India adrift
don findlay
throw/ toss up the Himalayas... How did India manage to cross the
spreading ridge to carry out this feat?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/indiadrift.html
Why didn't it crumple Madagascar (southern position) or Ethiopia
(northern position) instead of the Himalayas?
Come on you lot. Let's see the crinkle of your crumple of your
crunkle.
sir.jean-p...@neuf.fr
*> So, Pterologists still want India to collide with Asia to crumple/
*> throw/ toss up the Himalayas... How did India manage to cross the
*> spreading ridge to carry out this feat?http://users.indigo.net.au/
don/nonsense/indiadrift.html
*>
*> Why didn't it crumple Madagascar (southern position) or Ethiopia
*> (northern position) instead of the Himalayas?
*>
*> Come on you lot. Let's see the crinkle of your crumple of your
*> crunkle.
Remember Sir Findlay the two articulations conducting to people's
"Education" are Terror or Fervor
As we see it, all regular of those alleged scientific newgroups are
Highly Educated in well known brain washing institutions as Monash,
Curtin, the ANU, Oxford etc and as a result are unable to put 3 nails
on a row in a wooden board and further would not know a rock from a
dingo dung ! ... Hence the complete lunatic Theories of Continental
Rafting, Sea Bed Swallowing and Mountains Warping which the
Gogological Fools see as the utmost in term of intelligence &
blathering data mining. Those Universillities zombified Beasts of
crass ignorance are at the present time having a ball with standing by
their Glaaaciationzz thé au riz, their ludicrous Column of Ages
dogmatically fixed to a creationist concept of Earth being made on
present orbit and remaining put till the end of Time !
Please note how sterile all those fat mouthed loud talking parasites
are : NOT even a water well to the credit of anyone of those !!!
Bear your time, Sir Don, the present Global Warming and its collateral
Damages will spell soon the end of that vicious control of Academic
Imbeciles upon the understanding of Our & Earth History... the time is
ripe for the True Geology to come to the forth and send all those evil
toadyish intellectual Slaves to Hades, where their twisted incoherent
intelligence will have a chance to format itself over the next
thousand years
( at least, to recover indeed from structural & genetic programming
of false & lunatic concepts indeed)
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
ray
The only thing that seems to be adrift are your brain cells. And I don't
think `universillities' is even a word. One too many glasses of that
Euro-plonk?
don findlay
sir.jean-paul.turc...@neuf.fr wrote:
> On Oct 2, 4:41�pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> *> So, Pterologists still want India to collide with Asia to crumple/
> *> throw/ toss up the Himalayas... �How did India manage to cross the
> *> spreading ridge to carry out this feat?http://users.indigo.net.au/
> don/nonsense/indiadrift.html
> *>
> *> Why didn't it crumple Madagascar (southern position) �or Ethiopia
> *> (northern position) instead of the Himalayas?
> *>
> *> Come on you lot. �Let's see the crinkle of your crumple of your
> *> crunkle.
>
> Remember Sir Findlay the two articulations conducting to people's
> "Education" are Terror or Fervor
> As we see it, all regular of those alleged scientific newgroups are
> Highly Educated in well known brain washing institutions as Monash,
> Curtin, the ANU, Oxford etc and as a result are unable to put 3 nails
> on a row in a wooden board and further would not know a rock from a
> dingo dung ! ... Hence the complete lunatic Theories of Continental
> Rafting, Sea Bed Swallowing and Mountains Warping which the
> Gogological Fools see as the utmost in term of intelligence &
> blathering data mining. Those Universillities zombified Beasts of
> crass ignorance are at the present time having a ball with standing by
> their Glaaaciationzz th� au riz, their ludicrous Column of Ages
> dogmatically fixed to a creationist concept of Earth being made on
> present orbit and remaining put till the end of Time !
>
> Please note how sterile all those fat mouthed loud talking parasites
> are : NOT even a water well to the credit of anyone of those !!!
>
> Bear your time, Sir Don, the present Global Warming and its collateral
> Damages will spell soon the end of that vicious control of Academic
> Imbeciles upon the understanding of Our & Earth History... the time is
> ripe for the True Geology to come to the forth and send all those evil
> toadyish intellectual Slaves to Hades, where their twisted incoherent
> intelligence will have a chance to format itself over the next
> thousand years
> ( at least, to recover indeed from structural & genetic programming
> of false & lunatic concepts indeed)
>
> Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Australia Mining Pioneer
Well said Sir, .. But for the meantime geologist are going to have to
put up with the terror of having no explanation for an Earth that is
patently getting bigger. I'm not sure what can be done about all the
other problems that implicitly arise from that, for example how the
elements come into existence. Plate Tectonics ignores this by saying
they were always there as they are, in just the right amount to
explain what we see. Certainly it's going to be interesting times,
once the Earth's spin is taken into account.... which forces them
down an expansion road, and to address questions about a whole lot of
things. Talk about a sinking ship...
sir.jeanpa...@neuf.fr
*> > Australia Mining Pioneer
>
*> Well said Sir, .. But for the meantime geologist are going to have
to
*> put up with the terror of having no explanation for an Earth that
is
*> patently getting bigger. I'm not sure what can be done about all
the
*> other problems that implicitly arise from that, for example how the
*> elements come into existence. Plate Tectonics ignores this by
saying
*> they were always there as they are, in just the right amount to
*> explain what we see. Certainly it's going to be interesting times,
*> once the Earth's spin is taken into account.... which forces them
*> down an expansion road, and to address questions about a whole lot
of
*> things. Talk about a sinking ship...
In fact the problem, Don, is that the reasoning of those Googling
Gogologist Geeks ( GGG) is still founded on a Flat Earth model ... and
I clearly mean that you, Florian, Oriel36 and a few other bright &
seeking minds have right here the parade from the True Geology
indeed !
No straight lines on Curved surface as a well known German
Mathematician demonstrated ... okay ?
What do we see then on the maps illustrating the alleged drifts or
rafting of continent : Vectors !
the Vectorial approach does apply to a flat surface like a flat Earth
but not to spherical one as it is in reality. Further as Oriel36 has
seen well the Equatorial bulging is the consequences of internal
plastic material response to the Earth spin & then to centrifugal
forces - on each planets too even shooting in outer space as in
Jupiter, Saturn & gone on further ones
No continents can jump over such Equatorial bulge without utter
deformation in scales following "track made good" and further as the
Equatorial Bulge is affecting all lithosphere including the Poles, no
continental alleged drift can take place on any longitude without
dragging without dragging the rest of the Lithosphere with it !
A) So vectors on a sphere shout in outer space and at best on
tangential points of application for a short span (arc) of Great
Circle, a few degrees at best
B) The intercontinental ridges or mid-ocean ridges demonstrates by
their own existence and stability of structure that NO such Dragging
of lithosphere takes places ... they demonstrates as well than NO
continental rafting of any kind is taking place as well since none
could cross the seems on the Earth continuity which they do represents
( and so for Equatorial Bulge)
In conclusion NO amount of demonstration from your well seen
observations & most distinguished comments on the incoherence of the
theory of PT matched with reliefs WILL EVER convinced the Academics
Parasites !!!
BUT Mathematical & especially vectorial calculus demonstrates that
the whole PLATE TECTONICS CONSTRUCTION IS THE OUTPUT OF MATHEMATICAL
IGNORAMUS
... elementary Dr Findlay !
jpturcaud
Tabula rasa in qua non scriptum est
( just a comment about Georges & Stuart )
brad
This is your idea ... you explain it !
>I'm not sure what can be done about all the
> other problems that implicitly arise from that, for example how the
> elements come into existence.
That is the problem you've created for yourself. We
want to see you solution.
>Plate Tectonics ignores this by saying
> they were always there as they are, in just the right amount to
> explain what we see.
Because no one has any proof of this.
> Certainly it's going to be interesting times,
> once the Earth's spin is taken into account.... which forces them
> down an expansion road, and to address questions about a whole lot of
> things. Talk about a sinking ship...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't imagine why you would endorse such a preposterous idea.
Stuart
> So, Pterologists still want India to collide with Asia to crumple/
> throw/ toss up the Himalayas... How did India manage to cross the
>
> Why didn't it crumple Madagascar (southern position) or Ethiopia
> (northern position) instead of the Himalayas?
>
> Come on you lot. Let's see the crinkle of your crumple of your
> crunkle.
The ridge that is the mid-ocean Indian ridge originally formed between
India
and Madagascar. India did not cross a ridge, did not have to crumple
Madagascar, did not have to pay 2-0-0...
http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
Stuart
Florian
> The ridge that is the mid-ocean Indian ridge originally formed between
> India
> and Madagascar. India did not cross a ridge, did not have to crumple
> Madagascar, did not have to pay 2-0-0...
For sure, India+Seychelles detached from Ethiopia+old 170-120Ma
basin+Madagascar about 90 Ma ago. Then India detached from Seychelles 60
Ma ago.
India remained connected to Australia+antarctica up to 120 Ma ago. Note
that Western Australia was connected to South-china 120 Ma ago.
And it follows logically that India remained close to asia during all
that time, only separated from asia by a narrow basin that got finally
close by eduction.
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg>
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Daryl Krupa
(Florian) wrote:
<snip>
> India remained connected to Australia+antarctica up to 120 Ma ago. Note
> that Western Australia was connected to South-china 120 Ma ago.
Eh?
No, it wasn't; check out this 94 Ma ago map:
http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm
"You're off your chump." *
- Daryl Krupa
Florian
> On Oct 6, 3:35 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> <snip>
> > India remained connected to Australia+antarctica up to 120 Ma ago. Note
> > that Western Australia was connected to South-china 120 Ma ago.
> <snip>
>
> Eh?
> No, it wasn't; check out this 94 Ma ago map:
>
> http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm
>
> "You're off your chump." *
I don't usually take stuff for granted and prefer to check by myself
using hard data and not wishful interpretation that suit preconceived
ideas.
Look again: http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg
Australia was connected to South china 120 Millions years ago according
to the isochrons. As India was connected to australia at the same time,
then India was close to Asia 120 Millions Ago. As India is currently
connected to Asia, it logically follows that India remained close to
Asia during all that time. Case closed.
Florian
> On Oct 6, 3:35 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> <snip>
> > India remained connected to Australia+antarctica up to 120 Ma ago. Note
> > that Western Australia was connected to South-china 120 Ma ago.
> <snip>
>
> Eh?
> No, it wasn't; check out this 94 Ma ago map:
>
> http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm
>
> "You're off your chump." *
I don't usually take stuff for granted and prefer to check by myself
using hard data and not wishful interpretations that suit preconceived
ideas.
Look again: http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg
Australia was connected to South china 120 Millions years ago according
to the isochrons. As India was connected to australia at the same time,
then India was close to Asia 120 Millions Ago. As India is currently
connected to Asia, it logically follows that India remained close to
Asia during all that time. Case closed.
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Daryl Krupa <icycal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 3:35 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > India remained connected to Australia+antarctica up to 120 Ma ago. Note
> > > that Western Australia was connected to South-china 120 Ma ago.
