http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtd http://tinyurl.com/32zg52 --------------------------------------- Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what Plate Tectonics was saying but I didn't know it was like this. Tell me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate Tectonics after all. I always thought the earth being hot inside and making convection currents had something to do with it, but now I learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the core, ..that convection is a poloidal-toroidal motional thing, driven by the subducting slab, and the energy for driving is because the subducting slab is cold, ..that it sinks, ..dragging the whole ocean floor with it, creating pull-apart at the ridges, which are intruded by sheeted dyke swarms, because of partial melting, ... and transform faults cutting them as complementary results of slab-pull half a world away, due to minimisation of stress release in toroidal flow., ..
This is mind-blowing stuff. I don't think I will sleep tonight, nor maybe tomorrow night either, ..till I digest this. The Earth is falling in on itself, ..because it is getting cold, ..Asia is wrestling with India, http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/sumo.html ...pinning it to the concrete underneath, ...pulling all the sediments off the ocean floors and piling them up around the continental margins, all the whilst making the ocean floors sink... Which throws up mountain belts in the middle of the oceans, .. by pressure-release partial melting.
Jonathan's probably climbing into his bath as I write. Come on... !!
..I have to go away in a few days, ..Don't leave me in suspense. How can we stop this catastrophe? Can we reverse it? Can we drill a hole to the core and pour some molten iron down to reverse this process? http://tinyurl.com/33v57t
Will some kryptonite do? ...or shall we call Bruce Willis
On Sep 8, 12:35 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> df wrote:-
> http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtdhttp://tinyurl.com/32zg52 > --------------------------------------- > Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what > Plate Tectonics was saying but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > Tectonics after all. I always thought the earth being hot inside > and making convection currents had something to do with it, but now I > learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the > core, ..
Sheesh. Such a silly diatribe. Or is it really a plea for help?
Of course heat sources are needed. If the Mantle was not hot, there wouldn't be any subduction. Slabs have buoyancy because the mantle is hot.
I explained the basic physics of this mode of convection in posts to Timberwoof. I suggest you review it.
Once again you've gone off half cocked and made a fool of yourself.
Stuart wrote: > On Sep 8, 12:35 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > df wrote:-
> > http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtdhttp://tinyurl.com/32zg52 > > --------------------------------------- > > Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what > > Plate Tectonics was saying but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > > me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > > the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > > that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > > Tectonics after all. I always thought the earth being hot inside > > and making convection currents had something to do with it, but now I > > learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the > > core, ..
> Sheesh. Such a silly diatribe. Or is it really a plea for help?
> Of course heat sources are needed. If the Mantle was not hot, there > wouldn't > be any subduction. Slabs have buoyancy because the mantle is hot.
> I explained the basic physics of this mode of convection in posts > to Timberwoof. I suggest you review it.
> Once again you've gone off half cocked and made a fool of yourself.
> Again.
' Is that all you took out of it? And all you have to say in reply:- "The mantle is hot and the 'slab' has 'buoyancy'" Not much value is there? - a concoction of fluid mechanics with no reference to geological parameters. Not very illuminating.
Geologically speaking it's not worth a zack, really. (Transform faults as zones of minimum dissipation of stress - Is that so?) And a model that begins by *assuming* the 'source-sink' cycle. Value out equates with value in. ('If's and Coulds')
Apparently you're not even getting the point of your own construction, which is that in Plate Tectonic 'reality' the 'source' is subsidiary to the 'sink',. therefore there *is* no 'cycle'. The slab sinks because of gravity, pulls the plate creating pressure reduction and the partial melting at the ridges. The 'heat' at the ridges is therefore a 'gap-filler'. What follows is a one-way street. The mantle sinks once and that's it. Moreover your 'volumetric heat' considerations ignore that most of the heat is very quickly on the outside of the system; the radioactive elements are not something that are divorced from the rock and can remain at depth to heat the next batch of cold slab. The heatsource must rise with the rock it is heating. It's a once-only turn. That's what the original differentiation of core mantle and crust was all about. If things were as you say that distinction would not be there.)
You ridicule what consensus says about the slab being "forced down", but avoid giving any reason yourself for the location of subduction on continental margins. You offer no criticism of the popular consensus views of crustal crumpling by plate collision. And you offer nothing on how the Plate Tectonic cycle (the 'source- sink' cycle) begins.
You virtually avoid all questions that include geology.
You don't offer much, Stuart, ..beyond saying the mantle is hot and slabs are buoyant (negatively). The less you say the less you run the risk of saying something stupid? (The mark of the bad scientist is lack of adventure, ..being afraid to make mistakes. Consensus suits many people. No matter how silly it is, it is safe.
(Moribund cadavers with their leaden feet in leaden ruts. "We are the footsoldiers of consensus. Convince us - if you can!)
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:35:50 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>df wrote:- >http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtd >http://tinyurl.com/32zg52 >--------------------------------------- >Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what >Plate Tectonics was saying
Funny, but from all your posts to talk.origins it has become clear that you never understood plate tectonics.
>but I didn't know it was like this. Tell >me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling >the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, >that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate >Tectonics after all.
It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
> I always thought the earth being hot inside >and making convection currents had something to do with it,
The do. In most cases they produce the lubrication.
> but now I >learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the >core, ..that convection is a poloidal-toroidal motional thing, driven >by the subducting slab, and the energy for driving is because the >subducting slab is cold, ..that it sinks, ..dragging the whole ocean >floor with it, creating pull-apart at the ridges, which are intruded >by sheeted dyke swarms, because of partial melting, ... and transform >faults cutting them as complementary results of slab-pull half a >world away, due to minimisation of stress release in toroidal >flow., ..
> Stuart wrote: > > On Sep 8, 12:35 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > df wrote:-
> > >http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtdhttp://tinyurl.com/32zg52 > > > --------------------------------------- > > > Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what > > > Plate Tectonics was saying but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > > > me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > > > the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > > > that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > > > Tectonics after all. I always thought the earth being hot inside > > > and making convection currents had something to do with it, but now I > > > learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the > > > core, ..
> > Sheesh. Such a silly diatribe. Or is it really a plea for help?
