Re: Now, our famous geologist confuses continental rift and ocean.
Florian
> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
> news:1inz3tb.7uq3neqedhlbN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
> > He's not there yet. He is just beginning to realize that something is
> > wrong in plate tectonics mechanisms.
>
> Bwhahahaha!!! So not only are you a magician who can make the Earth expand
> with EE fairy dust,
That's the story for idiot of your kind.
> but you can read the minds of geologists who don't
> actually agree with you.
Doglioni refutes the postulated engine of plate tectonics. He'll figure
out what is wrong sooner than later.
[...]
> >> The basement in the ECRB is not granite or rhyolite. It is
> >> basalt. The granite and rhyolite is younger, and formed mostly during
> >> the
> >> Grenville orogeny.
> >
> > No. It formed just before the Grenville orogeny.
>
> Regardless, the rift is composed of basalts. Do you know of a rift that
> isn't composed of basalt?
Idiots, the basement rock that rifted apart is granite and rhyolite.
[...]
> > When there is a new paradigm, some stuff keeps its interpretation
> > intact, and some other stuff must be reinterpretated in the light of the
> > new paradigm. Trashing everything is stupid.
>
> Then why are you doing it?
Don't be confused by your stupid wishful thinking. You're the ignorant
goose who claims that we have to trash all known Physics.
--
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
George
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
>
>> "Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
>> news:1inz3tb.7uq3neqedhlbN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
>
>> > He's not there yet. He is just beginning to realize that something is
>> > wrong in plate tectonics mechanisms.
>>
>> Bwhahahaha!!! So not only are you a magician who can make the Earth
>> expand
>> with EE fairy dust,
>
> That's the story for idiot of your kind.
>
>> but you can read the minds of geologists who don't
>> actually agree with you.
>
> Doglioni refutes the postulated engine of plate tectonics. He'll figure
> out what is wrong sooner than later.
>
> [...]
Oh really? That's not what he says in the following paper:
http://tetide.geo.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-15-03-13-TXT.aspx.html
In fact, he disagrees with so much of the crap you've posted, that it's hard
to know where to begin. For instance, you claim that there is no intraplate
deformation (which is not what Stuart, myself, and many many others claim),
and that therefore there is no plate movement. Contradicting yourself, you
point out that the Sumatran plate has moved westward over the Indian Ocean
during the 2004 megaquake. Doglioni states emphatically "Plates move at the
surface of Earth, (oops) but we still do not know what energy source
accounts for plate tectonics. Mantle tomography, studies on the viscosity of
Earth's interior, and geological, geophysical, and geodetic analysis of
plate tectonics are rapidly contributing to an understanding of why plates
describe a sinusoidal flow and why there is a westward delay of the
lithosphere relative to the mantle, creating strong asymmetries in the
structure of subduction zones and rift zones. The main energy seems to come
from Earth's cooling and associated mantle convection (which you claim
doesn't occur)." Elsewhere, he states "Mantle convection is expected,
because Earth is cooling and because material is uprising along oceanic
ridges and downgoing along subduction zones." I guess he doesn't support
your silly upduction zones, since he asserts that material is downgoing
along subduction zones, not rising from the deep mantle.
So he doesn't refute the postulated engine of plate tectonics at all, but
supports it, and you are knitting yet more imaginary sweaters. What he does
suggest is " In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to
generate plate tectonics. A more robust contribution of the Earth's rotation
in combination with mantle convection could be envisaged."
George
Florian
> Oh really? That's not what he says in the following paper:
>
> http://tetide.geo.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-1
> 5-03-13-TXT.aspx.html
>
> In fact, he disagrees with so much of the crap you've posted, that it's hard
> to know where to begin. For instance, you claim that there is no intraplate
> deformation (which is not what Stuart, myself, and many many others claim),
> and that therefore there is no plate movement.
