Re: Where did the extra mass come from?
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > Umm, there is no ongoing deformation along the San Andreas fault system?
>
> Idiot, the san Andreas fault is not a fracture located in the middle of
> the Pacific.
>
No but The San Andreas is the border between the Pacific Plate and the
North America Plate where the deformation occurs.
Of course if plates aren't really moving.. one wonders why there are
earthquakes
along the San Andreas..
Stuart
Florian
> On Oct 4, 2:23 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > > Umm, there is no ongoing deformation along the San Andreas fault system?
> >
> > Idiot, the san Andreas fault is not a fracture located in the middle of
> > the Pacific.
> >
> No but The San Andreas is the border between the Pacific Plate and the
> North America Plate where the deformation occurs.
Yes it is a boundary. Using it as an example to illustrate Intrapacific
deformation is stupid.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 2:23 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > > > Umm, there is no ongoing deformation along the San Andreas fault system?
>
> > > Idiot, the san Andreas fault is not a fracture located in the middle of
> > > the Pacific.
>
> > No but The San Andreas is the border between the Pacific Plate and the
> > North America Plate where the deformation occurs.
>
> Yes it is a boundary. Using it as an example to illustrate Intrapacific
> deformation is stupid.
I wasn't using it as an example of intraplate deformation.
I stated clearly that this was a boundary between the Pacific and
North American plate.
But you claim plates aren't moving. So, why is there motion
along the San Andreas?
Stuart
Florian
> On Oct 6, 12:18 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > No but The San Andreas is the border between the Pacific Plate and the
> > > North America Plate where the deformation occurs.
> >
> > Yes it is a boundary. Using it as an example to illustrate Intrapacific
> > deformation is stupid.
>
> I wasn't using it as an example of intraplate deformation.
Not you, but Ron. As usual.
George
"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1iof0jr.iqt9ezqvbwywN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> Stuart <bigd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 6, 12:18 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
>> (Florian) wrote:
>> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > > No but The San Andreas is the border between the Pacific Plate and
>> > > the
>> > > North America Plate where the deformation occurs.
>> >
>> > Yes it is a boundary. Using it as an example to illustrate Intrapacific
>> > deformation is stupid.
>>
>> I wasn't using it as an example of intraplate deformation.
>
> Not you, but Ron. As usual.
>
> --
Go back and reread what I posted. I didn't say that the San Andreas was an
example of intraplate deformation.
George
Florian
Ron you brought the San andreas fault where as we were discussing
deformations of fractures in the middle of the pacific. I reminded you
that those fractures are scars left by transform faults between two
ridge segments, then you introduced the san andreas fault as an example
of fracture deformations...
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
>> news:1iof0jr.iqt9ezqvbwywN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>> > Stuart <bigd...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Oct 6, 12:18 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
>> >> (Florian) wrote:
>> >> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > > No but The San Andreas is the border between the Pacific Plate and
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > North America Plate where the deformation occurs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes it is a boundary. Using it as an example to illustrate
>> >> > Intrapacific
>> >> > deformation is stupid.
>> >>
>> >> I wasn't using it as an example of intraplate deformation.
>> >
>> > Not you, but Ron. As usual.
>> >
>> > --
>>
>> Go back and reread what I posted. I didn't say that the San Andreas was
>> an
>> example of intraplate deformation.
>
> Ron you brought the San andreas fault where as we were discussing
> deformations of fractures in the middle of the pacific. I reminded you
> that those fractures are scars left by transform faults between two
> ridge segments, then you introduced the san andreas fault as an example
> of fracture deformations...
It is an example of crustal deformation, a classic one at that. And I
remind you that the San Andreas fault is a transform fault running between
two ridge segments. The point is that not all transform faults occur at
plate boundaries. There are plenty of them within the plates themselves.
And the point I've been making (as well as Stuart) is that intraplate
deformation does occur not only within the Pacific, but in the other oceanic
plates as well, not to mention the deformation that occurs within the
continental plates. Just because they don't deform with the intensity that
occurs at the margins doesn't mean that deformation doesn't occur. What
Stuart and I have been trying to tell you is that even though the
deformation does occur, when compared to boundary conditions, you may as
well consider them to be rigid plates, and in fact, the models do just that.
Geprge
Florian
> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> news:1iogmmv.11el5lhgz8tiaN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> > Ron you brought the San andreas fault where as we were discussing
> > deformations of fractures in the middle of the pacific. I reminded you
> > that those fractures are scars left by transform faults between two
> > ridge segments, then you introduced the san andreas fault as an example
> > of fracture deformations...
>
> It is an example of crustal deformation, a classic one at that.
Who cares! Don't your understand you are out of the topic?
Fact is that there are no significant deformation in the midle of the
pacific, away from the boundaries.
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
>> news:1iogmmv.11el5lhgz8tiaN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>
>> > Ron you brought the San andreas fault where as we were discussing
>> > deformations of fractures in the middle of the pacific. I reminded you
>> > that those fractures are scars left by transform faults between two
>> > ridge segments, then you introduced the san andreas fault as an example
>> > of fracture deformations...
>>
>> It is an example of crustal deformation, a classic one at that.
>
> Who cares!
That's amusing. When confronted with evidence you can't deny, you decide
that it doesn't matter. How disingenuous of you.
> Don't your understand you are out of the topic?
> Fact is that there are no significant deformation in the midle of the
> pacific, away from the boundaries.
Define "significant". Relative to the boundaries, it is true that the
deformation is insignificant. That doesn't mean that there is no
deformation, Flopsy. There is deformation - plenty of it, in fact.
George
Florian
> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> news:1ioibq3.1k15bofdl6r8cN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1iogmmv.11el5lhgz8tiaN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> >
> >> > Ron you brought the San andreas fault where as we were discussing
> >> > deformations of fractures in the middle of the pacific. I reminded you
> >> > that those fractures are scars left by transform faults between two
> >> > ridge segments, then you introduced the san andreas fault as an example
> >> > of fracture deformations...
> >>
> >> It is an example of crustal deformation, a classic one at that.
> >
> > Who cares!
>
> That's amusing. When confronted with evidence you can't deny, you decide
> that it doesn't matter. How disingenuous of you.
Idiot, deformations at transform faults are out of topic when discussing
deformations far from boundaries.
> > Don't your understand you are out of the topic?
> > Fact is that there are no significant deformation in the midle of the
> > pacific, away from the boundaries.
>
> Define "significant". Relative to the boundaries, it is true that the
> deformation is insignificant.
Finally. It's gonna snow frogs...
> That doesn't mean that there is no
> deformation, Flopsy. There is deformation - plenty of it, in fact.
...or not. Those deformations are not significant. Period.
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
>> news:1ioibq3.1k15bofdl6r8cN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:1iogmmv.11el5lhgz8tiaN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>> >
>> >> > Ron you brought the San andreas fault where as we were discussing
>> >> > deformations of fractures in the middle of the pacific. I reminded
>> >> > you
>> >> > that those fractures are scars left by transform faults between two
>> >> > ridge segments, then you introduced the san andreas fault as an
>> >> > example
>> >> > of fracture deformations...
>> >>
>> >> It is an example of crustal deformation, a classic one at that.
>> >
>> > Who cares!
>>
>> That's amusing. When confronted with evidence you can't deny, you decide
>> that it doesn't matter. How disingenuous of you.
>
> Idiot, deformations at transform faults are out of topic when discussing
> deformations far from boundaries.
Since there are plenty of transform faults extending far from boundaries
into the interiors of plates, they certainly are completely relevant to
intraplate deformation.
>> > Don't your understand you are out of the topic?
>> > Fact is that there are no significant deformation in the midle of the
>> > pacific, away from the boundaries.
>>
>> Define "significant". Relative to the boundaries, it is true that the
>> deformation is insignificant.
>
> Finally. It's gonna snow frogs...
>
>> That doesn't mean that there is no
>> deformation, Flopsy. There is deformation - plenty of it, in fact.
>
> ...or not. Those deformations are not significant. Period.
No?
http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/earthquakes/eqInIndiana/index.cfm
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/feb25/articles32.htm
http://jgs.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/6/955
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.T23B1422H
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=624&page=30
No significant intraplate deformation, eh? Care to rephrase your bullshit
statement?
George
Florian
> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> news:1iokex0.1ht2oo11iw6e2jN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> > Idiot, deformations at transform faults are out of topic when discussing
> > deformations far from boundaries.
>
> Since there are plenty of transform faults extending far from boundaries
> into the interiors of plates, they certainly are completely relevant to
> intraplate deformation.
Idiot. learn the difference between active transform faults and fracture
zone that are not tectonically active.
[...]
> > Those deformations are not significant. Period.
>
> No?
Idiot. Your own words a few lines above: "Relative to the boundaries, it
is true that the
deformation is insignificant."
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
>> news:1iokex0.1ht2oo11iw6e2jN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>
>> > Idiot, deformations at transform faults are out of topic when
>> > discussing
>> > deformations far from boundaries.
>>
>> Since there are plenty of transform faults extending far from boundaries
>> into the interiors of plates, they certainly are completely relevant to
>> intraplate deformation.
>
> Idiot. learn the difference between active transform faults and fracture
> zone that are not tectonically active.
>
> [...]
>
>
>> > Those deformations are not significant. Period.
>>
>> No?
>
> Idiot. Your own words a few lines above: "Relative to the boundaries, it
> is true that the
> deformation is insignificant."
I'm not talking about inactive fracture zones, froggy. And relative to
active plate margins, someone smashing your face in with a brick is
insignificant. But your face will still be deformed. Get a clue, shit for
brains.
George
Florian
> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> news:1iom68b.1s5cwfx1cm6xzsN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> > Idiot. Your own words a few lines above: "Relative to the boundaries, it
> > is true that the
> > deformation is insignificant."
>
> I'm not talking about inactive fracture zones, froggy.
Who cares about what you're talking poor idiot!
the point is that there are insignificant deformation of the pacific
lithosphere far from boundaries, despite it is supposed to move over
thousands of km.
Totally irrealistic bullshit from zealots.
George
"Florian" <nut-o-tectonics_deletethisbs@nachon_andthisbs.net> wrote in
message
news:1iop8dr.2o1dbb3o0hf2N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> "Florian" <nut-0-tectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in
>> news:1iom68b.1s5cwfx1cm6xzsN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>
>> > Idiot. Your own words a few lines above: "Relative to the boundaries,
>> > it
>> > is true that the
>> > deformation is insignificant."
>>
>> I'm not talking about inactive fracture zones, froggy.
>
> Who cares about what you're talking poor idiot!
> the point is that there are insignificant deformation of the pacific
> lithosphere far from boundaries, despite it is supposed to move over
> thousands of km.
> Totally irrealistic bullshit from zealots.
Yes, there is insignificant deformation relative to boundary conditions. We
agree on that, as has been stated many times. But to say that they are
insignificant in their own right is to ignore the facts. You have a bad
habit of ignoring facts. Shame on you.
George
Florian
> Yes, there is insignificant deformation relative to boundary conditions. We
> agree on that, as has been stated many times. But to say that they are
> insignificant in their own right is to ignore the facts. You have a bad
> habit of ignoring facts.
Give me a break. You don't know what is a fact. The fact is that there
is no significant deformation that would support large displacement.
don findlay
Florian wrote:
> Stuart <bigd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 4, 2:23 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > > > Umm, there is no ongoing deformation along the San Andreas fault system?
> > >
> > > Idiot, the san Andreas fault is not a fracture located in the middle of
> > > the Pacific.
