Negating Earth Expansion - 1 - transform insertion
don findlay
i.e., the ridges grow *along* their length as well as across them.
This means that transforms grow by sequential emplacement, ..It also
means there is magnetic 'flip-symmetry' *along* their length as well
as across them
In order to accommodate this in Plate Tectonics, then subduction zones
similarly have to be either increasing areally (in which case the
Earth therefore expanding anyway), or the rate of swallowing has to
increase to meet simultaneously what is happening at the ridges -
Another goalpost shift, ..and a grantuitous one
I document transform insertion on my site, but the flip symmetry is
one for the future. That means going back to all the raw data, and
doing it again (all those ship traverses, ..eh??)
Both of them are ones to keep an eye on. A simple working example is
the length of the spreading ridges around Africa compared to the
coastlines. Plate Tectonics has no explanation for that.
Pata...@gmail.com
> Both of them are ones to keep an eye on. A simple working example is
> the length of the spreading ridges around Africa compared to the
> coastlines. Plate Tectonics has no explanation for that.
Is this an assertion, or did you ask a couple of scientists with PhDs
in geology first before coming here to post that?
John Harshman
Once again, nobody else has access to your inner monolog in which all
that made sense. You have to explain. Plate tectonics has no explanation
for what? How should the length of the spreading ridges around Africa
compare to the coastlines (of what?)?
George
<Pata...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188939641.1...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
One has to wonder if drugs are what makes DF so delusional, if his
condition is a result of an accident at birth (i.e., genetics), or is it
simply that mamma dropped him on his head too many times? My vote is for
all of the above.
George
Landy
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote in message
news:a4kDi.10387$Y7....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
I think he's from Tasmania. It's two heads and three arms country down
there.
cheers
Bill
George
"Landy" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:fbkk6k$pjb$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
He's from Scotland, allegedly. Good thing for Aiden and friends he no
longer hails from that cherished part of the globe.
George
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> If Earth expansion is correct,
It isn't. It contradicts all observations and all theoretical
understanding of how the physical world works. It is supported only by
psychotic delusions, which seem to be the sum total of your
"thinking".
<snip rest of lunatic rant>
don findlay
John Harshman wrote:
> How should the length of the spreading ridges around Africa
> compare to the coastlines (of what?)?
Africa.
don findlay
Patas...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 5, 12:54 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Both of them are ones to keep an eye on. A simple working example is
> > the length of the spreading ridges around Africa compared to the
> > coastlines. Plate Tectonics has no explanation for that.
>
> Is this an assertion,
No, it's a fact The spreading ridges around Africa are substantially
longer than the coastlines (of Africa)
don findlay
How can a sensible person like you have such crazies on your team as
that John Harshman, who actually asked a question? And expects an
answer?
don findlay
Ad hominem. Piss off.
don findlay
Ad hominem. Piss off.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by don findlay <d...@tower.net.au>:
>If Earth expansion is correct...
...there will be actual measurements of that expansion.
There are none.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Harshman
Go on. What do spreading ridges have to do with the coastline of Africa?
don findlay
Same as they have to do with the coastlines of South America, India
and Antarctica.
rupert....@gmail.com
wrote:
Don is arguing that if the Earth were expanding, the Atlantic sea
floor must be expanding North-South as well as East-West. If this is
the case, the pattern of magnetic reversal on the Atlantic sea floor
would actually form concentric regions, not bands. Since it clearly
(http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/AtlanticAge.jpg) forms bands, EE
is disproved by Don's own argument.
John Harshman
Please write an explanation of what the heck you think you're talking
about. Use complete sentences. Be explicit. Remember -- and I don't know
why you can't understand this -- that nobody else has access to your
inner monolog.
don findlay
No, ..That's in the Pacific, not the Atlantic. There is a directional
arrow to geological time, more subtle than your pea-brain can
apparently handle.
josephus
the only thing wrong with Dandy Don's response, is that the
spreading ridges run ALL OVER THE WORLD between all the continents...
Now in that context Dandy Don does not make any sense.
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is inorant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
nonsense
> don findlay wrote:
>
>> Patas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 12:54 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Both of them are ones to keep an eye on. A simple working example is
>>>> the length of the spreading ridges around Africa compared to the
>>>> coastlines. Plate Tectonics has no explanation for that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this an assertion,
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's a fact The spreading ridges around Africa are substantially
>> longer than the coastlines (of Africa)
>>
>>
>>> or did you ask a couple of scientists with PhDs
>>> in geology first before coming here to post that?
>>
>>
>>
> the only thing wrong with Dandy Don's response, is that the
> spreading ridges run ALL OVER THE WORLD between all the continents...
> Now in that context Dandy Don does not make any sense.
>
>
Don began not making sense as an infant, and has
relentlessly pursued the same goal ever since.
.
George
"josephus" <dog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13dsvra...@corp.supernews.com...
Hmm, I've seen that last quote attributed to Mark Twain. What to do?
George
don findlay
Can we have a show of hands? Is John just being pointedly dumb? Or is
it a mystery to all that when the lithosphere breaks there is (in
plate tectonics) an equivalence in length between the fracture in the
continental crust and its depth-penetrated-equivalent in the mantle?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>John Harshman wrote:
>> don findlay wrote:
>>
>> > John Harshman wrote:
>> >
>> >>don findlay wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>John Harshman wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>How should the length of the spreading ridges around Africa
>> >>>>compare to the coastlines (of what?)?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Africa.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Go on. What do spreading ridges have to do with the coastline of Africa?
>> >
>> >
>> > Same as they have to do with the coastlines of South America, India
>> > and Antarctica.
>> >
>> Please write an explanation of what the heck you think you're talking
>> about. Use complete sentences. Be explicit. Remember -- and I don't know
>> why you can't understand this -- that nobody else has access to your
>> inner monolog.
>
>Can we have a show of hands? Is John just being pointedly dumb?
No, I would say far from it. The dumb one is the one claiming that the
Earth is expanding, even though he has no measurements to prove it.
> Or is
>it a mystery to all that when the lithosphere breaks there is (in
>plate tectonics) an equivalence in length between the fracture in the
>continental crust and its depth-penetrated-equivalent in the mantle?
Do you even know what you are talking about?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 2:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>> > don findlay wrote:
>> > > John Harshman wrote:
>> >
>> > >> How should the length of the spreading ridges around Africa
>> > >>compare to the coastlines (of what?)?
>> >
>> > > Africa.
>> >
>> > Go on. What do spreading ridges have to do with the coastline of Africa?
>>
>> Don is arguing that if the Earth were expanding, the Atlantic sea
>> floor must be expanding North-South as well as East-West. If this is
>> the case, the pattern of magnetic reversal on the Atlantic sea floor
>> would actually form concentric regions, not bands. Since it clearly
>> (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/AtlanticAge.jpg) forms bands, EE
>> is disproved by Don's own argument.
>
>No, ..That's in the Pacific, not the Atlantic.
The picture clearly shows the Atlantic.
> There is a directional
>arrow to geological time,
But no expansion of the Earth.
> more subtle than your pea-brain can
>apparently handle.
I bet you hope your brain will expand to that size one day.
--
Bob.
rupert....@gmail.com
josephus
but Dandy Don is being pointedly dumb. the Breaks are not what Dandy
Don thinks they are. He wants the scale to be be adjustable so his non
math works.
josephus
don findlay
ocean floor getting bigger? Or is Africa shrinking?
Kermit
> So how did you go with Africa - and its spreading ridges?
What does "go with" mean? Grammatically, this seems to be a question,
but you're not actually asking anything.
> Is the ocean floor getting bigger?
No.
> Or is Africa shrinking?
No.
HTH, Kermit
John Harshman
> So how did you go with Africa - and its spreading ridges? Is the
> ocean floor getting bigger? Or is Africa shrinking?
>
Neither. Thanks for playing.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by don findlay <d...@tower.net.au>:
>So how did you go with Africa - and its spreading ridges? Is the
>ocean floor getting bigger? Or is Africa shrinking?
The Atlantic is getting wider.
The Pacific is getting narrower.
Africa is doing neither.
Do you have some sort of point to make?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
The Atlantic is getting bigger. Africa is not shrinking, if fact it is
starting to split with what will one day be a new ocean opening in the
Great Rift Valley.
And all this can be measured with millimeter accuracy. What we don't
find is any growth in the size of the Earth.
--
Bob.
don findlay
(Hah, .. !! Hey, ..it's "thanx", .. sometimes 'thnx' if you want
to be dismissive. Except 'thnx' could be 'thinx" - which wouldn't do
at all...)
So, you were just shown for being a fool,. John, if you hadn't got
that one sussed out. Try it for other continent - ridge combinations
and see how you go. And if you begin to get a hint, step out on to
the ocean floors themselves and start unravelling the structural
history there..
The ocean floors are far more than Plate Tectonics' wildest dream.
There. I offer you one single criterion whereby Earth expansion could
be falsified at a stroke - and nobody wants to play. You got close,
but ducked. You don't even understand what transform faults are, do
you? And you don't even want to explore them. Yet Plate Tectonics
offers *NOTHING* by way of explanation how they come about, ..and far
less where the first ones formed, whether they are all generated at
once or sequentially, or what.. or anything about them at all. There
are animations and descriptions galore on the web, every one of them
negating the very *ESSENCE* of plate tectonics, and yet to a man you
all ignore the implications.
