist- NWPac (Emperor Seamounts, Western extensions of Surveyor and Mendocino Fracture Zones- Golden Dragon), Honolulu, Yokosuka, Guam 21. 11 May-2 Jun 84 R/V KANA KEOKI- visiting scientist- NWPac (Mariana Trough and Bonin Ridge), Guam, Chichijima 22. 23 Nov-24 Dec 85 USNS HESS- Senior Scientist- Lant (Romanche Fracture Zone and Mid-Atlantic Ridge- Shellback), Curacao, Curacao 23. 25 May-31 Jul 87 USNS HESS- Senior Scientist- NEPac (Murray Fracture Zone, Fieberling and Erben Seamounts), San Diego, San Diego, Portland 24. 12 Jun-18 Aug 88 USNS HESS- Senior Scientist- SLant (Romanche, Charcot, and Ascension Fracture Zones, Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and exploratory lines- Shellback), Curacao, Roosevelt Roads, Rio de Janiero, Rio de Janiero 25. 29-30 Mar 96 USS WEST VIRGINIA- Tiger cruise- NWLant- King's Bay 26. 25 Aug-24 Oct 97 USNS SUMNER- grunt- WPac (SChinaSea, Straits of Johor and Luzon), Singapore, Singapore, Yokohama Fun-in-the-Sun Things: worked on the JOIDES/USSAC Seamount Working Group for the Ocean Drilling Program; reviewed many NSF and ONR proposals during the 1980s and 1990s; was selected to get classified SASS bathymetry published in the 1970s, my part initially being guyots; moved into subduction zones and fracture zones by the mid-1980s; discovered orthogonally intersecting fracture zones in 1990, lack of deep earthquakes at subduction zones in 1991; adopted surge tectonic hypothesis for all writing in 1994; kept publishing after retirement, including the two books on ocean floor geomorphology; other papers published on anthropology Honors: Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, 4th Edition (Marquis; 1998) Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, 5th Edition (Marquis; 2000) Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century (International Biographical Centre; 2000) PAPERS: 1. Smoot, N.C., 1980. Interpretation of Deep Sea Sounding Data, Technical Papers of the American Congress of Surveying and Mapping, Fall Tech. Meeting, pp. MS‑2‑D‑1‑10. 2. Smoot, N.C., 1981. Multi‑beam sonar surveys of guyots of the Gulf of Alaska, Marine Geology, Vol. 43, N. 3-4, pp. M87‑M94, (also translated into Chinese and published in Haiyang Dizhi Yu Disiji Dizhi Qingdao). 3. Smoot, N.C., 1982. Guyots of the Mid‑Emperor chain: swath mapped with multi‑ beam sonar, Marine Geology, Vol. 47, pp. 153‑163. 4. Smoot, N.C., 1982. Northern Hess Rise extended by multi‑beam sonar, Tectonophysics, Vol. 89, pp. T27‑T32. 5. Smoot, N.C., 1983. Guyots of the Dutton Ridge at the Bonin/ Mariana trench juncture as shown by multi‑beam surveys, Journal of Geology, Vol. 91, pp. 211‑220. 6. Smoot, N.C., 1983. Ogasawara Plateau: multi‑beam sonar bathymetry and possible tectonic implications, Journal of Geology, Vol. 92, pp. 591‑598. 7. Smoot, N.C., 1983. Ninigi and Godaigo Seamounts: Twins of the Emperor chain by multi‑beam sonar, Tectonophysics, Vol. 98, pp. T1‑T5. 8. Smoot, N.C., 1983. Detailed bathymetry of guyot summits in the North Pacific by multi‑beam sonar, Surveying and Mapping, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 53‑60. 9. Smoot, N.C., 1984. Multi‑beam surveys of the Michelson Ridge guyots: subduction or obduction, In: Convergence and Subduction, T.W.C. Hilde and S. Uyeda, eds., Tectonophysics, Vol. 99, pp. 363‑380. 10. Smoot, N.C., 1984. Guyots and tectonics of the Mid‑Emperor chain, In: Proceedings of the 27th International Geological Congress, Vol. 6, Geology of Ocean Basins (VNU Science Press, Utrecht), pp. 135‑152. 11. Stern, R.J., Smoot, N.C., and Rubin, M., 1984. Unzipping of the volcano arc: implications for the evolution of back‑arc basins, In: R.L. Carlson and K. Kobayashi (eds), Geodynamics of backarc regions, Tectonophysics, Vol. 102, pp. 153‑174. 12. Vogt, P.R. and Smoot, N.C., 1984. The Geisha Guyots: multi‑beam bathymetry and morphometric interpretation, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 89, No. B13, pp. 11,085‑11,107. 13. Fryer, P. and Smoot, N.C., 1985. Processes of seamount subduction in the Mariana and Izu‑Bonin trenches, Marine Geology, Vol. 64, pp. 77‑90. 14. Smoot, N.C., 1985. Guyots and seamount morphology and tectonics of the Hawaiian‑Emperor elbow, Marine Geology, Vol. 64, pp. 203‑215. 15. Smoot, N.C., and Lowrie, A., 1985. Emperor Fracture Zone morphology by multi‑ beam sonar, Journal of Geology, Vol. 93, pp. 196‑204. 16. Smoot, N.C., 1985. Observations on Gulf of Alaska seamount chains by multi‑beam sonar, Tectonophysics, Vol. 115, pp. 235‑246. 17. Smoot, N.C., and Sharman, G.F., 1985. Charlie‑Gibbs: a fracture zone ridge, In: G.F. Sharman, III and J. Francheteau (eds), Oceanic Lithosphere, Tectonophysics, Vol. 116, pp. 137‑142. 18. Smoot, N.C., Delaine, K., and Gregory, R.L., 1985. A 3‑D model of Nintoku Guyot to predict paleo‑island morphology, ACSM Bulletin, pp. 23‑27. 19. Lowrie, A., Smoot, N.C., and Batiza, R., 1986. Are oceanic fracture zones locked and strong or weak ?: New evidence for volcanic activity and weakness, Geology, Vol. 14, pp. 242‑245. 20. Smoot, N.C. and Heffner, K.J., 1986. Bathymetry and possible tectonic interaction of the Uyeda Ridge with its environment, Tectonophysics, Vol. 124, pp. 23‑36. 21. Smoot, N.C., 1986. Seamounts by SASS‑chains through forearc seamounts, In: Proceedings MDS '86, Gulf Coast Marine Technology Society, pp. 470‑477. 22. Smoot, N.C. and Richardson, D.B., 1988. Multi‑beam based 3D geomorphology of the Ogasawara Plateau region, Marine Geology, Vol. 79, pp. 141‑147. 23. Smoot, N.C., 1988. The growth rate of submarine volcanoes on the South Honshu and East Mariana ridges, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol. 35, pp. 1‑15. 24. Epp, D. and Smoot, N.C., 1989. Distribution of seamounts in the North Atlantic, Nature, Vol. 337, pp. 254‑257. 25. Stern, R.J., Bloomer, S.H., Lin, P‑N., and Smoot, N.C. 1989. Submarine arc volcanism in the southern Mariana arc as an ophiolite analogue, Tectonophysics, Vol. 168, pp. 151‑170. 26. Smoot, N.C., 1989. The Marcus‑Wake seamounts and guyots as paleofracture indicators and their relation to the Dutton Ridge, Marine Geology, Vol. 88, pp. 117‑131. 27. Smoot, N.C., 1989. North Atlantic fracture-zone distribution and patterns shown by multibeam sonar, Geology, Vol. 17, pp. 1119‑1122. 28. Bloomer, S.H., Stern, R.J., and Smoot, N.C., 1989. Physical volcanology of the submarine Mariana and Volcano arcs, Bulletin of Volcanology, Vol. 51, pp. 210‑224. 29. Smoot, N.C., 1990. Mariana Trough morphology by multi‑beam sonar, Geo‑Marine Letters, Vol. 10, pp. 137‑144. 30. Smoot, N.C., 1990. North Atlantic fracture-zone distribution and patterns shown by multibeam sonar (Reply), Geology, Vol. 18, pp. 912‑914. 31. Smoot, N.C., 1991. The growth rate of submarine volcanoes on the South Honshu and East Mariana Ridges (Reply), Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol. 45, pp. 341‑345. 