Don's blog
don findlay
I find this funny. At the moment Stuart is rushing about waving a
flaming cross in the face of creationists whilst Rome is burning,
...the Rome of plate tectonics that is. Pteros take the view that
because they're all holding hands and speaking in tongues they have
some God-given right to the fast lane on the way there - wherever it
is they think plate tectonics is taking them. Like lemons, over a
cliff. Bouncy - bouncy, off the rocks at the bottom. I don't think
they even notice they do bounce, much less the cliff they're falling
off. Some might - the ones that have stopped talking to me, ...they
must sense what's coming up. But right now the likes of George and
Ralph are peddling air before free-fall.... I think George maybe is
reaching for a straw, but Ralph is on his bike still.
The question on the agenda at the moment relates to land and why we've
got it. Geologically speaking, erosion is instantaneous, so why
should there be any? At least, that's what they say (about
instantaneous), and I'm inclined to think it's pretty well right,
right enough. If they say that the spreading ridges are moving apart
at the rate of a few centimetres a year and you multiply that up by
millions and millions (and millions), and can get something the size
of the Pacific since the last 260 of them or so (millions, that is)
then it stands to reason that the amount of stuff rushing down a river
can reduce land to zilch faster than Moses came down from the mountain
with his good news (Jeez, what a guy, eh? And what he could have
done with an email account!). Have you ever stood next to a river in
flood? Seen the sludge that gets dumped over the levee? Seen
boulders big as a house that get moved in a flood? Been caught in a
mudslide? Seen dunes build in a wind - like snow against the tent?
What do they call that wind in the Sahara, where they stand up on
stilts to get out of the way? Seen the way that the tops of the
ranges are filed down like teeth, yet they're still there? The way
valleys are gouged out, and everything dumped waaAaay downstream, or
out to sea.
Rivers and wind, ..all over the world, ...erosion and speed of it.
Dumping the land down, down, . down, while the ridges move up, up,
up .. The 'sideways' of plate tectonics has absolutely nothing on
it.
don findlay
2004 June 14.
That's my Jo. Right on the munny with the tooth-test. Rocks of ages,
...wilt. I don't think they're'll be too many rocks in your driveway
though, that won't at least 'grit'-up on you. If there is, then you
need a lawer, for here's the fast way to make a buck. Git out thar
with your swindlesheet for sigs. and find where they dumped the stuff
on the road before they clue on it was only good for your driveway.
Do a good deed and class-action the council today.
don findlay
Cor! ...Look at that, ...sucked them right in. A veritable *DELUGE*
of replies compared to the one about the *dead* animal. I posted a
question about whether the rotation of the Earth is driven from the
inside or the outside, and, ...and they didn't...even...read...the
question! Wha..wha..what? I ask you, what chance have we got on the
one about 'stratigraphic sequence', or mountains, when this is the
best they can do on *THE HAMPSTER*? I never asked whether there was
a hampster : I asked whether it was peddling on the inside or the
outside. Maybe it just sits still in the middle like a couch potato,
and *imagines it's going around. (Make a note to have them repeat
their homework on conservation of momentum). The perfect,
frictionless engine, eh? See what I mean about Mother Earth? ...
and shoving a black balaclava over her head and milking her for all
she's worth? So the Earth will keep spinning. Evermore. Well,
...until the frictional drag of the oceans (aided by Moonpull) grinds
it to a halt that is. Is that right? Oceans? Differentiated Earth?
Oh, you mean the Earth is differentiated, and that the stuff on the
outside is dragging round and round , ...and the Moon, ...will grind
it to a halt? Well if there's an ocean doing this, why not the
other differentiated stuff? Isn't that dragging too? Well, only if
it's 'loose', like the ocean, but since all the layers are stuck
together then no, they won't drag. No?
Layers stuck together... Or dragging... Moho. Subduction zones.
Earthquakes. Zones of Earthquakes that is, at the crust - mantle
interface, going 'boom boom boom boom, ..sending shock waves right to
the core of the Earth and here we've got geophysicists saying that
"The Earth is a frictionless engine" "..a perfect frictionless
machine". What a mob of dills. They talk soberly about the
frictional drag of the oceans along the bottom slowing the Earth down
(which you can even hear if you listen closely enough), but ignore the
shock waves that are knocking cities down ten-a-penny as being
related. But, they say, ...that has nothing to do with 'frictional
drag' - which implies helical torsion and that the Earth's 'concentric
shells' are not as concentric as they like to contour up - that has to
do with convection which implies subduction, and you don't have to
contour anything: Panthalssa proves convection. Or is it subduction
that implies convection? Whatever it is, it can't possibly be the
hampster on the inside or the outside, because it sits in the middle
and the Earth goes around and somebody posted a website to prove it.
NooOoo... The Earth is concentrically layered, does no exercise to
speak of, and is *CONVECTING*. It's going up and down and around and
around and round and round, with absolutely no help from anything
except the brain power of hampsters. The fact that the hampster's
brain power gets clobbered at the end of the day and has to shut down,
but the Earth keeps spinning anyway, has absolutely no bearing on
anything. Least of all the perfect machine which maintains the
perfect concentricity of earth shells which maintains the perfect
pre-eminence of gravity/ convection as the driver of Earth
deformation. Spin? You can ignore it. It has absolutely no bearing
on anything whilst you're asleep.
Brain power of hampsters, ... I wonder what other replies we'll get
by the time this is posted. I actually wanted to see what George,
the acid test of consensus, would say. So far he's sitting still in
the middle, contemplating a verneshot against the treadle. Ralph?
peddling air.
don findlay
Oh, goodness! ..What will George have to say about this? Bjorn there
is making me all wriggly and squiggly, suggesting that everyone's been
waiting for my genius to tell everybody about torsion, as if this
hasn't been noted before. Well, .. of course it has. He's quite
wrong. I'm not a genius at all. Before I go any further I feel I
have to clear this up, ...what with JP knighting me, and Telly
offering me the God job some time back. On that one I didn't even
hear back from Trades and Labour, so that tells you something. I
suppose it's all fallen through. Still, tough though it is getting
work these days it would be hypocritical of me to even look at this
one. Besides, it has a ring of ambiguity about it somehow : "genie"
- "us". "Us"? "US"? What sort of a job is that? ...carrying the
can for everybody else? Maybe there's some sort of golden hello
exclusivity in it, but I must say, I'm suspicious of the 'us'. You
never know where the interest lies in a job with an 'us' label on it.
Anyhow, for the last fifty years and more, ever since Carey in fact,
Pteros have been noticing torsion themselves, saying "No, no, no,
..there is no such thing in the Earth's deformation." And they would
know, knowing what torsion looks like and all. It's de rigeur in
convection. Have you ever seen it, when you really turn up the gass,
and the hot stuff rises, and the way it loops and whirls and spirls.
So of course torsion has been recognised. Just not in the structure
of the planet. But what's that, ...when it's a great idea? Never
let the truth get in the way of a good story, ..they do say. I
suppose they're about to recognise it all over again, this torsion,
...except this time they'll have satellite imagery to contend with.
Before they could flat-map it right off the top of their heads, but
not any more. It is true: the Earth *is* round. We have walked on
the Moon, and Mars, ..taken pictures, and proved conclusively that
transforms do go, not from side to side but from down and round and up
and down. (It's amazing the difference a few curves, a bit of
substance makes). Yes, ...I know they say they do, but I don't
really think so. I think they have a hankering for them old flat
maps that you could roll up and shove in a corner when the wall needs
a bit of space for post-it notes. They leave so much to the
imagination, flat maps, ...and 'being clever', and they're a such
formidable lot on that score. See how long they've been able to spin
convection. That last one was absolutely brilliant. Wow! It
really went right past me, ...so fast I didn't see it. You know,
....the one about stratigrtaphic sequence, and why it's still on the
land and above erosional equilibrium. I wonder what the answer
was. George, ..he's a fast sort of a talker on things that
everybody's supposed to know, ...he'll set me right. Won't you
George? (There's not very much gets past our George!)
gxdata
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5f164087.04061...@posting.google.com...
don findlay
People are getting on to me for "not answering questions". This is
disturbing. They are offering possilities that I'm either stupid,
not stupid, dress up in answers like women dress up in clothes,
...shifting my goalposts, ..rushing about with my cross and getting it
jammed up alleys on the way to my crucifixion, ... And now Carsten's
given me up as a bad job, saying he's listened carefully to what I
have to say, but that to him plate tectonics makes perfect sense and
no way will I change his mind. And that I'm off the planet into the
bargain. Mind you he said that in his first post just about, so I
don't really know what he was listening *for* . This is despite me
abjectly wheedling with them (all) on a number of occasions, saying
there's really no difference between the Mechanics of Plate Tectonics
and Earth Expansion other than the number of turns of convection -
half a turn (the Minimum of Occam necessary to do the job - to account
for what we see, or a veritable frenetic barrel organ of turns,
necessary for convection to ramp up ocean crust over continents half a
world away. This is phenomenal testimony to the strength of sand-box
experiments, that should replace all of those puny plasticine ones.
There is obviously much scope for meaningful reseach here.
Observation like that should radicalise materials science - I don't
know what's holding them up.
God only knows either what's happened either to
George-the-litmus-test- of-consensus. I rather miss him, ...swinging
about in the trees the way he did. It was sort of reassuring, that
combination noise of hooting like an ape and clicking like a mouse -
the noise of evolving science growing mouldy in the forest of ideas,
or the bright cacophony of scientific milieu undergoing radical
change. I don't know which. Probably the first, being consensus.
And now Jo's apparently knocking back the offer of the Good Cop job.
I thought it would be quite good if she could slug 'em about the ear
with one of those sensible, lead-cored priests, used to dispatch
mullet that refuse to lay still if I softened them up first and she
could lay it on with a bit of torque.
Well, ...obviously it's no use any more, asking questions in open
forum. Things are not looking good. The ones who do have answers of
a sort refuse to talk, and the others are content with poofy
pejoratives about salad and goalposts. There's Stuart, after a
lifetime celebrating buoyancy, Archimedes, wet legs and convection,
...gone to pasture. He displayed a certain intellectual belligerence
in the beginning that was promising, but now he's only up to
speculating New York might get eroded rather than converting to an
ore deposit, given time. I'm with him two hundred percent on this
one, but the consensus is against us, so we have to be wrong. Must
say, the way continental plates have a propensity for lifting up
(...have you seen Mt Everest lately? Got a top on it sharper than a
pin. I wonder what height it used to be before it got trimmed back
that far...Highest one in the world ), .. Anyhow, ..lifting up,
...continents, New York getting subducted and converted to an ore
deposit in the bowels of the Earth..... I must say I'm a bit
surprised at Stuart, ..I thought he would have jumped down that one
the way some people put their hands up to go and look at current
bedding on Mars. That would be Gerard (remembering here how he
faulted Bretz for missing that current bed in the roadside (or was it
riverbank); didn't think it was fair, thought it was unscientific,
that all the evidence was not considered, before proposing his flood
theory.
I'll need to think up a hard question for them. They didn't do too
well on the one about plates not moving, that it was just the material
that moved through them, ..I think that might have been too hard for
them. I'll see how they go (again) on subduction. But I've asked
it several times, and got no answer, so I'm not holding my breath.
don findlay
> Seen the way that the tops of the
> ranges are filed down like teeth, yet they're still there? The way
> valleys are gouged out, and everything dumped waaAaay downstream, or
> out to sea.
>
> Rivers and wind, ..all over the world, ...erosion and speed of it.
> Dumping the land down, down, . down, while the ridges move up, up,
> up .. The 'sideways' of plate tectonics has absolutely nothing on
> it.
Somewhere in the Southern Andes, where, encountering the westwards
movement of South American plate, the Pacific plate throws up
mountains that you wouldn't believe, ...crashing and bashing and
rumpelling and crumpelling, and rumpling and crumpling the very hell
out of the crust, heaving ho and throwing it up in great big
convolutions, the folds of mountain belts...:-
<http://www.grancampo.de/spanish/gallery/gallery10.htm>
(Oh well, ...it was a great idea, ...but...)
(Somebody find me a bit of crumpellet in the Andes, would you? C'mon,
..what's with all this plate tectonics 'collision' and foldings and
mountings. All we see about subduction and collision and mountain
building are diagrams like these:-
<http://images.google.com.au/images?q=subduction&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en>
(The Himalyas are even worse!!) What *use* are these, when it comes to
looking at geology? What do they teach in these schools? What?
UNiversities too? That OXFORD place JPT was talking about? (But
George will set us right. George knows a place in the Appalachians
where the world is the way it should be)
don findlay
> Rivers and wind, ..all over the world, ...erosion and speed of it.
> Dumping the land down, down, . down, while the ridges move up, up,
> up .. The 'sideways' of plate tectonics has absolutely nothing on
> it.
2004 June 26
I found a sad little stone today that had got lost whilst playing.
It told me an awfully sad story, about being set on by a load of louts
who started beating it up and peering at it (that was the most
frightening bit). I told it not to worry, ..there would be surely
somebody on this ng who would be informed about a facility for poor
little upset lost stones. Does anyone know if there's a place where
sad little stones can wait to be collected by Mummy stones and Daddy
stones, who might be looking for them? Some friendly little place at
the bottom of a garden maybe, where there might be a faery or two to
look after it meanwhile, and maybe tell it a story? Can anyone
help?
don findlay
2004 June 27
Why is it that George character really brings out the worst in me?
He's worse than a wife. I think he does it deliberately. It's
practice, I know. (You can tell who wears the pants in his house.)
He's probably been taking lessons though. It's not possible someone
could "be* like that naturally. Never trims his posts either. ...He's
learned this too, ... from Stuart. Stuart typically waits till
there's about sixteen feet of scroll in the margin and then throws in
some cryptic quip that, because you're all agog with what it is he's
got to say when he pops his head out from behind that college of his,
you spend from about breakfast to smokoe trying to find the damn
thing, and then the rest of the day trying to work out what it means.
His syntax an' spelling's not the best, is our Stu's, and he gets his
words mixed more often than you might expect, .... We need a
moderator here. I would do the job, but I would encourage them all to
talk geology, instead of molesting pet rocks. I started this FAQS
page and requested, ..*requested* mind you - I didn't just ask, I
requested in the nicest possble way, that they keep it clean, not to
muss my nice QA page . Of course, that was like a red flag to a
bull. But what did I expect? McNeil was first, ...and now the
'George' has turned up. I don't know who he thinks he's talking to,
...He has a turn in his eye, talking to Robert whilst directing his
missives at me - that last jumpsuit he took delivery of, it must pinch
when he swings, but he likes to use it because he thinks it makes him
more sophisticated, ...and (in a pinch) adds volume to the hoot. You
know he's not really 'George' at all, don't you.... This is just his
'nome-de-plume', his alias, living as he does in an awesome scary
tectonic world and you never know who with nuthin' better to do might
take a fancy to finding out who you are and what you're all about and
stuff like that. I reckon anyone wants to do that must have some sort
of personal deficiency about them, but there we go, ...George
understands people like that. As if it matters. ( Must think he's
immortable, the silly old bugger.) I would rather depart, and leave
the world to those people and the mess they'd make of it if it came
to a point. Aliases, Awe, scare, ...terror.. .Pteros Pteribillus,
......natural selection, .. the new breed to walk upon the surface of
this Earth, inventing plate tectonics, claiming legitimacy, ...doing
anything and everything to trample new growth whilst they rule the
roost and peck at each others' bums. Bloody fundamentalists,
surrounding themselves with fear. Can't even let their names hang
out, much less their ignorance. Though I guess it was nce
'innocence'. Survival of the fittest? Poor mothers.
I like John Curtis's posts. They're always to the point and
informative, and like Jo's right on the money (except I wasn't too
keen a while back on his insisting that the Earth was covered with
water in the Archaean - all the greenstone belts I know in Australia
are loaded with conglomerates and arkoses), ...and with absolutely
Nooo 'poofy pejoratives' like the others fling around. You'd think
if they must insult, they would take the trouble to do it a bit better
instead of just taking up webspace. Pteros, ...NO self-respect. ...
And No_Clue_, ...but that doesn't come as a surprise 'cos they're
quite a clueless bunch. They can't answer a thing about mountain
belts, stratigraphic sequence, or even fossils, and worse, refuse to
show their innocence. They get about with their bovver boots, tatts,
studs, an' attitood like they were born higgerent rambuncts. I bet
they spend weekends hanging about in the mall. Poor mothers (again).
That question about why we get marine fossils in the rocks is a real
mindbender for plate tectonics. Whatsisname - Andy - knew what he
was doing when he asked that one, ..ho-00H yes! Sucked them right
in, that question did. A little innocent question like that. I
hope John didn't mind too much that I used my reply to his post to
reveal (REVEAL)(!) a bit more NONSENSE about plate tectonics. I'm
sure he wouldn't. I actually think John's with me one hundred percent
about the Earth getting bigger. I bet everyone is, ...really, ..and
this is why they have just about no questions about it. It all makes
perfect sense compared to plate tectonics, and deals with the big
questions in a way plate tectonics never can. It 's John Denver's
song "Rocky Mountain High" that .... FanTAStic, that man! I think
he must have been The Resurrection, ...the second (or is it third?)
Coming, communicating fundamental truths with a song like that.
Pity he was taken when he was, .. before the follow-up, ... "Rocky
Mountain Flat". It might not sound like it has the same ring, ...
might only speak to the ELOHIM, ..might confuse LESSER MORTALS, but
what power there is in those three words. *He* understood you have
to do it this way, use an alias and look directly past people whilst
you talk to them. That way they know where you're coming from. And
it's actually better to sing it. George is trying this on, which is
why he got the jumpsuit and found a tree to swing from
(sop0histication). But he needs to do soemthing about that hoot...
They refuse to see you if you're on the ground, standing upright,
talking soberly in front of them, naked, like I do. ("Git outta mah
FACE!" ). Maybe that's why he bothers me so - shits all over me when
it comes to communication. I guess he's got the song line, even
though the melody is a bit cracked - something about Rhinestone.. Oh
yes, .. 'The Onestone Cowboy'. (How *does* America do it? ) Must
be a real funny place. Have you seen the jokers they've put in the
White House recently?
Mountains, chiselled like teeth on a five year old coke-head, ...like
stars in the sky the way they make you look up and wonder - once you
stop walking all over them like a stroll on the beach, and show them a
bit of *Respec'. See? Love yourself, Love Mountains. And nobody
even CARED about that little lost stone I reported.. (!) What's the
wrold coming to? Pteros Pteribillus, .. what a breed, ..Like those
characters out of The Third Ring (...more like out of their own ring,
when you get with a microscope and check 'em out..
. ...a Crcumglobal, Mountain Belt Loop, way up there. And 'George'
in his tree, ...and Stu, .. with his gooblie ooblie 0oooo.
(Backademia.) Ah dear, ... And it's raining today into the bargain.
Must be an earthquake terrorising people somewhere. ..And to top it
all, P. Pteribillus. (Natural selection). Och, I'll take the armour
off, have a cuppa, then maybe go out to play.
don findlay
Now Dumbo's back, parading photos of badlands and posies. Crikey,
...I should have known it was only temporary. He might as well be
showing photos of the gorges and erosion levels in the Grand Canyon,
or even the Alto Plano or the Himalayas. Jesus, ...goggling at the
clever artifacts of Man whilst ignoring the whopping big question that
they're carved in. Simply doesn't occur to him that he's
demonstrating the lie of plate tectonics. Let's post it and see what
they say. Nothing, I bet.
don findlay
I wouldn't mind betting that this was the reason he went over to take
a gander, to see for himself what a real mountain looks like:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/mtbuild.html> He's been listening
to the radio, ..John Denver: "Rocky Mountain High" in be flat. Can
it be George has cross the Rubicon? (Nah, ..No way. Saint Peter
would sink the boat for sure. ...seen him before; the company he
keeps...)
don findlay
Carsten is flagging. He needs encouragement. Now he's saying we do
not understand each other. Sadly, this is probably true, but the
barrier typifies consensus and change, and the various aspects of the
way change happens. - it cannot come from the 'within' of consensus;
it's only written up later to make it look that way, to give 'science'
some sort of respectability of direction and continuum. In the
beginning the gap is as being experienced - "mindbending nonsense".
Sure, I understand what he's saying, ...I've been there, ...though I
have to say with certain 'puzzlement' at various points regarding how
this 'plate tectonics' was supposed to relate to what was already
known before the 'enlightenment'. That's an encumbrance no longer
applicable apparently, since I have canvassed several times for people
to raise their niggling doubts about aspects of plate tectonics that
bother them, and have had no answer. Virtually, at any rate. Just
silence. It is as if there exists a hiatus between what went before
and the plate tectonics of now. Jo Schaper raised a point a little
while back about "all the old books" being thrown out.. So perhaps
it's generational, and because the younger cohorts never learned
geology as it used to be, but get to fill in these 'tick boxes' in
order to get straight A's, - all in a row. Get it right. Not wrong,
but right. "What are you trying to do, think? Look, don't try any
of that funny stuff on with us. *We give *you the answers. You just
tick the box." And of course there's a book, ...and a confessor
somewhere amongst the institutionalised if they *really* have a
problem. And as a really last resort, they can do it all over again.
This way they get fixed in their minds the certain immutable One
Truth: Plate tectonics (masquerading as two): "Conviction" and
"Subduction"
****
In the way science changes, the history of ideas is very important.
Change is not wrought on logic or matters of science. What seems
later to be the way things are headed, never is at the time.
'Direction' is a consequence of the people involved, and the various
aspects of 'power' that they think they have. Plate tectonics was
based on towing a little magnetometer about behind a ship during the
war - maybe to detect submarines or something. And the guy had stripes
already. ...then what? What sense has been made of that? What
sense has been made of the information coming back from those other
little 'magnetometers' wheeching about the Earth, when a child can
illustrate the 'twist' configuring the structure of the planet
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/torsion.html>, and when others can
ignore that because of what it implies? And have been ignoring it for
at least the last thirty years. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have a
feeling (on American Independence day), that some people might be
swayed to think that the position they think I stand on might be
reinforced by the quotes I just posted from Arizona and Nasa, and
that perhaps there are indeed some aspects of plate tectonics that
require 'reconsideration'. If so then it reinforces what I'm saying
about 'people' . "Groupies". This last week or two we've been
reliving some anniversary or other of "The Beatles". ( Ah yes,
...coming to Australia) Apparently Adelaide (small country town in
south Oz) fielded about a hundred and fifty thousand of them
(groupies) to meet the Beatles when they got off the plane. Can you
imagine? Adelaide. If that doesn't give you stitches, then nothing
will). Not just the number (they must have headcounted babies as
well), but the further joke: Adelaide prides itself on being a
cultural centre of sorts, and the still further joke - so it was, at
the time.
But science is no different. Why do you think Stuart flashes his
registration sticker every time he pops his head in - not to mention
that Big somethingorother - 'poultice' of his, if you look it up (but
as usual Stuart can't spell). Or maybe he's adopting a certain
trendiness that to spell *right* indicates a degree of erudition that
is actually an impediment when dealing with the grey hoi polloi. I
doubt it though, Stuart needs all the erudition he can get, given
that what he's saying is no different from what those hundred and
thirty three thousand other pollois are saying too. But he's Dead
Right about one thing, without it he's got nothing much to say. His
credentials usually take up about ten times the room what he does.
Sometimes he gets it spot-on though, like when he called Gerard an
'Old Coot', though I'm not sure if that was before or after Gerard
complained about Bretz not considering all the geological evidence
before advertising his theory about floods and badlands that everyone
complained about. (Everyone.) ...( "People".) So if he's got
nothing to say, why does he bother say it in the first place? Do you
think he has any sort of commitment to it? Not at all. As soon as
the mantle wind shifts, he'll be the first, along with the whole host
of others, as John Hernlund said a while back, to shrug shoulders and
change hats. It's what the science community does. The science
itself is not important to them. Only what it means to them
personally. As people. As human beens. It is merely a means to an
end. That's why you get peope like me coming on the scene - and JPT.
You can only do this sort of thing - set the world to rights - if
you have nothing to lose. And you have to have a certain preparation
for it, a graduation of sorts, outside of the norm. That can't be
denied. That lot should treasure people like us, doing what they can
only dream about, ..knocking the bottom out of some cherished theory
and replacing it with something useful. We epitomise CELEBRITY of
the counting sort, not the run-of-the-mill, whatd'youcall'ems,
'Nobels'. You too can be a celebrity like us, and have people turn up
to savour the rank smell of burning flesh, all you have to do is, ...
think for yourself. That's why you're reading this, right? To see
what rubbish this bozo-people is saying now. Well you're off to a
good start. Just look out for the reaction from People, and Homeland
Security, and Pterrorists. The real pterrorists I mean, the ones who
make up the rules. Lucky they don't lock us up, drown us in
Guantanamo Bay. It's very important not to transgress. All this
crap about, "if you think you have something to say, then write it up
and get it peer reviewed ".. is absolute nonsense. It's called
'decapitation' and 'a free kick' ... with it. So long as the
'something' keeps being the same as the hundred and thirty three other
thousand, so that you can be the "see?-I'm-just-like-you" one
hundredth and thirty fourth thousandth, then no prob, cob. "What do
you want to be controversial for? We are a *Community of scientists."
....Why isn't science something like Governments, where every three
years you get to elect "the other lot" - and all the money goes there.
That would bloody well sort them out. And give us more change for
our dollar.
So yes, 'science' is more of the people than it is of itself. It is
not some white-coated font of pristine erudition. It's as grubby and
political as matters of human endeavour get.. So elect the bastards -
or throw 'em out. Tim there will be aware that the only reason
nickel deposits are today regarded as magmatic was because of the need
of a group of self-interested people to find evidence for ultramafic
flows. We could throw that lot out for a start. On many fronts of
the regular sort of 'filling out' science - what JPT calls the
pedestrian efforts of artisans - that's the way it goes. It's very
necessary of course (filling out), but it's not the vision of itself
that science likes to portray. The science that scientists like to
portray is a cosmetic flash-job, written in retrospect. Retrospect.
If you've got anything worthwhile to say you make sure you say it in
retrospect; you never say it upfront without saying some other stuff
first. The more worthwhile it is the more flannel you have to
preface it with, 'coz you know exactly the sorts of headkickers and
butt-kickers you're up against, all jealously guarding their own
little bit of turf. The *real* stuff (FOR MEN) is the likes of what
goes on on this newsgroup. and I think everyone is aware of what
*that's like. ...That poor little forlorn lost stone nobody cared
about...eh, ..And nobody interested, for all their molestation of it,.
What would you make of louts like that?.
(Still no answers to my questions on plate tectonics - the plate
tectonics that ' "works for me" '. ...keeps working for me,
...twenty four hours a day, ..sweet as a nut. ..with NooOoo
maintenance. Ah yes? ..no maintenance? ..that's when you know
it's about to fuck up. Right?
(Independence day, ..Plate tectonics.. about to fuck up.)
Carsten Troelsgaard
Don
I've tried to point out some of the absurdities that your paradigme leads
to, and it vanishes into thin air when you guide me through the laburints -
or put another way, the absurdities grows exponentially until 'point of no
understanding, whatsoever'. If we cannot follow along to an understanding I
will put mine: if there is no subduction, then 'ANY IDIOT CAN SEE THAT THE
GLOBE IS EXPANDING'. But it implies an 'if'. As long as you do not confront
this state of affairs, I give you no credabillity. You can wrap shit up in
.html, and it still doesn't smell like roses. Bury it, Don, and it
eventually will.
Carsten
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5f164087.04070...@posting.google.com...
Carsten Troelsgaard
"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:40e90bd0$0$295$edfa...@dread16.news.tele.dk...
snip
>If we cannot follow along to an understanding I
> will put mine: if there is no subduction, then ...
snip
But there seems to be. This is what you are up against.
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/170_SR/chap_04/c4_f2.htm
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/170_SR/chap_04/c4_3.htm
don findlay
> Don
>
> I've tried to point out some of the absurdities that your paradigme leads
> to, and it vanishes into thin air when you guide me through the laburints -
> or put another way, the absurdities grows exponentially until 'point of no
> understanding, whatsoever'. If we cannot follow along to an understanding I
> will put mine: if there is no subduction, then 'ANY IDIOT CAN SEE THAT THE
> GLOBE IS EXPANDING'.
This is precisely the consideration that recognising and exploring the
helical symmetry of transforms leads us to. If ("IF") ...if we
recognise
that torsional architecture (forget the forces involved) as indicating
a movement picture, then we are forced into that consideration of
'if',
and to consider why we are so certain that subduction *does* occur.
This means going right back to basics of the field evidence and what,
precisely, notions of subduction are based on. For most people
subduction is based on nothing more than " that is what we were
taught",
"that is what the books say", "that is what the consensus is, what
everyone thinks. Why should I think otherwise?" That is the position
of
the younger demographic. Why *should * they question it? Indeed. But
if you come at it from a direction of actually wanting to know, and
dig a little deeper, then you see it is not based on very much at all,
...no more in fact than as was cautioned by the people who coined the
idea in the first place: "convenient assumption"
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/cards.html.> Nothing has
transpired in the interim
to change that, there have only been continual shifts in goalposts in
order to support it, such is the nature of bandwagon consensus. The
most notable being that "convection cells and conveyor belts don't
exist" (So where then the reality of plate tectonics at all? Why is
it
maintained?) Dig a little deeper still and just about everything is
up-ended, to culminate in that simple realisation: there is not need
to
postulate this Panthalassa or that Tethys to explain what we see.
What we see is what we get, no more no less. Not very imaginative, I
grant you, but mindblowing in its implications: the Earth is
expanding. It's getting bigger. It's a fact. Not an idea. The
Earth has grown by
the amount of the ocean floors.
The 'If' is precisely the rationale that plate tectonics uses to
underpin its whole position : "If there is subduction (and not
overriding), then the mantle is being carried down as well as up and
there is convection. If >then.. If subduction > then convection.
Note the way round it goes. There is no other field rationale for the
working of convection over simple diapir rise. Material properties
arguments are predicated entirely on tweaking the parameters to meet
this Field observation of TRENCHES, and the supposition "IF". Look
at the section and plan you post, and tell me why not 'overriding'.
To my interpretation that is precisely what that illustration shows.