> > >
> > No but The San Andreas is the border between the Pacific Plate and the
> > North America Plate where the deformation occurs.
>
> Yes it is a boundary. Using it as an example to illustrate Intrapacific
> deformation is stupid.
'Sright. Of all the transforms in the world that occur in the type
location of the ocean floors they have to choose the exception in the
continental crust as the one to keep citing. I mean just because it
might blow their house down... How does this meld with the
objectivity of science?
>
> --
> Florian
> "Toute v�rit� franchit trois �tapes. D'abord elle est ridiculis�e.
> Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est consid�r�e
> comme ayant toujours �t� une �vidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, there is insignificant deformation relative to boundary conditions.
>> We
>> agree on that, as has been stated many times. But to say that they are
>> insignificant in their own right is to ignore the facts. You have a bad
>> habit of ignoring facts.
>
> Give me a break. You don't know what is a fact. The fact is that there
> is no significant deformation that would support large displacement.
>
>
> --
> Florian
When you assume that long-term, large displacements must significantly
deform the interiors of plates, you ignore the fact that the brittle crust
is riding on top of a hot viscous mantle. Unless you can give me a reason
why a hot viscous mantle in horizontal motion would significantly deform the
interior of cold hard brittle plates, you're clutching at straws. The
significant evidence for plate displacement is to be found at the
boundaries, not in the interiors of plates.
George
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > Yes, there is insignificant deformation relative to boundary conditions. We
> > agree on that, as has been stated many times. But to say that they are
> > insignificant in their own right is to ignore the facts. You have a bad
> > habit of ignoring facts.
>
> Give me a break. You don't know what is a fact. The fact is that there
> is no significant deformation that would support large displacement.
>
> --
The assumption that large displacement is equivalent to "significant
deformation"
is wrong. Until you learn the difference between *displacement* and
*strain*, you
should refrain from mentioning either.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
(Clever Dick. What kind of strain are you talking about here?
Heterogeneous or homogeneous?) Hey, Stuart, .. I think you mean
'translation' *of* the body, not displacement *within* it - if you
want to get picky that is . Though of course it's a question of
scale. And EE (i.e., Everybody Else) knows what Florian's talking
about. How come not you?
>
> Stuart
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > > > Yes, there is insignificant deformation relative to boundary conditions. We
> > > > agree on that, as has been stated many times. But to say that they are
> > > > insignificant in their own right is to ignore the facts. You have a bad
> > > > habit of ignoring facts.
>
> > > Give me a break. You don't know what is a fact. The fact is that there
> > > is no significant deformation that would support large displacement.
>
> > > --
>
> > The assumption that large displacement is equivalent to "significant
> > deformation"
> > is wrong. Until you learn the difference between *displacement* and
> > *strain*, you
> > should refrain from mentioning either.
>
> (Clever Dick. What kind of strain are you talking about here?
> Heterogeneous or homogeneous?)
Does it matter? I'm talking about the relationship between
displacement
and strain in general.
Hey, Stuart, .. I think you mean
> 'translation' *of* the body, not displacement *within* it - if you
> want to get picky that is .
Flo is using those terms interchangeably.
Though of course it's a question of
> scale.
You mean the length scale over which the displacement occurs.
And EE (i.e., Everybody Else) knows what Florian's talking
> about. How come not you?
Sorry, its not clear he understands it. He has repeated this several
times
and has been corrected several times.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
I think Florian understands very well the distinction between
displacement and translation, which is why he cites the *growth* of
the ocean floors as needing to be taken into account.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/movass.html
This question will be resolved when you answer the 'mountainous
question':- what moves the Indian Ocean spreading ridge away from
Africa to its present position.
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
To put it another way, he's using the language of Plate Tectonics
itself, which is sloppy about the difference - as you say "does it
matter". Of course it matters - as Florian well knows and keeps
saying:- the **LANGUAGE** of Plate Tectonics "...is entirely that of
translational movement of lithospheric plates from 'A' to 'B', in
which the plates bodily move, ..boundaries and all, ...not the
convective cycling of a lithospheric shell according to the
requirements of Plate Tectonics."
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/platesmove.html
It's about time *Plate Tectonics* recognised the difference in its own
concept, and stopped playing loose with words. Words mean what they
mean, they are not according to Alice - (or Stuart Weinstein)
oriel36
> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1iorzql.18wd3fy15p6pu8N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>
> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
> >> Yes, there is insignificant deformation relative to boundary conditions.
> >> We
> >> agree on that, as has been stated many times. But to say that they are
> >> insignificant in their own right is to ignore the facts. You have a bad
> >> habit of ignoring facts.
>
> > Give me a break. You don't know what is a fact. The fact is that there
> > is no significant deformation that would support large displacement.
>
> > --
> > Florian
>
> When you assume that long-term, large displacements must significantly
> deform the interiors of plates, you ignore the fact that the brittle crust
> is riding on top of a hot viscous mantle. Unless you can give me a reason
> why a hot viscous mantle in horizontal motion would significantly deform the
> interior of cold hard brittle plates, you're clutching at straws.
As the fractured crust moves across the less than spherical profile of
the rotating viscous interior it is incontrovertible that the adaption
of crust from one profile to another would occasion intraplate events
away from the boundaries.All this is dependent on rotational dynamics
and the inclusion of the Earth's spherical shape as a geological
player.
I have to remind myself that I am attempting to draw attention not
only to the fact that the Earth is rotating but that it is also
round,something that is not considered important to 'convectioneers'.
don findlay
oriel36 wrote:
..and was once a lot rounder too.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/iranrope.html
>
>
>
> �The
Stuart
Um no. Flo claims the plates aren't involved in any large scale
motion. Thats
what EE claims.
What strains are produced by EE is something Flo needs to think about.
Flo argues the lack of large scale deformation in plate interiors is
evidence
that plates do not move over long length scales. When he recognizes
that
the displacement plates do undergo is accomplished via *translation*
or
quasi-rigid body motion he will perhaps drop his argument.
Stuart
>
> This question will be resolved when you answer the 'mountainous
> question':- what moves the Indian Ocean spreading ridge away from
> Africa to its present position.
Already resolved.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
I see - in that other thread to Florian
http://tinyurl.com/4fqcgc
So, .. You mean the ridge moved away from Africa. By what mechanism?
Stuart
> So, .. You mean the ridge moved away from Africa. By what mechanism?
Ridges move.
What mechanism what hold them static?
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
That's right. There are no plate*S* (plural). There's just one -
the Earth's crust (/ lithosphere) which is dilating.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/noplates.html
>
> What strains are produced by EE is something Flo needs to think about.
>
> Flo argues the lack of large scale deformation in plate interiors is
> evidence
> that plates do not move over long length scales. When he recognizes
> that
> the displacement plates do undergo is accomplished via *translation*
> or
> quasi-rigid body motion he will perhaps drop his argument.
You mean jigsaw pieces moving about and 'docking'? Nope, ...they
can't translate unless they take their boundaries with them - the two
of the three anyway (subduction and ridges), otherwise they're
growing. Or Shrinking (both concepts which Plate Tectonics uses, by
the way).
What *you* need to think about, are the implications that follow if
the ridges *do* move. Are you ready? (I doubt it..)
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
Now look. Unlike the litany of Plate Tectonics which can:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
..have everything both ways, you, ..Stuart Weinstein, Cannot. You
hear? Plate tectonics says that the continents move away from the
ridges. It's how subduction does it. If you're going to say that
the ridges move away from the continents then you are already in the
Expansion Camp, unless you're going to fudge and postulate (assume)
asymmetrical spreading - i.e., that ridge-moving means not just the
ridges moving, but the continent on the other side of the ridge as
well - i.e., that one continent is fixed and the ridge and the
continent on the other side moves as well - i.e. that the 'far-side'
continent is 'moving-for-two'.
So what are you? A Ptero or an Expander? Have you got the right hat
to hand?
Florian
> When you assume that long-term, large displacements must significantly
> deform the interiors of plates, you ignore the fact that the brittle crust
> is riding on top of a hot viscous mantle. Unless you can give me a reason
> why a hot viscous mantle in horizontal motion would significantly deform the
> interior of cold hard brittle plates, you're clutching at straws.
I repeat again: The stress can't be realistically uniform on such a
large piece of lithosphere.
> The significant evidence for plate displacement is to be found at the
> boundaries, not in the interiors of plates.
More parroting without actually thinking...
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> When you assume that long-term, large displacements must significantly
>> deform the interiors of plates, you ignore the fact that the brittle
>> crust
>> is riding on top of a hot viscous mantle. Unless you can give me a
>> reason
>> why a hot viscous mantle in horizontal motion would significantly deform
>> the
>> interior of cold hard brittle plates, you're clutching at straws.
>
> I repeat again: The stress can't be realistically uniform on such a
> large piece of lithosphere.
Perhaps you could show that math that backs up that statement.
George
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> >
> > I see - in that other thread to Florianhttp://tinyurl.com/4fqcgc
> > So, .. You mean the ridge moved away from Africa. By what mechanism?
>
> Ridges move.
>
> What mechanism what hold them static?
>
> Stuart
Come on Stuart. Ridges move, do they? Away from the continents? How
does subduction make this happen? The subduction that drives Plate
Tectonics, that is.
Florian
> Um no. Flo claims the plates aren't involved in any large scale motion.
> Thats what EE claims.
There are no sliding plates, but a shell that obviously move as Earth
grows.
>
> What strains are produced by EE is something Flo needs to think about.
I thought about it for much more time that you did. And a lot of people
did as well. Don't you know what is a wedge?
So stuart, what does happen when a flow of rising material intrude into
a hard shell and gains in volume as it gets closer to the surface?
Florian
Stuart
> ..have everything both ways, you, ..Stuart Weinstein, Cannot. You
> hear? Plate tectonics says that the continents move away from the
> ridges.
yes, in terms of relative motion. On the other hand there is nothing
that prevents
ridges from migrating either.
So I take it you don't have a mechanism for fixing the position of
ridges.
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Um no. Flo claims the plates aren't involved in any large scale motion.
> > Thats what EE claims.
>
> There are no sliding plates, but a shell that obviously move as Earth
> grows.
>
Um but there are.
How does the shell move as the earth grows?
>
>
> > What strains are produced by EE is something Flo needs to think about.
>
> I thought about it for much more time that you did.
LOL
And a lot of people
> did as well. Don't you know what is a wedge?
>
> So stuart, what does happen when a flow of rising material intrude into
> a hard shell and gains in volume as it gets closer to the surface?
We get the Ontong Java. We don't get a growing Earth. Silly Goose.
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > When you assume that long-term, large displacements must significantly
> > deform the interiors of plates, you ignore the fact that the brittle crust
> > is riding on top of a hot viscous mantle. Unless you can give me a reason
> > why a hot viscous mantle in horizontal motion would significantly deform the
> > interior of cold hard brittle plates, you're clutching at straws.
>
> I repeat again: The stress can't be realistically uniform on such a
> large piece of lithosphere.
>
You seem to be wholly ignorant with respect to displacement, strain
and stress.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> > Now look. Unlike the litany of Plate Tectonics which can:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
> > ..have everything both ways, you, ..Stuart Weinstein, Cannot. You
> > hear? Plate tectonics says that the continents move away from the
> > ridges.
>
> yes, in terms of relative motion.
