 |
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: d...@tower.net.au (Don Findlay)
Date: 29 Jan 2003 17:25:39 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 30 2003 12:25 pm
Subject: Question for the board
If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along
their length by an amount commensurate with that across the ridge, would that put plate tectonics up the Proverbial Creek without the Proverbial Paddle? Just asking.... DF 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.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: John Hernlund <hernl...@ess.ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:52:56 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 30 2003 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: Question for the board
Don Findlay wrote: Sure it would, but this is not the case with mid-ocean ridges, so it is > If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along > their length by an amount commensurate with that across the ridge, > would that put plate tectonics up the Proverbial Creek without the > Proverbial Paddle? > Just asking.... > DF a moot question. John H. 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.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: Louis Hissink <ljurra...@optushome.com.au>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:49:07 +1100
Local: Thurs, Jan 30 2003 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: Question for the board
On 29 Jan 2003 17:25:39 -0800, Don Findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along It would, but the tricky bit, the data......which I suspect you have > their length by an amount commensurate with that across the ridge, > would that put plate tectonics up the Proverbial Creek without the > Proverbial Paddle? > Just asking.... > DF otherwise you would not have raised this question. -- 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.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology, sci.geo.earthquakes, sci.physics
From: "Jean-Paul Turcaud" <mining_pion...@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:55:24 +0100
Local: Thurs, Jan 30 2003 11:55 pm
Subject: Re: Question for the board
Indeed that indicates that far from being only a Drift, what you observe But the question which should be put to all the Geological blokes ( the ARE YOU, BLOODY FOOLS, ABLE AT LONG LAST TO INTEGRATE THAT WE ARE IN 3 Apparently those chaps at Curtin, WA Uni or Murdoch _ closest to you then Go ahead Don. You may get a medal on top of it ! Best luck. jp ~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~ "Louis Hissink" <ljurra...@optushome.com.au> a écrit dans le message de 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.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology, sci.geo.earthquakes, sci.physics
From: "C. Alan Peyton" <capey...@swbell.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 21:23:57 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 3 2003 8:23 am
Subject: Re: Question for the board
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.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: d...@tower.net.au (Don Findlay)
Date: 30 Jan 2003 05:16:39 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 31 2003 12:16 am
Subject: Re: Question for the board
Louis Hissink <ljurra...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message <news:oprjsqb5ot579by4@news.optushome.com.au>... Would it though? Seriously... Don't you reckon convecting cells > On 29 Jan 2003 17:25:39 -0800, Don Findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: > > If it can be shown that the mid-ocean ridges have distended along > > Just asking.... > > DF > It would, but the tricky bit, the data......which I suspect you have **could convect along their length as well as across? I'm sure if they could 'do a radial' (like a diapir), then two directions should be just a piece of cake. (Well ok four.) Then you could have convective delamination going north (and/or south) under California as well as east west, or you could vector it diagonally and make another four. ...Basins in every direction and as far afield as you like (if EPR to Western Pacific subduction means anything). No probs. Things all zigackly as they should be! (Eh, b'jesus, ...just a tweak here and a finagle there..!) I know it's risking presenting pterotonics with it's 'piece de resistance'(unasked), but I need to know. (..I'm surprised Carey didn't deal with this one.) (Chewin' on spinach), Don. 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.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: J. Taylor <j...@gorge.NOSPAM.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:18:04 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 31 2003 4:18 am
Subject: Re: Question for the board
On 30 Jan 2003 05:16:39 -0800, d...@tower.net.au (Don Findlay) wrote:
Well, that is the way they work every where but in a theory needing a mechanism. In fact, the tar pit of Holmes inspiration, the convection radiated out in a circle. >I'm sure if There is only so much one man can do. >they could 'do a radial' (like a diapir), then two directions should >be just a piece of cake. (Well ok four.) Then you could have >convective delamination going north (and/or south) under California as >well as east west, or you could vector it diagonally and make another >four. ...Basins in every direction and as far afield as you like (if >EPR to Western Pacific subduction means anything). No probs. Things >all zigackly as they should be! (Eh, b'jesus, ...just a tweak here >and a finagle there..!) I know it's risking presenting pterotonics >with it's 'piece de resistance'(unasked), but I need to know. (..I'm >surprised Carey didn't deal with this one.) JT 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.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
From: "Louis Hissink" <ljurra...@optushome.com.au>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:48:12 +1100
Local: Fri, Jan 31 2003 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: Question for the board
news:5f164087.0301300516.1a160594@posting.google.com...
<news:oprjsqb5ot579by4@news.optushome.com.au>... > > On 29 Jan 2003 17:25:39 -0800, Don Findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote: I see, directional convection cells, hmm, how blindingly obvious. > surprised Carey didn't deal with this one.) --- 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.
| |||||||||||||