Doug Fisher Posted January 16, 2019 Author Posted January 16, 2019 20 hours ago, Strange said: Fourth time: What is the physical mechanism for this expansion? Creation of matter? A big bubble in the Earth? Or ... ? 1 Sorry for the late reply. I was composing a reply to your first post then was sidetracked. Science has had roughly 60 years and a lot of man-hours and research invested in developing a theory for plate movement and subduction that still remains a work in progress with many uncertainties remaining. I don’t expect that sort of effort to be applied to Earth expansion until it is proven that the Oceanic trenches are seafloor folds. 20 hours ago, Pekux said: Funny pictures My proposal: On that map Gakkel Ridge is underwater part from Lena river? Hello Pekux, If you were to score a thick sheet of plastic all the way to its edge and then grabbed the sheet by the edge and applied stress by attempting to pull the sheet apart, the first place it is most likely to fail is where it is weakest, where the scoring exists. Depending on the material and the scoring, that initial breach could very well be an arced ductile fracture centered immediately on the scoring. Many of the planet’s coastal ductile fractures are occurring where preexisting fractures extend out to the coast. This is why we see these secondary fractures extending from many of the examples I have provided and riverways often flow along these fractures. Rio de la Plata, Lena and the Rio Grande are all centered and extend off the back of ductile fractures. 16 hours ago, studiot said: 1) No, nor are you a Scientist or you would not be relying on one piece of 'evidence' alone. I am trying to help you act like a Scientist, whilst keeping an open mind about your proposals. True I am not a scientist, but there is a higher level of predictability and consistency that comes when ascribing the formation of seafloor ridges to continental fractures versus the alternatives offered by plate tectonics as I have demonstrated here. My theory recognizes both island arcs and truncated seafloor ridges as plate boundaries, while plate tectonics maintains island arcs are formed by subduction and truncated seafloor ridges are formed by hotspots. My theory also accurately predicts that the ridges consistently extend directly from fracture points like ductile cusps or like the ends of Madagascar, while plate tectonics has yet to recognize or acknowledge the obvious consistent correlation between ductile arcs and seafloor ridges. It would appear to relegate this repeatability to coincidence. 16 hours ago, studiot said: 2) I see that your animation contains some actual subduction at the hinge. Whoops!. LOL. That's fair. Never claimed to have great animation/artistic skills. 16 hours ago, studiot said: 1) How can you be sure Asia did not rotate the other way? Afterall the principal plate activity is rotation, not translation and the Asian Plate is not different. 1 Excellent point. In Maps, Myths & Paradigms that is exactly my claim. I feel that initially explaining it relative to Kamchatka is far easier to grasp. Here is an image from the book depicting the rotation of the Asian continent to the west while downward-facing splinter fractures remain anchored to the Pacific Plate. Also, thanks for the Kamchatka link. I have visited Oregon’s site many, many times. I don’t believe that I had seen this particular paper, but it is similar to one I had come across elsewhere which favored similar origins to explain the dual ranges so it might have been derivative.
