Earth Cooling. - sci.geo.geology

Message from discussion Earth Cooling.

Bigdakine

View profile

More options Feb 21 2003, 1:43 pm

Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology

From: bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)

Date: 21 Feb 2003 02:42:36 GMT

Local: Fri, Feb 21 2003 1:42 pm

Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

>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"

Reply to author Forward