eaglecleveland <eagleclevel
...@netscape.com> wrote in message <
news:MhX4a.56601$9U3.46628@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> don findlay wrote:
> > 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
> > spirality of transforms?
> What are you talking about? 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?
> How would you then explain volcanic arcs? Hot spots? Peleomagnetic dating of
> oceanic crust?
> Thinking of myself of a budding "good" scientist, I've read your alternative
> hypotheses. Where is your field data to back it up. Or is it just a guess?
> > Thus far these three have not attracted much response from supporters
> > of plate tectonics, not any that would satisfy many children I'm sure.
> I can see why. There's no data!
___________________________
'Spirality'/ 'spiral symmetry' = pics on this page you will already
have seen
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html > Or do you reckon
like John Vidale there that those lines mean nothing? (But the little
active bits at the ridges do...?)
Volcanic arcs? You mean island arcs of the Western Pacific? Then I
see them like this:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/bab.html>
...and like this:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/alaska.html>
Or continental margin magmatic arcs (e.g. South American Andes)? Like
this:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p2-page2.html> (North and South
America in pre-scissored position (joined at the hip). (Neither sort
of 'volcanic arc' should be thought of in terms of plate tectonics.)
Hot spots? I think so-called 'hot spots' (as they are termed these
days - different from the original entry in Seyfert's Encyclopedia of
Plate tectonics - in line with PT finagling things that don't fit -
shifting the goal posts) directly reflect the rupture of Pangaea and
resulting hemispherical adjustment. I'll post an illustration.
Palaeomagnetic dating of oceanic crust? Not sure exactly what you
mean.. What about it?
Field data/ no data? Links above, .. most importantly the first one.
More added as we go. All factual/ field data will support Earth
expansion ( excludes obvious assumptions like subduction and
convection)(Benioff *Zone and Heat-Related Uplift OK). If you say
"There's no data", what sort of **field data would you like to see?
Meantime you might like to check out Dennis McCarthy's supporting
references:-
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=expanding+earth&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&...>
(join up if broken)
DF.
Answers to the above three questions still sought from all young buds,
new growth, old growth, dead and even fossilized wood. ( Might the
forest yet mutter..?)