News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Archaic Crust Theory (of continents)...

Started by Rift Zone, March 19, 2018, 09:19:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rift Zone

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

"Fractional Differentiation" is currently the prevailing theory on the origin of Earth's continents. In this view, plate tectonics is older than continents. The story goes: volcanism creates volcanoes, the sea floor migrates and effectively corrals these volcanoes into larger masses, over eons the piles get quite large, eventually you have continents.

"All continental crust ultimately derives from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over many eons. This process has been and continues today primarily as a result of the volcanism associated with subduction."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_crust

Most scientists believe that there was no continental crust originally on the Earth, but the continental crust ultimately derived from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over the eons. This process was primarily a result of volcanism and subduction.
http://www.universetoday.com/73597/what-is-lithosphere/

I have a different perspective to share with you. The Archaic Crust Theory of continents asserts Earth's continents are what remains of protoEarth's original crust.
The story starts with protoEarth. It was a world significantly smaller than the one we have now. ProtoEarth had a sister planet that orbited the sun in the same orbit as protoEarth. There's a curious phenomena in orbital physics called Lagrangian points that permits multiple bodies to occupy the same orbit. Theia was the name of the other planetoid. Jupiter's gravitational influence was most likely Theia's demise. Destabilizing its orbit even a little from the Lagrangian point would mean the system would collapse and the two planetoids would eventually collide. If you're familiar with with how the Moon formed then you already know some of this story. ProtoEarth and Theia did collide. Fallout from that collision is what our moon formed from.

ProtoEarth and Theia had solid crusts. Earlier in their history they were molten balls with no legitimate crust to speak of. Of course, the laws of physics make it pretty clear how the system would develop from there. In liquids, heavy things sink, light things float. And, the second law of thermodynamics sees to it that relatively hot things cool off. It follows our heaviest components (iron, nickel) would concentrate toward the core while the lightest of materials would distribute throughout the surface. It also follows this surface would cool and solidify. Thus is development of planets. ProtoEarth and Theia were solidly within that later stage of development. They had solid crusts of rock that covered their entire spheres. Then they met. About half of protoEarth's crust was destroyed upon impact. Of course, this wasn't a "hit and run" type of event. Theia didn't hit us and keep going, it mostly joined us. It is now part of the world we know today.

As mentioned above, our moon is a collection of some of the fallout from that impact. Some of the mass was lost to space. Most of protoEarth's and Theia's mass combined to form Earth. Approximately half of protoEarth's crust survived the impact but the increase of volume meant the remaining crust wound up covering closer to a third of Earth's larger surface area. I find a bit of novelty in this fact: most of humanity doesn't live on Earth's crust. Technically, the vast majority of us live on protoEarth's crust. Unless you live in Hawaii, Tahiti, or other volcanic island, you live on crust that originally formed on a planet that hasn't existed for over 4 billion years. A cursory scrutiny of Earth's properties and the laws of physics confirms it.

The implications of Fractional Differentiation demonstrate how it fails to provide an accurate assessment of physical reality. The composition and density of sea floor is known to be very different from continental crust. Frractional differentiation claims all this stuff (our continental land masses) got swept up off the ocean crust. However, the composition and density of continental crust clearly shows it did not originate from oceanic crust. If prevailing theory were correct, continent chemical composition and density would be more similar to ocean floor composition and density. Rather, they are very distinct. It begs the question: where did all THIS stuff come from? This stuff, the material in our continents, clearly came from somewhere else. The "differentiation" that is imagined in the current theory is not only wrong, it's contrary to physics principals. Plus, the whole "it all just got swept over to one side" mentality is shaky to begin with. We don't see sea floor getting swept up and adding to continental crust anywhere on this planet. If anything it's the reverse of their views: continental crust is adding to oceanic crust.

