>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. >From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) >Date: 2/26/03 6:18 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <5f164087.0302262018.7cc0c...@posting.google.com>
>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,
But what? There's little doubt as to Pangea, and Rodinia is also pretty weel supported.
Google is your friend
>> 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?
Not exactly, its actively spreading at something like 3mm/yr
>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.
Yep an "A" for imagination, to bad their curiosity does not extend to explanation which work in the real world.
Would still like to know how one plate can move, due to spreading, which then forces the other plates to adjust their position, can have convection, welling up from hundreds of miles below the surface, be able to hit dead center the other ridges. It is even more amazing when the ridge is extensively fractured.
It is amazing because it would require the movement in this plate to match the movement along all of its edge. Otherwise, one should see the fractures going one direction then the other, depending upon which plate moved them.
However, if this happened, then there would be variations in the age gradient of the ocean crust. Of course, this is not happening, so how is it the ridges keep getting hit in the center when the other plates are suppose to be able to move them so they all can migrate to the subduction zones?
Or, JT you could attempt to understand the model you are trying to riducule. Spreading centers (ridges) are plate margins! As new seafloor is created at the spreading center, old, cold seafloor is subducted on the other. They are not passively riding on a plate, they are the edge of a plate where new material is being added.
As for the age gradient, 0 to 200 my years is a pretty substantial gradient, especially for a dynamic (not static) system that is constantly convecting new material to the surface, and subducting the old. Thew isotopic signature of carbon in diamonds is pretty good evidence subduction has been an active part of earth's history for a minimum of 3 billion years.
Goldtrend
In article <037r5v09ks8ls27vakqp1gt3f7tu5gs...@4ax.com>, j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net wrote:
>Yep an "A" for imagination, to bad their curiosity does not extend to >explanation which work in the real world.
>Would still like to know how one plate can move, due to spreading, >which then forces the other plates to adjust their position, can have >convection, welling up from hundreds of miles below the surface, be >able to hit dead center the other ridges. It is even more amazing >when the ridge is extensively fractured.
>It is amazing because it would require the movement in this plate to >match the movement along all of its edge. Otherwise, one should see >the fractures going one direction then the other, depending upon which >plate moved them.
>However, if this happened, then there would be variations in the age >gradient of the ocean crust. Of course, this is not happening, so how >is it the ridges keep getting hit in the center when the other plates >are suppose to be able to move them so they all can migrate to the >subduction zones?
bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message <news:20030226233437.11197.00000367@mb-fj.aol.com>... > You asked for an example of rift breaking up a continent. The mechanism is > quite irrelevant.
Really? You mean this African Rift could be due to something other than Radioactive Archimedes/ dynamic lifting/ magmatic forcing/ slabpull/ ridgepush... What pray? Could it have something to do with the SEPARATION OF MADAGASCAR from its SOUTHERN POSITION? <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/madagascar.html>
> You were supplied with one.
I got that one already. It's part of the one that goes all the way around and around and up and down. I want plate tectonics to show me an earlier one of equal magnitude - either a ridge in some continental interior - i.e. not a 'failed rift' but one that actually made it to ridge status, just like our darling of the present day, or, if this is closed, the corollary orifice round the other side. Come on now, they can't both be closed at once. Nobody will buy that one!
> Amazing the lengths some people go through to avoid honestly dealing with data.
What some people? Dealing honestly with the data here:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p1-page1.html> (No-one has yet contradicted any point made.) By comparison we've got Sister Fatima of the Tafetta Booth with her crystal ball doing pirouettes by the dozen, fighting off people wanting money back by the score, and still thinking if she just flashes her subduction zone everyone will "Wow!" and settle down. Stu, something New is Needed! Don't you get it? A whole new ball game for a whole new Century! This *is* science in action. Read all about it in forthcoming issues at the above link. Don.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:32:55 GMT, Goldtr...@golden-nevada.net
(Goldtrend) wrote: >Or, JT you could attempt to understand the model you are trying to riducule.
What is there to understand about the model? There is only one question, does it represent the Earth or not. The model is suppose to be the tool by which we gain understanding of the Earth.
If the model itself needs to be understood, then the most likely conclusion, the model is not clearly developed. Kind of like the drawings of a first grader where it is difficult to tell what they have drawn.
>Spreading centers (ridges) are plate margins! As new seafloor is created at >the spreading center, old, cold seafloor is subducted on the other.
The other what? Not every plate has a subduction zone on at least one edge.
Which means spreading at R1 will need to be all subducted at S1, or it will cause R2 to move. If R2 moves then the center of the ridge is no longer over what was below. Over time R2 is moved hundreds, if not thousands of miles from its location in the past. Yet, the age gradient does not show the spreading was ever at any other point than dead center of the ridge.
>They are >not passively riding on a plate, they are the edge of a plate where new >material is being added.
>As for the age gradient, 0 to 200 my years is a pretty substantial gradient, >especially for a dynamic (not static) system that is constantly convecting new >material to the surface, and subducting the old.
Here is the age gradient recorded in the ocean's crust.
200 - 150 - 100 - 50 - 0 - 50 - 100 - 150 - 200
If the ridge moves without telling the convection cells below, it seems the age gradient would be less "uniform"
200 - 50 -0 - 50 - 100 - 50 - 200
>Thew isotopic signature of >carbon in diamonds is pretty good evidence subduction has been an active part >of earth's history for a minimum of 3 billion years.
And if a constant rate of subduction is assumed of 200my 3/4 of the Earth's crust is sucked down each time, then 3 x 10^9 / 2 x 10^8 * .75 = 11.25 surfaces of the Earth have been placed and removed.
