The earth is not explored in total. About its surface and to a some depth, man has some clear idea. But regarding the internal part of earth, what we know are not the real facts, mainly interpretations! Interpretations decorated with some mathematical functions cannot be considered as FACTS. They are mere possibilities, hence they can never be depicted as theories. So PT,  is still a hypothesis.

 In this discussion group ( as Jeff has already said), need to invite discussion ( not even debate) on earth dynamics. So that let the people think, rather than clog behind the beliefs ( with quote " as said by so and so"). Then how far it would be successful? The 'acclaimed' scientific pluralism, once again should not be put into a test! 

(Sic )These days we hear nothing about  the discussions / issues raised by Dr. Falk H Koenemann, here in this discussion group!!! But, thanks to Dr.Falk, i started looking into applied Physics seriously for understanding the geological problems i deal with.

with regards

biju

On 11 May 2011 10:12, Jeff Greenberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I find the recent abundance of posts to this list as an amazement. From my own background as an evangelical Christian and geologist, I commonly encounter the pseudoscience of “young-earth” creationism and global climate-change deniers.  Those ideologies generate a great many poorly-constructed viewpoints, mostly just being critical of “orthodox” science. There is of course nothing wrong with challenges to established concepts and the evidence as theory. Challenges are needed to make theories stronger by their modification or to remove them via sufficient falsification. The best theories explain the most phenomena and enable successful predictions to be made. New discoveries, experiments, etc. should not be feared but welcomed to improve our comprehension.
However:
The quality of the recent metaphor (or is it meant to be actual?) of a living earth and the criticism of plate tectonic theory are quite close in their character to the arguments of a 10,000 year-old planet and one that has no issues concerning human-induced climatic change. I thought this listserve was less susceptible to such “debates”. I suppose  real, coherent counter theories (not just  hypotheses as Biju suggests) ought to be presented and considered, if any existed. We could of course continue discussion of the expanding earth model and weigh it against PT.
Jeff

On 5/10/11 10:19 PM, "longhinos Biju" <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

To explain 'how the Earth works' at high school level or to non-geologist, simpler stories, work. But to people who value science and logic, hypothetical beliefs like plate tectonics (PT) is vague. When the PT- hypothesis was put forward, it has overseen many natural situations, or even sidelined, which cannot be explained within its parley. A large number of scientific  literature, between 1965-75 point to the laggards of   PT. As the time moved on, less resistance were seen towards PT, its a fact! But it was not because that the problems pointed against PT during 1965-75 was diminished, instead the people who disagreed to this hypothesis died.
The absence of scientific alternatives to PT hypothesis, made the newer generation ( of 80s and 90s) to consider PT as a theory and following blindly as 'believers'. If one raises a reasonable question pertaining to  plate dynamics with current geography or with geomorphology or with the known/ experimental chemical and physical processes, the answers of the present geologists, contain a common phrase ".... it is believed so". Sadly, in science one should go with evidences, not simply with beliefs.... In short, PT remains hypothesis, as it was in 1965s. And when we apply the current information/knowledge about gravity, magnetism, rotational dynamics etc of the planetary systems into Earth system, it do never conform with the 'WHOLE' that are postulated in PT.
This is the reason why, I who was born and brought up in earthscience dominated by  PT environment. keeps myself  away from the PT-rush (favoritism to wards PT is  limited to publishing papers and not in testing hypothesis or even improving the chances of making it better, workable).
It is the insufficiency of PT that is responsible for many scientists ( belonging to other fields) as well as citizenries look upon alternatives, or some times trying to explain themselves, using analogs ( PT too depends on analogs, like teapot or floating boats etc).

