Plate tectonic mechanism ?

[Moontanman]

I am not interested John Carter stories.

 

I thought arc's theory depended upon the asthenosphere radius increasing (and decreasing) by small amounts.

 

Arc please clarify before I do these sketches.

 

 

Good point, I thought you were referring to the disconnect we had over my analogy...

[Unity+]

No arc, we have a communication break down, i wasn't suggesting the expanding Earth idea was part of your idea in any way, just trying to show that to propose something correlates with out a mechanism isn't evidence of a mechanism. The expanding Earth "theory" is silly and has no part in your idea and i wasn't suggesting it did...

 

Unity+ it may very well be that you are beyond me in a significant way and I concede that possibility but I read it as showing an energy transfer was possible not that an energy transfer of sufficient magnitude was possible. Obviously an energy transfer is possible and as I said about Ganymede there is no reason to suggest it is anything but an insignificant effect in Ganymede's case or the Earth's... I'm not sure why Ganymede is somehow a better example than Io but I'll let Arc tell his own mind, i am not privy to his thoughts...

 

Saying the magnetic fields interact in some fashion is a far cry from showing an actual physical effect on a planet enough so to allow heating of the planets core in a way that would result in the planet actually expanding and contracting enough to cause plate tectonics... That is a huge step and 38 degrees C isn't near enough energy on any level...

 

Then there is the actual torque this effect would have on planetary orbital motion, converting the magnetic field to heat would result in physical forces other than just a tiny expansion and contraction of the Earth. I would expect an actual physical drag on the Earth's orbital speed...

 

I would expect the tidal effects of the Moon to have far greater impact than the magnetic coupling of the Earth and the Sun...

 

If my thoughts on this are easily dismissed then let me know and I'll just continue to watch and learn...

It doesn't take much to cause plate tectonic events because of the amount of pressure that is already caused(which is one reason why the temperature of the core is already so high).

 

Under such higher pressure circumstances, event the smallest change in thermal energy would cause changes in plate tectonics. Now, if the pressure was lower than estimated and predicted then my post can be dismissed. However, from current theory it would apply.

 

Forgive me but I have taken this statement to mean that your thesis requires the earth to expand, albeit ever so slightly, throughout my reading of this thread.

 

Please clarify.

Well, if the Earth as a whole were to expand then it wouldn't cause much. However, if only the core were to expand because of the immense thermal energy then the amount of pressure would cause tectonic activity, if that is what I think arc is trying to say.

[studiot]

 

However, if only the core were to expand because of the immense thermal energy then the amount of pressure would cause tectonic activity, if that is what I think arc is trying to say.

 

 

But he didn't say that.

He said the mantle expands.

 

Anyway I am assuming the mantle expands, which means a (small) increase in radius.

 

As a result the lithosphere is raised further from the centre and experiences a gain of potential energy.

 

Let us explore the mechanics of this.

 

Here are some sketches to start with.

[Unity+]

 

But he didn't say that.

He said the mantle expands.

 

Anyway I am assuming the mantle expands, which means a (small) increase in radius.

 

As a result the lithosphere is raised further from the centre and experiences a gain of potential energy.

 

Let us explore the mechanics of this.

 

Here are some sketches to start with.

Well, I mean the heat from the core would increase the heat of the mantle, which would cause the expansion.

[studiot]

Yes I think the proposed mechanism is induction heating of the core due to its motion through a magnetic field which in turn causes expansion...etc.....

 

I don't know about this.

 

I am just trying to get the mechanics of any expansion straight.

[arc]

 

Forgive me but I have taken this statement to mean that your thesis requires the earth to expand, albeit ever so slightly, throughout my reading of this thread.

 

Please clarify.

 

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

[Moontanman]

I can't seem to find an estimate of just how much over all expansion of the radius of the Earth needs to take place for this to be viable.

[studiot]

The only force that holds the plate onto the mantle is it's weight ie gravity.

 

If the mantle expands in radius it will also expand in circumference, but the plate will not expand, it will be moved to a large edit larger radius, thereby gaining gravitational potential energy.

 

In particular it will not be dragged sideways by such an event.

 

This is shown in the first three sketch sheets.