What game is it you think you are playing? People here were looking
to you as their last man in, now Stuart is on the rox. (makes a
change from xtl, I suppose )
josephus
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>don findlay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So how did you go with Africa - and its spreading ridges? Is the
>>>ocean floor getting bigger? Or is Africa shrinking?
>>>
>>
>>Neither. Thanks for playing.
>
>
> (Hah, .. !! Hey, ..it's "thanx", .. sometimes 'thnx' if you want
> to be dismissive. Except 'thnx' could be 'thinx" - which wouldn't do
> at all...)
>
> So, you were just shown for being a fool,. John, if you hadn't got
> that one sussed out. Try it for other continent - ridge combinations
> and see how you go. And if you begin to get a hint, step out on to
> the ocean floors themselves and start unravelling the structural
> history there..
>
> The ocean floors are far more than Plate Tectonics' wildest dream.
>
> There. I offer you one single criterion whereby Earth expansion could
> be falsified at a stroke - and nobody wants to play. You got close,
> but ducked. You don't even understand what transform faults are, do
> you? And you don't even want to explore them.
by ignoring inconvient posts, you can say we do not refue EE. <BZZT>
to expland the EARTH requires additional MASS. There is NO KNOWN
METHOD of creating MATTER with anything less than ENORMOUS ENERGY.
E=MC^2. that is how much ENERGY is required for MASS. to add 10000kg
if natter reqyures a phenominal amount of ENERGY. The QM theory forbits
low energy mass creation.
to explain that GPS accellerations signify motion. GPS will give you
a coordinate. by itself it will not show you ANY ACCELLERATION. you
MUST know WHERE you are and Where you are SUPPOSED to be. The
references do not give any RAW position data. The frame gets involved
here because it matters that there is NO FUNDAMENTAL FRAME. The EARTH
is a ROTATING FRAME. Coordinates on the EARTH are ROTATING. now which
accelleration are you looking at.
EE does not have any SUBSTANTIVE DATA. The Atlantic Ocean is EXPANDING,
the Pacific Ocean is SHRINKING, and SUBDUCTION at the Mariannas Trench
is nearly VERTICAL. There is NO OVERTHRUSTING THERE. and subduction
overtly refutes EXPANDING EARTH.
a physical question. HOW STRONG IS STONE? say a planet is too close to
a massive body. WHAT HAPPENS to the STONE? It will deform and shatter.
what happens to the sea floor that carries away a mountain. when the
SLAB flows into the Mariannas Trench, it turns at nearly 90 degrees and
descends. because STONE is plastic. that is why we can see deformed
mountains that have stone that is BENT into horse shoe shapes. why
would the sea floor not do the same.
EXPANSION of the Surface would tend to STRETCH surface features. it
would tend to FLATTEN EVERYTHING and EROSION is NOT FPLATTEING.
Transverse Faults have NOTHING to DO with the Mariannas, Trench amd
subduction.
Which part of this is NOT REFUTING EE.
Yet Plate Tectonics
> offers *NOTHING* by way of explanation how they come about, ..and far
> less where the first ones formed, whether they are all generated at
> once or sequentially, or what.. or anything about them at all. There
> are animations and descriptions galore on the web, every one of them
> negating the very *ESSENCE* of plate tectonics, and yet to a man you
> all ignore the implications.
>
> What game is it you think you are playing? People here were looking
> to you as their last man in, now Stuart is on the rox. (makes a
> change from xtl, I suppose )
>
josephus
Stuart
> John Harshman wrote:
> > don findlay wrote:
>
> > > So how did you go with Africa - and its spreading ridges? Is the
> > > ocean floor getting bigger? Or is Africa shrinking?
>
> > Neither. Thanks for playing.
>
> (Hah, .. !! Hey, ..it's "thanx", .. sometimes 'thnx' if you want
> to be dismissive. Except 'thnx' could be 'thinx" - which wouldn't do
> at all...)
>
> So, you were just shown for being a fool,. John, if you hadn't got
> that one sussed out. Try it for other continent - ridge combinations
> and see how you go. And if you begin to get a hint, step out on to
> the ocean floors themselves and start unravelling the structural
> history there..
>
> The ocean floors are far more than Plate Tectonics' wildest dream.
>
> There. I offer you one single criterion whereby Earth expansion could
> be falsified at a stroke - and nobody wants to play. You got close,
> but ducked. You don't even understand what transform faults are, do
> you? And you don't even want to explore them. Yet Plate Tectonics
> offers *NOTHING* by way of explanation how they come about, .
Liar.
We've discussed this before. For example
http://www.geology.yale.edu/~dberco/papers/1995/toroidalpurpose-GRL95.pdf
My 1998 study explored this a little further.
You may not understand or like the explanation, but we do understand
what transform faults are, do and how they arise.
Stuart
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Sep 6, 3:13 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> > > don findlay wrote:
> >
> > > > So how did you go with Africa - and its spreading ridges? Is the
> > > > ocean floor getting bigger? Or is Africa shrinking?
> >
> > > Neither. Thanks for playing.
> >
> > (Hah, .. !! Hey, ..it's "thanx", .. sometimes 'thnx' if you want
> > to be dismissive. Except 'thnx' could be 'thinx" - which wouldn't do
> > at all...)
> >
> > So, you were just shown for being a fool,. John, if you hadn't got
> > that one sussed out. Try it for other continent - ridge combinations
> > and see how you go. And if you begin to get a hint, step out on to
> > the ocean floors themselves and start unravelling the structural
> > history there..
> >
> > The ocean floors are far more than Plate Tectonics' wildest dream.
> >
> > There. I offer you one single criterion whereby Earth expansion could
> > be falsified at a stroke - and nobody wants to play. You got close,
> > but ducked. You don't even understand what transform faults are, do
> > you? And you don't even want to explore them. Yet Plate Tectonics
> > offers *NOTHING* by way of explanation how they come about, .
>
> Liar.
>
> We've discussed this before. For example
> http://www.geology.yale.edu/~dberco/papers/1995/toroidalpurpose-GRL95.pdf
We haven't discussed this before at all.
>
> My 1998 study explored this a little further.
>
> You may not understand or like the explanation, but we do understand
> what transform faults are, do and how they arise.
I don't think you do.
>
> Stuart
Tell you what, ..you translate that into plain English in a few
sentences, add your own effort (in plain English in a few sentences)
(or better, the article complete) and we'll discuss it now.
Fair enough? (Going by the acknowledgements it looks like a cozy
cabal you've got going there. ) (By the way, I see no reference to
geology in the entire paper).
In fact I'll help you now. In the abstract where he says:-
-------------------------------
"We show that for a non-Newtonian flow driven by an existing poloidal
field (a source-sink field), the generation of toroidal motion
interacts with the nonlinear rheology to cause less viscous
dissipation than if there were no toroidal motion." ....<then in the
main body of the text on p. 1> " In this model, shallowlayer
lithospheric motion is driven by sources and sinks which are a proxy
for convective motion in that they represent spreading centers and
subduction zones, respectively."
---------------------------------
(..the second bit is pretty convoluted to say the least, but we'll let
it go since it got past you as a helpful advisor - presumably in fudgy
language - is just a fancy way of just saying that spreading centres
and subduction zones drive convective motion.
So he says, assuming you've got that convective motion in the first
place, then transform faults arise because, ... if you tweak a whole
lot of different possibilities of material properties the viscous
drag is dissipated along certain zones. Which are transform faults.
And that's how transform faults arise. . (Something to do with
interaction bwteeen Stoke's Law and non-Newtonian viscosity)
Is this correct? For yes, press 1, for no, press 2.
(Look, ..put it plain English and stop farting about - for the benefit
of poor John Harshman there, who likes it in sentences..)
'coz if you don't, I will. And you won't like it one little bit.
------------------------------------------------------
"...A suite of rheologies were tested for flows driven by source-sink
fields derived from both idealized plate motion and the Earth's
present day plate motions. Mantle-type powerlaw rheologies were
found inadequate to generate plate-like behavior, even up to extremely
high power-law indices.."
----------------------------------------------------------
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 3:13 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > John Harshman wrote:
> > > > don findlay wrote:
>
> > > > > So how did you go with Africa - and its spreading ridges? Is the
> > > > > ocean floor getting bigger? Or is Africa shrinking?
>
> > > > Neither. Thanks for playing.
>
> > > (Hah, .. !! Hey, ..it's "thanx", .. sometimes 'thnx' if you want
> > > to be dismissive. Except 'thnx' could be 'thinx" - which wouldn't do
> > > at all...)
>
> > > So, you were just shown for being a fool,. John, if you hadn't got
> > > that one sussed out. Try it for other continent - ridge combinations
> > > and see how you go. And if you begin to get a hint, step out on to
> > > the ocean floors themselves and start unravelling the structural
> > > history there..
>
> > > The ocean floors are far more than Plate Tectonics' wildest dream.
