Which theory of the motion of the Earth’s crust or merely its lithosphere is right?
The theory of continental drift (plate tectonics).
The theory of thermal cycles.
The theory of expansion.
The theory of contraction.
The theory of oscillation.
The theory of stream-stretching.
The theory of undercurrent and swallowing.
Another theory.
No theory.
0voters
[size=114]Geology is an earth science comprising the study of solid Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the processes by which they change.[/size]
[size=114]What do you think about geology as science, about its history, its methods, its dating methods, the geological structures, the geological time, the geological development, the geological history of the Earth?
The geological history of Earth follows the major events in Earth’s past based on the geologic time scale, a system of chronological measurement based on the study of the planet’s rock layers (stratigraphy). [/size]
[size=109]The geological time scale is based on fossil evidence in Earth’s rocks and the age of the rocks.[/size]
[size=109]What do you think about the development of the Earth’s crust?[/size]
[size=109]Do you think that it moves or not, and, if yes, how and why?
Wegener’s theory of the continental drift (plate tectonics) is the currently valid theory.
The Earth is constantly being kneaded by the orbiting presence of the Moon and the Sun. The Moon’s orbits gives rise to lunar cycles of water and Earth tides. And compounding that stress is the Earth spinning relative to the Sun, adding a different frequency of lesser tiding.
All of that has a very slow but extremely powerful kneading effect that heats the core of the Earth as well as shifting the more solid materials. The eventual end result, if given enough time, would be that the Earth would become very smooth on the surface and covered entirely by water.
I don’t know which of your options that fits into (as my usual).
The kneading effect is important, yes, but the radioactivity in the inner core of the Earth is much more important, at least when it comes to cause convection currents in the mantle of the Earth and thus to cause the continental drift (plate tectonics).
Remember this:
The following picture shows the bridge across the Álfagjá rift valley in southwest Iceland, that is part of the boundary between the Eurasian and North American continental tectonic plates.
Alfred L. Wegener, the father of the continental drift (plate tectonics) theory:
The theory of thermal cycles is a compromise between Earth-expansion and Earth-contraction. According to the theory of thermal cycles heat flow from radioactive decay inside Earth surpasses the cooling of Earth’s exterior. A hypothesis is proposed in which Earth loses its heat by cyclic periods of expansion; expansion led to cracks and joints in Earth’s interior, that could fill with magma. This was followed by a cooling phase, where the magma would freeze and become solid rock again, causing Earth to shrink.
Source: Rudolf Hohl, “Geotektonische Hypothesen”, in: “Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Erde. Brockhaus Nachschlagewerk Geologie mit einem ABC der Geologie” (4. ed.), Bd. 1; 279–321.
The gradual decrease in animal size as time progresses suggests that the Earth is expanding and gravity is increasing. This is confirmed by the shape of continents in relation to ocean mass. It is clear that if you take away all the worlds oceans that all the continents fit together perfectly without any gaps.
The theory of the expansion is mainly based on thoughts of Ferdinand von Richthofen (1833-1905) explainig the tectonic phenomena of the earth’s crust by an extension of parts of the Earth due to the inner warming of the earth. The first widespread, comprehensive work on the expansion of the earth was a book with the title “Vom wachsenden Erdball” by Ott Christoph Hilgenberg (1896-1976), published in 1933.
In the following videos the German Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl explains what neutrionos have to do with the expansion of the Earth:
I don’t think there is any way to justify the thought of the Earth expanding to that extreme. Even with new extreme heat at the core, the amount of internal gas produced by that heat would not cause the Earth to expand even close to the degree required to separate the continents as far apart as they are.
The implication of the purely expansion theory is that the Earth has become very largely hollow, filled with merely hot gases. I haven’t been down there, but I seriously doubt there is as much gas space within the Earth as solid space. And if there was, volcano would more like flatus than diarrhea.
According to Meyl the weight in the inner core of the Earth is zero; so the inner core of the Earth is like the outer space. Meyl says that the Earth is growing because the inner core of the Earth is collecting neutrinos, and “a neutrino is oscillating between the size and the property of an electron and a positron”; that means: if it is always oscillating, then one time it is positively charged and the next time it is negatively charged; in average the charge is zero, but only the average is zero; the effective value is not zero; but what can be measured only is the average, not the oscillations; “and this is why they say ‘the charge of a neutrino is zero’, but this is wrong” (Konstantin Meyl).
That is largely BS. First, the possible charge of a neutrino is irrelevant. A neutrino can acquire a charge and thus become very close to being an electron or a positron and lose it again. It CAN oscillate to a small degree, but that isn’t what defines its nature nor is that feature required of it. Maintaining absolute charge neutrality is impossible thus everything is always at least a very tiny bit more of one charge than the other. If the body is not a particle made of such a charge, the body can change its bias, although if the mass is large enough, a neutron, such a change would be devastating to the body, destroying it (the Catholic Church becoming Judist).
But I don’t see how that has anything significant to do with the Earth’s expansion. Yes, the Earth absorbs neutrinos being emitted by the Sun, along with all of the other forms of radiation. It isn’t acquiring so much from the Sun such as to become a big gas filled ball.
The fact that at the center of a mass, the gravitational direction (the weight) would be zero is also irrelevant. The mass isn’t zero merely because the migration/gravitational direction is zero. Just because someone is pulling at you from the right and equally from the left, doesn’t mean that you are massless.
I quoted Meyl, and Meyl is not a clown. (Beware! The devil wears the mask of a clown.)
It is not irrelevant. And it is especially not irrelevant when it comes to understand why some of them interact more than others of them.
This is no serious argument against Meyl’s argument, because Meyl said nearly the same.
So it can osillate - as Meyl said.
Oscillating is a part of its nature and can be required.
I know that RM:AO does not allow absolute charge neutrality. And that does not make Meyl’s theory false, because Meyl says that the neutrino can be both positively and negatively charged.
It is not irrelevant whether the weight in a center of a mass is zero or not, because, for example, where weightlessness is there are conditions like in the outer space.
If the theory of thermal cycles as a compromise between Earth-expansion and Earth-contraction is not false, then the Earth is something like a “geological heart”.
Are you sure you want to go there? At least the professional psychology world uses “affectance” to mean the same thing in concept as I do; “subtle influences” (usually in reference to infants).
So, you are saying that Aether is made up of burning tawny horses?
The contraction part of the Wilson cycle doesn’t make sense. Why is only one side of the land mass moving, while the other side stays stationary?
All the ocean expansion rifts occur in the middle of the ocean. If the Wilson Theory is correct they should have all disappeared. If there are mountains on the coast of America, the rift in the middle of the Pacific Ocean shouldn’t be there.
=D>
