Earth Cooling.
eaglecleveland
First time posting. So many questions.
If the Earth is losing its remnant heat of formation, then would you say
that eventually all the magma in the Earth would eventually crystallize?
But if that happens, the cooler, crystallized rock would be more dense,
exerting more pressure on the rock below. I am aware that it is
*depressurization* that causes melting in the asthenosphere, but could some
melting occur (in my hypoth. situation) due to the addition of pressure?
(Directly or indirectly)
Or does the addition of pressure never cause melting?
Also, what would crystallize last? Closer to the surface? or at depth?
Or, would something else happen at these great pressures?
One last thing, now that we have the Earth crystallized, how would the
tectonic process be affected? For example, spreading ridges might stop
spreading. Convergence of plates might continue for a while due to
slab-pull. This may induce some tensional forces at the trailing margins,
leading to some rifting, depressurization, and widening (or new) spreading
zones.
Obviously, the solution would not be simple, and would rely on many factors.
Is there any (published) estimates out there on how this may happen, and how
long this all might take?
Thanks for any thoughts.
EC
Jo Schaper
found by looking up Bowen's reaction series in a search engine, or
beginning college geology text. The surface cools first, then the
inside. However, since much of the crust is already cooled, it isn't
likely to cool more than those cold rocks at the poles, and at cold
depth in the polar oceans.
This question is academic,as humans are likely to be no more by the time
the earth becomes a "cold rock in space". And it may not ever become
totally cold all the way through--chances are the Sun will become a red
giant and engulf its children out to at least Mars before then.
--
Jo Schaper's Missouri World --http://members.socket.net/~joschaper/
Jörg Reichert
> If the Earth is losing its remnant heat of formation, then would you say
> that eventually all the magma in the Earth would eventually crystallize?
No, this is not the only energy source of the earth. A big part of the
energy is energy of a radioactive decay of elements, such as K. The energy,
which comes from the gravitational collapse of the earth, heated the entire
mass upto 1000 C.
As you know, the heat within the core of the earth is more than 5000 C.
So we have a good working heat source, which will last along time!
Joerg
J. Taylor
How much K is needed to generate 5000 C for 4by?
JT
Jörg Reichert
> How much K is needed to generate 5000 C for 4by?
>
generate 5000 C within 4by?
At first i have to repeat: not only potassium (K40) is decayed, but also Th,
U.
The earth has a enormous volume compared to its surface. And the heat flux
is very low (i remember 1W per m2?).
So, it needs very low (ppm!) concentrations of these elements to heat the
earth up.
Joerg
Jörg Reichert
"> The earth has a enormous volume compared to its surface. And the heat
flux
> is very low (i remember 1W per m2?).
Sorry, this sentence was not absolutely clear. What I mean is the heat flux
on the surface of the earth.
Bigdakine
>From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.re...@web.de
>Date: 2/18/03 5:32 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <b2tjm9$1g9o26$1...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
>
>>
>> How much K is needed to generate 5000 C for 4by?
>>
>Yes, that is a good question - but better is to ask: How much K is needed to
>generate 5000 C within 4by?
>
>At first i have to repeat: not only potassium (K40) is decayed, but also Th,
>U.
>
>The earth has a enormous volume compared to its surface. And the heat flux
>is very low (i remember 1W per m2?).
You're only a factor of 10 to large..
its more like 100 milli-watts..
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
eaglecleveland
> Hello
> No, this is not the only energy source of the earth. A big part of the
> energy is energy of a radioactive decay of elements, such as K. The
> energy, which comes from the gravitational collapse of the earth, heated
> the entire mass upto 1000 C.
> As you know, the heat within the core of the earth is more than 5000 C.
> So we have a good working heat source, which will last along time!
Thanks and agreed. It's interesting to consider the possiblity of the Earth
being in its "infant" stage at present.
EC
don findlay
Some infant! How can you get gravitational collapse when the heat is
pushing up all these ridges, opening up the crust, resurfacing the
planet and churning all the butter?? Again, who's the Big Cheese
here, Heat? or Gravity? And why? And what's the potassium actually
in? How much? Where? And how do we know? K-felspar?? (phuh!). But
if we all agree, then sure, ..who needs facts.... After all they are
such darned things. But anyhow, ..what about this fact of aggregate
transform continuity and spirality that no-one (but me) seems to want
to take into account?
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html> Somebody care to
falsify that one?
df.
Jörg Reichert
you linked to some funny sites. Thank you.
Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
> Some infant! How can you get gravitational collapse when the heat is
> pushing up all these ridges, opening up the crust, resurfacing the
> planet and churning all the butter?? Again, who's the Big Cheese
> here, Heat? or Gravity? And why? And what's the potassium actually
> in? How much? Where? And how do we know? K-felspar?? (phuh!). But
> if we all agree, then sure, ..who needs facts.... After all they are
> such darned things. But anyhow, ..what about this fact of aggregate
> transform continuity and spirality that no-one (but me) seems to want
> to take into account?
You are in a newsgroup here. We can discuss anything, but please, say it
with your own words, and your own arguments. You have some arguments, you
have some questions? Please, write them in this newsgroup and we will
discuss them. But, dont send us funny links.
>K-felspar?? (phuh!)
This is no argument. Oh sorry, yes, this is an argument, but a chilish one.
Best regards,
Joerg
J. Taylor
<jo.re...@web.de> wrote:
>Hi Don,
>
>you linked to some funny sites. Thank you.
>
>Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
>
For your part, you could answer the original question I ask. It is
quantifiable and if you do not know how, or cannot, you are not
qualified to answer the question.
So when you will, or can, then maybe your personal opinions will have
some weight.
JT
Jörg Reichert
You are right, I cant give you the amount of U, Th, and K (in kg), but i
described the processes of heating
What was your question?
>How much K is needed to generate 5000 C for 4by?
As I described, the heat of the earth is not only the effect of the
exclusive decay of K40, but also (and mostly) of U, and Th.
So, lets have a look at the concentrations of these elements in the
undepleated mantle:
U: 0,02ppm, Th: 0,1 ppm, and K 0,02 (%).
And here comes the heat generation of these elements (10E-10 W/kg) in the
undepleated mantle
U: 0,02, Th: 0,03, K: 0,007.
Yes, these are small amouts, but remember:
The heat-flux on earth surface is very small! And 4.5 by are a long time to
heat up the earth.
The most part of the heat comes from the (heavy) U and Th. I think, the
concentrations of these elements are much higher in the core, then in the
mantle. And this might be the reason for the high temperatures within the
core.
You see the concentration of these elements - and I think these amounts (and
much higher in the core) are needed to heet the earth up.
I hope, i answered your question.?
Joerg
Bigdakine
>From: J. Taylor jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
>Date: 2/19/03 5:35 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <vq875vghjumnfvsa2...@4ax.com>
>
>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:14:54 +0100, "Jörg Reichert"
><jo.re...@web.de> wrote:
>
>>Hi Don,
>>
>>you linked to some funny sites. Thank you.
>>
>>Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
>>
>
>For your part, you could answer the original question I ask. It is
>quantifiable and if you do not know how, or cannot, you are not
>qualified to answer the question.
>
>So when you will, or can, then maybe your personal opinions will have
>some weight.
>
>JT
Hey JT, why not post your evidence that the ocean basins have uniform ages as
you've claimed.
THen maybe you'll be considered something besides a troll.
Alan Wade
I always thought, that the consensus was, that most of the radio active
elements were in the mantle and outer layers of the earth?
If they were in the core they would tend( or would have tended at the
origin) to sink to the centre and we would all be sitting on a bomb.
Is this perhaps the mechanism for the exploding planet theory of the
asteroid belt?
Best regards
Al
Bigdakine
>From: "Alan Wade" alm...@warndon83.freeserve.co.uk
>Date: 2/19/03 11:40 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <b30tko$guh$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>Hi
>I always thought, that the consensus was, that most of the radio active
>elements were in the mantle and outer layers of the earth?
>If they were in the core they would tend( or would have tended at the
>origin) to sink to the centre and we would all be sitting on a bomb.
Actually that has been proposed, unfortunately for now there is no way to test
it. As for sitting on a bomb, I think we can take solace that if indeed there
is a concentration of U at the Earth's center, it most likely would've gone off
billions of years ago, when, well, there was twice as much of it.
We cannot detect a ball containing uranium with the dimensions of ~1km at the
Earth's center..
>Is this perhaps the mechanism for the exploding planet theory of the
>asteroid belt?
I haven't heard that one.
Jörg Reichert
> origin) to sink to the centre and we would all be sitting on a bomb.
> Is this perhaps the mechanism for the exploding planet theory of the
Do you mean a nuclear bomb? I think, you dont have to be afraid, that you
are sitting on a nuclear bomb, called earth.
For a nuclear bomb it is nessesary to reach a 'critical mass', but in case
of the earth, I think that is not possible. Here we have concentrations of
ppm's, and that is definetely not enough! There are too much other elements
in between the decaying (U) Elements. The neutrons are absorbed by these
elements, and no chain reaction is possible.
The radioactive decay is IMHO not dependant to the temperature.
So, sleep worry-free, if you dont live on a military (nuclear) base.
Joerg
don findlay
It wasn't an argument Joerg, it was a list of questions based around
which has pre-eminence (heat or gravity?). The argument's on my site
for anyone interested. Plate tectonics demands a heat *excess. If
gravity set up the initial parameters (gravitational collapse of
stellar material > planetary formation > crust mantle and core) why
would any small 'second order' result of that (radioactivity - the
crystallisation residue that didn't make it to the crust) , now be
undoing what gravity put together in the first place (breaking up the
crust, churning the mantle to expose two thirds of it, and pushing an
equivalent amount of crust back down where it never was meant to be)?
And doing so in such conspicuous style and at such a terrific
(geological) rate? Isn't there a scale problem there?
That's the question. Or to put it another way, how does plate
tectonics see the relationship of this heat (from radioactivity) to
gravity, given (?) the primacy of gravity in the Universe? The funny
links detail related questions, which are there and not here, because
they would clutter up the page. If the forum would rather not have to
press buttons and look at pictures, but just mince words and numbers,
then I'll ask the three main ones which are on my mind - and no doubt
those of a lot of other children, and to which on their and my behalf
I wouldn't mind an answer (if anyone's got one)
1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
spirality of transforms?
2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
become a fact?
3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
Thus far these three have not attracted much response from supporters
of plate tectonics, not any that would satisfy many children I'm sure.
(funny links as above).
Don.
("But he has nothing on! said a little child at last.")
J. Taylor
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>>From: J. Taylor jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
>>Date: 2/19/03 5:35 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <vq875vghjumnfvsa2...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:14:54 +0100, "Jörg Reichert"
>><jo.re...@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Don,
>>>
>>>you linked to some funny sites. Thank you.
