Continental Drift Contradictions (CDC)

I thought the emotive ends of those last two posts were very telling. ~50 years of such global CD enthusiasms explains how the Geology profession has all this time been going so wrong . . . much as similar group enthusiasms have produced all those other unhappy endings: tragic wars; woeful designs by committees, like the Space Shuttle; disintegrated families and other misadventures. Jim was inviting us to think . . .

Think of how CD started, from Atlantic Ocean seafloor spread AND that "fit or misfit" of South America into Africa, with very little further evidence! Extremely seductive? Yes! Scientifically convincing? No!!! I have explained that "fit or misfit" as one of ubiquitous congruencies, corroborative of my idea of super huge impact shock wave interference pattern fringe "inscription" of planetary faultlines.

Think what a big ask it is, that a whole, solid mantle should slowly flow like a liquid, when seismotomography shows that globally, a liquid asthenosphere is patchy and shallower than continental roots, consistent with Seafloor Spread but a contradiction of Continental Drift (CD). Hence Lowman's argument against CD, corroborative of my own similar and other arguments against CD at www.nodrift.com .

I explain Seafloor Spread subsidence in terms of a "Waterslide Effect" in 4.3 page 8. Related "Sea-Ice" and "Gigolo" "Effects" explaining what happens where spreading seafloors collide with stuck/fixed continents, are introduced in 4.4 page 3.

My ebook's CD contradictions started with the important, Meta-Geological Physics idea that Earth's rough polar congruencies and ocean-continent rhythmicity were "extremely unlikely to be random coincidences", developed in Vols 3, 4, Vols 1, 4 Slide Shows.

This idea was subsequently corroborated by other approaches consistent with super huge impact, Volumes v-y, 0-5, yielding globally ubiquitous: "congruencies", antipodal resonances; multiscale symmetries and so on.

"I've no interest in Orthodoxies." --- Norman Mailer, 2006

It seems to me you are modeling here and not thinking any more than others doing the same kind of modeling. If your mind is made there is little point in presenting data that indicates the model is just a toy having nothing to do with real events. Nothing wrong with that for sure-its fun.

Jim, "Modelling"? Yes. "The model is just a toy"? Yes, in a sense true, but: "Having nothing to do with real events"? Wrong! Wronger for my model than for CD. "Fun"? Yes, in many ways, most importantly because it is my duty, knowing that my model is closer to Scientific Truth than earlier models.

My model shows much closer correspondences with physical reality than has ever been shown by anyone for CD, starting with the ubiquitous "cratering" (which I explain as "sermed" excavations in 4.5-12) apparent on all rocky, non-oceanic planets AND NOT rocky oceanic planetary continents.

This strong distinction suggests real surface oceans rather than imaginary CD as the cause AND that planetary faultlines are generally created by huge, super huge impacts, consistent with (indeed explaining) that earlier idea of mine about the "Earth's rough polar congruencies and ocean-continent rhythmicity [being] extremely unlikely to be random coincidences", where my ebook started.

Talking about CD and so on to explain these things, that distinction and planetary faultlines, would be like denying that boy's throwing stones is the usual explanation of a rustbelt's broken windows.

There must be a way to measure the movement of the land mass if it is really moving-don't you think? They say it moves two centermeters or so per year and the GPS can measure that close can it not? Is anyone measuring the motion of the land mass? Or is it as you say not in motion at all? I don't know who would know-do you?

Yes Jim,
There are global measurements using GPS and VLBI and these are shown on maps of the Earth at various websites, consistent with seafloor spread, which everybody is agreed on, but the serious scientific literature seems to be indicating that we are a long way from hearing any of these Big Science team leaders claim that CD is proved/ unproved. I am sure we will all hear about it if they ever prove CD, which they won't.

Google on GPS, VLBI, "Continental Drift", narrow your search down by Copy-ing and Paste-ing phrases from the first page that comes up into Google and Googling again and you'll see what I am writing about.

I was a project scientist nearly all of my ~20 years of experience as a scientist, and am pretty good at overall judgements of projects from a few clues. There seems to me to be many as yet unresolved factors, noises and so on, probably also instrumental longterm stabilities. Also, GPS, VLBI instruments are becoming increasingly stable and accurate, but such stabilities and accuracies apply only to recent measurements, so there won't be any handle on important long period CD reverberations for a long time, and so on.

Climate change scientists face similar problems, for example are only now waking up to a probably huge scale of the volcanic activity aerosol cooling effect . . . There's a good chance that our "Global Warming" may be largely due to diminished volcanic aerosol venting over the last ~150 years.

Those CD proof/disproof delays have not troubled me, delayed my CDC claims, because I am not waiting for anything, not claiming any CD signal, as those CD project teams hope to find, in all that noise . . . which is all those CD teams will ever find after all their hard work . . .

The people I really feel sorry for is that global army of young scientists, misled by senior geologists, working out CD detail going way back, for PhDs and so on . . . and societies funding this waste.

I,m glad you got around to geothermal events like volcanos here. How do propose these events are accomplished if the mantle is solid? The model presented by MV suggests the solid mantle rock somehow liquifies when the pressure is reduced. Is this your solution also? I do agree with you about CO2 in the atmosphere getting there from the mantle via vents. The CO2 issue is another topic for some other space.