Of course, this assumes a constant rate based on the present, the rate would be much faster with a hotter Earth.
Since land plants did not appear until about half way into the Paleozoic, erosion rates would be different than today, but today's rate is estimated at about 25-40my to erode the continents down to sea level if no material is returned. Since the continents are still here, material seems to be returned. Africa does not appear to have had a subduction zone for 200my, which would be a means of recycling material. If the erosion rate 25my then it would have eroded 8 times to sea level in 200my. If 40my then 5.
The point, what ever the erosion rate, it all flows down hill and needs to be put back up if the cycle is to continue. Since subduction zones are located in a few locations what is keeping the cycle going on the continents without subduction zones?
In article <9q7s5voctbse6vfg0jt2jhtpsaum4mt...@4ax.com>, j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net wrote:
>What is there to understand about the model? There is only one >question, does it represent the Earth or not. The model is suppose to >be the tool by which we gain understanding of the Earth.
>If the model itself needs to be understood, then the most likely >conclusion, the model is not clearly developed. Kind of like the >drawings of a first grader where it is difficult to tell what they >have drawn.
More Sophistry, no content.
>>Spreading centers (ridges) are plate margins! As new seafloor is created at >>the spreading center, old, cold seafloor is subducted on the other.
>The other what? Not every plate has a subduction zone on at least one >edge.
>Which means spreading at R1 will need to be all subducted at S1, or it >will cause R2 to move. If R2 moves then the center of the ridge is no >longer over what was below. Over time R2 is moved hundreds, if not >thousands of miles from its location in the past.
>gradient does not show the spreading was ever at any other point than >dead center of the ridge.
>>They are >>not passively riding on a plate, they are the edge of a plate where new >>material is being added.
>>As for the age gradient, 0 to 200 my years is a pretty substantial gradient, >>especially for a dynamic (not static) system that is constantly convecting new
>>material to the surface, and subducting the old.
>Here is the age gradient recorded in the ocean's crust.
>200 - 150 - 100 - 50 - 0 - 50 - 100 - 150 - 200
>If the ridge moves without telling the convection cells below, it >seems the age gradient would be less "uniform"
Seeing as you continue to have trouble understanding ridge dynamics your supposition is false to begin with.
>200 - 50 -0 - 50 - 100 - 50 - 200
>>Thew isotopic signature of >>carbon in diamonds is pretty good evidence subduction has been an active part >>of earth's history for a minimum of 3 billion years.
>And if a constant rate of subduction is assumed of 200my 3/4 of the >Earth's crust is sucked down each time, then >3 x 10^9 / 2 x 10^8 * .75 = 11.25 surfaces of the Earth have been >placed and removed.
Actually, subduction rates probably were higher during the Archean. A lot of seafloor has been recycled. Carbon isotope data supports the long term dynamic PT on earth.
>Of course, this assumes a constant rate based on the present, the rate >would be much faster with a hotter Earth.
>Since land plants did not appear until about half way into the >Paleozoic, erosion rates would be different than today, but today's >rate is estimated at about 25-40my to erode the continents down to sea >level if no material is returned.
Sorry, I have seen estimated erosion rates, I have never seen erosion rates expressed as X million years to erode things to sea level, especially as Isotasy will keep continents rising until they reach equilibrium with the denser mantle. As the system is dynamic, the continents will never reach a permanent equilibrium as long as convection continues (essentially projected for the remaining life of the solar system). As a sidelight portions of the Northern continents are rising today, as rebound from the glacial ice sheets and the rise can be measured in cms./century. Your contention would only be valid in a static system.
>>What is there to understand about the model? There is only one >>question, does it represent the Earth or not. The model is suppose to >>be the tool by which we gain understanding of the Earth.
>>If the model itself needs to be understood, then the most likely >>conclusion, the model is not clearly developed. Kind of like the >>drawings of a first grader where it is difficult to tell what they >>have drawn.
>More Sophistry, no content.
Maybe you can enlighten all by proving your statement! Let s see if you know what you are talking about or just a pretender.
>>Which means spreading at R1 will need to be all subducted at S1, or it >>will cause R2 to move. If R2 moves then the center of the ridge is no >>longer over what was below. Over time R2 is moved hundreds, if not >>thousands of miles from its location in the past.
>No
> Yet, the age >>gradient does not show the spreading was ever at any other point than >>dead center of the ridge.
>>>They are >>>not passively riding on a plate, they are the edge of a plate where new >>>material is being added.
>>>As for the age gradient, 0 to 200 my years is a pretty substantial gradient, >>>especially for a dynamic (not static) system that is constantly convecting new
>>>material to the surface, and subducting the old.
>>Here is the age gradient recorded in the ocean's crust.
>>200 - 150 - 100 - 50 - 0 - 50 - 100 - 150 - 200
>>If the ridge moves without telling the convection cells below, it >>seems the age gradient would be less "uniform"
>Seeing as you continue to have trouble understanding ridge dynamics your >supposition is false to begin with.
>>200 - 50 -0 - 50 - 100 - 50 - 200
>>>Thew isotopic signature of >>>carbon in diamonds is pretty good evidence subduction has been an active part >>>of earth's history for a minimum of 3 billion years.
>>And if a constant rate of subduction is assumed of 200my 3/4 of the >>Earth's crust is sucked down each time, then >>3 x 10^9 / 2 x 10^8 * .75 = 11.25 surfaces of the Earth have been >>placed and removed. >Actually, subduction rates probably were higher during the Archean. A lot of >seafloor has been recycled. Carbon isotope data supports the long term >dynamic PT on earth.
