Tuesday, September 30, 2008

EMST: An Explanation For Gravity?



Tassos: In the Pacific and Any Other Tectonic Belt, Seismic and Volcanic Activity Relate To Positive Gravity

Therefore, iron having the highest nuclear binding energy of all the elements, 8.8 MeV per nucleon, should be the last element to form, and the fact that the bulk of iron rich rocks is younger than about 200 m. y. is supportive of that reasoning, and of the juvenility of oceanic crust. Another important property of iron is that under high pressure its 4s orbital is brought down to the 3rd orbital that can be filled with 10 electrons, 5 more than without compression, forming the Fe(21) anion. The newly formed in the outer core atoms that constitute Excess Mass (EM) relative to the overlying mantle and crust, and emplaced atom by atom, the great bulk concentrically and the active part vertically, in the preexisting "old" continental granitic crust, and cause it's oxidation, and all other geodynamic phenomena.

12 comments:

Anaconda said...

STATEMENT CONTRADICTED

OilIsMastery, I see you are intrigued by Tasso's theory.

But in Tasso's paper, he states: "For example, the thousands kilometers long transform faults in the Pacific basin are earthquake free."

This statement is contradicted by reported scientific evidence.

Earthquakes happen along transform faults.

The San Andreas Fault is a transform fault.

This Science Daily article again contradicts Tasso's statement, by recently reporting numerous earthquakes along a N.E. Pacific Ocean transform fault.

Most transform faults are in the ocean and many of the earthquakes are small and are not monitored by scientific instruments.

I offer that single observation of factual contradiction.

OilIsMastery said...

I've pointed this out to him and I await his reply...=)

Anaconda said...

GRAVITY ANOMALY (mGal) IS NOT A PREDICTIVE FACTOR FOR OIL DEPOSITS

Reviewing the diagram presented in the post depicting gravity anomalies, it appears there is no relation to oil deposits. Some red areas are known to have oil deposits and some blue areas are known to have oil deposits.

Oil deposits have a known high correlation to fault lines along the edges of tectonic plates.

OilIsMastery said...

Most intrigued by all Expanding Earth theories. Subduction is impossible. No way granite and basalt can miraculously and magically teleport themselves into and through the mantle and then miraculously and magically recycle themselves.

Anaconda said...

World seismic data map seems to show a high correlation between earthquakes and major tectonic faults.

Also it should be noted that blue areas in the gravity anomaly diagram are also locations where earthquake activity has been reported, i.e. Lake Baikal, Indian Ocean where tidal wave originated, and Southern California sits on edge of blue area.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I tend to distrust pure abstractions in the physical sciences.

As examples in the posted paper:

"Z infinity space"

"space as a quantized,
limitless, continuous, and perfectly elastic entity, which, due to its mass-inertia is endlessly oscillating at
a limited speed, the 299792458 m/s of light speed."

Z infinity space is the repository of all mass, and exhibits infinite impedance at speeds greater than light speed. Due to cosmic stretching, the Earth is
under continuously increasing tension, i.e., gravitational attraction."

"Since the tension of space increases approaching infinity..."

Now, I'm not a physicist, so maybe all this is perfectly acceptable in the domain of geophysics and physics in general.

But it seems to me, the more a theory relies on theoretical abstractions, that don't rely on physical observations, even if they are indirect physical observations, the more difficult it is to verify the theory as valid.

As I have previously suggested by the material I have offered in my comments, I don't discount the possibility that Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics theory is not complete, or has serious flaws.

OilIsMastery,

Quantum_Flux said...

How does one interpret the changing polarities of the iron on the sea floor without continental drift and conveying plates?

Anaconda said...

...(Cont.)
it could be that subduction doesn't happen. What does seem reasonable is that the science of geology doesn't completely understand the various mechanics of Earth's structure.

Tasso could be right, but it seems he has to offer more scientific evidence that elements are created in the Earth's core.

His iron hypothsis is intriquing because iron seems to be central actor in hydrocarbon formation as a catalyst. Tasso's decription of iron:

"As a result, the higher the nuclear binding energy of an atom, the later this atom will form. Therefore, iron having the highest nuclear binding energy of all elements, 8.8MeV per nucleon, should be the last element to form, and the fact that the bulk of iron rich rocks is younger than about 200 m. y. is supportive of that reasoning, and of the juvenility of oceanic crust. Another important property of iron is that under high pressure its 4s orbital is brought down to the 3d orbital that can then be filled with 10 electrons, 5 more than without compression, forming the Fe(2-) anion."

This last sentence strikes me as being related a "plasma type" theory.

Plasma conditions seem to me to be conducive to hydrocarbon formation, particularly if it can be tied into a participation and association with iron.

OilIsMastery said...

Quantum Flux,

We aren't saying there is no Continental Drift. There is oceanic seafloor spreading but no subduction.

Anaconda said...

Quantum_Flux:

Your question: "How does one interpret the changing polarities of the iron on the sea floor without continental drift and conveying plates?"

