Earth Atmospherics, Tectonics, and Geology

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.jupitersdance.com/

be well, be love.

david

jupiter's dance

research shows that large earthquakes occur at low sunspot frequencies. a sample of global earthquakes greater than magnitude 6 for the period 1973-2005 (usgs) compared to smoothed monthly sunspot figures (sidc) show that 71% of earthquake energy is released and 59% of earthquake events occur at lower than average sunspot activity.

[eyez4096]

i suppose for this article i should supply links to the sites that i've explored in an attempt to get a better rounded understanding of this topic. i'll try to do that but if i run out of time or if i can't find some of them well... i'll just have to do it at a later time.

the idea, as david has mentioned, though put into my wording:

global expansion tectonics posits that the earth is growing which explains discrepancies in orbital measurements as well as in certain geological characteristics related to continental plate movement and the idea that the continents, at some time, "fit together" in the past.

what i've heard:

one guy suggests that new crustal material is perpetually coming through to the surface at oceanic ridges, much as modern plate tectonics supports. he believes, however, that instead of "subducting" or sliding underneath continents to support volcanism etc, this material adds to the size of the planet and the earth continually grows. if i remember correctly, he suggests that the amount of water has grown over time and that when the earth began to grow, there were few and small oceans.

another guy suggests that small particulate material is always reaching the earth from space and that this builds layer upon layer to form the growing earth. he suggests, if i remember correctly, that the amount of biological material in the oceans believed to form many of the sedimentary rocks such as limestone is in fact insufficient to create such a large mass of rock. he suggests instead that these sediments are the accumulated material accreting from outer space continually. i don't recall him making any explanation for the amount of water on earth at this time or in past times but i imagine he would suggest that the water has arrived from space as well.

plate tectonics, in brief:

modern "fact" of plate tectonics suggests that the continents and their "plates" slide around on a plastic-like state of semi-molten rock in the mantle. they are gaining new material at the deep ocean ridges as new molten material rises from the mantle to the new ocean crust. this expanding crust was the source of some controversy as the theory was first presented, so it was decided that the ocean "trenches" must therefor be places where the new material (well, newer, but millions of years old) gets forced under the more buoyant continental material.

by my understanding, subduction, as described above, was the saving grace of the theory of modern plate tectonics because otherwise "where did the material go" ??

it is understood, then, that the new crust is forced under the continents where it partially remelts and contributes to both underground and aboveground volcanism or igneous rock formation. rate information for subduction zones is hard to acquire, however, but some people suggest that the amount of subduction, if it happens at all, is less than the amount of new rock created at ocean ridges. the extra rock must therefor contribute to the stress and force involved in earthquakes and mountain range formation right? that would be modern science's explanaiton by the best of my brief ability to relate.

some problems:

i have read that the measured rates of subduction are just too much less than the rate of new material created at ocean ridges. i really desire to see some raw data for myself and put it into a computer model, but i've been unable to find such data. there is, however, some data postulating the rates at which new rock is formed at ridges, and it's actually pretty significant. subduction would need to happen at a massive and (by my estimation) noticeable rate to keep up with the new material to keep much more massive stresses and mountain buildup from occuring.

so?:

well, i've thought about this alot recently and even went so far to ask my earth science professor what he knew about expansion tectonics theories. his response, as paraphrased: "oh that? naw. most scientists i've heard just say there's no good evidence." when pressed he effectively agreed that he hadn't given it much thought nor did he care to. our current model works, after all, right?

but here are some of my thoughts which i hope will begin to get this discussion moving:

one thing i like about expansion tectonics which is almost never mentioned is under the assumption that the amount of water on earth has remained at near current levels. that is, if the earth had less surface area, then the amount of water would need to be deeper and would cover more of the earth's crust. indeed, at the 50% size most people suggest as a "pre-expansion" diameter would have far less surface area. let me do a little math real fast.

