Diverging The Boundaries - Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's Blog

My science/technology-related thoughts, sometimes controversial, sometimes can be based on limited knowledge base, logic can be non-perfect as well. I develop my vision in iterations. Don't take this blog as an attempt to convince anybody in anything.
Each post in this blog reflects my level of understanding of Tectonics of the Earth at the time the post was written; so, some posts may not necessarily be correct now.

12 May, 2013

Pacific basin reconstruction. The Active Fracture Tectonics approach.

400+ years ago. A concept was needed.
The Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa . . . by earthquakes and floods"? That was the suggestion by Abraham Ortelius. (Kious, W.J.; Tilling, R.I.; USGS, This Dynamic Earth: the Story of Plate Tectonics. Retrieved 2013-04-02 <http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/dynamic.pdf>). 

Since then 400+ years passed. Do these centuries add to our scientific experience to allow us to advance in the Abraham Ortelius' approach to suggest the mechanism behind the observed phenomena? I think, yes. Missed was the step to develop a concept from the observation and then to check the concept over the full possible scope, that is over the entire Earth.

Observed fact is:
- Proto-Americas moved westwards off proto-Africa and proto-Europe.

Abstracted  from the observed fact the concept is:
- Continents could be torn into chunks, and the chunks could be sent west-eastwards.

The scope is The Earth. Parts left to be examined are:
- Proto-Americas' western border
- Proto-Asia's eastern border.

Checking the concept over the two borders naturally raises two questions:
- Why not proto-Americas' western chunks to be torn westwards?
- Why not proto-Asia's eastern chunks to be torn eastwards?

The scenario for Pacific basin reconstruction. Why not proto-Americas' western chunks to be torn westwards?
South Pacific. 
The concept of South Pacific "plate" reconstruction (New Zealand and Australia) was suggested by me almost 2 years ago in my posts:
"Porphyry Copper. More On Reshaping Pangaea (Gondwana)", 22-July-2011,
< http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porphyry-copper-more-on-reshaping.html >
"Reshaping Pangaea", 12-July-2011,
< http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/07/reshaping-pangaea.html >

Central and North Pacific. Objects are:
- Western proto-Americas.
- South-West of proto-Europe. At the very beginning of Pangaea break-up, the mid-Atlantic divergent ridge should had started spreading out proto-Pacific-Jurassic-Quiet-Zone (proto-JQZ), the zone between proto-Americas and proto-India..
- Proto-India on the north of Australia between western margins of proto-South-America and proto-North-America, on the West of proto-Europe.
- Proto-China on the North of proto-India close to western margin of proto-North-America.
- Proto-Mongolia on the North of proto-China close to western margin of proto-North-America.

The scenario for Pacific basin reconstruction:
Pacific-Jurassic-Quiet-Zone (JQZ)
- the spreading of proto-JQZ started on Pangaea break-up.
- A number of divergent zones have been spreading the oceanic crust.
- The zones that spread crust in east-west direction were active as they developed the force to move the crust towards proto-Asia. These zones should feature magnetic lineations as the differentiation under compressional stress in divergent zone would pop-up stronger material.  See my "Hawaii Convergent, Part 3. The Moat And Arch Of Hawaii. Now: Active Fracture Tectonics." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2012/10/hawaii-convergent-part-3-moat-and-arch.html >.
- The zones that spread crust in south-north direction were passive. They developed due to forced opening of the area. Such zones pop-ups material that is less dense and is of lower melting temperature. These zones should not feature magnetic lineations.
- The divergent zone between JQZ and Americas moved JQZ westward.

India
The westward moving JQZ spread Proto-India even farther to the West.

China and Mongolia
A divergent boundary broke proto-North America. Western parts of proto-North America ( Proto-China and proto-Mongolia) started   their way westward. The proto-Marsupial land  ( Proto-China and proto-Mongolia)  reached probably too close to North Pole on its way leaving no choice to survive for Marsupials. The northwest direction could be explained by the divergent processes within the Pacific basin in the North-South direction .  

Some facts to look for to backup the Active Fracture Tectonics concept of Pacific basin reconstruction.
Compare to other reconstructions of Pacific Plate.
The proposed Pacific basin reconstruction does not place the proto-JQZ divergent triangle in the middle of Pacific. Instead, the proto-JQZ is the product of opening between proto-Americas and proto-India. There is no need to find an explanation how the triangle divergent hole started in the middle of the Pacific.
The combination of active/passive divergent zones within JQZ makes its chemical composition be somewhat closer to the composition of continental crust (say, the one between Ural and Putorana in Siberia. See my, Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's post "Ural-Putorana Diverged, Suggesting The Global Mechanism Behind The Event." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/08/ural-putorana-diverged-suggesting.html >).

Fossil Evidences.
Fossil evidences to tie South America (Chile & Patagonia), New Zealand, Australia, New Guinea, and New Caledonia are numerous (Nothofagus to name one). Also, history of marsupials connects all the discussed objects of the Pacific basin reconstruction (currently except for JQZ). Moreover, at least one marsupial from Argentina and Chile (monito del monte) is more genetically similar to Australian marsupials than it is to the American marsupials, - we don't need the poor monito del monte to travel through Antarctica to explain the similarity.

Geological evidence.
See my "Porphyry Copper. More On Reshaping Pangaea (Gondwana)" < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porphyry-copper-more-on-reshaping.html >.
Geological evidence for China and Mongolia yet to be found.

Geomorphological evidence.
Active and passive divergent zones produce different types of crust. Active divergent zone produce dense (oceanic) crust. The crust then subducts down into mantle. See my "Hawaii Convergent, Part 3. The Moat And Arch Of Hawaii. Now: Active Fracture Tectonics." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2012/10/hawaii-convergent-part-3-moat-and-arch.html >.
Passive divergent zones produce less dense, more buyoant crust that just can't sink in the mantle. The enormous amount of crust produced by passive divergent zones was broken into pieces under the pressure of the force developed by active divergent zones. The pieces rotated almost vertically and formed Himalaya and some other mountain systems in the region. I called the process "Green process of mountain formation" in my previous posts because it does not require "great" force, neither it requires "enormous" energy needed for "collisional" type of mountain formation.  

Why not proto-Asia's eastern chunks to be torn eastwards?
As far as I understand, Pacific basin's crustal age estimated by magnetic lineations left no time-gap for Asia's crust to move eastward up to America.

Back to suggestion of mechanism to get the Americas  "torn away from Europe and Africa ".
If suggested above the Pacific basin reconstruction is adequate,  neither "by earthquakes and floods" mechanism, nor by mantle convection mechanism looked capable of providing almost around the World trip for western proto-Americas land.

Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS

--
Message-ID: <DUB119-W19015BD2F45EBCA7BA4EB6DBA60@phx.gbl>
From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <sukhotinsky@live.com>
To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
Subject: Pacific basin reconstruction. The Active Fracture Tectonics approach.
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 01:28:27 +0300
--

22 April, 2013

Ask not what a search company can do for you .., or time to refactor the global knowledge base.

Intro.
The time for great updates in academics has come, - that's the idea of this post; the companies to refactor the "spaghetti" global knowledge can be type of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Wikipedia. The idea to write the post came to me when doing Google search with the phrases "language processing" and "processing language". On the first phrase the results were mostly related to natural language processing. On the phrase "processing language" the results were mostly related to the open source programming language "Processing" (thanks guys).