In the Pacific, west of the EPR you idiot! there are lenty of
deformation where there is actual dispalcement, but not in the pacific
where dispalcement is supposed to be the largest and on the greatest
distance.
I remind you my point because apparently you *already* forgot it:
deformations <=> no displacements
> Contradicting yourself, you
> point out that the Sumatran plate has moved westward over the Indian Ocean
> during the 2004 megaquake.
Yes the sumatra arc leads to overthrusting of crust, west over the
Indian ocean. Plenty of deformation accounting for that displacement.
> Doglioni states emphatically "Plates move at the
> surface of Earth, (oops) but we still do not know what energy source
> accounts for plate tectonics. Mantle tomography, studies on the viscosity of
> Earth's interior, and geological, geophysical, and geodetic analysis of
> plate tectonics are rapidly contributing to an understanding of why plates
> describe a sinusoidal flow and why there is a westward delay of the
> lithosphere relative to the mantle, creating strong asymmetries in the
> structure of subduction zones and rift zones.
That is remnant bullshit from Plate tectonics.
> The main energy seems to come
> from Earth's cooling and associated mantle convection (which you claim
> doesn't occur)."
For convection a downward flow is required. There are no hard evidence
of downward flow, idiot. And using the term "convection", wheras the
volume of Earth changes, does not make sense at all. Inner pressure
building up is the engine of Earth tectonics, not Heat.
Fact is that Doglioni refutes slab pull and ridge push which are
currently considered as the driving forces of plate tectonics.
George
And this - "Doglioni refutes the postulated engine of plate tectonics. He'll
figure out what is wrong sooner than later" is bullshit out of your tiny
brain.
>> The main energy seems to come
>> from Earth's cooling and associated mantle convection (which you claim
>> doesn't occur)."
>
> For convection a downward flow is required.
As is upward flow and horizontal flow.
There are no hard evidence
> of downward flow, idiot.
Yes there is. Just because you are stupid enough to believe that downward
flow is actually upward flow doesn't mean that everyone else subscribes to
your nonsense.
And using the term "convection", wheras the
> volume of Earth changes, does not make sense at all. Inner pressure
> building up is the engine of Earth tectonics, not Heat.
Even if the Earth was expanding, there would be convection. The fact that
you point out the heterogenity of the mantle indicates that you know this to
be true even if you openly deny it.
> Fact is that Doglioni refutes slab pull and ridge push which are
> currently considered as the driving forces of plate tectonics.
No he doesn't, and no slab pull and ridge push most certainly aren't
considered to be the only driving forces. Lying about it only makes you
dishonest. And moving the goalpost doesn't get you past the fact that you
lied about what Doglioni actually does support.
George
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > Oh really? That's not what he says in the following paper:
>
The send a letter to Doglioni and tell him he's wrong.
>
> Fact is that Doglioni refutes slab pull and ridge push which are
> currently considered as the driving forces of plate tectonics.
>
Fact is, I haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
word
outside of creationist circles. I don't see where Doglioni refutes
slab pull;
he thinks slab pull alone is too simplistic. Thats hardly a
refutation.
This demonstrates perfectly the mindset of EEr's.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
Quote:-
" ...none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for
the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has
a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle
convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and
plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and
lithosphere are detached. Plates appear to follow a main stream, both
now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to
generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonal shape.
Earth's rotation is also able to generate a possible polarity in the
kinematics of the cores, mantle, and lithosphere, a sort of railway
path."
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/dogli.html
----------------------------------------------------
Stuart
He should know better.
And in any event doesn't support Flo's claims as to what he stated.
nor has
> a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle
> convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and
> plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and
> lithosphere are detached.
Assuming the mantle and lithopshere are detached. Either way, I
disagree.
Plates appear to follow a main stream, both
> now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to
> generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonal shape.
He's flat out wrong about that too.
Sorry.
> Earth's rotation is also able to generate a possible polarity in the
> kinematics of the cores, mantle, and lithosphere, a sort of railway
> path.
