OK - another one for the board
don findlay
there seems to be a curious glitch in the THINKING of PTers which
intriugues me. (I hope they haven't been 'just musing' too all this
time) I'd be interested in others' comments.
Structural geology of the last century has been historically involved
with stresses arising "in the plane of the Earth's crust", a notion
which has carried over (in the 50's and sixties - before any Yuri
Gagarin, i.e., space exploration) to the idea of PLATE TECTONICS. It
cements the idea of things moving about on a flat surface creating
sideways stresses, and reactions to them ("..In the plane of..",
...plates..., and flat maps to illustrate all this, sort of all go
together - nicely.) The question is, how much has this two
dimensional 'flatness' of planes and plates been an impediment to
thinking (thinking)?
I mean, everyone knows that the Earth is not flat, and that flat maps
are a convenience of printing presses, and that at the scale of global
inquiry the Earth is in fact a round rotating sphere, with body
stresses arising from gravitational (i.e.vertical) instabilities
related to its rotation and position re. the Sun and the Moon. Plate
tectonics even has this idea of CONVECTION CURRENTS - huge transports
of 'up' and (by inference at least) 'down'. Yet when it comes to
affecting the crust, it wants to translate this huge potential energy
source for immediate local deformation into a sideways force thousands
of kilometres away... It even recognises the potential for direct
gravitational collapse off ridges but realises this through a
*thermal* correction as 'ridge push', ...but this too just as an
assistant to 'slab-pull'. The two go nicely (sideways) together.
It's a bit longer to say "'ridge-push' - 'slab-pull' " (and an
absolute bugger to type), rather than 'conveyor belt', but the import
is the same.
The point is, we have all of this huge store of potential energy for
tectonic force (offered to us on a plate), called ridges, and Plate
tectonics wants to transmute it into horizontalness, and has gone to
considerable jiggery-pokery lengths to do it. If the primary forces
are 'up' (and OK down too if you like), surely horizontality is simply
just second order (gravitational) correction?
So the question is, why does plate tectonics want to focus on the
second order 'spinoff' effect ('plate' / 'flat') and not on the
primary 'up' cause? It even disregards the
'up-to-half-a-metre-a-day' vertical tidal flux as 'noise', in favour
of the centimetre a year sideways.
I've got a feeling that if plate tectonicists cottoned on to the idea
that the earth is round and rotating, that plate tectonics wouldn't
exist, because all this 'sideways-ness' is really a hangover from the
flatness of pre-Yuri Gagarin days. Seems to me anyhow. I mean....we
have all this 'uplift and erosion', why isn't *this the *primary
thing, instead of it being somehow the result of 'sideways-is-King'?
(Who is this King anyhow? Has he published anything? Does he at least
wear a crown?)
Any ideas why this fixation on sideways instead of vertical, when the
primary dynamics are vertical? (...'tablecloths [on a table) and
vices (on a bench) ... a few of my favourite things perhaps? Some
sort of fetish? Drunken pub lunches on field trips?? When I muse
thereupon, these are the only images I get about sideways as a
*primary force, because geologically speaking I don't see that much
evidence for it.
How about you?
df
amh
> Just musing (I don't know if I would call it thinking).. ...that
Right, just musing. God help us all if you ever thought.
>
> Any ideas why this fixation on sideways instead of vertical, when the
> primary dynamics are vertical? (...'tablecloths [on a table) and
> vices (on a bench) ... a few of my favourite things perhaps? Some
> sort of fetish? Drunken pub lunches on field trips?? When I muse
> thereupon, these are the only images I get about sideways as a
> *primary force, because geologically speaking I don't see that much
> evidence for it.
>
> How about you?
For the same reason we don't feel the stresses of spinning 24,000
miles in the course of 24 hours. This is the equivalent of a child
asking "Why don't I spin off the Earth if it spinning so fast?"
Andy
>
> df
Christof Kuhn
> Structural geology of the last century has been historically involved
> with stresses arising "in the plane of the Earth's crust", a notion
> which has carried over (in the 50's and sixties - before any Yuri
> Gagarin, i.e., space exploration) to the idea of PLATE TECTONICS. It
> cements the idea of things moving about on a flat surface creating
> sideways stresses, and reactions to them ("..In the plane of..",
> ...plates..., and flat maps to illustrate all this, sort of all go
> together - nicely.) The question is, how much has this two
> dimensional 'flatness' of planes and plates been an impediment to
> thinking (thinking)?
>
explained the reason of the bending island arcs surrounding the Pacific
Ocean - it's exactly because tilting plates on a sphere require tilted
edges. The Himalayas are bent in the same way for the same reason. In
many other instances, the Earth's shape is not mentioned explicitly just
because the area considered is to small for the Earth's shape to be
relevant.
> I mean, everyone knows that the Earth is not flat, and that flat maps
> are a convenience of printing presses, and that at the scale of global
> inquiry the Earth is in fact a round rotating sphere, with body
> stresses arising from gravitational (i.e.vertical) instabilities
> related to its rotation and position re. the Sun and the Moon. Plate
> tectonics even has this idea of CONVECTION CURRENTS - huge transports
> of 'up' and (by inference at least) 'down'. Yet when it comes to
> affecting the crust, it wants to translate this huge potential energy
> source for immediate local deformation into a sideways force thousands
> of kilometres away...
Due to the Earth's gravitation, the up and down movements *have* to stop
at the surface.
Did you ever watch a pot of boiling water? There are lots of convection
currents, but the surface is almost smooth. The convection currents
produce horizontal currents at the surface and any paricles lighter than
water (e.g. tea) gather at places where the currents meet and start
their downward motion. Do that test and watch it carefully - you'll find
several matches to tectonics.
> The point is, we have all of this huge store of potential energy for
> tectonic force (offered to us on a plate), called ridges, and Plate
> tectonics wants to transmute it into horizontalness, and has gone to
> considerable jiggery-pokery lengths to do it. If the primary forces
> are 'up' (and OK down too if you like), surely horizontality is simply
> just second order (gravitational) correction?
>
The horizontal vertical movements go together - one is impossible
without the other. No first or second order.
> So the question is, why does plate tectonics want to focus on the
> second order 'spinoff' effect ('plate' / 'flat') and not on the
> primary 'up' cause? It even disregards the
> 'up-to-half-a-metre-a-day' vertical tidal flux as 'noise', in favour
> of the centimetre a year sideways.
>
The vertical tidal movement adds up to zero over a 12 h period. The
horizontal tectonic movement accumulates to 1000s of km.
There are several instances where you can see the results of the
vertical movement at the surface: Iceland, Arabia, East Africa are at
higher elevations than they should be, just because mantle material is
pushing from below (another reason is that the crust below is warmer and
lighter). We are talking about many hundreds or even few thousand meters
elevation - is that nothing?
Cheers, Christof
--
Christof Kuhn
Inst. f. Angewandte Geologie,
Univ. f. BoKu Wien, Austria
Christ...@boku.ac.at
http://homepage.boku.ac.at/h9440283/index.htm
Michael McNeil
Talking about island arcs; have you noticed how similar the north of
the Pacific and Indian oceans are? How the outlines of seas seem to
form a circle on a globe? How the outline of Africa so resmbles that
of the Pacific? How the east coast of north America so resembles that
of the east coast of Asia that an early explorer might easily mistake
them?
Or am I being silly?
In for a penny then:
Has anyone noticed how similar weather patterns are in regions where
the coastlines look similar? For example look at the coastline of the
Med. from Spain to Italy and compare the regional penchant for low
pressure (to bring what we Brits call good weather) to that of areas
that look similar. Areas like the north of the Indian and Pacific
oceans mentioned above.
don findlay
Don't you? I find the stress of it all just too, too much, and gotta
crash every night. And don't worry about spinning off the Earth if
you'd rather be sucked down one of them subduction zones.
This plate tectonics, it has that curious 'in-and-outness', ..flitting
in and out of reality... about it. It all hangs together in a
curious sort of way, and yet there's a warpedness about it that is
quite difficult to describe - like one of those weird distorting
mirrors. (scary tectonics). What's even more weird and scary is that
so many people go along with it, and even like it, ..reckon it's the
bees knees (democracy in action).
Of course, it's not that that's scary at all, because I'm sure
everyone can think of something wrong with it, that doesn't gel with
them, that doesn't ring true, sound right, the full ten cents - even
the most ardent Ptero. What is scary is that they prefer to ignore
these small, querulous voices that hint at lies, and instead go along
with it all. The stuff of totalitarianism is alive and well
apparently, and not confined by any means to politics (of the darker
sort, of course)
In the interest of exorcism, cleansing the devil of pteromancy from
the children of mankind -or if you prefer, a worm tablet- (and getting
rubbished for it 'coz I refuse to acknowledge the connection between
hot air balloons, soup, and the creation of ocean floors)....
don @ <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p1-page1.html>
(...Feed me, O thou Great Jehova...)
don findlay
> > Structural geology of the last century has been historically involved
> > with stresses arising "in the plane of the Earth's crust", a notion
> > which has carried over (in the 50's and sixties - before any Yuri
> > Gagarin, i.e., space exploration) to the idea of PLATE TECTONICS. It
> > cements the idea of things moving about on a flat surface creating
> > sideways stresses, and reactions to them ("..In the plane of..",
> > ...plates..., and flat maps to illustrate all this, sort of all go
> > together - nicely.) The question is, how much has this two
> > dimensional 'flatness' of planes and plates been an impediment to
> > thinking (thinking)?
> >
> Your point is important, but in my opinion, the PTers quite successfully
> explained the reason of the bending island arcs surrounding the Pacific
> Ocean - it's exactly because tilting plates on a sphere require tilted
> edges. The Himalayas are bent in the same way for the same reason. In
> many other instances, the Earth's shape is not mentioned explicitly just
> because the area considered is to small for the Earth's shape to be
> relevant.
Right, ..I'd forgotten about the ' principle of intercepts'. This is
what I mean by distorting mirrors. The POINT:- the Earth is round
because gravity rules - it will adjust even half a meter of distortion
to zero in a matter of hours (apparently) - and yet Pteros want this
curved plate at ridges to flatten off as it migrates across the oceans
to arrive at the subduction zone (after millions of years), flat as a
tack. Why, it might even curve upwards (since it loses its heat
upwards). That would accentuate the curvature. Or would it curve
downwards as the mantle cools and shrinks (hmm, ... but then the arcs
would curve the other (wrong) way). So which? Does the plate curve
*down as the mantle shrinks? Is it *flat? Or should it curve *up as it
loses its heat to the oceans? I would imagine (given that gravity
rules) it would stay curved exactly as it was at the ridges. But it
should be easy to tell if we look at the ocean floor, ...and I don't
think it flattens off at all. But Pteros (looking in the mirror of
their model) might see things differently.
But say it's flat. Then what? Does it tilt (to give the curvature
required)? ...or does it 'scrunch' (against irregularities in the
brittle crust - and so takes on the irregularities of the continental
crust. Or does it just, ...well, ..sink - because its 'time' has come
(rate of loss of heat). Plate tectonics invokes all three depending
on requirements, like three overprinted reflecting morphs. It even
invokes a fourth - tangential overshoot (to give us ophiolites), but
thankfully not much (which is why there are not many). (Wierd
reflecting mirrors - a Lady for All Seasons, turn, turn..)
So, is the principle of intercept really all that credible? (As far
as explaining the bend in the Himalayas is concerned, I think there
are other parameters involved (just posted
<http://users.indigo.net.au.don/ee/indocean.html> (Fig.1)
> > I mean, everyone knows that the Earth is not flat, and that flat maps
> > are a convenience of printing presses, and that at the scale of global
> > inquiry the Earth is in fact a round rotating sphere, with body
> > stresses arising from gravitational (i.e.vertical) instabilities
> > related to its rotation and position re. the Sun and the Moon. Plate
> > tectonics even has this idea of CONVECTION CURRENTS - huge transports
> > of 'up' and (by inference at least) 'down'. Yet when it comes to
> > affecting the crust, it wants to translate this huge potential energy
> > source for immediate local deformation into a sideways force thousands
> > of kilometres away...
>
> Due to the Earth's gravitation, the up and down movements *have* to stop
> at the surface.
> Did you ever watch a pot of boiling water? There are lots of convection
> currents, but the surface is almost smooth. The convection currents
> produce horizontal currents at the surface and any paricles lighter than
> water (e.g. tea) gather at places where the currents meet and start
> their downward motion. Do that test and watch it carefully - you'll find
> several matches to tectonics.
Ah, the pot of tea again (variation on the pot of soup). You know
Christof that Pteros don't like the one about tea for exactly the
reason you say - that the surface stays so resolutely and damnably
inert (!) That surface does remain very smooth despite roiling
convection directly below. The 'skin' has to break before a piece
will be carried along. The force (surface tension) holding the
surface together has to be overcome. And I see no analogue of surface
tension in plate tectonic models, which are exclusively about Raleigh
numbers (ratios of heat below to heat above) and Taylor numbers
(something to do with whether you get laminar or chaotic flow around
driving cylinders (if there are any), which are this or that far apart
and rotating at different speeds). Cylinders where (if the flow itself
is supposed to be the cylindrical bit)? And three- dimensionally
curved ones of course (how do they fit? What are they made of?).
As far as the broken tea bag goes, it all depends on whether the tea
leaves are caught in the 'skin' , which, when you stir the pot, slows
down and stops very quickly (if the water's a bit hard), and the tea
leaves fall down the slope to the centre long before the vigourous
mantle slows down, ...or whethere they stay in the mantle and keep
going round and around and up and down despite the immobility up top.
If the analogy is to be used (and that skin is really something) then
surface tension *has to be taken into account. All I've ever seen
skin do, is pull apart. I've never seen broken edges wrinkle up (have
I?), and I suppose that's because skin is pretty strong, relative to
the forces imparted (at that scale) by the frictional drag of
convective flow. (tensional effects requiring much less force than
compressional effects)
> > The point is, we have all of this huge store of potential energy for
> > tectonic force (offered to us on a plate), called ridges, and Plate
> > tectonics wants to transmute it into horizontalness, and has gone to
> > considerable jiggery-pokery lengths to do it. If the primary forces
> > are 'up' (and OK down too if you like), surely horizontality is simply
> > just second order (gravitational) correction?
> >
> The horizontal vertical movements go together - one is impossible
> without the other. No first or second order.
Ooohh.. As usual, this is exactly what plate tectonics says when
explaining the theory, but it's not what it says when referring the
theory to the field evidence - in fact it gets itself into a bit of a
knot right away, about first and second order, by not even being clear
whether the ridges are being *pushed apart (by the intruding magma -
and later by gravitational correction - "ridge-push") or whether the
ridges are being *pulled apart by gravitational collapse off the
ridges (and the partial melt magma is just so much passive
space-filling)("ridge-pull"?. What's driving this shemozzle? (
Shades of the morphing mirror again.) Driver? Only the ridges
*keep(*keep) driving/ being driven* above their thermal and
gravitational equilibrium - i.e. apparently ever faster for the last
200my. And since all the radiogenic heat has mostly been lost long
ago, this means plate tectonics has to explain (in view of the
geological record) what amounts to really a very substantial excess of
heat over its original budget (even forgetting about how it manages to
get it all lined up to produce 'convection cells' (that break
regularly along their length) - and keep them there).
