I must admit that it is a little dosconcerting to see hoiw crustal adjustment to the less than spherical curvature of the Earth can take such a creative and funny turn like this but as the orginator of something that is 100% certain and subsequently has geological implications,I take my work seriously because unlike the madness between convection cell guys and your junk,it takes real effort to point out actual consequences and working principles.
Since we're spikin' Lingo this bit of quote mining deserves a re-run:-
"..No relict slab underlies the extinct northern Kamchatka volcanic arc <...> From the tectonic and volcanic evolution of Kamchatka over the past 10 Myr (refs 3, 4–5) we infer that at least two episodes of catastrophic slab loss have occurred.. <....> Removal of lithospheric mantle is commonly discussed in the context of a continental collision, but our findings imply that episodes of slab detachment and loss are also important agents in the evolution of oceanic convergent margins.
----------------------------------------------- Exhilharated by the thrill of discovery that no subducting slab underlies the extinct northern Kamchatka volcanic arc, and paddling himself with excitement, our bold convectioneer cites this absence as direct proof for catastrophic slab loss, proposing avalanches of subducting slabs into the mantle for good measure. http://tinyurl.com/3qlj78 Commenting on findings in Nature, team leader Rubbery Trolley-Dosser said: "Now you see 'em, now you don't. It's like fairies at the bottom of the garden, everyone knows they are invisible so the fact that you don't see them is overwhelming direct proof for their presence. With future research we hope to be able to document more areas where slabs are not present, thus confirming our findings of catastrophic slab loss into the mantle. We are excited by the prospect that this could put an unprecedented new perspective on the Atlantic and Indian and Oceans, and open up an entirely new avenue for research." http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html#faeries ------------------------------------------------
With no apologies to Nature:- ----------------------------------- evidence for catastrophic slab loss: "In the northwest Pacific Ocean, a sharp corner in the boundary between the Pacific plate and the North American plate joins a subduction zone running along the southern half of the Kamchatka peninsula1 with a region of transcurrent motion along the western Aleutian arc1, 2. Here we present images of the seismic structure beneath the Aleutian–Kamchatka junction and the surrounding region, indicating that: the subducting Pacific lithosphere terminates at the Aleutian–Kamchatka junction; no relict slab underlies the extinct northern Kamchatka volcanic arc; and the upper mantle beneath northern Kamchatka has unusually slow shear wavespeeds. From the tectonic and volcanic evolution of Kamchatka over the past 10 Myr (refs 3, 4–5) we infer that at least two episodes of catastrophic slab loss have occurred. About 5 to 10 Myr ago, catastrophic slab loss shut down island-arc volcanic activity north of the Aleutian–Kamchatka junction. A later episode of slab loss, since about 2 Myr ago, seems to be related to the activity of the world's most productive island-arc volcano, Klyuchevskoy6. Removal of lithospheric mantle is commonly discussed in the context of a continental collision, but our findings imply that episodes of slab detachment and loss are also important agents in the evolution of oceanic convergent margins." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6899/full/nature00973.html ------------------------------------ ...which should know better than to publish wet cardboard like this.
> I must admit that it is a little dosconcerting to see hoiw crustal > adjustment to the less than spherical curvature of the Earth can take > such a creative and funny turn like this but as the orginator of > something that is 100% certain and subsequently has geological > implications,I take my work seriously because unlike the madness > between convection cell guys and your junk,it takes real effort to > point out actual consequences and working principles.
Nothing to it Gerald, it's really simple. Smaller Earth, ..bigger Earth. Getting bigger mediated by spin. That's it, and that's all (the geological part). All that's need is a proper explanation how mass is created, and transmuted out of the Big Electric Soup that is the inside of the Earth into the elements and molecules that we see at the surface (other than supposing that they were all there in the requisite quantities to begin with).
> > I must admit that it is a little dosconcerting to see hoiw crustal > > adjustment to the less than spherical curvature of the Earth can take > > such a creative and funny turn like this but as the orginator of > > something that is 100% certain and subsequently has geological > > implications,I take my work seriously because unlike the madness > > between convection cell guys and your junk,it takes real effort to > > point out actual consequences and working principles.
