North american plate shattered speed records a billion years ago

February 4, 2015 by Marcia Goodrich
North american plate shattered speed records a billion years ago
NASA satellite image of North America.

North America traveled in fast company back in its youth.

A new study led by Michigan Technological University geophysicist Aleksey Smirnov reveals that 1.1 billion years ago, the North American tectonic plate scooted along at a blistering 24.6 centimeters—about 10 inches—per year.

While it may not seem to be shattering any speed records, that's twice as fast as continental plates typically traveled in their wanderings over the 's surface back in Precambrian times. Oceanic plates moved that quickly, but they are also much thinner, only 10 to 15 kilometers deep. Continental plates are up to 70 kilometers (43 miles) thick.

These days, —15-20 huge, interlocking pieces that make up the earth's crust—are even slower. Nevertheless, their movements are partially responsible for geological phenomena like earthquakes, volcanoes and mountain building.

North American Plate

Smirnov's team made its discovery while investigating a totally different problem. Every time the earth's magnetic field switches 180 degrees—which happens every few hundred thousand years or so—the change is recorded in certain volcanic minerals that are formed as lava cools. The only apparent exception to the 180-degree rule was found during earlier investigations of the "fossil magnetism" of the rocks in Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula. Scientists were surprised to find what looked like a switch of about 200 degrees. In other words, the magnetic north and south poles seemed to be seriously off kilter at one point about a billion years ago.

Smirnov's group looked at rocks from the same era at the Coldwell Complex, located in Ontario near the town of Marathon. There, a more-complete fossil magnetization record is available. They found that it wasn't the earth's magnetic field that had moved so dramatically: it was the North American Plate itself. Their discovery validates an earlier hypothesis that the continent was breaking speed records back in the day.

But what engine could drive a at such a clip? Smirnov believes the answer may lie deep beneath the surface of the earth.

Mantle Activity

"We know there was a lot of mantle activity at the time,"he said. The mantle is the layer between the earth's crust and its core. "The continental and oceanic plates float atop this thick layer of semi-molten rock, and at this point in the Precambrian Era all the land masses were drifting together to form the supercontinent Rodinia.

"We had a very vigorous mantle at that time, and that would move this huge continental plate," said Smirnov.

Explore further: Geophysicists challenge traditional theory underlying the origin of mid-plate volcanoes

More information: "Paleomagnetism of the ~1.1 Ga Coldwell Complex (Ontario, Canada): Implications for Proterozoic Geomagnetic Field Morphology and Plate Velocities,"coauthored by Smirnov, PhD student Evgeniy Kulakov and Professor Jimmy Diehl, all of Michigan Tech, is published Dec. 21 in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth.

Related Stories

World's tectonic plate movement mapped

August 25, 2014

A group of geophysicists is testing the hypothesis that the rate of "supercontinent assembly"—or tectonic plate movement—changes over time.

Questions of continental crust

November 27, 2014

Geological processes shape the planet Earth and are in many ways essential to our planet's habitability for life. One important geological process is plate tectonics – the drifting, colliding and general movement of continental ...

Is there an ocean beneath our feet?

January 27, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists at the University of Liverpool have shown that deep sea fault zones could transport much larger amounts of water from the Earth's oceans to the upper mantle than previously thought.

Recommended for you

New research could predict La Nina drought years in advance

November 16, 2017

Two new studies from The University of Texas at Austin have significantly improved scientists' ability to predict the strength and duration of droughts caused by La Niña - a recurrent cooling pattern in the tropical Pacific ...

86 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

automaticsteam
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2015
Some plates are about to move much faster; up to 12 mph. I believe we are on the cusp of a major tectonic shift.
Shootist
4.9 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2015
Some plates are about to move much faster; up to 12 mph. I believe we are on the cusp of a major tectonic shift.


Do you read black or oolong tea leaves? Or are you more into chicken entrails?
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2015
"Some plates are about to move much faster; up to 12 mph"

Provide GPS evidence, please, else go away.

{ Besides *really* confusing air-line pilots, such displacements would seriously annoy 'long baseline' radio astronomers... }
automaticsteam
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2015
I forgot we are in the era of science by consensus. I must remember that and tow the stock line.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2015
Some plates are about to move much faster; up to 12 mph. I believe we are on the cusp of a major tectonic shift.


