bombus Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) As an EET thread has been banned, i will, on the advice of a moderator, approach the issue from the other direction. Now this site can explain issues with plate tectonics far better than me (if you are interested, please see below). http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/lowman.htm#su Do we have something worth investigating? Edited June 11, 2009 by bombus
mooeypoo Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 This page is talking specifically about geology, which isn't my field, so I will need to wait for someone more qualified to answer those specific claims. (I will avoid getting into some of the non-geological reasons we know the earth did not expand, for the sake of discussion) But there's one thing that jumped as weird to me, and I'm unsure about this: The volume of crust generated at ocean ridges is supposed to be equalled by the volume subducted. But the ocean ridge system is allegedly producing new crust along a total length of 2 x 74,000 km, whereas there are about 43,500 km of trenches and 9000 km of "collision zones" – or a third of the amount of "spreading centres". As far as I know, subduction is not equalled to the crust generated at all. In fact, we know that some mountains' heights increase through the years because of the idea that the subducted volume is NOT equalling the amount that is created. The 'extra' amount of crust creates 'folds' in the crust: mountains. I am looking through the net for some resources I remember but it might take me a bit to find them, as - again - geology isn't my field. That particular comment, though, caught my eye and I had to put this out there. ~moo
Ophiolite Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 bombus, it would be useful when posting links like this to summarise the content and arguments. For one thing this will help readers to determine whether you understand the material, or are just performing a kind of quote mining. For another, it will allow the reader to decide whether they wish to be bothered with opening the link. Here is my synopsis of the material. (I use the abbreviation PPT for Plate Tectonic Theory) The author explores problems in seven key areas: 1. Space Geodesy 2. Moving Plates 3. Hot Spots 4. Age of the seafloor 5. Spreading ridges 6. Marine magnetic anomalies 7. Subduction Space Geodesy There are significant inconsistencies between measured plate motions and those determined by the NUVEL-1A plate-motion model, which is based on the magnetic-anomaly timescale for the past 3 million years. Moving Plates The discrimination of plates both vertically (the asthenosphere is said to be discontinuous and often deeper than called for by PTT) and horizontally (many plate boundaries are unrecognisable, questionable, or ambiguous) is vague and unsatisfactory. Hot Spots Hot spot geology is in disarray, with much evidence contradicting the conventional view, which is supportive of PTT. Ages of the Seafloor Contrary to the requirements of PPT their are many instances of rocks older than 200 my found in oceanic crust. Spreading Ridges The detailed topography, dimensions, heat flow, earthquake activity, and observed spreading rates of rifts are inconsistent with PPT. Marine Magnetic Anomalies These key elements of PPT are absent in 1/3 of ridges and are symetricall in only 1/2. Many other of their observed characteristics appear to be at odds with PPT. Subduction The detailed character of deep sea trenches is at odds with predictions from PPT, while seimic data and observed orogenic histories often fail to match expectations. bombus, my feeling is that there is too much material here for a single thread and running several parallel threads simultaneously would be confusing and unproductive. Could you pick out one of these areas where you feel the evidence is especially damning and we can concentrate on that. If and when that is disposed of we can turn to the next.
D H Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 An important thing to keep in mind, bombus: This avenue won't lend any support to your pet theory. Suppose that everything that David Pratt wrote is correct. It isn't correct; Pratt is a complete crank. However, for the sake of argument, assume he is correct. Would this have any bearing on the validity of the expanding Earth theory? The answer is no. It would merely prove that plate tectonics theory needs to join the expanding Earth theory and turtle cosmology theory as yet another falsified scientific theory.
Ophiolite Posted June 12, 2009 Posted June 12, 2009 DH, the threads wherein bombus has presented views on EET have become acrimonius and unproductive. I think we can satisfy some of bombus's concerns about PTT, have an interesting and revealing discussion, and avoid a descent into emotion if we stick to a contemplation of the facts. In that regard describing David Pratt as a crank is not helpful. I should like to see us focus on ideas and hypotheses and demonstrate why these are flawed, if they are. The personality and agenda of the person offering ideas or hypotheses should be incidental. Let's focus on PTT theory. Let's ignore EET for the moment. Again, let's stick to facts and avoid discussion of personalities, on or off the forum.
