Geographical Symmetry (Geophysics)

[Pete Jones]

Questions I have:

Why should there be geographical symmetry?

How much symmetry is there?

What counts as actual symmetry versus merely apparent symmetry?

If there is real symmetry, what do the symmetrical spots on the planet have in common? etc etc.

I have thought (for the last ten years) that Expanding Earth (and not Plate Tectonics) is the correct paradigm. (But am only now reading SLOP, so...)

On the EE model, the dark rift running through the spine of the Red Sea is an expansion zone, highly volcanic, and at the south end, a volcano sprouted in the rift. Over time, the rifting continued and the volcano was parted down the middle. And now what is left are two clusters of islands symmetrically placed on either side of the rift (just to the right of the "Eritrea" label).



There are many more instances of symmetry all over. What I wonder about are the symmetrical forms under the oceans.

I also wonder about how much sediment is present at any given spot. I don't know if thicker sediment would obscure the visible detail underwater or not (or to what extent)

[Pete Jones]

This one is underwater, in the South China Sea. The spine down the middle is less obvious, and is not a rift so much as a series of peaks. I trace it from directly above "West Philippine Sea" going southwest at an approximately 45-degree angle.

First: The Spratly Islands are directly opposite of a similar structure due south of the Paracel Islands. This structure south of the Paracels (the reflection of the Spratlys) does not break the surface like the Spratlys do, but still appears to be its reflection. Both are approximately perpendicular to the rift/peaks (just like the islands in the Red Sea above).

Second: Both the Spratlys and the Paracels are two-part structures. A light blob to the northeast (of each) and a more mountainous looking region to the southwest. Both parts are opposite each other.

Third: Extended further on the left side of the picture and the two island groups appear to be at the ends of a large area of general unevenness.

Fourth: And the southwest-most area of the spine/rifts/peaks comes to a point, similar to the Red Sea

Because of the variations of smoothness and unevenness, I like to think that the smooth areas represent a relatively fast splitting. Why? Because other rift valleys which dominate the sea floor---or, at least, everywhere except in the Pacific, where they appear very different---are not smooth at all. They are very rough.

[Pete Jones]

Pacific Ocean

I will post more "small" ones, but here is the largest one I can find. I am on the fence about whether it counts. Some facts about it---in addition to its basically symmetrical appearance---are suggestive.



And here are lines drawn on Google Earth over the top of the parts I see as symmetrical:



The yellow lines have curious measurements:

The top two "mirrored" lines are each between 2300 and 2400 km.

The bottom endpoints for the lines are not arbitrary: they end on a prominent rift line. This line is where the bottom two mirrored lines start.

And those two southern lines are between 3400 and 3620 km in length. The western line ends at the south end of Hawaii (big island), a fairly objective endpoint

The bottom of the eastern line ends at the first major rifting that I can see, at 3400 km.

However, if you simply excise the rift zone that this line runs into at the 3400km-mark, and then continue the line down to the next structure (the massive underwater structure north of New Zealand), then you get a 3680 km measurement.

3620 km for the Hawaii line, and 3680 km for its mirror.

[Pete Jones]

Excising the Rift

The logic here is that the rift and subsequent spreading of the seafloor (i.e., expansion of the globe) happened after the larger superstructure came into existence.

The yellow line is a 370 km rift zone, which I cut out. I then continued my overall measurement below it, to measure what would have been the situation before the rift.



Tangentially, I don't know what or if there is an orthodox explanation for the apparent symmetry of this huge structure in the Pacific. I'm not looking it up because I wouldn't know how to look, or where. Which is nice.

And while I think Expanding Earth theory might have something to say about it, I wonder about the timeframes that they'd assign to its creation (presumably from an oceanless earth that grew its ocean basins over time).

Whereas you can see the fit of the South America against Africa, with the seafloor ridge running down the Atlantic, there are no north-to-south ridges in the Pacific, and the ridges that do exist seem to creep into what look like east-to-west seams. In the pic here, the yellow line covers a rift structure that is mainly east to west.

[Mick Harper]

The reason Continental Drift was converted, more or less overnight, from 'strictly-for-crazies' to being an observably true basic paradigm (and renamed Plate Tectonics) was the discovery of sea-floor spreading in the mid-Atlantic ridge. A vent in the ocean bottom allowed 'magma' to emerge and settle (in stripes) on either side.

You'll have to ask them how this managed to push plates the size of continents apart but it did produce geographical symmetries.