Plate tectonic mechanism ?

Unity+ · January 2, 2014

Hey StringJunky, I don't believe I have argued from authority, i.e. I have never said I am right because I have qualifications x, y, and z. In fact I never even mentioned the PhD until just now. My argument has always been that arc's theory is very very probably -- indeed almost certainly -- wrong. Now I understand that that may sound arrogant. But I have justified my stance using reasoning.

1) Physical reasoning. Consideration of the energy required to induce the large volume changes in the liquid outer core seem to render the theory impossible.

2) Russel's teapot. Or the giant ant hypothesis. Or the flying spaghetti monster. I can make up a shed load of random crap that nobody will ever be able to prove wrong. Especially if my theory comes in the shape of a cartoon with edges that can be moulded to fit the facts in an ad hoc way. My problem (in case you hadn't already guessed) is that this approach is unscientific.

3) The seemingly random use of references complete with giant leaps of faith necessary to follow the theory. Again unscientific.

Of course I would be very happy to see some science done, and then if the theory still stands up then I would relax my stance a little. The problem of the dynamic mechanism behind plate tectonics is one of the great unsolved challenges facing earth sciences today. This is why the topic attracted my attention. I am genuinely interested in finding the solution.

You haven't even calculated(and if you have, please present the mathematical proof of this to us) how much thermal energy that would be required to expand the inner core of the Earth. You haven't presented anything at all besides stating that the hypothesis(not theory) is wrong. I am currently doing the calculations for Arc to determine whether the hypothesis is good as it stands, needs modification, or isn't valid because parts of the hypothesis don't work.
Those types of examples aren't even related to the discussion. Clearly this hypothesis could be proven wrong like any other hypothesis out there. It fits within the standards of the scientific method. He has presented evidence(which you claim to not understand and yet you haven't even told me or anyone else what you don't understand about it and you won't present the post that has evidence that is not understood).
I will ask you again: What is random about the evidence he has presented? You refuse to answer that question. I wouldn't give a crap if you had a PhD(and if you do, great not a part of the discussion). It seems you keep avoiding the questions presented before you and then accuse others of not answering some question(which I can't seem to find in the topic) that you keep rambling on about Arc not answering.

If you are genuinely interested in find the solution then actually present the argument(mathematical proof and other forms of evidence) that his hypothesis is wrong. I am glad you are interested as you say you are. Show that you are interested.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Unity+

arc · January 2, 2014

OK, guys don’t blame billiards, I can be pretty antagonizing most of the time.

In a way, this idea that I am promoting here is nothing of my own original thought. It is an assemblage of existing bits of other peoples work, arranged in a manner that I believe explains in a logical order (to me) what is not readily apparent in what I see as the rather disconnected and incomplete standard model.

Let’s start with the contentious solar magnetic field inductance question. We have currently a model with the Earth possessing a magnetohydrodynamic generator that is assumed to have been in a self- sustaining mode of operation for the last 4.5 billion years. This just seems a little too much like “perpetual motion machine” for me.

For this reason I am interested in the following paper;

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.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."

“ Ganymede, Jupiter’s third Galilean satellite, has an internal magnetic dipole (Kivelson et al. 1996, 1997) strong enough to create its own mini-magnetosphere inside of Jupiter’s larger one.”

Ganymede is the largest moon in the solar system and the third Galilean moon from Jupiter. Its diameter is slightly larger than the planet Mercury and three-quarters the size of Mars. The Galileo spacecraft discovered that Ganymede is to date the only moon to generate its own magnetosphere. The field is generated by the moon's liquid iron core.

Observations by the Hubble space telescope reveal ozone is near the surface, and it is likely produced as charged particles from Jupiter's magnetic field collide with water molecules within the surface of Ganymede, suggesting a chemical pathway to a presumed thin oxygen atmosphere similar to the one detected on Europa.

The electro-chemical processes of creating atmospheres on these moons are likely limited by the lack of the solar thermal and electromagnetic scale of the Jovian-Galilean system. The Galilean moons of Europa, Ganymede and Callisto are all thought to have abundant water. Callisto's extremely thin atmosphere composing carbon dioxide and probably oxygen possesses a rather strong ionosphere, as does Europa's to a lesser degree, it's thin ionosphere covering a faint oxygen atmosphere.

Do these moons suggest a possible alternative to the Earth’s self-sustaining closed system of field generation?

I believe they do. Though they contain in their cores their primordial heat, has this “unambiguous evidence” of induction maintained this thermal content to this day? And has it done so through and by the creation of a proportionally small “mini-magnetosphere”?

I see a lower level manifestation of the currently observed and by this model, proposed generation of mutual-inductively coupled or magnetically coupled phenomena, i.e. the Jovian generation of primary and secondary fields.

Or more accurately the Sun's magnetic field is the primary field. While Jupiter's is the secondary, thereby leaving the Jovian moons to produce whatever degree of tertiary field that the electromagnetic component can furnish through the limitations of distance, the secondary field's strength and the given core's molten iron and/or liquid water's physical characteristics.

I believe it is no coincidence that planetary sized moons with fluid interiors that are within a powerful magnetic field show through a variety of core configurations, a secondary field, and what always seems to accompany it, thermal heating of the interior and/or core and what the available thermal energy can produce to its given degree, vulcanism and or evidence of tectonic resurfacing.

“responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic ﬁeld."

Based on this study above, could the much more magnetically powerful and rotating (time varying) field of the Sun be expected to produce similar and even greater effects?

If these inducted energies can be surmised for the moons that orbit a planet, then it is within reason that a massively larger and magnetically more powerful generator such as the Sun could produce similar results in many of the planets within its domain.

For example, he repeatedly shows the figure of Glatzmeier's magnetic field, but it is entirely unclear to me how Glatzmeier's work supports his theory, other than the incredibly tenuous link that Glatzmeier has modelled the field getting weaker with time. (So what??) That is something we knew way before Glatmeier cam along, from actual observations, so why use Glatzmeier's model? One suspects it is because of the pretty picture. Such sloppy usage of references is typical and is reflected by the sloppy logic that ties the elements of the theory together.

“Glatzmeier has modelled the field getting weaker with time.” I didn't get that conclusion from the NASA article. I see a planet that has maintained heat content and a magnetic field far beyond the expectations of the physics known to be involved. Could there be a periodic magnetic energy induction supplying a timely boost to this assumed closed system, a veritable intermittent hand that applies energy to the flywheel of earth’s dynamo. Not a main power source but rather a supplemental, one that possibly shows its presents in the Earth’s magnetic field’s variability.

As bond had noted;

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/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,

It seems very likely to be the case.

http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/

And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2.

I don’t see where it says it is “getting weaker with time” except between the times it is increasing.

Well, now I’m at a crossroad. We can go on and examine this variability and how it fits, remarkably well by the way, the various geologic evidence; According to the model it can produce thermal expansion in the outer core, which through strain energy and mantle displacement produces the observed surface geologic processes.

Or we go the other direction and show the graphs of solar magnetic field strength proxy 14C content (which I have done repeatedly without a direct counter argument from anyone) and its correlation to the historic climate history of the last 1100 years. This climate variation can further be shown to correlate to periods geologic resurfacing. The first being the warmer period that occurred just before and then concurrently with the tectonic extension that began around 17 Ma in the early Miocene and that may have lasted 7-10 million total.

This then transitioning to the cooler period that followed which was concurrent to the building of the latest series of mountain ranges, Himalayas and Andes, which began rising after the warmer extensional period ended and just before the beginning of this current glaciation and then continuing up to the present.

ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, SUPPLEMENT TO VOL. 49, N. 1, 2006

Mountain uplift and the Neotectonic Period

CLIFF D. OLLIER

School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

9.2. EXAMPLES

9.2.1. Tibet, Himalayas, Kunlun Mountains

(As an example, consider the timing of uplift in Tibet and its bordering mountains. Gansser (1991) wrote: «... we must realize that the morphogenic phase is not only restricted to the Himalayas but involves the whole Tibetan block. This surprising fact shows that an area of 2500000 km2 has been uplifted 3000-4000 m during Pleistocene time and that this uplift is still going on.» In places the uplift rate is 4.5 mm/yr (five times the maximum in the European Alps). According to Wu et al. (2001) from the Pliocene to the Early Quaternary (5-1.1 Million years) the Kunlun Pass area of the Tibetan Plateau was no more than 1500 m high and was warm and humid. They write: «The extreme geomorphic changes in the Kunlun Pass area reflect an abrupt uplift of the Tibet Plateau during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The Kunlun-Yellow River tectonic movement occurred 1.1-0.6 Million years.» Zheng et al. (2000) concluded from sediments at the foot of the Kunlun Mountains that uplift began around 4.5 Million years.)

This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde based on published data who has no connection to me or this work. This figure shows the climate record of Lisiecki and Raymo (2005) [1] constructed by combining measurements from 57 globally distributed deep sea sediment cores. The measured quantity is oxygen isotope fractionation ([[δ18O]]) in benthic foraminifera, which serves as a proxy for the total global mass of glacial ice sheets.

This decrease in temperature aligns rather well with the mountain building (as noted above) of the same time period.

“The extreme geomorphic changes in the Kunlun Pass area reflect an abrupt uplift of the Tibet Plateau during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The Kunlun-Yellow River tectonic movement occurred 1.1-0.6 Million years”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Quaternary glaciation also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the current ice age refers to a series of glacial events separated by interglacial events during the Quaternary period from 2.58 Ma (million years ago) to present.

“That's why when I read arc's work it is obvious to me that it is little more than a stab in the dark.”

That may be true, but it is due to the method by which it was constructed. You probably look at things from a more concentrated data framework. Massive amounts of data covering a narrow point of study.

