 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / June 2006Plate Tectonics:- (No credible mechanism - 1.)
So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's ridiculous. Starting over *PLATE TECTONICS - NO CREDIBLE MECHANISM - 1* Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):- It goes like this:- the ocean plate moves along till it meets a continent, the continent (/continental lithosphere) bends it down forcing the slab to sink. ..... <*stop right there*> <Come again?> Sure, ....it's a bit crude (and it is for schools) but that's basically the reason why consensus says that subduction occurs on the continental edge where the mantle plate meets the continental lithosphere: the overriding plate pushes it down, converting it to eclogite which makes it sink (easier) ('ridge-push' later) 1. The crust floats on the mantle 2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink 3. The sinking mantle ('slab' as it is now called) drives convection. 4. Convection drives plate tectonics. 5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around. Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa. http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/8550c373aa5b9d72 Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm 'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what it says. It matters not what the up-part of the cycle is, unless it goes down it is not convection. If it just comes up, then it's just rise (diapiric rise : 'plume'). It has to go back down and around more than one cycle to be convection - right? And what makes it go down (on a continental edge)? Well, that's what jpl-nasa / usgs says:- the floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down. I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed? ------------------------ *Claim:- 1 strike* Plate Tectonics has no credible mechanism for the return of the convecting cell on continental margins - or anywhere for that matter. For if it doesn't get pushed down to the eclogite transition, then it doesn't sink.. ------------------------ > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. Did you read mine? Parts of it were odd, but most of it was on topic. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e > 917d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink > 3. The sinking mantle ('slab' as it is now called) drives convection. No, that's not correct. The core of the earth is hot. The mantle is fluid. Very viscous, but fluid nevertheless. Convection is the process of rising currents of mantle material bringing heat up to the crust and in other places sinking currents sometimes bringing surface stuff with them. > 4. Convection drives plate tectonics. > 5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates > > Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around. That's an incorrect description. > Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we > haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/8550c373aa5b9d72 http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/228bee840c7a6c81?hl =en& That's just one scientist, quoted not in entirety, to prove your point. You're quote-mining. > Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm > 'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what > it says. I've got a hockey game to go to; I'll try to find out what this rocket scientist said about geology later. > It matters not what the up-part of the cycle is, unless it > goes down it is not convection. If it just comes up, then it's just > rise (diapiric rise : 'plume'). It has to go back down and around more > than one cycle to be convection - right? And what makes it go down > (on a continental edge)? Well, that's what jpl-nasa / usgs says:- the > floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down. No, that's what that one guy seems to say. Most others others say different. > I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed? I agree. The way you deliberately misrepresent plate tectonics in order to try to falsify it is silly. BTW, your phrase "no credible mechanism" is falsifiable. All it takes to falsify it is one credible counterexample, and I've presented it.  SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > Did you read mine? Parts of it were odd, but most of it was on topic. Yes I did. You had a number of reply-posts there, most of which were replying to others who were responding to an empty space (in a generally derisory way). I had said nothing - just that I would be, shortly, to which you did reply directly:- "Mantle convection is a perfectly good mechanism. People smarter than you who know how to calculate such things have done so and found that it ought to work." and other general vacuous and disparaging remarks, within which were some valid points to do with the geological 'facts'/ 'evidence', which was off-topic for the thread of the moment and will be dissected later when we deal with that particular aspect. Right now this thread is about the onus being on you to defend the mechanism of plate tectonics, in particular the bit about descent of the convection cycle. It is not about my defence of expansion. I highlight this part of Plate Tectonics (and others have said so too) to be nonsense. This thread is about dissecting plate tectonics and your remark above doesn't cut it form me. The tenet is stated by plate tectonics - that the action of the floating crust crust pushing the mantle down drives plate tectonics which breaks up the crust. Note it is not me saying it, ..this is what Plate Tectonics itself says about the return cycle (we'll deal with the up-cycle later). Do you hold it to be supportable? If you say "obviously not", *THEN* can you give your own version of why the oceanic plate subducts on a continental margin? Why doesn't it sink before it reaches? ..or later. > > 1. The crust floats on the mantle > > 2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mantle material bringing heat up to the crust and in other places > sinking currents sometimes bringing surface stuff with them. Again, we are not talking about the up-cycle. We are talking about the down-cycle, and how Plate Tectonics rationalises its position > > 4. Convection drives plate tectonics. > > 5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates > > > > Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around. > > That's an incorrect description. It's not a description, it's a rational conclusion from those points: Point 5 looks like it had something missing. It was intended to complete the cycle by saying something like Plate Tectonics is what breaks up the crust. > > Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we > > haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's just one scientist, quoted not in entirety, to prove your point. > You're quote-mining. The quote does not refer to Klaus, but to the consensus position within my response to his post, which is how jpl-nasa (and many others) represent it. 'Mining' or no, it's what the position is. If you complain I am taking it out of context on account of the -up and along- part of the cycle, then as I say we'll deal with that later, but as it stands, it stands. > > Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm > > 'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No, that's what that one guy seems to say. Most others others say > different. You mean the fellow/ sophomore writing the page? Say different? Do they? Like what? What is the mechanism whereby the subduction zone is initiated on a continental margin? > > I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed? > > I agree. The way you deliberately misrepresent plate tectonics in order > to try to falsify it is silly. I'm not misrepresenting anything. That's what Plate Tectonics says, in many more authoritative sites than that too - I just chose it it because it is demonstrably 'consensus'. The onus is now on you to represent it properly. Otherwise the strike stands. > BTW, your phrase "no credible mechanism" is falsifiable. All it takes to > falsify it is one credible counterexample, and I've presented it. If you did, I missed it. Can you repeat it and we'll deal with it. > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com > > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > about the onus being on you to defend the mechanism of plate tectonics, > in particular the bit about descent of the convection cycle. I have done. > It is not > about my defence of expansion. Since you brought it up as an alternative explanation for the surface features, you can be expected to defend it. And since you really don't want to defend it, it's fair to conclude you're a crackpot. > I highlight this part of Plate > Tectonics (and others have said so too) to be nonsense. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (we'll deal with the up-cycle later). Do you hold it to be > supportable? "Plate tectonics" doesn't say anything. Geologists say what the theory of plate tectonics is. You've been making a hash of that in order to support your alternative hypothesis. And the previous paragraph needs some revision to make it comprehensible. > If you say "obviously not", *THEN* can you give your own version of why > the oceanic plate subducts on a continental margin? Why doesn't it > sink before it reaches? ..or later. I think it happens because spreading centers and subduction zones define the boundaries of convection cells. Convection means cyclic currents of material, up in some places and down in others. Where two cells meet in a "downdraft", the overlying plates collide and the heavier one of the two is dragged under. Where two cells meet in an "updraft" new crust is formed. What appeals to me about this model is that mass is conserved, thermodynamics is satisfied, and there's no need to invoke goofy mass-creation nonsense such as solar neutrinos (my roommate chortled at this point when relayed this conversation) interacting with the Earth's magnetic field (at this point he had to put down his Armadillo Willy's sliced brisket sandwich) to produce silicon. (Why isn't there sand in my air conditioner motor?) (Oh, sorry, I forgot I can't call growing earth into question in this thread.) > > > 1. The crust floats on the mantle > > > 2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Again, we are not talking about the up-cycle. We are talking about the > down-cycle, and how Plate Tectonics rationalises its position Up cycle and down cycle? No, together the up and down comprise the cycle. Plate Tectonics has a perfectly good explanation for both. > > > 4. Convection drives plate tectonics. > > > 5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > complete the cycle by saying something like Plate Tectonics is what > breaks up the crust. Well, then, it's a wrong conclusion. You appear to be deliberately misreading plate tectonics theory by quoting people out of context to create your own flawed version of the theory. Then you can easily poke holes in that flawed version. > > > Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we > > > haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > part of the cycle, then as I say we'll deal with that later, but as it > stands, it stands. It's easier for you to not deal with it now, just as it's easier for you not to have to deal wtih defending growing-earth. > > > Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm > > > 'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > they? Like what? What is the mechanism whereby the subduction zone > is initiated on a continental margin? I explained above. > > > I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because it is demonstrably 'consensus'. The onus is now on you to > represent it properly. Otherwise the strike stands. Yes, you are. Not, it's not. I and others did. No, it doesn't. > > BTW, your phrase "no credible mechanism" is falsifiable. All it takes to > > falsify it is one credible counterexample, and I've presented it. > > If you did, I missed it. Can you repeat it and we'll deal with it. I stated it in every on-topic post in this thread. Perhaps if you read for context and tried to understand what I and others are actually presenting instead of what you want plate tectonics to contain, you'd get it. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. > ... Convection means cyclic currents of material, up > in some places and down in others. Where two cells meet in a "downdraft", the > overlying plates collide and the heavier one of the two is dragged under. ... Suggested minor correction: Instead of 'heavier', I think you mean 'denser' or 'less boyant'. > > ... Convection means cyclic currents of material, up > > in some places and down in others. Where two cells meet in a "downdraft", [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Suggested minor correction: Instead of 'heavier', I think you mean > 'denser' or 'less boyant'. Yes, of course. Thank you. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. > > If you say "obviously not", *THEN* can you give your own version of why > > the oceanic plate subducts on a continental margin? Why doesn't it > > sink before it reaches? ..or later. > > I think it happens because spreading centers and subduction zones define the > boundaries of convection cells. loose thinking. Are you sure it's not the convection cells that define where the subducting slab is going to be instead? Because what you just said is exactly what Plate Tectonics says when it says subduction defines/ and drives convection, which is what you are disputing... > Convection means cyclic currents of material, up > in some places and down in others. Where two cells meet in a "downdraft", the > overlying plates collide and the heavier one of the two is dragged under. Where > two cells meet in an "updraft" new crust is formed. This is the "mantle wind" Plate Tectonics talks about, right? It's not just 'not-a-solid-but a-fluid', ...but a wind as well. > What appeals to me about this model is that mass is conserved, thermodynamics is > satisfied, and there's no need to invoke goofy mass-creation nonsense such as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (Why isn't there sand in my air conditioner motor?) (Oh, sorry, I forgot I can't > call growing earth into question in this thread.) "What appeals to you"... And forget the geology right? Why is your convection cell on the continental edge? What's that got to do with conservation of mass? > Up cycle and down cycle? No, together the up and down comprise the cycle. Plate > Tectonics has a perfectly good explanation for both. We'll deal with its "good explanation" for the up-cycle later > > It's not a description, it's a rational conclusion from those points: > > Point 5 looks like it had something missing. It was intended to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > flawed version of the theory. Then you can easily poke holes in that flawed > version. Let's just say that so many different people have so many different interpretations of what Plate Tectonics is supposed to be saying - other than that it is hot below and cool above - therefore convection - ..and that it has just one hell of a job trying to squeeze any geology at all into that infantile moribund construction that it is virtually impossible to ascertain any coherence in it at all. Whichever way you look you will find contradictory statements: "the crust pushes the mantle down - the mantle pushes the crust up"; "the ridges push the sea floors along, ..the sea floors pull the ridges apart." The mantle grows, shrinks, moves spreads, .. (Plate Tectonics ...the white noise of the Earth sciences. ) > I stated it in every on-topic post in this thread. Perhaps if you read for > context and tried to understand what I and others are actually presenting > instead of what you want plate tectonics to contain, you'd get it. There are so many on-topic posts in this thread I guess I missed it. you wouldn't mind repeating which one it was in would you? > > > If you say "obviously not", *THEN* can you give your own version of why > > > the oceanic plate subducts on a continental margin? Why doesn't it sink [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > exactly what Plate Tectonics says when it says subduction defines/ and drives > convection, which is what you are disputing... I did not mean that the plate boundaries cause the locations of the convection cessl; I meant that the plate boundaries show you where the convection cells area. > > Convection means cyclic currents of material, up in some places and down in > > others. Where two cells meet in a "downdraft", the overlying plates collide [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is the "mantle wind" Plate Tectonics talks about, right? It's not just > 'not-a-solid-but a-fluid', ...but a wind as well. When you get rocks really hot, they get melty: a highly viscous fluid. Have you ever melted glass in a kiln? My father had a glassblower set up two slabs of glass, different colors, in a kiln on some bricks angled slightly downward like an upside down roof. Gravity would act on the melty slabs the same way that the mantle "conveyor belt" does. The fused slabs look like diagrams of subduction zones. Since the wind thing doesn't pass any kind of sanity check, maybe you should have considered the possibility that I was making a metaphor. (I can do biting sarcasm, too, so be careful.) > > What appeals to me about this model is that mass is conserved, > > thermodynamics is satisfied, and there's no need to invoke goofy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "What appeals to you"... And forget the geology right? No. > Why is your > convection cell on the continental edge? The edge of two cells are on the continental margin. >What's that got to do with > conservation of mass? Simple. Your favorite alternative model violates conservation of mass. Plate tectonics does not. > > Up cycle and down cycle? No, together the up and down comprise the cycle. > > Plate Tectonics has a perfectly good explanation for both. > > We'll deal with its "good