"Fractional Differentiation" is a violation of the laws of physics.  ["Fractional Differentiation" is a literal translation of Genesis 1:9!  Modern science is literally telling us bible stories.]  There will always be geologic activity to keep things interesting, but the laws of physics in no way permit a planet to form 2 distinct types of crust under normal circumstances. There are hundreds of planetoids in this solar system alone. Most of them have solid crusts of rock or ice. Those other worlds effectively have a single type of crust that have roughly uniform densities because they are made of roughly uniform materials. Their crusts are what we should expect given the simple physics behind their development: light stuff floats, entropy tries to distribute everything evenly across the surface, the surface cools and hardens... There's geologic activity to keep it interesting, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that permits a planet, left unto its own accord, to form 2 types of crust so distinct in composition and density that one type of crust floats on another.

Kindly look at a sea floor (bathymetric) map of the Indian Ocean... India left tracks as it migrated north, away from Antarctica. The Chagos-Laccadive Ridge and the Ninty-East Ridge, they're tracks. That is unprecedented! Our continents are unique to all known planets and moons. There is nothing out there that remotely resembles the surface structure of this planet. It turns out we do occupy a special place in the cosmos.


There is also the question about the origin of plate tectonics. Where did that come from? Modern theory states tectonics arose long after the moon collision, after the entirety of the crust was destroyed. So there's new crust... -Brand new, cohesive unfractured crust. Okay, how did it get broken? What set off all this activity? Research leaves the impression the current theory isn't developed enough to address that inquiry.

Um, what subduction? Planetary crust forms at nearly uniform density. Crust at roughly uniform density does not subduct. No subduction also means no migration. Even if an event happened to fracture the crust, individual plates would not move very far relative to another. There would be no wide sweeping actions relative to another as current theory implies. Thus, there is no collection technique. There would be no physical process to gather the volcanoes into larger masses. The process attributed to building up continents simply doesn't exist.

The moon formation simulations that show earth's crust being completely destroyed by the collision is contrary to the laws of physics as well. The footage looks great but the reality of the situation is rather different. The far side of the world got an earthquake and meteor shower. The crust exploding is pure Hollywood style sensationalism, not physics. Energy does not transmute in that fashion.

These inquiries become much easier to address from the Archaic Crust perspective; Earth didn't form 2 distinct types of crust, it forms only one type, known as "sea floor". The original crust had the lightest of materials so naturally Earth's crust is made of, more or less, the next lightest materials. ProtoEarth's crust was essentially floating on Earth's crustal material all along. Thus that unique feature of our world is neatly explained. The cause of the initial fracturing is obvious...

Supporting evidence also includes Lake Baikal and the fault line that runs beneath the Mississippi River (New Madrid). Those features don't seem to have much association with global tectonics and are subsequently hard to explain in current contexts. On the other hand, they are easily understood in context of Archaic Crust Theory. There are consequences to forcing bent rock into a reduced arc. If you take half an egg shell and force it to adhere to the volume of an orange, you're gonna create a few fractures. A few of those original fractures include what separates North America from Siberia, the rift zone that houses Lake Baikal, and the New Madrid Fault line. The latter two don't contribute much to plate tectonics but all three are merely stress fractures that occurred while flattening out.

Aside from predicting everything we already know about our world, there is a less obscure fact predicted: we all know the continents kinda fit together. If you reduce the size of the globe they are plotted on they will fit together even better.
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

Bluenose

FFS, can you please stop making these endless diatribes about nonsense?  Is there any aspect of modern scientific thought with which you agree?  I'm sorry, but the more someone takes aim at different aspects of science and loudly proclaims "you've got it all wrong, I have the TRUTH™" the less I am inclined to pay the slightest attention to their words.
+++ Divide by cucumber error: please reinstall universe and reboot.  +++