High physics is at the edge or beyond my horizon of understanding, but I'll try to "discuss it out."

It does seem that seafloor is "formed" over time, as the polarity of iron suggests a shifting or occilating of the South and North Pole polarity that is recorded in the emanation of "new" iron in the seafloor.

But is this a uniform phenomenon the world over? Could it be that Keith's modifications to tectonic theory in his "Cracks of the world" paper are explanatory?

As partially stated under the section entitled: Imlications for a New Plate Tectonic Paradigm:

"The above mega-shear observations suggest that the continents are also active participants in the oceanic-spreading process. A global network of transform faults apparently links ocean basin to ocean basin through the continents. The continents may not be tectonically inert, rigid blocks: rather, they are active, kinematic participants of the oceanic spreading process. Indeed, the “pre-breakup” fracture architecture of the continents may control the specific locations of the emergent oceanic fracture systems during incipient breakups of continental assemblies such as Pangea."

This phrase is intriquing:

"Familiar plate tectonic driving mechanisms, such as mantle convective overturn or gravitational trench-pull, become second-order driving forces relative to the Earth’s spin axis."

Obviously, the answers are elusive.

I suppose that is part of the challenge.

OilIsMastery said...

"Tell your friend that there is not a cause and effect relationship between faults and earthquakes. As observation, experiment and logic denote, and as indicated in a paper to be presented in a few days in a European Science Foundation meeting in Austria (FYI see attached file), the earthquake is the primary elastic mandatory effect of a sufficient dynamic stress, actually as in free-fall, whereas a fault is the secondary possible inelastic effect that follows in time. This is why many leading seismologists, like Kanamori and Sornette, indicate that a ‘seismic’ fault has never been observed; this is why in most earthquakes even this secondary inelastic effect is not produced, simply because the dynamic stress is sufficient to generate an earthquake, but insufficient to generate a fault.

Take care

Stavros"

Anaconda said...

OilIsMastery:

Thank you for supplying Tassos' response.

Tassos' response is a "but for" argument.

But for the earthquakes, the faults wouldn't be there.

In other words, the faults don't cause the earthquakes, rather, the earthquakes cause the faults.

Tassos states: "[T]he earthquake is the primary elastic mandatory effect of a sufficient dynamic stress, actually as in free-fall, whereas a fault is the secondary possible inelastic effect that follows in time."

Yes, "dynamic stress" causes an earthquake.

And earthquakes can happen at non-fault points, the quakes simply don't buckle the landmass at that point.

Okay. So the question still remains: What caused the earthquakes? Tassos states his hypothesis, which is that EMST is responsible for earthquakes.

But this isn't a response to my original point: Tassos' statement that earthquakes don't happen along transform faults is contradicted by scientific reports of earthquakes along transform faults.

Assuming Tassos response was to my original comment, "Statement Contradicted," his response was actually non-responsive. Tassos didn't address the fact that earthquakes are reported to happen at transform faults.

Now, I don't know what you passed on to Tassos.

But assuming you passed on my comment, verbatim or a paraphrased equivalent, his non-response is significant.

The scientific method requires that contradictions be answered, either by stating the assertion is in error (no, those reports of eathquakes are wrong), or explaining why the assertion is not a contradiction to his statement.

Tassos, depends on the scientific method for a fair hearing in the scientific community, so it's vitally important for him to respect the scientific method, or else he is guilty of violating the scientific method when it suits him, just as he claims, those opposed to his theory do the same.

It weakens the strength of his hypothesis when he ignores inconvenient facts.

I have an open mind on scientific questions -- I've seen too much distorting and ignoring of facts when it comes to rival theories in the Abiotic Oil debate and other questions of scientific theory.

This seems all to common in the broader scientific community.

Question: Is this a sign of rising intellectual decadence in the scientific community, or is this an endemic part of human nature that must always be guarded against?

It's probably a mixture of both.

Human nature will always be with us. But also in this "modern" age, those that claim scientific truth, are most reluctant to admit that with all of sciences' advancements and achievements, with all the wonderful tools of scientific observation and measurement, they are wrong and guilty of the same fallacies that happened in a bygone age of "darkness."

"Who us? We would never be guilty of the sins of our scientific forebears commited in an era of darkness."

In other words, the closer to the "truth" one believes to be or aspires to be, the more tenaciously one will defend that they are not in "darkness" and error.

Hubris is in full flower in the "modern" age.

One would be well to remember Plato's reportage of Socrates' injunction: The more one claims to know all "truth" and knowledge to the exclusion of all 'other' truth and knowledge, the more one is liable to fall into error oneself.

Every hypothesis or theory must be held to the same standard, namely, the scientific method, whether one is inclined to agree or disagree with a particular theory.

Scientific advancement requires that rigorous and high bar be respected.

Akira seung said...

The EMST 150 is the first calibrated expiratory muscle strength trainer designed specifically for individuals who want to enhance their breathing, improve voluntary cough..Learn more from http://emst150.com.au/about-emst-150/