> > <snip>
>
> > Eh?
> > No, it wasn't; check out this 94 Ma ago map:
>
> >http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm
>
> > "You're off your chump." *
>
> I don't usually take stuff for granted and prefer to check by myself
> using hard data and not wishful interpretation that suit preconceived
> ideas.
>
If you're that cock sure, present it for publication. If true
it would be a useful contribution.
I'm not holding my breath.
Stuart
J. Taylor
<icyc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 6, 3:35 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
>(Florian) wrote:
><snip>
>> India remained connected to Australia+antarctica up to 120 Ma ago. Note
>> that Western Australia was connected to South-china 120 Ma ago.
><snip>
>
> Eh?
> No, it wasn't; check out this 94 Ma ago map:
First it is not a map, it is an artistic rendering from an
interpretation of data.
>
>http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm
>
> "You're off your chump." *
Second, he fails to included data from the ocean floor, primarily
because none exists, which makes it an artistic rendering more from
imagination.
JT
Daryl Krupa
(Florian) wrote:
> Daryl Krupa <icycal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 3:35 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > India remained connected to Australia+antarctica up to 120 Ma ago. Note
> > > that Western Australia was connected to South-china 120 Ma ago.
> > <snip>
>
> > Eh?
> > No, it wasn't; check out this 94 Ma ago map:
>
> >http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm
>
> > "You're off your chump." *
>
> I don't usually take stuff for granted and prefer to check by myself
> using hard data and not wishful interpretation that suit preconceived
> ideas.
>
> Look again:http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg
>
> Australia was connected to South china 120 Millions years ago
> according to the isochrons.
> As India was connected to australia at the same time,
> then India was close to Asia 120 Millions Ago. As India is currently
> connected to Asia, it logically follows that India remained close to
> Asia during all that time. Case closed.
Florian:
Case open: you did not interpret the isochrons correctly.
Some of the isochrons that would have appeared between
Australia and Indonesia (not "South China") several million years ago
have been eliminated by the Australian plate's subduction beneath
the Sunda Plate (i.e,., beneath Indonesia).
The yellow line around Indonesia indicates an
"Overthrusting front", i.e., a subduction zone where Indonesia
has been overthrust over the Australian continental shelf, and
formerly over oceanic crust north of, and attached to, that shelf.
The isochrons older than 150 Ma that would have appeared
north of Australia cannot be represented on that map because
the rock that old has disappeared.
According to the isochrons, India was separating from Australia
up to about 50 million years ago, along a defunct "Spreading ridge"
now extending southwest from Sumatra.
That defunct spreading ridge then started being subsumed
beneath Sumatra because of increased activity along the present
spreading ridge that extends southeast from the Arabian Peninsula.
According to the isochrons, the defunct spreading ridge, and
the Indian and Australian Plates, started to be subsumed beneath
Indonesia a little more than 50 million years ago.
According to the isochrons, the Sunda Plate existed between
South China and Australia 140 million years ago, so,
according to the isochrons, there is no possibility that
"Australia was connected to South china 120 Millions years ago".
Indeed,
according to the isochrons,
Australia was more than 30 degrees latitude
(i.e., about 4000 miles or about 6500 km)
from South China "120 Millions years ago".
Please, why did you use a graphic aid that so clearly demonstrates
that your claims are false and that your logic is faulty at its base?
I am confuused; were you joking, above?
Please elucidate your true position.
- Daryl Krupa
J. Taylor
Correction: The following is NOT an interpretation, but the result of
an over active imagination, using assumptions.
If you wish to show how the isochrons, which exist, supports your
view, you must provide actual data, NOT "would have" "disappeared"
"That defunct spreading ridge then started being subsumed"
The only thing you have shown to be false is your grip on reality.
JT
Daryl Krupa
<snip errant, contrarian, apparently dyslexic weirdness>
JT:
The only thing you have shown to be true is that
you are incompetent to interpret a simple map.
- Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
J. Taylor
Forgive me, I lack the ability to read minds and see the one you
imagine.
JT
Daryl Krupa
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:54:30 -0700 (PDT), Daryl Krupa
> > JT:
> > The only thing you have shown to be true is that
> >you are incompetent to interpret a simple map.
>
> Forgive me, I lack the ability to read minds and see the one you
> imagine.
JT:
A psychiatrist trained in hypnosis should be able to
help you to get in touch with your other personalities;
I understand that they have a long waiting list, so
maybe you'd better consult Google's Usenet archive
(just search on "florian").
- Daryl Krupa
J. Taylor
That is good, made me laugh.
As for psychology and the workings of the mind, I do understand how
hard it is to break with conditioning and stop imagining things that
are not there.
There is no ocean between India and Asia, and it is imagining to see
one in the past.
When you can admit that little bit will consider progress has been
made.
JT
Florian
> > I don't usually take stuff for granted and prefer to check by myself
> > using hard data and not wishful interpretation that suit preconceived
> > ideas.
> >
> > Look again:http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg
> >
> > Australia was connected to South china 120 Millions years ago
> > according to the isochrons.
> > As India was connected to australia at the same time,
> > then India was close to Asia 120 Millions Ago. As India is currently
> > connected to Asia, it logically follows that India remained close to
> > Asia during all that time. Case closed.
>
> Florian:
> Case open: you did not interpret the isochrons correctly.
Oh boy, let's examine your arguments.
> Some of the isochrons that would have appeared between
> Australia and Indonesia (not "South China") several million years ago
> have been eliminated by the Australian plate's subduction beneath
> the Sunda Plate (i.e,., beneath Indonesia).
Some isochrons between Australia and Indonesia have been eliminated by
Indonesia? Jeeez, that certainly makes a lot of sense...
Let me explain you the correct interpretation derived from the isochrons
without using any assumption and based on that figure:
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg>
The isochrons between Australia, the east coast of India and Indonesia
display an extinct ridge oriented SE-NW and fractures oriented NS.
Obviously that ocean floor got overthrusted by bulging indonesia.
Still the existence of that ridge show that western Australia was
connected to a continent in the continuation of India east coats, before
the expansion of Indonesia, i.e., south china.
So about 120 millions years ago Africa/India/Australia/South china were
all connected. This is well illustrated by Maxlow's model based on
isochrons and geological data:
<http://nachon.free.fr/Maxlow/MaxlowIndia.png>
Note that the other side of India (North West Coast/Gujarat/Rajasthan)
was connected to Arabia and Africa's horn, down to Madagascar.
George
"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1ioi04m.1nx85yumta8w0N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
Maxlow is an idiot who has been discredited numerous times. So I suppose
congratulations are in order that he's suckered you into his scam.
George
Daryl Krupa
(Florian) wrote:
><snip>
> Let me explain you the correct interpretation derived from the isochrons
> without using any assumption and based on that figure:
>
> <http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg>
>
> The isochrons between Australia, the east coast of India and Indonesia
> display an extinct ridge oriented
> SE-NW
> and fractures oriented NS.
Florian/JT/Florian/:
Let me explain you the correct interpretation derived from the
isochrons
without using any assumption and based on that figure:
The isochrons between Australia, the east coast of India and
Indonesia
display an extinct ridge oriented
SW-NE
and fractures oriented NS.
I say again:
The only thing you have shown to be true is that
you are incompetent to interpret a simple map.
- Daryl Krupa
J. Taylor
Daryl/Daryl/and your other brother Daryl
Put up a picture so I know what you are talking about.
JT
J. Taylor
Really? Care to provide a few reference to those claimed discredits?
And you, or any one else, calling him an idiot is not something which
discredits him, it only discredits you.
JT
>
brad
>
>
> There is no ocean between India and Asia, and it is imagining to see
> one in the past.
>
> When you can admit that little bit will consider progress has been
> made.
>
> JT
Please explain the existance of greywackes nestled between India and
Asia.
When you understand the significance of that , then come back and talk
Geology !
Brad
Stuart
He's using FLo's map in the link given above.
Flo is flat out wrong. In fact, quite frankly,
I have no idea how Flo arrives at SE-NW orientation for a fossil ridge
and I suspect
neither does Daryl.
The only thing I can figure is a comedy of errors where Flo looked at
the
seeming symmetric isochron pattern in the Eastern IO, which does have
a
SE-NW orientation. However, even that wouldn't be the direction
parallel to the
axis of the fossil ridge. Or maybe Flo doesn't know his W from his E.
The fracture zones are aligned in a SSW-NNE direction. The spreading
segments have a nearly
E-W axis and the fossil ridge is oriented as Daryl says SW-NE, as
indicated by the "yellow streak"
in the eastern IO. Some pretty good extinct transform faults too.
Still want to publish your ideas Flo?
Stuart
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> Daryl/Daryl/and your other brother Daryl
>
> Put up a picture so I know what you are talking about.
I have put up a picture so that you will know what
_you_ are talking about.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3rr4bt
- Daryl Krupa
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:34:03 -0400, "George" <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
> >"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> >news:1ioi04m.1nx85yumta8w0N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
Very smart comment !
... in fact nothing is adrift except the intelligence of George &
sundries... drifting to uncharted dreamlands where Gogos & Gogologists
congregate.
Florian
> There is no ocean between India and Asia, and it is imagining to see
> one in the past.
Nuance JT. There was a narrow oceanic basin, but not a 10000 km wide
ocean. That basin got crushed by later crust emplacement.
Florian
> The ridge that is the mid-ocean Indian ridge originally formed between
> India
> and Madagascar. India did not cross a ridge, did not have to crumple
> Madagascar, did not have to pay 2-0-0...
>
> http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
Most reconstructions at 200 Ma show India entirely souther than africa's
horn.
However, that is not possible as North-West India (Gujarat/Rajasthan
provinces) must remain north of Africa's horn, because the ridge passes
south of Arabia and North of Ethiopia.
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg>
Except for those who believe that India jumped the ridge. Are you one of
these believers?
Florian
> > I don't usually take stuff for granted and prefer to check by myself
> > using hard data and not wishful interpretation that suit preconceived
> > ideas.
> >
> > Look again:http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg
> >
> > Australia was connected to South china 120 Millions years ago
> > according to the isochrons.
> > As India was connected to australia at the same time,
> > then India was close to Asia 120 Millions Ago. As India is currently
> > connected to Asia, it logically follows that India remained close to
> > Asia during all that time. Case closed.
>
> Florian:
> Case open: you did not interpret the isochrons correctly.
Oh boy, let's examine your arguments.
> Some of the isochrons that would have appeared between
> Australia and Indonesia (not "South China") several million years ago
> have been eliminated by the Australian plate's subduction beneath
> the Sunda Plate (i.e,., beneath Indonesia).
Some isochrons between Australia and Indonesia have been eliminated by
Indonesia? Jeeez, that certainly makes a lot of sense...
Let me explain you the correct interpretation derived from the isochrons
without using any assumption and based on that figure:
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg>
The isochrons between Australia, the east coast of India and Indonesia
display an extinct ridge oriented SW-NE and fractures oriented NS.