Look at the reflectors in the mantle. Where is the bending-down
plate? If anything the mantle rises towards the wedge, which is why
the 'subduction zone' does not exist just to the southe (Galapagos
area). And the sediments are derived from the continental side and
are heaved over the mantle by the westwards overriding continental
landmass. The array of thrusts is classic, as is the slope of the
front. ON the larger scale the entire Eastern Pacific Rise is being
overriden by the continental landmass of the Americas.. You puzzle me
citing this as evidence for subduction. This is the sort of thing I
could take up a whole lot of webspace with to exactly support
expansion. 'Subduction'? or 'overriding', Other's might say, " how
can you tell?" The point I've been trying to make is that by and
large you can't tell one or the other. Sections prove nothing. You
can only tell at the larger scale of approach sequenced in time.
Which is what my site is trying to do. You need a larger scale of
data to make a judgement. You need to properly fix it ('subduction'/
overriding), in the context of what else is happening -
ridge-spreading and transforms. Plate tectonics for example, has no
explanation for how transforms form. None. <"how transforms form">
In 130,000 entries on the web, the string has never been used. How
can that be? It's laughable! When George (the consensus) opens
his mouth you can tell exactly where on the web he's speaking from..
How come "HOW" has never been addressed? The reason is there is no
answer in plate tectonics. NObody therefore will adress it. No,
You have to look at things in their entirety, ..not piecemeal sections
like plate tectonics does, always choosing the one interpretation, and
then another, and saying (when they do not mesh) "Ah, so we need to do
more research".
"IF". This is precisely the crux.
But it implies an 'if'. As long as you do not confront
> this state of affairs, I give you no credabillity. You can wrap shit up in
> .html, and it still doesn't smell like roses. Bury it, Don, and it
> eventually will.
Of course it implies an 'if', but there is the challenge for plate
tectonics to confront its own 'if' which underpins its whole edifice.
Even IF the 'slab' does bend down (and it doesn't appear to in your
section), then still, why not overriding? The No.1 implication of
subduction, that it should exactly compensate (in time) the production
of material at the ridges half a world away TO THE MILLIMETRE (or it
would show in the GPS) - and immediately - is just too nonsensical for
words. At the very least GPS, if it works the way the say, should
show us the changing shape of the geoid that represents the 'grit in
the machine', that causes the Earth to get bigger here and smaller
there. Which it does:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
. But the thing to do with that is not to interpret THAT in
isolation, as Plateros just love to do, but in the context of the
entire global geology, e.g.:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/diapirdisc.html
Just look at that focus on the Indonesian 'Wheel'(!) Beautiful, is it
not? How does plate tectonics explain that. (By the way, the Grace
postdates the wheel interpretation.)
> Carsten
J. Taylor
<carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote:
>
>Don
>
>I've tried to point out some of the absurdities that your paradigme leads
>to, and it vanishes into thin air when you guide me through the laburints -
>or put another way, the absurdities grows exponentially until 'point of no
>understanding, whatsoever'. If we cannot follow along to an understanding I
>will put mine: if there is no subduction, then 'ANY IDIOT CAN SEE THAT THE
>GLOBE IS EXPANDING'. But it implies an 'if'. As long as you do not confront
The weakest aspect of PT is the GREAT BIG IF OF SUBDUCTION
JT
Bigdakine
>From: J. Taylor jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
>Date: 7/5/04 6:27 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <ecake0t5qlas4bfrm...@4ax.com>
There is no "if". Subduction occurs.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
Carsten Troelsgaard
The continent well in on the plate?
In that case it still consumes plate.
How come that you can tell, that it's not doing it in such a pace that the
world is achtually shrinking?
This tomography fig 4 shows your amount of overridden crust.
http://www.geof.ruu.nl/~bijwaard/abstracts/vakidioot/vak_uk.html
The continent has expanded itself with the same amount, through dilation as
I understand. This dilation does not propagate through to the surface in any
greater extend than continental fragments are stacked. I've cut'n pasted a
quote if you don't know what I mean by stacked:
quote
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/DAAC_DOCS/geomorphology/GEO_2/GEO_PLATE_T-49.HTML
The Tian Shan is the major mountain belt of central Asia, extending
approximately 2500 km from the Kyzyl Kum Desert of western China to the Gobi
Desert in Mongolia. It separates the Tarim basin to the south from the
Kazakhstan shield and the Dzungarian basin to the north. Arc collisions
during the Silurian, Devonian, and Mississippian and, finally, suturing
along the Tian Shan in the Late Paleozoic produced most of the structural
and metamorphic fabric of the mountain interiors in the northwest part of
the Plate scene (Bally et al., 1980; Dewey and Burke, 1973; Gansser, 1974;
and Zhang and Liou, 1984). Following a period of quiescence in the Mesozoic
and Early Tertiary, tectonic activity resumed in the Eocene in response to
the collision of India with Eurasia (Molnar and Tapponnier, 1975; and
Tapponnier and Molnar, 1977).
The Kashgar Ku-Che fold belt is an area of conspicuous thrust faulting
associated with box folds involving many Silurian and Devonian formations.
Linear ridges oriented northeast-southwest, with multiple southeast-facing
scarps, denote a series of northwest-dipping strata. These ridges are broken
and offset by faulting. The repetition of the sequence of northwest-dipping
sedimentary units, coupled with the absence of apparent dip reversal or
overturned beds, indicates that the stratigraphic section is being repeated
across thrust faults. Fault traces parallel to the interpreted thrust
direction can be observed in the alluvium separating the older core of Tian
Shan from the thrust belt. This, in conjunction with the juvenile erosional
patterns associated with the thrusts and fault blocks south of the new
thrust fault, demonstrate recent and continuing deformation.
unquote
This to point out, that any areal growth of the continents in a magnitude
that is a consequence of your proposal, is dubious - The continents are
racing onto the oceanflores at an alarming rate, according to you.
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5f164087.04070...@posting.google.com...
don findlay
> >The weakest aspect of PT is the GREAT BIG IF OF SUBDUCTION
> >
> >JT
>
>
> There is no "if". Subduction occurs.
(Papal encyclical : July 06 2004:) OK JT. Ten Hail Marys and two
Mea Culpas for you Mate!
Stuart, you're a whole day late, ...but anyway, ..., where does this
subduction occur, ...or Carsten's section say:-
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/170_SR/chap_04/c4_f2.htm
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/170_SR/chap_04/c4_3.htm
Why is it just not 'overriding'? Like the overriding up the
Californian Coast - as all the GPS up there shows (and I don't mean
"subduction/overriding" as per USGS). The Americas, ..overriding the
Pacific...
don findlay
> There is no "if". Subduction occurs.
JT is made of sterner stuff that this piss-weak declaration will
quench. You'll need to do better.... (You could maybe explain why
Africa is shrinking while you're at it.)
J. Taylor
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Don's blog
>>From: J. Taylor jo...@gorge.NOSPAM.net
>>Date: 7/5/04 6:27 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <ecake0t5qlas4bfrm...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:05:36 +0200, "Carsten Troelsgaard"
>><carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Don
>>>
>>>I've tried to point out some of the absurdities that your paradigme leads
>>>to, and it vanishes into thin air when you guide me through the laburints -
>>>or put another way, the absurdities grows exponentially until 'point of no
>>>understanding, whatsoever'. If we cannot follow along to an understanding I
>>>will put mine: if there is no subduction, then 'ANY IDIOT CAN SEE THAT THE
>>>GLOBE IS EXPANDING'. But it implies an 'if'. As long as you do not confront
>>
>>The weakest aspect of PT is the GREAT BIG IF OF SUBDUCTION
>>
>>JT
>
>
>There is no "if". Subduction occurs.
Yes! In the minds of true believers.
What you have is a bunch of trenches with a few pictures showing an
overlap, but the lack of compression, the accumulated debris points to
an over ride. Which also very nicely explains Blue schist, and the
chemical composition of the volcanoes ringing them.
The imagined subduction needed to recycle 70% of the Earth's crust
only exist in THEORY.
JT
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <cqele01dvaklf6b9b...@4ax.com>
What lack of compression? As usual you simply omit the fact you don't like.
Why would the accumulation of an accretionary wedge indicate override? Most
EE'ers claim the lack of such a wedge inidicates there is no such convergence.
Perhaps you should refamiliarize yourself with the arguments (as bad as they
are) for EE.
Nevermind numerous seismic wave studies which can follow slabs deep into the
mantle.
Which also very nicely explains Blue schist, and the
>chemical composition of the volcanoes ringing them.
They do.
By God, where do you get your misinformation?
>
>The imagined subduction needed to recycle 70% of the Earth's crust
>only exist in THEORY.
Um no, much of it is still seismically visible.
Thanx for playing. Again.
don findlay
Yup, ..never let the facts get in the way of a good story... It's
belatedly official (Encyclical 2004 July 05.) Everything's subducting
and Africa's shrinking:- <http://users.indigo.net.au.don/bearm.html>
..and a whole lot of other '...ings' as well. Crumplings, an'
Mountings, an' Panthalassic destructing of fossilings, an'
stratigraphings, .. Everywhere you look, no end of Ings to
research.. ...This torsioning, though, that's got them foxed:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/torsion.html> (Bit of research
needed here, to explain this one to the children.)
>
> JT
J. Taylor
wrote:
You are only fooling yourself.
JT
don findlay
> Don
> The continent well in on the plate?
> In that case it still consumes plate.
> How come that you can tell, that it's not doing it in such a pace that the
> world is achtually shrinking?
>
> This tomography fig 4 shows your amount of overridden crust.
> http://www.geof.ruu.nl/~bijwaard/abstracts/vakidioot/vak_uk.html
(I'm not sure where you're starting from here; I thought we were
talking about 'if'.) But I see where you're headed when you say "in
that case it still consumes plate". To which I have to say, "Does
it? How much plate? how quickly?" And you have to say "As much as is
being created at the ridges" Which brings us back to square 1, and
consideration of "IF". How can you tell whether it is actually
shrinking or getting bigger? You can't, only on the most logical
assessment of the evidence, and the argument from this side of the
fence is that plate tectonics (with it's various assumptions and
inventions) is not a credible assessment of the evidence. Beginning
with its first assumption (that a Panthalassa once existed, the size
of the Present oceans of the world - and certainly no smaller than
that, NOR BIGGER, but just exactly the size of the present oceans
(otherwise it would be shrinking or expanding) (to the millimetre),
and finishing (for the sake of this exchange) with what you post.
I don't read your posted article as indicating a very compelling case
for subduction. You refer to his figure 4,
<http://www.geof.ruu.nl/~bijwaard/abstracts/vakidioot/figuur4_kleur.gif>
but he draws attention to where it flattens off at the transition zone
(the main zone of decoupling in Earth expansion - there are others)
and says:- (Quote)
_____________________________________
"This is a cross-section through China and the seismically active
Kuriles. The seismicity exactly follows the subducting Pacific Ocean
plate until about 500 km depth where the plate appears to lie flat.
From the layered Earth structure it is known that a jump in seismic
velocity occurs at 660 km depth. That jump is presumably caused by a
phase transition at which upper mantle material transforms to a denser
structure. It has long been uncertain what exactly happens to plate
material at that depth: Is it possible for a plate to penetrate
through the phase transition and sink into the lower mantle or will it
get stuck above it? Although the cross-section becomes less accurate
below 660 km depth, the plate material seems to have broken through
the discontinuity and has been sinking to the core-mantle boundary
(2800 km)."
________________________________________
I hate to get picky, but, since you do post the quote...note the words
actually used :-
" is presumably caused .."
"It has long been uncertain what exactly happens.."
"Is it possible..?" (question)
"the cross-section becomes less accurate below 660 km depth..."
"seems to have ..."
Then this (which is what Plateros seize on):- "THE PLATE MATERIAL
<'HAS'> ( "seems to have") BROKEN THROUGH THE DISCONTINUITY AND HAS
BEEN SINKING TO THE CORE -MANTLE BOUNDARY. "
( I must say, from his figure it doesn't seem like this to me)
And in his epilogue, this:- "How reliable are these Figures? It is
impossible to calculate a formal resolution matrix for such a huge
inverse problem. In order to find out how reliable and accurate the
calculated solution actually is, synthetic models are used that
consist of fake anomalies."
I have to say, quite apart from not being based on 'matters
geological', this to me is not a convincing up-front argument for
subduction, and I reflect it back to you. What do you have to say?
It sounds pretty incestuous to me. His comment about "the
large-scale structure remains unchallenged" is not true: He is
tantamount to challenging it himself. And his own figure does not
support him.
This by the way, is all the stuff that Stuart is saying is "still
seismically visible". Nobody is doubting the visibility, ...just
what it means. And the "IF". The big 'IF'. The one that Stuart
deems not to exist - and flashes his badge to prove it. Do you
believe him? He still has to post a reason...
> The continent has expanded itself with the same amount, through dilation as
> I understand. This dilation does not propagate through to the surface in any
> greater extend than continental fragments are stacked. I've cut'n pasted a
> quote if you don't know what I mean by stacked:
>
> quote
>
> http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/DAAC_DOCS/geomorphology/GEO_2/GEO_PLATE_T-49.HTML
>
> <snipping the quote about the Himalayas>
> unquote
>
> This to point out, that any areal growth of the continents in a magnitude
> that is a consequence of your proposal, is dubious - The continents are
> racing onto the oceanflores at an alarming rate, according to you.
Areal growth prior to Pacific opening is very substantial, which is
why I say Carey was extremely conservative in his estimate.
> The continents are
> racing onto the ocean floors at an alarming rate, according to you.
If you want to talk 'rate', why is it any more a rate than Plate
tectonics is advocating for subduction?
don findlay
> On 06 Jul 2004 20:09:52 GMT, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
> wrote:
> >Nevermind numerous seismic wave studies which can follow slabs deep into the
> >mantle.
> >
> >
>
> You are only fooling yourself.
>
> JT
Why don't you ask Stuart about the type section that Carsten posted
across the Kuriles, about slabs penetrating the mantle. That's just
what he says, about following them deep, but they actually flatten
off if you look at the section.
<http://www.geof.ruu.nl/~bijwaard/abstracts/vakidioot/figuur4_kleur.gif>
(It gets worse when you read the description)(But Stuart will no doubt
say, "well that's deep". A regular swimming pool is about twelve feet
deep (at the deep end). Who does he think he's kidding?
Hey Stuart, The spotlight is on you. Do better, or leave the red
nose with the desk when you go out. The audience is getting restless.
Carsten Troelsgaard
news:<40ea643f$0$285$edfa...@dread12.news.tele.dk>...
> > Don
> > The continent well in on the plate?
> > In that case it still consumes plate.
> > How come that you can tell, that it's not doing it in such a pace that
the
> > world is achtually shrinking?
> >
> > This tomography fig 4 shows your amount of overridden crust.
> > http://www.geof.ruu.nl/~bijwaard/abstracts/vakidioot/vak_uk.html
>
> (I'm not sure where you're starting from here; I thought we were
> talking about 'if'.) But I see where you're headed when you say "in
> that case it still consumes plate". To which I have to say, "Does
> it?
I assume that we have philosophical or literal problem if riding over a
bridge does not imply that the bridge does pass away under you.
> How much plate? how quickly?" And you have to say "As much as is
> being created at the ridges" Which brings us back to square 1, and
> consideration of "IF". How can you tell whether it is actually
> shrinking or getting bigger? You can't, only on the most logical
> assessment of the evidence,
Yes
> and the argument from this side of the
> fence is that plate tectonics (with it's various assumptions and
> inventions) is not a credible assessment of the evidence. Beginning
> with its first assumption (that a Panthalassa once existed, the size
> of the Present oceans of the world - and certainly no smaller than
> that, NOR BIGGER, but just exactly the size of the present oceans
> (otherwise it would be shrinking or expanding) (to the millimetre),
> and finishing (for the sake of this exchange) with what you post.
The physical laws of conservation is cherished by a lot of people. Through
genesis of our solar system, aggregation of planetissimals suggests a
growing internal pressure. By letting the planet expand and still keep the
conservation laws, you start out with a pressurized earth. This is the
uppersit direction of events of what would be expected.
If 'matters geological' is surface-geology, subduction vanishes.
> , this to me is not a convincing up-front argument for
> subduction, and I reflect it back to you. What do you have to say?
> It sounds pretty incestuous to me. His comment about "the
> large-scale structure remains unchallenged" is not true: He is
> tantamount to challenging it himself. And his own figure does not
> support him.
You say:
"the large-scale structure remains unchallenged" is not true
I answer:
As for you confronting me instead of him, it's very true. Furthermore:
His numbers is best where the distribution of earthquakes are densest, so I
pop a link to the distribution of quakes if you should have forgot how well
it follows the path of the subduction.
http://mac01.eps.pitt.edu/harbbook/c_iii/Earthquakes/myquakes/Alaska04.GIF
> This by the way, is all the stuff that Stuart is saying is "still
> seismically visible". Nobody is doubting the visibility, ...just
> what it means.
That must have been the part I missed. What does it mean? That the
continents is racing onto the seafloor as a response to continental
growth/dilation? You failed to show this expanse of the continents and has
to accept that oceanfloor is 'subducted' weather you like the word or not.
(You are less hessitant when you allow yourself to use the term 'torsional*'
reassuring us that it does not adher internal dynamic more than 'what
gravity does to being flat').
> And the "IF". The big 'IF'. The one that Stuart
> deems not to exist - and flashes his badge to prove it. Do you
> believe him? He still has to post a reason...
You know that he probably cann't post a reason becourse online resources of
deep seismic profiles at the right location is unavailable. But you
recognize the existence of it and doubt the caurse.
I do not have my belief in PT from Stuart.
> > The continent has expanded itself with the same amount, through dilation
as
> > I understand. This dilation does not propagate through to the surface in
any
> > greater extend than continental fragments are stacked. I've cut'n pasted
a
> > quote if you don't know what I mean by stacked:
> >
> > quote
> >
> >
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/DAAC_DOCS/geomorphology/GEO_2/GEO_PLATE_T-49.HTML
> >
> > <snipping the quote about the Himalayas>
>
> > unquote
> >
> > This to point out, that any areal growth of the continents in a
magnitude
> > that is a consequence of your proposal, is dubious - The continents are
> > racing onto the oceanflores at an alarming rate, according to you.
>
> Areal growth prior to Pacific opening is very substantial,
Probably. It was the onset of continental fracture and separation.(I have a
first hand impression of the magnitude of such an opening).
So far you have neglected a lot of stacked sequences as I linked to the
Chinese/Mongolian example. Contemporary geology uses geophysics which you
seem to accept as long as it serves your paradigme. What is your alternative
model to the stacked sequences of Indian plate colission with Asia?
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html
> which is
> why I say Carey was extremely conservative in his estimate.
>
> > The continents are
> > racing onto the ocean floors at an alarming rate, according to you.
>
> If you want to talk 'rate', why is it any more a rate than Plate
> tectonics is advocating for subduction?
It is not. Given the difficulty/imprecision in the figures, I'm willing to
accept a break-even. The earth does not shrink or expand.
don findlay
> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message news:<20040706004221...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
>
> > There is no "if". Subduction occurs.
>
> JT is made of sterner stuff that this piss-weak declaration will
> quench. You'll need to do better.... (You could maybe explain why
> Africa is shrinking while you're at it.)
> > Stuart
> > Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> > Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> > "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
> >
> >
> > "Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
(Still no answer from stuart.) Does anyone else on this ng have this
sneaking suspicion Stuart is a closet creationist? He's not just
impervious, nor even oblivious to logic ('If' > 'then') ('If' not>
'then'). ... in his little fast book it simply doesn't exist. Only
the creed, which comes round, on a plate, ...no beginning, no end. No
loose ends to unravel. Like a dollop of porridge in a pot.
Impressive stuff I grant you, and possiblity THE medium on which to
base a world view, but doesn't help much in matters of Earth Science.
To my way of thinking.
don findlay
> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:5f164087.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > (I'm not sure where you're starting from here; I thought we were
> > talking about 'if'.) But I see where you're headed when you say "in
> > that case it still consumes plate". To which I have to say, "Does
> > it?
>
> I assume that we have philosophical or literal problem if riding over a
> bridge does not imply that the bridge does pass away under you.
Of course it does,.. and if you assume that those are the only two
parameters that need to be taken account of, then that's fine, ...and
if you assume that the bridge is not also moving up. The analogy
might be more applicable if the bridge had (as the ridge does) a great
big moving-up hump in the middle that you had to ride over. Since
every time you ride over this it *IS* still there, don't you think
there is some rationale for it other than that it is the result of
some sort of sideways motion? (The incremental 'up-bit' yes I like,
but why do you find it necessary to tack on the half-a-world-away
'recycling'?
> The physical laws of conservation is cherished by a lot of people. Through
> genesis of our solar system, aggregation of planetissimals suggests a
> growing internal pressure. By letting the planet expand and still keep the
> conservation laws, you start out with a pressurized earth. This is the
> uppersit direction of events of what would be expected.
I don't know how matter is formed. Once it *IS* formed, then a lot of
these laws come into play, but I have a sneaking suspicion that until
we know that first bit, we are not in a position to say that under all
circumstances concerning the aggregation of stellar mass, those intial
parameters are irrelevant. A flat Earth was also cherished by a lot
of people at one point. Surely it doesn't take much to see some
fallacies concerning the origins of matter and mass, and how atoms and
moecules are supposed to form, if we assume that stellar bodies
aggregated from stones, and their liquid and gaseous counterparts. I
would rather see some effort made to take those elemental parts into
account in the mass creation story, rather than just put them aside as
an esoteric detail, with nothing to do with 'mass as we know it'.
> > I have to say, quite apart from not being based on 'matters
> > geological'
>
> If 'matters geological' is surface-geology, subduction vanishes.
No, look at it this way, ...everything concerning the interior of the
Earth is inference based on geophysical data. To make it work the
header at the top of the page must read - "Let there once have existed
a Panthalassa, and a Tethys equal to the size of the present ocean
floors, and moreover let these be *exactly* equal, no more, no less."
You might think Expansion has this disadvantage of mass, but surely
it's clear that plate tectonics has the disadvantage of size? We can
be pretty sure about our comprehension of 'size'/ dimension (I think),
but about our comprehension of 'mass'? ... the Jury is still out on
that one... I don't know what mass is supposed to be, other than a
lot of funny little particles held together by electric 'strings'. To
say to me, "No, that is not mass at all, mass (like the Earth) is just
made up of a lot of smaller masses (stones that aggregated) is facile.
I prefer to remain with what I don't really know, but keep an open
mind on (about mass), and abide by the logic that makes a nonsense of
plate tectonics.
> > , this to me is not a convincing up-front argument for
> > subduction, and I reflect it back to you. What do you have to say?
> > It sounds pretty incestuous to me. His comment about "the
> > large-scale structure remains unchallenged" is not true: He is
> > tantamount to challenging it himself. And his own figure does not
> > support him.
>
> You say:
> "the large-scale structure remains unchallenged" is not true
>
> I answer:
> As for you confronting me instead of him, it's very true. Furthermore:
>
> His numbers is best where the distribution of earthquakes are densest, so I
> pop a link to the distribution of quakes if you should have forgot how well
> it follows the path of the subduction.
>
> http://mac01.eps.pitt.edu/harbbook/c_iii/Earthquakes/myquakes/Alaska04.GIF
You keep going on about this "carrying down"; it's a zone of brittle
crust and Earthquakes, no more. The "carrying down" part is your (and
everyone else's) quite unjustified, and even admitted, assumed
*"convenient"* overlay.
> > This by the way, is all the stuff that Stuart is saying is "still
> > seismically visible". Nobody is doubting the visibility, ...just
> > what it means.
>
> That must have been the part I missed. What does it mean? That the
> continents is racing onto the seafloor as a response to continental
> growth/dilation? You failed to show this expanse of the continents and has
> to accept that oceanfloor is 'subducted' weather you like the word or not.
> (You are less hessitant when you allow yourself to use the term 'torsional*'
> reassuring us that it does not adher internal dynamic more than 'what
> gravity does to being flat').
By and large, once the continents are breached, deformation shifts to
the mantle (I think I said this before). Prior to breaching, the
continents did stretch to the extent of the Palaeozoic and early
Mesozoic basins (Asian swivel dilation that culminated in the
scissoring of Kamchatka and Alaskan detachment from Asia. I think
it's quite plain in the topography, and also born out in the large
format geology - that scissoring/ swivelling. of the Pacific margins
(finger exercise)
> > And the "IF". The big 'IF'. The one that Stuart
> > deems not to exist - and flashes his badge to prove it. Do you
> > believe him? He still has to post a reason...
>
> You know that he probably cann't post a reason becourse online resources of
> deep seismic profiles at the right location is unavailable. But you
> recognize the existence of it and doubt the caurse.
The big "IF" is the existence of Panthalassa, for which there is no
'reason', no support, no proof, ...not "because online resources of
deep seismic profiles at the right location are unavailable". And I
certainly don't recognise the existence of it. Though I do recognise
the nonsense of it being exactly the same size (and in the same place)
as the Pacific is at the present time.
> I do not have my belief in PT from Stuart.
(Stuart eat your heart out)
> > > The continent has expanded itself with the same amount, through dilation
> as
> > > I understand. This dilation does not propagate through to the surface in
> any
> > > greater extend than continental fragments are stacked. I've cut'n pasted
> a
> > > quote if you don't know what I mean by stacked:
> > >
> > > quote
> > >
> > >
> http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/DAAC_DOCS/geomorphology/GEO_2/GEO_PLATE_T-49.HTML
> > >
> > > <snipping the quote about the Himalayas>
>
> > > unquote
> > >
> > > This to point out, that any areal growth of the continents in a
> magnitude
> > > that is a consequence of your proposal, is dubious - The continents are
> > > racing onto the oceanflores at an alarming rate, according to you.
> >
> > Areal growth prior to Pacific opening is very substantial,
>
> Probably. It was the onset of continental fracture and separation.(I have a
> first hand impression of the magnitude of such an opening).
> So far you have neglected a lot of stacked sequences as I linked to the
> Chinese/Mongolian example. Contemporary geology uses geophysics which you
> seem to accept as long as it serves your paradigme. What is your alternative
> model to the stacked sequences of Indian plate colission with Asia?
No I haven't ignored it, I described it earlier and thought it not
necessary to repeat it. Stacked thrusts as gravity collapse structures
like you get in the Alps, the Himalyas and in many places - as the
'Geotumor' (as Carey called it) rises up and collapses over the
cratons.
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/ridgegrow.html#diapir> In the
global picture
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/geoid1.html> they're not a big
deal:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/geobubble.html>
All the stuff Pteros regard as 'collisional' is 'collapsional' and low
in the structural profile; the high stuff is all flat and riddled with
extensional faults. It's the difference through the profile that
rules out 'collisional'
> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html
>
> > which is
> > why I say Carey was extremely conservative in his estimate.
> >
> > > The continents are
> > > racing onto the ocean floors at an alarming rate, according to you.
> >
> > If you want to talk 'rate', why is it any more a rate than Plate
> > tectonics is advocating for subduction?
>
> It is not.
So why are you "alarmed'? I'm not talking about any rate of
'racing'. Except for the back-arc basins everything is retreating.
Carsten Troelsgaard
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5f164087.04070...@posting.google.com...
> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:<40ec4a57$0$285$edfa...@dread14.news.tele.dk>...
> > "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:5f164087.04070...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > (I'm not sure where you're starting from here; I thought we were
> > > talking about 'if'.) But I see where you're headed when you say "in
> > > that case it still consumes plate". To which I have to say, "Does
> > > it?
> >
> > I assume that we have philosophical or literal problem if riding over a
> > bridge does not imply that the bridge does pass away under you.
>
> Of course it does,.. and if you assume that those are the only two
> parameters that need to be taken account of, then that's fine, ...and
> if you assume that the bridge is not also moving up. The analogy
> might be more applicable if the bridge had (as the ridge does) a great
> big moving-up hump in the middle that you had to ride over. Since
> every time you ride over this it *IS* still there, don't you think
> there is some rationale for it other than that it is the result of
> some sort of sideways motion? (The incremental 'up-bit' yes I like,
> but why do you find it necessary to tack on the half-a-world-away
> 'recycling'?
Don't escape me on this.
You have very consequently stated that there is no subduction, only an
override. Since an override will constitute a philosophical problem if
nothing was subducted/crossed I conclude that you accept a relative reverse
movement in the oceanic crust. You have also been forced to accept that this
'subducted/crossed thing' is somewhere of very consideral extend. You often
seem to express that there is no movement, but only up - yet you accept
override. Due to the extend of the subducted/crossed crust, the override
must be equally extensive.
The oceanic crust does not move, the continent does not grow yet there is
worlwide a considerable overlap that you'll go to extremes to ignore. You
has to accept a considerable override, but no movement and no growth. Face
PT!
The growth of the Cocos plate should, I suppose, show the extensional
structures - but it shows compression/convergence! Where did it grow to
provide the override?
> > The physical laws of conservation is cherished by a lot of people.
Through
> > genesis of our solar system, aggregation of planetissimals suggests a
> > growing internal pressure. By letting the planet expand and still keep
the
> > conservation laws, you start out with a pressurized earth. This is the
> > uppersit direction of events of what would be expected.
>
> I don't know how matter is formed. Once it *IS* formed, then a lot of
> these laws come into play, but I have a sneaking suspicion that until
> we know that first bit, we are not in a position to say that under all
> circumstances concerning the aggregation of stellar mass, those intial
> parameters are irrelevant. A flat Earth was also cherished by a lot
> of people at one point. Surely it doesn't take much to see some
> fallacies concerning the origins of matter and mass, and how atoms and
> moecules are supposed to form, if we assume that stellar bodies
> aggregated from stones, and their liquid and gaseous counterparts. I
> would rather see some effort made to take those elemental parts into
> account in the mass creation story, rather than just put them aside as
> an esoteric detail, with nothing to do with 'mass as we know it'.
I havn't read a lot of them, but this is surely the far best. Extensive and
easy to read.
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~hanes/p014/Notes/Topic_030.html
> > > I have to say, quite apart from not being based on 'matters
> > > geological'
> >
> > If 'matters geological' is surface-geology, subduction vanishes.
>
> No, look at it this way, ...everything concerning the interior of the
> Earth is inference based on geophysical data. To make it work the
> header at the top of the page must read - "Let there once have existed
> a Panthalassa, and a Tethys equal to the size of the present ocean
> floors, and moreover let these be *exactly* equal, no more, no less."
You keep a too grand picture. What is growing/moving if convergence and no
subduction?
> You might think Expansion has this disadvantage of mass, but surely
> it's clear that plate tectonics has the disadvantage of size? We can
> be pretty sure about our comprehension of 'size'/ dimension (I think),
> but about our comprehension of 'mass'? ... the Jury is still out on
> that one... I don't know what mass is supposed to be, other than a
> lot of funny little particles held together by electric 'strings'. To
> say to me, "No, that is not mass at all, mass (like the Earth) is just
> made up of a lot of smaller masses (stones that aggregated) is facile.