>>>
>>>Furthermore i want to thank you for you precise arguments, qoute:
>>>
>>
>>For your part, you could answer the original question I ask. It is
>>quantifiable and if you do not know how, or cannot, you are not
>>qualified to answer the question.
>
>>So when you will, or can, then maybe your personal opinions will have
>>some weight.
>>
>>JT
>
>Hey JT, why not post your evidence that the ocean basins have uniform ages as
>you've claimed.
Use this link
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/announcements/announce_crustage.html
Now lets look up the definition of uniform
http://www.m-w.com/home.htm
2 : having always the same form, manner, or degree : not varying or
variable
The age gradient is 200 to a lessor age. There is not 200 - 180- 60
-120 - 110 - 200
I would say that it qualifies as uniform and it is even more
interesting it all falls within the range 200 to 0
>
>THen maybe you'll be considered something besides a troll.
Impress me with your science and you can think what you like!
JT
eaglecleveland
> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
> spirality of transforms?
What are you talking about? Spirality of transforms?
> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
> become a fact?
> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
How would you then explain volcanic arcs? Hot spots? Peleomagnetic dating of
oceanic crust?
Thinking of myself of a budding "good" scientist, I've read your alternative
hypotheses. Where is your field data to back it up. Or is it just a guess?
> Thus far these three have not attracted much response from supporters
> of plate tectonics, not any that would satisfy many children I'm sure.
I can see why. There's no data!
Jörg Reichert
> spirality of transforms?
> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
> become a fact?
> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know
that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
> spirality of transforms?
As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate
continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what
you mean.
> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
> become a fact?
For me it is a fact. I have no doubt. So many facts support the the
assumption of subduction processes. For example, the assotiated volcanism,
earth quakes (and the earth quakes show the pattern of subducted plate
toward to the depth!, until the subducted plate becomes ductile).
> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
This (as you know?!) is a matter of the specific weight. The oceanic crust:
3g/cm-3, the continental crust: 2,7g/cm-3.
Best regards,
Joerg
Bigdakine
>From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.re...@web.de
>Date: 2/20/03 12:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <b329oc$1gskat$1...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
>
>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
>> spirality of transforms?
>> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
>> become a fact?
>> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
>
> What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know
>that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>
>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
>> spirality of transforms?
>
>As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate
>continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what
>you mean.
Heck, even those of us for who English is out native language don't understand
him.
He doesn't make much sense to us either..
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <6kb85vsh42gohop5t...@4ax.com>
JT, first learn English.
From your definition:
>2 : having always the same form, manner, or degree : not varying or
>variable
Stuart
Michael McNeil
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html>
If you are willing to tranlate that stuff into English, I am willing to read it.
J. Taylor
wrote:
Weinstein you are just an idiot masquerading as an intellect.
JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>>From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.re...@web.de
>>Date: 2/20/03 12:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <b329oc$1gskat$1...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
>>
>>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
>>> spirality of transforms?
>>> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
>>> become a fact?
>>> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
>>
>> What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know
>>that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>>
>>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
>>> spirality of transforms?
>>
>>As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate
>>continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what
>>you mean.
>
>Heck, even those of us for who English is out native language don't understand
>him.
>
>He doesn't make much sense to us either..
In a year and a half of reading opposition post to your position, it
can be shown little makes sense to you , but your own opinion.
JT
don findlay
'Spirality'/ 'spiral symmetry' = pics on this page you will already
have seen
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html > Or do you reckon
like John Vidale there that those lines mean nothing? (But the little
active bits at the ridges do...?)
Volcanic arcs? You mean island arcs of the Western Pacific? Then I
see them like this:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/bab.html>
...and like this:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/alaska.html>
Or continental margin magmatic arcs (e.g. South American Andes)? Like
this:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p2-page2.html> (North and South
America in pre-scissored position (joined at the hip). (Neither sort
of 'volcanic arc' should be thought of in terms of plate tectonics.)
Hot spots? I think so-called 'hot spots' (as they are termed these
days - different from the original entry in Seyfert's Encyclopedia of
Plate tectonics - in line with PT finagling things that don't fit -
shifting the goal posts) directly reflect the rupture of Pangaea and
resulting hemispherical adjustment. I'll post an illustration.
Palaeomagnetic dating of oceanic crust? Not sure exactly what you
mean.. What about it?
Field data/ no data? Links above, .. most importantly the first one.
More added as we go. All factual/ field data will support Earth
expansion ( excludes obvious assumptions like subduction and
convection)(Benioff *Zone and Heat-Related Uplift OK). If you say
"There's no data", what sort of **field data would you like to see?
Meantime you might like to check out Dennis McCarthy's supporting
references:-
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=expanding+earth&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=20010517033946.18668.00000305%40ng-mq1.aol.com&rnum=1>
(join up if broken)
DF.
Answers to the above three questions still sought from all young buds,
new growth, old growth, dead and even fossilized wood. ( Might the
forest yet mutter..?)
J. Taylor
<jo.re...@web.de> wrote:
>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
>> spirality of transforms?
>> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
>> become a fact?
>> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
>
> What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know
>that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>
>> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
>> spirality of transforms?
>
>As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate
>continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what
>you mean.
The fact, Don has had to give it a name shows the depth of ignorance
it has received, the other fact, it is plain as the nose on someone's
face is telling of the degree of the blindness.
This is really the reverse of the Emperor's New Clothes, in this case
the refusal to see something which is world wide and very plain.
>
>> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
>> become a fact?
>
>For me it is a fact. I have no doubt. So many facts support the the
>assumption of subduction processes. For example, the assotiated volcanism,
>earth quakes (and the earth quakes show the pattern of subducted plate
>toward to the depth!, until the subducted plate becomes ductile).
>
All your "facts" have alternate explanations which need to be further
explored before the certainty level is a fact, but to believers, with
no doubt, well....
JT
Jörg Reichert
> >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what
> >you mean.
>
> The fact, Don has had to give it a name shows the depth of ignorance
> it has received, the other fact, it is plain as the nose on someone's
> face is telling of the degree of the blindness.
>
What an impressive answer to myquestion!
Ok, at this point, I am convinced that it makes no sense to discuss these
things with you.
Joerg
J. Taylor
<jo.re...@web.de> wrote:
>> >As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate
>> >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what
>> >you mean.
>>
>> The fact, Don has had to give it a name shows the depth of ignorance
>> it has received, the other fact, it is plain as the nose on someone's
>> face is telling of the degree of the blindness.
>>
>
>What an impressive answer to myquestion!
What is impressive about it? You seem to be of the same faith as John
Vidale when he said, "he does not believe plate tectonics is true"
It is as expression from a believer of how absurd they find it you do
not believe in their god.
Goldtrend
Obviously data just gets in the way of off-the-wall geologic models.
In article <ncq95v4l0gh13kv8n...@4ax.com>, jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
wrote:
<SNIP>
Bigdakine
>From: J. Taylor jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
>Date: 2/20/03 4:49 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <ljq95v8tcg5t8kuta...@4ax.com>
Whatever you say troll.
Many people have stated they can't understand what he's getting at.
Probably neither does he.
Bigdakine
eaglecleveland
<snippage>
Hi Don,
Thanks for the reply and links, they certainly answered some of my
questions. I'll be honest, I feel there is a hell of alot more data to
support PT than your explanation, but hey, that's fine. Keep on with what
you believe. I'm sure you will :) . As we all know, the sciences don't get
far with unanimous agreement across the board.
Right now I'm a geology undergrad in the US. You would like to know that our
profs. present ideas as "theory" not fact. They do a great job of keeping
the data and interpretations seperate.
EC
don findlay
Hi Joerge,
Don't worry about those other two. Stuart's just demonstrating his
commitment to Archimedes by choosing this time to be on the dense
side. Usually it's hot air, ..when he's not sledging other people.
I don't know about Michael the Thaumaturge though. Maybe I need to
polish up my iambic pentameter, ..but I thought I really waxed quite
lyrical when I was spelling out the /nonsense.html. of plate
tectonics. (make a mental note to try harder).
I mean that the ridge transforms make up a single set of structures
that can be traced around the globe in a more or less continuous band,
i.e., there are individual '*segregate' transform elements (single
transform faults) and then there is their connected '*aggregate' form,
which is really just the ridge structure, but broader. So we can
talk about the continuity of 'segregates' (the individual transforms)
(e.g. Line 1 here:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion1.html> and the continuity
of 'aggregates' (the aggregate form) (e.g. the 'along-the-ridge'
continuity of those in the Atlantic ('front' view further down the
same page).
Now, plate tectonics sees fit to divide up the crust into "a number of
plates", but when you consider the elements of ridges and transforms
that are supposed to mark one plate from another, there's no
justification for separation at all. For example, based on ridges and
transforms, there is no justification for discriminating the South
American plate from the North American Plate. Also, take the
Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and the connector of the Southeast Indian
Ridge (SIR). Even although the SIR meets the Indian Ocean Ridge in a
so-called 'triple junction' (I'm not sure that's the way to look at
it, but anyway..) the three ridges, Atlantic, SIR, and Indian, are
dynamically connected through their transforms (through their
aggregate parallelism, ... through the continuity of their aggregate
structure) (see the set of six on same page link above). In fact you
can trace the continuity of parallel transforms all the way from the
north pole (nearly) of the Atlantic, through the South Atlantic, to
the Indian, Southern and Pacific Ocean, and right up to Alaska -
"...one set of transforms in 'aggregate continuity". Meaning when you
step from one transform to the next all the way along the line they
are all parallel clones of each other. Sure the
direction of the *segregate transform elements are different, say in
the North Pacific, compared to segregates in the Indian Ocean, but
when you take their summed *aggregate form, then there is a
*parallelism, and a *continuity. They are in 'aggregate parallel
continuity' or just aggregate continuity. And that means something
(the picture on the /nonsense.html page helps (I hope). (red lines)
in <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html>)
So if all the ocean floors have this imprint of a single set of
transforms ( and a related ridge) then it doesn't make sense to divide
it up into a series of plates. It is, in effect, one plate. The
further point is that this single set of transforms has its imprint in
the crust (white lines in that
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html> figure), so this
'one plate' is the mantle and the crust together. One plate.
So the point is (1) that plate tectonics ignores this 'single
set'aggregate-ness of the transforms that makes the Earth's crust into
a single plate, and, furthermore, (2) ignores the rotational symmetry
that it plainly shows. If plate tectonics takes these two
'staring-you-in-the-face' things into account, then plate tectonics is
not about what it says it is. There is only one plate, in torsional
disruption.
In the final analysis, it boils down to how we see so-called
'subduction' zones. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the 'zone' bit.
'Benioff' was nice because it carried no behavioural baggage.
