|
|
sci.geo.geology |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:13:32 +0100, "Jörg Reichert" > What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and >As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate This is really the reverse of the Emperor's New Clothes, in this case >> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and >For me it is a fact. I have no doubt. So many facts support the the JT >Best regards, >Joerg
<jo.reich...@web.de> wrote: The fact, Don has had to give it a name shows the depth of ignorance
>> 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?
>that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>> spirality of transforms?
>continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what
>you mean.
it has received, the other fact, it is plain as the nose on someone's
face is telling of the degree of the blindness.
the refusal to see something which is world wide and very plain.
All your "facts" have alternate explanations which need to be further
>> become a fact?
>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).
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.