When you make a ridiculously unscientific statement you should expect nothing but ridicule.
automaticsteam
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 04, 2015
I have heard nothing scientific from 3 commenters, and the article is admittedly, conjecture in part. I have seen enough, and my own analysis of data, simply is not in the majority. I posit there have been numerous sudden, short-lived, epic tectonic events, which coincide with re-facing of the surface, and some extinctions. That you can't wrap your minds around the astronomical vastness of what is occuring, is of no consequence to me. Your need to ridicule whatr you know nothing of, or that you would stifle thought, exhibits your low intelligence common denominator. You are irrelevent
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2015
I have heard nothing scientific from 3 commenters, and the article is admittedly, conjecture in part. I have seen enough, and my own analysis of data, simply is not in the majority. I posit there have been numerous sudden, short-lived, epic tectonic events, which coincide with re-facing of the surface, and some extinctions. That you can't wrap your minds around the astronomical vastness of what is occuring, is of no consequence to me. Your need to ridicule whatr you know nothing of, or that you would stifle thought, exhibits your low intelligence common denominator. You are irrelevent


You have yet to post anything scientific, just the rantings of someone off their meds.
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2015
I forgot we are in the era of science by consensus. I must remember that and tow the stock line.

No. You must remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evodence.

And if you don't think that first making a definitve statmenet and then following up with "it's like that because I believe it is" is a problem as far as logic is concerned then you may want to move over to a religious site (they have no problems with type of argument)
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (11) Feb 05, 2015
I have heard nothing scientific from 3 commenters, and the article is admittedly, conjecture in part. I have seen enough, and my own analysis of data, simply is not in the majority. I posit there have been numerous sudden, short-lived, epic tectonic events, which coincide with re-facing of the surface, and some extinctions. That you can't wrap your minds around the astronomical vastness of what is occuring, is of no consequence to me. Your need to ridicule whatr you know nothing of, or that you would stifle thought, exhibits your low intelligence common denominator. You are irrelevent


The battle cry of the pseudo-scientist. "For behold, I have seen the Truth, shining brightly through the lines of logic and science held tightly by those who would not believe nor understand my greatness. And they shall quiver and be afraid, for my intellect and insightfulness is beyond their ken, and the masses will come soon to worship my greatness and the others shall perish in ignorance!"
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2015
"For behold, I have seen the Truth, shining brightly through the lines of logic and science held tightly by those who would not believe nor understand my greatness. And they shall quiver and be afraid, for my intellect and insightfulness is beyond their ken, and the masses will come soon to worship my greatness and the others shall perish in ignorance!"

Quite right. it's even more baffling when one considers that not a single scientist in history, who has made any contribution to science, has had such an attitude.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2015
So tell me y'all, who have not even considered why I might have said such a thing, but dismissed it with no refutation, simply jeers.

Y'all are the stuff the Dark Ages was made of, not people with new ideas... None of you have asked for anything, not offered anything.

Tell readers, what's wrong "scientifically" with my statement. You cannot. Except to parrot your favorite scientist, because you are wannabes.

Let's see some original thought. (Oh, forgot, you never had one.)
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2015
Aside: Could you see this poser vietvet fighting for our country?
LOL oh LOL
Vietvet
3.3 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2015
Some plates are about to move much faster; up to 12 mph. I believe we are on the cusp of a major tectonic shift.


An outrageous unscientific claim. You can believe all you want in your lala land but this is a science site.

You offer no explanation for your silly claim and you expect us to offer something return.

"Tell readers, what's wrong "scientifically" with my statement. You cannot. Except to parrot your favorite scientist, because you are wannabes."

You statement is not based on science, it's that simple

You need to check with your doctor because your meds aren't working.

Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2015
Some plates are about to move much faster; up to 12 mph. I believe we are on the cusp of a major tectonic shift.

Please explain WHY we are on your predicted cusp...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2015
Aside: Could you see this poser vietvet fighting for our country?
LOL oh LOL

You are obviously NOT one....
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2015
Whydening Gyre: when people get in groupthink mode, they are like animals. See now, I was going to answer your question, I thought, ah, a man of intelligence - somebody who appreciates new ideas, because that's how mankind advances (though it seems to be dumbing-down with all the technology) - but then, you made a statement about my military service, ad hominem, and so I have decided not to cast pearls before swine.
How little we know, to be ridiculing ideas - arschlocks.
Here's a nugget, jackwads. Brand new. FU http://news.yahoo...192.html
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2015
Vietvet: "An outrageous unscientific claim. You can believe all you want in your lala land but this is a science site. You offer no explanation for your silly claim and you expect us to offer something return."

I had no chance - you attacked on my first statement. You never intend to understand science. Science changes everyday - you are in a lock-step rote orthodoxy. What an idiot.

You say it's outrageous, yet you know not even what it is. You have spoken not one word about science, nor said anything scientific. You are a pompous, groupthink, small-minded ass and a troll. You lecture me about "sientific" sites ... you are a joke.

automaticsteam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2015
You offer no explanation for your silly claim and you expect us to offer something return.