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Doug Fisher said: Until you propose a mechanism for the Earth to expand your ideas fall flat. It's like you are trying to prove the moon and the sun are the same size in the sky while rejecting the heliocentric model of the solar system... 1
Doug Fisher Posted January 18, 2019 Author Posted January 18, 2019 On 1/16/2019 at 1:36 AM, Moontanman said: It's like you are trying to prove the moon and the sun are the same size in the sky while rejecting the heliocentric model of the solar system... 1 Still working on that post. Try to put aside thoughts of Earth expansion for a moment and consider the following while understanding that these observations/discoveries do not necessarily contradict plate tectonics. Are any of the following numbered statements incorrect in regard to the above image? 1. Peninsular formations or coastal fragments sit atop each of the island arcs. (To avoid confusion, geologists agree that Japan did cleave from the Asian coast so it would be considered a coastal fragment and was likely a peninsula before cleaving completely free in the north.) 2) Each peninsular formation can pivot back into a conforming coast (See examples below): Alaska pivoted back along a conforming Canadian coast with a unique zig-zag pattern. Kamchatka pivots into a conforming coastal pocket where lone coastal points align. While geologists agree that Japan cleaved from the Asian coast, they place the cleaving 200 miles to the north of the fit I propose. I believe Japan fractured free of Asia where the two have aligned fracture points. The two tab pullouts (B and C) are 110 miles apart on both landmasses. The coastal points and coastal notches, from which they were extracted, are all roughly 40 miles in width allowing that they all (B and C) once interlocked. Ductile extension is exhibited in the form of side arcing along each side of the tabs, while lighter linear bands mark the ductile stretching of continental mass forming valleys or lowlands behind the end caps. Like the coastal points in the Kamchatka region, these were the last points to break free after experiencing ductile extension. The two coastal points to the north (A) were once joined much like the coastal points in the Kamchatka region. Just to be clear, geologists do not currently acknowledge these perfectly aligned tabs, notches, and points. (Some may note in the inset that Japan does not conform beyond point C as Korea sits in the way. Please see below where Korea originally sat along the coast.) The above image provides evidence that the coastal points being discussed are the product of tensile stress and ductile fracturing. Ductile side arcing occurs prior to material or plate failure as two opposing landmasses pull apart. Thinning crust between these arcs forms a band of lowlands that often drops very close to sea level. While I propose ductile extension of the Kamchatka point is associated with separation from the aligning coastal point on the Asian coast, geologists see the coastal point as forming randomly off the coast of Kamchatka hundreds of mile from the mainland with no explanation for the thinning crust and ductile voids. Like the hot melted ductile cheese, you can clearly see that Bohai Sea is a ductile void with the wisp of land still extending across half of its outer opening (C). Meanwhile, Korea Bay appears to be a ductile arc and closing these ductile voids allows Korea to pivot back into a conforming angular recess. 3. None of the four fragments—Alaska, Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea—can be interchanged with another and achieve the same level of coastal conformance. According to geologists, Alaska and Kamchatka bubbled up from the seafloor apart from their associated mainland and Korea is believed to have formed when continental fragments collided with the Asian coast. The conformance of these landforms to their adjacent coasts is considered to be random. But we should take the time to consider and observe how unlikely it is that these peninsulas just happened to bubble up or, like Korea, travel from afar and collide adjacent to conforming coastlines. Try switching any of these four fragments with each other and there is nowhere near the level of coastal conformance as the existing configuration. Bring over Italy, Greece, and Florida and the results are the same. 4.The accurate pairing of each peninsula with its matching coastline borders on the miraculous. I believe the odds of Alaska, Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea all having this level of coastal conformance are astronomical and the only way that this could exist is for each to have originated from their conforming coasts and fractured free. I also believe that geologists have overlooked the consistent association of island arcs with peninsulas, as these, along with the downward V-wedge, actually serve to confirm that the peninsulas have fractured from Asia as can be seen replicated with the canvas frame (inset first image in this post). All the best.
Strange Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, Doug Fisher said: Try to put aside thoughts of Earth expansion for a moment Why? It is fundamental to your argument. Your entire “theory” is based on a physical impossibility. This has no place on a science forum. 2
