Archaic Crust Theory:
(of continents)
"Fractional Differentiation" is currently the prevailing theory on the origin of Earth's continents. In this view, plate tectonics is older than continents. The story goes: volcanism creates volcanoes, the sea floor migrates and effectively corrals these volcanoes into larger masses, over eons the piles get quite large, eventually you have continents.
"All continental crust ultimately derives from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over many eons. This process has been and continues today primarily as a result of the volcanism associated with subduction."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_crust
Most scientists believe that there was no continental crust originally on the Earth, but the continental crust ultimately derived from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over the eons. This process was primarily a result of volcanism and subduction.
-http://www.universetoday.com/73597/what-is-lithosphere/
I have a different perspective to share with you. The Archaic Crust Theory of continents asserts Earth's continents are what remains of protoEarth's original crust.
The story starts with protoEarth. It was a world significantly smaller than the one we have now. ProtoEarth had a sister planet that orbited the sun in the same orbit as protoEarth. There's a curious phenomena in orbital physics called Lagrangian points that permits multiple bodies to occupy the same orbit. Theia was the name of the other planetoid. Jupiter's gravitational influence was most likely Theia's demise. Destabilizing its orbit even a little from the Lagrangian point would mean the system would collapse and the two planetoids would eventually collide. If you're familiar with with how the Moon formed then you already know some of this story. ProtoEarth and Theia did collide. Fallout from that collision is what our moon formed from.
ProtoEarth and Theia had solid crusts. Earlier in their history they were molten balls with no legitimate crust to speak of. Of course, the laws of physics make it pretty clear how the system would develop from there. In liquids, heavy things sink, light things float. And, the second law of thermodynamics sees to it that relatively hot things cool off. It follows our heaviest components (iron, nickel) would concentrate toward the core while the lightest of materials would distribute throughout the surface. It also follows this surface would cool and solidify. Thus is development of planets. ProtoEarth and Theia were solidly within that later stage of development when they met. They had solid crusts of rock that covered their entire spheres. Then they met. About half of protoEarth's crust was destroyed upon impact. Of course, this wasn't a "hit and run" type of event. Theia didn't hit us and keep going, it mostly joined us. It is now part of the world we know today.
As mentioned above, our moon is a collection of some of the fallout from that impact. Some of the mass was lost to space. Most of protoEarth's and Theia's mass combined to form Earth. Approximately half of protoEarth's crust survived the impact but the increase of volume meant the remaining crust wound up covering closer to a third of Earth's larger surface area. I find a bit of novelty in this fact: most of humanity doesn't live on Earth's crust. Technically, the vast majority of us live on protoEarth's crust. Unless you live in Hawaii, Tahiti, or other volcanic island, you live on crust that originally formed on a planet that hasn't existed for over 4 billion years. A cursory scrutiny of Earth's properties and the laws of physics confirms it.
The implications of Fractional Differentiation demonstrate how it fails to provide an accurate assessment of physical reality. The composition and density of sea floor is known to be very different from continental crust. Frractional differentiation claims all this stuff (our continental land masses) got swept up off the ocean crust. However, the composition and density of continental crust clearly shows it did not originate from oceanic crust. If prevailing theory were correct, continent chemical composition and density would be more similar to ocean floor composition and density. Rather, they are very distinct. It begs the question: where did all THIS stuff come from? This stuff, the material in our continents, clearly came from somewhere else. The "differentiation" that is imagined in the current theory is not only wrong, it's contrary to physics principals.
"Fractional Differentiation" is a violation of the laws of physics. There will always be geologic activity to keep things interesting, but the laws of physics in no way permit a planet to form 2 distinct types of crust under normal circumstances. There are hundreds of planetoids in this solar system alone. Most of them have solid crusts of rock or ice. Those other worlds effectively have a single type of crust that have roughly uniform densities because they are made of roughly uniform materials. Their crusts are what we should expect given the simple physics behind their development: light stuff floats, entropy tries to distribute everything evenly across the surface, the surface cools and hardens... There's geologic activity to keep it interesting, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that permits a planet, left unto its own accord, to form 2 types of crust so distinct in composition and density that one type of crust floats on another.
Kindly look at a sea floor (bathymetric) map of the Indian Ocean... India left tracks as it migrated north, away from Antarctica. The Chagos-Laccadive Ridge and the Ninty-East Ridge, they're tracks. That is unprecedented! Our continents are unique to all known planets and moons. There is nothing out there that remotely resembles the surface structure of this planet. It turns out we do occupy a special place in the cosmos.
Prevailing theory fails to properly address the origin of plate tectonics. Where did that come from? Modern theory states tectonics arose long after the moon collision, after the entirety of the crust was destroyed. So there's new crust... -Brand new, cohesive unfractured crust. Okay, how did it get broken? What set off all this activity? Research leaves the impression the current theory isn't developed enough to address that inquiry.