I thought that something wrong was about the search because regardless of word order, the two words relate to the broad AI-related scientific concept. But the programming language "Processing" is just an instance of programming language concept probably not related to AI at all. The AI scientific community would need to spend extra time to figure out how to filter out the results if possible at all. That's not only about scientist's productivity, that's about quality of search, quality of scientist's work. 

Ask not what a search company can do for you.
So, how to deal with the issue of "blurred search":

- Are we to ask the search company to tweak something in their search algorithm, by, say,  heavily enhancing their model to provide the kind of option of "academic layer"? If a scientist selects the option, the results would mostly be "academic", about concepts, not about particular realizations (instances).

- Or should we ask all the web-content creators to follow some basic rules when choosing this or that English word to let their product stay high in search results?

Neither of the above, in my opinion.

Time to refactor the global knowledge base.
These above options are just "patches" to current working system. But, does it make sense "to patch" the current working system or, probably, it would be better off to develop a new approach and build up a new "global knowledge management system" (without destroying the working legacy one)?

Let's step back and look at the bigger picture. The issues are:
- A barrier for a scientist to expose his work. Publishing is expensive and takes a lot of time. A work that is not backed up by a good amount of money or authority has a little chance to serve the science. Instead, a not-so-good idea backed up by some kind of authority would make its way up, raise money and pay back to maintain the authority. The system gets counterproductive, it doesn't always serve the entire society.

- A barrier for a scientist to access works of other scientists. The access is mostly not free. To produce a science-related work one needs to look through, say, hundred of works of others. Where is he expected to get the money? To serve science it takes a lot of money. Is that good? Again, the system gets counterproductive, the researches, who are willing to contribute to science, don't always have access to needed information.

- A barrier for fellow scientists to review the science-related work. The system is not transparent in this respect. As far as I understand, there exists layer of "middlemen" to decide who would peer review whom. I believe it should work mostly automatic. 

- Lack of community feature. The community should feature not just "peer review" practice. It should provide tools for collaboration.

- The scientific works are mostly examples of "spaghetti" knowledge. The ideas are often NOT a)reasonably normalized, b)separated into loosely coupled coarse grained items with clear input conditions, output statements and a body of logic. The "spaghetti" structure doesn't allow a scientist to reuse the logic of scientific works in automatic mode.

- Automatic connection to a "brain" or to a "mind" project can't easily be done. Reverse engineering of a system (brain) only makes sense if the understanding of the output (knowledge base in this context) of the system is not in "spaghetti" state.  

- Can't easily be done automatic connection to the kind of "Language learner hub" (see my post http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/2010/11/google-language-learner-hub-or-human.html ) .

- Can't easily be done automatic connection to the kind of "Pattern Repository and Expert System Over It" (see my post http://weblogs.asp.net/sergeys/archive/2011/05/25/pattern-repository-and-expert-system-over-it.aspx ) .

How and whom to refactor the global knowledge base.
- Concept of the structure of a scientific work. A company type of Microsoft, probably, would be the best to lead the development of the concept. The complexity of products they have been dealing with for decades hints that their experience can be reused to define what could be a knowledge item, how to "coarse grain" and decouple knowledge items within a scientific work, how to "entry point" a scientific work down to a particular knowledge item, etc etc.  

- Scientist global identification. The players type of Microsoft, Google, Facebook are quite good at it.

- Tools to develop a scientific work, - MS Office and Visual Studio, Open Office etc.

- The concept of collaboration. Companies like Facebook and Wikipedia have proven experience in the area, why not to reuse it?

- Search system over the global knowledge base, - major search companies.

What to start with.
A user identification is working already by Microsoft, Google, Facebook and others. Next steps could be:
- Some portal with email address a user can send his work to. By message_id the publication (content of the email) should be accessible to everyone.
- A set of templates for office software or even Visual Studio should be available to let a user to compose and properly format his work.
- Some tag system to label the works.
- Some community functionality to let users to organize into groups and "peer review" each other.

Probably it's time not to only navigate through academics or scholar content, it's time to start creating knowledge in new format and refactor old content.

Thank you.
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
--
Message-ID: <DUB119-W2584966068D58EDBF2EE2DBCB0@phx.gbl>
From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <sukhotinsky@live.com>
To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
Subject: Ask not what a search company can do for you .., or time to refactor the global knowledge base.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:31:07 +0300
--

15 April, 2013

How to spot a Geo-science talent

I posted a message "How to spot a Geo-science talent" to GEO-TECTONICS List a few days ago. I tried to show how a talented kid would approach one of the basic Plate Tectonics puzzles, - How could an oceanic plate be more dense than the underlying layer of mantle?

Being not under the pressure of need to play the "Science" game, the talented kid, would probably think simple:
- With time the oceanic plate can't get from bottom the denser material than the upper mantle itself, as the the denser material would just sink on solidifying.
- With time the oceanic plate gets thicker, not denser (roughly) as the upper and bottom temperatures are fixed, the average temperature roughly remains the same. The plate's material thermal expansion coefficient is quite low, hence the plate's average density doesn't change considerably with time.
 - So, what's the reason an oceanic plate exposes denser layers on de-lamination on subduction? Why not to suggest that the very mechanism of the plate generation produce the denser layer within the oceanic plate? That's it.
 
---
My post to GEO-TECTONICS List (Tectonics & structural geology discussion list ).
title How to spot a Geo-science talent.
pubDate Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:05:03 +0300
guid
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=geo-tectonics;24cc7655.1304

Gmail posting:
date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:05:03 +0300
message-ID: <
CAMETt9Vurk2XGbm6ZY=Y_3+oUyr+NyrtEmfbCky6bVjGsSj4Xg@mail.gmail.com>

---
The great thing about NSF is that they are not "fixed" in some way, they publish articles not only to answer questions, but at times also to raise some: "The researchers are now trying to find the source that supplies the magma in the newly discovered layer."  from:
< http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=127315 > March 20, 2013, NSF, Press Release 13-045, Scientists Discover Layer of Liquified Molten Rock in Earth's Mantle. Hidden magma layer could play role in shaping the geologic face of our planet. Why not to redirect the puzzle about the source of the magma to kids? The puzzle could sound the next way:

Facts:
- There is an incoming plate that bends and subducts under the continent.
- The plate constantly is being spread out at some oceanic ridge some thousands km away.
- The density of the plate is known to be greater than the average density of the underlying mantle.
- NSF says "Scientists have discovered a layer of liquified molten rock in Earth's mantle that may be responsible for the sliding motions of the planet's massive tectonic plates." (see the link above)

Question (by NSF):
What's the source that supplies the magma in the newly discovered layer?

Select the answers that follow the next pattern:
- The greater density can't be due to just cooling because on the transition from ductile to rigid state the elementary volumes of more dense material would just sink down. The body of the Earth vibrates and the vibration would assist the process greatly.
- So, there should exist some mechanism that differentiate the mantle material at the oceanic ridge. The denser fraction of Earth's mantle builds up the plate, the less dense fraction of it has no choice other than to find its way down.
- The less dense fraction happens to be of lower melting temperature, hence the molten layer beneath the plate. Besides, as the process involves oceanic water, the less dense fraction and high temperature, it would only be natural to expect the layer to be related to
a) abiotic hydrocarbons generation (the less dense fraction accumulates under the bent as it can't follow the plate under the continent)
b) earthquakes, as the less dense fraction tends to find its way up and, also, the molten layer serves as the lubricant for plate movement.