This model is rather the opposite; it is constructed like a web, tying a multitude of research by others together into a cohesive (and hopefully accurate) story. That is how my Asperger brain works, I can look at many unrelated parts and see correlations in their functions, and I draw a diagram in my mind that creates a framework linking them together in context.

An accurate story at its most basic form is an assemblage of words or ideas into a logical order. Our observed reality should, at least at our scale, be seen as logical processes of interrelated mechanisms. We should not have to strain to see the causes and effects that cascade in all directions around us.

This model is an attempt to do this, albeit in a somewhat tenuous way, not unlike a web. If done correctly it should have the symmetry that produces balance of the load, maintaining the even distribution of stresses. Or as you would say "incredibly tenuous links".

But this is tempered by;

What are the alternatives? What does the counter theories have to offer, besides broad ambiguities that for the most part do not even connect in a unified understanding the observable geological evidence let alone connect it to current and historic planetary thermal content including current and past climate variability. Just having a reasonable answer to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) sets it out front in this regard.

If one was to read the first ten posts of this thread you should see enough to give pause to your certainty, the predictions of observations are quite acceptable when compared to the currently accepted theory. Or better yet, go to the plate tectonic site shown at the bottom of the page. It has many more predictions of observations that would seem unlikely without the model being reasonably on target.

It is fairly simple and if the current model had comparable simplicity it would be an easier comparison, but the standard model has its own tenuous difficulties to overcome.

Edited January 2, 2014 by arc

billiards · January 2, 2014

“Glatzmeier has modelled the field getting weaker with time.” I didn't get that conclusion from the NASA article. I see a planet that has maintained heat content and a magnetic field far beyond the expectations of the physics known to be involved. Could there be a periodic magnetic energy induction supplying a timely boost to this assumed closed system, a veritable intermittent hand that applies energy to the flywheel of earth’s dynamo. Not a main power source but rather a supplemental, one that possibly shows its presents in the Earth’s magnetic field’s variability.

Hi arc,

I still don't understand why you pick out Glatzmeier's model. In fact it is direct contradiction to what you are saying. I have emphasised in bold your own words above.

"I see a planet that has maintained heat content and a magnetic field far beyond the expectations of the physics known to be involved."

But surely that flies in the face of Glatzmeier's work. He has used the known physics incorporating geophysical constraints to model a geomagnetic field with the time varying properties similar to those found in the palaeomagnetic record. In other words he has shown exactly the opposite of what you said:

a planet that has maintained heat content and a magnetic field in complete agreement with the expectations of the physics known to be involved.

This is surely a fine example of why intuition can be a treacherous guide in science.

Edited January 2, 2014 by billiards

arc · January 5, 2014

Hi arc,

I still don't understand why you pick out Glatzmeier's model. In fact it is direct contradiction to what you are saying. I have emphasised in bold your own words above.

"I see a planet that has maintained heat content and a magnetic field far beyond the expectations of the physics known to be involved."

Hi billiards,

"a planet that has maintained heat content and a magnetic field in complete agreement with the expectations of the physics known to be involved."

I assume you see the Earth's magnetohydrodynamic field generator as everyone else does, as a closed system operating unto its own parameters and limits and defined therein, I do not. I see this field generator as a subordinate to a greater one, I see it as a “solar magnetohydrodynamic dependent field". I believe it was initiated by and maintained through the Sun's magnetic field.

I believe the Earth is missing the internal energy source to drive a "closed system" magnetic field generator. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to our planet having the self contained capabilities to operate its field generator for so long. When I compare our planet's field generator to the Sun's and its thermonuclear energy source I am struck by the stark contrast.

http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=992

"How is the Earth's magnetic field formed and what causes changes in the field? The basics of the process have long been understood: magnetism, motion and electricity are an inseparable trio, when any two are present the third is there too. However, exactly how the complex dynamics of the Earth's core translate this principle into a stable and sustainable magnetic field is still largely unknown."

That statement isn't exactly brimming with confidence of a complete and factual "closed system" model of the current theory. That statement is from the University of Maryland's own site. They are building the largest model to date. It has more than 12.7 metric tons of sodium metal and a 3 meter (10ft) stainless steel sphere.

"I still don't understand why you pick out Glatzmeier's model."

I chose it because of his measurements, they fit my model rather well.

"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."

This information is important to my model for several reasons. First, it shows that the field has a wide variation of intensity, matching what I assume is needed to actuate the plate tectonic mechanism of my model, which I believe fits the observations better than any other current model. Having "twice the million-year average" capability would, as a preliminary observation, provide what I would hope is within the functional range needed for the outer core thermal expansion. This of coarse still needs to be confirmed but it is better than I had initially imagined. I rather expected something in the 20% +/- range which would have seemed, off hand, as vastly inadequate.

The revelation that the Earth's magnetic field is currently "much stronger than normal" matches quite accurately the other solar magnetic data I have that tracks the simultaneous variation of the Earth's magnetic field and climate history. It directly challenges the anthropological causation of the last 100 + years of climate warming, a rather ground shaking idea that seems to be ignored.

As you have seen in the 14C graphs shown, they tell an alternate explanation to the current climate model.

Please forgive the repetitious posting, but you asked.

http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf

Image below courtesy of USGS

Image below modified by this author.

These graphs 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.

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.

That is supported by Glatzmeier's model; "much stronger than normal" and "twice the million-year average"

If I am to take Bond as being correct when he stated; "when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened", (in regards to 1500 year periodicity climate variation that controlled the volume of drift ice in the North Atlantic) then there is in all these sources clear evidence of solar magnetic causation of climate variability.

The question is what is the causative mechanism? What could happen by, through or in conjunction with this solar magnetic increase or decrease, that would produce in short time frame responses, the rather small but sudden variation in warming or cooling? I have been waiting for someone to offer a alternative solution to my models strain energy mechanism.

Lets look at the whole quote;

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 a reduction in solar magnetic energy corresponding to a cooling environmental response in almost simultaneous timing. How do these two phenomena relate? Do you believe this mechanism could operate through the atmosphere? What if I said it was the ocean that reduced in thermal content first? The ocean giving up the diminishing heat content of its waters, allowing the drift ice to move farther south before melting.

According to the model the strain energy produces thermal content from the mantles slow displacement, the mantles outer boundary is slowly stretched and torn, releasing thermal energy as magma. When the solar magnetic energy level lowers, the boundary area thermal energy is reduced, thus lowering the oceans heat content, or more importantly and precisely, the Atlantic Meridional Overturn Circulation (AMOC) content. The little Ice Age is believed to be one of the several Bond cooling events, the same lowered heat content that extended the drift ice range would also reduce the climate temperature as shown in the graph below.

Notice how the solar magnetic flux proxy 14C leads the temperature change. "High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun." Look at about 1250 on the graph, the magnetic flux begins to decrease. It took possibly 50 - 100 years for people in the northern hemisphere to notice the cooling climate, marking the beginning of the Little Ice Age commonly observed to begin around 1300-1350 in the Wolf Minimum. A nice delay as the reducing boundary area heat content is carried to the surface by the AMOC. By 1460 the highest 14C content/lowest magnetic flux of the Sporer minimum was almost reached, marking the next 90 years to the lowest magnetic flux content of that minimum at around 1550.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%B6rer_Minimum

I believe a model proposing a “solar magnetohydrodynamic dependent field" is greatly strengthened by this evidence.

If the earth was the sole possessor of a planetary magnetic field it would seem more believable that a closed system could be possible. That the earth could have by chance obtained the correct ingredients at the needed volumes to produce the magnetic field that we observe. But there is a total of 5 other field generating planets and none of them resemble the Earth's current model of generation.

Jupiter has the largest planetary magnetic field in the solar system. Its field is 14 times stronger than Earth's. Jupiter’s core is often described as rocky, surrounded by a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen that is believed to be the convection fluid that generates the magnetic field. There is a lot of uncertainty about its composition beyond basic speculation. Jupiter is 5.2 times farther from the Sun than the Earth but emits more energy, almost 2.5 times, than it receives from the sun. That extra energy is thought to be produced by Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism in which a large gaseous body with too low of a mass for nuclear fusion, can emit energy through compression in its core from thermal contraction caused by the cooling of its surface. It’s theorized that gravitational potential energy caused by the shrinking of Jupiter is the source of the energy.

Next is Saturn, the internal structure of which is thought to be similar to Jupiter, with a rocky iron core surrounded by a thick layer of metallic hydrogen. Saturn is 1.5 billion km from the sun. 9.5 times farther from the Sun as the Earth, but, like Jupiter, radiates into space 2.5 times the energy it receives from the Sun. Its core temperature is thought to be 11,700 deg. Celsius. (21,100 deg. F) And, like Jupiter the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism is believed to be at work. But it can’t account for all of the radiant energy, leading to other theories on sources of heat, possibly by generating some of its heat through the "raining out" of droplets of helium deep in its interior. As the droplets descend through the lower density hydrogen, the process releases heat by friction and leaves the outer layers of the planet depleted of helium. Saturn’s magnetic field is only 5 percent of Jupiter’s measured at the equator.

Uranus is the 7th planet from the Sun. Third largest by radius, fourth by mass. Has the coldest planetary atmosphere in the solar system AT -224 degrees c. Its 3 billion km from the Sun and takes 84 years to orbit it once. Scientists estimate its core of silicate/iron-nickel at a small 0.55 Earth masses with a temperature of 5000 K. (4726 C.) The mantle, comprising of hot dense water and ammonia, makes up the bulk of the planet at 13.4 Earth masses. This fluid is believed to be the source of the planets magnetic field.