> > Of course heat sources are needed. If the Mantle was not hot, there > > wouldn't > > be any subduction. Slabs have buoyancy because the mantle is hot.
> > I explained the basic physics of this mode of convection in posts > > to Timberwoof. I suggest you review it.
> > Once again you've gone off half cocked and made a fool of yourself.
> > Again.
> ' > Is that all you took out of it? And all you have to say in reply:- > "The mantle is hot and the 'slab' has 'buoyancy'" Not much value is > there?
To each his own I suppose.
> - a concoction of fluid mechanics with no reference to > geological parameters.
The wave speed anomalies associated with subducted can be truned into temnperature anomalies and hence density using equations of state determined from actual rocks.
Stuart wrote: > On Sep 8, 4:55 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > Stuart wrote: > > > On Sep 8, 12:35 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > > df wrote:-
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtdhttp://tinyurl.com/32zg52 > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what > > > > Plate Tectonics was saying but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > > > > me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > > > > the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > > > > that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > > > > Tectonics after all. I always thought the earth being hot inside > > > > and making convection currents had something to do with it, but now I > > > > learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the > > > > core, ..
> > > Sheesh. Such a silly diatribe. Or is it really a plea for help?
> > > Of course heat sources are needed. If the Mantle was not hot, there > > > wouldn't > > > be any subduction. Slabs have buoyancy because the mantle is hot.
> > > I explained the basic physics of this mode of convection in posts > > > to Timberwoof. I suggest you review it.
> > > Once again you've gone off half cocked and made a fool of yourself.
> > > Again.
> > ' > > Is that all you took out of it? And all you have to say in reply:- > > "The mantle is hot and the 'slab' has 'buoyancy'" Not much value is > > there?
> To each his own I suppose.
> > - a concoction of fluid mechanics with no reference to > > geological parameters.
> The wave speed anomalies associated with subducted can be > truned into temnperature anomalies and hence density > using equations of state determined from actual rocks.
> Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
Stuart wrote: > On Sep 8, 4:55 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > Stuart wrote: > > > On Sep 8, 12:35 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > > df wrote:-
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtdhttp://tinyurl.com/32zg52 > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what > > > > Plate Tectonics was saying but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > > > > me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > > > > the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > > > > that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > > > > Tectonics after all. I always thought the earth being hot inside > > > > and making convection currents had something to do with it, but now I > > > > learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the > > > > core, ..
> > > Sheesh. Such a silly diatribe. Or is it really a plea for help?
> > > Of course heat sources are needed. If the Mantle was not hot, there > > > wouldn't > > > be any subduction. Slabs have buoyancy because the mantle is hot.
> > > I explained the basic physics of this mode of convection in posts > > > to Timberwoof. I suggest you review it.
> > > Once again you've gone off half cocked and made a fool of yourself.
> > > Again.
> > ' > > Is that all you took out of it? And all you have to say in reply:- > > "The mantle is hot and the 'slab' has 'buoyancy'" Not much value is > > there?
> To each his own I suppose.
> > - a concoction of fluid mechanics with no reference to > > geological parameters.
> The wave speed anomalies associated with subducted can be > truned into temnperature anomalies and hence density > using equations of state determined from actual rocks.
> Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
(...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place) "then turned into temperature anomalies": (how do you know what the temperature anomaly is for that particular sector without the Earthquakes in the first place) "and hence density" - But that's the real bit isn't it:- "using equations of state from actual rocks"..
As I said, it's all iffy-couldy-abracadabra, a manipulated concoction that bears about as much relation to geological reality as a holey Swiss cheese. You use the words density and slab with far to much conviction. And the canonfodder here try to plug the holes with their allegiances to 'science' and beliefs from childhood. And you let them.
Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
>>On Sep 8, 4:55 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>>Stuart wrote:
>>>>On Sep 8, 12:35 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>df wrote:-
>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtdhttp://tinyurl.com/32zg52 >>>>>--------------------------------------- >>>>>Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what >>>>>Plate Tectonics was saying but I didn't know it was like this. Tell >>>>>me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling >>>>>the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, >>>>>that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate >>>>>Tectonics after all. I always thought the earth being hot inside >>>>>and making convection currents had something to do with it, but now I >>>>>learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the >>>>>core, ..
>>>>Sheesh. Such a silly diatribe. Or is it really a plea for help?
>>>>Of course heat sources are needed. If the Mantle was not hot, there >>>>wouldn't >>>>be any subduction. Slabs have buoyancy because the mantle is hot.
>>>>I explained the basic physics of this mode of convection in posts >>>>to Timberwoof. I suggest you review it.
>>>>Once again you've gone off half cocked and made a fool of yourself.
>>>>Again.
>>>' >>>Is that all you took out of it? And all you have to say in reply:- >>>"The mantle is hot and the 'slab' has 'buoyancy'" Not much value is >>>there?
>>To each his own I suppose.
>>> - a concoction of fluid mechanics with no reference to >>>geological parameters.
>>The wave speed anomalies associated with subducted can be >>truned into temnperature anomalies and hence density >>using equations of state determined from actual rocks.
>>Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
> (...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in > air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
> ...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed > anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place) > "then turned into temperature anomalies": (how do you know what the > temperature anomaly is for that particular sector without the > Earthquakes in the first place) "and hence density" - But that's the > real bit isn't it:- "using equations of state from actual rocks"..
wave your hands and try to spin the data. EE is just not true. SUBDUCTION SUBDUCTION SUBDUCTION and NO OVER THRUSTING TO BE FOUND. a tip of the hat to Coleridge.
> As I said, it's all iffy-couldy-abracadabra, a manipulated concoction > that bears about as much relation to geological reality as a holey > Swiss cheese. You use the words density and slab with far to much > conviction. And the canonfodder here try to plug the holes with their > allegiances to 'science' and beliefs from childhood. And you let > them.
> Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
the irony is Desperate Don who is contributing to enlightemment. Don thinks that specific data that contradicts him is FAKE. poor Don. in the battle of wits you are unarmed.
