Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong!

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 35 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: This website is frozen.Helge Aspevik Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added quote box.

Thread copied here from the Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong! thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I have read over your assertions and find the arguments worthy of consideration and deserved evaluation. Now I am also somewhat of an amateur as one of my degrees is in geological engineering, but I may have been considered a semi-professional at one time as I have made money in the past in hunting rare minerals.Like you, I have difficulty in accepting an earth with multiple magnetic fields consisting of multiple dipoles. I am not an expert in the physics of magnetism and hope that son goku or cavediver may contribute in helping to clarify this matter.I have a question. Please remember I just performed a quick reading and may have missed a particular in order to post rather rapidly.Are you asserting that the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America were never connected? There seems to be a considerable amount of evidence for such a connection during the Mesozoic.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

What is it in this article that you think disproves what you are pleased to call "Alfred Wegener's Theory"?According to the article (which I note is ten years out of date) it shows either that:(1) Continental plates were clustered near the equator in the Precambrian.(2) The Earth's magnetic field was not always a dipole.How this contradicts anything that Wegener wrote, you do not explain.

According to models, this is exactly what should happen just prior to a magnetic field reversal.I don't know whether this could be a stable state. But the fact that scientists are (or were in '98) taking this suggestion seriously implies that it is (or was) at least plausible.It would be nice to know what research has been done since then.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Plausible under the conditions of imminent reversal, that I can accept given my current understanding. However, I do have some trouble with the stability question, as evidently you do as well.For purposes of using the earth's magnetic field to determine the orientation of continents, the assumption of a mainly stable magnetic field on earth throughout history is necessary, as the data from any multiple fields would likely be considered an outlier.An interesting point nonetheless. Edited by anglagard, : paragraphs subsequent to the first, close to bedtime

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Well, Helge, you can add me to your long list of skeptics. As usual, this essay on plate tectonics neglects numerous sources of data that deny your scenarios.While I don't have time for a detailed read and rebuttal, a couple of things jump out at me. First, you claim over 4000' of ice in the northern Sahara at some time in the past, but neglect to give us your source on this and also to tell us exactly when the ice was present. For example, there is no direct relationship between position of the continents and any climatic conditions that may have existed at one time in the distant past.I also see that you join the west coast of South America and the west coast of North America because of some perceived similarity of rocks. All very fine, but if this were the case, there should be evidence of a divergent boundary between the two and evidence of two trailing continental shelves drifting apart. Neither exists.You seem to neglect ages of the rocks almost entirely, particularly of the ocean basins. I suggest you take a closer look at that data along with the paleomagnetic data.I see your work as an imaginative fantasy that has little evidence to back it up. Fitting together jigsaw puzzle pieces in new ways is not evidence.

Helge,I'm reading in more detail now, from the beginning. It sure doesn't take long for you to get into trouble.You say: That's really interesting since you just told us that the planet is about 4.5ga old. Please back up this statement. In fact they must have come from some other unspecified solar system, if your statement above is correct. I suppose you think that all parts of the Precambrian system have to be contiguous? How do you explain Madagascar then?And then what happens between Guatemala and Columbia? Do you think that the Precambrian shield is continous down through CA?Further, you say: Why is that? Does centrifugal force cause the bubbles in my beer to move to the south side of the glass since that is closer to the equator? Which is what percentage of the total radius of the earth? I think you overestimate the centrifugal forces.Well, maybe more later; but whatever, you have a lot of work to do.

We know very little about this ice in the Sahara. What we know with certainty is that the ice disappeared for about 13,000 years ago.I wrote 9.9 billion years but this was a misprint. Thank you for making me aware of this. The error is corrected.Scientists can not explain the actual findings traces of tropical forest around the world without tipping on Earth. With my model you don`t need to tipp the planet and you can explain why the scientist have found petroloium in Antarctis. I choose to relate myself to the fact that the earth is one of the most stable planets we know of because the moon stabilize the planet.(Snip...)
"You seem to neglect ages of the rocks almost entirely, particularly of the ocean basins. I suggest you take a closer look at that data along with the paleomagnetic data."This is because the sea floor has been replaced several times as a result of seafloor spread. This is the first geologists forget even those are very concerned with seafloor spreading

The question is, what do you know and how do you know it? Please document your statement. Otherwise, we can only assume you are making some kind of unsupported assertion. Are you making things up?