bombus Posted June 13, 2009 Author Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Firstly, just gotta say - Ophiolite, you have just provided us with an example of excellent Forum moderation and management! Secondly, just to be clear, EET is not a pet theory of mine, and I would actually be relieved for it to be proven false and for PTT to be proven as fact. However, I am skeptically open-minded, and enough doubts about PTT have been raised for me to question this (recently adopted) paradigm. If we are to question PTT I consider it also worth revisiting EET, as it was not (from what I have been able to ascertain) proven false so much as abandoned due to it being considered implausible, especially so once PTT became widely accepted. I am not so much arguing that EET is right and PTT wrong, more that both may still be valid and require further research. In this thread I don't wish to discuss EET as it gets nowhere fast (as Ophiolite has pointed out). I would rather concentrate on doubts concerning the PTT. Do they point to real serious holes in the PTT? Thirdly, if David Pratt is a crank - and he might well be - it doesn't affect his arguments if what he saying is correct. Even idiots can ask very good questions. Shall we start with the issues concerning moving plates and subduction as described above? As an example of some of the issues, can anyone explain what is happening around Antartica? We can see the rifts, these are well known. We can also see which direction the oceanic plates are spreading. Where are the subduction zones around Antartica and how can all this oceanic plate squeeze into a smaller area than the rifts themselves? Edited June 13, 2009 by bombus
bombus Posted June 21, 2009 Author Posted June 21, 2009 Interesting! After much heated debate about the merits of the Expanding Earth Theory nobody wants to discuss some of the possible failings of Plate Tectonic Theory...
mooeypoo Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 bombus, I wish I could help here, but I don't want to give you half-assed answers, and geology isn't my field. I know there are a few interested parties in this debates, but please take into account we are on summer-time, and it may sound lame, but it is reality: a lot of people are on vacation.. It's a slower forumtime. Please try to be patient. In any case, the heated debate that was on the other thread wasn't so much about the failings of Plate Tectonics, but about some logical fallacies done by both sides. In other words: Don't rush to conclusions just yet. ~moo
D H Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Shall we start with the issues concerning moving plates and subduction as described above? As an example of some of the issues, can anyone explain what is happening around Antartica? We can see the rifts, these are well known. We can also see which direction the oceanic plates are spreading. Where are the subduction zones around Antartica and how can all this oceanic plate squeeze into a smaller area than the rifts themselves? You have created a straw man. The obvious answers are that (1) not all of the oceanic ridges are active right now, and even more important (2) the Antarctic plate is growing.
D H Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 bombus, where is that image sourced from? Good catch! He got it from Neal Adam's web site. That's not to say that the depiction is inaccurate. What is inaccurate is the cartoonish straw man argument presented in his cartoonish website and regurgitated in post #6.
bombus Posted June 21, 2009 Author Posted June 21, 2009 You have created a straw man. The obvious answers are that (1) not all of the oceanic ridges are active right now, and even more important (2) the Antarctic plate is growing. It's not a straw man as far as I am concerned. You have given a good answer there that I had not considered. Carry on the good work! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedbombus, where is that image sourced from? Neal Adams website. I doubt it's made up. He may be a proponent of EET but I don't think he's a hoaxer, and claims to be using already existing data. I'd venture that if he is incorrect he is just misinterpreting the data, as ID proponents often do.
Mokele Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Why is the growth of the Antarctic plate a problem? There's no rule saying that plates cannot grow or shrink. The only way this would be a problem is if the increased surface area was not matched by decreases elsewhere.
bombus Posted June 21, 2009 Author Posted June 21, 2009 Why is the growth of the Antarctic plate a problem? There's no rule saying that plates cannot grow or shrink. The only way this would be a problem is if the increased surface area was not matched by decreases elsewhere. where are the subduction zones?
iNow Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 They're on google, of course. http://oregonstate.edu/~doverl/SMILEWTW08/Activity1_Under_Pressure/Under%20Pressure%20Global%20Subduction%20Zone%20Map.pdf
bombus Posted June 21, 2009 Author Posted June 21, 2009 They're on google, of course. http://oregonstate.edu/~doverl/SMILEWTW08/Activity1_Under_Pressure/Under%20Pressure%20Global%20Subduction%20Zone%20Map.pdf Good map. There are no subduction zones around antartica then apart from the eastern edge of the pacific oceanic plate?