32. Smoot, N.C., 1991. The Mariana Trench convergent margin at the Magellan Seamounts: tectonics and geomorphology, Marine Technology Society '91 Proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 85‑91. 33. Smoot, N.C., and King, R.E., 1992. Three‑dimensional surface geomorphology of submarine landslides on NW Pacific plate guyots, Geomorphology, Vol. 6, pp. 151‑174. 34. Smoot, N.C. and Meyerhoff, A.A., 1995. Tectonic fabric of the North Atlantic Ocean floor: speculation vs. reality, Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 207-222. 35. Smoot, N.C., 1995. Mass wasting and subaerial weathering in guyot formation: the Hawaiian and Canary Ridges as examples, Geomorphology, Vol. 14, pp. 29-41. 36. Smoot, N.C., 1995. The Chinook Trough: a trans-Pacific fracture zone, in: Proceedings of the Third Thematic Conference on Remote Sensing for Marine and Coastal Environments, Vol. II, pp. 539-550. 37. Smoot, N.C., 1997. Seafloor fabric and surge tectonics, Proceedings of the Fourth Thematic Conference for Remote Sensing in Marine and Coastal Environments, Vol. II, pp. 518-527. 38. Smoot, N.C., 1997. Aligned aseismic buoyant highs, across-trench deformation, clustered volcanoes, and deep earthquakes are not aligned with the current plate-tectonic theory,Geomorphology, Vol. 18, Nos. 3/4, pp. 199-222. 39. Smoot, N.C. and King, R.E., 1997. The Darwin Rise demise: The western Pacific guyot heights trace the trans-Pacific Mendocino Fracture Zone, Geomorphology, Vol. 18, Nos. 3/4, pp. 223-236. 40. Smoot, N.C., 1997. Earthquakes at convergent margins, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 4, pp. 10-12. 41. Smoot, N.C. and Leybourne, B.A., 1997. Vortex structures on the world-encircling vortex street: Case study of the South Adriatic basin, Marine Technology Society Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 21-35. 42. Smoot, N.C., 1997. Magma floods, microplates, and orthogonal intersections, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 5, pp. 8-13. 43. Leybourne, B.A. and Smoot, N.C., 1997. Ocean basin structural trends based on GEOSAT altimetry data, in: Ocean Technology at Stennis Space Center: Proceedings of the Gulf Coast Chapter Marine Technology Society, pp. 135-140. 44. Smoot, N.C. and Murchison, R.R., 1998. Deep-ocean technology, bathymetry, and tectonics, Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Concepts in Global Tectonics, pp. 178-183. 45. Smoot, N.C. and Leybourne, B.A., 1998. Remotely sensed data contribute to the paradigm shift of ocean basin tectonics: the Banda Sea vortex structure as an example, Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Concepts in Global Tectonics, pp. 262-267. 46. Smoot, N.C., 1998. The trans-Pacific Chinook Trough megatrend, Geomorphology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 333-351. 47. Stern, R.J. and Smoot, N.C., 1998. A bathymetric overview of the Mariana forearc. In: R.J. Stern and M. Arima (eds), Special Issue: Geophysical and Geochemical Studies of the Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc System, The Island Arc, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 525-540. 48. Smoot, N.C., 1998. Multibeam bathymetry and the public, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 8, pp. 4-8. 49. Smoot, N.C., 1998. WNW-ESE Pacific lineations, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 9, pp. 7-11. 50. Smoot, N.C., 1999. An appeal for using some sense, New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 13, pp. 23-25. 51. Smoot, N.C., 1999. Orthogonal intersections of megatrends in the Mesozoic Pacific Ocean basin: a case study of the Mid-Pacific Mountains, Geomorphology, Vol. 30, pp. 323-356. 52. Smoot, N.C., 2000. The Darwin phoenix rises yet again. New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, Vol. 14, pp. 2-4. 53. Smoot, N.C., 2001. Ocean Survey Program (OSP) bathymetry history: Jousting with tectonic windmills. In: J.M. Dickins, A.K. Dubey, D.R. Choi, and Y. Fujita (eds) Special Volume on New Concepts in Global Tectonics, Himalayan Geology, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 65-80. 54. Leybourne, B.A. and Smoot, N.C., 2001. Surge hypothesis implies gravitational teleconnection of tectonics to climate: El Nino and the central Pacific geostream/jet-stream. In: J.M. Dickins, A.K. Dubey, D.R. Choi, and Y. Fujita (eds) Special Volume on New Concepts in Global Tectonics, Himalayan Geology, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 139-152. 55. Smoot, N.C. and Leybourne, B.A., 2001. The Central Pacific Megatrend. International Geology Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 341-365. 56. Smoot, N.C., 2001. Earth geodynamics hypotheses updated. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 465-494. 57. Smoot, N.C., 2001. Fingernails, GPS, and Pacific basin closure. New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, No. 21, pp. 24-25. This one was also reprinted in The Australian Geologist, No. 123, June 2002. 58. Smoot, N.C. and Choi, D.R., 2003. The North Pacific Megatrend, International Geology Review. Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 346-370. Yeah, that should cover it. Well, I'm not a scientist. So you won't see much data here. But a model that makes clear predictions of observations is better than a pile of data that is ambiguous. Plume theory is drowning in data, but poor in predictions. Why is that, shouldn't it according to your claim take all that data and make a pile of predictions? Where are they. It is data rich, predictions of observations poor. I'd like to introduce you to something that's missing in plume theory, but has made a home in my model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Empirical Occam's razor has gained strong empirical support as far as helping to converge on better theories. In the related concept of overfitting, excessively complex models are affected by statistical noise (a problem also known as the bias-variance trade-off), whereas simpler models may capture the underlying structure better and may thus have better predictive performance. "whereas simpler models may capture the underlying structure better and may thus have better PREDICTIVE performance." At this point in the development of this hypothesis it would seem that the model is both simple and adequate at it's predictive abilities. It would appear to be more than obvious that it should continue to be worked and strengthened. Oh, there's the problem, applying unneeded complexity to everything you examine. I just like the old fashioned ways of Darwin, J Harlen Bretz, and others that emphasized field observations. Google Earth has given me a very valuable field research tool.