No. This is where Plate Tectonics has to get real. We talk
absolutes. Using the concept of relative motion is a cop-out. When a
fault moves, one side literally moves up or down, or both move either
way to a degree. Accelerometers tell us. For *convenience* of
description (and to hide our ignorance) we can use the *concept* of
relative motion, but the *reality* doesn't work in relative terms, it
has to be faced (which is why we strew accelerometers around San
Francisco and other moving parts, is it not?).
> On the other hand there is nothing
> that prevents
> ridges from migrating either.
When a crack appears in the wall of your house it stays in the same
place but gets bigger. It doesn't swim about like a fish, as you want
ridges to do, does it? Same with cracks in the crust - they don't
swim about like fish according to the vagaries of roiling boiling
plumes.
>
> So I take it you don't have a mechanism for fixing the position of
> ridges.
Of course we do. Once a crack, always a crack. Like the crack in
your house gets bigger, so do the ocean floors. But they *were* once
closed. Retrofitting the closure is easy for the Atlantic, Indian and
Pacific Oceans. It's also easy for the Pacific - once you see it.
What caused the crack? The Mountain belt that once went all around
the equatorial zone of Pangaea split with the extrusion of the mantle
and dilated. It's still dilating as the Mediterranean, Caspian and
Black Seas.
And what would cause the equatorial zone then to be a mountain belt?
Partly the change from a more oblate to a more spherical shape, and
the resistance to spherical correction. You can still see it in the
highest terrain on the Planet:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/iranrope.html
...and partly the forcible extrusion of the mantle which caused the
circular shape of the initial position of the ridge, which is still in
evidence today in the continental lithosphere as the so-called
subduction zone, and its lid as the highest point in the elliptical
zone - "The Roof of the World".
Get your head around that one, Stuart :- The subduction zone *IS* the
spreading ridge - its fossil position. It is where the spreading
ridge initiated. There are two elements to it, as we would expect of
a top-down rupture correcting to changing curvature - one in the
crust, and one in the mantle.
And spreading ridges -in absolute terms - migrate *away* from the
continents. All of them.
>
> Stuart
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > > Now look. Unlike the litany of Plate Tectonics which can:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
> > > ..have everything both ways, you, ..Stuart Weinstein, Cannot. You
> > > hear? Plate tectonics says that the continents move away from the
> > > ridges.
>
> > yes, in terms of relative motion.
>
> No. This is where Plate Tectonics has to get real. We talk
> absolutes.
Absolute plate motions over Earth History is an active area of
research.
>Using the concept of relative motion is a cop-out.
Plate kinematic like isochrons, fracture zone azimuths etc. only
tell us relative motion.
There are some good reason to accept that Africa hasn't moved much
since the breakup of Pangea. Hence many authors use the apparent
fixity
of Africa as reference for absolute plate motions. This was mentioned
in the Torvisk et al. paper brought up by Florian. To bad he didn't
actually
read it for comprehension.
In this frame the Indian ridge migrated away from Africa.
When a
> fault moves, one side literally moves up or down, or both move either
> way to a degree. Accelerometers tell us. For *convenience* of
> description (and to hide our ignorance) we can use the *concept* of
> relative motion, but the *reality* doesn't work in relative terms,
In this particular case we can break the symmetry of the problem using
additional data.
In the case of absolute plate motions one needs to define a basis
for a fixed frame of reference.
>it
> has to be faced (which is why we strew accelerometers around San
> Francisco and other moving parts, is it not?).
>
> > On the other hand there is nothing
> > that prevents
> > ridges from migrating either.
>
> When a crack appears in the wall of your house it stays in the same
> place but gets bigger.
What a crappy analogy.
The Earth is not analogous to drywall in my house. Drywall in my house
isn't mobile (at least I hope not), and doesn't rest on a substrate
that
is mobile, and the drywall doesn't move relative to the beams on which
it
is supported.
It doesn't swim about like a fish, as you want
> ridges to do, does it? Same with cracks in the crust - they don't
> swim about like fish according to the vagaries of roiling boiling
> plumes.
>
Your analogy is simply not appropriate.
>
>
> > So I take it you don't have a mechanism for fixing the position of
> > ridges.
>
> Of course we do. Once a crack, always a crack. Like the crack in
> your house gets bigger, so do the ocean floors. But they *were* once
> closed. Retrofitting the closure is easy for the Atlantic, Indian and
> Pacific Oceans. It's also easy for the Pacific - once you see it.
No kidding?
>
> What caused the crack? The Mountain belt that once went all around
> the equatorial zone
What do you mean just the "equatorial zone".?
of Pangaea split with the extrusion of the mantle
> and dilated. It's still dilating as the Mediterranean, Caspian and
> Black Seas.
Really? And in the Mid_Atlantic.. I had no idea.
<snip>
>
> And spreading ridges -in absolute terms - migrate *away* from the
> continents. All of them.
Some do, some don't.
Silly.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Oct 15, 3:52 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> > > > Now look. Unlike the litany of Plate Tectonics which can:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
> > > > ..have everything both ways, you, ..Stuart Weinstein, Cannot. You
> > > > hear? Plate tectonics says that the continents move away from the
> > > > ridges.
> >
> > > yes, in terms of relative motion.
> >
> > No. This is where Plate Tectonics has to get real. We talk
> > absolutes.
>
> Absolute plate motions over Earth History is an active area of
> research.
You just said "relative motion". Absolutes *Should* get attention.
It's what it's all about - when it will be confirmed that the ridges
move *away* from the continents (in absolute terms). It's the only
explanation why the entire ocean floors are locked as one away from
the ridges and why there are virtually no earthquakes in it, although
it's riddled with fractures.. Innit.
>
> >Using the concept of relative motion is a cop-out.
>
> Plate kinematic like isochrons, fracture zone azimuths etc. only
> tell us relative motion.
Well that's what you live with. It's a comfort zone. I'm not big on
isochrons except for introducing that other enigmatic clue to the
whole thing - magnetic reversals.
>
> There are some good reason to accept that Africa hasn't moved much
> since the breakup of Pangea. Hence many authors use the apparent
> fixity
> of Africa as reference for absolute plate motions. This was mentioned
> in the Torvisk et al. paper brought up by Florian.
Exactly, ..and the implication of ridges that move away from fixity is
that they can only move *UP*. You can surely figure the implication
of that.
> To bad he didn't
> actually
> read it for comprehension.
>
> In this frame the Indian ridge migrated away from Africa.
..i.e., *UP*. Good one Stuart. You got it ! Now go the next step.
What are the implications of the ridges keep moving up? Here, a
clue:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/ridgeup.html
> When a
> > fault moves, one side literally moves up or down, or both move either
> > way to a degree. Accelerometers tell us. For *convenience* of
> > description (and to hide our ignorance) we can use the *concept* of
> > relative motion, but the *reality* doesn't work in relative terms,
>
> In this particular case we can break the symmetry of the problem using
> additional data.
There's nothing symmetrical about what I just wrote - about absolute
movements
>
> In the case of absolute plate motions one needs to define a basis
> for a fixed frame of reference.
>
> >it
> > has to be faced (which is why we strew accelerometers around San
> > Francisco and other moving parts, is it not?).
> >
> > > On the other hand there is nothing
> > > that prevents
> > > ridges from migrating either.
You mean like fish tails, swimming about... ?
> >
> > When a crack appears in the wall of your house it stays in the same
> > place but gets bigger.
>
> What a crappy analogy.
Not half as crappy as syrup and food colouring and tomato sauce, and
all the other unguents you say you've tried.
>
> The Earth is not analogous to drywall in my house. Drywall in my house
> isn't mobile (at least I hope not), and doesn't rest on a substrate
> that
> is mobile, and the drywall doesn't move relative to the beams on which
> it
> is supported.
Don't be daft. You're sitting on a bloody volcano, Man. What? All
of a sudden the concept of geological time goes out of the window just
because it's YOUR house?
>
> It doesn't swim about like a fish, as you want
> > ridges to do, does it? Same with cracks in the crust - they don't
> > swim about like fish according to the vagaries of roiling boiling
> > plumes.
> >
>
> Your analogy is simply not appropriate.
Well you explain why not, because that's what you're talking about
when you're talking about moving convection cells, 'swimming about'.
I can see them in my soup - no problem.
> >
> > > So I take it you don't have a mechanism for fixing the position of
> > > ridges.
> >
> > Of course we do. Once a crack, always a crack. Like the crack in
> > your house gets bigger, so do the ocean floors. But they *were* once
> > closed. Retrofitting the closure is easy for the Atlantic, Indian and
> > Pacific Oceans. It's also easy for the Pacific - once you see it.
>
> No kidding?
Yup.
> > What caused the crack? The Mountain belt that once went all around
> > the equatorial zone
>
> What do you mean just the "equatorial zone".?
The fat bit round the belly. Where all the syrup and food colouring
and ketchup ends up.
>
> of Pangaea split with the extrusion of the mantle
> > and dilated. It's still dilating as the Mediterranean, Caspian and
> > Black Seas.
>
> Really? And in the Mid_Atlantic.. I had no idea.
Evidently you don't. The Atlantic is quite a different system from
the others.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > And spreading ridges -in absolute terms - migrate *away* from the
> > continents. All of them.
>
> Some do, some don't.
No, ..all of them.
>
> Silly.
You need to waken up Stuart. Stop reading rubbish and use your head.
>
> Stuart
Florian
> On Oct 15, 1:43 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > I repeat again: The stress can't be realistically uniform on such a
> > large piece of lithosphere.
> >
> Who ever said it was uniform? Why does it need to be uniform?
If the stress is not uniform, then significant deformation will occur
between regions of different stress.
Florian
> > There are no sliding plates, but a shell that obviously move as Earth
> > grows.
> >
>
> Um but there are.
>
> How does the shell move as the earth grows?
As the growth is uneven, it moves up and laterally, relatively to the
ever changing absolute center of the Earth.
> > So stuart, what does happen when a flow of rising material intrude into
> > a hard shell and gains in volume as it gets closer to the surface?
>
>
> We get the Ontong Java.
We get lateral compression, ignorant goose, because it is wedge.
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 1:43 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > I repeat again: The stress can't be realistically uniform on such a
> > > large piece of lithosphere.
>
> > Who ever said it was uniform? Why does it need to be uniform?
>
> If the stress is not uniform, then significant deformation will occur
> between regions of different stress.
>
It has too?
Rheology doesn't matter at all?
Dial back when you have the foggiest clue as to what you are
talking about.
Stuart
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 3:52 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > Now look. Unlike the litany of Plate Tectonics which can:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
> > > > > ..have everything both ways, you, ..Stuart Weinstein, Cannot. You
> > > > > hear? Plate tectonics says that the continents move away from the
> > > > > ridges.
>
> > > > yes, in terms of relative motion.
>
> > > No. This is where Plate Tectonics has to get real. We talk
> > > absolutes.
>
> > Absolute plate motions over Earth History is an active area of
> > research.
>
> You just said "relative motion". Absolutes *Should* get attention.
> It's what it's all about - when it will be confirmed that the ridges
> move *away* from the continents (in absolute terms).
There absolute motion models. Why not actually look at them before
commenting.
It's the only
> explanation why the entire ocean floors are locked as one away from
> the ridges and why there are virtually no earthquakes in it,
The paucity of earthquakes in plate interiors is expected whether or
not ridges move or continents move or both.
although
> it's riddled with fractures.. Innit.
You don't know what you're talking about either. The basaltic crust
may
be heavily fractured, but not the lithosphere beneath it.
>
>
>
> > >Using the concept of relative motion is a cop-out.