 

Do you agree?

Edited November 24, 2013 by studiot

[arc]

I am not interested John Carter stories. edit: except as entertainment.

 

I thought arc's theory depended upon the asthenosphere radius increasing (and decreasing) by small amounts.

 

 

 

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

[studiot]

 

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

 

 

How can the surface tear unless the circumference increases or something digs into it?

 

Something causes this, it does not happen by itself.

 

In particular the plates are observed to move in human timescales. What moves them?

[arc]

The only force that holds the plate onto the mantle is it's weight ie gravity.

 

If the mantle expands in radius it will also expand in circumference, but the plate will not expand, it will be moved to a large radius, thereby gaining gravitational potential energy.

 

In particular it will not be dragged sideways by such an event.

 

This is shown in the first three sketch sheets.

 

Do you agree?

 

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

[studiot]

Are we having two conversations here?

 

You seem to be replying to alternate posts of mine?

[arc]

 

How can the surface tear unless the circumference increases or something digs into it?

 

Something causes this, it does not happen by itself.

 

In particular the plates are observed to move in human timescales. What moves them?

 

 

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

[studiot]

 

would experience tension

Yes, I think the outer surface is placed in tension

 

Tension forces can only occur in pairs see item 1 post 178.

 

So what pulls the other end?

[arc]

Are we having two conversations here?

 

You seem to be replying to alternate posts of mine?

Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping up. What did I not address correctly.

 

Tension forces can only occur in pairs see item 1 post 178.

 

So what pulls the other end?

 

The plate section that is held on one edge in a trench will experience a tension as the mantle increases its radius, there is friction between the two materials as they reposition to each other.

Edited November 25, 2013 by arc

[studiot]

 

The plate section that is held on one edge in a trench will experience a tension as the mantle increases its radius, there is friction between the two materials as they reposition to each other.

 

 

We've been through this before, and I asked for a force diagram showing (proving) this statement.

 

Since it was not forthcoming, I started to build up to this situation with my diagrams in post 178, that you seem to want to ignore.

 

I started with the simplest possible.

 

Your scenario is more complicated. In force terms it is:

 

Take a block, restrain one end, and apply a tangential force to one surface only acting away from the fixed end.

 

This will induce shear, not tension in the block.

Edited November 25, 2013 by studiot

[billiards]

Arc, I notice you still have not addressed the large volume change necessary in your model, and have been notably silent on the question of energy budget. I'm glad to see other users pressing you on these matters and hope you will begin to take them with the seriousness they deserve.

 

 

 

Plume theory is so over done and under preforming that if it was part of a research and development in the private sector it would have been shelved long ago. When they come to one of the continually appearing difficulties they simply invent an individualized mechanism for a solution and move ahead. What are the odds that mantle plume is correct?

 

" What now are the odds that theory is correct? One in a million? One in a billion? One in a trillion?"

 

One first would like to note the irony of your attack on the ad hoc theories. Your model requires quite strange ad hoc adjustments to explain how expansion and contraction tectonics can take place simultaneously.

 

But what is "plume theory"? Are you talking about the attack on the existence of mantle plumes and the big debate that raged at its peak five to ten years ago fuelled mainly by Don Anderson and Gillian Foulger? What is the significance of that debate here? As far as I am aware, it was once suggested in a famous paper by Jason Morgan that plumes might be the driving force behind plate tectonics. But that was over thirty years ago and nobody seriously believes that anymore. Plumes are simply a mode of mantle convection. Subduction can be seen as another mode of convection -- a mode of convection far more important for plate tectonics. One does not require the other. If we have a debate about plumes we would be missing the point.

 

 

 

 

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

 

Again, I do not understand what you intend to mean by "plume theory" but please read what I wrote above about that. I certainly do not take any credit for the development of "plume theory". The ants were obviously meant as a satirical swipe at your theory. It was aimed at all those who remain agnostic about your theory -- (let's wait it might turn out to be right -- but I'm not sure). It's a "Russel's teapot" argument: yes there might just be a teapot orbiting the Earth, but actually in all likelihood there isn't. There might just be a colony of giant ants driving plate tectonics -- but in all likelihood there isn't. There might just be a core swelling up and shrinking with volume changes in the region of 30%, driven by heretofore unheard of million odd year solar cycle, which somehow quickly heats up and cools down the outer core by some vague mechanism (it must be quick because otherwise the heat would be leaked and the temperature would not rise) -- but in all likelihood there isn't.