with regards
biju

On 11 May 2011 01:35, wrc <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

    I must confess that when I am tempted to explain 'how the Earth works' to non- or neo-geologists, I simply explain that the Earth is a hot body - with a primordial component of gravitational heat and an evolving component derived from radioactive sources - that 'needs' to cool down over time because that is what hot bodies embodied in a cooler medium inevitably do. That doesn't seem to create a problem for any of my curious acquaintances. Secondly, that with time as a parameter, solid rocks, particularly hot rocks, can 'creep' against gravity similar to the way hot liquids or hot air rise in a convective system, and that from the Earth's point of view such a convection process is very convenient in 'its' quest to get rid of 'its' heat. Everyone concurs that this seems reasonable. Thirdly, that the convecting solid material can melt, not by raising its temperature, but by dropping its pressure - this usually needs a pencil and paper!  Fourthly, that this understanding allows us speculate on how oceans form, how continents move, and even explain the origin of the 'Ring of Fire' (plus of course earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.).  This stage of the explanation can be somewhat esoteric and reaction may invoke little gasps of wonder and even appreciation!  In comparison, analogies with hearts and lungs and/or a conscious Earth, while amusing, seem a little naive even to the least scientific interlocutor - although New Agers may be more resistant.
     The origin of life, its relationship to the convective heat energy coming out of the Earth and the radiative heat energy derived from the Sun - as well as chemical heat generated at the surface, e.g. serpentinization - is a very different but equally fascinating story!!
 
Bill C.
 
----- Original Message -----

From:  Dr. Margaret C.  Brewer-LaPorta <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  
 
To: [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]  
 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 11:15 AM
 
Subject: Re: fine example
 

 
 

The  idea of the earth being viewed as a superorganism is not new.  James  Hutton himself proposed this view in 1785 at a meeting of the Royal Society of  Edinburgh.  He compared the circulation of Earth’s water, with its  contained sediments and nutrients, to the circulation of blood in an  animal.  In essence, Hutton proposed that the oceans as the heart of  Earth’s global system and the forests as the lungs.  James Lovelock  proposed this idea again in the 1980’s with the Gaia hypothesis.  There  are three parts to the Gaia hypothesis.  First, life significantly alters  the planetary environment.  I think we would be hard pressed to come up  with scientists who have trouble with this concept.  Secondly, life  affects the environment for the betterment of life.  This is shown in  environmental geology by the “natural systems function” concept, where parts  of the ecosystem (including life) play an important role in regulating  planetary systems.  The third part of the Gaia hypothesis is more  difficult to accept…life deliberately or consciously controls the global  environment (while this may be true in the human framework, I do not think all  life consciously controls earth systems).  



While  the discussion here is different from what Hutton and Lovelock proposed as the  earth being a superorganism…I thought it helpful to remind folk that these  concepts have been put out there for review and scientists have accepted some  aspects of the “superorganism” hypothesis.  Such hypotheses are helpful  in that they promote interdisciplinary thinking, which is always  good.   One comment I would have is that tectonics can be viewed as  an inorganic process that assists life (which there is ample evidence of in  the geological record) or if you are so inclined to think so (which currently  I am not) can be considered a “byproduct” of an organic process.   Respiration (from my recollection) is not in and of itself an organic process,  though it is necessarily for some organisms to survive.  Tectonics does  not need to be a biological process to support life.   The reverse  is true also…biological processes need not influence the tectonic process in  order to take advantage of it in the first place.



Personally,  I think that in the global system, there are many ways in which biologic and  inorganic processes interact in the various earth cycles to produce the unique  environment the planet has.  You do not have to have a model which is  entirely biological or entirely inorganic….from my limited experience, nature  just doesn’t work that way.  



<image.jpg>



From: Tectonics &  structural geology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On  Behalf Of Suresh Bansal
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:46  AM
To: [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: fine  example

 
 
 I need one help from you.  as we know earth is covered with crust (bark). my point is what are the  possible evidence to prove  that earth is a living  organism.
 