If people want to scale it up to make it into mantle overturn, and
make analogies with pots of tea and plates of soup, then they have to
scale up surface tension as well, to take account of how convection
interacts with a surface (both continental and oceanic). I don't see
any mention of surface tension analogues in plate tectonics. And
anyhow, If I'm weightless at the centre of Earth, presumably a
subducting slab would be too, if it managed to get that far. So
just how far does it manage to sink before this 'weightlessness' (and
lack of 'slab-pull') becomes a real problem for convection? I bet
Pteros would say either it dissolves before it gets there, ...soaks up
heat as it does so, and so accelerates the convection process
(perpetual motion machine...) ..or, being weightless, is carried along
by laminar flow (Look Ma! No pull!) Or both, being the imaginative
folks they are.
Convection is an assumption, and to my way of thinking a daft one.
Really, an admission by plate tectonics that it doesn't really have an
answer to what's going on, and a constructive approach to start
"dealing honestly at the data" would be an infinite improvement on
what we've got - highlighting some of the falsifiers. It's this
refusal that's a bit 'scary' (scary tectonics). If they can get away
with this sort of thing in science, we can hardly complaina about
politicians whose job it is to pull the wool over our eyes.
> > So the question is, why does plate tectonics want to focus on the
> > second order 'spinoff' effect ('plate' / 'flat') and not on the
> > primary 'up' cause? It even disregards the
> > 'up-to-half-a-metre-a-day' vertical tidal flux as 'noise', in favour
> > of the centimetre a year sideways.
> >
> The vertical tidal movement adds up to zero over a 12 h period. The
> horizontal tectonic movement accumulates to 1000s of km.
>
> There are several instances where you can see the results of the
> vertical movement at the surface: Iceland, Arabia, East Africa are at
> higher elevations than they should be, just because mantle material is
> pushing from below (another reason is that the crust below is warmer and
> lighter). We are talking about many hundreds or even few thousand meters
> elevation - is that nothing?
Not at all. In fact, Earth Expansion would up the ante considerably,
and say uplift is what its *a.a..all* about. Diapir rise (the
Pacific) and gravitational collapse (the circumglobal mountain belt) -
an uplift of a few thousand *kilometres in fact, all over the place,
not paltry metres here and there.
Don
>
> Cheers, Christof
don findlay
> Talking about island arcs; have you noticed how similar the north of
> the Pacific and Indian oceans are? How the outlines of seas seem to
> form a circle on a globe? How the outline of Africa so resmbles that
> of the Pacific? How the east coast of north America so resembles that
> of the east coast of Asia that an early explorer might easily mistake
> them?
You haven't been paying attention in class mate. You'll need to come
down and sit with Big-fella.
Playing it again:- All of these are an artifact of
expansion-in-torsion which plate tectonics ignores ('coz it's dumb).
The similarity is given by the initial helical fracture pattern in the
crust (dilation unwinds it and masks it). Simple.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p1-page1b.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/america.html
>
> Or am I being silly?
Not with this one.
> In for a penny then:
>
> Has anyone noticed how similar weather patterns are in regions where
> the coastlines look similar? For example look at the coastline of the
> Med. from Spain to Italy and compare the regional penchant for low
> pressure (to bring what we Brits call good weather) to that of areas
> that look similar. Areas like the north of the Indian and Pacific
> oceans mentioned above.
Neil, there are few really with the incisive perspicacity such as
yourself. Redeem yourself and you can go back to your seat. ...This
was the question I asked you before - whether you thought from a legal
point of view the crust regulates the weather, or the weather
regulates the crust, but you had something else on your mind -
fishfingers or something.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=5f164087.0302100104.1edb1fb9%40posting.google.com
Polarity of cause and effect, and the inclusion of the 'missing link'
is ever the problem when we look at things bigger'n us.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p2-page2.html#steel
Don.
Christof Kuhn
earth expansionist to deal with fruitlessly here), but here we go.
don findlay wrote:
>
>
> Right, ..I'd forgotten about the ' principle of intercepts'. This is
> what I mean by distorting mirrors. The POINT:- the Earth is round
> because gravity rules - it will adjust even half a meter of distortion
> to zero in a matter of hours (apparently) - and yet Pteros want this
> curved plate at ridges to flatten off as it migrates across the oceans
> to arrive at the subduction zone (after millions of years), flat as a
> tack.
Who says that??? Crust is spherical and remains spherical until it is
deformed at a destructive margin. No need for flatting off. Don't know
what you speak of.
> Why, it might even curve upwards (since it loses its heat
> upwards). That would accentuate the curvature. Or would it curve
> downwards as the mantle cools and shrinks (hmm, ... but then the arcs
> would curve the other (wrong) way). So which? Does the plate curve
> *down as the mantle shrinks? Is it *flat? Or should it curve *up as it
> loses its heat to the oceans? I would imagine (given that gravity
> rules) it would stay curved exactly as it was at the ridges. But it
> should be easy to tell if we look at the ocean floor, ...and I don't
> think it flattens off at all. But Pteros (looking in the mirror of
> their model) might see things differently.
>
I'm afraid I cannot follow your thoughts. Why should crust bend upwards?
Crust maintains the same shape until it is pushed below another plate.
Spherical geometry requires a convex boundary (viewed from the subducted
plate). The deformation due to shrinking by cooling is so little that it
has no visible geometric effect (if the radius of the surface decreases
by 1km over 2000km, that's not really significant, you'll have to admit).
> But say it's flat. Then what? Does it tilt (to give the curvature
> required)? ...or does it 'scrunch' (against irregularities in the
> brittle crust - and so takes on the irregularities of the continental
> crust. Or does it just, ...well, ..sink - because its 'time' has come
> (rate of loss of heat). Plate tectonics invokes all three depending
> on requirements, like three overprinted reflecting morphs. It even
> invokes a fourth - tangential overshoot (to give us ophiolites), but
> thankfully not much (which is why there are not many). (Wierd
> reflecting mirrors - a Lady for All Seasons, turn, turn..)
>
>
Maybe I've missed a point, but I cannot find out why you insist on pters
talking about flat surfaces.
>
> Ah, the pot of tea again (variation on the pot of soup). You know
> Christof that Pteros don't like the one about tea for exactly the
> reason you say - that the surface stays so resolutely and damnably
> inert (!) That surface does remain very smooth despite roiling
> convection directly below. The 'skin' has to break before a piece
> will be carried along. The force (surface tension) holding the
> surface together has to be overcome. And I see no analogue of surface
> tension in plate tectonic models, which are exclusively about Raleigh
> numbers (ratios of heat below to heat above) and Taylor numbers
> (something to do with whether you get laminar or chaotic flow around
> driving cylinders (if there are any), which are this or that far apart
> and rotating at different speeds). Cylinders where (if the flow itself
> is supposed to be the cylindrical bit)? And three- dimensionally
> curved ones of course (how do they fit? What are they made of?).
>
I don't see why the surface tension should be important for the
convection in the tea pot, particularly if we're speaking about large pots.
> As far as the broken tea bag goes, it all depends on whether the tea
> leaves are caught in the 'skin' , which, when you stir the pot, slows
> down and stops very quickly (if the water's a bit hard), and the tea
> leaves fall down the slope to the centre long before the vigourous
> mantle slows down, ...or whethere they stay in the mantle and keep
> going round and around and up and down despite the immobility up top.
> If the analogy is to be used (and that skin is really something) then
> surface tension *has to be taken into account. All I've ever seen
> skin do, is pull apart. I've never seen broken edges wrinkle up (have
> I?), and I suppose that's because skin is pretty strong, relative to
> the forces imparted (at that scale) by the frictional drag of
> convective flow. (tensional effects requiring much less force than
> compressional effects)
>
Ok, the broken tea bag is not an ideal comparison since the tea leaf
bits are denser than water if saturated (as long as they're dry, it's
mostly this confusing surface tension that holds them at the surface).
Let's consider a really large pot (several m diameter) and wood chips
(several cms in diameter) swimming at the surface. Agree that surface
tension is neglegible here? Agree that the chips gather in those places
at the surface where the convection currents meet?
That's the way the continents move (apart from the subduction and
melting effects, of course).
> And anyhow, If I'm weightless at the centre of Earth, presumably a
> subducting slab would be too, if it managed to get that far. So
> just how far does it manage to sink before this 'weightlessness' (and
> lack of 'slab-pull') becomes a real problem for convection? I bet
> Pteros would say either it dissolves before it gets there, ...soaks up
> heat as it does so, and so accelerates the convection process
> (perpetual motion machine...) ..or, being weightless, is carried along
> by laminar flow (Look Ma! No pull!) Or both, being the imaginative
> folks they are.
>
If you would have done a bit of reading, you would have found out that
oceanic crust makes it few hundreds of km below the surface, where
gravitation is more than 90% of that at the surface. Nobody's talking
about the crust moving to the earth center.
> Convection is an assumption, and to my way of thinking a daft one.
> Really, an admission by plate tectonics that it doesn't really have an
> answer to what's going on, and a constructive approach to start
> "dealing honestly at the data" would be an infinite improvement on
> what we've got - highlighting some of the falsifiers. It's this
> refusal that's a bit 'scary' (scary tectonics). If they can get away
> with this sort of thing in science, we can hardly complaina about
> politicians whose job it is to pull the wool over our eyes.
>
Maybe you should do a bit of further reading to highlight some of the
falsifiers. So far I haven't found anything in pt falsified by your
arguments.
>
>
> Not at all. In fact, Earth Expansion would up the ante considerably,
> and say uplift is what its *a.a..all* about. Diapir rise (the
> Pacific) and gravitational collapse (the circumglobal mountain belt) -
> an uplift of a few thousand *kilometres in fact, all over the place,
> not paltry metres here and there.
Maybe I should do a bit of further reading about diapir rise and
gravitational collapse, but so far I don't know what you're talking about.
As you mentioned field data: I live in Austria and most of Austria is
huge evidence of compression tectonics (there are few basins that are a
result of crust moving away in a direction perpendicular to the
compression, leaving a gap behind). Little evidence for
elevation-induced tectonics (only some surficial nappes that rode down a
massif that was pushed up by compression).
Bigdakine
>From: Christof Kuhn Christ...@boku.ac.at
>Date: 3/13/03 2:00 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3e711bc9$0$13160$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>
>
>Ok - many pters will say, I'm wasting bandwidth (you are not the first
>earth expansionist to deal with fruitlessly here), but here we go.
>
>don findlay wrote:
>>
>>
>> Right, ..I'd forgotten about the ' principle of intercepts'. This is
>> what I mean by distorting mirrors. The POINT:- the Earth is round
>> because gravity rules - it will adjust even half a meter of distortion
>> to zero in a matter of hours (apparently) - and yet Pteros want this
>> curved plate at ridges to flatten off as it migrates across the oceans
>> to arrive at the subduction zone (after millions of years), flat as a
>> tack.
>
>Who says that??? Crust is spherical and remains spherical until it is
>deformed at a destructive margin. No need for flatting off. Don't know
>what you speak of.
My guess is, is that he is butchering the fact that old lithosphere tends not
to obey the depth age relation, it is not as far below sea-level as one might
expect given its age. Some folks refer to this as the flattening of the
lithosphere.
As usual, he is not communicating effectively, and you can expect to be faulted
for not understanding him.
One can only imagine what happens when something like this goes through the
mind of an EE'er.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
don findlay
> Ok - many pters will say, I'm wasting bandwidth (you are not the first
> earth expansionist to deal with fruitlessly here), but here we go.
>
> don findlay wrote:
> >
> >
> > Right, ..I'd forgotten about the ' principle of intercepts'. This is
> > what I mean by distorting mirrors. The POINT:- the Earth is round
> > because gravity rules - it will adjust even half a meter of distortion
> > to zero in a matter of hours (apparently) - and yet Pteros want this
> > curved plate at ridges to flatten off as it migrates across the oceans
> > to arrive at the subduction zone (after millions of years), flat as a
> > tack.
>
> Who says that??? Crust is spherical and remains spherical until it is
> deformed at a destructive margin. No need for flatting off. Don't know
> what you speak of.
> Who says? I thought you did (quote):-
> in my opinion, the PTers quite successfully
> explained the reason of the bending island arcs surrounding the Pacific
> Ocean - it's exactly because tilting plates on a sphere require tilted
> edges. The Himalayas are bent in the same way for the same reason. In
> many other instances, the Earth's shape is not mentioned explicitly just
> because the area considered is to small for the Earth's shape to be
> relevant. (unquote)
i.e. plates. The last sentence I took to mean that you were making a
distinction between flat and curved. . But anyhow if you want them
both curved it still doesn't explain arc shapes, unless the ocean
plate is flat or curves upwards:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/ngsub.html>
>
> > Why, it might even curve upwards (since it loses its heat
> > upwards). That would accentuate the curvature. Or would it curve
> > downwards as the mantle cools and shrinks (hmm, ... but then the arcs
> > would curve the other (wrong) way). So which? Does the plate curve
> > *down as the mantle shrinks? Is it *flat? Or should it curve *up as it
> > loses its heat to the oceans? I would imagine (given that gravity
> > rules) it would stay curved exactly as it was at the ridges. But it
> > should be easy to tell if we look at the ocean floor, ...and I don't
> > think it flattens off at all. But Pteros (looking in the mirror of
> > their model) might see things differently.
> >
> I'm afraid I cannot follow your thoughts. Why should crust bend upwards?
> Crust maintains the same shape until it is pushed below another plate.
> Spherical geometry requires a convex boundary (viewed from the subducted
> plate). The deformation due to shrinking by cooling is so little that it
> has no visible geometric effect (if the radius of the surface decreases
> by 1km over 2000km, that's not really significant, you'll have to admit).
I would agree with you there about the "shrinking by cooling", but
Plate tectonics sees it as VERY important, being responsible for the
slope of the ridges, from which the ages of the ocean floors are
worked out. I would see it as just gravitational adjustment on an
expanding substrate. Plate tectonics calls it 'ridge-push', but sees
it as thermally induced (because it wants to maintain a convective
model), rather than a direct gravitational correction.
> > But say it's flat. Then what? Does it tilt (to give the curvature
> > required)? ...or does it 'scrunch' (against irregularities in the
> > brittle crust - and so takes on the irregularities of the continental
> > crust. Or does it just, ...well, ..sink - because its 'time' has come
> > (rate of loss of heat). Plate tectonics invokes all three depending
> > on requirements, like three overprinted reflecting morphs. It even
> > invokes a fourth - tangential overshoot (to give us ophiolites), but
> > thankfully not much (which is why there are not many). (Wierd
> > reflecting mirrors - a Lady for All Seasons, turn, turn..)
> >
> >
> Maybe I've missed a point, but I cannot find out why you insist on pters
> talking about flat surfaces.
Just from how they tried to explain the shape of arcs (above link)
> > Ah, the pot of tea again (variation on the pot of soup). You know
> > Christof that Pteros don't like the one about tea for exactly the
> > reason you say - that the surface stays so resolutely and damnably
> > inert (!) That surface does remain very smooth despite roiling
> > convection directly below. The 'skin' has to break before a piece
> > will be carried along. The force (surface tension) holding the
> > surface together has to be overcome. And I see no analogue of surface
> > tension in plate tectonic models, which are exclusively about Raleigh
> > numbers (ratios of heat below to heat above) and Taylor numbers
> > (something to do with whether you get laminar or chaotic flow around
> > driving cylinders (if there are any), which are this or that far apart
> > and rotating at different speeds). Cylinders where (if the flow itself
> > is supposed to be the cylindrical bit)? And three- dimensionally
> > curved ones of course (how do they fit? What are they made of?).