>
> > > There. I offer you one single criterion whereby Earth expansion could
> > > be falsified at a stroke - and nobody wants to play. You got close,
> > > but ducked. You don't even understand what transform faults are, do
> > > you? And you don't even want to explore them. Yet Plate Tectonics
> > > offers *NOTHING* by way of explanation how they come about, .
>
> > Liar.
>
> > We've discussed this before. For example
>
> We haven't discussed this before at all.
>
>
>
> > My 1998 study explored this a little further.
>
> > You may not understand or like the explanation, but we do understand
> > what transform faults are, do and how they arise.
>
> I don't think you do.
>
>
>
> > Stuart
>
> Tell you what, ..you translate that into plain English in a few
> sentences, add your own effort (in plain English in a few sentences)
> (or better, the article complete) and we'll discuss it now.
>
> Fair enough? (Going by the acknowledgements it looks like a cozy
> cabal you've got going there. ) (By the way, I see no reference to
> geology in the entire paper).
So? What specific aspects of the Geology of transform faults
would you like to see.
I don't see you referencing much else besides the drool
on your website.
>
> In fact I'll help you now. In the abstract where he says:-
> -------------------------------
> "We show that for a non-Newtonian flow driven by an existing poloidal
> field (a source-sink field), the generation of toroidal motion
> interacts with the nonlinear rheology to cause less viscous
> dissipation than if there were no toroidal motion." ....<then in the
> main body of the text on p. 1> " In this model, shallowlayer
> lithospheric motion is driven by sources and sinks which are a proxy
> for convective motion in that they represent spreading centers and
> subduction zones, respectively."
> ---------------------------------
> (..the second bit is pretty convoluted to say the least, but we'll let
> it go since it got past you as a helpful advisor - presumably in fudgy
> language - is just a fancy way of just saying that spreading centres
> and subduction zones drive convective motion.
Exactly.
Nothing to fuzzy about it. "Toroidal motion" is essentially fluid
dynamics speak
for "spin". The system of ridges and subduction zone are "divergent
boundaries"
and represent the source of "Poloidal motion". What Dave did is simply
put
in the location of the ridges and subduction zones and set the mass
flux on each point
along the ridges and trenches according to current plate motions.
In one case he left the toroidal component out of the equations, and
in another case
he put it in. In the case where toroidal motion was allowed to
develop, the model
using no knowledge of where transform faults actually are, was
actually able
to generate the major transform faults approximately where they are
found on earth.
>
> So he says, assuming you've got that convective motion in the first
> place, then transform faults arise because, ... if you tweak a whole
> lot of different possibilities of material properties the viscous
> drag is dissipated along certain zones.
There is no "tweaking" of material properties in Dave's or my models.
We explored
a range of rheologies, however, in each computation, the
"lithosphere"
has the same properties everywhere. We both use strongly non-linear
rheology
which in the appropriate limits can simulate the development of plate
boundaries or faults.
For all intents and purposes, plate boundaries are simply zones of
concentrated slip.
That aspect of plate behavior is well recovered in these calculations.
Which are transform faults.
> And that's how transform faults arise. . (Something to do with
> interaction bwteeen Stoke's Law and non-Newtonian viscosity)
What he found out, is that transform faults reduce the overall
disspation
(hence friction) in the system. Many phenomena take the path of the
"least resistance". This is what transform faults do; they lower the
dissipation
produced by plate motions.
>
> Is this correct? For yes, press 1, for no, press 2.
>
> (Look, ..put it plain English and stop farting about - for the benefit
> of poor John Harshman there, who likes it in sentences..)
>
> 'coz if you don't, I will. And you won't like it one little bit.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> "...A suite of rheologies were tested for flows driven by source-sink
> fields derived from both idealized plate motion and the Earth's
> present day plate motions. Mantle-type powerlaw rheologies were
> found inadequate to generate plate-like behavior, even up to extremely
> high power-law indices.."
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Indeed. Power-law rheology(at high values of the power law index)
can come close but they are not ideal; for that
Dave used something called stick-slip rheology, which for
some reason, you didn't mention. In stead you cherry picked the
blurb about power-law, since you imagine that it makes
your problems go away.
Stick-slip was quite satisfactory.
We don't expect power-law rheologies appropriate for the mantle
to work that well. If they did, then earthquakes should be occuring
all over
the mantle. They don't. Hence the rheology of the mantle changes
markedly as it cools to form lithosphere.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
>
> So? What specific aspects of the Geology of transform faults
> would you like to see.
Earthquakes. I don't see the word mentioned once in your reply - nor
in Bercovici's paper. Why is that?
>
> I don't see you referencing much else besides the drool
> on your website.
>
> >
> > In fact I'll help you now. In the abstract where he says:-
> > -------------------------------
> > "We show that for a non-Newtonian flow driven by an existing poloidal
> > field (a source-sink field), the generation of toroidal motion
> > interacts with the nonlinear rheology to cause less viscous
> > dissipation than if there were no toroidal motion." ....<then in the
> > main body of the text on p. 1> " In this model, shallowlayer
> > lithospheric motion is driven by sources and sinks which are a proxy
> > for convective motion in that they represent spreading centers and
> > subduction zones, respectively."
> > ---------------------------------
> > (..the second bit is pretty convoluted to say the least, but we'll let
> > it go since it got past you as a helpful advisor - presumably in fudgy
> > language - is just a fancy way of just saying that spreading centres
> > and subduction zones drive convective motion.
>
> Exactly.
You mean the spreading centres that have earthquakes, and the
subduction zones that have an order of magnitude more
earthquakes... ?
>
> Nothing to fuzzy about it. "Toroidal motion" is essentially fluid
> dynamics speak
> for "spin". The system of ridges and subduction zone are "divergent
> boundaries"
> and represent the source of "Poloidal motion". What Dave did is simply
> put
> in the location of the ridges and subduction zones and set the mass
> flux on each point
> along the ridges and trenches according to current plate motions.
>
> In one case he left the toroidal component out of the equations, and
> in another case
> he put it in. In the case where toroidal motion was allowed to
> develop, the model
> using no knowledge of where transform faults actually are, was
> actually able
> to generate the major transform faults approximately where they are
> found on earth.
(poloidal = up/down; toroidal = along.) Hmm, ..and ridges and
trenches and even transform faults. But no mention again of
Earthquakes. How does ductile flow keep being expressed as brittle
failure? ... And only between the ridge crests (the hot bit)
> >
> > So he says, assuming you've got that convective motion in the first
> > place, then transform faults arise because, ... if you tweak a whole
> > lot of different possibilities of material properties the viscous
> > drag is dissipated along certain zones.
>
> There is no "tweaking" of material properties in Dave's or my models.
> We explored
> a range of rheologies, however, in each computation, the
> "lithosphere"
> has the same properties everywhere. We both use strongly non-linear
> rheology
> which in the appropriate limits can simulate the development of plate
> boundaries or faults.
> For all intents and purposes, plate boundaries are simply zones of
> concentrated slip.
> That aspect of plate behavior is well recovered in these calculations.
Ad does that 'concentrated slip' result in brittle failure?
>
>
> Which are transform faults.
> > And that's how transform faults arise. . (Something to do with
> > interaction bwteeen Stoke's Law and non-Newtonian viscosity)
>
> What he found out, is that transform faults reduce the overall
> disspation
> (hence friction) in the system. Many phenomena take the path of the
> "least resistance". This is what transform faults do; they lower the
> dissipation
> produced by plate motions.
And that's why we get earthquakes is it? ...because the friction is
REDUCED along these zones?
>
> >
> > Is this correct? For yes, press 1, for no, press 2.
> >
> > (Look, ..put it plain English and stop farting about - for the benefit
> > of poor John Harshman there, who likes it in sentences..)
> >
> > 'coz if you don't, I will. And you won't like it one little bit.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > "...A suite of rheologies were tested for flows driven by source-sink
> > fields derived from both idealized plate motion and the Earth's
> > present day plate motions. Mantle-type powerlaw rheologies were
> > found inadequate to generate plate-like behavior, even up to extremely
> > high power-law indices.."
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Indeed. Power-law rheology(at high values of the power law index)
> can come close but they are not ideal; for that
> Dave used something called stick-slip rheology, which for
> some reason, you didn't mention.
Ah, ..the stick-slip rheology..! (Now you get an earthquake, now you
don't.) ("Look Ma, no tweaking.")
> In stead you cherry picked the
> blurb about power-law, since you imagine that it makes
> your problems go away.
Earthquakes are not a problem for Earth expansion, but the absence of
them is most certainly a problem for Plate Tectonics.
>
> Stick-slip was quite satisfactory.
> We don't expect power-law rheologies appropriate for the mantle
> to work that well. If they did, then earthquakes
Ah! I found it !! "Earthquakes" get a mention after all..
> should be occuring
> all over
> the mantle. They don't. Hence the rheology of the mantle changes
> markedly as it cools to form lithosphere.
That's exactly right Stuart, and that is a capital problem for Plate
Tectonics.
>
Earthquakes, Stuart, ..why doesn't Bercovici mention them? - the only
bit of geological reality there is, ..and it doesn't even rate a
mention in the whole paper - nor (almost) in your answer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"How and why the escape of interior heat becomes concentrated in
certain regions to form convection cells remains a mystery."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Any answers to this bit of geological reality either? ...you guys,
to whom the rubber numbers are all that matters, and everybody else's
common or garden understanding of Plate Tectonics can go hee.