Who's "us" jurkopff? yo boyz?

you f'n follower, slave, idiot - pathetic
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2015
If you know enough to say my statement is not valid, then refute it, "scientifically" - LOL

Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2015
If you know enough to say my statement is not valid, then refute it, "scientifically" - LOL


Only if it is presented "scientifically"...
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2015
Here's a nugget, jackwads. Brand new. FU http://news.yahoo...192.html
That's the same study in a different article. Your being a snide jackass doesn't foster the desire for anyone to speak with you. Try dropping your attitude of persecution.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2015
- but then, you made a statement about my military service, ad hominem, and so I have decided not to cast pearls before swine.
How little we know, to be ridiculing ideas - arschlocks.

So, then...
Actually it was more aimed at your rather rude comment.
To prevent any further ad hominems aimed at your service, what was your branch and tenure?
As a Viet era vet, m'self (Army, Signal, 72-75) I get a little touchy when ad hominem attacks are made on fellow vets. We took a lot of heat from the general public at that time and moved on with it fairly well, I'd say...

Now then. How about re-casting one of your "pearls"? With a more scientific approach (data, cites, etc.) and less "attitude", of course...
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2015
If you know enough to say my statement is not valid, then refute it, "scientifically" - LOL



You're such a dumb f**k you don't recognize a non-scientific statement after you've made it.

You made a statement with ZERO evidence, it is up the claimant to provide empirical evidence.

I don't know if you're a particularly bad troll, delusional, incredibly ignorant, but I suspect it's a combination of all three.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2015
As I said screwy, it was a preliminary statement - topical - a lead in, you syntactically challenged dumb ***k - to start a discussion. But one cannot have a discussion with a troll, and an imbicile, for they are on the prowl to attack, with no offering in exchange of their own. They live to debate, not discuss. Dude, you are a patheticv, sniveling pseudo-intellectual.

I have no need to comment on science here. I talk to the physicists.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2015
Hey vietvet and other non-science debator-troll-proles (the correct response from viet would be something like, "that's impossible, because..." if they wanted to object ...

It is fun to stick one's neck out with new, and bold ideas. I am sad for you.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2015
"Dare to be wrong, and to dream." - Friedrich Schiller
abecedarian
2 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2015
Some portions of some plates are already moving faster than 12 mph... and other portions are moving at greater than 1000 mph ... and yet others so much slower they are under 1mm annually.

Of course, that does depend on the position relative to the equator and the true poles.

Now, the plates' relative motion to each other is a completely different matter altogether.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
I forgot we are in the era of science by consensus. I must remember that and tow the stock line.

You could not be more wrong. Lots of people are looking at alternative ideas and researching them. Sometimes they come up with stuff that alters our understanding of things. Want to know the difference between you? You say "modern science is wrong but I figured it out and it reovolutonises current theory" but don't provide any evidence to back it up. The ones who have made these progresses have been able to give evidence and show how they prove their models better than current ones.
Provide real scientific evidence and accept constructive critisms and use them to improve your model and you can be one of the greats of science. You'd probably getting a Nobel prize. So, respectfully, please provide your evidence.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2015
Some portions of some plates are already moving faster than 12 mph... and other portions are moving at greater than 1000 mph ... and yet others so much slower they are under 1mm annually.

Of course, that does depend on the position relative to the equator and the true poles.

Now, the plates' relative motion to each other is a completely different matter altogether.


You're nuttier than @atuomaticstream.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2015
Vietvet - you are out of your league intellectually.
He was being facetious.

jsdarkdestruction - as I said to viet, I was starting a discussion. None of the trolls here has said anything scientific, including YOU.

Hey, I get it. You think you are smart, because you can latch onto an article that you really don't understand, and say important and intelligent sounding things by parroting the scientists.

You CANNOT disagree with any of it, because you don't really understand what you are seeing, and so can only parrot what it says, hence you cannot deviate.

It is anathema if anyone does, because it escapes the confines of your limited skill set, which is approximately that of a tape recorder where it comes to tectonics.

The objective truth is, you decided to not only reject, but attack something, without understanding anything about it. Your ancestors carried torches and pitchforks.

Anybody can repeat information back. Orthodox churches do it all the time.

.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2015
Here, instead of a statement, I give all the big brains here a problem. Now you can actually be productive. Science is confounded, and many theories have been put forth. So your answer right now, is virtually as good as anyone's:

At the end of the Ice Age, mastodon were fresh frozen in the Siberian ice, during a period of 'global warming' (gawd I hate that term). That was less than 13,000 years ago, and at the same time, they became extinct.

The mastodon have still in their digestive systems, plant matter from a latitude much further south - about 2000 miles.

How did this phenomenon occur?
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
@automaticsteam.

You made a provocative and ridiculous statement and importantly you gave absolutely no reason for it. That is not starting a discussion, that's being a troll.