> >
> I don't see why the surface tension should be important for the
> convection in the tea pot, particularly if we're speaking about large pots.
But hang on, ...you brought up the tea leaf analogy to draw attention
to the undisturbed surface with all that roiling convection
underneath. I was just agreeing with you. Anyhow, I haven't thought
much about it, but a surface tension analogy might not be a bad one.
That knife edge of a subduction zone looks to me more like a big
meniscus of a sort, than it does how I would expect a subduction zone
to look like. How would I expect a big subduction zone to look?
Something like the inverse of the ridges, i.e. a gre.ea..t lo...ong
slo..o..ope down into THE CHASM,... just exactly the reverse of the
great long slope up to the ridge. But we don't get it. All we get
is a 'pdoing!'..or a 'bloop'. I don't see why it's not just a
competency interface between the crust and the asthenosphere and/or
mesosphere - with nothing 'heat-loss' about it. But I don't know
(about surface tension) it would be interesting to see what a guru
reckoned on how this aspect of Archimedes and buoyancy would scale
up.. Surface tension has a great propensity for coagulating
floaties, despite the roiling going on underneath. (Comments invited
<herre> )
<more about teabags snipped>
> If you would have done a bit of reading, you would have found out that
> oceanic crust makes it few hundreds of km below the surface, where
> gravitation is more than 90% of that at the surface. Nobody's talking
> about the crust moving to the earth center.
Yes, I know. It's the Earth's centre moving to the crust that's on the
agenda. It's Pteros who want to pull all the crust back down ("where
it never wanted to be") on the grounds that there's far too much heat
(even still) to be accommodated. That is, even though most of the
heat was lost in the beginning to give the differentiated shells -
though they make a distinction between THAT heat, and the heat of
radioactivity which does all the roiling and moiling. That's my
question, which I don't think plate tectonics can answer. HEATLOSS#1
gives the differentiated shells (gravitational), and puts all the
radioactivity where PTers want it (though it's really concentrated in
the crust). HEATLOSS#2 (which is subordinate to HEATLOSS#1) roils and
moils and breaks up what HEATLOSS#1 put together in the first place.
Since most of the radiogenic heat (#2)has been lost long ago anyhow,
the question is even more pertinent - why is radiogenic heat breaking
up what gravity put together in the first place? And why, if there
is still all that heat, isn't the Earth just bigger (less dense,
...and forget about the need to convect it all away inside a
'too-small' Earth?
> Maybe you should do a bit of further reading to highlight some of the
> falsifiers. So far I haven't found anything in pt falsified by your
> arguments.
So how then *does plate tectonics reconcile the consanguinity of
transforms globally, with how it sees the segmentation of the crust
into plates? How does it support its position that the plates are
'independent' of each other (any animation model) with the fact that
their dynamics are clearly tied by transforms?
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/zip.html>
> > Not at all. In fact, Earth Expansion would up the ante considerably,
> > and say uplift is what its *a.a..all* about. Diapir rise (the
> > Pacific) and gravitational collapse (the circumglobal mountain belt) -
> > an uplift of a few thousand *kilometres in fact, all over the place,
> > not paltry metres here and there.
>
> Maybe I should do a bit of further reading about diapir rise and
> gravitational collapse, but so far I don't know what you're talking about.
>
> As you mentioned field data: I live in Austria and most of Austria is
> huge evidence of compression tectonics (there are few basins that are a
> result of crust moving away in a direction perpendicular to the
> compression, leaving a gap behind). Little evidence for
> elevation-induced tectonics (only some surficial nappes that rode down a
> massif that was pushed up by compression).
>
> Cheers, Christof
Really, ...I thought your part of the world saw the birth of vertical
tectonics, right back to the early part of the century, with
'verticalism' continued through the Middle East right into the
Himalayas..... And then into the biggest uplift of all - the
Pacific, the one that brought the mantle up, right down to the
transition zone. The push you're talking about is just the rumpling
that goes with gravitational collapse. That's all, ...nothing
complicated about it.... These ridges, uplifts, go all around the
world, give us a huge energy potential source for gravitational
tectonics. Ridge push? No problem in the mantle sector, but Pteros
don't want, or can't ( I reckon don't) see the extrapolation to the
correlative effect in the more brittle crust *BY THE SAME UPLIFT*
(just swivelled around a bit - related (somehow) to the fact that the
Earth rotates, but WRIT LARGE in transform consanguinity. They're
grimly hanging on to this subduction nonsense. Why? I guess because
it's geophysical, and therefore it can be manipulated. The
geological facts are not so maleable, though plate tectonics would
like to make them so. And there are (as far as I understand) big
implications for physics that are not understood by establishment
views. That's why there is subduction. Seems it's a sort of 'finger
in the hull of a sinking ship' of some aspects of classical physics.
It's a side show, but an important one nevertheless. It's physics own
little 'Iraq'. Control the dumb geologists, and you're laughing - you
can maintain some sort of an establishment till they get the classical
physics problems sorted out. This is the 'Age Dating' controversy all
over again, though this time geology is letting phyisics have its way
- coz all the younger generation have been brought up on computers,
rather than in the field. I tell you, they're laughing at geos.
And rightly so, because geos are following like lambs (Meh .ehhh!).
They're like pied pipers, and that's their tune - subduction. Believe
it if you like. It's a HOUSE OF CARDS.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion2.html.
There is nothing inherently sub-ducting about anything. It's a
competency interface (or zone if you like - the chilled bit of the
mantle (and, as an interface, includes the chilled skin of the
planet) on which there is movement, and the word 'over-riding' might
just as well be used (as it is for the Western Americas). And if it
is, then convection is not a necessary dynamic. The Earth's rotation
is said to be responsible for it's obliqueness (which is the first
order deformation of the entire planet to the extent of about 24km of
difference between t he equator and the poles) (and the tidal stresses
for its daily flux), and yet according to PT, this is nothing compared
to the effects of heat flux (which lifts the mantle a mere 3-4km.)
According to Pt the rotational effect is only (what was it?) 10^-27
(?) times as much as the thermal buoyancy effect, and yet this
'thermal buoyancy' effect has a symmetry directly mirroring rotation.
How come? And besides, if... (Aww, hell, ,.. @#$% it!
Cheers
Don
(Rome wasn't burned in a night)
Christof Kuhn
website, I see that we are talking from two very different points of
knowledge and understanding - one of us got things screwed up, maybe
it's me, but I guess it's you...
don findlay wrote:
>
>Who says? I thought you did (quote):-
>>in my opinion, the PTers quite successfully
>>explained the reason of the bending island arcs surrounding the Pacific
>>Ocean - it's exactly because tilting plates on a sphere require tilted
>>edges. The Himalayas are bent in the same way for the same reason. In
>>many other instances, the Earth's shape is not mentioned explicitly just
>>because the area considered is to small for the Earth's shape to be
>>relevant. (unquote)
>
> i.e. plates. The last sentence I took to mean that you were making a
> distinction between flat and curved.
If you consider an area 100 by 100 km, the horizontal differences
created by the spherical surface of the earth are so small that they can
be neglected. When we talk about larger areas, the Earth's shape *is*
relevant, of course. Yet, most of the Earth's crust is bent with the
same radius - independent on time and space. Only those parts are
deformed that are subducted. See below.
> But anyhow if you want them
> both curved it still doesn't explain arc shapes, unless the ocean
> plate is flat or curves upwards:-
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/ngsub.html>
>
I'm afraid you've got something wrong about imagining how a convex
surface (such as the Earth's crust) changes if it is pushed downwards.
If you produce a hollow in a ping pong ball, it's border forms exactly a
circle. If we look at a point on the border in detail, we see that the
new slope of the surface dips gently towards the centre of the ball, and
the neighbour points on the border have the same dip angle. If look at
the border from the undeformed (yet spherical) surface, the border to
the dipping area is convex (as any circle is convex if viewed from outside).
A subduction arc looks exactly the same: in front of the arc, the
surface is spherical, with its centre identical with the Earth's centre.
A portion of a perfect ball (if we leave aside the ellipsoid feature,
which is negligible for our issue).
If the surface collides with another surface, obviously something has to
happen. Gravitation leaves only one solution: the denser surface dips
below the lighter surface (subduction). The border between the plates
has to be part of a circle as in the ping pong ball analogy. If the
large-scale border between the plates are not circular, the new border
consists of a chain of circular segments, with the junctions on weak
spots in plate, where the subducted part is ripped into two.
Try with ping pong ball, an orange, a soccer ball, whatever you like.
You'll see that there is no occurrence of planes. Of course
cartographers have to use planar maps - how could you post a globe to
the Internet or print it in a book?
>
> I would agree with you there about the "shrinking by cooling", but
> Plate tectonics sees it as VERY important, being responsible for the
> slope of the ridges, from which the ages of the ocean floors are
> worked out. I would see it as just gravitational adjustment on an
> expanding substrate. Plate tectonics calls it 'ridge-push', but sees
> it as thermally induced (because it wants to maintain a convective
> model), rather than a direct gravitational correction.
>
Of course it could be possible that the earth is expanding at the
mid-ocean ridges. But I cannot see any evidence of this. As the diameter
of the Earth grows, the radius of the surface does so too.
Did you ever try to make an orange peel flat? The margin will be torn
resulting in several lobes, so that the peel will loke like a flower in
the end.
Obviously, there are no gaps in the Earth's surface, neither are there
active margins rectangular to the primary active margins, producing the
crust required for the increasing diameter.
You write a lot about transform faults - with an expanding earth, the
transform faults could not be parallel, but their distance would have to
grow when you travel away from the "primary" mid-ocean ridge. I cannot
find any occurrence of this feature on the Earth.
>
> But hang on, ...you brought up the tea leaf analogy to draw attention
> to the undisturbed surface with all that roiling convection
> underneath. I was just agreeing with you. Anyhow, I haven't thought
> much about it, but a surface tension analogy might not be a bad one.
> That knife edge of a subduction zone looks to me more like a big
> meniscus of a sort, than it does how I would expect a subduction zone
> to look like. How would I expect a big subduction zone to look?
> Something like the inverse of the ridges, i.e. a gre.ea..t lo...ong
> slo..o..ope down into THE CHASM,... just exactly the reverse of the
> great long slope up to the ridge. But we don't get it. All we get
> is a 'pdoing!'..or a 'bloop'.
There is no CHASM because the speed of the moving plates is so slow that
the vertical effects of the convection are levelled by gravitation.
The reason why I refrained from the tea leaves comparison was that
water-saturated tea leaves are denser than water and sink. Only as long
as they are dry, they float on the water due to their low density (with
air in the pores) and the surface tension (as the dry leaves obviously
have positive contact angles - sorry if I don't know the right physics
terminology).
Wood on water is better, since it is *actually* denser than water (at
least for some months) and the contact angle is negative so that surface
tension doesn't support them.
>
> Yes, I know. It's the Earth's centre moving to the crust that's on the
> agenda. It's Pteros who want to pull all the crust back down ("where
> it never wanted to be") on the grounds that there's far too much heat
> (even still) to be accommodated. That is, even though most of the
> heat was lost in the beginning to give the differentiated shells -
> though they make a distinction between THAT heat, and the heat of
> radioactivity which does all the roiling and moiling. That's my
> question, which I don't think plate tectonics can answer. HEATLOSS#1
> gives the differentiated shells (gravitational), and puts all the
> radioactivity where PTers want it (though it's really concentrated in
> the crust). HEATLOSS#2 (which is subordinate to HEATLOSS#1) roils and
> moils and breaks up what HEATLOSS#1 put together in the first place.
> Since most of the radiogenic heat (#2)has been lost long ago anyhow,
> the question is even more pertinent - why is radiogenic heat breaking
> up what gravity put together in the first place? And why, if there
> is still all that heat, isn't the Earth just bigger (less dense,
> ...and forget about the need to convect it all away inside a
> 'too-small' Earth?
>
It's true that there is no agreed conclusion about the prominent heat
source. As regards radioactive heat - why does it have to have been
consumed soon after the the shell differentiation? As long as there are
unstable elements in the rocks, heat will be produced.
As regards density: The diameter adjusts to a size where the density of
the rock can withstand the pressure produced by gravitation. Very
simple. Why does an inflated balloon have a distinct size? The
equilibrium will settle where the pressure of the trapped air matches
the tension of the rubber. Very simple, isn't it?
> So how then *does plate tectonics reconcile the consanguinity of
> transforms globally, with how it sees the segmentation of the crust
> into plates? How does it support its position that the plates are
> 'independent' of each other (any animation model) with the fact that
> their dynamics are clearly tied by transforms?
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/zip.html>
>
Which *consanguinity* do you mean?
Obviously, differential movement requires a fault, wherever on Earth you
look at it.
Why do you think the plates are interlocked? I haven't found any
evidence of movement parallel to the mid ocean ridges, which would
require an interlocking shear force. In the direction rectangular to the
ridge, the tensional strength is very small, so the the border between
the plates rips apart daily. Gravity prevents a deep gap from being
stable, and so firstly, parts of the bordering rock slide into the gap
(normal faults), and some of the gap is filled by upwelling magma (which
melted due to the released pressure).
Obviously, neither detached rocks nor magma has considerable
*interlocking* strength - don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Really, ...I thought your part of the world saw the birth of vertical
> tectonics, right back to the early part of the century, with
> 'verticalism' continued through the Middle East right into the
> Himalayas.....
The vertical movement is a result of the thickening of the continental
crust caused by the collision. Continental crust is lighter than the
mantle and is pushed upwards if it has become thicker. Plate tectonics
is not involved hear - just isostasy.
> And then into the biggest uplift of all - the
> Pacific, the one that brought the mantle up, right down to the
> transition zone.
Again, I don't know which uplift and gravitational collapse you're
speaking of.
Good luck improving your theory and explanations,
don findlay
> >Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
> >From: Christof Kuhn Christ...@boku.ac.at
> >Date: 3/13/03 2:00 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3e711bc9$0$13160$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>
> >
> >Ok - many pters will say, I'm wasting bandwidth (you are not the first
> >earth expansionist to deal with fruitlessly here), but here we go.
> >
> >don findlay wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Right, ..I'd forgotten about the ' principle of intercepts'. This is
> >> what I mean by distorting mirrors. The POINT:- the Earth is round
> >> because gravity rules - it will adjust even half a meter of distortion
> >> to zero in a matter of hours (apparently) - and yet Pteros want this
> >> curved plate at ridges to flatten off as it migrates across the oceans
> >> to arrive at the subduction zone (after millions of years), flat as a
> >> tack.
> >
> >Who says that??? Crust is spherical and remains spherical until it is
> >deformed at a destructive margin. No need for flatting off. Don't know
> >what you speak of.
>
> My guess is, is that he is butchering the fact that old lithosphere tends not
> to obey the depth age relation, it is not as far below sea-level as one might
> expect given its age. Some folks refer to this as the flattening of the
> lithosphere.
