Chapter 2.1 Plate Tectonics

  • 5,550 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Sports , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • I have solved the problems around Alfred Wegener`s theory who have been discussed since 1911.

    22 August 1998, Jeff Hecht wrote an article in New Scientist who proves that AlfredWegeners Theory is wrong. Here is this article:

    quote: “Magnetic shift

    By Jeff Hecht

    TRACES of the earth's magnetic field frozen in rocks are yielding surprises about the planet's past. A re-analysis of old measurements of these fields has forced geologists to conclude that either the migrating continents were clustered closer to the equator than previously thought, or that the Earth's magnetic field was not the simple pair of poles it is today.

    Geologists track the history of continental motion by measuring the magnetism of ancient rocks. As some rocks form, they retain an imprint of the Earth's magnetic field. The field direction and the age of the rock together show the latitude of the continent at the time the rock formed, provided that the shape of the terrestrial magnetic field at the time can be worked out.

    Today, the Earth's magnetic field lines, which emanate from the poles and surround the planet, have a simple and predictable distribution. Geologists have proved that for at least five million years the field has been a dipole, like a bar magnet with poles aligned on the planet's axis. And they calculate ancient latitudes assuming the field has always been a dipole, says Dennis Kent of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York.

    But now Kent and Mark Smethurst of the Geological Survey of Norway in Trondheim have analysed palaeomagnetic data from rocks up to 3·5 billion years old. Instead of the magnetic distribution expected from a dipole, they found an excess of rocks from older eras with low-angle fields, as if they had formed at lower latitudes than those predicted by standard models that assume a random distribution of the early continents (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol 160, p 391). 'The surprising result is that in the Palaeozoic and Precambrian, the distributions differ markedly,' Kent says.

    One possible explanation is that the Earth's magnetic field has not always been a dipole. Kent calculates that if the ancient Earth contained elements of between four and eight poles, its magnetic field lines would have met the migrating continents at lower angles than the lines of the modern dipole field. That would account for the distribution he and Smethurst observed, he says. Such an arrangement might have been possible before the solid part of the core--which started growing as late as a billion years ago--reached its present size.

    The other possible explanation for the findings, Kent says, is that the continents were once clustered near the equator. Such clustering could be the result of centrifugal force tilting heavy parts of the outer layers of the Earth away from the poles (' Twist of fate ', New Scientist, 2 August 1997, p 15).

    Gary Glatzmaier of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico says his unpublished simulations of the Earth's magnetic field may be able to discover which explanation is right. According to his models, multiple poles are unlikely, he says. 'When the inner core was smaller, our simulations suggest the dipole was even stronger than today.' If correct, Glatzmaier's results would mean that geologists have to redraw their maps of the ancient continents.”

    From New Scientist, 22 August 1998

    Proof should, as the article shows, make the geologists want to re-evaluate the foundations they build their authority upon. Particularly because this earlier model is being taught in Universities and Schools. In my estimation, we have a responsibility that we can not neglect when it comes to correct research theories that obviously do not hold good.

    Even though this is only a theory, we must be willing to re-evaluate old theories when new scientific elements come to light that prove that the former theory no longer holds good.

    Unfortunately, the tendency is that man will reject new thinking, when after a while one has built his whole research upon this one special model. In hopes that my private theory might result in an intelligent discussion, I hereby would like to present my work.

    Each individual reader is encouraged and invited to judge the results for themselves.

    Good luck!!

    Take a look at my home page where I have studied the issue for over 20 years.