> Nothing to it Gerald, it's really simple. Smaller Earth, ..bigger > Earth. Getting bigger mediated by spin.
Don't make me sick.
I do not mind you however I do mind that plate tectonics has now settled outside your junk and that of your 'convection cell'opposition,in short,the principle of plate tectonics is much like heliocentric reasoning,still there for serious and genuine investigators to enjoy and work with but precious few appear to have the depth to handle the concepts like they should be treated.All I see are people throwing around surface correlations and arriving at conclusions for either evolutionary geology or internal planetary structure.
That's it, and that's all
> (the geological part). All that's need is a proper explanation how > mass is created, and transmuted out of the Big Electric Soup that is > the inside of the Earth into the elements and molecules that we see at > the surface (other than supposing that they were all there in the > requisite quantities to begin with).
> Shouldn't be that hard, really,
No doubt about it,the adaption of crust to planetary curvature as the plates move from one planetary profile to another is one of those nice outriggers of the larger rotational geodynamics behind plate motion and crustal evolution,something which originated with my work.So,in this dismal era,the only ones talking about curvature are people who have drawn a conclusion of a balooning Eath while plate tectonics can now be considered an almost dormant principle given that the 'convection cell' guys want nothing to do with geodynamics.
Go ahead and talk curvature,you do not know what you are talking about but at least it puts you slightly ahead of the guys who adore their 'convection cell' interior of the planet,not much praise but that is about as muchas I can do.
oriel36 wrote: > On Jun 14, 3:00 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > oriel36 wrote: > > > On Jun 14, 4:26 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > >http://users.indigo.net.au/don/cpr/subworks.html > > > > (With apologies for the Latin).
> > > Dear oh dear oh dear !.
> > > I must admit that it is a little dosconcerting to see hoiw crustal > > > adjustment to the less than spherical curvature of the Earth can take > > > such a creative and funny turn like this but as the orginator of > > > something that is 100% certain and subsequently has geological > > > implications,I take my work seriously because unlike the madness > > > between convection cell guys and your junk,it takes real effort to > > > point out actual consequences and working principles.
> > Nothing to it Gerald, it's really simple. Smaller Earth, ..bigger > > Earth. Getting bigger mediated by spin.
> Don't make me sick.
> I do not mind you however I do mind that plate tectonics has now > settled outside your junk and that of your 'convection > cell'opposition,in short,the principle of plate tectonics is much like > heliocentric reasoning,still there for serious and genuine > investigators to enjoy and work with but precious few appear to have > the depth to handle the concepts like they should be treated.
Don't take on so. As you can see from the number of serious and genuine investigators falling over themselves to pick this one up here they're perfectly well aware of the depth of their concepts - about as deep as the blush on a whore's cheek. They're also well aware it's about as reasonable, when the issue is not the value of what's on sale, but the remuneration to be had from gullible country boys. It's barefaced prostitution of nonsense in return for what they think the public expect of them and their pimps, one supplying the cardboard and the shopfront, and the other scribbling on it and flashing their pink bits. In a market like that, depth *has* no value. Not even Rubbernumber Trolleydosser is hanging out for the class client. Where is he, when Best-Dressed shows up? Off on a cruise somewhere, spending ill gotten gains from earlier touting/ lampost leaning.
> All I see > are people throwing around surface correlations and arriving at > conclusions for either evolutionary geology or internal planetary > structure.
Well, it has to begin with the cold facts in the light of day, which are on the Earth's surface..a point which all these convectioneers forget, in their fascination for the rosy glow of easy takings and their dependence on the foetid imaginings of the market
> > That's it, and that's all > > (the geological part). All that's need is a proper explanation how > > mass is created, and transmuted out of the Big Electric Soup that is > > the inside of the Earth into the elements and molecules that we see at > > the surface (other than supposing that they were all there in the > > requisite quantities to begin with).
> > Shouldn't be that hard, really,
> No doubt about it,the adaption of crust to planetary curvature as the > plates move from one planetary profile to another is one of those > nice outriggers of the larger rotational geodynamics behind plate > motion and crustal evolution,something which originated with my > work.
Certainly, but priority is not an issue. Nobody's going to win any breakthrough credits on this one, pointing out to gurus that they're missing the most important point about global dynamics - that the Earth is round and spinning. Maybe if it could be couched in a rubbery formula so that nobody notices... ...