studiot Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 You still need to show that the rock types and ages conform, particularly at your proposed match points. You have steadfastly avoided this question. This is even more basic than expanding Earth proposals. For instance this statement is false. 1 hour ago, Doug Fisher said: According to geologists, Alaska and Kamchatka bubbled up from the seafloor Geologists acknowledge the sedimentary fascies you are ignoring in Kamchatka. Here is a description by geologist Susan Hough about Japan Quote Susan Hough Senior seismologist, Southern California Earthquake Centre Not all the material that dives into a subduction zone goes all the way down. The edge of a continent can act like the cutting blade of a plane, shaving great masses of sediment from the top of the ocean plate as it descends. Some of the shavings of sediment buildup to form islands: parts of Japan began that way. Sediment again! Also in your tilt against plate tectonics 1 hour ago, Doug Fisher said: do not necessarily contradict plate tectonics. I certainly understood your opening post to include a direct refutation of plate tectonics. But again we come back to the age (and type of rocks) Folding action of the type you describe would leaves its mark in evidence, just as ancient folds, erosion surfaces, beaches and other features that are buried today, can be detected by seismology, boreholes and other means. There is a significant problem you face in the dramatic difference between the oceanic crust and continental crust, both in age and nature. You cannot close your eyes to all the other evidence and expect to be taken seriously, even though your shape alignments could be quite interesting. 2
Ghideon Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 9 hours ago, Doug Fisher said: I believe the odds of Alaska, Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea all having this level of coastal conformance are astronomical and the only way that this could exist is for each to have originated from their conforming coasts and fractured free. Regarding the odds; compare with flagstones or similar random shaped slabs. Turn some of them and suddenly they seem to fit together like pieces in a puzzle, almost all of them. That doesn't mean they are smaller pieces of a larger slab. I guess it is tricky to find a pallet of slabs that does not fit at all, even when they are randomly shaped. If I would look at the earth, I would be surprised of there weren't lots of shapes that seemed to fit together. I took a look at a local map, trying to find something that seems to have fractured. After three minutes I found this lake with an island. I moved the shores together and the island seems to fit in between. What are the odds? What does this say about geology? I don't know, probably nothing*, but may I suggest that you provide some number for your odds of coastal conformance, how large is "astronomical"? To me it looks like the odds may not necessarily be extremely high; when looking for conformance I found what I wanted. These comments of mine of course have limited scientific value, and I have no references to provide at this time. *) I find the topic interesting so I try to comment even tough I have very limited knowledge about geology. 3
Strange Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 10 hours ago, Doug Fisher said: I believe the odds of Alaska, Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea all having this level of coastal conformance are astronomical Your beliefs seem to be irrelevant. Unless you can show some objective calculations of these odds ...
studiot Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Ghideon said: Regarding the odds; compare with flagstones or similar random shaped slabs. Turn some of them and suddenly they seem to fit together like pieces in a puzzle, almost all of them. That doesn't mean they are smaller pieces of a larger slab. I guess it is tricky to find a pallet of slabs that does not fit at all, even when they are randomly shaped. If I would look at the earth, I would be surprised of there weren't lots of shapes that seemed to fit together. Lovely example I must remember this one. +1
Strange Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 9:48 AM, Doug Fisher said: I have never stated that the Earth is currently expanding (details below). However, the continents are still drifting. We can measure them moving apart where plate tectonics says they are, and measure them moving together where plates collide. We can also measure the rise of mountains (as the excellent video shows). It is possible that there are some unanswered questions regarding details of the mechanisms. Or maybe your questions are just a result of your ignorance of the subject. I don't know enough(*) to comment either way. However, as your entire "theory" is based on a physical impossibility, I am going to suggest that this thread is closed as pseudoscientific nonsense. If anyone disagrees and thinks there are interesting aspects of geology to be discussed, then please report this post (that way the reports will all be in the same place). (*) So there is no reason to consider my "ignorant" comment an insult; it is just a hypothesis to explain the evidence. And an infinitely more plausible hypothesis than an expanding Earth. 1
studiot Posted January 19, 2019 Posted January 19, 2019 49 minutes ago, Strange said: However, as your entire "theory" is based on a physical impossibility, I am going to suggest that this thread is closed as pseudoscientific nonsense. If anyone disagrees and thinks there are interesting aspects of geology to be discussed, then please report this post (that way the reports will all be in the same place). Well I think that some actual physical evidence has been presented, but the hypothesis and theory built on it are not inevitable sequiteurs. But there is plenty of geology yet to discuss. For instance Moontanman's video omits some of the most telling observations at variance with expanding Earth, some of which have bearing here. Further there are plenty of standard geological techniques yet to be considered by the OP.