It is up to you and you alone to explain why you "believe we are on the cusp of a major tectonic shift."
automaticsteam
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2015
Now, back to my statement. The relationships are so grand it is not getting written in a comment list... One thing core to my idea is, relationships of lateral movement based on isostasy, employing versors for the transformation from Cartesian to spherical derivatives. Geometrical relationships in the calculation then of line integrals, plot direction. Rapid motion of some land masses is possibly facilitated by velocity calculated, vectoring fluid flow through a small volume in the asthenosphere. Yes, sometimes science misses relationships. Until someone realizes them.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2015
@steam

Mastodons never existed in Siberia.

How do you expect a shred of credibility when screw up something so basic?
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
There is, the beginnings of my science. Admittedly, I am no Schettino and wish I had help with math beyond my skill sets. The math is my weakest area. I am a student of science.

Sorry for thinking, vietvet - I see it falls outside your skill set.

To readers at large, I repeat my problem:

At the end of the Ice Age, mastodon were fresh frozen in the Siberian ice, during a period of 'global warming' (gawd I hate that term). That was less than 13,000 years ago, and at the same time, they became extinct.

The mastodon have still in their digestive systems, plant matter from a latitude much further south - about 2000 miles.

How did this phenomenon occur?
automaticsteam
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2015
thank you for graciously pointing out my mis-step vietvet

"mammouth" not mastodon
automaticsteam
1.2 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
mammoth, not mammouth -

nonetheless, take mammoth Yuka e.g. - I disagree these animals subsisted digging leftover seeds and grasses from the ice with their tusks. Rather, I submit they starved trying. That that forage was a short-lived mode at the end of the age.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2015
Whydening Gyre

if viet is a vet at all, then i am sorry to say I think he suffers from ptsd and is obviously aggressive, not cooperative. i am disinterested in these stupid discussions of credibility.

These are opinion - comment sections, not textbooks.

Comment on my math basics.
or comment on the question I posed.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2015
@automaticsteam

This site attracts all sorts of people pushing pseudo science and I have little patience for that and I am aggressive when responding to their comments. Part of it is sitting at a key board and not face to face. @ Cantdrive has called me a murderer several times but as crazy as as it sounds I think he and I could enjoy sharing a few beers.

Your comments about Siberian mammoths and the following question reflects widely held misconceptions. I first read about "flash frozen" (to your credit you used "fresh frozen") mammoths in Readers Digest when I was a kid. The story that some wide spread calamity killed and froze mammoths is a myth. Most of the preserved carcasses died thousands of years apart. There was no suddenness to their extinction. It is also a myth that preserved plant material came from a more temperate climate.

Cont.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
@automaticsteam
Cont.

If your "12mph" idea is based on the extinction of mammoths you're barking up the wrong tree.

I'm including a link to an article with references that goes into much more detail than I have.

http://www.geocit...oth.html
automaticsteam
1.2 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
Good. OK - but your article ... opinion, not science. Mostly, 'this scientist was correct, and that one wasn't' so I build my case on the fact that all the scientists I disagree with are 'bogus' and 'pseudo' and the mainstream opinions are genuine.' There is virtually no data.

Focusing on Hapgood - his book Earth's Shifting Crust - your author would say bogus, and says Hapgood's theories had no support in the scientific community (science by consensus). Yet he omits that Albert Einstein verified and accepted Hapgood's math and general theory.

The geocities article says: "The LGM came to an end around 18,000 years ago. This time, unlike previous retreats of the Laurentian ice sheet, it disappeared completely. Again, the full reasons for this are not properly understood. Again it is likely to have been a complex interaction of Milankovitch Cycles and ocean currents."

Hello? Where's the science? You apply a double standard vietvet.

continued
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2015
@automaticsteam

Timeline;
1955; Einstein died
1958; Hapgood published The Earths Shifting Crust
1968 ;Seismologic evidence of plate tectonics---- destroying rapid single crust shift.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2015
"if it continues to prove itself of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the earth's surface."
Albert Einstein to Charles Hapgood

It didn't continue to prove itself. Research revealed the the crust is broken into plates, not a single crust as proposed by Hapgood and slow enough that only with careful instrumental measurements is it perceptible.

http://www.flem-a...ondence/
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2015
"Hapgood spent ten years working with New England medium Elwood Babbitt (b. 1922), attempting to make contact with notable figures from the past. Babbitt, a retired carpenter and World War II veteran, had studied trance mediumship at Edgar Cayce's Association for Research and Enlightenment. Hapgood audiotaped and transcribed a number of Babbitt's "trance lectures" which purported to come from Jesus, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, and the Hindu god Vishnu,[13] using the material to publish his final three books:Voices of Spirit, Through the Psychic Experience of Elwood Babbitt (1975), Talks with Christ and His Teachers Through the Psychic Gift of Elwood Babbitt (1981), and The God Within: a Testament of Vishnu, a Handbook for the Spiritual Renaissance (1982). [1] During this time Babbitt and Hapgood's cousin, Beth Hapgood worked closely with the nearby Brotherhood of the Spirit New Age commune."

http://en.wikiped..._Hapgood
abecedarian
3.5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2015
Some portions of some plates are already moving faster than 12 mph... and other portions are moving at greater than 1000 mph ... and yet others so much slower they are under 1mm annually.