>
> > Plate kinematic like isochrons, fracture zone azimuths etc. only
> > tell us relative motion.
>
> Well that's what you live with. It's a comfort zone. I'm not big on
> isochrons except for introducing that other enigmatic clue to the
> whole thing - magnetic reversals.
>
You're not big on anything other than untestable propositions.
>
>
> > There are some good reason to accept that Africa hasn't moved much
> > since the breakup of Pangea. Hence many authors use the apparent
> > fixity
> > of Africa as reference for absolute plate motions. This was mentioned
> > in the Torvisk et al. paper brought up by Florian.
>
> Exactly, ..and the implication of ridges that move away from fixity is
> that they can only move *UP*.
Opinion masquerading as fact.
You were asked to provide a mechanism that fixes the position of
ridges,
no to regurgitate the erroneous claims of the EE hypothesis.
If you don't have on, just say so.
<snip>
Golly.
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > There are no sliding plates, but a shell that obviously move as Earth
> > > grows.
>
> > Um but there are.
>
> > How does the shell move as the earth grows?
>
> As the growth is uneven, it moves up and laterally, relatively to the
> ever changing absolute center of the Earth.
Indeed, it moves this way and that, due to who knows what and composed
of
you guessed it... anything...
>
> > > So stuart, what does happen when a flow of rising material intrude into
> > > a hard shell and gains in volume as it gets closer to the surface?
>
> > We get the Ontong Java.
>
> We get lateral compression, ignorant goose, because it is wedge.
Um no, you see real upwellings from the deep mantle occur in the
form of plumes with nice big plume heads, and when they reach the
surface
they create flood basalts, plateaus and nice big swells that last a
long
time. As the plate moves over it, one gets an elongate structure.
And what you call "wedge" is now what geologists refer to as the
"wedge".
If you are trying to make yourself not understood, you are doing a
fine job.
That's what happens in the real earth. In the real Earth kimberlites
come from the
upper mantle, hotspots bring material up from the lower mantle. They
do not bring
up Andesites like your "eduction" nonsense.
Stuart
Florian
> > As the growth is uneven, it moves up and laterally, relatively to the
> > ever changing absolute center of the Earth.
>
> Indeed, it moves this way and that, due to who knows what and composed
> of you guessed it... anything...
Stuart, the surface of a sphere that grows unevenly move radially and
laterally away from the initial center of the sphere. That is basic
geometry.
> > > > So stuart, what does happen when a flow of rising material intrude into
> > > > a hard shell and gains in volume as it gets closer to the surface?
> >
> > > We get the Ontong Java.
> >
> > We get lateral compression, ignorant goose, because it is wedge.
>
> Um no, you see real upwellings from the deep mantle occur in the
> form of plumes with nice big plume heads,
Oh, so you're also a plume supporter:
> and when they reach the
> surface they create flood basalts, plateaus and nice big swells that last a
> long time. As the plate moves over it, one gets an elongate structure.
Dear, you confuse upduction and hotspot.
>
> And what you call "wedge" is now what geologists refer to as the
> "wedge". If you are trying to make yourself not understood, you are doing a
> fine job.
Let's see. The wedge is a wedge. Very good Stuart!
> That's what happens in the real earth. In the real Earth kimberlites
> come from the upper mantle, hotspots bring material up from the lower
> mantle. They do not bring up Andesites like your "eduction" nonsense.
Even worse. You confuse hotspots with intrusion and upduction, and you
also confuse upduction and eduction. I bet you also confuse
overthrusting and upduction?
Not surprising, you're a total ignorant in matter of planetary growth
concepts.
For you're information, there is no more eduction going on, but it was
the primary growth mechanism of Northern Pacific.
Florian
> On Oct 16, 9:36 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 1:43 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > > (Florian) wrote:
> > > > I repeat again: The stress can't be realistically uniform on such a
> > > > large piece of lithosphere.
> >
> > > Who ever said it was uniform? Why does it need to be uniform?
> >
> > If the stress is not uniform, then significant deformation will occur
> > between regions of different stress.
> >
>
> It has too?
>
> Rheology doesn't matter at all?
Yet another strawman.
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Oct 16, 1:40 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 3:52 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > > Stuart wrote:
> > > > > > Now look. Unlike the litany of Plate Tectonics which can:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux.html
> > > > > > ..have everything both ways, you, ..Stuart Weinstein, Cannot. You
> > > > > > hear? Plate tectonics says that the continents move away from the
> > > > > > ridges.
> >
> > > > > yes, in terms of relative motion.
> >
> > > > No. This is where Plate Tectonics has to get real. We talk
> > > > absolutes.
> >
> > > Absolute plate motions over Earth History is an active area of
> > > research.
> >
> > You just said "relative motion". Absolutes *Should* get attention.
> > It's what it's all about - when it will be confirmed that the ridges
> > move *away* from the continents (in absolute terms).
>
> There absolute motion models. Why not actually look at them before
> commenting.
Heading in the right direction? Are they getting anywhere
substantiating your claim that the ridges move away from the
continents?
>
> It's the only
> > explanation why the entire ocean floors are locked as one away from
> > the ridges and why there are virtually no earthquakes in it,
>
> The paucity of earthquakes in plate interiors is expected whether or
> not ridges move or continents move or both.
Ah-so! We are at one on this one. You reveal yourself as a rebel
here, a dissenter, a renegade, believing in the supremacy of the
interior-of-the-mantle convection as the driver for Plate Tectonics,
when your mate Tackley and that other ghood-looking bloke with the
spaghetti name, not to the mention the world-famous Japanese
gentleman, says it's the subducting slab that drives everything.
> although
> > it's riddled with fractures.. Innit.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about either. The basaltic crust
> may
> be heavily fractured, but not the lithosphere beneath it.
What? It's you who reveals some ignorance here. All those
earthquakes in the lithosphere at the spreading ridges, and all those
earthquakes in the lithosphere at the subducting slab, ..the
lithosphere moving from one to the other, ..yet no earthquakes in it
at all, even though it's suducting at twice the rate it's being
produced at the spreading ridges. It's not rubber you know.
> >
> > > >Using the concept of relative motion is a cop-out.
> >
> > > Plate kinematic like isochrons, fracture zone azimuths etc. only
> > > tell us relative motion.
> >
> > Well that's what you live with. It's a comfort zone. I'm not big on
> > isochrons except for introducing that other enigmatic clue to the
> > whole thing - magnetic reversals.
> >
>
> You're not big on anything other than untestable propositions.
I've tested every proposition of Plate Tectonics
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/
..and found them *ALL* wanting. It's about time you tested some of
them too.
> >
> >
> > > There are some good reason to accept that Africa hasn't moved much
> > > since the breakup of Pangea. Hence many authors use the apparent
> > > fixity
> > > of Africa as reference for absolute plate motions. This was mentioned
> > > in the Torvisk et al. paper brought up by Florian.
> >
> > Exactly, ..and the implication of ridges that move away from fixity is
> > that they can only move *UP*.
>
>
> Opinion masquerading as fact.
So, ..you explain how else. Go on. The continent is fixed, the
spreading ridge moves away, spreading is symmetrical. Go on, ..say
it, .. "the other continent moves at twice the speed." Then prove it
with your models of absolute motion.
>
> You were asked to provide a mechanism that fixes the position of
> ridges,
> no to regurgitate the erroneous claims of the EE hypothesis.
>
> If you don't have on, just say so.
I wouldn't have you on, Stuart, ..it's the same as your model -
gravity fixes it. Like gravity does for everything else of global
tectonics. But instead of contorting and murdering logic by putting
it through the thermal mincer of convection like you do, gravity acts
directly on the mass of the planet to determine where and when it will
split, .. and you can read this by looking at the geology as it
develops through time. All *you* can do is make models and rubber
your numbers to suit. The rocks of the planet do not lie, but by Jeez
there's an ocean of wiggle room in your models, where every bit of
every one model contradicts every bit of every other one.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subcrux
.. and you consider this 'versatility' a good thing. Hah! You're a
funny man, (..in rubber) ... saying "golly".
>
> <snip>
>
> Golly.
What you need to do Stuart is understand the difference between
hypothesis and observation, so that you will not be so surprised by
realities.
>
> Stuart
brad
>> I've tested every proposition of Plate Tectonicshttp://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/
> ..and found them *ALL* wanting. It's about time you tested some of
> them too.
Really ? Then tell us about your geochemical findings.
> I wouldn't have you on, Stuart, ..it's the same as your model -
> gravity fixes it. Like gravity does for everything else of global
> tectonics.
Your paradigm requires anti-gravity. Or at least some force greater
than
gravity. Have you cleared this with the Prince ?
> But instead of contorting and murdering logic by putting
> it through the thermal mincer of convection like you do, gravity acts
> directly on the mass of the planet to determine where and when it will
> split, .. and you can read this by looking at the geology as it
> develops through time.
Yes , lets look at the record through time . Does the chemistry
indicate an increase in ocean volume or decrease in trace element
percentage with time? The volume of water has stayed the same.
The fact is that trace element analyses have shown that
there has been a progressive enrichment that is consistent
with a constant radius Earth and recycling through both crust and
mantle. Had water volume increased with time trace markers
would have been more concentrated in the past and show
dilution today.
> All *you* can do is make models and rubber
> your numbers to suit. The rocks of the planet do not lie,
You either have no idea what they say or you ignore the
chemical evidence.( Sr87/Sr86... 4Rb87/Sr86 ). These analyses
on Archaen rock show the crust was mafic.
If older crust was " heavier " why.. did " lighter " granitic crust
spend 2.5 by under this heavier crust before it finally made
its way to the surface ? Doesn't make sense , does it ? Just
another inconsistency in EE.
Fact is , sial is the product of differentiation and slow enrichment
by recycling of oceanic crust .
> but by Jeez
> there's an ocean of wiggle room in your models, ...
At least they incorporate more science than yours do .
> What you need to do Stuart is understand the difference between
> hypothesis and observation, so that you will not be so surprised .....
And you need to expand the scope of your geology to encompass
more than just your interpretation.
Brad
don findlay
brad wrote:
What's all this Archaean geochemistry and speculation got to do with
what we can directly observe since the Mesozoic?
don findlay
say, ..but wait on, let's see how he squeaks.
don findlay
<... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... .... .... ... .... ... ... >
Can' t you modulate it a bit?
Florian
> > I wouldn't have you on, Stuart, ..it's the same as your model -
> > gravity fixes it. Like gravity does for everything else of global
> > tectonics.
>
> Your paradigm requires anti-gravity.
What?
> > But instead of contorting and murdering logic by putting
> > it through the thermal mincer of convection like you do, gravity acts
> > directly on the mass of the planet to determine where and when it will
> > split, .. and you can read this by looking at the geology as it
> > develops through time.
>
> Yes , lets look at the record through time . Does the chemistry
> indicate an increase in ocean volume or decrease in trace element
> percentage with time? The volume of water has stayed the same.
Hardly!
> The fact is that trace element analyses have shown that
> there has been a progressive enrichment that is consistent
> with a constant radius Earth and recycling through both crust and
> mantle. Had water volume increased with time trace markers
> would have been more concentrated in the past and show
> dilution today.
Not if the trace element are brought to the surface.
> > All *you* can do is make models and rubber
> > your numbers to suit. The rocks of the planet do not lie,
>
> You either have no idea what they say or you ignore the
> chemical evidence.( Sr87/Sr86... 4Rb87/Sr86 ). These analyses
> on Archaen rock show the crust was mafic.