explanation" for the up-cycle later Why not deal with it now? What's an "up-cycle"? I understand "upwardly flowing part of the cycle." Is that what you mean? > > > It's not a description, it's a rational conclusion from those points: > > > Point 5 looks like it had something missing. It was intended to complete [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > interpretations of what Plate Tectonics is supposed to be saying - other than > that it is hot below and cool above - therefore convection Oh, my goodness! You get it! > - ..and that it > has just one hell of a job trying to squeeze any geology at all into that > infantile moribund construction Infantile? It's certainly complex enough that it took you several days of hard thinking to wrap your brain around it. Moribund? I think that this word does not think what you think it means. > that it is virtually impossible to ascertain > any coherence in it at all. Impossible for you, perhaps. > Whichever way you look you will find > contradictory statements: "the crust pushes the mantle down - the mantle > pushes the crust up"; Since those things happen in different places, they're not contradictory. Consider these two statements: The piston pushes the crankshaft; the crankshaft pushes the piston. On the surface, with infantile analysis, they are contradictory. But when considered in proper context, they make perfect sense. > "the ridges push the sea floors along, ..the sea floors > pull the ridges apart." I'm not so sure about those; the mantle drags the sea floor along. > The mantle grows, shrinks, moves spreads, .. I don't think a geologist would use most of those verbs on the mantple, but it strikes me that you don't seem to have a problem with the mantle growing in your Expanding Earth thing. > (Plate Tectonics ...the white noise of the Earth sciences. ) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There are so many on-topic posts in this thread I guess I missed it. you > wouldn't mind repeating which one it was in would you? Yes, I would mind. Having done me the miscourtesy of not actually reading what I wrote, you can make up for it by going back into Google Groups to look for it. That shouldn't be too hard; quote-miners do it all the time. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. You're a highly effective troll. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# > Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > *PLATE TECTONICS - NO CREDIBLE MECHANISM - 1* I find it ironic that this is your objection, considering that your preferred theory not only has no credible mechanism, but any mechanism that can be imagined is physically impossible based on our most fundamental understanding of physics. Yet you say you don't need a mechanism to support your theory. > Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):- > It goes like this:- the ocean plate moves along till it meets a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 4. Convection drives plate tectonics. > 5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates No, you misunderstand. The slab doesn't drive convection. Convection is what's happening below the lithosphere. (No phase changes required, by the way.) The subducting plate is driven partly by friction with the convecting mantle and partly by its own weight. The slab is not part of a convection cell. Nobody is saying it is. > Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around. GIGO. > Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we > haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down. > I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed? No. It seems obvious. When two plates collide, the rock has to go somewhere. The lighter rock goes on top, the heavier rock goes on the bottom. And of course much subduction involves no continental crust at all, and happens between two plates bearing oceanic crust only. But I forget: you pretend that the Marianas trench doesn't exist, right? > ------------------------ > *Claim:- 1 strike* [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > doesn't sink.. > ------------------------ Again, you are confused as to what the convecting cells are. No part of a convecting cell is lithosphere. It's all in the lower mantle. By the way, you haven't answered my questions about paleomagnetic studies that show the paleolatitude of India and Asia to be quite different from each other, requiring that they must have been far apart during the Cretaceous. I suspect you think remanent magnetism has been incorrectly interpreted. But how? > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > You're a highly effective troll. You mean because I'm looking for more than just answers to homework? http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# > > Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's > > ridiculous. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fundamental understanding of physics. Yet you say you don't need a > mechanism to support your theory. Oh, come on, I have been rubbished by many, and when I say the pot is calling the kettle 'black' you squeal "not fair". Plate Tectonics enjoys the advantage of high ground on account of which you think it deserves exemption from criticism. But when the Judge breaks the speed limit and kills, do you similarly claim exemption for him because he has respect and standing? One rule for all is justice. > > Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):- > > It goes like this:- the ocean plate moves along till it meets a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > convecting mantle and partly by its own weight. The slab is not part of > a convection cell. Nobody is saying it is. OohHHhh, I think they do, .. As I said before, you need to clue up on the currently held position. The 'conveyor belt' theory was dismantled long ago. Mind you Plate Tectonics changes its position more often than a whore drops her knickers (an apt metaphor in this instance), ..it is difficult to keep up with what it is actually saying - which also presents a challenge to discuss, since so many supporting it seem to hold so many different views. Views which were once relevant to it, but no longer are. ....Which by the way, if you hadn't noticed, is why those who purport to know most about it are conspicuous by their absence here. They know perfectly well that, being all things to all people, it is unsupportable on any / all points. > > Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around. > > GIGO. Say why. Otherwise the strike stands. It is not me putting the garbage in. > > Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we > > haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > bottom. And of course much subduction involves no continental crust at > all, and happens between two plates bearing oceanic crust only. Obvious? Indeed. If I was being smart I would say "Go rumple your tablecloth", but since I'm being serious I'll say exactly the same thing, and that the 'rumplecoth' tectonic model is exactly the hang-over that persists in the fabric of Plate Tectonics. That is exactly the model to which tacit appeal to your logic is made. So think about that particular piece of 'gryt'. The crust is not a tablecloth, nor does it deform like one. Ask your Big Number Dogs Kermit goes on about, about the scaled strength of that particular model. > But I > forget: you pretend that the Marianas trench doesn't exist, right? Wrong. The Marianas trench exists along with its circumPacific continuity. The ridge however is a different matter, which we can deal with later too if you like > > ------------------------ > > *Claim:- 1 strike* [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Again, you are confused as to what the convecting cells are. No part of > a convecting cell is lithosphere. It's all in the lower mantle. (Would someone be good enough to disabuse John here of his misconception..) There you go, John. You're damned if the do and damned if they don't. I'll bet we get no replies, probably for the reason that half of them are thinking like you, and wouldn;t be seen being in support of you in case you're wrong, ..and those who know you're wrong will say nothing because they don't want to disrupt solidarity. A quick google along lines of what drives/ convection/ subduction/ "plate tectonics" should do the trick > By the way, you haven't answered my questions about paleomagnetic > studies that show the paleolatitude of India and Asia to be quite > different from each other, requiring that they must have been far apart > during the Cretaceous. I suspect you think remanent magnetism has been > incorrectly interpreted. But how? Yes I do. I think it highly unlikely that the smaller Earth model will have been factored in. In fact I would say it's a dead cert. that it hasn't. The pivoting apart of Pangaea would obviously screw up any 'constant-sized Earth' calculation - as well as which Palaeomagnetism assumes no dislocation on the crust/ upper mantle/ asthenosphere interfaces, which the overall geological picture (my assessment) of the Indian Ocean region says is manifestly untrue (far less dislocation/ differential movement between the core and the mantle (glatzmeir). To me, India and the Himalayas have been in their respective positions since the beginning - if anything India a bit further north (and at the same time - which is the same thing - tagged on to Madagascar/ Africa) I think Palaeomagnetics is intrinsically a flawed line of research till the major crustal segments are better 'palaeo-located'. I might not even be valid at all if we allow the dislocations just mentioned. >>>So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. >> >>You're a highly effective troll. > > You mean because I'm looking for more than just answers to homework? No, because you said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > speed limit and kills, do you similarly claim exemption for him because > he has respect and standing? One rule for all is justice. So you aren't sincere in your complaint that there is no mechanism for plate tectonics? >>>Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):- >>>It goes like this:- the ocean plate moves along till it meets a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > OohHHhh, I think they do, .. Obviously you think they do. But you're wrong. Show me an example of someone saying that subducting slabs drive convection. You will find plenty of people saying that subducting slabs drive plate movements (as least partially), but that's a different claim, isn't it? [snip rant] >>>Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around. >> >>GIGO. > > Say why. Otherwise the strike stands. It is not me putting the > garbage in. Of course it is. You're the only one to make that claim. You're garbling the positions of mainstream geologists. >>>Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we >>>haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>bottom. And of course much subduction involves no continental crust at >>all, and happens between two plates bearing oceanic crust only. [snip pointless rant] >>But I >>forget: you pretend that the Marianas trench doesn't exist, right? > > Wrong. The Marianas trench exists along with its circumPacific > continuity. The ridge however is a different matter, which we can deal > with later too if you like So you will agree that, in the standard theory, there is much subduction that doesn't involve continents. >>>------------------------ >>>*Claim:- 1 strike* [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > solidarity. A quick google along lines of what drives/ convection/ > subduction/ "plate tectonics" should do the trick Convection is not the same as subduction is not the same as plate tectonics. There are in fact real theories that subducting slabs drive plate tectonics. But there is no theory that subducting slabs drive convection. Do you see the difference? >>By the way, you haven't answered my questions about paleomagnetic >>studies that show the paleolatitude of India and Asia to be quite [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > till the major crustal segments are better 'palaeo-located'. I might > not even be valid at all if we allow the dislocations just mentioned. That was gibberish that does nothing to explain why two rocks that are now close together were once far apart. Now on a smaller earth different paleolatitudes would indeed be closer together than they are on the current earth, but no less than half the calculated distance (under your theory) even 300 million years ago. You can't just handwave it away. And there are many other examples of paleolatitudes that show much greater separation in the past than today. > > OohHHhh, I think they do, .. > > Obviously you think they do. But you're wrong. Show me an example of > someone saying that subducting slabs drive convection. "Subduction Zone Physics: Sinking of mantle lithosphere provides most of the force needed to drive plate motion and is the dominant mode of mantle convection." -Wikipedia - (google a string) > You will find > plenty of people saying that subducting slabs drive plate movements (as > least partially), but that's a different claim, isn't it? Only if you're twisting words to suit your theory (Plates grow/ shrink/ move/ spread/ push/ pull, ...and of course, 'subduct' and 'rollback' and probaly a few other too when I think of them - like grind, slide, fall, dock. .) (I do believe they probably have still to slither though.. Let's see <googles "plate tectonics" "plates slither"> Nope it's right enough, they haven't slithered yet, ..leaving a research opportunity wide open for somebody...) > Convection is not the same as subduction is not the same as plate > tectonics. There are in fact real theories that subducting slabs drive > plate tectonics. But there is no theory that subducting slabs drive > convection. Do you see the difference? If your talking porridge-in-a-pot, yes. If you're talking Plate Tectonics then no. And netiher do many sources more authoritative than you (you knotted piece of erudite string, you.) (If authority means anything to you). Convection is directly all about density, and buoyancy, and 'negative buoyancy'. The 'heat' is incidental. You might as well talk about vibrating particles as heat. When Push comes to tectonic pull, it's all about buoyancy - an' density. See? And Plate Tectonics *IS* subduction, otherwise it's Earth Expansion. .. See that too > > > OohHHhh, I think they do, .. > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Plate Tectonics *IS* subduction, otherwise it's Earth Expansion. .. > See that too The heat causes the change in density. And it's not an either-or question. You can't "prove" Earth Expansion by disproving plate tectonics. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > You're a highly effective troll. That's why he's in the killfile, a course that's highly recommended. Or at least, since you seem to be commenting from talk.origins, trim your replies to your source group only, please. Don has been thoroughly answered in sci.geo.geology , and is generally considered a small-scale net.kook . So he's migrated into most people's killfiles. By cross-posting into talk.origins, he seems to have found a whole new mine of responders. I know that you talk.origins people are very familiar with trolls, but I am surprised at so many of you falling for such a obvious example of the genus. SignatureAidan Karley, FGS Aberdeen, Scotland Written at Mon, 19 Jun 2006 08:52 +0100, but posted later. > > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > trolls, but I am surprised at so many of you falling for such a obvious > example of the genus. kook != troll. Kooks is what we /do/. We give them an audience, and then a refutation. You put them in the killfile. So they come talk to us instead of to you. (Well, some people hang out in both places, separately.) Surely we've taken others off your hands before. However, biblical fundamentalist creationism of various flavours is the kookery that's in our mission statement. Don is just kind of light relief, although the creationists love kook-science of all kinds. Anything that lets them think that those smartypants god-hating scientists don't know everything. > > > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > kook != troll. Kooks is what we /do/. We give them an audience, and > then a refutation. you've a strange way of listening, when me saying nothing in that last thread generated such squawking brabble. Was that supposed to be the refutation? > You put them in the killfile. So they come talk to > us instead of to you. (Well, some people hang out in both places, > separately.) Surely we've taken others off your hands before. The only reason I'm here is because they're such a dead loss in geology, and grumbine reckoned there were geology-knowledgeable people here, though he's since admitted some error there, ..I can see what he means. > However, biblical fundamentalist creationism of various flavours is the > kookery that's in our mission statement. Don is just kind of light > relief, although the creationists love kook-science of all kinds. > Anything that lets them think that those smartypants god-hating > scientists don't know everything. And now you're talking about God. (This must be America I'm in...) [snip silliness] > I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed? Oh, indeed. <plonk> I'm sure most will agree with that, too. CT > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/8550c373aa5b9d72 Wrong on both counts. I have a real life and job and do not always read posts promptly or make replies. In fact, this thread is the first place I have seen your JPL link. I have read it, and guess what? Like your other cites, it does NOT support your strawman. There are problems with items 1 and 2 in your version of plate tectonics. Not all crust material is the same density. The higher parts of the continteal plates (the cratons) float. The deep seafloor is much more dense and will generally sink if broken up or subducted. I am not sure