Forums General Topics Science & Technology
  • Topic: Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

    Back To Topics
    • March 31, 2016 1:20:54 PM PDT
      • Posts
        21
      • Thanks
        2
      • Thanked
        28
      • Rep
        5

      Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

      "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. 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.

      Thanks for taking the time to review Archaic Crust Theory.

    • March 31, 2016 6:06:31 PM PDT
      • Posts
        25
      • Thanks
        16
      • Thanked
        5
      • Rep
        0

      Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

      The world is flat, dummy.

    • April 1, 2016 4:57:47 AM PDT
      • Posts
        22
      • Thanks
        4
      • Thanked
        10
      • Rep
        2

      Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

      Forgive a harsh and scientific critique.

      This reads a little like a first draft, like a jotting down of ideas. You need more references for the established facts which I presume are your starting point, you only cite two sources which are websites and neither is especially known for it's integrity. Your references should include written texts and scholarly articles.

      You state fractional differentiation is a violation of physics, why?

      Pull your written work together and then lets see what merit your theory has.

      Don't be discouraged by the critique, rise to the challenge of writing properly and defending your theory well.
      Go through and edit this work, so it is more concise and has a better flow, it reads a little bit like a story at the moment, making it's merit as a theory harder to ascertain. Provide a clear structure, an introduction, tell your audience the established facts, you are not talking to a group of well studied scientists so you should either explain the second law of thermodynamics or you should provide a link where people can read it for themselves.

      After your introduction and the established facts, introduce your theory in more detail and the things which stand for and against it. Then sum up in your conclusion. As your audience are for the most part, not scientists, you should presume they have no former knowledge and write in a way that is engaging and easy to understand.

      "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" <---- why don't they have much association with global tectonics? Back up your statements with evidence.

    • April 1, 2016 4:57:49 AM PDT
      • Posts
        22
      • Thanks
        4
      • Thanked
        10
      • Rep
        2

      Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

      Forgive a harsh and scientific critique.

      This reads a little like a first draft, like a jotting down of ideas. You need more references for the established facts which I presume are your starting point, you only cite two sources which are websites and neither is especially known for it's integrity. Your references should include written texts and scholarly articles.

      Don't be discouraged by the critique, rise to the challenge of writing properly and defending your theory well.
      Go through and edit this work, so it is more concise and has a better flow, it reads a little bit like a story at the moment, making it's merit as a theory harder to ascertain. Provide a clear structure, an introduction, tell your audience the established facts, you are not talking to a group of well studied scientists so you should either explain the second law of thermodynamics or you should provide a link where people can read it for themselves.

      After your introduction and the established facts, introduce your theory in more detail and the things which stand for and against it. Then sum up in your conclusion. As your audience are for the most part, not scientists, you should presume they have no former knowledge and write in a way that is engaging and easy to understand.

      &quot;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&quot; &lt;---- why don't they have much association with global tectonics? Back up your statements with evidence.

      You state fractional differentiation is a violation of physics, why?

      Pull your written work together and then lets see what merit your theory has.

      This post was edited by Inra at April 1, 2016 4:58:49 AM PDT
    • April 1, 2016 10:41:18 PM PDT
      • Posts
        21
      • Thanks
        2
      • Thanked
        28
      • Rep
        5

      Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

      Crow:
      Lol

      Inra:
      That didn’t seem so harsh. It looked more like a genuine effort to help me improve my essay. I appreciate it. It kinda is a first draft. I didn’t mean for it to be exceptionally scientifically rigorous. Jotting down some supporting points is exactly what I did. Though I was hoping to build enough of a case to gain consensus with the reader by the end of it. Looks like I failed at that.

      The comment about Lake Baikal and the New Madrid fault should be corrected to have stronger wording. They’re not directly associated with global tectonics. Tectonics is a matter of crustal plates moving in relation to another. Fault lines exist at the boundaries of plates. Lake Baikal and New Madrid are sitting in the middle of a plate. Under current theory, they have no business being there. They are not suture zones like you’ll find in New England. They are not rift zone (expanding) like eastern Africa… There is no real explanation for them. New Madrid is suspect enough but Baikal is nearly definitive proof on it’s own accord. Pretty much the only physical process we could attribute to Baikal’s formation is stress fracture from forcing it to adhere to a reduced arc.

      “Subduction” of equal density crust is against the laws of physics. When crustal plates of similar density meet they will crunch and build a mountain ranges. -you get Himalaya, not subduction.