Of course, that does depend on the position relative to the equator and the true poles.

Now, the plates' relative motion to each other is a completely different matter altogether.


You're nuttier than @atuomaticstream.


How so? Nothing in my post was incorrect.

The rotational velocity at the equator is in excess of 1000 miles per hour and decreases as one moves farther north or south.

Perhaps you missed the last sentence?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
How so? Nothing in my post was incorrect.

The rotational velocity at the equator is in excess of 1000 miles per hour and decreases as one moves farther north or south.

Perhaps you missed the last sentence?
If I may; your wording was clumsy, and I frankly did not see the satire in your initial post either. It sounded like you were suggesting that tectonic plates were moving at incredible speeds, as was suggested by autosteamwhatever in his initial post. Your attempt at humor was lost.

That your attempted humor needs to be explained suggests you need to work on your delivery.
barakn
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2015
@automaticsteam - It's odd that someone like you with an interest in science is just now noticing Phys.org (and its predecessor Physorg.com), which has been allowing comments on science articles for 8 years. The hostile reaction to your idea is not because the other commenters here have not given careful consideration to your idea, but because your idea is virtually identical to that of a particularly foul-mouthed and vicious troll named r_r. His "theory" - and therefore yours - already received its fair share of attention and debate years before you first commented here. You are late to the party and bring nothing of value.
abecedarian
4.8 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
Maggnus spoke:
If I may; your wording was clumsy, and I frankly did not see the satire in your initial post either. It sounded like you were suggesting that tectonic plates were moving at incredible speeds, as was suggested by autosteamwhatever in his initial post. Your attempt at humor was lost.
I appreciate your candor.

That your attempted humor needs to be explained suggests you need to work on your delivery.
Possibly. Or, perhaps, the reader should take pause to contemplate what was just read.

Either way... please continue posting and may your mind remain as free and open as it was born to be.

PhotonX
5 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
First, the absurd claim. Next, act offended when challenged to divert attention from the unsupported statement.
That you can't wrap your minds around the astronomical vastness of what is occuring, is of no consequence to me.

Then, shift the burden of proof:
(tell me) what's wrong "scientifically" with my statement. You cannot. ... If you know enough to say my statement is not valid, then refute it, "scientifically"

Then the "I would have, but..." excuse not to deliver.
I was going to answer your question...but...I have decided not to cast pearls before swine.

Remember to post a website that comes nowhere close to supporting the original claim, and just make ad hominen attacks because you know you can't justify the original error.
low intelligence common denominator...irrelevent...wannabes...swine...arschlocks...jackwads...FU ...slave...idiot...pathetic...troll...imbicile...patheticv, sniveling pseudo-intellectual...
Just like a religious fundamentalist.
verkle
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
verkle
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015

jsdarkdestruction - as I said to viet, I was starting a discussion. None of the trolls here has said anything scientific, including YOU.

Hey, I get it. You think you are smart, because you can latch onto an article that you really don't understand, and say important and intelligent sounding things by parroting the scientists.

You CANNOT disagree with any of it, because you don't really understand what you are seeing, and so can only parrot what it says, hence you cannot deviate.

It is anathema if anyone does, because it escapes the confines of your limited skill set, which is approximately that of a tape recorder where it comes to tectonics.

The objective truth is, you decided to not only reject, but attack something, without understanding anything about it. Your ancestors carried torches and pitchforks

.

In other words you didn't really read my post and cannot provide any evidence so you turn to conspiracy theories about "consensus science"
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
"Dare to be wrong, and to dream." - Friedrich Schiller

Ah yes, the non relevant appeal to authority quoting when asked to provide solid scientific evidence says it all. You wouldn't know real science if it bit you in the ass.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
I want to comment on the scientific justification for the data presented in this article.
—the change is recorded in certain volcanic minerals that are formed as lava cools....


How can we assume that these lava flows have been even relatively consistent over the past 1 billion years?