what you mean by "mantle plate". Even if lighter crust material is forced downward, it will cool the denser magma, increasing it's density, making it sink. Klaus > Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm > 'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > doesn't sink.. > ------------------------ > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I have seen your JPL link. I have read it, and guess what? Like your > other cites, it does NOT support your strawman. It's not a question of whether it supports "my position". It's a question of whether it supports *ITS* position. The point made is that it *is* the consensus position - not whether or not you agree it. I don't agree with it either. I think it's rubbish too. The fact that we both may have different reasons is also irrelevant. The point being made is that Plate Tectonics' position as represented in that statement by nasa is a nonsense one. That established, we can easily confirm how extensive or otherwise support for it is. > There are problems with > items 1 and 2 in your version of plate tectonics. I keep saying, it's not my version of Plate Tectonics, it's Plate Tectonics' version. That's where the version comes from - straight from the consensus horse's mouth. I stand by what I say as regards the Earth getting bigger but you can't blame me for that particular piece of nonsense. > Not all crust > material is the same density. The higher parts of the continteal plates > (the cratons) float. The deep seafloor is much more dense and will > generally sink if broken up or subducted. "broken up' *OR "subducted"? The deep sea floor is broken up all the way from the ridge to the continents (by transforms and relict ridge fractures). Why does it not sink? (That's just a 'peripheral point', seeing you raise the issue about being broken) But the qeustion really is about the subduction bit: Why does the oceanic plate sink when it meets the continent? The reason cited by nasa is the official line (I guarantee it). > I am not sure what you mean by > "mantle plate". Even if lighter crust material is forced downward, it > will cool the denser magma, increasing it's density, making it sink. 'mantle plate' = oceanic lithosphere. I'm not sure what you mean the rest of it - can you clarify? I hope you're not going to say that the mantle is 'denser magma'? That will *really* put the cat amongst the pidgeons, as regards how Plate Tectonics is popularly perceived, and what people think they are defending > Klaus > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > doesn't sink.. > > ------------------------ <snip> > It's not a question of whether it supports "my position". It's a > question of whether it supports *ITS* position. The point made is that > it *is* the consensus position - not whether or not you agree it. And the responses are correct: it is *not the consensus position. You are either denser than the mantle, insane, or dishonest. These are not mutually exclusive conditions. Whatever degree of these you are expressing, you are inordinately unqualified to criticise plate tectonics. You can't even describe it. <snip> kermit > <snip> > > It's not a question of whether it supports "my position". It's a > > question of whether it supports *ITS* position. The point made is that > > it *is* the consensus position - not whether or not you agree it. ************************ This is a Chez Watt in the "What You Don't Know Can't Hurt" category! > And the responses are correct: it is *not the consensus position. You > are either denser than the mantle, insane, or dishonest. These are not > mutually exclusive conditions. Whatever degree of these you are > expressing, you are inordinately unqualified to criticise plate > tectonics. You can't even describe it. ************************* (signed) marc > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. You could try actually "saying" something rational. Baring that, you could try "saying" something that is not known to be false. > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > *PLATE TECTONICS - NO CREDIBLE MECHANISM - 1* Well, why do you care? Are you expecting to make money out of this? Anyway, I recently heard an interesting 45 minutes BBC radio discussion of the long history of beliefs about the heart, and the discovery of circulation of the blood as its true function, which can be heard with RealPlayer by visiting this internet address, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20060601.shtml The interesting argument was made that Harvey - whose work was not unique and was not fully applied to medical practice (it undermined the theoretical basis of bloodletting as therapy, which nevertheless was continued by Harvey himself and by others for many years afterwards, even after Harvey's work was accepted) - that Harvey did a particular new thing: he described how the blood circulates, but he had no "explanation", no argument that the body needs to have its blood circulating - only that evidently it does, since if it stops then the patient dies. It happens. He didn't know why. We have had a few ideas since, of course. Likewise, even if there are mysteries inside the earth, that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with what we do know. I suggest, probably echoing previous comments, a careful reading of the Wikipedia pages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone in order to equip the reader to criticise intelligently the current orthodox theory, instead of presenting what talk.origins usually calls "the argument from incredulity" - or of course from ignorance. >> So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. >> http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >orthodox theory, instead of presenting what talk.origins usually calls >"the argument from incredulity" - or of course from ignorance. Gravity is probably the best example of something that "works" even though we don't know the mechanism. Another example that was valid for over one hundred years was the mechanism of action of aspirin (or the earlier salicin). > >> So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > >> http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > for over one hundred years was the mechanism of action of aspirin (or > the earlier salicin). So you're saying that plate Tectonics works, even though we don't know the mechanism.. ? That puts it in the same box as Earth Expansion. Earth expansion is actually a better working model, since it incoporates more of the data and makes a far better integrated picture of what we can see. We've got all the details how the kinetics work within a geological framework, ...we just don't have a 'final mechanism'. Fair enough? claim strike 1 stands > > >> So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > >> http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > So you're saying that plate Tectonics works, even though we don't know > the mechanism.. ? That puts it in the same box as Earth Expansion. No, we have a pretty good idea of how it works. > Earth expansion is actually a better working model, since it > incoporates more of the data and makes a far better integrated picture > of what we can see. No, it doesn't. Alternatively, references, please? > We've got all the details how the kinetics work > within a geological framework, ...we just don't have a 'final > mechanism'. > > Fair enough? No. > claim strike 1 stands You never answered my post about two dozen or so features caused by plate tectonics. You never explained how an alternate theory better explains them. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. >> >> So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# >> >> Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's >> >> ridiculous. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > So you're saying that plate Tectonics works, even though we don't know > the mechanism.. ? We have a pretty good idea of the mechanism - although one wouldn't guess it from your scramblings. > That puts it in the same box as Earth Expansion. > Earth expansion is actually a better working model, since it > incoporates more of the data and makes a far better integrated picture > of what we can see. We've got all the details how the kinetics work > within a geological framework, ...we just don't have a 'final > mechanism'. Except that whichever way you spin it, your EE model requires rewriting of large portions of physics, including the energy conservation laws that are pretty fundamental to our modern understanding. > Fair enough? > > claim strike 1 stands SignatureRobin Levett rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo) >> >> So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. >> >> http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > within a geological framework, ...we just don't have a 'final > mechanism'. I thought you said you don't have a model. Earth expansion violates the conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, for starters. I should think any sane person would drop such a useless model once they realized that. --D. > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Likewise, even if there are mysteries inside the earth, that doesn't > mean that there's anything wrong with what we do know. I think that is precisely my position, except I give priority to conclusions from what we can see (at surface) over what we can't see (in depth) but must postulate a pyramid of imaginings upon, in order to make sense thereof. > I suggest, probably echoing previous comments, a careful reading of the > Wikipedia pages, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > orthodox theory, instead of presenting what talk.origins usually calls > "the argument from incredulity" - or of course from ignorance. Again, ..you are being asked to respond to the point in the original post, which the wiki-pages on subduction supports: convection is driven by the subducting slab; the subducing slab is forced down by the 'overriding plate' (read 'continental crust/ lithosphere', since that *IS* the overriding plate). And convection drives Plate Tectonics... Good grief! You are correct in your observation of the literature. to quote, "Subduction Zone Physics: Sinking of mantle lithosphere provides most of the force needed to drive plate motion and is the dominant mode of mantle convection. " Although this does not negate plate tectonic theory, I would question the greater importance of subduction compared to heat generation as the primary driving force of convection. Certainly heat generation and subduction act as a pair in my view. Keep going. Will E. >> > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. >> > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > 'overriding plate' (read 'continental crust/ lithosphere', since that > *IS* the overriding plate). And convection drives Plate Tectonics... > Good grief! You are correct in your observation of the literature. to quote, > > "Subduction Zone Physics: Sinking of mantle lithosphere provides most of the > force needed to drive plate motion and is the dominant mode of mantle > convection. " With respect Will I'm not sure if you're pulling my leg. The point I'm making here seems self-evident. I can hardly believe the wiki being cited by others as authority for refutation of the point I'm making, when what it says is the common knowledge of consensus. They either know this for sure and are being disingenous, as their cavalier returns imply, or displaying a degree of ignorance that simply precludes any point of enquiry. Either way it seems your advice might be well taken. The ribbing is good peripheral fun, but the apparent deficit is more difficult and certainly doesn't warrant persistence. The desert in geology was bad enough; ..I thought there might have been soemthing here. > Although this does not negate plate tectonic theory, Well I think in itself it does actually. Plate Tectonics is predicated on convection (not field facts). If the cycle is broken then so is plate tectonics. There's no seismic 'mirror' under the ridges to compare with slabs. And the conveyor belt/ friction model doesn't apply any more either. 'Convection' is now 'irregular', ..all of which above-points are grounds for now postulating "plumes' as the mechanism for Plate Tectonics, but 'plumes' is still regarded within the ambit of convection, although necessarily in a more sophisticated way than the previous simple tumbler model. However the goalposts have been shifted so much that 'plumes and convection' in relation to geological reality have virtually no relevance anymore. Plate Tectonics is anything anybody wants to make it, with the queerest of juxtapositions of 'hypothesis' being given as reasons for "more research". As far as geology is concerned it has lost the plot. It's all numerical modelling, with the constructs put forward as 'evidence' for whatever it is one likes it to be evidence for. It's really a rather sad state of affairs. > I would question the > greater importance of subduction compared to heat generation as the primary > driving force of convection. Certainly heat generation and subduction act as > a pair in my view. Keep going. Will E. The point here, Will, is that *Everybody* has something about Plate Tectonics that they find more than a bit suss, but when asked to say what it is, when everybody else is looking, they shut up, and turn on whoever it is asking them to do it. Get them in the pub, and you'll get a dozen different answers. Get them writing papers (for publication) (for their career) and they fall into line quick smart. One common consensus is a goldmaine for the scribbling 'scientist'. It's what the science is about, notching up the credits; the veracity is just the vehicle, and very much a variable But that's just in relation to your difference of opinion. As far as the theory of heat/ convection/ subduction goes we need to keep in mind Plate Tectonics' position at the outset - which is the accretion theory for the Earth. Quite apart from any spatial consideration of location of cells/ridges and the like, I find it difficult to see how an incandescent mass can differentiate into the different spheres *and* form a crust( and use its heat up in doing so), and then, with only waning *residual* heat left over, break the crust all up again and sail it about. On convection cells. There seems to be a contradiction there requiring some heat input to the system. Why would it form a crust in the first place only to set about breaking it all up again? Also, ..it's difficult to reconcile convection with differentiation at all, particularly when given the spherical shapes of the shells, there's always more heat on the outside (i.e. the top) of any given cell, than the bottom (assuming radiogenic material is uniformly distributed). It's another face-value point requiring virtually no consdieration, and yet to my mind it would also seem to knock 'convection' as a model for crustal deformation stone dead. As well as which, the roundness and spin of the planet is not taken into account at all in plate Tectonics. Convection might as well be happening in an Earth the shape of a kitchen pan for all the difference it makes, ..whereas global structure has a prounced spin symmetry, traceable through geological time. (not noticed of course in Plate Tectonics) Plate Tectonics is deficient both in the theory, and in the fact of how it accommodates geological structure. The short answer is it doesn't whichever way we look. > > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > > > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0 [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > conclusions from what we can see (at surface) over what we can't see > (in depth) Why limit yourself that way? >but must postulate a pyramid of imaginings upon, in order > to make sense thereof. huh? > > I suggest, probably echoing previous comments, a careful reading of the > > Wikipedia pages, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 'overriding plate' (read 'continental crust/ lithosphere', since that > *IS* the overriding plate). And convection drives Plate Tectonics... We are responding to that point. The wikipedia page on plate tectonics does not support your interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Sources_of_plate_motion SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. > > Again, ..you are being asked to respond to the point in the original > > post, which the wiki-pages on subduction supports: convection is driven [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > support your interpretation: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Sources_of_plate_motion Wrong. Your link takes you right to the point of the post:- " Plate motion is driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking into the mantle at trenches." ...." Slab pull is widely believed to be the strongest force directly operating on plates." (That's the cold dense plates by the way that have to heat up in order to reach the eclogite transition so that they can be heavy enough to sink..) ( and while they do so - being cold - partially melt what they're grinding along in oder to fire up the ring of the Pacific..) ...and the other link which Will has pointed out to you which you are also disputing:- "Subduction Zone Physics: Sinking of mantle lithosphere provides most of the force needed to drive plate motion and is the dominant mode of mantle convection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone You're barking up the wrong tree, Woof. Don't worry about learning to "read for comprehension" Just learn to read. It's spelt out for you. Growl at him, Kermit. Have him for breakfast. (What_ a_ DawWWwg...) > Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com > If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, > then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. >> > Again, ..you are being asked to respond to the point in the original >> > post, which the wiki-pages on subduction supports: convection is driven [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >mantle convection." >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone You seem to read selectively. The Wikipedia site on Plate Tectonics, Sources of Plate Motion clearly specifies that " Dissipation of heat from the mantle is acknowledged to be the source of energy " and that "convection of some sort is occurring throughout the mantle". Everyone knows that in convection, the heat engine exerts its will by having hot, less dense material rise and cold, more dense material sink. In between those two locations, the risen material rises above the sinking material so that the material moves horizontally by gravity from the source of upwelling to the sink of subduction. So to ascribe the entire process as driven by subduction is simply a complete misreading of the notion of convection. What drives the process is the exchange of heat from a hot source in the interior of the earth to a cooler sink at the surface and into space. But you already have been told this innumerable times on the "real science" groups. > >> We are responding to that point. The wikipedia page on plate tectonics does not > >> support your interpretation: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > from the mantle is acknowledged to be the source of energy " and that > "convection of some sort is occurring throughout the mantle". > Everyone knows that in convection, the heat engine exerts its will by > having hot, less dense material rise and cold, more dense material > sink. In between those two locations, the risen material rises above > the sinking material so that the material moves horizontally by > gravity from the source of upwelling to the sink of subduction. ("Everyone knows" - the copout of the real scientist.) Yes I learned that in school too:- http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/e55910e519ec1bc9 > So to > ascribe the entire process as driven by subduction is simply a > complete misreading of the notion of convection. So when looking for something more informed we get this:- 3. *THE SUBDUCTING PLATE DRIVES CONVECTION* Professor Seiya Uyeda (Tokai University, Japan), a world-renowned expert in plate tectonics, concluded in his keynote address at a major scientific conference on subduction processes in June 1994 that "subduction . . . plays a more fundamental role than seafloor spreading in shaping the earth's surface features" and "running the plate tectonic machinery." The gravity-controlled sinking of a cold, denser oceanic slab into the subduction zone (called "slab pull") -- dragging the rest of the plate along with it -- is now considered to be the driving force of plate tectonics." http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/unanswered.html > What drives the > process is the exchange of heat from a hot source in the interior of > the earth to a cooler sink at the surface and into space. You must be a dope if you think I ignore that bit of what plate tectonics says, but we'll talk about that later. You're such a bunch of hopeless hopfleas, it's just about impossible to get an anything sensible on any single point. > But you already have been told this innumerable times on the "real > science" groups. And that's the first time I've told you that, ...but if you don't behave yourself I'll tell you again - on every "real science" group you care to nominate. > > > Again, ..you are being asked to respond to the point in the original > > > post, which the wiki-pages on subduction supports: convection is driven [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > into the mantle at trenches." ...." Slab pull is widely believed to be > the strongest force directly operating on plates." The section you're referring to offers more sources of plate motion than that. You're quote-mining. That means you're picking and choosing just those parts of the source material that appear to support your position. You need to stop that; it makes people think you're a kook. > (That's the cold dense plates by the way that have to heat up in order > to reach the eclogite transition so that they can be heavy enough to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, > > then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# > Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's > ridiculous. You - and your topic - are the ridiculous bit, at least viewed from talk.origins. Why do you keep cross-posting here? Oh... that's right. 50 replies, mostly saying how you are wrong or how this does not involve biological evolution or abiogenesis. Well done, dude. Now - PLEASE - keep your thread(s) going in the geology groups and not cross-posted to talk.origins (of course, since nobody replies to you in the geology groups anymore, you ego demands that you post somewhere where the replies will occur).... ignore your ego and stop posting here. (signed) marc > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/browse_frm/thread/5dbde0704e91 7d5b/?hl=en# [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > continent, the continent (/continental lithosphere) bends it down > forcing the slab to sink. ..... .....aaaaah so there *is* an old grey bearded fella living 'up thar in the clouds' after all. Thanks > <*stop right there*> <Come again?> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > doesn't sink.. > ------------------------ Its Findaly versus several thousand earth scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed papers. The former thinks everyone else is wrong. > Its Findaly versus several thousand earth scientists and thousands of > peer-reviewed papers. The former thinks everyone else is wrong. Don, have you read the chapter in Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Hauinted World" entitled "The Baloney Detector Kit"? If you haven't, I recommend it. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters. > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. >... > Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):- > It goes like this... Don, There are two types of errors out there, errors of calculation and errors of logic. Errors of calculation are relatively easy to find and correct. However, errors of logic are sometimes extremely difficult to find. You are trying to prove earth expansion by "falsifying" plate tectonics. This is an error of logic. Plate tectonics has many components, some of which are difficult to explain, nevertheless still observable and measurable, and given enough time, predictable. It works. Do you get it? IT WORKS! You are trying to debunk something that works in order to prove some thing that has not yet been proven to even exist. Now, earth expansion has some interesting aspects that can explain local phenomena, as can current plate tectonic theory. You need to get off the debunking track and move on to the "Here is the proof" track. Instead of putting everyone on the defensive, strengthening their positions concerning current theories of plate motions and supporting geophysics, you need to show us your evidence and proofs for an expanding earth. Can it work with current ideas? You do not need to falsify one in order to prove another. Hell, if you prove plate tectonics is wrong, and "they" prove expansion wrong, then what? Intelligent geological design? Continents, oceans, fossils, basalt...6 days. Bye Bye earth expansion your web site and this thread. The weekend is over and I really have to put my attention on analog realities and move on. No matter what comes of this, I'll still be out in the field collecting rocks to put into my little collection. I'll check in once in a while. Until then, regards, Will E. > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. Mostly yours. Rule of thumb, if more than 50 per cent of a thread is from you then you should cut back... > You are trying to prove earth expansion by "falsifying" plate > tectonics. This is an error of logic. A good point, and another lesson that talk.origins knows well - I will continue to advertise our "service" ;-) In respect of continental movements, you have to wrestle other arguments such as political repulsion (North America is physically in retreat from communist states), or God moving His furniture around at night. Of course a supernatural explanation like that can't be disproved scientifically, but it isn't scientifically useful, either. > > So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies. > >... > > Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):- > > It goes like this... Will, Pleased to hear you're up and about, (for some reason I thought you were in a hospital bed somewhere enjoying the ministrations of 'Nurses in Uniform'. :-) > Don, There are two types of errors out there, errors of calculation and > errors of logic. Errors of calculation are relatively easy to find and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > tectonics. This is an error of logic. I wouldn't put it at all like that. They stand in parallel, not in series. Plate Tectonics exists as a theory in its own right and is therefore amenable to falsification. Dismantling