> I prefer to remain with what I don't really know, but keep an open
> mind on (about mass), and abide by the logic that makes a nonsense of
> plate tectonics.
The link above has no hidden developement of mass. On the contrary a sober
account on condensation of matter as we know it and with consequences tied
up to this quality.
> > > , this to me is not a convincing up-front argument for
> > > subduction, and I reflect it back to you. What do you have to say?
> > > It sounds pretty incestuous to me. His comment about "the
> > > large-scale structure remains unchallenged" is not true: He is
> > > tantamount to challenging it himself. And his own figure does not
> > > support him.
> >
> > You say:
> > "the large-scale structure remains unchallenged" is not true
> >
> > I answer:
> > As for you confronting me instead of him, it's very true. Furthermore:
> >
> > His numbers is best where the distribution of earthquakes are densest,
so I
> > pop a link to the distribution of quakes if you should have forgot how
well
> > it follows the path of the subduction.
> >
> >
http://mac01.eps.pitt.edu/harbbook/c_iii/Earthquakes/myquakes/Alaska04.GIF
>
> You keep going on about this "carrying down"; it's a zone of brittle
> crust and Earthquakes, no more. The "carrying down" part is your (and
> everyone else's) quite unjustified, and even admitted, assumed
> *"convenient"* overlay.
Lol.
You have all the action focussed on these parts and you neglect that
anything is going on. You are not facing the evidence and you'r ready to
digest any row of absurde consequences that follows.
How come you use tomography on your own pages?
> > > This by the way, is all the stuff that Stuart is saying is "still
> > > seismically visible". Nobody is doubting the visibility, ...just
> > > what it means.
> >
> > That must have been the part I missed. What does it mean? That the
> > continents is racing onto the seafloor as a response to continental
> > growth/dilation? You failed to show this expanse of the continents and
has
> > to accept that oceanfloor is 'subducted' weather you like the word or
not.
> > (You are less hessitant when you allow yourself to use the term
'torsional*'
> > reassuring us that it does not adher internal dynamic more than 'what
> > gravity does to being flat').
>
> By and large, once the continents are breached, deformation shifts to
> the mantle (I think I said this before).
And uses the earth's internal artery to focus growth at the oceanic
spreadingzones? Or grows up and drags all the crust, without fracture, away
from the spreadingzones.
> Prior to breaching, the
> continents did stretch to the extent of the Palaeozoic and early
> Mesozoic basins (Asian swivel dilation that culminated in the
> scissoring of Kamchatka and Alaskan detachment from Asia. I think
> it's quite plain in the topography, and also born out in the large
> format geology - that scissoring/ swivelling. of the Pacific margins
> (finger exercise)
snip
> > Probably. It was the onset of continental fracture and separation.(I
have a
> > first hand impression of the magnitude of such an opening).
> > So far you have neglected a lot of stacked sequences as I linked to the
> > Chinese/Mongolian example. Contemporary geology uses geophysics which
you
> > seem to accept as long as it serves your paradigme. What is your
alternative
> > model to the stacked sequences of Indian plate colission with Asia?
>
> No I haven't ignored it, I described it earlier and thought it not
> necessary to repeat it. Stacked thrusts as gravity collapse structures
> like you get in the Alps,
Not known to me. You do realize that you compare two colissional areas!
> the Himalyas
(not known to you ;o))
> and in many places - as the
> 'Geotumor' (as Carey called it) rises up and collapses over the
> cratons.
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/ridgegrow.html#diapir> In the
> global picture
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/geoid1.html> they're not a big
> deal:-
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/geobubble.html>
> All the stuff Pteros regard as 'collisional' is 'collapsional' and low
> in the structural profile;
How do you read it? Geophysics? Or do you adress surface-geology.
About the collaps: you have a vague gradient yet you have no problem in
seeing these structures slide around each other and often stack? A raising
diapire that segregates acidic rocks as the soup that the surface slush
around in? A very powerful slush-off (it stacks) and yet the diapire never
appear beneath after the slush off. Instead you see deeply metamorphosed
rock with original sedimentary atributes - why are these rocks
compressed/metamorphosed? It cannot happen from below.
> the high stuff is all flat and riddled with
> extensional faults.
I think that I suggested why
> It's the difference through the profile that
> rules out 'collisional'
You havn't proven to me that you are talking about 'real geology'. The model
of the following link (it's one of a row of the kind) is build upon
observation and data. Have you looked at this or do you dismiss the model as
a principle?
> > http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html
snip
Gee, does it grow! I'm ready for a break.
don findlay
Taking into account what you write below, and since there is
mechanically no difference between subduction and overriding, I feel
it 'incumbent upon me' to disavou any signifiacance in this difference
other than this (as I have said before):- use of the word
'subduction' expresses no more than solidarity with the idea of an
imaginary Panthalassa as 'proof' of convection, which is the idea of
subduction: there is nothing intrinsically 'carrying down" in a zone
of earthquakes. In first motions many are every way, and most of them
(in the Western Pacific (type area) are along. Earthquakes happen
when the elastic limit is exceeded. That's all. This may happen
either because the crust is brittle (unlike everywhere else at depth
where nothing seems to be brittle) - or when the APPLICATION OF STRESS
IS RAPID (like when mud fractrures when you pull it too fast). I
think any reasoned consideration would have to choose the latter -
rapid application of stress: it is after all the interface between
the crust and the mantle, and where most adjustment (at the competency
interface) is occurring. That's all this 'subduction zone' is: a zone
of earthquakes that denote rapid crustal adjustment (mostly sideways).
To add on that it signifies "carrying down" and (worse) "convection"
is pure fanciful overlay far beyond the limits of rational assessment.
Subduction is Not Justified on account of Earthquakes.
You have also been forced to accept that this
> 'subducted/crossed thing' is somewhere of very consideral extend.
Force? FOrce?? FORCe?? I go through red traffic lights (within [and
with] reason) . What do you mean? Nobody forces *ME* (except my
wife). (crumble-mumble)...
> You often
> seem to express that there is no movement, but only up - yet you accept
> override. Due to the extend of the subducted/crossed crust, the override
> must be equally extensive.
> The oceanic crust does not move, the continent does not grow yet there is
> worlwide a considerable overlap that you'll go to extremes to ignore. You
> has to accept a considerable override, but no movement and no growth.
Look Carsten, .. Crust, ..Ok? Mantle, .. Ok? Different, ..Ok?
Expansion [is in the mantle]. Torsional adjustment [is in the crust -
... *AND* in the GROWTH of the mantle. ***BOTH*** torsions [in the
crust and the mantle] exploit the anisotropies available to them.
LAYERING is the anisotropy in the crust [hence torsion in the crust is
on 'flats' - e.g. Western Pacific; Opening of the Americas; i.e. the
entire Pacific. TRANSFORMS [growth normal faults] are the
anisotropy in the mantle [hence the 'torsional expression of growth ',
taken up at the ridges - gives the cumulative appearance of
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html> Ok,
admittedly I've used 'torsion' to express this growth, because it's
longwinded to keep reminding folk that it's the way that torsion is
taken up in expansion. Nothing of the mantle [expansion] is really
'twisting'; it just grows that way. But a lot in the crust is
twisting, spinning out, opening up, ...like a Chinese fan, ..but
with some exceptions) it is by-and-large flat.
> Face PT!
What? ...The PURPLE WHORE OF BABYLON?? I would sooner face a question
from Stuart!
> The growth of the Cocos plate should, I suppose, show the extensional
> structures - but it shows compression/convergence! Where did it grow to
> provide the override?
I keep telling you, "Plates" are not a valid concept. Any plate you
can think of, either the plate doesn't move, just the material cycling
through them. The 'plate' stays put. It's just the material cycling
through it goes down the gurgler. Like a ghost going through walls.
OR, ...it grows (Africa). What do you keep going on about the cocos
plate for anyway? Is it because of that section you posted across the
ramp, ...where I said it didn['t look like subduction to me because
the reflectors in the mantle don't turn down, but rise up? And
because the prism of overthrusts from the America side were classic
overthrusts? And Because the Americas are overriding anyway, and the
Pacific is not subducting.?
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/geobubble.html> ... when coupled with
the other illustrations, gives an implication that spin can do the job
of all subduction/overriding. The Americas overriding the Pacific
are the greates exponent of 'spin at the present time (torsional
opening of the Atlantic about the north Pole).
How can this be? (Logical non sequitur).
> You are not facing the evidence and you'r ready to
> digest any row of absurde consequences that follows.
>
> How come you use tomography on your own pages?
Because, contrary to John Vidale saying I thieved it, and emailing
Malcolm Sambridge to complain, Malcolm said ( in the spirit of making
the illustrations publically available on the net), sure, go for it,
with the proviso that I distanced him from my interpretation. Why
shouldn't I use it? I also use gravity, and magnetics (or intend to).
I reject convection as the myth of plate tectonics. and that
earthquakes all in a row means 'subduction', when the architecture of
planetary growth is one of spin.
> > > > This by the way, is all the stuff that Stuart is saying is "still
> > > > seismically visible". Nobody is doubting the visibility, ...just
> > > > what it means.
> > >
> > > That must have been the part I missed. What does it mean? That the
> > > continents is racing onto the seafloor as a response to continental
> > > growth/dilation? You failed to show this expanse of the continents and
> has
> > > to accept that oceanfloor is 'subducted' weather you like the word or
> not.
> > > (You are less hessitant when you allow yourself to use the term
> 'torsional*'
> > > reassuring us that it does not adher internal dynamic more than 'what
> > > gravity does to being flat').
> >
> > By and large, once the continents are breached, deformation shifts to
> > the mantle (I think I said this before).
>
> And uses the earth's internal artery to focus growth at the oceanic
> spreadingzones? Or grows up and drags all the crust, without fracture, away
> from the spreadingzones.
When the mantle grows up, there is no drag; stuff just gets left
behind. That's why transforms are straight as a knife. Their
straightness is just not possible in plate tectonics. Anyone knows
that. ('Cept George, to whom this straightness makes perfect sense)
It is part of the reason people are in awe of plate tectonics. "You
mean can it really *DO* that? Keep everything straight like that?"
"Oh yes, obviously it must. They are straight, so it must. Plate
tectonics is the greatest thing since sliced Bread." It's Bullshit
Carsten, even a child can see that, when it comes to transforms
staying straight, both in the fault and the fracture zones.
> > Prior to breaching, the
> > continents did stretch to the extent of the Palaeozoic and early
> > Mesozoic basins (Asian swivel dilation that culminated in the
> > scissoring of Kamchatka and Alaskan detachment from Asia. I think
> > it's quite plain in the topography, and also born out in the large
> > format geology - that scissoring/ swivelling. of the Pacific margins
> > (finger exercise)
>
> snip
>
> > > Probably. It was the onset of continental fracture and separation.(I
> have a
> > > first hand impression of the magnitude of such an opening).
> > > So far you have neglected a lot of stacked sequences as I linked to the
> > > Chinese/Mongolian example. Contemporary geology uses geophysics which
> you
> > > seem to accept as long as it serves your paradigme. What is your
> alternative
> > > model to the stacked sequences of Indian plate colission with Asia?
> >
> > No I haven't ignored it, I described it earlier and thought it not
> > necessary to repeat it. Stacked thrusts as gravity collapse structures
> > like you get in the Alps,
>
> Not known to me. You do realize that you compare two colissional areas!
They are only 'collisional' in plate tectonics, if you consider that
Africa is colliding with Europe. They are 'collapsional' in
Expansion, crustal cover to the Pacific diapir, with the mantle
breaking through breaking through as the Mediterranean, Caspian and
Black seas. Plate tectonics has no explanation for the mantle
breaking through these.
> > the Himalyas
>
> (not known to you ;o))
>
> > and in many places - as the
> > 'Geotumor' (as Carey called it) rises up and collapses over the
> > cratons.
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/ridgegrow.html#diapir> In the
> > global picture
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/geoid1.html> they're not a big
> > deal:-
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/geobubble.html>
> > All the stuff Pteros regard as 'collisional' is 'collapsional' and low
> > in the structural profile;
>
> How do you read it? Geophysics? Or do you adress surface-geology.
> About the collaps: you have a vague gradient yet you have no problem in
> seeing these structures slide around each other and often stack? A raising
> diapire that segregates acidic rocks as the soup that the surface slush
> around in? A very powerful slush-off (it stacks) and yet the diapire never
> appear beneath after the slush off. Instead you see deeply metamorphosed
> rock with original sedimentary atributes - why are these rocks
> compressed/metamorphosed? It cannot happen from below.
How do you mean? Have you got the scale of it right?:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/geobubble.html>
Just like the ridge moves up away from where it used to be, so the
mantle bubble moves up away from it's crustal cap
> > the high stuff is all flat and riddled with
> > extensional faults.
>
> I think that I suggested why
>
> > It's the difference through the profile that
> > rules out 'collisional'
>
> You havn't proven to me that you are talking about 'real geology'. The model
> of the following link (it's one of a row of the kind) is build upon
> observation and data. Have you looked at this or do you dismiss the model as
> a principle?
>
> > > http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html
I'll need to look at the link, but no I don't disregard it. I think
Earth expansion provides a far better explanation of Himalayan data
I've seen
than anything plate tectonics can deliver, once you 'translate' all
the jargon about microplates, and allow for the slices of mantle going
the wrong way. and the notion of "far field tectonics" bred of the
notion of India 'colliding with Asia and causing all the deformation
as far as the Kamchatka Peninsula. (Why, ... even pushing the
Kuriles over the subduction zone there....)
>
> snip
>
> Gee, does it grow! I'm ready for a break.
Well, I'll be away for a few days; Will pick it up when I get back.
The essence is the pyramid of unjustified assumptions (of "carrying
down") that are built on what is really only a zone of rapid stress
release - the margin of the diapir.
Carsten Troelsgaard
ordered succession before
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5f164087.04071...@posting.google.com...
I went to look as you by no standard known to me make any sense.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/transforms.html#template
I seem to grasp from your figure that growth of plate not only happens in an
ordered fashion in a direction perpendicular to the spreadingzone
(registered in remanent magnetism) but also at an 90 degree angle to this,
along the spreadingzone itself? Your point A expands in two directions (fig.
2b). This direction of expansion (along the spredingridge) is invalid as it
is not expressed in the magnetic signature.
The stepped offset (which is your 3. law of EE) is depicted in the figure
2d. You do not comment any relation between the other drawings and these
stepped offsets and they have no apparent relation to the structuring that
you elaborate upon. Or to use your own words: Logical non sequitur.
> Ok,
> admittedly I've used 'torsion' to express this growth, because it's
> longwinded to keep reminding folk that it's the way that torsion is
> taken up in expansion. Nothing of the mantle [expansion] is really
> 'twisting'; it just grows that way. But a lot in the crust is
> twisting, spinning out, opening up, ...like a Chinese fan, ..but
> with some exceptions) it is by-and-large flat.
*2) There is one difference in PT's using 'subduction' and EE's using 'spin'
or 'torsional' growth. You accept that there mechanically is no difference
between overriding and subduction. I, however, notice a huge gab between
'spin' or 'torsional' as complex terms of movement and it's association to
'growth'. That torsion manifests itself in rockstructure (and I'm no less
void of fantasy that I cannot imagine) is no warrent, what so ever, for, or
indication of growth of any kind.
It's difficult to imagine that some differentiated movement or growth of
ocean plates
has not happened, but it's byond me why it should be in any contrast to PT.
To take it as the main 'proof' of EE is rediculous.
> > Face PT!
>
> What? ...The PURPLE WHORE OF BABYLON?? I would sooner face a question
> from Stuart!
>
>
> > The growth of the Cocos plate should, I suppose, show the extensional
> > structures - but it shows compression/convergence! Where did it grow to
> > provide the override?
>
> I keep telling you, "Plates" are not a valid concept. Any plate you
> can think of, either the plate doesn't move, just the material cycling
> through them.
Talking about absurdities...
> The 'plate' stays put. It's just the material cycling
> through it goes down the gurgler. Like a ghost going through walls.
> OR, ...it grows (Africa). What do you keep going on about the cocos
> plate for anyway?
It's the only online seismic evidence I can find. It's as close as you get
to real geology and not an interpretation sketched in a model.
It doesn't bother you that Asia 'overriding' in the wrong direction
according to torsional direction and tilt of your diapire?
You obviously prefer to deal with the long-term perspectives of geology,
palćogeographic reconstruction of a very live world. We confront you with
the present state of dynamic and you answer that there is no logical
connection to the subject if I get your 'Logical non sequitur' right.
> > You are not facing the evidence and you'r ready to
> > digest any row of absurde consequences that follows.
> >
> > How come you use tomography on your own pages?
>
> Because, contrary to John Vidale saying I thieved it, and emailing
> Malcolm Sambridge to complain, Malcolm said ( in the spirit of making
> the illustrations publically available on the net), sure, go for it,
> with the proviso that I distanced him from my interpretation. Why
> shouldn't I use it?
Becourse you do not acknowledge the significance of tomography unless it
supports your own views.
*2) You should specify intraplate-transforms if that's what you refer to.
As mentioned I see no problem in a minor differential movement/growth of
single strips of parallel ocean-plate. I never thought of is becourse, as I
said, it does not violate my intuitive perception of mantleconvection
carrying the plates.
You keep refering to a mantle-break-through that covers the Pacific. The
only evidence for breaking through is at the spreadingridges and the
magnetic contouring puts a kronology into it.
If the plates don't move, the mantlegrowth/earthgrowth happens in the
angular slice of the earth, or volumetrically sideways, and records this
dynamic in the magnetic contouring.
> Anyone knows
> that. ('Cept George, to whom this straightness makes perfect sense)
> It is part of the reason people are in awe of plate tectonics. "You
> mean can it really *DO* that? Keep everything straight like that?"
> "Oh yes, obviously it must. They are straight, so it must. Plate
> tectonics is the greatest thing since sliced Bread."
> It's Bullshit
> Carsten, even a child can see that, when it comes to transforms
> staying straight, both in the fault and the fracture zones.
*1) I have never left anything unexplainable to a child. I started out with
a boiling pot for a pointer to convective cells, use straight physics all
the way from condensation (cooling) of our solarsystem over surfacegeology
to a few inferences of the obvious principle (cooling) by geophysics
(seismics and tomography).
It occurs to me that you start out with a principle of expansion, put your
main observations on tomography and explain surfacegeology from there with
the addition of mechanical functions who's details you omit.
I don't see anywhere that you involve factual surfacegeology except for the
oceanic-plate maps, so look at *2). I have been involved in reconstruction
of palaeogeology and it's second to impossible to get reliable results (in a
regional area) unless you are a pro. Noone can blame you for putting a
question to it. But from there to offer your own plan that reverses most
known physics brings you nowhere.
You have no chance anywere to explain your principle of expansion without
hitting a malstroem of absurdities. IMO.
Can you provide the data and your interpretation?
> than anything plate tectonics can deliver, once you 'translate' all
> the jargon about microplates, and allow for the slices of mantle going
> the wrong way.
> and the notion of "far field tectonics" bred of the
> notion of India 'colliding with Asia and causing all the deformation
> as far as the Kamchatka Peninsula. (Why, ... even pushing the
> Kuriles over the subduction zone there....)
It's not the plate that's pushing. If mantleconvection from south dives it
could well be expected to be synchronized with an equel dive or orientation
of a neighbouring convection (counterclockwise from north). My speculation.
> >
> > snip
Carsten Troelsgaard
snip
> Look Carsten, .. Crust, ..Ok? Mantle, .. Ok? Different, ..Ok?
> Expansion [is in the mantle]. Torsional adjustment [is in the crust -
> ... *AND* in the GROWTH of the mantle. ***BOTH*** torsions [in the
> crust and the mantle] exploit the anisotropies available to them.
> LAYERING is the anisotropy in the crust [hence torsion in the crust is
> on 'flats' - e.g. Western Pacific; Opening of the Americas; i.e. the
> entire Pacific. TRANSFORMS [growth normal faults] are the
> anisotropy in the mantle [hence the 'torsional expression of growth ',
> taken up at the ridges - gives the cumulative appearance of
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html>
I'll give a calculation of consequences. But first, weather you like it or
not, adding torsion through the difference in angular momentum of a raising
diapire has it's maximum effect in the equator-plane and recedes toward the
poles. The orientation of the gyres (Coriolis) is drawn right for the
southern hemisphere, but wrong on the northern on your scetch C on the page
you refer to.
It seems to me that it must have devastating consequences for the work that
you've done so far.
Letting a 1 kg rock raise 10 km up in the sky will give it (in it's new
orbit) a velocity, v = 10x2Pi/24 per hour relative to the surface (=
((E_radius +
10) x 2Pi - E_radius x 2Pi)/24).
If we in the same hour lets a force act on it, to give it an equel position
as the point it started from - that is, to accelerate it, the acceleration
would be 10 x 2Pi/24/1 = 2,618 km/hour^2 = 0,000202 m/s^2.
Letting it all happen within an hour gives a sideward pull equelling
0,0000206 parts
of gravity (averaging effectively a column 20 km high with half of it less
than 10 km lifted, within an hour). As to a frictionplane to slide on, a
forward calculation of the frictionforce is proportional to both hightORmass
and area so it suffices to consider an isolated body.
So, is there a frictionplane somewhere below, that will accomodate such a
pull into an achtual sidewards motion?
Maybe that's why it looks as if a brick falls straight down when you drop
it.
A normal friction coefficient for rock is in the range 0,5-0,6, but new
figures or models suggest that it is a decade less 0,05-0,06, taking
waterpressure into account.
Using a lift of 0,00786 km/hour (30 km over 3 mill years, ) it needs an
aditional speed of 0,00786x2Pi/24 km/hour = 0,00000206 m/hour (this is the
the final extra speed that the rise has to acellerate to from zero to catch
up with the surface) which it needs an even accelleration = 0,00000206/1
m/hour^2 over an hour to accomplish, that is 0,000000000000016 parts of g.
This number is to be compared to the friction coefficient of 0,06. I doubt
that the numbers are correct, but if anyone can make the two numbers
comparable, I'll listen.
These figures does not take static friction into account, and by that I mean
that you have to break through the crust before the easy sliding over it can
begin.
If the rise happens exactly at the equatorplane, the displacement of mass
causes the common mass midpoint to be slightly displaced too and the
attenuation of the velocity that cannot be displaced through tectonics
causes the other side of the globe to move faster ... or put another way:
the earth will start wobbling. I don't know how, but it's being suggested
that the earth in general evens out this diseqvilibrium and return to normal
ballanced rotation over time.
I wonder why you keep talking about torsion.
Oriel36
> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:5f164087.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:<40eef909$0$255
>
> snip
>
> > Look Carsten, .. Crust, ..Ok? Mantle, .. Ok? Different, ..Ok?
> > Expansion [is in the mantle]. Torsional adjustment [is in the crust -
> > ... *AND* in the GROWTH of the mantle. ***BOTH*** torsions [in the
> > crust and the mantle] exploit the anisotropies available to them.
> > LAYERING is the anisotropy in the crust [hence torsion in the crust is
> > on 'flats' - e.g. Western Pacific; Opening of the Americas; i.e. the
> > entire Pacific. TRANSFORMS [growth normal faults] are the
> > anisotropy in the mantle [hence the 'torsional expression of growth ',
> > taken up at the ridges - gives the cumulative appearance of
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html>
>
> I'll give a calculation of consequences. But first, weather you like it or
> not, adding torsion through the difference in angular momentum of a raising
> diapire has it's maximum effect in the equator-plane and recedes toward the
> poles. The orientation of the gyres (Coriolis) is drawn right for the
> southern hemisphere, but wrong on the northern on your scetch C on the page
> you refer to.
>
You are appealing to the coriolis force which effects the direction of
winds in Northern and Southern hemispheres for high and low pressure
systems,Foucault's pendulum and things like that but apparently are
oblivious to the singular rotational motion of the Earth.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/coriolis.html
I suppose if you were studying the development of a hurricane,the
coriolis force would help you out but it is almost laughable that you
employ it to crustal movement.
> It seems to me that it must have devastating consequences for the work that
> you've done so far.
>
Too funny !,in an effort to argue against the effects of the singular
rotational motion of the Earth not to mention orbital motion on
crustal development you dump everything into the coriolis force.I
guess it is a step above a stationary Earth but I assure you it is not
by much.
> Letting a 1 kg rock raise 10 km up in the sky will give it (in it's new
> orbit) a velocity, v = 10x2Pi/24 per hour relative to the surface (=
> ((E_radius +
> 10) x 2Pi - E_radius x 2Pi)/24).
> If we in the same hour lets a force act on it, to give it an equel position
> as the point it started from - that is, to accelerate it, the acceleration
> would be 10 x 2Pi/24/1 = 2,618 km/hour^2 = 0,000202 m/s^2.
>
Do you realise that Newton accounted for Kepler's orbital motion
alone and has nothing to say about constant axial rotation occuring
within variable orbital motion.If axial rotation is constant and
orbital motion varies you can bet that the combination of these
motions are a factor in the development of physical features.
> Letting it all happen within an hour gives a sideward pull equelling
> 0,0000206 parts
> of gravity (averaging effectively a column 20 km high with half of it less
> than 10 km lifted, within an hour). As to a frictionplane to slide on, a
> forward calculation of the frictionforce is proportional to both hightORmass
> and area so it suffices to consider an isolated body.
> So, is there a frictionplane somewhere below, that will accomodate such a
> pull into an achtual sidewards motion?
> Maybe that's why it looks as if a brick falls straight down when you drop
> it.
>
> A normal friction coefficient for rock is in the range 0,5-0,6, but new
> figures or models suggest that it is a decade less 0,05-0,06, taking
> waterpressure into account.
> Using a lift of 0,00786 km/hour (30 km over 3 mill years, ) it needs an
> aditional speed of 0,00786x2Pi/24 km/hour = 0,00000206 m/hour (this is the
> the final extra speed that the rise has to acellerate to from zero to catch
> up with the surface) which it needs an even accelleration = 0,00000206/1
> m/hour^2 over an hour to accomplish, that is 0,000000000000016 parts of g.
> This number is to be compared to the friction coefficient of 0,06. I doubt
> that the numbers are correct, but if anyone can make the two numbers
> comparable, I'll listen.
You do not know what is causing the Earth to have a constant axial
rotation and a variable orbital motion and you are certainly going to
achieve nothing by adhering to calculations from the era of Newton and
his gravitational agenda.If you wish to send a rocket into space then
fine but as for determining celestial motions or geological formations
and recognising the interelationship between the two,the weak appeal
to the coriolis force is a dumb excuse for ignoring the greater
motions of the Earth.
> These figures does not take static friction into account, and by that I mean
> that you have to break through the crust before the easy sliding over it can
> begin.
>
> If the rise happens exactly at the equatorplane, the displacement of mass
> causes the common mass midpoint to be slightly displaced too and the
> attenuation of the velocity that cannot be displaced through tectonics
> causes the other side of the globe to move faster ... or put another way:
> the earth will start wobbling. I don't know how, but it's being suggested
> that the earth in general evens out this diseqvilibrium and return to normal
> ballanced rotation over time.
>
> I wonder why you keep talking about torsion.
The stresses on the development of surface features are there,that's
why.These stresses are astronomical in origin and I strongly suggest
that you start taking them into account.Asronomers and physicists can
bluff their way into making things ambiguous by invoking
dimensions,multiple universes,frames of reference or whatever they
like,you can even get away with invoking the coriolis force and
ignoring the total rotational motion of the Earth but if that is the
case you are not fit to comment on geological evolution.Your call.
Carsten Troelsgaard
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:273f8e06.04071...@posting.google.com...
You do read, understand and acknowledge my point. That's something.
> > It seems to me that it must have devastating consequences for the work
that
> > you've done so far.
> >
>
> Too funny !,in an effort to argue against the effects of the singular
> rotational motion of the Earth not to mention orbital motion on
> crustal development you dump everything into the coriolis force.I
> guess it is a step above a stationary Earth but I assure you it is not
> by much.
>
I've asked Don to make an account of his application of torsion as it is a
key element of his 'proof' of an expanding earth. He has delivered neither
calculations nor pointers to where he gets the idea. The closest I figure
is, that he doesn't know.
>
>
> > Letting a 1 kg rock raise 10 km up in the sky will give it (in it's new
> > orbit) a velocity, v = 10x2Pi/24 per hour relative to the surface (=
> > ((E_radius +
> > 10) x 2Pi - E_radius x 2Pi)/24).
> > If we in the same hour lets a force act on it, to give it an equel
position
> > as the point it started from - that is, to accelerate it, the
acceleration
> > would be 10 x 2Pi/24/1 = 2,618 km/hour^2 = 0,000202 m/s^2.
> >
>
> Do you realise that Newton accounted for Kepler's orbital motion
> alone and has nothing to say about constant axial rotation occuring
> within variable orbital motion.If axial rotation is constant and
> orbital motion varies you can bet that the combination of these
> motions are a factor in the development of physical features.
>
So, provide the link between the observations that Don takes into account as
an effect of torsion. I figured that any of you would have delivered some
fair kind of documentation by now if there were any.
What is stopping you from putting weight behind your words?
>
> > These figures does not take static friction into account, and by that I
mean
> > that you have to break through the crust before the easy sliding over it
can
> > begin.
> >
> > If the rise happens exactly at the equatorplane, the displacement of
mass
> > causes the common mass midpoint to be slightly displaced too and the
> > attenuation of the velocity that cannot be displaced through tectonics
> > causes the other side of the globe to move faster ... or put another
way:
> > the earth will start wobbling. I don't know how, but it's being
suggested
> > that the earth in general evens out this diseqvilibrium and return to
normal
> > ballanced rotation over time.
> >
> > I wonder why you keep talking about torsion.
>
> The stresses on the development of surface features are there,that's
> why.
Fine. Let's see.
>These stresses are astronomical in origin and I strongly suggest
> that you start taking them into account.
Since I'm blind, why don't you help me?
> Asronomers and physicists can
> bluff their way into making things ambiguous by invoking
> dimensions,multiple universes,frames of reference or whatever they
> like,
I figured it was your domain
> you can even get away with invoking the coriolis force and
> ignoring the total rotational motion of the Earth but if that is the
> case you are not fit to comment on geological evolution.Your call.
I can see that I've met someone better suited. What are you waiting for?
Oriel36
See what happens to Foucault's pendulum during a solar eclipse -
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm
If the pendulum displays an anomalous motion,the first order of
business is to decide that it is a local occurence that has nothing to
do with the coriolis force which is often used to explain the workings
of the pendulum.