Obviously that ocean floor got overthrusted by bulging indonesia.
Still the existence of that ridge show that western Australia was
connected to a continent in the continuation of India east coats, before
the expansion of Indonesia, i.e., south china.
So about 120 millions years ago Africa/India/Australia/South china were
all connected. This is well illustrated by Maxlow's model based on
isochrons and geological data:
<http://nachon.free.fr/Maxlow/MaxlowIndia.png>
Note that the other side of India (North West Coast/Gujarat/Rajasthan)
was connected to Arabia and Africa's horn, down to Madagascar.
Florian
> Florian/JT/Florian/:
> Let me explain you the correct interpretation derived from the
> isochrons without using any assumption and based on that figure: The
> isochrons between Australia, the east coast of India and Indonesia display
> an extinct ridge oriented SW-NE and fractures oriented NS.
Good boy.
There is an extinct ridge oriented SW-NE, with ridge segments oriented
E-W and perpendicular fractures oriented N-S.
Note that the fractures becomes progressively NWW-SEE, from 90 Ma to
130-140 Ma which means that australia rotated counter clockwise by about
60° during that period.
So, at 140 Ma, the west coast of Australia was jointed to another
continental mass symetrical to this extinct ridge and in the
continuation of India's east coast. And that continental mass can only
be a piece of current China.
On a growing Earth, that configuration did not change much before 200 Ma
because the growth was much slower than current growth and craton did
not move too much relatively to each others. So one should expect that
australia and China remained close, from archean to 150 Ma. This is
confirmed by geochemical and geological data (*).
Even better, the data also confim that australia was surrounded by
India/Antarctica/China/Laurentia, in good agreement with the growing
earth model made by Maxlow. Case closed.
(*) <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
Florian
> Maxlow is an idiot who has been discredited numerous times. So I suppose
> congratulations are in order that he's suckered you into his scam.
No Ron Yates, *you* are the idiot of the block.
That model made by Maxlow predict a configuration of Siberia/South
China/India/Australia/Antarctica/North america, that is similar to that
determined lately from geological data. See Fig 3A.
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
Observations => model => prediction => confirmed by independant data.
That how science is supposed to work.
Florian
> He's using FLo's map in the link given above.
>
>
> Flo is flat out wrong. In fact, quite frankly, I have no idea how Flo
> arrives at SE-NW orientation for a fossil ridge and I suspect neither does
> Daryl.
<eyes rolling> Are you too dumb to figure out an obvious typo?
[snip]
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The ridge that is the mid-ocean Indian ridge originally formed between
> > India
> > and Madagascar. India did not cross a ridge, did not have to crumple
> > Madagascar, did not have to pay 2-0-0...
>
> >http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
>
> Most reconstructions at 200 Ma show India entirely souther than africa's
> horn.
Reference?
Certainly Scotese's doesn't: http://www.scotese.com/newpage8.htm
>
> However, that is not possible as North-West India (Gujarat/Rajasthan
> provinces) must remain north of Africa's horn, because the ridge passes
> south of Arabia and North of Ethiopia.
Why does that make any sense? India had already collided with Asia by
the
time Aden opened up.
You seem to be of the opinion the central Indian ridge has always been
extensive
as it is now.
This may help you: http://www.scotese.com/satlanim.htm
>
> <http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg>
>
> Except for those who believe that India jumped the ridge. Are you one of
> these believers?
No, I don't need fairy tales like EE.
Stuart
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> Maxlow is an idiot who has been discredited numerous times. So I suppose
>> congratulations are in order that he's suckered you into his scam.
>
> No Ron Yates, *you* are the idiot of the block.
> That model made by Maxlow predict a configuration of Siberia/South
> China/India/Australia/Antarctica/North america, that is similar to that
> determined lately from geological data. See Fig 3A.
>
> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
>
> Observations => model => prediction => confirmed by independant data.
>
> That how science is supposed to work.
Posting a link t an article from a journal that I have no subscription and
therefore cannot access to doesn't help your argument. And yes, Maxlow is a
quack, and so are you.
George
Florian
> > No Ron Yates, *you* are the idiot of the block.
> > That model made by Maxlow predict a configuration of Siberia/South
> > China/India/Australia/Antarctica/North america, that is similar to that
> > determined lately from geological data. See Fig 3A.
> >
> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
> >
> > Observations => model => prediction => confirmed by independant data.
> >
> > That how science is supposed to work.
>
> Posting a link t an article from a journal that I have no subscription and
> therefore cannot access to doesn't help your argument.
A scientist without access to Science? No kidding? What a joke you are.
Florian
> On Oct 9, 11:10 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > The ridge that is the mid-ocean Indian ridge originally formed between
> > > India
> > > and Madagascar. India did not cross a ridge, did not have to crumple
> > > Madagascar, did not have to pay 2-0-0...
> >
> > >http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
> >
> > Most reconstructions at 200 Ma show India entirely souther than africa's
> > horn.
>
> Reference?
>
> Certainly Scotese's doesn't: http://www.scotese.com/newpage8.htm
and a few lines below:
> This may help you: http://www.scotese.com/satlanim.htm
with Gujarat/Rajasthan
provinces of India entirely south of Africa's horn.
So you do believe in continent jumping ridges. Why I'm not surprised...
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 11:10 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > The ridge that is the mid-ocean Indian ridge originally formed between
> > > > India
> > > > and Madagascar. India did not cross a ridge, did not have to crumple
> > > > Madagascar, did not have to pay 2-0-0...
>
> > > >http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
>
> > > Most reconstructions at 200 Ma show India entirely souther than africa's
> > > horn.
>
> > Reference?
>
> > Certainly Scotese's doesn't:http://www.scotese.com/newpage8.htm
>
> and a few lines below:
>
> > This may help you:http://www.scotese.com/satlanim.htm
>
> with Gujarat/Rajasthan
> provinces of India entirely south of Africa's horn.
>
> So you do believe in continent jumping ridges. Why I'm not surprised...
Aden didn't start spreading until after India collided with Asia.
Why am I not surprised?
Stuart
Daryl Krupa
(Florian) wrote:
<snip>
> Note that the fractures becomes progressively NWW-SEE,
No, they don't.
Actually, nothing does.
You're out of it.
- Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
> > Maxlow is an idiot who has been discredited numerous times. So I suppose
> > congratulations are in order that he's suckered you into his scam.
>
> No Ron Yates, *you* are the idiot of the block.
> That model made by Maxlow predict a configuration of Siberia/South
> China/India/Australia/Antarctica/North america, that is similar to that
> determined lately from geological data. See Fig 3A.
>
> <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
From that abstract:
" ... age of 1440 million years ... ":
a dozen times older than the age you claimed.
> Observations => model => prediction => confirmed by independant data.
>
> That how science is supposed to work.
Yes, indeed: but you missed the "observation" part.
Ferme ta gueule, s'il vous plaît, Tête-de-chou.
- Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
> On Oct 9, 11:10 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
>
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > The ridge that is the mid-ocean Indian ridge originally formed between
> > > India
> > > and Madagascar. India did not cross a ridge, did not have to crumple
> > > Madagascar, did not have to pay 2-0-0...
>
> > >http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
>
> > Most reconstructions at 200 Ma show India entirely souther than africa's
> > horn.
>
> Reference?
>
> Certainly Scotese's doesn't:http://www.scotese.com/newpage8.htm
>
>
>
> > However, that is not possible as North-West India (Gujarat/Rajasthan
> > provinces) must remain north of Africa's horn, because the ridge passes
> > south of Arabia and North of Ethiopia.
>
> Why does that make any sense? India had already collided with Asia by
> the
> time Aden opened up.
>
> You seem to be of the opinion the central Indian ridge has always been
> extensive
> as it is now.
>
> This may help you:http://www.scotese.com/satlanim.htm
Or this one:
http://www.scotese.com/indianim.htm
- Daryl Krupa
Florian
> > with Gujarat/Rajasthan
> > provinces of India entirely south of Africa's horn.
> >
> > So you do believe in continent jumping ridges. Why I'm not surprised...
>
> Aden didn't start spreading until after India collided with Asia.
So what? It does not change nothing to the issue.
So you really don't understand why it is not possible for the Northwest
part of India to cross the horn... Quite amazing.
At least Torsvik is aware about it, as he respected this constraint for
retrofits in his last paper (Fig3a; Torsvik et al, 2008, Reviews of
Geophysics, 46, RG3004 / 2008), even if it does mess up the fit around
antarctica...
Of course, as the bits were once joined on a smaller globe, when one
tries to make them stick all on a larger globe, a hole appears on one
side when one tries to fill the hole on the other side...
Florian
They do my dear.
Anybody can check it using that illustration from Google Earth:
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Eastindian.jpg>
So either you lie, or the data lie.
You're in trouble because data never lie.
Florian
> On Oct 9, 3:10 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > > Maxlow is an idiot who has been discredited numerous times. So I suppose
> > > congratulations are in order that he's suckered you into his scam.
> >
> > No Ron Yates, *you* are the idiot of the block.
> > That model made by Maxlow predict a configuration of Siberia/South
> > China/India/Australia/Antarctica/North america, that is similar to that
> > determined lately from geological data. See Fig 3A.
> >
> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
>
> From that abstract:
> " ... age of 1440 million years ... ":
> a dozen times older than the age you claimed.
Can't you use your brain?
Do you expect that the configuration has evolved a lot between 150 Ma
and 1440 Ma if the growth during 150 Ma is much larger than that between
150 and 1440 Ma!
Obviously not! And as the pacific was only a margianl bassin at that
time, you expect all the old cratons surrounding the current pacific,
India/Australia/Antarctica/China/Siberia/Laurentia/Amazonia, to be close
to each others at that time.
Guess what? This is exactly what is *observed*.
> > Observations => model => prediction => confirmed by independant data.
> >
> > That how science is supposed to work.
>
> Yes, indeed: but you missed the "observation" part.
Don't think so. But you certainly forgot your brain in a closet.
> Ferme ta gueule, s'il vous plaît, Tête-de-chou.
Was that supposed to be French?
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > with Gujarat/Rajasthan
> > > provinces of India entirely south of Africa's horn.
>
> > > So you do believe in continent jumping ridges. Why I'm not surprised...
>
> > Aden didn't start spreading until after India collided with Asia.
>
> So what? It does not change nothing to the issue.
>
> So you really don't understand why it is not possible for the Northwest
> part of India to cross the horn...
Please show where in Scotese's reconstructions India jumps a ridge.
You have been given the links.
Thanks.
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > with Gujarat/Rajasthan
> > > provinces of India entirely south of Africa's horn.
>
> > > So you do believe in continent jumping ridges. Why I'm not surprised...
>
> > Aden didn't start spreading until after India collided with Asia.
>
> So what? It does not change nothing to the issue.
>
> So you really don't understand why it is not possible for the Northwest
> part of India to cross the horn... Quite amazing.