Spot the kids with the answers that followed the pattern and have them to rule the Geo-science :-)

Thank you.
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
---

Message-ID: <DUB119-W18F03EF85D55A7A8F9D99CDBCC0@phx.gbl>
From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <sukhotinsky@live.com>
To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
Subject: How to spot a Geo-science talent
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:48:37 +0300
---

07 April, 2013

Convection currents in the mantle, still mainstream?

My post to GEO-TECTONICS List (Tectonics & structural geology discussion list ).
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:11:08 +0300
guid: < https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk:443/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=geo-tectonics;10329ffa.1304 >
Gmail Message-ID: <CAMETt9V0Fv188MgrDXzPa738VCwx_+Qd83g3RbrcKJ0cd-DmSg@mail.gmail.com>
---

The phrase "North America then began moving westward, pushed by the spreading of the Atlantic Ocean to its east." caught my eye in:
http://www.nature.com/news/how-the-west-was-built-1.12724 > Alexandra Witze (03 April 2013). How the West was built. Nature|News.

Interestingly, I thought, NOT convection currents in the mantle moved North America westward, but the very spreading of the Atlantic Ocean pushed it. What's the driving force behind the process? Well, let's look at the supplied link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7443/full/nature12019.html > Karin Sigloch, Mitchell G. Mihalynuk. Intra-oceanic subduction shaped the assembly of Cordilleran North America. Nature 496, 50–56 (04 April 2013) doi:10.1038/nature12019

Read on vertical slabs:
"Beneath North America these slab relics are massive, almost vertical walls extending from 800 to 2,000 km in depth, in depth, and typically 400-600 km wide. (Fig. 1.Supplementary Fig.1)" 

Well, let's go to the Supplementary. Read on material in the transition zone being smeared out:
"This view shows most clearly the almost vertical geometry of the deep slab walls below ~800 km depth, the segmentation of the Mezcalera and Angayucham walls, and their clear spatial separation from the crescent -shaped Cascadia Root and slab C2 further west. By contrast, material in the transition zone is smeared out laterally (yellow, green, blue shades). The vertical walls carry the geometric signature of intra-oceanic trenches, which can and do remain stationary over long periods, whereas the shallower slabs were deposited into a trench dragged along by the migrating continent. "

Great, shallower material was dragged along by the migrating continent, but how about deep slab walls? Why didn't they move with convection currents in the mantle? The slab walls' depth 2000km had been quite comparable to to the distance from the wall to the spreading ridge of the Atlantic Ocean on the course of the 150 Ma. The convection currents in the mantle should definitely disturb the walls; they did not.

No convection currents to drive the process, then what else to do the job? Hotspot frame? Some tens thousands km line of some km height speedy stream at the given mantle viscosity looks to require energy budget well above visible small fraction of Watt per square meter.   

Thank you.
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
---

23 October, 2012

Hawaii Convergent, Part 3. The Moat And Arch Of Hawaii. Now: Active Fracture Tectonics.

Now: Active Fracture Tectonics.
There was a post by me, Sergey D. Sukhotinsky, "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/hawaii-convergent-part-2-introducing.html > Since then I generalized the concept to include celestial objects. See "Tectonics Of A Celestial Object Driven By Material Differentiation And Migration In Temperature Gradient Under Tidal Deformations."
< http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2012/07/tectonics-of-celestial-object-driven-by.html > Let's name the concept: "Active Fracture Tectonics".

Basics of Active Fracture Tectonics.
- Driving force. The mechanism to reshape Earth's solid surface (crust) is driven mostly by Earth's tidal deformations by Moon, Sun etc.
- Active Divergent Fracture Zone. The kind of a fracture zone that develops the compressional stress within crust. The next conditions are normally met:
   a) deformations within the fracture zone caused by tidal deformations of Earth's body;
   b) water layer above the fracture zone to provide effective cooling;
   c) access for magma from beneath the fracture zone;
   d) absence of source of external compressional stress that blocks this Divergent Fracture Zone to spread crust.
- Crust Lamination at Divergent Fracture Zone caused by material differentiation and migration In temperature gradient under tidal deformations. A Divergent Fracture Zone develops mechanically stronger fraction on the top of the spread crust due to water ensured temperature gradient. The weaker fraction is getting spread on the bottom of it in molten form.
- Passive Divergent Fracture Zone. Active Divergent Fracture Zone can't be curvy. Thus, some regions of a spherical crust  undergo extensional stress. The resulting Divergent Fracture Zones could develop in Active Divergent Fracture Zone if the listed above conditions are met. Otherwise Passive Divergent Fracture Zone develops under extensional stress. The conditions that prevent a Divergent Fracture Zone to develop active (just to name a few):
- Absence of water layer above it.
- Limited access of water due to heavy sedimentation.
- Pollution of the zone due to sedimentation.
- Limited access of magma from beneath, say, due to the underlying subducted slab.
- Pollution of the magma from beneath, due to a recycled subducted slab.
- Slab Pull. The Mechanically stronger fraction on the top of the spread crust at a Divergent Fracture Zone can be denser than the underlying magma. So, a subducting slab on delamination could get denser than the underlying magma and get sunk down to the depth of corresponding magma density. That process of slab sinking could be considered as the secondary driving mechanism behind Active Fracture Tectonics. The slab sinking adds seismic events to tidal deformations and participates in magma convection.

The Moat Of Hawaii.
The mechanism to pump magma/lava up to the surface is different between Plate Tectonics and Active Fracture Tectonics. But once magma/lava gets pumped up, both concepts explain the moat as crust overload.

The Arch Of Hawaii. Plate Tectonics's Plume/Hotspot approach.
The Arch Of Hawaii is something that Plate Tectonics's Plume/Hotspot approach has a problem to explain (in my opinion). The common sense tells, if a load is placed on ice then, yes, a depression develops, but, no, there will be no arch around the depression. The Hotspot's idea that hot magma upwells around the depression to form arch seems not to work well, as, for instance, the "hotspotless" mount chain - Line Islands Chain built its own arch without help of a hotspot.

The Arch Of Hawaii. Active Fracture Tectonics approach.
Let's recall - a Divergent Fracture Zone develops mechanically stronger fraction on the top of the spread crust, the weaker fraction is getting spread on the bottom of it in molten form. Hawaii chain is a convergent zone. The top layer of the incoming crust is getting consumed down under crust. The less dense fraction of the bottom layer of the incoming crust tends not to flow under the depression, accumulating at some distance from the convergent zone. The volume of the material with the density less than the density of crust gives local rise to crust forming arch. When that less dense material got the chance to break up through the bent crust, - highly fluid lava shows on the ocean flow in violent volcanic events.

Active Fracture Tectonics: Doing Physics and Maths.
Time unit: Tera second (Tc).
As I wrote in "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/hawaii-convergent-part-2-introducing.html >:
"There is the only time unit - second, To make records shorter, Tera second (Tc) can be used". There is no much sense in maintaining the over-complicated legacy set of time-span names like Cenozoic, Mesozoic etc. In fact, we just can't afford to ignore help from the side of physicists, mathematicians, software and electronic hardware developers, other scientists. Let's speak one language - the language of physics. Let's not build artificial barriers around particular domain of science, - The Earth does not belong to only geologists. See my, Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's post "Code First, Model First, or Behavior First? (Talking On Plate Tectonics, Earth Science)" < http://weblogs.asp.net/sergeys/archive/2011/08/30/code-first-model-first-or-behavior-first-talking-on-plate-tectonics-earth-science.aspx > .
Earth layers in plain English.
Again, as I wrote in "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2..." there is no much sense in maintaining the outdated concept of "asthenosphere/lithosphere". The changes of properties of Earth with depth that are seen with Geophysics instruments could mark the layers' boundaries. The layers defined this way could be called in plain English, such as "brittle", "ductile", "transition" or similar.