>><gibberish snipped>
>>Stuart
josephus
-- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
> Stuart wrote: > > On Sep 8, 4:55 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > Stuart wrote: > > > > On Sep 8, 12:35 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > > > df wrote:-
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtdhttp://tinyurl.com/32zg52 > > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > > Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what > > > > > Plate Tectonics was saying but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > > > > > me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > > > > > the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > > > > > that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > > > > > Tectonics after all. I always thought the earth being hot inside > > > > > and making convection currents had something to do with it, but now I > > > > > learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the > > > > > core, ..
> > > > Sheesh. Such a silly diatribe. Or is it really a plea for help?
> > > > Of course heat sources are needed. If the Mantle was not hot, there > > > > wouldn't > > > > be any subduction. Slabs have buoyancy because the mantle is hot.
> > > > I explained the basic physics of this mode of convection in posts > > > > to Timberwoof. I suggest you review it.
> > > > Once again you've gone off half cocked and made a fool of yourself.
> > > > Again.
> > > ' > > > Is that all you took out of it? And all you have to say in reply:- > > > "The mantle is hot and the 'slab' has 'buoyancy'" Not much value is > > > there?
> > To each his own I suppose.
> > > - a concoction of fluid mechanics with no reference to > > > geological parameters.
> > The wave speed anomalies associated with subducted can be > > truned into temnperature anomalies and hence density > > using equations of state determined from actual rocks.
> > Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
> (...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in > air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
Very funny Don. And any way the above measures specific gravity, not density. As a geologist you should know the difference.
> ...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed > anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place)
Anomalous in this case, means different that surrounding mantle? How do we know? By measuring the travel times for a bazillion ray paths and using the same procedure that a CAT scan uses, we can work out the detailed velocity structure of the medium through which these rays passed.
Those tomographic images that Florian seems so fond of using to torpedo himslef are the results of such studies. Once we know what the wave speed is we can then apply an equation of state which relates the variables of wave speed, pressure and temperature. The pressure is easily determined, and since the wave speed is found form the tomographic analysis, the temperature can be calculated.
> "then turned into temperature anomalies": (how do you know what the > temperature anomaly is for that particular sector without the > Earthquakes in the first place)
The temperature of the material is the temperature of the material, earthquakes or no earthquakes. Stop grasping for straws to throw and try to learn something.
"and hence density" - But that's the
> real bit isn't it:- "using equations of state from actual rocks"..
Yup.
You know, "hard data". Something ee lacks.
> As I said, it's all iffy-couldy-abracadabra, a manipulated concoction > that bears about as much relation to geological reality as a holey > Swiss cheese.
Unfortunately you are simply trying to put down what you don't understand.
If you have no rebuttal, just say so. Its better then looking like a kook.
> > > Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
> > (...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in > > air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
> Very funny Don. And any way the above measures specific gravity, not > density. > As a geologist you should know the difference.
> > ...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed > > anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place)
> Anomalous in this case, means different that surrounding mantle? How > do > we know? By measuring the travel times for a bazillion ray paths and > using > the same procedure that a CAT scan uses, we can work out the detailed > velocity structure of the medium through which these rays passed.
So, ..the zone is more foliated than the surrounds (say), and the ray is slower or faster depending which way the fabric is. How do you know whether to attribute time to fabric or temperature (/density/ coldness). There's all that shearing and partial melting going on, of course there's going to be some sort of fabric. It is a 'structural zone' after all...
> Those tomographic images that Florian seems so fond of using to > torpedo himslef are the results of such studies. Once we know what the > wave speed > is we can then apply an equation of state which relates the variables > of wave > speed, pressure and temperature. The pressure is easily determined, > and since the wave > speed is found form the tomographic analysis, the temperature can be > calculated.
Sure you can. And what do you get? A great big *IF-COULD*.
> > "then turned into temperature anomalies": (how do you know what the > > temperature anomaly is for that particular sector without the > > Earthquakes in the first place)
> The temperature of the material is the temperature of the material, > earthquakes > or no earthquakes. Stop grasping for straws to throw and try to learn > something.
I'm not doubting your process, ..I'm sure you're very good at it. How do you determine the temperature, independently of Earthquakes?
> "and hence density" - But that's the > > real bit isn't it:- "using equations of state from actual rocks"..
> Yup.
> You know, "hard data". Something ee lacks.
EE certainly lacks the crutch of Fluid mechanics to help it along. Based as it is on solid geological observation (Something Plate Tectonics lacks (being entirely founded as it is on a convenient assumption), Earth Expansion doesn't need any crutch.
> > As I said, it's all iffy-couldy-abracadabra, a manipulated concoction > > that bears about as much relation to geological reality as a holey > > Swiss cheese.
> Unfortunately you are simply trying to put down what you don't > understand.
> If you have no rebuttal, just say so. Its better then looking like a > kook.
What I do understand is that the process of how you arrive at your destination is very much "IF-Could" / hypothetical, and includes virtually zilch of geological input.
Let me ask you something. A hypothetical (since you're good at numerical ones, lets see you you go on the qualitative ones.) Suspend your belief for a moment, and consider that the Pacific may be closed in the same way as the Atlantic and other oceans, ..and in the same time-frame. (That's a given, say.) How would you then regard subduction zones? There is no dispute that this zone of earthquakes exists. How would you deal with it ?
That's what it boils down to, doesn't it, ..whether the Pacific was closed in the same time-frame. If it can be shown (geologically) that the Pacific was closed in the same time-frame as the other oceans then that would have to take precedence over your hypothetical fluid mechanics model that underpins your denial.
In other words, this is a geological argument, not one of fluid mechanics. So being rational you should put your fluid mechanics and cold slabs and dissipative flow aside, and deal with the question geologically. ?Can the continental crust be retrofitted across the Pacific or not.
>Stuart wrote: >> On Sep 8, 4:55 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >> > Stuart wrote: >> > > On Sep 8, 12:35 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: >> > > > df wrote:-
>> > > >http://tinyurl.com/yu5xtdhttp://tinyurl.com/32zg52 >> > > > --------------------------------------- >> > > > Come on Stuart, My world is falling apart, I thought I knew what >> > > > Plate Tectonics was saying but I didn't know it was like this. Tell >> > > > me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling >> > > > the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, >> > > > that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate >> > > > Tectonics after all. I always thought the earth being hot inside >> > > > and making convection currents had something to do with it, but now I >> > > > learn, No, ..there is no need for potassium or any other 'um' in the >> > > > core, ..