surface area of a sphere: sa = 4*pi*r^2
surface area of sphere with 1/2*r as its radius: pi*r^2 (since 0.5^2 -> 1/4)

surface are of earth with half its current radius: .25 (25%) of current!

suffice it to say that with near current water amounts, and such a smaller region for it to occupy, it's no wonder that life evolved first in the oceans and took so long to come to land (not until ~250-300 million years ago by geological record). indeed, many ancient deep sea fossils are found in what are now high mountain ranges. perhaps the oxygenic atmosphere was not the limiting factor to life moving on land. perhaps land itself was limiting?

i also like the idea (i believe presented by david) that massive ancient creatures are less anomalous if they lived on a smaller planet with less mass (and therefor less gravity). in fact, their disappearance makes even more sense since creatures much larger than a modern day elephant would be very hard to maintain in current gravity (structural and energetic demands for such animals are mammoth ).

some problems with just expansion without subduction etc:

formation of mountain ranges and mid-continent volcanoes is certainly well explained by subduction theories. one suggestion for this phenomenon under the "new" theories would be that changes in surface geometry due to expanding surface in irregular ways would cause great amounts of folding and/or pressure on the crust. perhaps they're due to differential pressures from the mantle which, by the same process, must also be expanding.

accretion aside, where does the new material come from? well, it's possible that the earth uses incoming radiation energy to morph densely packed materials in the core into the planetary elements we're familiar with. or perhaps radiative energy from elements in the earth are heating it and the heat expands the earth (this is at odds with scientific postulates that the earth has been cooling from a molten ball for the last 4 billion years). or, perhaps, there are processes we don't fully understand which directly turn heat/light energy into matter. perhaps this is the nature of our planet. if anyone can think of good experiments to validate or disprove any one of these than good!

what i think and what i want to actually discuss:

personally i see a little truth in both the current tectonic model and the expansion theories. subduction makes some logical sense, and provides explanation for a few well known phenomena. but perhaps the earth is producing new material faster than it can be sucked back in and recycled. as such, the earth would need to expand, which is what i've been talking about after all. perhaps, also, the idea that new small particulates are constantly being sucked up by the earth's surface from outer space also has some validity. maybe all these processes are happening at the same time.

i'd really like to find some solid date about the following things: first, i want to know if measurements are done to test if the gravity on earth is increasing or decreasing -- a slow change in gravity would be consistent with increased (or decreased) mass. i'd like to know if satellites can measure the size of the earth accurately enough to see if it is a constant. i'd like to know accurate data about how fast new material appears at ridges and how fast (if at all) it subducts in trenches. more than anything, though, i want to know if anyone has any ideas about viable ways by which the earth could be creating new matter, if that's indeed what it's doing. is this a conscious phenomena having its roots in dimensions outside our own or is it a "physical law" based chemical/physical reaction we can observe and reproduce?

david, and group, i'd love your feedback and input on any of the stuff i've brought up.

oh.. sources..

http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_1.htm (accretion)
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html (linked form revealing iii by david)

there are a number of other sources i've looked at but i think these begin to cover the bases.

discuss!!!

-charles cox

[Mozart]

i'm sure that many of you have heard of the very powerful solomon quakes that have happened recently in the solomon islands and now the news of significant land upliftment has come out:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070407...d_070407125221

""water go back and not come back again," he added, saying the whooshing sound of the receding water and the shaking from the quake occurred simultaneously."


that's pretty quick land change right there, i say.

note from moderator: the question is, where did the water go? water levels are generally rising, so where is this dispalcement? it doesn't seem as if the land raised up as with displacement earthquakes. if the earth is expanding, then maybe the water is filling fissures? or, do we have water levels correspondingly rising elsewhere? if you want to research this, we encourage your help!

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...estudysuggests

be well, be love.

david

early earth was purple, study suggests

the earliest life on earth might have been just as purple as it is green today, a scientist claims.

ancient microbes might have used a molecule other than chlorophyll to harness the sun’s rays, one that gave the organisms a violet hue.

chlorophyll, the main photosynthetic pigment of plants, absorbs mainly blue and red wavelengths from the sun and reflects green ones, and it is this reflected light that gives plants their leafy color. this fact puzzles some biologists because the sun transmits most of its energy in the green part of the visible spectrum.