>>Of course, this assumes a constant rate based on the present, the rate >>would be much faster with a hotter Earth.
>>Since land plants did not appear until about half way into the >>Paleozoic, erosion rates would be different than today, but today's >>rate is estimated at about 25-40my to erode the continents down to sea >>level if no material is returned.
>Sorry, I have seen estimated erosion rates, I have never seen erosion rates >expressed as X million years to erode things to sea level, especially as >Isotasy will keep continents rising until they reach equilibrium with the >denser mantle. As the system is dynamic, the continents will never reach a >permanent equilibrium as long as convection continues (essentially projected >for the remaining life of the solar system). As a sidelight portions of the >Northern continents are rising today, as rebound from the glacial ice sheets >and the rise can be measured in cms./century. Your contention would only be >valid in a static system.
I could spend days going over basic geologic concepts or you could take a geology 101 course and save us all the bandwidth.
Isostasy: Pretty basic concept, available in most geology 101 texts
Isotopic signature: You may need a 301 level text. A sub population of diamonds show a skewed abundance of light C-12 relative to promitive earth and meteorite concentrations. This skewing towards light carbon is indicative of organic processes. As the diamonds are found in Archean kimberlites that have picked up the diamonds from the mantle, they are evidence that a) life started on earth early in the history of the planet, and b) as no evidence has been found for mantle environment life, the carbon in the diamonds came from near surface organic sources, and was cycled into the mantle. Ages for the diamonds are based on inclusions in the diamonds, and the kimberlite pipes themselves.
As there is evidence for PT ( a potential for a long discourse on komatiitic volcanism) since Archean time, and the theory and observation (yes I said theory) has only been seriously looked at for <50 years, there is work to do yet, and not all potential plate interactions are necessarily active today.
Ultimately, in a dynamic system, where you have two spreading centers, located above convection cells, when the stress on the intervening plate becomes sufficent, a new subduction zone is likely to form between the two spreading centers. Examples today may be found around the Bismark sea, a rather complicated area that is an area of active research.
Have a great Day!
Goldtrend
In article <8oct5v4dfrf9r41iklgkhg3k1ejn8co...@4ax.com>, j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net wrote:
bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message <news:20030225144227.29763.00000351@mb-ch.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling. > 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.
Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be incorporated into the geological record of continental crust. You would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
...Anyhow, if the point of cooling at mid-ocean ridges is to **achieve gravitational stability, what is it about 'time' that makes the ocean floor gravitationally *unstable? Does Einstein get a mention here as well as Archimedes? Why the big 'flat' bit on the graph? Why doesn't it just *keep sinking directly off the ridges? Why does it have to flatten off and wait till it meets this knee-bend of the subduction zone?
And please explain the leger de main that shoves ophiolites *up on to the crust, when it is ocean floor and the impetus of ocean floor (being "gravitationally unstable" is to sink. Is the mantle having a last thermal hurrah, before descending? Is there a bend in time as well as the mantle, - Or what? D. (Clever Dick Plate Tectonics might be a good idea to some, but it's incorrigibly dumb when matching it to the essential field points. Which of course is why it is so appealing to some - it allows *them to speak - instead of the Earth.)
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:45:44 GMT, Goldtr...@golden-nevada.net
(Goldtrend) wrote:
>Hit a nerve, JT?
Hit a nerve? Hardly! If you would leave some continuity in the post it maybe possible to show where you make statements which undermine your contention of knowing what you are talking about.
You start by stating, if I took time to understand the model, to which I replied, the point to making a model is so what is being modeled can be understood, and if the model itself needs to be understood, then the model is not clearly developed, to which you reply sophistry, to which I reply prove it, since sophistry is about giving the appearance of being plausible, but is an invalid argument, since the conclusion does not follow from the premise, to which you have conveniently avoided.
Maybe you think models of models need to be made, so we can understand the model, not whether it actually represents anything.
The problem here is you would like me to accept your reasoning, but make declarative statement where you demonstrate fundamental errors about knowing anything about the words you use concerning reasoning.
>I could spend days going over basic geologic concepts or you could take a >geology 101 course and save us all the bandwidth.
I am sure you can, but based on your reasoning nothing more would be known than how you think.
Any way, what I am sure of is this is all lost on you. The true waste of bandwidth.
>> 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.
>Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the >Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be >incorporated into the geological record of continental crust.
And some of it is. What more do you want?
You
>would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to >include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
Why? An ocean basin subducts as continental masses approach each other. I'm not sure why you would routinely expect oceanic crust to be exposed in this process. One of the more recent collisions is India -Asia. Good luck finding oceanic crust there.
>...Anyhow, if the point of cooling at mid-ocean ridges is to **achieve >gravitational stability,
Cooling at mid-ocean ridges isn't to acheive anything. It happens. THe cooling of oceanic lithosphere is a mechanism by which the Earth releases its internal heat. Furthermore, cooling doesn't just occur at the ridges, although that is where the heat flow is most intense.
what is it about 'time' that makes the ocean
>floor gravitationally *unstable?
Cooling. As a result of the cooling it becomes denser.
Does Einstein get a mention here as
>well as Archimedes?
Err no. Should he?
> Why the big 'flat' bit on the graph?
What flat bit? What graph?
Why doesn't
>it just *keep sinking directly off the ridges?
Why should it sink directly off the ridges? Have you ever observed the process of convection?
Why does it have to
>flatten off and wait till it meets this knee-bend of the subduction >zone?
THe lithosphere has a substantially greater viscosity then the mantle below it, it in effect traps buoyancy. The viscosity of the lithosphere has an important effect on the wavelength of convection.