>> > > Sheesh. Such a silly diatribe. Or is it really a plea for help?
>> > > Of course heat sources are needed. If the Mantle was not hot, there >> > > wouldn't >> > > be any subduction. Slabs have buoyancy because the mantle is hot.
>> > > I explained the basic physics of this mode of convection in posts >> > > to Timberwoof. I suggest you review it.
>> > > Once again you've gone off half cocked and made a fool of yourself.
>> > > Again.
>> > ' >> > Is that all you took out of it? And all you have to say in reply:- >> > "The mantle is hot and the 'slab' has 'buoyancy'" Not much value is >> > there?
>> To each his own I suppose.
>> > - a concoction of fluid mechanics with no reference to >> > geological parameters.
>> The wave speed anomalies associated with subducted can be >> truned into temnperature anomalies and hence density >> using equations of state determined from actual rocks.
>> Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
>(...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in >air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
>...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed >anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place) >"then turned into temperature anomalies": (how do you know what the >temperature anomaly is for that particular sector without the >Earthquakes in the first place) "and hence density" - But that's the >real bit isn't it:- "using equations of state from actual rocks"..
>As I said, it's all iffy-couldy-abracadabra, a manipulated concoction >that bears about as much relation to geological reality as a holey >Swiss cheese. You use the words density and slab with far to much >conviction. And the canonfodder here try to plug the holes with their >allegiances to 'science' and beliefs from childhood. And you let >them.
>Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
Ever though about just growing up Desperate Don? Get yourself an education, learn about real science, real geophysics and real geology. Then, when you have the proper grounding in the subjects you want to talk about, you can go and find the real data - the detailed measurements of the Earth. You will then find that the Earth is NOT expanding.
Go on, with a bit of effort you could get the necessary education in say ten years. It will give you something better to do that making a fool of yourself on usenet.
You see Desperate Don. Unless you can find some measurements that actually show the Earth is expanding you have no case. You cannot go around claiming the Earth is expanding and expect people to even entertain the idea when you don't have a single measurement to back you up. It is no wonder you are treated with such contempt and ridicule on usenet when you cannot even fact the FACT that you have no measurements to back you up, in fact you don't even seem to be looking.
Face it Desperate Don, you don't have a case and at this rate never will. Give up, you have lost.
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 21:23:10 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Earth Expansion doesn't need any crutch.
But it does need one very important thing Desperate Don.
Something it has not got.
Something I don't think you will find.
Something that I think you are VERY stupid not to have searched for long ago.
Where are the measurements Desperate Don? Your claim is that the Earth is expanding, either in size, mass or both. Any normal person would have at least found some measurements to back that up before making himself look so stupid on usenet.
Ye Old One wrote: > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:57:58 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> > >Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
> Ever though about just growing up Desperate Don? Get yourself an > education, learn about real science, real geophysics and real geology. > Then, when you have the proper grounding in the subjects you want to > talk about, you can go and find the real data - the detailed > measurements of the Earth. You will then find that the Earth is NOT > expanding.
> Go on, with a bit of effort you could get the necessary education in > say ten years. It will give you something better to do that making a > fool of yourself on usenet.
> You see Desperate Don. Unless you can find some measurements that > actually show the Earth is expanding you have no case. You cannot go > around claiming the Earth is expanding and expect people to even > entertain the idea when you don't have a single measurement to back > you up. It is no wonder you are treated with such contempt and > ridicule on usenet when you cannot even fact the FACT that you have no > measurements to back you up, in fact you don't even seem to be > looking.
> Face it Desperate Don, you don't have a case and at this rate never > will. Give up, you have lost.
Pong off with your fixation on measurement, Megadick, Do yourself a favour - Eat some spam, ..see if it helps. You'll find offers of viagra and pink medicament all-sorts.
>Ye Old One wrote: >> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:57:58 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au>
>> >Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
>> Ever though about just growing up Desperate Don? Get yourself an >> education, learn about real science, real geophysics and real geology. >> Then, when you have the proper grounding in the subjects you want to >> talk about, you can go and find the real data - the detailed >> measurements of the Earth. You will then find that the Earth is NOT >> expanding.
>> Go on, with a bit of effort you could get the necessary education in >> say ten years. It will give you something better to do that making a >> fool of yourself on usenet.
>> You see Desperate Don. Unless you can find some measurements that >> actually show the Earth is expanding you have no case. You cannot go >> around claiming the Earth is expanding and expect people to even >> entertain the idea when you don't have a single measurement to back >> you up. It is no wonder you are treated with such contempt and >> ridicule on usenet when you cannot even fact the FACT that you have no >> measurements to back you up, in fact you don't even seem to be >> looking.
>> Face it Desperate Don, you don't have a case and at this rate never >> will. Give up, you have lost.
>Pong off with your fixation on measurement,
Hohohohoho! Silly little troll.
> Megadick, >Do yourself a favour - Eat some spam, ..see if it helps. >You'll find offers of viagra and pink medicament all-sorts.
Here we have Desperate Don. So very keep to prove his little brainstorm resembles reality - but then he turns round as says measurements aren't needed????
What sort of reality do you live in Desperate Don? A reality where the Earth is expanding but man doesn't need to measure it? A reality where you rely on magic to produce the extra mass needed? Even a reality where you are a respected scientist and a contributor to usenet that isn't constantly laughed at and pilloried?
Well, I live in the real world. One where plate tectonics has the answers and if you even want to bring it into doubt then you have to first come up with the measurements that show the Earth is actually expanding, then you have to explain where the extra mass is coming from, and only then will people stop laughing at you.
> > > > Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
> > > (...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in > > > air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
> > Very funny Don. And any way the above measures specific gravity, not > > density. > > As a geologist you should know the difference.
> > > ...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed > > > anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place)
> > Anomalous in this case, means different that surrounding mantle? How > > do > > we know? By measuring the travel times for a bazillion ray paths and > > using > > the same procedure that a CAT scan uses, we can work out the detailed > > velocity structure of the medium through which these rays passed.
> So, ..the zone is more foliated than the surrounds (say), and the ray > is slower or faster depending which way the fabric is.