>
> If older crust was " heavier " why.. did " lighter " granitic crust
> spend 2.5 by under this heavier crust before it finally made
> its way to the surface ? Doesn't make sense , does it ? Just
> another inconsistency in EE.
granitic crust was not under. It did not exist. Granitic rocks formed
and got emplaced gradually as the surface of Earth expanded.
> Fact is , sial is the product of differentiation and slow enrichment
> by recycling of oceanic crust .
More ad hoc
don findlay
don findlay wrote:
Funny how the fixity of the African Continent in conjunction with
subduction in some unknown elsewhere part of the world causes the
Indian Plate to barrel northwards at twice the regular speed. No
wonder its collision with Asia caused such a furore!
That right Stuart? ....India's a tanked-up tiger when it comes to
revving across the mantle? How did it manage to put the brakes on
then, so that it just "docked"? I think the Tsunami Wrestlers do a
better job of explaining things
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/sumo.html#ram
Don't you?
And hey, ...then Africa's an elephant? Right? Which could only
squeeze up the pimples of the Alps? How does this gel with models of
conservation of momentum - a great big chunk like Africa, even with
its trunk hog-tied to its toe, should be able to crumple Europe all
the way to the North Pole and then down as far as Hawaii. Yet there's
India, doing all the damage.
Some Tiger! Come on, Big Boy! Got any numbers?
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Oct 16, 9:36 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 1:43 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > > (Florian) wrote:
> > > > I repeat again: The stress can't be realistically uniform on such a
> > > > large piece of lithosphere.
> >
> > > Who ever said it was uniform? Why does it need to be uniform?
So what are you saying? That it is or it isn't? Or just that
according to your rubberised models of rheidity it doesn't have to be?
> >
> > If the stress is not uniform, then significant deformation will occur
> > between regions of different stress.
> >
>
> It has too?
>
> Rheology doesn't matter at all?
>
> Dial back when you have the foggiest clue as to what you are
> talking about.
>
> Stuart
(I think you mean rheidity.) It's you who doesn't have the foggiest
idea of what you're talking about, if you insist on putting your
physics speculation before the geological reality.
http://tinyurl.com/68xxmh
brad
> No. This is where Plate Tectonics has to get real. We talk
> absolutes. Using the concept of relative motion is a cop-out.
It's the only thing you can say . Unless you're there when it moves !
> When a
> fault moves, one side literally moves up or down, or both move either
> way to a degree.
This is exactly why geophysics is needed.
>Accelerometers tell us. For *convenience* of
> description (and to hide our ignorance) we can use the *concept* of
> relative motion, but the *reality* doesn't work in relative terms, it
> has to be faced (which is why we strew accelerometers around San
> Francisco and other moving parts, is it not?).
No.
> > On the other hand there is nothing
> > that prevents
> > ridges from migrating either.
>
> When a crack appears in the wall of your house it stays in the same
> place but gets bigger.
Which side of the crack has moved ? Or do you say the motion
is equal on both sides ?
> It doesn't swim about like a fish, as you want
> ridges to do, does it? Same with cracks in the crust - they don't
> swim about like fish according to the vagaries of roiling boiling
> plumes.
Horse feathers !
> > So I take it you don't have a mechanism for fixing the position of
> > ridges.
>
> Of course we do. Once a crack, always a crack. Like the crack in
> your house gets bigger, so do the ocean floors. But they *were* once
> closed. Retrofitting the closure is easy for the Atlantic, Indian and
> Pacific Oceans. It's also easy for the Pacific - once you see it.
>
> What caused the crack? The Mountain belt that once went all around
> the equatorial zone of Pangaea split with the extrusion of the mantle
> and dilated. It's still dilating as the Mediterranean, Caspian and
> Black Seas.
So , the Mountain belt caused the crack ? There is evidence that some
rifts open at the suture of old closures . That isn't evidence that
mountains
caused it , though .
> And what would cause the equatorial zone then to be a mountain belt?
> Partly the change from a more oblate to a more spherical shape, and
> the resistance to spherical correction.
And the " out of balance " planet didn't react some other way , in
addition
to your speculated shape change ? Why doesn't it adjust internally ?
You
require a lot of mass to extrude in one spot as well as a lot
of localized energy . The energy is generated , how ? The internal
pressure your
ideas require should leave evidence in the form of phases changes in
the
minerology of extruded mass.
The questions keep piling up .
>You can still see it in the
> highest terrain on the Planet:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/iranrope.html
> ...and partly the forcible extrusion of the mantle which caused the
> circular shape of the initial position of the ridge, which is still in
> evidence today in the continental lithosphere as the so-called
> subduction zone, and its lid as the highest point in the elliptical
> zone - "The Roof of the World".
What does that paragragh say ? That the planet wasn't sperical
until the "secret mechanism of your paradigm altered it " ?
> Get your head around that one, Stuart :- The subduction zone *IS* the
> spreading ridge - its fossil position. It is where the spreading
> ridge initiated.
So , the youngest sediment is closest to the trenches ?
>There are two elements to it, as we would expect of
> a top-down rupture correcting to changing curvature - one in the
> crust, and one in the mantle.
More gravity machinations ?
> And spreading ridges -in absolute terms - migrate *away* from the
> continents. All of them.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Stuart- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brad
brad
(Florian) wrote:
> brad <lbjohnson1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I wouldn't have you on, Stuart, ..it's the same as your model -
> > > gravity fixes it. Like gravity does for everything else of global
> > > tectonics.
>
> > Your paradigm requires anti-gravity.
>
> What?
You say the planet grows , so I ask , " Why is the oldest rock
mafic ? And , how does the evolution of continental crust arise
from oceanic ? Your paradigm implies that the granite was always
there , beneath the oceanic crust , just waiting for expansion to
allow it to surface .
> > > But instead of contorting and murdering logic by putting
> > > it through the thermal mincer of convection like you do, gravity acts
> > > directly on the mass of the planet to determine where and when it will
> > > split, .. and you can read this by looking at the geology as it
> > > develops through time.
>
> > Yes , lets look at the record through time . Does the chemistry
> > indicate an increase in ocean volume or decrease in trace element
> > percentage with time? The volume of water has stayed the same.
>
> Hardly!
There is no spike in the geologic record indicating an infusion
of trace elements or a dilution caused by new ocean water . Nor
are there indications of primarily deep water deposits that would
indicate water volume has changed over time . Since we know the
planet wasn't covered by water , " Where is the geochemical evidence
for your paradigm ? "
> > The fact is that trace element analyses have shown that
> > there has been a progressive enrichment that is consistent
> > with a constant radius Earth and recycling through both crust and
> > mantle. Had water volume increased with time trace markers
> > would have been more concentrated in the past and show
> > dilution today.
>
> Not if the trace element are brought to the surface.
You lack a basic understanding of this subject .
> > > All *you* can do is make models and rubber
> > > your numbers to suit. The rocks of the planet do not lie,
>
> > You either have no idea what they say or you ignore the
> > chemical evidence.( Sr87/Sr86... 4Rb87/Sr86 ). These analyses
> > on Archaen rock show the crust was mafic.
>
> > If older crust was " heavier " why.. did " lighter " granitic crust
> > spend 2.5 by under this heavier crust before it finally made
> > its way to the surface ? Doesn't make sense , does it ? Just
> > another inconsistency in EE.
>
> granitic crust was not under. It did not exist. Granitic rocks formed
> and got emplaced gradually as the surface of Earth expanded.
Again , you have an insufficient understanding . Differentiation of
mafic crust and its evolution into granite requires heat and pressure
to melt that mafic crust . If the planet is expanding it is releasing
the required heat before it can melt .
The fact is that crustal collisions in the Archaen piled up mafics
until
they were thick enough that the pressure of the overburden melted
these rocks
and the first granites formed by differentiation .
> > Fact is , sial is the product of differentiation and slow enrichment
> > by recycling of oceanic crust .
> More adhoc.
Why do you think I recommended you find a Chemist ?
Brad
don findlay
brad wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:52�pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> > No. �This is where Plate Tectonics has to get real. �We talk
> > absolutes. �Using the concept of relative motion is a cop-out.
>
> It's the only thing you can say . Unless you're there when it moves !
It's still a cop-out.
>
> >�When a
> > fault moves, one side literally moves up or down, or both move either
> > way to a degree.
>
> This is exactly why geophysics is needed.
We're not talking about *how* you tell. We're talking about *what
actually happens*. Of course it's difficult to tell in the instant
(unless as you say, you're there) but not over geological time. The
best way to tell is the geological record. If a fault moves down then
you get a watery incursion; if it moves up then you get erosional
detritus - flysch and talus aprons and so on, uplifted flats become
Plateaus, ..raised platforms - like these:-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/tudhope2001/pic1.jpg
..Whether eustatic changes in sea level are due to uplift or receeding
sea-level is a matter of degree and distribution.
> >
> > When a crack appears in the wall of your house it stays in the same
> > place but gets bigger.
>
> Which side of the crack has moved ? Or do you say the motion
> is equal on both sides ?
That will become apparent when one half falls down. According to the
analogy of "swimming ridges" that Stuart wants, the wall on one side
grows accordingly as the crack moves away. ...Is that what you're
defending? ..the capacity of the wall to grow in the direction the
crack moves?
> >�It doesn't swim about like a fish, as you want
> > ridges to do, does it? �Same with cracks in the crust - they don't
> > swim about like fish according to the vagaries of roiling boiling
> > plumes.
>
> Horse feathers !
??? ... No, .. Whale-tails more like
> > > So I take it you don't have a mechanism for fixing the position of
> > > ridges.
> >
> > Of course we do. �Once a crack, always a crack. �Like the crack in
> > your house gets bigger, so do the ocean floors. �But they *were* once
> > closed. �Retrofitting the closure is easy for the Atlantic, Indian and
> > Pacific Oceans. �It's also easy for the Pacific - once you see it.
> >
> > What caused the crack? �The Mountain belt that once went all around
> > the equatorial zone of Pangaea split with the extrusion of the mantle
> > and dilated. �It's still dilating as the Mediterranean, Caspian and
> > Black Seas.
>
> So , the Mountain belt caused the crack ? There is evidence that some
> rifts open at the suture of old closures . That isn't evidence that
> mountains caused it , though .
The circumglobal "Mountain belt" was once the ambital zone of the
planet, which was once in 'flat' equilibrium (flat strata) - more
oblate than the equatorial zone is now (as the planet is slowing,
getting more spherical). It split down the middle, from Iran/
Afghanistan/ Tarim Basin/ to China to the Western Americas (a remnant
marginal zone is the Basin-and-Range). It split because of that
fundamental oblate equatorial instability as the planet got more
spherical (larger) (/slower) - it split down the middle of the
oblateness.
> > And what would cause the equatorial zone then to be a mountain belt?
The getting bigger. And the recession of the seas to the ocean basins
(the mantle split). And the consequent change in the level of
erosional equilibrium (level of zero erosional potential.) Eroding
this high plateau caused the 'mountain' belt. Like the margins of the
Valles Marineris on Mars are doing the same thing.
> > Partly the change from a more oblate to a more spherical shape, and
> > the resistance to spherical correction. �
>
>
> And the " out of balance " planet didn't react some other way , in
> addition
> to your speculated shape change ? Why doesn't it adjust internally ?
Well it probably did. The extrusion of the mantle is a great big
domal split, the remnant of which is still with us as the Roof of the
World (on the continents). The Pacific (another great big domal
intrusion/ extrusion (which is the same one) is the mantle
equivalent.