Doug Fisher Posted January 21, 2019 Author Posted January 21, 2019 Thanks studiot. On 1/18/2019 at 12:32 PM, Ghideon said: Regarding the odds; compare with flagstones or similar random shaped slabs. Turn some of them and suddenly they seem to fit together like pieces in a puzzle, almost all of them. That doesn't mean they are smaller pieces of a larger slab. I guess it is tricky to find a pallet of slabs that does not fit at all, even when they are randomly shaped. If I would look at the earth, I would be surprised of there weren't lots of shapes that seemed to fit together. 2 That is an excellent point, but to make each piece fit you actually have to select, flip, rotate, and often score and break existing pieces. I have demonstrated that all the peninsular structures are already correctly aligned and naturally conform to the opposing coasts similar to the conformance of the fractured coast of South America to the fractured coast of Africa. There is no need to perform major manipulation of the peninsulas to make them fit. Simply pivot all the peninsulas in the same counterclockwise direction and they fit. And unlike laying flagstone, where a point becomes a complex shape that must be negotiated by laying out two rocks to form a conforming point (examine the stonework image), the points on Kamchatka and Korea fit into coastal recesses composed of a single continuous shoreline. People should be impressed with the high degree of difficulty in finding a coastal shape that conforms and aligns to both Kamchatka's endpoint and its small coastal point. That the two surfaces just happen to be adjacent and properly aligned to each other should further impress. Sorry for the late reply. Very, very busy weekend. I will try to post more later today.
studiot Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Doug Fisher said: I will try to post more later today. That will be welcome. But when you do, consider the smaller local map I posted in my second post, entitled The World Structure. Kamchatka is currently located along a sensibly North-South axis. If, as you claim, it has rotated bodily through approximately 90o, it must have originally been located along a West-East axis. This would be clearly reflected in the structural geology and the trend lines shown in the nearby land masses the map. I woudl be interested to see your presentation of where these lie? Edited January 21, 2019 by studiot
Strange Posted January 21, 2019 Posted January 21, 2019 32 minutes ago, Doug Fisher said: Simply pivot all the peninsulas in the same counterclockwise direction and they fit. Does closing up a balloon make areas of the surface rotate? No. So, as well as using magic to inflate the Earth like a balloon, you need more magic to make the bits rotate? 1
Ghideon Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 Thanks for the feedback! On 1/21/2019 at 4:35 PM, Doug Fisher said: I will try to post more later today. Then maybe you could answer the questions in the second part of my post?
Doug Fisher Posted January 27, 2019 Author Posted January 27, 2019 On 1/21/2019 at 8:00 AM, studiot said: That will be welcome. But when you do, consider the smaller local map I posted in my second post, entitled The World Structure. Kamchatka is currently located along a sensibly North-South axis. If, as you claim, it has rotated bodily through approximately 90o, it must have originally been located along a West-East axis. This would be clearly reflected in the structural geology and the trend lines shown in the nearby land masses the map. I woudl be interested to see your presentation of where these lie? 1 Hello studiot, It would appear to me that there is a lateral trend inland. The Uda River Basin extends laterally inland as if it were a natural extension of the Central Kamchatka Depression when Kamchatka is pivoted into the coast. In regard to similarity in rock type, I would expect that, as I stated before, fractures would occur between dissimilar materials, but the two coastal points that clung together while the rest of the peninsula fractured cleanly may suggest that both coastal points would be composed of similar rock type. I think it would be truly interesting to perform an analysis of the two. On 1/22/2019 at 1:41 PM, Ghideon said: Thanks for the feedback! Then maybe you could answer the questions in the second part of my post? Hi Gideon, Sorry for the lack of a response on the second half. Essentially what you are offering may be more in support of what I am proposing. I am proposing that the form of the peninsulas is a directly related to the adjacent landform. Look to the north and south of your island. The main waterway cuts a swath through the land while the land to both sides are typically closely conforming. If there is a curve or bend in the river, well, the land on both sides happen to carry the same curve and could easily be seen as conforming coastlines. That is essentially what is occurring in the image you have provided. The river has divided into two separate river ways each with conforming curved coastlines. No one is saying that rivers formed the peninsulas in question, but I am saying that like the island in your image, the