I am skeptical of your motives in asking and that you will just ignore anything that contradicts God magically creating the world 6000 years ago. If you genuinely want to learn and leave out your young earth creationist the bible must always be taken literally as a science book, here
http://en.m.wikip..._methods
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
barakn

I submit that you do not know my theory, but a small fragment. There is too much attention to extraneous vetting, and I am still looking for some scientific refutation, though admittedly I've not had time to keep up here. (I need to work once in a while). No one could offer anything here coherent through the barrage of credibility sniping. Couldn't even have a trackable discussion if one could.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
"Hapgood spent ten years working with..." Again, a credibility shot. Yet, you have and do follow people that adhere to similar 'religious' practices, and some are at the highest levels of government. So what? I do not practice any of that, yet, now we have quantum particle communication that is reproduceable at short distances ...

The truth vietvet, is none of us knows shit about the universe in the grand scheme of things, and all pinnacles in social history were at times when bold ideas were advanced.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
The evidence with new information, especially the most recent information across several disciplines is beginning to support Hapgood's assertions, inasmuch as he could predict with the information at hand. Your example of Einstein's death and Hapgood's book is of no consequence:

Please read:
"We know that there is no absolute knowledge, that there
are only theories; but we forget this. The better educated
we are, the harder we believe in axioms. I asked Einstein
in Berlin once how he, a trained, drilled, teaching scientist
of the worst sort, a mathematician, physicist, astronomer,
had been able to make his discoveries. 'How did you ever do
it/ I exclaimed, and he, understanding and smiling, gave the
answer:

" 'By challenging an axiom I' "

Lincoln Steffens, Autobiography (p. 816)
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
FOREWORD by Albert Einstein

"I frequently receive communications from people who wish
to consult me concerning their unpublished ideas. It -goes
without saying that these ideas are very seldom possessed of
scientific validity. The very first communication, however,
that I received from Mr. Hapgood electrified me. His idea is
original, of great simplicity, and if it continues to prove it-
selfof great importance to everything that is related to the
history of the earth's surface...."
http://www.archiv...djvu.txt
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015

jsdarkdestruction: "In other words you didn't really read my post and cannot provide any evidence so you turn to conspiracy theories about "consensus science"

No, I meant every word.
Consensus, not conspiracy; Orthodoxy. The real flat-earthers.
Conspiracy is your word, not mine.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
I want to comment on the scientific justification for the data presented in this article.
—the change is recorded in certain volcanic minerals that are formed as lava cools....


How can we assume that these lava flows have been even relatively consistent over the past 1 billion years?

I am skeptical of your motives in asking and that you will just ignore anything that contradicts God magically creating the world 6000 years ago. If you genuinely want to learn and leave out your young earth creationist the bible must always be taken literally as a science book, here
http://en.m.wikip..._methods


Perfect example of a completely out-of-context personal attack on this @verkle person.
They posed a simple, valid, point/question, and this pontificating, self-important troll @jsdarkdestruction is "skeptical" of @verkle's motives... This is just outlandish.

automaticsteam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015
TO THE MODERATORS: A CADRE OF APPARENTLY SELF-APPOINTED GATEKEEPERS OF BOTH THE COMMENT LIST, AND SCIENCE ITSELF, WILL ALLOW NO DISCUSSION WHICH CHALLENGES COMMON SCIENTIFIC ORTHODOXY. THEY RENDER YOUR COMMENT SECTION USELESS, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE SAID NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC THING, AND VIRTUALLY ADDRESSED NO QUESTION AT HAND, BUT RATHER CONTINUE RELENTLESSLY ON THEIR ATTACK AGENDA. including:
vietvet, jsdarkdestruction, et al -
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
Notify me via email of follow-up comments posted here [ ][OFF]
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
barakn
4.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
barakn

I submit that you do not know my theory, but a small fragment.... -automaticsteam
I don't need to know any more than you hinted. I'd wager a large sum that you didn't calculate how much energy it would take. To speed Eurasia up to 12 mph, you'd need roughly the same amount of energy as in the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, if you include energy lost to friction. This would have to be applied evenly to the entire undersurface of the continent to avoid splitting it into pieces, but this would melt miles of rock from below, causing hell topside. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes.... mass hysteria. And that's the problem with people like you. You never bother to run the numbers as a sanity check. You just assume someone else will run the numbers later and validate your crackpot idea.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
TO THE MODERATORS: A CADRE OF APPARENTLY SELF-APPOINTED GATEKEEPERS OF BOTH THE COMMENT LIST, AND SCIENCE ITSELF, WILL ALLOW NO DISCUSSION WHICH CHALLENGES COMMON SCIENTIFIC ORTHODOXY. THEY RENDER YOUR COMMENT SECTION USELESS, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE SAID NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC THING, AND VIRTUALLY ADDRESSED NO QUESTION AT HAND, BUT RATHER CONTINUE RELENTLESSLY ON THEIR ATTACK AGENDA. including:
vietvet, jsdarkdestruction, et al -

Mommy, other kids are splashing me in the pool.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
TO THE MODERATORS: A CADRE OF APPARENTLY SELF-APPOINTED GATEKEEPERS OF BOTH THE COMMENT LIST, AND SCIENCE ITSELF, WILL ALLOW NO DISCUSSION WHICH CHALLENGES COMMON SCIENTIFIC ORTHODOXY. THEY RENDER YOUR COMMENT SECTION USELESS, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE SAID NOT ONE SCIENTIFIC THING, AND VIRTUALLY ADDRESSED NO QUESTION AT HAND, BUT RATHER CONTINUE RELENTLESSLY ON THEIR ATTACK AGENDA. including:
vietvet, jsdarkdestruction, et al -

Mommy, other kids are splashing me in the pool.


