Re: Kook warning, Oriel36
From: don findlay (don_at_tower.net.au)
Date: 10/25/04
- Next message: don findlay: "Re: Precession"
- Previous message: don findlay: "Re: Precession"
- In reply to: Sergey Karavashkin: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Next in thread: Sergey Karavashkin: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Reply: Sergey Karavashkin: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 25 Oct 2004 16:57:13 -0700
selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0410241350.4dc2da87@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Don, though Oriel tried to raise this problem in another aspect,
> the trend of your interest to the process of Earth evolution and its
> connection with the laws of evolution of astronomical bodies is
> interesting for me. True, I still did not see more clear your views.
> But if you can excuse my irregular posting, it would be interesting
> for me if you point these matters.
>
> Sergey
1. Recognise the importance of stretching in crustal uplift (mantle
rises to fill the gap in the continental split).
2. Recognise that the mountain belts of the ocean floors and the
mountain belts of the continental crust are different levels of the
same mountain belt - upper level (with gravity collapse) in the
brittle crust; lower level in the mantle is a growth structure -
growing away from the continents. (Crustal scale boudinage analogue)
3. One mountain belt fits all - the Circumglobal Mountain Belt Loop
(cmbl) - from the Alps through the Himalayas and around the Pacific /
Antarctic in the continental crust, and the Indian Pacific spreading
ridge in the mantle (the Atlantic develops later when the Earth
reaches critical radius)
4. Retrofit these mountain belts along the growth structures of the
transform faults, and the lines of major torsion/ twist in the
continental crust (Pivots of the Western Pacific and the Caribbean)
5. Test the Hypothesis:- Look for and find evidence for stages in
transform development in the stepped offsets of their terminations
(i.e. the ends closest to the continents. (Means that the Ridges grow
along their length as well as across.)
6. Movement picture points to the Earth having ruptured around its
ambitus (Pangaean Equator) and dilated with the extrusion of the
Pacific; southern hemisphere has moved (relatively) westwards about a
quarter turn (or the northern hemisphere has moved East). The entire
movement picture is traced out by the aggregate of transforms:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html>
7. The whole thing opens up to allow extrusion of the mantle
(Pacific) as it turns around. The Pacific is forceful intrusion; the
Atlantic is companion passive gap filling about the pivot of the north
pole as dilation shifts from being equatorially/ latitudinally driven,
to opening longitudinally (Earth reaches a critical size(?); crustal
lag kicks in) :-<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html>
And that's about it I think, Sergey. Didn't come in a flash though,
but when it did, it was some flash. Now it all seems passe,
self-evident, ..obvious. It's the entire movement picture that points
to the Earth getting bigger. But I can't understand how, when the
elegance of it is pointed out to them, real scientists want to stick
with that clapped-out old plate tectonic two-stroke rather than
test-drive the new Rolls Royce. Particularly when the nonsense of
plate tectonics' position, and it's unscientific underpinnings ("Let's
assume that the Earth can't be increasing in size") is so laughably
obvious. Afficionados, I guess. They enjoy the dressing up and the
role-play, the getting together, and polishing the thing up rather
than the actual taking it for a spin. That's what it is to belong to
a club - "a community of scientists". The community takes precedence
over the science. They've taken the wheels off, so it can stay in the
garage. Deliberately.
I don't know about the physics of it, but the Earth getting bigger is
every bit an observed fact (it's not a hypthothesis) as it is that the
Earth is round and rotating round the sun. Well, we can argue the
status of observation v. conclusion v. hypothesis. But I would say
the integrated picture is so complete 'observation' will do for me.
- Next message: don findlay: "Re: Precession"
- Previous message: don findlay: "Re: Precession"
- In reply to: Sergey Karavashkin: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Next in thread: Sergey Karavashkin: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Reply: Sergey Karavashkin: "Re: Kook warning, Oriel36"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|