[Unity+]

Arc, I notice you still have not addressed the large volume change necessary in your model, and have been notably silent on the question of energy budget. I'm glad to see other users pressing you on these matters and hope you will begin to take them with the seriousness they deserve.

 

 

 

One first would like to note the irony of your attack on the ad hoc theories. Your model requires quite strange ad hoc adjustments to explain how expansion and contraction tectonics can take place simultaneously.

 

But what is "plume theory"? Are you talking about the attack on the existence of mantle plumes and the big debate that raged at its peak five to ten years ago fuelled mainly by Don Anderson and Gillian Foulger? What is the significance of that debate here? As far as I am aware, it was once suggested in a famous paper by Jason Morgan that plumes might be the driving force behind plate tectonics. But that was over thirty years ago and nobody seriously believes that anymore. Plumes are simply a mode of mantle convection. Subduction can be seen as another mode of convection -- a mode of convection far more important for plate tectonics. One does not require the other. If we have a debate about plumes we would be missing the point.

 

 

 

 

Again, I do not understand what you intend to mean by "plume theory" but please read what I wrote above about that. I certainly do not take any credit for the development of "plume theory". The ants were obviously meant as a satirical swipe at your theory. It was aimed at all those who remain agnostic about your theory -- (let's wait it might turn out to be right -- but I'm not sure). It's a "Russel's teapot" argument: yes there might just be a teapot orbiting the Earth, but actually in all likelihood there isn't. There might just be a colony of giant ants driving plate tectonics -- but in all likelihood there isn't. There might just be a core swelling up and shrinking with volume changes in the region of 30%, driven by heretofore unheard of million odd year solar cycle, which somehow quickly heats up and cools down the outer core by some vague mechanism (it must be quick because otherwise the heat would be leaked and the temperature would not rise) -- but in all likelihood there isn't.

Why would there be a need for a "large" volume change if there is instability with pressure at the core of the Earth? Even minuscule volume changes would cause plates to act in the fashion that they do.

[billiards]

Why would there be a need for a "large" volume change if there is instability with pressure at the core of the Earth? Even minuscule volume changes would cause plates to act in the fashion that they do.

 

A minuscule volume change would be unnoticed at the surface.

 

It is a giant leap of faith to say that it would "cause plates to act in the fashion that they do".

I can't seem to find an estimate of just how much over all expansion of the radius of the Earth needs to take place for this to be viable.

 

After much pressing arc finally gave me the number of ~ 80 km (post #119).

[Moontanman]

 

A minuscule volume change would be unnoticed at the surface.

 

It is a giant leap of faith to say that it would "cause plates to act in the fashion that they do".

 

After much pressing arc finally gave me the number of ~ 80 km (post #119).

 

 

Thanks, ~80 km... over a time span of millions of years? I know we can measure rate at which mountains grow down to millimeters per year, depending on the time frame this would appear to be within our ability to directly measure. AFAIK no such global expansion has been detected...

 

Billiards, do you have a comment on the torque such a magnetic coupling would have on the Earth? I know the interaction should have an effect on the orbital speed of the earth... The same way a magnetic field resists a wire rotating through the field and creates heat the Earth should resist the Suns magnetic field to produce the "heat" involved in expansion.

[billiards]

I'm not suggesting that magnetism is magic. I am simply providing ideas with some evidence of correlation, and maybe even causality. If I find evidence related to the amount of energy needed then I can provide some(unless Arc finds it first).

