If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along their length by an amount commensurate with that across the ridge, would that put plate tectonics up the Proverbial Creek without the Proverbial Paddle?
Don Findlay wrote: > If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along > their length by an amount commensurate with that across the ridge, > would that put plate tectonics up the Proverbial Creek without the > Proverbial Paddle?
> Just asking....
> DF
Sure it would, but this is not the case with mid-ocean ridges, so it is a moot question.
On 29 Jan 2003 17:25:39 -0800, Don Findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along > their length by an amount commensurate with that across the ridge, > would that put plate tectonics up the Proverbial Creek without the > Proverbial Paddle?
> Just asking....
> DF
It would, but the tricky bit, the data......which I suspect you have otherwise you would not have raised this question.
Indeed that indicates that far from being only a Drift, what you observe ( with data up you sleeve of course ) is NOT a drifting but a streching ! In a streching of course and remaining on a two dimensional appraisal, of two points in relation to one another, one appears to be drifting ! Correct ?
But the question which should be put to all the Geological blokes ( the Oxfod, ANU, MITH etc bullocks included ) IS :
ARE YOU, BLOODY FOOLS, ABLE AT LONG LAST TO INTEGRATE THAT WE ARE IN 3 DIMENSIONAL ENVIRONMENT !
Apparently those chaps at Curtin, WA Uni or Murdoch _ closest to you then _ , are still as well reasonning in term of Flat Earth ! I think someone got to take his courage with him, walk to Nedlands etc and break the news to the poor sods ! I am sure after the initial surprise, they will celebrate you and that most important breaking news !
Go ahead Don. You may get a medal on top of it !
Best luck. jp
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
> On 29 Jan 2003 17:25:39 -0800, Don Findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along > > their length by an amount commensurate with that across the ridge, > > would that put plate tectonics up the Proverbial Creek without the > > Proverbial Paddle?
> > Just asking....
> > DF
> It would, but the tricky bit, the data......which I suspect you have > otherwise you would not have raised this question.
> > If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along > > their length by an amount commensurate with that across the ridge, > > would that put plate tectonics up the Proverbial Creek without the > > Proverbial Paddle?
> > Just asking....
> > DF
> It would, but the tricky bit, the data......which I suspect you have > otherwise you would not have raised this question.
Would it though? Seriously... Don't you reckon convecting cells **could convect along their length as well as across? I'm sure if they could 'do a radial' (like a diapir), then two directions should be just a piece of cake. (Well ok four.) Then you could have convective delamination going north (and/or south) under California as well as east west, or you could vector it diagonally and make another four. ...Basins in every direction and as far afield as you like (if EPR to Western Pacific subduction means anything). No probs. Things all zigackly as they should be! (Eh, b'jesus, ...just a tweak here and a finagle there..!) I know it's risking presenting pterotonics with it's 'piece de resistance'(unasked), but I need to know. (..I'm surprised Carey didn't deal with this one.) (Chewin' on spinach), Don.
>> > If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along >> > their length by an amount commensurate with that across the ridge, >> > would that put plate tectonics up the Proverbial Creek without the >> > Proverbial Paddle?
>> > Just asking....
>> > DF
>> It would, but the tricky bit, the data......which I suspect you have >> otherwise you would not have raised this question.
>Would it though? Seriously... Don't you reckon convecting cells >**could convect along their length as well as across?
Well, that is the way they work every where but in a theory needing a mechanism. In fact, the tar pit of Holmes inspiration, the convection radiated out in a circle.
>I'm sure if >they could 'do a radial' (like a diapir), then two directions should >be just a piece of cake. (Well ok four.) Then you could have >convective delamination going north (and/or south) under California as >well as east west, or you could vector it diagonally and make another >four. ...Basins in every direction and as far afield as you like (if >EPR to Western Pacific subduction means anything). No probs. Things >all zigackly as they should be! (Eh, b'jesus, ...just a tweak here >and a finagle there..!) I know it's risking presenting pterotonics >with it's 'piece de resistance'(unasked), but I need to know. (..I'm >surprised Carey didn't deal with this one.)
> Indeed that indicates that far from being only a Drift, what you observe > ( with data up you sleeve of course ) is NOT a drifting but a streching ! > In a streching of course and remaining on a two dimensional appraisal, of > two points in relation to one another, one appears to be drifting ! Correct > ?
> But the question which should be put to all the Geological blokes ( the > Oxfod, ANU, MITH etc bullocks included ) IS :
> ARE YOU, BLOODY FOOLS, ABLE AT LONG LAST TO INTEGRATE THAT WE ARE IN 3 > DIMENSIONAL ENVIRONMENT !
> Apparently those chaps at Curtin, WA Uni or Murdoch _ closest to you then > _ , are still as well reasonning in term of Flat Earth ! > I think someone got to take his courage with him, walk to Nedlands etc and > break the news to the poor sods ! > I am sure after the initial surprise, they will celebrate you and that most > important breaking news !
> Go ahead Don. You may get a medal on top of it !
|
