Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:17 pm**

Beware this is a translation and contains incorrect grammer, but your used to that with my posts anywho.

Analysis of plate tectonics by Newtonian mechanics. Tectonic catastrophe
Justin Chashihin
Moscow institute of physics and engineering, (Moscow, Russia)
tel/fax 7.095/394.95.89
internet: http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas

This my work was presented at 31st International Geological Congress held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on 6-17 August, 2000, as a thesis at poster session 28 on August 11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:
Guy Berthault conducted fundamental experiments in stratification which are very involved with present work. Wesson pointed out 74 objections to gradualist plate tectonics. I show that assumption that continents drifted under friction force over earth mantle at constant velocity contradicts first Newton's law - every body moves at constant velocity only if none forces act upon it. It proves that continents drifted at friction deceleration. According to second Newton's law they drifted just several hours, but not several hundred million years. Laws of physics lead to scenario: asteroid fell upon Earth and splited continent, continents-splinters drifted at friction deceleration for several hours, and then they stopped and oscillation damping began, which causes earthquakes. This explains why statistics of today earthquakes is function of oscillation damping. The catastrophe induced global stratification that was explained by Guy Berthault in laboratory experiments. This revised theory of plate tectonics is in agreement with laws of physics and experimental data, in contrary to previous gradualist model.

1. Introduction

Guy Berthault (1986, 1988, 1993, 2000) conducted fundamental experiments in stratification which are very involved with present work.

Wesson (1972) had shown that theory of plate tectonics has so many contradictions, that radical changes in theory must be done for the theory to explain all geological phenomena and to solve so many problems. It cannot explain many phenomena (Wesson 1972; Beloussov 1979), partly the cause of drift and why there are many gap and overlap areas in fit of continents, periodical change of intensity of tectonic motions and deformations etc. Impossibility of convection mechanism to be a cause of drift (Wesson 1972) means that there is no energy source for gradualist continental drift, i.e. it contradicts energy conservation law. Moreover, there is no convection in mantle at all (Wesson 1972). There are at least 74 objections to theory of plate tectonics (Wesson 1972; Beloussov 1979; Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff 1972; Hall and Robinson 1979). The aim of the present article is to solve the problems of the continental drift theory revising and analyzing it by Newtonian mechanics.

2. Revision of plate tectonics by Newtonian mechanics

The basic assumption of plate tectonics that continents drifted under friction force over earth mantle at constant velocity is in squalling contradiction with laws of physics. According to first law of Newtonian mechanics, every body moves at constant velocity only if none forces act upon it. But friction force does act upon continents. Friction force is a universal force, it does act between continents and mantle. First Newton's law asserts that continents drifted by friction force at deceleration. Second Newton's law defines this deceleration equal to

a=F/m=gk (1)

(F is friction force, m is mass, a is acceleration, a=dv/dt, g is earth's gravity acceleration). Thus, gradualist model of plate tectonics is not consistent with laws of physics (1). It seems to me that physicist Wesson (1972) feeled that gradualist plate tectonics is not consistent with laws of physics, something is wrong here, and he began to search and found many serious problems of gradualist plate tectonics (Wesson 1972).

According to Newton's laws continents drifted during time

t=(2d/gk)1/2 (2)

where d is distance went by continent of mass m. The initial velocity v0 of continental drift according to Newton's laws is equal to

=gkt (3)

If friction coefficient between molten basalts is about k~0.001, then a~0.001 m/s2. Since today distance between Western coast of Africa and Eastern coast of South America is about 4.5 - 5 million meters, then both South America and Africa went about d» 2,300,000 meters relatively to Atlantic reference frame. And time required for motion of South America under deceleration of friction force a~0.01 m/s2 to its full stop, according to Newtonian mechanics (2), is equal to

~ 6 hours (4)

i.e. about six HOURS, but not 200 million years! The estimated initial velocity v0 of continental drift (3) is 200-300 meters per second, but not some centimeters per year! In time (3) it fell to zero due to friction between continents and mantle, and oscillation damping appeared, that causes modern earthquakes and illusion of slow drift.

It's necessary to note that what conclusion does not depend qualitatively on friction coefficient k. Only full time of the drift - hours, days, - depends slightly on k. Solid basalt was molten due to friction. This can explain why layer between mantle and continents is liquid (it erupts via volcanoes).