>
> At least Torsvik is aware about it, as he respected this constraint for
> retrofits in his last paper (Fig3a; Torsvik et al, 2008, Reviews of
> Geophysics, 46, RG3004 / 2008), even if it does mess up the fit around
> antarctica...
> Of course, as the bits were once joined on a smaller globe, when one
> tries to make them stick all on a larger globe, a hole appears on one
> side when one tries to fill the hole on the other side...
>
Sure EE applies no constraints at all. Why you can have the Earth
stretch this way,
then that way. It can bulge here and there, and now you claim its
bulging at 30S.
Your expansion is completely ad hoc with no constraints of physics or
anything else.
There's nothing in Tron's review paper that gives any comfort to EE,
nor is there anything
to suggest India over ran a ridge.
Silly.
Stuart
Florian
> On Oct 10, 2:42 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > with Gujarat/Rajasthan
> > > > provinces of India entirely south of Africa's horn.
> >
> > > > So you do believe in continent jumping ridges. Why I'm not surprised...
> >
> > > Aden didn't start spreading until after India collided with Asia.
> >
> > So what? It does not change nothing to the issue.
> >
> > So you really don't understand why it is not possible for the Northwest
> > part of India to cross the horn... Quite amazing.
> >
> > At least Torsvik is aware about it, as he respected this constraint for
> > retrofits in his last paper (Fig3a; Torsvik et al, 2008, Reviews of
> > Geophysics, 46, RG3004 / 2008), even if it does mess up the fit around
> > antarctica...
> > Of course, as the bits were once joined on a smaller globe, when one
> > tries to make them stick all on a larger globe, a hole appears on one
> > side when one tries to fill the hole on the other side...
> >
>
> Sure EE applies no constraints at all.
Oh boy, showing how ignorant you are in matter of planetary growth.
On the contrary, the displacement of cratons are extremely contraint as
they cannot wander all around the globe and their relative displacement
is very limited at the time the growth was much slower, i.e., 150 Ma.
That's why the planetary growth model can predict the configuration of
cratons billions of years ago. They barely moved as more surface was
empalced between them.
You just can't get it. Go fishin'
Florian
What don't you understand in "Northwest part of India to cross the
horn". If it crosses the horn it crosses the indian ocean ridge too.
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> > No Ron Yates, *you* are the idiot of the block.
>> > That model made by Maxlow predict a configuration of Siberia/South
>> > China/India/Australia/Antarctica/North america, that is similar to that
>> > determined lately from geological data. See Fig 3A.
>> >
>> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
>> >
>> > Observations => model => prediction => confirmed by independant data.
>> >
>> > That how science is supposed to work.
>>
>> Posting a link t an article from a journal that I have no subscription
>> and
>> therefore cannot access to doesn't help your argument.
>
> A scientist without access to Science? No kidding? What a joke you are.
If I subscribed to every science journal on the planet, I'd be broke. Why
don't you post relevant material that is actually accessible, flopsy?
George
George
> Daryl Krupa <icyc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 9, 3:10 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
>> (Florian) wrote:
>> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>> > > Maxlow is an idiot who has been discredited numerous times. So I
>> > > suppose
>> > > congratulations are in order that he's suckered you into his scam.
>> >
>> > No Ron Yates, *you* are the idiot of the block.
>> > That model made by Maxlow predict a configuration of Siberia/South
>> > China/India/Australia/Antarctica/North america, that is similar to that
>> > determined lately from geological data. See Fig 3A.
>> >
>> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
>>
>> From that abstract:
>> " ... age of 1440 million years ... ":
>> a dozen times older than the age you claimed.
>
> Can't you use your brain?
>
> Do you expect that the configuration has evolved a lot between 150 Ma
> and 1440 Ma if the growth during 150 Ma is much larger than that between
> 150 and 1440 Ma!
>
> Obviously not! And as the pacific was only a margianl bassin at that
> time, you expect all the old cratons surrounding the current pacific,
> India/Australia/Antarctica/China/Siberia/Laurentia/Amazonia, to be close
> to each others at that time.
>
> Guess what? This is exactly what is *observed*.
If you believe that, then you really are insane. I hate that for you.
George
Florian
1) That's not every journal. That's "Science".
2) Science should be availlable at your institution
3) If you don't belong to an institution, Science is available in EVERY
library.
Florian
> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> news:1iomj5t.gc2yfc1jlx1s7N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> > Daryl Krupa <icyc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 9, 3:10 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> >> (Florian) wrote:
> >> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> >> > > Maxlow is an idiot who has been discredited numerous times. So I
> >> > > suppose
> >> > > congratulations are in order that he's suckered you into his scam.
> >> >
> >> > No Ron Yates, *you* are the idiot of the block.
> >> > That model made by Maxlow predict a configuration of Siberia/South
> >> > China/India/Australia/Antarctica/North america, that is similar to that
> >> > determined lately from geological data. See Fig 3A.
> >> >
> >> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
> >>
> >> From that abstract:
> >> " ... age of 1440 million years ... ":
> >> a dozen times older than the age you claimed.
> >
> > Can't you use your brain?
> >
> > Do you expect that the configuration has evolved a lot between 150 Ma
> > and 1440 Ma if the growth during 150 Ma is much larger than that between
> > 150 and 1440 Ma!
> >
> > Obviously not! And as the pacific was only a marginal basin at that
> > time, you expect all the old cratons surrounding the current pacific,
> > India/Australia/Antarctica/China/Siberia/Laurentia/Amazonia, to be close
> > to each others at that time.
> >
> > Guess what? This is exactly what is *observed*.
>
> If you believe that, then you really are insane. I hate that for you.
Believe? keyword: "observed"
Ignorant zealot, this how sicence works:
Observation=>model=>prediction from model=>confirmation of prediction by
observation=> validation of model.
Planetary growth is a validated model, whereas PT can't make predictions
at all. Case closed. Go fishin with Stuart.
brad
(Florian) wrote:
>> Ignorant zealot, this how sicence works:
> Observation=>model=>prediction from model=>confirmation of prediction by
> observation=> validation of model.
>
> Planetary growth is a validated model, whereas PT can't make predictions
> at all. Case closed. Go fishin with Stuart.
Please explain how you get andesite from peridotite if you don't
use subducted sediments to yield the felsics you need.
Your only argument is a heterogeneous mantle . But , considering that
andesite like magmas have become more common as we approach
modern arc deposits , that looks more like selective enrichment than
permanent heterogeneity. That is , heterogeneity is a " recent "
mantle
geochemical aspect. Andesites should be as common in ancient flows
as they are in modern flows ,and that is not the case .
Andesites appear to postdate granite occurance geologically.
I know this doesn't follow from the thread your thread . But , it is
an
aspect of your overall argument that I'm convinced you haven't
fully explained.
Brad
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
>> news:1iom5hm.hjqrmc1afvp8cN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > No Ron Yates, *you* are the idiot of the block.
>> >> > That model made by Maxlow predict a configuration of Siberia/South
>> >> > China/India/Australia/Antarctica/North america, that is similar to
>> >> > that
>> >> > determined lately from geological data. See Fig 3A.
>> >> >
>> >> > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
>> >> >
>> >> > Observations => model => prediction => confirmed by independant
>> >> > data.
>> >> >
>> >> > That how science is supposed to work.
>> >>
>> >> Posting a link t an article from a journal that I have no subscription
>> >> and
>> >> therefore cannot access to doesn't help your argument.
>> >
>> > A scientist without access to Science? No kidding? What a joke you
>> > are.
>>
>> If I subscribed to every science journal on the planet, I'd be broke.
>
> 1) That's not every journal. That's "Science".
> 2) Science should be availlable at your institution
> 3) If you don't belong to an institution, Science is available in EVERY
> library.
>
Sorry. I don't go to libraries to read papers you cite as a defense of your
arguments on usenet. If you want to defend your arguments on usenet, post
something we can all access. Otherwise, write a paper and get it peer
reviewed.
George
Florian
> On Oct 12, 7:55 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> >> Ignorant zealot, this how sicence works:
> > Observation=>model=>prediction from model=>confirmation of prediction by
> > observation=> validation of model.
> >
> > Planetary growth is a validated model, whereas PT can't make predictions
> > at all. Case closed. Go fishin with Stuart.
>
> Please explain how you get andesite from peridotite if you don't
> use subducted sediments to yield the felsics you need.
You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
composition of the rising material.
> Your only argument is a heterogeneous mantle.
Heterogeneity results inevitably from successive emplacement of material
as the planet grows.
> But , considering that
> andesite like magmas have become more common as we approach
> modern arc deposits , that looks more like selective enrichment than
> permanent heterogeneity. That is , heterogeneity is a " recent "
> mantle geochemical aspect. Andesites should be as common in ancient flows
> as they are in modern flows ,and that is not the case .
>
> Andesites appear to postdate granite occurance geologically.
Which would mean that arc magmatism changes as the planet grows.
> I know this doesn't follow from the thread your thread . But , it is
> an aspect of your overall argument that I'm convinced you haven't
> fully explained.
And they are certainly many more aspect like that. The task of
interpretating data in the light of a different paradigm is a huge one.
Plenty of work for lot of geologists.
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> >news:1iomj5t.gc2yfc1jlx1s7N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
Planetary growth by accretion is a validated model; planetary growth
through expansion by no known mechanism is not a validated model.
Keep dreaming.
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 2:42 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > with Gujarat/Rajasthan
> > > > > provinces of India entirely south of Africa's horn.
>
> > > > > So you do believe in continent jumping ridges. Why I'm not surprised...
>
> > > > Aden didn't start spreading until after India collided with Asia.
>
> > > So what? It does not change nothing to the issue.
>
> > > So you really don't understand why it is not possible for the Northwest
> > > part of India to cross the horn...
>
> > Please show where in Scotese's reconstructions India jumps a ridge.
>
> What don't you understand in "Northwest part of India to cross the
> horn". If it crosses the horn it crosses the indian ocean ridge too.
>
>
What is it you can't fathom about Scotese's reconstructions that
show India not jumping any ridges?
I've asked you to point where this happens in Scotese's
reconstructions.
This is simple request.
Stuart
brad
(Florian) wrote:
> brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Please explain how you get andesite from peridotite if you don't
> > use subducted sediments to yield the felsics you need.
>
> You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> composition of the rising material.
But we do know that Na , Ca , K are readily eroded and end up
in pelagic sediments.
> > Your only argument is a heterogeneous mantle.
>
> Heterogeneity results inevitably from successive emplacement of material
> as the planet grows.
Or from subduction and subsequent melting and eruption at Island Arcs.
> > But , considering that
> > andesite like magmas have become more common as we approach
> > modern arc deposits , that looks more like selective enrichment than
> > permanent heterogeneity. That is , heterogeneity is a " recent "
> > mantle geochemical aspect. Andesites should be as common in ancient flows
> > as they are in modern flows ,and that is not the case .
>
> > Andesites appear to postdate granite occurance geologically.
>
> Which would mean that arc magmatism changes as the planet grows.