 

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Craig Magee <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Dear all,

I must admit i didn't think this would be  my first e-mail to the Geotectonics mailing list! I think it was Aristotle (or  some other famous person) that said,

'It is the mark of an educated  mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it'

In my view  this is what science is all about, how else does our understanding grow? I  have been pleased to see many replies to this forum discussing this topic and  querying the Earth-Tree hypothesis, whilst still encouraging Mr. Suresh (and  others) to continue to question the current 'beliefs'. I'm sure the plate  tectonic model sounded odd to many people initially. Yet here we  are.

However, I am disconcerted that whenever a valid question is  raised, all i see are the same arguments coming back. There appears to be no  development. Just links to some pictures and a brief description. Therefore,  whilst I enjoy open debates this seems to have run its course, unless new  supporting arguments are brought forward to move the discussion  on.

Cheers,
Craig

E-mail: [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
Tel: 0121 414  6146
Address: School of Geography, Earth and Environmental  Sciences
             The University of  Birmingham
             Edgbaston,  Birmingham
             B15  2TT

http://www.gees.bham.ac.uk/staff/pgcxm477.shtml
________________________________________
From:  Tectonics & structural geology discussion list [[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]]  On Behalf Of Joaquin Garcia Sansegundo [[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]]
Sent:  10 May 2011 15:08
To: [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
Subject:  Re: fine example
 
 
 


I am new to this forum. The truth is I can not believe  what I read.
Is it a good idea to discuss these things?
Best regards to  all,
Joaquin

At 15:03 10/05/2011, you wrote:
>Hello  Suresh:
>
>I am getting increasingly confused, and I was already  confused by
>your post
>quoting
><http://creditsecretsbiblereview.com/credit/blogs/Abiogenic-Petroleum-Origin.html>http://creditsecretsbiblereview.com
>a few days ago. I  am guessing: Are you telling us the Earth is a big
>sphere shaped tree  growing outwardly into space? Are you presenting
>that thought as a  theory of how the Earth formed/is forming? If this
>is not the case, why  are you posting these pictures? what are you
>trying to say? Please come  up with something that one can accept as
>a concise hypothesis of how  your line of thinking hangs together and
>formulate ways to test the  predictions following from your
>hypothesis which would contradict those  of plate tectonics for
>example. If this is not something you can do I  would recommend to
>read up on the literature or just give up to try to  persuade people
>of something (if that is what you are trying to do) in  this way
>which I find it seriously, and increasingly, offputting, I am  sorry to say.
>
>Best  wishes,
>
>Victor
>
>On 10/05/2011 13:29, Suresh  Bansal wrote:
>>
>>Dear  All,
>>
>>
>>please observe the new snap of fine  example of mountain formation
>>on trunk.pls see below  link
>>
>>   <http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j>http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j
>>
>>regs
>>   suresh
>
>
>
>--
>Dr. Victor  Bense
>
>University of East Anglia
>School of Environmental  Sciences
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ
>England
>
>tel. +44  (0)1603 591297
>fax. +44 (0)1603 591327
>
><http://www.uea.ac.uk/~vva06uyu>http://www.uea.ac.uk/~vva06uyu
>http://franciscus.co.uk
>
>IMPORTANT NOTICE -  This email is intended for the named recipient
>only. It may contain  privileged and confidential information. If you
>are not the intended  recipient, notify the sender immediately and
>destroy this email. You  must not copy, distribute or take action in
>reliance upon it. Whilst  all efforts are made to safeguard emails,
>The School of Environmental  Sciences cannot guarantee that
>attachments are virus free or compatible  with your systems and does
>not accept liability in respect of viruses  or computer problems  experienced.

_________________________________________________

Joaquin  Garcia Sansegundo
Departamento de Geologia (Area de Geodinamica  Interna)
Universidad de Oviedo
c/ Jesus Arias de Velasco,  s/n.
(33005) OVIEDO (Asturias).  SPAIN
Tlfn: +34 985103150.   Fax: +34 985103103
[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
http://www.researcherid.com/rid/A-2936-2010
http://www.geol.uniovi.es/Users/JGSansegundo.html
________________________________________________
 
 

--
http://universitycollege.academia.edu/BijuLonghinos