And others would call it isostatic adjustment to expansion. It's all
in the Lingo - and the field evidence. At every turn, what's a Puzzle
to Pteros, is a lay-down misere to EE-ers. ...PT argues the jargon of
the model. EE argues the field evidence.
> As usual, he is not communicating effectively, and you can expect to be > faulted for not understanding him.
Well, let me make myself clear. If there is shrinking (cooling away
from ridges) and pushing (ridge-push), how are apportioned:-
1. Depth increase due to gravitational collapse (ridge-push)?
2. Depth increase due to cooling away from the ridges (shrinking)?
3. And what relative weight is given to the simple age-depth
relation v. other methods of dating (foraminers; magnetic striping;
isotopic ratios), given that they're all incestuously tied?
4. And what does all this mean for the AgeCrustPoster map?
> One can only imagine what happens when something like this goes through the
> mind of an EE'er.
At least it stops and rumbles around once it gets in there, which is
more than can be said for some Pters, who might as well let suchlike
things go straight through, as come up with the easy cut-and-dried,
and manifestly false, answers they do - of hot air balloons, pots of
soup/ tea/ woodchips-in-a-cauldron, and all the rest. Even your wee
googly friend doesn't have much in the way of answers worth a zak
when it comes to questions like those above. And I'd put more store
in Elvis living, than in the Duelling Propagators people are trying to
come up with to explain how ridges grow. Even the Rolling Stones have
more craggy geological relevance than anything PT can offer
(..trundling around nearly twice as long as GPS, ...and half the folks
who don't even know what field evidence is)!
D.
Bigdakine
>Date: 3/15/03 3:16 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <5f164087.03031...@posting.google.com>
Why would such an expansion only affect lithosphere greater than 80 myr?
It's all
>in the Lingo - and the field evidence.
You can call a dog's tail a leg.
But that doesn't make it a leg.
A. Lincoln
<snip>
don findlay
> Ok - this shall be my last post in this thread - when I look at your
> website, I see that we are talking from two very different points of
> knowledge and understanding - one of us got things screwed up, maybe
> it's me, but I guess it's you...
Me?...OK Christof, good one. 1 billion Chinese can't be wrong, huh?
...Actually, I've never really thought that much about how plate
tectonics rationalises the arcuate shape of the basins in the Western
Pacific topologically, since I think basically plate tectonics is
quite simply screwed up, with no relevance at all to the Western
Pacific margin. I think it's something like this:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/ngc.html
The picture represents the basic geological contour of the Western
Pacific margin. The smaller arrows represent the crustal detachment
in response to the larger one, which represents in turn the
anticlockwise swing of the northern hemisphere (companion clockwise
southern hemisphere swing not shown). It's quite easy to visualise,
but you have to see that western margin as a ruptured fold, ripped
right across the belt. Put your hands out as for the strap, or the
cane, like when you were at school (naughty boy), right one beneath
the left. Cup them slightly (or maybe arch them - I'm not sure) Now,
turn the right one slightly anticlockwise, and push it slightly
forward, and you have it. The movement simulates ripping the lower
part of the crust off the upper part (or vice versa) - a simple
dilating twist. The arcuate shapes are an artifact of boudinage
(megaboudinage), which is consequent on folding related to the
'cross-over effect' as the southern hemisphere advances in relation to
the north (or again vice versa, with the northern hemisphere in
'retard').. The same movement on a larger scale has widened the whole
western Asian region (from the Afghanistan border to the Western
Pacific).
...But about the pingpong ball. What you say is quite correct - when
you push in a ping pong ball and look at it:- there is the spherical
surface, ...there is the downgoing slope, .. and there is the arcuate
rim. (I take it you mean that the ball is the oceanic plate, and the
dent - if you think of it as infilled with light putty (say) - is the
continent.) However, if you reverse the situation and consider the
dent as the embryonic ocean floor, ...in other words, migrate the
picture back to the onset of ocean floor creation, then the arcuate
shape is the other way. The change in the shape of the arc comes when
the surface occupied by ocean floor exceeds that of half of the Earth.
Bearing in mind that the Western Pacific margin in fact has the
**oldest exposure of ocean floor, and therefore most closely
represents when the Pacific began to open, I'll leave the implications
regarding 'reconfiguration of arc-shape over time', considered when
the Pacific margin first split, what it implies for ocean floor growth
*and* subduction, for your own consideration, but I think it's a
fruitless exercise. (Don't forget either to take into account the
'squirting by extrusion' ("fun tectonics") of the Asian landmass
coming the other way too.) (John Hernlund's post)
<More about planes and ping-pong snipped>
> Of course it could be possible that the earth is expanding at the
> mid-ocean ridges. But I cannot see any evidence of this.
First order evidence of expansion in the direction of ridge length as
regards *continental* expression is in the difference in lengths of
the western and eastern Pacific margins, and (in the Indian Ocean) in
the separation of Australia/ New Zealand from India. The expression
of extension in the *mantle ( along the ridges themselves) is more
subtle, but pretty clear, once you see it. Plate tectonics is
beginning to attempt weird explanations of this in terms of 'ridge
propagation' (but I think they're wrong there (too)). So do plate
tectonic classicists, because it screws up nice models of convection.
It requires getting **really creative** (**duelling** propagators, no
less - if you believe it!! - and why not, it's coming from respectable
sources)
As the diameter
> of the Earth grows, the radius of the surface does so too.
> Did you ever try to make an orange peel flat? The margin will be torn
> resulting in several lobes, so that the peel will loke like a flower in
> the end.
> Obviously, there are no gaps in the Earth's surface, neither are there
> active margins rectangular to the primary active margins, producing the
> crust required for the increasing diameter.
This is the southwards wedge-shapes of South America, Africa, and
India, like you would get dilating an orange by squeezing an orange on
a juicer.
>
> You write a lot about transform faults - with an expanding earth, the
> transform faults could not be parallel, but their distance would have to
> grow when you travel away from the "primary" mid-ocean ridge. I cannot
> find any occurrence of this feature on the Earth.
Would it change things at all if I showed that they do?. Do you think
it would knock a hole in plate tectonics? Can you think of a patch-up
job that PT might adopt as a contingency?
> > But hang on, ...you brought up the tea leaf analogy to draw attention
> > to the undisturbed surface with all that roiling convection
> > underneath. I was just agreeing with you. Anyhow, I haven't thought
> > much about it, but a surface tension analogy might not be a bad one.
> > That knife edge of a subduction zone looks to me more like a big
> > meniscus of a sort, than it does how I would expect a subduction zone
> > to look like. How would I expect a big subduction zone to look?
> > Something like the inverse of the ridges, i.e. a gre.ea..t lo...ong
> > slo..o..ope down into THE CHASM,... just exactly the reverse of the
> > great long slope up to the ridge. But we don't get it. All we get
> > is a 'pdoing!'..or a 'bloop'.
>
> There is no CHASM because the speed of the moving plates is so slow that
> the vertical effects of the convection are levelled by gravitation.
Right, ...in the same way as the ridges are also levelled by
gravitation, except it should be easier to level the ridges because
they are *above their gravitational equilibrium. The naturally
cooling 'potential chasm' needs to be keep being pushed back up to
keep the knife-edged bend of the subduction zone so sharp. But the
ridges...for some reason they *keep rising* faster than gravity can
*keep levelling* them. This is not an equilibrium condition and
implies expansion, unless runaway convection can *keep* sucking it all
down faster than gravitational correction can *keep pushing* it (the
chasm) back up. (Fun tectonics).
<snip>
> >
> It's true that there is no agreed conclusion about the prominent heat
> source. As regards radioactive heat - why does it have to have been
> consumed soon after the the shell differentiation? As long as there are
> unstable elements in the rocks, heat will be produced.
Half-lives of radiogenic minerals I guess. Half-life of Potassium is
xxmy. therefore half of the heat quota is lost in that time - and half
of the remainder lost in the next half life etc.
> As regards density: The diameter adjusts to a size where the density of
> the rock can withstand the pressure produced by gravitation. Very
> simple. Why does an inflated balloon have a distinct size? The
> equilibrium will settle where the pressure of the trapped air matches
> the tension of the rubber. Very simple, isn't it?
Now this is a good point about the prominent heat source, balloons,
convection currents and surface tension. The question is, why does
the skin of the Earth confine all this prominent heat, and keep the
Earth under such teriffic pressure that convection currents moil,
roil, toil and boil beneath it? If the pressure is so great, and the
skin cracks open, why doesn't the Earth's size adjust to a lower
pressure, ...and get bigger? (No-one seems to want to scale up
surface 'tension' (strength of the Earth's crust) as a component in
this convectional scenario (say, to compare the traction associated
with the battering ram of India with the traction at island arcs).
EARTH EXPANSION says that's exactly what **is happening (getting
bigger) (but can't explain the source mechanism for expansion). PLATE
TECTONICS says that's exactly what is happening too, sort of (excess
heat creating ocean floors) (but can't really explain the source
mechanism giving 'excess heat'). So they're both really in the same
boat, except that PT (geophysics- centred) wants to hang on to
subduction (because it wants convection - clever Dick/ model-centred),
whilst EE (geology-centred) sees it as entirely unnecessary and wrong,
since it conflicts with geological evidence and simple reason.
>
> > So how then *does plate tectonics reconcile the consanguinity of
> > transforms globally, with how it sees the segmentation of the crust
> > into plates? How does it support its position that the plates are
> > 'independent' of each other (any animation model) with the fact that
> > their dynamics are clearly tied by transforms?
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/zip.html>
> >
> Which *consanguinity* do you mean?
> Obviously, differential movement requires a fault, wherever on Earth you
> look at it.
> Why do you think the plates are interlocked? I haven't found any
> evidence of movement parallel to the mid ocean ridges, which would
> require an interlocking shear force. In the direction rectangular to the
> ridge, the tensional strength is very small, so the the border between
> the plates rips apart daily. Gravity prevents a deep gap from being
> stable, and so firstly, parts of the bordering rock slide into the gap
> (normal faults), and some of the gap is filled by upwelling magma (which
> melted due to the released pressure).
> Obviously, neither detached rocks nor magma has considerable
> *interlocking* strength - don't know what you're talking about.
I'm talking about the way that PT describes the continents like "ships
at sea, sailing majestically hither and thither", independently, in
different directions, looking for another continent to crash into
(like bovver boys). They're not. They move, like ladies arm-in-arm,
in a demure, co-ordinated swirl across the floor - coupled and
connected, not like a herd of rogue elephants rushing about this way
and that.. or at least having the potential to do so.
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/madagascar.html#platemov
> > Really, ...I thought your part of the world saw the birth of vertical
> > tectonics, right back to the early part of the century, with
> > 'verticalism' continued through the Middle East right into the
> > Himalayas.....
>
> The vertical movement is a result of the thickening of the continental
> crust caused by the collision. Continental crust is lighter than the
> mantle and is pushed upwards if it has become thicker. Plate tectonics
> is not involved hear - just isostasy.
>
> > And then into the biggest uplift of all - the
> > Pacific, the one that brought the mantle up, right down to the
> > transition zone.
>
> Again, I don't know which uplift and gravitational collapse you're
> speaking of.
This link fig.2 <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/ngc.html>
>
> Good luck improving your theory and explanations,
> Christof
OK Christof, ...thanks. ...Bit different eh?
Don
(Old dog trying to teach new tricks. Tough cases, these
youngsters....)
don findlay
It doesn't.. I think I can see it ok in the ridge - transform sectors
too, but not as 'propagators'. I need to work out how best to clarify
it though (still mulling).
D.
J. Taylor
<snip>
><snip>
>> >
>> It's true that there is no agreed conclusion about the prominent heat
>> source. As regards radioactive heat - why does it have to have been
>> consumed soon after the the shell differentiation? As long as there are
>> unstable elements in the rocks, heat will be produced.
>
>Half-lives of radiogenic minerals I guess. Half-life of Potassium is
>xxmy. therefore half of the heat quota is lost in that time - and half
>of the remainder lost in the next half life etc.
I am still at a loss as to how Plate Tectonics gets rid of all the
sediment from continental erosion. Most, if not all, PT animations
have the Philippines, Southern Alaska cross subduction zones,
unscathed. The explanation is lighter material is NOT subducted. Yet,
it seems, subduction can pull down the sediment in the ocean with no
problem.
If heat is generated by
The decay of radiogenic minerals U, Th, K
http://ruby.colorado.edu/~smyth/G101-1.html
half life of Potassium-40 (about 1.3 billion years)
half-life of thorium-232 76,000 years
half-life of Uranium 238 4.5 billion years
half-life of Uranium 234 245,00 years
http://www.ccnr.org/decay_U238.html#HL
Number of half lives in 4.6by:
half life of Potassium-40 (about 1.3 billion years)/ 4.6by = 3.5 times
more
half-life of thorium-232 76,000 years/ 4.6by = 60526 times more
half-life of Uranium 238 4.5 billion years/ 4.6by = 1 times more
half-life of Uranium 234 245,00 years/ 4.6by = 18775 times more
then the subduction rates would be considerably greater in the past
then in the present. Assuming heat is placing the material and it
needs to be removed to keep a constant radius.
Yet current rates of erosion indicate the volume of the continents
above sea level would be eroded away in 25-40my. Even with the
iceberg continuing to rise, due to buoyancy, above the level of the
sea, it will also be eroded without material being added.
So if currently, the rate of all ocean crust removal is 200my and
taking all the sediment, how is it the continents survive being
subducted, but the sediment eroded from them, does not?
It would seem the recycle rate is not with the surface and the mantle,
but the continents and ocean.
Actually this is a problem for both Expanding Earth and Plate
Tectonics.
The erosion rate is known, the replenishment rate needs to equal.
JT
<snip>
Alastair McDonald
"J. Taylor" <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:jtca7vg7lnhf6uqhd...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Mar 2003 06:51:28 -0800, d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> It's true that there is no agreed conclusion about the prominent heat
> >> source. As regards radioactive heat - why does it have to have been
> >> consumed soon after the the shell differentiation? As long as there are
> >> unstable elements in the rocks, heat will be produced.
> >
> >Half-lives of radiogenic minerals I guess. Half-life of Potassium is
> >xxmy. therefore half of the heat quota is lost in that time - and half
> >of the remainder lost in the next half life etc.
>
>
> I am still at a loss as to how Plate Tectonics gets rid of all the
> sediment from continental erosion. Most, if not all, PT animations
> have the Philippines, Southern Alaska cross subduction zones,
> unscathed. The explanation is lighter material is NOT subducted. Yet,
> it seems, subduction can pull down the sediment in the ocean with no
> problem.
It isn't sediment that gets pulled down. It is the basalt which formed at
the mid ocean ridges, and on which the sediment collects.
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair.
J. Taylor
But if the sediment is not being subducted, then it should be
collecting at subduction zones. There are estimates the total
sediment on all the oceans floors is about twice the volume of
material on all the continents above sea level.
If this is what has collected in 200my, where is the sediment for all
the subduction cycles before?
JT
>
>HTH,
>
>Cheers, Alastair.
>
Bigdakine
>Date: 3/17/03 4:03 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <2mkb7vcc38vr9ldjt...@4ax.com>
>
>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:56:16 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
><abb...@abbemac.leavethisout.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J. Taylor" <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>news:jtca7vg7lnhf6uqhd...@4ax.com...