>And please explain the leger de main that shoves ophiolites *up on to >the crust, when it is ocean floor and the impetus of ocean floor >(being "gravitationally unstable" is to s
Is the mantle having a
>last thermal hurrah, before descending?
No. I suspect this happens on occasion when relatively young lithosphere clogs up a subduction zone. Some of the crustal layers get shaved off.
<snip>
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
JT, I'm always ready to discuss science, not listen to your circular sophistry. In the unedited, uncut message below, not a single word has to do with this thread, or the geology discussed in the previous post. You are guilty of doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing, avoiding substantive discussion or supporting your own arguments.
While PT is a theory, it does a good job of explaining many of the features we observe on earth and is a good predictive model. By the same token relativity is only a theory, but as a predictive model, it works very well.
I cited several observations that support PT. You haven't addressed any of them. I have yet to hear any observations cited that either a) support an alternative that is as good or better at explaing earth's features or b) put a dent in PT. While it is always a good thing to kick the tires periodically, I have yet to hear anything that is a viable alternative. When you come up with one that fits the data, and doesn't either violate laws of physics, or invent new laws, I want to hear it.
Enjoy your weekend!
Goldtrend
In article <j3506vodmr3t5acmu8flin4slt6fg93...@4ax.com>, j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:45:44 GMT, Goldtr...@golden-nevada.net >(Goldtrend) wrote:
>>Hit a nerve, JT?
>Hit a nerve? Hardly! If you would leave some continuity in the post >it maybe possible to show where you make statements which undermine >your contention of knowing what you are talking about.
>You start by stating, if I took time to understand the model, to which >I replied, the point to making a model is so what is being modeled can >be understood, and if the model itself needs to be understood, then >the model is not clearly developed, to which you reply sophistry, to >which I reply prove it, since sophistry is about giving the appearance >of being plausible, but is an invalid argument, since the conclusion >does not follow from the premise, to which you have conveniently >avoided.
>Maybe you think models of models need to be made, so we can understand >the model, not whether it actually represents anything.
>The problem here is you would like me to accept your reasoning, but >make declarative statement where you demonstrate fundamental errors >about knowing anything about the words you use concerning reasoning.
>>I could spend days going over basic geologic concepts or you could take a >>geology 101 course and save us all the bandwidth.
>I am sure you can, but based on your reasoning nothing more would be >known than how you think.
>Any way, what I am sure of is this is all lost on you. The true waste >of bandwidth.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 05:42:27 GMT, Goldtr...@golden-nevada.net
(Goldtrend) wrote:
Look you have already proven you do not know what you are talking about, the giving of evidence phase is closed. However, if you would like to show you can think, please post again.
>JT, I'm always ready to discuss science, not listen to your circular >sophistry. In the unedited, uncut message below, not a single word has to do >with this thread, or the geology discussed in the previous post. You are >guilty of doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing, avoiding >substantive discussion or supporting your own arguments.
>While PT is a theory, it does a good job of explaining many of the features we >observe on earth and is a good predictive model. By the same token relativity >is only a theory, but as a predictive model, it works very well.
>I cited several observations that support PT. You haven't addressed any of >them. I have yet to hear any observations cited that either a) support an >alternative that is as good or better at explaing earth's features or b) put a >dent in PT. While it is always a good thing to kick the tires periodically, I >have yet to hear anything that is a viable alternative. When you come up with >one that fits the data, and doesn't either violate laws of physics, or invent >new laws, I want to hear it.
>>Hit a nerve? Hardly! If you would leave some continuity in the post >>it maybe possible to show where you make statements which undermine >>your contention of knowing what you are talking about.
>>You start by stating, if I took time to understand the model, to which >>I replied, the point to making a model is so what is being modeled can >>be understood, and if the model itself needs to be understood, then >>the model is not clearly developed, to which you reply sophistry, to >>which I reply prove it, since sophistry is about giving the appearance >>of being plausible, but is an invalid argument, since the conclusion >>does not follow from the premise, to which you have conveniently >>avoided.
>>Maybe you think models of models need to be made, so we can understand >>the model, not whether it actually represents anything.
>>The problem here is you would like me to accept your reasoning, but >>make declarative statement where you demonstrate fundamental errors >>about knowing anything about the words you use concerning reasoning.
>>>I could spend days going over basic geologic concepts or you could take a >>>geology 101 course and save us all the bandwidth.
>>I am sure you can, but based on your reasoning nothing more would be >>known than how you think.
>>Any way, what I am sure of is this is all lost on you. The true waste >>of bandwidth.
> >> 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.
> >Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the > >Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be > >incorporated into the geological record of continental crust.
> And some of it is. What more do you want?
BIG MOBS
> You > >would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to > >include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
> Why? An ocean basin subducts as continental masses approach each other.
What has 'approach' got to do with anything if subduction's a matter of cooling? Asia and the Americas are the two biggest continents with the only bit of 'subduction' worth mentioning - and they are moving *away* from each other. What you mean is, *oceanic crust * (whether there's a continent involved sitting on the top piggibacked along for the ride is immaterial) has to meet a *subduction **zone*. But this is tectonically, not thermally, defined, ...in which case cooling has nothing to do with anything 'subductional' .
I'm not
> sure why you would routinely expect oceanic crust to be exposed in this > process.
I would expect oceanic crust to be exposed 'round the back'. Plate tectonics wants *all the continents to be on the *same side of the Earth *all the time, either being pulled apart or scrunched together. It doesn't allow that continents on one side can be breaking up (l;ike the Red Sea) at the same time as other continents on the other side are being pushed together (the 'pushing' which also develops the pulling apart of back-arc basins) - not when it comes to taking field evidence into account anyway. And I would expect these bits of ocean floor in the 'round-the-back' pull-apart zones would get caught up in the 'rumple-cloth mountain belts' that PT envisages. (Why don't gabbroic intrusions sink when they cool, dragging the crust down with them? )
> One of the more recent collisions is India -Asia.
