Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
don findlay
discussion:
________________________________
1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes (Or:- how might it be
conceived that differentiation could occur and 'whole-Earth Crust' not
form?)
3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific and
exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break up,
same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
tectonics.
4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean floor?
No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3. ...and
are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in any
way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
Anyone got anything else to add?
don findlay
5. The energy imbalance between spreading ridges and subduction zones
is much too great (subduction >>^^ greater than spreading) to be
accounted for by any 'cycling/ recycling mechanism. Qualitatively,
'fat boy' explosive power is compared to a pea-shooter. The structures
releasing the energy at the crust mantle (litho/ astheno) interface
have an architecture symmetrical with a differential offsetting of the
northern and southern hemispheres of the Earth, and with the planet's
rotation. Hemispherical off-setting and overriding are integrally
linked. The explosive power of so-called 'subduction' is part of this
picture, and though related to spreading, is not intrinsically coupled
to it.
Axiom:- the energy imbalance precludes linkage.
(With regard to terminology, ...as an interim measure it is
recommended that the term 'overriding', already being used
synonymously with subduction (though the dynamics of the two are widely
different), replace 'subduction' and that the latter term be entirely
dropped from the lexicon.)
(Readers wishing to follow this thread in the future may do so on
sci.geo.geology)
robert casey
>>
>>1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
>>result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
Okay.
>>2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes
Most likely yes. But when plate tetonics got started,
the granate rock is too light to get subducted. And
thus it gets piled up in contenent sized lumps over
say the first 100 million years. Then these lumps
essentially float around as plate tetonics keeps going.
Whatever erosion off the land masses that ends up on
the sea floors gets scraped off at subduction zones and
gets added to shorelines of contenents. That explains
why we still have land masses after 4.5 billion years
of erosion.
>>3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
Pangaea didn't cover the entire Earth. It only covered
about the same amount of area land covers today
>>Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
>>continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
>>exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific
>
> and
>
>>exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break
>
> up,
>
>>same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
>>tectonics.
?
>>4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean floor?
>>No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
>>easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3.
Funding another possible way to make that stuff doesn't
necessarly disprove the first way.
>
> ...and
>
>>are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in any
>>way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
>>Anyone got anything else to add?
Not sure what you mean to say here.
>
>
> 5. The energy imbalance between spreading ridges and subduction zones
> is much too great (subduction >>^^ greater than spreading) to be
> accounted for by any 'cycling/ recycling mechanism.
>
> Axiom:- the energy imbalance precludes linkage.
I don't think this arguement actually means anything.
It depends on the amount of friction there is to overcome
at subduction zones vs that force it takes to make the
spreading zones. Maybe there isn't much friction at
subduction zones, so that would make more energy
is disapated at spreading zones?
>
How do you make the Earth expand anyway? The mass
of the Earth has been pretty steady for billions of
years, and there's nothing to make the density of
the Earth change. Thus the size of the Earth
could not have changed significantly. You can't have
large voids deep in the core; strength of materials
is way too weak to withstand the high pressures
down there. Besides materials get weaker at those
high temperatures anyway. Same reason planets are
round, and not shaped like say a cube. The points
of the cube are further away from the center than
other parts of the cube, and the points would have
more material to be supported by underlying material
than other areas. The material is way too weak to
keep from being squished down and sideways, and thus the
points would sink down. Sure we have tall mountians,
but you can't get them much taller because the material
underneath would just squish from under.
You're probably hoping to create the next blockbuster
scientific theory, but all the easy science has
already been done.
David Ford
5. Are there currently observed and identified far greater lengths of
rifting new-crust generation zones, than merely presumed crustal removal
zones?
YES.
The collective length of all trench zones is ~30,000 km, about a quarter
of the length of all spreading ridges (2 x ~60,000 km). The proposed
Plate tectonic ‘balance’ of construction and destruction of oceanic
crust is thus geometrically impossible on a sphere with these observed
features. In order for a crustal construction-destruction balance to be
in effect, ocean basins require co-equal lengths of assumed consumptive
trench … and it just isn’t there, even if those trench area really did
represent zones of crustal resumption back into the mantle.
…but why let basic physical facts interfere with a ‘good’ consensual
fiction huh? ;)
Eigenvector
"robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Nr2Ad.14281$Z47....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Not to butt in, but my understanding is that the earth's surface is much
much smoother than a billard ball - relatively speaking. Meaning those
tall, tall mountains are absolutely flat compared to the overall diameter of
the earth itself. Did I get that right?
Bigdakine
>From: David Ford Nos...@internode.on.net
>Date: 12/27/04 4:39 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <41d0...@duster.adelaide.on.net>
Ford doesn't realize the convergence at subduction zones tends to be faster
than the divergence at rifts.
and it just isn’t there, even if those trench area really did
>represent zones of crustal resumption back into the mantle.
>
>…but why let basic physical facts interfere with a ‘good’ consensual
>fiction huh? ;)
>
Ford still hasn't learned what Gauss's theorem is.
Incredible.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
David Ford
I admit it, you are the far greater nerd. ;)
>
> Stuart
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
>
>
> "Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
Try to remain on topic Stuie.
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <41d0d2d6$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net>
I am proud to be a nerd.
Rolo
don findlay
Bigdakine wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
> >From: David Ford Nos...@internode.on.net
> >Date: 12/27/04 5:28 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <41d0d2d6$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net>
geraldk...@hotmail.com
With all due respect all the easy science has'nt been done! and while
agreeing with you on the matter of constant mass of the Earth
prohibiting any significant expansion beyond the transfer of denser
material to lighter crustal material,there is no facility availible
within the Newtonian system to account for the imbalance between the
Earth's axial and orbital motion.
The 'easy' science of the Newtonian system is actually an illegal
shortcut, for the orbital motion of the planet is calculated in tandem
with its axial rotation as a single sidereal motion whereas in
actuality both motions are independent of each other.
Geologically there is nowhere left to go within the Newtonian
scheme,under normal circumstances men would recognise the axial and
orbital imbalance and see how it fits into the geological scheme of
things but as these are not normal times.
Keplerian motion which best expresses the orbital imbalance against
axial rotation and further into crustal displacement is sure easier to
grasp by dropping the analogy to terrestial ballistics as Newton did
and by adopting modern observations of the solar system's galactic
orbital motion as influencing heliocentric orbital motion.
It becomes easier to explain the equatorial bulge AND crustal motion by
appealing to astronomical influences on terrestial surface features
than just ignoring them as geologists appear intent in doing so before
you pass judgement on others perhaps it would be better to review the
erroneous view you inherited by way of Newtonian perspectives.Good and
all as that perspective was for its time when the solar system's
galactic orbital motion was discovered (80 years ago) it should have
altered things accordingly,it did'nt and it still has'nt.
George
"Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
news:20041227221416...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>
> Ford doesn't realize the convergence at subduction zones tends to be faster
> than the divergence at rifts.
>
>
> and it just isn't there, even if those trench area really did
>>represent zones of crustal resumption back into the mantle.
>>
>>fiction huh? ;)
>>
>
> Ford still hasn't learned what Gauss's theorem is.
>
> Incredible.
>
> Stuart
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
>
>
> "Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
What I find even more amazing is his assumption that the earth's crust is in
some kind of balance or equilibrium, or that it even requires equilibrium or
balanced conditions in order for subduction to occur. The fact of the matter is
that the crust is not in eequilibrium. That the crust is not in equilibrium
conditions was amply demonstrated the other day with the 9.0 earthquake that
apparently has killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 people. But why
let the physical facts interfere with a bad non-consensual fiction?
Aidan Karley
> Not to butt in, but my understanding is that the earth's surface is much
> much smoother than a billard ball - relatively speaking. Meaning those
> tall, tall mountains are absolutely flat compared to the overall diameter of
> the earth itself. Did I get that right?
>
Everest @ +8.8km); radius is 6370km to a schoolboy approximation; that's a
roughness of approximately 1 part in 316. Probably good for a billiard ball,
but not up to scratch for a bearing ball.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
David Ford
You are such a goat George, for Earth's radius to be unchanging over a
200 mya period, the generation of crust from the mantle has to equal the
resumption of crust back into the mantle; this is a standard PT concept
even a child can grasp.
It is a balance, or to use your word, and equilibrium of the generation
and the resumption of crustal rock in PT.
Do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
George
"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:41d18181$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
Really? And why is that? It can't just pile up crust and create mountains like
in the himalayas, which get eroded down, creating sediments in the rivers, lake
and oceans, downwarping the crust, and so forth and so on? If it was in
equilibrium, there would be no topographic relief. Since there is plenty of
topographic relief to be found, your equilibrium theory hasn't a leg to stand
on. The fact is that the earth is ever changing and dynamic. It is no more in
equilibrium than the universe is.
> It is a balance, or to use your word, and equilibrium of the generation and
> the resumption of crustal rock in PT.
>
> Do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
Do you have a valid point you'd like to make?
Eigenvector
"Aidan Karley" <ai...@mynameplus1.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:VA.000003b...@mynameplus1.demon.co.uk.invalid...
Carsten Troelsgaard
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1104157776....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Same continental crust, same break up,
> same movement picture -
The movement premises you you had ½ a year ago has changed 180 degrees for
the southern hemisphere. Your observations has not changed and the link to
your premises are unchanged too - which shows, either that your initial
premises has no influence on your observation, or that you are an
intellectual fraud in your linking between the two. Take your pick.
You did not confront my responses of Nov. 12, 2004
don findlay
robert casey wrote:
> don findlay wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
> >>result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
>
> Okay.
>
> >>2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes
>
> Most likely yes. But when plate tetonics got started,
> the granate rock is too light to get subducted. And
> thus it gets piled up in contenent sized lumps over
> say the first 100 million years.
Makes the assumption that plate tectonics began earlier than the
evidence for it we see it today (Ocean floors, spreading ridges
transforms etc). Extrapolating may not be justified. E.g., find an
old spreading ridge ('fossilised'). Shouldn'[t be difficult; first
find an old (fossilised) ocean floor.
> Then these lumps
> essentially float around as plate tetonics keeps going.
> Whatever erosion off the land masses that ends up on
> the sea floors
With the exception of the Yellow River, virtually all the major rivers
at the present day empty into the 'trailing' edge. (away from
subduction zones). Slope of continental landmasses a feature of THE
(circum-Pacific) SUBDUCTION ZONE we see at the present time? Yellow
River empties into
back arc basins which are not getting 'scraped'.
> gets scraped off at subduction zones and
> gets added to shorelines of contenents. That explains
> why we still have land masses after 4.5 billion years
> of erosion.
So it doesn't explain it. The planet's current behaviour might be
rather described not as 'plate tectonics' but as 'oceanisation'. Can't
think of a era in the past when similar, with the possible exception of
the Archaean (maybe) )(greenstone belts; but have lots of terrestrial
sediments as well,
mixed in with)
AXIOM SUMMARY: NO EVIDENCE FOR PLATE TECTONICS 'GETTING STARTED'
PRIOR TO ITS REASSEMBLY into the Gondwanaland / Laurasia of 300m years
ago.
> >>3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
>
> Pangaea didn't cover the entire Earth. It only covered
> about the same amount of area land covers today
ASSUMES PANTHALASSA. FATAL ASSUMPTION FOR PLATE TECTONICS.
> >>Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
> >>continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
> >>exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific
> >
> > and
> >
> >>exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break
> >
> > up,
> >
> >>same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
> >>tectonics.
>
> ?
>
> >>4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean
floor?
> >>No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
> >>easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3.
>
> Funding another possible way to make that stuff doesn't
> necessarly disprove the first way.
True, but emphasises alternative. First way no longer 'proved'.
> > ...and
> >
> >>are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in
any
> >>way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
> >>Anyone got anything else to add?
>
> Not sure what you mean to say here.
What's happening is first and foremost a process of making ocean floors
(pulling apart continents) - before it is a process of colliding them,
building mountain belts, subducting, scraping/ accreting etc. How wide
does an ocean floor have to get (the boring bit) before 'plate
tectonics' (the exciting bit) starts up? Why do ocean floors get
exposed/ created in the first place? Why doesn't it all start when
separation is about a hundred feet, instead of nearly a hundred
thousand kilometres? (SCALE
PROBLEM FOR PLATE TECTONICS.)
> > 5. The energy imbalance between spreading ridges and subduction
zones
> > is much too great (subduction >>^^ greater than spreading) to be
> > accounted for by any 'cycling/ recycling mechanism.
> >
> > Axiom:- the energy imbalance precludes linkage.
>
> I don't think this arguement actually means anything.
> It depends on the amount of friction there is to overcome
> at subduction zones vs that force it takes to make the
> spreading zones. Maybe there isn't much friction at
> subduction zones, so that would make more energy
> is disapated at spreading zones?
The friction argument is consequent on cooling slabs ("cold in space").
Cooling means contraction. Not movement. Think about it.
AXIOM SUMMARY:- SUBDUCTION ("SLAB-PULL") DRIVING PLATE TECTONICS IS
TANTAMOUNT TO THE CONTRACTION HYPOTHESIS.
> How do you make the Earth expand anyway? The mass
> of the Earth has been pretty steady for billions of
> years, and there's nothing to make the density of
> the Earth change. Thus the size of the Earth
> could not have changed significantly. You can't have
> large voids deep in the core; strength of materials
> is way too weak to withstand the high pressures
> down there. Besides materials get weaker at those
> high temperatures anyway. Same reason planets are
> round, and not shaped like say a cube. The points
> of the cube are further away from the center than
> other parts of the cube, and the points would have
> more material to be supported by underlying material
> than other areas. The material is way too weak to
> keep from being squished down and sideways, and thus the
> points would sink down.
Don't know. This is the destination we are trying to arrive at, by
first laying down the parameters for consideration. Plate tectonics is
grossly inadequate to explain what we see. Needs reappraisal.
> Sure we have tall mountians,
> but you can't get them much taller because the material
> underneath would just squish from under.
(A lot i*s being squished out from under them. )
> You're probably hoping to create the next blockbuster
> scientific theory, but all the easy science has
> already been done.
There is already a blockbuster. It needs a mechanism (finally), but
first it needs proper formulation vis-a-vis plate tectonics. That is,
people need to honestly appraise the nonsense of plate tectonics for
what it is - assumptive balderdash, and look at rational alternative
explanation for component parts. Plate tectonics is too ad hoc. The
point of arrival, when we can **start looking** for an explanation,
is that the ocean floors have **GROWN**, ..they haven't 'moved'.
Growth does not mean movement, and overriding does not mean
convection.
don findlay
Yes and no. 'No' because when we talk about 'flat' in geology we mean
that the strata are flat; but 'yes' because the high mountains of
so-called collisional zones of plate tectonics are flat - meaning 'not
crumpled and folded like a mad Platie's tablecloth', high, ..but nice
and flat. Flat as a tack in fact. Mt Everest, the highest mountain on
the planet, right up against the battering ram of India - flat. And
K2, and a whole lot of others. FLAT. Plate tectonics doesn't even
regard this piece of inconsequential detail, much less what it means.
("F@#$' em all. Have plate, will tectonise")
don findlay
George wrote:
> "Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
> What I find even more amazing is his assumption that the earth's
crust is in
> some kind of balance or equilibrium, or that it even requires
equilibrium or
> balanced conditions in order for subduction to occur. The fact of
the matter is
> that the crust is not in eequilibrium. That the crust is not in
equilibrium
> conditions was amply demonstrated the other day with the 9.0
earthquake that
> apparently has killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 people.
But why
> let the physical facts interfere with a bad non-consensual fiction?
Hey, George, This is the Earthquake (11metres of movement) that plate
tectonics leaves off its data to maintain the fiction of fingernail
grown. Go shoot yourself in the other foot.
don findlay
You're still talking about colliding plates crumpling the crust and
piling up mountains, aren;t you? You didn't READ the good news pages
did you, ..look at the pictures on my site of flat mountains did you,
of Cathy Destivelle crawling along her 'beach', did you - proving it
was flat, did you? Well now all the figgies are disabled and you need
to BUY A COPY so you can read all about it, don't you? Cost you less
than a Pizza and an ice cream, but know which you prefer, and it
certainly isn't reading and making sense.
> which get eroded down, creating sediments in the rivers, lake
> and oceans, downwarping the crust, and so forth and so on? If it was
in
> equilibrium, there would be no topographic relief.
It's precisely this topographic relief (and the stratigraphic sequence
on the continental crust making it up) that is such a problem for plate
tectonics. And the Giant movement of Earthquakes that brings it all
into being, that plate tectonics ignores in favour of its "whispering
tumbleweed" of creeping fingernail growth. Go shoot yourself in the
foot sticking out of your head, if you have no others left!
> Since there is plenty of
> topographic relief to be found, your equilibrium theory hasn't a leg
to stand
> on. The fact is that the earth is ever changing and dynamic. It is
no more in
> equilibrium than the universe is.
(Christ George!) The equilibrium theory is the one belonging to plate
tectonics. Earth expansion doesn't have an equilibrium theory. What?
Did you just discover the other day that the Earth is not in
equilibrium? And you with straight A's too! And a publication!!!!!
I'm absolutely breathless. And you'v e stunned David into silence!
> > It is a balance, or to use your word, and equilibrium of the
generation and
> > the resumption of crustal rock in PT.
> >
> > Do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
>
> Do you have a valid point you'd like to make?
I think that was the valid point. I don't know who's the stunned
mullett around here, you for saying the things you do or me for
answering you. Tut tut, ..I shouldn't really, because this is what
it's all about, question and answer. Just try to keep them on the
table though, won't you.
Plate tectonics as the "non-equilibrium theory.." I can hear Stuart
getting restless, but nothing you say surprises him. Go and Bwahh you
Hahh, and see what he says... This will be held against you, you
know, unless you quickly explain what you mean (in plate tectonics) by
"non-equilibrium". Hot mantle - cold space perhaps? density,
convection, Ureka!! Wet legs.. And this is why the mantle moves and
doesn't grow. Magnetic stripes are movement rings, not growth rings.
don findlay
You were talking to Ralph, not to me, but yes I did anyway. See post
of November 13, two down from your link. I'm still waiting for you to
say which figure. Since I've changed none of them you will need to
consider that perhaps (just perhaps) you screwed up. Anyhow, if you
search the archives generally you will have trouble finding one
instance where it was I who dropped the topic first. Unlike most
posters less intent on the substance.
But nice to see you back. Hope you had a good Christmas (and like us
all, folded hands for the thousands who didn't - and don't generally in
the world, because not enough are intent on changing it in some small
way).
Don't dwell on the point Carsten, nothing's changed, neither in my
interpretations nor in the way I illustrate it. If in the future there
are changes, they will be consigned to an archives folder so people can
check if they like what was said before. That's what this exercise is
all about - participation. And I just wish more who can, would. If
there was a change, I would be the first to acknowledge it and amplify
why I have. It's the road travelled, ..not the destination. Surely
the point is clear, I am not interested in concealment on any
geological issue. If anyone else can substantiate what you say, I
think they would, but I really don't think too many people are
interested in the topic of plate tectonics, which surprises me in one
way - that it is such a wonderful illustration of the way so-called
science works and how it works its woe on people - but not in another,
that most of the people on this forum did what I never did, learned it
at school (or had to) and were conned by the easy answers and awed by
the teacher's authority. Look at any site of the thousands on it, and
find one that's saying anything the slightest bit different. Doesn't
that strike you as odd for the so-called 'enquiry' of real science?
And that 'George' is the epitome of consensus? Why, he even has
peripherals to reinforce him.
don findlay
Bigdakine wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
> Ford still hasn't learned what Gauss's theorem is.
>
> Incredible.
OK Hulk, what's Gauss's theorem in relation to subduction, for the
benefit of all the others who don't either. IN a sentence please.
And please include the word 'subduction' in the explanation.
David Ford
Oh, so now I have an equilibrium theory!!! I have NEVER mentioned
anything of the kind, but George somehow deludes himself I have
somewhere; please, show me where I have ever claimed anything of the
kind, and I’ll show you a thousand instances of precisely the opposite?