formation of each peninsula is directly linked to their adjacent conforming landform. On the other hand, if you told me that that island floated up the river and positioned itself into a perfectly conforming hole in the river, this would be like someone suggesting that the peninsular formations in question randomly attached themselves alongside conforming coastlines. Hotspot ridges consistently associated with fracture points. Fracture Mechanics: Consistent with opening-mode fracturing. (Boundary ridges extend outward from each tip or point of a fracture.) Plate Tectonics: Not currently acknowledged or addressed. As pointed out earlier, the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain (HESC) aligns with the cusp of a ductile fracture lying along the eastern coast of Kamchatka. It is a rather significant find as these alignments occur consistently in the immediate vicinity and throughout the globe and are currently not acknowledged by geologists. It is also significant because, just like other ductile cusps and ridges, the HESC remains aligned to its original cusp, suggesting that only a few miles of subduction or folding could have occurred at the Pacific Trench to have allowed the alignment to be retained. Based on the subduction model, the below image demonstrates how the HESC will intersect the Pacific Trench millions of years forward into the future. Rolling the Pacific Plate back millions of years would find the ridge previously intersecting the Aleutian Trench. So it is rather remarkable that we exist at the precise time when it just happened to have slid directly beneath a continental ductile fracture cusp mimicking other cusp and ridge alignments. Also, as demonstrated in another post, opening-mode fractures occurring in continental crust creates a rip in the seafloor that extends out to a point. According to current dating methods, about 40 million years ago major ridges in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans were linked in the south creating V-shaped ridge formations which falls in line with opening-mode fractures So what of the Emperor-Hawaiian seamount chain. All other major ridges that are the product of opening-mode fractures in the adjacent continental crust have a sister ridge that at one time in the past joined it in the south forming a ‘V’ at the base. And, like the fractured frame and canvas, the two points at the top of these paired ridges were once joined. The in-plane fractures along the Asian coast appear to be splinter fractures and suggest downward shearing from another continental mass, North America. So, like the Americas fracturing and separating from Europe and Africa, we should expect to find a divergent boundary in the Pacific and lying the other side of the divergent boundary we should find the HESC sister ridge extending from North America. It should be noted that divergent boundaries are not always well-defined at the immediate point of divergence as can be seen in portions of the East Pacific as well as the Southeast Indian Ridge lying between Antarctica and Australia, though they typically exhibit a noticeable rise from each side. The North Pacific has neither. This follows a pattern, however. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is the most well-defined divergent boundary followed in this list by the East Pacific then Southeast Indian Ridge. The surrounding seafloor drops by 7,000, 3,000, and 2,000 feet respective of the central definition, i.e., less rise equals less definition. Yet there are other characteristics that can identify the existence of a divergent boundary. Since new seafloor crust is generated at divergent boundaries and transported outward and away, unique formation or blemishes occurring at the boundary are carried along with the crust to either side. The effect creates a pattern of seafloor mirroring across the divergent boundary. In the image below, you can see two troughs to either side of the East Pacific Ridge (EPR). Fracture zones mark the lateral path of seafloor crust moving away from a divergent boundary. Therefore blemishes, like troughs and ridges, that form at the divergent boundary should move parallel to this path and be similarly located relative to fracture zones lying above and below. The upper lateral troughs clearly exhibit this, mirroring each other across the EPR just below the Challenger Fracture Zone. Meanwhile, the lower vertical troughs do as well and actually extend directly off from a fracture zone, the Menard Fracture Zone. Of course, ridges in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans which were once joined are examples of mirroring across divergent boundaries. The Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain (HESC) is a significant ridge measuring roughly 3,900 miles in length. Based on other V-shaped ridges extending between continents, we should expect to find its sister ridge somewhere between the HESC and North America. Also, similar to other ridges and the mirroring phenomenon described above, we should expect that the sister ridge extends just beneath the same fracture zone as the truncated portion of the HESC, the Hawaiian Islands. As you can see in the