India- Asia collision. Funny (when considering the field evidence rather than political correctness) that a lot of Asians favour gravitational collapse of the Himalayas over India. Plate tectonics likes the collision model but in the part of the world where mountain belts are biggest, bestest, and mostest, collision seems to be regarded as something of an abberation. The further away you get form it the more it falls into focus I suppose ("far- field tectonics").
> Good luck finding oceanic crust there.
That's right (ophiolites, ..the bits of uplifting mantle collapsing over the craton)
> >...Anyhow, if the point of cooling at mid-ocean ridges is to **achieve > >gravitational stability,
> Cooling at mid-ocean ridges isn't to acheive anything. It happens. THe cooling > of oceanic lithosphere is a mechanism by which the Earth releases its internal > heat. Furthermore, cooling doesn't just occur at the ridges, although that is > where the heat flow is most intense.
No, that's the point. If cooling is going on all over the ocean floors why don't we get a subduction zone when it's just 'cool enough', rather than have to wait till it supposedly reaches a continent before genuflecting? Because it's being pushed from behind (ridge-push)? Then why isn't it pushed up into mountain belts on the way? The ocean floors are relatively soft and ductile and should contort nicely, but apparently the idea is that this soft stuff has got tractional force enough to use a battering ram of a continent to do the job for it - and all the way from the Himalayan front to northernmost Russia! Without itself even showing a hint of distorsion.
<snipped>
> > Why the big 'flat' bit on the graph?
> What flat bit? What graph?
The time/ cooling graph writ large as the oceans floors - from the ridges down the slope, and on to the flat bit of the ocean floors, then a.a..aall the way to the nearest continent, where there might (or might not) be a subduction zone).
> Why doesn't > >it just *keep sinking directly off the ridges?
> Why should it sink directly off the ridges? Have you ever observed the process > of convection?
Yes, and it's remarkable the swirling that can go on underneath a completely still, undisturbed surface. ... Hardly an analogue for mountain building. What do the numbers say about how surface tension scales up in this case?
> Why does it have to > >flatten off and wait till it meets this knee-bend of the subduction > >zone?
> THe lithosphere has a substantially greater viscosity then the mantle below it, > it in effect traps buoyancy. The viscosity of the lithosphere has an important > effect on the wavelength of convection.
"Traps buoyancy"? Isn't this having your cake and eating it (swirling convection beneath a still surface)?
> >And please explain the leger de main that shoves ophiolites *up on to > >the crust, when it is ocean floor and the impetus of ocean floor > >(being "gravitationally unstable" is to s
> Is the mantle having a > >last thermal hurrah, before descending?
> No. I suspect this happens on occasion when relatively young lithosphere clogs > up a subduction zone. Some of the crustal layers get shaved off.
I thought subduction was supposed to be a smoothly oiled machine. If there are forces making it 'clog up' at all, it would be expected to happen Big Time now and then. It's a bit ad hoc compared to the alternative model of gravitational collapse. Don.
On 1 Mar 2003 04:00:05 -0800, d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote: <snip>
>> No. I suspect this happens on occasion when relatively young lithosphere clogs >> up a subduction zone. Some of the crustal layers get shaved off.
>I thought subduction was supposed to be a smoothly oiled machine. If >there are forces making it 'clog up' at all, it would be expected to >happen Big Time now and then. It's a bit ad hoc compared to the >alternative model of gravitational collapse. >Don.
Would not the subduction zones have to plug up? Otherwise, how was it possible all the continents were pushed together to form the super continent.
And if subduction zones plug up, what happens to spreading in the mean time? This really places a constraint upon the system since subduction is already over worked and in only a few locations in the world.
Can imagine the ocean crust's shock to travel for 200my, only to find the exit closed.
JT, again, all invective, no substance in your response. All I have proved is that you love to throw around rhetoric, but you are weak on substance. I'm ready to discuss geology and exchange ideas when you are.
Have a great weekend!
Goldtrend
In article <a5j06vocb2ug6ep8f534ope6fpb9e0i...@4ax.com>, j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 05:42:27 GMT, Goldtr...@golden-nevada.net >(Goldtrend) wrote:
>Look you have already proven you do not know what you are talking >about, the giving of evidence phase is closed. However, if you would >like to show you can think, please post again.
>> >> 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.
>> >Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the >> >Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be >> >incorporated into the geological record of continental crust.
>> And some of it is. What more do you want?
>BIG MOBS
TO bad.
You can't always get what you want. Especially if the theory doesn't predict that.
>> You >> >would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to >> >include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
>> Why? An ocean basin subducts as continental masses approach each other.
You know Don, much of what you write below can be answered by a geo sophomore. And much of it has already been explained to you, and to no avail.
There is really no point in continuing a discussion with you, when you refuse to bring yourself up to date.
For you, PT is a black box, for the rest of his who *actually* understand it, it is a well-supported theory.
When you have read books, like "Behavior of the Earth" by Allegre or Seismology and Plate Tectonics by Gubbins or preytell even a few chapters of Mantle Convection by Schubert, Trucotte and Olson..
then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
> >> >> 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.
> >> >Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the > >> >Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be > >> >incorporated into the geological record of continental crust.
> >> And some of it is. What more do you want?
> >BIG MOBS
> TO bad.
> You can't always get what you want. Especially if the theory doesn't predict > that.