As I said, do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
If you have no capacity to discuss any point, and are only interested in
being a twat, could you just bugger-off so the adults can talk?
George
Who are you talking to, Dave, that you have to use the third person in reference
to me?
> As I said, do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
>
> If you have no capacity to discuss any point, and are only interested in being
> a twat, could you just bugger-off so the adults can talk?
Your words:
"The proposed Plate tectonic ‘balance’ of construction and destruction of
oceanic crust is thus geometrically impossible on a sphere with these observed
features. In order for a crustal construction-destruction balance to be in
effect, ocean basins require co-equal lengths of assumed consumptive trench …
and it just isn’t there, even if those trench area really did
represent zones of crustal resumption back into the mantle."
The term "balanced" implies "equilibrium". Equilibrium - a state of balance
between opposing forces.
Plate Tectonics implies no "balance" or "equilibrium", because the plates are
always in a state of flux. Satellite data confirms this. The recent events at
the Sundra trench bear this out as well.
David Ford
And just what don't you understand about;
"The proposed Plate tectonic ‘balance’ of construction and destruction
of oceanic crust is thus geometrically impossible ..."
It is not me that has a theory of a 'balance' of construction and
destruction of oceanic crust, it is PLATE TECTONICS.
(geezus!)
I know you are one of the more particularly idiotic people hanging
around this forum George, but you really do out-do yourself at times,
and this is one of those instances where you have excelled in that area.
don findlay
> Plate Tectonics implies no "balance" or "equilibrium", because the
plates are
> always in a state of flux. Satellite data confirms this. The recent
events at
> the Sundra trench bear this out as well.
Umm, George, ..come on, the plates have been exactly where they are for
the last 260 million years. They've just got bigger. What 'state of
flux' is there about growth. I wouldn't say the weeds in my back yard
are "in a state of flux" simply because they are growing where they
stand. Now, ..if they were running about all over the shop...
George
That you think that Plate tectonics implies any such "balance" only indicates
how badly you misunderstand it. The fact of the matter is that the crust of the
earth is always in flux. Movements of the plates are occurring every single
day. If you want to have 'mile for mile' the exact same length of subduction
zones as that of spreading centers, all I can suggest to you is to stick around.
I'm sure the earth could accomodate your wishes, given enough geologic time.
You seem to think in snapshots, as if what you see is an end product, and not
something that is 'in the process'. To use a term that I know people like you
don't like to hear, the earth's crust is still evolving. Given enough geologic
time, it's entirely possible that at some point you might just see such a
"balance". I personally don't think it works exactly that way for several
reasons. You also conveniently forget that it was only in the last 10-20 years
or so that the location and extent of the Cascadia subduction zone was realized
(it was inferred for years due to the presence of the Cascade Volcanic range
along the California/Oregon/Washington coasts, but no one knew exactly where it
was). There is no reason to think that other subduction zones won't be found
that are not now known. My view is that if there are more known spreading
centers than subduction zones, then there are at least three possible reasons
for that:
1) We haven't found them all yet - which is a real possibility; The cascadia
zone was difficult to find because of all of the recent sediments laid down on
the ocean floor in that region by the Columbia River. Advances in technology
made the discovery possible. Others may yet be found.
2) That the earth's crust is in non-equilibrium, (i.e., the earth hasn't yet
fully adjusted to all the spreading centers by creating opposing subduction
zones in all the locations where they are possible or where we think they should
be).
The Atlantic Ocean is younger than the Pacific, and smaller as well. Some have
suggested that it is entirely possibly that sometime in the future a subduction
zone(s) will form off the east coast of the passive margin of the U.S., and
possibly even off the West coast of Europe, though this is less certain. Since
the Atlantic is still spreading apart, I think it is likely that eventually
there will be a trench. The basement rock of the eastern margin certainly isn't
composed of horizontal beds, but is quite 'fubared', and contains a host of
complexes from granites to melange to gabbro and basalt.
There have been subduction zones along the eastern seaboard in the geologic
past, as any geologist who has walked (such as myself) and studied in the Blue
Ridge Mountains and associate melange/ophiolite complex of the Eastern U.S.
will tell you. And there are two known trenches - the South Sandwich trench in
the South Atlantic, and the Puerto Rico trench, in or near the Atlantic basin -
and one suspected trench - the Caymen trough. These three features are
relatively young and growing, with the Caymen trough being the youngest.
3) Subduction zones are harder to form than spreading centers because in order
for them to form, zones of weakness within cold, rigid crust have to be
initiated. And that is hard to do within thick, rigid continental crust. When
they do form, they usually form along continental margins where the continental
crust is thinnest and weakest. In the case of the Eastern seaboard of the U.S.,
there has been subduction and accretion before. The accretionary sequence of
rocks is now old, relatively cold, and rigid - having been welded to the
continent during older continent/Island arc collisions, so it is entirely
possible that a young subduction zone has yet to form in response to continued
spreading at the mid-Atlantic ridge. Stay tuned.
> I know you are one of the more particularly idiotic people hanging around this
> forum George, but you really do out-do yourself at times, and this is one of
> those instances where you have excelled in that area.
You excel in insults when confronted with facts that dispel your urban legends.
I guess that makes you feel just peachy knowing that you and Turdhard have
something in common.
That subduction occurs is not in question by anyone but EEers, and you guys are
quite a rabid, though very small minority.
Carsten Troelsgaard
Carsten Troelsgaard wrote:
> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1104157776....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > Same continental crust, same break up,
> > same movement picture -
>
> The movement premises you you had ½ a year ago has changed 180
degrees for
> the southern hemisphere. Your observations has not changed and the
link to
> your premises are unchanged too - which shows, either that your
initial
> premises has no influence on your observation, or that you are an
> intellectual fraud in your linking between the two. Take your pick.
>
> You did not confront my responses of Nov. 12, 2004
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=da&lr=&newwindow=1&threadm=4195d86a%240%24161%24edfadb0f%40dread11.news.tele.dk&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fas_ugroup%3Dsci.geo.geology%26as_uauthors%3DCarsten%2520Troelsgaard%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D2004%26as_maxd%3D28%26as_maxm%3D11%26as_maxy%3D2004%26lr%3D%26hl%3Dda
Finley says:
> You were talking to Ralph, not to me, but yes I did anyway.
So look again
Finley says:
> I'm still waiting for you to
> say which figure. Since I've changed none of them you will need to
> consider that perhaps (just perhaps) you screwed up.
We discussed spirals, torsion and movement for half a year, and you ask!
There is not much to mistake - and since your pages dynamically changes on
your discression, I'm not surpriced that the link I provided may not
suffice - convinient, ey?
Since I refer to mail where I describe the lack symmetry that now has
apppeared (the last time I looked atleast ... that was when you said 'what
asymmetry?' after my 6 month of opposition to this state of your affairs).
Since then, I havn't had the slightest urge to read, think or validate EE
any further.
This mail is for the benefit of your new friends or opponents.
David Ford
Oh right, so you admit the earth only exhibits ONE QUARTER of the length
of ‘subduction zones’ PLATE TECTONICS REQUIRES, in order for PT to have
even a shred of veracity, … but the evidence doesn’t exist … meanwhile
I’m saying that the Trench zones aren’t even regions of crustal
resumption, that that is just an assumption implicit to Plate Tectonics,
… and so Georgia says he has waltzed along the Blueridge mountains and
seen multiple subduction zones (which have been eroded out, buried,
metamorphosed and multiply deformed …) … right after saying how darn
tricky it has been to ‘find’ a currently active site of so-called
‘subduction’ in Cascadia …
Fricken marvelous stuff!
So there is actually NO BALANCE, which PT requires in order to be valid,
and ‘subduction zones’ are nothing more than a hypothesis conjured to
explain Benioff zones and benthic magnetic isochron data … and humanity
is told to sit tight and ‘stay tuned’ because one day in maybe 20, 30
40, 50 million years, the earth MIGHT actually manage to make some
subduction zones one day …
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Whoopie!
So that’s it humanity, forget about physical evidence and congruence,
the Earth has been finding it a bit tricky to make any … but then again,
it’s not unusual for Plate Tectonics zombies to say such outrageous
balderdash, because it’s equivalent to saying that all the Pre 200 mya
oceanic crust that THEORETICALY existed in PLATE TECTONICS ASSUMPTIONS,
is all gone, because the naughty, “…Earth ate all our evidence”!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
A quaint variation on, “Sorry Sir, but the dog ate my homework”, excuse!
So, the physical balance of construction and destruction of oceanic
crust which Plate Tectonics requires is not here now, and humanity will
most likely be long gone before any is theoretically manufactured, if
that were even a real process.
And what is this ‘stay turned’ poop Georgie? Is Earth going to suddenly
make 4 times the current length of so-called subduction zone by about
2040-50 AD? … NOPE! … so DON’T bother to ‘stay turned’; go watch a
sunset or something useful.
What you are doing George old boy, is called SPECIAL PLEADING.
oddjob
> Anyone got anything else to add?
Just a recapitulation of conventional ideas as to why then Earth expanded,
if it has:
1. Two or more oppositely charged hyperdimensional membranes are
pentrating each other, causing an increase in mass. Rather than turning the
Earth into a Black Hole,it causes the Earth to expand, because some of the
interaction releases energy.However, after a while, the increase in mass
will cause the Earth and all it's inhabitants to shrink. Jonathan Swift
wrote about this cryptically in "Lilliputia."
2. There is an element with a very high atomic number at the core of the
Earth that is decaying. It is probably OldAgium l54. As it decays, it
releases energy. As the mass decreases, so does the force of gravity, and
the surface expands. The magnetic field is getting weaker too, because the
molten iron is less concentrated.
3. When the vapor cover was released in the world-wide flood,
sensationalized in the Middle Eastern Press as 'Noah's Flood,' it penetrated
deeply into the cracks and recesses of the Earth. This caused a tremendous
splitting force. Magma rose, continents spread apart, and this is what is
behind the myth of the Tower of Babel. On this hypothesis, the Earth is
shaped like an orange with broken segments. It follows that someone is
preparing to eat us.
4. The Earth was really formed around an alien habitat made of
indestructible materials. It grew as meteors and comets and cosmic dust
impacted the outer shelll, which was protected by an antigravity field. As
the number of residents and tourists increased, the shell was also expanded
by the antigravitational field to produce more living room. As a result, the
surface of the earth expanded too. The shell is more like a field that can
become infinitely thin without losing its strength. It could be that I just
dreamed this, but does that mean it isn't true?
George
I admit nothing of the sort. Where you get the idea that there are only 25% of
divergent boundaries relative to convergent boundaries (there exists more than
one type of convergent boundary, in case you haven't noticed) is a mystery (from
your ass, no doubt)
… but the evidence doesn’t exist … meanwhile
> I’m saying that the Trench zones aren’t even regions of crustal resumption,
> that that is just an assumption implicit to Plate Tectonics, … and so Georgia
> says he has waltzed along the Blueridge mountains and seen multiple subduction
> zones (which have been eroded out, buried, metamorphosed and multiply
> deformed …) … right after saying how darn tricky it has been to ‘find’ a
> currently active site of so-called ‘subduction’ in Cascadia …
>
> Fricken marvelous stuff!
Yes it is, isn't it? How many times have you walked amongst rocks of such
zones? 1, 2 times? None at all?
>
> So there is actually NO BALANCE, which PT requires in order to be valid,
PT requires no such thing, except in your own warped imagination.
> and ‘subduction zones’ are nothing more than a hypothesis conjured to explain
> Benioff zones and benthic magnetic isochron data … and humanity is told to sit
> tight and ‘stay tuned’ because one day in maybe 20, 30 40, 50 million years,
> the earth MIGHT actually manage to make some subduction zones one day …
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> Whoopie!
> So that’s it humanity, forget about physical evidence and congruence, the
> Earth has been finding it a bit tricky to make any … but then again, it’s not
> unusual for Plate Tectonics zombies to say such outrageous balderdash, because
> it’s equivalent to saying that all the Pre 200 mya oceanic crust that
> THEORETICALY existed in PLATE TECTONICS ASSUMPTIONS, is all gone, because the
> naughty, “…Earth ate all our evidence”!
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> A quaint variation on, “Sorry Sir, but the dog ate my homework”, excuse!
>
> So, the physical balance of construction and destruction of oceanic crust
> which Plate Tectonics requires is not here now, and humanity will most likely
> be long gone before any is theoretically manufactured, if that were even a
> real process.
>
> And what is this ‘stay turned’ poop Georgie? Is Earth going to suddenly make
> 4 times the current length of so-called subduction zone by about 2040-50 AD? …
> NOPE! … so DON’T bother to ‘stay turned’; go watch a sunset or something
> useful.
>
> What you are doing George old boy, is called SPECIAL PLEADING.
Once again, you've managed to prove my thesis about Earth Expanionists. All
bark and no beef. When confronted with opposing views, they resort to insults,
innuendo, and out right lies in order to divert attention away from the fact
that they have no valid evidence to back up their claims, and rarely, if ever,
post any real evidence to counter PT evidence or to prove their hypothesis. All
you ever read from EEers is regurgitation of the same old unproven bullshit such
as 'Plate Tectonics requires a balance amongst subduction zones and spreading
centers', which is not only not true, but certainly ignores the fact that there
exists more than one type of convergence zone, and also doesn't consider (but
rather dismisses right away without forwarding any substantial evidence) the
explanations given above.
And the other "great lie" that Earth Expansionist put forward is that pre-200
million year old oceanic crust doesn't exist. I submit to you that that is not
only bullshit, it is horseshit, camel shit, donkey shit, and kangaroo shit all
wrapped up in one great big lie. Of course, you know this already, right Davey?
George
"oddjob" <odd...@odd.job> wrote in message
news:cque8q$6...@library2.airnews.net...
Bhwhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! I like that. Can I quote you on occasion? Oh,
and you left one out.
5. Jean Paul Turdhard's theory - That an celtic god from the 17.3145678921th
dimension popped into existence beside a spinning earth 200 million years ago,
grabbed it with his two scaly hands, stopping its rotation, turned it on its
side, and kicked it to get it going again which caused the creation of the
Universal BS law that initiated earth expansion and the creation of the current
ocean basins (he saw it on a Frank Zappa album cover while high on LSD so it
must be true).
don findlay
> > I'm still waiting for you to
> > say which figure. Since I've changed none of them you will need to
> > consider that perhaps (just perhaps) you screwed up.
>
> We discussed spirals, torsion and movement for half a year, and you
ask!
> There is not much to mistake - and since your pages dynamically
changes on
> your discression, I'm not surpriced that the link I provided may not
> suffice - convinient, ey?
If you say so. I say they don't change at all. IN fact except for the
odd adjective and syntactical correction, they are remarkably stagnant.
I should do something about it, except that I can't think of one idea
that *Has* changed since I started this
> Since I refer to mail where I describe the lack symmetry that now has
> apppeared (the last time I looked
If this isn't what's called "blaming the messenger" I don't know what
is. So what about making a retraction, instead of blaming your
misunderstanding on my web-pages
> atleast ... that was when you said 'what
> asymmetry?' after my 6 month of opposition to this state of your
affairs).
I still say "What asymmetry?" in answer to your question.
> Since then, I haven't had the slightest urge to read, think or
validate EE
> any further.
You were only half-reading it in the first place. There's only George
seemingly makes more of a cock-up in this. If you constructive
criticise on the exact points with reference to the specific page(s),
then something might be done about it, but this loosely crying "foul"
isn'[t much of a help to anyone.
> This mail is for the benefit of your new friends or opponents.
(Mmm, thats funny. I answered this one yesterday. Differently - but
it hasn't appeared... I said something sarky about that being a pity
because it was a hot topic, and friends and opponenets should consider
themselves benefitted on account of your posting... )
David Ford
Dear Georgina (etal),
Each individual person, each GEOLOGIST, which means STUDY OF EARTH, and
NOT the study of Plate Tectonics, nor the study of Earth Expansion, just
Earth, each of these geologists, here and elsewhere, have been
force-feed Plate tectonics, and sat through several YEARS of lectures,
tutorials, practicals, field trips, projects, EXAMINATIONS and
professional employment.
Yet, individual person, each individual geologist has come, via their
various experiential and learning routes, to the inescapable conclusion
that the consensual adoption of Plate Tectonics and its on-going
proscriptive interpretive use and outrageous consensual enforcement, has
been, and is still today, a major error in the field of the STUDY OF
EARTH, and an insult to logic, reason and observation.
Each person, each trained Geologist, who has come to this conclusion has
discovered this by realising the multitude of inadequacies and
continually repeated conceptual falsehoods propping up that rancid
theoretical nonsense called Plate Tectonics. I myself hung off every
word and explanation of my lecturers, and had private conversations with
several of them, people who did not earn their degree via Plate
Tectonics indoctrination, but who certainly watched decades of debate
surrounding it, and knew well of its logic holes and dilemmas, and
out-right failures to explain or fit observation. These people, these
very knowledgable and experienced examiners of Earth were forthright and
scrupulously honest about these many basic issues, and when you really
discuss issues with them you find they also held grave doubts of the
applicability of the Plate Tectonic mantra they were required to teach,
as the consensual view of their times.
So, it wasn’t just me, even these very accomplished Geologists, who had
seen and done it all, on multiple continents, and had numerous
geological books and papers to their names, some of them considered
indispensable, had, and still have, serious reservations about the
applicability of Plate Tectonic interpretations applied to Earth’
geological present, and history.
Well, guess what George, I didn’t go to university just to get a degree
and career in Geology, that was not the motive, the motive was very
simple, I was completely fascinated by Earth, by what it is, and what it
does. I wanted to understand EVERYTHING I could about Earth, so I
enrolled at University for that purpose alone, and I naturally learned
Plate tectonics theory inside-out, I studied it, I observed outcrops,
and I realised it could not be correct. So I tried to understand what
might be correct then—as you do.
This is what inquirers into the nature of Earth have always done when
they’ve each encountered a theoretical mainstream consensus, which did
NOT match the Earth they studied, and for which alternative
interpretations were possible.
Each Geologist here, who has thus rejected Plate Tectonics, has come to
this point in their own way, and in their own time.
Then there are the people that lack the spine to do so, who instead,
studied Geology for a degree (s) and a career, but who really don’t give
a toss about trying to understand each and every aspect of Earth, they
are only interested in maintaining their position and drip-feed of $$$.
You are clearly such a person George, you don’t really give a damn about
understanding Earth, you just fabricate a pretence of haughty authority
and poop on those that do.
This also is what the consensus has always don’t to concerted inquirers
in the field of the study of Earth, or any other field. That’s just
what happens, and I don’t give a darn about what you think George, for I
and others, here and elsewhere, have been over the ground you trawl, and
know it to be fallow ground.
This is the nature of our intransigence, this is why you will never sway
people like me and others here, because we have been there, and done all
that, MANY years ago
Samual Warren Carey even created YOUR ‘current’ consensual notion of
subduction of plates at Benioff zones—which Plate Tectonics zombies TOOK
from Carey, re-named it, and called it your own work!!—and then Carey
rejected this subduction view, because he could unmistakably see and
demonstrate it was undeniably geometrically impossible for such
subduction to explain global geo-dynamics upon a spherical Earth, with
the clearly observed major geological features it has.
This all occurred before many of you current Plate Tectonics zombies
were even born, or while you were still hopelessly pooping in your nappies!
Professor S. Warren Carey’s original subduction notion 1956 :
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/SWCarey.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/1953.gif
http://www.codes.utas.edu.au/5_NewsAndMedia/newsletters/oresols12.pdf
This same extraordinarily accomplished and distinguished geologist, then
went on to not only entirely reject his own subduction mechanism, which
he gave life to, he instead insisted Earth had to be expanding, through
geological time, and then spent the rest of his life, from 1956 to 2002
(46 years of professional work in the face of the archetypal consensual
‘George’ degreed career idiots of his day…) detailing an initial
understanding of the nature of this clearly undeniable expansion of our
Earth.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/EARTHEXP.htm#Trenches
This is why people like you George, have not the slightest hope of
persuading people like myself and others here, and elsewhere, who have
likewise sought to understand the Earth itself, rather than a mere
theory’s dubious non-credible interpretations, and why the rejection of
Plate Tectonics is unequivocal, and irreversible.