“why would chlorophyll have this dip in the area that has the most energy?” said shil dassarma, a microbial geneticist at the university of maryland.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.esa.int/esasc/semzmd7dwze_index_0.html

be well, be love.

david

cluster sees tsunamis in space
12 april 2007

cluster is providing new insights into the working of a ‘space tsunami’ that plays a role in disrupting the calm and beautiful aurora, or northern lights, creating patterns of auroral dances in the sky.

generally seen in high-latitude regions such as scandinavia or canada, aurorae are colourful curtains of light that appear in the sky. caused by the interaction of high-energy particles brought by the solar wind with earth’s magnetic field, they appear in many different shapes.

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...tinctions.html

be well, be love.

david

ancient mass extinctions caused by cosmic radiation, scientists say
scott norris
for national geographic news

april 20, 2007
cosmic rays produced at the edge of our galaxy have devastated life on earth every 62 million years, researchers say.

the finding suggests that biodiversity has been strongly influenced by the motion of the solar system through the milky way and of the galaxy's movement through intergalactic space.

mikhail medvedev and adrian melott, both of the university of kansas, presented their new theory at a meeting of the american physical society earlier this month.

the theory offers the first explanation for a mysterious pattern previously noted in the fossil record.

"there are 62-million-year ups and downs in the number of marine animals over the last 550 million years," melott said.

[David Wilcock]

it's about time they started moving in the only obvious direction this data suggests... though they still obviously don't see the model.

fairly soon i'm going to set out this whole aspect as i see it, since it will probably be too complex for the 2012 book and i can have something to link back to for those who want more technical detail.

as i've said before, we're basically dealing with 'nested spheres' of energy that expand away from the galactic center as the galaxy evolves. the stars and planets are bathed by these fields as they expand, since they do not move along with them -- the spheres move through them.

2012 is when we definitively break through to the next 'sphere'.

- david

[LightEye]

dear friends,

http://www.livescience.com/environme...particles.html

be well, be love.

david

nasa discovers 'twilight zone' of new air particles
by andrea thompson

an extensive and previously unknown "twilight zone" of particles in the atmosphere could complicate scientists' efforts to determine how much the earth's climate will warm in the future, a new study finds.

in addition to greenhouse gases, which absorb infrared radiation, or heat, emitted from earth's surface and send it back to the ground, cloud droplets and aerosols, such as dust and air pollutants, in the atmosphere also affect the planet's temperature.

the exact overall effect of these two types of particles is still uncertain: while clouds block incoming solar radiation, water vapor also acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat like a blanket.

now, recent satellite observations have found a zone of "in-between particles" in the air around clouds that was previously considered clear.

[pyramidnj]

here is an interesting video which, according to metodi kolev: "this is an amazing theory that shows the earth is in fact - getting larger. in the old theory (pangaea theory ) we are asked to believe the continent swim or drift about willy-nilly, bumping and crashing, but this is not true.
the simple truth is apparently too upsetting to too many scientists. to admit that the earth is growing is a very big deal - it would change everything in science - 100 years of scientific theory out the window."

http://www.hemuz.org/science/the-earth-is-growing.html

interesting! jo anne

[charran]

hi jo anne,

yes. it is getting larger...and i work with geodesists (who study the size and shape of the earth) all day long. they don't go into this very much but rather they talk about how far off at certain points the earth's shape is from a perfect sphere or ellipsoid.

what is also very interesting is that the earth is really not a sphere or even quite an ellipsoid (but we compare it to a perfect ellipsoid). it is more like one of those red potatoes with bumps in it and with some french fries cut out near australia. australia is on a deeper slope than many other parts of the world and hence the angles of the sun hitting it at certain points can be rather intense.

charran