'Benioff zone' is a fact, and unlike subduction zone is not a code
word to demonstrate allegiance to consensus. It's the 'sub-duction' I
take issue with. I try to show on my other pages that these zones can
be interpreted in a way that relates directly to the distension of the
continents that we can directly see - not to any supposed 'shove-down'
terminal demise of ocean floor. This puts the accent on the
geological, rather than on the physical/ numerical. All it is (to
me) is a cold slab of frozen mantle with movement and earthquakes on
it. That 'turn-down' is just like a big 'meniscus' of a sort, and the
crust is sitting on/ against it, and even over-riding it. There is
no mechanical difference at the interface (between crust riding over
and mantle pushing under), but there's a *big difference in the larger
tectonic picture ('skating' versus convective overturn - and
implications (or not) for Earth expansion). Question:- if there's no
real tectonic difference at the interface there, why, in the
('scientific') literature, is there not as much discussion of the one
possiblity as the other? Answer? - because if you don't talk
plate-speak, your publication rate goes down - drammatically.
Simple. It would be nice to think that science is what science says
science is about. But it ain't. Even in the way it presents itself,
science is being disingenous. Hence my subversive page. Hope that
explains things.
Keep watching this space.
Cheers,
Don.
don findlay
> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
> >From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.re...@web.de
> >Date: 2/20/03 12:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <b329oc$1gskat$1...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
> >
> >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
> >> spirality of transforms?
> >> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
> >> become a fact?
> >> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
> >
> > What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know
> >that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
> >
> >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
> >> spirality of transforms?
> >
> >As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate
> >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what
> >you mean.
>
> Heck, even those of us for who English is out native language don't understand
> him.
...'for *whom', Stuart, ..for *whom. .....
>
> He doesn't make much sense to us either..
(Better take a seat at the front of the class - and pay more
attention!)
Question for you: if the decay rate of these 'bad elements' of HizNibz
Heat is fastest when there's mostest, why have we had to wait so long
for this 'convection' to get under way? - there are no pre-Mesozoic
ocean foors like we see today (except for maybe a bit in the Archaean,
yet plate tectonics is all about Laurasia, Laurentica and Baltica/
Rodinia - and God (and Pteros)only know how many in Absentia. Plates
(and microplates) all over the place. Indeed. Come on now, what delay
factor do you have to add on to your Taylor Number to explain this one
(plates going on at the surface, without the convection underneath)
when the mantle is like "industrial steel"? What conductivity does
the mantle need to have, to explain this delay? And is it different at
the poles compared to the equatorial region? Is it different in
different shell -layers (multilevel convection)? And if this 'delay'
is par for the course, where are we headed, if things are just
beginning to get up a head of steam? When does Gravity Serious put
the hems on this Hiz fellow?
Not a peep out of you till you answer this one.
Don.
Bigdakine
>From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay)
>Date: 2/20/03 4:29 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <5f164087.03022...@posting.google.com>
>
>bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message
>news:<20030220054946...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>> >From: "Jörg Reichert" jo.re...@web.de
>> >Date: 2/20/03 12:13 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <b329oc$1gskat$1...@ID-45174.news.dfncis.de>
>> >
>> >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
>> >> spirality of transforms?
>> >> 2. When did the assumption of subduction stop being an assumption and
>> >> become a fact?
>> >> 3. Why subduction anyhow, and not over-riding?
>> >
>> > What is your profession? You are a geologist? If its true, then you know
>> >that all the (standard) answers for your questions.
>> >
>> >> 1. Why does plate tectonics ignore the aggregate continuity and
>> >> spirality of transforms?
>> >
>> >As you can read, my english is not the best. Please explain "aggregate
>> >continuity ". Yes, I can translate it, but I think that I don't know what
>> >you mean.
>>
>> Heck, even those of us for who English is out native language don't
>understand
>> him.
>
>...'for *whom', Stuart, ..for *whom. .....
LOL touche'
>>
>> He doesn't make much sense to us either..
>
>(Better take a seat at the front of the class - and pay more
>attention!)
>
OK..
Its Ok if you make up your own excpressions.. but when you do that you must
explain what they mean, instead of leaving us guessing..
>Question for you: if the decay rate of these 'bad elements' of HizNibz
>Heat is fastest when there's mostest, why have we had to wait so long
>for this 'convection' to get under way? -
Convection has been with us since the get go. THe Earth has large stores of
radiogenic power and thermal energy.
there are no pre-Mesozoic
>ocean foors like we see today
(except for maybe a bit in the Archaean,
>yet plate tectonics is all about Laurasia, Laurentica and Baltica/
>Rodinia - and God (and Pteros)only know how many in Absentia. Plates
>(and microplates) all over the place. Indeed. Come on now, what delay
>factor do you have to add on to your Taylor Number to explain this one
>(plates going on at the surface, without the convection underneath)
>when the mantle is like "industrial steel"?
THe argument from personal disbeleif is not a scientific argument.
I'm so sorry you are not interested in learning, but that is your fault.
What conductivity does
>the mantle need to have, to explain this delay?
WHat delay?
Do you claim that because there is no oceanic floor older than 220 million
years, that convection didn't start until then? Funny nobody else thinks that,
and certainly nobody who accepts PT thinks that either.
You can find older crust, its called ophiolite.
I think its about time you've read something written in the last 20 years on
geophysics.
For until you do, watching you argue against plate tectonics is like watching a
one legged man in an butt kicking contest.
<snip>
J. Taylor
(Goldtrend) wrote:
>I guess Ad Hominem attacks are the basis for his scientific discussions.
>Obviously data just gets in the way of off-the-wall geologic models.
Obviously? This thread was about plate tectonics. Which means your
"off-the-wall geologic models" would be in reference to PT. Hard to
imagine, since you have expressed endorsement for PT, or perhaps you
are not paying attention, or maybe you hope those whom read your post
are not, or maybe again, it is an example of the reasoning which lead
you to endorse PT? Or most likely, you think by not paying attention
and poor reasoning you cast dispersions upon some other view!
Also, those whom open with ad hominem arguments, as Stuart frequently
does, have already proved they are an idiot, and while it maybe in
poor taste to point it out, it is none the less a correct assessment.
JT
Bigdakine
>From: J. Taylor jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
>Date: 2/20/03 5:16 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <v35b5vo4u5rbvv3a8...@4ax.com>
>
>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:13:25 GMT, Gold...@golden-nevada.net
>(Goldtrend) wrote:
>
>>I guess Ad Hominem attacks are the basis for his scientific discussions.
>>Obviously data just gets in the way of off-the-wall geologic models.
>
>
>Obviously? This thread was about plate tectonics. Which means your
>"off-the-wall geologic models" would be in reference to PT. Hard to
>imagine, since you have expressed endorsement for PT, or perhaps you
>are not paying attention, or maybe you hope those whom read your post
>are not, or maybe again, it is an example of the reasoning which lead
>you to endorse PT? Or most likely, you think by not paying attention
>and poor reasoning you cast dispersions upon some other view!
>
>Also, those whom open with ad hominem arguments, as Stuart frequently
>does,
ad hominem?
Hardly. I merely point out the obvious.
Goldtrend
Actually JT, I got it right the first time. Instead of providing data or
discussion, you just go off on yet another circle rant.
Goldtrend
In article <v35b5vo4u5rbvv3a8...@4ax.com>, jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
wrote:
Gerard Fryer
J. Taylor <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Or most likely, you think by not paying attention
> and poor reasoning you cast dispersions upon some other view!
I don't get it. Don't all thoughts travel at the same speed?
don findlay
Eagle,
Here's the figure I had in mind re your query on hotspots. The 'data'
here lies in the comparison of the aggregate distribution of the
hotspots (Fig.1) with 'Line 1" in Fig. 2)
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/hotview.html> . ...And of course
the other lines on the /nonsense.html page.
Don.
Good luck, young buddy! Keep an eye on the changing 'data' too.
(You'll be surprised....)
J. Taylor
wrote:
Interesting, seems it would depend upon the definition of thought and
how speed was measure, relative to what.
However, if it is assumed all thought does travel at the same speed,
then the force of impact would depend upon mass. If all thought is
assumed to have the same mass, then penetration would depend upon the
density of the material it impacted.
What were your thoughts?
JT
Bigdakine
>From: Gerard Fryer ger...@hawaii.edu
>Date: 2/20/03 10:45 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <gerard-DF47F3....@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com>
What is the speed of thought?
And does it travel 10BaseT or 100BaseT?
John Hernlund
that ony a very small part of the rocky Earth (mantle + crust) is
molten. The melting temperature increases quite rapidly with depth
(pressure) making melting possible only at a very few select locations:
where the temperature changes very rapidly with depth. This occurs in
two spots in the mantle: just below the lithosphere, where the melts are
generated to produce our crust, and possibly at the very bottom of the
mantle, where seismologists see seismic properties consistent with a
partial melt. In the asthenosphere, where the temperature increase with
depth overcomes the increase in melting temperature with depth solely
due to convection (which ramps of the geothermal gradient there), the
melts are never higher than a few percent, since larger melt fractions
can move in between crystal grains and rise rapidly up to the surface.
Their ability to segregate (i.e. move with respect to the solid
crystalline matrix) is proportional to their density difference as well
as to some power of their total volume fraction.
It is important to note that freezing out of this few percent will have
little effect on the pressure. Actually, the less dense melt contains
the same total amount of mass that the solid does, and this is the more
important thing to consider since gravity is fairly constant in the mantle.
Decompression melting only occurs if it is adiabatic. Adiabatic means
that it is transported quickly enough toward the surface that the heat
inside the material cannot diffuse quickly enough out into the
surrounding mantle material, and so you bring hot material up until it
is above the melting temperature. This is thought to be the primary
mechanism for melting at mid-ocean ridges.
The other thing to note is that a good deal of melting can be produced
by other effects, such as the presence of hydrogen or other volatiles
that lower the melting temperature of mantle materials substantially.
This is thought to be the primary mechanism for producing melt at
subduction zones as water-bearing amphiboles become unstable at higher
pressures and release water into the overlying mantle wedge above the
downgoing slab.
Pressure CAN help produce melting in some special circumstances. This
would require the melt to become more dense than the solid that produces
it, which can be accomplished if the melt is more compressible (squishy)
than the solid crystals at increasing pressures. This is called a
"density crossover" and is known to occur in many substances. We don't
think that this occurs in the asthenosphere of the Earth, however it may
be responsible for melting at the very bottom of the mantle. A while
back some petrologist proposed this happening in the asthenosphere, but
subsequent tests showed this not to be the case.
The last thing to crystallize as the Earth cools depends on many factors
that we don't really know very well. Perhaps the outer liquid core will
crystallize last.