      The Second Law of Thermodynamics states organization will decrease with time; or entropy will increase with time, however you prefer. Fractional Differentiation says is it takes a chaotic ball of molten planetoid and organizes the lightest of crustal material to cover about a third of the surface area, in discreet chunks, that fit together, so that the next lightest layer of crustal material can produce a secondary crust. The second law of thermodynamics says you’re kidding, right? Concentrations are highly ordered states. Concentrations have a high level of organization and low entropy. The second law of thermodynamics (or thermodynamics 2, as I like to call it) demands systems move toward less ordered states. Entropy always increases –so says Thermodynamics 2! You can smell food because Thermodynamics2 demands that concentration of scent is dispersed. Thermodynamics 2 is why things mix when you shake them. It’s why milk spills, but spilled milk will never just jump back into the glass. –milk in a glass is higher ordered state so migrating that way is against thermodynamics2. In like manner, Fractional Differentiation is taking a less ordered state and evolving it into a highly ordered state. It's the lithospheric equivalent of having a puddle of milk jump into a glass. It’s not scientifically legitimate. Thermodynamics2 demands the lightest of materials are distributed relatively even across the surface.

      I thank you for the great advice but this theory is so low priority for me; not sure if I’ll try to make a decent paper of it or not. Besides, it’s my writing I need to defend! -It’s horrendous... Needs so much work. =( There’s no touching the theory. =)

      This post was edited by Rift Zone at April 1, 2016 11:18:27 PM PDT
    • April 2, 2016 10:28:00 AM PDT
      • Posts
        0
      • Thanks
        0
      • Thanked
        2
      • Rep
        0

      Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

      I'll wait for the film....
      Pickle.... concise.......? pot, kettle, black!

    • April 2, 2016 11:09:01 AM PDT
      • Posts
        22
      • Thanks
        4
      • Thanked
        10
      • Rep
        2

      Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

      You like me rambling on. Anyway have a prerogative to ramble based on being a woman and making sense :P okay i make sense sometimes.

    • April 2, 2016 6:49:00 PM PDT
      • Posts
        21
      • Thanks
        2
      • Thanked
        28
      • Rep
        5

      Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

      I'm down with deep thoughts. As long as you ramble on about something cool, all is fine in the universe.

      Not making sense sometimes and harboring a couple internal inconsistencies are part of what makes INFJs so adorable. Unless you're contagious. Then it's not cute at all. OMG, what did you do ruute66? INTPs tend to be much more coherent! lol

      This post was edited by Rift Zone at April 2, 2016 6:49:18 PM PDT
    • October 23, 2018 4:16:22 AM PDT
    • Archaic Crust Theory: (of continents)

      http://www.raybans-outlet.cc/, http://www.ray-bans.net.co/, http://www.swarovski-canada.ca/, http://www.coach-factoryoutlet.net.co/, http://www.bottegaoutlet.com/, http://www.reebok-shoes.co.uk/, http://www.oakleys-online.com.co/, http://www.adidassuper-star.com.de/, http://www.michaelkorsviponline.com/, http://www.lacosteoutlet.com.co/, http://www.uggsboots.com.de/, http://www.pandora-jewellery.com.es/, http://www.oakleys.com.de/, http://www.ralphlaurens-outlet.net/, http://lions.nfl-jerseys.org/, http://rockets.nbajerseysvip.com/, http://www.nikeshoes.fr/, http://www.nikefreerun-inc.co.uk/, http://www.thomas-sabos.com.de/, http://www.mcm-backpacks.com.co/, http://www.guessfactorys.com/, http://www.raybanvip.com/, http://raptors.nbajerseysvip.com/, http://www.outlet-toryburchshoes.com/, http://www.thomas-sabo.us.com/, http://www.nike-free-runs.de/, http://www.hermesbagsoutlet.com/, http://www.michael-korsbags.com.co/, http://www.jeans-truereligion.com/, http://www.adidas-shoes.com.co/, http://www.converses.us.com/, http://www.longchamp-bagsoutlet.com/, http://www.nike-store.com.de/, http://eagles.nfl-jerseys.org/, http://www.adidasschuhe-online.com.de/, http://www.newiphone-cases.com/, http://www.nikefree5.com.co/, http://hawks.nbajerseysvip.com/, http://www.danskos-shoes.com/

Add Reputation

Do you want to add reputation for this user by this post?

or cancel