This is why when a grossly ignorant archetypal ‘George’ pompously
asserts that Earth Expansionists don’t understand Plate Tectonics—I for
one don’t even bother to respond, as the accusation is too ludicrous—it
can only be treated as smear and what it is.
i.e. extraordinary chronic stupidness, of an endemic nature.
Be very clear about this George types, you will NOT do away with, nor
remove Earth Expansion or expansionists from the field of the STUDY OF
EARTH, via smears, blatant lies, playing to your surrounding porridge of
consensual ignorance, and your routine wilful disinformation and
dishonesty, as observed here, and elsewhere.
That isn’t going to dissuade anyone, nor will it get you what you
desire; a stagnant unthinking consensus who are fed utter Mierda del
Toro, from a self-appointed elite in control of the purse strings of
funding, publication, and worst of all, ‘education’ of eager geologists.
As long as people seek to genuinely STUDY EARTH, for its own sake in
order to understand it, they will, of inescapable necessity, reject and
dissent from Plate Tectonic’s extensive inadequacies. (pun not intended)
George
Obviously you wasted your education grant money, because you didn't learn very
much. You should ask for a refund. I was wrong about you. You're not like Jean
Paul Turdhard. You are EXACTLY like him.
As to the above, you obviously sit in front of your computer screen with your
pecker in one hand and a handkerchief in the other yelling "yee-haw"! Careful
that your ego does expand so much and knock the monitor off your desk. What a
ride you must be having.
As for Carey, my Paleontology professor studied under him in Tasmania, and was a
personal friend, and he says that Carey dropped had the notion of earth
expansion and accepted plate tectonics in the end. Straight from my professors
recently publish memoirs, he refers to Carey as a "Plate Tectonics visionary".
And indeed he was. He also says that the few stragglers who still believe in
Earth Expansion are badly misguided. I couldn't agree more.
But thanks for proving my point:
Carsten Troelsgaard
Søgeresultat 35
Fra:Carsten Troelsgaard (carsten.t...@mail.dk)
Emne:Re: Troll
View: Complete Thread (45 artikler)
Original Format
Nyhedsgruppe:sci.geo.geology
Dato:2004-06-11 15:32:46 PST
> > > "Subduction" is code for 'convection' and plate tectonics. It is code
> > > for: "I am a believer, I will say nothing to contradict consensus").
> > > "Over-riding" on the other hand carries no connotation of convection,
> > > and, from the symmetry of its configuration, says crustal deformation
> > > is related to the torsional stresses of a rotating/ revolving planet
> > > (see Oriel) .
No, you'll have to deliver the 'kindergarden' way, here. Are you talking of
a crustal movement deflected by coriolis forces?
..........................................................................................................................................................
Mr. Finley's response to the questions:
Søgeresultat 37
Fra:don findlay (d...@tower.net.au)
Emne:Re: Troll
View: Complete Thread (45 artikler)
Original Format
Nyhedsgruppe:sci.geo.geology
Dato:2004-06-13 08:33:51 PST
Coriolis effect. I think that has to do with movement at the crust
mantle interface for which we see evidence of hemispherical 'pairing'
of deformations (e.g.:- "the Big Rip":-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/rupenin.html>
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/bigrip1.html> and in the southern
Hemisphere in the break-up of Pangaea), but the pattern of mantle
break-through deeper- level effect) encompasses both emispheres:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html>
........................................................................................
My comment: In other words, we started this discussion in June 2004, half a
year ago.
..........................................................................
Fra:don findlay (d...@tower.net.au)
Emne:Re: Why does a vertical waterspout...
View: Complete Thread (10 artikler)
Original Format
Nyhedsgruppe:sci.geo.geology
Dato:2004-06-22 03:25:17 PST
snip
> I asked a clear question as often before - and you fail to keep it clear.
>
> > >
> > > How come you fail to explain the significance of torsion? I admit that
> > > I'm
> > > not that eager to know, so 'bend it in neon'!
> >
> > I don't know exactly (obviously). I just observe that it's there, not
> > included in the vision of plate tectonics, and describes the way that
> > the ocean floors came into being, the deformation of the continental
> > margins, and the dilation/ fragmentation of the Pangaean hemispheres.
> > It seems to me pretty clear it has to do with a disturbance in the
> > Earth's rotation, and a possible shift in the barycentre (Earth -
> > Moon) <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html>. Oriel feels
> > pretty strongly it has to do with a rotational discrepancy too, and I
> > must say the overall symmetry of everything points to that. I tried
> > to sum it up in my abstract
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/abstract.html> I wouldn't be
> > dogmatic about it; it's just the best that seems to fit with what se
> > see/know, though I admit it bears on our possible lack of
> > understanding of the quality of matter at high temperature/pressures.
> > Note to it doesn't derive from a 'reconsideration' of the evidence for
> > plate tectonics. Sledging plate tectonics is a separate enterprise,
> > based on a conviction that, when you look at it, there is is next to
> > nothing supporting it other than the basic assumptions that are its
> > conclusions:-
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/index.html>
> > It would be classic 'Junk Science' (particularly the /why.html and
> > /bottomline.html pages.)
>
> To bend in neon is to be short, precise and clear - I havn't got the
> slightest clue as to what you talk about. You initiate by saying that you
> don't really know - that's fair, and I won't try to understand.
Fra:Carsten Troelsgaard (carsten.t...@mail.dk)
Emne:Re: FAQS - Earth Expansion
View this article only
Nyhedsgruppe:sci.geo.geology
Dato:2004-06-28 11:47:27 PST
You still have not applied the differential effect of torsion (different
momentum) on the different parts of the crust to picture (presumably) the
direction of the movement of it. Yet you do not hesitate to scetch a neat
spiral as (presumably) the propagation of the spreadingridge ... where is
the connection?
Your answer implies that you talk about the Coriolis effect as it manifests
itself in the crustal movement.
.........
My comment:
The above thread died. Why? Becourse you would have had to acknowledge the
Coriolis sense of movement while your figures at the time was 180 degrees
off for 50% of your observations. And you humbly ask 'Why do I presist in
this'
It's always been pointless to tell you, that you are wrong, so I told Georg
in the mail that I provided plenty links to, that you had got the Coriolis
sense of movement wrong.
..............
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1104358785.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
snip
> So what about making a retraction, instead of blaming your
> misunderstanding on my web-pages
Have I given you ample possibillities to acknowledge, that we have been
talking about a Coriolis sense of movement?
You persistently avoided to give a straight answer.
Since it's part of your premices you were forced to retract or lie.
George
"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:41d40758$0$203$edfa...@dread12.news.tele.dk...
All of which sounds strangely familiar. Carlsten, I hope you and yours are
having a happy holidays.
David Ford
">As for Carey, my Palaeontology professor studied under him in
Tasmania, and was a personal friend, and he says that Carey dropped had
the notion of earth expansion and accepted plate tectonics in the end."
What a hopeless lying arse you are George, I spoke with Carey at great
length on the phone a couple of months before he died, and have spoken
to him and corresponded many times, at length, since the mid-1990s, and
he NEVER ONCE suggested or indicated ANYTHING of the kind, he was
perfectly clear and passionate about his position right up to the end of
his life, and was in no doubt whatever that Plate Tectonics is an
unmitigated fiction, and Earth is undoubtedly expanding.
For you to stoop to posting such outrageous hearsay is truly the lowest
most disgraceful lying, smearing and defaming stunt (of a DEAD MAN) I’ve
so far seen from ANYONE in the Plate Tectonics camp.
Without a doubt, you are a lying skunk, will stop at nothing to defame
and smear, and are utterly beneath contempt.
George
Wow. A hearesay. How religiously dogmatic of you to say so. Read below.
> Without a doubt, you are a lying skunk, will stop at nothing to defame and
> smear, and are utterly beneath contempt.
>
Why you think that I would lie about a quote in a published book is beyond me,
except that perhaps you don't read books very often.
The quote came from "A Geologist's Ramblings Through The Labyrinths Of Time", by
James E. Conkin (2002), Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville. Check out
the link. You can contact him if you like. His e-mail is here:
http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/geog/faculty.html
Scroll down to the section listing Professors Emeritus.
Ian Stirling
> In article <8X3Ad.1291$Is5....@news.uswest.net>, Eigenvector wrote:
>> Not to butt in, but my understanding is that the earth's surface is much
>> much smoother than a billard ball - relatively speaking. Meaning those
>> tall, tall mountains are absolutely flat compared to the overall diameter of
>> the earth itself. Did I get that right?
>>
> Everest @ +8.8km); radius is 6370km to a schoolboy approximation; that's a
> roughness of approximately 1 part in 316. Probably good for a billiard ball,
> but not up to scratch for a bearing ball.
Billiard balls are shiny, big scratches would be obvious.
They are what, 6cm in diameter?
So that'd make .2mm relief.
That's enough to be perceptibly rough.
Bigdakine
>Date: 12/29/04 4:16 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <cque8q$6...@library2.airnews.net>
That about wraps it up.
don findlay
Bigdakine wrote:
> That about wraps it up.
You have a strange, and rather hubristic sense of humour in the face of
the killer question, the three of you. People want better from you.
(Hulks)
Carsten Troelsgaard
"George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:JiVAd.284796$V41.179498@attbi_s52...
> All of which sounds strangely familiar. Carlsten, I hope you and yours
> are having a happy holidays.
I appreciate your greeting, the same to you, George.
Carsten
don findlay
Carsten Troelsgaard wrote:
> Søgeresultat 35
> Fra:Carsten Troelsgaard (carsten.t...@mail.dk)
> Emne:Re: Troll
> View: Complete Thread (45 artikler)
> Original Format
> Nyhedsgruppe:sci.geo.geology
> Dato:2004-06-11 15:32:46 PST
>
>
> > > > "Subduction" is code for 'convection' and plate tectonics. It
is code
> > > > for: "I am a believer, I will say nothing to contradict
consensus").
> > > > "Over-riding" on the other hand carries no connotation of
convection,
> > > > and, from the symmetry of its configuration, says crustal
deformation
> > > > is related to the torsional stresses of a rotating/ revolving
planet
> > > > (see Oriel) .
>
> No, you'll have to deliver the 'kindergarden' way, here. Are you
talking of
> a crustal movement deflected by coriolis forces?
(The reply window on this thread of yours Carsten is about sixteen feet
long. And it seems yours is the only one. It's got something to do
with your browser settings being incompatible with Google's. But
anyhow:-
The short answer to your question is probably not, but don't worry
about it. I said before (in answer to your 'detailed' question about
Coriolis) the forces involved are not an issue until the geological
architecture is worked out. Forget it. Don't worry about them. Now, I
know that's what you call me "dodging the issue", but I'm saying the
'issue' (your speculation) is irrelevant. I also said that I don't
know if Coriolis is the way to look at it either. The Pacific is
intruding the crust, pivoting the hemispheres apart, which remain
hinged in the mediterranean region. Pivots are all over the place.
The two big ones are Indonesia (= Himalayan substrate) and the
Caribbean, with smaller ones recognisable in the Russian Peninsula, and
the Antarctic, no doubt many others as well. IN other words the crust
is not free to adjust to spin the way it would like. There are
'strings attached all over the place. And coriolis in regard to what
anyway (I said before)? There are two lots of spin to take account
of. The 'enlarging' one that we see continued to the present day, and
the 'fossil' one of the Pangaean crust as the still coherent hemisphere
crustal shells move apart and continue to rotate on their inherited
axis. Two sets of rotational shells - three really when you count the
way that Pangea has pivoted. The Pangaean ones are inherited rotation
(getting messed up too by adjustment to enlargement), and the current
one that 'continues on course' so to speak. If you can see Coriolis in
that, then go for it, but don't keep harping on to me to do the
arithmetic. Ask somebody else how they would set about it. Just make
sure it's done on an enlarging substrate. Shouldn't be too hard for
some of the bright sparks around here, with the framework laid out for
them.
Can you stop cutting and pasting page breaks from WORD or whatever it
is you're using, and just use the google window, and I'll answer the
rest of it. The scrollbar gets locked in being the page limit. If you
must use something else, make it notepad or something that google can
understand. And forget about pasting the headers, just write your
question (In google's window)
>
>
..........................................................................................................................................................
> Mr. Finley's response to the questions:
> Søgeresultat 37
> Fra:don findlay (d...@tower.net.au)
> Emne:Re: Troll
> View: Complete Thread (45 artikler)
> Original Format
> Nyhedsgruppe:sci.geo.geology
> Dato:2004-06-13 08:33:51 PST
>
>
> Coriolis effect. I think that has to do with movement at the crust
> mantle interface for which we see evidence of hemispherical 'pairing'
> of deformations (e.g.:- "the Big Rip":-
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/rupenin.html>
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/bigrip1.html> and in the southern
> Hemisphere in the break-up of Pangaea), but the pattern of mantle
> break-through deeper- level effect) encompasses both emispheres:-
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html>
>
>
........................................................................................
> My comment: In other words, we started this discussion in June 2004,
half a
> year ago.
Yeah, ...I know. And I've been posting it for a lot longer than that.
Well, that's a bit dumb. Just because I don't know doesn't mean to say
you shouldn't try to understand. What do you think I am, ..a gurr or
something? I'm not stopping you kepeing your marbles moving, surely.
>
>
>
>
> Fra:Carsten Troelsgaard (carsten.t...@mail.dk)
> Emne:Re: FAQS - Earth Expansion
>
>
> View this article only
> Nyhedsgruppe:sci.geo.geology
> Dato:2004-06-28 11:47:27 PST
>
>
> You still have not applied the differential effect of torsion
(different
> momentum) on the different parts of the crust to picture (presumably)
the
> direction of the movement of it. Yet you do not hesitate to scetch a
neat
> spiral as (presumably) the propagation of the spreadingridge ...
where is
> the connection?
>
> Your answer implies that you talk about the Coriolis effect as it
manifests
> itself in the crustal movement.
How can it imply any such thing, when I specifically point out the
problems with coriolis? I don't deny elements of it are in there
somewhere, but it's a brave numbercruncher would tackle it.
>
> .........
> My comment:
> The above thread died. Why? Becourse you would have had to
acknowledge the
> Coriolis sense of movement while your figures at the time was 180
degrees
> off for 50% of your observations. And you humbly ask 'Why do I
presist in
> this'
>
> It's always been pointless to tell you, that you are wrong, so I told
Georg
> in the mail that I provided plenty links to, that you had got the
Coriolis
> sense of movement wrong.
How it it wrong? The continents go the same way as the clouds in both
hemispheres. Is it just that you want me to give you world-wide
billing - that you don't understand my simple picture on my nonsense
page again? Are you a celebrity or something? A glutton for
publicity?
> ..............
>
>
>
>
>
> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1104358785.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> snip
>
> > So what about making a retraction, instead of blaming your
> > misunderstanding on my web-pages
>
> Have I given you ample possibillities to acknowledge, that we have
been
> talking about a Coriolis sense of movement?
> You persistently avoided to give a straight answer.
> Since it's part of your premices you were forced to retract or lie.
You can make of coriolis what you like Carsten, in fact why don't you?
Post a few figures how all these transforms reflect a change in
rotational structure, and how it all comes out sort of spiral-like, as
the change is tracked, and how the continents can be reassembled
according to this, and how when you do it they all end up fitting
nicely on a smaller Earth, with Gondwana on the lower hemisphere and
Laurasia on the northern hemisphere, and what that means for Pangaea
without a Panthalassa, and what then it means for Earth expansion. And
what it means for the garbage of plate tectonics as its promulgated. I
think you are poised on the brink of a great discovery. You just need
tipping over the edge, but for the life of me I don't know what it will
take. Perhas you need to stop being preoccupied with me "telling
lies". Next you'll be saying I was lying all along about the effect of
the Earth's rotation. This is what they did to Wegener, you know. And
to Carey. That's the standard consensus trick when it comes to
appropriating change: 'They' got it wrong. 'They' were telling lies.
'They' were misleading us. It's WE who have the right story. Or
(grudingly, usually much later) "Well, they might have been right in a
way, but for the wrong reasons". Carry on Carsten, you are right on
track. But stop this cutting and pasting will you. Just write in the
window. Or don';t use WORD. It's a pain.
David Ford
Yes, it is blatant hearsay, and given your abysmal practices and those
of your kind I would not put it beyond you to lie without reserve or
compunction. That's you George.
I absolutely know for certain is scurrilous hearsay rumour mongering and
blatant lies because I spoke to Carey, directly, personally, at great
length--it was not unusual for our discussions to last 3 to 4 hours each
time--MANY times over the final 7 years of life.
I have several letters from Carey which make no bones at all about his
final position.
You’re genuinely disgusting George.
George
Of course, Carey is dead, so we only have your word on it, don't we? I gave you
the opportunity to discuss the matter with my source, but I guess you've shied
away from discovering the truth about your demi-god.
J. Taylor
<Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>George wrote:
>> "Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
>> news:20041227221416...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
>>>>From: David Ford Nos...@internode.on.net
>>>>Date: 12/27/04 4:39 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <41d0...@duster.adelaide.on.net>
>>>>
>>>>don findlay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>EARTH EXPANSION - Axioms on which to lay down Parameters for
>>>>>discussion:
>>>>>________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
>>>>>result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
>>>>>2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes (Or:- how might it be
>>>>>conceived that differentiation could occur and 'whole-Earth Crust' not
>>>>>form?)
>>>>>3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
>It is a balance, or to use your word, and equilibrium of the generation
>and the resumption of crustal rock in PT.
>
>Do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
Yes, George has an imbalance between reality and fiction, which are
all treated as equal in his mind.
JT
J. Taylor
<geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>
>"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>news:41d18181$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>Really? And why is that? It can't just pile up crust and create mountains like
>in the himalayas, which get eroded down, creating sediments in the rivers, lake
>and oceans, downwarping the crust, and so forth and so on?
Gravity will be very unhappy if you create holes in the interior of
the planet. If you remove mass from the interior and place it on the
exterior you have an energy imbalance. Something defied the edicts of
gravity, not only was energy expended, but mass was removed.
It creates an imbalance.
>If it was in
>equilibrium, there would be no topographic relief. Since there is plenty of
>topographic relief to be found, your equilibrium theory hasn't a leg to stand
>on. The fact is that the earth is ever changing and dynamic. It is no more in
>equilibrium than the universe is.
Unless you are into perpetual motion, it will have to balance for the
system to continue to cycle.
>
>> It is a balance, or to use your word, and equilibrium of the generation and
>> the resumption of crustal rock in PT.
>>
>> Do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
>
>Do you have a valid point you'd like to make?
Yep, balance the equation.
JT
J. Taylor
Carey works show one of the great minds of science. He would reject
any evidence if it did not logically add up, even when it supported
his position. The man was devoted to science, finding out what is
happening.
This "fact" is inescapable if one actual reads his work.
Arthur Holmes was a consensus builder attempting to get the Stable
Earth to move off the dime and accept the "fact" the continents move.
Good for him, he did advance science, but without men like Carey, and
the demand for logic, science is just a helpless cripple, and a
quasi-religious movement.
JT
George
"J. Taylor" <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:vio9t0h12h09deofj...@4ax.com...
Who said anything about creating holes in the interior? Oh right. You did. Oh,
and the earth is not in balance. It is always in a state of flux, of change, of
entropy.
>>If it was in
>>equilibrium, there would be no topographic relief. Since there is plenty of
>>topographic relief to be found, your equilibrium theory hasn't a leg to stand
>>on. The fact is that the earth is ever changing and dynamic. It is no more
>>in
>>equilibrium than the universe is.
>
> Unless you are into perpetual motion, it will have to balance for the
> system to continue to cycle.
Perpetual motion assumes that the universe (or the earth) will last forever. As
a scientist, I don't have the luxury of entertaining such fantasies.
>
>>
>>> It is a balance, or to use your word, and equilibrium of the generation and
>>> the resumption of crustal rock in PT.
>>>
>>> Do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
>>
>>Do you have a valid point you'd like to make?