>>> On 16 Mar 2003 06:51:28 -0800, d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> ><snip>
>>> >> >
>>> >> It's true that there is no agreed conclusion about the prominent heat
>>> >> source. As regards radioactive heat - why does it have to have been
>>> >> consumed soon after the the shell differentiation? As long as there are
>>> >> unstable elements in the rocks, heat will be produced.
>>> >
>>> >Half-lives of radiogenic minerals I guess. Half-life of Potassium is
>>> >xxmy. therefore half of the heat quota is lost in that time - and half
>>> >of the remainder lost in the next half life etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am still at a loss as to how Plate Tectonics gets rid of all the
>>> sediment from continental erosion. Most, if not all, PT animations
>>> have the Philippines, Southern Alaska cross subduction zones,
>>> unscathed. The explanation is lighter material is NOT subducted. Yet,
>>> it seems, subduction can pull down the sediment in the ocean with no
>>> problem.
>>
>>It isn't sediment that gets pulled down. It is the basalt which formed at
>>the mid ocean ridges, and on which the sediment collects.
>
>But if the sediment is not being subducted, then it should be
>collecting at subduction zones.
Some sediment is being subducted.The evidence for this found in the
distribution of isotopes found in Island Arc lavas. In other cases it is piled
up. Do a google search on *accretionary wedges*.
Why do you constantly ask questions that any sophomore geology major can
answer? Do yourself a favor and google (or better yet, visit a library) before
you ask.
Alastair McDonald
LOL, yes you caught me out there! Of course there is very little
continental sediment being produced from the Phiippines, and even
less in the Aleutians, so their trenches are going to be pretty empty.
Most of the sediment is flowing onto the passive margins in the
Atlantic, because the subduction of the Pacific Plate is building
the Andes and Rockies which block the flow of rivers on the
American continets in to that ocean.
HTH,
Cheers, Alastair.
Robert Flory
oceanic crust. Oceanic sediments tend to be thin as compared to continental
edge sediments.
Don't be so thick headed, I've been ignoring the thread the best I could so
I can't be sure, but I doubt if anyone said oceanic sediments don't get
subducted in trench bottoms. As for continental sediments I doubt anyone
said none ever get subducted either. Just look around you, we don't seem to
have wads of sediments around oceanic trenches, but when continents get
involved you end up with wads of twisted continental sediment and oceanic
material plastered on the edges. I'm sure the sunny state of California,
where I sit today, owes much of its uniqueness (strangeness ") to such
goings
on ;-)
Bob
.
don findlay
I've been doing a bit of studying (reading books). Let me clarify.
You can best understand this 'wet-sediment scrape-off' in terms of
what's called 'accretionary wedges'. Accretionary wedges happen where
a continent gets plastered with wet sediment as the mantle deposits
its little grey load before wilting (down a subduction zone). Since
the mantle itself is pretty soft, this is best done if a hard
continent can be used as a battering ram. A good example is India.
India used to be much further south, with an ocean called the Tethys
between it and the landmass of Asia to the north This 'Tethys' began
to get closed up by the advance of a convecting cell carrying India
with it from the south. A subduction zone developed (plunging
northwards) along the junction of the tethys and this northern
continent, and, as the mantle descended, aa..aaall the sediment from
the floor of this ocean-cell began to get scraped off and 'plastered'
on to Asia. This went on for a while and culminated with India being
rammed into the whole lot. You can still see the 'stuttering' effect
of this ramming, the way the contours are rippled (something like
shock waves), imprinted, on the Asian Landmass all the way to the
Okhotsk Peninsula, where the recoil ripped off the penisula, and swung
it over the whole Russian landmass. Further south it squirted the
whole Tethys sideways (westwards). So you can see the fantastic
effect all this 'grunt' of convection can have, even though it's so
slow, and the mantle is pretty soft.
All the volcanoes all the way along the subduction zone of what is now
the Himalayas are testimony to the importance of pore geometry and
matrix dihedral angle equilibrium conditions that controlled fluid
migration and magmatism during wet-sediment scrape-off. Yes, I know a
lot of the Himalayas are pretty flat, but a well known feature of
accretionary wedges is that pull-apart structures happen right on the
crests of the folds whilst these are compressing. This is known as
'synorogenic extension' . So the wedge is not just squirting out to
the east, towards the western Pacific, it is also splurging south,
towards India. This is why plate tectonics is such a comprehensively
excellent model for understanding geotectonics, and offering so much
scope for future research.
Hope this clarifies your question about volume.
df.
(PS you should do more reading. It's very illuminating!)
J. Taylor
wrote:
Well go ahead and ask your sophomore geology major, most people get
basic math in about the second grade.
Now little Stuey if we put in 5 units of sediment, but only take 3 out
how much sediment is still left?
JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
Even if it is thin, it is light in comparison to the ocean crust. How
is it pulled down with the crust? Would not the natural buoyancy of
the material resist being pulled down, especially since the rate of
subduction is so slow?
>
>Don't be so thick headed, I've been ignoring the thread the best I could so
>I can't be sure, but I doubt if anyone said oceanic sediments don't get
>subducted in trench bottoms.
Nobody said it did not get subducted. I was just curious as to how a
land mass can cross a subduction zone, due to its natural buoyancy,
but the sediment eroded from it is not subject to the same fate.
>As for continental sediments I doubt anyone
>said none ever get subducted either.
The point is not that none ever gets subducted,, but ALL must be,
otherwise the sediment will accumulate.
>Just look around you, we don't seem to
>have wads of sediments around oceanic trenches,
See there you are, it must be all subducted, but then there is the
little problem of land masses which can float across and not be
subducted.
> but when continents get
>involved you end up with wads of twisted continental sediment and oceanic
>material plastered on the edges. I'm sure the sunny state of California,
>where I sit today, owes much of its uniqueness (strangeness ") to such
>goings
Then North America subducted the subduction zone before swallowing the
spreading ridge?
JT
>on ;-)
>
>Bob
>.
>
>
>
>
Gerard Fryer
bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
> Some sediment is being subducted.The evidence for this found in the
> distribution of isotopes found in Island Arc lavas. In other cases it is piled
> up. Do a google search on *accretionary wedges*.
In some places, such as the Marianas, where coupling is low and there
are no giant earthquakes, *all* the sediment is being subducted. There
there is no accretionary wedge at all, and the fluids venting in the
forearc reflect the chemistry of the subducting plate.
In other places, such as much of Peru-Chile, where the coupling is high
and earthquakes can be monsters, the downgoing plate is nibbling away at
the underside of the overriding plate. There is an accretionary wedge,
but the sediments are all derived from the continent. That's how you get
the Palaeozoics outcropping along the coast, despite the longevity of
the Peru-Chile system. It's worth noting too that those Palaeozoics
shoot the expanding Earth right out of the water because they deny a
match between eastern Australia and the west coast of South America.
Needless to say the EEers ignore them...
don findlay
> In other places, such as much of Peru-Chile, where the coupling is high
> and earthquakes can be monsters, the downgoing plate is nibbling away at
> the underside of the overriding plate. There is an accretionary wedge,
> but the sediments are all derived from the continent. That's how you get
> the Palaeozoics outcropping along the coast, despite the longevity of
> the Peru-Chile system. It's worth noting too that those Palaeozoics
> shoot the expanding Earth right out of the water because they deny a
> match between eastern Australia and the west coast of South America.
> Needless to say the EEers ignore them...
Awww, c'mon, Gerard, ...don't. You're pulling our legs aren't you? A
match between the west coast of South America and the east coast of
Australia was ever one of Carey's CENTRAL PLANKS, rejected for decades
by plate tectonics. I mean, whatever do you do with the Tonga Trench?
Did Australia/ New Zealand just 'hop across' - and then become
'suckered' - caught in the sucking of back-arc basin formation as the
Pacific thundered down THE CHASM? When were all the wet sediments of
the Accretionary Wedge plastered on to Australia by the subduction? -
before Australia hopped across the trench? Or after? Is the gap
between Australia and India a back-arc basin too maybe? A 'BACK-BACK
arc-basin' maybe? (A 'suck-squirt' maybe - some 'fun tectonics ').
Or do you mean that they once joined together (like Carey said) (long,
...long ago) and then they drifted part, and now PT wants to close it
all back up again? On what grounds? (Just a bit of the old
pull-and-push, eh? This what you mean?)
If PT is picking up this match then it's going down a road that's
already well travelled by Earth expansion, but with a completely
different view. (If you're talking field evidence that is. )
(Johnny-come-lately?)
You PT fellows should read a bit of history. Do Carey a favour, buy
his book. Evidently it could be a very illuminating (geological)
experience.
df.
don findlay
Anyhow Stuartie, instead of the Big Snip, how about giving us all a
Big Answer to the questions I asked in response to your saying I
wasn't "communicating effectively":-
(quote from earlier post)
Well, let me make myself clear. If there is shrinking (cooling) away
from ridges, and pushing (ridge-push) away from ridges, how are
apportioned:-
1. Depth increase due to gravitational collapse (ridge-push)?
2. Depth increase due to cooling away from the ridges (shrinking)?
3. And what relative weight is given to the simple age-depth
relation v. other methods of dating (foraminers; magnetic striping;
isotopic ratios), given that they're all incestuously tied?
4. And what does all this mean for the AgeCrustPoster map?
(unquote)
Any clues? Wee Googlie's not helping much - as usual, ...something to
do with everyone being locked in the same consensus groove (tenure or
something). A billion articles all saying the same thing is a
hindrance, not a help.
Don,
(So,..fo'more, go to:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/zip.html>)
don findlay
> > It's worth noting too that those Palaeozoics
> > shoot the expanding Earth right out of the water because they deny a
> > match between eastern Australia and the west coast of South America.
> > Needless to say the EEers ignore them...
>
> Awww, c'mon, Gerard, ...don't. You're pulling our legs aren't you? A
> match between the west coast of South America and the east coast of
> Australia was ever one of Carey's CENTRAL PLANKS, rejected for decades
> by plate tectonics.
Gerard, my apologies. I read it with a syntax error fixed in my
noddle ('Earth expansionists' for 'Expanding Earth' - compounded by
the 'they'). I see you're saying exactly the opposite of how I read
it. What a dill (me). (All in favour say 'aye'.)
But I don't know that 'palaeozoics-to-palaeozoics' necessarily negate
a match. I could never fault Carey on his knowledge of geological
sequence, but I would agree with you, I don't think the fit is right.
I would see a fit otherwise:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p2-page2.html> (second figure)
?even worse?
Don.
Bigdakine
In general I stop reading after I come across a whopper. Experience tells me
there is not much to be gained from reading further.
how about giving us all a
>Big Answer to the questions I asked in response to your saying I
>wasn't "communicating effectively":-
>(quote from earlier post)
>Well, let me make myself clear. If there is shrinking (cooling) away
>from ridges, and pushing (ridge-push) away from ridges, how are
>apportioned:-
>1. Depth increase due to gravitational collapse (ridge-push)?
The ridge push, which is simply the hydraulic head generated by the topographic
relief of the ridges over the abyssal planes, is a force which drives the
plate. It affects the depth-age relation only to the extent that it affects
plate speed. The faster a plate moves, the shallower it will be for a given age
vs. a slower moving plate.
>2. Depth increase due to cooling away from the ridges (shrinking)?
THis given by simple boundary layer theory, which appears to be valid out to
around 80my. More complicated expressions can be found by relaxing some of the
assumptions of boundary layer theory. For old Oceanic lithosphere, the lower
levels of the lithosphere should start convecting. THis transports more heat
upwards and violates the assumptions of the BLT which assumes vertical heat
transport by conduction only. T
>3. And what relative weight is given to the simple age-depth
>relation v. other methods of dating (foraminers; magnetic striping;
>isotopic ratios), given that they're all incestuously tied?
Incestuously tied? Care to back up this acusation?
It always amusing when multiple, independent lines of evidence converge to the
same basic conclusions. Most people think this is the hallmark of a good
theory. Those with a major axe to grind claim its a conspiracy.
You're too much.
>4. And what does all this mean for the AgeCrustPoster map?
>(unquote)
What map?
>
>Any clues? Wee Googlie's not helping much - as usual, ...something to
>do with everyone being locked in the same consensus groove (tenure or
>something). A billion articles all saying the same thing is a
>hindrance, not a help.
No, the main hindrance here Don is your inability to admit your ignorance and
copious errors in a public forum. And no doubt, no matter what, you will not
read anything I suggested to you. To actually study the basics of PT theory is
poison to you. Don't whine about how I treat you. You deserve contempt as much
as pity.
don findlay
Well, there now, ... - they do say you can always tell the true
measure of a person when he's rattled - just listen to the noise he
makes. Thanks for your response anyhow, Stuart. (And put your
contemptible feelings aside in the interest of your own well-being.)
Anyway, ...I don't believe I've ever been afraid to let my ignorance
show on this forum. Indeed I believe being afraid to do so, to say "I
don't really know", is just about the biggest single obstruction to
honest communication there must be. I grant it's a double edged
sword, and one which can lead to BIG problems, especially in your
position, but as a fringe-artist I don't have to worry so much.about
that (except that really really informed people don't want to speak to
me -boo hoo..).. So grant me a bit of lee-way (and eat your heart
out). I understand it's an advantage not available to you.
Sometimes, just sometimes, people who think they know, forget that
they really don't.
So,... now YOU get *your big feature-op. as far as ignorance goes, ..
on the 'STRAYNGE RYDGIES' post. What do you reckon? Do you have
an opinion? You did ask a related question a couple of posts back to
do with old crust flattening off. And let's agree we know about
propagating ridges (in the theory if not in the fact)
Don.
PS. I wasn't aware you were treating me any particular way though,
...What have I been missing??
And "what map?" you ask? The Crustageposter I referred to (and to
which you profess ignorance) is here (JT referred you before):-
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=crustageposter
Yes, I know, ... I did say "agecrustposter", didn't I. Sorry -
"Crustageposter".. didn't bother to check. Bad of me. I expected any
sophomore would be able to rationalise the consonants on that one.
(and do the ooglie - googlie)
And as far as "copious errors" are concerned, I don't think anybody's
pointed out even one - yet. Young Christof there had a go, but he
hasn't come back on any of my replies. (Christof?)
Oh!! Study the basics of Pteromancy? What are you saying?! Apagos
Satanos!!
Cheers.
Have a nice day (mate.)
J. Taylor
wrote:
>In article <20030317144924...@mb-cg.aol.com>,
> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
>
>> Some sediment is being subducted.The evidence for this found in the
>> distribution of isotopes found in Island Arc lavas. In other cases it is piled
>> up. Do a google search on *accretionary wedges*.
>
>In some places, such as the Marianas, where coupling is low and there
>are no giant earthquakes, *all* the sediment is being subducted. There
*All* like in 100% of the material, 100% of the time? Did not know
there was such an efficient system in the Universe.
>there is no accretionary wedge at all, and the fluids venting in the
>forearc reflect the chemistry of the subducting plate.
Not sure how you can tell all from the chemistry, maybe 99% or 99.9%
but not all, and if in 200my it does not get *all* it accumulates.