My point isn't that I think Doglioni has everything completely right,
its that he wasn't properly
represented by Flo. Flo reinterpreted Doglioni's remarks to suit Flo's
purposes. Doglioni wasn't
dissing mantle convection or subduction.
Stuart
Florian
> > That is remnant bullshit from Plate tectonics.
>
> And this - "Doglioni refutes the postulated engine of plate tectonics. He'll
> figure out what is wrong sooner than later" is bullshit out of your tiny
> brain.
Said idiot who ignore that slab pull is considered the main engine that
drives plate tectonics. Stern even call Earth the "subduction planet".
Jeez..
>
> >> The main energy seems to come
> >> from Earth's cooling and associated mantle convection (which you claim
> >> doesn't occur)."
> >
> > For convection a downward flow is required.
>
> As is upward flow and horizontal flow.
>
> There are no hard evidence
> > of downward flow, idiot.
>
> Yes there is. Just because you are stupid enough to believe that downward
> flow is actually upward flow doesn't mean that everyone else subscribes to
> your nonsense.
What about all that volcanism and intrusions and overthrusting, you
idiot? What you imagine goes down is simply buried as the radius of
Earth grows.
> Even if the Earth was expanding, there would be convection.
No because the pressure gradient is the driving force, so that every
movement is toward the surface. Heat is transported toward the surface
during the process but the cold material cannot go back down against the
pressure gradient. The only way that bits of lithosphere can be under
the surface is that they got buried by extruding/overthrusting material.
> The fact that
> you point out the heterogenity of the mantle indicates that you know this to
> be true even if you openly deny it.
Whatever, heterogenity arise from successive emplacement from "inside"
earth.
>
> > Fact is that Doglioni refutes slab pull and ridge push which are
> > currently considered as the driving forces of plate tectonics.
>
> No he doesn't,
He does. But you don't know it because you never read papers, lazy boy.
> and no slab pull and ridge push most certainly aren't
> considered to be the only driving forces.
They are, ignorant goose.
Florian
>
> Fact is, I haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
> word outside of creationist circles. I don't see where Doglioni refutes
> slab pull; he thinks slab pull alone is too simplistic. Thats hardly a
> refutation.
Fact is, *I* haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
word outside of creationist circles.
Doglioni does clealry refutes the slab pull concept (see below)
>
> This demonstrates perfectly the mindset of EEr's.
This demonstrates prefectly the mindset of Stuart Weinstein. I'm glad to
put your nose in your own bullshit.
Doglioni wrote:
"The main reasons why the slab pull is not considered here a good
mechanism for moving plates and for triggering subduction are listed.
1) The dip of the slab is independent from the age of the oceanic
lithosphere (Cruciani et al., 2005), considered to control the increase
of the lithosphere's density and likely, therefore, to be the magnitude
of the slab's pull forces.
2) Subduction involves even continental lithosphere even deeper than
100-150 km (Ampferer, 1906; Dal Piaz et al., 1972; Trümpy, 1975; Ranalli
et al., 2000; van Hinsbergen et al., 2005), although the subducted
average continental crust is most probably buoyant with respect to
mantle rocks (Hermann, 2002).
3) The oceanic lithosphere is a frozen shallow (30-100 km deep)
asthenosphere, previously depleted below ridges. Therefore, the oceanic
lithosphere is the differentiated lighter upper part of the mantle: then
why should it be heavier a priori than the undepleted deeper (100- 300
km) asthenosphere lying beneath the old oceanic lithosphere where a
pyrolite density of 3400 kg/m3(Jordan, 1988; Kelly et al., 2003) is
inferred? Moreover, hydrothermal activity generates serpentinization of
the mantle along the ridge that decreases the density even more.
4) If the oceanic lithosphere is heavier than the underlying mantle, why
are there no blobs of LID falling in the upper mantle, below the
western, older side of the Pacific plate?