This has nothing to do with foliation or in this case "anisotropy"
Guess again.
How do you
> know whether to attribute time to fabric or temperature (/density/ > coldness).
You pass rays perpendicular to the strike of the slab as well as parallel.
>There's all that shearing and partial melting going on, of > course there's going to be some sort of fabric.
Once again Don is desparately grasping for straws and hoping for something, anything that sticks.
It is a 'structural
> zone' after all...
Stop making excuses Don.
> > Those tomographic images that Florian seems so fond of using to > > torpedo himslef are the results of such studies. Once we know what the > > wave speed > > is we can then apply an equation of state which relates the variables > > of wave > > speed, pressure and temperature. The pressure is easily determined, > > and since the wave > > speed is found form the tomographic analysis, the temperature can be > > calculated.
> Sure you can. And what do you get? A great big *IF-COULD*.
> > > "then turned into temperature anomalies": (how do you know what the > > > temperature anomaly is for that particular sector without the > > > Earthquakes in the first place)
> > The temperature of the material is the temperature of the material, > > earthquakes > > or no earthquakes. Stop grasping for straws to throw and try to learn > > something.
> I'm not doubting your process, ..I'm sure you're very good at it. How > do you determine the temperature, independently of Earthquakes?
I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you don't understand.
> > "and hence density" - But that's the > > > real bit isn't it:- "using equations of state from actual rocks"..
> > Yup.
> > You know, "hard data". Something ee lacks.
> EE certainly lacks the crutch of Fluid mechanics to help it along. > Based as it is on solid geological observation (Something Plate > Tectonics lacks (being entirely founded as it is on a convenient > assumption), Earth Expansion doesn't need any crutch.
> > > As I said, it's all iffy-couldy-abracadabra, a manipulated concoction > > > that bears about as much relation to geological reality as a holey > > > Swiss cheese.
> > Unfortunately you are simply trying to put down what you don't > > understand.
> > If you have no rebuttal, just say so. Its better then looking like a > > kook.
> What I do understand is that the process of how you arrive at your > destination is very much "IF-Could" / hypothetical, and includes > virtually zilch of geological input.
> Let me ask you something. A hypothetical (since you're good at > numerical ones, lets see you you go on the qualitative ones.) Suspend > your belief for a moment, and consider that the Pacific may be closed > in the same way as the Atlantic and other oceans, ..and in the same > time-frame. (That's a given, say.) How would you then regard > subduction zones? There is no dispute that this zone of earthquakes > exists. How would you deal with it ?
> That's what it boils down to, doesn't it, ..whether the Pacific was > closed in the same time-frame. If it can be shown (geologically) that > the Pacific was closed in the same time-frame as the other oceans then > that would have to take precedence over your hypothetical fluid > mechanics model that underpins your denial.
> In other words, this is a geological argument, not one of fluid > mechanics. So being rational you should put your fluid mechanics and > cold slabs and dissipative flow aside, and deal with the question > geologically. ?Can the continental crust be retrofitted across the > Pacific or not.
> That's the core argument in a nutshell. Isn't it.
Stuart wrote: > On Sep 8, 6:23 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
> > > > (...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in > > > > air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
> > > Very funny Don. And any way the above measures specific gravity, not > > > density. > > > As a geologist you should know the difference.
> > > > ...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed > > > > anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place)
> > > Anomalous in this case, means different that surrounding mantle? How > > > do > > > we know? By measuring the travel times for a bazillion ray paths and > > > using > > > the same procedure that a CAT scan uses, we can work out the detailed > > > velocity structure of the medium through which these rays passed.
> > So, ..the zone is more foliated than the surrounds (say), and the ray > > is slower or faster depending which way the fabric is.
> This has nothing to do with foliation or in this case "anisotropy"
> Guess again.
> How do you > > know whether to attribute time to fabric or temperature (/density/ > > coldness).
> You pass rays perpendicular to the strike of the slab as well as > parallel.
> >There's all that shearing and partial melting going on, of > > course there's going to be some sort of fabric.
> Once again Don is desparately grasping for straws and > hoping for something, anything that sticks.
In Plate Tectonics, and your way of presenting it, there are no straws to grasp at. It's hot air Ifs and coulds. Try answering the question about how the first ridge related to the first subduction zone. And if you feel up to it, try to say where it was.
> > > Those tomographic images that Florian seems so fond of using to > > > torpedo himslef are the results of such studies. Once we know what the > > > wave speed > > > is we can then apply an equation of state which relates the variables > > > of wave > > > speed, pressure and temperature. The pressure is easily determined, > > > and since the wave > > > speed is found form the tomographic analysis, the temperature can be > > > calculated.
> > Sure you can. And what do you get? A great big *IF-COULD*.
> No "COULD". "CAN".
> > > > "then turned into temperature anomalies": (how do you know what the > > > > temperature anomaly is for that particular sector without the > > > > Earthquakes in the first place)
> > > The temperature of the material is the temperature of the material, > > > earthquakes > > > or no earthquakes. Stop grasping for straws to throw and try to learn > > > something.
> > I'm not doubting your process, ..I'm sure you're very good at it. How > > do you determine the temperature, independently of Earthquakes?
> I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you don't understand.
> Stuart
> > > "and hence density" - But that's the > > > > real bit isn't it:- "using equations of state from actual rocks"..
> > > Yup.
> > > You know, "hard data". Something ee lacks.
> > EE certainly lacks the crutch of Fluid mechanics to help it along. > > Based as it is on solid geological observation (Something Plate > > Tectonics lacks (being entirely founded as it is on a convenient > > assumption), Earth Expansion doesn't need any crutch.
> > > > As I said, it's all iffy-couldy-abracadabra, a manipulated concoction > > > > that bears about as much relation to geological reality as a holey > > > > Swiss cheese.
> > > Unfortunately you are simply trying to put down what you don't > > > understand.
> > > If you have no rebuttal, just say so. Its better then looking like a > > > kook.
> > What I do understand is that the process of how you arrive at your > > destination is very much "IF-Could" / hypothetical, and includes > > virtually zilch of geological input.