Uranus has the lowest internal heat of the four outer planets. Neptune, which is 1.5 billion km farther out from the Sun and is considered Uranus’ twin in size and chemistry has a heat flux of 2.61, in contrast Uranus barely emits more heat than it receives from the Sun. But what is the energy source? Uranus has fully functioning magnetic field despite being tilted out of alignment with its rotational axis by 59 degrees. Is this a clue as to a solar dependent field? The really strange thing is its axis is in line with its orbital plane. It spins like a football not a toy top. It rolls around the sun on its side, giving each polar region a direct exposure during each solstice.

So here might be the most unlikely candidate for a (closed system) magnetic field generator. It’s lying on its side, its core is undersized, and the electrical conductive mantle is hot water and ammonia. It’s kind of hard to imagine it being a self-maintaining magnetohydrodynamic generator, generating a strong magnetic field. Although the Polar Regions receive the majority of the Sun's heat, the equatorial region is warmer than the poles. The heat is located where the field generator heat flux would probably be greatest.

Uranus is 19.1 astronomical units from the Sun and has a heat flux of 1.1 barely a little more heat than it receives from the Sun. Neptune is 30.1 astronomical units with a heat flux of 2.61. The source of this high heat content is unknown. Several explanations have been suggested, radiogenic heating from the planet's core, conversion of methane into hydrogen and diamond that would rise and sink releasing gravitational potential energy, and convection in the lower atmosphere that causes gravity waves to break above the tropopause.

I kind of see a pattern here, more heat than can be accounted for and a large power hungry magnetic field. Neptune’s bigger core, 1.2 Earth mass to .55 for Uranus, may account for a its higher heat flux and larger field. It might produce more generating capacity in some way. Its magnetic field bow shock extends out from the planet 34.9 Neptune radii. Uranus’ bow shock is at 23 radii.

It seems to me that as you examine the planets and their magnetic field generating dynamics it becomes increasingly more difficult to press for a closed system model. There is a total of 5 functional systems of generation. Some are robust; one seemed odd with unlikely chances of being a self-maintaining electromagnetic field generator. Power source mechanics vary from molten iron, metallic hydrogen to heavy water-ammonia. They all have a net plus heat content that varies in explanation from frictional shrinking (Jupiter and Saturn) to friction from raining helium (Saturn), converting methane to hydrogen and diamonds (Neptune) and one unknown (Uranus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_spiral

The Parker spiral is the shape of the Sun’s magnetic field as it extends through the solar system. Unlike the familiar shape of the field from a bar magnet, the Sun's extended field is twisted into an arithmatic spiral by the magnitohydrodynamic influence of the solar wind. The Parker spiral shape of the solar wind changes the shape of the Sun's magnetic field in the outer solar system: beyond about 10-20 astronomical units from the Sun, the magnetic field is nearly toroidal (pointed around the equator of the Sun) rather than poroidal (pointed from the North to the South pole, as in a bar magnet) or radial (pointed outward or inward, as might be expected from the flow of the solar wind if the Sun were not rotating). The spiral shape also greatly amplifies the strength of the solar magnetic field in the outer solar system.

Uranus is 19.1 astronomical units from the Sun, Neptune is 30.1

If the Earth was the only planet with a magnetic field a closed system would seem more viable . But having 4 other planetary field generators in the solar system we have to take them all into account together. We know none of the others have molten iron outer cores. Two have metallic hydrogen and two have warm water-ammonia mantles. We either have three separate self-contained, self-generating and self-maintaining models of operation in five separate planets or we have one power source that is able to provide energy to five functionally similar and greatly simpler systems of field generation. And we have in the induction of current into the moons of Jupiter an example of an magnetohydrodynamic dependent system.

A theory is only as strong as its weakest point. Uranus has a mantle generating its field comprising of hot dense water and ammonia, it makes up the bulk of the planet at 13.4 Earth masses. Can anyone say that it is more likely that this arraignment began with a weak current-field that was built up to a field of over 23 planet radii in a self-feeding closed system? Or is it powered by the Sun’s enormous and magnetically charged Parker spiral's Magnetohydrodynamic dynamo (MHD) passing to Uranus’ magnetosphere magnetic energy through the phenomena of magnetic field induction as seen in the moons of Jupiter. Which theoretical solution has the least probability based on all five planets having strong robust fields? And which one accurately describes Earth's heat flux dynamics and tectonic surface phenomena?

Edited January 5, 2014 by arc

billiards · January 5, 2014

Hi arc,

There does appear to be a weak solar forcing on the strength of Earth's magnetic field. This is reflected in the delta carbon-14 records. A leading group of scientists who reviewed existing data have concluded that this forcing is too weak to explain the current global warming trend.

"Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (Press release). UCAR. 13 September 2006. Retrieved 18 April 2007.

What appears to be true though is that perturbations of amplitude about 0.1% in the solar intensity manage to affect Earth's magnetic field just enough to change the number of cosmic rays that enter the atmosphere and that this effect is detectable by careful study of delta carbon-14 ratios.

You are taking this and projecting it into the extreme. What you are proclaiming as that these minor fluctuations are also responsible for thermal expansion and contraction of the outer core -- which in turn explains the driving mechanism of plate tectonics!!!!! (Wow, just wow!)

In your mind the Earth's magnetic field (and apparently the magnetic fields of other planets) would not be able to exist without these "kicks" from the Sun (which I remind you are very slight in amplitude). Because apparently you cannot "see" how a magnetic field would survive on its own. But this is ridiculous! I can't "see" how a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly -- but that doesn't make it less of a fact. What's more .. the very workers you cite (Glatzmaiar and co) have shown exactly what you cannot see! They've laid it out for you -- just read and learn! The magnetic field is driven by the continued formation of the inner core. As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents which are aligned by Earth's spin into columns parallel to the rotation axis. This dynamism produces the Earth's dipolar field in the familiar way.

arc · January 5, 2014

Hi arc,

There does appear to be a weak solar forcing on the strength of Earth's magnetic field. This is reflected in the delta carbon-14 records. A leading group of scientists who reviewed existing data have concluded that this forcing is too weak to explain the current global warming trend.

"Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (Press release). UCAR. 13 September 2006. Retrieved 18 April 2007.

What appears to be true though is that perturbations of amplitude about 0.1% in the solar intensity manage to affect Earth's magnetic field just enough to change the number of cosmic rays that enter the atmosphere and that this effect is detectable by careful study of delta carbon-14 ratios.

You are taking this and projecting it into the extreme. What you are proclaiming as that these minor fluctuations are also responsible for thermal expansion and contraction of the outer core -- which in turn explains the driving mechanism of plate tectonics!!!!! (Wow, just wow!)

In your mind the Earth's magnetic field (and apparently the magnetic fields of other planets) would not be able to exist without these "kicks" from the Sun (which I remind you are very slight in amplitude). Because apparently you cannot "see" how a magnetic field would survive on its own. But this is ridiculous! I can't "see" how a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly -- but that doesn't make it less of a fact. What's more .. the very workers you cite (Glatzmaiar and co) have shown exactly what you cannot see! They've laid it out for you -- just read and learn! The magnetic field is driven by the continued formation of the inner core. As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents which are aligned by Earth's spin into columns parallel to the rotation axis. This dynamism produces the Earth's dipolar field in the familiar way.

Hi billiards,

Thanks for the link. I had earlier posted a similar link on my web site;

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

ABSTRACT (Lean 2000): Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity, reductions from contemporary levels are expected during the seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to space based observations. The long-term variations track the envelope of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%.

"You are taking this and projecting it into the extreme. What you are proclaiming as that these minor fluctuations are also responsible for thermal expansion and contraction of the outer core -- which in turn explains the driving mechanism of plate tectonics!!!!! (Wow, just wow!)"

Yeah, kind of crazy huh. Like I said, I started working from the other end. Designing a mechanism that fits what is observed in the geologic record. The mantle displacement works very well. I fits very well. Better than convection, mantle plumes and other lesser accepted sources. Now I am trying to hammer out the energy source. It is tied to the solar magnetic phenomena in some way. And as your link shows, not likely the solar thermal side of the Suns energy output.

You cannot argue that there is not an observed suggestion of a causative association between Earth's thermal content and the variation seen in solar magnetic flux. The bond events, Dansgaard-Oeschger events and their associated Heinrich events all fall into place (not to mention Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) when modeled from a terrestrial thermal source operating through the Mid-Ocean ridge system and AMOC/ Gulf stream. You can see above in my last post how the Little Ice Age/Bond event is lead by this solar magnetic/thermal signal.

I trust your expertise, and accept your critic of the solar magnetic energy values. I owe Unity a say in this because of his continuing help. I will concede to your expert opinion after I consult with him first and see if he is of the same opinion.

If this is not of magnetic inductance and is just merely associated or even timed with it then I must account for that in the model. The solar magnetic energy is part of the Suns generation of its electrical phenomena. Could there be a unknown source of current that could be associated in timing to solar magnetic variation?

Please forgive the crude hatchet I use to do my inquiry.

I must admit I had a hint that this would be an issue, and as Unity did suggested the additional sources of energy in post #220;

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/auror2.htm

To quote Unity;

"So, in fact, the energy we could be talking about could be coming from both the emission of charged particles from the Sun and the interaction of the Sun's and Earth's electromagnetic field."

I had written this into the model previously on my site, page #10-11 before coming to scienceforum.net;

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/

Oct. 30, 2008: During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. (That's an encouraging thought.) A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page. "It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,” Researchers have long known that the Earth and sun must be connected. Earth's magnetosphere (the magnetic bubble that surrounds our planet) is filled with particles from the sun that arrive via the solar wind and penetrate the planet's magnetic defenses. They enter by following magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun's atmosphere. On the day side of Earth (the side closest to the sun), Earth's magnetic field presses against the sun's magnetic field. Approximately every eight minutes, the two fields briefly merge or "reconnect," forming a portal through which particles can flow. The portal takes the form of a magnetic cylinder about as wide as Earth. The European Space Agency's fleet of four Cluster spacecraft and NASA's five THEMIS probes have flown through and surrounded these cylinders, measuring their dimensions and sensing the particles that shoot through. "They're real.” The cylindrical portals tend to form above Earth's equator and then rollover Earth's winter pole. In December, FTEs roll over the North Pole; in July they roll over the South Pole. This is happening twice as often as previously thought. "I think there are two varieties of FTEs: active and passive." Active FTEs are magnetic cylinders that allow particles to flow through rather easily; they are important conduits of energy for Earth's magnetosphere.