So,something is wrong with the gravitational agenda as obviously there
is some sort of localised shielding going on as the moon passes before
the Sun during the eclipse.The Earth's axial and orbital motions carry
on as usual but the disturbance in the motion of the pendulum should
tell you that something else is at work other than adhering to
gravitational principles affecting the Earth.
The whole idea is to become expansive and determine that the effects
on Foucault's pendulum have an astronomical origin with anomalies
emerging under rare conditions like the solar eclipse.On an almost
entirely different level,the tremendous rotational motion of the Earth
moving through an even greater variable orbital motion should generate
effects on an appropriate scale,in this case geological structure and
its evolution.
> > > It seems to me that it must have devastating consequences for the work
> that
> > > you've done so far.
> > >
> >
> > Too funny !,in an effort to argue against the effects of the singular
> > rotational motion of the Earth not to mention orbital motion on
> > crustal development you dump everything into the coriolis force.I
> > guess it is a step above a stationary Earth but I assure you it is not
> > by much.
> >
>
> I've asked Don to make an account of his application of torsion as it is a
> key element of his 'proof' of an expanding earth. He has delivered neither
> calculations nor pointers to where he gets the idea. The closest I figure
> is, that he doesn't know.
>
So,the option you take is to reduce everything to a stationary Earth
or appeal to the coriolis force as a weak reference to the Earth's
rotational effects.I genuinely respect that you wish to remain with
convective cells to accomplish crustal motion alone but that you
appear to argue against astronomical influences stemming from the
motions of the Earth is highly unusual.
> >
> >
> > > Letting a 1 kg rock raise 10 km up in the sky will give it (in it's new
> > > orbit) a velocity, v = 10x2Pi/24 per hour relative to the surface (=
> > > ((E_radius +
> > > 10) x 2Pi - E_radius x 2Pi)/24).
> > > If we in the same hour lets a force act on it, to give it an equel
> position
> > > as the point it started from - that is, to accelerate it, the
> acceleration
> > > would be 10 x 2Pi/24/1 = 2,618 km/hour^2 = 0,000202 m/s^2.
> > >
> >
> > Do you realise that Newton accounted for Kepler's orbital motion
> > alone and has nothing to say about constant axial rotation occuring
> > within variable orbital motion.If axial rotation is constant and
> > orbital motion varies you can bet that the combination of these
> > motions are a factor in the development of physical features.
> >
>
> So, provide the link between the observations that Don takes into account as
> an effect of torsion. I figured that any of you would have delivered some
> fair kind of documentation by now if there were any.
>
The only criteria for taking the Earth's motions into account as a
factor in geological evolution is to actually go outside,drop all
notions of the motion of the Sun and determine that the Earth is
turning and you are turning with it.
You want documentation and I will give you the most accurate picture
of the problem,too much focus on documentation and not enough
intuitive sense to go outside and see for yourselves before you
attempt to document anything.
http://www.mathsnet.net/campus/construction/images/newton.jpg
So,drop the theories for a while and become familiar with the works
which predate Newton's gravitational agenda such as Copernicus,Kepler
and Roemer.If you ever witness the great motions of the Earth's daily
rotation on its axis,around the Sun ( in principle) and around the
Milky Way axis (in principle) you will have an entirely different
perspective on things.
Copernicus and Kepler put weight behind what I attempt to discuss for
once you backslide into that odd combination of
heliocentricity/geocentricity upon which Newton based his
gravitational agenda,you can conjure up any force you like to explain
celestial motions and geological evolution.
"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic
times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions
of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have
determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the
mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but
insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part
fall in between them; as we may see from the following table."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
There is no necessity to go into details other than Newton's
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalencies will not help you in
determining what stresses act on the Earth's mantle and crust due to
axial and orbital motions.I have gone into detail before in
determining what influenced Newton's erroneous astronomical thinking
even as I recognise the benefits of making analogies with motions
within human experience.Too big a subject with too little effort given
to jettisoning the limited sidereal format by which Newton framed his
gravitational agenda on Kepler's insights.
You had your chance,go with the coriolis force as a counter argument
to surmount any rotational effect on the evolution of physical
features and it falls far short of what I would require.Don has a case
even as he admits to not being up to speed on astronomical matters but
certainly it is bewildering that an enormous linkage between
astronomical motions of the Earth and the motions which generate
physical features is actively abhored.
Whatever good has come from plate tectonics so far, and indeed I enjoy
it, there has to be something far greater than convective cells to
cause the evolution of physical features.The natural progression
should be to consider what is at work astronomically insofar as
terrestial motion and astronomical motion is the same thing but the
absense of discussion on this matter is notable for its absense than
presence within geology.
don findlay
> I've started out with two comments *1) and *2) that favorably can be read in
> ordered succession before
>
> >
> > You have also been forced to accept that this
> > > 'subducted/crossed thing' is somewhere of very consideral extend.
The most substantail override is the Eastern Pacific, where the
Americas are overriding.
> I went to look as you by no standard known to me make any sense.
>
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/transforms.html#template
>
> I seem to grasp from your figure that growth of plate not only happens in an
> ordered fashion in a direction perpendicular to the spreadingzone
> (registered in remanent magnetism) but also at an 90 degree angle to this,
> along the spreadingzone itself?
That's right; The "propagating rifts" "duelling propagators" of the
consensus - though they have no real explanation how to accommodate
these in the convection model of plate tectonics. It just causes
problems for them.
Your point A expands in two directions (fig.
> 2b). This direction of expansion (along the spredingridge) is invalid as it
> is not expressed in the magnetic signature.
Yes it is. The magnetics of the ocean floor are a fact. Yes, the
detail in the gravity suggests the contouring could propably do with a
complete overhaul but the gist is fine to make the point: what you see
(what you get) is the summation of expansion in ALL directions; it
just so happens that the configuration is 'mastered' by the symmetry
of the fracture pattern - ridge and transforms and layering. Three
sides of a brick.
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/brick.jpg>
> The stepped offset (which is your 3. law of EE) is depicted in the figure
> 2d. You do not comment any relation between the other drawings and these
> stepped offsets and they have no apparent relation to the structuring that
> you elaborate upon. Or to use your own words: Logical non sequitur.
Fair go Carsten. Sure I do. I don't think you can fault my
figures for not being cross-linked enough. Follow the figure link
(for example) to the Pacific
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/pacific.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/apocalypse.html
The stepped offsets are pretty obvious ("No new data" - just ignored
in plate tectonics). If the tranforms don't make it to the
continental margins, what logic is there in 'subduction'?
> > Ok,
> > admittedly I've used 'torsion' to express this growth, because it's
> > longwinded to keep reminding folk that it's the way that torsion is
> > taken up in expansion. Nothing of the mantle [expansion] is really
> > 'twisting'; it just grows that way. But a lot in the crust is
> > twisting, spinning out, opening up, ...like a Chinese fan, ..but
> > with some exceptions) it is by-and-large flat.
>
> *2) There is one difference in PT's using 'subduction' and EE's using 'spin'
> or 'torsional' growth. You accept that there mechanically is no difference
> between overriding and subduction. I, however, notice a huge gab between
> 'spin' or 'torsional' as complex terms of movement and it's association to
> 'growth'. That torsion manifests itself in rockstructure (and I'm no less
> void of fantasy that I cannot imagine) is no warrent, what so ever, for, or
> indication of growth of any kind.
That's right. the most noticeable effects of torsion are in the
continental crust, due to decoupling from the mantle and (as I predict
it will be recognised) adjusting to the tilt of the Earth's rotational
axis. The mantle has largely growth (there are also torsions), but
the trace of that growth records that incremental change of axial tilt
as the Earth's surface grows upwards. (Crustal torsions are on
'flats' associated with decoupling; mantle 'twist/torsion' is on
transforms
> It's difficult to imagine that some differentiated movement or growth of
> ocean plates
> has not happened, but it's byond me why it should be in any contrast to PT.
> To take it as the main 'proof' of EE is ridiculous.
The main proof of Earth Expansion lies in the deficit that plate
tectonics ignores - Along-ridge spreading. Plate tectonics recognises
the extra length of the ridges relative to the continental margins,
but cannot accommodate it in its model ("propagating ridges" "ridge
propagation"). But you won't find much explanation how to accommodate
it in the cycle of ridge - subduction. Look at the difference in
length of the ridges compared to their continental equivalents. Of
course the ridges have grown along their length. The architecture of
that growth is shown in the stepped offsetting of ridge terminations
(ignored in plate tectonics), which proves the direction of growth is
**RIDGE-AWAY-FROM-THE-CONTINENTS** Not the other way round. [Plate
tectonics glosses over this as merely a question of relativism, but
it's not] And the only way this can happen is if the ridges move up
- and keep moving up - that ridge, which at any snapshot in time
shows, is a ridge - is moving up. UP. What's ridiculous about it
Carsten? It's obvious: Ridge. *UP* actually means 'up'. Why do you
want to keep shoving it sideways, through a bend that is a knife-edge
90 degrees 'dykes' on the ocean floor)? There's nothing 'dyke' about
the ocean floors (feeding what?):-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/ridgegrowth.html#ridgepic
> > > Face PT!
> >
> > What? ...The PURPLE WHORE OF BABYLON?? I would sooner face a question
> > from Stuart!
> >
> >
> > > The growth of the Cocos plate should, I suppose, show the extensional
> > > structures - but it shows compression/convergence! Where did it grow to
> > > provide the override?
> >
> > I keep telling you, "Plates" are not a valid concept. Any plate you
> > can think of, either the plate doesn't move, just the material cycling
> > through them.
>
> Talking about absurdities...
>
> > The 'plate' stays put. It's just the material cycling
> > through it goes down the gurgler. Like a ghost going through walls.
> > OR, ...it grows (Africa). What do you keep going on about the cocos
> > plate for anyway?
>
> It's the only online seismic evidence I can find.
Funny, isn't it? - Thousands and thousands of picturess of "bending
down" according to Earthquakes..and when you look at the actual
seismic, it's not there. In fact the reflectors actually rise into
the overthrust. It's the classic legerdemain of plate tectonics -
"Now you see it, now you don't". But if you behave yourself, don't go
through red traffic lights, and are au fait with the 'language',
you're left in no doubt what you're *supposed* to be looking at.
> It's as close as you get
> to real geology and not an interpretation sketched in a model.
"Interpretation sketched in a model"? You mean all those plate
tectonics pics (if you google up images for "plate tectonics" or
'subduction') are not? Whew! it's good to know there's one real
bit of geology on the net that is said to support subduction (even
though it actually doesn't).
> It doesn't bother you that Asia 'overriding' in the wrong direction
> according to torsional direction and tilt of your diapire?
It's not. (Scale again )
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/geobubble.html> Movement on the
Western Pacific is largely in keeping with the northeasterly opening
of the back-arc basins, the torsional opening of the northeastern
Asian Landmass, and the severance of Alaska. You're just looking at a
bit of mantle collapse ('settling') against the continent. The real
global motion today is pivoted about the north pole, with the
Americas, the Atlantic and much of Africa/ Eurasia being dragged
(sorry, ..lagging) over the Pacific (link above Fig.3). (You could
look at the western Pacific margin as also reflecting that lag - a
*bit.)
> > How can this be? (Logical non sequitur).
>
> You obviously prefer to deal with the long-term perspectives of geology,
> palćogeographic reconstruction of a very live world. We confront you with
> the present state of dynamic and you answer that there is no logical
> connection to the subject if I get your 'Logical non sequitur' right.
I'm just wondering now then if you meant it to read:- "All the action
is focussed on these parts and you (meaning me) neglect that anything
is going on" or " You (meaning me) focus all the action on these
parts, ..and you (meaning me) neglect that anything is going on".
I don't neglect anything, though I will say it's a long job writing it
all up, and there are other things I want to do. There's decades of
writing up in it, for a lot of people, but it would need to be very
strategically done to weasel it past "George". The data is already
there to do that, but that 'George' is a many headed hydra, and it is
not a question of data. It's a question of consensus agreement. The
two must go hand in hand, or you might as well not bother.
All I hope I'm doing is helping people to look at things a bit
differently. To 'see it'. They'll be able to find the holes in the
arguments most familar to them that they can build on. 50 years of
plate tectonics has contributed virtually *nothing* to understanding
global geology. Strong words? Things are virtually as they were at
right from the beginning. The tools have just allowed things to be
defined a bit better, but that's all.
> > > You are not facing the evidence and you'r ready to
> > > digest any row of absurde consequences that follows.
> > >
> > > How come you use tomography on your own pages?
Not at all. I used Malcolm's because it goes on a sphere, and can be
integrated with other data sets. All these little sectional stills
tell us nothing about "moving down". I can use them just as easily.
(Time/ space/ etc.). But they don['t support what I'm saying any more
than they support what you're saying. It's a question of
*integration*/ the bigger picture.
Well you'd better. It might not violate your intuition, but it
violates the facts! Because once you get past the short 'active' bit
at the ridge, there are no more strips. It's all one great big bloody
'plate' (the entire mantle of the Earth) to shove holus-bolus down a
subduction zone - *somewhere* - though where is a problem for more
than half the world, as is *rate* of shoving down. Forget the
"strips". Check the significance of "strips" here
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/cards.html#notorsion
They only extend as far as the little jagged bits at the ridge.
Beyond that, they are strips no more, but part of one great big
thumping plate. I bet you didn't think of it like that. I bet you
think there are lots of plates, with transforms making up an active
'moving past' / grinding margin.
> You keep refering to a mantle-break-through that covers the Pacific. The
> only evidence for breaking through is at the spreadingridges and the
> magnetic contouring puts a kronology into it.
Yes, ..but the evidence for it *keep* breaking through (growing) lies
in that 'magnetic contouring' that goes right back to the continental
margins *AND* in the transform offsets (terminations - not at the
ridge)
> If the plates don't move, the mantlegrowth/earthgrowth happens in the
> angular slice of the earth, or volumetrically sideways, and records this
> dynamic in the magnetic contouring.
Yes, The 'plates' don't move, they *GROW* in the direction of the
RIDGE. (away from the continents) Once the continent splits open.
>
> > Anyone knows
> > that. ('Cept George, to whom this straightness makes perfect sense)
> > It is part of the reason people are in awe of plate tectonics. "You
> > mean can it really *DO* that? Keep everything straight like that?"
> > "Oh yes, obviously it must. They are straight, so it must. Plate
> > tectonics is the greatest thing since sliced Bread."
>
> > It's Bullshit
> > Carsten, even a child can see that, when it comes to transforms
> > staying straight, both in the fault and the fracture zones.
>
> *1) I have never left anything unexplainable to a child. I started out with
> a boiling pot for a pointer to convective cells,
J.F Moyen set me straight long ago on the plate tectonics' view of
convection cells vitually in reply to my first post. He put it in
capital letters with marching ants "CONVECTING CELLS DON'T EXIST".
(Stuart had something to say about that - I forget what)
> use straight physics all
> the way from condensation (cooling) of our solarsystem over surfacegeology
> to a few inferences of the obvious principle (cooling) by geophysics
> (seismics and tomography).
And DAH's recent post on the fundamentals of physics puts that in its
place right away.
> It occurs to me that you start out with a principle of expansion,
You won't believe this, but I started out with the connection between
mountain belts and boudinage. Mind you, I've modified/ adapted things
along the way, but it has proved a good working template. ( Takes you
in only one direction though.) I mean by that I'm not following any
'creed' of anyone else's. Expansion is the way that global geology
makes sense to me, and all the sheckels are still tumbling out. It's
a fascinating thing, this difference between opposite sides of the
glass, that you'd swear should be transparent, but isn't.
> put your
> main observations on tomography and explain surfacegeology from there with
> the addition of mechanical functions who's details you omit.
> I don't see anywhere that you involve factual surfacegeology except for the
> oceanic-plate maps, so look at *2).
I think I do, with a broad brush. The detail, which I think is what
you want, is the domain of armies, and decades. What we're doing
here, geologically speaking, is pressing the reset button. But as
you can see, there are no marks for doing it, when the machine is
working nicely, and smoothly, 24 hours a day, with no maintenance
needed.
> I have been involved in reconstruction
> of palaeogeology and it's second to impossible to get reliable results (in a
> regional area) unless you are a pro. Noone can blame you for putting a
> question to it. But from there to offer your own plan that reverses most
> known physics brings you nowhere.
I don't know if it reverses physics. DAH had a comment about first
principles on that score <refe4ence> and I must say, mostly I just see
mystery, in all the stuff they claim as 'understanding'.
> You have no chance anywere to explain your principle of expansion without
> hitting a malstroem of absurdities. IMO.
200%. This is exactly in the nature of paradigm change - that what
will become the foundation of the new paradigm, does, before the
change, seem so absurd. With time it will be exactly these
absurdities that people will embrace, and wonder how it could have
possibly been otherwise, how people could see them any other way than
the perfect logic that they indeed are: the Earth has got bigger by
the amount of the ocean floors. There never was a Panthalassa.
That's all there is to it. See it for what it is. All the
complication is finagling. As you said, "an idiot can see". You
need to address the question why you think otherwise perhaps, before
you can go forward, for the reasons you do, are not geological. You
need to address the *STRUCTURE* of the plate tectonic argument.
> > > You havn't proven to me that you are talking about 'real geology'. The
> model
> > > of the following link (it's one of a row of the kind) is build upon
> > > observation and data. Have you looked at this or do you dismiss the
> model as
> > > a principle?
> > >
> > > > > http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html
> >
> > I'll need to look at the link, but no I don't disregard it. I think
> > Earth expansion provides a far better explanation of Himalayan data
> > I've seen
>
> Can you provide the data and your interpretation?
Again, ..long job, ..armies. Other things. ..It's there in the big
picture. The detail is "washing up"/ filing away the detail.
> > than anything plate tectonics can deliver, once you 'translate' all
> > the jargon about microplates, and allow for the slices of mantle going
> > the wrong way.
> > and the notion of "far field tectonics" bred of the
> > notion of India 'colliding with Asia and causing all the deformation
> > as far as the Kamchatka Peninsula. (Why, ... even pushing the
> > Kuriles over the subduction zone there....)
>
> It's not the plate that's pushing. If mantleconvection from south dives it
> could well be expected to be synchronized with an equel dive or orientation
> of a neighbouring convection (counterclockwise from north). My speculation.
What? More speculation? You'll be suggesting *TWO* panthalassas next!
And why not. If you've got one,. why not two? (Three even). Also,
it's very economical since only the same logic is needed, not twice or
three times as much. (By which I mean that is precisely the basis of
plate tectonics - 'if' and 'could' - speculation of a Panthalassa)
>
> > >
> > > snip
Carsten Troelsgaard
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:273f8e06.04071...@posting.google.com...
> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
snip
> Don has a case
> even as he admits to not being up to speed on astronomical matters
Consequently he cannot take a screw-like structuring of the earth as a
primary 'evidence' for expansion.
> but
> certainly it is bewildering that an enormous linkage between
> astronomical motions of the Earth and the motions which generate
> physical features is actively abhored.
>
> Whatever good has come from plate tectonics so far, and indeed I enjoy
> it, there has to be something far greater than convective cells to
> cause the evolution of physical features.
And you cannot help him.
Carsten Troelsgaard
news:<40f1359a$0$161$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
> > I've started out with two comments *1) and *2) that favorably can be
read in
> > ordered succession before
> >
>
> > >
> > > You have also been forced to accept that this
> > > > 'subducted/crossed thing' is somewhere of very consideral extend.
>
> The most substantail override is the Eastern Pacific, where the
> Americas are overriding.
If you do not acknowledge atleast 200 miles of 'override' at the
northwestern Pacific then take out your own references to tomography out.
Ok, so this is another kind of override.
> > I went to look as you by no standard known to me make any sense.
> >
> > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/transforms.html#template
> >
> > I seem to grasp from your figure that growth of plate not only happens
in an
> > ordered fashion in a direction perpendicular to the spreadingzone
> > (registered in remanent magnetism) but also at an 90 degree angle to
this,
> > along the spreadingzone itself?
>
> That's right; The "propagating rifts" "duelling propagators" of the
> consensus - though they have no real explanation how to accommodate
> these in the convection model of plate tectonics. It just causes
> problems for them.
>
>
> Your point A expands in two directions (fig.
> > 2b). This direction of expansion (along the spredingridge) is invalid as
it
> > is not expressed in the magnetic signature.
>
> Yes it is.
Show me.
> The magnetics of the ocean floor are a fact. Yes, the
> detail in the gravity suggests the contouring could propably do with a
> complete overhaul
like physics
> but the gist is fine to make the point: what you see
> (what you get) is the summation of expansion in ALL directions; it
> just so happens that the configuration is 'mastered' by the symmetry
> of the fracture pattern - ridge and transforms and layering. Three
> sides of a brick.
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/brick.jpg>
>
> > The stepped offset (which is your 3. law of EE) is depicted in the
figure
> > 2d. You do not comment any relation between the other drawings and these
> > stepped offsets and they have no apparent relation to the structuring
that
> > you elaborate upon. Or to use your own words: Logical non sequitur.
>
> Fair go Carsten. Sure I do. I don't think you can fault my
> figures for not being cross-linked enough. Follow the figure link
> (for example) to the Pacific
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/pacific.html
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/apocalypse.html
> The stepped offsets are pretty obvious ("No new data" - just ignored
> in plate tectonics). If the tranforms don't make it to the
> continental margins, what logic is there in 'subduction'?
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~dallas/abbott_int.html
Furthermore, if the transforms ajust to the growing curvature of the globe,
it occurs to me that the oldest part of the plates has the largest
curvature-ajustment needed. They are however those with the least amount of
transforms.
You stress this occurence as a vital observation to your theory of
expansion. Havn't you said somewhere, that EE has no issue with PT if it
wasn't for subduction. If this really is of vital significanse to EE you
fail to get your message through. As with the physics and the torsion.
I contributed a calculation. Do yours. Prove to us, that the precessional
tilt of the earth's axis has a greater mechanical influence on the
surface-structure, than the daily orbital motion. Remember, your 'override'
is the most active zone of earth surface.
> > It's difficult to imagine that some differentiated movement or growth of
> > ocean plates
> > has not happened, but it's byond me why it should be in any contrast to
PT.
> > To take it as the main 'proof' of EE is ridiculous.
>
> The main proof of Earth Expansion lies in the deficit that plate
> tectonics ignores - Along-ridge spreading.
That, inspite of your insurance, does not manifest itself in the magnetic
contours.
> Plate tectonics recognises
> the extra length of the ridges relative to the continental margins,
> but cannot accommodate it in its model ("propagating ridges" "ridge
> propagation").
You use the PT model of propagation. There is no hint of expansion in it.
> But you won't find much explanation how to accommodate
> it in the cycle of ridge - subduction. Look at the difference in
> length of the ridges compared to their continental equivalents. Of
> course the ridges have grown along their length. The architecture of
> that growth is shown in the stepped offsetting of ridge terminations
> (ignored in plate tectonics), which proves the direction of growth is
> **RIDGE-AWAY-FROM-THE-CONTINENTS**
You fail to deliver logic.
Your local growing mountain doesn't seem to have a welldefined sharp ridge.
> Not the other way round. [Plate
> tectonics glosses over this as merely a question of relativism, but
> it's not] And the only way this can happen is if the ridges move up
> - and keep moving up - that ridge, which at any snapshot in time
> shows, is a ridge - is moving up. UP. What's ridiculous about it
> Carsten? It's obvious: Ridge. *UP* actually means 'up'. Why do you
> want to keep shoving it sideways
And it is the mantle that slides sideways? You do recognize that the globe
is not 200 km high at the spreadingzone.
If an expanding earth is covering one third of the surface of the globe by a
diapire ... how is it related to the local diapire at 'the ridge'?
>, through a bend that is a knife-edge
> 90 degrees 'dykes' on the ocean floor)? There's nothing 'dyke' about
> the ocean floors (feeding what?):-
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/ridgegrowth.html#ridgepic
>
>
> > > > Face PT!
> > >
> > > What? ...The PURPLE WHORE OF BABYLON?? I would sooner face a question
> > > from Stuart!
> > >
> > >
> > > > The growth of the Cocos plate should, I suppose, show the
extensional
> > > > structures - but it shows compression/convergence! Where did it grow
to
> > > > provide the override?
> > >
> > > I keep telling you, "Plates" are not a valid concept. Any plate you
> > > can think of, either the plate doesn't move, just the material cycling
> > > through them.
> >
> > Talking about absurdities...
> >
> > > The 'plate' stays put. It's just the material cycling
> > > through it goes down the gurgler. Like a ghost going through walls.
> > > OR, ...it grows (Africa). What do you keep going on about the cocos
> > > plate for anyway?
> >
> > It's the only online seismic evidence I can find.
>
> Funny, isn't it? - Thousands and thousands of picturess of "bending
> down" according to Earthquakes..and when you look at the actual
> seismic, it's not there.
Should I spend money on getting it, to convert you?
Why don't you end the discussion by providing a deep seismic section that
shows the lack of it.
> In fact the reflectors actually rise into
> the overthrust.
You should use a real pointer.
> It's the classic legerdemain of plate tectonics -
> "Now you see it, now you don't". But if you behave yourself, don't go
> through red traffic lights, and are au fait with the 'language',
> you're left in no doubt what you're *supposed* to be looking at.
>
> > It's as close as you get
> > to real geology and not an interpretation sketched in a model.
>
> "Interpretation sketched in a model"? You mean all those plate
> tectonics pics (if you google up images for "plate tectonics" or
> 'subduction') are not? Whew! it's good to know there's one real
> bit of geology on the net that is said to support subduction (even
> though it actually doesn't).
>
>
> > It doesn't bother you that Asia 'overriding' in the wrong direction
> > according to torsional direction and tilt of your diapire?
>
> It's not.
> (Scale again )
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/geobubble.html> Movement on the
> Western Pacific is largely in keeping with the northeasterly opening
> of the back-arc basins, the torsional opening of the northeastern
> Asian Landmass, and the severance of Alaska. You're just looking at a
> bit of mantle collapse
A collaps and slush off that does not reveal the 'real thing' beneath
> ('settling') against the continent. The real
> global motion
According to what mechanical principles?
> today is pivoted about the north pole, with the
> Americas, the Atlantic and much of Africa/ Eurasia being dragged
> (sorry, ..lagging) over the Pacific (link above Fig.3). (You could
> look at the western Pacific margin as also reflecting that lag - a
> *bit.)
>
>
> > > How can this be? (Logical non sequitur).
> >
> > You obviously prefer to deal with the long-term perspectives of geology,
> > palćogeographic reconstruction of a very live world. We confront you
with
> > the present state of dynamic and you answer that there is no logical
> > connection to the subject if I get your 'Logical non sequitur' right.
>
> I'm just wondering now then if you meant it to read:- "All the action
> is focussed on these parts and you (meaning me) neglect that anything
> is going on"
yes
or " You (meaning me) focus all the action on these
> parts, ..and you (meaning me) neglect that anything is going on".
>
> I don't neglect anything, though I will say it's a long job writing it
> all up, and there are other things I want to do. There's decades of
> writing up in it, for a lot of people, but it would need to be very
> strategically done to weasel it past "George". The data is already
> there to do that, but that 'George' is a many headed hydra, and it is
> not a question of data. It's a question of consensus agreement. The
> two must go hand in hand, or you might as well not bother.
>
> All I hope I'm doing is helping people to look at things a bit
> differently. To 'see it'.
You managed to provide a vision that the world is screwd up.
And still ignore that structural activity is focussed in spreading and
subduction zones. The 'slush off' is very active and should be accompanied
by an equel activity of 'upward growing' and reveal considerable stretches
of exposed mantle or 'grown up stuff' that, unfortunately to your theory,
does not exist.
> They'll be able to find the holes in the
> arguments most familar to them that they can build on. 50 years of
> plate tectonics has contributed virtually *nothing* to understanding
> global geology.
> Strong words? Things are virtually as they were at
> right from the beginning. The tools have just allowed things to be
> defined a bit better, but that's all.
> > > > You are not facing the evidence and you'r ready to
> > > > digest any row of absurde consequences that follows.
> > > >
> > > > How come you use tomography on your own pages?
>
> Not at all. I used Malcolm's because it goes on a sphere, and can be
> integrated with other data sets. All these little sectional stills
> tell us nothing about "moving down".
You've made your point on subduction/overriding.
You deleted my point made on the tomography based on the quality of the
data - yet you keep using tomography yourself.
I pointed out to you that ajusting to a growing curvature would make the
cracks propagate away from the ridge and proliferate in that direction.
There is several points to "J.F Moyen" on a google. Does he have an english
one dealing with the problem?
> > use straight physics all
> > the way from condensation (cooling) of our solarsystem over
surfacegeology
> > to a few inferences of the obvious principle (cooling) by geophysics
> > (seismics and tomography).
>
> And DAH's recent post on the fundamentals of physics puts that in its
> place right away.
>
>
> > It occurs to me that you start out with a principle of expansion,
>
> You won't believe this, but I started out with the connection between
> mountain belts and boudinage. Mind you, I've modified/ adapted things
> along the way, but it has proved a good working template. ( Takes you
> in only one direction though.) I mean by that I'm not following any
> 'creed' of anyone else's. Expansion is the way that global geology
> makes sense to me, and all the sheckels are still tumbling out. It's
> a fascinating thing, this difference between opposite sides of the
> glass, that you'd swear should be transparent, but isn't.
>
>
> > put your
> > main observations on tomography and explain surfacegeology from there
with
> > the addition of mechanical functions who's details you omit.
> > I don't see anywhere that you involve factual surfacegeology except for
the
> > oceanic-plate maps, so look at *2).
>
> I think I do, with a broad brush.
PT stacks crust through compression. You have not applied factual geology to
your model of this.
> The detail, which I think is what
> you want, is the domain of armies, and decades. What we're doing
> here, geologically speaking, is pressing the reset button.
> But as
> you can see, there are no marks for doing it, when the machine is
> working nicely, and smoothly, 24 hours a day, with no maintenance
> needed.
>
> > I have been involved in reconstruction
> > of palaeogeology and it's second to impossible to get reliable results
(in a
> > regional area) unless you are a pro. Noone can blame you for putting a
> > question to it. But from there to offer your own plan that reverses most
> > known physics brings you nowhere.
>
> I don't know if it reverses physics. DAH had a comment about first
> principles on that score <refe4ence> and I must say, mostly I just see
> mystery, in all the stuff they claim as 'understanding'.
So do I. That's a good start for learning geology.
> > You have no chance anywere to explain your principle of expansion
without
> > hitting a malstroem of absurdities. IMO.