The presence of melt in the asthenosphere may affect the overall
effective fluid viscosity of the material there and help to create
plate-like behavior. It seems that plate tectonics could probably go on
without this effect, but it may change some things in a subtle way. The
thing is that most of the mantle is completely crystalline, but yet it
flows vigorously enough to make most of what we see happen in the plate
tectonic world we live in.
You can find some published estimates of these time scales if you
want...though you may have to read hundreds of papers and do a
significant amount of math to get a number that is not all that
interesting or even certain in the end.
Cheers!
John
eaglecleveland wrote:
> Hi.
> First time posting. So many questions.
>
> If the Earth is losing its remnant heat of formation, then would you say
> that eventually all the magma in the Earth would eventually crystallize?
> But if that happens, the cooler, crystallized rock would be more dense,
> exerting more pressure on the rock below. I am aware that it is
> *depressurization* that causes melting in the asthenosphere, but could some
> melting occur (in my hypoth. situation) due to the addition of pressure?
> (Directly or indirectly)
> Or does the addition of pressure never cause melting?
>
> Also, what would crystallize last? Closer to the surface? or at depth?
> Or, would something else happen at these great pressures?
>
> One last thing, now that we have the Earth crystallized, how would the
> tectonic process be affected? For example, spreading ridges might stop
> spreading. Convergence of plates might continue for a while due to
> slab-pull. This may induce some tensional forces at the trailing margins,
> leading to some rifting, depressurization, and widening (or new) spreading
> zones.
>
> Obviously, the solution would not be simple, and would rely on many factors.
> Is there any (published) estimates out there on how this may happen, and how
> long this all might take?
> Thanks for any thoughts.
> EC
don findlay
> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>
(snip)
>
> WHat delay?
> Do you claim that because there is no oceanic floor older than 220 million
> years, that convection didn't start until then? Funny nobody else thinks that,
> and certainly nobody who accepts PT thinks that either.
Delay? I mean (as I said) that if most radiogenic heat is released at
the start, and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you
get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries)
aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and
ridges? Cite any 'fossil spreading ridge' of the same order of
magnitude of those at the present day.
> You can find older crust, its called ophiolite.
The few yards you're probably referring to won't qualify. Cite an
ophiolite belt of the same order of magnitude as the present-day ocean
floor. The ones you're referring to are more easily incorporated as
gravitational collapse structures, not as 'obducted'sheets, as plate
tectonics would see them.
> I think it's about time you read something written in the last 20 years on
> geophysics. For until you do, watching you argue against plate tectonics is
> like watching a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.
Do you? Question for you then (seeing you're so uppity):- How would
plate tectonics (and the geophysics of the last twenty years) (and
you) modify its position to accommodate extension *along* the the
ridges (as well as across them)?
Don.
(beginning with the spinach)
Bigdakine
>From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay)
>Date: 2/25/03 2:19 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <5f164087.03022...@posting.google.com>
>
>bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message
>news:<20030220214236...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>>
>(snip)
>>
>> WHat delay?
>> Do you claim that because there is no oceanic floor older than 220 million
>> years, that convection didn't start until then? Funny nobody else thinks
>that,
>> and certainly nobody who accepts PT thinks that either.
>
>Delay? I mean (as I said) that if most radiogenic heat is released at
>the start,
The production of radiogeneic heat is controlled by the abundances of
radioactived isotopes and nuclear physics. So yes the Earth was producing more
radiogenic heat and convecting more vigorously in the distant past.
and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you
>get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries)
>aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and
>ridges?
WHy should they be. As usual you're not making much sense. Cratons are a
patchwork of ig-met terranes. If anything they are assembled by subduction
which brings continents togethar, not ridges..
Cite any 'fossil spreading ridge' of the same order of
>magnitude of those at the present day.
I cannot fathom the confusion of mind that would lead you believe that a fossil
ridge is something that should be found.
>
>> You can find older crust, its called ophiolite.
>
>The few yards you're probably referring to won't qualify. Cite an
>ophiolite belt of the same order of magnitude as the present-day ocean
>floor.
Why does it need to be the same order of magntiude as the present ocean floor?
This is waht is known as *moving the goal posts*. You ask for evidence of past
oceanic crust production and you were given it.
The ones you're referring to are more easily incorporated as
>gravitational collapse structures, not as 'obducted'sheets, as plate
>tectonics would see them.
Collapse structures?
Collapse from what?
>
>> I think it's about time you read something written in the last 20 years on
>> geophysics. For until you do, watching you argue against plate tectonics
>is
>> like watching a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.
>
>Do you? Question for you then (seeing you're so uppity):- How would
>plate tectonics (and the geophysics of the last twenty years) (and
>you) modify its position to accommodate extension *along* the the
>ridges (as well as across them)?
If you referring to ridges growing along strike, this is called *propagating
rifts*. Funny, but there is no problem incorporating them into PT, they are an
expected consequence.
Google *propagating rift*. Google is your friend.
Bigdakine
>From: bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
>Date: 2/25/03 9:23 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030225142344...@mb-ch.aol.com>
initiated, but then stoppedf. If this were to happen in a continental interior,
you'd have something like the African rift (although that is still rifting but
rather slowly). In this case the rift is much, much younger than the African
cratons, and presumably not what you mean by *fossil rift*. Another example may
be found in the Indus basin, but again the rift is much younger than the
basement rocks.
If this is what you mean, then yes, there are *fossil rifts* although they are
usually called *failed rifts*.. If you mean rifts that date from the formation
of continental cratons, than no. Not to my knowledge
You don't expect to find much fossil oceanic floor; oceanic lithosphere as it
is ages becomes gravitationally unstable. As such it doesn't last long on the
surface, only ~200 myr. THis is why fossil oceanic crust aka ophiolite, is
rare.
don findlay
> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
> > So yes the Earth was producing more
> >radiogenic heat and convecting more vigorously in the distant past.
> >
> >
> > and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you
> >>get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries)
> >>aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and
> >>ridges?
> >
> >WHy should they be. As usual you're not making much sense. Cratons are a
> >patchwork of ig-met terranes. If anything they are assembled by subduction
> >which brings continents togethar, not ridges..
Well that's the point... .... Convection makes ridges, transforms
and subduction zones. So far as we see at the present day (weak
convection) the action has been to pull the Earth apart to the extent
of two thirds of its surface area (and just look at those ridges, and
all those transforms). In the past (so far as plate tectonics would
have it) the action (strong convection) has been to *pull all the
continents (floaties) together. What happened though, where they got
'pulled apart' *from? Why do we see no evidence of it, in a form such
as we see the pulling apart at the present day? The question doesn't
just apply to cratons either by the way, but to every age since.
(The answer of course is that it didn't happen, because Plate
Tectonics is a furphy). Oh it did? But everyone knows it's daft to
look for evidence of it? ..because by definition the evidence is
destroyed? ( At least faeries leave a ring of toadstools?) Immaculate
plate tectonics eh?
> > Cite any 'fossil spreading ridge' of the same order of
> >>magnitude of those at the present day.
> >
> >I cannot fathom the confusion of mind that would lead you believe that a
> >fossil
> >ridge is something that should be found.
No fossil ones? What about an active one then? Any ridge at all
will do. Come up with some real ridgie-didge field-evidence for plate
tectonics in the past. A plate, a ridge, a 'transform' - anything.
....One plate, mate - it's all ever been ..one 'plate', ...with
tectonics on it (but that's not what plate tectonics means, does it,
yet, ...though that's the direction the GPS is pointing - one plate in
rotational expansional rupture
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/madagascar.html#platemov>
> What you could conceivably find is a *failed rift*, a place where spreading
> initiated, but then stoppedf. If this were to happen in a continental interior,
> you'd have something like the African rift (although that is still rifting but
> rather slowly). In this case the rift is much, much younger than the African
> cratons, and presumably not what you mean by *fossil rift*. Another example may
> be found in the Indus basin, but again the rift is much younger than the
> basement rocks.
>
> If this is what you mean, then yes, there are *fossil rifts* although they are
> usually called *failed rifts*.. If you mean rifts that date from the formation
> of continental cratons, than no. Not to my knowledge
No, I don't want failed rifts. I want to see evidence of continental
separation (not just subsidence) in as much detail as we see supposed
evidence of continents coming together (mountain belts supposedly).
> You don't expect to find much fossil oceanic floor; oceanic lithosphere as it
> is ages becomes gravitationally unstable. As such it doesn't last long on the
> surface, only ~200 myr. THis is why fossil oceanic crust aka ophiolite, is
> rare.
Aww, Stuart.! C'mon, ..So, and replaced what with? Rolling over
and so to bed? - with all the floaties getting dragged over the top,
like blankets? Whose are the feet sticking out of the bottom, on
this constant-sized bed? "Rare", that's the point (scale problem).
Propagating rifts:- No I didn't mean 'propagating rifts/ ridges'
actually (or 'duelling propagating rifts') but since you've raised
them it's a rather delicious point that plate tectonics has to
'invent' (or 'discover' - mid-nineties - just 30-40 years late...)
that the ridges actually do have to spread along their length (however
in true fashion it's screwed that one up too, as far as 'how' is
concerned.). In Earth expansion it's an obvious prediction that this
would be the case - ridges have to extend along their length as well
as across them. I would have thought it's pretty clear from the
configuration on the ocean floors that 'propagating ridges' are just a
trick of section, ...just simply represent the breakthrough of a lower
stratum of the mantle, like a whale breaking water off its back. But
no, ... I meant that if it could be shown that ridges extend along the
'body' of their length (not propagate from their supposed head/ tip),
how would that affect plate tectonics? ( I don't see anyhow, as far
as I understand your notions of heat uplift of ridges, how, in the
dynamics of so-called 'propagating tips' you can avoid the notion of
breakthrough of a lower layer. And if you think about that, there
are, shall we say, funny implications for plate tectonics. If, on the
other hand, we take it as it seems to read (or animate)
<http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~hey/juan.html> it doesn't make a heck of
any sense, when you look at it in the context of the seamounts all
the way to Alaska, or the interdigitation of 'oblique' with 'regular'
transforms, and it doesn't fit with the standard plate tectonic model
(quote) :- "...The competing school said plate tectonics did not work
in this area where the young Juan de Fuca plate was converging with
and being subducted under the North American plate, and this was the
scale where rigid plate tectonics broke down, with the faults
resulting from this deformation." (unquote). So anyhow, no, I didn't
mean propagating rifts at the head - I meant bone implants in the
shins. Looking for an answer on that one - lengthwise ridge spreading
- not propagation.
Don.
PS. This is all about boudinage you know - extension of multilayered
assemblages. Writ large, in the field (of the ocean floor). If you
google your wee friend on that one, you can get in a bit of practice
for the next topic.
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <5f164087.03022...@posting.google.com>
>
>bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message
>news:<20030225144227...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>> > So yes the Earth was producing more
>> >radiogenic heat and convecting more vigorously in the distant past.