>
> Yep, balance the equation.
>
> JT
The earth is not a balanced system. It resides in an ellipse, not a perfect
circle, the rotation wobbles, and the earth's crust is highly fractured, and
moves around, among a zillion other unbalanced aspects of its nature. There is
nothing balanced about it, or the universe for that matter. Chaos rules. Sorry
to disappoint you.
___________________________
"It still moves" - Galileo
George
Not at all. If this was the case, there average relief on the earth would be
much less than it is. MUCH less.
>>It is a balance, or to use your word, and equilibrium of the generation
>>and the resumption of crustal rock in PT.
I used the phrase "not in equlibrium", and I stand by it. The laws of physics
demonstrate clearly that it is a fact. The Sumatran earthquake demonstrated
very clearly that this is the case. You do remember the laws of physics, don't
you?
>>Do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
>
> Yes, George has an imbalance between reality and fiction, which are
> all treated as equal in his mind.
>
> JT
Do you actually have something valid to say, or did you just miss me?
J. Taylor
Being without ability to evaluate anything, you couple everything, in
the hope those with less ability then yourself will join you in your
hand waving stupidity.
>
>As to the above, you obviously sit in front of your computer screen with your
>pecker in one hand and a handkerchief in the other yelling "yee-haw"!
Sadly, those whom speak from experience only speak of their own!
I gave you more credit than this!
>Careful
>that your ego does expand so much and knock the monitor off your desk. What a
>ride you must be having.
>
>As for Carey, my Paleontology professor studied under him in Tasmania, and was a
>personal friend, and he says that Carey dropped had the notion of earth
>expansion and accepted plate tectonics in the end. Straight from my professors
>recently publish memoirs, he refers to Carey as a "Plate Tectonics visionary".
>And indeed he was. He also says that the few stragglers who still believe in
>Earth Expansion are badly misguided. I couldn't agree more.
Do not know if any of this is true, but from a psychological
prospective do not know how he held out as he did, but await more
evidence.
While it has not been my fortune to have known Harlen Bretz, I do know
those whom did and going against the consensus was very hard for him
and he did not concede.
>
>But thanks for proving my point:
>
>Once again, you've managed to prove my thesis about Earth Expanionists. All
> bark and no beef. When confronted with opposing views, they resort to insults,
> innuendo, and out right lies in order to divert attention away from the fact
> that they have no valid evidence to back up their claims, and rarely, if ever,
> post any real evidence to counter PT evidence or to prove their hypothesis.
Not that you would know
>All you ever read from EEers is regurgitation of the same old unproven bullshit
>such
> as 'Plate Tectonics requires a balance amongst subduction zones and spreading
> centers', which is not only not true, but certainly ignores the fact that there
> exists more than one type of convergence zone, and also doesn't consider (but
> rather dismisses right away without forwarding any substantial evidence) the
> explanations given above.
George, you cannot think! All you know is what has been told to you.
>
> And the other "great lie" that Earth Expansionist put forward is that pre-200
> million year old oceanic crust doesn't exist. I submit to you that that is not
> only bullshit, it is horseshit, camel shit, donkey shit, and kangaroo shit all
> wrapped up in one great big lie. Of course, you know this already, right
>Davey?
>
The lie is in that you use evidence to come to conclusions.
Any ocean crust older than ~200 MYA must be explained, it is just that
it being an ophilite does not necessarily have to be it.
JT
J. Taylor
George a liar? Geez, what next will we discover, the Earth expanding?
JT
George
"J. Taylor" <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> The lie is in that you use evidence to come to conclusions.
Oh, right. I should use your method and just make up conclusions based on LSD
experiences. lol
> Any ocean crust older than ~200 MYA must be explained, it is just that
> it being an ophilite does not necessarily have to be it.
>
> JT
The petrology of oceanic crust consists of more than ophiolite. If you had
stayed awake during Petrology class (you did take some geology courses some time
during your lifetime, didn't you?), you wouldn't make that statement. The
continents are full of former oceanic basalts that are either in their original
petrologic state, or have been altered through various stages of metamorphism.
That these rocks are oceanic rocks is rarely, if ever questioned, except by
those, such as yourself, who have an agenda to ignore any fact that doesn't
support EE.
George
> Carey works show one of the great minds of science. He would reject
> any evidence if it did not logically add up, even when it supported
> his position. The man was devoted to science, finding out what is
> happening.
>
> This "fact" is inescapable if one actual reads his work.
>
> Arthur Holmes was a consensus builder attempting to get the Stable
> Earth to move off the dime and accept the "fact" the continents move.
>
> Good for him, he did advance science, but without men like Carey, and
> the demand for logic, science is just a helpless cripple, and a
> quasi-religious movement.
>
> JT
I have no doubt whatsoever that Carey was a brilliant man who contributed much
to geology in his early years. Unfortunately, his later insistence on earth
expansion was not one of them. It was a dead dog the day it was conceived, and
like Austalopithicus Robustus was for the evolution of early man, earth
expansion is a dead evolutionary path for geology (a non-starter, really), and
for those who still believe in the foolish "bowel" movement.
David Ford
No, you don’t have to take my word for it, there is the publication
record of 4 decades of very detailed publication comprehensively and
emphatically disavowing the viability, nor geometric possibility of
Plate Tectonics on this Earth though. There is not a single publication
or interview anywhere of Carey suggesting ANYTHING otherwise, nor has
there ever been any suggestion from Carey, off the record, to me, nor
anyone else I know who regularly conversed with him, that he ever
thought differently to this, at any time.
I have absolutely ZERO PERSONAL NEED to confer with your cohort of
consummate smearing and defaming second-hand used-bullshit peddlers old
boy. I have my own FIRST HAND personal experiences (as well as written
correspondence) of personal discussion with Carey, right up to the point
where he became too ill to continue in the final months of his life. I
know DIRECTLY exactly what Carey thought of Plate tectonics, right up to
the end.
The claim you have made here establishes to me for all time, what a
disingenuous deplorable skunk you are George. You have nothing in you
but lies, smear and neurotic deceit, in some misguided ‘defence’ of mere
theoretical contraption; you’re just another in the usual procession of
pseudo-academic scum who have not hesitated to stoop to this sort of
venom-filled smear and denial.
I take heart in knowing that for you to have come out with this sort of
desperate stuff, it must REALLY burn you out to find that experienced
geologists, doctorate holders and distinguished Professors, still,
today, have ZERO doubt that Plate Tectonics has never been anything but
a cheap infantile consensual fiction.
David Ford
Nor anoxic marine sediments filled with graptolites either.
David Ford
It is more than a slight dynamic imbalance as you suggest, about three
quarters of the length of ‘subduction zone’ required is NON-EXISTENT!
That's not just a little dynamic-imbalance goofy, it's what’s called
totally IMPOSSIBLE … IF subduction were in fact a real process at all,
as plate tectonics merely presumes.
BTW, you act like geology of recent years has only found more (assumed)
'subduction zone' in Cascadia, but you do also realise Antarctica is
actively rifting ... and on top of this is also 100% surrounded by
extending new crust formation along the southern ocean's MORs, and by a
N-S continental rift in Africa, and massive extensional MOR complexes in
the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and the massively fast spreading
occurring in the east Pacific MOR.
The length of MOR and continental rifting in the Southern hemisphere is
around SEVEN times the length of the supposed 'subduction zones'.
That is not a dynamic imbalance, it's just plain IMPOSSIBLE, and
incompatible with the meagre amount of subduction zone.
Where is all that new crust going to go Georgie old boy? It sure as
hell isn't going into the northern hemisphere, ... because, you guessed
it! … the Arctic is rifting open as well!
Plate Tectonics? phft!
The utter brainlessness of plate tectonics and its “George” types is
beyond the pale.
Carsten Troelsgaard
Should I be surpriced that you didn't get the message?
I shall redo the typing and attemt to make what's obvious to everyone and
expectedly invisible to you.
I post four passed citations from our discussion, each lined-in
................ and dated, to show status and date of the topic.
The topic itself is no longer at discussion - your lack of abillity to
handle or understand your thesis is.
My present comments are lined in between **********
......................................................................................
Dato:2004-06-11 15:32:46 PST
> > > and, from the symmetry of its configuration, says crustal deformation
> > > is related to the torsional stresses of a rotating/ revolving planet
> > > (see Oriel) .
No, you'll have to deliver the 'kindergarden' way, here. Are you talking of
a crustal movement deflected by coriolis forces?
.............................................................
Dato:2004-06-13 08:33:51 PST
Coriolis effect. I think that has to do with movement at the crust
mantle interface for which we see evidence of hemispherical 'pairing'
of deformations (e.g.:- "the Big Rip":-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/rupenin.html>
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/bigrip1.html> and in the southern
Hemisphere in the break-up of Pangaea), but the pattern of mantle
break-through deeper- level effect) encompasses both emispheres:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html>
........................................................................................
Dato:2004-06-22 03:25:17 PST
snip
......................................................................................................................................................
Dato:2004-06-28 11:47:27 PST
You still have not applied the differential effect of torsion (different
momentum) on the different parts of the crust to picture (presumably) the
direction of the movement of it. Yet you do not hesitate to scetch a neat
spiral as (presumably) the propagation of the spreadingridge ... where is
the connection?
Your answer implies that you talk about the Coriolis effect as it manifests
itself in the crustal movement.
.....................................................................
************************
My comment:
The above thread died. Why? Becourse you would have had to acknowledge the
Coriolis sense of movement while your figures at the time was 180 degrees
off for 50% of your observations. And you humbly ask 'Why do I presist in
this'
It's always been pointless to tell you, that you are wrong, so I told Georg
in the mail that I provided plenty links to, that you had got the Coriolis
sense of movement wrong.
************************
This is a response to your current mail:
*****************
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1104358785.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> So what about making a retraction, instead of blaming your
> misunderstanding on my web-pages
Have I given you ample possibillities to acknowledge, that we have been
talking about a Coriolis sense of movement?
You persistently avoided to give a straight answer.
Since it's part of your premices you were forced to retract or lie.
***********************
You reply
*****************
How it it wrong? The continents go the same way as the clouds in both
hemispheres. Is it just that you want me to give you world-wide
billing - that you don't understand my simple picture on my nonsense
page again? Are you a celebrity or something? A glutton for
publicity
*********
My reply of today:
********
It certainly fits correctly today Mr. Finley. My comment to George about
your mistake proves that you changed it. What is it about this simple fact,
that you don't understand?
George
> No, you don’t have to take my word for it, there is the publication record of
> 4 decades of very detailed publication comprehensively and emphatically
> disavowing the viability, nor geometric possibility of Plate Tectonics on this
> Earth though.
Yes I do, since most of that record is not available to me, or to most people
outside of Tasmania, for the matter. And I'm sorry to say that your web site
just isn't going to do it for me. Send me unaltered copies over everything Carey
ever did, and I'll look at it and decide for myself. How's that?
> There is not a single publication or interview anywhere of Carey suggesting
> ANYTHING otherwise,
Except that even on your own web site you admit that he was a proponent of plate
tectonics before almost anyone else. Oops. I've seen some of that work, and
for it's day, it was very good. Where he went wrong is in not excepting that he
made a mistake with his earth expansion crap and just moving on to bigger and
better things, which he was no doubt capable of doing.
> nor has there ever been any suggestion from Carey, off the record, to me, nor
> anyone else I know who regularly conversed with him, that he ever thought
> differently to this, at any time.
Maybe you could pump some of jean Paul Turdhard's "Universal Pressure" into the
old geezer to bring him back alive. Then he could prove to us all that he wasn't
out of his mind during his waning years. I've got a live professor right here
in the states who knew and worked with Carey, and calls him a plate tectonics
visionary who fucked up with his expanding earth theory. So I'll take the word
of my live professor over your dead one, if you don't mind.
But then, with respect to your claim, above, that "he never thought differently
to this, at any time", I give you a quote from your very own web page, which
begs to differ:
"Carey began his career with a determination to establish the validity
continental drift/subduction model".
Something that he actually accomplished quite nicely, I might add, even though
he didn't get the credit for it he deserved. I supsect that his brain finally
spasmed because his ideas weren't first accepted until others caught onto it,
then was pissed because he didn't get the credit he rightfully deserved, and so
spent the rest of his life in an angry, vein attempt to disprove the very theory
he helped create. His face does have rather the task master look to it. No
doubt, that look came about during his later years from a wounded ego as his
colleagues snickered at him behind his back.
> I have absolutely ZERO PERSONAL NEED to confer with your cohort of consummate
> smearing and defaming second-hand used-bullshit peddlers old boy. I have my
> own FIRST HAND personal experiences (as well as written correspondence) of
> personal discussion with Carey, right up to the point where he became too ill
> to continue in the final months of his life. I know DIRECTLY exactly what
> Carey thought of Plate tectonics, right up to the end.
Do you still have that letter where he told you to fuck off and stop bothering
him? And if you have no "personal need to confer with your (my) coherts",. why
the hell do you keep responding to my posts? You obviously feel the need to be
accepted by someone, since your only friends are a drunken Frenchman who has
been banned from ever stepping foot on Australian soil, and a sour-puss
Australian who did good work once, until he was "saved by the divine light" of
Earth Expansion.
> The claim you have made here establishes to me for all time, what a
> disingenuous deplorable skunk you are George.
I hate to tell you, but that isn't my ass you are smelling. Better look and see
where Jean Paul is standing.
> You have nothing in you but lies, smear and neurotic deceit, in some misguided
> ‘defence’ of mere theoretical contraption; you’re just another in the usual
> procession of pseudo-academic scum who have not hesitated to stoop to this
> sort of venom-filled smear and denial.
Wow, what a rant that is. As you always do, you never present any evidence to
support Earth Expansion. Your discredited web site doesn't do it Davey.
Instead, you just jump right in and show how bitter you are at the geologic
community that they aren't kissing the ground you walk on. I've got news for
you. We geologists are a fickle bunch (as most scientists are, really). We
expect verifiable, evidence before we sit up and take notice. If you want to be
worshipped like you do your demi-god, that isn't going to happen. Most
geologists simply aren't all that taken by religious dogma like you are. It has
something to do with Bishop Ussher and the fact that the earth is actually 4.5
billion years old.
> I take heart in knowing that for you to have come out with this sort of
> desperate stuff, it must REALLY burn you out to find that experienced
> geologists, doctorate holders and distinguished Professors, still, today, have
> ZERO doubt that Plate Tectonics has never been anything but a cheap infantile
> consensual fiction.
Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that was funny.
George
I can show you about 2,000 feet of Ordovician limestones that were anything but
anoxic, and are full of graptolites. Sorry, you lose.
George
I don't know where you got that measurement (that you've stated about a zillion
times, and have never provided actual physical data to support that claim), but
you didn't get it from he planet earth (oh right. You pulled it out of your
ass). And even if it were true, so what? There are three basic tenents of
plate tectonics (four, actually). The first is that the mid-oceanic ridges are
spreading centers, places where new crust is being formed. Then there are
subduction zones, places where crust is being recycled back into the mantle.
The there are collision zones, continent-continent, and continent-oceanic (other
than subduction, otherwise known as pbduction zones). And all of this is being
driving by mantle convection.
So, if there aren't enough subduction zones to balance the out spreading
centers, what could that possibly mean? It means that crust is piling up
somewhere, since it isn't going back down into the mantle. And where could such
places be where crust is piling up? FUCKING MOUNTAIN CHAINS, you moron.
Orogenic belts. Even Carey understood the importance of orogenisis with regard
to the geologic history of the earth. 'Oh, but then you'd leave big voids in
the earth because not all the material is being recycled'. Duh! Why then, do
you think basins and huge areas of crustal subsidence exist? Because some 17th
dimension celtic god kicked the earth's ass and make huge dents? The basins are
there because of subsidence. The crust compensates for not having enough places
for the crust to cycle back into the mantle by subsiding. Hence we have the
ancient Appalachian, Illinois Basin, Michigan, and a zillion other basins. And
if you look at the very bottom of those basins what do you find? Most of the
time you find oceanic crust. The fact that 70 percent of the earth's surface is
below sea level is not an accident. And you don't need an ocean for a spreading
center to form. In fact, in most cases, they started within the continental
boundaries (i.e., the African rift valleys). The spreading centers pull the
continents apart and create ocean basins. But as those basins subside, new
crust is formed both wthin the spreading centers and along the subduction zones
as volcanic arcs. I could go on, but you don't believe one word of this so I'm
wasting my time, which I suspect was your aim anyway.
> That's not just a little dynamic-imbalance goofy, it's what’s called totally
> IMPOSSIBLE … IF subduction were in fact a real process at all, as plate
> tectonics merely presumes.
Not impossible. Its happening as we speak. If you had lived in Sumatra last
week, you likley would have died finding this out.
> BTW, you act like geology of recent years has only found more (assumed)
> 'subduction zone' in Cascadia, but you do also realise Antarctica is actively
> rifting ... and on top of this is also 100% surrounded by extending new crust
> formation along the southern ocean's MORs, and by a N-S continental rift in
> Africa, and massive extensional MOR complexes in the Atlantic and Indian
> Oceans, and the massively fast spreading occurring in the east Pacific MOR.
The eastern half of which is subducting beneath the western coast of South
America, creating one of the longest mountain ranges on dry land.
>
> The length of MOR and continental rifting in the Southern hemisphere is around
> SEVEN times the length of the supposed 'subduction zones'.
Based on what? Did you pull out you handy dandy measuring tape and measure them
all? I hope you used a wet suit for the oceanic parts.
> That is not a dynamic imbalance, it's just plain IMPOSSIBLE, and incompatible
> with the meagre amount of subduction zone.
You haven't proven anything here. You've made a claim based on your word alone.
You've presented no evidence that this is the case. Where's the data? Show me
measurements, and what those measurements are based on.
> Where is all that new crust going to go Georgie old boy? It sure as hell
> isn't going into the northern hemisphere, ... because, you guessed it! … the
> Arctic is rifting open as well!
Is it any wonder that the average height of Antarctica is higher than the other
continents? Have you ever thought of this - that convergent plate boundaries
are typically in equitorial and temperate regions, while rifting occurs at both
poles. Interestingly, the north pole is an oceanic basin that has frequent
rift-type earthquakes while the south pole is two miles high and has virtually
no earthquakes (except at a few locations along the coast). Antarctica is an
important, but poorly understood piece in the global tectonics puzzle. It is
widely accepted that active deformation is ongoing in western Marie Byrd Land
and the Ross Embayment. These are both part of the West Antarctic Rift System,
but rates and causes of the deformation are unknown. Two possible causes of the
deformation observed in this region include tectonic extension in the Ross
Embayment as West and East Antarctica separate and crustal uplift caused by
isostatic rebound following the last glacial maximum. Having said that, I'll
admit that I don't know any more about the geology of that ice-covered land than
anyone else if you'll admit that there is not enough information avaliable for
you to make any wild earth expansion claims based on the sparse data that exists
for Anarctica.
> Plate Tectonics? phft!
>
> The utter brainlessness of plate tectonics and its “George” types is beyond
> the pale.
Earth Expansion. Ego expansion. Nothing more.
Carsten Troelsgaard
"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:41d5...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> It is more than a slight dynamic imbalance as you suggest, about three
> quarters of the length of ‘subduction zone’ required is NON-EXISTENT!
>
> That's not just a little dynamic-imbalance goofy, it's what’s called
> totally IMPOSSIBLE … IF subduction were in fact a real process at all, as
> plate tectonics merely presumes.
>
> BTW, you act like geology of recent years has only found more (assumed)
> 'subduction zone' in Cascadia, but you do also realise Antarctica is
> actively rifting ... and on top of this is also 100% surrounded by
> extending new crust formation along the southern ocean's MORs, and by a
> N-S continental rift in Africa, and massive extensional MOR complexes in
> the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and the massively fast spreading occurring
> in the east Pacific MOR.
>
> The length of MOR and continental rifting in the Southern hemisphere is
> around SEVEN times the length of the supposed 'subduction zones'.
>
> That is not a dynamic imbalance, it's just plain IMPOSSIBLE, and
> incompatible with the meagre amount of subduction zone.