image below, the Baja Peninsula appears to be that ridge. Both it and the HESC extend just beneath the Molokai Fracture Zone and bringing them back together along that shared fracture zone finds the Hawaiian Islands fitting into an accommodating pocket alongside Baja’s western coast. I believe these two ridges were at one time bonded together in a V-shaped formation similar to the others, but, like them, fractured apart during a second expansion event. The Baja Peninsula is the lower half of the North American Coastal Ridge (NACR), a ridge extending all the way to Alaska. Starting in the south and moving northward, the NACR comprises the Baja Peninsula, the Pacific Coast Ranges, Queen Charlotte Islands, the Coast Mountains and bends over to the Kodiak Islands. The entire length of the ridge: 3,900 miles. The same length as the HESC. More significant signs of mirroring across a divergent boundary exist to the north the mirroring of Hawaii and Baja. The Mendocino (MeFZ) and Surveyor Fracture Zones (SuFZ) drape down from a central point while below the Pau (PaFZ) and Pioneer Fractures Zones (PiFZ) rise up from a central point. I believe these center points, which sit amidst mirroring fracture zones, mark the location of a divergent boundary. Further supporting this theory is the existence of mirrored ridges that exist 1,300 miles to each side of the proposed divergent boundary. Both ridges extend up from the same Mendocino Fracture Zone and rise upward and away toward each boundary wedge, the HESC and NACR. Let’s recap: There exist two large ridges that mirror along the same Molokai FZ in the south and extend to the north 3,900 miles. Two unique vertical ridges in the north sit inside the two main ridges and extend upward from the same Mendocino FZ back to the two outer ridges in the north. The same two unique vertical ridges rise up from the MeFZ at 1,300 miles to each side of points in lateral fracture zones that form mirrored patterns to each side. Conclusion: The Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain aligns with a ductile cusp. If the HESC is a boundary ridge associated with an opening-mode fracture it would mean that no significant subduction of any kind has occurred at the Pacific Trench. But to equate the HESC with an opening-mode continental fracture, there must be a sister ridge as is true of the others in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. There must also be a divergent boundary between the two ridges to account for the creation of the North Pacific seafloor. I believe there is evidence of both a sister ridge and a central divergent boundary. The evidence suggests that as the Pacific opened up between Asia and North America, Kamchatka’s ductile fracture point, which is aligned with the HESC, was initially attached to Alaska at the top of the NACR, the tip or point of the Alaskan fragment that pivoted out from Canada.
John Cuthber Posted January 27, 2019 Posted January 27, 2019 7 hours ago, Doug Fisher said: It would appear to me that there is a lateral trend inland. Lateral is all very well. You were asked to explain the rotation. Please do so. 1
studiot Posted January 27, 2019 Posted January 27, 2019 27 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Lateral is all very well. You were asked to explain the rotation. Please do so. Yes indeed. +1 How many times must this request be repeated? 7 hours ago, Doug Fisher said: Hello studiot, It would appear to me that there is a lateral trend inland. The Uda River Basin extends laterally inland as if it were a natural extension of the Central Kamchatka Depression when Kamchatka is pivoted into the coast. In regard to similarity in rock type, I would expect that, as I stated before, fractures would occur between dissimilar materials, but the two coastal points that clung together while the rest of the peninsula fractured cleanly may suggest that both coastal points would be composed of similar rock type. I think it would be truly interesting to perform an analysis of the two. Quote fractures would occur between dissimilar materials To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time you have made this startling claim. This immediately contradicts you much referred to cheese example. Quote I think it would be truly interesting to perform an analysis of the two. I think so too, but it is your hypothesis so it is up to you to offer this analysis. I have supplied the necessary beginning backgorund. Quote as if it were a natural extension of the Central Kamchatka Depression If there is a valley, it can only lie between two or more (chains of) hills or mountains. The adjacent ranges are igneous in origin. The internet shows areas of pillow lava, characteristic of submarine eruption. If you are saying that this valley matches was once an extension of a valley elsewhere these hills must have been preexisting elsewhere. Which means the eruptions must have been elsewhere. But these ranges are still active volcanically. So where does the new source of volcanic activity come from, since you claim that Kamchatka has moved away from being over the old ones? Once again I have asked this before and you have ignored the question.
