helasp
I have svolved 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:
“Magnetic shift
By Jeff Hecht
TRACES of the earth's magnetic field frozen in rocks are yielding surprises about the planet's past. A re-analysis of old measurements of these fields has forced geologists to conclude that either the migrating continents were clustered closer to the equator than previously thought, or that the Earth's magnetic field was not the simple pair of poles it is today.
Geologists track the history of continental motion by measuring the magnetism of ancient rocks. As some rocks form, they retain an imprint of the Earth's magnetic field. The field direction and the age of the rock together show the latitude of the continent at the time the rock formed, provided that the shape of the terrestrial magnetic field at the time can be worked out.
Today, the Earth's magnetic field lines, which emanate from the poles and surround the planet, have a simple and predictable distribution. Geologists have proved that for at least five million years the field has been a dipole, like a bar magnet with poles aligned on the planet's axis. And they calculate ancient latitudes assuming the field has always been a dipole, says Dennis Kent of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York.
But now Kent and Mark Smethurst of the Geological Survey of Norway in Trondheim have analysed palaeomagnetic data from rocks up to 3·5 billion years old. Instead of the magnetic distribution expected from a dipole, they found an excess of rocks from older eras with low-angle fields, as if they had formed at lower latitudes than those predicted by standard models that assume a random distribution of the early continents (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol 160, p 391). "The surprising result is that in the Palaeozoic and Precambrian, the distributions differ markedly," Kent says.
One possible explanation is that the Earth's magnetic field has not always been a dipole. Kent calculates that if the ancient Earth contained elements of between four and eight poles, its magnetic field lines would have met the migrating continents at lower angles than the lines of the modern dipole field. That would account for the distribution he and Smethurst observed, he says. Such an arrangement might have been possible before the solid part of the core--which started growing as late as a billion years ago--reached its present size.
The other possible explanation for the findings, Kent says, is that the continents were once clustered near the equator. Such clustering could be the result of centrifugal force tilting heavy parts of the outer layers of the Earth away from the poles (" Twist of fate ", New Scientist, 2 August 1997, p 15).
Gary Glatzmaier of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico says his unpublished simulations of the Earth's magnetic field may be able to discover which explanation is right. According to his models, multiple poles are unlikely, he says. "When the inner core was smaller, our simulations suggest the dipole was even stronger than today." If correct, Glatzmaier's results would mean that geologists have to redraw their maps of the ancient continents.”
From New Scientist, 22 August 1998
Proof should, as the article shows, make the geologists want to re-evaluate the foundations they build their authority upon. Particularly because this earlier model is being taught in Universities and Schools. In my estimation, we have a responsibility that we can not neglect when it comes to correct research theories that obviously do not hold good.
Even though this is only a theory, we must be willing to re-evaluate old theories when new scientific elements come to light that prove that the former theory no longer holds good.
Unfortunately, the tendency is that man will reject new thinking, when after a while one has built his whole research upon this one special model. In hopes that my private theory might result in an intelligent discussion, I hereby would like to present my work.
Each individual reader is encouraged and invited to judge the results for themselves.
Good luck!!
Take a look at my home page where I have studied the issue for over 20 years, and there I belive I have svolved a lot of problems too!
You find my work here: http://aspevik.webs.com/
Regard, Helge Aspevik
22 August 1998, Jeff Hecht wrote an article in New Scientist who proves that AlfredWegeners Theory is wrong. Here is this article:
“Magnetic shift
By Jeff Hecht
TRACES of the earth's magnetic field frozen in rocks are yielding surprises about the planet's past. A re-analysis of old measurements of these fields has forced geologists to conclude that either the migrating continents were clustered closer to the equator than previously thought, or that the Earth's magnetic field was not the simple pair of poles it is today.
Geologists track the history of continental motion by measuring the magnetism of ancient rocks. As some rocks form, they retain an imprint of the Earth's magnetic field. The field direction and the age of the rock together show the latitude of the continent at the time the rock formed, provided that the shape of the terrestrial magnetic field at the time can be worked out.
Today, the Earth's magnetic field lines, which emanate from the poles and surround the planet, have a simple and predictable distribution. Geologists have proved that for at least five million years the field has been a dipole, like a bar magnet with poles aligned on the planet's axis. And they calculate ancient latitudes assuming the field has always been a dipole, says Dennis Kent of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York.
But now Kent and Mark Smethurst of the Geological Survey of Norway in Trondheim have analysed palaeomagnetic data from rocks up to 3·5 billion years old. Instead of the magnetic distribution expected from a dipole, they found an excess of rocks from older eras with low-angle fields, as if they had formed at lower latitudes than those predicted by standard models that assume a random distribution of the early continents (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol 160, p 391). "The surprising result is that in the Palaeozoic and Precambrian, the distributions differ markedly," Kent says.
One possible explanation is that the Earth's magnetic field has not always been a dipole. Kent calculates that if the ancient Earth contained elements of between four and eight poles, its magnetic field lines would have met the migrating continents at lower angles than the lines of the modern dipole field. That would account for the distribution he and Smethurst observed, he says. Such an arrangement might have been possible before the solid part of the core--which started growing as late as a billion years ago--reached its present size.
The other possible explanation for the findings, Kent says, is that the continents were once clustered near the equator. Such clustering could be the result of centrifugal force tilting heavy parts of the outer layers of the Earth away from the poles (" Twist of fate ", New Scientist, 2 August 1997, p 15).
Gary Glatzmaier of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico says his unpublished simulations of the Earth's magnetic field may be able to discover which explanation is right. According to his models, multiple poles are unlikely, he says. "When the inner core was smaller, our simulations suggest the dipole was even stronger than today." If correct, Glatzmaier's results would mean that geologists have to redraw their maps of the ancient continents.”
From New Scientist, 22 August 1998
Proof should, as the article shows, make the geologists want to re-evaluate the foundations they build their authority upon. Particularly because this earlier model is being taught in Universities and Schools. In my estimation, we have a responsibility that we can not neglect when it comes to correct research theories that obviously do not hold good.
Even though this is only a theory, we must be willing to re-evaluate old theories when new scientific elements come to light that prove that the former theory no longer holds good.
Unfortunately, the tendency is that man will reject new thinking, when after a while one has built his whole research upon this one special model. In hopes that my private theory might result in an intelligent discussion, I hereby would like to present my work.
Each individual reader is encouraged and invited to judge the results for themselves.
Good luck!!
Take a look at my home page where I have studied the issue for over 20 years, and there I belive I have svolved a lot of problems too!
You find my work here: http://aspevik.webs.com/
Regard, Helge Aspevik