5) Down-dip compression (Fig. 9) affects most of the W-directed slabs,
all below 300 km (Isacks and Molnar, 1971), and most of them at an even
shallower depth (e.g., Frepoli et al., 1996).
6) We do not have hard constraints of the real composition of the
country's upper mantle: there could be more fayalite, making the upper
mantle more dense and the slab's negative buoyancy smaller, or none.
7) The 700 km long W-Pacific slab, where only the upper 300 km show some
potential down- dip extension seismicity [but it could be generated also
by a horizontal shear in the mantle, Giardini and Woodhouse (1986)]
should pull and carry the 10,000 km wide Pacific plate, 33 times bigger,
winning the strong shear resistance at the plate base, and the opposing
basal drag induced by the relative eastward mantle flow inferred from
the hotspots migration (Fig.10).
8) At the Earth's surface, the oceanic lithosphere has a low strength
under extension [e.g., 8x1012N m-1, Liu et al. (2004)] and is able to
resist a force smaller than that requested by the slab pull [3.3x1013N
m-1, Turcotte and Schubert (2002)]. If the slab pull is the cause of the
motion of the Pacific plate, this observation argues in favour of a
stretching of the Pacific lithosphere before the slab pull is able to
move the plate. In other words, the plate cannot sustain the tensional
stresses, that could eventually be due to slab pull (Fig. 11). The
problem of low lithospheric strength could be, however, partly
counterbalanced by the mantle flow and viscous tractions acting on the
plates and induced by slab sinking (e.g., Lithgow- Bertelloni and
Richards, 1998). Due to the low temperature and high pressure, the
strength of the subducted oceanic lithosphere rises to some
2x1013-6x1013 N m-1 (Wong a Ton and Wortel, 1997) and would make the
eventual pull, induced by density anomalies related to phase changes at
depth sustainable. In short, the subducted slab is probably able to
sustain the load induced by the slab pull but probably, this load cannot
be transmitted to the unsubducted portion of the plate without breaking
it apart.
9) Faster plates surrounded by long slabs and trenches? It is a circular
reasoning because long subduction zones might be a consequence of fast
movements of plates. Moreover, plates are considered fast in the NNR
reference frame (Conrad and Lithgow-Bertelloni, 2003). For example,
measuring plate motions in the hotspot reference frame, i.e., relative
to the mantle, Nazca is very slow relative to the mantle, so the
relation plate velocity-slab age and length of the subduction zone (Fig.
12) is not true.
10) Plate velocities in the hotspot reference frame seem to be inversely
proportional to the viscosity of the asthenosphere rather than to the
length of the subduction zones and the age of the downgoing lithosphere.
In fact the Pacific, which is the fastest westerly moving plate (Gripp
and Gordon, 2002), has the lowest viscosity values (Pollitz et al.,
1998).
11) The horizontal velocity of plates is 10-100 times faster than
vertical velocity (subduction related uplift or subsidence) suggesting
that vertical motions are rather passive movements. Moreover, the
kinematic analysis of section 2 shows that subduction rates appear
controlled rather than controlling horizontal plate motions (Fig. 8).
12) The energy for compressing an orogen is probably larger than the one
supposed for the slab pull.
13) Slab pull has been calculated to be potentially efficient only at a
certain depth [e.g. 180 km, McKenzie (1977)]; and if it is shallower
than that? How does subduction initiate?
14) Some plates in the hotspot reference frame move without any slab
pulling them, e.g., the westward movements of N-America, Africa and
South America (Gripp and Gordon, 2002).
15) There are rift zones formed between plates not surrounded by oceanic
subduction to which one can attribute the pull for moving the
lithosphere (e.g., the Red Sea).
16) Although the knowledge of the rheological behaviour of the subducted
lithosphere is very poor it can be conjectured that the downgoing slab,
being progressively heated, could potentially lose strength, diminishing
the possibility of mechanically transfering the pull (Mantovani et al.,
2002).
