....Transform
faults offset spreading ridges?
(..in Earth expansion they do, ...but not in Plate Tectonics)
....Transform
faults offset spreading ridges?
(..in Earth expansion they do, ...but not in Plate Tectonics)
| In which we see that contrary to Plate Tectonic dogma, animations depicting Plate Tectonic theory do not allow for spreading ridges to be offset by transform faults. |
Fig.1. Transform fault offsets in the Atlantic. The offsets are obvious in the image, but Plate Tectonic animations depicting transform fault motion and the initial assumptions made regarding their configuration do not allow for offsetting of the ridges by transform faulting.
Fig.2. Spreading ridge offsets on transform faults. Animation 1. . Animation 2.
Click the animations and watch carefully and see that the spreading ridges do not move; they are not being offset by transform faults. The offset shown exists prior to the onset of transform movement - and therefore the growth of the ocean floors - right from their beginning - has nothing to do with the offsetting of the spreading ridges.What Plate Tectonics is saying here is that all those displacements in Fig.1 (and all the way round the rest of the world) happened before the oceans began to open. Read the caption in Animation 1:- " The ocean has not yet begun to open. Segments of rift are linked by fractures that will later become transform faults."
But this is simply nonsense, surely. A fault means displacement, and the animation clearly shows the ocean floors moving_as_one from the spreading ridge to the subduction zone, with no faulting (offsetting) of the ridge. And that's what it says: "..linked by fractures.." By definition fractures have no displacement, but 'the linking' clearly links a displacement, which is a fault. So what Plate Tectonics is giving us here is a double contradiction: displacements of the ridges linked by "fractures" (which are in fact faults), and "transform faults" on which there is no displacement, and are therefore effectively fractures.
Sure they are faults all right, but offset is not being caused by the behaviour shown in that animation. <hold up animation>
| Read the ritual responses ..? |
But Plate Tectonics unambiguously represents this 'fault movement' (which is not movement) as displacement of the spreading ridges:-
"In many places, the spreading ridges are offset by great transform faults.<......> .In this program, we deal only with the class of transform faults that offset two spreading ridge segments. As you run the program, you may notice that the lengths of the transform faults remain constant and, as a consequence, the offsets of the ridge segments do not change."
http://visearth.ucsd.edu/VisE_teach/lessons/Sea_floor_LP.html"Most transform faults are found on the ocean floor. They commonly offset the active spreading ridges, producing zig-zag plate margins, and are generally defined by shallow earthquakes." <http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html>
"In order for seafloor spreading to occur on a nearly spherical Earth, differential rates of spreading between the equator and the poles is accommodated by transform faults that offset the ridge axis." <http://sorcerer.ucsd.edu/ERTH50/Lect23_Diverg.pdf>
...And so on. All offsetting occurs prior to ocean floor growth, so no movement generated on 'transform faults' as the ocean floors develop contributes to any segmentation of the Earth's surface into "a number of plates" that "move independently" about the Earth's surface. "Faults", "displacement", and "moving independently", is entirely the language of Plate tectonics, when there is no faulting, no displacement, and the spreading ridges encircle the Earth "like the seam of a baseball" precluding independent movement altogether. Yet "plates move independently" is the key rote phrase parroted by Plate Tectonics.
| "These plates move
independently, sometimes colliding, some-times sliding against
each other. The Earth’s surface is broken into 10 to 12 major plates and
many smaller minor plates. These plates, each about 100 kilometers (60
miles) thick, move relative to one another an average of a few centimeters
a year."
http://ct.gsfc.nasa.gov/journeys/Rocky_Paradox.PRINT.pdf "Scientists now know that
Earth's crust, which encompasses all of the continents and the seafloor,
is made up of a patchwork of a dozen major and several minor tectonic plates.
These plates move independently and shift uneasily atop Earth's
molten mantle."
"Earth's crust is divided
into a dozen or so major segments, called plates. These plates move
independently of each other as a result of convection in the upper
layers of the mantle as Earth loses heat."
"Earth's crust is not solid
as once thought, but is made up of a dozen or so tectonic plates that move
independently of one another"
"Outer layer of earth's upper
mantle and crust broken into lithospheric plates, like sutures in a skull.
These plates are rigid, and move independently "
"It has been hypothesized
that there may be several mesoplates in the mantle that lie below the lithospheric
plates and move independently."
"...the lithosphere thickens
over time. It is fragmented into tectonic plates (shown in the picture),
which move independently relative to one another. This movement
of lithospheric plates is described as plate tectonics."
"Outer portion of the lithosphere
is broken into pieces, called plates, that move independently of
each other."
"According to the theory
of plate tectonics, the earth’s crust is broken up into at least a dozen
rigid plates that move independently of one another. "
"Earth's crust -- the top
five to 40 kilometers or so -- is composed of about a dozen huge, rigid
"tectonic" plates that "float" on the semi-solid rocks of the upper mantle,
allowing them to move independently. "
"Thus, if continents are
found on different plates which move independently, it is reasonable
to postulate that the plate arrangement may have been different at some
time in the past. Many scientists believe that a great number of the Earth's
surface features resulted from past movement of large portions of the crustal
plates."
"Q: What is a tectonic plate?
|
Since the offset occurs before the spreading ridges begin to open there is nothing equivalent existing on opposite sides of the 'fault' to be offset, for which reason it is questionable if it can be called a fault at all in the context of growth of the ocean floor. It must be regarded as a pre-existing fault that somehow gets to grow with the development of the ocean floors.This is in fact very close to Earth expansion, in which the transform is also a growth fault, but one which is very much active. Its development is the whole active expression of ocean floor growth, and by itself is virtually definitive of an Earth that is getting bigger through ocean floor growth being *towards* the ridge and *UP*, i.e., utilising the third dimension, not away from the ridge in two dimensions. (Plate Tectonicists, ...) ( Flat Earthers...)
Plate Tectonics considers subduction the driver of the convecting machinery, dragging the ocean floors down the subduction zone ("slab-pull"). It also regards the partitioning of the ocean floor into transform-fault - bounded segments as due to ductile flow. So it then faces the conundrum of trying to explain how the brittle "cold subducting slab" (in a hot zone) can generate a pulling effect to generate ductile flow in the deep mantle half a world away: when the brittle Titanic sank, the ductile water came up over the top, ... it didn't get pushed around to the other side of the Atlantic. Nor did water get pulled from the other side of the Atlantic.
The really surprising thing in all of this however is how so many people can so imaginatively avoid recognising what is staring them in the face. Can it really be that the collective cognition of a worldful of Earth scientists is blocked from recognising the third dimension of our world to the extent that it is prepared to go along with this gobbledegook nonsense of Plate Tectonics, when just by a simple adjustment of cognition everything falls into place? That's every bit as bad as choosing not to notice that the Earth is rotating ! You'd think somebody on the Plate Tectonic side of the fence would hint at least for the alternative view, particularly since the consensus one (continents away from the ridges) is based, very unscientifically, on a "convenient assumption."..... Why it almost makes you wonder if the science is really what it's about.. You'd think somebody would consider it worth a run, but no, ..that would go against the bodgy consensus and risk the ire of peer review.(This 'science', ... it's a real tightrope for the career artist to walk. Nobody had better poke him with a fact... or a logical glitsch.)
..Have
your say?..
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/tackley00selfconsistent.html