>
> Where is all that new crust going to go Georgie old boy? It sure as hell
> isn't going into the northern hemisphere, ... because, you guessed it! …
> the Arctic is rifting open as well!
>
> Plate Tectonics? phft!
>
> The utter brainlessness of plate tectonics and its “George” types is
> beyond the pale.
Why shouldn't the Earth's crust have a modest extend of subductionzones
compared to spreading ditto? The start of an extension is far easier
achieved than the onset of a compressional subduction or a mountainbuilding
process. The logical consequence is, that subduction or mountainbuilding
happens in a faster pace. Considering the pace with which 26 m's of crust
that presumably disappeared beneath Sumatra as the island recently moved
this distance southwest seems convincing to me.
don findlay
George wrote:
> I have no doubt whatsoever that Carey was a brilliant man who
contributed much
> to geology in his early years. Unfortunately, his later insistence
on earth
> expansion was not one of them. It was a dead dog the day it was
conceived, and
> like Austalopithicus Robustus was for the evolution of early man,
earth
> expansion is a dead evolutionary path for geology (a non-starter,
really), and
> for those who still believe in the foolish "bowel" movement.
...And this is the guy who looks up to, and would hang around with, the
likes of 'Stuart'.
George, words can't describe the logic of your assessments in general,
but this one in particular takes the biscuit. You have no doubt that
Carey was "a brilliant man who contributed much", (why?) but you
dismiss out of hand, and in order to demonstrate consensus solidarity
rather than the remotest geological reason, what that "brilliant man"
himself considered his greatest achievement, and invested his whole
life in, including the period you call "brilliant". What do you feed
that compost you call your brain?
It's people like you the free world should be afraid of, for as long as
there are the likes of that attitude of yours, the 'George Bushes' of
this world whom you reveal you wouldn't vote for in a fit, will (and
do) smile at you and pull you around by the nose as easy as pie. Go
down to the shop, get a brain, and replace that empty space you've got
with it, For GOD's SAKE. It's apparent you try to be devil's advocate
on occasion, but on others like this, not. Do yourself and everybody a
favour and just for a few days, see what happens when you try changing
your approach. Your Gurus are Charlatans and Popes of a Corrupt
Church. Grow up, Mate.
David Ford
It comes from measuring the lengths of MOR on a current geological globe
of Earth (made by Dr. James Maxlow). When you measure you find there is
double the length of MOR to assumed 'subduction' zone (Maxlow has a full
digital version of course, and it’s a piece of cake to sum the lengths
of each within it). MORs are all twinned, i.e. producing crust either
side of the MOR, but the so-called subduction zones only consume ocean
floor on one side. Consequently, you have four times the length of new
oceanic crust generation boundary, compared to the proposed site of its
destruction in 'subduction' zone boundry. QED
> And even if it were true, so what?
It is, you clearly aren't even familiar with the basic large-scale
features of our Earth; yet you pretend to speak with presumed
'authority' LMAO! ... and to castigate those who are! Call yourself a
'geologist' do you Georgie? phft!
The term geology means STUDY OF EARTH and you should try it some time.
There are three basic tenents of
> plate tectonics (four, actually). The first is that the mid-oceanic ridges are
> spreading centers, places where new crust is being formed. Then there are
> subduction zones, places where crust is being recycled back into the mantle.
> The there are collision zones, continent-continent, and continent-oceanic (other
> than subduction, otherwise known as pbduction zones). And all of this is being
> driving by mantle convection.
>
> So, if there aren't enough subduction zones to balance the out spreading
> centers, what could that possibly mean? It means that crust is piling up
> somewhere, since it isn't going back down into the mantle. And where could such
> places be where crust is piling up? FUCKING MOUNTAIN CHAINS, you moron.
> Orogenic belts.
LMAO! (this should be good!)
err ... Georgie old-boy, this oceanic 'slab' which is normally being
theoretically subducted ... it's ... well, it's nominally about 100 km
thick isn't it? ...???
So your incredible EXCUSE for why Plate tectonics doesn't have more than
a QUARTER of the assumed subduction zone it needs, is that these
MILLIONS of cubic km of ocean crust 'slab' must stack up vertically
instead!
BWAHAHAH!! ...
2004 prize of "Un-Fricken-Precedented PT Brainlessness", goes to Georgie
So then, where are these great 10,000 km high mountain belts George?
They must be around here somewhere, right? There is nowhere near enough
subduction zone ... but ... nor is there the necessarily implied
unimaginably high pan-global orogens either!
The only active pan-global orogens are all creating and spreading new
ocean crust ... MORs!!
BWHAHAHAHA!
... and you call yourself a 'geologist'?! ...
> Even Carey understood the importance of orogenisis with regard
> to the geologic history of the earth. 'Oh, but then you'd leave big voids in
> the earth because not all the material is being recycled'. Duh! Why then, do
> you think basins and huge areas of crustal subsidence exist? Because some 17th
> dimension celtic god kicked the earth's ass and make huge dents?
One wonders why you keep trying to make this ridiculous 'linkage'
between myself and 'JPT'. I'm not even a subscriber to any 'God', nor
any religion, and have no connection whatever with Mr JPT, I never have
and most certainly never will. You're playing the usual desperate
personal smear tactic thing again as you ALWAYS have rather than cope
with the topic of discussion. That's you in a nutshell George.
> The basins are
> there because of subsidence. The crust compensates for not having enough places
> for the crust to cycle back into the mantle by subsiding. Hence we have the
> ancient Appalachian, Illinois Basin, Michigan, and a zillion other basins. And
> if you look at the very bottom of those basins what do you find? Most of the
> time you find oceanic crust.
LMAO!! ... err, sorry sport, basin basement does NOT equate to oceanic
crust, I can't believe you would be so daft as to assert that it might
or could, "Most of the time you find oceanic crust". Go study some
elementary sedimentology and palaeontology of deep and shallow MARINE
BASINS old-boy; then, go look at a genuine OCEANIC sediment core and
upper basement sample, then try to tell us all how they are the same
thing, "Most of the time...", to quote you directly!
What a comedian. LMAO
> The fact that 70 percent of the earth's surface is
> below sea level is not an accident. And you don't need an ocean for a spreading
> center to form. In fact, in most cases, they started within the continental
> boundaries (i.e., the African rift valleys). The spreading centers pull the
> continents apart and create ocean basins. But as those basins subside, new
> crust is formed both wthin the spreading centers and along the subduction zones
> as volcanic arcs. I could go on, but you don't believe one word of this so I'm
> wasting my time, which I suspect was your aim anyway.
Oh really Georgie, wow, what a revelation! You mean like the Red Sea
and Mediterranean? You feel Expansionists don't quite grasp this do
you? What you have just described is in fact an integral part of Earth
expansion's fundamental notions kiddo; see this graphic of Carey's, from
my website:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Fig12.gif
>>That's not just a little dynamic-imbalance goofy, it's what’s called totally
>>IMPOSSIBLE … IF subduction were in fact a real process at all, as plate
>>tectonics merely presumes.
>
>
> Not impossible. Its happening as we speak. If you had lived in Sumatra last
> week, you likley would have died finding this out.
>
>
>>BTW, you act like geology of recent years has only found more (assumed)
>>'subduction zone' in Cascadia, but you do also realise Antarctica is actively
>>rifting ... and on top of this is also 100% surrounded by extending new crust
>>formation along the southern ocean's MORs, and by a N-S continental rift in
>>Africa, and massive extensional MOR complexes in the Atlantic and Indian
>>Oceans, and the massively fast spreading occurring in the east Pacific MOR.
>
>
> The eastern half of which is subducting beneath the western coast of South
> America, creating one of the longest mountain ranges on dry land.
BWHAHAHAHAH!!! Very funny Georgie! (you might be a comedian after all
LMAO)
Let's briefly examine this REDICULOUS assertion a little bit; the
diminutive South Sandwich trench trends * NORTH SOUTH* ... nope,
Antarctica ain't going down that one kiddo! ... and to make things even
worse, that regional structure has an north-south trending MOR running
through the middle of its western margins!!!
The South Sandwich region is actually generating far more crust than it
could subduct (if subduction were even occurring) and it is in the wrong
orientation to resume any crust from Antarctica.
The there is the Peru to Chile trench, which is again a * NORTH-SOUTH *
trending trench! ... oops! ... it's already got its plate full trying to
deal with the staggeringly high rate of oceanic crust formation
occurring at the Central and South East Pacific's MOR(s), there's no
chance extension from Antarctica is going down that trench kid. Then
there is the * NORTH-SOUTH * trending Kermadec trench, and again, it has
it's hands full trying to swallow the crust from the Central and east
Pacific rise (and theoretically from the Atlantic, the East Africa rift
and the massive MORs in the Indian Ocean ... but that's another JOKE ...
isn't it LOL ...)
Have a look at some actual magnetic isochrons goofy:
http://gdcinfo.agg.nrcan.gc.ca/app/images/crustageposter.gif
>>The length of MOR and continental rifting in the Southern hemisphere is around
>>SEVEN times the length of the supposed 'subduction zones'.
Based upon extensively mapped and examined geophysical geological
structural reality mate. Here are some newer Earth expansion videos for
you all to view from James Maxlow's recent doctorate work (BTW, Maxlows
doctoral thesis received a triple AAA assessment from reviewer, and is
available from him on CD)
Video A3.14 Expanding Earth Archaean to Future palaeomagnetic south poles.
http://ado.qgl.org/southpole.avi
Video A3.5 Recent VLBI, SLR, GPS and DORIS horizontal plate motion.
http://ado.qgl.org/published_geodetic_vectors.mpg
Those vector arrows are scaled to published rates mate, and say it all,
Earth is clearly expanding--it's a done deal.
Obtain a large number of such videos along with Maxlow’s his doctorate
thesis on Earth Expansion global mapping from Archaean to Present, on CD
from:
Dr. James Maxlow
TERRELLA CONSULTANTS
29 Cecil Street
Glen Forrest, 6071
Western Australia
> Based on what? Did you pull out you handy dandy measuring tape and measure them
> all? I hope you used a wet suit for the oceanic parts.
>
>
>>That is not a dynamic imbalance, it's just plain IMPOSSIBLE, and incompatible
>>with the meagre amount of subduction zone.
>
>
> You haven't proven anything here. You've made a claim based on your word alone.
> You've presented no evidence that this is the case. Where's the data? Show me
> measurements, and what those measurements are based on.
The fact of the matter George is that you have NEVER read ANY of the
detailed CURRENT, and RECENT work, being done into Earth Expansion
research and its publications. That is your myopic little problem right
there kiddo. You claimed earlier in the thread that EEers keep posting
the same old stuff, well, 18 months ago, I posted full details of of
Maxlow’s Thesis here and how to obtain it, and I made recommendation of
several recent papers and books, for people such as yourself to begin to
inform themselves of the details of Earth Expansion. Did you read any
of it? Patently no! ... or else you could not possibly have remained so
astonishingly ignorant about Earth expansion, and would actually be able
to discuss it logically and rationally.
*** OBTAIN AND READ THIS BOOK REFERENCED BELOW ***
"Why Expanding Earth - A Book in Honour of Otto Christoph Hilgenberg",
edited by Giancarlo Scalera and Karl-Heinz Jacob, Instituto Nazionale di
Geofisica & Volcanologie, 2003 (465 pages).
You have absolutely ZERO excuse for being so radically ignorant and
ill-informed regarding Earth Expansion. All you have ever done is to
deny, smear and smirk stupidly, and even though you clearly do not even
understand the fundamental features of our Earth (because you don't
study Earth, you study a theory of Plate Tectonics instead) you pretend
to critique with pretentious 'authority'.
PHFT! You're no geologist George, you are just a conditioned reflexive
knee-jerk.
>>Where is all that new crust going to go Georgie old boy? It sure as hell
>>isn't going into the northern hemisphere, ... because, you guessed it! … the
>>Arctic is rifting open as well!
>
>
> Is it any wonder that the average height of Antarctica is higher than the other
> continents?
Yes, it ain't an orogen, it's called an 'ice sheet' kiddo, it stands 3
to 4 km high. As pointed out above, there is abundant evidence that
Antarctica is actively rifting--extending in area.
> Have you ever thought of this - that convergent plate boundaries
> are typically in equitorial and temperate regions, while rifting occurs at both
> poles.
Well, let's see, I have my very detailed 3D geological globe right here
in front of me graphically displaying all the major continental and
oceanic chrons and structures of our Earth (<1% projection error) ...
hmmm, ... equatorial you say ... Pacific Ocean, ah yes, much better
prospects here, trench almost right around the western, northern (kind
of short this bit compared to the girth of the Ocean) and eastern
margins ... and a MASSIVE extensional MOR complex with numerous
extensional back-arc seas to keep these trenches fully occupied ... no
trenches in the Atlantic Ocean, oh wait, yes there is, there's this TINY
trench system at the eastern extremities of the Caribbean basin; it's so
small though, you could almost be forgiven for not noticing it ...
Indian Ocean, hmm, oh yes, a little better here, trench from Burma to
the Banda Arc east of Timor; but again, WAY too short to cope with the
massive MOR complexes of the Indian Basin ... Southern Ocean, yes,
there's a Southern Ocean as well, I assure you, people in the Southern
hemisphere, particularly Australia, have no doubt of this fact, and it
is partly temperate ... and ... nope, just that TINY South Sandwich
trench feature in the Southern Ocean, not quite equatorial or temperate
zone though ... but UBER extensional crustal growth pervades this ocean.
> Interestingly, the north pole is an oceanic basin that has frequent
> rift-type earthquakes while the south pole is two miles high and has virtually
> no earthquakes (except at a few locations along the coast). Antarctica is an
> important, but poorly understood piece in the global tectonics puzzle. It is
> widely accepted that active deformation is ongoing in western Marie Byrd Land
> and the Ross Embayment. These are both part of the West Antarctic Rift System,
> but rates and causes of the deformation are unknown.
LOL it's called earth expansion geodynamics. :)
> Two possible causes of the
> deformation observed in this region include tectonic extension in the Ross
> Embayment as West and East Antarctica separate and crustal uplift caused by
> isostatic rebound following the last glacial maximum. Having said that, I'll
> admit that I don't know any more about the geology of that ice-covered land than
> anyone else if you'll admit that there is not enough information avaliable for
> you to make any wild earth expansion claims based on the sparse data that exists
> for Anarctica.
>
>
>>Plate Tectonics? phft!
>>
>>The utter brainlessness of plate tectonics and its “George” types is beyond
>>the pale.
>
>
> Earth Expansion. Ego expansion. Nothing more.
You have not a clue about Earth, nor OF Earth expansion notions George,
you are abysmally impoverished with regard to both; all you know is the
little mental trench called plate tectonics, which you can’t see out of.
;)
I could be far more caustic, and goodness knows you deserve it, but why
bother—happy new year!
David Ford
True to form again, smear and deny, smear and deny, blah blah...
You seem to know a lot about this JPT guy, I know nothing about him, and
from what I have seen of him, I don't wish to either.
Why do I reply to your posts? LOL Pardon? Did I miss siomething here?
This is the ONLY thread I have participated in, and this is the first
occasion since mid-2003 (I've been busy working and living a life, but I
see you have been in here the whole time like some miserable limp little
vegetable LOL ...) and if you look above at this one an only thread I
have participated within, it is in fact YOU who have responed to my
postings you tool. ROFLMAO
And btw numbskull I don't follow any religion or god - sorry. LOL
And as for, "...Send me unaltered copies over everything Carey ever did,
and I'll look at it and decide for myself. ...", you are a lefty little
free-loader as well huh? ... and that is precisely why you are so
perpetually ignorant … and yet you feel you are in a position to
critique what you clearly no nothing about.
True to form you are Georgie … smear-deny, smear-deny, blah blah ... on
the basis of ignorance. Phft!
NEXT!
George
> And btw numbskull I don't follow any religion or god - sorry. LOL
No? I guess that shrine you have for Carey on the internet is just the last
gasp for a lost lover, then.
> And as for, "...Send me unaltered copies over everything Carey ever did, and
> I'll look at it and decide for myself. ...", you are a lefty little
> free-loader as well huh? ... and that is precisely why you are so perpetually
> ignorant … and yet you feel you are in a position to critique what you clearly
> no nothing about.
>
> True to form you are Georgie … smear-deny, smear-deny, blah blah ... on the
> basis of ignorance. Phft!
>
> NEXT!
Know nothing about? You haven't disproved anything I've said, and refuse to let
anyone examine original documents that you claim to have in your possession.
That being the case, you haven't proved to anyone that you actually know
anything about plate tectonics, or Dr. Carey. If you are going to do scientific
research, the first thing you need to learn to do is to document every thing
regarding your research, and then allows your peers to view that documentation
and determine for themselves the merits of your arguments. Otherwise, you are
just another crackpot pissing in the wind.
David Ford
There you go again Georgie boy, I provided extensive current and recent
references of papers, book 18 months ago, … and now you come back and
whimper for documentation and evidence ... when you didn't obtain or
read ANY of the documentation previously provided, … but here you are
again, whining about evidence and documentation for which there can be
no doubt you have ZERO intent of ever reading ...
It’s the same old story, sneer and smear, sneer and smear ... deny deny
deny … “…I didn’t read it ... I didn’t see it ... you didn’t provide it
for me! ... it doesn’t exist if I can't see it ... you only provide the
same old stuff! ... when are you going to provide some data for me? …”;
ad nauseam
Georges, you’re a transparent neurotic little troll, fishing for a cheap
shots.
Go read a PT book or something because you evidently have no intent of
reading ANYTHING about current or recent inquires in EE, and are as a
result unable to address the topic of discussion to any worthwhile level.
BTW, I don’t provide links for your benefit kiddo, their not directed
for you at all; surely you have worked this out by now? ;) heh
J. Taylor
<geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>
>"J. Taylor" <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>
>> The lie is in that you use evidence to come to conclusions.
>
>Oh, right. I should use your method and just make up conclusions based on LSD
>experiences. lol
Like I said, you come to conclusions without any evidence!
>
>> Any ocean crust older than ~200 MYA must be explained, it is just that
>> it being an ophilite does not necessarily have to be it.
>>
>> JT
>
>The petrology of oceanic crust consists of more than ophiolite. If you had
>stayed awake during Petrology class (you did take some geology courses some time
>during your lifetime, didn't you?), you wouldn't make that statement. The
>continents are full of former oceanic basalts that are either in their original
>petrologic state, or have been altered through various stages of metamorphism.
>That these rocks are oceanic rocks is rarely, if ever questioned, except by
>those, such as yourself, who have an agenda to ignore any fact that doesn't
>support EE.
You seem to forget, it is PT which needs to be getting rid of the
stuff, for it to work.
JT
J. Taylor
You use words with the same inconsistency which reflects the rest of
your thoughts.
Doubt means to be of two minds. No doubt means you are of one mind.
Brilliant is about light.
How do you reconcile making a claim of no doubt brilliant, then
arguing the very point of his arguments never provided any light?
Actually, never mind, you have given more than enough evidence to
prove you are an idiot.
JT
George
>>>It is more than a slight dynamic imbalance as you suggest, about three
>>>quarters of the length of ‘subduction zone’ required is NON-EXISTENT!
>>
>>
>> I don't know where you got that measurement (that you've stated about a
>> zillion times, and have never provided actual physical data to support that
>> claim), but you didn't get it from he planet earth (oh right. You pulled it
>> out of your ass).
>
>
> It comes from measuring the lengths of MOR on a current geological globe of
> Earth (made by Dr. James Maxlow).
Interesting fellow, that "Dr." Maxlow. I did a web search on him, and found
what alleges to be his "doctoral thesis". The cover page says "This thesis is
presented as part of the requirement for the reward of doctor of philosophy of
Curtin University, June 2001". The paper is on the web as a PDF file. Oddly,
the only contents of this paper is the abstract, the table of contents, and the
acknowledgements (which prominently notes your assistance with regard to
discussion and assistance with "some figures". That's it. That's all there is.
No promised research objectives, no methodology, no thesis presentation, no
anything else. I thought "What gives"?