17) Kinematically, subduction rollback implies that the volumes left in
the hangingwall of the slab have to be replaced by a horizontal mantle
flow, whether this is a consequence or the cause of the retreat
(Doglioni et al., 1999). However, in order to allow the slab to move
back, the slab retreat needs the mantle in the footwall of the slab to
also move away in the direction of the slab retreat, regardless whether
this motion is generated by the slab pull or is an independent mantle
horizontal flow. But the energy required to push the mantle forward is
much greater than the slab pull can effort.
18) When describing the plate motions relative to the mantle, e.g. in
the hotspots reference frame, along E- or NE-directed subduction zones
the slab might move out of the mantle, e.g., in the opposite direction
of the subduction. It is sinking because it is overridden by the faster
upper plate (Fig. 13).
19) Within a slab, eclogitization is assumed to make the lithosphere
denser. However, eclogitization is concentrated in the 6-8 km thick
oceanic crust, whereas the remaining 60- 80 km thick lithospheric mantle
does not undergo the same transformation. Therefore only 1/10 of the
slab is apparently increasing density, but the main mass of the slab
(90%) does not change significantly.
20) The density increase due to eclogitization is in contrast with the
exhumation of the eclogitic prism that is usually detached with respect
to the "lighter" lithospheric mantle (G.V. Dal Piaz, pers. comm.).
21) Why should the lithosphere start to subduct? This crucial point
arises particularly when considering an oceanic hydrated and
serpentinized lithosphere that has not yet been metamorphosed by the
subduction process, and consequently it is still less dense (G.V. Dal
Piaz, pers. comm.).
This long list casts doubts on the possibility that the slab pull can
actually trigger subduction, slab rollback, and drive plate motions."
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
Of course it does. He's handicapped by having to write to a
considerable extent within a perspective of consensus. He has to write
what consensus says and what he thinks as well, ..like two railway
tracks side-by-side
When he says "We" in regard to what Plate Tectonics is about he means
all the silly nuts who support its excesses. Then he says what he
thinks. It's not difficult to pick the difference.
>
> nor has
> > a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle
> > convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and
> > plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and
> > lithosphere are detached.
>
> Assuming the mantle and lithopshere are detached. Either way, I
> disagree.
Of course they're detached - at the margins of the continental
lithospheric breaks. Thats what the subduction zone is (geologically
speaking):- *_exhumed*_*asthenosphere/ transition zone*.
>
> Plates appear to follow a main stream, both
> > now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to
> > generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonal shape.
>
> He's flat out wrong about that too.
> Sorry.
No apologies needed. I expect he is too. Representing subduction as
the driver of Plate Tectonics and hence the generator of mantle
convection is idiocy. He would agree too, most likely. It's just that
he has to weasel to get his publication through. Everybody does it.
Not too many career artists come straight out with what they think.
It's not important what they think. It's what get's published that's
important - as you keep alluding to.
> > Earth's rotation is also able to generate a possible polarity in the
> > kinematics of the cores, mantle, and lithosphere, a sort of railway
> > path.
>
>
> My point isn't that I think Doglioni has everything completely right,
> its that he wasn't properly
> represented by Flo. Flo reinterpreted Doglioni's remarks to suit Flo's
> purposes. Doglioni wasn't
> dissing mantle convection or subduction.
Of course he does. Like I said:- "Weaseling" How else do you think
he would represent rotation if he wants to get published? He must put
up a face and be inclusive. Wait till his next one, when he can build
on those words. He'll drop both (convection and subduction) like a
hot potato. But in the meantime the combination is useful. ..And
probably he'll keep it for as long as it *is* useful. It ensures
publication, and lets other bandwagon hoppers hop on, who can cite him
and consolidate his position.
You're very naive Stuart, ..or very disingenuous (...the latter I
fear). It's a game primarily of career advancement. Nothing (much)
to do with the science.