> >> You > >> >would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to > >> >include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
> >> Why? An ocean basin subducts as continental masses approach each other.
> You know Don, much of what you write below can be answered by a geo sophomore. > And much of it has already been explained to you, and to no avail.
> There is really no point in continuing a discussion with you, when you refuse > to bring yourself up to date.
> For you, PT is a black box, for the rest of his who *actually* understand it, > it is a well-supported theory.
> When you have read books, like "Behavior of the Earth" by Allegre or Seismology > and Plate Tectonics by Gubbins or preytell even a few chapters of Mantle > Convection by Schubert, Trucotte and Olson..
> then we can have a meaningful discussion.
> Stuart
Well, Stuart, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink drink it. Especially when he has his mind in a vise. We both have tried to make the imbiciles realize that PT is a result of decades of thinking how the continents of this Earth are how the way they are. I am about out of this discussion until some of these hardheads realize that the mechanism of movement of the materials on the surface are a result of interEarthal convection and that subduction does exist, as is portrayed at all of the areas of the Earth, such as the various deep troughs around the globe. I once was responsible for shooting a seismic line across the Philippine trough, guess what? It was deep and the subducting plate went out of sight at a time of 7 seconds. Recording 7 seconds in the early 80's was quite a feat. Imagine that. I have also had my crews shoot across subduction areas (zones). Very, very noticable with seismic in the northern part of the South China Sea. So good, our Chief Geologist went on to deliver courses on PT and these were some of his examples.
> You know Don, much of what you write below can be answered by a geo sophomore.
<snipped>
Well, that's *exactly* the point. You've hit it on the nail. These are precisely the sorts of questions that shoolchildren *do ask, but the answers they get (and give back) are *exactly the ones you give, which have nothing to do with geology, but just refer to the model that is supposed to describe it. Which is the point JT is making: answers to questions about models are supposed to be found in the geology - not in further descriptions of the model itself. All your answers revolve around cooling and buoyancy, and flow rates and ductility, and so forth. If the theory sounds fine to some, it certainly doesn't wash when it comes to relating to actual geology, ...not without huge discrepancies, conundrums, and outright contradictions. These are even held by plate tectonics as a virtue, demonstrating that work needs to be done "to further consolidate the model" and so extend its authority - on the basis that "what you get is what you pay for" maybe. The reality is, that answers to so-called 'difficult questions' are usually pretty simple, providing the right questions are asked to begin with, but plate tectonics offers only convolutions. The so-called 'predictiveness' of plate tectonics is only to the degree that it is so flung-about and serendipity in relation to geological connection that any ad hoc adjustment to it can be easily made. It's like the days of the geocentric system (epicyles), no matter how much is built on it, the fundamental assumption remains rubbish. And geologically speaking the fundamental assumption is subduction (i.e. carrying down by convection), versus 'overriding; or otherwise contact deformation on the Benioff. Geological support for plate tectonics is contrived and co-erced, eternally throwing up still more 'areas-for-research' (read "problems" - John Hernlund saying a bit back he (starry-eyed groupie) could go on for a year reciting evermore as if this was laudable, when to my mind a good model presents the research community with something of a problem - what to do for an encore, ...not an opportunity for further diversification within the paradigm. The exchanges you've had with Dennis McCarthy well illustrate the way that the theory and the facts talk past each other. Plate tectonics theory can't be faulted within its own incestuous convectional reference frame, but face it with the geological record and it resorts to transparent absurdites (e.g.'duelling propagators' - you have to wonder whether a lot of that stuff is written tongue-in-cheek in a need for publish-and-be- damned). The Mesozoic to the present *is substantially different from what has gone before in that it is by far the most volcanically active period of the Earth's history (possibly with the exception of the early Archaean), manifest in the creation of ocean floors as we know them today, i.e. floored by basalt, not seas floored by continental crust. From the viewpoint of the geological record this volcanism *is exceptional. However from plate tectonics theory point of view, it is not exceptional in the least - the evidence for it has simply been destroyed, ...doesn't exist. Well, anyone can see the difference between Geological Record speaking, and Clever Dick.
So who do we believe in this dialogue? A whole new lexicon is being developed, as if the answer lies in understanding a whole new geology - convection and ocean floors. In that order. At first-order scales, ocean floors are pretty simple - what you see is what you get, and are as we have known them for a long time. They are not the key. What *is the key is their relationship to the continental crust, and what goes on (and went on) within it. It's this that plate tectonics severs when it disregards the aggregate continuity of transforms. I haven't had any substantive answer to any question of the ilk that schoolchildren will ask when they try to relate 'pan-of-soup' (POS) to geological reality. But by the same token I don't have a clue what model would serve for Earth Expansion either. But I do think that the view that we shouldn't even look at the question unless we can manufacture an answer from what we already know is asinine, (scientifically) reprehensible, and speaks of the high art of who's-looking-at-who political correctness, rather than 'science'. It's really time for plate tectonics, secure in its pre-eminence (in theory), to come clean about its geological uncertaintainties, and it would be a whole lot better and more constructive if it did this little exercise in falsification itself, rather than having them shoved down its throat by people who "don't understand" its finer points. For example, how did the first transform form? The second one? How many might form at once? What determines their spacing? Are they bottom up, or top down? Precursors in the continental crust? Then where are the relict reams of them such as we see in the oceans? Why don't expanding ridges stopper up, same as subduction zones (are supposed to. Why isn't there a 'dead' one laying around? And so on. DF "..dealing honestly with the data and keeping it in the realm of geology and out of the ad-cookery of Ptero's kitchen."