Passive FTEs are magnetic cylinders that offer more resistance; their internal structure does not admit such an easy flow of particles and fields. (For experts: Active FTEs form at equatorial latitudes when the IMF (inter-planetary magnetic field) tips south; passive FTEs form at higher latitudes when the IMF tips north.) There are many unanswered questions: Why do the portals form every 8 minutes? How do magnetic fields inside the cylinder twist and coil?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights_multi.html

"In 2007 NASA's five THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic."

Though they are not all of the same energy, it is unlikely that the probes chanced upon the FTE with the highest of all energy levels, so there are likely still higher energy levels to be observed in this phenomena. The energy level of 650,000 amps is put into perspective when you consider the FTE's only last about a minute and reoccur every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day. That's 7.5 FTE's per hour, 180 per day. That's 117 million amps in a 24 hour period. 42.7 billion amps per year.

Flux Transfer Events look to me as just a potential between the Sun and Earth being created every 8 minutes, and the resulting FTE being the equalization of this imbalance. Could there be within the example of FTE's a current that readily flows into the magnetosphere, entering the magnetic field generator and providing thermal increase? This energy flow would exit toward a return current path. The FTE'S would be a continuous "adjustment" between the Sun and Earth, correcting the differences in potential that would be constantly created.

I think there is another component to this phenomena of the Earth, a discovery between May 2009 and May 2010 at the IceCube neutrino observatory at the South Pole allowed researchers to create the most comprehensive map to date of the arrival direction of cosmic rays in the southern skies. They appear to be coming from particular locations, rather than being distributed uniformly across the sky. Between May 2009 and May 2010 IceCube detected 32 billion cosmic-ray muons with a median energy of about 20 teraelectronvolts (TeV).

Similar patterns have been observed over the northern hemisphere by the Milagro observatory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the Tibet Air Shower array in Yangbajain. The hotspots must be produced within about 0.03 light years (1,897 A.U.’s) of Earth because galactic magnetic fields should deflect the particles farther out where they would smear out the hotspots across interstellar space. But no such sources nearby are known to exist. Or do they?

In 1986 Nobel prize recipient and developer of the Magnetohydrodynamic generation theory (MHD) Hannes Alfven predicted sources of cosmic rays situated along the Sun’s axes in an IEEE publication and NASA Conference. In the Alfvén’s Heliospheric Circuit; the Sun acts as a unipolar inductor (A) producing a current which travels outward along both the axes (B2) and inward in the equatorial plane along the magnetic field lines (B1). The current must close at large distances (B3), either as a homogeneous current layer, or more probable as a pinched current.

Image created by Ian Tresman (who has no connection with this paper) on July 13th, 2005, based on an images by Hannes Alfvén in his book Cosmic Plasma (1981), p.55.

http://csem.engin.umich.edu/CSEM/Publications/Israelevich2001.pdf

MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet

P. L. Israelevich 1, T. I. Gombosi 2, A. I. Ershkovich 1, K. C. Hansen 2, C. P. T. Groth 2, D. L. DeZeeuw 2, and K. G. Powell 3

1 Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978

Tel Aviv, Israel

2 Space Physics Research Laboratory, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

3 Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

It says this paper is for the purpose of showing “that the three dimensional structure of the heliospheric current system obtained from a self-consistent, first-principles based numerical model of the solar wind outflow with realistic intrinsic solar magnetic field is consistent with Alfven's conceptual model." It has a great description of how the before mentioned Alfven’s unipolar inductor relates to the Earth and the interplanetary magnetic field and Parker spiral. "The warping of the magnetic field in the Parker spiral allows the Earth to cross the thin neutral current sheet that separates the positive and negative sides of the dipole field. The Earth can pass through the current sheet at least twice during each solar rotation (sometimes more than twice, if the current sheet is wavy enough). These crossings are observed at the Earth when the polarity of the Suns magnetic field changes. Predicted by Alfven (1981), the spiral form of the magnetic field lines means that there is a significant radial component of the electric current along with the azimuthal component. Solid lines show the magnetic field lines slightly above the magnetic equator whereas dashed lines correspond to those slightly below the equatorial plane. The only way to satisfy the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by field-aligned currents at the polar region of the sun. This current closure leads to the three-dimensional heliospheric current system schematically depicted by Alfven. Thus, the heliospheric current system produced by the Sun acts like a unipolar generator."

If the unipolar inductor currents are out there, the inward equatorial current may be the current return path for all planetary return currents. This connection may give the planet a source for the variable current to operate the mantle displacement of the model. This also provides a piece to a mechanism to create and control the planet's electrical potentials through FTE's

I would think the unipolar inductor/generator could be linked to the magnetic field variability, providing the connection between the 14C content, climate variability and geologic processes that are shown in my model.

Edited January 6, 2014 by arc

Unity+ · January 6, 2014

Hi arc,

There does appear to be a weak solar forcing on the strength of Earth's magnetic field. This is reflected in the delta carbon-14 records. A leading group of scientists who reviewed existing data have concluded that this forcing is too weak to explain the current global warming trend.

"Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (Press release). UCAR. 13 September 2006. Retrieved 18 April 2007.

What appears to be true though is that perturbations of amplitude about 0.1% in the solar intensity manage to affect Earth's magnetic field just enough to change the number of cosmic rays that enter the atmosphere and that this effect is detectable by careful study of delta carbon-14 ratios.

You are taking this and projecting it into the extreme. What you are proclaiming as that these minor fluctuations are also responsible for thermal expansion and contraction of the outer core -- which in turn explains the driving mechanism of plate tectonics!!!!! (Wow, just wow!)

In your mind the Earth's magnetic field (and apparently the magnetic fields of other planets) would not be able to exist without these "kicks" from the Sun (which I remind you are very slight in amplitude). Because apparently you cannot "see" how a magnetic field would survive on its own. But this is ridiculous! I can't "see" how a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly -- but that doesn't make it less of a fact. What's more .. the very workers you cite (Glatzmaiar and co) have shown exactly what you cannot see! They've laid it out for you -- just read and learn! The magnetic field is driven by the continued formation of the inner core. As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents which are aligned by Earth's spin into columns parallel to the rotation axis. This dynamism produces the Earth's dipolar field in the familiar way.

But one thing you assume is that these minor fluctuations have NO EFFECT at all, which brings a flaw to your point.

Minor fluctuations will always have an effect on everything whether it can be detectable or not. Objects under higher pressures(especially the iron core) are more unstable and thus minor fluctuations have a greater impact than if the iron core was under less pressure. For example, in physics objects that are larger have inertia and if a smaller object collided with this larger object the inertia would prevent the bigger object from moving a larger distance. However, there is still a force acting upon the object and it is moving at a minuscule velocity, therefore over time there would be, in fact, a detectable difference over time.

Once you apply higher pressures to the equation then you have really unstable conditions where even the slightest changes can cause huge differences. In this case, you have an iron core have huge pressure applied onto it had really intensive thermal heat. Even minuscule changes in it's heat would cause minor thermal expansion in the iron core. Since there is instability, such a small change in it's size under larger pressure would cause movement in plates.

Also, one should be careful to read the information about the amount of Earthquakes vs. the amount of solar activity. What many assume is that there is an initial point from each point on the graph, which means assuming that expansion always means more Earthquakes. We must realize that plates are always moving, and from this hypothesis geophysical activity(correct me on this if needed) it is due to the expansion of the iron core. One thing we must consider is the fact that events that have occurred will always stay in motion whether or not the expansion is occurring or not unless plates collide together or no longer can move in a particular direction. For example, if you drop a metal ball from a certain height and check the trajectory of the ball(graph it) and then try it again, but instead add another force that would direct it horizontally. What will happen is the ball will fall normally, but then when it reaches the force acting in the horizontal direction and the ball will be influenced by that force and change the directory during the recording of the data. If you compare the graphs you will see that the initial points are the same(or practically similar), but then later in the data there is a change in the trajectory.

I will give an example related to this case:

Ignoring the source of this data(I don't know if ti is completely correct), another person presented this data as showing that there was no correlation(no this was not a scientist presenting this, it was another user). His conclusion was that since there seemed to be no correlation between the frequency of Earthquakes and the fluctuation of solar activity that each was not connected. However, the flaw in his argument assumed that solar activity would cause each to exactly look the same. As noted earlier before, there is always plate activity occurring because plates move until something has stopped them from doing so. Therefore, the data may not at first seem to correlate with the hypothesis, however if one were to look closer and pick out piece by piece the connections then one can see that one may be influencing the other to occur.

Plates are always moving. It is only when they collide with each other that there are Earthquakes. What the data also assumes is that each Earthquake is caused by the same type of collision, which is not always the case. The movement of a plate always varies.

EDIT: One thing I forgot to add. As cracks are formed in the crust of plates, new land mass is formed. These must also be accounted for because these changes affect the movement of plates.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Unity+

arc · January 7, 2014

The magnetic field is driven by the continued formation of the inner core. As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents which are aligned by Earth's spin into columns parallel to the rotation axis. This dynamism produces the Earth's dipolar field in the familiar way.

