crust

[other one]

 

[teddyv]

8 hours ago, other one said:

 

That sounded like a lot of classic Star Trek tecnobabble, even including the simple analogy.

Plate Tectonics was not even a thing when Einstein and all the other name drops were around, so to assume that Einstein et al were correct in their thinking and would not have abandoned it  for modern theories is rather presumptuous. 

Also, he did not get into the "earth turning over" really. So I'm not sure what the point was. It kind of sounded like the tired old theory about pole-shifting which seems to reinvent itself every 10 years.

I was not sure if there was something about the crust overturning itself, or if I misunderstood, but there is no evidence for that.

 

 

[Mr. M]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Plate Tectonics was not even a thing when Einstein and all the other name drops were around, so to assume that Einstein et al were correct in their thinking and would not have abandoned it  for modern theories is rather presumptuous. 

Plate tectonic theory had its beginnings in 1915 when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift." Wegener proposed that the continents plowed through crust of ocean basins, which would explain why the outlines of many coastlines (like South America and Africa) look like they fit together like a puzzle.

They (Einstein's talk) were correct in concluding that earthquakes and volcanoes were insufficient drivers to have caused movements in the earth's crust. Velikovsky, a contemporary of Einstein at Princeton sought more catastrophic explanations. Yes, a very contentious topic. That's why they are called theories. We haven't observed any event to support them, and maybe we are better off if we don't. 

Dismissing the matter by calling a 7 minute video "Star Trek technobabble" is a bit high minded.

You really shared nothing to shed light on the subject. 

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Also, he did not get into the "earth turning over" really. So I'm not sure what the point was.

The earth doesn't literally turn over, the movement of the crust relative to the mantle would only give the impression that the whole earth was wobbling in space.

Isaiah 24:

19 The earth is violently broken,
The earth is split open,
The earth is shaken exceedingly.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard,
And shall totter like a hut;
Its transgression shall be heavy upon it,
And it will fall, and not rise again.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

It kind of sounded like the tired old theory about pole-shifting which seems to reinvent itself every 10 years.

Hey, why don't you start a thread on pole shifting theories to support this notion. 

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/tracking-changes-earth-magnetic-poles

As Earth's magnetic field varies over time, the positions of the North and South Magnetic Poles gradually change. Magnetic declination—the angle between magnetic North and true North—at a given location also changes over time. Our Historical Magnetic Declination Map Viewer displays locations of the geomagnetic poles and historical declination lines calculated for the years 1590–2020.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Plate Tectonics was not even a thing when Einstein and all the other name drops were around

Plate Tectonics does not explain the terrestrial record of an "earth in upheaval". It simply explains why certain regions are more susceptible to strong seismic activity.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

I was not sure if there was something about the crust overturning itself, or if I misunderstood, but there is no evidence for that.

There was not, because that was not the point. That is on you. Simply put, it is motion of the crust relative to the mantle, which would require a significant amount of energy to overcome the forces binding the surface crust to the mantle below. The theory of continental drift came directly as a result of evidence of major surface changes. Nice rant, though.

[teddyv]

I am unsure why you thought I was ranting.

Anyway...

16 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Plate tectonic theory had its beginnings in 1915 when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift." Wegener proposed that the continents plowed through crust of ocean basins, which would explain why the outlines of many coastlines (like South America and Africa) look like they fit together like a puzzle.

Yes, I am aware of this. However, this is not current Plate Tectonic theory, which has further modified Wegeners original observations and hypothesis (continental crust does not plow through ocean basins). Plates are believed to be driven by large scale mantle convection currents.

16 hours ago, Mr. M said:

They (Einstein's talk) were correct in concluding that earthquakes and volcanoes were insufficient drivers to have caused movements in the earth's crust. Velikovsky, a contemporary of Einstein at Princeton sought more catastrophic explanations. Yes, a very contentious topic. That's why they are called theories. We haven't observed any event to support them, and maybe we are better off if we don't. 

See above. I'd have to check the history on this, but I don't think they were fully aware of tectonic plate boundaries, i.e. subduction and mid-ocean ridges. Plate Tectonic theory was still not fully embraced until the 1960's.

Also, I believe much of Velikovsy's hypotheses have been generally dismissed.

16 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Dismissing the matter by calling a 7 minute video "Star Trek technobabble" is a bit high minded.

You really shared nothing to shed light on the subject. 

Well, the video did not shed much light either and was ignoring modern understanding of Plate Tectonics in favour of outdated ideas. As a geologist myself, I generally don't get into the broader subjects of geology, as that is more the realm of academia. I just have not heard the analogy he used to describe crustal mechanics. But, I'm willing to let that go.

16 hours ago, Mr. M said:

The earth doesn't literally turn over, the movement of the crust relative to the mantle would only give the impression that the whole earth was wobbling in space.

 

16 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Isaiah 24:

19 The earth is violently broken,
The earth is split open,
The earth is shaken exceedingly.
20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard,
And shall totter like a hut;
Its transgression shall be heavy upon it,
And it will fall, and not rise again.

 

16 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Hey, why don't you start a thread on pole shifting theories to support this notion. 

I don't mean magnetic poles. I mean literally the planet re-orienting itself so that the new poles are in completely new geographic locations. This idea has been advanced over the years, the last time that I specifically recall was a prediction of it in 2003 or 2005.

16 hours ago, Mr. M said:

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/tracking-changes-earth-magnetic-poles

As Earth's magnetic field varies over time, the positions of the North and South Magnetic Poles gradually change. Magnetic declination—the angle between magnetic North and true North—at a given location also changes over time. Our Historical Magnetic Declination Map Viewer displays locations of the geomagnetic poles and historical declination lines calculated for the years 1590–2020.

Yes, I am fully aware of this and deal with is regularly in my work.

16 hours ago, Mr. M said:

Plate Tectonics does not explain the terrestrial record of an "earth in upheaval". It simply explains why certain regions are more susceptible to strong seismic activity.

Plate Tectonic theory is the underlying theory of almost all of modern geology. Yes, it speaks to areas of currently strong seismic and volcanic activity, but it is also the basis of reconstruction of the geological history of the earth and a very important part of the mineral exploration industry, both in metals and oil and gas. 

If there was an "earth in upheaval" (whatever that means), it would be reflected in the geological history.

The presenter was talking about some cycles of 12,000 years for the sun but I can't find any literature related to that. There are some known cycles and some hypothesized ones that may be related to historic climate variability. Do you know what that was about? He sort of casually stated it as a fact.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by teddyv
formatting