>
> 200%. This is exactly in the nature of paradigm change
Find something solid for your paradigmeshift.
In other words, when you say that your model of a regional geology is
better, you don't base your evaluation on achtual geological data.
don findlay
Tut tut, Carsten, these are not answers. What are you saying about
coriolis anyway? Are you for it or against it?
Oriel36
> "Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:273f8e06.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:<40f44f7f$0$284
>
> snip
>
> > Don has a case
> > even as he admits to not being up to speed on astronomical matters
>
> Consequently he cannot take a screw-like structuring of the earth as a
> primary 'evidence' for expansion.
>
There is plenty of room for a hybrid version of PT and Earth expansion
although it would be proper to phrase it as crustal expansion.The
development of crust from the denser material of the mantle would
certainly show up in the increasing girth of the planet but this is a
matter for geologists.Basically,the mass of the planet remains more
or less constant but the transfer of material from the mantle to the
crust may go a long way to conditioning an approach that is less
contentious to work with.
> > but
> > certainly it is bewildering that an enormous linkage between
> > astronomical motions of the Earth and the motions which generate
> > physical features is actively abhored.
> >
> > Whatever good has come from plate tectonics so far, and indeed I enjoy
> > it, there has to be something far greater than convective cells to
> > cause the evolution of physical features.
>
> And you cannot help him.
>
No offense but despite the awkward phrasing as 'Earth expansion'
rather the crustal expansion I see no reason but to assimilate the
transfer of denser material in the mantle to the lighter material
which constitutes the crust and from there on in to plate movement (
which I learned as continental drift).Again,I do not pretend to be a
geologist but surely if crust is being created since the evolution of
the planet many billions of years ago and continues to be created,even
in the absense of astronomical factors of planetary motion,there must
be grounds for discussion rather than outright contention.
Carsten Troelsgaard
Don has a preference for adding twist or torque as a premis for
understanding expansion. Neglecting to make an account of it makes Dons
representation of the idea without contents.
don findlay
> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:5f164087.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:<40f1359a$0$161$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
> > > I've started out with two comments *1) and *2) that favorably can be
> read in
> > > ordered succession before
> > >
>
> > > >
> > > > You have also been forced to accept that this
> > > > > 'subducted/crossed thing' is somewhere of very consideral extend.
> >
> > The most substantail override is the Eastern Pacific, where the
> > Americas are overriding.
>
> If you do not acknowledge atleast 200 miles of 'override' at the
> northwestern Pacific then take out your own references to tomography out.
> Ok, so this is another kind of override.
Not sure what you mean here.
> > > I went to look as you by no standard known to me make any sense.
> > >
> > > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/transforms.html#template
> > >
> > > I seem to grasp from your figure that growth of plate not only happens
> in an
> > > ordered fashion in a direction perpendicular to the spreadingzone
> > > (registered in remanent magnetism) but also at an 90 degree angle to
> this,
> > > along the spreadingzone itself?
> >
> > That's right; The "propagating rifts" "duelling propagators" of the
> > consensus - though they have no real explanation how to accommodate
> > these in the convection model of plate tectonics. It just causes
> > problems for them.
> >
> >
> > Your point A expands in two directions (fig.
> > > 2b). This direction of expansion (along the spredingridge) is invalid as
> it
> > > is not expressed in the magnetic signature.
> >
> > Yes it is.
>
> Show me.
I mean that that area of the ocean floor expresses growth (as does all
the ocean floor). Therefore the magnetics express that growth. Proof
for growth comes from the larger scale, not from anything intrisically
'magnetic' - other
than the +ve and -ve striping.
> > The magnetics of the ocean floor are a fact. Yes, the
> > detail in the gravity suggests the contouring could propably do with a
> > complete overhaul
>
> like physics
I do believe there is an opinion so. But physics 'works' (mostly),
... you know, 24 hours a day (without maintenance). (If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.)
>
> > but the gist is fine to make the point: what you see
> > (what you get) is the summation of expansion in ALL directions; it
> > just so happens that the configuration is 'mastered' by the symmetry
> > of the fracture pattern - ridge and transforms and layering. Three
> > sides of a brick.
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/brick.jpg>
> >
> > > The stepped offset (which is your 3. law of EE) is depicted in the
> figure
> > > 2d. You do not comment any relation between the other drawings and these
> > > stepped offsets and they have no apparent relation to the structuring
> that
> > > you elaborate upon. Or to use your own words: Logical non sequitur.
> >
> > Fair go Carsten. Sure I do. I don't think you can fault my
> > figures for not being cross-linked enough. Follow the figure link
> > (for example) to the Pacific
> > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/pacific.html
> > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/apocalypse.html
> > The stepped offsets are pretty obvious ("No new data" - just ignored
> > in plate tectonics). If the tranforms don't make it to the
> > continental margins, what logic is there in 'subduction'?
>
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~dallas/abbott_int.html
I don't see the word 'transform' in the clip. (I'm talking about the
transforms and their relation to subduction zones.)
> Furthermore, if the transforms ajust to the growing curvature of the globe,
> it occurs to me that the oldest part of the plates has the largest
> curvature-ajustment needed. They are however those with the least amount of
> transforms.
Transforms form as an adjustment to the growth at the ridge. They
'die' once they are left behind as the ridge grows up. They will not
increase in number away from the ridge. But they will continue to
adjust. Which, as growth normal faults, they do. (Check out how wide
the fracture zones are in the North Pacific compared to the later ones
in the South Pacific.) And note in the passing that 'single'
transform fractures globally are commonly not single, but 'paired'.
Plate tectonics has no answer to either aspect of transforms. (And
Yes, expansion does)
> You stress this occurence as a vital observation to your theory of
> expansion. Havn't you said somewhere, that EE has no issue with PT if it
> wasn't for subduction. If this really is of vital significanse to EE you
> fail to get your message through. As with the physics and the torsion.
The assumption of a Panthalassa, and "Since the Earth cannot be
getting bigger", are both pretty impenetrable aspects of consensus, I
grant you. It takes a certain dash, a certain 'panache' (I'm
surprised The Guapo isn't in on this), a certain self-confident
suavity to question the consensus, ...or perhpas just a childlike
curiosity, and a real interest in wanting to know.
Yes, but you didn't state what your calculation was trying to show,
whether coriolis could or couldn't work, or whether it was a valid
consideration in the first place. You didn't make clear where you
were coming from. Are you 'glass' or 'mirror'?
> > > It's difficult to imagine that some differentiated movement or growth of
> > > ocean plates
> > > has not happened, but it's byond me why it should be in any contrast to
> PT.
> > > To take it as the main 'proof' of EE is ridiculous.
> >
> > The main proof of Earth Expansion lies in the deficit that plate
> > tectonics ignores - Along-ridge spreading.
>
> That, inspite of your insurance, does not manifest itself in the magnetic
> contours.
By definition it must. (Growth does not take place in the
transforms). It is however implied in the orthogonal 'network' of
ocean floor gravity.
> > Plate tectonics recognises
> > the extra length of the ridges relative to the continental margins,
> > but cannot accommodate it in its model ("propagating ridges" "ridge
> > propagation").
>
> You use the PT model of propagation. There is no hint of expansion in it.
No, I don't. I used the plate tectonic words as reflections in the
mirror. The ridges don't 'propagate' from their ends; they get
bigger in the middle, and finally break in the middle.
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/transpropind.html> And yes there
is expansion in it. But read any of the popular sites on plate
tectonics and you will find no mention of it. Because this is one of
those 'splintery knobbly bits' that refuse to fit, that is an area
requiring "more research". Pteros can't accommodate their own
observation in their own model. (Oh so the model needs shifting; we
can be even cleverer if we show how)
> > But you won't find much explanation how to accommodate
> > it in the cycle of ridge - subduction. Look at the difference in
> > length of the ridges compared to their continental equivalents. Of
> > course the ridges have grown along their length. The architecture of
> > that growth is shown in the stepped offsetting of ridge terminations
> > (ignored in plate tectonics), which proves the direction of growth is
> > **RIDGE-AWAY-FROM-THE-CONTINENTS**
>
> You fail to deliver logic.
It's a simple observation that the African 'plate' margin is bigger
around its perimeter than the African continental margin, and I'll
agree a modicum of logic is required to infer that they were once one
and the same thing. But I wouldn't have thought it much. Are you
saying it's not a logical inference?
> Your local growing mountain doesn't seem to have a welldefined sharp ridge.
Do you mean Plate tectonics' sharp ridge is sharper than Earth
expansion's sharp ridge? (Same ridge.)
>
> > Not the other way round. [Plate
> > tectonics glosses over this as merely a question of relativism, but
> > it's not] And the only way this can happen is if the ridges move up
> > - and keep moving up - that ridge, which at any snapshot in time
> > shows, is a ridge - is moving up. UP. What's ridiculous about it
> > Carsten? It's obvious: Ridge. *UP* actually means 'up'. Why do you
> > want to keep shoving it sideways
>
> And it is the mantle that slides sideways? You do recognize that the globe
> is not 200 km high at the spreading zone.
You don't do it justice Carsten, it's more like 2,000km. (But gravity
is a wonderful thing). Look, ..you're happy enough to use gravity as
a means to buoyancy, why are you not happy to use its effect directly?
And you talk about coriolis, why are you not happy to use rotation
directly? What is it about this ridge that keeps moving up, that you
want to be keep turning it through 90 degrees? You didn't answer
either what all these "dykes intruding the ridge" are supposed to be
feeding. What about it? How do you see it?
> If an expanding earth is covering one third of the surface of the globe by a
> diapire ... how is it related to the local diapire at 'the ridge'?
Well, it grows, grows, ..keeps growing, ..to make that big circular
thing called the Pacific. If subduction worked the way you want, the
Pacific would never open. Nor would the Atlantic. Nor the Indian/
antarctic oceans. As soon as opening cranks up, subduction would
accommodate it. So, ...now,.. you explain your logic (of Panthalassic
proportions). (And leave out the hocus pocus of intuition.)
(Gotcha!)
> Should I spend money on getting it, to convert you?
> Why don't you end the discussion by providing a deep seismic section that
> shows the lack of it.
Well I could repeat the link you posted with the section of the
Kuriles, showing how it all turns flat (instead of bending down), but
I think the tomography shows it generally. Goodness, it's (the
so-called subduction zone) it's only defining the edge of the
lithosphere, ...which is regarded as basically 'crustal' How is
that proof of "bending down into the mantle"? The 'ghost droppers'
you see are simply bits that get left behind in the growth -
'palimpsests' - like in two dimensions a ridge is a palimpsest of a
continental margin.
> > In fact the reflectors actually rise into
> > the overthrust.
>
> You should use a real pointer.
No, ..if you want to illustrate subduction you should use something
that shows bending down, not something that shows overriding (or
bending under). I don;'t want to illustrate subduction. I want to
illustrate overriding, and the sections you have posted thus far of
the cocos, himalyas and kuriles all illustrate it nicely.
> A collaps and slush off that does not reveal the 'real thing' beneath
'real thing' = the Pacific. What do you mean it is "not revealed"?
> > ('settling') against the continent. The real
> > global motion
>
> According to what mechanical principles?
The rotation of the Earth. I don't rightly know what physical
principle this reflects. Some would say conservation of angular
momentum of planetisimal accretion (but I find that difficult)
> > All I hope I'm doing is helping people to look at things a bit
> > differently. To 'see it'.
>
> You managed to provide a vision that the world is screwed up.
No no no no, ..Just Pteros that are screwed up... The world is
behaving exactly as it should.
> And still ignore that structural activity is focussed in spreading and
> subduction zones.
I don;'t know why you keep saying this. My whole site is all about
how spreading ridges and subduction zones and transforms form. Do
the google search and see if you don't believe me (google believes me)
> The 'slush off' is very active and should be accompanied
> by an equel activity of 'upward growing' and reveal considerable stretches
> of exposed mantle or 'grown up stuff' that, unfortunately to your theory,
> does not exist.
No the "slush-off" is dead; kaput (mostly), left behind. (mountain
belts on the continents that are now being worn away) According to
my "theory" (it's not a theory, it's a fact) the 'upward growing' is
the ocean floors. Why do you keep inverting this? What is it about
what I;'m saying that is going past you? What you see is what you
get. It's simple. Ridges, growth, ocean floors, ... You have to
believe the evidence of your own eyes before you accept your
'intuition'
> > They'll be able to find the holes in the
> > arguments most familar to them that they can build on. 50 years of
> > plate tectonics has contributed virtually *nothing* to understanding
> > global geology.
> > Strong words? Things are virtually as they were at
> > right from the beginning. The tools have just allowed things to be
> > defined a bit better, but that's all.
> > > > > You are not facing the evidence and you'r ready to
> > > > > digest any row of absurde consequences that follows.
> > > > >
> > > > > How come you use tomography on your own pages?
> >
> > Not at all. I used Malcolm's because it goes on a sphere, and can be
> > integrated with other data sets. All these little sectional stills
> > tell us nothing about "moving down".
>
> You've made your point on subduction/overriding.
> You deleted my point made on the tomography based on the quality of the
> data - yet you keep using tomography yourself.
Well I'm sorry, ... if it's significant then repost and we'll dissect
it. (And I'm still waiting for an answer from you about those dykes
at the ridge and what they are feeding. So there. You keep snipping
it. )
> I pointed out to you that ajusting to a growing curvature would make the
> cracks propagate away from the ridge and proliferate in that direction.
(Ah dear,) ....the World is counterintuitive Carsten, .. (Tut tut,
we'll need to see if we can be clever and sort it out - give it a
right set of rules and obligations to behave itself by) Which is of
course a comment, not on the world but of our intuition.
> > > *1) I have never left anything unexplainable to a child. I started out
> with
> > > a boiling pot for a pointer to convective cells,
> >
> > J.F Moyen set me straight long ago on the plate tectonics' view of
> > convection cells vitually in reply to my first post. He put it in
> > capital letters with marching ants "CONVECTING CELLS DON'T EXIST".
> > (Stuart had something to say about that - I forget what)
>
> There is several points to "J.F Moyen" on a google. Does he have an english
> one dealing with the problem?
(I thought you would google up the "convecting cells don't exist") (my
intuition got screwed up) Try here:-
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%40lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dmoyen%2Bconvection%2Bexist%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%2540lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr%26rnum%3D1
So does Earth Expansion, but there is a significant difference. Plate
tectonics sees vertical lift as a RESULT of the compression; Earth
expansion sees it as the CAUSE of compression. Now just think: which
is the more economical in terms of what you know about geology?
Plate tectonics: exactly aligned compression; half a world of travel:
convective overturn; Asymmetrical uplift (e.g. India goes down;
himalayas up; why isn't it symmetrical?) etc etc And importantly -
IGNORES TORSIONAL
ADJUSTMENTS
Earth expansion: uplift in situ; collapse in situ; torsional
adjustment <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion.html>
> You have not applied factual geology to
> your model of this.
I think I have / am
> > The detail, which I think is what
> > you want, is the domain of armies, and decades. What we're doing
> > here, geologically speaking, is pressing the reset button.
> > But as
> > you can see, there are no marks for doing it, when the machine is
> > working nicely, and smoothly, 24 hours a day, with no maintenance
> > needed.
> >
> > > I have been involved in reconstruction
> > > of palaeogeology and it's second to impossible to get reliable results
> (in a
> > > regional area) unless you are a pro. Noone can blame you for putting a
> > > question to it. But from there to offer your own plan that reverses most
> > > known physics brings you nowhere.
> >
> > I don't know if it reverses physics. DAH had a comment about first
> > principles on that score <refe4ence> and I must say, mostly I just see
> > mystery, in all the stuff they claim as 'understanding'.
>
> So do I. That's a good start for learning geology.
Nah, ..you have a guru Carsten, somewhere, hidden.. (Though it's not
stuart I'll grant you that.) You've blotted your copybook, talking to
me, you know. ( Trouble with gurus teaching you, you don't get to
make mistakes.)
> > > You have no chance anywere to explain your principle of expansion
> without
> > > hitting a malstroem of absurdities. IMO.
> >
> > 200%. This is exactly in the nature of paradigm change
>
> Find something solid for your paradigmeshift.
Aww, Carsten, ...I thought I'd made it clear by now paradigm shifts
aren't based on anything solid at all, they are based on the meme on
people's lips. That's why Oriel feels sorry for me. In a few years,
all the stuff I've been saying ..nobody will know where it all came
from, ...and it won't matter. And by that time anyway your memory
will be fucked too. And it will matter even less. People will think
I got it all from somewhere (nobody is allowed to think anything by
themselves any more. Whoever flashes the biggest 'big' will get the
credit. What counts is right now, .. Just think of all those poor
buggers cowering in the dark, that are missing out on the fun of
showing off how dumb plate tectonics is. Or even Earth expansion (!)
They could make a career out of the difference between the two, and
save the world billions of dollars in the process that could be used
for something useful, like find water in Africa, stop the killing, etc
etc.. But no, they hang about, indignant at the notion of "academic
fraud" and intellectual dishonesty, and accusing the likes of me of
saying 'conspiracy'. They don't understand what conspiracy is, though
even in denial, they "bend it in neon". (Not too much flashing on
this ng though.)
> In other words, when you say that your model of a regional geology is
> better, you don't base your evaluation on achtual geological data.
No, I mean it's a 'lay-down misere'
Oriel36
Assuming the total mass of the Earth remains constant,the creation of
the lighter crust from the denser mantle determines that the overall
volume of the girth of the Earth increases at the expense of a
shrinking mantle.Geologists are in a position to alter a few
misconceptions on this score given that billions of years ago the
mantle would have almost beeen exposed in the absense of any or almost
any crust.
While there is much in the following excerpt from a website that needs
changing there is also some good points and especially the equilibrium
between axial and orbital motions.The author indicates that the volume
of the Earth does not change but a geologist should by right be
capable of correcting that view.
"7. The theoretic tidal force and the Earth's elasticity
The Earth is not rigid, but elastic. As demonstrated by the flattening
of the Earth, due to its daily rotation, the Earth adapts its shape
under the influence of surface gravity influencing forces. Because
the Earth's volume cannot change, important masses are displaced from
descending to raising places. This is principally realised through the
displacement of liquid components, water at the surface or fluid
material under the crust. Although never instantaneous, the adaptation
with water is faster than with material of the mantle. If we compare
the centrifugal force at the equator, due to the Earth's daily
rotation (3.39 cm/s²) with the observed difference between the surface
gravity at the poles and the equator (4.97 cm/s²), the amplification
due to the Earth's elasticity is about 46.6 per cent. The generated
centrifugal force is permanent and constant. The Earth can adapt
perfectly its shape."
http://home2.scarlet.be/ballaux/
I had beeen eager to present the view taken from a polar perspective
whereas the author takes an equatorial view to the Sun/Earth line in
terms of orbital orientation and the nature of that change over the
course of an annual orbit.
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg
Not surprisingly,a geologist is in a better position to adjust his/her
reasoning to the differences in constant axial and variable orbital
motion effecting crustal development and from there into the past and
continuing evolution of the Earth's physical features than those who
base their observations on derivatives of Newton's gravitational
agenda and all its attendant terminology.
From experience I know that attempts to graft developing principles
into older theories result in an utter dilution and
ineffectiveness,however,even without appealing to astronomical
rotations and motions,there is so much room to develop the ongoing
formation of lighter crust from denser mantle as an indication that
the volume of the Earth does change while retaining its constant mass
that it is not a case of being right or wrong but how to develop it
properly without cutting each other to pieces.
Carsten Troelsgaard
The large scale may equel or not, give a shrink or an expanse.
I have pointed out elsewhere that expanse has all the reason for showing in
separating the already loosely connected strips of plate, and appear in the
magnetic signature.
> > > The magnetics of the ocean floor are a fact. Yes, the
> > > detail in the gravity suggests the contouring could propably do with a
> > > complete overhaul
> >
> > like physics
>
> I do believe there is an opinion so. But physics 'works' (mostly),
> ... you know, 24 hours a day (without maintenance). (If it ain't
> broke, don't fix it.)
>
It seems as if a big-bang has been underway for some time. In the heart of
our planet.
That's often how I learn. Take it all apart and resemble it again. If the
final result work comes out wrong, I made a mistake.
If you don't know what I talk about, you prove that your first 'rule' of EE
is byond your comprehension.
>
> > > > It's difficult to imagine that some differentiated movement or
growth of
> > > > ocean plates
> > > > has not happened, but it's byond me why it should be in any contrast
to
> > PT.
> > > > To take it as the main 'proof' of EE is ridiculous.
> > >
> > > The main proof of Earth Expansion lies in the deficit that plate
> > > tectonics ignores - Along-ridge spreading.
> >
> > That, inspite of your insurance, does not manifest itself in the
magnetic
> > contours.
>
> By definition it must.
It does not.
> (Growth does not take place in the
> transforms). It is however implied in the orthogonal 'network' of
> ocean floor gravity.
>
>
>
> > > Plate tectonics recognises
> > > the extra length of the ridges relative to the continental margins,
> > > but cannot accommodate it in its model ("propagating ridges" "ridge
> > > propagation").
> >
> > You use the PT model of propagation. There is no hint of expansion in
it.
>
> No, I don't. I used the plate tectonic words as reflections in the
> mirror. The ridges don't 'propagate' from their ends; they get
> bigger in the middle, and finally break in the middle.
This is close to fraud. One whole splitting up in two halves is not 'growth
by cell-division', it's just division. The oceanic crust is thin at the
transforms and would expand to enlarge the surface of the earth, if this is
growing. It does not. If it did, it would be visible in the magnetic
signature.
You 'see' that ridge created 'now' is cracked to accomodate a growing
curvature that happens tomorrow. The old crust that really needs ajusting
get no cracks. That you put faith in the inverted order enough to make it a
'proof' that expansion is ... as you express in the most positive term ...
counterintuitive.
If rule number 1, 2 or 3 is not understandable then you have no bricks to
build with.
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/transpropind.html> And yes there
> is expansion in it. But read any of the popular sites on plate
> tectonics and you will find no mention of it. Because this is one of
> those 'splintery knobbly bits' that refuse to fit, that is an area
> requiring "more research". Pteros can't accommodate their own
> observation in their own model. (Oh so the model needs shifting; we
> can be even cleverer if we show how)
>
>
> > > But you won't find much explanation how to accommodate
> > > it in the cycle of ridge - subduction. Look at the difference in
> > > length of the ridges compared to their continental equivalents. Of
> > > course the ridges have grown along their length. The architecture of
> > > that growth is shown in the stepped offsetting of ridge terminations
> > > (ignored in plate tectonics), which proves the direction of growth is
> > > **RIDGE-AWAY-FROM-THE-CONTINENTS**
> >
> > You fail to deliver logic.
>
> It's a simple observation that the African 'plate' margin is bigger
> around its perimeter than the African continental margin, and I'll
> agree a modicum of logic is required to infer that they were once one
> and the same thing. But I wouldn't have thought it much. Are you
> saying it's not a logical inference?
I get what you mean. There is no subduction around the plate, so one can see
it as the ridge growing away from the continent. There is nothing in the
structure itself that convey this logic.
> > Your local growing mountain doesn't seem to have a welldefined sharp
ridge.
>
> Do you mean Plate tectonics' sharp ridge is sharper than Earth
> expansion's sharp ridge? (Same ridge.)
>
>
> >
> > > Not the other way round. [Plate
> > > tectonics glosses over this as merely a question of relativism, but
> > > it's not] And the only way this can happen is if the ridges move up
> > > - and keep moving up - that ridge, which at any snapshot in time
> > > shows, is a ridge - is moving up. UP. What's ridiculous about it
> > > Carsten? It's obvious: Ridge. *UP* actually means 'up'. Why do you
> > > want to keep shoving it sideways
> >
> > And it is the mantle that slides sideways? You do recognize that the
globe
> > is not 200 km high at the spreading zone.
>
> You don't do it justice Carsten, it's more like 2,000km. (But gravity
> is a wonderful thing). Look, ..you're happy enough to use gravity as
> a means to buoyancy, why are you not happy to use its effect directly?
Why don't you? Letting the globe swell by changing petrological fases would
create density-light matter that pop to to the surface through boyancy. This
is not happening. The change of fase would be the have to be something like
swapping a volume with density 11 into two volumes of 5,5 at the core/mantle
boundary. Doubling the radius would give your early globe a surface-gravity
four times the present and a severe change in speed of rotation. Letting
matter appear like in 'big-bang' would make the globe heavy enough either to
'fall into the sun', or, if the matter is 'born' with an initial velocity,
just lets momentum swel in the same pace. Where is Oriel if momentum isn't
constant?
> And you talk about coriolis, why are you not happy to use rotation
> directly? What is it about this ridge that keeps moving up, that you
> want to be keep turning it through 90 degrees?
You wave the word 'torsion' and 'twist' around as primery constituents of
your construction - the clue to understand expansion. Since you cannot apply
these in any attempt to describe the mechanics, you lost your case.
> You didn't answer
> either what all these "dykes intruding the ridge" are supposed to be
> feeding. What about it? How do you see it?
Do you ask becourse you do not know the PT answer?
There is a picture of it at Fowler's 'The solid earth' pg 287.
> > If an expanding earth is covering one third of the surface of the globe
by a
> > diapire ... how is it related to the local diapire at 'the ridge'?
>
> Well, it grows, grows, ..keeps growing,
Up, according to you
> ..to make that big circular
> thing called the Pacific.
Horizontal expanse of an area not logically connected to upward growth.
A petrologic fase-change would focus negative gravity anomalies in the area
and the geoide lie low enough to lift the area well out of the water. The
reverse seems to be more pronounsed.
> If subduction worked the way you want, the
> Pacific would never open. Nor would the Atlantic. Nor the Indian/
> antarctic oceans. As soon as opening cranks up, subduction would
> accommodate it. So, ...now,.. you explain your logic
> (of Panthalassic
> proportions). (And leave out the hocus pocus of intuition.)
> (Gotcha!)
You want it from 'Adam and Eve' and forward?
It initially started out as 'oceanic plate' and grew continents. Not the
other way round as you suggest. How does EE explain continents anyway? You
never left a reference to that, and that's after all the primary concern for
a lot of geologists.
> > Should I spend money on getting it, to convert you?
> > Why don't you end the discussion by providing a deep seismic section
that
> > shows the lack of it.
>
> Well I could repeat the link you posted with the section of the
> Kuriles, showing how it all turns flat (instead of bending down), but
> I think the tomography shows it generally.
If you defy tomography, then be consequent about it.
> Goodness, it's (the
> so-called subduction zone) it's only defining the edge of the
> lithosphere, ...which is regarded as basically 'crustal' How is
> that proof of "bending down into the mantle"? The 'ghost droppers'
> you see are simply bits that get left behind in the growth -
> 'palimpsests' - like in two dimensions a ridge is a palimpsest of a
> continental margin.
Subduction or override, the tomography shows the phenomenon to be very
extensive.
> > > In fact the reflectors actually rise into
> > > the overthrust.
> >
> > You should use a real pointer.
>
> No,
I do not know what you talk about, that's why you should use a pointer.
> ..if you want to illustrate subduction you should use something
> that shows bending down, not something that shows overriding (or
> bending under).
Don, if EE has anything, the crust would come up from beneath. It does the
reverse.
> I don;'t want to illustrate subduction. I want to
> illustrate overriding, and the sections you have posted thus far of
> the cocos, himalyas and kuriles all illustrate it nicely.
>
>
> > A collaps and slush off that does not reveal the 'real thing' beneath
>
> 'real thing' = the Pacific. What do you mean it is "not revealed"?
The Asian continent 'slushes in' over the Pacific as it skid down a none
existing gradient, and in absens of not being where it just left, should
reveal considerable stretches of 'upward grown earth' open to public view.
Since stacking and folding, which you acknowledge, contributes to the area
of 'lain bare', this area should be very considerable and not have the
location of 'slushed off' matter as it's primary location.
Have I made myself clear enough?
> > > ('settling') against the continent. The real
> > > global motion
> >
> > According to what mechanical principles?
>
> The rotation of the Earth. I don't rightly know what physical
> principle this reflects. Some would say conservation of angular
> momentum of planetisimal accretion (but I find that difficult)
You take it as your primary proof of expansion. Shouldn't your lack of
understanding it prevent you from using it as such? Have you forgot ... you
are trying to show us all the logic behing EE, and you get stuck in your
first sentence!
> > > All I hope I'm doing is helping people to look at things a bit
> > > differently. To 'see it'.
> >
> > You managed to provide a vision that the world is screwed up.
>
> No no no no, ..Just Pteros that are screwed up... The world is
> behaving exactly as it should.
You made a drawing of the globe, not of a pterorist.
> > And still ignore that structural activity is focussed in spreading and
> > subduction zones.
>
> I don;'t know why you keep saying this. My whole site is all about
> how spreading ridges and subduction zones and transforms form. Do
> the google search and see if you don't believe me (google believes me)
>
>
> > The 'slush off' is very active and should be accompanied
> > by an equel activity of 'upward growing' and reveal considerable
stretches
> > of exposed mantle or 'grown up stuff' that, unfortunately to your
theory,
> > does not exist.
>
> No the "slush-off" is dead; kaput (mostly), left behind.
No, it's actively happening as Asia is busy 'overriding' the oceanic crust
> (mountain
> belts on the continents that are now being worn away) According to
> my "theory" (it's not a theory, it's a fact) the 'upward growing' is
> the ocean floors.
> Why do you keep inverting this? What is it about
> what I;'m saying that is going past you?
Becourse you adress the Himalayns, the 'roof of the world' as the center of
the rise of the pacific diapire.
> What you see is what you
> get. It's simple. Ridges, growth, ocean floors, ... You have to
> believe the evidence of your own eyes before you accept your
> 'intuition'
I used my intuition to accept a linear sidewards growth from the
spreadingridge though the line is not straight. That's as far as I have
applied my intuition on behalf of a more rigid deduction.
So much more emphasis on you to make your point clear. You totally fail that
part.
>
> > > > *1) I have never left anything unexplainable to a child. I started
out
> > with
> > > > a boiling pot for a pointer to convective cells,
> > >
> > > J.F Moyen set me straight long ago on the plate tectonics' view of
> > > convection cells vitually in reply to my first post. He put it in
> > > capital letters with marching ants "CONVECTING CELLS DON'T EXIST".
> > > (Stuart had something to say about that - I forget what)
> >
> > There is several points to "J.F Moyen" on a google. Does he have an
english
> > one dealing with the problem?
>
> (I thought you would google up the "convecting cells don't exist") (my
> intuition got screwed up) Try here:-
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%40lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dmoyen%2Bconvection%2Bexist%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%2540lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr%26rnum%3D1
>
He doesn't seem to have any issues with PT.