Or as more felsics are available to the melt due to selective
enrichment ,
and susequent subduction.
> > I know this doesn't follow from the thread your thread . But , it is
> > an aspect of your overall argument that I'm convinced you haven't
> > fully explained.
>
> And they are certainly many more aspect like that. The task of
> interpretating data in the light of a different paradigm is a huge one.
> Plenty of work for lot of geologists.
But , you need a homerun ! Why not find definitive proof ! The
history of Science is full of ideas that appeared correct . Find a
Chemist or Physicist who has ideas that would supply you
with a mechanism .There must be some reason no one has
stepped forward with the help you need . ( please don't advance
conspiracy )
Brad
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 7:55 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > >> Ignorant zealot, this how sicence works:
> > > Observation=>model=>prediction from model=>confirmation of prediction by
> > > observation=> validation of model.
>
> > > Planetary growth is a validated model, whereas PT can't make predictions
> > > at all. Case closed. Go fishin with Stuart.
>
> > Please explain how you get andesite from peridotite if you don't
> > use subducted sediments to yield the felsics you need.
>
> You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> composition of the rising material.
I take it you are unfamiliar with Kimberlites?
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Oct 2, 4:41 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > So, Pterologists still want India to collide with Asia to crumple/
> > throw/ toss up the Himalayas... How did India manage to cross the
> > spreading ridge to carry out this feat?http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/indiadrift.html
> >
> > Why didn't it crumple Madagascar (southern position) or Ethiopia
> > (northern position) instead of the Himalayas?
> >
> > Come on you lot. Let's see the crinkle of your crumple of your
> > crunkle.
>
> The ridge that is the mid-ocean Indian ridge originally formed between
> India
> and Madagascar. India did not cross a ridge, did not have to crumple
> Madagascar, did not have to pay 2-0-0...
>
> http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
>
> Stuart
(Gee whizz, ..look at that! I thought we might have netted that idiot
George with this one, but looks like we got Stuart Instead. George is
getting canny, ..eh?) (Wow!)
Stuart (with his hands on the levers) (and believing he is
cruising), .cannot see the mountain that is staring him in the face !
Can you, Stuart?
Florian
> On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Please explain how you get andesite from peridotite if you don't
> > > use subducted sediments to yield the felsics you need.
> >
> > You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> > composition of the rising material.
>
> But we do know that Na , Ca , K are readily eroded and end up
> in pelagic sediments.
So what? Most sediments at a trench come from the forearc.
> > > Your only argument is a heterogeneous mantle.
> >
> > Heterogeneity results inevitably from successive emplacement of material
> > as the planet grows.
>
> Or from subduction and subsequent melting and eruption at Island Arcs.
No dear. Subduction is all about recycling which should lead to
homogeneity.
Anyway, subduction does not fit the data at all. Everything point toward
upduction (deformation of arc material, arc curvature, heat flow,
intrusions, extension in the back arc, sediments in the trench).
>
>
> > > But , considering that
> > > andesite like magmas have become more common as we approach
> > > modern arc deposits , that looks more like selective enrichment than
> > > permanent heterogeneity. That is , heterogeneity is a " recent "
> > > mantle geochemical aspect. Andesites should be as common in ancient flows
> > > as they are in modern flows ,and that is not the case .
> >
> > > Andesites appear to postdate granite occurance geologically.
> >
> > Which would mean that arc magmatism changes as the planet grows.
>
> Or as more felsics are available to the melt due to selective
> enrichment , and susequent subduction.
Same problem here. The concept of subduction is baseless and against the
data.
> > > I know this doesn't follow from the thread your thread . But , it is
> > > an aspect of your overall argument that I'm convinced you haven't
> > > fully explained.
> >
> > And they are certainly many more aspect like that. The task of
> > interpretating data in the light of a different paradigm is a huge one.
> > Plenty of work for lot of geologists.
>
> But , you need a homerun ! Why not find definitive proof !
There are plenty of proof on Earth, and lot of clues on other planets,
Especially those with a marked surface dichotomy like Earth: look at
Mars, Ganymede, enceladus etc...
> The
> history of Science is full of ideas that appeared correct . Find a
> Chemist or Physicist who has ideas that would supply you
> with a mechanism .There must be some reason no one has
> stepped forward with the help you need .
Oh yeah, there is a good reason: nobody aware of the phenomenon got the
good idea yet.
Florian
> > You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> > composition of the rising material.
>
> I take it you are unfamiliar with Kimberlites?
??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
we don't know how that material forms.
Florian
> Planetary growth by accretion is a validated model;
Pardon me? Oh yeah, I remember now that you easily confuse an hypothesis
and a validated model.
> planetary growth through expansion
This not a simple volume expansion. Volume gain results from gain of
mass.
> by no known mechanism is not a validated model.
You lost, it is validated by all kind of data.
Florian
> Sorry. I don't go to libraries to read papers [...]
enough said...
Florian
One more time for our friend Stuart Weinstein of the Pacific Tsunami
Warning Center:
It sprung the ridge in every reconstruction where India's NW province go
souther than Africa's horn, simply because the ridge goes through the
gulf of Aden, and when that ridge was closed then that part of India was
obviously norther than the gulf of Aden, docked along the arabian coast
and along the Seychelles plateau and that old basin between Madagascar
and Ethiopia.
Got it now? If you don't, then make a drawing.
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
So, Stuart (the mountain that is staring you in the face...), .. If
India was situated "Way Down South" (according to palaeomagnetics)
then the spreading ridge was situated "West of the Border". Right?
SooOoo:-
1. By what mechanism does the spreading ridge move northwards with
India away from Africa to locate in its present position?
2. And (given the *present-magnetic* position of Africa) is it the
formation of this ridge (by 10cm a year dyke intrusion) that is
crumpling Asia to Kingdom come as well as making it override the
Pacific? (Ridge-Push)
3. Where is the subduction zone that's doing this? (Slab-Pull.)
These are simple questions that would occur even to Brad. The world
waits for an Earthquake Wallah like you to explain them, since Scotese
evidently doesn't have a clue or he wouldn't be so daft as to make the
animations he does and expect wallahs like you to swallow them.
Please answer the questions individually. This is a simple request.
(Stuart, ... heading for Mexico, ..part of the brain drain, ... I mean
the drain brain...)
Was there an avalanche perhaps? A mantle wind?
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 1:11 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > What don't you understand in "Northwest part of India to cross the
> > > horn". If it crosses the horn it crosses the indian ocean ridge too.
>
> > What is it you can't fathom about Scotese's reconstructions that
> > show India not jumping any ridges?
>
> > I've asked you to point where this happens in Scotese's
> > reconstructions.
>
> > This is simple request.
>
> One more time for our friend Stuart Weinstein of the Pacific Tsunami
> Warning Center:
>
> It sprung the ridge in every reconstruction where India's NW province go
> souther than Africa's horn, simply because the ridge goes through the
> gulf of Aden, and when that ridge was closed then that part of India was
> obviously norther than the gulf of Aden,
The ridge started to the South of India. As India moved to the North,
the ridge propagated to the North and West, and Aden didn't open up
until
India had docked with Asia.
Either what you mean by "crossing a ridge" differs from what most
people
mean by "crossing a ridge", don't understand Scotese's reconstruction
or have some impairment that prevents you from noticing that India
didn't
cross a ridge.
Stuart
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry. I don't go to libraries to read papers [...]
>
> enough said...
>
> --
> Florian
This post is exactly why you have no credibility. It's just like when you
claim that some author's data demonstrates some nonsense in which the author
himself doesn't actually support you. Gee, if one were to go by what you
posted, one might get the impression that I never go to the library. The
fact is that this is what I actually said:
"Sorry. I don't go to libraries to read papers ***you cite as a defense of
your arguments on usenet***." In other words, you're just not that damned
important to me. You claim not to be a creationist, but you've obviously
taken logic lessons from them. Quote mining is the last defense of the
insane. Now, why don't you take a hike and go fuck yourself!
George
don findlay
George wrote:
:-) George, ... coming out of his shell.. Wait till the
do..ron..ron.. starts singing. )
Stuart
> > > You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> > > composition of the rising material.
>
> > I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?
>
> ??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
> we don't know how that material forms.
>
Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
of
the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
correct seismic
wave speeds to within a percent or two.
So what Flo basically suggest if he believes Maxwell, is that the
Earth's
mass has increased some 60% after formation by *expansion*, yet
current rising
material which gives rise to the expansion is now a substantially
different
composition then what has formed the Earth since it began expansion.
Kimberlites are rocks that have there origins in the upper mantle.
They have a
wide distribution of ages.
So EE is a *theory* in which the earth expands God knows why, through
the production
of God knows what.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> > > > composition of the rising material.
> >
> > > I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?
> >
> > ??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
> > we don't know how that material forms.
> >
>
> Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
> of
> the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
> correct seismic
> wave speeds to within a percent or two.
Uh -uh. You begin with wave speeds, then determine petrologic models
from that. You said so yourself:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/rubber.html#rubber
If there's one thing you can't deny in Plate Tectonics, it's the use
of rubber..
>
> So what Flo basically suggest if he believes Maxwell, is that the
> Earth's
> mass has increased some 60% after formation by *expansion*, yet
> current rising
> material which gives rise to the expansion is now a substantially
> different
> composition then what has formed the Earth since it began expansion.
>
> Kimberlites are rocks that have there origins in the upper mantle.
> They have a
> wide distribution of ages.
>
> So EE is a *theory*
..No. An observation tantamount to fact. Unlike Plate Tectonics,
which unashamedly begins with the convenient assumption of a
Panthalassa
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
> in which the earth expands God knows why, through
> the production
> of God knows what.
No need to wave hands and ululate in tongues. It would seem logical
to think that it expands by a process whose manifestation at the
surface of the Earth is water, calcium, alumina, iron, magnesium, and
silica.
>
> Stuart
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> > > > > composition of the rising material.
>
> > > > I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?
>
> > > ??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
> > > we don't know how that material forms.
>
> > Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
> > of
> > the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
> > correct seismic
> > wave speeds to within a percent or two.
>
> Uh -uh. You begin with wave speeds, then determine petrologic models
You use wave speeds to constrain the petrologic models. The starting
point of
these petrologic models is what we find in rocks like in Kimberlite,
Ophiolites and other complexes. You squeeze and
heat them and ask what seismic wave speeds do you get?. There are
other constraints too, such as mass
and moment of inertia. The statement has some circularity, but not
what you think.
My fundamental point is that there is something seriously wrong in
suggesting that just recently
(geologically speaking), new material causing the expansion is
different than the material
that comprises the bulk of the earth, that according to EE was
generated over the past billion years or so.
That is an inconsistency.
Any composition is possible for the rising material? Then what is the
connection between current Mantle
chemistry and previous expansion? How can current mantle bulk
chemistry be divorced from previous expansion which
purportedly increased the mass of the Earth by 60% if not more?
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
Come off it. We're not that daft. You begin with earthquake speeds.