>
> Stuart
George
"Stuart" <bigd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:96b34073-54e0-4b13...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Fact is that Doglioni refutes slab pull and ridge push which are
>> currently considered as the driving forces of plate tectonics.
>>
>
> Fact is, I haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
> word
> outside of creationist circles. I don't see where Doglioni refutes
> slab pull;
> he thinks slab pull alone is too simplistic. Thats hardly a
> refutation.
>
>
> This demonstrates perfectly the mindset of EEr's.
>
> Stuart
And that really is the point, isn't it? Their arguments are exactly like
those of creationists. I've accuse mored than one of them of being closet
creationists before. Given their repeated manipulations, quote mining,
logical fallacies, and outright lies, I think it might be worthwhile to just
consider EE to be an offshoot of Old Earth creationism, and treat them
accordingly.
George
don findlay
Florian wrote:
> Stuart <bigd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Fact is, I haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
> > word outside of creationist circles. I don't see where Doglioni refutes
> > slab pull; he thinks slab pull alone is too simplistic. Thats hardly a
> > refutation.
>
> Fact is, *I* haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
> word outside of creationist circles.
>
> Doglioni does clealry refutes the slab pull concept (see below)
>
> >
> > This demonstrates perfectly the mindset of EEr's.
>
> This demonstrates prefectly the mindset of Stuart Weinstein. I'm glad to
> put your nose in your own bullshit.
>
> Doglioni wrote:
>
> "The main reasons why the slab pull is not considered here a good
> mechanism for moving plates and for triggering subduction are listed.
>
> 1) The dip of the slab is independent from the age of the oceanic
> lithosphere (Cruciani et al., 2005), considered to control the increase
> of the lithosphere's density and likely, therefore, to be the magnitude
> of the slab's pull forces.
>
> 2) Subduction involves even continental lithosphere even deeper than
> 100-150 km (Ampferer, 1906; Dal Piaz et al., 1972; Tr�mpy, 1975; Ranalli
Yes, ..but so what? He didn't actually say slab pull was a *BAD*
explanation did he? He only listed 21 reasons why it was not a *good*
one. My objection stands, I still don't see where he refutes slab-
pull. All of those 21 reasons are just reasons why slab pull is too
simplistic. Hardly refutation, is it?
Stuart.
>
> This long list casts doubts on the possibility that the slab pull can
> actually trigger subduction, slab rollback, and drive plate motions."
>
> --
> Florian
> "Toute v�rit� franchit trois �tapes. D'abord elle est ridiculis�e.
> Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est consid�r�e
> comme ayant toujours �t� une �vidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Fact is, I haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
> > word outside of creationist circles. I don't see where Doglioni refutes
> > slab pull; he thinks slab pull alone is too simplistic. Thats hardly a
> > refutation.
>
> Fact is, *I* haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
> word outside of creationist circles.
>
> Doglioni does clealry refutes the slab pull concept (see below)
No he does not; he considers it of lesser importance.
>
>
>
> > This demonstrates perfectly the mindset of EEr's.
>
> This demonstrates prefectly the mindset of Stuart Weinstein. I'm glad to
> put your nose in your own bullshit.
Please do.
>
> Doglioni wrote:
>
> "The main reasons why the slab pull is not considered here a good
> mechanism for moving plates and for triggering subduction are listed.
>
< snip >
Nice laundry list, some points very good, other not so good, others
just flat out wrong.
You said originally "Doglioni refutes the postulated engine of plate
tectonics. He'll figure
out what is wrong sooner than later. "
Now you say:
> "This long list casts doubts on the possibility that the slab pull can
> actually trigger subduction, slab rollback, and drive plate motions."
Hmmm. For me the postulate engine of Plate Tectonics is mantle
convection, and
where I disagree with Doglioni is the role that subduction plays in
driving
plate tectonics and mantle convection. I do agree that the initiation
of subduction
is poorly understood. I've never claimed slab pull triggers
subduction. I do think it is
an important driving force in mantle convection.