Furthermore, what subduction? Planetary crust forms at nearly uniform density. Crust at roughly uniform density does not subduct. No subduction also means no migration. Even if an event happened to fracture the crust, individual plates would not move very far relative to another. There would be no wide sweeping actions relative to another as current theory implies. Thus, there is no collection technique. There is no physical process to gather the volcanoes into larger masses; the process attributed to building up continents simply doesn't exist.
The moon formation simulations that show earth's crust being completely destroyed by the collision is contrary to the laws of physics as well. The footage looks great but the reality of the situation is rather different. The far side of the world got an earthquake and meteor shower. The crust exploding is pure Hollywood style sensationalism, not physics. Energy does not transmute in that fashion.
These inquiries become much easier to address from the Archaic Crust perspective; Earth didn't form 2 distinct types of crust, it forms only one type, known as "sea floor". ProtoEarth’s original crust was made of the lightest of materials available in the system, and then half of it got blown away, so naturally Earth's crust is made of, more or less, the next lightest materials. ProtoEarth's crust was essentially floating on Earth's crustal material all along. Thus that unique feature of our world is neatly explained. The cause of the initial fracturing is obvious [Theia collision]...
Supporting evidence also includes Lake Baikal and the fault line that runs beneath the Mississippi River (New Madrid). Those features don't seem to have much association with global tectonics and are subsequently hard to explain in current contexts. On the other hand, they are easily understood in context of Archaic Crust Theory. There are consequences to forcing bent rock into a reduced arc. If you take half an egg shell and force it to adhere to the volume of an orange, you're gonna create a few fractures. A few of those original fractures include what separates North America from Siberia, the rift zone that houses Lake Baikal, and the New Madrid Fault line. The latter two don't contribute much to global plate tectonics but all three are merely stress fractures that occurred while flattening out.
Aside from predicting everything we already know about our world, there is a less obscure fact predicted: we all know the continents kinda fit together. If you reduce the size of the globe they are plotted on they will fit together even better.
(of continents)
"Fractional Differentiation" is currently the prevailing theory on the origin of Earth's continents. In this view, plate tectonics is older than continents. The story goes: volcanism creates volcanoes, the sea floor migrates and effectively corrals these volcanoes into larger masses, over eons the piles get quite large, eventually you have continents.
"All continental crust ultimately derives from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over many eons. This process has been and continues today primarily as a result of the volcanism associated with subduction."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_crust
Most scientists believe that there was no continental crust originally on the Earth, but the continental crust ultimately derived from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over the eons. This process was primarily a result of volcanism and subduction.
-http://www.universetoday.com/73597/what-is-lithosphere/
I have a different perspective to share with you. The Archaic Crust Theory of continents asserts Earth's continents are what remains of protoEarth's original crust.
The story starts with protoEarth. It was a world significantly smaller than the one we have now. ProtoEarth had a sister planet that orbited the sun in the same orbit as protoEarth. There's a curious phenomena in orbital physics called Lagrangian points that permits multiple bodies to occupy the same orbit. Theia was the name of the other planetoid. Jupiter's gravitational influence was most likely Theia's demise. Destabilizing its orbit even a little from the Lagrangian point would mean the system would collapse and the two planetoids would eventually collide. If you're familiar with with how the Moon formed then you already know some of this story. ProtoEarth and Theia did collide. Fallout from that collision is what our moon formed from.
ProtoEarth and Theia had solid crusts. Earlier in their history they were molten balls with no legitimate crust to speak of. Of course, the laws of physics make it pretty clear how the system would develop from there. In liquids, heavy things sink, light things float. And, the second law of thermodynamics sees to it that relatively hot things cool off. It follows our heaviest components (iron, nickel) would concentrate toward the core while the lightest of materials would distribute throughout the surface. It also follows this surface would cool and solidify. Thus is development of planets. ProtoEarth and Theia were solidly within that later stage of development when they met. They had solid crusts of rock that covered their entire spheres. Then they met. About half of protoEarth's crust was destroyed upon impact. Of course, this wasn't a "hit and run" type of event. Theia didn't hit us and keep going, it mostly joined us. It is now part of the world we know today.
As mentioned above, our moon is a collection of some of the fallout from that impact. Some of the mass was lost to space. Most of protoEarth's and Theia's mass combined to form Earth. Approximately half of protoEarth's crust survived the impact but the increase of volume meant the remaining crust wound up covering closer to a third of Earth's larger surface area. I find a bit of novelty in this fact: most of humanity doesn't live on Earth's crust. Technically, the vast majority of us live on protoEarth's crust. Unless you live in Hawaii, Tahiti, or other volcanic island, you live on crust that originally formed on a planet that hasn't existed for over 4 billion years. A cursory scrutiny of Earth's properties and the laws of physics confirms it.