Not being satisfied with that little vignette, I did some further searching,
first by going to Curtin University to find out what departments they have, what
degrees they offer, and what courses. First of all, I must say that I find it
odd that he only lists himself as a candidate for a "doctor of Philosophy", and
not in what specialty that doctorial degree is to be awarded. Most theses
(actually, dissertation if it is a doctorial candiate we are talking about) I've
read also present the candidate's field of endeavor for such a degree. This one
doesn't. Secondly, upon perusing Curtin University's web site, I found
something a little odd. If one does a search of "areas of interest", possible
areas that would relate to geology are agri-science, engineering, mining and
earth sciences, and physical sciences. When I go to the page for "agri-science,
listed there are doctorial degrees in education, public health, science
education, four different degrees in creative arts, math education,
international arts, petroleum engineering, business administration,and clinical
physiotherapy. How odd to have these included under "agri-science". Even
stranger, no degree in agri-science was listed. When I go to the page for
"engineering", I find no doctorial degree in engineering, so that one is out.
Ok, so I go to what I consider the obvious choice, "mining and earth sciences".
Under that heading I find no doctorial degrees. There are postgraduate diplomas
in mining geology and in metallurgy, but they don't seen to fit what he was
hoping to be awarded, at least from my experience in American universities. As
a last check, I wanted to see if, by some fluke, he meant that his degree was in
philosophy, and not just a PhD. Nope. No doctorial degree in Philosophy,and
certainly no doctorial degree anything related to geology other than possibly
petroleum engineering, a post-graduate diploma (not a PhD) in mining geology,
and one in metallurgy. So if his "thesis" is genuine, where is the body of the
text in the posted PDF file, and why is it a thesis and not a doctorial
dissertation?
So, I did some more google searching and found his web site (which I realized
that I've seen before). The first thing I noted is that it appears to follow
the general outline of this alleged thesis, but only in a general way.
Secondly, he didn't introduce himself as "Dr.". He simply introduced himself as
James Maxlow. I guess he didn't get his degree after all, which would appear to
be obvious since there is no doctorial degree in geology available at Curtin
University, according to their web site.
Thirdly, I find out that he credits the "pioneering work of Christopher Otto
Hilgenburg in 1933, and not Carey, for first proposing earth expansion. What's
this? Carey didn't come up with it first, all on his own? Hmmm. Do I smell
rotten eggs in Tasmania? Interesting, he presents an initial globe as having a
diameter 55-60% less than is currently the case (you report is as 50% on your
site). This is much smaller than what I've seen reported by others (Don
Findlay, for one).
Finally, I became very interested if this web site actually contained his long
lost thesis, so I immediately looked to see if he had any references. Happily,
he did, in fact have references. Sadly, none of those references were to any
thesis of his, or any peer-reviewed papers, whether a publish manuscript, or one
residing at a university (such as at Curtin). Nope. No reference to any thesis
or peer-reviewed paper by him whatsoever. I find this situation disconcerting
since most professional papers always reference original works by the author of
the subject paper, if any exists.
Now, I don't like to make accusations, but it appears to me that this web site,
based on the outline of his alleged thesis, is his actual "thesis", and that he
never submitted a "doctorial" thesis to anyone at Curtin because they don't
offer a doctorial degree in earth science other than petroleum engineering, and
this thesis is virtually devoid of anything pertaining to that field.
Interestingly, I did some further searching on google for James Maxlow, and what
did I find? A reference to "biblical geology", of all things. Here is the full
text of his post:
"Dear Editor,
In all fairness we should give credit to Tas Walker (TAG 109, 110) for
enlightening us on our geological misguidance. From his webpage introduction it
would seem that in order for us to gain a fuller appreciation of the geological
sciences we need to dispense with Geology and study Mechanical Engineering.
Instead of wasting our time slogging it out in our desolate outback inventing
geological history we then need to design and operate power stations in
Queensland so as we gain an appreciation of geo-biblical chronology.
Bearing in mind that SHRIMP isotopic data need to be re-examined in light of
biblical philosophical presumptions to be meaningful, I decided to integrate our
geological chronology into the tried and proven biblical time frame so as we can
all benefit fro[m] this new geo-biblical revelation. The difficulty in achieving
this revelation of course depends on deciding where to place creation within the
geological time frame. I have assumed, for the purpose of this investigation,
that creation occurred at the end of the Proterozoic when life as we know it
commenced. The Archaean and Proterozoic rocks, representing 4 billion geological
years, are therefore considered to represent rocks generated during the 6 day
"creation era". Tas acknowledges that "plankton and other tiny sea life" may
have been created early in this creation event to account for Precambrian
fossils.
In his biblical chronology presented, post-creation eras have been conveniently
subdivided by Tas into "lost-world era, flood event, and new-world era" rocks,
all of which are described in detail in his website.
Now, once again considering the inherent problems we supposedly have with SHRIMP
isotopic age determinations compared with the accuracy of biblical chronology, a
decision must be made to either:
Adopt a linear transformation of geological chronology to biblical chronology,
commencing at the beginning of the Cambrian; or
Adopt an exponential transformation, whereby geological time is distorted to
link the geological data into the more accurate biblical framework.
As can be seen in the left hand graph of the accompanying figure, by
disregarding 90% of geological time, a linear transformation of the SHRIMP
isotopic data fits neatly within the biblical framework shown in the central
graph. I have some reservation with World War I occurring during the Oligocene
and World War II occurring during the Miocene though, and am also concerned
about my Pliocene age. There is no obvious demarcation between lost-world era
and new-world era rocks as one would expect from such a cataclysmic event,
fossiliferous Palaeozoic strata don't really fit within the flood event, and the
dinosaurs should have been mentioned in the scriptures.
In contrast, the right hand graph, showing an exponential transformation,
appears to be more adaptable, with all of recorded history coinciding with the
Quarternary. There is however some conflict with the biblical model whereby the
Palaeozoic era, in particular the Permo/Carboniferous "flood related" coal
strata, appears to occur too early in the biblical record. This of course is
more than likely a mathematical transformation problem and will no doubt resolve
itself once Tas puts more effort into resolving this geo-biblical chronological
dilemma for us. The graph does however enable the excessive Precambrian time
frame to fit neatly within a 6 day "creation event" without having to
mysteriously lose 90% of time as in the previous graph. Although it is
considered that, as the rest of the Universe was not created until late in the
creation event, there may be some flexibility with regard to time itself.
Once again, on behalf of all of us mere Geologists I would like to thank Tas for
finding time between power stations to resolve our misguided geological
chronology for us. Next time Tas has time though, he may like to get out into
the real world of rocks once in a while where he will (should, may) realize that
geological history is written in the rocks for all to see. Geologists are
trained specialists able to read this history, we do not invent history, we
apply it. Strange as it may seem the geological time frame developed by
Geologists to cover the entire 4.5 billion year history of our Earth, since
creation, encompasses the biblical history within the most recent Holocene
period, without the need for distortion of time. The biblical history as
recorded in the bible is also quantified exactly with our dating techniques, so,
what is the problem?
James Maxlow, Glen Forrest, WA"
Now there is a load of creationist bullocks if I've ever seen one. So the
scandalous boom is finally lowered once and for all. Not only was Carey a Plate
Tectonic visionary, in contradiction to the claims of all Earth Expansionists,
but it finally comes out that one of the messiahs of "Earth Expansion is a
creationist (and you said that you aren't a religious man - fucking liar.).
Earth Expansion is nothing but another attempt by radical religious nutcases to
pass their geo-biblical chronology (i.e., creationism) in a slick new wrapper by
calling it "Earth Expansion".
As such, there is no need to continue with addressing the rest of this lame
diatribe. You guys are frauds of the worst kind. On the one hand we have an
Aussie (who quotes an alleged PhD, who is actually a creationist)who has no
geological training whatsoever trying to tell geologists that their theories
are all wrong. On the other hand we have a religious fanatic claiming to have a
PhD (the assumption that it is in geology) from a university that doesn't offer
such a degree. Should I call Curtin University today and let them know that
about this academic capital offense? Or do you want to call your friend and
talk him into turning himself into the authorities?
And just to give your friend a fair chance, if he did go to Curtin University,
what "Doctor of Philosophy" degree was he awarded, and when. If he wasn't
awarded his degree there, where was it awarded? And if he wasn't awarded a PhD
there, why would you allege that he was? I already know the answer, but I want
to here it from the horses mouth.
Curtin University web site:
http://handbook.curtin.edu.au/
Related crackpot sites referring to James Maxlow:
http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/TAG.html
http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/index.html
http://www.singtech.com/wrath2.html
Hmmm. This guy claims that "Dr." Maxlow has a Msc in geology from Curtin
University. Hmmm. No PhD? Of course not. They don't offer PhDs in geology
there.
Another Crackpot extraordinaire website. We've seen this guy before, haven't we?
http://myst-technology.com/mysmartchannels/public/blog/8223
Maxlow's alleged thesis:
http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/unrestricted/01FRONT.pdf
Mysterious web site in which the author talks about his life (and David Ford)
but strangely, never identifies himself:
http://www.warmingearth.com/news.htm
Web site containing material allegedly authored by Carey. Interestingly, he's
dead. So if he did write it And he may have), who posted it on the internet?
And did that person have permission from Carey's estate to do so? If Carey
did't write it, one wonders who the fraudster really is:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/2.htm
Hmmm. I see that you posted it, Davey! Where is your documentation
authenticating the author, and your citation to having the estate's permission
to post this on the internet (if it is really Carey's writings)?
Crackpot web site:
http://microlnx.com/expansion/#Papers
King crackpot:
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/index.html
Lots of links to crackpots:
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/links.html
Mysterious author posts bibliography on Carey:
http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa042102a.htm
Here's a picture of mysterious author with Carey:
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blcarey.htm
Who is that hipster? Can you say AMEN!!! Yes brother. AMEN!
Why are all these guys from down under? Oh right. There is at least one
crackpot who lives in Texas. And the Queen of ego expansion lives in France and
is banned for life from Australia.
And you dorks call yourselves geologists! HA!!!
George
"Dear Editor,
Curtin University web site:
http://handbook.curtin.edu.au/
http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/TAG.html
http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/index.html
http://www.singtech.com/wrath2.html
http://myst-technology.com/mysmartchannels/public/blog/8223
Maxlow's alleged thesis:
http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/unrestricted/01FRONT.pdf
http://www.warmingearth.com/news.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/2.htm
Crackpot web site:
http://microlnx.com/expansion/#Papers
King crackpot:
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/links.html
http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa042102a.htm
http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blcarey.htm
And you call yourselves geologists! HA!!!
Socrates
How do you account for ophiolite complexes, accretion, etc.?
Cheers!
John
Carsten Troelsgaard
> err ... Georgie old-boy, this oceanic 'slab' which is normally being
> theoretically subducted ... it's ... well, it's nominally about 100 km
> thick isn't it? ...???
>
> So your incredible EXCUSE for why Plate tectonics doesn't have more than a
> QUARTER of the assumed subduction zone it needs, is that these MILLIONS of
> cubic km of ocean crust 'slab' must stack up vertically instead!
You've given every geologist here a reason not to read your next
contribution
David Ford
> "David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:41d6...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>>>>It is more than a slight dynamic imbalance as you suggest, about three
>>>>quarters of the length of ‘subduction zone’ required is NON-EXISTENT!
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know where you got that measurement (that you've stated about a
>>>zillion times, and have never provided actual physical data to support that
>>>claim), but you didn't get it from he planet earth (oh right. You pulled it
>>>out of your ass).
>>
>>
>>It comes from measuring the lengths of MOR on a current geological globe of
>>Earth (made by Dr. James Maxlow).
>
>
>
> Interesting fellow, that "Dr." Maxlow. I did a web search on him, and found
> what alleges to be his "doctoral thesis". The cover page says "This thesis is
> presented as part of the requirement for the reward of doctor of philosophy of
> Curtin University, June 2001". The paper is on the web as a PDF file. Oddly,
> the only contents of this paper is the abstract, the table of contents, and the
> acknowledgements (which prominently notes your assistance with regard to
> discussion and assistance with "some figures". That's it. That's all there is.
> No promised research objectives, no methodology, no thesis presentation, no
> anything else. I thought "What gives"?
Well, "...that's it...", because the doctoral thesis (which is what they
are often called here) is far too large to put on-line - it comes to
precisely 400 megs on a bloody CD.
(your cheap-skate tendencies of wanting something for nothing show up
again...)
And it is of course a Doctorate in Geology you bloody fool, don't you
even know what "Ph.D." is an abbreviation of?!
James Maxlow was awarded a DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in *** GEOLOGY *** from
Curtin University of Western Australia.
smear smear smear ... what a maggot.
So now you smear an entire distinguished Australian University now! I
hope they can locate you and sue your neurotic arse.
> So, I did some more google searching and found his web site (which I realized
> that I've seen before). The first thing I noted is that it appears to follow
> the general outline of this alleged thesis, but only in a general way.
> Secondly, he didn't introduce himself as "Dr.". He simply introduced himself as
> James Maxlow. I guess he didn't get his degree after all, which would appear to
> be obvious since there is no doctorial degree in geology available at Curtin
> University, according to their web site.
That's because that site *** PRE-DATES his PhD ***, and if you had
bothered to read it, you would have quickly discovered that it
incorporates material from his 1992 MASTERS DEGREE (yes, in *GEOLOGY*)
thesis, called "Global Expansion Tectonics".
But you didn't read or it, or more likely, you did, and just ignored it,
because you are after all, only interested in lying and smearing the man
any way you can.
> Thirdly, I find out that he credits the "pioneering work of Christopher Otto
> Hilgenburg in 1933, and not Carey, for first proposing earth expansion. What's
> this? Carey didn't come up with it first, all on his own? Hmmm. Do I smell
> rotten eggs in Tasmania? Interesting, he presents an initial globe as having a
> diameter 55-60% less than is currently the case (you report is as 50% on your
> site). This is much smaller than what I've seen reported by others (Don
> Findlay, for one).
And again, if you had EVER read any of Carey's work (or even my website)
you would know as well that Carey himself credited Otto Hilgenberg with
the initial modern formal exposition of Earth expansion, but because you
are an TOTALLY IGNORANT CRETIN, you don't read anything or check any
inconvenient facts that might get in the way of your outrageous smearing
and idiotic conspiracy Mierda de Toro.
> Finally, I became very interested if this web site actually contained his long
> lost thesis, so I immediately looked to see if he had any references. Happily,
> he did, in fact have references. Sadly, none of those references were to any
> thesis of his, or any peer-reviewed papers, whether a publish manuscript, or one
> residing at a university (such as at Curtin). Nope. No reference to any thesis
> or peer-reviewed paper by him whatsoever. I find this situation disconcerting
> since most professional papers always reference original works by the author of
> the subject paper, if any exists.
>
> Now, I don't like to make accusations,
Like hell you don't!!! ... you piece of quasi-academic PT shit-stirrer.
> but it appears to me that this web site,
> based on the outline of his alleged thesis, is his actual "thesis", and that he
> never submitted a "doctorial" thesis to anyone at Curtin because they don't
> offer a doctorial degree in earth science other than petroleum engineering, and
> this thesis is virtually devoid of anything pertaining to that field.
>
> Interestingly, I did some further searching on google for James Maxlow, and what
> did I find? A reference to "biblical geology", of all things. Here is the full
> text of his post:
Again, you do not know the context of this, I do, as Maxlow even sent me
a copy of this one to read before he sent it to TAG for(I bet you don't
even know what 'TAG' stands for ... you cretin). It is in regard to a
TAG ***Letter to the Editor*** of an on-going *DEBATE* between Maxlow
and a Christian fundamentalist IDIOT in central Queensland who was
insisting that the Earth was 7,000 years old (and who was insisting the
Earth's geology could only be interpreted from that view point).
Maxlow went to some lengths to comprehensively geologically debunk this
moron, "Mr. Tas Walker", and those like him. One of the things Maxlow
did was to squish the whole of geological history into a 7,000 year
period, with the aim of demonstration how utterly absurd doing so was.
It was really quite clever how he did it too.
So then, VERY FAR from the utterly IDIOTIC (and I suspect also
DELIBERATE) misconstruing of what Maxlow was doing in the reply you
posted, you could not possibly be any more *** WRONG *** about Maxlow
and religion, particularly creationists.
We share the same view of them, and in all the countless lengthy
discussions we have had over the years, not once has he shown the
slightest leaning toward Christianity, nor any other religion.
(btw: and what the fuck of it if he had you funkin moron?! ever heard of
FREEDOM OF RELIGION you dimwitted little jerk? ... it's one of those
rights guaranteed in you own country)
But don't let these facts interfere with you scurrilous rumour mongering
and blantant FALSE ACCUSATION manufacturing of another man who I have
personally found to be dignified, remorseless honest and a man of
ethical propriety well above the norm. James Maxlow is the man of
perception, integrity, skill and professional honesty, and has more of
this in his little finger than you could ever have in your whole being.
Now, George, you fuckin despicable maggot, read that article again, in
the light of what I've just relayed to you. You can of course get the
other TAG letters of this debate and 100% verify it, but that would be
far too much like an ethical practice for a defaming little turd like
you now, wouldn't it George?
No, I DO NOT subscribe to ANY religion, and nor does James Maxlow.
You are the fucking liar here George ... and I think you know this all
too well, you simply have no compunction about lying to any degree,
within your twisted fucked-up infantile mind.
> Earth Expansion is nothing but another attempt by radical religious nutcases to
> pass their geo-biblical chronology (i.e., creationism) in a slick new wrapper by
> calling it "Earth Expansion".
>
> As such, there is no need to continue with addressing the rest of this lame
> diatribe.
Which is what you would really like, LMAO ... unfortunately you have
only proven your self to be an unabashed defaming scumbag.
I virtually spit on you for being what you are ... CHHORCK-PHFT!
> You guys are frauds of the worst kind. On the one hand we have an
> Aussie (who quotes an alleged PhD, who is actually a creationist)who has no
> geological training whatsoever trying to tell geologists that their theories
> are all wrong.
Again, if you bother to *** READ *** that old Master site of Maxlow's
you would know that James Maxlow has a geology degree, a Masters degree
in GEOLOGY (you didn't need those 25 years ago when he started out ...)
*** >25 YEARS OF CONSTANT FIELD EXPERIENCE ***; that he runs a
professional * GEOLOGICAL CONSULTANCY * called TERRELA CONSULTANTS, and
now has a PhD in, you guessed it, GEOLOGY; and is more knowledgable and
qualified to speak on the details of Earth Expansion with more capacity
than anyone else I know of, at present.
You disgraceful little turd; what would your mother say if she could see
what sort of gutless vile man you are?
> On the other hand we have a religious fanatic claiming to have a
> PhD (the assumption that it is in geology) from a university that doesn't offer
> such a degree. Should I call Curtin University today and let them know that
> about this academic capital offense?
Oh yes!, PLEASE DO!
Then they can get your name and contact details, so they can locate you
and sue you penniless you pitiful excuse for a man.
> Or do you want to call your friend and
> talk him into turning himself into the authorities?
>
> And just to give your friend a fair chance, if he did go to Curtin University,
> what "Doctor of Philosophy" degree was he awarded, and when. If he wasn't
> awarded his degree there, where was it awarded? And if he wasn't awarded a PhD
> there, why would you allege that he was? I already know the answer, but I want
> to here it from the horses mouth.
>
> Curtin University web site:
>
> http://handbook.curtin.edu.au/
>
> Related crackpot sites referring to James Maxlow:
>
> http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/TAG.html
>
> http://www.uq.net.au/~zztbwalk/index.html
>
> http://www.singtech.com/wrath2.html
>
> Hmmm. This guy claims that "Dr." Maxlow has a Msc in geology from Curtin
> University. Hmmm. No PhD? Of course not. They don't offer PhDs in geology
> there.
>
> Another Crackpot extraordinaire website. We've seen this guy before, haven't we?