You're funny.
Come on, ..what answers have you got, other than that 'no earthquakes'
mean toroidal motion for half the world's ocean floors? So, .. Hot
and ductile (ridges) means 'earthquakes and brittle', and 'cold and no
earthquakes' (the rest of the ocean floor) mean toroidal ductile
flow. Is that it?
You're in la-la land, mate.
Ridges is ridges. Crust is crust. Earthquakes is earthquakes.
Transform faults is transform faults. And subduction zones are
nothing of the sort.
josephus
> Stuart wrote:
>
>>On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Stuart wrote:
>>
>>So? What specific aspects of the Geology of transform faults
>>would you like to see.
>
>
> Earthquakes. I don't see the word mentioned once in your reply - nor
> in Bercovici's paper. Why is that?
>
poor baby, maybe the paper was not about EARTHQUAKES.
most of this mishmash is cut and paste and WORD SALAD. adding raw
data and scaling would be NEW and UNUSUAL.
the main reason earthquakes occur along the edges of a slab is
because the slab breaks along the edge and the centers do not break.
however the real data indicates earthquakes can occur ANY WHERE even in
the quiescent center of a slab.
>
>
>
>>>Is this correct? For yes, press 1, for no, press 2.
>>>
>>>(Look, ..put it plain English and stop farting about - for the benefit
>>>of poor John Harshman there, who likes it in sentences..)
>>>
>>> 'coz if you don't, I will. And you won't like it one little bit.
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------
>>>"...A suite of rheologies were tested for flows driven by source-sink
>>>fields derived from both idealized plate motion and the Earth's
>>>present day plate motions. Mantle-type powerlaw rheologies were
>>>found inadequate to generate plate-like behavior, even up to extremely
>>>high power-law indices.."
>>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>Indeed. Power-law rheology(at high values of the power law index)
>>can come close but they are not ideal; for that
>>Dave used something called stick-slip rheology, which for
>>some reason, you didn't mention.
>
>
It is easy to poopoo a theory, but I see you do not really offer a
theory just barking like a mad dog.
> Ah, ..the stick-slip rheology..! (Now you get an earthquake, now you
> don't.) ("Look Ma, no tweaking.")
>
>
>> In stead you cherry picked the
>>blurb about power-law, since you imagine that it makes
>>your problems go away.
>
actually Earthquakes are not a problem for GEOLOGY in general. in fact
there is a large body of data concerning earthquakes, their power and
their effects. Not having earthquakes is not a problem for any sensible
person like someone who does not have an hurricane.
>
> Earthquakes are not a problem for Earth expansion, but the absence of
> them is most certainly a problem for Plate Tectonics.
>
>
>
>>Stick-slip was quite satisfactory.
>>We don't expect power-law rheologies appropriate for the mantle
>>to work that well. If they did, then earthquakes
>
>
> Ah! I found it !! "Earthquakes" get a mention after all..
>
I see you cant read for meaning , you just pick out keywords the
comment does not add anything to the conversation.
>
>>should be occuring
>>all over
>>the mantle. They don't. Hence the rheology of the mantle changes
>>markedly as it cools to form lithosphere.
>
>
No it is not there is a sensible fact of life. Earthquakes appear
near faults, not near NON FAULTS like SLABS. how would this be a problem
for PT. EE doesnt have a problem in fact it does not have ANY TESTABLE
predictions. The fact that the mariannas trench is a straight
subduction and EE if refuted by subduction.
> That's exactly right Stuart, and that is a capital problem for Plate
> Tectonics.
>
>
> Earthquakes, Stuart, ..why doesn't Bercovici mention them? - the only
> bit of geological reality there is, ..and it doesn't even rate a
> mention in the whole paper - nor (almost) in your answer.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "How and why the escape of interior heat becomes concentrated in
> certain regions to form convection cells remains a mystery."
if the heat in the center is 7500 egress. how much of the interior
is melted. and liquid and semi liquid will show convection cells. the
real question is how well do they correlate to PT. It is a real
question and people are studying it.
where is your RAW DATA to go with you pretty pictures. I observe
that fuzzy unlabeled pictures are endemic. deviation graphs without
scaling, and rough schematics of the pacific without details. I saw a
graphing program for students it had pretty picture and RAW DATA. where
is EE data.
and where does the extra matter come from QM forbids low energy matter
creations. it needs the laboratory of a STAR to burn HELIUM into IRON.
This sticky point makes EE bad science. QM indicates the EE method of
matter creation is MAGIC.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Any answers to this bit of geological reality either? ...you guys,
> to whom the rubber numbers are all that matters, and everybody else's
> common or garden understanding of Plate Tectonics can go hee.
> You're funny.
>
> Come on, ..what answers have you got, other than that 'no earthquakes'
> mean toroidal motion for half the world's ocean floors? So, .. Hot
> and ductile (ridges) means 'earthquakes and brittle', and 'cold and no
> earthquakes' (the rest of the ocean floor) mean toroidal ductile
> flow. Is that it?
>
> You're in la-la land, mate.
>
> Ridges is ridges. Crust is crust. Earthquakes is earthquakes.
> Transform faults is transform faults. And subduction zones are
> nothing of the sort.
>
most of this is EE word salad. you expose your ideological bias and
blinkd stupidity.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I offer you one single criterion whereby Earth expansion could
>be falsified at a stroke
EE has already been proven false - by you.
Well, unless you have suddenly found the all important measurements to
show the Earth is expanding? No? Thought not.
--
Bob.
don findlay
josephus wrote:
> don findlay wrote:
>
> > Stuart wrote:
> >
> >>On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Stuart wrote:
> >>
> >>So? What specific aspects of the Geology of transform faults
> >>would you like to see.
> >
> >
> > Earthquakes. I don't see the word mentioned once in your reply - nor
> > in Bercovici's paper. Why is that?
> >
> poor baby, maybe the paper was not about EARTHQUAKES.
Unfortunately for Plate Tectonics, you are DEAD RIGHT.... !!
>
> > And that's why we get earthquakes is it? ...because the friction is
> > REDUCED along these zones?
>
> the main reason earthquakes occur along the edges of a slab is
> because the slab breaks along the edge and the centers do not break.
> however the real data indicates earthquakes can occur ANY WHERE even in
> the quiescent center of a slab.
Ho yes, Bright Eyes, ... Earthquakes occur everywhere. ..! You're
getting the idea! Keep going. Except they don't occur in the vast
quiescent tracts of the ocean floors. Funny, ..that..., except
that's not where all the toroidal flow is supposed to occur - is it,
Stuart?
> It is easy to poopoo a theory,
No, ..it isn't, if it's any good.. Unless it's the likes of you pooh-
poohing what you see as a theory in Earth expansion - but that's only
because you're dim enough not to take on board that we're not talking
about a theory, but an observation.
> but I see you do not really offer a
> theory just barking like a mad dog.
(You're losing the place.) Again: no theory. Observation. ( Mad
Dog? Who? Me? ...)
Grrrrrrr.......
>
> actually Earthquakes are not a problem for GEOLOGY in general. in fact
> there is a large body of data concerning earthquakes, their power and
> their effects. Not having earthquakes is not a problem for any sensible
> person like someone who does not have an hurricane.
What's this? Not a problem for geology? Of course they're not a
problem for Geology. But they most certainly are a problem for the
'toroidal motion in a convecting mantle' rubbish of Messrs Bercovic
and Weinstein. "Slab-pull / ridge-push / stick-slip.. Where will it
all end? Blobtonics? (google it up)
> >
> > Earthquakes are not a problem for Earth expansion, but the absence of
> > them is most certainly a problem for Plate Tectonics.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Stick-slip was quite satisfactory.
> >>We don't expect power-law rheologies appropriate for the mantle
> >>to work that well. If they did, then earthquakes
> >
> >
> > Ah! I found it !! "Earthquakes" get a mention after all..
> >
> I see you cant read for meaning , you just pick out keywords the
> comment does not add anything to the conversation.
You really are on the ball this time, Josephus, .. The entire
conversation Stuart has with himself (while he's trying to wrestle me
to the concrete) has nothing to do with earthquakes. That's his
problem. Let's wait and see what he says about *EARTHQUAKES* - and
stick-slip / brittle-ductile / periodic slippage / of transform
faults -..what determines when they do one and when they do the
other. Time doesn't get a mention in the paper by the way, nor in his
reply to my post.
> >
> >>should be occuring
> >>all over
> >>the mantle. They don't. Hence the rheology of the mantle changes
> >>markedly as it cools to form lithosphere.
> >
> >
> No it is not there is a sensible fact of life. Earthquakes appear
> near faults, not near NON FAULTS like SLABS. how would this be a problem
> for PT.
There you go, Stuart. Josephus here has picked you up on your Great
Big Bad Stupid Error. Answer him with a blast from your fine
artillery of rubbernumbers.
> EE doesnt have a problem in fact it does not have ANY TESTABLE
> predictions.
It's too late for you J., go to bed.