When you wrote "He'll figure
out what is wrong sooner than later." I took that to mean he will
question the
existence of subduction altogether eventually. That is putting words
in his mouth
and you spinning his reamrks.
But there is nothing there that gives credence to the idea that
subduction isn't happening. At least in that article.
Perhaps Doglioni has expressed such sympathies elsewhere. If so,
I haven't seen it.
Stuart
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
>
> But there is nothing there that gives credence to the idea that
> subduction isn't happening. At least in that article.
> Perhaps Doglioni has expressed such sympathies elsewhere. If so,
> I haven't seen it.
Ah, ..Stuart, ..it looks like, like Wormley, you need led by the hand
too.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subfar.html
..Come on, .. Use your brain, man. Stop living in others' books and
others' publications. It's a tower of babel, and an empty one at
that. THAT is not where it's *at*. Explore the world and share what
you think. GOOGLE LIVES. It's your friend now.
>
>
>
> Stuart
don findlay
George wrote:
(George, ..he's really quite a phenomenon isn't he?) (I mean Ron.)
All this sheeting stuff home to himself, and yet denying his own
existence... You have to wonder how he sees the world.
Florian
> Yes, ..but so what? He didn't actually say slab pull was a *BAD*
> explanation did he? He only listed 21 reasons why it was not a *good*
> one.
<eyes rolling>
He listed 21 reason to refute that slab pull is a mechanism driving
plate tectonics => Slab pull concept is useless => Ockam's razor.
Florian
> Given their repeated manipulations, quote mining,
> logical fallacies, and outright lies, I think it might be worthwhile to just
> consider EE to be an offshoot of Old Earth creationism, and treat them
> accordingly.
Ron, you know what? just go fishin.
Florian
> You said originally "Doglioni refutes the postulated engine of plate
> tectonics. He'll figure out what is wrong sooner than later. "
>
>
> Now you say:
> > "This long list casts doubts on the possibility that the slab pull can
> > actually trigger subduction, slab rollback, and drive plate motions."
<eyes rolling>
Doglioni is the author of that sentence. It is part of the quote.
>
> Hmmm. For me the postulate engine of Plate Tectonics is mantle convection,
> and where I disagree with Doglioni is the role that subduction plays in
> driving plate tectonics and mantle convection. I do agree that the
> initiation of subduction is poorly understood. I've never claimed slab
> pull triggers subduction. I do think it is an important driving force in
> mantle convection.
It is nothing but wishful thinking as there are no evidence supporting
the slab pull concept.
>
> When you wrote "He'll figure out what is wrong sooner than later." I took
> that to mean he will question the existence of subduction altogether
> eventually. That is putting words in his mouth and you spinning his
> reamrks.
whatever. Those are my words expressing my opinion.
J. Taylor
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
>(Florian) wrote:
>> Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Fact is, I haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
>> > word outside of creationist circles. I don't see where Doglioni refutes
>> > slab pull; he thinks slab pull alone is too simplistic. Thats hardly a
>> > refutation.
>>
>> Fact is, *I* haven't seen such a blatant manipulation of the written
>> word outside of creationist circles.
>>
>> Doglioni does clealry refutes the slab pull concept (see below)
>
>No he does not; he considers it of lesser importance.
Lesser, like in non-existent, learn to read
"casts doubts on the possibility"
JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 1:23 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
You think this because you want to, but it is in spite of the
evidence.
What the evidence shows, in Doglioni's words "casts doubts on the
possibility"
It is not a question of whether slab pull works 1% or 100% of the
time, but ZERO.
"casts doubts on the POSSIBILITY"
JT
don findlay
Stuart wrote:
>
> Hmmm. For me the postulate engine of Plate Tectonics is mantle
> convection,
> Stuart
So Plate Tectonics is driven from the ridges? Is that what you think?