MrWrong Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 I read it, I'm a newb, and I buy it. Chances are it's wrong then. But i'll give a crappy answer, yes i think there is something worth investigating. Since, this is a theory forum place. The growth of the Antarctic plate could be in response or heading too global depolarization or potential pole shifts. You may now throw me into the idiot bin. ty
iNow Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 Good map. There are no subduction zones around antartica then apart from the eastern edge of the pacific oceanic plate? It appears to me that you have read the map incorrectly, and the subduction zone surrounds the entire continent. See the jagged lines above where it says "Antarctic Plate." As an aside, it's called a "plate" because it's separated from the other areas and plates by these same subduction zones about which you're asking.
Mokele Posted June 21, 2009 Posted June 21, 2009 iNow, only the yellow, red and green lines are subduction or putative subduction zones. The others are either ridges where expansion happens, or locations where the plates slide by each other.
iNow Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Fair enough. So, those would be "plate boundary slidey zones." I'm really not too interested in this particular discussion to be perfectly honest. I find the blatant lack of regard for why we accept plate tectonics to both be rather appalling and annoying.
Kyrisch Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 So I've been lurking in this thread, and I feel like bombus is doing something very, very similar to what Creationists do to the theory of evolution. Granted, there is a lot more missing from the theory of plate tectonics than from the theory of evolution, but the treatment is essentially the same. I hope this will point out a nuance that has been being passed over numerous times. When deciding whether or not to accept a theory, scientists generally look for two things: completeness and consistency. An inconsistent theory is one that is flat-out contradicted by evidence. Such a theory would make a prediction like "The Earth is growing," and then be contradicted by the evidence that no measurable increase in radius has occurred. This makes it inconsistent. An incomplete theory would say "The Earth is growing," but provide no known mechanism that could cause such an effect. As we can see, the EET is inconsistent and incomplete. However, the plate tectonics model is consistent: we can observe shifting rift valleys and subduction zones. We see that the age of the Earth is consistent with the plate tectonics model. Admittedly, however, the model is incomplete. You are convinced that it does not fully explain what is happening around Antarctica, and (although I have little to no background in geology) you are probably right. However, this does not invalidate the theory any more than the fact that no evolutionary biologist can tell you with any certainty where or when or how the first birds appeared. I hope this has helped you understand why plate tectonics is accepted by the scientific community despite its incompleteness, and why it is okay that we don't really know what's going on around Antarctica as long as there is no competing theory which can explain all that the plate tectonics model does and then some.
JohnB Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 bombus, there is no need for a subduction zone to be associated with the Antarctic Plate. Think of it this way. If Antarctica stays where it is and the other plates are moving North away from it, then the subduction zones could be at the other side of the second plate. (Or you could get mountain building.) For example, as the African Plate moves North, the subduction zone would be to the North of the African Plate. Strangely enough, that's exactly where it is, in the Med. As the Australian Plate moves North East away from the Antarctic Plate, there is a subduction zone in the Pacific. There is no need for a subduction zone to be associated with the Antarctic Plate if all the other plates are moving away from it. They subduct under each other, not Antarctica. There is no requirement for every plate to have both a subduction zone and an expansion rift. It would appear that your assumption that all plates should have both is the centre of your misconception. If you remove the false assumption, your argument collapses. @ iNow. Nice find on the map.
Sisyphus Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 Or to put it another way, the only requirement with regards to area is that the combined area of all plates remains constant. There's no reason individual plates should have a constant area.
bombus Posted June 22, 2009 Author Posted June 22, 2009 Fair enough. So, those would be "plate boundary slidey zones." I'm really not too interested in this particular discussion to be perfectly honest. I find the blatant lack of regard for why we accept plate tectonics to both be rather appalling and annoying. You are clearly being led by your incredulity. That is not scientific! I suggest you look further into PTT. It's not as solid as many will have you believe. That's not to say it's not still true though.
insane_alien Posted June 22, 2009 Posted June 22, 2009 bombus, you are misinterpreting what he is saying. he is saying that the reasons why plate tectonics tend to be completely ignored by proponents of expanding earth, they only focus on the problems without even attempting to account for the things that plate tectonics works for, often leaving these things out entirely. the only incredulity is in regard to the behaviour of these people. any theory that is going to replace tectonics must be capable of describing everything plate tectonics does right and then some more.
Recommended Posts