Active Fracture Tectonics: Next Order Approximation compared to Plate Tectonics.
Plate Tectonics did do its great job to consolidate scientists in their research on Earth evolution. Alfred Wegener paid the price to be heard and stay forever in our memories as the hero. But, time's passing, we need to keep on moving on. The very concept that the outer solid layer of Earth is loosely coupled to underlying layer, and the parts of the outer solid layer could be loosely coupled to each other still holds quite well.
What's new is that the loosely coupled parts of the outer solid layer are products of fracture zones. The fracture zones create them off underlying magma, move them, break them apart and provide the force to subduct them (in addition to Slab Pull force.)

Credits (in chronological order) .
1. I was born in Ukraine. This wonderful land must be a special place on Earth. Try to search Famous Ukrainians Hollywood.
2. My mother was Russian born in Russian North not far from Ural region. The life had never been easy in the region.
3. My father is Jewish born in Ukraine.
4. I graduated from MIPT(Moscow), then the best educational institution in Physics/Maths domain in the world.
5. My wife and my daughter are very much helpful.
6. In terms of money: NASA, NOAA, NDF, USGS, many other US-based scientific organizations plus GOOGLE spent billions on products I used virtually for free. Without the products it was not possible to advance a single step in the research.

© 2012 Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
--

Message-ID: <BLU172-W41011A63784270A135073EDB790@phx.gbl>
From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <sukhotinsky@live.com>
To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
Subject: Hawaii Convergent, Part 3. The Moat And Arch Of Hawaii. Now: Active Fracture Tectonics.
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:59:55 +0300
---

10 July, 2012

Tectonics Of A Celestial Object Driven By Material Differentiation And Migration In Temperature Gradient Under Tidal Deformations.

Introduction.
   How a celestial object and its satellite could be formed, was suggested in my
"The Formation Of A Satellite Of A Celestial Object By The Differentiation Of Particles' Speed Vectors."
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/formation-of-satellite-of-celestial.html
and
"The Double Moon Formation. The "Condensation/Ejected Ring" Concept. (The Formation Of Multiple Satellites Of A Celestial Object)."
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/double-moon-formation.html
   In other posts of my "Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's Blog" (sukhotinsky.blogspot.com and divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com) I  suggested that the driving force of Earth Tectonics originates within the divergent boundaries due to tidal deformations and temperature gradient. The important point was that the driving force keeps a divergent boundary under compressional stress, not extensional stress. Now let's try to fill the gap between the two themes. Let's elaborate on how tidal interaction between a celestial object and its satellite could be developing tectonic processes on the object.

Local "negative feedback" of the dry surface.
- When crust is formed and there is no liquid over crust, the crust is cooled through its surface by radiation. A developing fracture would cause magma/lava to pump up according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The magma/lava would cool down and the place around the fracture would be getting thicker and, thus, stronger against deformations.

- The thinner crust is in some location, the faster gets the process of magma solidification on its bottom, the sooner the thickness of local crust would match the thickness of neighboring crust.

The above two mechanisms feature local negative feedback (so to say), thus, are unable to grow to cause global tectonic processes.

Global process due to presence of liquid over the surface of crust. A model.
   A developing fracture in crust is getting filled with liquid. Let's postulate that the material within the fracture has to differentiate under the deformations and the differentiated components have to migrate within the deforming zone. Let's leave to prove the postulate to future generation of scientists.
Now we can suggest a model of two fracture zones in crust under an ocean of some liquid. The fracture zones are parallel to each other and the distance between them is roughly equal to their dimensions. The question is, how would the two fracture zones develop over time, taking into account they both develop compressional stress in the crust? Would they live independent lives developing similar chemical compositions, or would one fracture zone act on another zone the way, the second zone will be developing different chemical composition?

   In other words would one fracture zone be able to develop stronger composition due to faster well-cooled spreading of the crust? Would the second zone become a convergent zone due to the compressional stress developed by the first zone? Yes, I think, the second zone would be getting contaminated with sediment when consuming oceanic crust, the zone would be getting "weak", the thermal gradient would drop, the strongest and heaviest components would be getting washed off the zone, fresh magma finally would be blocked from reaching the surface in the second zone. And, finally the second fracture zone would became a convergent zone under the compressional stress developed by the first zone. The examples of the second type of fracture zone can be Hawaii chain and Lousville seamount ridge, in my opinion.

Some reasons to differentiate.
- Difference in melting temperature. Naturally, under the zone deformations, the solidifying material (the material with highest  melting temperature), on reaching the cooled surface,  would get stuck between the divergent boundaries, the more ductile material would be getting "washed" down between the boundaries.
- Difference in hardness(firmness) in solidifying state. The less strong material is getting crushed under the deformations and is getting "washed" down between the boundaries.
- Difference in the density. Gravitation gives the denser material less chances to reach surface.

The scales of migration.
   The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes material differentiation and migration in temperature gradient under deformations to work for the entire scale from micro (molecular) level up to the range of full Universe. For a particular scale the specific implementation of the mechanism could be described as working over the smaller scale mechanisms. In the case of the Earth, I'd like to think, it could be possible to describe the next (among others) effects:
- On micro level it could be differentiation of isotopes;
- On the greater scale it could be the process of the development of intrusions within the solidifying material.
- On even greater scale, it could be the process of, say, the development of magma chambers under a volcano.
- Further, it could be the process of developing the difference between the material in convergent and divergent boundaries.
- Even further, it could be the process of developing the difference between the material in Earth's core and  its outer layer. The 3-D mechanism of magma transportation for this case is beyond the scope of this post. But the surface-related mechanism, the crust recycling mechanism is worth to be mentioned here. The magma's material captured by the divergent boundaries is the product of magma differentiation, and under some conditions the composition could contain some dense elements in greater proportion then the original magma contains itself. Later on subduction and heating, the slab would loose the less dense (say, water-related) components, and the resulting slab would became quite dense, even, possibly, denser than the surrounding magma. Such a slab would be able to reach extraordinary depths. 

   The material differentiation and migration under deformations may not necessarily be fully responsible for all the above effects. The above effects can go even without it. Say, gravitation on its own could be causing the differentiation on the density even without the presence of deformations of the material. And on molecular level under the thermal gradient without deformations the differentiation would take place because the objects of the layer, molecules are "vibrating" already.