> So,in this dismal era,the only ones talking about curvature are > people who have drawn a conclusion of a balooning Eath while plate > tectonics can now be considered an almost dormant principle given > that the 'convection cell' guys want nothing to do with geodynamics.
Well, it is one way of translating the obvious - that it has to do with roundness and spin. Differential latitudinal mantle displacements is another. Differential shell detachment ("flat subduction" - they're getting there) is another. Every aspect of global geology is up for grabs, and that is the way it will be sequestered - separated out, then appropriated back into the fold of Plate Tectonics. It's how science moves - discussing the contradictory findings as if they are part of what they are contradicting and not contradictory at all, and then pulling itself up by its bootstraps later. Anybody swanning around (like me - and you) saying "Hey all you guys, you got it all wrong", gets nowhere. Why would they listen? Why would they want to? Why would they have to? We're like Jehovah's Witnesses fronting up at the brothel. It's us that get taken away when the Police arrive. Not them. Leave them to it. Look after the children - the ones not already togged out as choirboys - Like 'George' there.
> Go ahead and talk curvature,you do not know what you are talking > about
Probably not altogther. Correction, like erosion, is virtually immediate. The ocean floors testify to that curvature correction in the formation of transform faults. There could be no greater first- order proof for curvature correction than transform faults. And the continents are awfully flat over a whole lot of it, but I reckon you can maybe still see it (the fossilised curvature) in the remnant highest bits - like here:- http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/iranrope.html and in the gravitational collapse of accretionary prisms (The wrong way for Plate Tectonics- the right way for expansion).
> but at least it puts you slightly ahead of the guys who adore > their 'convection cell' interior of the planet,not much praise but > that is about as muchas I can do.
Geomorphologists have never gone for the rubbish about mountain building by plate collision, at least not by crumpling, ..because the highest tracts of the planet are plateaus. With flat-lying stratigraphy. No crumpling. To them the big question is how you get plateaus. How you get uplift on that scale. And then lesser 'uplifts', and so on till you get down to the beachfronts. Pulsatory uplift? No. Well, .. yes, but uplift is not the way to look at it. It's inexorable downdropping of the surface of zero erosion potential. In which water level is primarily implicated. Global expansion. Water response is immediate to the minute; the crust being <ahem> more brittle (and not fluid) takes a bit more time to respond. Residual curvatures will be everywhere.
How the crumplers get away with their rubbish I don't know. The brothel factor I suppose. Catering for the unashamedly outlandish.
> oriel36 wrote: > > On Jun 14, 3:00 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > oriel36 wrote: > > > > On Jun 14, 4:26 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > > > >http://users.indigo.net.au/don/cpr/subworks.html > > > > > (With apologies for the Latin).
> > > > Dear oh dear oh dear !.
> > > > I must admit that it is a little dosconcerting to see hoiw crustal > > > > adjustment to the less than spherical curvature of the Earth can take > > > > such a creative and funny turn like this but as the orginator of > > > > something that is 100% certain and subsequently has geological > > > > implications,I take my work seriously because unlike the madness > > > > between convection cell guys and your junk,it takes real effort to > > > > point out actual consequences and working principles.
> > > Nothing to it Gerald, it's really simple. Smaller Earth, ..bigger > > > Earth. Getting bigger mediated by spin.
> > Don't make me sick.
> > I do not mind you however I do mind that plate tectonics has now > > settled outside your junk and that of your 'convection > > cell'opposition,in short,the principle of plate tectonics is much like > > heliocentric reasoning,still there for serious and genuine > > investigators to enjoy and work with but precious few appear to have > > the depth to handle the concepts like they should be treated.
> Don't take on so. As you can see from the number of serious and > genuine investigators falling over themselves to pick this one up here > they're perfectly well aware of the depth of their concepts - about as > deep as the blush on a whore's cheek. They're also well aware it's > about as reasonable, when the issue is not the value of what's on > sale, but the remuneration to be had from gullible country boys. It's > barefaced prostitution of nonsense in return for what they think the > public expect of them and their pimps, one supplying the cardboard and > the shopfront, and the other scribbling on it and flashing their pink > bits. In a market like that, depth *has* no value. Not even > Rubbernumber Trolleydosser is hanging out for the class client. > Where is he, when Best-Dressed shows up? Off on a cruise somewhere, > spending ill gotten gains from earlier touting/ lampost leaning.