>
>In other places, such as much of Peru-Chile, where the coupling is high
>and earthquakes can be monsters, the downgoing plate is nibbling away at
>the underside of the overriding plate. There is an accretionary wedge,
>but the sediments are all derived from the continent.
Let me see if I have this straight. The downgoing plate is removing
at the same time it is adding?
JT
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <5f164087.0303...@posting.google.com>
Rattled? LOL.
Annoyd? Indeed. I find it quite annoying that people like yourself literally
accuse thousands of other workers of fraud. Its not me who is rattled, Don. It
is you. People who are rattled by converging lines of independent evidence
claim *conspiracy*. Not the other way around.
If you're looking for an apology. You can forget it.
>
Stop accusing other dilligent workers of fraud simply because you can't handle
the conclusions.
<snip>
And as far not being afraid to admit your ignorance, the problem with you is
that you don't learn when it is corrected.
I strongly suggest you retract your claims of massive academic fraud or support
them.
J. Taylor
wrote:
This is the same line of crap dispensed in support of Flat-Earth, Sun
revolving around the Earth, and Continental Drift.
Had they already learnt his view, "they would defend it throughout
their lives with the same complete lack of judgment and false details
as they now do with the sinking continents." - Wegener, 1920's, when
he was being ridiculed for the notion of Pangea:
:-)
JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
>>
>>Rattled? LOL.
>>
>>Annoyd? Indeed. I find it quite annoying that people like yourself literally
>>accuse thousands of other workers of fraud. Its not me who is rattled, Don. It
>>is you. People who are rattled by converging lines of independent evidence
>>claim *conspiracy*. Not the other way around.
>
>This is the same line of crap dispensed in support of Flat-Earth, Sun
>revolving around the Earth, and Continental Drift.
Not Continental Drift, but rather stable, or contracting Earth
Gerard Fryer
J. Taylor <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:36:28 GMT, Gerard Fryer <ger...@hawaii.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <20030317144924...@mb-cg.aol.com>,
> > bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
> >
> >> Some sediment is being subducted.The evidence for this found in the
> >> distribution of isotopes found in Island Arc lavas. In other cases it is
> >> piled
> >> up. Do a google search on *accretionary wedges*.
> >
> >In some places, such as the Marianas, where coupling is low and there
> >are no giant earthquakes, *all* the sediment is being subducted. There
>
> *All* like in 100% of the material, 100% of the time? Did not know
> there was such an efficient system in the Universe.
There is no evidence for an accretionary wedge anywhere in the Mariana
system except for a tiny little accumulation (which may be from the
overriding plate anyway) just southeast of Guam. Certainly there has
been no accretion for the last 20 million years there.
>
> >there is no accretionary wedge at all, and the fluids venting in the
> >forearc reflect the chemistry of the subducting plate.
>
> Not sure how you can tell all from the chemistry, maybe 99% or 99.9%
> but not all, and if in 200my it does not get *all* it accumulates.
There is almost *no* plate-to-plate coupling in the Marianas. Any
temporary accumulation there seems to be ephemeral. The Pacific plate
there is not following the classic downdip path but is falling
vertically, drawing the backarc seaward. Even accreted stuff falls into
the hole. And there *is* a hole: the Challenger Deep and the HMRG Deep
both go down about 11 km (we'll know better in a week or so).
>
> >
> >In other places, such as much of Peru-Chile, where the coupling is high
> >and earthquakes can be monsters, the downgoing plate is nibbling away at
> >the underside of the overriding plate. There is an accretionary wedge,
> >but the sediments are all derived from the continent.
>
> Let me see if I have this straight. The downgoing plate is removing
> at the same time it is adding?
No. There is no accretion. This is what the late Bill Coulbourn called
continental erosion (much to the annoyance of the traditional plate
tectonicists): the downgoing plate is sanding away the nose of the
overriding plate. Over the last 100 My the western edge of Chile must
have retreated at least 100 km. To my knowledge the only place where
there is both erosion and accretion going on at the same time is the
central to eastern Aleutians. Grinding down the underside of the
overriding plate has allowed the Aleutian Terrace to form. Seaward of
the terrace there is an accretionary prism.
J. Taylor
wrote:
Thank you for the answer. It is one of the best read here. Actually
find it a very satisfactory explanation. But (sorry) what about the
other ends of the trench, Yap and Bonin?
Thanks in advance, excellent answers
JT
Bigdakine
>Date: 3/19/03 3:26 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <k65i7v49bl90c6k8u...@4ax.com>
>
>On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:06:01 -0800, J. Taylor <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Rattled? LOL.
>>>
>>>Annoyd? Indeed. I find it quite annoying that people like yourself
>literally
>>>accuse thousands of other workers of fraud. Its not me who is rattled,
>Don. It
>>>is you. People who are rattled by converging lines of independent evidence
>>>claim *conspiracy*. Not the other way around.
>>
>>This is the same line of crap dispensed in support of Flat-Earth, Sun
>>revolving around the Earth, and Continental Drift.
>
>Not Continental Drift, but rather stable, or contracting Earth
Really?
Please state the multiple lines of evidence touch on by Don..
I'm most interested to know about the Foram data, for example, collected prior
to the DSDP which was used to support a static or contracting earth.
don findlay
DF wrote:-
(PS "...Zerizzonly vun anser - take him avay! You know vot do to..."
) Is that it Stuart? (..Ah, a little dissent never hurts - even
adds some spice and colour to those grey totalitarian tail-feathers.)
Nukeing the nonsense of Plate Tectonics at Operations Command:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/zip.html
Hey, ..if you or anyone else would like to post a correction to any
point I make on my site, I'll be quite happy to post a page with a
link to the point for you. The site is to order the geological
evidence in a way that makes most sense. And that's from the
top-down according to the field evidence, not from the inside of a
model that has only a quarter leg to stand on:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/subduction.html> If you disagree
with anything I say, say what and where and I'll give you space.
That's what web publishing and peer review is really about, no I mean
That's really what web publishing and peer review is about, ... no,
..
That's what real web publishing and peer review is about , ..(no scrub
that too)
That's what web publishing and peer review is about. Really? Yup!
There got it! (with apologies to the original thaumaturges and in
the interest of clarity).
Don.
don findlay
>
>
> Rattled? LOL.
>
> Annoyd? Indeed. I find it quite annoying that people like yourself literally
> accuse thousands of other workers of fraud. Its not me who is rattled, Don. It
> is you. People who are rattled by converging lines of independent evidence
> claim *conspiracy*. Not the other way around.
>
> If you're looking for an apology. You can forget it.
> >
> Stop accusing other dilligent workers of fraud simply because you can't handle
> the conclusions.
>
> <snip>
>
> And as far not being afraid to admit your ignorance, the problem with you is
> that you don't learn when it is corrected.
>
> I strongly suggest you retract your claims of massive academic fraud or support
> them.
>
> Stuart
> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> "To err is human, but to really foul things up
> requires a creationist"
?conspiracy?
?Accusing diligent workers of fraud?
?...Massive academic fraud?
Oh Dear. Hey, Stuart, ...you've lost the place. These are your
words, not mine. I use 'consensus'/ 'consensus views' to portray the
majority position, and I've already made clear my views about how I
see 'real science' and how it is very necessary (quote):-
It's easy to see how it all sort of glues together both for and
against itself. Paradigms are real, but maybe more in the political
sense of security and community, than in the geological sense (as Bob
Ehrlich said a few posts back ('thorns' or 'scimitars'). Consensus is
very necessary for filling out and testing boundaries, but that's its
limit. **That** is 'real science', and is workmanlike-mundane - the
boundaries are set; the quantities known, the parameters defined, the
outcome assured. Crossing those boundaries is **not** science.
It's beyond science. "Bad science". It's ideas. Nothing scientific
about it. Certainly it's a big threat to community-consensus and
what holds it all together, and what makes it tick ($$$). And that's
why there's resistance from peer review (natural too, when one's own
demise might be (probably is) in there). The ordinary real scientist
however tends to look there [consensus] for guidance, and can't afford
to
transgress (tenure). Funny, isn't it, the pen to the sword is like
ideas to science. If you're a 'real scientist' and you get a good
idea, then by golly, you'd better look out. (!!) Yup, 'real science'
has its doublespeak too. (unquote)
(or see <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=5f164087.0301251624.233ee4f3%40posting.google.com>
)
Consensus is a perfectly respectable and necessary position to take -
and highly advantageous too - there's nothing to be defensive about.
Dissent is also a respectable position to take - though clearly not so
advantageous. The basis of democracy is for the secure majority to
allow the ideas/views of the minority to speak, ...not, intolerantly,
to try to gag them. That way lies totalitarianism (of the blackest
sort). How often are today's 'nutty ideas' the basis of tomorrows
'good science'? Don't forget plate tectonics is/was held up in the
first instance as an "outrageous view" (though it's never been much
more, really, than refurbished Wegener).
You're trying to punch a will-o'-the-wisp. Give over, you'll hurt
yourself. Address the field evidence, not me.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html
Don
PS One thing about consensus - it's very reluctant to examine its
position/ look in the mirror (Strange Ridges post) - which I think
says a lot for the security of consensus views.
Bigdakine
>Date: 3/19/03 11:29 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <5f164087.03032...@posting.google.com>
How else to interpret your use of *incestuous* ?
Feel free to equivocate.
>
>It's easy to see how it all sort of glues together both for and
>against itself. Paradigms are real, but maybe more in the political
>sense of security and community, than in the geological sense (as Bob
>Ehrlich said a few posts back ('thorns' or 'scimitars'). Consensus is
>very necessary for filling out and testing boundaries, but that's its
>limit. **That** is 'real science', and is workmanlike-mundane - the
>boundaries are set; the quantities known, the parameters defined, the
>outcome assured.
Crossing those boundaries is **not** science.
>It's beyond science. "Bad science". It's ideas. Nothing scientific
>about it. Certainly it's a big threat to community-consensus and
>what holds it all together, and what makes it tick ($$$).
And that's
>why there's resistance from peer review (natural too, when one's own
>demise might be (probably is) in there).
Really? Didn't seem to trouble Einstein too much. Nor Heisenberg. Nor Feynman,
Nor even Wegner. . As I've stated before, there is plethora of journals,
probably more than is good. Far more than what was available to Einstein.
Claiming cencorship by peer-review is simply the excuse du-jour.
The ordinary real scientist
>however tends to look there [consensus] for guidance, and can't afford
>to
>transgress (tenure).
THats nonsense. Sorry.
Funny, isn't it, the pen to the sword is like
>ideas to science. If you're a 'real scientist' and you get a good
>idea, then by golly, you'd better look out.
I see you haven't spent much time in a university as of late.
Most people in Academia know they can make a *name* for themselves by breaking
new ground or slaughtering sacred cows. THe thing that is required is good
evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence. You have that, you have a
good time.
(!!) Yup, 'real science'
>has its doublespeak too. (unquote)
>(or see
><http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=5f16408
7.0301251624.233ee4f3%40posting.google.com>
>)
>
>Consensus is a perfectly respectable and necessary position to take -
>and highly advantageous too - there's nothing to be defensive about.
Not as much glory either.
So far this discussion is a non-sequiter to your remark regarding the
*incestuous* nature of multiple lines of evidence.
>Dissent is also a respectable position to take - though clearly not so
>advantageous.
Depends. If you're right glory be to you. If you're wrong like A. EInstein,
glory be to you. Science values its critics who make good arguments. But after
the critics have been asnwered, and yet they still repeat the same arguments
then they find themselves in oblivion.
The basis of democracy is for the secure majority to
>allow the ideas/views of the minority to speak, ...not, intolerantly,
>to try to gag them.
Is that how you feel Don? You're being gagged? What journals have you submitted
your ideas to? Is this forum censored?
That way lies totalitarianism (of the blackest
>sort). How often are today's 'nutty ideas' the basis of tomorrows
>'good science'? Don't forget plate tectonics is/was held up in the
>first instance as an "outrageous view"
Indeed. And you know what Don? They still were able to have their ideas
published. The PT revolution simmered on the back burner for a while (A.
Holmes), but was essentially completed in about a decade
(though it's never been much
>more, really, than refurbished Wegener).
Actually PT has much more to do with Holmes. Wegner was a dead end.
>
>You're trying to punch a will-o'-the-wisp. Give over, you'll hurt
>yourself. Address the field evidence, not me.
Practice what you preach, Don. Address the multiple lines of independent
evidence which support the fundamental tenents of PT, rather than dismissing
them as incestuous.
Now I answered your questions on the relations between ridge push, lithospheric
cooling and subsidence.
Is there anything else?
>http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html
>
This site keeps timing out.
It does have to wend its way through much of the internet to get here...
don findlay
> >> I strongly suggest you retract your claims of massive academic fraud or
> support
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Stuart
> >> Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> >> Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> >> "To err is human, but to really foul things up
> >> requires a creationist"
> >
> >?conspiracy?
> >?Accusing diligent workers of fraud?
> >?...Massive academic fraud?
> >
> >Oh Dear. Hey, Stuart, ...you've lost the place. These are your
> >words, not mine. I use 'consensus'/ 'consensus views' to portray the
> >majority position, and I've already made clear my views about how I
> >see 'real science' and how it is very necessary (quote):-
>
> How else to interpret your use of *incestuous* ?
I suppose I've used it a few times. In what context are you talking
about? (equivocating)
>
> Feel free to equivocate.
>
> >
> >It's easy to see how it all sort of glues together both for and
> >against itself. Paradigms are real, but maybe more in the political
> >sense of security and community, than in the geological sense (as Bob
> >Ehrlich said a few posts back ('thorns' or 'scimitars'). Consensus is
> >very necessary for filling out and testing boundaries, but that's its
> >limit. **That** is 'real science', and is workmanlike-mundane - the
> >boundaries are set; the quantities known, the parameters defined, the
> >outcome assured.
>
> Crossing those boundaries is **not** science.
> >It's beyond science. "Bad science". It's ideas. Nothing scientific
> >about it. Certainly it's a big threat to community-consensus and
> >what holds it all together, and what makes it tick ($$$).
>
>
> And that's
> >why there's resistance from peer review (natural too, when one's own
> >demise might be (probably is) in there).
>
> Really? Didn't seem to trouble Einstein too much. Nor Heisenberg. Nor Feynman,
> Nor even Wegner. . As I've stated before, there is plethora of journals,
> probably more than is good. Far more than what was available to Einstein.
> Claiming cencorship by peer-review is simply the excuse du-jour.
Since it's not a road I'm going down, censorship is not a problem for
me. I was talking generally for the community of scientists for whom
it is very necessary, if career advancement is on their mind, to stay
within agreed boundaries. If one doesn't, consequences can be severe.
I'm sure there's hardly need to make the point
<http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/martin/1.html>
> The ordinary real scientist
> >however tends to look there [consensus] for guidance, and can't afford
> >to
> >transgress (tenure).
>
>
> THats nonsense. Sorry.
You reckon, eh?
> Funny, isn't it, the pen to the sword is like
> >ideas to science. If you're a 'real scientist' and you get a good
> >idea, then by golly, you'd better look out.
>
> I see you haven't spent much time in a university as of late.
>
> Most people in Academia know they can make a *name* for themselves by breaking
> new ground or slaughtering sacred cows. THe thing that is required is good
> evidence.