The plates are already in an arched formation due to the Earth's curvature. During the periods of the mantle's outward displacement the plates are supported uniformly by the mantle and the magma that is simultaneously produced by the concurrent and resultant strain energy, the divergent boundary is slowly opening and receiving infill while the opposing subducted edges are put in tension with energies proportionate to the plate's width. More width = more tension. This is what forms the island arc's curved shape, pulling the trenches toward the larger plate. When the mantle begins to incrementally subside the plates mass weight will be slowly applied to it's boundary areas. The plate's current tension will slowly change to compression as the gravitational potential energy slowly increases. And the rising compression will continue to slowly build on the divergent and convergent boundaries. The pre-arched form of the plates is ideal for this cycling, repeatedly loading and unloading tension, then compression as the mantle displaces repeatedly. That may be so, but I do not see the plates really increasing or decreasing in radius appreciably. The compression is somewhat passive, rather below that which would apply a positive loading like a beam being squeezed in a clamp. The plate is slowly loaded by the removal of the mantles support while the trenches are receiving as much material as they physically can, slowly bleeding off the gravitational potential energy as the compression is created by the mantles subsidence. It requires subduction for the plate to follow the mantle down. If the trenches resistance exceeds the mantles rate of withdraw, or subsidence, compression features like hills or mountain formations will result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_propulsion In 1958 there were at least four theoretical nuclear-powered concept cars proposed, the American Ford Nucleon and Studebaker Packard Astral, as well as the French Simca Fulgur designed by Robert Opron and the Arbel Symetric. Apart from these concept models, none were built and no automotive nuclear power plants ever made. Chrysler engineer C R Lewis had discounted the idea in 1957 because of estimates that an 80,000 lb (36,000 kg) engine would be required by a 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) car. His view was that an efficient means of storing energy was required for nuclear power to be practical.Despite this, Chrysler's stylists in 1958 drew up some possible designs. In 1959 it was reported that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company had developed a new rubber compound that was light and absorbed radiation, obviating the need for heavy shielding. A reporter at the time considered it might make nuclear-powered cars and aircraft a possibility. Ford made another potentially nuclear-powered model in 1962 for the Seattle World's Fair, the Ford Seattle-ite XXI. This also never went beyond the initial concept. In 2009, for the hundredth anniversary of General Motors' acquisition of Cadillac, Loren Kulesus created concept art depicting a car powered by thorium. The more things change the more they stay 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.

