Message from discussion Earth Cooling.

Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!tethys.csu.net!nntp!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: J. Taylor <j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net>
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 07:03:39 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <hvq95vkivf0ut56ddptd0jff1ddu9266rm@4ax.com>
Reply-To: j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
References: <Avi4a.84188$Xr1.19327433@twister.nyroc.rr.com> <b2tbek$1fh382$1@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de> <_RA4a.35$%r1.8@twister.nyroc.rr.com> <5f164087.0302190239.45a9b53f@posting.google.com> <b303h2$1h6nh7$1@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de> <5f164087.0302191642.1e65e663@posting.google.com> <b329oc$1gskat$1@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 56

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
>