> > Stuart > Well, Stuart, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink > drink it. Especially when he has his mind in a vise. We both have tried to > make the imbiciles realize that PT is a result of decades of thinking how > the continents of this Earth are how the way they are. I am about out of > this discussion until some of these hardheads realize that the mechanism of > movement of the materials on the surface are a result of interEarthal > convection and that subduction does exist, as is portrayed at all of the > areas of the Earth, such as the various deep troughs around the globe. I > once was responsible for shooting a seismic line across the Philippine > trough, guess what? It was deep and the subducting plate went out of sight > at a time of 7 seconds. Recording 7 seconds in the early 80's was quite a > feat. Imagine that. I have also had my crews shoot across subduction areas > (zones). Very, very noticable with seismic in the northern part of the > South China Sea. So good, our Chief Geologist went on to deliver courses on > PT and these were some of his examples.
> Alan
So, Alan, ...what then *is the mechanical difference on the *interface, between subduction and over-riding? (We'll deal with GPS and the VLBI later.) Or what is the difference between the marginal effects of diapir collapse and subduction? Or how many iteratives of cell return are made before we have (taraan!) Convection (and not just simple uplift with peripheral adjustment)? And if the uplift of ridges is so wide, why is the subduction bit so narrowly knife-edged? And if it's so knife-edged, what does that great red splodge on the tomography <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/pi-page1.html> signify? And if there have indeed been "decades of thinking" gone into this subduction business, what advance has there been over the rumplecloth tectonics of a century ago, to explain the connection between subducting plates and the interior deformation of continents?
Can *You tell me the answer to these (thorny) questions? Nobody else seems to want to, so ...Speak, o Font! The floor is yours. What is the 'it' that you want me to drink so doubly of? Neddy.
> We both have tried to > make the imbiciles realize that PT is a result of decades of thinking how > the continents of this Earth are how the way they are.
Result of decades of thinking? Is this something like channelling, where everybody holds hands and humms an 'Ommms' to try to change the world? I thought it was only magmatists that channelled, to make nickel deposits occur how they do. ...Ah-so, ..so channelling can also make convection currents go around, and wheech continents from one side of the world to the other. What next? Pendulums and ouija boards maybe.
Decades of thinking? Parrotting more like. (...Parrots.)
Which reminds me of the centuries of thinking that rejected Gallileo's controversial idea that, perhaps, the planets moved around the sun, than the earth.
Which further reminds me of the elephant and the three blind men story....., and the distinct possibility that PT, EE, CE (cooling earth) advocates are all describing the same thing. The key is "time".
Think about it.
LH
--
---------------------------------------------------- This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com
> > >> >> 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.
> > >> >Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the > > >> >Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be > > >> >incorporated into the geological record of continental crust.
> > >> And some of it is. What more do you want?
> > >BIG MOBS
> > TO bad.
> > You can't always get what you want. Especially if the theory doesn't > predict > > that.
> > >> You > > >> >would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to > > >> >include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
> > >> Why? An ocean basin subducts as continental masses approach each other.
> > You know Don, much of what you write below can be answered by a geo > sophomore. > > And much of it has already been explained to you, and to no avail.
> > There is really no point in continuing a discussion with you, when you > refuse > > to bring yourself up to date.
> > For you, PT is a black box, for the rest of his who *actually* understand > it, > > it is a well-supported theory.
> > When you have read books, like "Behavior of the Earth" by Allegre or > Seismology > > and Plate Tectonics by Gubbins or preytell even a few chapters of Mantle > > Convection by Schubert, Trucotte and Olson..
> > then we can have a meaningful discussion.
> > Stuart > Well, Stuart, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink > drink it. Especially when he has his mind in a vise. We both have tried to > make the imbiciles realize that PT is a result of decades of thinking how > the continents of this Earth are how the way they are. I am about out of > this discussion until some of these hardheads realize that the mechanism of > movement of the materials on the surface are a result of interEarthal > convection and that subduction does exist, as is portrayed at all of the > areas of the Earth, such as the various deep troughs around the globe. I > once was responsible for shooting a seismic line across the Philippine > trough, guess what? It was deep and the subducting plate went out of sight > at a time of 7 seconds. Recording 7 seconds in the early 80's was quite a > feat. Imagine that. I have also had my crews shoot across subduction areas > (zones). Very, very noticable with seismic in the northern part of the > South China Sea. So good, our Chief Geologist went on to deliver courses on > PT and these were some of his examples.
"Louis Hissink" <ljurra...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message <news:3eb0f120$0$27135$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>... > Which reminds me of the centuries of thinking that rejected Gallileo's > controversial idea that, perhaps, the planets moved around the sun, than the > earth.
> Which further reminds me of the elephant and the three blind men story....., > and the distinct possibility that PT, EE, CE (cooling earth) advocates are > all describing the same thing. The key is "time".
> Think about it.
> LH
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------- > This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador > from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com
> > > >> >> 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.
> > > >> >Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could > the > > > >> >Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be > > > >> >incorporated into the geological record of continental crust.
> > > >> And some of it is. What more do you want?
> > > >BIG MOBS
> > > TO bad.
> > > You can't always get what you want. Especially if the theory doesn't > predict > > > that.
> > > >> You > > > >> >would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to > > > >> >include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
> > > >> Why? An ocean basin subducts as continental masses approach each > other.
> > > You know Don, much of what you write below can be answered by a geo > sophomore. > > > And much of it has already been explained to you, and to no avail.
> > > There is really no point in continuing a discussion with you, when you > refuse > > > to bring yourself up to date.
> > > For you, PT is a black box, for the rest of his who *actually* > understand > it, > > > it is a well-supported theory.