>> >
>> >
>> > and if the present-day spreading is an example of what you
>> >>get 4 or so billion years down the track, why (forgetting faeries)
>> >>aren't the interiors of continents just full of ocean floors and
>> >>ridges?
>> >
>> >WHy should they be. As usual you're not making much sense. Cratons are a
>> >patchwork of ig-met terranes. If anything they are assembled by subduction
>> >which brings continents togethar, not ridges..
>
>Well that's the point... .... Convection makes ridges, transforms
>and subduction zones. So far as we see at the present day (weak
>convection) the action has been to pull the Earth apart to the extent
>of two thirds of its surface area (and just look at those ridges, and
>all those transforms). In the past (so far as plate tectonics would
>have it) the action (strong convection) has been to *pull all the
>continents (floaties) together.
The evidence suggest the continents were assembled into super-continents
several times in the past.
What happened though, where they got
>'pulled apart' *from? Why do we see no evidence of it, in a form such
>as we see the pulling apart at the present day?
Good grief.. African rift for example.
<more strawmen snipped>
TO bad you refuse to educate yourself.. Before you criticize a theory, you
should make an honet attempt to undertand it first.
You haven't done so. I have given you references, you refuse to read them.
Until you do, you're still that proverbial one legged man in a butt kicking
contest.
don findlay
Suggests? ....But... But,... M'lud. ...?M'lud,
> What happened though, where they got
> >'pulled apart' *from? Why do we see no evidence of it, in a form such
> >as we see the pulling apart at the present day?
>
> Good grief.. African rift for example.
Yeah, ..what about the African rift? Is it a failed rift? A rift
precursor yet to open? Or a failed back-arc basin over a defunct
subduction zone? The beauty of Plate tectonics is such you need a
paper bag and half light.
> <more strawmen snipped>
>
> TO bad you refuse to educate yourself.. Before you criticize a theory, you
> should make an honet attempt to undertand it first.
Criticise a theory? You mean a legless crutch?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/subduction.html
> You haven't done so. I have given you references, you refuse to read them.
If this 'theory' built on 'the suggestion of evidence' would give
credible explanations for the fundamental points detailed on the
/nonsense.html page (link above), which PT conveniently omits together
with explanations for extension along the *length of the ridges other
than the ludicrous 'duelling propagations', I might consider it, but
if that's the best PT can do with good field evidence (try to
reconfigure it with a computer simulation), frankly I wouldn't bother
with anything more than passing admiration for the inventiveness of
Clever Dick. To me, it has little relevance to the field evidence.
> Until you do, you're still that proverbial one legged man in a butt kicking
> contest.
So, you think that rift propagation deserves serious attention
(despite the controversy noted on that link you scrubbed as a strawman
<http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/~hey/juan.html> - what have you got
against Hawaii?), ... but you would rather not comment how propagating
rifts fit with the architecture of convection? Well, your wee
googlie friend doesn't have much to say on it either, so it seems to
be another of those plate tectonic 'mushrooms'.
....And you think that extension *along the ridges is a straw man too?
You have nothing to say? Stu, you're going to need those shin
implants. But never mind, once you get them you can throw plate
tectonics away. It's only only baggage anyway. I bet somebody
somewhere is already writing up its obituary for publication in
History of Philosophy of Science.
Don.
Bigdakine
But what? There's little doubt as to Pangea, and Rodinia is also pretty weel
supported.
Google is your friend
>
>> What happened though, where they got
>> >'pulled apart' *from? Why do we see no evidence of it, in a form such
>> >as we see the pulling apart at the present day?
>>
>> Good grief.. African rift for example.
>
>Yeah, ..what about the African rift? Is it a failed rift?
Not exactly, its actively spreading at something like 3mm/yr
http://www.platetectonics.com/article.asp?a=50&c=3
A rift
>precursor yet to open?
it has opened. It has not yet spread far enough to open up a new ocean basin.
Or a failed back-arc basin over a defunct
>subduction zone?
Doubtlful.
The beauty of Plate tectonics is such you need a
>paper bag and half light.
Interesting.
You asked for an example of rift breaking up a continent. The mechanism is
quite irrelevant.
You were supplied with one.
Amazing the lengths some people go through to avoid honestly dealing with data.
<rest snipped>
J. Taylor
Yep an "A" for imagination, to bad their curiosity does not extend to
explanation which work in the real world.
Would still like to know how one plate can move, due to spreading,
which then forces the other plates to adjust their position, can have
convection, welling up from hundreds of miles below the surface, be
able to hit dead center the other ridges. It is even more amazing
when the ridge is extensively fractured.
It is amazing because it would require the movement in this plate to
match the movement along all of its edge. Otherwise, one should see
the fractures going one direction then the other, depending upon which
plate moved them.
However, if this happened, then there would be variations in the age
gradient of the ocean crust. Of course, this is not happening, so how
is it the ridges keep getting hit in the center when the other plates
are suppose to be able to move them so they all can migrate to the
subduction zones?
JT
Goldtrend
Spreading centers (ridges) are plate margins! As new seafloor is created at
the spreading center, old, cold seafloor is subducted on the other. They are
not passively riding on a plate, they are the edge of a plate where new
material is being added.
As for the age gradient, 0 to 200 my years is a pretty substantial gradient,
especially for a dynamic (not static) system that is constantly convecting new
material to the surface, and subducting the old. Thew isotopic signature of
carbon in diamonds is pretty good evidence subduction has been an active part
of earth's history for a minimum of 3 billion years.
Goldtrend
In article <037r5v09ks8ls27va...@4ax.com>, jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
wrote:
don findlay
> You asked for an example of rift breaking up a continent. The mechanism is
> quite irrelevant.
Really? You mean this African Rift could be due to something other
than Radioactive Archimedes/ dynamic lifting/ magmatic forcing/
slabpull/ ridgepush... What pray? Could it have something to do with
the SEPARATION OF MADAGASCAR from its SOUTHERN POSITION?
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/madagascar.html>
>
> You were supplied with one.
I got that one already. It's part of the one that goes all the way
around and around and up and down. I want plate tectonics to show me
an earlier one of equal magnitude - either a ridge in some continental
interior - i.e. not a 'failed rift' but one that actually made it to
ridge status, just like our darling of the present day, or, if this is
closed, the corollary orifice round the other side. Come on now, they
can't both be closed at once. Nobody will buy that one!
> Amazing the lengths some people go through to avoid honestly dealing with data.
What some people? Dealing honestly with the data here:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p1-page1.html> (No-one has yet
contradicted any point made.) By comparison we've got Sister Fatima
of the Tafetta Booth with her crystal ball doing pirouettes by the
dozen, fighting off people wanting money back by the score, and still
thinking if she just flashes her subduction zone everyone will "Wow!"
and settle down. Stu, something New is Needed! Don't you get it? A
whole new ball game for a whole new Century! This *is* science in
action. Read all about it in forthcoming issues at the above link.
Don.
J. Taylor
(Goldtrend) wrote:
>Or, JT you could attempt to understand the model you are trying to riducule.
What is there to understand about the model? There is only one
question, does it represent the Earth or not. The model is suppose to
be the tool by which we gain understanding of the Earth.
If the model itself needs to be understood, then the most likely
conclusion, the model is not clearly developed. Kind of like the
drawings of a first grader where it is difficult to tell what they
have drawn.
>Spreading centers (ridges) are plate margins! As new seafloor is created at
>the spreading center, old, cold seafloor is subducted on the other.
The other what? Not every plate has a subduction zone on at least one
edge.
S1-------- R1 ------- R2 ---------- S2 (S1,2 subduction, R1,2 ridge)
Which means spreading at R1 will need to be all subducted at S1, or it
will cause R2 to move. If R2 moves then the center of the ridge is no
longer over what was below. Over time R2 is moved hundreds, if not
thousands of miles from its location in the past. Yet, the age
gradient does not show the spreading was ever at any other point than
dead center of the ridge.
>They are
>not passively riding on a plate, they are the edge of a plate where new
>material is being added.
>
>As for the age gradient, 0 to 200 my years is a pretty substantial gradient,
>especially for a dynamic (not static) system that is constantly convecting new
>material to the surface, and subducting the old.
Here is the age gradient recorded in the ocean's crust.
200 - 150 - 100 - 50 - 0 - 50 - 100 - 150 - 200
If the ridge moves without telling the convection cells below, it
seems the age gradient would be less "uniform"
200 - 50 -0 - 50 - 100 - 50 - 200
>Thew isotopic signature of
>carbon in diamonds is pretty good evidence subduction has been an active part
>of earth's history for a minimum of 3 billion years.
And if a constant rate of subduction is assumed of 200my 3/4 of the
Earth's crust is sucked down each time, then
3 x 10^9 / 2 x 10^8 * .75 = 11.25 surfaces of the Earth have been
placed and removed.
Of course, this assumes a constant rate based on the present, the rate
would be much faster with a hotter Earth.
Since land plants did not appear until about half way into the
Paleozoic, erosion rates would be different than today, but today's
rate is estimated at about 25-40my to erode the continents down to sea
level if no material is returned. Since the continents are still
here, material seems to be returned. Africa does not appear to have
had a subduction zone for 200my, which would be a means of recycling
material. If the erosion rate 25my then it would have eroded 8 times
to sea level in 200my. If 40my then 5.
The point, what ever the erosion rate, it all flows down hill and
needs to be put back up if the cycle is to continue. Since subduction
zones are located in a few locations what is keeping the cycle going
on the continents without subduction zones?
JT
Goldtrend
>
>What is there to understand about the model? There is only one
>question, does it represent the Earth or not. The model is suppose to
>be the tool by which we gain understanding of the Earth.
>
>If the model itself needs to be understood, then the most likely
>conclusion, the model is not clearly developed. Kind of like the
>drawings of a first grader where it is difficult to tell what they
>have drawn.
More Sophistry, no content.
>
>>Spreading centers (ridges) are plate margins! As new seafloor is created at
>>the spreading center, old, cold seafloor is subducted on the other.
>
>The other what? Not every plate has a subduction zone on at least one
>edge.
>
>S1-------- R1 ------- R2 ---------- S2 (S1,2 subduction, R1,2 ridge)
>
>Which means spreading at R1 will need to be all subducted at S1, or it
>will cause R2 to move. If R2 moves then the center of the ridge is no
>longer over what was below. Over time R2 is moved hundreds, if not
>thousands of miles from its location in the past.
No
Yet, the age
>gradient does not show the spreading was ever at any other point than
>dead center of the ridge.
>
>>They are
>>not passively riding on a plate, they are the edge of a plate where new
>>material is being added.
>>
>>As for the age gradient, 0 to 200 my years is a pretty substantial gradient,
>>especially for a dynamic (not static) system that is constantly convecting new
>
>>material to the surface, and subducting the old.