> The fact that the mariannas trench is a straight
> subduction and EE if refuted by subduction.
How can subduction occur if there are earthquakes and therefore no
toroidal motion ?
> > That's exactly right Stuart, and that is a capital problem for Plate
> > Tectonics.
> >
> >
> > Earthquakes, Stuart, ..why doesn't Bercovici mention them? - the only
> > bit of geological reality there is, ..and it doesn't even rate a
> > mention in the whole paper - nor (almost) in your answer.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "How and why the escape of interior heat becomes concentrated in
> > certain regions to form convection cells remains a mystery."
>
> if the heat in the center is 7500 egress. how much of the interior
> is melted. and liquid and semi liquid will show convection cells. the
> real question is how well do they correlate to PT. It is a real
> question and people are studying it.
..Till they're blue in the face.. The unsolvable mystery. "The Gift
that Keeps on Giving".
> where is your RAW DATA to go with you pretty pictures. I observe
> that fuzzy unlabeled pictures are endemic. deviation graphs without
> scaling, and rough schematics of the pacific without details. I saw a
> graphing program for students it had pretty picture and RAW DATA. where
> is EE data.
Raw data at <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/> <free>
>
> and where does the extra matter come from QM forbids low energy matter
> creations. it needs the laboratory of a STAR to burn HELIUM into IRON.
> This sticky point makes EE bad science. QM indicates the EE method of
> matter creation is MAGIC.
No-no, .. *BAD SCIENCE* is when you frist make your assumption, and
then make it the basis of your conclusion.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
...alternatively known as "Junk Science".
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Any answers to this bit of geological reality either? ...you guys,
> > to whom the rubber numbers are all that matters, and everybody else's
> > common or garden understanding of Plate Tectonics can go hee.
> > You're funny.
> >
> > Come on, ..what answers have you got, other than that 'no earthquakes'
> > mean toroidal motion for half the world's ocean floors? So, .. Hot
> > and ductile (ridges) means 'earthquakes and brittle', and 'cold and no
> > earthquakes' (the rest of the ocean floor) mean toroidal ductile
> > flow. Is that it?
> >
> > You're in la-la land, mate.
> >
> > Ridges is ridges. Crust is crust. Earthquakes is earthquakes.
> > Transform faults is transform faults. And subduction zones are
> > nothing of the sort.
> >
> most of this is EE word salad. you expose your ideological bias and
> blinkd stupidity.
> josephus
Time for bed J., Hey, nothing nearly like the word salad like this:-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Abstract. The purpose of toroidal flow, i.e., strike-slip motion and
plate spin, in
the plate-tectonic style of mantle convection is ENIGMATIC. It is a
purely horizontal,
dissipative flow field that makes NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTION to the
release of heat."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could almost be forgiven for not understanding what he
means, ..except it's crystal clear. That's the geological starting
point:- He says in effect, "Geologically speaking, ductile flow of
the ocean floors makes no sense." Then he goes on to say, "If you
forget all about Earthquakes, and suppose this and suppose that, and
then plug in some rubber numbers, <and get the OK from Stuart
Weinstein> .. then you can make transform faults (with no
earthquakes) look like frictionless partitions in flow bands." "And
you don't even need to bother about earthquakes" (on transform
faults). "You've got plenty anyway on the ridges where it's hot and
ductile, what do you want them on transform faults for?"
That right, Stuart? I got it right first time, ..How did we go the
second time? Or is Mr Policeman on your side?
don findlay
Jeez. Are you loose again? Well at least I see you're cutting down
on the crap.
>
> --
> Bob.
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 3:13 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > > John Harshman wrote:
> > > > > don findlay wrote:
> > In fact I'll help you now. In the abstract where he says:-
> > -------------------------------
> > "We show that for a non-Newtonian flow driven by an existing poloidal
> > field (a source-sink field), the generation of toroidal motion
> > interacts with the nonlinear rheology to cause less viscous
> > dissipation than if there were no toroidal motion." ....<then in the
> > main body of the text on p. 1> " In this model, shallowlayer
> > lithospheric motion is driven by sources and sinks which are a proxy
> > for convective motion in that they represent spreading centers and
> > subduction zones, respectively."
> > ---------------------------------
> > (..the second bit is pretty convoluted to say the least, but we'll let
> > it go since it got past you as a helpful advisor - presumably in fudgy
> > language - is just a fancy way of just saying that spreading centres
> > and subduction zones drive convective motion.
>
> Exactly.
OK, ..so taking you up on this bit - since you say "Exactly" and we
are in agreement therefore about what Plate Tectonics is saying here -
which is *_NOT_* the popular perception (so you need to make if very
clear for the phalanxes of rubble arranged behind you), ... THE BIT
you need to grip between the teeth is :-
---------------------------------------------
Sources and Sinks:-
If the source is the spreading ridge, and the sink is the 'hole' at
the bottom of the subduction zone, into which the 'Mr Findlay Slab' is
being wrestled to the concrete by Gravity
Weinstein, ...then, ..then, .. then there *IS* no need for any hot
centre of the Earth, to drive anything, is there? The spreading ridge
(the 'source') is jus a bit of pressure reduction consequent on SLAB
PULL, isn't it? Gravity does it ALL. . Doesn't it?
----------------------------------------------
That means as Tackley, Bercovici and You say (following on from Mr
Uyeda since 1974) ("The Gift that keeps on Giving") , ..that the
driver for Plate Tectonics is simply cooling. Doesn't it? In other
words, . the EARTH USED TO BE hot (when it differentiated into a core
mantle and crust) but now that it's cooling down, the crust is all
breaking up, the mantle is extruding and mountain belts are being
pushed up all over the place. Because it's cooling.
Doesn't it?
So what's going on? If the spreading ridge (= partial melting from
slab-pull) is the 'SOURCE' (according to you and Berco), ..what use is
it to convection for the EARTH to be HOT inside? It's not necessary,
is it? In other words the EArth is shrinking (because it's cold)
>From the ridges to the subduction zones the lithosphere is thinkening
by cooling, and when it gets to a continental margin it crumples the
crust into mountain belts, ... (because the cold slab (being cold )
(and thick) is sinking - because the crust of the Earth is
shrinking...
Get out of that one, Houdini.
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > Stuart wrote:
>
> > So? What specific aspects of the Geology of transform faults
> > would you like to see.
>
> Earthquakes. I don't see the word mentioned once in your reply - nor
> in Bercovici's paper. Why is that?
>
ROFL. This model wasn't trying to model earthquakes, it was trying to
determine
if given the correct the poloidal field, could nonliner behavior of
the Earth's lithosphere
give the correct location of the prinicple transform faults. It did
exaclty that, even though
no information was supplied to the model regarding anything about
transform faults.
It was a seminal and tremendous result.
You should get a copy
of Bercovici's 93 and 95 papers.
>
>
>
> > I don't see you referencing much else besides the drool
> > on your website.
>
> > > In fact I'll help you now. In the abstract where he says:-
> > > -------------------------------
> > > "We show that for a non-Newtonian flow driven by an existing poloidal
> > > field (a source-sink field), the generation of toroidal motion
> > > interacts with the nonlinear rheology to cause less viscous
> > > dissipation than if there were no toroidal motion." ....<then in the
> > > main body of the text on p. 1> " In this model, shallowlayer
> > > lithospheric motion is driven by sources and sinks which are a proxy
> > > for convective motion in that they represent spreading centers and
> > > subduction zones, respectively."
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > (..the second bit is pretty convoluted to say the least, but we'll let
> > > it go since it got past you as a helpful advisor - presumably in fudgy
> > > language - is just a fancy way of just saying that spreading centres
> > > and subduction zones drive convective motion.
>
> > Exactly.
>
> You mean the spreading centres that have earthquakes, and the
> subduction zones that have an order of magnitude more
> earthquakes... ?
>
What do you mean spreading centers that have earthquakes..?
Are there spreading centers that don't?
<snip>
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2:30 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > > Stuart wrote:
> >
> > > So? What specific aspects of the Geology of transform faults
> > > would you like to see.
> >
> > Earthquakes. I don't see the word mentioned once in your reply - nor
> > in Bercovici's paper. Why is that?
> >
> Why is that?
Why is that? Indeed. *BECAUSE* this whole business of convection
driving Plate Tectonics is a furphy, and the paper is an excellent
illustration of the point I'm making, which is that 'ifs' and 'coulds'
are no basis for anything when the geological reality is omitted.
>
> ROFL. This model wasn't trying to model earthquakes, it was trying to
> determine
> if given the correct the poloidal field, could nonliner behavior of
> the Earth's lithosphere
> give the correct location of the prinicple transform faults. It did
> exaclty that, even though
> no information was supplied to the model regarding anything about
> transform faults.
You can roll all over the floor as much as you like, but you're only
making yourself dirty. The point stands. 'IF - COULD' in the
hypothetical domain of fluid mechanics is no way to describe
geological reality. Don't you think something about transform faults
SHOULD have been included? Perhaps something along the lines of them
being where stress release is MAXIMISED, rather than as you say
*minimised. ? What Bercovici's saying there :-
---------------------------------------
" Viscous drag acts to dissipate the convective energy used to
transport mass along the surface from a source (e.g., a ridge) to a
sink (e.g., a subduction zone). This dissipation is reduced, however,
by focussing the deformation between the source and sink into narrow,
essentially lubricated tracks or slip zones [see also Froidevaux,
1973].