> > Let me ask you something. A hypothetical (since you're good at > > numerical ones, lets see you you go on the qualitative ones.) Suspend > > your belief for a moment, and consider that the Pacific may be closed > > in the same way as the Atlantic and other oceans, ..and in the same > > time-frame. (That's a given, say.) How would you then regard > > subduction zones? There is no dispute that this zone of earthquakes > > exists. How would you deal with it ?
> > That's what it boils down to, doesn't it, ..whether the Pacific was > > closed in the same time-frame. If it can be shown (geologically) that > > the Pacific was closed in the same time-frame as the other oceans then > > that would have to take precedence over your hypothetical fluid > > mechanics model that underpins your denial.
> > In other words, this is a geological argument, not one of fluid > > mechanics. So being rational you should put your fluid mechanics and > > cold slabs and dissipative flow aside, and deal with the question > > geologically. ?Can the continental crust be retrofitted across the > > Pacific or not.
> > That's the core argument in a nutshell. Isn't it.
> Stuart wrote: > > On Sep 8, 6:23 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > > Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
> > > > > (...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in > > > > > air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
> > > > Very funny Don. And any way the above measures specific gravity, not > > > > density. > > > > As a geologist you should know the difference.
> > > > > ...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed > > > > > anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place)
> > > > Anomalous in this case, means different that surrounding mantle? How > > > > do > > > > we know? By measuring the travel times for a bazillion ray paths and > > > > using > > > > the same procedure that a CAT scan uses, we can work out the detailed > > > > velocity structure of the medium through which these rays passed.
> > > So, ..the zone is more foliated than the surrounds (say), and the ray > > > is slower or faster depending which way the fabric is.
> > This has nothing to do with foliation or in this case "anisotropy"
> > Guess again.
> > How do you > > > know whether to attribute time to fabric or temperature (/density/ > > > coldness).
> > You pass rays perpendicular to the strike of the slab as well as > > parallel.
> > >There's all that shearing and partial melting going on, of > > > course there's going to be some sort of fabric.
> > Once again Don is desparately grasping for straws and > > hoping for something, anything that sticks.
> In Plate Tectonics, and your way of presenting it, there are no > straws to grasp at. It's hot air Ifs and coulds. Try answering the > question about how the first ridge related to the first subduction > zone. And if you feel up to it, try to say where it was.
This is incredible. Its amazing the number of parallels between eers and creationists..
When shown evidence for evolution creationists babble about abiogenesis.
What do you mean how the firast ridge related to the first subduction zone?
> Ye Old One wrote: > > On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:57:58 -0700, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> > > >Shame be upon you for your contribution to enlightenment here.
> > Ever though about just growing up Desperate Don? Get yourself an > > education, learn about real science, real geophysics and real geology. > > Then, when you have the proper grounding in the subjects you want to > > talk about, you can go and find the real data - the detailed > > measurements of the Earth. You will then find that the Earth is NOT > > expanding.
> > Go on, with a bit of effort you could get the necessary education in > > say ten years. It will give you something better to do that making a > > fool of yourself on usenet.
> > You see Desperate Don. Unless you can find some measurements that > > actually show the Earth is expanding you have no case. You cannot go > > around claiming the Earth is expanding and expect people to even > > entertain the idea when you don't have a single measurement to back > > you up. It is no wonder you are treated with such contempt and > > ridicule on usenet when you cannot even fact the FACT that you have no > > measurements to back you up, in fact you don't even seem to be > > looking.
> > Face it Desperate Don, you don't have a case and at this rate never > > will. Give up, you have lost.
> Pong off with your fixation on measurement,
If we're allowed to ignore measurements we don't like, how about we just pretend the Atlantic isn't expanding. Then we'll all be happy, right?
> Megadick, > Do yourself a favour - Eat some spam, ..see if it helps. > You'll find offers of viagra and pink medicament all-sorts.
You really don't like it when people point out that EE is contradicted by direct measurement of the size of the Earth, do you? Makes you all tetchy.
[bracing myself for the inevitable rant about the perceived weakness of Don's misconception of PT.]
Stuart wrote: > On Sep 10, 2:10 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > Stuart wrote: > > > On Sep 8, 6:23 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > > > Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
> > > > > > (...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in > > > > > > air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
> > > > > Very funny Don. And any way the above measures specific gravity, not > > > > > density. > > > > > As a geologist you should know the difference.
> > > > > > ...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed > > > > > > anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place)
> > > > > Anomalous in this case, means different that surrounding mantle? How > > > > > do > > > > > we know? By measuring the travel times for a bazillion ray paths and > > > > > using > > > > > the same procedure that a CAT scan uses, we can work out the detailed > > > > > velocity structure of the medium through which these rays passed.
> > > > So, ..the zone is more foliated than the surrounds (say), and the ray > > > > is slower or faster depending which way the fabric is.
> > > This has nothing to do with foliation or in this case "anisotropy"
> > > Guess again.
> > > How do you > > > > know whether to attribute time to fabric or temperature (/density/ > > > > coldness).
> > > You pass rays perpendicular to the strike of the slab as well as > > > parallel.
> > > >There's all that shearing and partial melting going on, of > > > > course there's going to be some sort of fabric.
> > > Once again Don is desparately grasping for straws and > > > hoping for something, anything that sticks.
> > In Plate Tectonics, and your way of presenting it, there are no > > straws to grasp at. It's hot air Ifs and coulds. Try answering the > > question about how the first ridge related to the first subduction > > zone. And if you feel up to it, try to say where it was.
> This is incredible. Its amazing the number of parallels between eers > and creationists..
> When shown evidence for evolution creationists babble about > abiogenesis.
> What do you mean how the firast ridge related to the first subduction > zone?
Like Adam and Eve, smart guy, ..you know, ..Ridgie -didge: a great big ridge developing (that's Adam), and a great big swallower (That's Eve) of a subdiction zone. Come on, you know perfectly well what I mean. The two are paired, ..and not just 'one-and-one', ..but 'one_*ON*_ one'. A certain ridge has to go with a certain subduction zone - you can't just have any old ridge going with any old subduction zone. otherwise you break the convection cycle. But that's just an anyway- by-the-by, not really germane to the argument.