it does nothing other than lessens its support. Obviously it does nothing to *support* expansion. I don't claim that at all. It is just a necesssary parallel enterprise. If one theory is to be put forward as a a viable alternative, then the other has to be shown to be false. Then we're left with a barometer of probability. > Plate tectonics has many components, > some of which are difficult to explain, nevertheless still observable > > and measurable, and given enough time, predictable. It works. Do you get it? > IT WORKS! The aspect of the theory focussed on in the thread (the crust pushing the mantle down on their mutual edge) is a failure in logic. If it fails in logic, then it fails. period, ..no matter how it's dressed up. It's only one aspect amongst many. The many components are an incoherence, which is why they are, as you say "difficult to explain". Not 'difficult to explain', but impossible, with PT theory. (It would seem that the theory is only *supposed* to work as anatomical parts, and that there is almost reverence towards a theory that can admit such 'esoteric' problems (of our own making). > You are trying to debunk something that works in > order to prove some thing that has not yet been proven to even exist. The missing blueprint is The Whole Body - the Earth itself - being round and spinning - and the way that global geology is encrypted in that shape and spin. The way I see it, this view that it "doesn't exist" is a determination to deny that such an obvious thing can have been overlooked. Difficult to believe isn't it, ..A worldful of scientists, ..the earth Spinning, and the encryption of that in the geology missed. You would think it would be easy to falsify (knowing nothing at all about the 'proof' for enlargement) > Now, earth expansion has some interesting aspects that can explain local > phenomena, as can current plate tectonic theory. You need to get off [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > earth. Nobody can say substantiation doesn't exist. I have a substantial website outlining the encryption of spin in global geology, ..which Plate Tectonics not only ignores, but *cannot* accommodate in its ragbag collection of drybones. > Can it work with current ideas? You do not need to falsify one in > order to prove another. If I have given that impression then I must state most forcibly it to be untrue. I fully agree that falsifying Plate Tectonics does nothing to *support* Earth Expansion. I repeat, it just withdraws support from Plate Tectonics. The Case for Expansion is a stand-alone enterprise. > Hell, if you prove plate tectonics is wrong, and > "they" prove expansion wrong, then what? Intelligent geological design? > Continents, oceans, fossils, basalt...6 days. Bye Bye earth expansion > your web site and this thread. I don't see it that way at all, Will. I don't see 'proof' being an issue at this stage, which is more a stage inviting re-appraisal. I see it as a rather exciting time for the Earth sciences actually, and something of an indictment that people are not prepared to step outside their comfort zone and consider something that has not yet been incorporated into consensus theory. Expecially something that is such an obvious and glaring omission !! It's a complete and utter nonsense for people to make a comparison with creationism ( - a refuge of fools in fact, I would say, ..and biggots every bit as much as the creationists they are railing against). If I could see any logical problem with expansion (and I don't count as logic the view that everything of physics is already known, on which grounds expansion must be false), then I would be the first to drop it. Any uncertainty with regard to the current state of physics (and I gather there are some) doesn't bother me one whit. My posts over here in t.o. are directed at falsification (of both theories), not confirming expansion. I would have thought that commendable grounds for approach. (For anyone who wants to read the support for expansion, it's on my site.) In approaching t.o. I was taking the view that there may be some with enough of a geological background to be capable (on geological grounds) of falsifying the premise that the Earth has doubled in size by the creation of the ocean floors - without refering to 'The Book' 's unashamed *convenient assumption* that the structures known as 'subduction zones' are zones of recycling. http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html The balance of dynamics of subduction zones with the supposed partners of ridge-fracture and dyke-intrusion is (logically :-) ) unworkable. And if there aren't (people) (as appears to be the case) then the post(s) will stand for the record for anyone interested in the points made. > The weekend is over and I really have to put my attention on analog > realities and move on. No matter what comes of this, I'll still be out in > the > > field collecting rocks to put into my little collection. I'll check in once > in a while. Until then, regards, Will E. > If I could see any logical > problem with expansion (and I don't count as logic the view that > everything of physics is already known, on which grounds expansion must > be false), then I would be the first to drop it. ..... >In approaching t.o. I was > taking the view that there may be some with enough of a geological [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > assumption* that the structures known as 'subduction zones' are zones > of recycling. If expansion were actually the case, I'd expect us to see mostly 4.5 billion year old rock everywhere except the locations of expansion, do we? > > If I could see any logical > > problem with expansion (and I don't count as logic the view that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > billion year old rock everywhere except the locations of expansion, do > we? Also, where would non-volcanic mountains come from? >> If expansion were actually the case, I'd expect us to see mostly 4.5 >>billion year old rock everywhere except the locations of expansion, do >>we? > > Also, where would non-volcanic mountains come from? And why are all continental boundaries not stretched and cracked from the reduction in global curvature? >>> If expansion were actually the case, I'd expect us to see mostly 4.5 >>>billion year old rock everywhere except the locations of expansion, do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And why are all continental boundaries not stretched and cracked from > the reduction in global curvature? ..and/or central continental interiors mountainous from compression from the same source. SignatureRobin Levett rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo) >>>>If expansion were actually the case, I'd expect us to see mostly 4.5 >>>>billion year old rock everywhere except the locations of expansion, do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ..and/or central continental interiors mountainous from compression from the > same source. Yep. Every continent should have a central peak or plateau. > >>>>If expansion were actually the case, I'd expect us to see mostly 4.5 > >>>>billion year old rock everywhere except the locations of expansion, do [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yep. Every continent should have a central peak or plateau. Or the whole crust shredded to small enough pieces that that didn't happen, and these pieces were evenly distributed all over the surface, sort of like those hexagonal patches on dry lake beds. SignatureTimberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com > >>>>If expansion were actually the case, I'd expect us to see mostly 4.5 > >>>>billion year old rock everywhere except the locations of expansion, do [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yep. Every continent should have a central peak or plateau. That's a good move, ..putting them all together like that: 1. If expansion were actually the case, I'd expect us to see mostly 4.5 biillion year old rock everywhere except the locations of expansion, do we? 2. Also, where would non-volcanic mountains come from? 3. And why are all continental boundaries not stretched and cracked from the reduction in global curvature, .. and/or central continental interiors mountainous from compression from the same source? (Yep. Every continent should have a central peak or plateau.) Keep going. Could the poster of point 1 please clarify why he/she sees stratigraphic sequence should be exempt from consideration (presuming by "the locations of expansion" is meant the ocean floors) ? Or maybe just clarify it. I don't see why anyone would consider only a proto-Earth would be observable (outside of the expanded bits - the bit since the Mesozoic at any rate, ..which is the bit on the table being considered.) > > >>>>If expansion were actually the case, I'd expect us to see mostly 4.5 > > >>>>billion year old rock everywhere except the locations of expansion, do [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > since |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message