----------------------------------------
"...It is no trivial clue that the selflubricating rheology
( GFIH ), which yields the most plate-telike focfocussing of
toroidal flow and viscosity minima into narrow zones [Bercovici, 1993,
1995], yields the greatest reduction in dissipation. These results
also suggest that convection models which permit viscous heating and
temperature-dependent viscosity may induce greater and more focussed
toroidal motion as the flow field attempts to reduce the net amount of
viscous dissipation [e.g., see Balachandar et al., 1995]. It appears
that strike-slip shear (i.e., toroidal motion) and thus plate-like
flows themselves are generated to minimize the dissipation of poloidal
motion and thus enhance the thermodynamic efficiency of the convective
engine.
--------------------------------------
..is a nonsense. Transform faults are the means of *_MAXIMISING_*
energy dissipation, not as he says, minimising it.
It is crust. It is solid rock. They are fractures. There are
Earthquakes. What he's saying (and you) is that transform faults are
ductile flow lines (in a fluid), lines of minimum stress
dissipation, ..not lines of brittle failure (with earthquakes) (in a
rock)
>
> It was a seminal and tremendous result.
Only for convectioneers who cannot integrate the real geological
picture into Plate Tectonics. You snipped the point about "How and
why the escape of interior heat becomes concentrated in certain
regions to form convection cells remains a mystery" - Why does the
heat of the Earth form in a line to give ridges? Of course that is
not important in your model since the slab-sink (the sinking Titanic)
is the driver and the 'source' is merely a pressure reduction partial
melt going along for the ride. So the question should be "Why does
the cold subducting slab in the Pacific pull the whole of the Earth
apart at the ridges?
What's your answer?
>
> You should get a copy
> of Bercovici's 93 and 95 papers.
>
>
> >
> > > I don't see you referencing much else besides the drool
> > > on your website.
Why would I want to? The essence of Plate Tectonics is taught in
schools and kindergartens, about colliding plates crumpling the crust
and throwing up mountains. It's on over a million sites on the web.
It's not rocket science, but the way that you portray convection as
gravity-driven by the 'sinking Titanic' [consequent on a "source-sink"
model] which everyone here is up in arms about and blaming me for
misrepresenting - when in fact it is precisely what you are arguing
for, and on which you have been most silent about, most certainly is
'rocket science', deserving of the widest publicity for the nonsense
it is.
> >
> > > > In fact I'll help you now. In the abstract where he says:-
> > > > -------------------------------
> > > > "We show that for a non-Newtonian flow driven by an existing poloidal
> > > > field (a source-sink field), the generation of toroidal motion
> > > > interacts with the nonlinear rheology to cause less viscous
> > > > dissipation than if there were no toroidal motion." ....<then in the
> > > > main body of the text on p. 1> " In this model, shallowlayer
> > > > lithospheric motion is driven by sources and sinks which are a proxy
> > > > for convective motion in that they represent spreading centers and
> > > > subduction zones, respectively."
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > (..the second bit is pretty convoluted to say the least, but we'll let
> > > > it go since it got past you as a helpful advisor - presumably in fudgy
> > > > language - is just a fancy way of just saying that spreading centres
> > > > and subduction zones drive convective motion.
> >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > You mean the spreading centres that have earthquakes, and the
> > subduction zones that have an order of magnitude more
> > earthquakes... ?
> >
>
> What do you mean spreading centers that have earthquakes..?
>
> Are there spreading centers that don't?
No. And that is precisely the problem for your toroidal-ductile flow
model. The entire ocean floor as illustrated on the USGS Earthquake
site should be coloured black as the trace of earthquakes past,
earthquakes which represent the release of maximum build up of stress,
which you convectioneers are negating, in your poloidal-toroidal
model, in your need to keep the 'enigmatic flow' going.
>
> <snip>
>
> Stuart
----------------------------------------
"...Convection is the essence of the model of Plate Tectonics, yet
nothing intrinsic to the Earth's geology is necessary for it to work.
The Earth's spherical shape is in no way relevant - the proposed
model of convection could be happening just as easily in a flat
bottomed pan. The Earth's spin is in no way relevant either - the
Earth could be quite stationary for all the difference it would
make. Not even the fact of oblateness, ..the first-order shape of
the planet due to spin, nor all the subsidiary geological structure
that is linked to this, is relevant to a convection model for Plate
Tectonics. And the mantle could be porridge. Any attempt to apply
the model to real, primary features of the earths crust and the
concept collapses with more holes than a Swiss cheese. Convection as a
model for plate tectonics is purely and wholly about thermal
difference, isotopes, their half lives, heat, gravity, Taylor
numbers, ..Raleigh numbers, ..critical ratios, ..Fourier's Law,
Buoyancy, thermal diffusivity, dispersion, wave attenuation, thermal
boundary layers, adiabatic temperature gradients. All of which hang
together for the only and simple reason that they can be manipulated.
But plates, and spreading ridges and subduction zones, mountain belts,
back-arc-basins etc etc, ..the geological reality cannot. It would
be fair to say that virtually nothing of geological reality of the
Earth's surface supports it. 'Convection' exists solely because a
mechanism to drive Plate Tectonics is needed. It matters not one whit
that this 'need' is manifestly deficient in satisfying the
geological parameters. 'Convection' exists solely as a hypothetical
entity whose only redeeming feature is that it pays wages of those
nutty enough to involve themselves in it, and keep them out of the way
of doing real damage elsewhere. Plate Tectonics' own stated position
at the time of writing is summarised in the current Wikipeida entry on
the web:- "The driving forces of plate motion are (nevertheless) still
very active subjects of on-going discussion and research in the
geophysical community." In other words, they don't have a clue.
They are going round and round in circles, because something
fundamental is missing - namely the geological reality of the
architecture of spin.. Convection is a concoction, ..a hubristic
invention in which nothing of the geology supports it and everything
of human manipulation and invention is brought to bear to validate it.
"
There you go stu. I'll give you an attribution.
don findlay
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 2:30 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > Stuart wrote:
>
> > > > So? What specific aspects of the Geology of transform faults
> > > > would you like to see.
>
> > > Earthquakes. I don't see the word mentioned once in your reply - nor
> > > in Bercovici's paper. Why is that?
>
> > Why is that?
>
> Why is that? Indeed. *BECAUSE* this whole business of convection
> driving Plate Tectonics is a furphy, and the paper is an excellent
> illustration of the point I'm making, which is that 'ifs' and 'coulds'
> are no basis for anything when the geological reality is omitted.
>
>
of "matter generation".
The model, although conceptually very simple, correctly predicts the
locations of the major
transform faults. Such explanatory power is not even remotely possible
with a theory that has no unambiguous measurements going for it
and relies on obfuscations and a putative matter generation
mechanism that has magical properties.
EE is like something out of a bad science fiction novel.
>
> > ROFL. This model wasn't trying to model earthquakes, it was trying to
> > determine
> > if given the correct the poloidal field, could nonliner behavior of
> > the Earth's lithosphere
> > give the correct location of the prinicple transform faults. It did
> > exaclty that, even though
> > no information was supplied to the model regarding anything about
> > transform faults.
>
> You can roll all over the floor as much as you like, but you're only
> making yourself dirty. The point stands. 'IF - COULD' in the
> hypothetical domain of fluid mechanics is no way to describe
> geological reality.
FUnny. Then how come the trasform faults appear in the right place?
Don has no asnwer for that.
Don't you think something about transform faults
> SHOULD have been included?
No. That would bias the model. The purpose was to see if the poloidal
field represented by ridges and subduction zones in a medium with
highly nonlinear rheology would generate the correct toroidal field.
Perhaps something along the lines of them
> being where stress release is MAXIMISED, rather than as you say
> *minimised. ? What Bercovici's saying there :-
> ---------------------------------------
> " Viscous drag acts to dissipate the convective energy used to
> transport mass along the surface from a source (e.g., a ridge) to a
> sink (e.g., a subduction zone). This dissipation is reduced, however,
> by focussing the deformation between the source and sink into narrow,
> essentially lubricated tracks or slip zones [see also Froidevaux,
> 1973].
And?
> ----------------------------------------
> "...It is no trivial clue that the selflubricating rheology
> ( GFIH ), which yields the most plate-telike focfocussing of
> toroidal flow and viscosity minima into narrow zones [Bercovici, 1993,
> 1995], yields the greatest reduction in dissipation. These results
> also suggest that convection models which permit viscous heating and
> temperature-dependent viscosity may induce greater and more focussed
> toroidal motion as the flow field attempts to reduce the net amount of
> viscous dissipation [e.g., see Balachandar et al., 1995]. It appears
> that strike-slip shear (i.e., toroidal motion) and thus plate-like
> flows themselves are generated to minimize the dissipation of poloidal
> motion and thus enhance the thermodynamic efficiency of the convective
> engine.
> --------------------------------------
> ..is a nonsense.
Just because it utterly demolishes your prime argument and I use
that term loosely, against convection is no reason to call it
nonsense.