> > All I see > > are people throwing around surface correlations and arriving at > > conclusions for either evolutionary geology or internal planetary > > structure.
> Well, it has to begin with the cold facts in the light of day, which > are on the Earth's surface..a point which all these convectioneers > forget, in their fascination for the rosy glow of easy takings and > their dependence on the foetid imaginings of the market
> > > That's it, and that's all > > > (the geological part). All that's need is a proper explanation how > > > mass is created, and transmuted out of the Big Electric Soup that is > > > the inside of the Earth into the elements and molecules that we see at > > > the surface (other than supposing that they were all there in the > > > requisite quantities to begin with).
> > > Shouldn't be that hard, really,
> > No doubt about it,the adaption of crust to planetary curvature as the > > plates move from one planetary profile to another is one of those > > nice outriggers of the larger rotational geodynamics behind plate > > motion and crustal evolution,something which originated with my > > work.
> Certainly, but priority is not an issue. Nobody's going to win any > breakthrough credits on this one, pointing out to gurus that they're > missing the most important point about global dynamics - that the > Earth is round and spinning. Maybe if it could be couched in a > rubbery formula so that nobody notices... ...
> > So,in this dismal era,the only ones talking about curvature are > > people who have drawn a conclusion of a balooning Eath while plate > > tectonics can now be considered an almost dormant principle given > > that the 'convection cell' guys want nothing to do with geodynamics.
> Well, it is one way of translating the obvious - that it has to do > with roundness and spin. Differential latitudinal mantle > displacements is another. Differential shell detachment ("flat > subduction" - they're getting there) is another. Every aspect of > global geology is up for grabs, and that is the way it will be > sequestered - separated out, then appropriated back into the fold of > Plate Tectonics. It's how science moves - discussing the > contradictory findings as if they are part of what they are > contradicting and not contradictory at all, and then pulling itself up > by its bootstraps later. Anybody swanning around (like me - and you) > saying "Hey all you guys, you got it all wrong", gets nowhere. Why > would they listen? Why would they want to? Why would they have to? > We're like Jehovah's Witnesses fronting up at the brothel. It's us > that get taken away when the Police arrive. Not them. Leave them to > it. Look after the children - the ones not already togged out as > choirboys - Like 'George' there.
> > Go ahead and talk curvature,you do not know what you are talking > > about
> Probably not altogther. Correction, like erosion, is virtually > immediate. The ocean floors testify to that curvature correction in > the formation of transform faults. There could be no greater first- > order proof for curvature correction than transform faults. And the > continents are awfully flat over a whole lot of it, but I reckon you > can maybe still see it (the fossilised curvature) in the remnant > highest bits - like here:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/iranrope.html > and in the gravitational collapse of accretionary prisms (The wrong > way for Plate Tectonics- the right way for expansion).
> > but at least it puts you slightly ahead of the guys who adore > > their 'convection cell' interior of the planet,not much praise but > > that is about as muchas I can do.
> Geomorphologists have never gone for the rubbish about mountain > building by plate collision, at least not by crumpling, ..because the > highest tracts of the planet are plateaus. With flat-lying > stratigraphy. No crumpling. To them the big question is how you get > plateaus. How you get uplift on that scale. And then lesser > 'uplifts', and so on till you get down to the beachfronts. Pulsatory > uplift? No. Well, .. yes, but uplift is not the way to look at it. > It's inexorable downdropping of the surface of zero erosion > potential. In which water level is primarily implicated. Global > expansion. Water response is immediate to the minute; the crust being > <ahem> more brittle (and not fluid) takes a bit more time to respond. > Residual curvatures will be everywhere.
> How the crumplers get away with their rubbish I don't know. The > brothel factor I suppose. Catering for the unashamedly outlandish.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I am not a complainer,meaning that investigators can continue on with the background to their conclusions, such as the geostationary convection cell mechanism, but it looks less and less like an association with the principle of tectonic activity as time goes by.
Anyone can discuss crustal curvature and its geological consequences after all it is just a condition of planetary geometry yet it is not just that the plate tectonic guys overlooked this feature as a facet of a much larger panorama based on a known geodynamic,it is not just being ignored but actively opposed.
I would say that considering rotational geodynamics influencing crustal geodynamics was the natural state of things,the human mind does not reject such a proposal yet it is almost impossible for believe in convection cells as anything other than an ad hoc mechanism which is now doing more harm than good to plate tectonic outlines.
You are fine,you know enough to spot a physical consideration such as crustal curvature but these delicate facets are hardly designed for beating the opposition over the head with,they exist as a consequence of a much larger package which includes a more accurate view of the internal mechanism based on rotation .I regret that crustal curvature did not receive the discussion it needed before it turns into a junk tool for something else but that is the way things are outside the technical details and physical considerations.People have been heading in the direction of rotational dynamics anyway but must somehow divest themselves of the conceptual baggage they promoted for many years,while I understand why this generation must go through this unwieldy process,almost political in nature,I simply think it is better to let things go and discuss what needs to be discussed openly.
Again,it is easy to demonstrate an observed* orbital component to planetary motion and if people cannot act on what is observed,they hardly can act on intutive material such as rotational geodynamics on crustal geodynamics
> > I must admit that it is a little dosconcerting to see hoiw crustal > > adjustment to the less than spherical curvature of the Earth can take > > such a creative and funny turn like this but as the orginator of > > something that is 100% certain and subsequently has geological > > implications,I take my work seriously because unlike the madness > > between convection cell guys and your junk,it takes real effort to > > point out actual consequences and working principles.
> Nothing to it Gerald, it's really simple. Smaller Earth, ..bigger > Earth. Getting bigger mediated by spin. That's it, and that's all > (the geological part). All that's need is a proper explanation how > mass is created, and transmuted out of the Big Electric Soup that is > the inside of the Earth into the elements and molecules that we see at > the surface (other than supposing that they were all there in the > requisite quantities to begin with).
> > > I must admit that it is a little dosconcerting to see hoiw crustal > > > adjustment to the less than spherical curvature of the Earth can take > > > such a creative and funny turn like this but as the orginator of > > > something that is 100% certain and subsequently has geological > > > implications,I take my work seriously because unlike the madness > > > between convection cell guys and your junk,it takes real effort to > > > point out actual consequences and working principles.
> > Nothing to it Gerald, it's really simple. Smaller Earth, ..bigger > > Earth. Getting bigger mediated by spin. That's it, and that's all > > (the geological part). All that's need is a proper explanation how > > mass is created, and transmuted out of the Big Electric Soup that is > > the inside of the Earth into the elements and molecules that we see at > > the surface (other than supposing that they were all there in the > > requisite quantities to begin with).
> > Shouldn't be that hard, really,
> then do it! brad- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
He may have used the crustal curvature facet in a way I would not choose but at least he is acknowledging that it exists,do you think he has to convince a guy who can only utter a 3 word response some sort of additional lecture on the importance of crustal curvature and its geological consequences.
Maybe you think that you are doing yourselves and geology a favor but all the lack of discussion is doing is exposing the disconnect between plate tectonics and the convection cell mechanism that attached itself to it ultimately making you far conceptually worse than the ee junk.
In the years since I worked with rotational dynamics I never felt the need to convince anyone that a connection exists between rotational dynamics and crustal geodynamics but I see I have been taught a lesson in how far people are prepared to go with obviously limited views such as 'convection cells'.In short,evolutionary geology has gone down the same road as structural astronomy and heliocentric reasoning insofar as the most remarkable thing is how a perfectly good insight with a vibrant feel to it and which can be appreciated at any given level can become dull and stagnant.
If you cannot acknowledge the basic structural existence of crustal profile then be proud of your 'convection cell' mechanism which takes no account of planetary rotation,curvature or anything else but I assure you it has little to do with the original outlines of plate tectonics.Good for you if you can live with what you believe for a mechanism because I certainly could not do it and while there is no particular pressure to adopt a rotational mechanism or consider its effects,at least the option is open to discuss the pros and cons of a rotational or geostationary mechanism.
Extrusion and subsequent overthrusting is written all over the place.
-- Florian "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
> Extrusion and subsequent overthrusting is written all over the place.
> -- > Florian > "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. > Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée > comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
You certainly know how to suffocate a good insight by the same old route of using surface correlations alone whereas Don creative take has some merit to it by virtue of relating curvature adaption to the Earth's profile.
Curvature adaption is a geological certainty arising from rotational dynamics,after all,it is rotational dynmaics which causes the Earth to deviate from a perfect sphere.
No need to put curvature adaption in quotation marks,it exists just as surely as the fractured crust exists.
> Extrusion and subsequent overthrusting is written all over the place.
> -- > Florian > "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. > Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée > comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Obviously, that figure is not yours. You do understand the meaning of the term "Plagiarism", right?
George <Geo...@george.net> wrote: > "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote : > > I don't think that "curvature adaptation" is the main parameter leading > > to overriding.
> > Look at this figure of mine (color stripes are 5 Ma isochrons):
> > Extrusion and subsequent overthrusting is written all over the place. > Obviously, that figure is not yours. You do understand the meaning of the > term "Plagiarism", right?
-- Florian "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
> Extrusion and subsequent overthrusting is written all over the place.
Broadly speaking, curvature adaptation (nicely paraphrased Oriel, thanks) is the whole reason there is a 'subduction' zone (exhumation of the asthenosphere), extrusion of the Pacific, Mountain belts, continental separation, erosion, stratigraphic sequence on the continents, Flat detachments, .. - everything. The entire Western Pacific margin of back-arc Basins, Everything of structure west of Africa and the Urals and the scissoring open of the Americas are direct expressions of the superposition of spin. As is the opening of the Atlantic. It's the whole raison d'etre of global geology post Proterozoic (and likely earlier as well).
> -- > Florian > "Toute v rit franchit trois tapes. D'abord elle est ridiculis e. > Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est consid r e > comme ayant toujours t une vidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
> -- > Florian > "Toute v rit franchit trois tapes. D'abord elle est ridiculis e. > Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est consid r e > comme ayant toujours t une vidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
I really don't understand how people can approach features like the Grand Canyon, the Basin and Range, the Himalayas and all the other big plateaus, ...those big karst structures in China, the African erosion surfaces - all of that BIG topography any other way. To me it sticks out like the proverbial, and casts a great big shadow over all of convential geological interpretations for these areas. Well, I guess if you press them they'd say we don't have any explanation. And there's one that covers the lot. No need for proposing ice ages either.
What I don't understand either, is how people let the likes of a Stuart and a George get away with it, peddling rubbish and making out they're protecting "good science"/ "knowledge". NOTHING of Plate Tectonics makes any sense except the brothel factor - the oldest profession on Earth. Can't even keep your children away from it. Where there's an inclination, there's a way...
> -- > Florian > "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. > Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée > comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
So you not only plagiarized the image, you modified it without permission. Congratulations.
I do not know who is more disgusting,you or the opposition, but crustal adaption to planetary curvature is something that originates from the rotational mechanism that causes tectonic activity and gives the planet its 40 km deviation
They say that imitation is flattery and I do not mind what ou do with crustal adaption however I will not see this thrown back at me as a generalised assertion unless people really have lost their minds and anything goes.
is the whole reason there is a 'subduction' zone (exhumation
> of the asthenosphere), extrusion of the Pacific, Mountain belts, > continental separation, erosion, stratigraphic sequence on the > continents, Flat detachments, .. - everything. The entire Western > Pacific margin of back-arc Basins, Everything of structure west of > Africa and the Urals and the scissoring open of the Americas are > direct expressions of the superposition of spin. As is the opening of > the Atlantic. It's the whole raison d'etre of global geology post > Proterozoic (and likely earlier as well).
> I guess I'm a 'lumper'. :-)
> > -- > > Florian > > "Toute v rit franchit trois tapes. D'abord elle est ridiculis e. > > Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est consid r e > > comme ayant toujours t une vidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer- Hide quoted text -
-- Florian "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
> On Jun 15, 11:03 am, brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 9:00 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > Nothing to it Gerald, it's really simple. Smaller Earth, ..bigger > > > Earth. Getting bigger mediated by spin. That's it, and that's all > > > (the geological part). All that's need is a proper explanation how > > > mass is created, and transmuted out of the Big Electric Soup that is > > > the inside of the Earth into the elements and molecules that we see at > > > the surface (other than supposing that they were all there in the > > > requisite quantities to begin with).