The test sampling may have been more selective in the earlier finding. Does anyone know the exact criteria and selection process? I think Ed is correct, a smaller less expansive volume of material to assimilate should, I would think, increase test results. It may be that in those earlier days people had commonly entertained themselves at home by reading literature aloud and engaging each other in topical discussions. And pianos and/or other musical instruments were a sought after home entertainment. I think these activities engaged the participants to a intellectually greater degree than when radio and movies came alone a short time later and displaced that earlier homemade entertainment. The electrification of society moved bedtimes later into the evening with each passing decade, and too, with each developing entertainment technology. As radio matured, off air times moved later into the evenings, taking the listeners needed sleep with it. Then television came and brought new distractions that radio only partially provided. The truly intellectually vapid pastime for the masses. This electric entertainment timeline runs parallel to the distractions that gradually consumed each generation. The Elvis of the fifties replace the Crosby of an earlier generation, and the pastime of watching, that is the consumption of the entertainment products, have displaced the intellectual capacity of society to a measurable degree, that is their IQ's.

They can occur simultaneously. I explained this in post #4 in response to CaptainPanic's post #2. Post #3 is yours by the way. You asked this question in post #83; If my understanding is correct, please state what phase we are in at present and how you reconcile the fact that both conditions are presently occuring and are measurable. My very technically accurate and well written answer is post #84. Hey, maybe I have already written an abstract and you forgot.