GNU Terry Pratchett


Rift Zone

Quote from: Bluenose on March 19, 2018, 10:44:13 PM
FFS, can you please stop making these endless diatribes about nonsense?  Is there any aspect of modern scientific thought with which you agree?  I'm sorry, but the more someone takes aim at different aspects of science and loudly proclaims "you've got it all wrong, I have the TRUTH™" the less I am inclined to pay the slightest attention to their words.
Mother Nature is the sole purveyor of truth.   The theory that most reliably translates her will is the more accurate theory.   Did I produce a more accurate theory?   -Ask mother nature!  She'll tell ya.
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

hermes2015

"Eventually everything connects - people, ideas, objects. The quality of the connections is the key to quality per se."
― Charles Eames

Rift Zone

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 05:43:35 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience
Probably says something like watch out for clowns tying to pull something shady, like fabricating phenomenon with a complete disregard for known physics.  Fractional differentiation?  really?   smh  Good find!
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

Tank

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 09:19:13 PM
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

"Fractional Differentiation" is currently the prevailing theory on the origin of Earth's continents. In this view, plate tectonics is older than continents. The story goes: volcanism creates volcanoes, the sea floor migrates and effectively corrals these volcanoes into larger masses, over eons the piles get quite large, eventually you have continents.

"All continental crust ultimately derives from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over many eons. This process has been and continues today primarily as a result of the volcanism associated with subduction."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_crust

Most scientists believe that there was no continental crust originally on the Earth, but the continental crust ultimately derived from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over the eons. This process was primarily a result of volcanism and subduction.
http://www.universetoday.com/73597/what-is-lithosphere/

I have a different perspective to share with you. The Archaic Crust Theory of continents asserts Earth's continents are what remains of protoEarth's original crust.
The story starts with protoEarth. It was a world significantly smaller than the one we have now. ProtoEarth had a sister planet that orbited the sun in the same orbit as protoEarth. There's a curious phenomena in orbital physics called Lagrangian points that permits multiple bodies to occupy the same orbit. Theia was the name of the other planetoid. Jupiter's gravitational influence was most likely Theia's demise. Destabilizing its orbit even a little from the Lagrangian point would mean the system would collapse and the two planetoids would eventually collide. If you're familiar with with how the Moon formed then you already know some of this story. ProtoEarth and Theia did collide. Fallout from that collision is what our moon formed from.

ProtoEarth and Theia had solid crusts. Earlier in their history they were molten balls with no legitimate crust to speak of. Of course, the laws of physics make it pretty clear how the system would develop from there. In liquids, heavy things sink, light things float. And, the second law of thermodynamics sees to it that relatively hot things cool off. It follows our heaviest components (iron, nickel) would concentrate toward the core while the lightest of materials would distribute throughout the surface. It also follows this surface would cool and solidify. Thus is development of planets. ProtoEarth and Theia were solidly within that later stage of development. They had solid crusts of rock that covered their entire spheres. Then they met. About half of protoEarth's crust was destroyed upon impact. Of course, this wasn't a "hit and run" type of event. Theia didn't hit us and keep going, it mostly joined us. It is now part of the world we know today.

As mentioned above, our moon is a collection of some of the fallout from that impact. Some of the mass was lost to space. Most of protoEarth's and Theia's mass combined to form Earth. Approximately half of protoEarth's crust survived the impact but the increase of volume meant the remaining crust wound up covering closer to a third of Earth's larger surface area. I find a bit of novelty in this fact: most of humanity doesn't live on Earth's crust. Technically, the vast majority of us live on protoEarth's crust. Unless you live in Hawaii, Tahiti, or other volcanic island, you live on crust that originally formed on a planet that hasn't existed for over 4 billion years. A cursory scrutiny of Earth's properties and the laws of physics confirms it.