Ah, ...the evidence, and good evidence at that, ;;; Whose? Yours?
Or mine? Or the 'evidence' agreed (like the 'weapons of Mass
Destruction' - there'a whole lot going on right now on account of that
'good evidence')
> Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence. You have that, you have a
> good time.
Right, and I'm having a good time.. But as as far as subduction is
concerned, which is the crux, I grant there's a problem. It's sort of
like the faery ring in the grass, and trying to prove that fairies
don't exist - there are other explanations, but none that grips the
imagination so.
>
> (!!) Yup, 'real science'
> >has its doublespeak too. (unquote)
> >(or see
> ><http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=5f16408
> 7.0301251624.233ee4f3%40posting.google.com>
> >)
> >
> >Consensus is a perfectly respectable and necessary position to take -
> >and highly advantageous too - there's nothing to be defensive about.
>
> Not as much glory either.
> So far this discussion is a non-sequiter to your remark regarding the
> *incestuous* nature of multiple lines of evidence.
Ah, I see - 'incestuous': Was it that, that bothered you? I guess
it's like the words 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' - depends on
your point of view. I suppose I meant that they're all converging
lines of 'evidence':- Age dates from ocean depth (ignoring the
component of gravitational collapse -or "hyraulic head" (hydraulic
head? you mean less water or more water??)- basalts underneath for
isotopes, and forams for the muds in between, and questioned HOW the
relative importances were aportioned. I think the explanation that
heat loss (cooling) being the main factor in determining ocean depth
(and therefore age) doesn't square with the notion of ridge-push being
the important driving force for subduction thousands of kilometres
away, when, in the case of India pushing Asia, we can see (supposedly)
the effect of push in brittle crust. Mantle being softer than crust,
should buckle huge submarine mountain ranges. And subduction (being
pull) should produce huge 'synorogenic extensional zones'. I know
Plate tectonics wants to balance these (? is that right - correct?)
and say "ridge-push - slab pull" is the mechanism. How come it
doesn't balance in continental crust where there are lots of examples
of 'imbalance'? Or Am I not saying it fast enough - (RPSP). So
why then (in the oceans)isn't gravitational collapse of the ridges
(I'm not sure what you mean by "hydraulic head" - - - ??water depth/
??lack of it)the main parameter determining bathymetry, and therefore
we could get work out rates of gravitational adjustment to
(expansional) uplift? Is this one for another 'Nonsense' page
perhpas? I reckon it could be. Do you want to add any modifiers?)
> >Dissent is also a respectable position to take - though clearly not so
> >advantageous.
>
> Depends. If you're right glory be to you. If you're wrong like A. EInstein,
> glory be to you. Science values its critics who make good arguments. But after
> the critics have been asnwered, and yet they still repeat the same arguments
> then they find themselves in oblivion.
I doubt dissent is ever welcome (read 'whistleblowers'), though it is
very necessary. The job of the newspapers is to dissect the
government, not support them. When publications continually support
the consensus position there is something wrong (yes you guessed it)
with the State of Denmark. But is the fault with the authors, or the
system? I put it to you that it's both. They are 'incestuously
tied'. An uggh state of affairs.
> The basis of democracy is for the secure majority to
> >allow the ideas/views of the minority to speak, ...not, intolerantly,
> >to try to gag them.
>
> Is that how you feel Don? You're being gagged? What journals have you submitted
> your ideas to? Is this forum censored?
No, I've got Megabytes galore. Gigabytes even <grin> Everybody gets
to read it - every day. With Googlease. Why would I want to put it
on paper and have it shoved to the back of dusty shelves and into
drawers??(!Crazy!). I'm playing a different game you see. I'm trying
to communicate information. Get it? Some people are funny that way,
they get what they think's a good idea and they want to share it.
Others want to exploit their good ideas with a different agenda. Why
else do we get the same paper repeated many times in different
journals? Mind you, if somebody came along with BIG Bucks offering to
shut me up, I might be tempted. I'd take their big bucks and find
another way to say it. There, not entirely a boy scout. But
"publishing in journals", that's for people playing the game of career
advancement, but only within the consensus position. And as everyone
knows, CONSENSUS IS DEAD - LONG LIVE CONSENSUS. You're naive too if
you think being outside consense gets you anywhere (careerwise). I
can vouch for it. Wouldn't you agree? That's why I see a whole lot
of parrots around the place. Parrots are known for their
intelligence. But have you ever seen how they fly? (Actually Budgies
are better). I would be the cuckoo, I suppose. Have to be.
> That way lies totalitarianism (of the blackest
> >sort). How often are today's 'nutty ideas' the basis of tomorrows
> >'good science'? Don't forget plate tectonics is/was held up in the
> >first instance as an "outrageous view"
>
> Indeed. And you know what Don? They still were able to have their ideas
> published. The PT revolution simmered on the back burner for a while (A.
> Holmes), but was essentially completed in about a decade
Turn turn. (revolution)
>
>
> (though it's never been much
> >more, really, than refurbished Wegener).
>
> Actually PT has much more to do with Holmes. Wegner was a dead end.
>
> >
> >You're trying to punch a will-o'-the-wisp. Give over, you'll hurt
> >yourself. Address the field evidence, not me.
>
> Practice what you preach, Don. Address the multiple lines of independent
> evidence which support the fundamental tenents of PT, rather than dismissing
> them as incestuous.
>
> Now I answered your questions on the relations between ridge push, lithospheric
> cooling and subsidence.
>
> Is there anything else?
Yes, ...there is. Gravitational collapse as a tectonic force in its
own right (right there, in situ, all ready to do its stuff) v.
cooling (vertical shrinkage). Vertical cooling/ shrinkage on the
ridges, and vertical cooling on subduction zones. And so why not
vertical cooling all the way in between. If it started to sink way
back at the ridges why didn't it just keep it up, and just keep
cooling/ sinking. Since 'subduction' would then be whole lot closer
to the ridges, the Earth would be a whole lot smaller (wouldn't it?)
But the fact that it didn't means that the Earth must be expanding.
(No? Another Nonsense page perhaps?) Why does the depth/ time graph
only 'work' for 80m years? Does it 'work' at all (really)? (prompt:
repeat after me: "I don't really know")
> >http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html
> >
>
> This site keeps timing out.
Crikey-Gosh! Do you mean you stay on it long enough to find out??!!
Wow! I must be doing something right. Really, though, IF anyone has
problems with it, let me know. But remember, it's Downbrownland down
here, full of Kooks and Koalas and (sometimes)labyrinthine swamp, and
not very high-tech at all.
Don.
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <5f164087.03032...@posting.google.com>
><snip>
>
>Ah, I see - 'incestuous': Was it that, that bothered you? I guess
>it's like the words 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' - depends on
>your point of view. I suppose I meant that they're all converging
>lines of 'evidence':- Age dates from ocean depth (ignoring the
>component of gravitational collapse -or "hyraulic head" (hydraulic
>head? you mean less water or more water??)-
No. Because the ridges are at higher relief, they exert a force given by
density*g*dh/dx where h is the topograpghy and x is distance from the ridge.
THis is the same formula for hydraulic head.
basalts underneath for
>isotopes, and forams for the muds in between, and questioned HOW the
>relative importances were aportioned.
Relative importances of what? You do not write clearly Don. I suggest you take
more time to express yourself in a way that is scientifically understandable.
I think the explanation that
>heat loss (cooling) being the main factor in determining ocean depth
>(and therefore age) doesn't square with the notion of ridge-push being
>the important driving force for subduction thousands of kilometres
>away,
I already explained where the depth-age relation comes from. It comes from
boundary layer theory.
Why you persist in talking about ridge push force and subduction, I have no
idea.
At this point I leave you to your own devices..
don findlay
Lighting a few fires in retreat Stuart, eh?
Don't *you* have an onion for the soup?
J. Taylor
wrote:
>In article <u10h7vggpvaft42np...@4ax.com>,
> J. Taylor <jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:36:28 GMT, Gerard Fryer <ger...@hawaii.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <20030317144924...@mb-cg.aol.com>,
>> > bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Some sediment is being subducted.The evidence for this found in the
>> >> distribution of isotopes found in Island Arc lavas. In other cases it is
>> >> piled
>> >> up. Do a google search on *accretionary wedges*.
>> >
>> >In some places, such as the Marianas, where coupling is low and there
>> >are no giant earthquakes, *all* the sediment is being subducted. There
>>
>> *All* like in 100% of the material, 100% of the time? Did not know
>> there was such an efficient system in the Universe.
Thanks again for the explanation, have another question.
Using the sediment map from NOAA
http://apex.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/sedthick.jpg
Look at the Kermadec and Tonga Trench above New Zealand.
Also, the Yap and Mariana Trenches
I realize at the scale of the map, it is difficult to see and will be
best viewed in a graphics program, but it is very clear the sediment
in these trenches is considerably thinner than adjoining area.
Even ** IF ** the trenches are removing the sediment from the ocean
crust, which is moving into these trenches, it will NOT remove it
before it is subducted, but this is precisely what must happen to have
less sediment in the trench than adjoining sides.
JT
Bigdakine
No, simply stating the obvious. One can discuss the thermal characteristics of
a moving plate without having to know anything about the ridge push force or
subduction.
Again, and for the last time, I'll refer you to Allegre's "Behavior of The
Earth". THats a good place to start.
I.Warren
Bigdakine
>Date: 3/22/03 10:17 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <6Zdfa.28174$jE3.6...@news.xtra.co.nz>
>
>http://www.mantleplumes.org/Philosophy.html
>
Wow... even mantle plumes have their own organization..
Or should I say anti-plumes
don findlay
Yeah, more divide-and-rule doublespeak...
D.
John Hernlund
McDonald" <abb...@abbemac.leavethisout.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> LOL, yes you caught me out there! Of course there is very little
> continental sediment being produced from the Phiippines, and even
> less in the Aleutians, so their trenches are going to be pretty empty.
>
> Most of the sediment is flowing onto the passive margins in the
> Atlantic, because the subduction of the Pacific Plate is building
> the Andes and Rockies which block the flow of rivers on the
> American continets in to that ocean.
>
> HTH,
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
A substantial line of evidence for recycling of sediments has been the study
of Beryllium isotopes in arc volcanics...so this stuff does get down there.
What happens after that? It isn't too unreasonable to suggest that its
composition will make a lot of it less viable in the mantle, and it probably
melts and mixes with other fluids instead of being subducted to much greater
depths in the mantle.
John
John Hernlund
"I.Warren" <ian.w...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> http://www.mantleplumes.org/Philosophy.html
Interesting site...no notes on the front page regarding who maintains it. I
would guess Gillian Foulger? Unfortunately many of the links contain gross
inaccuracies...such as plumes being magma rising from the deepest mantle.
Plumes are not magma, just a hot thermal upwelling of good solid stuff.
These days I tend to think that quite a few hotspots do not arise from
plumes, but you certainly can not throw out all of them as being due to
shallow processes only. The lack of upwelling plumes would have some very
difficult consequences, since they are an inevitable result of a thermal
boundary layer at the core-mantle boundary. A thermal boundary layer exists
if the core is losing heat out into the mantle. Some basic logic: if there
were no plumes, then there would be no thermal boundary layer, which means
that the core is not giving up heat to the mantle. This seems to be a very
difficult situation to reconcile, since loss of heat would appear to be a
really important part of driving the geodynamo in the core and maintaining
Earth's magnetic field. So if we scrap plumes entirely, then we would also
create another problem of very large proportions. The core dynamics people
are already complaining that the currently conceived thermal boundary layer
is not good enough, and that more watts are needed across the interface.
Seismic evidence indicates a huge amount of heterogeneity at the very base
of the mantle, which implies that the existence of a thermal boundary layer
is consistent with observations (i.e. real data).
Cheers!
John
I.Warren
30,no.5,p411)-self-organizing top-down plate tectonics. The site is that of
Don Anderson at CalTech. I thought all the dissenters should be aware that
rethinking of plate tectonics is continually taking place,even at esteemed
places such as CIT and published in widely circulated journals like Geology.
If you've got your evidence organized,clearly present the facts and your
deductive processes and submit it for publishing.
Cheers,Ian
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <P7Jga.36144$jE3.8...@news.xtra.co.nz>
Gee.. if only the resident crybabies would take heed.
J. Taylor
wrote:
>The link isn't as interesting as the Geology article(Volume
>30,no.5,p411)-self-organizing top-down plate tectonics. The site is that of
>Don Anderson at CalTech. I thought all the dissenters should be aware that
>rethinking of plate tectonics is continually taking place,even at esteemed
>places such as CIT and published in widely circulated journals like Geology.
All this show is Plate Tectonics will work even if they have to change
it so much it does not even look like Plate Tectonics.
JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: OK - another one for the board
>>From: "I.Warren" ian.w...@xtra.co.nz
>>Date: 3/27/03 10:33 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <P7Jga.36144$jE3.8...@news.xtra.co.nz>
>>
>>The link isn't as interesting as the Geology article(Volume
>>30,no.5,p411)-self-organizing top-down plate tectonics. The site is that of
>>Don Anderson at CalTech. I thought all the dissenters should be aware that
>>rethinking of plate tectonics is continually taking place,even at esteemed
>>places such as CIT and published in widely circulated journals like Geology.
>>If you've got your evidence organized,clearly present the facts and your
>>deductive processes and submit it for publishing.
>>
>>Cheers,Ian
>
>
>Gee.. if only the resident crybabies would take heed.
Yea!
And to prove how things really are call names! Your post serves to
undermine everything in the previous post.
JT
Bigdakine
>Date: 3/27/03 4:54 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <bed78vsv9qgecjlne...@4ax.com>
Get over yourself JT.
John Hernlund
stir things up, keep people on their toes, etc.. I don't mind that at
all, it makes the world a far more interesting place and I think he has
undoubtedly made a significant impact on some of these issues. Some
older guys tell me that he was the complete opposite when he was
younger. But lay people coming across his work can often get the wrong
impressions about some of the things he says. Some of the things he says
are quite out in left field, but it is worth sifting through an finding
an ounce of truth here or there, or even some new ideas.
Everything I said previously has already been published in numerous
journals and volumes, and is well-accepted in our community.
John
don findlay
John, you're just not listening to what plate tectonics is saying.
