CompuServe Thread

#Antartica

5 messages in this thread
#174995From: Kamron KirkconnellMar 19, 1995 4:44 PM
Hello Doug Here comes the focus of the plate motion controversy (converging impossibilities)<g> The motion of the Antarctic plate is demonstrated by the features present in the Mid Ocean Ridge that we find around it. We agree that the motion is directly away from the Australian continent on that side. We agree the West Indian Ridge shows the most dramatic shift fault movement on the Globe and it is aligned more along the Mid Ridge for a greater distance than most other Ridge's. We predicted if this motion was present then the South East ridge would shift to the South East. This is proved by the bow in the shift faults to the SE if there is plate motion…see the bow showing progression of the location of the shift fault towards the SE as it continues to form creating a bow. This is the motion I said we need to find in these faults if there is motion present. Bet you wish you had brought that up. I did because the sequence shows the same motion for both theories. The problem is if this motion was occuring …. the arcs between South America and Australia need to bow the other way…and they don't. They demonstrate slip along the plate boundary in the other direction. Kamron
#175318From: Doug MitchellMar 20, 1995 10:56 PM
Hi, Kamron– >> We predicted if this motion was present then the South East ridge would shift to the South East. This is proved by the bow in the shift faults to the SE if there is plate motion…see the bow showing progression of the location of the shift fault towards the SE as it continues to form creating a bow. This is the motion I said we need to find in these faults if there is motion present. I do not follow. The southeast Indian ridge I expect is doing no shifting along the ridge, and is spreading perpendicular to the ridge. What do you mean by bowing and why would it be expected? –Doug
#175543From: Kamron KirkconnellMar 22, 1995 7:25 AM
Hello Doug Can you fix this title…. should be Antarctica I am close here to finally communicating the point or the problem I see in the Mid Ocean Ridge shift faults. Thanks for bearing with me. >> The southeast Indian ridge I expect is doing no shifting along the ridge, and is spreading perpendicular to the ridge. What do you mean by bowing and why would it be expected? << Shift Fault Bow shows ridge shift for the slow generation and fast solidification theories. Lets look at the ridge that surrounds Antarctica and see if low spreading created the Ridge. This must be done on a globe to get the full picture. The motion of a plate can be seen in the axis of the shift faults as we have discussed. If we look at the shift faults along the South east Indian ridge between Australia and Antarctica they are roughly parallel. These lines could be expressing plate motion if they are parrallel as they are. This same axis contines as you go westward along the ridge including the dramatically shiftedRidge between Africa and Antarctica. If we follow the mid ridge eastward however the shift faults start to angle. The angle keeps increasing to a full 90 degees to the origional line then connects back in an arc to the dramatically shifted ridge again. This axis change in your theory would show a change in the direction of motion indicated by the shift faults which is impossible. Your only out is that Antarctica is not in motion and the Mid Ocean Ridge is expanding around it. If this is the case then 1. Why would the shift faults extend into the Antarctic plate 2. The expaninding of the almost full circle would need a full circle of subduction around it to take up the expansion. 3. The shift faults would show slippage or bows in the formations in areas where as the plate expanded it would need to shift along the Mid Ridge and this is not the case. There are dozens of other problems in the growing plate Ridge simulation. Kamron
#176235From: Doug MitchellMar 25, 1995 9:43 PM
Hi, Kamron– >> Your only out is that Antarctica is not in motion and the Mid Ocean Ridge is expanding around it. I dimly recall a mention that that is roughly what is happening. I have spoken of Antarctica moving away from Australia and sideways past Africa, but that is only one relative viewpoint chosen for convenience; I described it as seen by an observer in Australia. From the viewpoint of Antarctica, I expect it is a case of ridges moving themselves away from Antarctica, primarily toward Australia, and minimally if at all toward Africa. Australia's northward motion is clearly taken up by the Java and Hebrides trenches. I am fuzzy on where the fastest spreading on the other side is; I will go on a buying spree on my return to Calif., and high on the list is a globe (right after my nervous breakdown; see my message to Lanny), very preferably one with seafloor relief. (Anyone know a good place to look?) Don't expect overly well-thought answers from me until then… I described earlier about how a pair of ridges with no subduction between would move away from each other (I was talking about northeast/southwest of Africa). Antarctica seems to me to be a rough compromise between that one-dimensional scenario and its two-dimensional extension: draw a ring of spreading ridges, pull from the outside in all directions, and the central enclosed region will grow in all directions. Or maybe it is a three-direction pull, or some variation on that theme. I am still trying to figure what you mean by "bowing". Is it the angling of the transform faults relative to the spreading ridges, or what? –Doug
#176404From: Kamron KirkconnellMar 26, 1995 8:47 PM
Greetings Doug Ok lets look at global motion in relation to Antarctica >>From the viewpoint of Antarctica, I expect it is a case of ridges moving themselves away from Antarctica, primarily toward Australia, and minimally if at all toward Africa.<< If we assume that the Mid Point of the Ridge is moving away from Antarctica then why are the shift faults extending inward? The plate is forming as the opposite plate pulls away why wouldn't the Antarctic plate fill in the shift faults as a solid without the fault? >> I will go on a buying spree on my return to Calif., and high on the list is a globe (right after my nervous breakdown; see my message to Lanny), very preferably one with seafloor relief. (Anyone know a good place to look?) << Mine is the National Geographic Physical Globe approximately 18". Shows all the basin features but is from 1974. I'll been meaning to get a new one. There is a flat map in one of the recent issues that is pretty good. >>I am still trying to figure what you mean by "bowing". Is it the angling of the transform faults relative to the spreading ridges, or what?<< Bowing is when the shift fault or transform fault has an arc to it. This would be shifting along the ridge in both theories. All curved features would be indicating this shift. Based on how you have explained Mid Ridge formation then how do we explain this… the Ridge between Antarctica and Africa appears to have shifted 6500 miles lateraly along a 850 mile section of ridge. If the various maps portray that area correctly. How do you explain this much shifting here and where was this motion distributed worldwide? Kamron Kamron