Hi billiards,

I have been thinking about this standard model you presented and I've made some observations about it. I though I would do some side by side comparisons for clarity. Your model claims;

"As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents"

This is not directly observable and at its basis is an ad hoc to support convection. My model can support convection but it does not require convection to do more than it is capable of doing, simply transporting heat to the surface. The model that proposes these currents could drive the tectonic plates in their observed kinematics is tenuously stretching its hold on reality.

http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-15-03-13-TXT.aspx.html#10._Plate_Kinematics_versus_Mantle_Dynamics_

Mantle convection is expected, because Earth is cooling and because material is uprising along oceanic ridges and down going along subduction zones. Moreover, lateral variations and gradients in temperature, density, fluid content, and viscosity should determine slow creeps within the mantle. However we do not know the constraints on the velocity of these movements, and none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. <(My model predicts this by the way) Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape.

Earth’s rotation is also able to generate a possible polarity in the kinematics of the cores, mantle, and lithosphere, a sort of railway path. Plates may be more detached on a relatively less viscous mantle than on a relatively more viscous mantle, therefore lateral heterogeneity in the asthenospheric mantle may determine different decoupling from the overlying lithosphere. Variations in decoupling are in turn responsible for differential velocity among plates and plate tectonics. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle. <(My model predicts this by the way)

Mantle convection models show the upraise and sinking of the mantle with fixed cells, with steady vertical plumes and polygonal shapes in an horizontal view; plate tectonics rather show linear features at the surface, and plate boundaries moving one respect to the other, and unstable. These tectonics are erroneously linked to horizontally moving uprising plumes and subduction zones, which are not predicted by physical convection models. In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics. A more robust contribution of the Earth’s rotation in combination with mantle convection could be envisaged.

"As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents"

This alone is meaningless without predictions, what predictions does it make? Currently this cannot be observed and is speculated by modeling only. The discovery of the convection currents would give weight to this idea, but they are simply based on a mathematical model by the great Arthur Holmes, and as seen in the paper above, their combined mechanisms could not account for the observed plate movements anyway. To propose that they could is speculation at best and more likely desperation in the face of no other workable models.

My model provides a simple, direct and accurate mechanism that matches surface observations. It has been shown to correspond to solar magnetic 14C proxy variability, climate history and periods of historic geologic resurfacing. The outer core's thermal variability of my model seems superior in comparison to the standard model's in the bright light of accurate and critical analysis. This is not a choice between two viable models, the standard model is a ad hoc assemblage that in the end cannot do what it was ~~supposed~~ assembled to do.

Edited January 7, 2014 by arc

billiards · January 7, 2014

Hi billiards,

I have been thinking about this standard model you presented and I've made some observations about it. I though I would do some side by side comparisons for clarity. Your model claims;

"As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents"

This is not directly observable and at its basis is an ad hoc to support convection. My model can support convection but it does not require convection to do more than it is capable of doing, simply transporting heat to the surface. The model that proposes these currents could drive the tectonic plates in their observed kinematics is tenuously stretching its hold on reality.

http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-15-03-13-TXT.aspx.html#10._Plate_Kinematics_versus_Mantle_Dynamics_

Mantle convection is expected, because Earth is cooling and because material is uprising along oceanic ridges and down going along subduction zones. Moreover, lateral variations and gradients in temperature, density, fluid content, and viscosity should determine slow creeps within the mantle. However we do not know the constraints on the velocity of these movements, and none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. <(My model predicts this by the way) Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape.

Earth’s rotation is also able to generate a possible polarity in the kinematics of the cores, mantle, and lithosphere, a sort of railway path. Plates may be more detached on a relatively less viscous mantle than on a relatively more viscous mantle, therefore lateral heterogeneity in the asthenospheric mantle may determine different decoupling from the overlying lithosphere. Variations in decoupling are in turn responsible for differential velocity among plates and plate tectonics. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle. <(My model predicts this by the way)

Mantle convection models show the upraise and sinking of the mantle with fixed cells, with steady vertical plumes and polygonal shapes in an horizontal view; plate tectonics rather show linear features at the surface, and plate boundaries moving one respect to the other, and unstable. These tectonics are erroneously linked to horizontally moving uprising plumes and subduction zones, which are not predicted by physical convection models. In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics. A more robust contribution of the Earth’s rotation in combination with mantle convection could be envisaged.

"As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents"

This alone is meaningless without predictions, what predictions does it make? Currently this cannot be observed and is speculated by modeling only. The discovery of the convection currents would give weight to this idea, but they are simply based on a mathematical model by the great Arthur Holmes, and as seen in the paper above, their combined mechanisms could not account for the observed plate movements anyway. To propose that they could is speculation at best and more likely desperation in the face of no other workable models.

My model provides a simple, direct and accurate mechanism that matches surface observations. It has been shown to correspond to solar magnetic 14C proxy variability, climate history and periods of historic geologic resurfacing. The outer core's thermal variability of my model seems superior in comparison to the standard model's in the bright light of accurate and critical analysis. This is not a choice between two viable models, the standard model is a ad hoc assemblage that in the end cannot do what it was ~~supposed~~ assembled to do.

Whoa arc! hold on to your hat cowboy, you've seriously gone off the rails.

I was talking about convection currents in the outer core in relation to the geodynamo. You are talking about something quite different: mantle convection. This leads me to wonder if you actually read my posts at all?

Unity+ · January 7, 2014

Whoa arc! hold on to your hat cowboy, you've seriously gone off the rails.

I was talking about convection currents in the outer core in relation to the geodynamo. You are talking about something quite different: mantle convection. This leads me to wonder if you actually read my posts at all?

Instead of making a post longer than it should be, try just to clarify what you were asking for. It makes the discussion much cleaner.

arc · January 8, 2014

Whoa arc! hold on to your hat cowboy, you've seriously gone off the rails.

I was talking about convection currents in the outer core in relation to the geodynamo. You are talking about something quite different: mantle convection. This leads me to wonder if you actually read my posts at all?

Oh, come on billiards! you know I was comparing your model to mine.

Hi billiards,

I have been thinking about this standard model you presented and I've made some observations about it. I though I would do some side by side comparisons for clarity. Your model claims;

Maybe you could instead explain why your model does not make predictions of surface geologic processes. Or maybe a counter argument to that link I posted that convincingly shows your model incapable of providing plate movement.

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

"At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface". . . . . . . . "In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics."

Please, give it your best shot. A clear cause and effects example of the mechanism would help.

billiards · January 8, 2014

Oh, come on billiards! you know I was comparing your model to mine.

Maybe you could instead explain why your model does not make predictions of surface geologic processes. Or maybe a counter argument to that link I posted that convincingly shows your model incapable of providing plate movement.

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

"At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface". . . . . . . . "In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics."

Please, give it your best shot. A clear cause and effects example of the mechanism would help.

Come on arc, if you are debating with someone and you wish to move onto a new subject then simply move on to the new subject. What you should not do is to quote your opponent on subject (A) and then proceed to talk about subject (B). It makes it look as though you were responding to subject (A), which is confusing.

Now if you wish to talk about Doglioni and his work then I'm happy to move on to subject (B). (It is in fact far more interesting to me than subject (A). )

The apparent net westward rotation of the lithosphere (known about since at least Le Pichon 1968 and the basis of Doglioni's work) remains problematic which is, no doubt, why you have seized upon it. I would counter your request for an explanation by reminding you that nobody has claimed convincingly to have fully explained the dynamics of plate tectonics. (Except for you of course! ) The dynamics of plate motion remains perhaps the greatest unsolved challenge in Earth sciences today.

From the observations outlined in Doglioni [2003] of net westward lithospheric rotation it follows that the lithosphere must be partially decoupled from the underlying mantle and this decoupling is accomodated in the asthenosphere. The very nature of the lithosphere asthenosphere boundary remains a great unsolved challenge which inhibits progress. Around subduction zones it is estimated that the asthenosphere can displace particles around 8 times faster than the overlying lithosphere, and it still remains unknown to what extent the asthenosphere decouples from the lithosphere upon subduction. There are many many unknowns (e.g. mechanical parameters, thermal parameters, water content, etc.) which makes it incredibly difficult to model these things with confidence. It remains for more reading to be done (by myself and whoever else out there feels they can contribute) to see if anybody has ever successfully modelled net westward rotation, but I suspect not. (I am aware of workers who have used it as an input to their models, but these are models inverted from data, I am more interested in a model built from first principles that predicts this behaviour.)

Of course, seeing as your model is so powerful, perhaps you could enlighten us on how your model produces the net westward lithospheric rotation ...

What does seem clear though, if we look at the big picture, is that plate tectonics is a conveyor belt for the Earth to lose heat. By continually creating hot new crust, letting it cool down and then swallowing it back down again for it to be reheated, and repeat, the Earth is shedding its heat. It is inescapable that this very process is intrinsically a part of mantle convection. This is compounded by the strong body of evidence that slabs penetrate through the transition zone all the way down to the core mantle boundary. So when I say we do not understand the dynamics of plate tectonics I am being quite precise, it is clear however if we take squinted eye view that overall mantle convection is central to plate tectonics.

Unity+ · January 8, 2014

What does seem clear though, if we look at the big picture, is that plate tectonics is a conveyor belt for the Earth to lose heat. By continually creating hot new crust, letting it cool down and then swallowing it back down again for it to be reheated, and repeat, the Earth is shedding its heat. It is inescapable that this very process is intrinsically a part of mantle convection. This is compounded by the strong body of evidence that slabs penetrate through the transition zone all the way down to the core mantle boundary. So when I say we do not understand the dynamics of plate tectonics I am being quite precise, it is clear however if we take squinted eye view that overall mantle convection is central to plate tectonics.