Period. Then try to make sense of them. You frantically fish around
with stuff like syrup and food colouring, and work out from there. Of
course it's exactly what I think:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/balloon.html
...and this one... :-
"Even modern researchers continue to make plumes in the lab, though
Karo syrup and blue food colouring are the fluids of choice
nowadays.. The basic results from these updated experiments, as well
as more advance computer models of plumes, are all similar. They
reinforce Whitehead's original balloon-on-a-string image of hot-spot
plumes."
>
> My fundamental point is that there is something seriously wrong in
> suggesting that just recently
> (geologically speaking), new material causing the expansion is
> different than the material
> that comprises the bulk of the earth, that according to EE was
> generated over the past billion years or so.
> That is an inconsistency.
No, ..no.. No. That is not what is at issue. It's your model of
planetary accretion that is in question. Sure, it's nice idea, and it
'fits' (much like 'epicycles', ..but it says essentially that what is,
always was. Earth expansion says the arrow of geological time is
parallelled by the arrow of planetary evolution. The Planet is not
static. That's the problem:- How do planets start, and how do they
grow, ..and I have to confess, there's a certain symmetry of appeal in
JP's progression from the rocky planets to the gas giants as
reflecting this evolution.
>
> Any composition is possible for the rising material? Then what is the
> connection between current Mantle
> chemistry and previous expansion? How can current mantle bulk
> chemistry be divorced from previous expansion which
> purportedly increased the mass of the Earth by 60% if not more?
Good questions, but they highlight the point of connectedness from
past to present. In the extrusion of the mantle (lower mantle) and
growth at the ridges, the Earth is providing us with a GREAT BIG CLUE
that I don't think has even begun to be investigated yet. (If it had,
we wouldn't be talking about this.)
>
>
>
> Stuart
Florian
> On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > One more time for our friend Stuart Weinstein of the Pacific Tsunami
> > Warning Center:
> >
> > It sprung the ridge in every reconstruction where India's NW province go
> > souther than Africa's horn, simply because the ridge goes through the
> > gulf of Aden, and when that ridge was closed then that part of India was
> > obviously norther than the gulf of Aden,
>
> The ridge started to the South of India.
Not that simple. There was an initial ridge between India/Seychelles and
Madagascar that got extinct 60 My ago, because a new one developped
between India and Seychelles along the whole west coast of India.
> As India moved to the North, the ridge propagated to the North and West,
> and Aden didn't open up until India had docked with Asia.
Stuart, get focused please.
As the ridge is symetric, If you remove the isochrons in sequence you
can't put NW India below the current gulf of aden, because you meet the
old ethiopia-Madagascar basin there.
If you do put the whole India below Aden, then it means that you
virtually crossed the ridge and put India over the old basin which does
not make sense at all.
<http://nachon.free.fr/GE/indian/Indiadrift.jpg>
Florian
> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> news:1iorxi5.7nwbrf6mgg9yN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry. I don't go to libraries to read papers [...]
> >
> > enough said...
> This post is exactly why you have no credibility.
*You* don't read papers given in references and *I* have no credibility?
Yeah right...
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
>> news:1iorxi5.7nwbrf6mgg9yN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sorry. I don't go to libraries to read papers [...]
>> >
>> > enough said...
>
>> This post is exactly why you have no credibility.
>
> *You* don't read papers given in references and *I* have no credibility?
> Yeah right...
>
>
> --
Thanks for proving my point.
Nicolas Krebs
news:1iorxiz.1hc4nffqmnjcwN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > Why not find definitive proof !
>
> There are plenty of proof on Earth
fr Mais vous êtes incapable d'en montrer aucune. C'est ballot.
en But you are unable to show any (evidence). What a pity.
--
« attendez-vous à me voir rappliquer à chaque fois que
vous tenterez de répandre des contre-vérités. »
Florian
> On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> > > > composition of the rising material.
> >
> > > I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?
> >
> > ??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
> > we don't know how that material forms.
> >
>
> Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
> of the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
> correct seismic wave speeds to within a percent or two.
What happens at upduction zones is not what happens in the bulk of the
mantle.
>
> So what Flo basically suggest if he believes Maxwell,
1) You are the believer in a myth
2) Maxwell was one of the greatest physicists of all time and died in
1879.
> is that the
> Earth's mass has increased some 60% after formation by *expansion*,
How can you be so ignorant on a subject that you're suppose to know by
heart? that's not 60%, but more like 800% in 250 My.
> yet current rising material which gives rise to the expansion is now a
> substantially different composition then what has formed the Earth since
> it began expansion.
Nope. Upduction does not account for the major part of the surface
expansion. The major part of surface expansion results from spreading
ridges.
Florian
> On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> > > > composition of the rising material.
> >
> > > I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?
> >
> > ??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
> > we don't know how that material forms.
> >
>
> Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
> of the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
> correct seismic wave speeds to within a percent or two.
What happens at upduction zones is not what happens in the bulk of the
mantle.
>
> So what Flo basically suggest if he believes Maxwell,
1) You are the believer in a myth
2) Maxwell was one of the greatest physicists of all time and died in
1879.
> is that the
> Earth's mass has increased some 60% after formation by *expansion*,
How can you be so ignorant on a subject that you're supposed to know by
heart? That's not 60%, but more like 800% in 250 My.
> yet current rising material which gives rise to the expansion is now a
> substantially different composition then what has formed the Earth since
> it began expansion.
Nope. Upduction does not account for the major part of the surface
expansion. The major part of surface expansion results from spreading
ridges.
--
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > You must understand that we don't know the constraints on the
> > > > > composition of the rising material.
>
> > > > I take it you are unfamiliar withKimberlites?
>
> > > ??? I meant that any composition is possible for the rising material as
> > > we don't know how that material forms.
>
> > Nice cop out. We have a pretty good idea as to what the bulk chemistry
> > of the mantle is. Thats why petrological models of the mantle give the
> > correct seismic wave speeds to within a percent or two.
>
> What happens at upduction zones is not what happens in the bulk of the
> mantle.
>
>
>
> > So what Flo basically suggest if he believes Maxwell,
hahaha. I meant Maxlow.. LOL.
>
> 1) You are the believer in a myth
> 2) Maxwell was one of the greatest physicists of all time and died in
> 1879.
>
> > is that the
> > Earth's mass has increased some 60% after formation by *expansion*,
>
> How can you be so ignorant on a subject that you're suppose to know by
> heart? that's not 60%, but more like 800% in 250 My.
Makes my point even better.
>
> > yet current rising material which gives rise to the expansion is now a
> > substantially different composition then what has formed the Earth since
> > it began expansion.
>
> Nope. Upduction does not account for the major part of the surface
> expansion. The major part of surface expansion results from spreading
> ridges.
>
LOL.
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > One more time for our friend Stuart Weinstein of the Pacific Tsunami
> > > Warning Center:
>
> > > It sprung the ridge in every reconstruction where India's NW province go
> > > souther than Africa's horn, simply because the ridge goes through the
> > > gulf of Aden, and when that ridge was closed then that part of India was
> > > obviously norther than the gulf of Aden,
>
> > The ridge started to the South of India.
>
> Not that simple. There was an initial ridge between India/Seychelles and
> Madagascar that got extinct 60 My ago, because a new one developped
> between India and Seychelles along the whole west coast of India.
>
> > As India moved to the North, the ridge propagated to the North and West,
> > and Aden didn't open up until India had docked with Asia.
>
> Stuart, get focused please.
> As the ridge is symetric, If you remove the isochrons in sequence you
> can't put NW India below the current gulf of aden, because you meet the
> old ethiopia-Madagascar basin there.
Again, Scotese has no problems doing this.
Why don't you get focused?
The ridge develops to the west and South of India, not NW India.
> If you do put the whole India below Aden, then it means that you
> virtually crossed the ridge and put India over the old basin which does
> not make sense at all.
>
No it does not. Either you'll examine Scotese's reconstruction or you
can keep flapping your gums.
Stuart
Florian
> > Stuart, get focused please.
> > As the ridge is symetric, If you remove the isochrons in sequence you
> > can't put NW India below the current gulf of aden, because you meet the
> > old ethiopia-Madagascar basin there.
>
> Again, Scotese has no problems doing this.
Scotese has no problem with nothing, as he does not care about problems
by putting India souther than Africa's horn where it can't be.
At least, Torsvik does not make that mistake.
>
> Why don't you get focused?
>
> The ridge develops to the west and South of India, not NW India.
Strawman.
>
> > If you do put the whole India below Aden, then it means that you
> > virtually crossed the ridge and put India over the old basin which does
> > not make sense at all.
> >
>
> No it does not.
Answer that simple question.
Where is NW India relatively to Arabia when you close back the ridge
that developped between Seychelles ans India up to Aden?
Florian
> hahaha. I meant Maxlow.. LOL.
> > How can you be so ignorant on a subject that you're suppose to know by
> > heart? that's not 60%, but more like 800% in 250 My.
>
> Makes my point even better.
It proves that you criticize a theory that you never evaluated. You're
simply not serious.
> > Nope. Upduction does not account for the major part of the surface
> > expansion. The major part of surface expansion results from spreading
> > ridges.
> >
>
> LOL.
I love your arguments. so empty that there is no need to debunk them.
Florian
> > Stuart, get focused please.
> > As the ridge is symetric, If you remove the isochrons in sequence you
> > can't put NW India below the current gulf of aden, because you meet the
> > old ethiopia-Madagascar basin there.
>
> Again, Scotese has no problems doing this.
Scotese has no problem with nothing, as he does not care about problems
by putting India souther than Africa's horn where it can't be.
At least, Torsvik does not make that mistake.
>
> Why don't you get focused?
>
> The ridge develops to the west and South of India, not NW India.
Strawman.
>
> > If you do put the whole India below Aden, then it means that you
> > virtually crossed the ridge and put India over the old basin which does
> > not make sense at all.
> >
>
> No it does not.
Answer that simple question.
Where is NW India relatively to Arabia, after you close back the ridge
that developped between Seychelles and India, up to Aden?
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
You can keep Scotese. What you (and Scotese) have to explain, is why
there is geological continuity between the pairs of India/ Tibet and
Saudi Arabia/ Afghanistan. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
Florian
> You can keep Scotese. What you (and Scotese) have to explain, is why
> there is geological continuity between the pairs of India/ Tibet and
> Saudi Arabia/ Afghanistan. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
By the way, do you have any reference about these points?
don findlay
Florian wrote:
> don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>
> > You can keep Scotese. What you (and Scotese) have to explain, is why
> > there is geological continuity between the pairs of India/ Tibet and
> > Saudi Arabia/ Afghanistan. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
>
> By the way, do you have any reference about these points?
Just the geological maps. There's a bit of a kink displacement across
the Owen Fracture zone, but nothing that very much interrupts
continuity.
>
> --
> Florian
> "Toute v�rit� franchit trois �tapes. D'abord elle est ridiculis�e.
> Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est consid�r�e
> comme ayant toujours �t� une �vidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Stuart, get focused please.