The implications of Fractional Differentiation demonstrate how it fails to provide an accurate assessment of physical reality. The composition and density of sea floor is known to be very different from continental crust. Frractional differentiation claims all this stuff (our continental land masses) got swept up off the ocean crust. However, the composition and density of continental crust clearly shows it did not originate from oceanic crust. If prevailing theory were correct, continent chemical composition and density would be more similar to ocean floor composition and density. Rather, they are very distinct. It begs the question: where did all THIS stuff come from? This stuff, the material in our continents, clearly came from somewhere else. The "differentiation" that is imagined in the current theory is not only wrong, it's contrary to physics principals.
"Fractional Differentiation" is a violation of the laws of physics. There will always be geologic activity to keep things interesting, but the laws of physics in no way permit a planet to form 2 distinct types of crust under normal circumstances. There are hundreds of planetoids in this solar system alone. Most of them have solid crusts of rock or ice. Those other worlds effectively have a single type of crust that have roughly uniform densities because they are made of roughly uniform materials. Their crusts are what we should expect given the simple physics behind their development: light stuff floats, entropy tries to distribute everything evenly across the surface, the surface cools and hardens... There's geologic activity to keep it interesting, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that permits a planet, left unto its own accord, to form 2 types of crust so distinct in composition and density that one type of crust floats on another.
Kindly look at a sea floor (bathymetric) map of the Indian Ocean... India left tracks as it migrated north, away from Antarctica. The Chagos-Laccadive Ridge and the Ninty-East Ridge, they're tracks. That is unprecedented! Our continents are unique to all known planets and moons. There is nothing out there that remotely resembles the surface structure of this planet. It turns out we do occupy a special place in the cosmos.
Prevailing theory fails to properly address the origin of plate tectonics. Where did that come from? Modern theory states tectonics arose long after the moon collision, after the entirety of the crust was destroyed. So there's new crust... -Brand new, cohesive unfractured crust. Okay, how did it get broken? What set off all this activity? Research leaves the impression the current theory isn't developed enough to address that inquiry.
Furthermore, what subduction? Planetary crust forms at nearly uniform density. Crust at roughly uniform density does not subduct. No subduction also means no migration. Even if an event happened to fracture the crust, individual plates would not move very far relative to another. There would be no wide sweeping actions relative to another as current theory implies. Thus, there is no collection technique. There is no physical process to gather the volcanoes into larger masses; the process attributed to building up continents simply doesn't exist.
The moon formation simulations that show earth's crust being completely destroyed by the collision is contrary to the laws of physics as well. The footage looks great but the reality of the situation is rather different. The far side of the world got an earthquake and meteor shower. The crust exploding is pure Hollywood style sensationalism, not physics. Energy does not transmute in that fashion.
These inquiries become much easier to address from the Archaic Crust perspective; Earth didn't form 2 distinct types of crust, it forms only one type, known as "sea floor". ProtoEarth’s original crust was made of the lightest of materials available in the system, and then half of it got blown away, so naturally Earth's crust is made of, more or less, the next lightest materials. ProtoEarth's crust was essentially floating on Earth's crustal material all along. Thus that unique feature of our world is neatly explained. The cause of the initial fracturing is obvious [Theia collision]...
Supporting evidence also includes Lake Baikal and the fault line that runs beneath the Mississippi River (New Madrid). Those features don't seem to have much association with global tectonics and are subsequently hard to explain in current contexts. On the other hand, they are easily understood in context of Archaic Crust Theory. There are consequences to forcing bent rock into a reduced arc. If you take half an egg shell and force it to adhere to the volume of an orange, you're gonna create a few fractures. A few of those original fractures include what separates North America from Siberia, the rift zone that houses Lake Baikal, and the New Madrid Fault line. The latter two don't contribute much to global plate tectonics but all three are merely stress fractures that occurred while flattening out.
Aside from predicting everything we already know about our world, there is a less obscure fact predicted: we all know the continents kinda fit together. If you reduce the size of the globe they are plotted on they will fit together even better.
This was apparently my first legit, publishable theory ever, and I didn’t know it for over a decade. Moon formation event came up when I was 13, and that’s how it all played out in my mind. A decade+ later, I have theories I’m actually aware of, I’m off hiking on the east coast, adopt the trail name “Rift Zone”, get back to college, moon formation event and origin of continents comes up, so I decide I’m gonna google it to support everything I was saying about it…imagine my surprise when I find A) academia has some physics defying bs in mind instead, and B) my trail name! -holy shit! Talk about serendipity…named myself “rift zone”, and now it looks like I’m going down in the science books for establishing what rift zones / fault-lines are all about. Now that is some spooky action at a distance.