 

EDIT: Let's consider the following:

 

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/spring98/ast1002/sun/

 

So, from this source(and many other sources) the Sun produces [math]3.9\times 10^{26}[/math] Joules(or Watts per second). Now, from this piece of information, the same amount of energy(assuming that all the energy is in the electromagnetic field of the Sun) would be transferred through the electromagnetic field of the Earth(since we assume that the Earth's and Sun's electromagnetic fields interact with each other), which then is transferred to(if this is correct) the inner core of the Earth. Since the mass of the inner core, made out of both iron, nickle, and sulfur(on small scales), is [math]9.675\times 10^25[/math] grams, at least based on the source below. Please correct me on this if this is incorrect:

 

http://nineplanets.org/earth.html

 

Knowing this information, here is more information. Let us use the following equations of chemistry to determine if it is possible to use the Sun's energy from its electromagnetic field to expand the iron core from the thermal energy.

 

 

 

It may seem as if the amount of energy needed is too low for the amount displayed here. However, notice it only takes that amount of energy to increase the temperature from 0 to approximately 38 degrees Celsius.

 

If it were to increase exponentially, the Sun, would in fact, have enough energy to cause the effects referred to in the other post.

 

Now, I will expand on this post to show how much energy is needed to cause thermal expansion in the inner core of the Earth, which would in effect cause movement as stated in the other post.

 

Woah!!!

 

Of course if you assume that 100% of the Sun's power output goes into heating the core by a 100% efficient mechanism then yes, it appears we do have rather a lot of energy available to do magical things. But if you assume the above is valid then you must be living in a different universe!

 

 

Thanks, ~80 km... over a time span of millions of years? I know we can measure rate at which mountains grow down to millimeters per year, depending on the time frame this would appear to be within our ability to directly measure. AFAIK no such global expansion has been detected...

 

Billiards, do you have a comment on the torque such a magnetic coupling would have on the Earth? I know the interaction should have an effect on the orbital speed of the earth... The same way a magnetic field resists a wire rotating through the field and creates heat the Earth should resist the Suns magnetic field to produce the "heat" involved in expansion.

 

There was a paper release about a year or so ago that used satellite data to look for evidence of Earth expansion. Not surprisingly they did not find any (I'll dig out the paper if you're interested).

 

I do not feel very comfortable talking about the magnetic torque effect (I'm a seismologist). But bear in mind that unless the Earth's mantle contains significant conductive material it is hard to exchange momentum between the solid earth and the magnetic field.

 

EDIT: of course an expanding and shrinking planet would change the moment of inertia, this would hence change the rotation rate, much like an ice skater controlling the speed of their pirouette by bring their arms in/out.

Edited November 26, 2013 by billiards

[arc]

 

Woah!!!

 

Of course if you assume that 100% of the Sun's power output goes into heating the core by a 100% efficient mechanism then yes, it appears we do have rather a lot of energy available to do magical things. But if you assume the above is valid then you must be living in a different universe!

 

There was a paper release about a year or so ago that used satellite data to look for evidence of Earth expansion. Not surprisingly they did not find any (I'll dig out the paper if you're interested).

 

I do not feel very comfortable talking about the magnetic torque effect (I'm a seismologist). But bear in mind that unless the Earth's mantle contains significant conductive material it is hard to exchange momentum between the solid earth and the magnetic field.

 

EDIT: of course an expanding and shrinking planet would change the moment of inertia, this would hence change the rotation rate, much like an ice skater controlling the speed of their pirouette by bring their arms in/out.

 

 

 

 

Thanks, ~80 km... over a time span of millions of years? I know we can measure rate at which mountains grow down to millimeters per year, depending on the time frame this would appear to be within our ability to directly measure. AFAIK no such global expansion has been detected...

 

Billiards, do you have a comment on the torque such a magnetic coupling would have on the Earth? I know the interaction should have an effect on the orbital speed of the earth... The same way a magnetic field resists a wire rotating through the field and creates heat the Earth should resist the Suns magnetic field to produce the "heat" involved in expansion.

 

 

 

This is post #2 challenging my thesis, Quote; Subduction and (seafloor) spreading are both happening at the same time, right now. According to your theory, one should happen first, then the other. Observation does not seem to match your theory.

This is post #4 in response;

Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:09 PM

Very good points. I think the entire plate matrix has a uneven distribution of compression which causes the observed subduction in some trenches while others have less, Aleutian for example, while others have what appears to be none. I believe there is currently not any observed subduction in the Mediterranean which my model answers. But I stray. The reason there is varying amounts of subduction is due to the large difference in the plate sizes and masses. The model provides a means to preload the entire plate matrix simultaneously. Lets imagine that there is a small current/temperature variable over millions of years in the Earth's magnetohydrodynamic field generator ( that could and probably would also be expected in the current standard model I think) and it slowly raises the outer core's temperature a fraction of a degree over those millions of years. A fraction of a degree over millions of years.