Expansion is an expression of pressure-release, so stating that it's a cause
of compression contradicts your principle. As I said before, you cannot make
a metamorphic compression by adding matter from below. That is, if you want
to involve the above matter into the metamorphism.
> Now just think: which
> is the more economical in terms of what you know about geology?
> Plate tectonics: exactly aligned compression; half a world of travel:
> convective overturn; Asymmetrical uplift (e.g. India goes down;
> himalayas up; why isn't it symmetrical?) etc etc
I'm sure that the world contains a lot of geology that I have not payed
attention to.
> And importantly -
> IGNORES TORSIONAL
> ADJUSTMENTS
> Earth expansion: uplift in situ; collapse in situ; torsional
> adjustment <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion.html>
Have I put my point on you and torsion clear enough?
> > You have not applied factual geology to
> > your model of this.
>
> I think I have / am
Yes, considering the oceanfloor. And your result is counterintuitive.
You have not used/added continental geology data and compared it to your
model.
> > > The detail, which I think is what
> > > you want, is the domain of armies, and decades. What we're doing
> > > here, geologically speaking, is pressing the reset button.
> > > But as
> > > you can see, there are no marks for doing it, when the machine is
> > > working nicely, and smoothly, 24 hours a day, with no maintenance
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > > I have been involved in reconstruction
> > > > of palaeogeology and it's second to impossible to get reliable
results
> > (in a
> > > > regional area) unless you are a pro. Noone can blame you for putting
a
> > > > question to it. But from there to offer your own plan that reverses
most
> > > > known physics brings you nowhere.
> > >
> > > I don't know if it reverses physics. DAH had a comment about first
> > > principles on that score <refe4ence> and I must say, mostly I just see
> > > mystery, in all the stuff they claim as 'understanding'.
> >
> > So do I. That's a good start for learning geology.
>
> Nah, ..you have a guru Carsten, somewhere, hidden.. (Though it's not
> stuart I'll grant you that.) You've blotted your copybook, talking to
> me, you know. ( Trouble with gurus teaching you, you don't get to
> make mistakes.)
I took a turn with Ed too.
> > > > You have no chance anywere to explain your principle of expansion
> > without
> > > > hitting a malstroem of absurdities. IMO.
> > >
> > > 200%. This is exactly in the nature of paradigm change
> >
> > Find something solid for your paradigmeshift.
>
> Aww, Carsten, ...I thought I'd made it clear by now paradigm shifts
> aren't based on anything solid at all,
I wasted a considerable amount of time then.
> they are based on the meme on
> people's lips.
> That's why Oriel feels sorry for me. In a few years,
> all the stuff I've been saying ..nobody will know where it all came
> from, ...and it won't matter. And by that time anyway your memory
> will be fucked too. And it will matter even less. People will think
> I got it all from somewhere (nobody is allowed to think anything by
> themselves any more. Whoever flashes the biggest 'big' will get the
> credit. What counts is right now, .. Just think of all those poor
> buggers cowering in the dark, that are missing out on the fun of
> showing off how dumb plate tectonics is. Or even Earth expansion (!)
> They could make a career out of the difference between the two, and
> save the world billions of dollars in the process that could be used
> for something useful, like find water in Africa, stop the killing, etc
> etc.. But no, they hang about, indignant at the notion of "academic
> fraud" and intellectual dishonesty, and accusing the likes of me of
> saying 'conspiracy'. They don't understand what conspiracy is, though
> even in denial, they "bend it in neon". (Not too much flashing on
> this ng though.)
>
>
> > In other words, when you say that your model of a regional geology is
> > better, you don't base your evaluation on achtual geological data.
>
> No, I mean it's a 'lay-down misere'
You have no adress to factual geological data, so my point stands.
Carsten Troelsgaard
I'm still waiting for Don to make an account of it as he has made it a
primary premise of understanding expansion.
> than those who
> base their observations on derivatives of Newton's gravitational
> agenda and all its attendant terminology.
If you think of me ... forget it, I was trying to get Don on the way on
proving his point.
> From experience I know that attempts to graft developing principles
> into older theories result in an utter dilution and
> ineffectiveness,however,even without appealing to astronomical
> rotations and motions,there is so much room to develop the ongoing
> formation of lighter crust from denser mantle as an indication that
> the volume of the Earth does change while retaining its constant mass
PT does not reject that it happens. It's after all this differentiation that
has made the continents possible.
It is the scale that Don proposes that I lack a foundation for. I have
pointed out some of the consequences in my latest post to him.
Oriel36
Presently it is not entirely possible ,what is workable is the
transfer of material from the mantle to the crust hence greater volume
to the overall girth of the Earth,formation of mountain ranges ect.Don
has a case whereas presently physicists assume the constant volume of
the Earth.
From what I understand,the great leap in geological understanding
emerged when the structure of the Earth was considered as a whole,in
turn, another leap is necessary towards astronomical motions involving
not just axial rotation but also orbital motion,where they mesh and
seperate as independent and combined motions.
> > than those who
> > base their observations on derivatives of Newton's gravitational
> > agenda and all its attendant terminology.
>
> If you think of me ... forget it, I was trying to get Don on the way on
> proving his point.
>
> > From experience I know that attempts to graft developing principles
> > into older theories result in an utter dilution and
> > ineffectiveness,however,even without appealing to astronomical
> > rotations and motions,there is so much room to develop the ongoing
> > formation of lighter crust from denser mantle as an indication that
> > the volume of the Earth does change while retaining its constant mass
>
> PT does not reject that it happens. It's after all this differentiation that
> has made the continents possible.
> It is the scale that Don proposes that I lack a foundation for. I have
> pointed out some of the consequences in my latest post to him.
>
What you did was throw the coriolis force at him and it failed and so
it should.I will point out that when you attempt to take the greater
motions of the Earth into account,you come to a screeching halt due to
the way the astronomical motions are formatted for physics.
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm
PT may not reject increasing volume but I assure you that adherence to
gravitational principles as Newton formatted them make it impossible
to make the leap to incorporating an even greater astronomical picture
into geological evolution.If you have no problem with Earth expansion
due to increasing crustal volume,recognise the transfer mechanism for
additional lighter crust from denser mantle,continue to assign
different effects to fault zones without too much alteration why not
set rotational elements aside in the absense of any accurate
astronomical picture derived from gravitation.
Why would you willingly deface you own geological discipline for the
sake of physicists who squander their time with multiple
universes,dark matter,space with geometric properties,clashing
branes,ect when most of the general population have turned aside from
these novelties and enjoy as I do a rough idea of how the Earth's
present physical features developed from the past.
Oriel36
Once you go down that road,and I've seen it so many times before you
end up destroying yourself.It is always the case when a person is
simply not capable enough of handling the principles which generated
the term 'angular momentum' or indeed anything relating to gravitation
and astronomy,the form fitting to get observations to fit into
equations.If this looks offensive it is not meant,it is only a matter
of how you wish to fit forces into geology rather than the other way
around,forces in this way are complimentary to the material rather
than dictating it.
What do you hope to achieve,that Don will determine that I have been
in someway astronomically deficient in pointing out that in accounting
for orbital motion by way of angular momentum there is no room left to
incorporate axial rotation within variable orbital motion and
certainly this is what Newton did via Kepler's planetary laws of
orbital motion.What do you want,that I should go over the whole thing
again and explain the unethical manner in which the gravitational
agenda is set within astronomy.I have always conditioned Newton's
approach as fine until he makes the astronomical translations from
geocentric observations to heliocentric modelling,put it another
way,the utter garbage of appealing to the coriolis force is the just
another form fitting attempt as angular momentum is to account for
planetary motions and the effects they generate.
Don appears to consider that I am in a hopeless position but this is
not how I see it.Geologically there is nowhere left to go with a
gravitational agenda and the rotation of the Earth set against the
celestial sphere or variants such as the homocentric 'every point is
the valid center of the universe'.Surely geologists learned their
lesson from decades ago in adapting from consideration of individual
features of rocks and their formation to consideration of plate
movement and the planet as a whole.The next step is astronomical
motions.
So,everyone is in a bad spot unless people have a great love of
remaining to croaking in a gravitational swamp.Determining,as Newton
did,that the Sun going around the Earth is equivalent to the Earth
going around the Sun is pretty cheesy so the next time you mention
angular momentum, Newton's orbital geocentric/heliocentric orbital
equivalency is part and parcel of it.Say goodbye to the effects of
planetary astronomical motion on planetary terrestial/geological
motion and it shows everytime you argue against it.
I hope you are happy with your stationary Earth and an Earth that has
a crust already formed billions of years ago ( no crustal
expansion),while the indications were that you were capable of
assimilating the concept of an increase in physical volume through
crustal expansion it now appears that by tethering my name to the
gravitational 'angular momentum' (which is deficient description of
planetary motions) for the purpose of attacking Don,it was bad enough
to appeal to the coriolis force but after this you become a lost cause
and I could'nt care less what you had to say further.
Newton explains Kepler's planetary laws for orbital motion but cannot
account for axial rotation
Carsten Troelsgaard
Then he should withdraw his claim. He has stated an aim to shed a better
light on geological structuring. How can he do that if he does not
understand the principles himself.
Becourse Don makes it a premise not only to understand EE and how it appears
in the structuring but that it's a proof of it.
> Why would you willingly deface you own geological discipline for the
> sake of physicists who squander their time with multiple
> universes,dark matter,space with geometric properties,clashing
> branes,ect when most of the general population have turned aside from
> these novelties and enjoy as I do a rough idea of how the Earth's
> present physical features developed from the past.
If you refer to Don's representation then please enjoy. You have a gross
error in estimating the support for EE.
Carsten Troelsgaard
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:273f8e06.04071...@posting.google.com...
It's Don that use the physically descriptive term of torsion and lack a
proper account of it as it is what is the primary premise for defining,
describing and understanding EE. Don has appealed to you in this particular
matter to help him out, so scolding me for being dum on astronomy doesn't
hit the right target.
> If this looks offensive it is not meant,it is only a matter
> of how you wish to fit forces into geology rather than the other way
> around,forces in this way are complimentary to the material rather
> than dictating it.
>
> What do you hope to achieve,that Don will determine that I have been
> in someway astronomically deficient in pointing out that in accounting
> for orbital motion by way of angular momentum there is no room left to
> incorporate axial rotation within variable orbital motion and
> certainly this is what Newton did via Kepler's planetary laws of
> orbital motion.
Frankly, Oriel, you adress an international cross cultural/native linguistic
and /scientific audience ... if you want to be understood you may have to
violate your own taste for words and their constructs. No offence.
> What do you want,that I should go over the whole thing
> again and explain the unethical manner in which the gravitational
> agenda is set within astronomy.
On ethics related to the other post: Don introduces 'counter-intuitive'
whereas I use 'intuitive' to confirm a lack of discours with PT.
> I have always conditioned Newton's
> approach as fine until he makes the astronomical translations from
> geocentric observations to heliocentric modelling,put it another
> way,the utter garbage of appealing to the coriolis force is the just
> another form fitting attempt as angular momentum is to account for
> planetary motions and the effects they generate.
Oriel, I cannot and do not at all intend to embarge on a discussion of
celestial mechanics....
>
> Don appears to consider that I am in a hopeless position but this is
> not how I see it.
.... If Don understands momentum (coriolis) and try to apply it to his
consepts then he knows that his EE-model is down the drain. He expects you
to fill the discrepancy by using the term 'torsion' and the fact that he
states that this 'physical thing' more or less IS the contents of his first
EE-law. Read his pages!
> Geologically there is nowhere left to go with a
> gravitational agenda and the rotation of the Earth set against the
> celestial sphere or variants such as the homocentric 'every point is
> the valid center of the universe'.Surely geologists learned their
> lesson from decades ago in adapting from consideration of individual
> features of rocks and their formation to consideration of plate
> movement and the planet as a whole.The next step is astronomical
> motions.
>
> So,everyone is in a bad spot unless people have a great love of
> remaining to croaking in a gravitational swamp.Determining,as Newton
> did,that the Sun going around the Earth is equivalent to the Earth
> going around the Sun is pretty cheesy so the next time you mention
> angular momentum, Newton's orbital geocentric/heliocentric orbital
> equivalency is part and parcel of it.Say goodbye to the effects of
> planetary astronomical motion on planetary terrestial/geological
> motion and it shows everytime you argue against it.
>
> I hope you are happy with your stationary Earth and an Earth that has
> a crust already formed billions of years ago ( no crustal
> expansion),while the indications were that you were capable of
> assimilating the concept of an increase in physical volume through
> crustal expansion it now appears that by tethering my name to the
> gravitational 'angular momentum' (which is deficient description of
> planetary motions) for the purpose of attacking Don,
......... you lack the ende of the centence
> it was bad enough
> to appeal to the coriolis force but after this you become a lost cause
> and I could'nt care less what you had to say further.
Sorry, Oriel. I think that you lost more than me here.
Intuitively I feel that Don accomplished what he wanted: To throw a toarch
into a haystack.
don findlay
> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:5f164087.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:<40f66bfe$0$213$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
> > > "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > news:5f164087.04071...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:<40f1359a$0$161$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
> > > > > I've started out with two comments *1) and *2) that favorably can be
> read in
> > > > > ordered succession before
> > > > >
> I have pointed out elsewhere that expanse has all the reason for showing in
> separating the already loosely connected strips of plate, and appear in the
> magnetic signature.
Do you mean you would expect to see transforms dilated? (and have this
show in the magnetics)?
> > > > The magnetics of the ocean floor are a fact. Yes, the
> > > > detail in the gravity suggests the contouring could propably do with a
> > > > complete overhaul
> > >
> > > like physics
> >
> > I do believe there is an opinion so. But physics 'works' (mostly),
> > ... you know, 24 hours a day (without maintenance). (If it ain't
> > broke, don't fix it.)
> >
>
> It seems as if a big-bang has been underway for some time. In the heart of
> our planet.
Slow/ controlled 'explosion' ? Yes.. that is how it seems to me.
> > Yes, but you didn't state what your calculation was trying to show,
> > whether coriolis could or couldn't work, or whether it was a valid
> > consideration in the first place. You didn't make clear where you
> > were coming from. Are you 'glass' or 'mirror'?
> >
>
> If you don't know what I talk about, you prove that your first 'rule' of EE
> is byond your comprehension.
(This is wife-talk.) Don't be such a 'George' State your position
clearly. C'mon, ...'science'.
> > > > > It's difficult to imagine that some differentiated movement or
> growth of
> > > > > ocean plates
> > > > > has not happened, but it's byond me why it should be in any contrast
> to
> PT.
> > > > > To take it as the main 'proof' of EE is ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > The main proof of Earth Expansion lies in the deficit that plate
> > > > tectonics ignores - Along-ridge spreading.
> > >
> > > That, inspite of your insurance, does not manifest itself in the
> magnetic
> > > contours.
> >
> > By definition it must.
>
> It does not.
You need to answer the above question first, about whether you think
transforms are dilated or not, before you can be so sure.
> > (Growth does not take place in the
> > transforms). It is however implied in the orthogonal 'network' of
> > ocean floor gravity.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Plate tectonics recognises
> > > > the extra length of the ridges relative to the continental margins,
> > > > but cannot accommodate it in its model ("propagating ridges" "ridge
> > > > propagation").
> > >
> > > You use the PT model of propagation. There is no hint of expansion in
> it.
> >
> > No, I don't. I used the plate tectonic words as reflections in the
> > mirror. The ridges don't 'propagate' from their ends; they get
> > bigger in the middle, and finally break in the middle.
>
> This is close to fraud. One whole splitting up in two halves is not 'growth
> by cell-division', it's just division.
The cells enlarge from below, and split when they get too big
according to the strength of the material, which can be either due to
length or thickness (or both)
> The oceanic crust is thin at the
> transforms and would expand to enlarge the surface of the earth, if this is
> growing. It does not. If it did, it would be visible in the magnetic
> signature.
Not following you, if you are saying differently from this:- "the
ocean floors have grown, and that growth is manifest in the magnetic
signature". Your defense is 'subduction', based on your unwarranted
assumption of a Panthalassa.
> You 'see' that ridge created 'now' is cracked to accomodate a growing
> curvature that happens tomorrow. The old crust that really needs ajusting
> get no cracks.
This is a good point (but I take it you are talking about mantle
crust), and one I think is best answered by homogeneous ductile
spreading:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/size.html> coupled with
breakthrough of lower mantle in specific areas on transforms and along
old sections of ridge. Also in older sections of the Western Pacific
the Palimsests seem to be related to flat (torsional) detachments -
which would also answer your point. about old crust adjusting.
> That you put faith in the inverted order enough to make it a
> 'proof' that expansion is ... as you express in the most positive term ...
> counterintuitive.
> If rule number 1, 2 or 3 is not understandable then you have no bricks to
> build with.
"Faith"? Rule 1, 2, 3? (rule?)
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/transpropind.html> And yes there
> > is expansion in it. But read any of the popular sites on plate
> > tectonics and you will find no mention of it. Because this is one of
> > those 'splintery knobbly bits' that refuse to fit, that is an area
> > requiring "more research". Pteros can't accommodate their own
> > observation in their own model. (Oh so the model needs shifting; we
> > can be even cleverer if we show how)
> >
> >
> > > > But you won't find much explanation how to accommodate
> > > > it in the cycle of ridge - subduction. Look at the difference in
> > > > length of the ridges compared to their continental equivalents. Of
> > > > course the ridges have grown along their length. The architecture of
> > > > that growth is shown in the stepped offsetting of ridge terminations
> > > > (ignored in plate tectonics), which proves the direction of growth is
> > > > **RIDGE-AWAY-FROM-THE-CONTINENTS**
> > >
> > > You fail to deliver logic.
> >
> > It's a simple observation that the African 'plate' margin is bigger
> > around its perimeter than the African continental margin, and I'll
> > agree a modicum of logic is required to infer that they were once one
> > and the same thing. But I wouldn't have thought it much. Are you
> > saying it's not a logical inference?
>
> I get what you mean. There is no subduction around the plate, so one can see
> it as the ridge growing away from the continent. There is nothing in the
> structure itself that convey this logic.
"Nothing in the structure that conveys the logic"? Of course there
is - its length, just as I've pointed out - the difference in ridge
length from continental-margin length. Surely you don't mean to say
you would go so far as ignore the difference between its size now, and
the size it used to be? But I guess if you did you would have plenty
of company. The difference forces the logic in favour of earth
expansion, whilst simultaneously amputating the plate tectonic option.
Nothing in what structure? The ridge? If you're saying that then
your missing the point, which is the 'miss' plate tectonics makes all
the time. You can't interpret the bigger picture from one element.
It has to be done on the larger scale pattern of as many elements as
you can get.
You'd do better sticking to the point. Don't dodge. We've got one
table-dancer on this ng already, and believe me Carsten you'd swear
he's got *eight* legs. ...the mass density angular momentum problems
have been gone through many times. The question was to do with the
2000km 'spike' of ridge growth that has to be accommodated by
gravitational correction, and how this is manifested in the ocean
floors, and why, if you are happy to use density-as-buoyancy, you are
not happy to use it for gravitational correction to keep the Earth a
(sort of) sphere. What's your answer?
>
> > And you talk about coriolis, why are you not happy to use rotation
> > directly? What is it about this ridge that keeps moving up, that you
> > want to be keep turning it through 90 degrees?
>
> You wave the word 'torsion' and 'twist' around as primery constituents of
> your construction - the clue to understand expansion. Since you cannot apply
> these in any attempt to describe the mechanics, you lost your case.
I wouldn't have thought it necessary: it's opening your eyes every
time you wake up in the morning. Each day that dawns documents the
mechanics. The Earth's rotational evolution that shifted the south
pole from the centre of Africa to where it is at the present day
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html> (You're taking
absolutely nothing of this in at all, are you?)
> > You didn't answer
> > either what all these "dykes intruding the ridge" are supposed to be
> > feeding. What about it? How do you see it?
>
> Do you ask becourse you do not know the PT answer?
> There is a picture of it at Fowler's 'The solid earth' pg 287.
Well, I'll try and catch up with the picture, ..in the meantime you
could answer the question as you see it - how all these dykes are
manifest on the ocean floors and what they're supposed to be feeding.
Billions upon billions of them, about 10cm thick, over time, ...and
how they relate to the +ve -ve of magnetic striping and the rodding
known as 'abyssal hills'. (Magic).
> > > If an expanding earth is covering one third of the surface of the globe
> by a
> > > diapire ... how is it related to the local diapire at 'the ridge'?
> >
> > Well, it grows, grows, ..keeps growing,
>
> Up, according to you
>
> > ..to make that big circular
> > thing called the Pacific.
>
> Horizontal expanse of an area not logically connected to upward growth.
> A petrologic fase-change would focus negative gravity anomalies in the area
> and the geoide lie low enough to lift the area well out of the water. The
> reverse seems to be more pronounsed.
Why have you started talking about phase change? And where did the
Coriolis go?
> > If subduction worked the way you want, the
> > Pacific would never open. Nor would the Atlantic. Nor the Indian/
> > antarctic oceans. As soon as opening cranks up, subduction would
> > accommodate it. So, ...now,.. you explain your logic
> > (of Panthalassic
> > proportions). (And leave out the hocus pocus of intuition.)
> > (Gotcha!)
>
> You want it from 'Adam and Eve' and forward?
> It initially started out as 'oceanic plate' and grew continents.
Oceanic plate, ..with no continental crust? No primordial continental
crustal differentiate? (You do say in your post to Oriel that " It's
after all this differentiation that has made the continents
possible"). Basalts that stuck out of the water to be eroded to give
sediments that would presumably 'pool' over a subduction zone, and
have more greywacke-type sediments plastered on them? Not just the
odd volcanoe sticking out of the water here and there, but continental
sized areas of basalt sticking out of the water? But the Archean
greenstone belts sit on granitic 'crust', and the Archaean sequences
are full of arkoses and granitic conglomerates that underly greenstone
successions. Greywackes are not common till the Early Palaeozoic, and
in between there is the Proterozoic, again with more arenaceous
sequences - and Banded Irons and shales. Greywackes?..?? Basalts
getting eroded? NOt a lot.
> Not the
> other way round as you suggest. How does EE explain continents anyway? You
> never left a reference to that, and that's after all the primary concern for
> a lot of geologists.
Differentiation/ formation of the Earth into a core mantle and a
crust - from the heat of planetisimal accretion (with nothing left
over to drive its deformation), would be the madatory position of
yore, but with the recognition of expansion I'm not sure about that. A
lot of things are up for reinterpretation. Empirically a granitoid
crust (such as exists on the Moon) would appear to be mandatory.
Breaking this up makes continents.
The oceanic (mantle) crust shows multiple breakthroughs. Globally
speaking the continental crust seems always to have sat on the top of
the mantle. So what do you mean?
> > I don;'t want to illustrate subduction. I want to
> > illustrate overriding, and the sections you have posted thus far of
> > the cocos, himalyas and kuriles all illustrate it nicely.
> >
> >
> > > A collaps and slush off that does not reveal the 'real thing' beneath
> >
> > 'real thing' = the Pacific. What do you mean it is "not revealed"?
>
> The Asian continent 'slushes in' over the Pacific as it skid down a none
> existing gradient, and in absens of not being where it just left, should
> reveal considerable stretches of 'upward grown earth' open to public view.
> Since stacking and folding, which you acknowledge, contributes to the area
> of 'lain bare', this area should be very considerable and not have the
> location of 'slushed off' matter as it's primary location.
> Have I made myself clear enough?
Sort of. But you do leave me wondering what you must be making of my
pictures. It's the other way round (as always) The Pacific has
sloped *out from under* the Himalayas (so the H. don't have so far to
go - crustally speaking).. After doing the collapsing 'marginal slip'
(stacking and folding) thing, they just settle down again. It's the
difference between 'moving' and 'growing'. (continental crust moves;
mantle grows) (towards the ridge) (and up). By the way, the gradient
is doing its level best to get back to horizontal/ flat/ sea-level.
> > > > ('settling') against the continent. The real
> > > > global motion
> > >
> > > According to what mechanical principles?
> >
> > The rotation of the Earth. I don't rightly know what physical
> > principle this reflects. Some would say conservation of angular
> > momentum of planetisimal accretion (but I find that difficult)
>
> You take it as your primary proof of expansion. Shouldn't your lack of
> understanding it prevent you from using it as such? Have you forgot ... you
> are trying to show us all the logic behing EE, and you get stuck in your
> first sentence!
No, you have it wrong. As primary proof I take the torsional GEOMETRY
of aggregate architecture of transforms as the 'proof' ('support'
would be a better word). I agree I've been a bit sloppy in
abbreviating this simply to 'torsion', but I wouldn't have thought I
would have met anyone this picky. I don't know what's causing the
Earth to rotate. I might be completely wrong in relating the
torsional growth of the planet to the sorts of changes in the Earth's
rotation that have moved central Africa from the Pole to whre it is
now <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html> (but I don't
think so). And in any case it doesn't matter, mechanism is not the
issue. . The two bits of GEOMETRY (transforms and ocean floors) go
hand in hand as regards ENLARGEMENT. Sure, we can argue (or others
can - leave me out of it) about the dynamics and the cause. I stick
with the empirical observation.
> > > > All I hope I'm doing is helping people to look at things a bit
> > > > differently. To 'see it'.
> > >
> > > You managed to provide a vision that the world is screwed up.
> >
> > No no no no, ..Just Pteros that are screwed up... The world is
> > behaving exactly as it should.
>
> You made a drawing of the globe, not of a pterorist.
>
> > > And still ignore that structural activity is focussed in spreading and
> > > subduction zones.
> >
> > I don;'t know why you keep saying this. My whole site is all about
> > how spreading ridges and subduction zones and transforms form. Do
> > the google search and see if you don't believe me (google believes me)
> >
> >
> > > The 'slush off' is very active and should be accompanied
> > > by an equel activity of 'upward growing' and reveal considerable
> stretches
> > > of exposed mantle or 'grown up stuff' that, unfortunately to your
> theory,
> > > does not exist.
> >
> > No the "slush-off" is dead; kaput (mostly), left behind.
>
> No, it's actively happening as Asia is busy 'overriding' the oceanic crust
I did say "mostly". You're talking of the whispering tumbleweed of
GPS, now that the 'longitudinal' element dominates. Pacific dilation
was rather more agressively latitudinal (finger exercise).
> > (mountain
> > belts on the continents that are now being worn away) According to
> > my "theory" (it's not a theory, it's a fact) the 'upward growing' is
> > the ocean floors.
> > Why do you keep inverting this? What is it about
> > what I;'m saying that is going past you?
>
> Becourse you adress the Himalayns, the 'roof of the world' as the center of
> the rise of the pacific diapire.
Both are centres - laterally displaced on 'flats'. So is the
Indonesian 'wheel'
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/diapirdisc.html> The 'Pacific' was
once co-centric with the red, yellow and white in the figure too.
(Mindboggling? It's not the half of it)
> > What you see is what you
> > get. It's simple. Ridges, growth, ocean floors, ... You have to
> > believe the evidence of your own eyes before you accept your
> > 'intuition'
>
> I used my intuition to accept a linear sidewards growth from the
> spreadingridge though the line is not straight. That's as far as I have
> applied my intuition on behalf of a more rigid deduction.
Och, ...Man, ... (Here, ...have a swig o' this...) (We haven't far to
go...) And what did your intuition tell you about things like the
difference in length between the ridges and continental margin around
Africa, for example?
> > > > J.F Moyen set me straight long ago on the plate tectonics' view of
> > > > convection cells vitually in reply to my first post. He put it in
> > > > capital letters with marching ants "CONVECTING CELLS DON'T EXIST".
> > > > (Stuart had something to say about that - I forget what)
> > >
> > > There is several points to "J.F Moyen" on a google. Does he have an
> english
> > > one dealing with the problem?
> >
> > (I thought you would google up the "convecting cells don't exist") (my
> > intuition got screwed up) Try here:-
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%40lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dmoyen%2Bconvection%2Bexist%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%2540lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr%26rnum%3D1
> >
>
> He doesn't seem to have any issues with PT.
What? you mean chucking out convection cells wasn't an issue? It sure
got Stu jumping in. (On second thoughts, spit that mouthful out.
Looks like you're going to need every ounce of concentration for the
rest of the journey.)
Is it? Then you know something I don't (but JPT does)
> so stating that it's a cause
> of compression contradicts your principle. As I said before, you cannot make
> a metamorphic compression by adding matter from below. That is, if you want
> to involve the above matter into the metamorphism.
Not at all. I meant compression as in what happens when your condo
falls on you. Simple. Not fancy. vertical lift causes compression
when things fall over.
> > Now just think: which
> > is the more economical in terms of what you know about geology?
> > Plate tectonics: exactly aligned compression; half a world of travel:
> > convective overturn; Asymmetrical uplift (e.g. India goes down;
> > himalayas up; why isn't it symmetrical?) etc etc
>
> I'm sure that the world contains a lot of geology that I have not payed
> attention to.
Ah, ... so you haven't thought about plate tectonics before now....
> > And importantly -
> > IGNORES TORSIONAL
> > ADJUSTMENTS
> > Earth expansion: uplift in situ; collapse in situ; torsional
> > adjustment <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion.html>
>
> Have I put my point on you and torsion clear enough?
No, not really. You have made clear about your doubts as to
mechanism, but have not yet said whether you accept the ARCHITECTURE
OF GROWTH (leaving 'mechanism' aside). My point is, if you accept
the *GEOMETRY* that is displayed there, then the exercise of
retrofititing forces a *CONCLUSION* of planetary growth. Mechanism
is left entirely aside as something consequential to be argued about.
But the enlargment of the planet is itself not in question. If you
accept the *GEOMETRY* then you have to accommodate it into the model
of plate tectonics, and plate tectonics doesn't do that. If it did,
it would abandon subduction. That's what I mean about a "lay-down
misere". I'm just doing the fun bit of the shortcut, but obviously
the documentation of the detail needs much more. There's a century
of work in it - for an army of people too. That abstract JT posted a
while back from Arizona about a "new paradigm" based on a "necklace"
of transforms, hints at it, but I think they don't realise where it's
leading them. I can hardly believe (but it seems to be true) that at
the same time as recognising Euler Poles, people have left out the
larger picture of this consequence. That much is really puzzling.
