Web Images Videos Maps News Groups Gmail more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
sci.geo.geology
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Earth Cooling.
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
J. Taylor  
View profile  
 More options Feb 21 2003, 2:03 am
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: J. Taylor <j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 07:03:39 -0800
Local: Fri, Feb 21 2003 2:03 am
Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:13:32 +0100, "Jörg Reichert"

<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....

JT

>> 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


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google