Yes, but this doesn't provide any point against arc's own hypothesis. All it states is the obvious. You presented the result of the mechanism, not the mechanism itself. If I understand this correctly, you are stating that the movement of plates causes cooling and reheating, which causes the Earth to 'shed' heat. I don't see this as a mechanism, again, and rather as an effect of the mechanism that arc hypothesizes.

Now if you wish to talk about Doglioni and his work then I'm happy to move on to subject (B). (It is in fact far more interesting to me than subject (A). )

They seem to be similar topics, which are the involvement of mechanisms and the correlations and issues that arise from them.

Of course, seeing as your model is so powerful, perhaps you could enlighten us on how your model produces the net westward lithospheric rotation

Oh, now seeing as you attack arc in the wrong way yet earlier you defined your credibility on the claim of a Ph.D without evidence of either the Ph.D or the counter evidence of arc's hypothesis. It is more productive to simply ask the question instead of instigating an unnecessary violence between the two of you. If we are to be scientists then I(and many others) would expect appropriate behavior within a scientific discussion.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Unity+

billiards · January 10, 2014

Hi unity

But one thing you assume is that these minor fluctuations have NO EFFECT at all, which brings a flaw to your point.

Actually I did not assume this. In fact if you read my post it says:

There does appear to be a weak solar forcing on the strength of Earth's magnetic field."

Objects under higher pressures(especially the iron core) are more unstable and thus minor fluctuations have a greater impact than if the iron core was under less pressure.

What exactly do you mean by "unstable" in this context? I do not see this. Can you explain?

For example, in physics objects that are larger have inertia and if a smaller object collided with this larger object the inertia would prevent the bigger object from moving a larger distance. However, there is still a force acting upon the object and it is moving at a minuscule velocity, therefore over time there would be, in fact, a detectable difference over time.

Bear in mind that miniscule changes over time won't cut it. The core needs to heat up quickly. Why? Because if you wait too long the heat will be leaked. So the rate of heating needs to be greater than the rate of cooling (which will be a function of temperatute).

Once you apply higher pressures to the equation then you have really unstable conditions where even the slightest changes can cause huge differences.

Which equation?

Since there is instability, such a small change in it's size under larger pressure would cause movement in plates.

Can you prove this?

Unity+ · January 11, 2014

There does appear to be a weak solar forcing on the strength of Earth's magnetic field."

I caught that statement, but it seemed as if you dismissed it even when presented. You ignored it entirely even when it rests against your case.

Objects under higher pressures(especially the iron core) are more unstable and thus minor fluctuations have a greater impact than if the iron core was under less pressure.

This is in the context of the area surrounding the iron core is affected by such expansion. As an object within another object exerts a force on the object it is surrounded by, there is more instability in the structure surrounding the iron core. The fact that this is a heated element brings more instability to the structure surrounding the iron core is another factor.

Bear in mind that miniscule changes over time won't cut it. The core needs to heat up quickly. Why? Because if you wait too long the heat will be leaked. So the rate of heating needs to be greater than the rate of cooling (which will be a function of temperatute).

I would like to see some information pertaining to the exact amount of time it takes for such heat to escape, as you claim, in order to answer that question.

Which equation?

It is a figure of speech referring to adding a specific variable to a case presented. Though, I will soon release equations when I am done.

Since there is instability, such a small change in it's size under larger pressure would cause movement in plates.:Can you prove this?

It is a very simply principle that can be demonstrated with an egg in the microwave(it may seem hilarious, but it is a good example). As we know, the egg, when being cooked, is cooked inside to out.

I think it has to do with uneven cooking of the egg in the microwave (inside-out), and creating steam pockets that do not easily escape, or are relieved. The proteins in the egg may seal around these steam pockets creating a trapping force that can create mini-explosions.

The eggs can explode both inside and outside of the shell, so cracking it isn't enough.

As we know, Microwaves do not instantly produce heat on the inside of the egg. Therefore, this slow build up of pressure on the outer shell causes it to explode(because egg shells work differently than the crust or outer shell of the Earth.

billiards · January 11, 2014

I caught that statement, but it seemed as if you dismissed it even when presented. You ignored it entirely even when it rests against your case.

The strength of the Sun's magnetic field is about 1/10000 the strength of the Earth's magnetic field as felt from the surface of Earth. The 11 year solar cycle can perturb the Earth's field by 0.1%. Strong magnetic storms can perturb the Earth's field by about 1% at the equator. The Earth's magnetosphere protects us from the Sun's field, and the changes in the field we observe mainly involve currents in the ionosphere and in groundwater in the crust. It is highly unlikely that these perturbations could penetrate all the way down into the core. This is due to the fundamental problem that highly conducting fluids (e.g. the core) shield out external magnetic fields.

So does that answer your question as to why I don't think this mechanism could provide anywhere near enough energy?

I would like to see some information pertaining to the exact amount of time it takes for such heat to escape, as you claim, in order to answer that question.

Another unknown I'm afraid.

It is a figure of speech referring to adding a specific variable to a case presented. Though, I will soon release equations when I am done.

Not a figure of speech I've come across before. Generally if you make a mathematical statement about an equation, you should know what equation you are talking about.

Edited January 11, 2014 by billiards

Unity+ · January 11, 2014

The strength of the Sun's magnetic field is about 1/10000 the strength of the Earth's magnetic field as felt from the surface of Earth. The 11 year solar cycle can perturb the Earth's field by 0.1%. Strong magnetic storms can perturb the Earth's field by about 1% at the equator. The Earth's magnetosphere protects us from the Sun's field, and the changes in the field we observe mainly involve currents in the ionosphere and in groundwater in the crust. It is highly unlikely that these perturbations could penetrate all the way down into the core. This is due to the fundamental problem that highly conducting fluids (e.g. the core) shield out external magnetic fields.

Sources?

Another unknown I'm afraid.

But that would be the evidence needed to make your assertion...

Not a figure of speech I've come across before. Generally if you make a mathematical statement about an equation, you should know what equation you are talking about.

The statement is a figurative for an unknown equation that could be made.

billiards · January 12, 2014

Yes, but this doesn't provide any point against arc's own hypothesis. All it states is the obvious. You presented the result of the mechanism, not the mechanism itself. If I understand this correctly, you are stating that the movement of plates causes cooling and reheating, which causes the Earth to 'shed' heat. I don't see this as a mechanism, again, and rather as an effect of the mechanism that arc hypothesizes.

So you would agree that plate tectonics is fundamentally driven by mantle convection?

It is the requirement due to the laws of thermodynamics that the Earth tends towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium with space (i.e. it cools down) that drives plate motion. That is a loose mechanism. The dynamics have not been worked out. But the simplicity of the idea is elegant isn't it?

At this point it is worth mentioning that the dynamics of arc's theory/hypothesis have not yet been worked out either. Dynamics requires physics and maths, and arc has readily admitted that his theory lacks in that department.

Oh, now seeing as you attack arc in the wrong way yet earlier you defined your credibility on the claim of a Ph.D without evidence of either the Ph.D or the counter evidence of arc's hypothesis. It is more productive to simply ask the question instead of instigating an unnecessary violence between the two of you. If we are to be scientists then I(and many others) would expect appropriate behavior within a scientific discussion.

Hang on a minute. Attack?? Very strange interpretation. I simply asked arc to put his money where his mouth is. This is standard procedure in scientific discourse.

Arc presented Doglioni's work which highlights a certain inadequacy of plate tectonics. The net westward lithospheric rotation (e.g. Doglioni, 2004; Becker et al. 2008). If this phenomenon turns out to be true (and I believe it might be) then we still can't explain it, and it really is a bit of a problem. There are ideas floating around, but none that have been numerically tested as far as I am aware. If arc is using this to discredit the standard theory then it would be expected that his theory can do a better job of explaining it. Otherwise his theory is equally discredited.

So I ask again, arc (if you're there) -- how does your theory explain this net westward lithospheric rotation?

Sources?

Mostly from this site (worth a serious read, and I think arc would benefit especially):

http://www.phy6.org/Education/wmap.html

But that would be the evidence needed to make your assertion...

A reminder to readers: we are talking about the transfer of heat from core to mantle at the core mantle boundary.

The absolute numbers are unknown but there are order of magnitude estimates. If you are serious about knowing these numbers then I would appreciate seeing some effort on your half with the mathematics before I start digging around.

The statement is a figurative for an unknown equation that could be made.

Is this just a fancy way of admitting you don't know what you're talking about?

Edited January 12, 2014 by billiards

Unity+ · January 12, 2014

Mostly from this site (worth a serious read, and I think arc would benefit especially):

http://www.phy6.org/...ation/wmap.html

And I would also like a source and a direct link to the information so we don't waste time with this discussion?

Also, quote the article that presents the information.

At this point it is worth mentioning that the dynamics of arc's theory/hypothesis have not yet been worked out either. Dynamics requires physics and maths, and arc has readily admitted that his theory lacks in that department.

A hypothesis, or the concept of it, merely starts at what it is: a concept. Mathematical constructs are not formed until the concept is formed.

A reminder to readers: we are talking about the transfer of heat from core to mantle at the core mantle boundary.

The absolute numbers are unknown but there are order of magnitude estimates. If you are serious about knowing these numbers then I would appreciate seeing some effort on your half with the mathematics before I start digging around.

The burden or proof lies on your hands my friend.

Hang on a minute. Attack?? Very strange interpretation. I simply asked arc to put his money where his mouth is. This is standard procedure in scientific discourse.

Of course, seeing as your model is so powerful, perhaps you could enlighten us on how your model produces the net westward lithospheric rotation

Your sarcasm is so obvious that it seems your ability to proceed properly within a scientific discussion is very minimal.

Is this just a fancy way of admitting you don't know what you're talking about?