> > > As the ridge is symetric, If you remove the isochrons in sequence you
> > > can't put NW India below the current gulf of aden, because you meet the
> > > old ethiopia-Madagascar basin there.
>
> > Again, Scotese has no problems doing this.
>
> Scotese has no problem with nothing, as he does not care about problems
> by putting India souther than Africa's horn where it can't be.
>
> At least, Torsvik does not make that mistake.
>
>
Comparing Figure 3a in Torsvik et. al. (2008) which is their
reconstruction
at 200mya, to Scotese's reconstruction at 195mya:
http://www.scotese.com/jurassic.htm
I don't see much if any difference between the relative positions of
Africa w.r.t India
in the two models, considering the difference in projections and
reference frames.
Why are you beating around the bush?
Isn't the real problem from the EE point of view, that EE doesn't
accept
subduction and therefore as a result India was always docked with
Asia?
>
> > Why don't you get focused?
>
> > The ridge develops to the west and South of India, not NW India.
>
> Strawman.
Its not a strawman, silly goose. Its what Paleomag models show.
Its laughable that you think that satisfying EE is somehow a proper
test
of paleomagnetic results.
>
>
>
> > > If you do put the whole India below Aden, then it means that you
> > > virtually crossed the ridge and put India over the old basin which does
> > > not make sense at all.
>
> > No it does not.
>
> Answer that simple question.
> Where is NW India relatively to Arabia, after you close back the ridge
> that developped between Seychelles and India, up to Aden?
>
Look at the published reconstructions.
Now, theres a novel idea.
Stuart
Stuart
If you think these are unexplained in contemporary geology you have
been
living underground.
Stuart
Florian
> Comparing Figure 3a in Torsvik et. al. (2008) which is their
> reconstruction
> at 200mya, to Scotese's reconstruction at 195mya:
> http://www.scotese.com/jurassic.htm
This one is OK.
Not the following one, because nothing justifies that India should be
away from Arabia:
http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
> Isn't the real problem from the EE point of view, that EE doesn't
> accept subduction and therefore as a result India was always docked with
> Asia?
You really don't understand that theory...
There was a narrow basin between India and Asia, the so called tethys
sea. That basin got closed when new crust got emplaced forming tibet.
> > > Why don't you get focused?
> >
> > > The ridge develops to the west and South of India, not NW India.
> >
> > Strawman.
>
> Its not a strawman, silly goose.
You're the goose. Suggesting that I said the ridge developped NW of
India is a strawman.
> > Answer that simple question.
> > Where is NW India relatively to Arabia, after you close back the ridge
> > that developped between Seychelles and India, up to Aden?
> >
> Look at the published reconstructions.
Yep, you have no idea...
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Comparing Figure 3a in Torsvik et. al. (2008) which is their
> > reconstruction
> > at 200mya, to Scotese's reconstruction at 195mya:
> > http://www.scotese.com/jurassic.htm
>
> This one is OK.
>
> Not the following one, because nothing justifies that India should be
> away from Arabia:
>
> http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
You mean besides the development of the Central Indian Ridge between
Madagascar and
India?
>
> > Isn't the real problem from the EE point of view, that EE doesn't
> > accept subduction and therefore as a result India was always docked with
> > Asia?
>
> You really don't understand that theory...
There's no "theory" to understand.
> There was a narrow basin between India and Asia, the so called tethys
> sea.
How narrow? Dimensions please.
>That basin got closed when new crust got emplaced forming tibet.
So you are claiming that the Himalayas are underlain by oceanic crust
that
was the floor of the Tethys?
<snip>
Stuart
Florian
> > This one is OK.
> >
> > Not the following one, because nothing justifies that India should be
> > away from Arabia:
> >
> > http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
>
> You mean besides the development of the Central Indian Ridge between
> Madagascar and India?
No evidence justifies that India was not still connected to Arabia,
when that ridge developped.
> > > Isn't the real problem from the EE point of view, that EE doesn't
> > > accept subduction and therefore as a result India was always docked with
> > > Asia?
> >
> > You really don't understand that theory...
>
> There's no "theory" to understand.
More denial does not help your case.
> > There was a narrow basin between India and Asia, the so called tethys
> > sea.
>
> How narrow? Dimensions please.
"The Tethys was primarily an epicontinental sea which in Palaeozoic time
transgressed on an undivided Indo-Tibetan platform. Within this sea an
axial oceanic trough separating India from Tibet came into being only in
the Mesozoic. This oceanic trough reached its maximum development only
in the Late Cretaceous. Consequently, the Indian Ocean did not open at
the expense of pre-existing wide Tethys. The geology of the Himalaya
fails to indicate a Tethys ocean of Palaeozoic - earliest Mesozoic age,
and in this respect supports the theory of Earth expansion"
Gansser 1981 Geodynamic history of the Himalaya: In HK Gupta and FM
Delany (Eds), Zagros, Hindu, Kush, Himalaya; Geodynamic evolution.
Amrican Geophysical Union, Geodyn Ser 3.
> >That basin got closed when new crust got emplaced forming tibet.
>
>
> So you are claiming that the Himalayas are underlain by oceanic crust
> that was the floor of the Tethys?
Why do you make so stupid comments, despite you know certainly that the
remains of the oceanic crust corresponds to the ophiolitic suture?
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > This one is OK.
>
> > > Not the following one, because nothing justifies that India should be
> > > away from Arabia:
>
> > >http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
>
> > You mean besides the development of the Central Indian Ridge between
> > Madagascar and India?
>
> No evidence justifies that India was not still connected to Arabia,
Again, see Scotese's animation of the evolution of the Indian Ocean
over the past 90 million years.
Please show where in these reconstructions that evidence based on the
isochrons is ignored.
>
> > > > Isn't the real problem from the EE point of view, that EE doesn't
> > > > accept subduction and therefore as a result India was always docked with
> > > > Asia?
>
> > > You really don't understand that theory...
>
> > There's no "theory" to understand.
>
> More denial does not help your case.
Thats not denial, but a statement of fact.
You've offered no testable hypothesis.
>
> > > There was a narrow basin between India and Asia, the so called tethys
> > > sea.
>
> > How narrow? Dimensions please.
>
> "The Tethys was primarily an epicontinental sea which in Palaeozoic time
> transgressed on an undivided Indo-Tibetan platform.
I've never seen anything that referred to the Tethys as "primarily
epicontinental". Your reference is perhaps well out of date.
So your reference is saying that India was separated from Asia by an
epicontinental sea.
It even says "undivided Indo-Tibetan platform". Doesn't that mean that
India was attached to
Asia in Paleozoic time?
This is a looney reference to begin with, but supports my statement
and not yours.
Epicontinental means on top of continent, hence India was
always connected to Asia in EE, just that the connection was covered
by an epicontinental
sea.
Within this sea an
> axial oceanic trough separating India from Tibet came into being only in
> the Mesozoic. This oceanic trough reached its maximum development only
> in the Late Cretaceous.
What geological information is this based on? When somebody writes
"axial oceanic trough"
that means there was oceanic crust. If there was no oceanic crust, why
is the term "oceanic"
used?
This seems to say, that India was separated from Asia, by a failed
rift, that produced
no oceanic crust? Thats fine, but it makes no sense to call it
"oceanic".
I ask again, how wide did this separation get? 100km? 1000km?
Consequently, the Indian Ocean did not open at
> the expense of pre-existing wide Tethys. The geology of the Himalaya
> fails to indicate a Tethys ocean of Palaeozoic - earliest Mesozoic age,
> and in this respect supports the theory of Earth expansion"
LOL!!
>
> Gansser 1981 Geodynamic history of the Himalaya: In HK Gupta and FM
> Delany (Eds), Zagros, Hindu, Kush, Himalaya; Geodynamic evolution.
> Amrican Geophysical Union, Geodyn Ser 3.
>
> > >That basin got closed when new crust got emplaced forming tibet.
>
> > So you are claiming that the Himalayas are underlain by oceanic crust
> > that was the floor of the Tethys?
>
> Why do you make so stupid comments, despite you know certainly that the
> remains of the oceanic crust corresponds to the ophiolitic suture?
Then why does Gansser refer to an oceanic axial trough? If there is no
oceanic crust,
why is it called "oceanic"?
What a pile of absolute gobbledygook.
I don't know of any reference (besides this one apparently) to the
Tethys as primarily an epicontentinental sea. Maybe I need to go back
a few decades. If India and Asia weren't ever separated by oceanic
crust, then exactly how were they separated? and by what? And how wide
was that separation. These are pretty simple questions.
You should be able to answer them.
Stuart
Florian
> On Oct 22, 10:18 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > This one is OK.
> >
> > > > Not the following one, because nothing justifies that India should be
> > > > away from Arabia:
> >
> > > >http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm
> >
> > > You mean besides the development of the Central Indian Ridge between
> > > Madagascar and India?
> >
> > No evidence justifies that India was not still connected to Arabia,
> > when that ridge developed.
>
> Again, see Scotese's animation of the evolution of the Indian Ocean
> over the past 90 million years.
> Please show where in these reconstructions that evidence based on the
> isochrons is ignored.
>
>
> >
> > > > > Isn't the real problem from the EE point of view, that EE doesn't
> > > > > accept subduction and therefore as a result India was always
> > > > > docked with Asia?
> >
> > > > You really don't understand that theory...
> >
> > > There's no "theory" to understand.
> >
> > More denial does not help your case.
>
> Thats not denial, but a statement of fact.
>
> You've offered no testable hypothesis.
Oh yes I did. One testable prediction (not hypothesis) is that all the
old cratons surrounding the Pacific must have been close to each other,
250 millions years ago and before. This is testable and tested.
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>
Plate tectonics is not a theory capable of making such predicitions,
because it can't predict the motion of cratons over 100 millions years.
It need geological data and geochemistry to figure out where the cratons
were.
> > > > There was a narrow basin between India and Asia, the so called tethys
> > > > sea.
> >
> > > How narrow? Dimensions please.
> >
> > "The Tethys was primarily an epicontinental sea which in Palaeozoic time
> > transgressed on an undivided Indo-Tibetan platform.
>
> I've never seen anything that referred to the Tethys as "primarily
> epicontinental". Your reference is perhaps well out of date.
That's because plate tectonists systematically ignore the work made by
hundred of geologist before Plate tectonics emerged.
> So your reference is saying that India was separated from Asia by an
> epicontinental sea.
> It even says "undivided Indo-Tibetan platform". Doesn't that mean that
> India was attached to Asia in Paleozoic time?
Dude, try to quote properly and reply after the whole quote. You missed
the "axial oceanic trough".
If you don't know what it means, then go have a look at the south china
sea.
[...]
>
>
> Within this sea an
> > axial oceanic trough separating India from Tibet came into being only in
> > the Mesozoic. This oceanic trough reached its maximum development only
> > in the Late Cretaceous.
>
> What geological information is this based on? When somebody writes
> "axial oceanic trough"
> that means there was oceanic crust. If there was no oceanic crust, why
> is the term "oceanic"
> used?