>
>Here is the age gradient recorded in the ocean's crust.
>
>200 - 150 - 100 - 50 - 0 - 50 - 100 - 150 - 200
>
>If the ridge moves without telling the convection cells below, it
>seems the age gradient would be less "uniform"
Seeing as you continue to have trouble understanding ridge dynamics your
supposition is false to begin with.
>
>200 - 50 -0 - 50 - 100 - 50 - 200
>
>>Thew isotopic signature of
>>carbon in diamonds is pretty good evidence subduction has been an active part
>>of earth's history for a minimum of 3 billion years.
>
>And if a constant rate of subduction is assumed of 200my 3/4 of the
>Earth's crust is sucked down each time, then
>3 x 10^9 / 2 x 10^8 * .75 = 11.25 surfaces of the Earth have been
>placed and removed.
Actually, subduction rates probably were higher during the Archean. A lot of
seafloor has been recycled. Carbon isotope data supports the long term
dynamic PT on earth.
>
>Of course, this assumes a constant rate based on the present, the rate
>would be much faster with a hotter Earth.
>
>Since land plants did not appear until about half way into the
>Paleozoic, erosion rates would be different than today, but today's
>rate is estimated at about 25-40my to erode the continents down to sea
>level if no material is returned.
Sorry, I have seen estimated erosion rates, I have never seen erosion rates
expressed as X million years to erode things to sea level, especially as
Isotasy will keep continents rising until they reach equilibrium with the
denser mantle. As the system is dynamic, the continents will never reach a
permanent equilibrium as long as convection continues (essentially projected
for the remaining life of the solar system). As a sidelight portions of the
Northern continents are rising today, as rebound from the glacial ice sheets
and the rise can be measured in cms./century. Your contention would only be
valid in a static system.
I hope this brightens your day!
Goldtrend
J. Taylor
(Goldtrend) wrote:
>In article <9q7s5voctbse6vfg0...@4ax.com>, jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net wrote:
>
>>
>>What is there to understand about the model? There is only one
>>question, does it represent the Earth or not. The model is suppose to
>>be the tool by which we gain understanding of the Earth.
>>
>>If the model itself needs to be understood, then the most likely
>>conclusion, the model is not clearly developed. Kind of like the
>>drawings of a first grader where it is difficult to tell what they
>>have drawn.
>
>More Sophistry, no content.
Maybe you can enlighten all by proving your statement! Let s see if
you know what you are talking about or just a pretender.
JT
Goldtrend
Hit a nerve, JT?
I could spend days going over basic geologic concepts or you could take a
geology 101 course and save us all the bandwidth.
Isostasy: Pretty basic concept, available in most geology 101 texts
Isotopic signature: You may need a 301 level text. A sub population of
diamonds show a skewed abundance of light C-12 relative to promitive earth and
meteorite concentrations. This skewing towards light carbon is indicative of
organic processes. As the diamonds are found in Archean kimberlites that have
picked up the diamonds from the mantle, they are evidence that a) life started
on earth early in the history of the planet, and b) as no evidence has been
found for mantle environment life, the carbon in the diamonds came from near
surface organic sources, and was cycled into the mantle. Ages for the
diamonds are based on inclusions in the diamonds, and the kimberlite pipes
themselves.
As there is evidence for PT ( a potential for a long discourse on komatiitic
volcanism) since Archean time, and the theory and observation (yes I said
theory) has only been seriously looked at for <50 years, there is work to do
yet, and not all potential plate interactions are necessarily active today.
Ultimately, in a dynamic system, where you have two spreading centers, located
above convection cells, when the stress on the intervening plate becomes
sufficent, a new subduction zone is likely to form between the two spreading
centers. Examples today may be found around the Bismark sea, a rather
complicated area that is an area of active research.
Have a great Day!
Goldtrend
In article <8oct5v4dfrf9r41ik...@4ax.com>, jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
wrote:
don findlay
> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
> You don't expect to find much fossil oceanic floor; oceanic lithosphere as it
> is ages becomes gravitationally unstable. As such it doesn't last long on the
> surface, only ~200 myr. THis is why fossil oceanic crust aka ophiolite, is
> rare.
Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the
Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be
incorporated into the geological record of continental crust. You
would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to
include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
...Anyhow, if the point of cooling at mid-ocean ridges is to **achieve
gravitational stability, what is it about 'time' that makes the ocean
floor gravitationally *unstable? Does Einstein get a mention here as
well as Archimedes? Why the big 'flat' bit on the graph? Why doesn't
it just *keep sinking directly off the ridges? Why does it have to
flatten off and wait till it meets this knee-bend of the subduction
zone?
And please explain the leger de main that shoves ophiolites *up on to
the crust, when it is ocean floor and the impetus of ocean floor
(being "gravitationally unstable" is to sink. Is the mantle having a
last thermal hurrah, before descending? Is there a bend in time as
well as the mantle, - Or what?
D.
(Clever Dick Plate Tectonics might be a good idea to some, but it's
incorrigibly dumb when matching it to the essential field points.
Which of course is why it is so appealing to some - it allows *them to
speak - instead of the Earth.)
J. Taylor
(Goldtrend) wrote:
>
>Hit a nerve, JT?
Hit a nerve? Hardly! If you would leave some continuity in the post
it maybe possible to show where you make statements which undermine
your contention of knowing what you are talking about.
You start by stating, if I took time to understand the model, to which
I replied, the point to making a model is so what is being modeled can
be understood, and if the model itself needs to be understood, then
the model is not clearly developed, to which you reply sophistry, to
which I reply prove it, since sophistry is about giving the appearance
of being plausible, but is an invalid argument, since the conclusion
does not follow from the premise, to which you have conveniently
avoided.
Maybe you think models of models need to be made, so we can understand
the model, not whether it actually represents anything.
The problem here is you would like me to accept your reasoning, but
make declarative statement where you demonstrate fundamental errors
about knowing anything about the words you use concerning reasoning.
>
>I could spend days going over basic geologic concepts or you could take a
>geology 101 course and save us all the bandwidth.
I am sure you can, but based on your reasoning nothing more would be
known than how you think.
Any way, what I am sure of is this is all lost on you. The true waste
of bandwidth.
JT
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <5f164087.03022...@posting.google.com>
>
>bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message
>news:<20030225144227...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>
>
>> You don't expect to find much fossil oceanic floor; oceanic lithosphere as
>it
>> is ages becomes gravitationally unstable. As such it doesn't last long on
>the
>> surface, only ~200 myr. THis is why fossil oceanic crust aka ophiolite, is
>> rare.
>
>Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the
>Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be
>incorporated into the geological record of continental crust.
And some of it is. What more do you want?
You
>would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to
>include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
Why? An ocean basin subducts as continental masses approach each other. I'm not
sure why you would routinely expect oceanic crust to be exposed in this
process. One of the more recent collisions is India -Asia. Good luck finding
oceanic crust there.
>
>...Anyhow, if the point of cooling at mid-ocean ridges is to **achieve
>gravitational stability,
Cooling at mid-ocean ridges isn't to acheive anything. It happens. THe cooling
of oceanic lithosphere is a mechanism by which the Earth releases its internal
heat. Furthermore, cooling doesn't just occur at the ridges, although that is
where the heat flow is most intense.
what is it about 'time' that makes the ocean
>floor gravitationally *unstable?
Cooling. As a result of the cooling it becomes denser.
Does Einstein get a mention here as
>well as Archimedes?
Err no. Should he?
> Why the big 'flat' bit on the graph?
What flat bit? What graph?
Why doesn't
>it just *keep sinking directly off the ridges?
Why should it sink directly off the ridges? Have you ever observed the process
of convection?
Why does it have to
>flatten off and wait till it meets this knee-bend of the subduction
>zone?
THe lithosphere has a substantially greater viscosity then the mantle below it,
it in effect traps buoyancy. The viscosity of the lithosphere has an important
effect on the wavelength of convection.
>
>And please explain the leger de main that shoves ophiolites *up on to
>the crust, when it is ocean floor and the impetus of ocean floor
>(being "gravitationally unstable" is to s
Is the mantle having a
>last thermal hurrah, before descending?
No. I suspect this happens on occasion when relatively young lithosphere clogs
up a subduction zone. Some of the crustal layers get shaved off.
<snip>
Goldtrend
sophistry. In the unedited, uncut message below, not a single word has to do
with this thread, or the geology discussed in the previous post. You are
guilty of doing exactly what you accuse other people of doing, avoiding
substantive discussion or supporting your own arguments.
While PT is a theory, it does a good job of explaining many of the features we
observe on earth and is a good predictive model. By the same token relativity
is only a theory, but as a predictive model, it works very well.
I cited several observations that support PT. You haven't addressed any of
them. I have yet to hear any observations cited that either a) support an
alternative that is as good or better at explaing earth's features or b) put a
dent in PT. While it is always a good thing to kick the tires periodically, I
have yet to hear anything that is a viable alternative. When you come up with
one that fits the data, and doesn't either violate laws of physics, or invent
new laws, I want to hear it.
Enjoy your weekend!
Goldtrend
In article <j3506vodmr3t5acmu...@4ax.com>, jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
wrote:
J. Taylor
(Goldtrend) wrote:
Look you have already proven you do not know what you are talking
about, the giving of evidence phase is closed. However, if you would
like to show you can think, please post again.
JT
don findlay
> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
> >From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay)
> >Date: 2/28/03 3:29 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <5f164087.03022...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message
> >news:<20030225144227...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
> >> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
> >
> >
> >> You don't expect to find much fossil oceanic floor; oceanic lithosphere as
> it
> >> is ages becomes gravitationally unstable. As such it doesn't last long on
> the
> >> surface, only ~200 myr. THis is why fossil oceanic crust aka ophiolite, is
> >> rare.
> >
> >Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the
> >Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be
> >incorporated into the geological record of continental crust.
>
> And some of it is. What more do you want?
BIG MOBS
>
> You
> >would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to
> >include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
>
> Why? An ocean basin subducts as continental masses approach each other.
What has 'approach' got to do with anything if subduction's a matter
of cooling? Asia and the Americas are the two biggest continents with
the only bit of 'subduction' worth mentioning - and they are moving
*away* from each other. What you mean is, *oceanic crust * (whether
there's a continent involved sitting on the top piggibacked along for
the ride is immaterial) has to meet a *subduction **zone*. But this
is tectonically, not thermally, defined, ...in which case cooling has
nothing to do with anything 'subductional' .
I'm not
> sure why you would routinely expect oceanic crust to be exposed in this
> process.
I would expect oceanic crust to be exposed 'round the back'. Plate
tectonics wants *all the continents to be on the *same side of the
Earth *all the time, either being pulled apart or scrunched together.