I believe almost everyone would expect the liquid outer core to thermally expand a proportionate amount to the degree of temperature rise. Now what would you expect from the mantle? Do you think it could contain the molecular level expansion forces of the core's liquid iron? The mantle is under extremely high pressures and temperatures especially the deeper you go. Would you think that it would move out a little making a little more room in its interior? Unlikely, I think in either model most would expect the mantle would show a reflex at its outer boundary. But how much? I would think it would resemble the current seafloor spreading metrics.

So lets say this continues over a couple of million years building up a nice little slice of new divergent plate infill in the worlds entire divergent inventory. Now we start into that lower level part of the cycle with the core going down a fraction of a degree over millions of years. As the liquid iron lowers imperceptibly the mantle responds and moves in tandem. What will the crust do? It would likely move with the mantle but it can't because of the nice new slice of seafloor that now blocks its pathway down. The plates begin to preload like a Roman arch, slowly sliding to the opposite direction into the trench. Something neat is happening here though, the plates all have different masses, from some of the largest like the Pacific or say Eurasia to the smaller down to the micro plates. The larger plates take the longest amount of time to unload while the smaller may be able to even slip some on the edges to release even faster.

Referring to this claim; Plate tectonicists insist that the volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of midocean ridges are supposedly producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add the 9000 km of "collision zones," the figure is still only half that of the "spreading centers" (Smoot, 1997a).

​In my model this would indicate that the subduction lags behind the expansion portion of the cycle. It takes longer for the plates to melt into the asthenosphere than it does to create the infill that leverages the plate into the trench. So the answer to why is there some subduction happening now?, would be because not all of the plate compression (probably the largest ones) has bled out into the trenches before this current expansion cycle started. The outer core thermal cycle is variable throughout its cycle, even from one maximum to the next in both timing and duration. Now lets say we have a extra long thermal expansion cycle and the divergent plate boundaries build up a very large infill, one of those that only happens every 20 or 30 million years. When the outer core begins to cool and initiates the plates subduction the trenches will be, like before, slower to receive the plate material than the mantles withdraw.

 

The compression begins building on the plates, being only able to over come the trenches rates of resistances to a point. As the mantle continues down the plates are subjected to loads that require vertical movement of rock strata to relieve to massive compression building on the plates, this compression is in proportion to the length of time and degree of expansion in the previous cycle in relation to the degree of cooling in this cycle.

So, at the very beginning the model proposed that currently, both divergent and convergent boundaries are active. The reason this is possible is the plates are in various degrees of stored mass in the form of gravitational potential energy. So, currently there is a balance, the subduction roughly equals the divergent boundary metrics.

And by the way, how long have we measured this constant?

 

 

Thanks, ~80 km... over a time span of millions of years?

Misrepresentation of what someone says is not a nice way to conduct a discussion. billiards is a repeat offender on this. He criticized me for posting too much text. I set a trap and he stuck his leg in it. He only read the first paragraph and then made a bogus post.

 

He admitted it in post #122, I quote; My misinterpretation of your number may make the geometrical argument invalid, but let's be clear -- you're still wrong.

 

You really have to read something before you can claim you misinterpreted it. So why keep arguing about something you admitted you were wrong about????

You can clearly read it below. I clearly gave the lateral displacement of the Basin and Range for an example. Then I preceded to to disqualify it as a measurable quantity in my model.

 

I quote from below; This process is not unlike a mechanical jack place on soft ground, you jack up a few inches and return to find it lower than where you started.

You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from? This is not like a balloon, going up a lot and then back down. Its like running on a conveyor, you may move ahead a little or move back the same, but your gains and losses are smoothed out over the distance covered.

 

 

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.

 

And this is post # 119;

 

Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:46 PM

"Total lateral displacement" . . . . . "varies from 60 – 300 km" . . . . . . "So, the total could be as great as 500 km." . . . . . . "reduction of circumference."