Oh, jeezzz, you're soooo sloooowwwwww.....There *was* oceanic crust. But
belonging to a narrow ocean trough, much like the South China sea. There
never was a 5000 km long ocean.
[...]
> > Consequently, the Indian Ocean did not open at
> > the expense of pre-existing wide Tethys. The geology of the Himalaya
> > fails to indicate a Tethys ocean of Palaeozoic - earliest Mesozoic age,
> > and in this respect supports the theory of Earth expansion"
>
> LOL!!
Yeah, you guys can just deny the work made by geologists prior plate
tectonics. Wonderful!
>
> >
> > Gansser 1981 Geodynamic history of the Himalaya: In HK Gupta and FM
> > Delany (Eds), Zagros, Hindu, Kush, Himalaya; Geodynamic evolution.
> > Amrican Geophysical Union, Geodyn Ser 3.
> >
>
> > > >That basin got closed when new crust got emplaced forming tibet.
> >
> > > So you are claiming that the Himalayas are underlain by oceanic crust
> > > that was the floor of the Tethys?
> >
> > Why do you make so stupid comments, despite you know certainly that the
> > remains of the oceanic crust corresponds to the ophiolitic suture?
>
> Then why does Gansser refer to an oceanic axial trough? If there is no
> oceanic crust, why is it called "oceanic"?
Dude, that "oceanic axial trough" was made of "ocean crust", that's why
it is called "oceanic". That oceanic trough got crushed by
upduction/extrusion of new material coming from the mantle, hence the
ophiolites.
You seem so lost... Make a drawing or look at the south china sea if it
can help you.
Stuart
Touche'.
Thats me tooism.
PT predicts the existence of Pangea.
What EE cannot explain are apparent polar wander paths older
than 250mya.
> > > > > There was a narrow basin between India and Asia, the so called tethys
> > > > > sea.
>
> > > > How narrow? Dimensions please.
>
> > > "The Tethys was primarily an epicontinental sea which in Palaeozoic time
> > > transgressed on an undivided Indo-Tibetan platform.
>
> > I've never seen anything that referred to the Tethys as "primarily
> > epicontinental". Your reference is perhaps well out of date.
>
> That's because plate tectonists systematically ignore the work made by
> hundred of geologist before Plate tectonics emerged.
Umm no. We just incorporate all the work done since then.
>
> > So your reference is saying that India was separated from Asia by an
> > epicontinental sea.
> > It even says "undivided Indo-Tibetan platform". Doesn't that mean that
> > India was attached to Asia in Paleozoic time?
>
> Dude, try to quote properly and reply after the whole quote. You missed
> the "axial oceanic trough".
> If you don't know what it means, then go have a look at the south china
> sea.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > Within this sea an
> > > axial oceanic trough separating India from Tibet came into being only in
> > > the Mesozoic. This oceanic trough reached its maximum development only
> > > in the Late Cretaceous.
>
> > What geological information is this based on? When somebody writes
> > "axial oceanic trough"
> > that means there was oceanic crust. If there was no oceanic crust, why
> > is the term "oceanic"
> > used?
>
> Oh, jeezzz, you're soooo sloooowwwwww.....There*was* oceanic crust. But
> belonging to a narrow ocean trough, much like the South China sea. There
> never was a 5000 km long ocean.
Wait a minute and this is hilarious. Previously you chided me for
saying
there was oceanic crust..
I said
> So you are claiming that the Himalayas are underlain by oceanic crust
> that was the floor of the Tethys?
You replied:
"Why do you make so stupid comments, despite you know certainly that
the
remains of the oceanic crust corresponds to the ophiolitic suture? "
>
> [...]
So now you claim there was oceanic crust between India and Asia.
Lets deal with this first.
If there was Oceanic crust between India and Asia, and there was no
subduction, then
what was wrong with me asking..
"> So you are claiming that the Himalayas are underlain by oceanic
crust
> that was the floor of the Tethys?
Your previous claims suggested that upwelling "crust" over-rode the
lithosphere, like
when you claimed the Marianas slab was pushed down by upwelling
material, not because it
was subducting.
In that case the ocean floor is getting buried by upwelling material
and forced down;
in this case as you explain below the ocean floor is buckled by the
process.
This is not consistent.
Stuart
Florian
> Touche'.
>
> Thats me tooism.
>
> PT predicts the existence of Pangea.
Then you don't know what is a prediction, honey.
PT does not predict the existence of Pangea. PT gives an explanation for
the formation of Pangea. And that's all.
PG actually predicts that all craton were closer to each other going
back in time.
>
> What EE cannot explain are apparent polar wander paths older
> than 250mya.
Not even true. PG is actually much better at explaining the polar path
which are actually also predicted. See Maxlow and Chudinov.
> > That's because plate tectonists systematically ignore the work made by
> > hundred of geologist before Plate tectonics emerged.
>
> Umm no. We just incorporate all the work done since then.
LOL! good one!
> > Oh, jeezzz, you're soooo sloooowwwwww.....There*was* oceanic crust. But
> > belonging to a narrow ocean trough, much like the South China sea. There
> > never was a 5000 km long ocean.
>
> Wait a minute and this is hilarious. Previously you chided me for
> saying there was oceanic crust..
Underlaying the himalayas...
Dude, I hope you know that there exist the lesser, the higher, the
tethyan himalayas...? Do you understand that not all himayas are
underlain by oceanic crust?
For example:
<http://www.geo.uni-potsdam.de/Mitarbeiter/OBrien/Himalaya/AH_b_fig6.jpg
>
[...]
> Your previous claims suggested that upwelling "crust" over-rode the
> lithosphere, like when you claimed the Marianas slab was pushed down by
> upwelling material, not because it was subducting.
It is not pushed down, it is buried.
>
> In that case the ocean floor is getting buried by upwelling material
> and forced down;
It is not forced down. The absolute motions are always surfaceward.
> in this case as you explain below the ocean floor is buckled by the
> process.
>
> This is not consistent.
It depends on the dynamic of the arc, and how it induces overthrusting
and buckling. For example, at the papuan ultrabasic foldbelt, the
oceanic lithosphere is sliced in overthrusting sheets.
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Touche'.
>
> > Thats me tooism.
>
> > PT predicts the existence of Pangea.
>
> Then you don't know what is a prediction, honey.
>
> PT does not predict the existence of Pangea. PT gives an explanation for
> the formation of Pangea. And that's all.
Google "Wilson Cycle"
Pangea was not the only "Pangea"
>
> PG actually predicts that all craton were closer to each other going
> back in time.
>
>
>
> > What EE cannot explain are apparent polar wander paths older
> > than 250mya.
>
> Not even true. PG is actually much better at explaining the polar path
> which are actually also predicted. See Maxlow and Chudinov.
Chudinov if I recall invokes TPW. WHich simply adds to the ad-hocery
of EE.
>
> > > That's because plate tectonists systematically ignore the work made by
> > > hundred of geologist before Plate tectonics emerged.
>
> > Umm no. We just incorporate all the work done since then.
>
> LOL! good one!
>
> > > Oh, jeezzz, you're soooo sloooowwwwww.....There*was*oceanic crust. But
> > > belonging to a narrow ocean trough, much like the South China sea. There
> > > never was a 5000 km long ocean.
>
> > Wait a minute and this is hilarious. Previously you chided me for
> > saying there was oceanic crust..
>
> Underlaying the himalayas...
>
> Dude, I hope you know that there exist the lesser, the higher, the
> tethyan himalayas...? Do you understand that not all himayas are
> underlain by oceanic crust?
Dude.
I'm asking you to be precise. You seem unable to be. I have to get
basic information out of you step by step.
First India wasn't attached to Asia, then it was, then it wasn't, then
there
was an axial rift, then there wasn't.
>
> For example:
> <http://www.geo.uni-potsdam.de/Mitarbeiter/OBrien/Himalaya/AH_b_fig6.jpg
>
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Your previous claims suggested that upwelling "crust" over-rode the
> > lithosphere, like when you claimed the Marianas slab was pushed down by
> > upwelling material, not because it was subducting.
>
> It is not pushed down, it is buried.
Either way.
>
>
>
> > In that case the ocean floor is getting buried by upwelling material
> > and forced down;
>
> It is not forced down. The absolute motions are always surfaceward.
Then why is the slab bent down if the "absolute motions" are always
surfaceward? Shouldn't it be bent up?
>
> > in this case as you explain below the ocean floor is buckled by the
> > process.
>
> > This is not consistent.
>
> It depends on the dynamic of the arc, and how it induces overthrusting
> and buckling.
How does it induce that?
For example, at the papuan ultrabasic foldbelt, the
> oceanic lithosphere is sliced in overthrusting sheets.
So in an expanding Earth we have overthrusting oceanic lithosphere.
Interesting.
Or is it that its not really overthrusting?
Stuart
Florian
> On Oct 23, 1:05 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Touche'.
> >
> > > Thats me tooism.
> >
> > > PT predicts the existence of Pangea.
> >
> > Then you don't know what is a prediction, honey.
> >
> > PT does not predict the existence of Pangea. PT gives an explanation for
> > the formation of Pangea. And that's all.
>
> Google "Wilson Cycle"
Frankly, do you really think I would cite a reference about rodinia but
ignore the meanng of "Wilson cycle"? You should quit thinking that
people are all idiots like Ron.
Besides, "Wilson cycle" is not a prediction either, it is yet another
interpretation.
So you really don't know the distinction between a prediction and an
interpretation. No wonder that you don't understand why Plate tectonics
is wrong.
> I'm asking you to be precise. You seem unable to be. I have to get
> basic information out of you step by step.
Give me a break.
>
> First India wasn't attached to Asia,
Dude, that was your strawman.
>then it was, then it wasn't, then there
> was an axial rift, then there wasn't.
Nope. *You* got confused. Read back the thread. I gave you as an
illustration the south china sea, example that you continue to ignore.
> > It is not pushed down, it is buried.
>
> Either way.
Not either way, silly goose! it is buried.
> > > In that case the ocean floor is getting buried by upwelling material
> > > and forced down;
> >
> > It is not forced down. The absolute motions are always surfaceward.
>
> Then why is the slab bent down if the "absolute motions" are always
> surfaceward??
It looks like you believe that the upward movement is limited to the
arc-side?
More non sense from plate tectonics zealots.
> > > in this case as you explain below the ocean floor is buckled by the
> > > process.
> >
> > > This is not consistent.
> >
> > It depends on the dynamic of the arc, and how it induces overthrusting
> > and buckling.
>
> How does it induce that?
Compression forces resulting from an extruding wedge.
> > For example, at the papuan ultrabasic foldbelt, the
> > oceanic lithosphere is sliced in overthrusting sheets.
>
> So in an expanding Earth we have overthrusting oceanic lithosphere.
>
> Interesting.
So now, you even deny that this is what is observed in papua new
guinea... Jeez.
I think I gonna leave you in your hole.