It doesn't allow that continents on one side can be breaking up (l;ike
the Red Sea) at the same time as other continents on the other side
are being pushed together (the 'pushing' which also develops the
pulling apart of back-arc basins) - not when it comes to taking field
evidence into account anyway. And I would expect these bits of ocean
floor in the 'round-the-back' pull-apart zones would get caught up in
the 'rumple-cloth mountain belts' that PT envisages. (Why don't
gabbroic intrusions sink when they cool, dragging the crust down with
them? )
> One of the more recent collisions is India -Asia.
India- Asia collision. Funny (when considering the field evidence
rather than political correctness) that a lot of Asians favour
gravitational collapse of the Himalayas over India. Plate tectonics
likes the collision model but in the part of the world where mountain
belts are biggest, bestest, and mostest, collision seems to be
regarded as something of an abberation. The further away you get
form it the more it falls into focus I suppose ("far- field
tectonics").
> Good luck finding oceanic crust there.
That's right (ophiolites, ..the bits of uplifting mantle collapsing
over the craton)
> >...Anyhow, if the point of cooling at mid-ocean ridges is to **achieve
> >gravitational stability,
>
> Cooling at mid-ocean ridges isn't to acheive anything. It happens. THe cooling
> of oceanic lithosphere is a mechanism by which the Earth releases its internal
> heat. Furthermore, cooling doesn't just occur at the ridges, although that is
> where the heat flow is most intense.
No, that's the point. If cooling is going on all over the ocean
floors why don't we get a subduction zone when it's just 'cool
enough', rather than have to wait till it supposedly reaches a
continent before genuflecting? Because it's being pushed from
behind (ridge-push)? Then why isn't it pushed up into mountain belts
on the way? The ocean floors are relatively soft and ductile and
should contort nicely, but apparently the idea is that this soft stuff
has got tractional force enough to use a battering ram of a continent
to do the job for it - and all the way from the Himalayan front to
northernmost Russia! Without itself even showing a hint of distorsion.
<snipped>
> > Why the big 'flat' bit on the graph?
>
> What flat bit? What graph?
The time/ cooling graph writ large as the oceans floors - from the
ridges down the slope, and on to the flat bit of the ocean floors,
then a.a..aall the way to the nearest continent, where there might (or
might not) be a subduction zone).
> Why doesn't
> >it just *keep sinking directly off the ridges?
>
> Why should it sink directly off the ridges? Have you ever observed the process
> of convection?
Yes, and it's remarkable the swirling that can go on underneath a
completely still, undisturbed surface. ... Hardly an analogue for
mountain building. What do the numbers say about how surface tension
scales up in this case?
> Why does it have to
> >flatten off and wait till it meets this knee-bend of the subduction
> >zone?
>
> THe lithosphere has a substantially greater viscosity then the mantle below it,
> it in effect traps buoyancy. The viscosity of the lithosphere has an important
> effect on the wavelength of convection.
"Traps buoyancy"? Isn't this having your cake and eating it
(swirling convection beneath a still surface)?
> >And please explain the leger de main that shoves ophiolites *up on to
> >the crust, when it is ocean floor and the impetus of ocean floor
> >(being "gravitationally unstable" is to s
>
> Is the mantle having a
> >last thermal hurrah, before descending?
>
>
> No. I suspect this happens on occasion when relatively young lithosphere clogs
> up a subduction zone. Some of the crustal layers get shaved off.
I thought subduction was supposed to be a smoothly oiled machine. If
there are forces making it 'clog up' at all, it would be expected to
happen Big Time now and then. It's a bit ad hoc compared to the
alternative model of gravitational collapse.
Don.
J. Taylor
<snip>
>>
>>
>> No. I suspect this happens on occasion when relatively young lithosphere clogs
>> up a subduction zone. Some of the crustal layers get shaved off.
>
>I thought subduction was supposed to be a smoothly oiled machine. If
>there are forces making it 'clog up' at all, it would be expected to
>happen Big Time now and then. It's a bit ad hoc compared to the
>alternative model of gravitational collapse.
>Don.
>
Would not the subduction zones have to plug up? Otherwise, how was it
possible all the continents were pushed together to form the super
continent.
And if subduction zones plug up, what happens to spreading in the mean
time? This really places a constraint upon the system since
subduction is already over worked and in only a few locations in the
world.
Can imagine the ocean crust's shock to travel for 200my, only to find
the exit closed.
JT
Goldtrend
JT, again, all invective, no substance in your response. All I have proved is
that you love to throw around rhetoric, but you are weak on substance. I'm
ready to discuss geology and exchange ideas when you are.
Have a great weekend!
Goldtrend
In article <a5j06vocb2ug6ep8f...@4ax.com>, jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
wrote:
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <5f164087.03030...@posting.google.com>
>
>bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message
>news:<20030228225459...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>> >From: d...@tower.net.au (don findlay)
>> >Date: 2/28/03 3:29 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <5f164087.03022...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message
>> >news:<20030225144227...@mb-ch.aol.com>...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>> >
>> >
>> >> You don't expect to find much fossil oceanic floor; oceanic lithosphere
>as
>> it
>> >> is ages becomes gravitationally unstable. As such it doesn't last long
>on
>> the
>> >> surface, only ~200 myr. THis is why fossil oceanic crust aka ophiolite,
>is
>> >> rare.
>> >
>> >Doesn't last long at the surface? 200my )(nearly 300 if you could the
>> >Permian slices (and why shouldn't you)is a fair slice of time to be
>> >incorporated into the geological record of continental crust.
>>
>> And some of it is. What more do you want?
>
>BIG MOBS
TO bad.
You can't always get what you want. Especially if the theory doesn't predict
that.
>>
>> You
>> >would expect the 'consolidated architecture of new continent' to
>> >include some, and expose it in uplifts in the next 'collision'.
>>
>> Why? An ocean basin subducts as continental masses approach each other.
You know Don, much of what you write below can be answered by a geo sophomore.
And much of it has already been explained to you, and to no avail.
There is really no point in continuing a discussion with you, when you refuse
to bring yourself up to date.
For you, PT is a black box, for the rest of his who *actually* understand it,
it is a well-supported theory.
When you have read books, like "Behavior of the Earth" by Allegre or Seismology
and Plate Tectonics by Gubbins or preytell even a few chapters of Mantle
Convection by Schubert, Trucotte and Olson..
then we can have a meaningful discussion.
C. Alan Peyton
"Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
news:20030301144858...@mb-fc.aol.com...
drink it. Especially when he has his mind in a vise. We both have tried to
make the imbiciles realize that PT is a result of decades of thinking how
the continents of this Earth are how the way they are. I am about out of
this discussion until some of these hardheads realize that the mechanism of
movement of the materials on the surface are a result of interEarthal
convection and that subduction does exist, as is portrayed at all of the
areas of the Earth, such as the various deep troughs around the globe. I
once was responsible for shooting a seismic line across the Philippine
trough, guess what? It was deep and the subducting plate went out of sight
at a time of 7 seconds. Recording 7 seconds in the early 80's was quite a
feat. Imagine that. I have also had my crews shoot across subduction areas
(zones). Very, very noticable with seismic in the northern part of the
South China Sea. So good, our Chief Geologist went on to deliver courses on
PT and these were some of his examples.
Alan
don findlay
> >Subject: Re: Earth Cooling.
>
>
Well, that's *exactly* the point. You've hit it on the nail. These
are precisely the sorts of questions that shoolchildren *do ask, but
the answers they get (and give back) are *exactly the ones you give,
which have nothing to do with geology, but just refer to the model
that is supposed to describe it. Which is the point JT is making:
answers to questions about models are supposed to be found in the
geology - not in further descriptions of the model itself. All your
answers revolve around cooling and buoyancy, and flow rates and
ductility, and so forth. If the theory sounds fine to some, it
certainly doesn't wash when it comes to relating to actual geology,
...not without huge discrepancies, conundrums, and outright
contradictions. These are even held by plate tectonics as a virtue,
demonstrating that work needs to be done "to further consolidate the
model" and so extend its authority - on the basis that "what you get
is what you pay for" maybe. The reality is, that answers to
so-called 'difficult questions' are usually pretty simple, providing
the right questions are asked to begin with, but plate tectonics
offers only convolutions. The so-called 'predictiveness' of plate
tectonics is only to the degree that it is so flung-about and
serendipity in relation to geological connection that any ad hoc
adjustment to it can be easily made. It's like the days of the
geocentric system (epicyles), no matter how much is built on it, the
fundamental assumption remains rubbish. And geologically speaking the
fundamental assumption is subduction (i.e. carrying down by
convection), versus 'overriding; or otherwise contact deformation on
the Benioff. Geological support for plate tectonics is contrived and
co-erced, eternally throwing up still more 'areas-for-research' (read
"problems" - John Hernlund saying a bit back he (starry-eyed groupie)
could go on for a year reciting evermore as if this was laudable, when
to my mind a good model presents the research community with something
of a problem - what to do for an encore, ...not an opportunity for
further diversification within the paradigm. The exchanges you've
had with Dennis McCarthy well illustrate the way that the theory and
the facts talk past each other. Plate tectonics theory can't be
faulted within its own incestuous convectional reference frame, but
face it with the geological record and it resorts to transparent
absurdites (e.g.'duelling propagators' - you have to wonder whether a
lot of that stuff is written tongue-in-cheek in a need for
publish-and-be- damned). The Mesozoic to the present *is
substantially different from what has gone before in that it is by far
the most volcanically active period of the Earth's history (possibly
with the exception of the early Archaean), manifest in the creation of
ocean floors as we know them today, i.e. floored by basalt, not seas
floored by continental crust. From the viewpoint of the geological
record this volcanism *is exceptional. However from plate tectonics
theory point of view, it is not exceptional in the least - the
evidence for it has simply been destroyed, ...doesn't exist. Well,
anyone can see the difference between Geological Record speaking, and
Clever Dick.
So who do we believe in this dialogue? A whole new lexicon is being
developed, as if the answer lies in understanding a whole new geology
- convection and ocean floors. In that order. At first-order
scales, ocean floors are pretty simple - what you see is what you get,
and are as we have known them for a long time. They are not the key.
What *is the key is their relationship to the continental crust, and
what goes on (and went on) within it. It's this that plate tectonics
severs when it disregards the aggregate continuity of transforms. I
haven't had any substantive answer to any question of the ilk that
schoolchildren will ask when they try to relate 'pan-of-soup' (POS) to
geological reality. But by the same token I don't have a clue what
model would serve for Earth Expansion either. But I do think that the
view that we shouldn't even look at the question unless we can
manufacture an answer from what we already know is asinine,
(scientifically) reprehensible, and speaks of the high art of
who's-looking-at-who political correctness, rather than 'science'.