    You find my work here: http://aspevik.net

    Helge Aspevik
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
5,550
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
400
Comments
1
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Chapter 2: Plate Tectonics
  • 2. Layers of the Earth
  • 3. Layers of the Earth Denser Basaltic Rocks
  • 4. Layers of the Earth Denser Less dense Basaltic Granitic Rocks Rocks
  • 5. Alfred Wegener’s Continental Drift Theory
  • 6. Evidences
  • 7. Evidences
  • 8. Evidences
  • 9. Evidences • Geological Evidence: Edges of continents fit like a jig-saw
  • 10. Evidences • Geological Evidence: Edges of continents fit like a jig-saw • Biological Evidence: Fossils & Imprints of plants
  • 11. Evidences • Geological Evidence: Edges of continents fit like a jig-saw • Biological Evidence: Fossils & Imprints of plants • Climate Based Evidence: Glaciation
  • 12. So does our earth still move today?
  • 13. So does our earth still move today? How will earth look like in the future?
  • 14. What’s wrong with Wegener’s theory of Continental Drift?
  • 15. What’s wrong with Wegener’s theory of Continental Drift?
  • 16. What’s wrong with Wegener’s theory of Continental Drift? • Continents do NOT move.
  • 17. What’s wrong with Wegener’s theory of Continental Drift? • Continents do NOT move. • It is the tectonic (crustal) plates that consist of both oceanic and continental crusts that moves.
  • 18. Tectonic Plates vs. Plate Tectonics
  • 19. Tectonic Plates vs. Plate Tectonics • Tectonic (Crustal) Plates:
  • 20. Tectonic Plates vs. Plate Tectonics • Tectonic (Crustal) Plates: • Consist of both continental and oceanic crusts.
  • 21. Tectonic Plates vs. Plate Tectonics • Tectonic (Crustal) Plates: • Consist of both continental and oceanic crusts. • Plate Tectonics:
  • 22. Tectonic Plates vs. Plate Tectonics • Tectonic (Crustal) Plates: • Consist of both continental and oceanic crusts. • Plate Tectonics: • How plates move
  • 23. Tectonic Plates vs. Plate Tectonics • Tectonic (Crustal) Plates: • Consist of both continental and oceanic crusts. • Plate Tectonics: • How plates move • Why they move
  • 24. Tectonic Plates vs. Plate Tectonics • Tectonic (Crustal) Plates: • Consist of both continental and oceanic crusts. • Plate Tectonics: • How plates move • Why they move • How the movement changes the physical landscape
  • 25. Memorise!
  • 26. Plate Boundaries & Movements
  • 27. Plate Boundaries & Movements • 1. Constructive plate boundaries
  • 28. Plate Boundaries & Movements • 1. Constructive plate boundaries • Divergent (Move apart)
  • 29. Plate Boundaries & Movements • 1. Constructive plate boundaries • Divergent (Move apart) • Tensional force
  • 30. Plate Boundaries & Movements • 1. Constructive plate boundaries • Divergent (Move apart) • Tensional force • 2. Destructive plate boundaries
  • 31. Plate Boundaries & Movements • 1. Constructive plate boundaries • Divergent (Move apart) • Tensional force • 2. Destructive plate boundaries • Convergent (Move towards)
  • 32. Plate Boundaries & Movements • 1. Constructive plate boundaries • Divergent (Move apart) • Tensional force • 2. Destructive plate boundaries • Convergent (Move towards) • Compressional force
  • 33. Plate Boundaries & Movements • 1. Constructive plate boundaries • Divergent (Move apart) • Tensional force • 2. Destructive plate boundaries • Convergent (Move towards) • Compressional force • 3. Conservative plate boundaries
  • 34. Plate Boundaries & Movements • 1. Constructive plate boundaries • Divergent (Move apart) • Tensional force • 2. Destructive plate boundaries • Convergent (Move towards) • Compressional force • 3. Conservative plate boundaries • Transform (Slide past)
  • 35. Plate Boundaries & Movements • 1. Constructive plate boundaries • Divergent (Move apart) • Tensional force • 2. Destructive plate boundaries • Convergent (Move towards) • Compressional force • 3. Conservative plate boundaries • Transform (Slide past) • Frictional force
  • 36. Physical features in the World
  • 37. Physical features in the World Mid-Atlantic Ridge
  • 38. Physical features in the World East African Rift Valley Mid-Atlantic Ridge
  • 39. Physical features in the World East African Rift Valley Andes Mid-Atlantic Ridge
  • 40. Physical features in the World Rockies East African Rift Valley Andes Mid-Atlantic Ridge
  • 41. Physical features in the World Himalayas Rockies East African Rift Valley Andes Mid-Atlantic Ridge
  • 42. Physical features in the World St. Andrea’s Fault Himalayas Rockies East African Rift Valley Andes Mid-Atlantic Ridge
  • 43. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries Sea Floor Spreading Plates diverges & pulls apart
  • 44. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries
  • 45. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries
  • 46. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts
  • 47. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts • Ridges.
  • 48. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts • Ridges. • Eg. Mid-Atlantic Ridge
  • 49. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts • Ridges. • Eg. Mid-Atlantic Ridge • Sometimes lava fountains are found in the middle of the ridges.
  • 50. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries
  • 51. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Continental- Continental Crusts
  • 52. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Continental- Continental Crusts
  • 53. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Continental- Continental Crusts • Rift Valleys
  • 54. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Continental- Continental Crusts • Rift Valleys • Eg. East African Rift Valley
  • 55. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Continental- Continental Crusts • Rift Valleys • Eg. East African Rift Valley • Magma rises and squeezes through the widening cracks, sometimes to erupt and form volcanoes.
  • 56. 1. Constructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Continental- Continental Crusts • Rift Valleys • Eg. East African Rift Valley • Magma rises and squeezes through the widening cracks, sometimes to erupt and form volcanoes. • The rising magma puts more pressure on the crust to produce additional fractures and, ultimately, the rift zone.
  • 57. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries Plates converges & collide
  • 58. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 59. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 60. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 61. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Continental Crusts
  • 62. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Continental Crusts • Mountains
  • 63. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Continental Crusts • Mountains • Eg. Andes
  • 64. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Continental Crusts • Mountains • Eg. Andes • Trench
  • 65. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Continental Crusts • Mountains • Eg. Andes • Trench • Eg. Peru-Chile Trench
  • 66. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Continental Crusts • Mountains • Eg. Andes • Trench • Eg. Peru-Chile Trench • Earthquakes
  • 67. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Continental Crusts • Mountains • Eg. Andes • Trench • Eg. Peru-Chile Trench • Earthquakes
  • 68. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #1: Oceanic-Continental Crusts • Mountains • Eg. Andes • Trench • Eg. Peru-Chile Trench • Earthquakes
  • 69. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 70. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 71. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 72. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts
  • 73. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts • Oceanic trenches
  • 74. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts • Oceanic trenches • Eg. Marianas Trench
  • 75. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts • Oceanic trenches • Eg. Marianas Trench • Volcanic islands  Island Arcs
  • 76. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts • Oceanic trenches • Eg. Marianas Trench • Volcanic islands  Island Arcs • Hawaiian Islands
  • 77. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #2: Oceanic-Oceanic Crusts • Oceanic trenches • Eg. Marianas Trench • Volcanic islands  Island Arcs • Hawaiian Islands • Earthquakes
  • 78. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 79. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 80. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 81. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 82. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries
  • 83. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #3: Continental-Continental Crusts
  • 84. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #3: Continental-Continental Crusts • Fold Mountains
  • 85. 2. Destructive Plate Boundaries • Case #3: Continental-Continental Crusts • Fold Mountains • Eg. Himalayas
  • 86. 3. Conservative Plate Boundaries Plates slide past each other
  • 87. 3. Conservative Plate Boundaries
  • 88. 3. Conservative Plate Boundaries
  • 89. 3. Conservative Plate Boundaries
  • 90. 3. Conservative Plate Boundaries • Fault lines
  • 91. 3. Conservative Plate Boundaries • Fault lines • Eg. St. Andreas Fault, San Francisco
  • 92. 3. Conservative Plate Boundaries • Fault lines • Eg. St. Andreas Fault, San Francisco • Earthquakes
  • 93. Dynamic movements of tectonic plates