Aardwolf wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:55 pm
Plate tectonicists insist that the volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of mid- ocean ridges are supposedly producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add the 9,000 km of “collision zones,” the figure is still only half that of the “spreading centers” (Smoot, 1997a). With two minor exceptions (the Scotia and Lesser Antilles trench/arc systems), Benioff zones are absent from the margins of the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans. Many geological facts demonstrate that subduction is not taking place in the Lesser Antilles arc; if it were, the continental Barbados Ridge should now be 200–400 km beneath the Lesser Antilles (Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 1974a). Kiskyras (1990) presented geological, volcanological, petrochemical, and seismological data contradicting the belief that the African plate is being subducted under the Aegean Sea.
Africa is allegedly being converged on by plates spreading from the east, south, and west, yet it exhibits no evidence whatsoever for the existence of subduction zones or orogenic belts. Antarctica, too, is almost entirely surrounded by alleged “spreading” ridges without any corresponding subduction zones but fails to show any signs of being crushed. It has been suggested that Africa and Antarctica may remain stationary while the surrounding ridge system migrates away from them, but this would require the ridge marking the “plate boundary” between Africa and Antarctica to move in opposite directions simultaneously (Storetvedt, 1997)!
If up to 13,000 km of lithosphere had really been subducted in circum-Pacific deep-sea trenches, vast amounts of oceanic sediments should have been scraped off the ocean floor and piled up against the landward margin of the trenches. However, sediments in the trenches are generally not present in the volumes required, nor do they display the expected degree of deformation (Choi, 1999b; Gnibidenko, Krasny, and Popov, 1978; Storetvedt, 1997; Suzu- ki et al., 1997). Scholl and Marlow (1974), who support plate tectonics, admitted to being “genuinely perplexed as to why evidence for subduction or off scraping of trench deposits is not glaringly apparent” (p. 268). Plate tectonicists have had to resort to the highly dubious notion that unconsolidated deep-ocean sediments can slide smoothly into a Benioff zone without leaving any significant trace. Moreover, fore-arc sediments, where they have been analyzed, have generally been found to be derived from the volcanic arc and the adjacent continental block, not from the oceanic region (Pratsch, 1990; Wezel, 1986). The very low level of seismicity, the lack of a megathrust, and the existence of flat-lying sediments at the base of oceanic trenches contradict the alleged presence of a downgoing slab (Dickins and Choi, 1998). Attempts by Murdock (1997), who accepts many elements of plate tectonics, to publicize the lack of a megathrust in the Aleutian trench (i.e., a million or more meters of displacement of the Pacific plate as it supposedly underthrusts the North American plate) have met with vigorous resistance and suppression by the plate-tectonics establishment.
Yes, and thank you for that. I've read that before. I'm still fixated on translating all this to the general public to attract attention to this new paradigm. As were presently watching the JWST poke holes in our favorite 'mainstream solid science of the BIg Bang', maybe the public will be softened and more open to new idea's soon. So I'm critiquing this scientific presentation with respect to that goal.
Your source does seem to satisfy a compelling enough and materially significant backed up claim to reasonably expect its worthy of response, defense, or counter point in some way from mainstream Geology, and yet they don't feel its necessary to do so. Why? Because its easy to simply rest on the idea that any response to that is akin to 'engaging with a crazy person'. No one in the general public would risk disagreeing, and therefore its beneath Geology to engage. Classic roadblock, and another 100 years goes by.. So how do you deal with that? I'd suggest fighting fire with fire. These research papers need a publicly digestible translation.
For instance, the claim that with 80,000 km of mid ocean ridges, there is only 30,500 km of trench. That reads like we're even ACCEPTING that trenches satisfy criteria for a subduction zone. So someone like me immediately thinks, "ok, so (nearly half) of expansion zones are ADMITTEDLY accompanied by their corresponding plate tectonics counterparts." Do we really know the rest isn't just older 'filled in trench' and subduction happens in spurts non uniformly from localized area's like those under counter toe kick vacuum flaps?
Where are these trenches, by the way? Are all their trenches actually at the margin before continental landmass at the end of the oldest dated rock in the layers spreading out chronologically from mid ocean ridge to shore? Or are we including any and all trenches out of desperation, some not even being at the chronological margins of oceanic crust? This doesn't feel aggressively convincing enough, thus enabling the 'authorities' to feel confidence in their choice to avoid taking it seriously. Yes real experts see the dodge, but no body else does.
I think assaults against mainstream plate tectonics should be as bold, reckless, and biased as Geology. Yes, from an experts perspective that would be even easier to dismiss, but from the public's perspective, how long can they go accepting our experts 'hand waive' dismissal, without actual serious response to 'finally and permanently' end these annoying 'misinformation campaigns', as they'll position the GET movement.
For public consumption purposes, what's an 'orogenic belt'? What are 'collision zones and Benioff zones'? I'd keep it simple. A prime example I'd dwell on is the seafloor sediment scraping. This video for example does a great job of illustrating that part: (see 10:10 to 12:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9CQnFPnDls
Its reasonably free of huge leaps up until the 17:00 minute mark, where it takes a turn towards a specific interpretation that you can't find much support for, and yet it doesn't distinguish the tone of 'certainty' to introduce that part from the rest, which makes this video lose all its value based on that final proposition. That's a mistake for the purposes of presenting a believable case for GET.
But as for the rest, mainstream defense has to rely on "the highly dubious notion that unconsolidated deep-ocean sediments can slide smoothly into a Benioff zone without leaving any significant trace." So now I have to google Benioff zones to believe that. Nothing addressing sediment. So I google Benioff zone sediment. No one addresses it. So I have to imagine they're proposing something like this:
https://media1.giphy.com/media/iZjoLdS1 ... y.gif&ct=g
Where the rift zone stress release point is like an opening mouth taking a bite.
But beyond the sediment challenge, there's the last element of volcanic activity supposedly caused by the friction of the plate sliding beneath the earth. If there's no subduction, what's the cause of that coincidence?