The importance of understanding how material differentiate and migrate in temperature gradient under deformations.
   The importance of understanding how material differentiate and migrate in temperature gradient under deformations can't be overestimated. It not only may give a key to theoretic questions such as "How does a celestial object develop", but is of great practical importance. Some of the aspects of practical importance were outlined by me in my:
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's Blog
http://weblogs.asp.net/sergeys/archive/2011/08/30/code-first-model-first-or-behavior-first-talking-on-plate-tectonics-earth-science.aspx
"Code First, Model First, or Behavior First? (Talking On Plate Tectonics, Earth Science)."
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/08/code-first-model-first-or-behavior.html
"Porphyry Copper. More On Reshaping Pangaea (Gondwana)."
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porphyry-copper-more-on-reshaping.html

© 2011 Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
--
Message-ID: <BLU138-W6B9467391C2598093C199DBD20@phx.gbl>
From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <
sukhotinsky@live.com>
To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <
cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
Subject: Tectonics Of A Celestial Object Driven By Material Differentiation
 And Migration In Temperature Gradient Under Tidal Deformations.
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 03:47:40 +0300

08 March, 2012

The Concept Of Sea Ice Experiment To Get The Feel Of Geofracture Tectonics.

Sea ice vs Earth crust.
- Both are solid entities floating on something that is less solid.
- Both develop "tectonic-like" structures: ridges, subducting plates, etc.
- Both undergo deformations: crust is getting deformed by Moon/Sun gravity; sea ice is getting deformed by tidal and wind induced waves.

The objective of the experiment.
The main point of the experiment is to reveal whether compressional stress within ice sheet could be developed by ice sheet deformations caused by tidal waves. Could the compressional stress develop the structures: ridges, subducting plates, etc.

The location of the ice sheet to look for.
- A deep bay, probably, in Antarctic. The width of the ice sheet outside the bay should not be great in order to prevent the stress transmission from outside the bay. 
- Winter wind pattern should not develop the significant compressional stress in the ice of the bay. The wind should be blowing mainly toward the open side of the bay.
- Tidal wave should be producing considerable deformation of the bay's ice surface.


The flow of the experiment.
Monitored parameters are:
- tidal deformation of the bay's ice surface;
- stress within the ice sheet;
- development of the "tectonic-like" structures: ridges, subducting plates, etc.
- wind parameters; the wind should be blowing toward the open end of the bay to not cause the compressional stress;
- parameters of water currents beneath the ice sheet; the currents should not produce significant compressional stress in the ice sheet;


--
© 2011 Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
---

Message-ID: <BLU138-W69E66250B21377C8843DADB570@phx.gbl>
From: Sergey Sukhotinsky <
sukhotinsky@live.com>
To: Sergey Sukhotinsky <
cognitive.walkthrough@gmail.com>
Subject: The Concept Of Sea Ice Experiment To Get The Feel Of Geofracture Tectonics.
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:25:46 +0300


11 January, 2012

Is Louisville Ridge seamount chain a convergent boundary?

My post to GEO-TECTONICS list, sorry for the typo in the word "boundary" - "boiundary".
--
Message-ID:  <CAMETt9WnZ+6XvcWQnjD6sazQj5Fmqn-Q1Lad3ces0Y3aLd704Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:         Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:07:25 +0200
Sender:       Tectonics & structural geology discussion list <GEO-TECTONICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
From:         "Sergey D. Sukhotinsky" <cognitive.walkthrough@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Is Louisville Ridge seamount chain a convergent boiundary?
To:           GEO-TECTONICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Dear "geo-tectonics" mailing list members,

   For more than one month I've been trying to figure out what does it mean the different westward rates of the two "micro-plates" northeast and southwest from Louisville Ridge on the picure "Underwater mountains - rate of destruction" from the article: BBC NEWS, Science & Environment, "Undersea mountains march into the abyss", Dec-6, 2011 < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16056192 >, accessed Jan-11, 2012.

   The NE microplate makes westward 8 sm per year and SW microplate makes 5.5 sm westward per year. Could that mean that not only Tonga Trench is a convergent boundary, but also Louisville Ridge seamount chain itself is a convergent boiundary as well?

   Could the same convergent mechanism be suggested for Louisville Ridge as it was suggested for Hawaii in my post: "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics."

Thanks,
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
--

15 October, 2011

The Double Moon Formation. The "Condensation/Ejected Ring" Concept. (The Formation Of Multiple Satellites Of A Celestial Object).

   From my previous post "The Formation Of A Satellite Of A Celestial Object By The Differentiation Of Particles' Speed Vectors." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/formation-of-satellite-of-celestial.html > it seems that it's impossible to deny that when the material was gathered to create Earth, some part of it did not go to the center, instead it kept on orbiting around it to start creating Moon. The question is, what percentage of the Moon's body was added by the mechanism? Did not exist another mechanism to add the material to the Moon?

   The mentioned mechanism can be attributed to the Condensation Theory, as the ring of the outer stuff and the stuff inside the ring started to condense almost at one time. But the question remains, can't the process of condensing of inner stuff cast off more rings? (In the mentioned above my previous post "The Formation Of A Satellite Of A Celestial..." I wrongly used "disk" word instead of "ring", my language problem, sorry.)

   It seems the gravity force can make the inner stuff to cast off another one or more rings. What would be the effect of the differentiation of the inner stuff by its density? Maybe I, Sergey D. Sukhotinsky, the author of this post am missing something, but the effect of the differentiation would be increased speed of rotation to keep angular momentum. If the viscosity of the stuff is significant, the outer layer would be rotating fast enough to get ejected on Equator. New ring would be formed.

   The rings are not parts of the Geodynamo. But, probably, are affected by the Geodynamo's magnetic field that gets reversed from time to time. That's why, probably, their orbits were inclined relative to Equator plane. Accordingly, the Earth's Equator plane got inclined relative to the plane of Solar system. Over time the rings condensed into two or more moons. The "moons" collided eventually due to the gravitational interaction with the Earth and each other.

   The idea described above in this post and in my previous post "The Formation Of A Satellite Of A Celestial Object By The Differentiation Of Particles' Speed Vectors." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/formation-of-satellite-of-celestial.html > looks like to be valid on a bigger scale: not only for the formation of satellites of planets, but also for satellites of stars, - why not to think that the material for an innermost planet was ejected by the process described in this post?

© 2011 Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS
---

09 October, 2011

The Formation Of A Satellite Of A Celestial Object By The Differentiation Of Particles' Speed Vectors.

   In my previous post "Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/10/hawaii-convergent-part-2-introducing.html > I proposed the concept of the interdisciplinary study on formation and evolution of the Earth's upper solid layer. As the main driving force of the formation and evolution is suggested to be by Moon/Sun, I need a concept when and how Moon was formed. Upon searching for the concept, I could not find any that would fit my vision; probably I should had searched more; or just let's try to develop the concept:
--
- The stuff around the (now) Earth's orbit gets gathered into the gaseous pre-Earth.

- The particles are colliding, thus loosing their speed through radiation.

- The particles that happened to stay high on the circular orbits, are getting less and less likely to be disturbed by a collision because particles with "wrong" orbits are getting trapped by the mess in the center; the trapped by the mess are losing their speed and getting down onto the lower orbits. 

- Fallen down particles eventually form liquid Earth; but the "coherent" (so to say) by the vector of speed, particles form disk around Earth above Equator.

- The disk is not a part of the Geodynamo anymore, but, still, probably is getting affected by the Geodynamo's magnetic field that gets reversed from time to time. That's why, probably, the Moon's orbit got inclined relative to Equator plane.

- The particles within the disk are getting condensed due to the gravitational interaction, the chunks are gathered into the Moon eventually, so the pattern we see on the Moon's surface may not necessarily all be due to collisions with asteroids, some "big picture" formations probably could be the result of the process of the chunks gathering.
--  
   The described above process of the formation of the Moon by the differentiation Of particles' speed vectors could probably work for other celestial objects; Saturn probably still is in the process with it's disks. On a bigger scale the concept could probably be applied to the relation between Sun and the planets, or even between stars in a star system. 
 