And just as puzzling is that in consideration of this 'torsion'
no-one has raised the issue either of Euler poles (pivots of
rotation), or abyssal hills as the expression of ridge-growth that
relate to that. Instead it's all the 'George' of the past - about
dykes dykes and more dykes... Those scarps and the + - + - magnetic
expression, define mantle layering. Scarps are scarps. If it was
the crust it would be Basin and Range (sort of), except it's in the
mantle. I see nothing 'puzzling' about abyssal hills, not even why
plate tectonics can't accommodate them. It's model of 'ridge-push' or
contraction (and therefore age dates of the ocean floors) simply
can't.
> > > You have not applied factual geology to
> > > your model of this.
> >
> > I think I have / am
>
> Yes, considering the oceanfloor. And your result is counterintuitive.
> You have not used/added continental geology data and compared it to your
> model.
("..The last current bed in the last riverbank...") ('Armies')
Oh, .. ho, .. ho ho... ( Roast Brave Youth indeed.)
> > > > > You have no chance anywere to explain your principle of expansion
> without
> > > > > hitting a malstroem of absurdities. IMO.
> > > >
> > > > 200%. This is exactly in the nature of paradigm change
> > >
> > > Find something solid for your paradigmeshift.
> >
> > Aww, Carsten, ...I thought I'd made it clear by now paradigm shifts
> > aren't based on anything solid at all,
>
> I wasted a considerable amount of time then.
No, I don't think you have thought much about plate tectonics, But
now, ...you will never see geology/ mountain belts, ..etc the same
way again, ...guaranteed. Every fold you see will worry you, every
tract of horizontal strata that reaches beyond the horizon, and beyond
to the next, and beyond that again. NOthing will seem the same. You
wait. That you have persisted this far shows you are already
infected (the 'meme') Get out there and bend it like Beckham. (or
"in neon" ) The change is not in question - only how fast it will
happen.
Carsten Troelsgaard
I mean that the globe is filled with transforms, cracks that would open up
and acommodate the growing surface-area if EE was a reality. Contrary and
against your 'no movement of the crust' consept the globe actively contracts
it's 'skin' to focus any areal expanse to a narrow linear band around the
globe.
> > > > > The magnetics of the ocean floor are a fact. Yes, the
> > > > > detail in the gravity suggests the contouring could propably do
with a
> > > > > complete overhaul
> > > >
> > > > like physics
> > >
> > > I do believe there is an opinion so. But physics 'works' (mostly),
> > > ... you know, 24 hours a day (without maintenance). (If it ain't
> > > broke, don't fix it.)
> > >
> >
> > It seems as if a big-bang has been underway for some time. In the heart
of
> > our planet.
>
> Slow/ controlled 'explosion' ? Yes.. that is how it seems to me.
I wonder how astronomers are able to do their celestial mechanics if they
should take you serious.
> > > Yes, but you didn't state what your calculation was trying to show,
> > > whether coriolis could or couldn't work, or whether it was a valid
> > > consideration in the first place. You didn't make clear where you
> > > were coming from. Are you 'glass' or 'mirror'?
> > >
> >
> > If you don't know what I talk about, you prove that your first 'rule' of
EE
> > is byond your comprehension.
>
> (This is wife-talk.) Don't be such a 'George' State your position
> clearly. C'mon, ...'science'.
>
2. The aggregate, spiral symmetry shown by that growth relative to the
Earth's rotational axis.
You have not shown that the spiral symmetry has a caurse that supports EE. I
have adressed this consern every day for two months. Noone knows what you
talk about and you cannot explain yourself. I conclude that 'this is
wife-talk', as you say, belonging somewhere else.
'this is wife-talk'
>
>
> > The oceanic crust is thin at the
> > transforms and would expand to enlarge the surface of the earth, if this
is
> > growing. It does not. If it did, it would be visible in the magnetic
> > signature.
>
> Not following you, if you are saying differently from this:- "the
> ocean floors have grown, and that growth is manifest in the magnetic
> signature". Your defense is 'subduction', based on your unwarranted
> assumption of a Panthalassa.
'this is wife-talk'
> > You 'see' that ridge created 'now' is cracked to accomodate a growing
> > curvature that happens tomorrow. The old crust that really needs
ajusting
> > get no cracks.
>
> This is a good point (but I take it you are talking about mantle
> crust), and one I think is best answered by homogeneous ductile
> spreading:-
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/size.html> coupled with
> breakthrough of lower mantle in specific areas on transforms and along
> old sections of ridge. Also in older sections of the Western Pacific
> the Palimsests seem to be related to flat (torsional) detachments -
> which would also answer your point. about old crust adjusting.
'this is wife-talk'
> > That you put faith in the inverted order enough to make it a
> > 'proof' that expansion is ... as you express in the most positive term
...
> > counterintuitive.
> > If rule number 1, 2 or 3 is not understandable then you have no bricks
to
> > build with.
>
> "Faith"? Rule 1, 2, 3? (rule?)
What else? wife-talk ?
I should have said 'local structure' instead of 'structure'
> - its length, just as I've pointed out - the difference in ridge
> length from continental-margin length. Surely you don't mean to say
> you would go so far as ignore the difference between its size now, and
> the size it used to be? But I guess if you did you would have plenty
> of company. The difference forces the logic in favour of earth
> expansion, whilst simultaneously amputating the plate tectonic option.
If the large scale expression of EE is on your mind then pointed out further
up why the present structure does not favour EE.
I havn't notised.
Have they gone through the problem with continental magnetostratigraphy ...
the one that places continents at different palaeolatitudes through time?
All their pre jurassic data must be 100% off (if you fix equator) if the
radius was half of the present.
> The question was to do with the
> 2000km 'spike' of ridge growth that has to be accommodated by
> gravitational correction, and how this is manifested in the ocean
> floors, and why, if you are happy to use density-as-buoyancy, you are
> not happy to use it for gravitational correction to keep the Earth a
> (sort of) sphere. What's your answer?
>
>
> >
> > > And you talk about coriolis, why are you not happy to use rotation
> > > directly? What is it about this ridge that keeps moving up, that you
> > > want to be keep turning it through 90 degrees?
You need to explain a largescale screw on the earth surface, not I. It's not
I that chooses it as a proof of expansion. Use rotation directly and tell me
how it turns the earth into a screw.
> >
> > You wave the word 'torsion' and 'twist' around as primery constituents
of
> > your construction - the clue to understand expansion. Since you cannot
apply
> > these in any attempt to describe the mechanics, you lost your case.
>
> I wouldn't have thought it necessary: it's opening your eyes every
> time you wake up in the morning. Each day that dawns documents the
> mechanics. The Earth's rotational evolution that shifted the south
> pole from the centre of Africa to where it is at the present day
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html>
You are making geometry on a sphere. To use a term as torsion you imply a
body and two forces acting on it. Who knows if torsion is involved ... the
problem is that you take it as your proof of EE, so you need to be specific.
> (You're taking
> absolutely nothing of this in at all, are you?)
Right
Magnetostratigraphy and palćoreconstruction has been carried out.
I havn't got the big-bang fantasy
That's what convection is all about: seggregating Si and Al
> > Not the
> > other way round as you suggest. How does EE explain continents anyway?
You
> > never left a reference to that, and that's after all the primary concern
for
> > a lot of geologists.
>
> Differentiation/ formation of the Earth into a core mantle and a
> crust - from the heat of planetisimal accretion (with nothing left
> over to drive its deformation), would be the madatory position of
> yore, but with the recognition of expansion I'm not sure about that. A
> lot of things are up for reinterpretation.
Everything.
Do you suggest that they don't see which way the subducing oceanic plate is
moving and that the plate pop out from below with sediments on top?
> (so the H. don't have so far to
> go - crustally speaking).. After doing the collapsing 'marginal slip'
> (stacking and folding) thing, they just settle down again. It's the
> difference between 'moving' and 'growing'. (continental crust moves;
> mantle grows) (towards the ridge) (and up). By the way, the gradient
> is doing its level best to get back to horizontal/ flat/ sea-level.
'this is wife-talk'
> > > > > ('settling') against the continent. The real
> > > > > global motion
> > > >
> > > > According to what mechanical principles?
> > >
> > > The rotation of the Earth. I don't rightly know what physical
> > > principle this reflects. Some would say conservation of angular
> > > momentum of planetisimal accretion (but I find that difficult)
> >
> > You take it as your primary proof of expansion. Shouldn't your lack of
> > understanding it prevent you from using it as such? Have you forgot ...
you
> > are trying to show us all the logic behing EE, and you get stuck in your
> > first sentence!
>
> No, you have it wrong. As primary proof I take the torsional GEOMETRY
geometry, not torsional geometry.
> of aggregate architecture of transforms as the 'proof' ('support'
> would be a better word). I agree I've been a bit sloppy in
> abbreviating this simply to 'torsion', but I wouldn't have thought I
> would have met anyone this picky. I don't know what's causing the
> Earth to rotate.
You don't have to tell me.
> I might be completely wrong in relating the
> torsional growth
you mean the growth?
> of the planet to the sorts of changes in the Earth's
> rotation that have moved central Africa from the Pole to whre it is
> now <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html>
Skimming the palaeoreconstructions in Fowler I don't see any palaeo-pole in
Africa. I figure that you have to disband any magnetostratigrafic
measurement to make your world fit right. Another stack of geologists down
the drain.
> (but I don't
> think so). And in any case it doesn't matter, mechanism is not the
> issue. . The two bits of GEOMETRY (transforms and ocean floors) go
> hand in hand as regards ENLARGEMENT. Sure, we can argue (or others
> can - leave me out of it) about the dynamics and the cause. I stick
> with the empirical observation.
You mean an exclusive subset of empirical observations and ignore the
overwelming lot of observations that does not fit.
> > > > > All I hope I'm doing is helping people to look at things a bit
> > > > > differently. To 'see it'.
> > > >
> > > > You managed to provide a vision that the world is screwed up.
> > >
> > > No no no no, ..Just Pteros that are screwed up... The world is
> > > behaving exactly as it should.
> >
> > You made a drawing of the globe, not of a pterorist.
> >
> > > > And still ignore that structural activity is focussed in spreading
and
> > > > subduction zones.
> > >
> > > I don;'t know why you keep saying this. My whole site is all about
> > > how spreading ridges and subduction zones and transforms form. Do
> > > the google search and see if you don't believe me (google believes me)
> > >
> > >
> > > > The 'slush off' is very active and should be accompanied
> > > > by an equel activity of 'upward growing' and reveal considerable
> > stretches
> > > > of exposed mantle or 'grown up stuff' that, unfortunately to your
> > theory,
> > > > does not exist.
> > >
> > > No the "slush-off" is dead; kaput (mostly), left behind.
> >
> > No, it's actively happening as Asia is busy 'overriding' the oceanic
crust
>
> I did say "mostly". You're talking of the whispering tumbleweed of
> GPS, now that the 'longitudinal' element dominates. Pacific dilation
> was rather more agressively latitudinal (finger exercise).
'this is wife-talk'
That the African plate has had no subduction.
I really gave you a word to discredit me on, didn't I? Can you do better?
> > > > > J.F Moyen set me straight long ago on the plate tectonics' view of
> > > > > convection cells vitually in reply to my first post. He put it in
> > > > > capital letters with marching ants "CONVECTING CELLS DON'T EXIST".
> > > > > (Stuart had something to say about that - I forget what)
> > > >
> > > > There is several points to "J.F Moyen" on a google. Does he have an
> > english
> > > > one dealing with the problem?
> > >
> > > (I thought you would google up the "convecting cells don't exist") (my
> > > intuition got screwed up) Try here:-
> > >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%40lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dmoyen%2Bconvection%2Bexist%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%2540lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr%26rnum%3D1
> > >
> >
> > He doesn't seem to have any issues with PT.
>
> What? you mean chucking out convection cells wasn't an issue? It sure
> got Stu jumping in. (On second thoughts, spit that mouthful out.
> Looks like you're going to need every ounce of concentration for the
> rest of the journey.)
OK. Tell the guy that he is selling EE.
If it wasn't you could metamorphose a layer by accreating matter below. This
is the kind of logic that I confront in your thread and pages.
> > so stating that it's a cause
> > of compression contradicts your principle. As I said before, you cannot
make
> > a metamorphic compression by adding matter from below. That is, if you
want
> > to involve the above matter into the metamorphism.
>
> Not at all. I meant compression as in what happens when your condo
> falls on you. Simple. Not fancy. vertical lift causes compression
> when things fall over.
'this is wife-talk' until you reveal what's below, put a proper orientation
to your phenomena and provide a tilt. If the stack is accreated from below
it should reveal itself.
> > > Now just think: which
> > > is the more economical in terms of what you know about geology?
> > > Plate tectonics: exactly aligned compression; half a world of travel:
> > > convective overturn; Asymmetrical uplift (e.g. India goes down;
> > > himalayas up; why isn't it symmetrical?) etc etc
> >
> > I'm sure that the world contains a lot of geology that I have not payed
> > attention to.
>
> Ah, ... so you haven't thought about plate tectonics before now....
Do yourself a favour and think of something else.
>
> > > And importantly -
> > > IGNORES TORSIONAL
> > > ADJUSTMENTS
> > > Earth expansion: uplift in situ; collapse in situ; torsional
> > > adjustment <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion.html>
> >
> > Have I put my point on you and torsion clear enough?
>
> No, not really.
It won't make sense to put it once more then. I adressed this primary
problem in every post.
> You have made clear about your doubts as to
> mechanism, but have not yet said whether you accept the ARCHITECTURE
> OF GROWTH (leaving 'mechanism' aside). My point is, if you accept
> the *GEOMETRY* that is displayed there, then the exercise of
> retrofititing forces a *CONCLUSION* of planetary growth. Mechanism
> is left entirely aside as something consequential to be argued about.
> But the enlargment of the planet is itself not in question. If you
> accept the *GEOMETRY* then you have to accommodate it into the model
> of plate tectonics, and plate tectonics doesn't do that. If it did,
> it would abandon subduction.
> That's what I mean about a "lay-down
> misere". I'm just doing the fun bit of the shortcut, but obviously
> the documentation of the detail needs much more. There's a century
> of work in it - for an army of people too.
> That abstract JT posted a
> while back from Arizona about a "new paradigm" based on a "necklace"
> of transforms, hints at it, but I think they don't realise where it's
> leading them. I can hardly believe (but it seems to be true) that at
> the same time as recognising Euler Poles, people have left out the
> larger picture of this consequence. That much is really puzzling.
> And just as puzzling is that in consideration of this 'torsion'
What does your spiral signifiy? That the globe grew from the pole and down?
The present state of a large screwlike twist of the globe ... is very little
identifyable with a passed equel spiral, in particular in an EE sense. And,
if you should have forgot: how does the consept of torsion apply?
> no-one has raised the issue either of Euler poles (pivots of
> rotation), or abyssal hills as the expression of ridge-growth that
> relate to that. Instead it's all the 'George' of the past - about
> dykes dykes and more dykes... Those scarps and the + - + - magnetic
> expression, define mantle layering. Scarps are scarps. If it was
> the crust it would be Basin and Range (sort of), except it's in the
> mantle. I see nothing 'puzzling' about abyssal hills, not even why
> plate tectonics can't accommodate them. It's model of 'ridge-push' or
> contraction (and therefore age dates of the ocean floors) simply
> can't.
>
>
> > > > You have not applied factual geology to
> > > > your model of this.
> > >
> > > I think I have / am
> >
> > Yes, considering the oceanfloor. And your result is counterintuitive.
> > You have not used/added continental geology data and compared it to your
> > model.
>
> ("..The last current bed in the last riverbank...") ('Armies')
>
Not using current geological data makes your model higly speculative. I
understand that you cannot, becourse it will contradict everything you try
to prove.
No kind of logic bites on you.
Carsten Troelsgaard
"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.t...@mail.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:40fba2af$0$189$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
snip
> > of the planet to the sorts of changes in the Earth's
> > rotation that have moved central Africa from the Pole to whre it is
> > now <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html>
>
> Skimming the palaeoreconstructions in Fowler I don't see any palaeo-pole
in
> Africa.
Euler's pole, ofcourse - not the geographic pole.
> I figure that you have to disband any magnetostratigrafic
> measurement to make your world fit right. Another stack of geologists down
> the drain.
The objection stands anyway as put elsewhere in this post.
snip
Oriel36
It is not entirely possible because the necessary astronomical
principles have been cut to pieces and replaced by a Newtonian set of
principles based on a specific sidereal astronomical outlook that
never worked.
It is however entirely possible to set aside rotational and orbital
considerations and delve into the correct assumption that a cooling
Earth generates a greater volume of crust from a denser mantle thereby
acting in concert with the greater motions of the Earth it would
affect the development and continuing evolution of physical features.
Angular momentum and the sidereal view go hand in hand,it combines the
axial and orbital motion of the Earth into a single motion as if
rolling a ball inside a dish with the palm of your hand.Astronomically
this does not occur,the Earth's axial rotation is independent of its
orbital motion,axial rotation remains constant whereas the distance
the Earth proceeds in its annual orbit varies.
If the Earth's motions were as the sidereal format dictated it would
have a constant axial rotation and a constant orbital motion.
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/lectures/kepler.htm
Bringing this as close to geology as possible,the combined axial and
orbital motion of the Earth does not behave in the sidereal manner
which forms the point of departure for Newton's gravitational
agenda.Once a geologists attempts to bring rotational considerations
into play and it should be a normal consideration,adherence to
Newton's gravitational outlook brings it all to a screeching
halt.There is no neccessity to go beyond a certain point
astronomically if geological considerations are being discussed but if
you are intent in bringing up angular momentum,you are required to
acknowledge Newton derives it from a particular outlook which is wrong
in principle -
"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
I have been dealing with this intellectual holocaust for years and I
do not use the term lightly,insofar as Newton's line of reasoning up
to a point is fine until he applies it to celestial motion and the
crooked manner in which he formats it,you can get away with it for
hundreds of years until a geologist needs the proper designations for
axial and orbital motion both independently and combined.
Allow me to be quite frank,I have absolutely no idea of the mechanisn
that causes the Earth to spin on its axis,orbit around the Sun,orbit
around the galactic axis or any other large scale motion present after
the lesser three known ones,neither did Newton and he was only working
off two known rotations -axial and orbital.I do not consider it a
deficiency except when someone pretends to know such as application of
the gravitational agenda directly to celestial observation,any doubts
to the limitations of that agenda should by now be obvious.
I have dealt with the density/volume ratio of stellar evolution and
collapse long before the images of sn1987a emerged to confirm the
particular geometric ring structures in 1994 and definitely appreceate
how the volume of the Earth increases at the expense of the transfer
of material from mantle to surface features and without reservation
the credit is Don's.Again,I don't pretend to be a geologist but as you
are one,why shoot yourself in the foot and oppose the outlines of a
concept that is essentially correct.Don seems to have no problem in
setting the rotational element aside for the time being and neither
would I.Your difficulties with physicists and astronomers would be far
greater than any disagreement among yourselves,of that you can be
certain.
> > Why would you willingly deface you own geological discipline for the
> > sake of physicists who squander their time with multiple
> > universes,dark matter,space with geometric properties,clashing
> > branes,ect when most of the general population have turned aside from
> > these novelties and enjoy as I do a rough idea of how the Earth's
> > present physical features developed from the past.
>
> If you refer to Don's representation then please enjoy. You have a gross
> error in estimating the support for EE.
>
The lack of discussion on crustal development and from there into the
evolution of physical features is almost incredible.A volume increase
on the Earth's girth or in the formation of mountain ranges is
extremely exciting yet the behavior is to remain with limited dynamics
and this I do not understand.Even allowing for crustal recycling and
the deposits from eruptions surely there is a place for crustal
development from a very hot surface and thin crust in the planet's
early evolution to what exists today and continues tommorrrow.
I cannot call into question how Don arrived at the insight regardless
of how he treats the greater motions of the Earth no more than I
question Newton's.What is most problematic is that in recognising
those parts of Newton which represent an achievement and those which
are not,ultimately the whole picture descends into a botched
state.That being said,an increase in volume of the Earth opens far
more doors than it closes.
Carsten Troelsgaard
It is still unfortunate that Don takes it as a major proof of EE.
> It is however entirely possible to set aside rotational and orbital
> considerations and delve into the correct assumption that a cooling
> Earth generates a greater volume of crust from a denser mantle thereby
> acting in concert with the greater motions of the Earth it would
> affect the development and continuing evolution of physical features.
I'm not a chemist. I know of water as a rare substance that expands on
cooling. That cooling generally provide expanse could greatly enhance it's
credibillity by a reference/link.
> Angular momentum and the sidereal view go hand in hand,it combines the
> axial and orbital motion of the Earth into a single motion as if
> rolling a ball inside a dish with the palm of your hand.Astronomically
> this does not occur,the Earth's axial rotation is independent of its
> orbital motion,axial rotation remains constant whereas the distance
> the Earth proceeds in its annual orbit varies.
>
> If the Earth's motions were as the sidereal format dictated it would
> have a constant axial rotation and a constant orbital motion.
>
>
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm
>
> http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/lectures/kepler.htm
>
>
>
> Bringing this as close to geology as possible,the combined axial and
> orbital motion of the Earth does not behave in the sidereal manner
> which forms the point of departure for Newton's gravitational
> agenda.Once a geologists attempts to bring rotational considerations
> into play and it should be a normal consideration,adherence to
> Newton's gravitational outlook brings it all to a screeching
> halt.There is no neccessity to go beyond a certain point
> astronomically if geological considerations are being discussed but if
> you are intent in bringing up angular momentum,you are required to
> acknowledge Newton derives it from a particular outlook which is wrong
> in principle -
Maybe this clears out for Don what he means by torsion and the influence of
Earth's spin on it's structure. Why shouldn't I find it conspicuous that Don
possibly learn now what he has been preaching for a while. Personally, it's
still a mystery to me how such vague terms is a proof of EE.
You may have a good chemical reason, I don't know.
> Again,I don't pretend to be a geologist but as you
> are one,why shoot yourself in the foot and oppose the outlines of a
> concept that is essentially correct.
It contradicts heaps of data, explains a few and mystifies general
understanding of physics, astronomy and geology.
> Don seems to have no problem in
> setting the rotational element aside for the time being and neither
> would I.Your difficulties with physicists and astronomers would be far
> greater than any disagreement among yourselves,of that you can be
> certain.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Why would you willingly deface you own geological discipline for the
> > > sake of physicists who squander their time with multiple
> > > universes,dark matter,space with geometric properties,clashing
> > > branes,ect when most of the general population have turned aside from
> > > these novelties and enjoy as I do a rough idea of how the Earth's
> > > present physical features developed from the past.
> >
> > If you refer to Don's representation then please enjoy. You have a gross
> > error in estimating the support for EE.
> >
>
> The lack of discussion on crustal development and from there into the
> evolution of physical features is almost incredible.
How do you know.
> A volume increase
> on the Earth's girth or in the formation of mountain ranges is
> extremely exciting yet the behavior is to remain with limited dynamics
> and this I do not understand.
Maybe becourse you aren't a geologist.
> Even allowing for crustal recycling and
> the deposits from eruptions surely there is a place for crustal
> development from a very hot surface and thin crust in the planet's
> early evolution to what exists today and continues tommorrrow.
>
> I cannot call into question how Don arrived at the insight regardless
> of how he treats the greater motions of the Earth no more than I
> question Newton's.What is most problematic is that in recognising
> those parts of Newton which represent an achievement and those which
> are not,ultimately the whole picture descends into a botched
> state.That being said,an increase in volume of the Earth opens far
> more doors than it closes.
Enjoy it.
don findlay
___________________________________
Look, Carsten, ... It's really very easy. I'll answer your previous
post later, but here, it's simple. Gondwanaland. All fitted
together, once-upon-a-time, across the what is now Indian and Atlantic
Oceans. Yes? Well so it did across the Pacific too (with Laurasia).
They key to how lies in the helical (torsional/ twisting) growth.
That's all. It's that simple. If plate tectonics incorporates that
twist, then it goes down the same road. No choice. But it has to
recognise the existence of that helical spiral/ (sort of helix). It
will be a while, once it recognises the *EXISTENCE* of it, before it
recognises the *SIGNIFICANCE* of it, I grant you (there is so much to
be undone / dropped off); I'm just giving you a bit of a pointer.
Don't argue about coriolis, and forces and models. They're not an
issue. Just bring it back to the empirical observations (geology),
and you'll be right. See the continents, not as black-hooded jigsaw
pieces to be fitted together, but see how they've behaved in relation
to the growth of the ocean floors (before they start getting
destroyed). And then see if there's any need for that 'destruction'.
(Sorry, let's call it 'excision', ..to match the growth, and leave
aside notions of 'convection' and 'rotation'. Eventuyally you'll get
around to considering the two, but they're getting in the way.
Carsten Troelsgaard
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:273f8e06.04071...@posting.google.com...
snip
> Don seems to have no problem in
> setting the rotational element aside for the time being and neither
> would I.
I found a link called 'thesis' to Don's abstract.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/abstract.html
Quote
The torsional structure of the earth's crust is ignored in plate tectonics.
This site highlights the importance of global torsion in the Earth's
deformation, and through this, predicts the transition from plate tectonics
to Earth Expansion.
Unquote
I figure that the only thing Don lacks is closing down his web-site.
Oriel, don't bother to answer this post. I give Don no credit and you far
less.
Carsten Troelsgaard
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5f164087.04071...@posting.google.com...
Don, I found your thesis.html. It clearly shows a torsional effect the
'Coriolis' way.
I don't know why have you been on retreat on this fact ever since I started
talking about it?
I made a calculation that may be viable for crust sliding on a tuff surface.
Introducing a ductile flow may be able to incoorporate the torque through
the incremental small pieces of work that it could be able to perform ...
I'm not particularly well informed on tectonics to tell ... and in
particular, I expected you to launch an argument.
Anyway, the torsion-thing is the backbone of your thesis/abstract, so you
have to apply it as you originally intended.
This is where this post gets achtuallity: Setting the pole somewhere in
Africa. I figure that you are working on a terrible blow on continental
magnetostratigraphy as I write this.
I added the post as I thought that the euler-pole and torque was purely
geometric and the coordinatesystem an abstract. It isn't, so I didn't
mistake anything anyway.
don findlay
the dummy. He's looked at my abstract page, and reckons I ought to
close the site. Just when I'm getting close to top spot for "plate
tectonics" (with <anything else sensible> too. What's to be done? He
says I'm destroying my credibility and making mutes of people by my
strategy of providing such sheer quantity of information. I'm
striking them dumb. I suppose he means by supporting my case... Well,
I suppose it *is* a bit different from the wife-talk strategy of plate
tectonics which goes something like:- "If you do not know the question
to the answer of the mystery of which I speak, then that is not my
fault. I am bending over forwards for you, and you cannot see the
light. Well (you poor fool) ...I am not going to tell you. Look
more closely and the question will be revealed".
I hope he's wrong though about the fifteen pages. Will it really take
that much to get the point across of the difference between stretching
and growth? Two little words? So much illustration? (No,
...surely not). But I can't say this newsgroup is overwhelmed with
people with questions - or even answers - about plate tectonics. (I
see the pig in the volcano is getting pretty good press though.)
('Weapons of mass destruction..')(Consensus) Isn't it amazing how
'embedded reporting' can get just about everyone to swallow just about
anything - hook line and sinker...? He's chosen the Purple Whore of
Babylon over Fair Maiden whom he sees in wifely guise as the Balrog of
Khazad Dh^um. No sense at all of ambidextrous sexed-up data. Why,
for a moment there I almost felt the wind of change. Maybe if I go
and tie a yellow ribbon somewhere, that might help. I wonder what
he'll say when he gets back home, ...how he felt the fire, saw
perspectives undreamt, ...grotesqueries unimaginable, possibilities
unfathomable. But instead it's back to Plate tecbloodytonics...,
Medicine and Monday. Regular, ...if nothing else.
Oriel36
Your request is denied for I have not sought and would not seek credit
among contemporaries,the standard is just too low however I recognise
the exquisite astronomical heritage that was destroyed and cannot be
passed on to our children because of brute reasoning that has
snowballed for centuries to the wretched condition that exists today.
Not a single person can handle the Scholium IV of the Principia,these
passages are not only the basis for the gravitational agenda applied
to astronomy but also the main obstacle for any progress when taking
the Earth's motion's into account.Put it another way,Newton
re-organised valid astronomical terms in an unorthodox way to suit
himself and I can tell you exactly where validity shades into
astronomical perversion whereas you and your colleagues are completely
lost becoming as it were,beggars on horseback at the expense of
Copernicus and Kepler.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
A person will know the errors in Newton's thinking by going outside
and putting the actual motions of the Earth into perspective.The very
ground you are standing on contains all the information you need,you
are not asked to remain recognising for long that it is not the Sun or
stars moving but the Earth and then and only then can you begin to
associate geology with astronomy.
don findlay
telling me to give it a miss and saying that the topic is
mind-numbingly ("splittingly") boring, and couldn't we all have some
other topic instead. I suggested my plate tectonics questions must be
too easy. "No", she says (they're not difficult), "we're just bored
with the same old questions, for which you want new answers, and a
few people on a Net newsgroup aren't providing." But I don't keep
asking old questions, I keep asking new ones as they occur to me. New
ones to me anyway. Maybe I'm just a slow learner. Maybe I'm just
catching up to where everybody else is. Maybe everybody knows there
are no answers to these questions, but that doesn't matter so long as
everyone keeps Mum about it. Certainly because of the format of
Googlegroup all the previous questions get lugged along with each new
one. Jo of course, previously being a teacher, has probably heard
them all before, and as well (she says) has plenty of others of her
own. Well, in the "You gotta show me" stakes, ...in the
"I'll-show-you-mine-if-you-show-me-yours", I've kept my side of the
bargain. ...But, ..women! (Them Missourri gals). George has it
right, heading off down to Florida, when he fancies a bit of horse -
though I don't why he fancies horses. "Fillies", he says. But I
know, ...and you know, ... Well, I guess he should know, since it's
him dealing, ... It's their birthday today too apparently, all over
the world. Fancy that.. Hit with a Chinese Horroscope. (Hey,
George!) Meanwhile People on newsgroups aren't providing any,
...and this means I (and people like me) ain't *Gitt'n'* enny!
And that pisses me off.
So, ...Ruby's Con and not gitt'n any and what's to be done about it
(apart from not falling in without a lifebelt of sorts. Well, I
reckon another tack is needed. We need to close this chapter, and
focus on the main game. I don't know exactly what that main game is,
Maybe a Life, ...NOw wouldn't something worthwhile like that be good.