If you wish to call it nonsense, then show all maths that demonstrate
it so.
You're a silly man Don, and an even sillier scientist, and I use that
term loosely.
Transform faults are the means of *_MAXIMISING_*
> energy dissipation, not as he says, minimising it.
Unfortunately, the mathematics say otherwise.
You're simply wrong Don. And you can type
in caps all you want. You're still wrong.
>
> It is crust. It is solid rock. They are fractures. There are
> Earthquakes. What he's saying (and you) is that transform faults are
> ductile flow lines (in a fluid), lines of minimum stress
> dissipation, ..not lines of brittle failure (with earthquakes) (in a
> rock)
>
Don, faults break and relieve stress and have slip. The surrounding
country rock doesn't have
slip.
>
>
> > It was a seminal and tremendous result.
>
> Only for convectioneers who cannot integrate the real geological
> picture into Plate Tectonics.
The world is plate tectonics, Don. Sorry if you find that offensive.
The model investigated several things,
1. Can fluid dynamical models concentrate deformation into narrow
zones, i.e.,
develop strain localization. Yes.
2. Can the correct toroidal field be recovered knowing only the
poloidal field
with highly nonlinear rheology. yes.
3. What is the effect of including the toroidal field? To lower the
overall
dissaption caused by plate motions. There is simply more dissipation
in the
system without transform faults. So that answers your question of
"What transforms do"..
You snipped the point about "How and
> why the escape of interior heat becomes concentrated in certain
> regions to form convection cells remains a mystery" -
I'm sorry. I don't recall seeing that in the paper under discussion.
And its no mystery either. Again, any basic book on convection
will discuss things like this. But you can't be bothered to read
any books on the subject; you spend to much time posting
pseudo intellectual drool on your website.
>Why does the
> heat of the Earth form in a line to give ridges?
Thats how convection works, Don. It concentrates heat into
into boundary layers that are much thinner than the convecting layer
itself.
As result a convecting system has much higher heat flow than if it
could
only lose heat through conduction across the entire layer. Since the
boundary layers
are relatively thin, when they destabilize giving rise to sheet like
descending and/or ascending
flows their surface expression is also thin and is line like. Other
convection planforms
may have plume like structures instead of sheets.
This is pretty basic information; you can find it in just about any
decent
book on heat transfer.
Of course that is
> not important in your model since the slab-sink (the sinking Titanic)
> is the driver and the 'source' is merely a pressure reduction partial
> melt going along for the ride.
I think in general that is probably correct; however it remains to be
seen
to what degree ridges are passive or to the extent they are
dynamically driven.
That subduction zones are dynamic is not in doubt; slabs are easily
imaged and
their buoyancy can be easily calculated. Seismologists have looked for
rising sheets
under ridges and haven't been quite as successful. This suggest that
maybe the ridges,
at least some of them, are not dynamically driven but passive.
So the question should be "Why does
> the cold subducting slab in the Pacific pull the whole of the Earth
> apart at the ridges?
>
> What's your answer?
>
Well if you think about, you have all of this slab plunging into the
mantle in the Pacific, that
means counterflow has to be happening in the middle of the Pacific and
elsewhere.
>
>
>> You should get a copy
> > of Bercovici's 93 and 95 papers.
>
> > > > I don't see you referencing much else besides the drool
> > > > on your website.
>
> Why would I want to?
Because the drool on your website is nonsensical.
The essence of Plate Tectonics is taught in
> schools and kindergartens, about colliding plates crumpling the crust
> and throwing up mountains. It's on over a million sites on the web.
> It's not rocket science, but the way that you portray convection as
> gravity-driven by the 'sinking Titanic' [consequent on a "source-sink"
> model] which everyone here is up in arms about and blaming me for
> misrepresenting
Which you do on a regular basis. Your problem is when you try to couch
concepts
you poorly understand in your own langauge. For example, your use of
the Titanic.
Instead of attempting to learn more about PT; you pontificate from
ignorance.
Your stuck in 1971 Don. You haven't learned a damn thing since.
- when in fact it is precisely what you are arguing
> for, and on which you have been most silent about, most certainly is
> 'rocket science', deserving of the widest publicity for the nonsense
> it is.
>
Your website only publicizes the utter kookery that is ee.
In fact, it scares young children.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > In fact I'll help you now. In the abstract where he says:-
> > > > > -------------------------------
> > > > > "We show that for a non-Newtonian flow driven by an existing poloidal
> > > > > field (a source-sink field), the generation of toroidal motion
> > > > > interacts with the nonlinear rheology to cause less viscous
> > > > > dissipation than if there were no toroidal motion." ....<then in the
> > > > > main body of the text on p. 1> " In this model, shallowlayer
> > > > > lithospheric motion is driven by sources and sinks which are a proxy
> > > > > for convective motion in that they represent spreading centers and
> > > > > subduction zones, respectively."
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > (..the second bit is pretty convoluted to say the least, but we'll let
> > > > > it go since it got past you as a helpful advisor - presumably in fudgy
> > > > > language - is just a fancy way of just saying that spreading centres
> > > > > and subduction zones drive convective motion.
>
> > > > Exactly.
>
> > > You mean the spreading centres that have earthquakes, and the
> > > subduction zones that have an order of magnitude more
> > > earthquakes... ?
>
> > What do you mean spreading centers that have earthquakes..?
>
> > Are there spreading centers that don't?
>
> No. And that is precisely the problem for your toroidal-ductile flow
> model.
Why is that a problem?
The entire ocean floor as illustrated on the USGS Earthquake
> site should be coloured black as the trace of earthquakes past,
> earthquakes which represent the release of maximum build up of stress,
> which you convectioneers are negating, in your poloidal-toroidal
> model, in your need to keep the 'enigmatic flow' going.
How do we negate it? Are you seriously arguing that faults are
stronger
than the surrounding unfractured rock?
Hilarious.
<blather rinse repeat>
Stuart
J. Taylor
What is really funny is the movement, shown by GPS has the pacific
plate moving in a different direction.
What this tells, PTer's will take any evidence in support of their pet
theory just so long has they never have to critically examine any of
it and run the risk of calling their beliefs into question.
JT
Stuart
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:23:55 -0700, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 7, 4:51 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> >> Stuart wrote:
> >> > On Sep 7, 2:30 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> >> > > Stuart wrote:
> >> > > > On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> >> > > > > Stuart wrote:
>
> What is really funny is the movement, shown by GPS has the pacific
> plate moving in a different direction.
>
> What this tells, PTer's will take any evidence in support of their pet
> theory just so long has they never have to critically examine any of
> it and run the risk of calling their beliefs into question.
>
> JT
What are you babbling about now?
Stuart
josephus
except it was given as EE evidence. (and we objected that it supported PT)
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
don findlay
> On Sep 7, 4:51 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> > > On Sep 7, 2:30 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > > Stuart wrote:
> >
> > > > > So? What specific aspects of the Geology of transform faults
> > > > > would you like to see.
> >
> > > > Earthquakes. I don't see the word mentioned once in your reply - nor
> > > > in Bercovici's paper. Why is that?
> >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > Why is that? Indeed. *BECAUSE* this whole business of convection
> > driving Plate Tectonics is a furphy, and the paper is an excellent
> > illustration of the point I'm making, which is that 'ifs' and 'coulds'
> > are no basis for anything when the geological reality is omitted.
> >
> >
> If you think that is furphy, one wonders what you make
> of "matter generation".
I don't speculate on matter generation. I even find it puzzling how
gravity can act at a distance, though I know we can put numbers around
it and send satellites to the stars. Is there a theory for that,
exactly how gravity does that, or do we still 'not know'?
>
> The model, although conceptually very simple, correctly predicts the
> locations of the major
> transform faults.
> Such explanatory power is not even remotely possible
> with a theory that has no unambiguous measurements going for it
> and relies on obfuscations and a putative matter generation
> mechanism that has magical properties.
Exactly what do you mean by that? Do they all form at once, for
example? Or do they form in sets of threes or fours, ..or tens? or
what?
>
> EE is like something out of a bad science fiction novel.
So did 9/11, but it happened. Truth is stranger than fiction.
> > You can roll all over the floor as much as you like, but you're only
> > making yourself dirty. The point stands. 'IF - COULD' in the
> > hypothetical domain of fluid mechanics is no way to describe
> > geological reality.
>
> FUnny. Then how come the trasform faults appear in the right place?
See question above.
>
> Don has no asnwer for that.
I think I do, .. And I think it will be possible to put a crude
chronology on them.
>
> Don't you think something about transform faults
> > SHOULD have been included?
>
> No. That would bias the model. The purpose was to see if the poloidal
> field represented by ridges and subduction zones in a medium with
> highly nonlinear rheology would generate the correct toroidal field.
In the 'source-sink' described, the 'source' is partial melt from
pressure reduction - pulled from the slab end of the system. Right?
That's a pretty long distance to pull uniformly, is it not?
My argument: Most energy is dissipated at faults
His argument: Least energy is dissipated at 'faults'
>
> If you wish to call it nonsense, then show all maths that demonstrate
> it so.
> You're a silly man Don, and an even sillier scientist, and I use that
> term loosely.