So leave creationists out of it, because if you're going to raise creation as means of scoring points then with your primary convenient assumption of subduction in the first place < http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html > ...and all that subsequent IF-COULD wonky finagling (your posts) to make it work (and still fail; brittle failure is NOT ductile flow - not even on geologically long time scales), then you don't have a leg to stand on.
The question is the chicken and the egg one - What determines where a subduction zone will first form? How far must this newly created oceanic lithosphere travel from the ridge (where it's only as thick as the crust - 8-12km or so) before it sinks? Does a ridge form first so that you can get spreading, so you can get cooling and thickening, so you can get subduction? (How do you thicken 8km to 200km, just by cooling? Underplating? (as in Earth expansion?).
Or is the Subduction zone created first so that it can sink and so cause pressure reduction 'somewhere', so that a ridge forms and the cycle starts moving? How was the ridge / spreading centre fixed in the first place, if it is the pull of the subducting slab that creates it? ( If anything is going to create 'asymmetrical spreading at the ridges' - as you were arguing with Florian about, ..' then that will.)
You are faced with the conundrum that the first thing to form is a subduction zone, But how? How does a slab begin to sink, so that a ridge can begin to form? And more importantly, where?
In other words, that you have a 'source-sink' mechanism installed in the first place is very much an assumption, and one that is at best suspiciously sleight of hand, and at worst just wrong-headed. You can't just say, "In the beginning there was a subduction zone and a spreading centre", Or is it your whole point that you can?
If you do then *THAT IS* very Creationist, you have to admit.. --------------------------- So far as your unanswerable problems of how and where are concerned, Earth expansion has them covered exactly, ..and more besides.
>>On Sep 10, 2:10 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>>Stuart wrote:
>>>>On Sep 8, 6:23 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>Stuart wrote:
>>>>>>>>Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
>>>>>>>(...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in >>>>>>>air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
>>>>>>Very funny Don. And any way the above measures specific gravity, not >>>>>>density. >>>>>>As a geologist you should know the difference.
>>>>>>>...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed >>>>>>>anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place)
>>>>>>Anomalous in this case, means different that surrounding mantle? How >>>>>>do >>>>>>we know? By measuring the travel times for a bazillion ray paths and >>>>>>using >>>>>>the same procedure that a CAT scan uses, we can work out the detailed >>>>>>velocity structure of the medium through which these rays passed.
>>>>>So, ..the zone is more foliated than the surrounds (say), and the ray >>>>>is slower or faster depending which way the fabric is.
>>>>This has nothing to do with foliation or in this case "anisotropy"
>>>>Guess again.
>>>>How do you
>>>>>know whether to attribute time to fabric or temperature (/density/ >>>>>coldness).
>>>>You pass rays perpendicular to the strike of the slab as well as >>>>parallel.
>>>>>There's all that shearing and partial melting going on, of >>>>>course there's going to be some sort of fabric.
>>>>Once again Don is desparately grasping for straws and >>>>hoping for something, anything that sticks.
>>>In Plate Tectonics, and your way of presenting it, there are no >>>straws to grasp at. It's hot air Ifs and coulds. Try answering the >>>question about how the first ridge related to the first subduction >>>zone. And if you feel up to it, try to say where it was.
>>This is incredible. Its amazing the number of parallels between eers >>and creationists..
>>When shown evidence for evolution creationists babble about >>abiogenesis.
>>What do you mean how the firast ridge related to the first subduction >>zone?
> Like Adam and Eve, smart guy, ..you know, ..Ridgie -didge: a great big > ridge developing (that's Adam), and a great big swallower (That's Eve) > of a subdiction zone. Come on, you know perfectly well what I mean. > The two are paired, ..and not just 'one-and-one', ..but 'one_*ON*_ > one'. A certain ridge has to go with a certain subduction zone - you > can't just have any old ridge going with any old subduction zone. > otherwise you break the convection cycle. But that's just an anyway- > by-the-by, not really germane to the argument.
dont act like one and we wont call you one. besides its insulting to creationists to be associated with EE'ers just because they are both dishonest is not important.
> So leave creationists out of it, because if you're going to raise > creation as means of scoring points then with your primary convenient > assumption of subduction in the first place > < http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html > > ...and all that subsequent IF-COULD wonky finagling (your posts) to > make it work (and still fail; brittle failure is NOT ductile flow - > not even on geologically long time scales), then you don't have a leg > to stand on.
> The question is the chicken and the egg one - What determines where a > subduction zone will first form? How far must this newly created > oceanic lithosphere travel from the ridge (where it's only as thick as > the crust - 8-12km or so) before it sinks? Does a ridge form first so > that you can get spreading, so you can get cooling and thickening, so > you can get subduction? (How do you thicken 8km to 200km, just by > cooling? Underplating? (as in Earth expansion?).
> Or is the Subduction zone created first so that it can sink and so > cause pressure reduction 'somewhere', so that a ridge forms and the > cycle starts moving? How was the ridge / spreading centre fixed in > the first place, if it is the pull of the subducting slab that creates > it? ( If anything is going to create 'asymmetrical spreading at the > ridges' - as you were arguing with Florian about, ..' then that will.)
or the convection cycle started first and created both. it was your question and it is a valid point. the checken and the egg problem. unless you want tell me that there is no liquid or viscous liquid in the EARTH. PT says there are Subducion zones and ridges. they correlate with convection loops. Stuart says there is data to support this.
> You are faced with the conundrum that the first thing to form is a > subduction zone, But how? How does a slab begin to sink, so that a > ridge can begin to form? And more importantly, where?
> In other words, that you have a 'source-sink' mechanism installed in > the first place is very much an assumption, and one that is at best > suspiciously sleight of hand, and at worst just wrong-headed. You > can't just say, "In the beginning there was a subduction zone and a > spreading centre", Or is it your whole point that you can?
> If you do then *THAT IS* very Creationist, you have to admit..
it takes one to know one. You are clearly a "religous" EE'er. and the funny tricks you pull are bororwed from people like RAY and someone2 including the deletion of text so you can post dribble as if they were not telling you something else and then you call names -- adhomin.
> --------------------------- > So far as your unanswerable problems of how and where are concerned, > Earth expansion has them covered exactly, ..and more besides.
unanswerable quetions for EE
1. what mechanism creates the hypothetical MASS that EE says happened
2. where is the DATA that displays the increase in the EARTH.
