Atlantis Online
October 22, 2019, 11:41:49 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Were seafarers living here 16,000 years ago?
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=34805893-6a53-46f5-a864-a96d53991051&k=39922
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Original)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Original)  (Read 9780 times)
Carolyn Silver
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4611



« Reply #60 on: July 28, 2008, 10:58:24 pm »

Sunken Continents versus Continental Drift



David Pratt



Contents

Introduction

Plate tectonics -- a failed revolution
        Plates in motion?
        Continental drift
        Seafloor spreading and subduction

Emergence and submergence
        Vertical tectonics
        The continents
        The oceans

Conclusion

References

Select bibliography



NB: For a more detailed critique of plate tectonics, see: Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat, Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, 2000, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

______________________________________



Introduction

That worlds (also Races) are periodically destroyed by fire (volcanoes and earthquakes) and water, in turn, and renewed, is a doctrine as old as man. . . . Twice already has the face of the globe been changed by fire, and twice by water, since man appeared on it. As land needs rest and renovation, new forces, and a change for its soil, so does water. Thence arises a periodical redistribution of land and water, change of climates, etc., all brought on by geological revolution, and ending in a final change in the axis. (H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, 2:725-6)
In the latter half of the 19th century, when the above passage was written, the idea of submerged continents was accepted by many prominent geologists. This continued to be the case well into the 20th century, though the idea gradually began to go out of fashion. In the mid-1960s came the plate-tectonics 'revolution' in the earth sciences. Plate tectonics firmly denies that large landmasses can be elevated from the ocean floor or submerged to oceanic depths.    According to plate tectonics, the earth's outer shell, or lithosphere, is divided into a number of large, rigid, moving plates that interact at their boundaries, where they converge, diverge, or slide past one another. Such interactions are believed to be responsible for most of the seismic and volcanic activity of the earth. Plates cause mountains to rise where they push together, and continents to fracture and oceans to form where they rift apart. The continents, sitting passively on the backs of the plates, drift with them, at the rate of a few centimeters a year. At the end of the Permian, some 250 million years ago,* all the present continents are said to have been gathered together in a single supercontinent, Pangaea, consisting of two major landmasses: Laurasia in the north, and Gondwanaland in the south. Pangaea is believed to have started fragmenting in the Early Jurassic -- though some 'authorities' place the event earlier, in the Triassic, or even as late as the Cretaceous -- leading to the configuration of oceans and continents observed today.


*All dates given in this article are official 'scientific' dates. For the corresponding theosophical dates, see: Geochronology: theosophy and science, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/geochron.htm.
    It has been said that 'A hypothesis that is appealing for its unity or simplicity acts as a filter, accepting reinforcement with ease but tending to reject evidence that does not seem to fit.' Some proponents of plate tectonics have admitted that in the late 1960s a bandwagon atmosphere developed, and that data that did not fit into the new plate-tectonics model were not given sufficient consideration, resulting in a disturbing dogmatism. In the words of one critic, geology has become 'a bland mixture of descriptive research and interpretive papers in which the interpretation is a facile cookbook application of plate-tectonics concepts . . . used as confidently as trigonometric functions' [1]. A modern geological textbook acknowledges that 'Geologists, like other people, are susceptible to fads' [2].
    V.A. Saull pointed out that no global tectonic model should ever be considered definitive, since geological and geophysical observations are nearly always open to alternative explanations. He also stated that even if plate tectonics were false, it would be difficult to refute and replace, for the following reasons: the processes supposed to be responsible for plate dynamics are rooted in regions of the earth so poorly known that it is hard to prove or disprove any particular model of them; the hard core of belief in plate tectonics is protected from direct assault by auxiliary hypotheses that are still being generated; and the plate model is so widely believed to be correct that it is difficult to get alternative interpretations published in the scientific literature [3].
    The plate-tectonics hypothesis has faced growing criticism as the number of observational anomalies has increased. It will shown below that plate tectonics faces some fundamental -- and in fact fatal -- problems.

« Last Edit: July 28, 2008, 11:29:25 pm by Carolyn Silver » Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy