> > 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and > > spirality of transforms? > What are you talking about? Spirality of transforms? > > 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and > > become a fact? > > 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
> How would you then explain volcanic arcs? Hot spots? Peleomagnetic dating of > oceanic crust?
> Thinking of myself of a budding "good" scientist, I've read your alternative > hypotheses. Where is your field data to back it up. Or is it just a guess?
> > Thus far these three have not attracted much response from supporters > > of plate tectonics, not any that would satisfy many children I'm sure.
> I can see why. There's no data!
___________________________
'Spirality'/ 'spiral symmetry' = pics on this page you will already have seen <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html > Or do you reckon like John Vidale there that those lines mean nothing? (But the little active bits at the ridges do...?)
Or continental margin magmatic arcs (e.g. South American Andes)? Like this:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p2-page2.html> (North and South America in pre-scissored position (joined at the hip). (Neither sort of 'volcanic arc' should be thought of in terms of plate tectonics.)
Hot spots? I think so-called 'hot spots' (as they are termed these days - different from the original entry in Seyfert's Encyclopedia of Plate tectonics - in line with PT finagling things that don't fit - shifting the goal posts) directly reflect the rupture of Pangaea and resulting hemispherical adjustment. I'll post an illustration.
Palaeomagnetic dating of oceanic crust? Not sure exactly what you mean.. What about it?
Field data/ no data? Links above, .. most importantly the first one. More added as we go. All factual/ field data will support Earth expansion ( excludes obvious assumptions like subduction and convection)(Benioff *Zone and Heat-Related Uplift OK). If you say "There's no data", what sort of **field data would you like to see? Meantime you might like to check out Dennis McCarthy's supporting references:- <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=expanding+earth&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&...> (join up if broken) DF. Answers to the above three questions still sought from all young buds, new growth, old growth, dead and even fossilized wood. ( Might the forest yet mutter..?)
<jo.reich...@web.de> wrote: >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >> spirality of transforms? >> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and >> become a fact? >> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
> What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know >that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >> spirality of transforms?
>As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what >you mean.
The fact, Don has had to give it a name shows the depth of ignorance it has received, the other fact, it is plain as the nose on someone's face is telling of the degree of the blindness.
This is really the reverse of the Emperor's New Clothes, in this case the refusal to see something which is world wide and very plain.
>> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and >> become a fact?
>For me it is a fact. I have no doubt. So many facts support the the >assumption of subduction processes. For example, the assotiated volcanism, >earth quakes (and the earth quakes show the pattern of subducted plate >toward to the depth!, until the subducted plate becomes ductile).
All your "facts" have alternate explanations which need to be further explored before the certainty level is a fact, but to believers, with no doubt, well....
>> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding? >This (as you know?!) is a matter of the specific weight. The oceanic crust: >3g/cm-3, the continental crust: 2,7g/cm-3.
> >As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate > >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what > >you mean.
> The fact, Don has had to give it a name shows the depth of ignorance > it has received, the other fact, it is plain as the nose on someone's > face is telling of the degree of the blindness.
What an impressive answer to myquestion!
Ok, at this point, I am convinced that it makes no sense to discuss these things with you.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:13:12 +0100, "Jörg Reichert"
<jo.reich...@web.de> wrote: >> >As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate >> >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what >> >you mean.
>> The fact, Don has had to give it a name shows the depth of ignorance >> it has received, the other fact, it is plain as the nose on someone's >> face is telling of the degree of the blindness.
>What an impressive answer to myquestion!
What is impressive about it? You seem to be of the same faith as John Vidale when he said, "he does not believe plate tectonics is true"
It is as expression from a believer of how absurd they find it you do not believe in their god.
>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >Date: 2/20/03 4:49 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <ljq95v8tcg5t8kutabermjj876mft2a...@4ax.com>
>On 20 Feb 2003 10:49:46 GMT, bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) >wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >>>From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.reich...@web.de >>>Date: 2/20/03 12:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >>>Message-id: <b329oc$1gska...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
>>>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >>>> spirality of transforms? >>>> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and >>>> become a fact? >>>> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
>>> What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know >>>that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>>>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >>>> spirality of transforms?
>>>As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate >>>continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what >>>you mean.
>>Heck, even those of us for who English is out native language don't >understand >>him.
>>He doesn't make much sense to us either..
>In a year and a half of reading opposition post to your position, it >can be shown little makes sense to you , but your own opinion.
>JT
Whatever you say troll.
Many people have stated they can't understand what he's getting at.
Probably neither does he.
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >Date: 2/20/03 4:44 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <ncq95v4l0gh13kv8n8pj2043s7c5svd...@4ax.com>
>On 20 Feb 2003 10:54:10 GMT, bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) >wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >>>From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >>>Date: 2/19/03 3:37 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >>>Message-id: <6kb85vsh42gohop5t90ememd80l0ge4...@4ax.com>
>>>On 19 Feb 2003 19:45:35 GMT, bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) >>>wrote:
>>>>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >>>>>From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >>>>>Date: 2/19/03 5:35 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >>>>>Message-id: <vq875vghjumnfvsa2k2l380od62kv67...@4ax.com>
>>>>>>Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
>>>>>For your part, you could answer the original question I ask. It is >>>>>quantifiable and if you do not know how, or cannot, you are not >>>>>qualified to answer the question.
>>>>>So when you will, or can, then maybe your personal opinions will have >>>>>some weight.
>>>>>JT
>>>>Hey JT, why not post your evidence that the ocean basins have uniform ages >>>as >>>>you've claimed.
Hi Don, Thanks for the reply and links, they certainly answered some of my questions. I'll be honest, I feel there is a hell of alot more data to support PT than your explanation, but hey, that's fine. Keep on with what you believe. I'm sure you will :) . As we all know, the sciences don't get far with unanimous agreement across the board. Right now I'm a geology undergrad in the US. You would like to know that our profs. present ideas as "theory" not fact. They do a great job of keeping the data and interpretations seperate.
> > 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and > > spirality of transforms? > > 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and > > become a fact? > > 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
> What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know > that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
> > 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and > > spirality of transforms?
> As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate > continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what > you mean.
> > 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and > > become a fact?
> For me it is a fact. I have no doubt. So many facts support the the > assumption of subduction processes. For example, the assotiated volcanism, > earth quakes (and the earth quakes show the pattern of subducted plate > toward to the depth!, until the subducted plate becomes ductile).
> > 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding? > This (as you know?!) is a matter of the specific weight. The oceanic crust: > 3g/cm-3, the continental crust: 2,7g/cm-3.
> Best regards,
> Joerg
Hi Joerge,
Don't worry about those other two. Stuart's just demonstrating his commitment to Archimedes by choosing this time to be on the dense side. Usually it's hot air, ..when he's not sledging other people. I don't know about Michael the Thaumaturge though. Maybe I need to polish up my iambic pentameter, ..but I thought I really waxed quite lyrical when I was spelling out the /nonsense.html. of plate tectonics. (make a mental note to try harder).
I mean that the ridge transforms make up a single set of structures that can be traced around the globe in a more or less continuous band, i.e., there are individual '*segregate' transform elements (single transform faults) and then there is their connected '*aggregate' form, which is really just the ridge structure, but broader. So we can talk about the continuity of 'segregates' (the individual transforms) (e.g. Line 1 here:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion1.html> and the continuity of 'aggregates' (the aggregate form) (e.g. the 'along-the-ridge' continuity of those in the Atlantic ('front' view further down the same page).
Now, plate tectonics sees fit to divide up the crust into "a number of plates", but when you consider the elements of ridges and transforms that are supposed to mark one plate from another, there's no justification for separation at all. For example, based on ridges and transforms, there is no justification for discriminating the South American plate from the North American Plate. Also, take the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and the connector of the Southeast Indian Ridge (SIR). Even although the SIR meets the Indian Ocean Ridge in a so-called 'triple junction' (I'm not sure that's the way to look at it, but anyway..) the three ridges, Atlantic, SIR, and Indian, are dynamically connected through their transforms (through their aggregate parallelism, ... through the continuity of their aggregate structure) (see the set of six on same page link above). In fact you can trace the continuity of parallel transforms all the way from the north pole (nearly) of the Atlantic, through the South Atlantic, to the Indian, Southern and Pacific Ocean, and right up to Alaska - "...one set of transforms in 'aggregate continuity". Meaning when you step from one transform to the next all the way along the line they are all parallel clones of each other. Sure the direction of the *segregate transform elements are different, say in the North Pacific, compared to segregates in the Indian Ocean, but when you take their summed *aggregate form, then there is a *parallelism, and a *continuity. They are in 'aggregate parallel continuity' or just aggregate continuity. And that means something (the picture on the /nonsense.html page helps (I hope). (red lines) in <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html>)
So if all the ocean floors have this imprint of a single set of transforms ( and a related ridge) then it doesn't make sense to divide it up into a series of plates. It is, in effect, one plate. The further point is that this single set of transforms has its imprint in the crust (white lines in that <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html> figure), so this 'one plate' is the mantle and the crust together. One plate.
So the point is (1) that plate tectonics ignores this 'single set'aggregate-ness of the transforms that makes the Earth's crust into a single plate, and, furthermore, (2) ignores the rotational symmetry that it plainly shows. If plate tectonics takes these two 'staring-you-in-the-face' things into account, then plate tectonics is not about what it says it is. There is only one plate, in torsional disruption.
In the final analysis, it boils down to how we see so-called 'subduction' zones. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the 'zone' bit. 'Benioff' was nice because it carried no behavioural baggage. 'Benioff zone' is a fact, and unlike subduction zone is not a code word to demonstrate allegiance to consensus. It's the 'sub-duction' I take issue with. I try to show on my other pages that these zones can be interpreted in a way that relates directly to the distension of the continents that we can directly see - not to any supposed 'shove-down' terminal demise of ocean floor. This puts the accent on the geological, rather than on the physical/ numerical. All it is (to me) is a cold slab of frozen mantle with movement and earthquakes on it. That 'turn-down' is just like a big 'meniscus' of a sort, and the crust is sitting on/ against it, and even over-riding it. There is no mechanical difference at the interface (between crust riding over and mantle pushing under), but there's a *big difference in the larger tectonic picture ('skating' versus convective overturn - and implications (or not) for Earth expansion). Question:- if there's no real tectonic difference at the interface there, why, in the ('scientific') literature, is there not as much discussion of the one possiblity as the other? Answer? - because if you don't talk plate-speak, your publication rate goes down - drammatically. Simple. It would be nice to think that science is what science says science is about. But it ain't. Even in the way it presents itself, science is being disingenous. Hence my subversive page. Hope that explains things.
bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message <news:20030220054946.27504.00000001@mb-cg.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. > >From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.reich...@web.de > >Date: 2/20/03 12:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time > >Message-id: <b329oc$1gska...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
> >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and > >> spirality of transforms? > >> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and > >> become a fact? > >> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
> > What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know > >that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
> >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and > >> spirality of transforms?
> >As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate > >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what > >you mean.
> Heck, even those of us for who English is out native language don't understand > him.
...'for *whom', Stuart, ..for *whom. .....
> He doesn't make much sense to us either..
(Better take a seat at the front of the class - and pay more attention!)
Question for you: if the decay rate of these 'bad elements' of HizNibz Heat is fastest when there's mostest, why have we had to wait so long for this 'convection' to get under way? - there are no pre-Mesozoic ocean foors like we see today (except for maybe a bit in the Archaean, yet plate tectonics is all about Laurasia, Laurentica and Baltica/ Rodinia - and God (and Pteros)only know how many in Absentia. Plates (and microplates) all over the place. Indeed. Come on now, what delay factor do you have to add on to your Taylor Number to explain this one (plates going on at the surface, without the convection underneath) when the mantle is like "industrial steel"? What conductivity does the mantle need to have, to explain this delay? And is it different at the poles compared to the equatorial region? Is it different in different shell -layers (multilevel convection)? And if this 'delay' is par for the course, where are we headed, if things are just beginning to get up a head of steam? When does Gravity Serious put the hems on this Hiz fellow? Not a peep out of you till you answer this one. Don.
>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) >Date: 2/20/03 4:29 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <5f164087.0302201829.10fd7...@posting.google.com>
>bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message ><news:20030220054946.27504.00000001@mb-cg.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >> >From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.reich...@web.de >> >Date: 2/20/03 12:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >> >Message-id: <b329oc$1gska...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
>> >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >> >> spirality of transforms? >> >> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and >> >> become a fact? >> >> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
>> > What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know >> >that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>> >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >> >> spirality of transforms?
>> >As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate >> >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what >> >you mean.
>> Heck, even those of us for who English is out native language don't >understand >> him.
>...'for *whom', Stuart, ..for *whom. .....
LOL touche'
>> He doesn't make much sense to us either..
>(Better take a seat at the front of the class - and pay more >attention!)
OK..
Its Ok if you make up your own excpressions.. but when you do that you must explain what they mean, instead of leaving us guessing..
>Question for you: if the decay rate of these 'bad elements' of HizNibz >Heat is fastest when there's mostest, why have we had to wait so long >for this 'convection' to get under way? -
Convection has been with us since the get go. THe Earth has large stores of radiogenic power and thermal energy.
there are no pre-Mesozoic
>ocean foors like we see today
(except for maybe a bit in the Archaean,
>yet plate tectonics is all about Laurasia, Laurentica and Baltica/ >Rodinia - and God (and Pteros)only know how many in Absentia. Plates >(and microplates) all over the place. Indeed. Come on now, what delay >factor do you have to add on to your Taylor Number to explain this one >(plates going on at the surface, without the convection underneath) >when the mantle is like "industrial steel"?
THe argument from personal disbeleif is not a scientific argument.
I'm so sorry you are not interested in learning, but that is your fault.
What conductivity does
>the mantle need to have, to explain this delay?
WHat delay?
Do you claim that because there is no oceanic floor older than 220 million years, that convection didn't start until then? Funny nobody else thinks that, and certainly nobody who accepts PT thinks that either.
You can find older crust, its called ophiolite.
I think its about time you've read something written in the last 20 years on geophysics.
For until you do, watching you argue against plate tectonics is like watching a one legged man in an butt kicking contest.
<snip>
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:13:25 GMT, Goldtr...@golden-nevada.net
(Goldtrend) wrote: >I guess Ad Hominem attacks are the basis for his scientific discussions. >Obviously data just gets in the way of off-the-wall geologic models.
Obviously? This thread was about plate tectonics. Which means your "off-the-wall geologic models" would be in reference to PT. Hard to imagine, since you have expressed endorsement for PT, or perhaps you are not paying attention, or maybe you hope those whom read your post are not, or maybe again, it is an example of the reasoning which lead you to endorse PT? Or most likely, you think by not paying attention and poor reasoning you cast dispersions upon some other view!
Also, those whom open with ad hominem arguments, as Stuart frequently does, have already proved they are an idiot, and while it maybe in poor taste to point it out, it is none the less a correct assessment.
>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: J. Taylor j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net >Date: 2/20/03 5:16 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <v35b5vo4u5rbvv3a8fto4ngf1d5vm5e...@4ax.com>
>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:13:25 GMT, Goldtr...@golden-nevada.net >(Goldtrend) wrote:
>>I guess Ad Hominem attacks are the basis for his scientific discussions. >>Obviously data just gets in the way of off-the-wall geologic models.
>Obviously? This thread was about plate tectonics. Which means your >"off-the-wall geologic models" would be in reference to PT. Hard to >imagine, since you have expressed endorsement for PT, or perhaps you >are not paying attention, or maybe you hope those whom read your post >are not, or maybe again, it is an example of the reasoning which lead >you to endorse PT? Or most likely, you think by not paying attention >and poor reasoning you cast dispersions upon some other view!
>Also, those whom open with ad hominem arguments, as Stuart frequently >does,
ad hominem?
Hardly. I merely point out the obvious.
<snip>
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:13:25 GMT, Goldtr...@golden-nevada.net >(Goldtrend) wrote:
>>I guess Ad Hominem attacks are the basis for his scientific discussions. >>Obviously data just gets in the way of off-the-wall geologic models.
>Obviously? This thread was about plate tectonics. Which means your >"off-the-wall geologic models" would be in reference to PT. Hard to >imagine, since you have expressed endorsement for PT, or perhaps you >are not paying attention, or maybe you hope those whom read your post >are not, or maybe again, it is an example of the reasoning which lead >you to endorse PT? Or most likely, you think by not paying attention >and poor reasoning you cast dispersions upon some other view!
>Also, those whom open with ad hominem arguments, as Stuart frequently >does, have already proved they are an idiot, and while it maybe in >poor taste to point it out, it is none the less a correct assessment.
> Hi Don, > Thanks for the reply and links, they certainly answered some of my > questions. I'll be honest, I feel there is a hell of alot more data to > support PT than your explanation, but hey, that's fine. Keep on with what > you believe. I'm sure you will :) . As we all know, the sciences don't get > far with unanimous agreement across the board. > Right now I'm a geology undergrad in the US. You would like to know that our > profs. present ideas as "theory" not fact. They do a great job of keeping > the data and interpretations seperate.
> EC
Eagle, Here's the figure I had in mind re your query on hotspots. The 'data' here lies in the comparison of the aggregate distribution of the hotspots (Fig.1) with 'Line 1" in Fig. 2) <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/hotview.html> . ...And of course the other lines on the /nonsense.html page. Don. Good luck, young buddy! Keep an eye on the changing 'data' too. (You'll be surprised....)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:45:11 GMT, Gerard Fryer <ger...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>In article <v35b5vo4u5rbvv3a8fto4ngf1d5vm5e...@4ax.com>, > J. Taylor <j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>> Or most likely, you think by not paying attention >> and poor reasoning you cast dispersions upon some other view!
>I don't get it. Don't all thoughts travel at the same speed?
Interesting, seems it would depend upon the definition of thought and how speed was measure, relative to what.
However, if it is assumed all thought does travel at the same speed, then the force of impact would depend upon mass. If all thought is assumed to have the same mass, then penetration would depend upon the density of the material it impacted.
These are fun and insightful questions. First, it is important to note that ony a very small part of the rocky Earth (mantle + crust) is molten. The melting temperature increases quite rapidly with depth (pressure) making melting possible only at a very few select locations: where the temperature changes very rapidly with depth. This occurs in two spots in the mantle: just below the lithosphere, where the melts are generated to produce our crust, and possibly at the very bottom of the mantle, where seismologists see seismic properties consistent with a partial melt. In the asthenosphere, where the temperature increase with depth overcomes the increase in melting temperature with depth solely due to convection (which ramps of the geothermal gradient there), the melts are never higher than a few percent, since larger melt fractions can move in between crystal grains and rise rapidly up to the surface. Their ability to segregate (i.e. move with respect to the solid crystalline matrix) is proportional to their density difference as well as to some power of their total volume fraction.
It is important to note that freezing out of this few percent will have little effect on the pressure. Actually, the less dense melt contains the same total amount of mass that the solid does, and this is the more important thing to consider since gravity is fairly constant in the mantle.
Decompression melting only occurs if it is adiabatic. Adiabatic means that it is transported quickly enough toward the surface that the heat inside the material cannot diffuse quickly enough out into the surrounding mantle material, and so you bring hot material up until it is above the melting temperature. This is thought to be the primary mechanism for melting at mid-ocean ridges.
The other thing to note is that a good deal of melting can be produced by other effects, such as the presence of hydrogen or other volatiles that lower the melting temperature of mantle materials substantially. This is thought to be the primary mechanism for producing melt at subduction zones as water-bearing amphiboles become unstable at higher pressures and release water into the overlying mantle wedge above the downgoing slab.
Pressure CAN help produce melting in some special circumstances. This would require the melt to become more dense than the solid that produces it, which can be accomplished if the melt is more compressible (squishy) than the solid crystals at increasing pressures. This is called a "density crossover" and is known to occur in many substances. We don't think that this occurs in the asthenosphere of the Earth, however it may be responsible for melting at the very bottom of the mantle. A while back some petrologist proposed this happening in the asthenosphere, but subsequent tests showed this not to be the case.
The last thing to crystallize as the Earth cools depends on many factors that we don't really know very well. Perhaps the outer liquid core will crystallize last.
The presence of melt in the asthenosphere may affect the overall effective fluid viscosity of the material there and help to create plate-like behavior. It seems that plate tectonics could probably go on without this effect, but it may change some things in a subtle way. The thing is that most of the mantle is completely crystalline, but yet it flows vigorously enough to make most of what we see happen in the plate tectonic world we live in.
You can find some published estimates of these time scales if you want...though you may have to read hundreds of papers and do a significant amount of math to get a number that is not all that interesting or even certain in the end.
eaglecleveland wrote: > Hi. > First time posting. So many questions.
> If the Earth is losing its remnant heat of formation, then would you say > that eventually all the magma in the Earth would eventually crystallize? > But if that happens, the cooler, crystallized rock would be more dense, > exerting more pressure on the rock below. I am aware that it is > *depressurization* that causes melting in the asthenosphere, but could some > melting occur (in my hypoth. situation) due to the addition of pressure? > (Directly or indirectly) > Or does the addition of pressure never cause melting?
> Also, what would crystallize last? Closer to the surface? or at depth? > Or, would something else happen at these great pressures?
> One last thing, now that we have the Earth crystallized, how would the > tectonic process be affected? For example, spreading ridges might stop > spreading. Convergence of plates might continue for a while due to > slab-pull. This may induce some tensional forces at the trailing margins, > leading to some rifting, depressurization, and widening (or new) spreading > zones.
> Obviously, the solution would not be simple, and would rely on many factors. > Is there any (published) estimates out there on how this may happen, and how > long this all might take? > Thanks for any thoughts. > EC
> WHat delay? > Do you claim that because there is no oceanic floor older than 220 million > years, that convection didn't start until then? Funny nobody else thinks that, > and certainly nobody who accepts PT thinks that either.
Delay? I mean (as I said) that if most radiogenic heat is released at the start, and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries) aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and ridges? Cite any 'fossil spreading ridge' of the same order of magnitude of those at the present day.
> You can find older crust, its called ophiolite.
The few yards you're probably referring to won't qualify. Cite an ophiolite belt of the same order of magnitude as the present-day ocean floor. The ones you're referring to are more easily incorporated as gravitational collapse structures, not as 'obducted'sheets, as plate tectonics would see them.
> I think it's about time you read something written in the last 20 years on > geophysics. For until you do, watching you argue against plate tectonics is > like watching a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.
Do you? Question for you then (seeing you're so uppity):- How would plate tectonics (and the geophysics of the last twenty years) (and you) modify its position to accommodate extension *along* the the ridges (as well as across them)? Don. (beginning with the spinach)
>> WHat delay? >> Do you claim that because there is no oceanic floor older than 220 million >> years, that convection didn't start until then? Funny nobody else thinks >that, >> and certainly nobody who accepts PT thinks that either.
>Delay? I mean (as I said) that if most radiogenic heat is released at >the start,
The production of radiogeneic heat is controlled by the abundances of radioactived isotopes and nuclear physics. So yes the Earth was producing more radiogenic heat and convecting more vigorously in the distant past.
and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you
>get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries) >aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and >ridges?
WHy should they be. As usual you're not making much sense. Cratons are a patchwork of ig-met terranes. If anything they are assembled by subduction which brings continents togethar, not ridges..
Cite any 'fossil spreading ridge' of the same order of
>magnitude of those at the present day.
I cannot fathom the confusion of mind that would lead you believe that a fossil ridge is something that should be found.
>> You can find older crust, its called ophiolite.
>The few yards you're probably referring to won't qualify. Cite an >ophiolite belt of the same order of magnitude as the present-day ocean >floor.
Why does it need to be the same order of magntiude as the present ocean floor?
This is waht is known as *moving the goal posts*. You ask for evidence of past oceanic crust production and you were given it.
The ones you're referring to are more easily incorporated as
>gravitational collapse structures, not as 'obducted'sheets, as plate >tectonics would see them.
Collapse structures?
Collapse from what?
>> I think it's about time you read something written in the last 20 years on >> geophysics. For until you do, watching you argue against plate tectonics >is >> like watching a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.
>Do you? Question for you then (seeing you're so uppity):- How would >plate tectonics (and the geophysics of the last twenty years) (and >you) modify its position to accommodate extension *along* the the >ridges (as well as across them)?
If you referring to ridges growing along strike, this is called *propagating rifts*. Funny, but there is no problem incorporating them into PT, they are an expected consequence.
Google *propagating rift*. Google is your friend.
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
>>> WHat delay? >>> Do you claim that because there is no oceanic floor older than 220 million >>> years, that convection didn't start until then? Funny nobody else thinks >>that, >>> and certainly nobody who accepts PT thinks that either.
>>Delay? I mean (as I said) that if most radiogenic heat is released at >>the start,
>The production of radiogeneic heat is controlled by the abundances of >radioactived isotopes and nuclear physics. So yes the Earth was producing >more >radiogenic heat and convecting more vigorously in the distant past.
> and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you >>get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries) >>aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and >>ridges?
>WHy should they be. As usual you're not making much sense. Cratons are a >patchwork of ig-met terranes. If anything they are assembled by subduction >which brings continents togethar, not ridges..
> Cite any 'fossil spreading ridge' of the same order of >>magnitude of those at the present day.
>I cannot fathom the confusion of mind that would lead you believe that a >fossil >ridge is something that should be found.
What you could conceivably find is a *failed rift*, a place where spreading initiated, but then stoppedf. If this were to happen in a continental interior, you'd have something like the African rift (although that is still rifting but rather slowly). In this case the rift is much, much younger than the African cratons, and presumably not what you mean by *fossil rift*. Another example may be found in the Indus basin, but again the rift is much younger than the basement rocks.
If this is what you mean, then yes, there are *fossil rifts* although they are usually called *failed rifts*.. If you mean rifts that date from the formation of continental cratons, than no. Not to my knowledge
You don't expect to find much fossil oceanic floor; oceanic lithosphere as it is ages becomes gravitationally unstable. As such it doesn't last long on the surface, only ~200 myr. THis is why fossil oceanic crust aka ophiolite, is rare.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message <news:20030225144227.29763.00000351@mb-ch.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. > > So yes the Earth was producing more > >radiogenic heat and convecting more vigorously in the distant past.
> > and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you > >>get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries) > >>aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and > >>ridges?
> >WHy should they be. As usual you're not making much sense. Cratons are a > >patchwork of ig-met terranes. If anything they are assembled by subduction > >which brings continents togethar, not ridges..
Well that's the point... .... Convection makes ridges, transforms and subduction zones. So far as we see at the present day (weak convection) the action has been to pull the Earth apart to the extent of two thirds of its surface area (and just look at those ridges, and all those transforms). In the past (so far as plate tectonics would have it) the action (strong convection) has been to *pull all the continents (floaties) together. What happened though, where they got 'pulled apart' *from? Why do we see no evidence of it, in a form such as we see the pulling apart at the present day? The question doesn't just apply to cratons either by the way, but to every age since. (The answer of course is that it didn't happen, because Plate Tectonics is a furphy). Oh it did? But everyone knows it's daft to look for evidence of it? ..because by definition the evidence is destroyed? ( At least faeries leave a ring of toadstools?) Immaculate plate tectonics eh?
> > Cite any 'fossil spreading ridge' of the same order of > >>magnitude of those at the present day.
> >I cannot fathom the confusion of mind that would lead you believe that a > >fossil > >ridge is something that should be found.
No fossil ones? What about an active one then? Any ridge at all will do. Come up with some real ridgie-didge field-evidence for plate tectonics in the past. A plate, a ridge, a 'transform' - anything. ....One plate, mate - it's all ever been ..one 'plate', ...with tectonics on it (but that's not what plate tectonics means, does it, yet, ...though that's the direction the GPS is pointing - one plate in rotational expansional rupture <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/madagascar.html#platemov>
> What you could conceivably find is a *failed rift*, a place where spreading > initiated, but then stoppedf. If this were to happen in a continental interior, > you'd have something like the African rift (although that is still rifting but > rather slowly). In this case the rift is much, much younger than the African > cratons, and presumably not what you mean by *fossil rift*. Another example may > be found in the Indus basin, but again the rift is much younger than the > basement rocks.
> If this is what you mean, then yes, there are *fossil rifts* although they are > usually called *failed rifts*.. If you mean rifts that date from the formation > of continental cratons, than no. Not to my knowledge
No, I don't want failed rifts. I want to see evidence of continental separation (not just subsidence) in as much detail as we see supposed evidence of continents coming together (mountain belts supposedly).
> You don't expect to find much fossil oceanic floor; oceanic lithosphere as it > is ages becomes gravitationally unstable. As such it doesn't last long on the > surface, only ~200 myr. THis is why fossil oceanic crust aka ophiolite, is > rare.
Aww, Stuart.! C'mon, ..So, and replaced what with? Rolling over and so to bed? - with all the floaties getting dragged over the top, like blankets? Whose are the feet sticking out of the bottom, on this constant-sized bed? "Rare", that's the point (scale problem).
Propagating rifts:- No I didn't mean 'propagating rifts/ ridges' actually (or 'duelling propagating rifts') but since you've raised them it's a rather delicious point that plate tectonics has to 'invent' (or 'discover' - mid-nineties - just 30-40 years late...) that the ridges actually do have to spread along their length (however in true fashion it's screwed that one up too, as far as 'how' is concerned.). In Earth expansion it's an obvious prediction that this would be the case - ridges have to extend along their length as well as across them. I would have thought it's pretty clear from the configuration on the ocean floors that 'propagating ridges' are just a trick of section, ...just simply represent the breakthrough of a lower stratum of the mantle, like a whale breaking water off its back. But no, ... I meant that if it could be shown that ridges extend along the 'body' of their length (not propagate from their supposed head/ tip), how would that affect plate tectonics? ( I don't see anyhow, as far as I understand your notions of heat uplift of ridges, how, in the dynamics of so-called 'propagating tips' you can avoid the notion of breakthrough of a lower layer. And if you think about that, there are, shall we say, funny implications for plate tectonics. If, on the other hand, we take it as it seems to read (or animate) <http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~hey/juan.html> it doesn't make a heck of any sense, when you look at it in the context of the seamounts all the way to Alaska, or the interdigitation of 'oblique' with 'regular' transforms, and it doesn't fit with the standard plate tectonic model (quote) :- "...The competing school said plate tectonics did not work in this area where the young Juan de Fuca plate was converging with and being subducted under the North American plate, and this was the scale where rigid plate tectonics broke down, with the faults resulting from this deformation." (unquote). So anyhow, no, I didn't mean propagating rifts at the head - I meant bone implants in the shins. Looking for an answer on that one - lengthwise ridge spreading - not propagation. Don. PS. This is all about boudinage you know - extension of multilayered assemblages. Writ large, in the field (of the ocean floor). If you google your wee friend on that one, you can get in a bit of practice for the next topic.
>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) >Date: 2/26/03 4:12 AM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <5f164087.0302260612.3c609...@posting.google.com>
>bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message ><news:20030225144227.29763.00000351@mb-ch.aol.com>... >> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >> > So yes the Earth was producing more >> >radiogenic heat and convecting more vigorously in the distant past.
>> > and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you >> >>get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries) >> >>aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and >> >>ridges?
>> >WHy should they be. As usual you're not making much sense. Cratons are a >> >patchwork of ig-met terranes. If anything they are assembled by subduction >> >which brings continents togethar, not ridges..
>Well that's the point... .... Convection makes ridges, transforms >and subduction zones. So far as we see at the present day (weak >convection) the action has been to pull the Earth apart to the extent >of two thirds of its surface area (and just look at those ridges, and >all those transforms). In the past (so far as plate tectonics would >have it) the action (strong convection) has been to *pull all the >continents (floaties) together.
The evidence suggest the continents were assembled into super-continents several times in the past.
What happened though, where they got
>'pulled apart' *from? Why do we see no evidence of it, in a form such >as we see the pulling apart at the present day?
Good grief.. African rift for example.
<more strawmen snipped>
TO bad you refuse to educate yourself.. Before you criticize a theory, you should make an honet attempt to undertand it first.
You haven't done so. I have given you references, you refuse to read them.
Until you do, you're still that proverbial one legged man in a butt kicking contest.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message <news:20030226160046.08549.00000369@mb-mu.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. > >From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) > >Date: 2/26/03 4:12 AM Hawaiian Standard Time > >Message-id: <5f164087.0302260612.3c609...@posting.google.com>
> >bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message > ><news:20030225144227.29763.00000351@mb-ch.aol.com>... > >> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. > >> > So yes the Earth was producing more > >> >radiogenic heat and convecting more vigorously in the distant past.
> >> > and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you > >> >>get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries) > >> >>aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and > >> >>ridges?
> >> >WHy should they be. As usual you're not making much sense. Cratons are a > >> >patchwork of ig-met terranes. If anything they are assembled by subduction > >> >which brings continents togethar, not ridges..
> >Well that's the point... .... Convection makes ridges, transforms > >and subduction zones. So far as we see at the present day (weak > >convection) the action has been to pull the Earth apart to the extent > >of two thirds of its surface area (and just look at those ridges, and > >all those transforms). In the past (so far as plate tectonics would > >have it) the action (strong convection) has been to *pull all the > >continents (floaties) together.
> The evidence suggest the continents were assembled into super-continents > several times in the past.
Suggests? ....But... But,... M'lud. ...?M'lud,
> What happened though, where they got > >'pulled apart' *from? Why do we see no evidence of it, in a form such > >as we see the pulling apart at the present day?
> Good grief.. African rift for example.
Yeah, ..what about the African rift? Is it a failed rift? A rift precursor yet to open? Or a failed back-arc basin over a defunct subduction zone? The beauty of Plate tectonics is such you need a paper bag and half light.
> <more strawmen snipped>
> TO bad you refuse to educate yourself.. Before you criticize a theory, you > should make an honet attempt to undertand it first.
> You haven't done so. I have given you references, you refuse to read them.
If this 'theory' built on 'the suggestion of evidence' would give credible explanations for the fundamental points detailed on the /nonsense.html page (link above), which PT conveniently omits together with explanations for extension along the *length of the ridges other than the ludicrous 'duelling propagations', I might consider it, but if that's the best PT can do with good field evidence (try to reconfigure it with a computer simulation), frankly I wouldn't bother with anything more than passing admiration for the inventiveness of Clever Dick. To me, it has little relevance to the field evidence.
> Until you do, you're still that proverbial one legged man in a butt kicking > contest.
So, you think that rift propagation deserves serious attention (despite the controversy noted on that link you scrubbed as a strawman <http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~hey/juan.html> - what have you got against Hawaii?), ... but you would rather not comment how propagating rifts fit with the architecture of convection? Well, your wee googlie friend doesn't have much to say on it either, so it seems to be another of those plate tectonic 'mushrooms'.
....And you think that extension *along the ridges is a straw man too? You have nothing to say? Stu, you're going to need those shin implants. But never mind, once you get them you can throw plate tectonics away. It's only only baggage anyway. I bet somebody somewhere is already writing up its obituary for publication in History of Philosophy of Science. Don.
|