> You
> require a lot of mass to extrude in one spot as well as a lot
> of localized energy . The energy is generated , how ? The internal
> pressure your
> ideas require should leave evidence in the form of phases changes in
> the
> minerology of extruded mass.
Your "one spot" being the Pacific Ridge. ... This is why I
speculate to some extent on Moon capture and the shift in the
barycentre.- and that the Earth is in a state of slow explosion (but
that is high speculation). But I wouldn't be surprised if there are
geochemical differences in the time slices of the ocean floors
reflecting this. I also wouldn't be surprised if nobody has yet
bothered to look.
>
> The questions keep piling up .
We haven't even started. Which is why I say that looking at Earth
Expansion will effectively press the reset button on the entire field
of geology.
>
> >You can still see it in the
> > highest terrain on the Planet:-http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/iranrope.html
> > ...and partly the forcible extrusion of the mantle which caused the
> > circular shape of the initial position of the ridge, which is still in
> > evidence today in the continental lithosphere as the so-called
> > subduction zone, and its lid as the highest point in the elliptical
> > zone - "The Roof of the World".
>
>
> What does that paragragh say ? That the planet wasn't spherical
> until the "secret mechanism of your paradigm altered it " ?
No secret mechanism. It says that the planet when it was smaller was
likely spinning faster and more oblate. I don't think it is in
question that the planet was once spinning faster. Whether spinning
faster means smaller is a moot point.
> > Get your head around that one, Stuart :- The subduction zone *IS* the
> > spreading ridge - its fossil position. �It is where the spreading
> > ridge initiated. �
>
> So , the youngest sediment is closest to the trenches ?
No, the other way round. Think about it.
> >There are two elements to it, as we would expect of
> > a top-down rupture correcting to changing curvature - one in the
> > crust, and one in the mantle.
>
> More gravity machinations ?
1. Detachment on the transition zone (flat), .. 2. Top down rupture
of the mantle - a growing split, like if you bend a sheet of rubber
and slit it along the bend. Two processes, ... 1. like the rubber of
a car tyre sloughing off, the other (2) like your belly if you commit
Hari Kiri.
>
> > And spreading ridges -in absolute terms - migrate *away* from the
> > continents. �All of them.
> >
> >
> > > Stuart- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Brad
Why don't you ask Stuart how the wall of his house grows when the
crack moves?
Florian
> > What?
>
> You say the planet grows , so I ask , " Why is the oldest rock
> mafic ? And , how does the evolution of continental crust arise
> from oceanic ? Your paradigm implies that the granite was always
> there , beneath the oceanic crust , just waiting for expansion to
> allow it to surface .
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the granite was not
there? that granite formed as the planet grew.
> > Hardly!
>
> There is no spike in the geologic record indicating an infusion
> of trace elements or a dilution caused by new ocean water .
Water volume has changed because the planet grew.
> > Not if the trace element are brought to the surface.
>
> You lack a basic understanding of this subject .
You lack a basic understanding of growing Earth concepts.
> Again , you have an insufficient understanding . Differentiation of
> mafic crust and its evolution into granite requires heat and pressure
> to melt that mafic crust.
This is not how it works at all. Your understanding is obscured by the
plate tectonics paradigm.
> If the planet is expanding it is releasing
> the required heat before it can melt .
Dude, this is not a simple volume expansion.
>
> The fact is that crustal collisions
There are no such things as crustal collisions. it is all about wedges.
> > > Fact is , sial is the product of differentiation and slow enrichment
> > > by recycling of oceanic crust .
>
>
> > More adhoc.
>
> Why do you think I recommended you find a Chemist ?
Make an effort to think in the framework of a different paradigm, or
you'll fail.
George
> On Oct 15, 9:52 pm, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> And spreading ridges -in absolute terms - migrate *away* from the
> continents. All of them.
Even the ones that exist ON the continents???
http://geology.com/articles/east-africa-rift.shtml
And this:
George
Florian
> Even the ones that exist ON the continents???
When it is "on the continents", it is called "rift", not "ridge".
Eventually, the rift will evolve into an ocean ridge.
Go back fishin Ron.
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 9:36 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 15, 1:43 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > > > (Florian) wrote:
> > > > > I repeat again: The stress can't be realistically uniform on such a
> > > > > large piece of lithosphere.
>
> > > > Who ever said it was uniform? Why does it need to be uniform?
>
> So what are you saying? That it is or it isn't? Or just that
> according to your rubberised models of rheidity it doesn't have to be?
>
But since Flo doesn't understand what strain actually is, its
difficult
for him to grasp as to how stress maps to a strain field, even
for simple rheologies.
>
> > > If the stress is not uniform, then significant deformation will occur
> > > between regions of different stress.
>
> > It has too?
>
> > Rheology doesn't matter at all?
>
> > Dial back when you have the foggiest clue as to what you are
> > talking about.
>
> > Stuart
>
> (I think you mean rheidity.) It's you who doesn't have the foggiest
> idea of what you're talking about, if you insist on putting your
> physics speculation before the geological reality.http://tinyurl.com/68xxmh
No, I mean rheology, which is the study of the flow of matter,
although it can
be extended to solids. Rheology also colloquially refers to the
relationship
between stress and strain for a given substance.
For example Google elastic-perfectly plastic rheology.
Stuart
George
"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1ip4nff.1gsdgag1orqm0wN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> Even the ones that exist ON the continents???
>
> When it is "on the continents", it is called "rift", not "ridge".
> Eventually, the rift will evolve into an ocean ridge.
>
> Go back fishin Ron.
>
> --
> Florian
"And spreading ridges -in absolute terms - migrate *away* from the
> continents. All of them."
Your words, exactly. Whether they are called ridges or rifts is irrelevant,
since an oceanic ridge IS a rift, and a rift can become an oceanic ridge.
And rifts occur on continents. So please explain your claim that "spreading
ridges -in absolute terms - migrate *away* from the continents. All of
them." Perhaps you meant to say that continents migrate away from ridges
due to spreading, which necessarily and by definition means that continents
move horizontally, in contradiction to your claim that they don't move at
all.
George
Florian
> "And spreading ridges -in absolute terms - migrate *away* from the
> continents. All of them."
>
> Your words, exactly.
LOL! That quote belongs to Don.
> Whether they are called ridges or rifts is irrelevant, [...]
yeah right... You are irrelevant.
And one more thing. Continents *do* move horizontally and vertically
relatively to the ever changing center of a unevenly growing globe.
Now, go back fishin, idiot.
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > As the growth is uneven, it moves up and laterally, relatively to the
> > > ever changing absolute center of the Earth.
>
> > Indeed, it moves this way and that, due to who knows what and composed
> > of you guessed it... anything...
>
> Stuart, the surface of a sphere that grows unevenly move radially and
> laterally away from the initial center of the sphere. That is basic
> geometry.
>
> > > > > So stuart, what does happen when a flow of rising material intrude into
> > > > > a hard shell and gains in volume as it gets closer to the surface?
>
> > > > We get the Ontong Java.
>
> > > We get lateral compression, ignorant goose, because it is wedge.
>
> > Um no, you see real upwellings from the deep mantle occur in the
> > form of plumes with nice big plume heads,
>
> Oh, so you're also a plume supporter:
>
> http://www.mantleplumes.org/
LOL. Translation "I have no rebuttal".
>
> > and when they reach the
> > surface they create flood basalts, plateaus and nice big swells that last a
> > long time. As the plate moves over it, one gets an elongate structure.
>
> Dear, you confuse upduction and hotspot.
>
Um no. You invent terms which you imagine have some physical process
behind them.
>
> > And what you call "wedge" is now what geologists refer to as the
That should be "not" not "now".
> > "wedge". If you are trying to make yourself not understood, you are doing a
> > fine job.
>
> Let's see. The wedge is a wedge. Very good Stuart!
>
> > That's what happens in the real earth. In the real Earth kimberlites
> > come from the upper mantle, hotspots bring material up from the lower
> > mantle. They do not bring up Andesites like your "eduction" nonsense.
>
> Even worse. You confuse hotspots with intrusion and upduction, and you
> also confuse upduction and eduction.
No confusion. Your processes don't exist.
This is EE in a nutshell. There's no physics, no rhyme or reason,
you see you just give something a name and walaah. Its explained.
I bet you also confuse
> overthrusting and upduction?
Nope. I don't make up word salad.
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > As the growth is uneven, it moves up and laterally, relatively to the
> > > ever changing absolute center of the Earth.
>
> > Indeed, it moves this way and that, due to who knows what and composed
> > of you guessed it... anything...
>
> Stuart, the surface of a sphere that grows unevenly move radially and
> laterally away from the initial center of the sphere. That is basic
> geometry.
>
Oh In understand completely.
Sometimes the Earth bulges here, and sometimes it bulges there.
How? Nobody knows. What material is added? Could be anything.
Got it.
Stuart
J. Taylor
wrote:
Currently EE is the ONLY demonstrated process for the age pattern on
the ocean floor. It is done by a very simple process, pull out the
age in sequence, allow the radius to contract and all the continental
margins come back together with better than 99% precision (sorry
Florian it is 99% have worked the numbers. 1% is more than enough for
continental implacement in this time period)
But you are right, there is no known physics to explain it, but
considering we have gone from considering we know most of the physics
to less than 4% with dark matter/energy, it does not make for much of
an argument to just claim it is impossible from known physics, and
what is even worse for an argument of impossible from known physics is
that the only theory to unify the four forces requires eleven
dimensions and parallel universes.
It is like arguing their cannot be oceans because all the water is in
your cup.
JT
Stuart
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:05:28 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com>
No, it is not. You can repeat this fabrication as often as you like,
however.
Stuart
Stuart
> wrote:
>
>
><snip>
>
> But you are right, there is no known physics to explain it, but
> considering we have gone from considering we know most of the physics
> to less than 4% with dark matter/energy, it does not make for much of
> an argument to just claim it is impossible from known physics,
Yes we can. The argument from ignorance is not a scientific argument.
Furthermore, there are things we do know about dark matter and energy.
The main thing
we know is that they are weakly interacting with ordinary matter aside
from gravity, and can
be studied through their gravitational effects. Matter and energy that
are weakly interacting
are not logical candidates for spontaneously generating ordinary
matter.
Perhaps you should avoid subjects above your pay grade?
Stuart
J. Taylor
wrote:
>On Oct 23, 6:46 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:05:28 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>><snip>
>
>>
>> But you are right, there is no known physics to explain it, but
>> considering we have gone from considering we know most of the physics
>> to less than 4% with dark matter/energy, it does not make for much of
>> an argument to just claim it is impossible from known physics,
>
>Yes we can. The argument from ignorance is not a scientific argument.
I agree, that is why you should not make them
To make an argument of impossible you have to know what is possible
You don't
>
>Furthermore, there are things we do know about dark matter and energy.
>The main thing
>we know is that they are weakly interacting with ordinary matter aside
>from gravity, and can
>be studied through their gravitational effects. Matter and energy that
>are weakly interacting
>are not logical candidates for spontaneously generating ordinary
>matter.
We cannot possible know dark matter/energy is weakly interactive. We
do not even know if it exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"dark matter is hypothetical matter that does not interact with the
electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from
gravitational effects on visible matter."
Did you catch the word "hypothetical"
What we know are galaxies are not behaving as expected from
observations
Adding "matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force"
gives mass to allow observation to fit with what we think we know, but
does not tell us a thing about what is really going on, thus the
reason "hypothetical"
>
>Perhaps you should avoid subjects above your pay grade?