I don't see how one can some to such a conclusion without a hint of arrogance. Please, save your "tough talk." because it isn't very professional. I can see more of you not knowing what you speak of. However, I acknowledge you have knowledge in these fields yet I don't see how one's status of having a Ph.D makes you so inclined to be so rude.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Unity+

arc · January 12, 2014

OK, guys take it easy. I'm going as fast as I can. I've had a tough week at work and its left me with little to work with at night in terms of concentration. I've had to do some reading to make sure I can nail down this "westward drift". Please be patient. Thanks, arc

billiards · January 12, 2014

Typically unity, you ignore all the science and just get on with the job of attacking my character.

And I would also like a source and a direct link to the information so we don't waste time with this discussion?

Also, quote the article that presents the information.

If you (or another user) ask me more nicely ...

A hypothesis, or the concept of it, merely starts at what it is: a concept. Mathematical constructs are not formed until the concept is formed.

This is what is known as a strawman.

The burden or proof lies on your hands my friend.

What exactly are you asking me to prove, friend?

Your sarcasm is so obvious that it seems your ability to proceed properly within a scientific discussion is very minimal.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but arc has managed to cope with it. Perhaps you should toughen up a bit.

I don't see how one can some to such a conclusion without a hint of arrogance. Please, save your "tough talk." because it isn't very professional. I can see more of you not knowing what you speak of. However, I acknowledge you have knowledge in these fields yet I don't see how one's status of having a Ph.D makes you so inclined to be so rude.

Sorry but when I smell BS, I might just I pull you up on it. If you reply with waffle I might just call you out. If you can't handle the heat, step out of the kitchen. This has already happened once with your "maths". Actually it is important for someone to do this, to stop the spread of misinformation which contaminates the discussion.

Also, your criticism of me smacks of hypocrisy. Remember post #205 directed to me:

but please don't post if you don't know what you are talking about.

Edited January 12, 2014 by billiards

**swansont** · January 12, 2014

!

Moderator Note

Enough with the sniping and petty personal comments.

arc · January 13, 2014

I would counter your request for an explanation by reminding you that nobody has claimed convincingly to have fully explained the dynamics of plate tectonics.

Hi billiards,

That statement rings out in a rather "Glass is almost full" resonance. The fact is we all know that in the standard model there is little common connection, in the way of understanding, between what is proposed to be happening unseen in the Earth's depths and what is observed at its surface.

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

"none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape."

The value of a hypothesis, theory or model is directly proportional to its ability to make predictions. To accurately explain in the simplest terms what is happening and why. This can also be a stumbling block for any idea that runs counter to popular belief or understanding. Weight or value is given to the complex solution, for it shows at face value the work that was extracted from its creator. It shows clearly the great expense of both time and money expended. Simple solutions on the other hand look somewhat as a lazy man's load and are too quickly dismissed as amateur.

If given the clear understanding of all details their should be an obvious advantage to the simplest explanation. But can it be too simple for its own good, making it difficult for most to accept at first? Very likely.

Of course, seeing as your model is so powerful, perhaps you could enlighten us on how your model produces the net westward lithospheric rotation ...

OK, lets see if I can do this in less than 20,000 words. This is not a complicated problem to solve with my model. All of the plates, both continental and oceanic are subjected to movement. The heavier the plate the more resistance that plate will have to the mantle. This is because the thickness and weight of a continent is on top of it, actually depressing the mantle and even displacing it out to under the lighter ocean plates. As you know, in my model the mantle is periodically displaced outward and the divergent plate boundaries are the proof of that, slowly infilling with magma as they separate. When the cycle changes to contraction the mantle will recede or return towards the core.

D. L. ANDERSON*, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (2013): The persistent mantle plume myth, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, DOI: 10.1080/08120099.2013.835283 Published online: 26 Sep 2013.

* Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10...099.2013.835283

Seismology, thermodynamics and classical physics—the physics associated with the names of Fourier, Debye, Born, Gr€uneisen, Kelvin, Rayleigh, Rutherford, Ramberg and Birch—show that ambient shallow mantle under large long-lived plates is hundreds of degrees hotter* than in the passive upwellings that fuel the global spreading ridge system, that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth** and that deep mantle low shear wave-speed features are broad, sluggish and dome-like rather than narrow and mantle-plume-like.The surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes.**

*[because the thickness and weight of a continent is on top of it increasing friction, its thickness slowing heat migration as compared to ocean plates where the heat can dissipate more easily into a thinner crust and in turn the adjacent ocean]

My model is predictive of the statement highlighted above;

The 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 and shear stresses. 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. The strain energy thermal content 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 means that the level of strain energy thermal content produced anywhere throughout the mantle is greater the farther from the core its place of origin resides. And thus makes it in agreement with and predictive of the article’s statement above.

"that potential temperatures in mantle below about 200 km generally decrease with depth" **

The surface boundary layer of the mantle is more voluminous and potentially hotter than regions usually considered as sources for intraplate volcanoes.**

Let me outline what the crust is doing according to my model so we can all stay together in this discussion.

But first I need to Apologize to studiot. Please bear with me billiards I'm getting to it.

Below is studiot's post #191

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:56 PM

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.

Wow, I really screwed up there. I was rather overwhelmed by the amount of traffic at that time. I'm not very fast and get behind easily. I now understand where I went wrong in this. I have misnamed forces, causing confusion and understandable frustration. Take for example the post below, I have imagined that the force that is applied to an ocean plate, as the mantle displaces outward, as something resembling the force you experience on your arms as you drag something across the floor like a carpet.

I assumed this was tension because of the pull applied to one's arms, studiot explained this as shear force between the ocean plate and the mantle.

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.

post-74263-0-49965400-1385333277_thumb.j post-74263-0-52476600-1385333287_thumb.j post-74263-0-07284900-1385333301_thumb.j

Let me rewrite this post below and see if that works better.

Let’s examine the behavior of the crust during the thermal cycle. The crust and mantle can be compared to laminated materials in their behavior. When the radius is changed the material on the outside is required to have either resilient qualities such as the ability to stretch or compress, or allowable movement, which is the ability to move independent of the lower laminate to relieve compressive or ~~tension~~ shear stresses on the outer material. During a period of thermal increase the crust is required to continually move independent of the mantle to release what are primarily ~~tension~~ shear stresses.

The Atlantic for example has two opposing continental attached ocean crust sections that are slowly and incrementally being separated by the expanding mantle. This is simply a very large stress relieving mechanism that back-fills with magma. During each thermal cycle the width of the plates are continually increasing from the magma infill, as it has since their creation during the break-up of the super-continent. As it does this, the continually increasing drag or friction of that additional material imposes proportionally increasing ~~tension~~ shear stresses at the continental ends of the ocean plates.

Eventually, when the plates are maybe twice as wide, the ocean plates will fracture from that extra stress placed on the plate adjacent to where they meet the continents. These new stress fractures will begin the process of becoming subduction zones during the following contraction portions of the cycles, and will develop trenches with depths proportionate to the frictional drag created by the ever growing plates. The Pacific Plate and its now subducted twin the Farallon likely began in this manner.

The Pacific Plate succumbed to this ~~tension~~ shear stress, probably shortly after the creation of what is now the oldest section of seafloor in the Pacific at maybe 180+ MYA. These ocean plates eventually get over ridden on one end and subducted on the other, imposing ~~tensional~~ shear forces that create structures like the Mariana Trench and the Basin and Range and developing stress relieving mechanisms such as the San Andreas Fault. This give and take of the thermal cycle will continue until opposing and closing continents meet on the other side of the planet, forming once again a combined continental structure.

I hope that makes more sense, taking away some of the confusion about this.

Its important to note that this shear force is what eventually causes the ocean plates to break from the continent. The increasing drag during the expansion periods from the additional infill at the divergent boundaries eventually overtaxes the plates strength. Either side of the Atlantic has not broke yet and they will probably not break at the same time. Though when one side does completely break free it will likely subduct. This due to the remaining short ocean crust section that is connected to the continent, it will rise as the continent settles lower due to the release of compression in the mantle under the new fracture. The new fracture will begin filling with magma as the expansion continues, but it will eventually direct the ocean plate down when the contraction period starts.

Now to address the westward drift phenomena.

Anyone trying to get their mind wrapped around this idea first needs to to understand this one concept. When you think about the current standard model you conceptualize the crust as floating around the surface, being pushed around from below by convection currents. The larger plates are then pushing around the smaller ones with all this resulting in the physical world we now observe.

This model of mine is quite different. The mantle displaces the crust outward as in studiot's drawing, all of the divergent boundaries receive magma during this time. That infill is what requires the plate to subduct when the mantle subsides, requiring the plates to shift in the direction of least resistance into the trenches or in rare instances mountain complexes. It is the gravitational potential energy of the combined plate matrix that moves the plate around the surface of the Earth.

So with this in mind, you simply need to understand that the direction of movement of the entire plate matrix as in reference to the mantle is the product of these dynamics.

Lets start with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR), it is the result of continental break-up caused by the mantle's displacement, (see studiot's drawing) what is important to notice about this geographic area is; the crust is missing large scale trenches, aka convergent boundaries where the ocean crust is subducting.

When there is contraction in the mantle a very large portion of the mass of the global plate matrix is imposed on the MAR, compressing it into the raised structure quite unlike any other mid-ocean ridge section. The total amount of the last expansion period's combined divergent boundary infill requires all convergent boundaries in other locations to receive a proportionate amount of ocean plate material as subduction. This subducted plate material must compensate for the previous divergent infill.

So, this westward drift is the combined global plate matrix redistributing and releasing its compressive load, its gravitational potential energy, into the trenches with the westward drift being the result of this process.

What is the primary engine in the crust that does this? You simply need to look at the Pacific Plate to have your answer. The Pacific Plate's primary subduction takes place along its western edge and there is not any convergent trench anywhere in the world that opposes this in equal measure.