More probably, this great tectonic catastrophe was caused by fall of a small asteroid on earth around region of present North Atlantic. See also Debrabant 1999 and Marchal 1996. Asteroid splited the earth, and then continent of mass M began to move at the speed v0 under friction force. It had initial kinetic energy

http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/tectonic.htm

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:42 pm**

On August 13, 2000, I made my fourth successful hike all the way to the top of Mt. Whitney. (Let's not talk about the numerous unsuccessful ones.) I left the Whitney Portals parking lot at 4:48:35 AM (8,261 feet above sea level). After hiking more than 11 miles to the summit, I finally reached the top (14,494 feet) at 1:22:07 PM. After a 23 minute rest at the top, I headed down and got back to the car at 7:58:59 PM.
I tell you this to let you know that I have recently been “up-close and personal” with a very tall mountain for more than 15 hours. Here is what I saw looking northwest from Trail Crest (36o 33' 34” North, 118o 17' 30” West, 13,615 feet). Some of those slopes are almost vertical for thousands of feet. Were they really produced by a 2 inch per year collision with the Pacific Plate moved by convection? We don't think so.

What we see here is evidence of a high-speed collision. The North American Plate hit the Pacific Plate very fast and very hard.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i3f.htm

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:55 am**

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: The point Jbuza is that there is alot of heat being generated here, not only would it cook the oceans, but also make the make the atmostphere like an oven.
Would you like to demonstrate this, or are you just claiming it because you can. You need to demonstrate that no additonal work was done. A while ago you talked about daily earthquakes and such, and their is clearly the impact of mountians, so your assumption that it was all released as heat is well silly.

Hmm if memory serves me well motion as in earth quakes and mountain formation is ultimately converted to thermal energy.

Who's being silly? Ask any high school physics teacher.

http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/book ... er12.rhtml

As for the continental Drift, it is not thought as gliding of the Plates. Obviously there is a force causing slippage each time it moves, no one claims they move by momentum and needed millions of years to slow down. That entire paper is refuting a straw man!

As for the mountain claim it doesn't matter how slowly you compact material it will build up, try it with some lego blocks at home. In fact at these proportions a fast impact will cause material to be strewn for many miles around the impact and for material to be thrown into the atmostphere. Solid rocks would pulverize. A slow compacting is almost necessary!

In any case, as usual you are trying to bring faults into other theories without even trying to show what evidence supports your claims.

No matter what happens there is heat created by movement, and the heat generated is directly proportional to its velocity and grows exponentially.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:12 am**

Jbuza wrote:On August 13, 2000, I made my fourth successful hike all the way to the top of Mt. Whitney. (Let's not talk about the numerous unsuccessful ones.) I left the Whitney Portals parking lot at 4:48:35 AM (8,261 feet above sea level). After hiking more than 11 miles to the summit, I finally reached the top (14,494 feet) at 1:22:07 PM. After a 23 minute rest at the top, I headed down and got back to the car at 7:58:59 PM.
I tell you this to let you know that I have recently been “up-close and personal” with a very tall mountain for more than 15 hours. Here is what I saw looking northwest from Trail Crest (36o 33' 34” North, 118o 17' 30” West, 13,615 feet). Some of those slopes are almost vertical for thousands of feet. Were they really produced by a 2 inch per year collision with the Pacific Plate moved by convection? We don't think so.

What we see here is evidence of a high-speed collision. The North American Plate hit the Pacific Plate very fast and very hard.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i3f.htm

That is not at all what we see, as that statement voids the physical laws of mass in motion.

Take a bicycle and run it into your brick garage wall at 15 m.p.h. There is likely to be no damage whatsoever, perhaps some minor occurence to the wheel of the bicycle at best.

Now take a landmover dumptruck at 40 tons and 15 m.p.h. into the same brick garage wall. You will see catastrophic failure of the wall.

Why:
In a field of gravity, with a specific atmosphere, mass in motion gains inertia, which is the destructive/creative force of movement in current context. The gain is specific to the amount of mass involved and the rate of movement.

***Note: Tectonic "plates" are anything but "plates", which implies a sort of uniformity, which is proven untrue by ultrasonic testing, (go look it up, I have read it in 20 books that I own, not wasting time with internets links). Differing plates have differing thickness and density, completely without uniformity, which also lends to different physics per "plate".