> > > Shouldn't be that hard, really,
> > then do it! brad- Hide quoted text - > So Don believes in Alchemy , but wants someone else to prove it exists. And then, he wants someone else to devise a mechanism for these newly created , heavier elements to reach the surface. That puts him in a different situation than you . You , at least , devise your own mechanism. > > - Show quoted text -
> He may have used the crustal curvature facet in a way I would not > choose but at least he is acknowledging that it exists,do you think he > has to convince a guy who can only utter a 3 word response some sort > of additional lecture on the importance of crustal curvature and its > geological consequences. > Curvature exists . > Maybe you think that you are doing yourselves and geology a favor but > all the lack of discussion is doing is exposing the disconnect > between plate tectonics and the convection cell mechanism that > attached itself to it ultimately making you far conceptually worse > than the ee junk.
> In the years since I worked with rotational dynamics I never felt the > need to convince anyone that a connection exists between rotational > dynamics and crustal geodynamics but I see I have been taught a lesson which still hasn't penetrated that armored infatuation you have with your own limitations. > in how far people are prepared to go with obviously limited views such > as 'convection cells'.In short,evolutionary geology has gone down the > same road as structural astronomy and heliocentric reasoning insofar > as the most remarkable thing is how a perfectly good insight with a > vibrant feel to it and which can be appreciated at any given level can > become dull and stagnant. > You keep saying this without giving a coherent explanation of what you mean. > If you cannot acknowledge the basic structural existence of crustal > profile then be proud of your 'convection cell' mechanism which takes > no account of planetary rotation,curvature or anything else but I > assure you it has little to do with the original outlines of plate > tectonics.Good for you if you can live with what you believe for a > mechanism because I certainly could not do it and while there is no > particular pressure to adopt a rotational mechanism or consider its > effects,at least the option is open to discuss the pros and cons of a > rotational or geostationary mechanism.- Hide quoted text - > spheroidal deviation exists. 1 part in 8000. So what! How much deviation would there be if the if the continents and the oceans were evenly distributed instead of most of the landmass in the N. Hemisphere ? And what about the crustal rebound from the loss of glaciers ? Don't you think that if one portion of the globe is depressed that the mantle beneath that portion won't respond in a way that results in spheroidal deviation? How about the ice still covering Antarctica ? Isn't the weight of that ice causing the mantle to flow from beneath the continent and seek its own equilibrium with the rest of the planet? How quickly do you want the planet to respond ? You assume you're the only person to ever consider spheroidal deviation. The deviation we measure today is not the deviation that existed in the past nor the deviation that will exist in the future.
-- Florian "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
> I do not know who is more disgusting,you or the opposition, but > crustal adaption to planetary curvature is something that originates > from the rotational mechanism that causes tectonic activity and gives > the planet its 40 km deviation > The planets 40km deviation is a result of the asymetric distribution of mass across the globe and its resultant effect on the underlying mantle. You have backwards your effects. By the way , how does rotational dynamics explain that asymetric distribution of mass ? If your theory were valid then the planet would have adjusted itself long ago to reflect same.
brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > EE was laid to rest 40 years ago .
Based on refuted arguments. Call it the Phenix of geosciences.
-- Florian "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > Broadly speaking, curvature adaptation (nicely paraphrased Oriel, > thanks) is the whole reason there is a 'subduction' zone (exhumation > of the asthenosphere), extrusion of the Pacific, Mountain belts, > continental separation, erosion, stratigraphic sequence on the > continents, Flat detachments, .. - everything. The entire Western > Pacific margin of back-arc Basins, Everything of structure west of > Africa and the Urals and the scissoring open of the Americas are > direct expressions of the superposition of spin. As is the opening of > the Atlantic. It's the whole raison d'etre of global geology post > Proterozoic (and likely earlier as well).
I think that upwelling of mantle material would lead to overthrusting zone even if the surface was flat. That should be easy to make an anological model.
-- Florian "Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée. Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