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/
http://sukhotinsky.blogspot.com/
http://weblogs.asp.net/SergeyS/default.aspx
---

05 October, 2011

Hawaii Convergent, Part 2. Introducing The Concept Of Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics.

Revisiting part one. 
   In my previous post: "Hawaii Hotspot Puzzle. Suggesting Hawaii As A Moving Convergent 'Coldspot'". < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/09/hawaii-hotspot-puzzle-suggesting-hawaii.html > I tried to explain Hawaii seamount chain using the idea developed in my previous posts (and expressed in my message #6247 (24 Aug 2011 12:35) "A message on Active Boundary Plate Tectonics" to <GEO-TECTONICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> ) that:
a) the process of pumping magma/lava up requires:
- thermal gradient;
- deformations to cause sufficient local displacements of magma/lava;
b)
- if cooling of the upper layers of the boundary is "good enough" the boundary overcomes the compression in crust; a divergent process develops under Moon/Sun induced deformations;
 - if cooling of the upper layers of the boundary is not "good enough" the boundary can't overcome the compression in crust; a convergent process develops under Moon/Sun induced deformations;

   The post was focused on explaining Hawaii's "as a convergent 'Coldspot'":
- The geometry of global tectonic forces maintains focused deformations. Convergent process along a segment of line is developed under the external compression.
- The process of pumping magma/lava up surface stops when the segment gets out of focus of the deformations and the convergent location gets too thick and "diffused" in terms of thermal gradient. (Actually the phrase was without "on surface", it was just "the process of pumping magma/lava up", - my mistake).

The tail of the convergent "coldspot" does not break on fracture zones.
   In the post I tried to explain "Hawaii/Murray Fracture Zones" puzzle, - the microplates on both sides of Murray Fracture Zones were spread at different rates. After the Hawaii "head" passed Murray Fracture Zone, the path-line should be broken at the fracture zone, but it does not. The same holds for other fracture zones. The explanation (revisited) could be as follows:

How do different spreading rates of microplates get accommodated:
   When the process of pumping magma/lava to surface stops, does it mean that the deformations-induced convection stops beneath the ocean floor? I think, no, it does not due to the presence of thermal gradient and local displacements. Still, the sediments contaminated stuff circulates beneath a non-active volcano. The stuff just does not reach the surface. Now the wide region beneath the volcano gets spoiled with sediments, melting temperature drops, the effective thickness of crust drops as well. The volcano keeps on subsiding. The microplates different spreading rates get accommodated by, so to say, different rates of sea mount subsiding.

Even if a microplate spread faster, it can't shift a volcano segment far from the centerline.
   The most deformations are focused on the centerline; if a volcano segment is moved by the microplate off the centerline, the side of a volcano that is closer to the centerline is getting more amplitude of deformations, and the crust of the side is consumed more intensely, that's the kind of negative feedback to keep the volcano segments close and parallel to the centerline, but not too close to the centerline if the center is already occupied by other volcano segment because the crust there is contaminated with sediments. In that case of partially overlapped segments, I'd expect the head of a forward segment to be on the centerline, but it's rear to be off the center as the center is already occupied.
The "ductile" island chain as a part of a bigger picture.
  
   At some point the balance is reached, and the volcano subsidence stops. The balance is between volcano weight, crust effective thickness, compression stress in crust. (Roughly, the rate of change of effective thickness of crust depends on heat supply by the deformation induced convection, heat taken off through the surface and other factors). Such "ductile", so to say, island could probably be used to measure time variations of stress in oceanic crust. Perhaps a laser-based tools could do the job by measuring the island 3-D dimensions.

Geofracture (not Plate) Tectonics, talking on the concept of the interdisciplinary study.
   Number of branches of science can study Earths brittle/dactile layers, to name a few: Fracture mechanics, Continuum mechanics, Rheology. For example: 

- The pattern of global fracture zones (boundaries) in Earth's brittle layer developed due to Moon/Sun induced deformations could be handled by Fracture mechanics. Good example, I think, can be suggested mechanism behind The Siberian Traps. See my blog post "Ural-Putorana Diverged, Suggesting The Global Mechanism Behind The Event." < http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/08/ural-putorana-diverged-suggesting.html > The extension process of the region was suggested to happen due to forced move from higher latitudes to lower latitudes. Between the fixed boundaries such move from higher latitudes to lower means extension over the region.

- The property of a boundary to develop divergent or convergent process could be handled by Rheology, for instance the convergent property of Hawaii volcanoes chain (this and previous posts). The pattern of oceanic intra-plate convergent zones, still, can be handled by Fracture mechanics, but diverging/converging characteristics of the zones seem to be addressed by Rheology.

- Continuum mechanics could study a plate as a complex system of "brittle/ductile" components. For example, the intra-plate Yellowstone Caldera could be seen as a system of volume of magma locked by plates from bottom, top and other sides. The dynamics of stress pattern around it reflects the caldera behavior.

Refining Geofracture Tectonics.
   The ultimate goal of my posts on Tectonics is not just to reveal the mechanics behind the Tectonic events, but rather to suggest the ideology of modelling the mechanics. The modelling requires special hardware setup, special software over it, but that's the theme for a separate set of posts.
   I don't see how some classic Plate Tectonics terms could be maintained by Geofracture Tectonics, to name a few:

- The timescale with the fancy words like Cenozoic, Mesozoic etc; Rules of Mechanics should not depend of dinosaurs population, instead dinosaurs should depend on mechanics. There is the only time unit - second, To make records shorter, Tera second (Tc) can be used.

- The words asthenosphere, lithosphere seem to be somewhat outdated (my post "Plate Tectonics. Thinking Out Of The Sphere"). Plates are very diverse, plates are completely decoupled from each other by boundaries. Plates can reach depth of many hundreds km, or their thickness can be only few km. I don't see any need to organize the internals of the plates into any artificial the Earth-global entities (spheres) like asthenosphere or lithosphere. The changes of properties of plates with depth that are seen with Geophysics instruments could mark the layers' boundaries. The layers defined this way could be called in plain English, such as "brittle", "ductile", "transition" or similar.
---

28 September, 2011

Hawaii Hotspot Puzzle. Suggesting Hawaii As A Moving Convergent "Coldspot".

Two microplates - two pieces of the puzzle.
   I'm sure I am not the first to point out the next fundamental controversy about Hawaii Hotspot. Let's consider the border between the two microplates:
- first: the microplate between Mendocino and Murray Fracture Zones. Let's assume Kure Atoll, Midway Atoll belong to this microplate.
- second: the microplate between Murray and Molokai Fracture Zones. Let's assume Pearl and Hermes Atoll, Laysan Island belong to this microplate.

Rolling events back.
   Murray Fracture Zone points roughly to Pearl and Hermes Atoll that is approx 2,300 from Kilauea, current location of the hotspot. Rolling events back, we may suggest that at proposed 8-9 sm/year speed, the hotspot was at Pearl and Hermes Atoll location some 25-30 million years ago.

   To see how the microplates were positioned one relative to another back 25 MY ago, let's just cut the oceanic crust that was spread for the past 25 MY (including the crust that has been overridden by the NA continent). There is huge difference between the amount of crust that was spread by the microplates. Roughly, the second plate added approx more than 400km of it's length than the first microplate did.