Post # 109, my first reply, was 528 words. And did answer your question, but your ignorance of the model left you unaware of it. Post #114, my second response, was 429 words, which for you was apparently 428 words too many. Well, at least the 384 words that you ignored. My thesis is over 40,000 words, why do you think you can read a few posts and ask a question as if you were ordering a Starbucks. Then when given an answer act rude ungrateful and insulting. When I gave the shortest answer possible in post # 114, considering the complexity needed to reply, almost all of it was ignored. So an accurate prediction of observations is ramblings and wrong. This is from post #109, that would have helped answer your question, if you had a genuine interest to know. We are observing it currently at the divergent plate boundaries, the spreading rates of the mid-ocean ridges are small, the Pacific being 80-120 mm per year while the North Atlantic being 25 mm per year. This is the current rate of displacement, an expansion total of maybe 20 cm’s a year out of almost 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55miles) of the Earth’s circumference. How does this 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 can 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. Do I really need this to be a mathematical equation for you to understand and accept it. I'm not working a drive thru answer stand, you must do your own heavy lifting, it is your job to learn this model so you can understand the answers. As one of the great ones here at SFN once posted; "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you." * 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 I don't recall any of these being predicted by plume theory. And I suppose you believe plume theory is a superior model because? *Yes iNow, it was you.

I think it's fine to include this in discussion. It is relevant.

Thank you Trumptor, it's a real labor of love. Copy and past coming up!

Hold on there cowboy, you better round up your horses and put em back in the barn. You didn't read that entire post did you? I knew if I set that number out there you would grab it and run. Let's take a look at what you didn't care to read. "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. ( I speld it rit this time) "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. "If you were to flatten out all mountain ranges that occurred during the last 10 million years it would give you a divergent boundary infill that occurred" '"minus the unknown subduction values that occurred concurrently." This is really probably the easiest way to figure it out. But I'm not that smart. "This explanation below is for anyone who would like more information." I know a dirty trick, but a good one. There's no such thing as too much information. I bet it's real clear now. ooops right back atchya For right now this has worked rather well for me. This is a thesis from a guy who works in construction everyday and comes home to do battle with guys like you, what could be funner. I really can't take this to the next level, that is for someone a lot smarter than I. It will need the professional overhaul, take out the junk, fill in the holes. I can explain this fairly accurately in a mechanical sense and for just doing that right now I personally do not need the maths. Like I told Ophiolite, I just supplied a framework, the bare bones, well a partial skeleton maybe. Let me put it this way, I've made it this far without getting into any real trouble here at SFN.