>
> http://myst-technology.com/mysmartchannels/public/blog/8223
>
>
>
> Maxlow's alleged thesis:
>
> http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20020117.145715/unrestricted/01FRONT.pdf
>
> Mysterious web site in which the author talks about his life (and David Ford)
> but strangely, never identifies himself:
>
> http://www.warmingearth.com/news.htm
What I am going to do arse-wipe is show this staggering conspiracy crap
of your concoction to Maxlow, perhaps he can catch up with you in person
and find out what you are made of in the flesh, eh?
> Web site containing material allegedly authored by Carey. Interestingly, he's
> dead. So if he did write it And he may have), who posted it on the internet?
> And did that person have permission from Carey's estate to do so? If Carey
> did't write it, one wonders who the fraudster really is:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/2.htm
>
> Hmmm. I see that you posted it, Davey! Where is your documentation
> authenticating the author, and your citation to having the estate's permission
> to post this on the internet (if it is really Carey's writings)?
Let's get this clear Georgie boy, I was at this news group in 1999. for
8 months, from Jan to Sept, long before you ever showed up on
sci.geo.geology you fuckin pathetic NOOB … but if you were around back
then, you would already know, as do the old hands, that I placed all of
this material online with Carey's explicit written permission (which I
of course still have and is witnessed by two other people).
Now fuck off grub.
> Crackpot web site:
>
> http://microlnx.com/expansion/#Papers
>
> King crackpot:
>
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/index.html
>
> Lots of links to crackpots:
>
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/links.html
>
> Mysterious author posts bibliography on Carey:
>
> http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa042102a.htm
>
> Here's a picture of mysterious author with Carey:
>
> http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blcarey.htm
>
> Who is that hipster? Can you say AMEN!!! Yes brother. AMEN!
>
> Why are all these guys from down under? Oh right. There is at least one
> crackpot who lives in Texas. And the Queen of ego expansion lives in France and
> is banned for life from Australia.
>
> And you dorks call yourselves geologists! HA!!!
James Maxlow is an honest decent person with impecable professional
credentials and more experience and knowledge of Earth in his little
finger, than you will ever have in your whole being.
I wouldn't dare to presume to paint myself as anything like that
though.; but what I do know George, are the limits of what I will and
won't do, for any cause.
You on the other hand, have in the last few days demonstrated the vilest
of characters I've even encountered in the last 20 years of interaction
with quasi-academic plate tectonics arseholes.
What would your parents say if they could see your behaviour? ...
So far you have done everything you possible can to defame myself, Carey
and Maxlow. So what’s next them? What will your next anti-social
neurotic action encompass? It there ANY lower act you would not stoop
to old-boy?
--
This is the character record and professional achievement of one of the
men you have so ruthlessly defamed without a SHRED of evidence:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/SWCarey.htm
What would your dad say if he could see your behaviour in full bloom?
you filthy little bastard ...
don findlay
The mantle diapir rises, lifting the crust which collapses outwards
(Himalayas, say). Ophiolites are at the crust mantle interface (roof
of the mantle) and are caught up in the collapse, often soling the
thrusts. Also caught up in related structures like that along the
Zagros - Himalyan offset. Accretion at the ridges is not by dykes
(though obviously dykes occur), but by exhumation of mantle
underplating. As extension continues and the rift is drawn apart, the
floor of the rift rises upexposing the younger underplating. (It's a
'flat' affair, not a vertical one.) Accretion at so-called 'subduction
zones belong to the continental side in the first place. They are not
'plastered on' The crust overrides the mantle as it lags in the
rotational picture (e.g. western Americas over the Pacific) 'slicing'
is just a feature of overriding.
The "etc." is a longer story.
David Ford
I doubt that bud, nice of you to snip the context of that statement
though--selective snip noted.
David Ford
Spot on.
Carsten Troelsgaard
Your erroneous estimat is plenty covered inside the snip.
David Ford
> "David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:41d6ab26$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>>Carsten Troelsgaard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>news:41d6...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>err ... Georgie old-boy, this oceanic 'slab' which is normally being
>>>>theoretically subducted ... it's ... well, it's nominally about 100 km
>>>>thick isn't it? ...???
>>>>
>>>>So your incredible EXCUSE for why Plate tectonics doesn't have more than
>>>>a QUARTER of the assumed subduction zone it needs, is that these MILLIONS
>>>>of cubic km of ocean crust 'slab' must stack up vertically instead!
>>>
>>>
>>>You've given every geologist here a reason not to read your next
>>>contribution
>>
>>
>>I doubt that bud, nice of you to snip the context of that statement
>>though--selective snip noted.
>
>
> Your erroneous estimat is plenty covered inside the snip.
>
>
>
Are you asserting there is not at least 10 x(1000x1000x100 km) of
oceanic slab’ on this Earth right now, that must theoretically all go
down the PT subduction zones, or else, form pan-global mountains of
unimaginable scale and elevation? ... nor that over the course of the
operation of PT since pre-Cambrian times to now there would not have
been far more than 8 million cubic km of such ‘slab’ to be disposed via
mountain building (if the theory of subduction were actually valid)?
Where is the necessary 10 x (1000x1000x100 km) of standing orogen today?
Where are the seds? If this is a dynamic disequilibrium, then it
implies this order of ultra elevated steep-aspect active orogens, which
should be standing up very prominently all around the globe NOW. Look
at the requirement.
Where is it?
There's nothing like needed—sorry, wrong.
The fact it isn't found today means the whole proposal (excuse) is
absurd and you are stuck with the obvious IMPOSSIBILITY of just 1/4 of
the necessary subduction zone length being adequate to maintain a
dynamic-equilibrium, and nowhere near enough convergence occurring to
make up even a tenth of the massive shortfall in destructive margin
length for resumption of MOR generated ‘slab’ back into the mantle.
(geez … really, I have to spelt this out?! …)
David Ford
Well, "...that's it...", because the doctoral thesis (which is what they
are often called here) is far too large to put on-line - it comes to
precisely 400 megs on a bloody CD.
(your cheap-skate tendencies of wanting something for nothing show up
again...)
And it is of course a Doctorate in Geology you bloody fool, don't you
even know what "Ph.D." is an abbreviation of?!
James Maxlow was awarded a DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in *** GEOLOGY *** from
Curtin University of Western Australia.
smear smear smear ... what a maggot.
So now you smear an entire distinguished Australian University now! I
hope they can locate you and sue your neurotic arse.
> So, I did some more google searching and found his web site (which I
realized
> that I've seen before). The first thing I noted is that it appears
to follow
> the general outline of this alleged thesis, but only in a general way.
> Secondly, he didn't introduce himself as "Dr.". He simply introduced
himself as
> James Maxlow. I guess he didn't get his degree after all, which
would appear to
> be obvious since there is no doctorial degree in geology available at
Curtin
> University, according to their web site.
That's because that site *** PRE-DATES his PhD ***, and if you had
bothered to read it, you would have quickly discovered that it
incorporates material from his 1992 MASTERS DEGREE (yes, in *GEOLOGY*)
thesis, called "Global Expansion Tectonics".
But you didn't read or it, or more likely, you did, and just ignored it,
because you are after all, only interested in lying and smearing the man
any way you can.
> Thirdly, I find out that he credits the "pioneering work of
Christopher Otto
> Hilgenburg in 1933, and not Carey, for first proposing earth
expansion. What's
> this? Carey didn't come up with it first, all on his own? Hmmm. Do
I smell
> rotten eggs in Tasmania? Interesting, he presents an initial globe
as having a
> diameter 55-60% less than is currently the case (you report is as 50%
on your
> site). This is much smaller than what I've seen reported by others (Don
> Findlay, for one).
And again, if you had EVER read any of Carey's work (or even my website)
you would know as well that Carey himself credited Otto Hilgenberg with
the initial modern formal exposition of Earth expansion, but because you
are an TOTALLY IGNORANT CRETIN, you don't read anything or check any
inconvenient facts that might get in the way of your outrageous smearing
and idiotic conspiracy Mierda de Toro.
> Finally, I became very interested if this web site actually contained
his long
> lost thesis, so I immediately looked to see if he had any references.
Happily,
> he did, in fact have references. Sadly, none of those references
were to any
> thesis of his, or any peer-reviewed papers, whether a publish
manuscript, or one
> residing at a university (such as at Curtin). Nope. No reference to
any thesis
> or peer-reviewed paper by him whatsoever. I find this situation
disconcerting
> since most professional papers always reference original works by the
author of
> the subject paper, if any exists.
>
> Now, I don't like to make accusations,
Like hell you don't!!! ... you piece of quasi-academic PT shit-stirrer.
> but it appears to me that this web site,
> based on the outline of his alleged thesis, is his actual "thesis",
and that he
> never submitted a "doctorial" thesis to anyone at Curtin because they
don't
> offer a doctorial degree in earth science other than petroleum
engineering, and
> this thesis is virtually devoid of anything pertaining to that field.
>
> Interestingly, I did some further searching on google for James
Maxlow, and what
> did I find? A reference to "biblical geology", of all things. Here
is the full
> text of his post:
Again, you do not know the context of this, I do, as Maxlow even sent me
No, I DO NOT subscribe to ANY religion, and nor does James Maxlow.
You are the fucking liar here George ... and I think you know this all
too well, you simply have no compunction about lying to any degree,
within your twisted fucked-up infantile mind.
> Earth Expansion is nothing but another attempt by radical religious
nutcases to
> pass their geo-biblical chronology (i.e., creationism) in a slick new
wrapper by
> calling it "Earth Expansion".
>
> As such, there is no need to continue with addressing the rest of
this lame
> diatribe.
Which is what you would really like, LMAO ... unfortunately you have
only proven your self to be an unabashed defaming scumbag.
I virtually spit on you for being what you are ... CHHORCK-PHFT!
> You guys are frauds of the worst kind. On the one hand we have an
> Aussie (who quotes an alleged PhD, who is actually a creationist)who
has no
> geological training whatsoever trying to tell geologists that their
theories
> are all wrong.
Again, if you bother to *** READ *** that old Master site of Maxlow's
you would know that James Maxlow has a geology degree, a Masters degree
in GEOLOGY (you didn't need those 25 years ago when he started out ...)
*** >25 YEARS OF CONSTANT FIELD EXPERIENCE ***; that he runs a
professional * GEOLOGICAL CONSULTANCY * called TERRELA CONSULTANTS, and
now has a PhD in, you guessed it, GEOLOGY; and is more knowledgable and
qualified to speak on the details of Earth Expansion with more capacity
than anyone else I know of, at present.
You disgraceful little turd; what would your mother say if she could see
what sort of gutless vile man you are?
> On the other hand we have a religious fanatic claiming to have a
> PhD (the assumption that it is in geology) from a university that
doesn't offer
> such a degree. Should I call Curtin University today and let them
know that
> about this academic capital offense?
Oh yes!, PLEASE DO!
Then they can get your name and contact details, so they can locate you
and sue you penniless you pitiful excuse for a man.
> Or do you want to call your friend and
What I am going to do arse-wipe is show this staggering conspiracy crap
of your concoction to Maxlow, perhaps he can catch up with you in person
and find out what you are made of in the flesh, eh?
> Web site containing material allegedly authored by Carey.
Interestingly, he's
> dead. So if he did write it And he may have), who posted it on the
internet?
> And did that person have permission from Carey's estate to do so? If
Carey
> did't write it, one wonders who the fraudster really is:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/2.htm
>
> Hmmm. I see that you posted it, Davey! Where is your documentation
> authenticating the author, and your citation to having the estate's
permission
> to post this on the internet (if it is really Carey's writings)?
Let's get this clear Georgie boy, I was at this news group in 1999. for
8 months, from Jan to Sept, long before you ever showed up on
sci.geo.geology you fuckin pathetic NOOB … but if you were around back
then, you would already know, as do the old hands, that I placed all of
this material online with Carey's explicit written permission (which I
of course still have and is witnessed by two other people).
Now fuck off grub.
> Crackpot web site:
>
> http://microlnx.com/expansion/#Papers
>
> King crackpot:
>
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/index.html
>
> Lots of links to crackpots:
>
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/links.html
>
> Mysterious author posts bibliography on Carey:
>
> http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa042102a.htm
>
> Here's a picture of mysterious author with Carey:
>
> http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blcarey.htm
>
> Who is that hipster? Can you say AMEN!!! Yes brother. AMEN!
>
> Why are all these guys from down under? Oh right. There is at least one
> crackpot who lives in Texas. And the Queen of ego expansion lives in
France and
> is banned for life from Australia.
>
> And you dorks call yourselves geologists! HA!!!
James Maxlow is an honest decent person with impecable professional
credentials and more experience and knowledge of Earth in his little
finger, than you will ever have in your whole being.
I wouldn't dare to presume to paint myself as anything like that
though.; but what I do know George, are the limits of what I will and
won't do, for any cause.
You on the other hand, have in the last few days demonstrated the vilest
of characters I've even encountered in the last 20 years of interaction
with quasi-academic plate tectonics arseholes.
What would your parents say if they could see your behaviour? ...
So far you have done everything you possible can to defame myself, Carey
and Maxlow. So what’s next them? What will your next anti-social
neurotic action encompass? It there ANY lower act you would not stoop
to old-boy?
--
This is the character record and professional achievement of one of the
men you have so ruthlessly defamed without a SHRED of evidence:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/SWCarey.htm
(What would your dad say if he could see your behaviour in full bloom …
? SCUM!)
David Ford
So, ... George … you're not content to spread your smears in the one
quite adequate pre-existing original thread, instead you felt you had to
create a duplicate to your baseless neurotic conspiracy delusion, which
specifically illustrates that I said in reply with spot on.
You stinking little grub.
Kids, these are precisely the under-handed tactics of blatant character
assassinations and shameless shit-slinging ... when PT's are loosing the
debate LOL ... which cheers me up no end! ... which causes the heated
reactions and exchanges you see from time to time, which is then also
used to character assassinate ... take care kids. ;)
David Ford
David Ford
I've got you pinned on the arguments haven't I mate, that's why you've
started this personal attack binge; you can't win the debate, because I
clearly have you pinned on the fundamental facts of Earth ... but you
can't let that stand on its scientific and logical merit, can you? ...
instead you feel you HAVE to pull out all of the stops to attack
personally, because I've nailed you cold kiddo … and it was SO easy! ...
so-called 'geologist' guru phft!
...nowhere left to go except try personal discrediting.
heh :) It was fun to!
Aidan Karley
Stirling wrote:
> Billiard balls are shiny, big scratches would be obvious.
> They are what, 6cm in diameter?
> So that'd make .2mm relief.
> That's enough to be perceptibly rough.
>
As anyone who has tried to make an astronomical mirror (or
polish a rock) would tell you, you can make a glaringly obvious scratch
with a grit particle a *lot* smaller than 0.2mm ; in the final
pre-polish stage, a single grain of 400 or 600 grit can leave a scratch
which under the microscope looks like an aerial photograph of Clapham
Junction after the bombing.
Remember the issue of separation between the high and low points
of a "rough bit" : on Earth the relief is between the Marianas Trench
and Everest, which is ... (40 degrees of longitude @ 30N on radius
6370km) ... about 4000km. But let's look back at the latitude/
longitude - the 0.2mm surface roughness will be spread across about a
eighth-turn of the ball. Are you sure that you would notice that? I'm
not.
--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
David Ford
> "David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:41d5...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>> George wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "J. Taylor" <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:vio9t0h12h09deofj...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:53:48 GMT, "George"
>>>> <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> It is more than a slight dynamic imbalance as you suggest, about
three quarters of the length of ‘subduction zone’ required is NON-EXISTENT!
>
>
>
> I don't know where you got that measurement (that you've stated about
a zillion times, and have never provided actual physical data to support
that claim), but you didn't get it from he planet earth (oh right. You
pulled it out of your ass).
It comes from measuring the lengths of MOR on a current geological globe
BWAHAHAH!! ...
BWHAHAHAHA!
.... and you call yourself a 'geologist'?! ...
David Ford
The word Geology means, "Study of Earth".
The Earth expansion model is a valid and eminently workable
explanation of global tectonism and easily accommodates Earth's observed
lithospheric history as well as the lithospheric features of other
planets and moons.
Geology does not mean, "Study of plate tectonics".
In my view, the prime reason Earth expansion has not been generally
accepted to date is due to an appalling lack of education concerning the
Earth expansion model rather than any "unworkable" flaw integral within
the model. This, combined with the fact that plate tectonics provides a
plausible interpretative framework within most geological settings,
lulls geologists into using it as their professional "working" model.
In this way, geologists become conditioned to passively tolerate and
ignore the numerous interpretative failures of the standard plate drift
and subduction theory.
Because of this, geologists often put their unresolved interpretative
problems on the back-burner and move on to other areas. They are fully
aware that this is not an ideal state of affairs but they don't know
what else to do. They do not know that there is another scientific
explanation of the Earth's Tectonism and history. Because of this, they
don't investigate the potential of the Earth expansion model to solve
their unresolved or intractable geological issues. A much more capable,
integrated explanation of the Earth exists which does away with the
dubious application and interpretative failures of the plate tectonic
theory.
Some years ago, whilst attending a third year lecture on regional
geology at James Cook University in North Queensland, one of my
lecturers made brief mention of the Earth Expansion model, along with a
few observations concerning, "loony Professor Careys' sanity in
comparison to the cuckoo birds" (etc.). Other students present in the
lecture were quite mystified as to who Professor Carey was and what the
heck this expansion theory was all about. They certainly received a
non-scientific introduction and an equally non-scientific dismissal of
this relevant and unifying geological model.
When I inquired of this particular lecturer concerning his scientific
view of the Earth expansion model he stated that the principle problem
he had with it was, "the lack of a mechanism to explain the expansion".
He did not raise any further reservations or objections he had with
the model. It took two and a half years of lectures to hear a brief
derogatory reference to a scientific model that should have been covered
in detail from the first semester of study - just as plate tectonics had
been.
The only reason why I knew who Professor S. Warren Carey was, is because
I discovered his first book "The Expanding Earth" (Carey, 1976) in the
University library during my first week of study at JCU. I became well
aquatinted with this strange model. I was intrigued as to why an
experienced senior academic geologist would entertain the bizarre notion
that the Earth is and has been expanding--exponentially! I was already
quite familiar with plate tectonics from reading several texts but
Carey's book represented another explanation of the Earth's geology that
radically departed from the standard contemporary interpretation, but
still seemed to conform acceptably to the geological evidence! It
conformed more closely to geological data than the continental-drift
subduction model or offered a more satisfying geological interpretation.
I mentioned this expansion model to several lecturers but was perplexed
to find that although most had heard of it, none exhibited any clear
knowledge or understanding of it - some lecturers though it was,
"surplus to requirements", or, "irrelevant to modern geology".
During an introductory first year lecture, the then Dean of Science at
JCU, Dr. Chris Cuff (Geochemist) stated that he did not expect any
student to believe the accepted theories. He said words to this effect:
". . . If on a sound scientific basis you can disbelieve that which we
will teach you, I strongly encourage you to do so - if you can . . .".
With that thought in mind I studied the two models in parallel and their
related concepts, always contrasting the two. I also purchased a copy
of, "Theories of the Earth and Universe" (Carey, 1988), and after some
years of continued parallel study I came to the conclusion that
mainstream Western geology had accepted and adopted a seriously flawed
interpretation of available geological data. Plate tectonics is
ultimately not a workable model.
A lecturer that I worked for on several occasions, the soon to retire
founder of JCU's Geology Department, Associate Professor of Igneous
petrology, P. J. Stephenson, told me on two separate occasions that,
"there may be something to what Carey is saying ...", and, "I admire the
way in which Carey has been able to defend the theory for so long
against so many attempts to disprove it ...". Such statements from a
wise hard-rock geologist and gentleman such as "PJ" was the closest
thing to encouragement I was likely to hear. If a senior geologist with
his career of experience did not automatically rule out Carey's ideas,
then I could see no reason why any lesser experienced geologist should
arbitrarily rule them out.
The hard geological evidence does not exclude on-going Earth expansion.
Only theoretical, paradigm-generated bias excludes the expansion
explanation of geotectonism.