3. WHAT MECHANISM drives the EE without convection, subduction or upwelling where is the DATA for this.
4. Qibbles are not vaid criticsm. name a REAL problem with PT or GEOLOGY in general. There are problems but not the ones you point at.
>>I guess it was a long distance relationship.
> Yes, ..that's what you need to enlarge upon.
>>Stuart
> Don Findlay
josephus -- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
> or the convection cycle started first and created both. it was your > question and it is a valid point. the checken and the egg problem. > unless you want tell me that there is no liquid or viscous liquid in the > EARTH. PT says there are Subducion zones and ridges. they correlate > with convection loops. Stuart says there is data to support this.
Stuart says the subducting slab and the spreading ridge *IS* the convecting loop and that there *is* no other convection going on. He used to be big on convecting cells ferrying slabs around with sick people like you on a stretcher, but he's changed his mind since Mr Bercovici told him otherwise. That right, Stu?
And of course changing his mind means the whole configuration of internal global dynamics dances a change to suit. How else?
<snip stupid rant> In fact I think that's the stupidest rant I've ever come across.
>>or the convection cycle started first and created both. it was your >>question and it is a valid point. the checken and the egg problem. >>unless you want tell me that there is no liquid or viscous liquid in the >>EARTH. PT says there are Subducion zones and ridges. they correlate >>with convection loops. Stuart says there is data to support this.
> Stuart says the subducting slab and the spreading ridge *IS* the > convecting loop and that there *is* no other convection going on. He > used to be big on convecting cells ferrying slabs around with sick > people like you on a stretcher, but he's changed his mind since Mr > Bercovici told him otherwise. That right, Stu?
> And of course changing his mind means the whole configuration of > internal global dynamics dances a change to suit. How else?
> <snip stupid rant> In fact I think that's the stupidest rant I've > ever come across.
so you clean up the thread. You delete anything you dont like -- it was a stupid rant. typical creationist action.
explain how if the EARTH is expanding and the CONTINENTS are basically stationary, HOW did the NA continent end up on top of the Eastern Pacific ridge.
josephus
-- I go sailing in the Summer and look at STARS in the Winter. "Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects" Will Rogers Jr. "it aint what you know that gets you in trouble it is what you know that aint so" Josh Billings.
Stuart wrote: > On Sep 10, 2:10 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > Stuart wrote: > > > On Sep 8, 6:23 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > > > Hence the buoynacy of the slab can be determined.
> > > > > > (...at least if you had said "Well, first, we weigh it (this slab) in > > > > > > air, ..and then we weigh it (this slab) in water," )
> > > > > Very funny Don. And any way the above measures specific gravity, not > > > > > density. > > > > > As a geologist you should know the difference.
> > > > > > ...then we might have gotten somewhere, but "wave speed > > > > > > anomalies" (how do you know they're anomalous in the first place)
> > > > > Anomalous in this case, means different that surrounding mantle? How > > > > > do > > > > > we know? By measuring the travel times for a bazillion ray paths and > > > > > using > > > > > the same procedure that a CAT scan uses, we can work out the detailed > > > > > velocity structure of the medium through which these rays passed.
> > > > So, ..the zone is more foliated than the surrounds (say), and the ray > > > > is slower or faster depending which way the fabric is.
> > > This has nothing to do with foliation or in this case "anisotropy"
> > > Guess again.
> > > How do you > > > > know whether to attribute time to fabric or temperature (/density/ > > > > coldness).
> > > You pass rays perpendicular to the strike of the slab as well as > > > parallel.
> > > >There's all that shearing and partial melting going on, of > > > > course there's going to be some sort of fabric.
> > > Once again Don is desparately grasping for straws and > > > hoping for something, anything that sticks.
> > In Plate Tectonics, and your way of presenting it, there are no > > straws to grasp at. It's hot air Ifs and coulds. Try answering the > > question about how the first ridge related to the first subduction > > zone. And if you feel up to it, try to say where it was.
> This is incredible. Its amazing the number of parallels between eers > and creationists..
> When shown evidence for evolution creationists babble about > abiogenesis.
> What do you mean how the firast ridge related to the first subduction > zone?
> I guess it was a long distance relationship.
You guess it was a long-distance relationship? Sounds pretty dysfunctional to me. Hardly what you would call a relationship at all in fact.
So it's your "guess". Another 'guess' . First of all GUESS that the Earth can't get bigger (because we don't know how it can - thereby abrogating your responsibility to carefully assessing theinformation that led to that conclusion in the first place rather than dismissing it out of hand as impossible (because we don't know how)), and therefore the CONVENIENT ASSUMPTION that subduction zones are paired with the spreading zones in that Adam-and-Eve sort of way (which they are not), and then all that IF-COULD FINAGLING to make it work, and now the GUESS that it was a "long distance relationship". The more distant the better, on account of COOLING, but there is no intrinsic reason why a 'big boat' should be more sinkable than a smaller one. In fact if it's a question of getting sunk by crustbergs, the smaller boats (thinknesses of oceanic lithosphere) should go down like ninepins, shouldn't they.
There's an awful lot of guesses and iffy-couldy finagling masquerading under the guise of 'fact', about this Plate Tectonics of yours.
Here's one for you to think about. If the oceanic lithosphere sinks because it's cold and thick (the colder and thicker the better), why do you keep insisting in saying that the East Pacific spreading ridge (which is hottest and thinnest) is subducting beneath North America (rather than being overriden)? What have you got against overriding? Everybody else talks about overriding, why don't you? What does 'overrding' on that scale imply to you? (tell us, do..)
Are we going to get an answer from you how this Adam-and-Eve source- sink system of yours starts up? http://tinyurl.com/2qfqqv ...Or don't you have a clue? (Go on, ..tell us it was always there..)
> >but I didn't know it was like this. Tell > >me Mr Bercovici is wrong and that the subducting slab is not pulling > >the world apart (because it's cold ) (because it's dense). The slab, > >that is. Tell me the subducting slab doesn't really drive Plate > >Tectonics after all.
> It is ONE of the driving mechanisms.
Yes? How many driving mechanisms do you think there are?
|