Hmm, seems like there's an insult in there somewhere. I recall I did give you an answer. Maybe its not the one you wanted. It is not a theory by the way, I tell most people I meet face to face it's an idea. This forum views it as a hypothesis. It doesn't matter whether someone who does not fully understand it thinks it's not ready. It can make predictions of observations in circles around the standard model. But to know this you would need to invest the time to read the thesis and more important understand it, which I assume you have not done so and probably never will. From all I have read here on this forum, predictions of observations trump most other evidence. Convection theory has plenty of maths and so does mantle plumb theory and both have very little in the way of accurate predictions. All those years and dollars wasted chasing a still unproven and unseen mantle ghost. But why would I stop? This is so much fun seeing someone cut and run. I enjoy this immensely, I have posted on this thread since March 18, and the big issue so far is I post to much information. All the while nobody wants to propose an answer to my interpretation of the 14C graphs that are shown above, you would think if this was so flawed someone would set me straight on that little part. Now I know for sure you haven't read it. It is a credit to it's simplicity, that it can be so understandable to a layperson. No maths required. It is the opposite of plumb that needs maths to verify its accuracy which has to be simplified and adjusted to remain in viability. I went to Mr. Tackley's home page; http://jupiter.ethz.ch/~pjt/ Developing integrated, self-consistent models of plate tectonics and mantle convection- a long-standing problem in geodynamics. Temperature-dependent viscosity by itself leads to a rigid, immobile lithosphere ('single-plate planet')- additional rheological complexities are necessary to allow plates to form. I have developed some of the first 3-D models in which plates form in such a manner. Thermo-chemical convection, including the possibility of deep chemical layering, and the thermo-chemical evolution of Earth and other terrestrial planets. The melting associated with plate tectonics causes mantle differentiation, whereas convection causes mantle mixing, and the complex interaction between these two opposing processes is what determines the planet's evolution. Asthenospheric dynamics and the Yellowstone hotspot. Partial melting in the asthenosphere results in buoyancy sources that can drive flow and cause further melting. This could be an explanation explanation to deep mantle plumes for certain hotspots and other volcanism on Earth. Even if the heat source is a deep plume, these compositional effects will strongly modulate what happens in the melting region. Plume dynamics and plume-lithosphere interaction. Previous mantle plume models usually assume rather small viscosity contrasts and linear rheology, and are often 2-D (axisymmetric). When you allow more realistic rheology and three-dimensionality, things can be quite different, as we have been discovering! Continental collisional dynamics. A planned effort is to model the India:Asia collision. That's a lot of convections and plumbs right there. OK, now I understand, you are in the plumb camp. This model must be a shock to you, coming out of nowhere, so to speak. This model is very simple and accurate in comparison to convection and plumb theory's complexities and their lack of direct cause and effect to surface phenomena. Basil drag and it's cohorts will not build mountain complexes or extensional features like the Basin and Range and will never be shown to do so without extensive ad hoc modifications or "adjustments"of the data. http://www.mantleplumes.org/Zombie.html Zombie Science & Geoscience Don L. Anderson1 & Warren B. Hamilton2 1Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, dla@gps.caltech.edu 2Department of Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden CO 80401, whamilto@mines.edu Rationalizations of the observed characteristics of hypothetical plumes have generated continuously changing predictions regarding fixity, hot-spot motion, age progressions of island chains, heatflow, style of mantle convection, uplift prior to magmatism, temperatures of magmas, and geochemistry. These predictions are rarely successful, so the concepts have been modified to allow as many exceptions, and as many kinds of plumes, as there are "hot spots". The guiding principles are non-physical. The products of plumes are whatever is observed where plumes are postulated. Amendments to the fixed "hot spot" hypothesis now include mantle winds, polar wander, mantle roll, lithosphere drift, lateral flow, magma tunnels, group motions of "hot spots", plume head decapitation and superplumes. Mantle winds are used to explain non-fixity of "hot spots". “Fixed hot spots" may be large regions or long "hot lines" within which volcanoes can pop up anywhere and in any sequence. Plumes are postulated to feed volcanoes thousands of kilometers distant, and they no longer need fit Euler geometry or global reference frames. If age progressions are non-uniform, new co-linear plumes are added. Most “plume tracks” are missing a “plume head”, and most “plume heads” are missing a track. The lack of evidence for “plume heads”, “plume tracks”, high heatflow and precursory uplift is ignored or rationalized. Evidence for the uplift predicted to precede the Siberian flood basalt is assumed to be hidden beneath the west Siberian lowlands, whereas that for Hawaii is assumed to have been subducted. Findings that defy such ad hoc adjustments became official paradoxes: the Lead Paradox, the Helium Paradox, and the Heat Flow Paradox. New observations are labeled surprising, unexpected, counter-intuitive or anomalous. And that is what this model is competing against. I'm not worried in the least. For more great articles on this subject; http://www.mantleplumes.org/WhatTheHell.html http://www.mantleplumes.org/HawaiiBend.html http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/DonCoffinComment.pdf Something I find interesting is when I have discussed this model vs the convection and mantle plumbs theories with several engineers that I have met through my regular work, they could not see how this did not clearly beat the others with just it's simplicity and direct cause and effect. No magic needed. Mantle plumb is a belief and a world unto it's own. Reminds me of the astrology of ancient Babylonia, It becomes real to you in a self reinforcing way. I think there is a lot of circular logic and self deception in it's history. It's the "gold fever" of geodynamics, the answer is always just out of reach. Just keep going its just over the next hill. No, I cannot do that, I have no credentials so I must totally rely on what I learned in charm school. I have self published this work on line and that is how it will be viewed by most people who see it. I can check the number of visits and it is doing very well.

My apologies billiards that I did not directly answer your question. Maybe 500 km from min to max over 5-10 million years. Your question is difficult to answer because it is difficult to determine. You would like hard numbers and I do not have them. This explanation below is for anyone who would like more information. I believe the compression in the crust that produces the mountain ranges such as the Himalayas would give your best chance at an accurate figure. If you were to flatten out all mountain ranges that occurred during the last 10 million years it would give you a divergent boundary infill that occurred during the preceding large thermal increase, minus the unknown subduction values that occurred concurrently. 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. I have only observed and reinterpreted what is already known and available. The Basin and range extension is estimated to have had possibly a 100% extension. According to Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin_and_Range_Province Total lateral displacement in the Basin and Range varies from 60 – 300 km since the onset of extension in the Early Miocene with the southern portion of the province representing a greater degree of displacement than the north. This could give a rough estimate for the movement in the Pacific divergent plate boundary that was directly beneath and which provided the traction mechanism to pull the Basin and Range during the displacement. The Atlantic would have been in the same proportion to the Pacific divergent boundary as it is now, let's just say its 1/3 of the 300 km, so 100 km for the Atlantic divergent boundary. Now you need the total stretch imposed on all plates and the other divergent plate boundary metrics. I believe the Basin and Range ended prematurely and the thermal displacement continued on further. It could have been as much as another 100 km or more. So, the total could be as great as 500 km. But here's the rub, this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting and imposing compression in the crust which produces subduction and reduction of circumference. 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. Ophiolite you need not torture yourself. It is difficult, no impossible for me to provide the quality of data you ask. This contraption is a different world than the one that you know. The standard model is well measured and calculated and if people are satisfied with it then that is good and well. This model only makes accurate predictions, I'm sure eventually someone will take it for what it is and fill in the maths and flesh it out from the bones I have provided. Hey Moontanman, I wish I had not originally used that Io example. You keep beating me over the head with it and its getting kind of old. I had at the time this other example, which considering it involves a planet and its moons, gives weight to what a massively larger star could provide for a 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. 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.