The JCU geology department's metamorphic petrology lecturer was derisive
of the Earth expansion model and of, " ... Carey's ability to keep up
with developments in modern geology ...". These were extraordinary
words considering this lecturer received his doctorate from the
University of Tasmania and told me that he was a former first year
student of Carey's and spoke of Carey's outstanding ability to enthuse
students during his lectures.
Unfortunately this particular lecturer seemed among the least informed
of the details and implications of the Earth expansion model (or so it
seemed). He was bluntly dismissive and intolerant of any suggestion of
Earth expansion whatever. He rigidly adhered to the standard plate
tectonic derived theoretical dogma of theoretical isotherm profiles
within subduction zones and insisted on convergent plate movements to
explain the formation and gradation of metamorphic facies in these
zones--even though the expansion model predicts the metamorphic facies
occurrence as is observed within these parts of the crust!
My primary motivation in producing this internet site is to remedy the
appalling lack of readily available detailed information concerning the
Earth expansion model and also to counter the temptation of some
academic geologists to simply sweep this important scientific model
under the carpet without due cause.
There is no possible scientific justification or excuse for trivial
treatment of this supremely relevant contemporary geotectonic model.
In retrospect, Charles Darwin took many years to develop his theory of
Evolution. He made many observations, wrote his thesis, refined it and
published it - without a mechanism to explain the evidence for
evolution. Darwin did offer the hypothesis that natural selection was
the decisive active agent of evolutionary change which occurs via some
uncertain and later to be explained mechanism. The mechanism of
evolutionary change is now understood to be due to the variation of a
reproductively inherited unique DNA sequence--which was not identified
until generations after the publication of Darwin's theory.
Nevertheless, evolution, without a detailed mechanistic description,
produced a revolutionary and unsurpassed leap forward in biological
studies. Most people are aware that the theory met intense resistance
due to intellectual, scientific, social and religious preconceptions.
The evolution theory is now considered, "the Law of Evolution", within
biology today because there appears to be no other scientific
explanation possible.
In contrast, Careys' 40 year gestation of the expansion model has
produced a model every bit as revolutionary as Evolution and probably
much more so. Carey has published his model with extraordinary detail
and clarity. He has offered a reasonable explanation of how and why the
expansion of the Earth and Cosmos occurs. He has also developed the
most astonishing original insights and fundamental conceptual
breakthroughs in cosmology, wave/particle theory and gravity theory.
I consider it a wholly unrealistic expectation for any individual
scientist or scientific clique to expect a complete technical
description or detailed understanding of the mechanism of continuous
exponential matter generation within the Earth and other planets. Or to
unreasonably expect such a mechanistic explanation to be available in
the short term--or in ten or in twenty or even in fifty years!
As in biology, the actual mechanism of the continuing process is not as
vital as recognizing that the process is occurring.
The mechanism of expansion will eventually be elucidated but this may
take more than a century of research and scientific debate. I consider
"scientific" excuses that there is, "no clear mechanism available to
explain Earth expansion", as nothing more than a weak obfuscation of
their scientific responsibility to investigate the model.
Nevertheless, the Earth and planetary sciences now has a fully developed
alternative paradigm and successor to the plate tectonics model which
works flawlessly in all tectonic settings and offers a clear and
interpretively descriptive understanding of global tectonism and also of
the geological developmental history of the Earth and other planets.
Surely this will inspire any young research geologist to investigate the
expansion model and evaluate it against the standard plate tectonic
theory and its flawed derived interpretations.
Unlike the "Law of Evolution", expansion is but one of two possible
unified explanations of the Earths' tectonism history, therefore there
is little immediate or pressing need (as there was with evolution in
biology) to quickly adopt the Earth expansion model. What is beyond
doubt to myself is that the expansion geotectonic model will be adopted
in the next two decades.
Even if Careys' explanation of the Earth's expansion turns out to be
less than correct this would not and could not alter the empirical
validity of the Earth's expansion. Nor could this, by default, add any
credibility to the subduction concept. Carey has established the
falseness of subduction beyond doubt and the subduction geotectonic
fallacy should be discarded. If Carey's explanation of the expansion is
found to be inadequate this would only mean that another explanation
must be developed for as with evolution, there remains no other
scientific explanation possible for what is observed.
The word geology means "Study of Earth" There are two possible
contemporary explanations of the Earth's geology.
Both models must be studied equally.
Why do so many academic geologists cling to the compressional subduction
interpretation of the Earth when the empirical evidence supporting
expansion is so strong? Are they paralysed by biased funding
opportunities or perhaps their career of intellectual investment in the
publication of papers and geological interpretations which have painted
them into a corner from which they can not extricate themselves without
loosing face or status?
A paradigm change requires informed students and graduates who can
convincingly debate both tectonic models in appropriate forums.
Students have incisive enquiring minds that are largely unbiased and
open. Their minds have not yet been pre-set to interpret data with a
biased theoretical tunnel-vision which obscures and filters scientific
understanding. They are also not motivated by the beguiling influences
that always control and dictate academic careers, motives, professional
interactions and research preconceptions.
I believe it is the students role to analyse, contrast and judge the
validity of the expansion model relative to plate tectonics. I believe
that most of the current batch of career academic geologists are
incapable of doing this because they function within a constricting
theoretical straight-jacket from which they do not seem to be able to
progress within. I am convinced that if plate tectonics and Earth
expansion are given equal time and equal treatment in lectures,
practicals, tutorials and field-work, within a decade, a majority of
graduates would reject the unnecessary assumption of oceanic crustal
subduction throughout geological history.
All that is required for this to happen is rigorous unbiased education.
Unfortunately this educational objectivity is sadly lacking in
English-speaking, publicly-funded geological institutions around the
world. A more fitting and extensively developed alternative model of
global tectonism exists. Surely the next generation of professional
geologists will cast off the erroneous subduction hypothesis and the
blind preconception of whole-crustal compression during orogenesis.
Since the late 1960's the sensible career and funding driven dogma of
plate tectonics has dictated what is an "acceptable and correct",
interpretative pre-conception within geological research institutions in
the English-speaking world. Ubiquitous ignorance of Earth expansion
will eventually fade as the over-whelming evidence of global expansion
becomes more widely disseminated and generally understood.
Geology is entering into a new phase of development which is much wider
in scope than the plate tectonic theory. The coming geological paradigm
change will be stridently resisted. The coming change will not occur
quickly, nor in the short term. I expect the change to be underway
within a decade and largely complete within two.
David Ford - June 1999
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Mine.htm
Ian Stirling
Ok, call it half that, .1mm (mountain ranges) is feelable, even .05mm
probably is, if the ball is smooth.
George
Yes, I'm sure it does.
> (your cheap-skate tendencies of wanting something for nothing show up
> again...)
>
> And it is of course a Doctorate in Geology you bloody fool, don't you even
> know what "Ph.D." is an abbreviation of?!
>
> James Maxlow was awarded a DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in *** GEOLOGY *** from Curtin
> University of Western Australia.
How is that possible when their web site says that they don't offer such a
degree? Oops. I think you are lying. Others say he has an Msc in geology
(must be Australia's equivilant toa masters degree, eh?.
How is trying to determine if they offer a PhD in geology considered "smearing"?
Oh, right. because you don't want the truth to get out. I see your point.
>
> > So, I did some more google searching and found his web site (which I
> realized
> > that I've seen before). The first thing I noted is that it appears
> to follow
> > the general outline of this alleged thesis, but only in a general way.
> > Secondly, he didn't introduce himself as "Dr.". He simply introduced
> himself as
> > James Maxlow. I guess he didn't get his degree after all, which
> would appear to
> > be obvious since there is no doctorial degree in geology available at
> Curtin
> > University, according to their web site.
>
>
>
> That's because that site *** PRE-DATES his PhD ***, and if you had bothered to
> read it, you would have quickly discovered that it incorporates material from
> his 1992 MASTERS DEGREE (yes, in *GEOLOGY*) thesis, called "Global Expansion
> Tectonics".
>
> But you didn't read or it, or more likely, you did, and just ignored it,
> because you are after all, only interested in lying and smearing the man any
> way you can.
>
I didn't have to read all of it. I read it all about a year and a half ago. So
what university allows a doctorial candidate to use his masters thesis as a
doctors dissertation, especially when there are virtually no changes between the
two versions? And how does a university that doesn't offer a PhD in geology
award one to somebody?
Translation: The shit is out of the bag, and your knuckles are turning white as
a result.
No, what he did was to try to expand the bible into something that took 4
billion years to write so he can incorporate the real age of the earth into his
theology. Either way, it is still creationist hogwash.
> So then, VERY FAR from the utterly IDIOTIC (and I suspect also DELIBERATE)
> misconstruing of what Maxlow was doing in the reply you posted, you could not
> possibly be any more *** WRONG *** about Maxlow and religion, particularly
> creationists.
Misconstrue? I posted the entire text of the letter. It speaks for itself. He
wants to get rid of geology altogether and build power plants! If that is the
case, I suggest he tear up his Masters degree (he wasted it anyway), and go get
an engineering degree (and leave the geology community out of his agenda).
> We share the same view of them, and in all the countless lengthy discussions
> we have had over the years, not once has he shown the slightest leaning toward
> Christianity, nor any other religion.
>
> (btw: and what the fuck of it if he had you funkin moron?! ever heard of
> FREEDOM OF RELIGION you dimwitted little jerk? ... it's one of those rights
> guaranteed in you own country)
Hey, I could care less if he worshipped the dinkleberries on your fat ass. If
he is promoting his religious beliefs as science, he's a kook, nothing more.
> But don't let these facts interfere with you scurrilous rumour mongering and
> blantant FALSE ACCUSATION manufacturing of another man who I have personally
> found to be dignified, remorseless honest and a man of ethical propriety well
> above the norm. James Maxlow is the man of perception, integrity, skill and
> professional honesty, and has more of this in his little finger than you could
> ever have in your whole being.
>
> Now, George, you fuckin despicable maggot, read that article again, in the
> light of what I've just relayed to you. You can of course get the other TAG
> letters of this debate and 100% verify it, but that would be far too much like
> an ethical practice for a defaming little turd like you now, wouldn't it
> George?
>
Ok. Nope. It says just what I've said it does. Nothing has changed. I could
read it a hundred times and it would still be babbling about "Geo-biblical
Chronology")
Liar.
> You are the fucking liar here George ... and I think you know this all too
> well, you simply have no compunction about lying to any degree, within your
> twisted fucked-up infantile mind.
>
>
The letter speaks for itself. If you believe in freedom of religion, as you
say, why are you in such denial about your own?
>
> > Earth Expansion is nothing but another attempt by radical religious
> nutcases to
> > pass their geo-biblical chronology (i.e., creationism) in a slick new
> wrapper by
> > calling it "Earth Expansion".
> >
> > As such, there is no need to continue with addressing the rest of
> this lame
> > diatribe.
>
>
>
> Which is what you would really like, LMAO ... unfortunately you have only
> proven your self to be an unabashed defaming scumbag.
>
> I virtually spit on you for being what you are ... CHHORCK-PHFT!
>
I love you too, man! What a Mitzvah! Enjoy already.
>
> > You guys are frauds of the worst kind. On the one hand we have an
> > Aussie (who quotes an alleged PhD, who is actually a creationist)who
> has no
> > geological training whatsoever trying to tell geologists that their
> theories
> > are all wrong.
>
>
>
> Again, if you bother to *** READ *** that old Master site of Maxlow's you
> would know that James Maxlow has a geology degree, a Masters degree in GEOLOGY
> (you didn't need those 25 years ago when he started out ...) *** >25 YEARS OF
> CONSTANT FIELD EXPERIENCE ***; that he runs a professional * GEOLOGICAL
> CONSULTANCY * called TERRELA CONSULTANTS, and now has a PhD in, you guessed
> it, GEOLOGY; and is more knowledgable and qualified to speak on the details of
> Earth Expansion with more capacity than anyone else I know of, at present.
You can't prove it by Curtin University. Their web site says that there is no
doctor's degree in geology offered there. So once again, you're simply lying.
> You disgraceful little turd; what would your mother say if she could see what
> sort of gutless vile man you are?
>
She would say "good show for exposing these frauds", if she could. Since she is
dead, it is a moot point.
>
> > On the other hand we have a religious fanatic claiming to have a
> > PhD (the assumption that it is in geology) from a university that
> doesn't offer
> > such a degree. Should I call Curtin University today and let them
> know that
> > about this academic capital offense?
>
>
>
> Oh yes!, PLEASE DO!
>
> Then they can get your name and contact details, so they can locate you and
> sue you penniless you pitiful excuse for a man.
>
Why? For posting a link to their web site that shows clearly that there is no
PhD degree in geology offered at their school?
Oh gee. I am so frighten. I hope he can walk on water. It's a long way to
Kentucky from Western Australia.
>
>
> > Web site containing material allegedly authored by Carey.
> Interestingly, he's
> > dead. So if he did write it And he may have), who posted it on the
> internet?
> > And did that person have permission from Carey's estate to do so? If
> Carey
> > did't write it, one wonders who the fraudster really is:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/2.htm
> >
> > Hmmm. I see that you posted it, Davey! Where is your documentation
> > authenticating the author, and your citation to having the estate's
> permission
> > to post this on the internet (if it is really Carey's writings)?
>
>
>
> Let's get this clear Georgie boy, I was at this news group in 1999. for 8
> months, from Jan to Sept, long before you ever showed up on sci.geo.geology
> you fuckin pathetic NOOB … but if you were around back then, you would already
> know, as do the old hands, that I placed all of this material online with
> Carey's explicit written permission (which I of course still have and is
> witnessed by two other people).
>
> Now fuck off grub.
You can't prove it by the contents of the site. There is no acknowledgement
that Carey gave you permission to post it on the internet. And changing it now
is too little, too late.
>
>
>
> > Crackpot web site:
> >
> > http://microlnx.com/expansion/#Papers
> >
> > King crackpot:
> >
> > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/index.html
> >
> > Lots of links to crackpots:
> >
> > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/links.html
> >
> > Mysterious author posts bibliography on Carey:
> >
> > http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa042102a.htm
> >
> > Here's a picture of mysterious author with Carey:
> >
> > http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blcarey.htm
> >
> > Who is that hipster? Can you say AMEN!!! Yes brother. AMEN!
> >
> > Why are all these guys from down under? Oh right. There is at least one
> > crackpot who lives in Texas. And the Queen of ego expansion lives in
> France and
> > is banned for life from Australia.
> >
> > And you dorks call yourselves geologists! HA!!!
>
>
> James Maxlow is an honest decent person with impecable professional
> credentials and more experience and knowledge of Earth in his little finger,
> than you will ever have in your whole being.
Sadly, he still thinks the bible is a valid "scientific tool" for studying
earth's ancient geologic history.
> I wouldn't dare to presume to paint myself as anything like that though.; but
> what I do know George, are the limits of what I will and won't do, for any
> cause.
Obviously, there are no limits to what ou will do to protect your precious lie
about earth expansion.
> You on the other hand, have in the last few days demonstrated the vilest of
> characters I've even encountered in the last 20 years of interaction with
> quasi-academic plate tectonics arseholes.
Why? Because I dare to expose the truth about you people?
> What would your parents say if they could see your behaviour? ...
My parents have nothing to do with you lame attempts to deceive people into
believing that you actually know anyting about geology.
> So far you have done everything you possible can to defame myself, Carey and
> Maxlow. So what’s next them? What will your next anti-social neurotic action
> encompass? It there ANY lower act you would not stoop to old-boy?
>
>
I've simply checked to see who you people really are. You are next, though I'm,
sure that you've covered your tracks better than ole Maxy has.
>
> This is the character record and professional achievement of one of the men
> you have so ruthlessly defamed without a SHRED of evidence:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/SWCarey.htm
>
> (What would your dad say if he could see your behaviour in full bloom … ?
> SCUM!)
He'd be laughing his ass off at you right now. But since he died in 1964, your
point is moot.
George
Wow, investigating and uncovering the truth about you people I know must get
under your skin, but someone has to do it.
You still haven't explained how it is that ole Maxy is supposed to have a PhD in
Geology from Curtin University when their web site clearly shows that they don't
offer such a degree at their school.
George
Bhwhahahahahahaha!!!! When I read these pathetic droolings of yours, I am
reminded of when I was a kid, and I'd smash an ant hill (as children sometimes
do) and watch the ants scurry about trying to fix their broken universe.
George
"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> scurried like an ant trying to fix his
broken world after a child smashes his anthill in message
news:41d6...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
Nothing of particular importance. You still haven't explained how ole Maxy was
awarded a PhD degree in geology from a school that doesn't offer such a degree.
George
"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:41d69fe3$0$9355$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk...
That is true, though it is so fun smashing an "anthill" and watching the "ants"
scurry about trying to repair their little universe.
George
"David Ford" <Nos...@internode.on.net> in an attempt to repair his smashed
anthill, spewed forth in in message news:41d6...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
My response to this was posted elsehwere, as you already know.
George
"Insanity: Repeating the same thing over and over, and expecting a different
result" - Albert Einstein
Carsten Troelsgaard
>>>>>this oceanic 'slab' which is normally being theoretically subducted ...
>>>>>it's ... well, it's nominally about 100 km thick isn't it? ...???
No. How do you reach such a number?
Carsten Troelsgaard
"George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:DSCBd.268017$5K2.241814@attbi_s03...
>> You've given every geologist here a reason not to read your next
>> contribution
>
> That is true, though it is so fun smashing an "anthill" and watching the
> "ants" scurry about trying to repair their little universe.
George, I certainly enjoyed a lot of your postings over the holidays. It
worries me though, that you seem to pick up some unexpected enemies.
J. Taylor
<geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>> Again, you do not know the context of this, I do, as Maxlow even sent me a
>> copy of this one to read before he sent it to TAG for(I bet you don't even
>> know what 'TAG' stands for ... you cretin). It is in regard to a TAG
>> ***Letter to the Editor*** of an on-going *DEBATE* between Maxlow and a
>> Christian fundamentalist IDIOT in central Queensland who was insisting that
>> the Earth was 7,000 years old (and who was insisting the Earth's geology could
>> only be interpreted from that view point).
>>
>> Maxlow went to some lengths to comprehensively geologically debunk this moron,
>> "Mr. Tas Walker", and those like him. One of the things Maxlow did was to
>> squish the whole of geological history into a 7,000 year period, with the aim
>> of demonstration how utterly absurd doing so was. It was really quite clever
>> how he did it too.
>
>No, what he did was to try to expand the bible into something that took 4
>billion years to write so he can incorporate the real age of the earth into his
>theology. Either way, it is still creationist hogwash.
Any one whom bothers to read the letter, you posted, will see it was
an argument, by Maxlow, against creationism.
>
>> So then, VERY FAR from the utterly IDIOTIC (and I suspect also DELIBERATE)
>> misconstruing of what Maxlow was doing in the reply you posted, you could not
>> possibly be any more *** WRONG *** about Maxlow and religion, particularly
>> creationists.
>
>Misconstrue? I posted the entire text of the letter. It speaks for itself. He
>wants to get rid of geology altogether and build power plants! If that is the
>case, I suggest he tear up his Masters degree (he wasted it anyway), and go get
>an engineering degree (and leave the geology community out of his agenda).
>
>> We share the same view of them, and in all the countless lengthy discussions
>> we have had over the years, not once has he shown the slightest leaning toward
>> Christianity, nor any other religion.
>>
>> (btw: and what the fuck of it if he had you funkin moron?! ever heard of
>> FREEDOM OF RELIGION you dimwitted little jerk? ... it's one of those rights
>> guaranteed in you own country)
>
>Hey, I could care less if he worshipped the dinkleberries on your fat ass. If
>he is promoting his religious beliefs as science, he's a kook, nothing more.
George, you keep making post like this and I will need to ask your
forgiveness.
You are convincing me, you are not just playing stupid.
JT
George
Hey, when it comes to Earth Expansion trolls, what better enemies can a
geologist have? They are such lamers, and quite fun to annoy with the facts.
It really is amazing. As for Davey, Don, JP, and Mr. Taylor, they've disagreed
with me (and others) for quite a while. Sadly, they don't know when to just
pick up their little expanding ball and go home.