> > > When you have read books, like "Behavior of the Earth" by Allegre or > Seismology > > > and Plate Tectonics by Gubbins or preytell even a few chapters of Mantle > > > Convection by Schubert, Trucotte and Olson..
> > > then we can have a meaningful discussion.
> > > Stuart > > Well, Stuart, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink > > drink it. Especially when he has his mind in a vise. We both have tried > to > > make the imbiciles realize that PT is a result of decades of thinking how > > the continents of this Earth are how the way they are. I am about out of > > this discussion until some of these hardheads realize that the mechanism > of > > movement of the materials on the surface are a result of interEarthal > > convection and that subduction does exist, as is portrayed at all of the > > areas of the Earth, such as the various deep troughs around the globe. I > > once was responsible for shooting a seismic line across the Philippine > > trough, guess what? It was deep and the subducting plate went out of > sight > > at a time of 7 seconds. Recording 7 seconds in the early 80's was quite a > > feat. Imagine that. I have also had my crews shoot across subduction > areas > > (zones). Very, very noticable with seismic in the northern part of the > > South China Sea. So good, our Chief Geologist went on to deliver courses > on > > PT and these were some of his examples.
> > Alan
...Ah, that's right, I'd forgotten about these two bovver boys trampling my flowers. Not a peep either in answer to any objections:-
...just intent on roughing up in the best bovver tradition. And not much of a peep either as regards the general alternative:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p1-page1.html> (though I could probably dig up a few for the record - and just might)
Thanks for the reminder Louis. Won't be long till the Earth's expanding after all. Then we can have some fun resurrecting who said what. Meanwhile, some of you clever-number wallahs out there could maybe exercise a bit of foresight, and work out how theories of atmospheric turbulence and pressure variables across the globe could possibly help understand how the mixed layers down to the transition zone are affected (the weather dragging past my front door). You'd better be quick though, otherwise you're going to be just Johnny-come-latelies - JPT's gone off to write his book on the LAW OF UNIVERSAL PRESSURE, to which this is just a sidekick. And what's more, he'll do it so others can understand it, not tie it up in the omnipotent "Let such and such be such" gobbledegook you lot use.
And when you've done that, put the mass-creation part aside, and just try to work out how the *volumetric aspect *might tie in - from core to surface.
That'll do to be going on with. Admittedly the mass bit could be tricky, but the volumetric/ configurational aspect should be within everyone's grasp. And on the way, what about revisiting that objection to Mr Cagle, who's saying that the connection between the growth of the ocean floor and the magnetic field is more than just as you lot would have it, a tape of the Rolling Stones. (Time to press the 000 reset button on this 'Science' maybe.... what do you reckon?)
findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > Thanks for the reminder Louis. Won't be long till the Earth's > expanding after all. Then we can have some fun resurrecting who said > what. Meanwhile, some of you clever-number wallahs out there could > maybe exercise a bit of foresight, and work out how theories of > atmospheric turbulence and pressure variables across the globe could > possibly help understand how the mixed layers down to the transition > zone are affected (the weather dragging past my front door). You'd > better be quick though, otherwise you're going to be just > Johnny-come-latelies - JPT's gone off to write his book on the LAW OF > UNIVERSAL PRESSURE, to which this is just a sidekick. And what's > more, he'll do it so others can understand it, not tie it up in the > omnipotent "Let such and such be such" gobbledegook you lot use.
> And when you've done that, put the mass-creation part aside, and just > try to work out how the *volumetric aspect *might tie in - from core > to surface.
> That'll do to be going on with. Admittedly the mass bit could be > tricky, but the volumetric/ configurational aspect should be within > everyone's grasp. And on the way, what about revisiting that > objection to Mr Cagle, who's saying that the connection between the > growth of the ocean floor and the magnetic field is more than just as > you lot would have it, a tape of the Rolling Stones. (Time to press > the 000 reset button on this 'Science' maybe.... what do you reckon?)
> L O L (!)
> df.
Each dipole reversal or excursion sequence has been followed by an expansion episode. JPT's Universal Pressure concept is his own particular madness. He's caught in it and it likely won't let him go or more correctly he won't let it go.
What you'll be seeing preceding or simultaneously with an expansion episode is a great solar maximum which will emit sufficient CMEs and solar flares to stimulate the Earth's EMT (electromagnetotoroid) into a mode change from the present E-loop mode which produces a magnetic dipole to the H-loop mode which will produce the features of a large scale electric dipole. During the H loop mode the Earth's EMT will begin to generate mass in the form of hundreds of millions of tons of neutrons per second.
The subsequent rapid rise in lithospheric tension will produce a variety of woes for mankind including the mechanical unlatching of orogens that are presently mechanically latched in positions which are far above isostasy. You'll see the rapid subsidence of whole mountain chains worldwide; Hawaii will go down in a day. The innundation of the Brahmaputra and Ganges flood plains by tsunami waves will drown a hundred million people in a single day. With the magnetic field down and with the Earth's EMT in the electric dipole mode extreme particle acceleration from solar flares will scorch the ground in polar and northern and southern temperate zones. Large flux loop systems emerging out of the core will produce localized zones of extreme darkness because of the charge separation effect of the loop's gravitational field. The collapse of such loops will bring about horrific releases of energy (the Earth's equivalent of a solar flare) via Earth flux loop flaring. Violent Earthquakes, tsunamis, strange sights in the sky (flux loop effects), solar scorching and more will devastate the biosphere and will kill two thirds of mankind.
The large scale electric dipole effect will produce rapid catastrophic polar cooling fostering the beginning of a new glacial period.
|