The words it uses are really irrelevant . Plate tectonics **IS**
Earth expansion. What Anderson's saying is that the concept is being
hampered by words. Words are the problem, not what they mean. Anyone
can see it's just that inarticulate Pteros have been confusing the
issue by using the wrong words. Don Anderson makes the point very
well in his concluding sentences (quote:-
"..The general theory of plate tectonics drops most of the
assumptions, adjectives and limitations of the abstract theory and
makes it evident that plate tectonics is more powerful than generally
believed. The general theory is put forward as a topdown, stress and
plate controlled, largely tectonic and athermal, alternative to the
bottoms-up deep thermal plume hypothesis. The perceived limitations of
plate tectonic theory that are thought to require ad hoc mechanisms to
drive and break-up the plates and create volcanic chains are semantic,
not real, limitations." (unquote)
In other words, if you forget about words the theory is even more
powerful. I particularly like the point about "top down" and
"athermal" , though it might get some Pteros in a spin... Well he's
evidently got it published, so there must some general agreement at
least about this word-deficiency. He's a very understanding chap,
gently pointing out to folks that they're just a bit slow on the
uptake - in realising that the problems are with the words, not the
theory. Anderson rightly makes the point that what is needed is
"small groups of linked words that convey concepts without fixing
theories". Like calling the Benioff the Benioff, and not a subduction
zone, ...and calling these hot spots an area of "mid-plate volcanism",
not a mantle plume. He's arguing to get away from all the memes and
shibboleths that straightjacket the theory, and tell it like it is
instead. Which is the essence of good geological practice, and which
plate tectonics screwed up by thinking (as you pointed out a few posts
back) that the answer to understanding global tectonics lies in
understanding the model, not the geology. I keep saying the same
thing (winning friends and influencing people) - which Stuart gets on
to me for - by saying they're a dumb bunch and mob of parrots. He
(Anderson), being more polished with his use of letters, is saying the
same thing by making an appeal to proper taxonomy. That way, through
the use of proper STRINGS of words, the true power of plate tectonics
will be realised. In other words, drop all the crap that's been
believed up to now and start over. (Seems pretty obvious, I would
have thought.)
I wonder what he would suggest instead of 'plate tectonics' ....
df
don findlay
> The core dynamics people
> are already complaining that the currently conceived thermal boundary layer
> is not good enough, and that more watts are needed across the interface.
> Seismic evidence indicates a huge amount of heterogeneity at the very base
> of the mantle, which implies that the existence of a thermal boundary layer
> is consistent with observations (i.e. real data).
>
> Cheers!
> John
Thermal? Why don't they interpret it as a *tectonic boundary at the
core - mantle interface, same as at the crust - mantle interface?
(rotation/ twist) (And yes I know everyone does say it's thermal - but
'everyone' seems to be saying they've got a problem) A problem
shared is a problem halved or something? And I hope it's the
heterogeneity that's the 'real data' and not the "implication of
existence".
John Hernlund
5f164087.03032...@posting.google.com, "don findlay"
<d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
"Tectonic has no meaning at the core-mantle boundary. And there is a
problem. You can't attribute all of it to thermal causes, there is probably
come chemistry going on there as well. Heck, some people even think there
are patches of partial melt at the base of the mantle...but they use
evidence to argue their case. You are just arm-waving Don.
John
don findlay
Not waving arms (yet). Just wiggling the finger. I guess I was using
'tectonic' rather loosely (as geology does in this dual
brittle-ductile crust), to refer to symmetry of deformation/
differential behaviour of the Earth's shells, rather than to a picture
of upwelling, irregular convection, e.g., this:-
<http://www.liv.ac.uk/earth/images/Geodynamics/Geodynamics_r1_c1.jpg>
rather than this:- <http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo101/graphics/s12fsl.jpg>
I guess there's a bit of latitude in how the data might be
three-dimensionally contoured to allow different emphases?
John Hernlund
5f164087.0303...@posting.google.com, "don findlay"> news:<BAAD24FD.2A6%hern...@ess.ucla.edu>...
>> "Tectonic has no meaning at the core-mantle boundary. And there is a
>> problem. You can't attribute all of it to thermal causes, there is probably
>> come chemistry going on there as well. Heck, some people even think there
>> are patches of partial melt at the base of the mantle...but they use
>> evidence to argue their case. You are just arm-waving Don.
>>
>> John
>
> Not waving arms (yet). Just wiggling the finger. I guess I was using
> 'tectonic' rather loosely (as geology does in this dual
> brittle-ductile crust), to refer to symmetry of deformation/
> differential behaviour of the Earth's shells, rather than to a picture
> of upwelling, irregular convection, e.g., this:-
> <http://www.liv.ac.uk/earth/images/Geodynamics/Geodynamics_r1_c1.jpg>
> rather than this:-
> <http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo101/graphics/s12fsl.jpg>
I am not sure what you mean by citing these figures...although the latter it
pretty cool. These are both looking like some sort of seismic tomography
model...and all of these agree quite well with one another in the large. The
former looks like Steve Grand's model, and the latter I don't know.
> I guess there's a bit of latitude in how the data might be
> three-dimensionally contoured to allow different emphases?
No, not really. You can't invent something that isn't there by choosing
contours. I do this type of visualization all the time, and if there were a
way to do such a thing I'd definitely be well versed in using it!
Cheers!
John
James Foster
This is true as long as the data set is dense and regular. As soon
as the data become sparse and irregular you enter into the murky
world of gridding - assuming that you only contour gridded
data. I imagine John deals primarily in data that is defined at grid
nodes, or at least can be objectively evaluated at grid nodes. For
other randomly sampled data sets you can change the character quite
considerably by choosing one gridding approach or other, and a lot
of agonising, justification and analysis of significance is needed
in order to select the most appropriate method. While the actual
measured data do not change (within their known/estimated error)
the gridding methods can change the interpolation across the unsampled
areas between the data points quite dramatically. Of course you would
be careful not to attach much significance to these areas unless the
gridding method gave good reason to do so.
James
I.Warren
these sorts of global scale phenomenon? The most robust kriging actually
"ignores" the data points once the variation has been modelled. Examining
the error on these surfaces (predicted vs. actual) is quite informative,but
rarely do authors/workers show you these data. Depending on the
geostatistical acumen of the worker,surface models quite different from
reality can be created.
Cheers,
Ian
James Foster
There are several common approaches depending on the data you
are working with. Potential field data are often gridded using
a minimum curvature method (as potential fields have this
property) but if it is under sampled minimum curvature can
generate some ugly overshoots. Topography and other fields
that are not necessarily continuous are often gridded with
a near-neighbour approach or some similar method.
Kriging is something of a black art in most cases as the form
for the variance needs to be assigned, and may not actually be
known a-priori. Its big asset - as you mention - is that based
on the given variance it also produces errors for the interpolation.
It really should be expected that these errors are presented along
with the gridded data.
The best way to grid uses a physical model of the parameter
being gridded - but this can be hugely CPU intensive for parameters
that have complex controls and interactions and of course there
may be no useful/known model for the parameter (eg topography).
Objective gridding based on orthogonal functions (legendre or
similar) can work well for unspecified parameters, but requires
the worker to assign the errors or maximum order of the functions
to get the appropriate level of fit. One positive aspect is that
by forcing the worker to actually manually interact with the
process they get a better feel for the data and how reliable the
interpolation really is.
I think it is probably true that most disciplines have settled
on a few methods that are generally understood and accepted by
workers within the discipline. They may not necessarily be the
optimum methods for every case, but, importantly, everyone is more
or less familiar with the method and its strengths and weaknesses
and so can evaluate the significance of data gridded using that
method.
James
don findlay
>
> > D.F.:-
> > I guess there's a bit of latitude in how the data might be
> > three-dimensionally contoured to allow different emphases?
>
> No, not really. You can't invent something that isn't there by choosing
> contours.
Oh really? Mining engineers do it all the time, which they often
discover to their cost once they start digging holes. It's always a
nail-biting exercise, contouring data, and usually one that errs on
the gung-ho optimistic, according to the purpose - in their case
(bread)(raising dough). So much so there are LAWS (of the 'legal'
sort) governing how this must be done. I put it to you there's quite
a substantial difference in emphasis between those two illustrations
(which were:-
<http://www.liv.ac.uk/earth/images/Geodynamics/Geodynamics_r1_c1.jpg>
and
<http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo101/graphics/s12fsl.jpg>
)
....and this one:-
<http://earthsci.terc.edu/content/investigations/es0402/images/es0402_p11_mantle_model_b.gif>
...all of them are purporting to show the same thing. Which one takes
YOUR fancy John? The third one rather takes mine. How would you use
that one to support subduction?
don
(Spinach)
I.Warren
subduction. This isn't the case is it. Also,back arc basins simply reflect
subduction where the subducting slab is moving more slowly in roughly the
"same" direction as the overlying slab. There's obviously quite differnt
things going ob between the Himalaya and the SW Pacific. Tying them together
with a circumglobal mountain belt seem to be quite contrary to your own
demand that people focus on the field evidence. Drawing swirly lines on a
globe connecting things which are geologically and geodynamically quite
different may make a nice pattern,but I don't think the ground-truth geology
fits. Is it just continental vs. oceanic crust and the rest is non-relevant
details? Look at New Zealand-compressive to strike slip margins,changing
through time,and the current North Island vs South Island. Plate boundary
processes to the south have resulted in an uplifted metamorphic belt,and to
the north subduction has formed andesitic-rhyolitic volcanoes and geothermal
systems in a back-arc basin. I don't see how "Pacific mantle diapiric rise"
will explain the dynamics of the NZ margin better than plate
tectonics,though there are certainly lots of important questions to sort
out.
Cheers,
Ian
don findlay
> Subduction at all the downgoing blue spots. Often it sounds as if you deny
Subduction at all the blue bits?... But hang on, this picture is
showing 'real data' (of sorts).
<http://earthsci.terc.edu/content/investigations/es0402/images/es0402_p11_mantle_model_b.gif>
It's not a 'what-if' hypothetical. Can you ground-truth it, and
suggest (in the context of the Pacific 'subduction zones') what the
blue lines actually represent?
Deny subduction?... Yes, I do. In the 'carrying-down' sense meant in
plate tectonics anyhow. Not "Subduction zone" of course, though
nomenclature "Benioff zone" is better - a contact zone of continental
crust against mantle, with a lot of earthquakes in it and within which
there has been a lot of movement. This zone only exists around the
Pacific, and is related to accommodative tectonics of the **CRUST**,
to the mantle (dilation of the Circumglobal Mountain Belt Loop and
later over-riding of crust over mantle) much more than it accommodates
the ridge - transform dynamics of the mantle.
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/indocean.html>
What's more, it's clearly **older** than ridge-transform structure,
and at a higher structural level. The only reason Pteros think it is
related to ridge-spreading is because they don't recognise the various
terrains of ocean floor that reflect tectonic sequence in the mantle,
just like they don't recognise that the aggregate spirality of
transforms tying the tectonics of the mantle into that of the crust.
After decades of looking at it they still seem to think of the ocean
floor (despite tomography) really as some sort of a conveyor belt - to
maintain the idea of convection. In fact, once you get down to
serious looking, there's a heck of a lot they don't recognise - like
the point I just mentioned, that ridge-transform dynamics of the
Pacific are *superimposed* on Himalayan dilation/ benioff uplift. If
they want to use the benioff as a subduction zone then convection has
to be exploiting an earlier, reactivated structure. In other words, a
subduction zone (sorry, 'the' - there is only one) - the 'subduction
zone' is not intrinsically related to the supposed convection forming
the ocean floor. It's earlier. It's related to the crust slipping
off the roof of the mantle diapir. Sure, it can always be
*press-ganged* into being *part of the subduction picture, but only in
the sense that India is. The benioff is no more part of convection
than continents are, or the structures within them.
Also, back arc basins simply reflect
> subduction where the subducting slab is moving more slowly in roughly the
> "same" direction as the overlying slab. There's obviously quite different
> things going on between the Himalaya and the SW Pacific. Tying them together
> with a circumglobal mountain belt seem to be quite contrary to your own
> demand that people focus on the field evidence.
Really? Why do you say so? I don't think there are (different things
going on). I think it's all related. Plate tectonics of course like
to say there are different things going on - and ties itself in the
plainest of knots when trying to explain how in an integrative way
('sucking' tectonics v. squirting' tectonics'
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense3.html>
...So you reckon the mountain belt is not broken and dilated despite
the blue line that maps out the break? (I should put that blue down
the Eastern side of the Pacific as well, shouldn't I?) Well, Why then
would you believe the Atlantic fits? There's much less to go on.
You've only got the shape of a continental margin (which is not all
that great) and transform symmetry (which is better). In the Pacific
there is both, as well as a mountain belt that offers a structural
sequence of how things happened, and a far more comprehensive ocean
floor chronology - which we can tie to the structural sequence in the
continents.
Drawing swirly lines on a
> globe connecting things which are geologically and geodynamically quite
> different may make a nice pattern, but I don't think the ground-truth geology
> fits.
The brittle crust and the ductile mantle have responded differently to
expansion and torsion. The swirly lines are the clue how. The ground
truthing is for anyone who cares to start putting together all the
detail. That's for the future. There's a century of stuff to put
together, and not all of it in the last half either. Pteros have a
problem with it because the resulting 'one-plateness' of it all
contradicts their notion of the Earth
'divided-into-a-number-of-plates', and therefore the convection model,
and therefore subduction and the assumption of constant size,
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion2.html> and therefore
expansion, and therefore their basic 'gravity-rules' physics. And
then you have to take into account that publishing papers in academia
is not primarily about science, but about career advancement (or
maintainment) - "notching the equaliser". Don't go against the grain,
not even lightly.
Is it just continental vs. oceanic crust and the rest is non-relevant
> details? Look at New Zealand-compressive to strike slip margins,changing
> through time,and the current North Island vs South Island. Plate boundary
> processes to the south have resulted in an uplifted metamorphic belt,and to
> the north subduction has formed andesitic-rhyolitic volcanoes and geothermal
> systems in a back-arc basin. I don't see how "Pacific mantle diapiric rise"
> will explain the dynamics of the NZ margin better than plate
> tectonics,though there are certainly lots of important questions to sort
> out.
Plate tectonics explains **everything** from *Sliced Bread* to *Kylie
Minogue*. This is its forte absolute. There is no known thing under
the sun relating to what's in between Kylie and her toast, that can
NOT be explained simply by PLATE TECTONICS; all that's necessary is to
add a few epicycles. Which it does. As many as necessary. Basically
plate tectonics is not a concept sourced in fact, due to its
fundamental dependence on the assumption of subduction. It's
something like fairies at the bottom of the garden, which you never
see, which is proof of their existence because by definition they are
invisible, and which can be invoked to explain anything. By contrast,
"PACIFIC (yes we know where the Pacific is) MANTLE (yes, the Earth's
got one of them and we can poke it with a stick) DIAPIR(yes, that too
- we've mapped them, drilled them, sucked their lifeblood dry, and
plastered the Middle East with bombs so we can do it all again) RISE
(no problem these days with dictionaries) goes to the heart of the
dynamics in a way that integrates the global geology in
scale-dependent hierarchies linearly through time, not flung-about
body-parts joined without rhyme-nor-reason by ad hoc assumptions, that
are often contradictory. Plate tectonics? - Pied piper!
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html>
But I can't answer your question on New Zealand. I don't know it.
Will this help? <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/placeholder2.html>
If you turn the bottom hemisphere to the right (east) about a quarter
turn, that basically completes the main hemispherical dynamics.
New-Zealand's on the right hand periphery (now), but it was once
relatively latitudinal (parallel with the Himalayas (and
correspondignly north too - so it's rotated what? 120-130 degrees
(clockwise) in its own right ('elementally'), in about that quarter
turn of the southern hemisphere. How does that fit with what you know?
It's how the smaller-scale, inter-leaved structures, many of which
are probably unrecognised because they're intraformational, relate to
the bigger picture through time that will be the answer to your
question. But that's a more detailed exercise than I'm looking at (in
the first instance at least). I'm working from the position that the
bigger picture should be assembled directly from larger-scale
criteria, rather than from the bottom up.
Regards,
Don
>
> Cheers,
> Ian