"Plate tectonics – the reigning paradigm in the earth sciences – faces some very severe and apparently fatal problems. Far from being a simple, elegant, all-embracing global theory, it is confronted with a multitude of observational anomalies, and has had to be patched up with a complex variety of ad-hoc modifications and auxiliary hypotheses. The existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a continuous, global asthenosphere to "lubricate" plate motions, have rendered the classical model of plate movements untenable. There is no consensus on the thickness of the "plates" and no certainty as to the forces responsible for their supposed movement. The hypotheses of large-scale continental movements, seafloor spreading and subduction, and the relative youth of the oceanic crust are contradicted by a substantial volume of data. Evidence for significant amounts of submerged continental crust in the present-day oceans provides another major challenge to plate tectonics. The fundamental principles of plate tectonics therefore require critical reexamination, revision, or rejection."
http://www.davidpratt.info/tecto.htm
I have serious beef with plate tectonics as well for the exact same reasons. The features of the Earth can be explained better if the philosopher includes earlier stages of evolution, this is the whole purpose of stellar metamorphosis.
Many geology textbooks contain colourful pictures of uniformly thin (~150 km) plates moving over a continuous, global asthenosphere. Such pictures are far removed from reality. After reviewing evidence for 400-km-thick roots beneath stable cratons, Lerner-Lam (1988) concluded: "Evidently, the earth has flunked the seismological test of the thin-plate theory" (p. 51-53). He might equally well have said that plate tectonics has flunked the seismological test.
http://www.davidpratt.info/lowman.htm
Roots. The plate has deep roots, this means they don't move. Like trees, your teeth and people who don't like to skip town, roots kind of stand in the way of motion. Also it means that in 1988 plate tectonics kicked the bucket (died) and morphed into a zombie theory, as it is STILL to this day taught as being "correct". Twenty-seven years has passed, it died when I was a 3 year old trying to figure out how to draw on the walls of the condo with crayons without my brother finding out.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
3 comments:
Helpful comments will be appreciated, but if the user does not want to address the issues being presented they will be ignored. This is a blog dedicated to trying to explain how to make sense of the discovery that planet formation is star evolution itself, not a blog for false mainstream beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
what happened with the moon video? why haven't you uploaded it yet?
ReplyDeletehow does titan have atmosphere denser than earth and no magnetic field?
how does europa still have ice? how does Io has volcanoes but no magnetic field?
you don't have answer to it? :(
Do you have explanation for gravity?
Accroding to Mr. Joseph Cater, Gravity effects are produced by a highly penetrating radiation in the standard electromagnetic spectrum -- about a frequency of one trillion cycles per second, or just above radar frequencies, and just below the infra-red frequency. NASA has had such devices for years
Gravity as a part of electromagnetic spectrum makes lot more sense than newtonin/einsteinian gravity being solely a property of mass. this may explain how those UFO's are flying and making 90 degrees turns like its nothing.
Most of the gravity radiation of the planets is created in the top-most 50 miles of their crusts. After that, gravity is significantly reduced. This is because gravity has limited penetration ability.
I did answer it already.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFqxW2nSNtA
It is a philosophical question. It only depends on the material which was left over after a collision event. We can tell where in the old evolved star the material came from by the composition of the star itself. Reverse engineering the composition to determine its location is the goal.
ReplyDeleteThe "accretion" method does not work, simply because it is a contradiction. How do you accrete matter via gravitation or even form rocks/minerals absent pressure and a gravitational field.
No I do not have an explanation of gravitation. The theory I'm drawing up is an explanation for what the Earth actually is, an evolved star at the very end of its evolution.