|
|
sci.geo.geology |
> > 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and > How would you then explain volcanic arcs? Hot spots? Peleomagnetic dating of > Thinking of myself of a budding "good" scientist, I've read your alternative > > Thus far these three have not attracted much response from supporters > I can see why. There's no data! 'Spirality'/ 'spiral symmetry' = pics on this page you will already Volcanic arcs? You mean island arcs of the Western Pacific? Then I Or continental margin magmatic arcs (e.g. South American Andes)? Like Hot spots? I think so-called 'hot spots' (as they are termed these Palaeomagnetic dating of oceanic crust? Not sure exactly what you Field data/ no data? Links above, .. most importantly the first one. eaglecleveland <eagleclevel...@netscape.com> wrote in message <news:MhX4a.56601$9U3.46628@twister.nyroc.rr.com>... ___________________________
> don findlay wrote:
> > 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?
> oceanic crust?
> hypotheses. Where is your field data to back it up. Or is it just a guess?
> > of plate tectonics, not any that would satisfy many children I'm sure.
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...?)
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>
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.)
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.
mean.. What about it?
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..?)