"You could see a gain 25 km and then a loss of 30. Where do you measure from? "

So, I gave you lateral displacement. I didn't say it was radius, and if you would have read what I knew you wouldn't, you would have seen it. You would have figured out that 500 km +/- in relation to 40075.16 kilometers (24901.55 miles) out of the Earth’s circumference is 80 km of radius ~.

"But here's the rub"

"This process is not unlike a mechanical jack placed on soft ground, you jack up a few inches and return to find it lower than where you started."

"this process is interrupted repeatedly by the outer core contracting"

Which means that 80 km +/- change cannot happen either, and I can only guess at the amount that it actually does change, 5-? I don't know, just like a lot of things in plume theory.

"Its like running on a conveyor, you may move ahead a little or move back the same, but your gains and losses are smoothed out over the distance covered."

So, you see it gains and loses in a cycle, but at some point it loses enough to convert the plates mass to gravitational potential energy, which will then overcome the trenches rates of resistance and require the movement of rock into mountain complexes. It is really that simple.

He just keeps repeating this. . . . . . lets just call it his little misrepresentation of the facts. But that's OK because every time it shows up I will just copy and paste this post as a reply. Which I think I will have to do repeatedly.

 

This model has always proposed a constant between the divergent a convergent boundaries, with mountain building taking up the imbalances;

 

The models ability to raise the global tectonic plate matrix while shoring the retreating divergent plate boundaries with new magma provides a means where the initial thermal expansion energy ( the magnetic field generator's molten iron's thermal expansion) can be stored in the raised mass as (short term) gravitational potential energy, then slowly released as kinetic energy as the plates melt into the asthenosphere. Periods of excessive gravitational potential energy, the periods that exceed the trenches rates of resistance, will produce (long term) storage of the kinetic energy as mass in mountain complexes.

The constant attempt of individuals to inject an inaccurate representation of this model has grown tedious, it does not involve the Earth changing in size and never did, it was never stated and it has been explained that it does not. Those that proceed to do so are apparently, in all determinable ways, simply trolling.

And I'm still waiting for someone to respond to those 14C graphs, and some predictions of observations according to the current model. I won't be holding my breath.

Edited November 27, 2013 by arc

[billiards]

Arc, it looks like you're squirming and back tracking here. If in your model the earth radius does not change then how exactly does your model work? Remember you're claiming to have a dynamic mechanism here, and I just don't see any dynamics with a constant radius earth.

 

This is another blow. Any claim that your model is simple has vanished. Remember Occam's razor?

[Unity+]

 

Woah!!!

 

Of course if you assume that 100% of the Sun's power output goes into heating the core by a 100% efficient mechanism then yes, it appears we do have rather a lot of energy available to do magical things. But if you assume the above is valid then you must be living in a different universe!

 

There was a paper release about a year or so ago that used satellite data to look for evidence of Earth expansion. Not surprisingly they did not find any (I'll dig out the paper if you're interested).

 

I do not feel very comfortable talking about the magnetic torque effect (I'm a seismologist). But bear in mind that unless the Earth's mantle contains significant conductive material it is hard to exchange momentum between the solid earth and the magnetic field.

 

EDIT: of course an expanding and shrinking planet would change the moment of inertia, this would hence change the rotation rate, much like an ice skater controlling the speed of their pirouette by bring their arms in/out.

I am going to take your comment with a grain of salt because you clearly need to do more research on electromagnetic fields and the emission of energy from stars(Oh yes, the Sun is a star).

 

Also, I would be interested in the paper you spoke of.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Unity+

[billiards]

1) I am going to take your comment with a grain of salt because you clearly need to do more research on electromagnetic fields and the emission of energy from stars(Oh yes, the Sun is a star).

 

2) Also, I would be interested in the paper you spoke of.

 

1) Really? If I'd known the Sun was a star then that would have changed EVERYTHING!

 

* on a more serious note -- you might want to check out this pretty cool thing called the inverse square law.

 

2) Sure ** digging around ** it's here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047450/abstract

 

 

ps - thanks for the down votes

Edited November 27, 2013 by billiards