Ha! Good one! :)
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
Maggnus - you are the proof in the puddin' and so actually, mental Minimus. Ironically one of my ancestral names is your moniker minus a g...

nothing is ever more important than free expression - so fock wu
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
@barakn - comprende the big words?: relationships of lateral movement based on isostasy, employing versors for the transformation from Cartesian to spherical derivatives. Geometrical relationships in the calculation then of line integrals, plot direction. Rapid motion of some land masses is possibly facilitated by velocity calculated, vectoring fluid flow through a small volume in the asthenosphere.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
Eurasia is not a likely candidate, btw.
I have not focused on the potential directions of specific continental movements either, including, but not limited to, east, west, north, south, up, down, or merely around - turned. Folded, subducted, etc - at the moment I am discussing a more brod dynamic that exists.
Even though the sun is the primary energy source, in a more immediate sense, the core of the earth is heating up, and that is what is directly driving what I am speaking of.There is where my vast energy comes from. Now, to discuss that, we need to set it as a basis to - DISPROVE - as good science seeks to do. This cannot be done with so much disruption.
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
@barakn - comprende the big words?: relationships of lateral movement based on isostasy, employing versors for the transformation from Cartesian to spherical derivatives. Geometrical relationships in the calculation then of line integrals, plot direction. Rapid motion of some land masses is possibly facilitated by velocity calculated, vectoring fluid flow through a small volume in the asthenosphere.

Word salad. I have yet to see a scrap of vector calculus from you. Please surprise me.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
why I might have said such a thing
@steamed
well, you might have evidence... but someone who has evidence posting to a science site and obeying the scientific method would likely state the reasons and then include references that support said conclusions...but you've not done that, so?WhySoMad?
None of you have asked for anything, not offered anything
perhaps your literacy skills are not up to par? AAP stated
You must remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
[corrected] most people would have said "AHA! maybe if i add evidence people will listen!", but you didn't... and Nick asked for evidence too... which was ignored
you attacked on my first statement
but AFTER your second statement, which included NO evidence... better tell the MODS about me as well then, because you STILL haven't given any evidence! and what relevance is that yahoo link?

where is your evidence and where is the SCIENCE supporting your conclusions?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
You have spoken not one word about science, nor said anything scientific. You are a pompous, groupthink, small-minded ass and a troll. You lecture me about "sientific" sites ... you are a joke
@automaticsteam
up to this post here, neither have YOU posted one word scientific, only personal conjecture, so you are not one to call names
Who's "us" jurkopff? yo boyz?
how about:
Any literate reader with half a brain and common sense looking for the scientific reasons that you made such a claim as your initial post
including myself
If you know enough to say my statement is not valid, then refute it, "scientifically"
a claim made without scientific merit or support can be rejected as irrelevant simply because there is no scientific support or evidence... part of being a reasonable logical thinker

you've offered nothing scientific to refute, therefore your conjecture can be dismissed out of hand for the reasons of lack of evidence

WTF? just link the science!
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
Cripes! Captain Stumpy ... The same delineation of applied math was posted way back, and ignored. Plus - is anyone allowed to have a goddamned original idea? How do you think people start looking into things, and make discoveries? Is there no development of an idea? Must it be repleat with proof to be considered as a valid possibility? Do you know any such theory?

OK - read Quantitative Plate Tectonics - Schettino - the basic math is there, it is only 400+ pages.

Look above for a link I sent - new science. These things are coming in so fast, I cannot correlate them, yet they all support my theory on their face. Just couple days ago - this stuff is brand new science dude. http://phys.org/n...ore.html

Help me, don't ridicule a person for having ideas... my god.

automaticsteam
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
http://news.disco...tter.htm
Earth's Core 1,000 Degrees Hotter Than Expected

YO! It is ACTUALLY getting hotter, that's why it appears "hotter than expected".

this is a case where science changed their method of calculation, because they could not understand the disparity, and so blamed it on the baseline math.