Perhaps you should read something other than religious tracts.
JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
>On Oct 23, 6:46 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
Great! Then be so kind to show the age pattern being demonstrated by
THAT process.
What you fail to comprehend, Scotese animations are the age pattern on
the current radius with the assumption of subduction, NOT a showing of
this process
So the fact is, it has NOT been demonstrated
Using Scotese's animation it would be just as easy to draw the radius
ten, or any number, larger than current, and assume it shrank and
subducted.
It is also possible with a radius large enough to have the Earth any
shape one wants, too, and all those assumptions are as completely
unnecessary, since it can be demonstrated all the age of the ocean
floor is accounted for by just enlarging the radius.
JT
Florian
> > > Um no, you see real upwellings from the deep mantle occur in the
> > > form of plumes with nice big plume heads,
> >
> > Oh, so you're also a plume supporter:
> >
> > http://www.mantleplumes.org/
>
> LOL. Translation "I have no rebuttal".
No need, for translation. You are a plume supporter. Period.
> > Dear, you confuse upduction and hotspot.
>
> Um no. You invent terms which you imagine have some physical process
> behind them.
I invent nothing. These terms are used by people working on these issue
for a very long time.
Your choice to stay ignorant.
So, Stuart, you who is so clever and know everything, what is the
meaning of upduction, eduction and overthrusting?
>
>
> >
> > > And what you call "wedge" is now what geologists refer to as the
>
> That should be "not" not "now".
said Stuart Weinstein "If you are trying to make yourself not
understood, you are doing a fine job."
Indeed.
Besides you're wrong. This is the same wedge.
> No confusion. Your processes don't exist.
and more denial to finish... clap clap.
I must say I hesitate about your status now.
True Zealot or simple charlatan?
Florian
> On Oct 16, 12:34 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > As the growth is uneven, it moves up and laterally, relatively to the
> > > > ever changing absolute center of the Earth.
> >
> > > Indeed, it moves this way and that, due to who knows what and composed
> > > of you guessed it... anything...
> >
> > Stuart, the surface of a sphere that grows unevenly move radially and
> > laterally away from the initial center of the sphere. That is basic
> > geometry.
> >
>
> Oh In understand completely.
> Sometimes the Earth bulges here, and sometimes it bulges there.
Yep, this is actually what is observed. The fact that ridges get extinct
while others develop, or the fact that spreading rates vary with time,
prove it.
Florian
> Did you catch the word "hypothetical"
I doubt he did. He can't make the difference between an hypothesis, an
interpretation and a fact.
Stuart
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:12:05 -0700 (PDT),Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com>> >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:05:28 -0700 (PDT),Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com>
I understand the word hypothetical, and the wiki needs reveision.
My point remains. If you prefer, I can restate it as "If Dark Matter
does exist, it is weakly-interactive."
Better now?
>
> What we know are galaxies are not behaving as expected from
> observations
But we understand the manner in which they are no behaving. And that
is the result of the gravitational influences of Dark matter. This
basic part of the puzzle has been confirmed again and again through
the study of lensed Quasars.
"Dark Matter" or whatever name you wish to give to the *stuff* that
gravitationally affects galaxies and lenses Quasars, is not
hypothetical. That it exists is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The
precise nature of that *stuff* is what is hypothetical.
>
> Adding "matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force"
> gives mass to allow observation to fit with what we think we know, "
Um no. We can infer on the basis of galactic rotation curves what the
mass of the dark matter halo is. We can then independently test that
estimate when measuring the same galaxy's lensing affects on more
distant objects.
<snip>
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> > Did you catch the word "hypothetical"
>
> I doubt he did. He can't make the difference between an hypothesis, an
> interpretation and a fact.
>
Certainly, you can't.
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 12:34 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > >Stuart<bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > As the growth is uneven, it moves up and laterally, relatively to the
> > > > > ever changing absolute center of the Earth.
>
> > > > Indeed, it moves this way and that, due to who knows what and composed
> > > > of you guessed it... anything...
>
> > >Stuart, the surface of a sphere that grows unevenly move radially and
> > > laterally away from the initial center of the sphere. That is basic
> > > geometry.
>
> > Oh In understand completely.
> > Sometimes the Earth bulges here, and sometimes it bulges there.
>
> Yep, this is actually what is observed. The fact that ridges get extinct
> while others develop, or the fact that spreading rates vary with time,
> prove it.
>
Wow. So all that is required to prove EE is time-dependent behavior of
the Earth?
Who knew it could be so easy?
Stuart
J. Taylor
wrote:
No!
It most definitely is weakly-interactive with the electromagnetic
force, in fact, it "does not interact with the electromagnetic force"
and why its presence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible
matter, but for it to be weakly-interactive one would have to KNOW
what it is.
>
>>
>> What we know are galaxies are not behaving as expected from
>> observations
>
>But we understand the manner in which they are no behaving. And that
>is the result of the gravitational influences of Dark matter. This
>basic part of the puzzle has been confirmed again and again through
>the study of lensed Quasars.
That is how we know it has mass, but little else
>
>"Dark Matter" or whatever name you wish to give to the *stuff* that
>gravitationally affects galaxies and lenses Quasars, is not
>hypothetical. That it exists is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The
>precise nature of that *stuff* is what is hypothetical.
To be precise, we know something has mass that causes the lensing, but
what it is, is hypothetical, and giving it a name does nothing to make
any more known.
>
>
>>
>> Adding "matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force"
>> gives mass to allow observation to fit with what we think we know, "
>
>Um no. We can infer on the basis of galactic rotation curves what the
>mass of the dark matter halo is. We can then independently test that
>estimate when measuring the same galaxy's lensing affects on more
>distant objects.
look, until more is known about it, what is being done is trying to
make it fit, nothing more.
JT
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
>
>
> Wow. So all that is required to prove EE is time-dependent behavior of
> the Earth?
>
> Who knew it could be so easy?
>
> Stuart
Certainly not you, Stuart. You can't even explain what first-graders
already know - that transform faults don't offset spreading ridges:-
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo/flash/2_8.swf
http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupId=12426&ResourceID=40528
Stuart
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:14:19 -0800 (PST), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com>
Eh?
If it wasn't weakly interactive, regardless of what it is, it would
have additional observable effects. The arguments and observations of
professional cosmologists and particle theorists make much more sense
than anything you have to say.
Sorry.
Stuart
Stuart
I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
What so you mean by "offset spreading"? Cuz it doesn't have anything
to do with PT.
Stuart
Florian
> I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
> those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
In accordance with PT?
Give me a break!
Carey presented the mechanism of ridge spreading at the Continental
Drift Symposium in Hobart, early in 1956.
That's 2 decades before the "new global tectonics", yep 2 decades.
At that time, Carey had already figured out that Earth was growing.
We are in 2008, more than 50 years later, and guess what? You did not
really figure out yet why ridges are forming, spreading and getting
longer as long as they are active...
You're just a charlatan Stuart Weinstein, much like Brad.
Florian
> I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
> those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
In accordance with PT?
Give me a break!
Carey presented the mechanism of ridge spreading at the Continental
Drift Symposium in Hobart, early in 1956.
That's 10 years before the "new global tectonics", yep 10 years.
At that time, Carey had already figured out that Earth was growing.
We are in 2008, more than 50 years later, and guess what? You did not
really figure out yet why ridges are forming, spreading and getting
longer as long as they are active...
You're just a charlatan Stuart Weinstein, much like Brad.
--
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
> > those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
>
> In accordance with PT?
>
> Give me a break!
>
> Carey presented the mechanism of ridge spreading at the Continental
> Drift Symposium in Hobart, early in 1956.
>
> That's 2 decades before the "new global tectonics", yep 2 decades.
> At that time, Carey had already figured out that Earth was growing.
Carey was wrong.
Holmes (1931) proposed spreading before Carey. Not that that really
matters. But as usual, you are factually challenged.
>
> We are in 2008, more than 50 years later, and guess what? You did not
> really figure out yet why ridges are forming, spreading and getting
> longer as long as they are active...
LOL.
>
> You're just a charlatan Stuart Weinstein, much like Brad.
Whats next? Carey developed the concept of the "Transform Fault"?
Stuart
J. Taylor
wrote:
>On Nov 24, 9:46 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
And how do you know it does not have additional observable effects?
We don't!
All which is known is the areas we have looked.
However, if the areas we looked were the end of the matter, we would
know what it is, since we don't, that means it is more than the areas
we have looked.
And they are saying that, it is your selective reading which is your
problem.
JT
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Um no, you see real upwellings from the deep mantle occur in the
> > > > form of plumes with nice big plume heads,
>
> > > Oh, so you're also a plume supporter:
>
> > >http://www.mantleplumes.org/
>
> > LOL. Translation "I have no rebuttal".
No translation as in " I am unable to think for myself so I will trot
out a reference to Don Anderson who has little sway with the
geodynamical community on plumes."
I've already had plenty of discussions with Don way back when. I'm
having this discussion with you, not Don. If you can't defend yourself
without Don's *help* thats not my problem.
>
> No need, for translation. You are a plume supporter. Period.
>
> > > Dear, you confuse upduction and hotspot.
>
> > Um no. You invent terms which you imagine have some physical process
> > behind them.
>
> I invent nothing. These terms are used by people working on these issue
> for a very long time.
> Your choice to stay ignorant.
These are people outside the mainstream scientific community.
>
> So, Stuart, you who is so clever and know everything, what is the
> meaning of upduction, eduction and overthrusting?
Overthrusting is a standard geologic term. upduction and eduction are
not found in any geological dictionary I'm aware of.
>
>
>
> > > > And what you call "wedge" is now what geologists refer to as the
>
> > That should be "not" not "now".
>
> said Stuart Weinstein "If you are trying to make yourself not
> understood, you are doing a fine job."
>
> Indeed.
>
> Besides you're wrong. This is the same wedge.
>
> > No confusion. Your processes don't exist.
>
> and more denial to finish... clap clap.
>
> I must say I hesitate about your status now.
> True Zealot or simple charlatan?
Projecting again?
Stuart
J. Taylor
wrote:
>On Nov 25, 1:34 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
>(Florian) wrote:
>> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
>> > those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
>>
>> In accordance with PT?
>>
>> Give me a break!
>>
>> Carey presented the mechanism of ridge spreading at the Continental
>> Drift Symposium in Hobart, early in 1956.
>>
>> That's 2 decades before the "new global tectonics", yep 2 decades.
>> At that time, Carey had already figured out that Earth was growing.
>
>Carey was wrong.
>
>Holmes (1931) proposed spreading before Carey. Not that that really
>matters. But as usual, you are factually challenged.
A quote is in order. Have no idea what you are talking about unless
you make some reference to a specific.
Also cannot agree, nor disagree because you have not made a specific
point, you are just asking to take your word for it.
JT
Stuart
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:06:37 -0800 (PST), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com>
Because we would then observe them. Certainly it is possible such
effects are below the threshold of detection, but that would confirm
rather than contradict the notion that such matter is weakly
interactive.
>
> We don't!
>
> All which is known is the areas we have looked.
>
> However, if the areas we looked were the end of the matter, we would
> know what it is, since we don't, that means it is more than the areas
> we have looked.
I'm sorry but the above doesn't make sense. At least not to me.
>
> And they are saying that, it is your selective reading which is your
> problem.
>
> JT
Stuart
Stuart
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:20:29 -0800 (PST), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 25, 1:34 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> >(Florian) wrote:
> >> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
> >> > those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
>
> >> In accordance with PT?