Taking a plate 1/3 the earth's surface, versus a plate 1/10 the earth's surface, and accounting for plate irregularities for thickness and density, and taking into account the laws of physics, one plate is going to suffer catastrophic structural failure, or more aptly, moutains.

How do we know this:
By studying plates where they meet, and more notably, earthquakes. The San Andreas fault if where two plates of equal measure meet, and are grinding on one another, there being a statistical draw. Further up the coast, in the northwest we are watching a Cascadian rift, where one plate is forcing on the other, and the weaker plate, with a Mantle convection current very close to the undersurface, and being a thinner plate, with less density, is not crumbling in this case. It is bulging/bending. This shows that there is variance in plate thickness and density.

The suppositions of people/scientists who wish to convey the idea that the plates moved thousands of metres per day, is simply ludicrous in the face of the mechanisms that create movement, Core and Mantle conduction and convection. For such rapid movement to occur, there would have to be a greatly elevated degree of radioactive decay in the core, which would induce magnetic fields of such intensity as to alter the workings of the global atmosphere and most likely cause apocalyptic repercussions for any/all living creatures. You are suggesting a scenario for global failure.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:48 am**

Jbuza wrote:Analysis of plate tectonics by Newtonian mechanics. Tectonic catastrophe
Justin Chashihin [below added from website]

First Newton's law asserts that continents drifted by friction force at deceleration. Second Newton's law defines this deceleration equal to

a=F/m=gk (1)

(F is friction force, m is mass, a is acceleration, a=dv/dt, g is earth's gravity acceleration).

According to Newton's laws continents drifted during time

t=(2d/gk)1/2 (2)

where d is distance went by continent of mass m. The initial velocity v0 of continental drift according to Newton's laws is equal to

=gkt (3)

If friction coefficient between molten basalts is about k~0.001, then a~0.001 m/s2.

Note a = gk, where a is acceleration, g is gravity, k is coefficient of friction.
Please explain the derivation of this formula - no traditional geologist says the continents are moving because they are acted upon by gravity which is what this formula asserts.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/unanswered.html

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:58 am**

Mastriani wrote:***Note: Tectonic "plates" are anything but "plates", which implies a sort of uniformity, which is proven untrue by ultrasonic testing, (go look it up, I have read it in 20 books that I own, not wasting time with internets links).

What !?:o

Are you actually suggesting that people might benefit from examining some of the research (millions of dollars and man hours by many smart people) already done rather than just making up brand new theories ?

For shame, sir, you ought to be banned from this discussion.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:19 pm**

Mastriani wrote:...
Taking a plate 1/3 the earth's surface, versus a plate 1/10 the earth's surface, and accounting for plate irregularities for thickness and density, and taking into account the laws of physics, one plate is going to suffer catastrophic structural failure, or more aptly, moutains.

....

It does seem that if we limit ourselves to the present world, and how it operates there is a problem with rapid mountain building, and plate movements, and heat. The different world in the past is the only way to explain these things, far as I can tell, without destroying life on earth. I see no radioactive decay in the past, and a merged world at the time where all the heat that was generated, including the rapid mountain building, is what heat we see now. ( about 4400 years ago, more precisely).

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:15 pm**

Hmm if memory serves me well motion as in earth quakes and mountain formation is ultimately converted to thermal energy.
Who's being silly? Ask any high school physics teacher.

Well I am sorry to report that if your memory is serving you correctly than he wasn't a very good high school physics teacher. This is simply wrong. There is work being done. The kinetic energy does work and some of that is lost as heat. I have little more to say about this topic, because Energy out must Energy in, and if it is all heat the efficiency is 0% and no work is done. It takes energy to do the work of overcoming the friction, it takes energy to lift rock, energy is transferred into waves within the ground that cause work to be done at faults in other earthquakes that move still more objects, energy is released when magma is pumped onto the surface through volcanism. If I pick a rock up and place it 5000 feet into the air, I put energy into that rock.

If you would like to further contend this point I just want to point out to you that I will find it laughable.
--------------
As for the continental Drift, it is not thought as gliding of the Plates. Obviously there is a force causing slippage each time it moves, no one claims they move by momentum and needed millions of years to slow down. That entire paper is refuting a straw man!