It's really time for plate tectonics, secure in its pre-eminence (in
theory), to come clean about its geological uncertaintainties, and it
would be a whole lot better and more constructive if it did this
little exercise in falsification itself, rather than having them
shoved down its throat by people who "don't understand" its finer
points. For example, how did the first transform form? The second
one? How many might form at once? What determines their spacing? Are
they bottom up, or top down? Precursors in the continental crust?
Then where are the relict reams of them such as we see in the oceans?
Why don't expanding ridges stopper up, same as subduction zones (are
supposed to. Why isn't there a 'dead' one laying around? And so on.
DF
"..dealing honestly with the data and keeping it in the realm of
geology and out of the ad-cookery of Ptero's kitchen."
don findlay
> >
> > Stuart
> Well, Stuart, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink
> drink it. Especially when he has his mind in a vise. We both have tried to
> make the imbiciles realize that PT is a result of decades of thinking how
> the continents of this Earth are how the way they are. I am about out of
> this discussion until some of these hardheads realize that the mechanism of
> movement of the materials on the surface are a result of interEarthal
> convection and that subduction does exist, as is portrayed at all of the
> areas of the Earth, such as the various deep troughs around the globe. I
> once was responsible for shooting a seismic line across the Philippine
> trough, guess what? It was deep and the subducting plate went out of sight
> at a time of 7 seconds. Recording 7 seconds in the early 80's was quite a
> feat. Imagine that. I have also had my crews shoot across subduction areas
> (zones). Very, very noticable with seismic in the northern part of the
> South China Sea. So good, our Chief Geologist went on to deliver courses on
> PT and these were some of his examples.
>
> Alan
So, Alan, ...what then *is the mechanical difference on the
*interface, between subduction and over-riding? (We'll deal with GPS
and the VLBI later.) Or what is the difference between the marginal
effects of diapir collapse and subduction? Or how many iteratives of
cell return are made before we have (taraan!) Convection (and not just
simple uplift with peripheral adjustment)? And if the uplift of
ridges is so wide, why is the subduction bit so narrowly knife-edged?
And if it's so knife-edged, what does that great red splodge on the
tomography
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/pi-page1.html>
signify? And if there have indeed been "decades of thinking" gone
into this subduction business, what advance has there been over the
rumplecloth tectonics of a century ago, to explain the connection
between subducting plates and the interior deformation of continents?
Can *You tell me the answer to these (thorny) questions? Nobody else
seems to want to, so ...Speak, o Font! The floor is yours. What is
the 'it' that you want me to drink so doubly of?
Neddy.
don findlay
> We both have tried to
> make the imbiciles realize that PT is a result of decades of thinking how
> the continents of this Earth are how the way they are.
Result of decades of thinking? Is this something like channelling,
where everybody holds hands and humms an 'Ommms' to try to change the
world? I thought it was only magmatists that channelled, to make
nickel deposits occur how they do. ...Ah-so, ..so channelling can
also make convection currents go around, and wheech continents from
one side of the world to the other. What next? Pendulums and ouija
boards maybe.
Decades of thinking? Parrotting more like. (...Parrots.)
Here http://www.uky.edu/ArtsSciences/Geology/webdogs/plates/pangaea-3atonce.html
for the way that plate tectonics explains continental geology (note
especially how it explains the geology of the displaced terrains of
Asia).
df.
don findlay
>
> Amazing the lengths some people go through to avoid honestly dealing with data.
How?
df.
Louis Hissink
controversial idea that, perhaps, the planets moved around the sun, than the
earth.
Which further reminds me of the elephant and the three blind men story.....,
and the distinct possibility that PT, EE, CE (cooling earth) advocates are
all describing the same thing. The key is "time".
Think about it.
LH
--
----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador
from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com
"C. Alan Peyton" <cape...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:24d8a.3177$yH4.70...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
don findlay
...Ah, that's right, I'd forgotten about these two bovver boys
trampling my flowers. Not a peep either in answer to any objections:-
Nonsense 1:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html>
Nonsense 2:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/zip.html>
Nonsense 3:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense4.html>
Nonsense 4:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense3.html>
...just intent on roughing up in the best bovver tradition. And not
much of a peep either as regards the general alternative:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p1-page1.html>
(though I could probably dig up a few for the record - and just might)
And hey, Alan, you never did answer my post:-
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3656251227d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=5f164087.0303012233.7ab04ff4%40posting.google.com
(Bovver boys, Huh! Easy meat.)
And I see John H. there, scrubbing off his tats.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2362620398d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3EAF5DCD.7070005%40ess.ucla.edu>
(Good on you John! Amazing Grace - indeed!)
Thanks for the reminder Louis. Won't be long till the Earth's
expanding after all. Then we can have some fun resurrecting who said
what. Meanwhile, some of you clever-number wallahs out there could
maybe exercise a bit of foresight, and work out how theories of
atmospheric turbulence and pressure variables across the globe could
possibly help understand how the mixed layers down to the transition
zone are affected (the weather dragging past my front door). You'd
better be quick though, otherwise you're going to be just
Johnny-come-latelies - JPT's gone off to write his book on the LAW OF
UNIVERSAL PRESSURE, to which this is just a sidekick. And what's
more, he'll do it so others can understand it, not tie it up in the
omnipotent "Let such and such be such" gobbledegook you lot use.
And when you've done that, put the mass-creation part aside, and just
try to work out how the *volumetric aspect *might tie in - from core
to surface.
That'll do to be going on with. Admittedly the mass bit could be
tricky, but the volumetric/ configurational aspect should be within
everyone's grasp. And on the way, what about revisiting that
objection to Mr Cagle, who's saying that the connection between the
growth of the ocean floor and the magnetic field is more than just as
you lot would have it, a tape of the Rolling Stones. (Time to press
the 000 reset button on this 'Science' maybe.... what do you reckon?)
L O L (!)
df.
Charles Cagle
findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Each dipole reversal or excursion sequence has been followed by an
expansion episode. JPT's Universal Pressure concept is his own
particular madness. He's caught in it and it likely won't let him go
or more correctly he won't let it go.
What you'll be seeing preceding or simultaneously with an expansion
episode is a great solar maximum which will emit sufficient CMEs and
solar flares to stimulate the Earth's EMT (electromagnetotoroid) into a
mode change from the present E-loop mode which produces a magnetic
dipole to the H-loop mode which will produce the features of a large
scale electric dipole. During the H loop mode the Earth's EMT will
begin to generate mass in the form of hundreds of millions of tons of
neutrons per second.
The subsequent rapid rise in lithospheric tension will produce a
variety of woes for mankind including the mechanical unlatching of
orogens that are presently mechanically latched in positions which are
far above isostasy. You'll see the rapid subsidence of whole mountain
chains worldwide; Hawaii will go down in a day. The innundation of the
Brahmaputra and Ganges flood plains by tsunami waves will drown a
hundred million people in a single day. With the magnetic field down
and with the Earth's EMT in the electric dipole mode extreme particle
acceleration from solar flares will scorch the ground in polar and
northern and southern temperate zones. Large flux loop systems
emerging out of the core will produce localized zones of extreme
darkness because of the charge separation effect of the loop's
gravitational field. The collapse of such loops will bring about
horrific releases of energy (the Earth's equivalent of a solar flare)
via Earth flux loop flaring. Violent Earthquakes, tsunamis, strange
sights in the sky (flux loop effects), solar scorching and more will
devastate the biosphere and will kill two thirds of mankind.
The large scale electric dipole effect will produce rapid catastrophic
polar cooling fostering the beginning of a new glacial period.
The wrath of God is coming. Repent.
Charles Cagle
Jonathan Silverlight
<c...@singtech.com> writes
snip
>Each dipole reversal or excursion sequence has been followed by an
>expansion episode. JPT's Universal Pressure concept is his own
>particular madness. He's caught in it and it likely won't let him go
>or more correctly he won't let it go.
BS snipped.
>
>The wrath of God is coming. Repent.
Pot, meet kettle.
--
Greetings from Airstrip One!
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Place http:\\www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk
Louis Hissink
There are two types of time: Physical and Pyschological.
Physical Time: an empirical, repetitive, observable physical phenomenon
which in human experience seems to be stable. The current basis for counting
physical time is the observation of the earth rotating around its axis,
along its path around the sun. Empirically all we have available to us are
the written records of solar and lunar observations. These records are
accurate to about 650 BC when significant errors are found. Lunar
terogression calculations become problematical (or "don't work"). The
standard explanation is that the Babylonians did not know how to count time
in an accurate sense, hence the inaccuracies. However since then, the
earth's rotational and orbital stability have been more or less stable.
Greater chronological precision is afforded by reference to atomic
frequencies, ie atomic clocks, but in reality these clocks have to be
referred to the diurnal variation of the earth, and are therefore
aribtrarily accurate. Recall that frequency is defined explicity
.......trivial.
Put simply, the basic unit of time is simply an integer fraction of the
earth's rotation, conveniently expressed as "One Minute" which is an integer
fraction of a complete daily rotation of the earth around its axis.
Atomic clocks therefore need to be continually calibrated to remain
synchronised.
Pyschological time: The sense or perception of "Yesterday, Today, and
Tomorrow". A qualitative sense of time, in the sense that events are ranked
in order of sequence of occurrence. It is basically a function of organic
memory, usually Pavlovian, but often from the recollection of previous
memories.
It is physchological time that has introduced the idea of a start to time.
And therein lies the answer. It is the fitting of physical fact to the
psychological model that is the problem.
How to sort this out is the issue.
LH
--
----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador
from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com
"Louis Hissink" <ljur...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3eb0f120$0$27135$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
don findlay
Christ Louis. Just look at your watch! If we all live in the
here-and-now it will get one helluva crowded. How do you know you
were ever born, or that you're going to die? Is not this
quantification of change and rate of, the very essence of science?
You'll be getting as bad as me if you don't look out. Next you'll be
asking what is it about wide open space that defies measurement
between the ears, and the nature of its metaphysical substance. Just
look at your watch mate an' shut up! Go easy on us for God's sake!
:-
"Time is a traveller..."
John Hernlund
"Louis Hissink" <ljur...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> Hmm,
> There are two types of time: Physical and Pyschological.
Hmm...you might enjoy reading Immanuel Kant's take on this. I personally
think there is just one type of time. Quantitative measurement is just an
idealization or subset of the basic intuition of time, where one maps
numbers onto a sequence of events that appear to be periodic. Quantitative
maps into measurement do not add anything to the concept, they only provide
a mechanism by which practical comparison can be made.
JH
Louis Hissink
Physical time is what it is while pyschological time is basically memory.
However, having written that, where did the idea of a start to time
originate because it has to reside in the psychological domain than the
physical.
Hmm, interesting problem.
LH
--
----------------------------------------------------
This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador
from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com
"John Hernlund" <hern...@ess.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:BADB44B8.1BAE%hern...@ess.ucla.edu...