Hotspot motion.
  Back 25 MY:
- the oceanic floor of Pearl and Hermes Atoll was approx 400km east relative to Midway Atoll .
- then in no time the hot spot must had jumped from Midway Atoll over that 400km east to build Pearl and Hermes Atoll. 
- then the hotspot slowly returns to its normal position; the Pearl and Hermes Atoll, that was left behind the hotspot, returns back on the faster moving microplate to get in line with Kure and Midway Atolls. This concept of "smart" oscillating hotspot looks unrealistic to me.

   Some break in the path around Pearl and Hermes Atoll seems to exist, but as the break distance is considerably less than expected 400km, we may conclude that the microplates did spread at different rates, but the spot is the feature of geometry of global tectonic forces around the region.

Suggesting another mechanism for Hawaii - moving convergent "coldspot".
   The microplates are spreading out at different rates and are bumping into the wall of oldest crust. There must be convergent/divergent zones to accommodate the different rates of the crust spreading. Why not to suggest Hawaii to be a part in the convergent process?

Comparing magma beneath the divergent boundary to the stuff beneath a convergent "coldspot".
   The material of the accommodated crust is not exactly the same as the material of the fresh magma coming from bottom into the divergent boundary. Accommodated sediments change chemical composition and melting point of the stuff beneath the convergent "spot". In fact as the melting point gets lower, the spot along the path better be called "coldspot", not "hotspot". Many other parameters should be different between the fresh magma and the stuff beneath the spot, but, I, Sergey D. Sukhotinsky, the author of this post, think that this probably should be the theme for another post.

Conditions to maintain the process of pumping magma/lava up.
- sufficient temperature gradient along the magma/lava path;
- deformations within the spot of the amplitude and speed to cause sufficient local displacements of magma/lava;

Conditions the process of pumping magma/lava stops at:- too much oceanic crust is brought up and down by the convergent coldspot:
   a)the cold layer gets too thick, the temperature gradients gets too low;
   b)the spot "diffuses"; the greater region gets the deformations, local displacements of magma/lava diminishes;
- the spot moves off the focus of global tectonic forces, the amplitude of crust deformations drops. 
The regions cools down as magma stops pumping up; the region gets resistant to deformations due to the increased thickness of crust.

The focus of global tectonic forces probably is the intersection of the two lines:
- North to South fracture line through the Pacific plate.
- West to East probable fracture line connecting south borders of Asia and North America. Thick and rigid continents prevent Pacific plate from bending between continents along West-East line when Moon's plane of orbit gets North. Thus the max bending stress of Pacific plate would be along the probable WE fracture line connecting south borders of Asia and North America.

The "coldspot" process resumes:
- the focus of global tectonic forces moves south-east on the plate as the plate itself moves north-west;
- magma under the new location is not spoiled with sediments;
- the amplitude of crust deformations is good at the location because the crust here is pre-bent by the load of the chain of volcanoes and the chain itself ceased to bend due to the increased thickness.
  New fracture segment develops south-east to the old sub-chain of volcanoes.  The fracture pumps magma up developing new segment of the volcano chain.

How to tell if the concept is correct.
   I need more time to figure it out; right now I got a couple of ideas on where to look for the evidences:
- the relief of the chain of volcanoes should show that the region is under west-east compression, that contradicts slab-pull concept but is in line with ridge-push concept; 
- there should be a gap in the age of the sediments (and crust) on the both west and east sides of the chain because some crust was consumed to build the volcanoes and to recycle the bottom of the spot into underlying magma. The time-width of the time-gap should roughly be equal to the time span a volcano was active within. That is somewhat greater time than it is now usually thought of. That's because the evidence of early activity of a segment of volcano chain is hidden deep within the volcano or even got molten and got recycled into the underlying magma. I'd like to estimate the time gap could be as great as up to 10MY.
--

30 August, 2011

Code First, Model First, or Behavior First? (Talking On Plate Tectonics, Earth Science).

Sergey D. Sukhotinsky's Blog
http://weblogs.asp.net/sergeys/archive/2011/08/30/code-first-model-first-or-behavior-first-talking-on-plate-tectonics-earth-science.aspx

Code First, Model First, or Behavior First? (Talking On Plate Tectonics, Earth Science).               

Software industry to address Plate Tectonic.
   With the "Model First" concept a developer still needs to suggest a model. What if a model were to be built automatically, based on a set of observations? That's probably too fantastic in a general case. But, does a special case exist to justify it? I think, yes, this can be Plate Tectonics, Earth Science.

   The very nature of Earth Science is that it's impossible to reach the depths of the Earth to see directly what's going on there. So different models exist to explain the tectonic processes. The most widely accepted one is Plate Tectonics. Phrases like "is thought to be", "is widely accepted", "is postulated", etc are not uncommon within the model. The mainstream of the model does not take Earth as a rotating body at all and one could find other issues with the model on the closer look at it.

   Software "Model First" evangelists are scientists, for sure. They are the most advanced specialists to handle future "Behavior First" concept. So, the question is, why have Software and related industries wait for "Earth Science" scientists to figure out which model fits better the geology/geophysics observations? Why not to help them to convert the stream of ongoing observations into the process of building the relevant model? The best professionals to handle the task belong to software industry.

   Let's name some reasons why Software and related industries may consider participating in building the relevant Tectonic model of the Earth:

a) Software industry:
   1. The industry possesses the best professionals to handle the task. The task spans both "Model First" and "Behavior First" domains. It would be only natural for the industry to jump on the train, running one of the AI rails.
   2. Good knowledge of possible future seismic events is vital to the industry.

b) Electronic Components and Electronic Devices industries:
   1. Steady supply of materials is vital for the industry. Plate Tectonics is not only about how do continents move. Plate Tectonics is also about how do the deposits of elements form and where to dig them. (See "Porphyry Copper. More On Reshaping Pangaea (Gondwana)" ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porphyry-copper-more-on-reshaping.html ), some ideas were left behind the post.)
   2. The same as the point 2 for Software industry.
   3. The industries could provide the hardware that is optimized to address the task.

c) Other industries, to name a few: auto-, mil- related, etc.
   1. A set of reasons including some of those mentioned above.

Suggesting Active Boundary Plate Tectonics model.
   Probably I would not post it if I, Sergey D. Sukhotinsky, the author of this message had not developed the draft of new concept of Plate Tectonics. The concept, in my opinion, is quite promising as I found it to explain the tectonics-related observations quite nicely. The story started on 26-Apr,2011 when I posted a request to "Tectonics & structural geology discussion list" <GEO-TECTONICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> to review new concept of forces behind continental drift, post #5932 on 26-Apr,2011 and post #5955 on 3-May, 2011.

   The concept "Active Boundary Plate Tectonics" is based on a few suggestions. Below are some adapted excepts from my post Item #6247 24-Aug 2011 12:35 - A message on Active Boundary Plate Tectonics.<GEO-TECTONICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>, the post in full is at the end of this message:)

---
- the suggestion that under the deformations the transition layer between crust and magma propagates in the direction of lower temperature;

- the suggestion that if the transition layer reached surface, it would build either:
a) divergent boundary if enough cooling of the surface were present (water layer over oceanic floor, say East Pacific Rise);
b) convergent boundary if the transition layer reached atmosphere (not enough cooling), I'd say - Hawaii. The upper layers of magma is getting spoiled by sediments and nearby chain of underwater volcanoes can't build the strong (divergent) boundary. (We assume the region to be under compression, not extension.)