I'm sorry but you have missed the point entirely. IT is hard for him to refute much of anything, when all he is doing is pointing out that plate techtonics has some rather large problems that many scientists agree on, and that if one looks at continental drift through Newtonian mechanics, you don't find boiled oceans, but you find very rapid drift.
-------------
As for the mountain claim it doesn't matter how slowly you compact material it will build up, try it with some lego blocks at home. In fact at these proportions a fast impact will cause material to be strewn for many miles around the impact and for material to be thrown into the atmostphere. Solid rocks would pulverize. A slow compacting is almost necessary!

I'm thinking you better stop arguing against how this actually occurred in the real world because it is beginning to appear silly. You are forcing your interpretations into physical laws that do not demonstrate that they could have happened.

First you accuse my theory of only frictional stopping so you can try and boil my oceans away, than you claim that all the power of a slow moving drift is accomplishing what it would need 10,000% efficiency to do. All I am seeing is air.
------------------
In any case, as usual you are trying to bring faults into other theories without even trying to show what evidence supports your claims.

Reall? Your ideas here are rather flimsy, your proposed mechanisms would erode faster than they build mountians, and you have done a rather clear job of demonstrating your lack of understanding of how the physical world actually works.

Further I am continuing to address the first issue, of boiled oceans, that seems to be rather stupid. The observations that mountains exist as the do, clear demonstration of Newtonian mechanics at work, A probable mechanism of water, and pretty much all the observations of the physical world support this, because it is what actually occoured.
----------------
No matter what happens there is heat created by movement, and the heat generated is directly proportional to its velocity and grows exponentially.

Sorry this is wrong. You fail to demonstrate it is so, and it is another empty claim. I will agree with your first statement here, because you are correct there is frictional heat caused by movement. You will fins that increased speed can actually reduce friction, you will further find that surface area can be quite independent of friction. Your claims are false, and your theory is a house of cards interpreted by false geological time. Since your theory is false and geological time does not exist you will find that the actual occourance of things will be more supported by the evidence than evolution, geological time, and false monistic materialistic science. But thanks for helping to poitn out the limitations of slow drift it has been most helpful.
-------------

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:20 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote: Please explain the derivation of this formula - no traditional geologist says the continents are moving because they are acted upon by gravity which is what this formula asserts.

IS this desperation that geological time is vanishing. OF course gravity enteres into the equation, don't be silly. You will find that the coefficient of friction is in large part caused by the pressure created when gravitational forces cause the plates to bear down on the lower divisions of the lithosphere.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:22 pm**

sandy_mcd wrote:What !?:o Are you actually suggesting that people might benefit from examining some of the research (millions of dollars and man hours by many smart people) already done rather than just making up brand new theories ? For shame, sir, you ought to be banned from this discussion.

Yes burn the heritic, he has new ideas. We in all are widom have decreed this is so, no more research. IS this the great peer review purging process in place or what?

Yes empty claims belive the empty claims. Don't think for yourself. Independants will be eradicated look to the institutions to tell you what is right.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:53 pm**

Jbuza wrote:Hmm if memory serves me well motion as in earth quakes and mountain formation is ultimately converted to thermal energy.
Who's being silly? Ask any high school physics teacher.

Well I am sorry to report that if your memory is serving you correctly than he wasn't a very good high school physics teacher. This is simply wrong. There is work being done. The kinetic energy does work and some of that is lost as heat. I have little more to say about this topic, because Energy out must Energy in, and if it is all heat the efficiency is 0% and no work is done. It takes energy to do the work of overcoming the friction, it takes energy to lift rock, energy is transferred into waves within the ground that cause work to be done at faults in other earthquakes that move still more objects, energy is released when magma is pumped onto the surface through volcanism. If I pick a rock up and place it 5000 feet into the air, I put energy into that rock.

You're correct not all the energy is transfered into heat. Work is being done when mountains are being built.

Hmm, I seem to have made several errors in my previous posts.

Thanks for pointing them out.

However the point still stands where did all the energy go as the kinetic energy which is not of contention, still needs to be dissapated somewhere.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:56 pm**

Jbuza wrote:[We in all are widom have decreed this is so, no more research.

Ahhhhh !!! There are more scientists doing more research now than at any time in the past. Unfortunately, what you are doing is not research. You are like the old Greek philosophers, sitting around and talking about how things must be, rather than looking and seeing how they are.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:02 pm**

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Jbuza wrote:What we see here is evidence of a high-speed collision.
In fact at these proportions a fast impact will cause material to be strewn for many miles around the impact and for material to be thrown into the atmostphere. Solid rocks would pulverize. A slow compacting is almost necessary!