>
> Transform faults are the means of *_MAXIMISING_*
> > energy dissipation, not as he says, minimising it.
>
> Unfortunately, the mathematics say otherwise.
> You're simply wrong Don. And you can type
> in caps all you want. You're still wrong.
Mathematics of what? Solid brittle rock? or fluids?
> >
> > It is crust. It is solid rock. They are fractures. There are
> > Earthquakes. What he's saying (and you) is that transform faults are
> > ductile flow lines (in a fluid), lines of minimum stress
> > dissipation, ..not lines of brittle failure (with earthquakes) (in a
> > rock)
> >
>
> Don, faults break and relieve stress and have slip. The surrounding
> country rock doesn't have slip.
Precisely. The stress builds up at the weakest points. Failure
occurs when enough of it builds up to overcome the frictional
resistance in the rock. Those are the points of MAXIMUM stress
release. and you get Earthquakes. The 'surrounding rock' is less
stressed because all the stress is focussed and builds up to
criticality where it's going to fail. Transform faults are faults in
rock - where most stress builds up. They are also the locations
where most stress is released. Rock. Earthquakes. I suppose fluids
are different. To the best of my knowledge you don't get earthquakes
in fluids. In fact that's the definition of a fluid - a medium in
which there is no resistance to a shear stress. And no bodily support
whatsoever (break a leg - and see where most stress built up)
Now, ..what do you have to say to that - in terms of maximum/
minimum. And real world dynamics.
>
> >
> >
> > > It was a seminal and tremendous result.
> >
> > Only for convectioneers who cannot integrate the real geological
> > picture into Plate Tectonics.
>
> The world is plate tectonics, Don. Sorry if you find that offensive.
What I find offensive is saying the global dynamics is fluid
mechanics. Intriguing, might be a better word.
>
> The model investigated several things,
>
> 1. Can fluid dynamical models concentrate deformation into narrow
> zones, i.e.,
> develop strain localization. Yes.
>
> 2. Can the correct toroidal field be recovered knowing only the
> poloidal field
> with highly nonlinear rheology. yes.
>
> 3. What is the effect of including the toroidal field? To lower the
> overall
> dissaption caused by plate motions. There is simply more dissipation
> in the
> system without transform faults. So that answers your question of
> "What transforms do"..
Well, it was "What transform *_FAULTS_* do" You don't get faults in
fluids, ...by definition. I'm sure all about fluid mechanics is as he
says, but that's not what we're looking at in transform faults in
mantle crust. (And I forget what he specifically said how this system
generates spreading ridges...or whether he even mentioned it.)
>
> >Why does the
> > heat of the Earth form in a line to give ridges?
>
> Thats how convection works, Don. It concentrates heat into
> into boundary layers that are much thinner than the convecting layer
> itself.
> As result a convecting system has much higher heat flow than if it
> could
> only lose heat through conduction across the entire layer. Since the
> boundary layers
> are relatively thin, when they destabilize giving rise to sheet like
> descending and/or ascending
> flows their surface expression is also thin and is line like. Other
> convection planforms
> may have plume like structures instead of sheets.
>
> This is pretty basic information; you can find it in just about any
> decent
> book on heat transfer.
Heat heat heat, and convection convection convection. But you're
saying that it's the subducting slab pulls the oceanic lithospheric
plate right back to the ridge and that's what causes the partial
melting/ heating and uplift and the ridge fracture - not some
upwelling current at the ridge from below. Upwelling from below is
what they used to say, but not now with the subducting slab-pull.
Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. The lithosphere at
the ridge is only a few km thick - no room for any 'convection' going
to move thousands of kilometres of ocean floor with all the crust on
top elsewhere.
>
> Of course that is
> > not important in your model since the slab-sink (the sinking Titanic)
> > is the driver and the 'source' is merely a pressure reduction partial
> > melt going along for the ride.
>
> I think in general that is probably correct;
So make up your mind. You can't argue black is black and white as
well.
> however it remains to be
> seen
> to what degree ridges are passive or to the extent they are
> dynamically driven.
What? Are you serious? After all this time? With so many people
having worked on it for so long. What have they all been doing?
Free Lunch?
> That subduction zones are dynamic is not in doubt; slabs are easily
> imaged and
> their buoyancy can be easily calculated.
Subduction zones (as you call them) are full of earthquakes. Of course
they are the most dynamic zones on the planet. But buoyancy? You
mean their density? You mean the rate of travel time of various
seismic waves? You mean allowing for unknown anisotropies? Come off
it Stuart. Youobandy that word around too freely. There's more to
rock than density when it comes to interpreting seismic returns. As
you well know. You're fooling nobody but your self.
> Seismologists have looked for
> rising sheets
> under ridges and haven't been quite as successful. This suggest that
> maybe the ridges,
> at least some of them, are not dynamically driven but passive.
>
> So the question should be "Why does
> > the cold subducting slab in the Pacific pull the whole of the Earth
> > apart at the ridges?
> >
> > What's your answer?
> >
>
> Well if you think about, you have all of this slab plunging into the
> mantle in the Pacific, that
> means counterflow has to be happening in the middle of the Pacific and
> elsewhere.
It's the scale thing. You're just nowhere in the right ballpark.
It's the whole world of spreading ridges is being accommodated down
that Pacific rim. It's nonsense. Try thinking of it in temrs of what
it is, ..brittle crust/lithosphere instead of some sort of 'fluid'.
Think for a moment about the extent of plates and how beyond the ridge-
ridge sectors it's all just one plate - i.e., no "plates moving past
each other" - just all one plate - the Earth's lithosphere (with crust
on top).
And the slab is not forcefully "plunging". It's passively sinking
under gravity (supposedly) How far? Into a hot zone? The more it
sinks the more it heats up? the more it stops sinking? ..and the more
it stops pulling the ocean floors behind it. The more it grinds to a
halt. Come on Stuart. Get real.
>
> The essence of Plate Tectonics is taught in
> > schools and kindergartens, about colliding plates crumpling the crust
> > and throwing up mountains. It's on over a million sites on the web.
> > It's not rocket science, but the way that you portray convection as
> > gravity-driven by the 'sinking Titanic' [consequent on a "source-sink"
> > model] which everyone here is up in arms about and blaming me for
> > misrepresenting
>
>
> Which you do on a regular basis. Your problem is when you try to couch
> concepts
> you poorly understand in your own langauge. For example, your use of
> the Titanic.
Are you saying a sinking slab is not like the Titanic? Whoo!
(Right GLOVES OFF!!). So Exactly how is it different when they are
both sinking under gravity? The force (according to you) is
gravitational pull The only difference I can think of is that you are
better off with the Titanic, because real rock wouldn't sinks as far.
>
> Instead of attempting to learn more about PT; you pontificate from
> ignorance.
>
> Your stuck in 1971 Don. You haven't learned a damn thing since.
There *has been* nothing since, except this abortion of fluid
mechaincs as an invention to try to circumvent the impossibles that
Plate Tectonics is mired in.
>
>
> - when in fact it is precisely what you are arguing
> > for, and on which you have been most silent about, most certainly is
> > 'rocket science', deserving of the widest publicity for the nonsense
> > it is.
> >
>
> Your website only publicizes the utter kookery that is ee.
>
> In fact, it scares young children.
Young children are not easily scared. It's the BOZOS around here that
are shitting themselves. ( That old bugger continually wanting to
measure where his mass comes from, ...)
>
> > > What do you mean spreading centers that have earthquakes..?
> >
> > > Are there spreading centers that don't?
> >
> > No. And that is precisely the problem for your toroidal-ductile flow
> > model.
>
> Why is that a problem?
Rocks. Earthquakes. Faults dissipating maximum build-up of stress.
Not Fluids and narrow bands of least dissipation of energy.
>
> The entire ocean floor as illustrated on the USGS Earthquake
> > site should be coloured black as the trace of earthquakes past,
> > earthquakes which represent the release of maximum build up of stress,
> > which you convectioneers are negating, in your poloidal-toroidal
> > model, in your need to keep the 'enigmatic flow' going.
>
> How do we negate it?
> Are you seriously arguing that faults are
> stronger than the surrounding unfractured rock?
Don't be daft.
>
> Hilarious.
laughing to a piece of cheese.
josephus
is debatable. San Andreas Fault builds up strain and then we get
slippage and an earthquake. there is no reason to think that the strain
on the sea floor is any different. The Western side of the San Andreas
Fault has a ticket to got to Alaska. Sea floor slabs move toward
subduction zones. earthquakes are intimately associated with faulting.
>
>>The entire ocean floor as illustrated on the USGS Earthquake
>>
>>>site should be coloured black as the trace of earthquakes past,
>>>earthquakes which represent the release of maximum build up of stress,
>>>which you convectioneers are negating, in your poloidal-toroidal
>>>model, in your need to keep the 'enigmatic flow' going.
>>
>>How do we negate it?
>>Are you seriously arguing that faults are
>>stronger than the surrounding unfractured rock?
>
>
> Don't be daft.
>
>
>>Hilarious.
>
>
> laughing to a piece of cheese.
>
I think that was an insult, or it was supposed to be. but a delusion
cannot be an insult.