Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: K.Margiani on 19/01/2009 16:59:55

Title: How did tectonic plates originally form? - new opinion
Post by: K.Margiani on 19/01/2009 16:59:55
Quote; "Curiously, the Moon's center of mass is offset from its geometric center by about 2 km in the direction toward the Earth.
Also, the crust is thinner on the near side."

At the embryonic stage the Moon was fully liquid body as well as the Earth. Each embryonic planet’s or a primordial moon’s liquid surface looks like the Earth's fiery Asthenosphere ocean without the crust (fiery liquid masses of light oxides and other admixtures). Offset from the geometric center by about 2 km in the direction toward the Earth is connected to the tidal forces of the Earth. The crust is thinner on the near side by means of thermal radiation of fiery embryonic Earth, which could prevent cooling of leading side to the Earth. During few billion years the opposite side was cooling better and the crust become thicker.
How happened that and formed embryonic planets and their primordial moons, embryonic interstellar planets and their primordial and lost moons and embryonic stars and their binary systems you can read in the sensational research of this century written by my best friend professor Oliver and his team.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
Epoch of the accretion theory is over!!!
Title: Re: How did tectonic plates originally form? - new opinion
Post by: K.Margiani on 20/01/2009 06:37:28
How did tectonic plates originally form?

They originally were formed on the cooled surface of asthenosphere and fully were covered by originally Global Ocean. Periodic destruction impacts of asteroids and EB geo-transfers could destroy balance between inner geo-spheres. Overridden of destroyed tiles on the neighbor thin or thick tiles, and folding an overfolding of nearest thin tiles was reason of formation first continents and their mountain chains as well as small islands.
During hundreds of millions years water and atmosphere circulation were excellent designer of the small and huge islands (continental platforms).
The gradualism fully explains tectonic process within peaceful periods only (Between global geo-catastrophes).
The catastrophic plate tectonics fully explains catastrophic tectonic process by global geo-catastrophes (a lot of short periods of extinction boundaries on the geological timescale). Excellent research is in the link;
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-18.htm
Future of the modern Geology is that;
Gradualism+catastrophic plate tectonics!   

Title: How did tectonic plates originally form? - new opinion
Post by: K.Margiani on 21/01/2009 07:29:09
For almost 10 years I’m writing and developing my real explanations for mankind. (This is not new theory now! That is reality!) I’m ready to the real as well as virtual debates to my opponents. Silence is very bad answer. It can’t help mankind to survive die.

If the Earth was formed by impact of asteroids and meteorites; why even their debris are very expensive still? The costs of debris are thousands of dollars still. Everyone has already become very rich to gather the debris on the beaches at the roads and mountains chains.

Can someone explain to me; how the G metallic and magnetic nucleus was formed? According of the modern ideas metallic asteroids after hit the Earth and moving through Crust - Asthenosphere- the two solid mantle layers - Outer nucleus…eventually formed as a metallic nucleus…??? http://www.cosmogeology.ge/event.png

SORRY!!!
Title: How did tectonic plates originally form? - new opinion
Post by: Vern on 21/01/2009 20:21:50
I read through your three posts and I am not sure I understand yet. English does not seem to be your first language. How is your notion different from the mainstream view that the solar system formed from one huge accretion disk of mostly hydrogen but with some rocky and metal chunks in it. When the sun flared into hydrogen fusion, it blew away light elements that were close in leaving rocky planets; then lighter ones formed further out.

I'm not an expert on cosmology, but I think that's close to the mainstream as I remember it. How does your notion differ; or does it?
Title: How did tectonic plates originally form? - new opinion
Post by: K.Margiani on 22/01/2009 10:26:38
The false epoch of accretion theory is over. It was blind alley for the Cosmology and Astronomy!

planets, interstellar planets, their primordial moons are formed by parent stars (central starburst nucleus)of spiral galaxies and globular clustars.

Everything is proved in the sensational research of this century written by my best friend professor Oliver and his team.   http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
Title: How did tectonic plates originally form? - new opinion
Post by: Vern on 22/01/2009 12:58:22
Quote from: K.Margiani on 22/01/2009 10:26:38
The false epoch of accretion theory is over. It was blind alley for the Cosmology and Astronomy!

planets, interstellar planets, their primordial moons are formed by parent stars (central starburst nucleus)of spiral galaxies and globular clustars.

Everything is proved in the sensational research of this century written by my best friend professor Oliver and his team.   http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm

Your link is an interesting read but I didn't find a notion in it that would discard the accretion concept of planetary formation. Can you show me how you came to that conclusion.
Title: How did tectonic plates originally form? - new opinion
Post by: K.Margiani on 22/01/2009 16:17:39
About this topic I can write a book, this is topic for real debates and connected to the huge work done by four investigators for years. the thread is very small place.
Sorry!