We are observing it currently at the divergent plate boundaries, the spreading rates of the mid-ocean ridges are small, the Pacific being 80-120 mm per year while the North Atlantic being 25 mm per year. This is the current rate of displacement, an expansion total of maybe 20 cm’s a year out of almost 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55miles) of the Earth’s circumference. How does this 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 can 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. The reason the Pacific seems to exhibit larger extensional processes at its divergent plate boundary is due to the great distance that the particular plate has to its primary anchoring point. Most ocean plates are either directly connected to a continental land mass, as is the case now with the Atlantic, which is how they all began, or they have broken free at some point and have multiple subducted edges at a variety of locations as is the case with the Pacific. The amount of movement in the non-connected or non-subducted plate edge, one that is an actively spreading Mid-Ocean Ridge or an overran plate edge, that amount is directly proportional to the distance to its anchor point. In the model more distance=more movement. The North Pacific plate, for example, is anchored in the Mariana Trench (A). Image above was furnished through and in no way endorsed by http://www.geomapapp.org using Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) Synthesis, Ryan, W. B. F., S.M. Carbotte, J. Coplan, S. O'Hara, A. Melkonian, R. Arko, R.A. Weissel, V. Ferrini, A. Goodwillie, F. Nitsche, J. Bonczkowski, and R. Zemsky (2009), Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) synthesis data set, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q03014, doi:10.1029/2008GC002332. Data doi: 10.1594/IEDA.0001000, through http://creativecommo...y-nc-sa/3.0/us/ The model explains this very simply. As an example, the extension of the Basin and Range Area is dated to the Miocene Epoch (5.3 - 23.03 MYA). The province is believed to be the result of tectonic extensional processes that began around 17 million years ago in the Early Miocene. It was considered a warmer climate period than the following Pliocene and Pleistocene Epochs that were cooler periods of climate that coincide with the Himalayan and Andes mountain building periods, which according to this model are the result of a cooling of the outer core producing a contraction in the mantle/crust. These structures would require large scale subduction and displacement of crustal gravitational potential energy into the folded and raised rock strata. These mountain structures occurred while the Earth's climate went into a period of Ice Ages.

Just fine Mike. billiards, thanks for asking. This NASA article is a good place to start. http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/ 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. My thesis simply requires that the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over multi-million year time periods, and that is verified in the above. As the magnetic field strengthens the mantle is displaced by the increase in amplitude of the molten iron of the outer core. Current can only be created by magnetic fields, and magnetic fields can only create current. If one changes in strength the other will follow. As the outer cores molten iron increases in temperature from increased amplitude the liquid iron will expand. This 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. 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. This strain energy heat 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 mechanism connects the strain energy response to the magnetic field variability in almost synchronous timing. When the field generator's cycle changes after millions of years to a lower amplitude the process reverses to slow contraction with the crust now slowly loading up into the form of a raised mass of gravitational potential energy that will be displaced into the trenches by the divergent plate boundaries recent infill. If the cycles are widely spaced, the resultant extra infill or a long decrease in outer core temperature will produce excessive kinetic movement of the crust. The resulting increased crustal compression will surpass the trenches rates of resistance and redirect the energy to the vertical displacement of rock into mountain complexes. This is how mountain ranges are created in such short time periods. The model provides a means to raise and load the entire plate matrix simultaneously. As the outer core's temperature 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 in the divergent plate boundaries 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 else is happening here also, 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 by a plate tectonic opponent; 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 ocean plates into the trenches. A full cycle would appear as a multi-million year period of thermal increase and expansion of the core, slowly displacing the mantle and in turn the crust. The resulting infill at divergent plate boundaries during this period will provide, during the following contraction, the leverage to slowly push the ocean plates into the trenches. These shorter periods of outer core expansion contrast to the much longer periods of thermal contraction of the outer core that provide the mantle's recedence and subsequent subduction. The outer core thermal cycle is variable throughout it's 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 which are 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 the 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 to summarize, the largest plates do not unload their gravitational potential energy completely before the next increase. The divergent plate boundaries quantitative dominance over the convergent trenches would suggest a vastly longer period of subduction is required over the preceding divergence boundary movement to process the entire raised mass inventory. The gravitational potential energy now unloading into the trenches was created at the end of the last thermal increase period. We are now observing the crustal compression from the previous thermal increase/decrease cycle. "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. The divergent boundary activity that is now currently seen is due to this current thermal increase period. This is currently seen at the margins of the largest plates. The current rate of expansion is gradually removing much of that gravitational potential energy of the crust, energy that is currently in the form of raised mass. As the mantle continues to displace outward much of this crustal compression from the last cooling will be decreased before it can subduct into the trenches. There is much overlap in this process, there is not as one might think a clear change from divergent and subduction modes. They are overlapped with each other and with each ones outcome quite dependent on the other. These great mountain ranges like the Himalayas and the Andes required a very long period of divergent movement to put in place a very large section of new sea floor, sea floor that in turn would supply a very large raised mass during the following contraction cycle. This mass, displaced during the planetary cooling, then exceeds the trenches rates of resistance and diverts it's gravitational potential energy into the creation of those mountain complexes. If either mode was of a reduce duration the mountain building period would not have occurred. There would have been instead a shorter period of lower or even higher thermal content, slowly going up and then slowly going down, with a more simple and common divergence/subduction cycle as a result. Similar to what we are observing right now. 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 Increased ocean thermal content Acidfication of the ocean Carbon transported by the Global Ocean Conveyor to the surface and atmosphere. The cause of that unaccounted 50% increase in ocean expansion. I could go on but my thesis is around 40,000 words, its probably best if you ask specific questions so I don't over answer.