- some other suggestions to be discussed later;
---

   The derived ideas range from geographically very local to the planet-wide ideas:

- Big picture on continental formation end evolution, (my (somewhat outdated) blog post "Continental Formation And Evolution Revisited". ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/05/continental-formation-and-evolution_18.html ))

- Latest super-continent Pangaea layout. There was a post on this list #6165 (13-Jul, 2011) "Request for links to resources on alternative Pangaea layouts." The proposed layout was to place Australia, India, and NZ on the West of South America. Australia to be connected to "Atacama desert" region, India's cratons to be places on the North-West of Australia. NZ to be connected to South America below Australia. One of the evidences was the location of porphyry copper deposits, (my blog post "Porphyry Copper. More On Reshaping Pangaea (Gondwana)".( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/07/porphyry-copper-more-on-reshaping.html ))

- Mountain formation. (my blog post "Formation Of Mountain Ridges by Broken Process Of Subduction" ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/05/mountain-ridges-formation-keeping-it.html )). Tibet/Himalaya formation mechanism was suggested - by the series of "broken processes of subduction".

- Intra-continental tectonic processes. Some evidences of divergent processes within continents were pointed out: - my posts "The Snake River Plain As A Divergent Boundary" ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/06/snake-river-plain-as-divergent-boundary.html ), "Diverging Processes Within Las Vegas Valley" ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/07/diverging-processes-within-las-vegas.html ), "Diverging The Southern Death Valley" ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/06/diverging-southern-death-valley.html ), "Evidences Of Diverging Processes Within Tibet Mountain System." ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/08/navigate-to-abdipasa-turkey.html ), "Ural-Putorana Diverged, Suggesting The Global Mechanism" ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/08/ural-putorana-diverged-suggesting.html ), "Evidences Of Old Diverging Process Within North Anatolian Mountains. ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/08/navigate-to-abdipasa-turkey.html )".
It was suggested that the diverging processes were behind the "Flood Basalt" events. The Snake River Plain divergent process was suggested to correlate to flood basalts on the North and on the South of the plain. The event of diverging Ural from Putorana was suggested to be one of the primary cause of Siberian Traps flood basalts (my blog post "Ural-Putorana Diverged, Suggesting The Global Mechanism" ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/08/navigate-to-abdipasa-turkey.html )).

   The most exciting for me was my work on my post "Black Sea. Some Thoughts On Its Opening And On The Origin OF The Crimean Mountains." ( http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com/2011/08/black-sea-some-thoughts-on-its-opening.html ) The post was about that the divergent boundary - the Shatsky Ridge separated the Crimean Mountains off the Pontic Mountains. Some evidences were discussed.
Why not "Model First" ideologist to take care of Plate Tectonics model?
Thank you,
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.


---
Item #6247 (24 Aug 2011 12:35) - A message on Active Boundary Plate Tectonics.
<GEO-TECTONICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: A message on Active Boundary Plate Tectonics.
Reply-To: Tectonics & structural geology discussion list <GEO-TECTONICS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:35:17 +0300

Dear GEO-TECTONICS list members,
On 26-Apr,2011 I posted a request to review new concept of forces behind continental drift, post #5932 on 26-Apr,2011 and post #5955 on 3-May, 2011. I would agree it would be better to prepare a work, publish it, and then to discuss it on the forum, For some reason I got no option to go the standard way. Let me to sum up what I've done since then in a short message. I am not sure I'll have an opportunity to continue the work (though I'll be trying to continue it).

The initial concept did not transform too much. As for now, the concept "Active Boundary Plate Tectonics" is based on the next suggestions.

- the suggestion that under the deformations the transition layer between crust and magma propagates in the direction of lower temperature;

- the suggestion that if the transition layer reached surface, it would build either:
a) divergent boundary if enough cooling of the surface were present (water layer over oceanic floor, say East Pacific Rise);
b) convergent boundary if the transition layer reached atmosphere (not enough cooling), I'd say - Hawaii. The upper layers of magma is getting spoiled by sediments and nearby chain of underwater volcanoes can't build the strong (divergent) boundary.
- third suggestion to be discussed later;

The derived ideas range from very local geographically to planet-wide:
- Big picture on continental formation end evolution, (my blog post "Continental Formation And Evolution Revisited".)
- Pangaea layout. There was a post on this list #6165 (13-Jul, 2011) "Request for links to resources on alternative Pangaea layouts." The proposed layout was to place Australia, India, and NZ on the West of South America. Australia to be connected to "Atacama desert" region, India's cratons to be places on the North-West of Australia. NZ to be connected to South America below Australia. One of the evidences was the location of porphyry copper deposits, (my blog post "Porphyry Copper. More On Reshaping Pangaea (Gondwana)".)

- Mountain formation. (my blog post "Formation Of Mountain Ridges by Broken Process Of Subduction"). Tibet/Himalaya formation mechanism was suggested - by the consecutive "broken processes of subduction".

- Intra-continental tectonic processes. Some evidences of divergent processes within continents were pointed out: - my posts "The Snake River Plain As A Divergent Boundary", "Diverging Processes Within Las Vegas Valley", "Diverging The Southern Death Valley", "Evidences Of Diverging Processes Within Tibet Mountain System.", "Ural-Putorana Diverged, Suggesting The Global Mechanism", "Evidences Of Old Diverging Process Within North Anatolian Mountains.".

It was suggested that the diverging processes were behind the "Flood Basalt" events. The Snake River Plain divergent process was suggested to correlate to flood basalts on the North and on the South of the plain. The event of diverging Ural from Putorana was suggested to be one of the primary cause of Siberian Traps flood basalts (my blog post "Ural-Putorana Diverged, Suggesting The Global Mechanism").

A few words in conclusion. The proposed concept of Active Boundary Plate Tectonics seems to be quite efficient concept. It could be used to explain not only intercontinental tectonic processes, but also to explain very local intra-continental tectonic processes.

Thank you.
Sergey D. Sukhotinsky.
--
PS.
The most exciting for me was my work on my post "Black Sea. Some Thoughts On Its Opening And On The Origin OF The Crimean Mountains." The post was about that the divergent boundary - the Shatsky Ridge separated the Crimean Mountains off Pontic Mountains. Some evidences were discussed:

- Matching mountains on Anatolia (Dongelce) and Crimea (Laspi) side. The rectangular mountain structures can be found only in this "bent" part of Pontic Mountains.

- Matching mountains all over the divergent mountain system (Yalta, Crimea to match Aydincik-Doganyurt, Turkey; Feodosia, Crimea to match Caylioglu, Turkey; Novorossiysk-Anapa, Russia fit Carsamba, Turkey).

The mechanism that diverged the mountain system was discussed. The origin of deep see locations around Laspi was suggested.

I posted about two dozens of posts on Plate Tectonics on my blog http://divergent-boundaries.blogspot.com. Now I've made most of the posts private, but still on-demand are available the timestamped editions of them and their drafts that are stored in the cloud.

(I think, some day the blog platform host will introduce the feature to make public the saved editions of a blog post.)

Popular Posts

Follow by Email

--
Content © 2006-2014 Sergey D. Sukhotinsky
---
---