There is no other plate of equal size to the Pacific that has a comparable convergent boundary to its east that can counter the movement and force of the gravitational potential energy in the plate matrix as it is converted to kinetic energy by the mantle's subsidence.

It is during times of extraordinary gravitational potential energy that provides the crust's observed offset to the east in relation to the mantle, as the global plate matrix pushes itself against the western Pacific's convergent trenches. This in turn provides the observed westward drift in the mantle. It is not unlike pushing a gondola with a pole.

At a given period during just select period(s) of contraction, the global plate matrix's total available gravitational potential energy exceeded the total friction that the matrix had to the mantle. The traction provided by and/of the resistance in the Pacific's convergent plate boundaries produced the westward drift phenomena. This is almost certainly to have occurred simultaneously with a period of mountain building.

So this defined westward drift is a rare occurrence during which time an extraordinary amount of gravitational potential energy of the crust is in play, a large enough amount to overcome the friction of the crust/mantle boundary. The Pacific plate's trenches provide the traction, the push off point for the movement of the crust to the east in relation to the mantle, thus providing the observed mantle westward drift.

This rare westward drift should not be confused with the regular motions of my model. Where normally the Pacific crust is moved westward as the mantle subsides, the most recent infill leveraging the Pacific ocean plate into its western convergent boundary trenches as the mantle subsides. This movement is currently observed in the Hawaiian Island chain and its predecessors the Emperor sea mount chain.

Westward drift may have been a one time event, but could also have happened simultaneously with all mountain building periods that occurred within the currently understood lifespan of the Pacific plate, an accumulation of many small drifts into one. This may also be seen within Island chains as a course change. And of course there were many other plates now long subducted that probably did 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.

Now compare what I have wrote in this post above to what are very accurate short falls in the standard model.

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

Mantle convection is expected, because Earth is cooling and because material is uprising along oceanic ridges and down going along subduction zones. Moreover, lateral variations and gradients in temperature, density, fluid content, and viscosity should determine slow creeps within the mantle. However we do not know the constraints on the velocity of these movements, and none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. <(My model predicts this by the way) Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape.

Earth’s rotation is also able to generate a possible polarity in the kinematics of the cores, mantle, and lithosphere, a sort of railway path. Plates may be more detached on a relatively less viscous mantle than on a relatively more viscous mantle, therefore lateral heterogeneity in the asthenospheric mantle may determine different decoupling from the overlying lithosphere. Variations in decoupling are in turn responsible for differential velocity among plates and plate tectonics. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle. <(My model predicts this by the way)

Mantle convection models show the upraise and sinking of the mantle with fixed cells, with steady vertical plumes and polygonal shapes in an horizontal view; plate tectonics rather show linear features at the surface, and plate boundaries moving one respect to the other, and unstable. These tectonics are erroneously linked to horizontally moving uprising plumes and subduction zones, which are not predicted by physical convection models. In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics. A more robust contribution of the Earth’s rotation in combination with mantle convection could be envisaged.

This is a very accurate description of the standard models ability to make predictions, which amount to about "0".

I have read many times here at SFN that all a hypothesis has to do is make predictions better than the standard model. I have done that. Repeatedly!

I may have neglected answering timely and even correctly in the past as mentioned above in regards to studiot's queries, and that was not excusable, but it was due to my personal ability to process so many simultaneous posts, I am very slow at this and it takes me hours to write most posts. This one has taken a week, I have been thinking about this westward drift every day, working out the model in my mind over and over.

It seem rather odd that my model can be so powerful at describing the present observational evidence of the Earth's surface, better than the standard model ever has, and did it in rather simple methods in general. Shouldn't the standard model be subjected to the same scrutiny with the same evidence?

What exactly gives the standard model its empirical status? It is obviously not its predictive ability.

Edited January 13, 2014 by arc

billiards · January 14, 2014

Hi arc,

I'm going to have to work through your post in "bite-size" chunks.

Hi billiards,

That statement rings out in a rather "Glass is almost full" resonance. The fact is we all know that in the standard model there is little common connection, in the way of understanding, between what is proposed to be happening unseen in the Earth's depths and what is observed at its surface.

I agree. There are people working on for example the dynamics of subduction, the dynamics of mid-ocean ridge systems, the dynamics of mantle plumes, the nature of the lithosphere asthenosphere boundary (and much else) ... The dynamics of plate motion will be an integration of all these things. But for now we are still working out the details of the individual pieces. In general terms plate motion is driven by a slab-pull component, a ridge push component, and a basal drag component.

The value of a hypothesis, theory or model is directly proportional to its ability to make predictions. To accurately explain in the simplest terms what is happening and why. This can also be a stumbling block for any idea that runs counter to popular belief or understanding. Weight or value is given to the complex solution, for it shows at face value the work that was extracted from its creator. It shows clearly the great expense of both time and money expended. Simple solutions on the other hand look somewhat as a lazy man's load and are too quickly dismissed as amateur.

If given the clear understanding of all details their should be an obvious advantage to the simplest explanation. But can it be too simple for its own good, making it difficult for most to accept at first? Very likely.

This looks to me like a red herring. Who would disagree with this? Not me.

The question is. Is your mechanism actually simpler? I argue that it is not ...

The standard model expects that plate motion is a phase of planetary evolution that exists under the right conditions (water content, size of planet, composition of planet, temperature, etc.) ... basically it is the expression of mantle convection which happens in accordance with the basic laws of thermodynamics. The mantle acts as a fluid over long time scales, and fluids convect if cooled from the top and internally heated.

Your model must also obey the laws of thermodynamics (I assume -- and if not there is a huge problem). The mantle must also be fluid over long timescales. There is presumably a requirement that your planet fits within a parameter space of "right conditions". But in addition to the standard model you require:

• a planet with an oscillating volume

• large (so far unquantified) amount of energy input from an extraterrestrial source

So is your model really simpler?

arc · January 15, 2014

Hi billiards, thanks for coming down to my new digs. WOW, I step out of my 14th floor office for one minute and the next thing I know all my stuff is waiting for me in the basement.

There are people working on for example the dynamics of subduction, the dynamics of mid-ocean ridge systems, the dynamics of mantle plumes, the nature of the lithosphere asthenosphere boundary (and much else) ... The dynamics of plate motion will be an integration of all these things. But for now we are still working out the details of the individual pieces. In general terms plate motion is driven by a slab-pull component, a ridge push component, and a basal drag component.

The question is. Is your mechanism actually simpler? I argue that it is not ...

All that time with all those people working at it, if it was really simpler they would have at least some predictions observations to show for it by now.

Right?

I'm just one guy who in 1 years time produced a mechanical model that has made more predictions of surface observations than they have in 30+ years.

Can that be any simpler?

The question is. Is your mechanism actually simpler? I argue that it is not ...

The standard model expects that plate motion is a phase of planetary evolution that exists under the right conditions (water content, size of planet, composition of planet, temperature, etc.) ... basically it is the expression of mantle convection which happens in accordance with the basic laws of thermodynamics. The mantle acts as a fluid over long time scales, and fluids convect if cooled from the top and internally heated.

I think that is the basic problem and why there has not been any rock solid predictions of observation is geology. (pun intended) I hate to use that tired phrase but, they built a box around their field of science and didn't look outside of it.

"expects that plate motion is a phase of planetary evolution that exists under the right conditions".

I take that statement to mean planetary evolution primarily involves starting out hot and slowly cooling for billions of years. All results are then expected to be derived through thermal and fluid dynamics.

I think it was an unavoidable consequence of an earlier time when geniuses like Arthur Holmes could only view geology from the dry surfaces at close range. Once the mid-ocean ridge was revealed, convection was solidly in place to be the best model for movement when tectonics took hold. Unfortunately satellite images like Google Earth were not available in the 1930's, if they had I believe we would not be discussing convection right now. They had to turn to modeling the Earth's interior to find answers to surface observations. Even flying in aircraft would only reveal erosional landforms with no real hint of the dynamics that lay below.

This is a new era in geology, you can now view the ocean floor and study it as you would any ancient artifact, looking for clues as to its birth, life and eventual death. There is so many details that tell an accurate story of the Earth if you take the time to read it.

The story it tells is of a surface unto itself. A surface crust that deforms due to the same physics that wrinkles the skin of an apple as its interior recedes. That doesn't sound too complicated does it? If that surface was more of a rigid rock and was subjected to magma from below the dynamics of mountain ranges would be modeled accurately.

Your model must also obey the laws of thermodynamics (I assume -- and if not there is a huge problem). The mantle must also be fluid over long timescales. There is presumably a requirement that your planet fits within a parameter space of "right conditions". But in addition to the standard model you require:

• a planet with an oscillating volume

• large (so far unquantified) amount of energy input from an extraterrestrial source

Sure, like I said before my model can accommodate convection, it does not need it for plate movement and that is good, because it is clear from Doglioni that there is no direct cause and effect between convection and surface observations.

http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-15-03-13-TXT.aspx.html#10._Plate_Kinematics_versus_Mantle_Dynamics_

"At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached."

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

And you can add that mantle westward drift to it also.

So I guess its a choice between a standard model containing no predictions of surface observations and based on several mathematical models proposing a freezing core and convection currents, all unseen and unproven by direct observation.

Or a much simpler model based on gravitational potential energy being loaded and unloaded into and out of the crust; a displacing mantle as can be observed at all divergent plate boundaries at this moment; the mantle displacement due to thermal expansion of the outer core's molten iron by a yet undefined variable energy increase, by a yet undefined source.

I think my model is doing pretty good.

Edited January 15, 2014 by arc

Sign In

Plate tectonic mechanism ?

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Unity+

billiards

billiards

Posted Images

Important Information