At a quarter till, the 11:00 news promoted two stories tonight. They said to stay tuned for a story of a young woman who traveled to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to kayak the same route that her parents had been traveling when they were attacked and killed by a grizzly. The second story was said to be about bacon scented deodorant. You don't suppose . . . . .

I just caught a portion of a show on giant squids and the narrator commented that the 1000 lb 30 ft squid just brought in on a trawlers drag lines was only approximately a year old. That is a shocking growth rate. That would seem to be not enough time to learn everything needed to survive as such a large meal for all the possible predators. Could these creatures possess the intelligence of an octopus, a higher intelligence may be the alternative to the smaller but highly instinctual brain that seems more common in most other none mammalian sea life. Instinct vs intelligence, it seems the imaginative problem solving mind is more of rarity in the ocean than it is on land.

It's a cha cha chia house! Sorry moon, couldn't resist.

Many physicists believe that all four of the fundamental forces are, in fact, the manifestations of a single underlying (or unified) force which has yet to be discovered. It just seems to go on and on.

That is the difficult part. Parrots and crows have been observed by humans for so long that its just common knowledge that they are quite different and smarter than the average bird. It is what attracted humans to parrots in the first place, and during which time crows have been testing our ancestors since our earliest beginnings. I wonder how many times a crow has stole some food or a shiny trinket out of a pocket or purse since those first encounters. Other birds do not seem to improvise, they have what innate abilities nature has given and that's it. The video of post #164 shows remarkable inventiveness, I have not seen that in any other birds. I have not seen very much study on hummingbirds, if given a challenge to their feeding habits will they improvise an alternative approach or just move on to more favorable circumstances? The birds we collect seem to be for one specific purpose based on our needs. Chickens, turkeys, falcons, parrots, pigeons, and some others to a lesser degree, were chosen primarily for one particular use that they provide to us, some for food, some for sport and some even for companionship. It is revealing too, that a person who is an easy target is referred to as a pigeon while a coward is a chicken, and well, we do not even need to elaborate about the hominid turkeys.

I would compare these insect's work habits to the machines we now currently use in exploring our deep ocean and the surface of Mars. And in the future what we will likely employ to dangerous or inaccessible work environments such as the deep oceans, underground environments and of course the surfaces of the moons and other planets of our solar neighborhood. These colonized insects rely on a basic model of a delegation of work of an incredible efficiency. Using minimal specialization these insects show that evolution can instill within a species an organizational pattern that is recognizable to us as clever or even intelligent. This observed "colony" intelligence is actually the result of evolution removing the uncounted inefficiencies that are observed in larger species such as humans. We would act similarly to a strong instinctual programming overriding a minimal IQ that results in no noticeable individuality or personality to conflict with the needs of the group as a whole. A chemical based directive and response communication integrated into the individuals instinctual programming provides a colony wide uniformity and cooperation that requires in our species a sizable planning and effort regime to match. Our species past and present cooperative efforts required in us much conscious trial and error to achieve in comparison to what nature through evolution produced without the ant's, bee's or termites conscious awareness.

I think this is in the wrong category . . . . . on the wrong forum . . . . . on the wrong planet . . . . .