Doug Fisher Posted January 28, 2019 Author Posted January 28, 2019 15 hours ago, studiot said: To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time you have made this startling claim. This is definitely not the first time I have made this ‘startling’ claim: Quote “Fractures occur where the bonds are weakest and that is between dissimilar materials. For example, concrete breaks around the aggregate, not through it. The fact that Kamchatka varies from the Asian coast makes perfect sense from the perspective of fracture mechanics.” See it here. 16 hours ago, studiot said: This immediately contradicts you much referred to cheese example. Sure it's not bacon, but can you make too many cheese references? And there is no contradiction. If the continents were made of strictly cheese, we would only see arcing coastlines with outstretched wisps of cheesy mass just like the fracture and torn cheese on the pizza. We would also see a welcome drop in the price of cheese. Continental crust has both ductile and brittle features. It has a complex and varied structure as seen in your sedimentary/igneous rock image. You can look at the complex pattern of mixed rock in your image and virtually predict where fractures would occur if tensile stress were applied to the region. Consider a sheet of clay and stone. If we were to break the sheet apart, the fractures would occur between the rocks, but it would not be surprising to see instances where softer clay extends out between the two halves. Hence, Kamchatka and the aligning coastal point, which exhibits evidence of a ductile extension in the form of thinning, arcing, and internal ductile voids. Even the fit of the eastern coast of South America to the western coast of Africa appears to support my view. There is not a lot of matching rock across continents. Also, Madagascar is a known fragment of Africa and most of the rock is unique to the coast similar to Kamchatka and its Asian pocket. 16 hours ago, studiot said: 16 hours ago, John Cuthber said: Lateral is all very well. You were asked to explain the rotation. Please do so. Yes indeed. +1 How many times must this request be repeated? In regard to the pivot or rotation of Kamchatka, Korea, and Japan, it is only used as a relative reference to each fragment. The actual movement is the rotation of the Asian mainland breaking free of the Pacific Plate while Kamchatka, Korea, and Japan are fractured fragments which remain attached to the Pacific Plate. Also, I do not believe that the geological trend lines are any more relevant here than they are along the South American coast where they also run counter to those along the African coast. Again, you appear to be holding my theory to a higher level of scrutiny not applied to a geologically confirmed conformance. And as I have demonstrated earlier, Alaska, Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea have far better conformance to their adjacent coastlines than these two continents. 16 hours ago, studiot said: But these ranges are still active volcanically. So where does the new source of volcanic activity come from, since you claim that Kamchatka has moved away from being over the old ones? Once again I have asked this before and you have ignored the question. In my book, I address the Benioff Zones and state that the quakes are occurring between the seafloor folds and the fractures that extend off these sharp folds. So I am not denying movement within the trenches, just nowhere near the extent of movement required to substantiate the current plate tectonics model. So it is reasonable that the same movement that has allowed volcanoes to form in the preexisting Cascade Range would be at work in the preexisting ranges and valley of Kamchatka after the Asian mainland receded away.
John Cuthber Posted January 28, 2019 Posted January 28, 2019 4 hours ago, Doug Fisher said: In regard to the pivot or rotation of Kamchatka, Korea, and Japan, it is only used as a relative reference to each fragment. The actual movement is the rotation of the Asian mainland breaking free of the Pacific Plate while Kamchatka, All rotation is relative. So what? What caused it here?
Strange Posted January 28, 2019 Posted January 28, 2019 28 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: All rotation is relative. So what? What caused it here? Presumably the same unknown mechanism that cause the Earth to blow up like a balloon. And that same magic hides the hollow centre. 1
Moontanman Posted January 28, 2019 Posted January 28, 2019 Until he shows some mechanism for the expansion he is just spinning his wheels... 1
Strange Posted January 28, 2019 Posted January 28, 2019 13 hours ago, Doug Fisher said: Again, you appear to be holding my theory to a higher level of scrutiny not applied to a geologically confirmed conformance. What do you expect when you base your "theory" on magic? You should be pleased that anyone is engaging in a. serious discussion at all, and not just laughing at you.
John Cuthber Posted January 28, 2019 Posted January 28, 2019 (edited) It struck me since my last post that there's a bigger issue here. 17 hours ago, Doug Fisher said: The actual movement is the rotation of the Asian mainland breaking free of the Pacific Plate while Kamchatka, Korea, and Japan are fractured fragments which remain attached to the Pacific Plate How in the name of all that's holy is "breaking free of the Pacific Plate" from "the Asian mainland " anything but plate tectonics? There's possibly an argument about where the boundaries are, but plates moving away from each other + carrying landmasses with them is exactly the "myth" that the OP objects to. And that's before we remind him of his "rather fragile" idea about the Earth getting bigger. Essentially, his equestion"Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?" is best answered by reference to his own use of shifting plates on the Earth's surface. If it's a myth Doug, - it's one you believe in Edited January 28, 2019 by John Cuthber 1
Recommended Posts