I don`t need to dig up all my papers to prove it, and I can`t do that right now either, becase all my papers isn`s here in my house. :-)If you take a closer look at Gonwanaland who is the best evidence for Wegener`s theory, you can see the ONLY thing I have done, that is to move Gonwanaland away from Euro-Asia to explain those heavy
mountain ranges there. The geoligist today have no explanation for this mountains over Euro-Asia today! No explanation at all.To get North-America close to Europa, I only had to move Gonwanaland so far that all landmass on earth form a belt along Equator before N. America and Europa fits togheter as Wegener told us.That is the only thing I have done to get an explanation for the enormous mountain ranges we talk about. The result of this total necessary movement:Pangea did NOT stretch from pol to pole on one side of the Earth, but was a belt along Equator. That explain tropical forest there where we find ice today as Svalbard and Antartica and so on.I repeat: My theory is only a litle movement at Gonwanaland and that`s all.Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

I'm somewhat surprised that you are incapable of writing even a brief response to Edge's question when this thread is supposedly based on your research.Are you not familiar enough with your own research to provide us with even one piece of evidence to support the assertion that ice covered the Sahara 13,000 years ago?

Here is something I just find on the net:Late Ordovician glacial sediments in the SaharaNeil McDougall, Repsol-YPF (Spain)
Israel Polonio, Repsol-YPF (Spain)An Upper Ordovician glacial event is widely recognised across northwestern Gondwana. Some of the best exposures occur across SW Libya and SE Algeria in the Qarqaf Arch, Tassili N'Ajjers and Tassili Ahnet. Many of these outcrops were first studied some 30 to 40 years ago. However, since this early work the Upper Ordovician of the Saharan Platform has become a major target for hydrocarbon exploration in the associated Murzuq (SW Libya), Illizi and Ahnet (Algeria) Basins. Despite this, geological understanding of these complex reservoirs has until recently been driven from a subsurface perspective. The purpose here is to suggest a sedimentary and stratigraphic model for the Late Ordovician succession on the basis of outcrop studies and a comparison with well-documented Pleistocene successions across Northern Europe and the North Sea.Despite the geographical extent of the Platform, fieldwork in the various outcrops has confirmed the existence, of a generally similar succession across the area recording repeated glacial advances and retreats. The package comprises four vertically stacked architectural sequences:Sequence UO1: Highly argillaceous sandstones and mudstones of turbidite, debris flow and possible rain-out diamictite origin interpreted as glaciomarine deposits
Sequence UO2: coarse to fine grain sandstones interpreted as the deposits of a range of probable periglacial environments including sheetfloods, braided fluvial and subtidal estuarine bars
Sequence UO3: comprising slumped and dewatered silty sandstones progressively overlain by fine grained channeled and rippled sandstones the whole interpreted as a progradational delta front-moutbar package associated with massive sediment release during a post-glacial sea level rise
Sequence UO4: comprising coarse grained, often pebbly sandstones characterised by large-scale cross-bedding and climbing megaripples interpreted as the deposits of powerful subglacial or proglacial meltout events such as jokhulhaupsEach of these packages is associated with major erosion surfaces defining a complex series of nested palaeovalley features, resulting in an often complex pattern of facies distribution. These can be observed at a variety of scales, from a few hundred metres to several kilometres or more, both in outcrop and in numerous seismic lines. Examples of these features and the complex sedimentary infill are illustrated in the poster.
Overall, the Late Ordovician is often truncated by burrowed transgressive sands and graptolitic Silurian shales, which together represent a diachronous post-glacial flooding event over the entire Sahara platform.Interpretation of these complex successions is compared to the Quaternary glacial deposits of the southern Laurentide and Scandinavian ice sheets, specifically examples of tunnel valleys described from North Germany, Denmark and the North Sea. These features were incised by subglacial meltwater flows and later infilled by proglacial to postglacial sediments..link: Servio Geolgico do Brasil

Sorry, Helge, but the Ordovician Period was a little bit more than 13,000 years ago.Most paleogeographic reconstructions put North Africa near the south pole at the time.In fact, the kinds of translations you require would be fantastic in 13ky, and there is no evidence for them.You need a lot more work.ETA: Another 40 years or so should do it. Just make sure you take at least on Geology class during that time. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

There is a lot of storys around on net who tells about this subject, but this is not my point. As I told over here I have just moved Gondwanaland away from Euro-Asia because we have to do that to explain the massive mountains from the Alps to Kina. To do that it is required to put a lot of seafloorplates under the landplates to create those mountains.The Geologist have on their maps Africa close to Euro-Asia all the time.So the question is, how fare away do we have to take Afrika from Euro-Asia to get all those mountains from the Alps to China?Try to cut out the continents from a map, then you will see what I am talking about. Move Gonwanaland away from Euro-Asia, and you will see the problem!Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.