The implications of Fractional Differentiation demonstrate how it fails to provide an accurate assessment of physical reality. The composition and density of sea floor is known to be very different from continental crust. Frractional differentiation claims all this stuff (our continental land masses) got swept up off the ocean crust. However, the composition and density of continental crust clearly shows it did not originate from oceanic crust. If prevailing theory were correct, continent chemical composition and density would be more similar to ocean floor composition and density. Rather, they are very distinct. It begs the question: where did all THIS stuff come from? This stuff, the material in our continents, clearly came from somewhere else. The "differentiation" that is imagined in the current theory is not only wrong, it's contrary to physics principals. Plus, the whole "it all just got swept over to one side" mentality is shaky to begin with. We don't see sea floor getting swept up and adding to continental crust anywhere on this planet. If anything it's the reverse of their views: continental crust is adding to oceanic crust.

"Fractional Differentiation" is a violation of the laws of physics.  ["Fractional Differentiation" is a literal translation of Genesis 1:9!  Modern science is literally telling us bible stories.]  There will always be geologic activity to keep things interesting, but the laws of physics in no way permit a planet to form 2 distinct types of crust under normal circumstances. There are hundreds of planetoids in this solar system alone. Most of them have solid crusts of rock or ice. Those other worlds effectively have a single type of crust that have roughly uniform densities because they are made of roughly uniform materials. Their crusts are what we should expect given the simple physics behind their development: light stuff floats, entropy tries to distribute everything evenly across the surface, the surface cools and hardens... There's geologic activity to keep it interesting, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that permits a planet, left unto its own accord, to form 2 types of crust so distinct in composition and density that one type of crust floats on another.

Kindly look at a sea floor (bathymetric) map of the Indian Ocean... India left tracks as it migrated north, away from Antarctica. The Chagos-Laccadive Ridge and the Ninty-East Ridge, they're tracks. That is unprecedented! Our continents are unique to all known planets and moons. There is nothing out there that remotely resembles the surface structure of this planet. It turns out we do occupy a special place in the cosmos.


There is also the question about the origin of plate tectonics. Where did that come from? Modern theory states tectonics arose long after the moon collision, after the entirety of the crust was destroyed. So there's new crust... -Brand new, cohesive unfractured crust. Okay, how did it get broken? What set off all this activity? Research leaves the impression the current theory isn't developed enough to address that inquiry.

Um, what subduction? Planetary crust forms at nearly uniform density. Crust at roughly uniform density does not subduct. No subduction also means no migration. Even if an event happened to fracture the crust, individual plates would not move very far relative to another. There would be no wide sweeping actions relative to another as current theory implies. Thus, there is no collection technique. There would be no physical process to gather the volcanoes into larger masses. The process attributed to building up continents simply doesn't exist.

The moon formation simulations that show earth's crust being completely destroyed by the collision is contrary to the laws of physics as well. The footage looks great but the reality of the situation is rather different. The far side of the world got an earthquake and meteor shower. The crust exploding is pure Hollywood style sensationalism, not physics. Energy does not transmute in that fashion.

These inquiries become much easier to address from the Archaic Crust perspective; Earth didn't form 2 distinct types of crust, it forms only one type, known as "sea floor". The original crust had the lightest of materials so naturally Earth's crust is made of, more or less, the next lightest materials. ProtoEarth's crust was essentially floating on Earth's crustal material all along. Thus that unique feature of our world is neatly explained. The cause of the initial fracturing is obvious...

Supporting evidence also includes Lake Baikal and the fault line that runs beneath the Mississippi River (New Madrid). Those features don't seem to have much association with global tectonics and are subsequently hard to explain in current contexts. On the other hand, they are easily understood in context of Archaic Crust Theory. There are consequences to forcing bent rock into a reduced arc. If you take half an egg shell and force it to adhere to the volume of an orange, you're gonna create a few fractures. A few of those original fractures include what separates North America from Siberia, the rift zone that houses Lake Baikal, and the New Madrid Fault line. The latter two don't contribute much to plate tectonics but all three are merely stress fractures that occurred while flattening out.

Aside from predicting everything we already know about our world, there is a less obscure fact predicted: we all know the continents kinda fit together. If you reduce the size of the globe they are plotted on they will fit together even better.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.