>
> >> Give me a break!
>
> >> Carey presented the mechanism of ridge spreading at the Continental
> >> Drift Symposium in Hobart, early in 1956.
>
> >> That's 2 decades before the "new global tectonics", yep 2 decades.
> >> At that time, Carey had already figured out that Earth was growing.
>
> >Carey was wrong.
>
> >Holmes (1931) proposed spreading before Carey. Not that that really
> >matters. But as usual, you are factually challenged.
>
> A quote is in order.
Thats funny. You didn't ask Flo for one.
I think you can find the reference in about 5s with Google.
Knock yourself out.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Nov 25, 1:24 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> >
> > > Wow. So all that is required to prove EE is time-dependent behavior of
> > > the Earth?
> >
> > > Who knew it could be so easy?
> >
> > > Stuart
> >
> > Certainly not you, Stuart. You can't even explain what first-graders
> > already know - that transform faults don't offset spreading ridges:-http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo/flash/2_8.swfhttp://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupId=12426&Re...
>
>
> I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
> those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
Of course they do. It's as dopey as the rest of plate tectonics. And
you're trying to defend it. It's so dopey
spruikers like you have to devise "A NEW CLASS OF FAULTS" :-
http://tinyurl.com/653h5n
to explain the inexplicable.
"Hey, Stuart, . what sort of global tectonic system is it that offsets
the spreading ridges before transform faulting begins, and then stops
offsetting them once faulting starts?"
"Why, ..a new class of faults of course. Get a book and read about
them"
Hah, .. a big boy like you.. Well, ..when it comes to plugging
the holes in the dykes of Plate Tectonics I suppose there's a few like
Brad admiring your Big Finger.
. .." Show basic Ridge Spreading in accordance with PT.." Of
course they do. That's the Big Loony Joke you're part of. Plate
Tectonics fails right there, in its visualisation ("The offsets are
present before transform faulting begins".) ("And then once the
faulting starts, the offsets stop.")
How many years have you puzzled over that one? None I'll bet.
(I'll bet you believe everything you read.)
(And they put you in charge of ..what?)
>
> What so you mean by "offset spreading"? Cuz it doesn't have anything
> to do with PT.
It wasn't "offset spreading" it was "offset spreading ridges", ..as
in
"Transform faults offset spreading ridges"
http://tinyurl.com/5z922n
Learn how to read. And spell.
What do you mean anyway, "it doesn't have anything to do with Plate
Tectonics"? Apart from those two animations there's a whole world
out there says transform faults *DO* offset spreading ridges. Are you
saying now that spreading ridges are not offset by transform faults?
Like Plate Tectonics says?
Careful, .. Big Al's in the other corner, ..watching you.
>
> Stuart
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 1:24 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > Stuart wrote:
>
> > > > Wow. So all that is required to prove EE is time-dependent behavior of
> > > > the Earth?
>
> > > > Who knew it could be so easy?
>
> > > > Stuart
>
> > > Certainly not you, Stuart. You can't even explain what first-graders
>
> > I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
> > those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
>
> Of course they do. It's as dopey as the rest of plate tectonics. And
> you're trying to defend it. It's so dopey
> to explain the inexplicable.
>
Indeed. The earthquake mechanisms on transform faults show the
opposite motion from what you'd expect based on the offset of the
ridges. The offset for example, may be right lateral, but in actuality
it is left lateral motion. Thats why it is a different class of fault.
Silly goose.
Stuart
Florian
> On Nov 25, 1:34 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
> > > those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
> >
> > In accordance with PT?
> >
> > Give me a break!
> >
> > Carey presented the mechanism of ridge spreading at the Continental
> > Drift Symposium in Hobart, early in 1956.
> >
> > That's 2 decades before the "new global tectonics", yep 2 decades.
> > At that time, Carey had already figured out that Earth was growing.
>
> Carey was wrong.
>
> Holmes (1931) proposed spreading before Carey.
Not by symetric insertion of mantle material at ridges my dear. Holmes
ignored the existence of ridges.
The fact is that Carey presented the mechanism of ridge spreading
before the "new global tectonics" half revolution.
So I'm factually correct.
> Not that that really
> matters. But as usual, you are factually challenged.
>
>
> >
> > We are in 2008, more than 50 years later, and guess what? You did not
> > really figure out yet why ridges are forming, spreading and getting
> > longer as long as they are active...
>
> LOL.
The simple mind laughs at its own ignorance.
> > You're just a charlatan Stuart Weinstein, much like Brad.
>
>
>
> Whats next? Carey developed the concept of the "Transform Fault"?
>
> Stuart
Florian
> On Oct 25, 1:44 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > Um no, you see real upwellings from the deep mantle occur in the
> > > > > form of plumes with nice big plume heads,
> >
> > > > Oh, so you're also a plume supporter:
> >
> > > >http://www.mantleplumes.org/
> >
> > > LOL. Translation "I have no rebuttal".
>
> No translation as in " I am unable to think for myself so I will trot
> out a reference to Don Anderson who has little sway with the
> geodynamical community on plumes."
>
> I've already had plenty of discussions with Don way back when. I'm
> having this discussion with you, not Don. If you can't defend yourself
> without Don's *help* thats not my problem.
I have my own opinion on plumes: none of the two parties are correct.
Simply because Earth's tectonics is not driven by heat transfer but by
pressure release. Materials follow pressure gradient, not heat gradient.
Of course, heat is transported in the process, but that is not the
engine.
> > No need, for translation. You are a plume supporter. Period.
> >
> > > > Dear, you confuse upduction and hotspot.
> >
> > > Um no. You invent terms which you imagine have some physical process
> > > behind them.
> >
> > I invent nothing. These terms are used by people working on these issue
> > for a very long time.
> > Your choice to stay ignorant.
>
> These are people outside the mainstream scientific community.
Oh, so you have to belong to a church?
Je n'ai ni foi ni maître, je suis libre de penser.
> > So, Stuart, you who is so clever and know everything, what is the
> > meaning of upduction, eduction and overthrusting?
>
> Overthrusting is a standard geologic term. upduction and eduction are
> not found in any geological dictionary I'm aware of.
You're truly incredible. You make judgements on concepts that you
totally ignore.
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2:19 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > Stuart wrote:
> > > On Nov 25, 1:24 am, don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> > > > Stuart wrote:
> >
> > > > > Wow. So all that is required to prove EE is time-dependent behavior of
> > > > > the Earth?
> >
> > > > > Who knew it could be so easy?
> >
> > > > > Stuart
> >
> > > > Certainly not you, Stuart. You can't even explain what first-graders
> > > > already know - that transform faults don't offset spreading ridges:-http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo/flash/2_8.swfhttp://www.scho......
> >
> > > I can only conclude that you don't understand what "offset" means. Cuz
> > > those animations show basic ridge spreading in accordance with PT.
> >
> > Of course they do. It's as dopey as the rest of plate tectonics. And
> > you're trying to defend it. It's so dopey
> > spruikers like you have to devise "A NEW CLASS OF FAULTS" :-http://tinyurl.com/653h5n
> > to explain the inexplicable.
> >
>
>
> Indeed. The earthquake mechanisms on transform faults show the
> opposite motion from what you'd expect based on the offset of the
> ridges.
When it comes to Plate Tectonics, everything is different from "what
you'd expect". That's what makes it so stupid.
> The offset for example, may be right lateral, but in actuality
> it is left lateral motion. Thats why it is a different class of fault.
So you still remember, ..eh? But do you remember where the box was
on the page?
Stuart, ..we don't want to know if you know the rote answer trundled
out for first year students. We want to know how a guy in your
position (and there are thousands of you heading up universities all
over) rationalise that stupid nonsense. The animations are quite
specific: the offset occurs *before* transform faulting begins, ..and
transform faults offset nothing despite moving for hundreds of
millions of years.
Therefore it's not transform faults that are doing the offsetting. So
what is? We're not interested in so-called faults that do nothing,
whether they have a whole new class to their name or not. We're
interested in what causes the offset in the first place.
>
> Silly goose.
>
> Stuart
(Rubber Duck...) Now this time, think before you quack. You've
just made it past the first semester of grade one where you show you
accept what's told to you, and had someone point out the correct box
tick for you to tick the answer in case you don't know, ..but this
semester you are expected to think for yourself.
So show us how guys like you do it.
...What offsets spreading ridges when according to Plate Tectonics
it's clearly not transform faults.
Stuart
No, I'm laughing at yours. However, I shouldn't laugh.
I should just take pity.
Stuart
Stuart
God only knows what you're on about. And even he/she/it has trouble.
Stuart
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 1:44 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> > (Florian) wrote:
> > > Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Um no, you see real upwellings from the deep mantle occur in the
> > > > > > form of plumes with nice big plume heads,
>
> > > > > Oh, so you're also a plume supporter:
>
> > > > >http://www.mantleplumes.org/
>
> > > > LOL. Translation "I have no rebuttal".
>
> > No translation as in " I am unable to think for myself so I will trot
> > out a reference to Don Anderson who has little sway with the
> > geodynamical community on plumes."
>
> > I've already had plenty of discussions with Don way back when. I'm
> > having this discussion with you, not Don. If you can't defend yourself
> > without Don's *help* thats not my problem.
>
> I have my own opinion on plumes: none of the two parties are correct.
> Simply because Earth's tectonics is not driven by heat transfer but by
> pressure release.
Opinion masquerading as fact.
Materials follow pressure gradient, not heat gradient.
> Of course, heat is transported in the process, but that is not the
> engine.
Heat gradients set up pressure gradients.
>
> > > No need, for translation. You are a plume supporter. Period.
>
> > > > > Dear, you confuse upduction and hotspot.
>
> > > > Um no. You invent terms which you imagine have some physical process
> > > > behind them.
>
> > > I invent nothing. These terms are used by people working on these issue
> > > for a very long time.
> > > Your choice to stay ignorant.
>
> > These are people outside the mainstream scientific community.
>
> Oh, so you have to belong to a church?
> Je n'ai ni foi ni maître, je suis libre de penser.
No, but there's a reason they rarely publish (if at all) in well known
scientific journals. Nor is my job to be up to speed on such
terminology. You continually use terms that seem to be ill-defined or
not defined in well known references.
>
> > > So, Stuart, you who is so clever and know everything, what is the
> > > meaning of upduction, eduction and overthrusting?
>
> > Overthrusting is a standard geologic term. upduction and eduction are
> > not found in any geological dictionary I'm aware of.
>
> You're truly incredible. You make judgements on concepts that you
> totally ignore.
Most people ignore them, cuz I haven't com across them in the
professional literature. At any rate I don't have time to traverse
literature off the beaten path to figure out non-standard jargon.
If you want to use eduction, upduction or whatever, then define them
and give instances as to what they refer too.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
He/she/it? ...No, .. Just you, Stuart... (You Big Clueless Duck of
Rubber - ... Ducking...) (for cover)
I'm on about your inability to explain how the offset on spreading
ridges happens, when those animations clearly show (and state) that
the offset is there *before* transform faulting begins, and that the
ridge offsets are unaffected by subsequent movement on the faults.
Have another go.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo/flash/2_8.swf
http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupId=12426&Re...
Look closely this time. And read the captions.
See me at playtime if you still have trouble. I'll give you the
answer. You should already know it anyhow, ..since you want the
ridges to move *away* from the continents. (That's a clue. Though
it may be wasted on the self-confessed clueless...)