WRONG - the core is actually 1000 degrees hotter than 30 years ago

this is your global warming - virtually all else we see is is symptomatic - the core is the driver.

if we approach from this view - watch the universe unfold
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2015
original idea?
@Steamed
there is a difference between an original idea based upon science and pseudoscience
if you were stating an original idea not based upon specific evidence, simply state IMHO

if it is based upon science, link the references
that is essentially what was being said above, and what they were asking for
and you were over-enthusiastic about trolling after you were challenged to present information, which YOU left out

Just because YOU read something in an article, even here, doesn't mean everyone read the same thing... not everyone reads every article posted here

so again, don't get mad, just post the science, references/links, etc

PS thanks for the links, but- making claims like
this is your global warming
is stupid, because there is NO evidence supporting the claim, only a misinterpretation by you
THANKS

SEE http://phys.org/n...tic.html comments sections as well as your thread
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2015
No, it is you who is misinterpreting, I gave you several articles supporting aspectsw of my claims. It is not my problem you will not entertain my notions, especially as you have put forth none of your own, nor any scientific refutation of anything that I said.

I shall never apologize to the likes of you for thinking something unpopular. Many scientists are coming to simalr conclusions, and myriad recent articles and announcements are showing this.

Heretofore, what are seen as 'causes' of warming, eg, are now beiung seen for what they are: Secondary Thermodynamic Reactions. I am so sorry for you that your "scientific" mind cannot contain anything new.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2015
When an innocuous idea threatens so many ...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2015
I gave you several articles supporting aspectsw of my claims.
@Steamed
no, you gave a bunch of links... you've not explained how any support your claims of
Some plates are about to move much faster; up to 12 mph. I believe we are on the cusp of a major tectonic shift
which is the object of the derision which you were complaining about when i stepped in to post here, and tried to explain to you WHY you were being singled out

How does the links above apply to the "12mph" claim?
Where are you getting the "12mph" claim from?
Where is the science behind it?

No one here is "threatened" by your posts, they are irritated because you made a claim and refuse to back it up with anything... and now you are intentionally being vague about how your links support your claim

I don't care if you apologize or not
i only care about the SCIENCE
my mind follows the evidence, because that is how i am wired (and why i worked in the jobs i did)

cont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2015
@steamed cont'd
what are seen as 'causes' of warming, eg, are now beiung seen for what they are: Secondary Thermodynamic Reactions
and you've given NO studies supporting this conjecture either...
I am so sorry for you that your "scientific" mind cannot contain anything new
i thought you were not going to apologize to me?
I shall never apologize to the likes of you
ANYWAY... that is irrelevant!

I CLAIM that the AGW is predominantly driven by CO2 in a cycle with WV, supported by THIS study: http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf

you claim that the effects of AGW are secondary Thermodynamics...
Now prove your claim with the SAME LEVEL of evidence that i have provided... IOW, a STUDY that supports your conclusions

not an article
OR
give the SCIENCE behind it so that it can be addressed by those who can point out the specifics and review it logically, piece by piece

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2015
@steamed CONCLUSION
so lets get back to the basics:
'causes' of warming,

I have stated my POV with a study above
I am NOT ruling out any effects that might contribute to the warming
I am following the evidence... and that will include ANY contributions to the warming... not just singling out one that i think it correct...

Post script- when i say i follow the science it also means that i make up my mind based upon the evidence and the science
PERIOD

if you can contribute a scientific study and conclusive evidence that you are correct, which also supports your "12mph" assertions above, then by all means, contribute it.

I don't care, really... i LOVE science and how it works

automaticsteam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2015
no one said a word about the math I described ... I don't have it all figured out, but as you say - the evidence all points to it.

man certainly has some contribution to warming, and if one is basing that on co2 then the co2 cycle clearly shows that contribution is limited. the thermal mass of cities and sprawl, of megalopolis, is contributing too.

as I looked at the roughly linear delineation of the epochs and their durations, I realized they are shortening almost exponentially, and to follow out the averages, we are about at the end of the Holocene.

myriad scientific articles can be easily found point to anomalous, and eratic magnetic disruption in earth, and the disruptions near the surface, and in atmosphere are reciprocally exciting each other. Some seismologists are blaming earthquakes on atmospheric magnetic disruptions.

Chinese scientists just discovered an inner core, believe carbon in which domains align directionally Molten iron/nickel outer pulsing DC
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2015
Continental glaciers melting from beneath, and I am not sure anyone has found any land rise as a result. We hear about glaciers melting causing raising sea levels, but the Algore crowd, eg, seem to completely fail to factor in continental rise when the weight of a continental glacier is removed.

I am at the point of trying to find any data of rise of Antarctica or Greenland - which are the only 2 places I have heard discussion of underside glacial melting.
automaticsteam
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2015
"no, you gave a bunch of links... you've not explained how any support your claims of"

I am not going to try to dodge barrages preemptive sortie strikes to state an idea, or position, theory, or finding.

Not worth it pal.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.