Ever hit a rock with a hammer ? [Warning: Wear safety goggles and take all necessary precautions.] Does it shatter or does it bend and fold like this ?

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:05 pm**

Jbuza wrote:
sandy_mcd wrote: Please explain the derivation of this formula - no traditional geologist says the continents are moving because they are acted upon by gravity which is what this formula asserts.
OF course gravity enteres into the equation, don't be silly. You will find that the coefficient of friction is in large part caused by the pressure created when gravitational forces cause the plates to bear down on the lower divisions of the lithosphere.

Please explain how the force of gravity pulling something down causes it to move sideways at a high velocity according to the formula presented earlier.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:29 pm**

Mastriani wrote:
Jbuza wrote:On August 13, 2000, I made my fourth successful hike all the way to the top of Mt. Whitney. (Let's not talk about the numerous unsuccessful ones.) I left the Whitney Portals parking lot at 4:48:35 AM (8,261 feet above sea level). After hiking more than 11 miles to the summit, I finally reached the top (14,494 feet) at 1:22:07 PM. After a 23 minute rest at the top, I headed down and got back to the car at 7:58:59 PM.
I tell you this to let you know that I have recently been “up-close and personal” with a very tall mountain for more than 15 hours. Here is what I saw looking northwest from Trail Crest (36o 33' 34” North, 118o 17' 30” West, 13,615 feet). Some of those slopes are almost vertical for thousands of feet. Were they really produced by a 2 inch per year collision with the Pacific Plate moved by convection? We don't think so.

What we see here is evidence of a high-speed collision. The North American Plate hit the Pacific Plate very fast and very hard.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i3f.htm
That is not at all what we see, as that statement voids the physical laws of mass in motion.

Take a bicycle and run it into your brick garage wall at 15 m.p.h. There is likely to be no damage whatsoever, perhaps some minor occurence to the wheel of the bicycle at best.

Now take a landmover dumptruck at 40 tons and 15 m.p.h. into the same brick garage wall. You will see catastrophic failure of the wall.

Why:
In a field of gravity, with a specific atmosphere, mass in motion gains inertia, which is the destructive/creative force of movement in current context. The gain is specific to the amount of mass involved and the rate of movement.

***Note: Tectonic "plates" are anything but "plates", which implies a sort of uniformity, which is proven untrue by ultrasonic testing, (go look it up, I have read it in 20 books that I own, not wasting time with internets links). Differing plates have differing thickness and density, completely without uniformity, which also lends to different physics per "plate".

Taking a plate 1/3 the earth's surface, versus a plate 1/10 the earth's surface, and accounting for plate irregularities for thickness and density, and taking into account the laws of physics, one plate is going to suffer catastrophic structural failure, or more aptly, moutains.

How do we know this:
By studying plates where they meet, and more notably, earthquakes. The San Andreas fault if where two plates of equal measure meet, and are grinding on one another, there being a statistical draw. Further up the coast, in the northwest we are watching a Cascadian rift, where one plate is forcing on the other, and the weaker plate, with a Mantle convection current very close to the undersurface, and being a thinner plate, with less density, is not crumbling in this case. It is bulging/bending. This shows that there is variance in plate thickness and density.

The suppositions of people/scientists who wish to convey the idea that the plates moved thousands of metres per day, is simply ludicrous in the face of the mechanisms that create movement, Core and Mantle conduction and convection. For such rapid movement to occur, there would have to be a greatly elevated degree of radioactive decay in the core, which would induce magnetic fields of such intensity as to alter the workings of the global atmosphere and most likely cause apocalyptic repercussions for any/all living creatures. You are suggesting a scenario for global failure.

Do you care to actually demonstrate anything, or are you just going to make weak analogies about bicycles and large trucks. There is nothing here except empty claims and citation of a few laws without any demonstration of how they actually apply, and by what mechanisms continental drift and post "pangea" landscape came to be.

Perhaps if you had somehting constructive or enlightening to say it would help. I did find it interesting that you posed some questions to yourself and answered them claiming a dozen and a half sources. Ummm What is the point did someone say that crust is uniform?

When you say plates 1/3 the thickness of the crust, and 1/10th the crust where are you making these observations? So would one assume that the average plate is 100% the thickness of the crust? Are these empty claims again?

Evidence for God from Science

Flood and Ark