But in the meantime, since my site is getting up there with the worst
of them, it will probably need some upgrading. There's the crumpling
of mountain belts that leave them flat to deal with, fill out, ..And
how the lower mantle breaks through the upper mantle, and where, and
why, and how it all fits in with the growth and the twist ...and how
mountains are still way up there when they shouldn't be, and all that
stuff about ore deposits to pick up again, and where they fit in the
picture. And how you recognise where's the best places to look to
make money. $Munn-Y. (chant: The munny that makes the world go
round, the munny that makes people rich, ..the bread and the dosh the
leuchre and tosh, that transforms a nice girl to a bitch). Money
that makes peepul rich.. And the poor, poor. And how exciting all
of *that* is, when all of *this* is so boring. The WURLD needs me,
even if the Lass frum Missourri doesn't. And Carsten. And George.
And Alan. And Rod, Rob, Bob, Slob and Mob (and Shane, Shayne, Wayne
and Duane) ..and Stu. And plate tectonics. And the Mining industry.
If anyone's reading this (and of course I don't believe for a moment
they are - why would they after all, since it's all mindsplittingly
boring),... here's a secret:- this is the one that the mining industry
doesn't like most of all:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/bhill.jpg>
It wasn't exactly where I came in (though it was pretty close to it),
but it sure as bloody hell was where I went out. You wouldn't
believe how angry putting it in a nutshell like that made some people,
especially those who worked on the deposit. And all the other ore
deposits too. Me? Never been there. Or here, or most places.
Don't have to. Why would you want to when it's staring you in the
face like that. There's a whole CSIRO still trying to work out why
Broken Hill, a supergiant orebody is there and trying to raise Big
Dollars to explain it.. They say it's to find out, so they can apply
their knowledge to finding others, and "Glass Earth" and all that kind
of stuff. But it's not. It's already found out. And as well, we've
put the hems on the evolution of gobal geology since the Mesozoic
right into the lower mantle. So what they're saying is a load of old
tosh. It's so they can spend in the supermarket and on branded
clothes and cars and holidays and other cool stuff at your expwense.
And I did it for free, (Free Man.) thirty years ago, thinking I was
doing a public good and that people would be interested, most of all
people in the mining industry. Turned out when you put it in front
of them like that they were about as interested as Jo is in plate
tectonics. In direct proportion too, to the degree they should have
been, according to their 'position'. Milk Cow, ... and pretty
maids all in a row. Ah dear, ...mind you, I don't buy clothes, nor
go holidays. Maybe if I shaved now and then I might have a chance
amongst all those beautiful people with mobile phones and velcro
face-straps. I just annoy people on this newsgroup. Which is why
I'm so popular, and you're all agog reading this. Right? And
telling me to get stuffed. What a mob! Next they'll be saying it's
me that's the Pterrorist threatening their mindsful of peace and
security. And that I might even blow them up or something... But
it's *Them* sending *me* trojans down the line every second day, just
in case I become of a wayward disposition. What a laugh!
So Right. Closing the chapter on asking questions. No answers
here. ( 'George', you can come out now, the game's a bogey. As you
were. Every bit. (And always will be.) ( Mutt.)
(Where was I anyhow? Where was it I came in? Something went awry,
not exactly sure where... Getting Stu offside straight away, and now
Jo, and the prelates and the whole congregation in between.I think
we'll have to start all over again for the benefit of the interested
reader -see if we can't convert Carsten this time. (We must have
taken a wrong turning) (And Ralph, still peddling air) Won't do, to
leave them hanging like that. Well, are we sitting comfortably?
Then we'll begin, ... There's this popular theory, that the Earth is
divided into about eight - or is it twelve - major plates, that swan
around the globe, crashing here and bashing there and throwing up
mountains (Waow-Gee, Oh! already this is so exciting...!) , ...and
creating ocean floors and ....etc etc... ) (Coal Man, Coal)
(Coming soon to a newsgroup near you)
don findlay
THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
Oriel36
> Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
> THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
You are pointing out a correlation without supporting it with a
mechanism that relates orbital motion with axial rotation.
"And why are those mountains situated exactly where they are on the
planet? ....exactly where they are that is, in relation to the
Earth's rotational axis and the ecliptic? "
From your website.
"Earth expansion? = .The Earth's crust - a single plate, in
torsional, dilational disruption due to an imbalance in rotational -
gravitational dynamics. Plate tectonics has ignored, and continues
to ignore, this definitive torsional architecture of the Earth's
crust."
The imbalance is not in the ecliptic the imbalance is the variable
orbital rotational speed in combination with constant axial
rotation.Having the Earth 'twist' or torsion due to axial rotation
against the ecliptic generates nothing on its own.Geologists already
know or at least should know that there is an imbalance in orbital and
axial speeds but they also know that the axial tilt has a long term
cyclical variation.
The geologists also know that the Earth's Equatorial bulge is
conditioned by axial rotation but why introduce expansion as anything
but a physical transfer from mantle to crust as a process.Why
shortcircuit the ability to adjust the mechanism of plate tectonics
from the weaker mechanisn of convection cells to astronomical origins
by imposing an ambiguous twisting-expanding format that cannot account
for where themass for expansion comes from.
From your website.
"So why call it plate tectonics? Why? Just so we know what's being
consigned to the archives of history. The transition from plate
tectonics to Earth expansion is imminent. Even though there is as yet
no clear understanding of the mechanism by which expansion may occur,
the empirical conclusion stands - the Earth is getting bigger, ...and,
geologically speaking, at a remarkable rate. The reason why
expansion is occurring is for the physics community to address. They
need to waken up."
You want empirical recognition,then fine,I'm sure they will trump up
dark energy or expanding space to fit your model right into and end up
doing to geology what they did to astronomy.The same empirical crowd
that designed experiments to disprove seashells on mountaintops while
Steno was reasoning from observations of sedimentary layering is sure
a wonderful crowd to appeal to.
Nobody in their right mind is going to consign plate tectonics or the
effects at crustal boundaries to the scrapheap of history,the
mechanism for explaining crustal movement may be indeed too weak at
present but that is about all.The format for introducing astronomical
considerations into the development and continuing evolution of
physical surface features is problematic insofar as the
astrophysical-gravitational format accepts no imbalance between axial
and orbital motion,prefering to adhere to the sidereal format for
axial and orbital motion.
http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/sidereal.gif
You want to be the first to bring this into public view then good for
you.What do you think,that Darwin brought the idea of slow biological
evolution over billions of year in a vacuum when geologists were doing
it for centuries in terms of geology even if they were forced to
condition it by denominational concerns.Naw,the spirit of
investigation is lost,too specialised/formal in language and method
with none of the free-wheeling exchange of views that facilitates a
responsible discussion,so much bravado about acceptance or rejection
that the material gets lost in the attempt to be right or first.
Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow;
He who would search for pearls must dive below.
John Dryden (1631–1700)
don findlay
> d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
> > THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
>
> You are pointing out a correlation without supporting it with a
> mechanism that relates orbital motion with axial rotation.
I don't know what the mechanism is, ..all I see is the result, and am
prepared to take a guess that the cause cannot be intrinsic to the
Earth itself, but must be external. Orbital motion / axial
rotation? Sure., ..sounds good to me. The symmetries support it. I
would have hoped the geological observations supporting it would have
been of more interest than they apparently have. Which confirms to me
that the essence of 'science' is not as it's portrayed. I guess
there are a lot reading this that are amused at this demonstration of
'charming naivety'.
> "And why are those mountains situated exactly where they are on the
> planet? ....exactly where they are that is, in relation to the
> Earth's rotational axis and the ecliptic? "
>
> From your website.
>
> "Earth expansion? = .The Earth's crust - a single plate, in
> torsional, dilational disruption due to an imbalance in rotational -
> gravitational dynamics. Plate tectonics has ignored, and continues
> to ignore, this definitive torsional architecture of the Earth's
> crust."
>
> The imbalance is not in the ecliptic the imbalance is the variable
> orbital rotational speed in combination with constant axial
> rotation.Having the Earth 'twist' or torsion due to axial rotation
> against the ecliptic generates nothing on its own.
This is why I speculated on Moon Capture ....
> Geologists already
> know or at least should know that there is an imbalance in orbital and
> axial speeds but they also know that the axial tilt has a long term
> cyclical variation.
...early in the evolution of the planet - but it doesn't quite gel,
doesn't quite account for the 'mass' aspect.
> The geologists also know that the Earth's Equatorial bulge is
> conditioned by axial rotation but why introduce expansion as anything
> but a physical transfer from mantle to crust as a process.
Why? Because there's too much of it to attribute to matter as we
know it.
> Why
> shortcircuit the ability to adjust the mechanism of plate tectonics
> from the weaker mechanisn of convection cells to astronomical origins
> by imposing an ambiguous twisting-expanding format that cannot account
> for where themass for expansion comes from.
Because doing that is like fiddling with an abhortion to make it more
attractive/ less unattractive. Like trying to beautify the two ugly
sisters. Why would you want to when Cinderella is strutting her
stuff? There's nothing in plate tectonics that hangs together. It's
a fall-about abortion and has all got to go, but something needs to be
put in its place, something that includes the Earth's bigtime increase
in size. It's too bad that this throws a whole lot of things that are
generally accepted as 'fact' into doubt, but it is so. The ships
sails are appearing over the horizon again. All Earth expansion does
is accept/ assume that they belong to a ship. We're waiting for some
bright spark to come up with an equivalent reason for why the Earth is
round.
> From your website.
>
> "So why call it plate tectonics? Why? Just so we know what's being
> consigned to the archives of history. The transition from plate
> tectonics to Earth expansion is imminent. Even though there is as yet
> no clear understanding of the mechanism by which expansion may occur,
> the empirical conclusion stands - the Earth is getting bigger, ...and,
> geologically speaking, at a remarkable rate. The reason why
> expansion is occurring is for the physics community to address. They
> need to waken up."
>
> You want empirical recognition,then fine,I'm sure they will trump up
> dark energy or expanding space to fit your model right into and end up
> doing to geology what they did to astronomy.The same empirical crowd
> that designed experiments to disprove seashells on mountaintops while
> Steno was reasoning from observations of sedimentary layering is sure
> a wonderful crowd to appeal to.
Another 'Epicycle'? Well, .. that reflects on them, if they insist
on messing about like that. Let's see how clever they are. It
used to be that invention was in the hands of the Church. But now
there's the web to which young people with a curious disposition have
access, not only the sacred writings of the Elohim and admission to
the fold. Information in itself is more powerful than the way it is
used by incompetents. Everything is up for grabs (again).
Interesting times.
Besides, ..I don't know that I am appealing to them. If I were, I
would publish. With the 'script' and ostentatious obeisance, it's not
that difficult. But again, why would 'Cinderella' want to?
> Nobody in their right mind is going to consign plate tectonics or the
> effects at crustal boundaries to the scrapheap of history,the
> mechanism for explaining crustal movement may be indeed too weak at
> present but that is about all.The format for introducing astronomical
> considerations into the development and continuing evolution of
> physical surface features is problematic insofar as the
> astrophysical-gravitational format accepts no imbalance between axial
> and orbital motion,prefering to adhere to the sidereal format for
> axial and orbital motion.
>
> http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/sidereal.gif
Sure they are Gerald, ...not those committed I grant you, but they
can't shove the webgenie back in the bottle. Even if half of
Pterologists become pteronomers we're at least half way there.
Equatorial bulge? ..mountain belts flat? .. Have a laugh at them,
and just watch them rush out of the spotlight whilst they remove the
red nose and the baggy pants, even if they forget about the warpaint.
They're a joke. All they need to see it, is a mirror.
> You want to be the first to bring this into public view then good for
> you.
That doesn't matter to me one bit. Besides I'm not the first. Carey
did it long ago, though sure, there were a few things he omitted/
overlooked, but he very substantially paved the way, and all credits
are his. And there are others. But sure, I wouldn't bother if I
thought I wasn't saying something that added to the picture. As it
is, I'm just marking time having some fun, while there's fun in it.
It's an interesting jigsaw - though I was always hopeless at jigsaws
and crosswords. I'm more interested in discovering the questions that
are the obverse to the answers and letting them speak for themselves,
and in between working out how that picture applies to ore deposits.
Though I must say I'm getting a bit bored with it since I see how it
all ties together. People's stupidity is fact enough to be not
really that big a deal, ...and anyhow, ... in sheepland the one that
wanders from the mob is not the one being clever.
> What do you think,that Darwin brought the idea of slow biological
> evolution over billions of year in a vacuum when geologists were doing
> it for centuries in terms of geology even if they were forced to
> condition it by denominational concerns.Naw,the spirit of
> investigation is lost,too specialised/formal in language and method
> with none of the free-wheeling exchange of views that facilitates a
> responsible discussion,so much bravado about acceptance or rejection
> that the material gets lost in the attempt to be right or first.
(Sheep. Or something.) It's how things carry the essence of their
own destruction. 'Big Science' and 'budgets' have killed the spirit
you mention. That's a thing apart - the 'filling out', the using
tools, which is real science, what JPT calls OXFED tradesmen. 'Course
he's right. Very necessary when you want to get to Mars on something
better than a bike, but it doesn't really square with the essence of
science the way they like to say. Now *that* is all about being
first in the saddle, but I don't think any of the pioneers of the
other sort of 'science' are driven by 'firstlust'. Well if they are
then they certainly pay for it by tying themselves to the stake. The
Sacrifice Voluntary (taraaann!). Truth is a strange thing when you
think of it - that 'thing' that real scientists say there is no room
for in real science. It makes and destroys at the same time. It's
a powerful weapon, when weapons are the issue. (A real fucker to try
to wield though, I think anyone will admit when reflecting on their
own excursions)
> Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow;
> He who would search for pearls must dive below.
>
> John Dryden (1631?1700)
Oriel36
> geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
> > > THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
> > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
> >
> > You are pointing out a correlation without supporting it with a
> > mechanism that relates orbital motion with axial rotation.
>
> I don't know what the mechanism is, ..all I see is the result, and am
> prepared to take a guess that the cause cannot be intrinsic to the
> Earth itself, but must be external.
Sir.
In order to ascertain astronomical causes effecting geological surface
feature development,it is more productive to fit them into existing
principles that facilitate the geological/astronomical connection such
as variations in the elliptical motion in the planet affecting climate
change which in turn shows up in strata, be it ice or rock.My interest
in the matter is that not only is the Earth's planetary history read
like a book in the rock but also its astronomical history,at least up
to a point.
When men are faced with two seperate facts,in this case geology,one
relating to layering and one relating to crustal motion,the obvious
puzzle is that if you construct a supercontinent and a crust already
formed,it looks like defered creationism without any reference to how
the supercontinent and crust formed and this strains the
imagination.It is a habit that when faced with a dilemma,scientists
cut their losses, not wait for additional data that might be helpful
and create a specialised vocabulary to hide the dilemma.This is no
exagerration despite the attempt to fictionalise that all is rosy -
These men were not naive,they were honest enough to admit that the Sun
attraction to the Earth does'nt require a mediun while the Sun's
illumination of the Earth does.In 1905 they simply dumped the medium
on Newton whether he wanted it or not and fabricated the most spurious
concept ever seen on the planet.
Had they waited until stellar rotation around the galactic axis showed
up,much of what Newton wrote could have been altered by conditioning
the influences of that motion on the solar system without jettisoning
everything but the physics discipline had painted itself into a
contrived corner where it remains.
If you argue for astronomical elements affecting geological
evolution,you cannot appeal to the physics/astronomical community that
has a different agenda,final theories and things like that.They are
waiting for a man with a set of equations to describe everything but
remarkably the most productive line of inquiry should be the great
geological book formed in layers of rock and mountain ranges rather
than more powerful telescopes and satellites looking for things that
are not there.
Orbital motion / axial
> rotation? Sure., ..sounds good to me. The symmetries support it.
Please Don,it would be offensive to continue on this matter not least
that it would not support your avenue.Orbital motion does not align
with independent axial rotation over the course of an annual orbit.We
have a change in seasons due to axial orientation remaining constant
while orbital orientation changes and the difference in the two
generates the change in seasons.Contemporaries say that axial tilt to
the Sun causes seasonal change but that is a poor interpretation.
I
> would have hoped the geological observations supporting it would have
> been of more interest than they apparently have. Which confirms to me
> that the essence of 'science' is not as it's portrayed. I guess
> there are a lot reading this that are amused at this demonstration of
> 'charming naivety'.
>
Those who have an eye and talent for drawing conclusions from
correlations accurately have little time for lamenting on priority or
correctness.If a theory suddenly appears out of the blue that it
acceptable to a line of inquiry that is in itself inadequate why would
you wish to appeal to them.The cycle of
astronomical/climatatological/geological evidence is already there and
I learn more of astronomy through geology than having them split into
two seperate disciplines.It is a turf problem if geologists enter the
astronomical arena with a different view of how to look at the 'past'.
The current fad of the astronomer,geologist,archaeologist,ect saving
the planet betrays the fact that they cannot save their own
disciplines.
>
> > "And why are those mountains situated exactly where they are on the
> > planet? ....exactly where they are that is, in relation to the
> > Earth's rotational axis and the ecliptic? "
> >
> > From your website.
> >
> > "Earth expansion? = .The Earth's crust - a single plate, in
> > torsional, dilational disruption due to an imbalance in rotational -
> > gravitational dynamics. Plate tectonics has ignored, and continues
> > to ignore, this definitive torsional architecture of the Earth's
> > crust."
> >
> > The imbalance is not in the ecliptic the imbalance is the variable
> > orbital rotational speed in combination with constant axial
> > rotation.Having the Earth 'twist' or torsion due to axial rotation
> > against the ecliptic generates nothing on its own.
>
> This is why I speculated on Moon Capture ....
>
Look Don,I had worked on supernova rings long before they were ever
discovered,the copyright being only there for the purpose of
demonstrating that it was a pre-discovery work in terms of being
visible than an explanation after the visible fact and even then I
regret it.It is not meant to fit into the contemporary framework of
stellar evolution but more an intimate relationship between the
tendency of forms towards a particular geometry both terrestial and
celestial.Like geology,we are surrounded by clues but fail to pick up
on them and I no more speculate on the causes beyond which is
necessary,the clues are there nonetheless.
I could not afford to use speculation in a promiscuous way for the
whole thing would amount to guesswork and unfortunately there has been
too much of that.It being a matter of using older investigations in a
new way,scientists pay the phi and pi proportions lip service and
carry on with their 'profound ' matters when these things are really
the jewels inherited from remote antiquity.
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html
>
> > Geologists already
> > know or at least should know that there is an imbalance in orbital and
> > axial speeds but they also know that the axial tilt has a long term
> > cyclical variation.
>
> ...early in the evolution of the planet - but it doesn't quite gel,
> doesn't quite account for the 'mass' aspect.
>
I will point out to you that no attempt is being made to seperate
continuing geological evolutionary processes intrinsic to the planet
(insofar as they are more dominant that astronomical conditioning) and
astronomical processes that sometimes affect it abruptly such as
collisions.I could speculate that the ancient supercontinent is itself
partly of astronomical collisional origin,or water,or the minerals and
elements but to affirm or reject these things requires a disciplined
facility which is not bounded on one side by wild speculation or on
the other by dullards.
>
> > The geologists also know that the Earth's Equatorial bulge is
> > conditioned by axial rotation but why introduce expansion as anything
> > but a physical transfer from mantle to crust as a process.
>
> Why? Because there's too much of it to attribute to matter as we
> know it.
>
So go ahead and appeal to the physics community,they will find 'dark
matter' and cosmological osmosis to accomodate your expanding
earth,have a ball !.
>
> > Why
> > shortcircuit the ability to adjust the mechanism of plate tectonics
> > from the weaker mechanisn of convection cells to astronomical origins
> > by imposing an ambiguous twisting-expanding format that cannot account
> > for where themass for expansion comes from.
>
> Because doing that is like fiddling with an abhortion to make it more
> attractive/ less unattractive. Like trying to beautify the two ugly
> sisters. Why would you want to when Cinderella is strutting her
> stuff? There's nothing in plate tectonics that hangs together.
It does'nt hang together as a complete explanation because the
precedence of a supercontinent and crust has at present no
evolutionary explanation.What would you have geologists teach ?,do you
want to throw Steno as well as Wegener out,no Don,I have seen what
happens when that occurs.
It's
> a fall-about abortion and has all got to go, but something needs to be
> put in its place, something that includes the Earth's bigtime increase
> in size. It's too bad that this throws a whole lot of things that are
> generally accepted as 'fact' into doubt, but it is so. The ships
> sails are appearing over the horizon again. All Earth expansion does
> is accept/ assume that they belong to a ship. We're waiting for some
> bright spark to come up with an equivalent reason for why the Earth is
> round.
>
I cannot go on like this.
>
> > From your website.
> >
> > "So why call it plate tectonics? Why? Just so we know what's being
> > consigned to the archives of history. The transition from plate
> > tectonics to Earth expansion is imminent. Even though there is as yet
> > no clear understanding of the mechanism by which expansion may occur,
> > the empirical conclusion stands - the Earth is getting bigger, ...and,
> > geologically speaking, at a remarkable rate. The reason why
> > expansion is occurring is for the physics community to address. They
> > need to waken up."
> >
> > You want empirical recognition,then fine,I'm sure they will trump up
> > dark energy or expanding space to fit your model right into and end up
> > doing to geology what they did to astronomy.The same empirical crowd
> > that designed experiments to disprove seashells on mountaintops while
> > Steno was reasoning from observations of sedimentary layering is sure
> > a wonderful crowd to appeal to.
>
> Another 'Epicycle'? Well, .. that reflects on them, if they insist
> on messing about like that. Let's see how clever they are. It
> used to be that invention was in the hands of the Church. But now
> there's the web to which young people with a curious disposition have
> access, not only the sacred writings of the Elohim and admission to
> the fold. Information in itself is more powerful than the way it is
> used by incompetents. Everything is up for grabs (again).
> Interesting times.
>
The 'they' happens to be the same crowd you are appealing
to.Information means nothing if you cannot move it about in a
productive way and the spirit of the original geologists who found the
discipline appears to be fading into the same condition as its
astronomical equivalent.I do not set myself up as judge and jury but
your concept is just the leading edge of more to follow and that sir
is hard to bear.
> Besides, ..I don't know that I am appealing to them. If I were, I
> would publish. With the 'script' and ostentatious obeisance, it's not
> that difficult. But again, why would 'Cinderella' want to?
>
>
> > Nobody in their right mind is going to consign plate tectonics or the
> > effects at crustal boundaries to the scrapheap of history,the
> > mechanism for explaining crustal movement may be indeed too weak at
> > present but that is about all.The format for introducing astronomical
> > considerations into the development and continuing evolution of
> > physical surface features is problematic insofar as the
> > astrophysical-gravitational format accepts no imbalance between axial
> > and orbital motion,prefering to adhere to the sidereal format for
> > axial and orbital motion.
> >
> > http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/sidereal.gif
>
> Sure they are Gerald, ...not those committed I grant you, but they
> can't shove the webgenie back in the bottle. Even if half of
> Pterologists become pteronomers we're at least half way there.
> Equatorial bulge? ..mountain belts flat? .. Have a laugh at them,
> and just watch them rush out of the spotlight whilst they remove the
> red nose and the baggy pants, even if they forget about the warpaint.
> They're a joke. All they need to see it, is a mirror.
>
Again,what would you have them do ?,what facilities are availible to
deal with the various threads without seeing it as turf infringement.I
have to keep company with the original investigators in geology and
astronomy via their writings who themselves suffered the same
indignity of accusations of priority and correctness,it is a lousy
deal and made more lousy by the realisation that a new insight can be
diluted to serve the very aims that were meant to be replaced.I used
supernova as distance markers against stellar galactic rotation but
now see it chopped up conveniently to serve different ends.You want to
know what sore is and I can tell you.
The excursions are not an end in themselves for the passages through
investigation into natural phenomena often returns back to an
undeground history that far exceeds in riches any of the surface
telling proposed to the general population,if the population can be
called that.The return is not to seperateness of belief and science or
interdisciplinary divisions between geology and astronomy for instance
but through all the peevishness and struggle for dominance,nobody can
totally ignore or kill the achievement of another.
The Book of Job and the great answer attached to that work refers to
this generosity of humanity under trying conditions,living with
impatience rather than being patient,accepting injustice for the sake
of accepting nothing in return save that of the love of those close
by.John Harrison,who invented the clock for measuring distance via the
longitude problem is one such Jobian figure but in truth there have
been many and this is why it is more important to bring back their
insights and inventiveness than it is to challenge those who would
have it lost and subverted.Do you want to destroy Wegener all over
again so you can be justified ?.
don findlay
> d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
> > > > THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
> > > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
> > >
> > > You are pointing out a correlation without supporting it with a
> > > mechanism that relates orbital motion with axial rotation.
> >
> > I don't know what the mechanism is, ..all I see is the result, and am
> > prepared to take a guess that the cause cannot be intrinsic to the
> > Earth itself, but must be external.
>
> Sir.
>
> In order to ascertain astronomical causes effecting geological surface
> feature development,it is more productive to fit them into existing
> principles that facilitate the geological/astronomical connection such
> as variations in the elliptical motion in the planet affecting climate
> change which in turn shows up in strata, be it ice or rock.
OoohhOO.... Well, so long as it isn't plate tectonics
> My interest
> in the matter is that not only is the Earth's planetary history read
> like a book in the rock but also its astronomical history,at least up
> to a point.
>
> When men are faced with two seperate facts,in this case geology,one
> relating to layering and one relating to crustal motion,the obvious
> puzzle is that if you construct a supercontinent and a crust already
> formed,it looks like defered creationism without any reference to how
> the supercontinent and crust formed and this strains the
> imagination.
Deferred creationsism: yes. When we read geological history from the
top down it seems to me that there never was a point where we could
draw a line and say this is when the crust formed (and thereafter it
deformed). Maybe it's still forming. Adding in the Moon factor
(below) does help to draw a line, but ...I guess that's what I'm
saying: it all needs looking at a bit more carefully.
> It is a habit that when faced with a dilemma,scientists
> cut their losses, not wait for additional data that might be helpful
> and create a specialised vocabulary to hide the dilemma.This is no
> exagerration despite the attempt to fictionalise that all is rosy -
>
> http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
>
> These men were not naive,they were honest enough to admit that the Sun
> attraction to the Earth does'nt require a mediun while the Sun's
> illumination of the Earth does.In 1905 they simply dumped the medium
> on Newton whether he wanted it or not and fabricated the most spurious
> concept ever seen on the planet.
>
> Had they waited until stellar rotation around the galactic axis showed
> up,much of what Newton wrote could have been altered by conditioning
> the influences of that motion on the solar system without jettisoning
> everything but the physics discipline had painted itself into a
> contrived corner where it remains.
Well, isn't that a good argument for pressing physics to reassess its
position?
> If you argue for astronomical elements affecting geological
> evolution,you cannot appeal to the physics/astronomical community that
> has a different agenda,final theories and things like that.They are
> waiting for a man with a set of equations to describe everything but
> remarkably the most productive line of inquiry should be the great
> geological book formed in layers of rock and mountain ranges rather
> than more powerful telescopes and satellites looking for things that
> are not there.
...and why Geology, once it's properly sorted out, will set them on
the right road? It wouldn't be the first time that geology has.
It's facile to think that the last time they looked at it they got
everything right when since then we have all the satellite data and
computers with the facility to put all of that on round spheres rather
than flat maps. It's as pedestrian as that ('tools')
> Orbital motion / axial
> > rotation? Sure., ..sounds good to me. The symmetries support it.
>
> Please Don,it would be offensive to continue on this matter not least
> that it would not support your avenue.Orbital motion does not align
> with independent axial rotation over the course of an annual orbit.We
> have a change in seasons due to axial orientation remaining constant
> while orbital orientation changes and the difference in the two
> generates the change in seasons.Contemporaries say that axial tilt to
> the Sun causes seasonal change but that is a poor interpretation.
I was just meaning that crustal deformation has a symmetry with the
polar rotation, but its trace from Pangaean times is very skewed.
Exactly how skewed needs looked at.
> I
> > would have hoped the geological observations supporting it would have
> > been of more interest than they apparently have. Which confirms to me
> > that the essence of 'science' is not as it's portrayed. I guess
> > there are a lot reading this that are amused at this demonstration of
> > 'charming naivety'.
> >
>
> Those who have an eye and talent for drawing conclusions from
> correlations accurately have little time for lamenting on priority or
> correctness.If a theory suddenly appears out of the blue that it
> acceptable to a line of inquiry that is in itself inadequate why would
> you wish to appeal to them.
I don't really, ... I'm not appealing to them (for approval?). I'm
here on the street with dirty jeans and bad hair, and talking the
lingo. I thought I might be saying something people would find
interesting, peer-to-peer, you know? ...and by rubbishing the
shortcomings of plate tectonics we might get a bit of a reaction.
Bovver boy, you know, ... But they're all peeking out from behind
the corner of tenth street. (Who's this geezer, telling it like it
is?) (Heard it before?..?)
> The cycle of
> astronomical/climatatological/geological evidence is already there and
> I learn more of astronomy through geology than having them split into
> two seperate disciplines.It is a turf problem if geologists enter the
> astronomical arena with a different view of how to look at the 'past'.
>
> The current fad of the astronomer,geologist,archaeologist,ect saving
> the planet betrays the fact that they cannot save their own
> disciplines.
I'm not getting involved in that one (turf wars). I'm just bringing
the Good News (and trying to keep off the cross that most of them
would try to hang me on)
> > > "And why are those mountains situated exactly where they are on the
> > > planet? ....exactly where they are that is, in relation to the
> > > Earth's rotational axis and the ecliptic? "
> > >
> > > From your website.
> > >
> > > "Earth expansion? = .The Earth's crust - a single plate, in
> > > torsional, dilational disruption due to an imbalance in rotational -
> > > gravitational dynamics. Plate tectonics has ignored, and continues
> > > to ignore, this definitive torsional architecture of the Earth's
> > > crust."
> > >
> > > The imbalance is not in the ecliptic the imbalance is the variable
> > > orbital rotational speed in combination with constant axial
> > > rotation.Having the Earth 'twist' or torsion due to axial rotation
> > > against the ecliptic generates nothing on its own.
> >
> > This is why I speculated on Moon Capture ....
> >
>
> Look Don,I had worked on supernova rings long before they were ever
> discovered,the copyright being only there for the purpose of
> demonstrating that it was a pre-discovery work in terms of being
> visible than an explanation after the visible fact and even then I
> regret it.It is not meant to fit into the contemporary framework of
> stellar evolution but more an intimate relationship between the
> tendency of forms towards a particular geometry both terrestial and
> celestial.Like geology,we are surrounded by clues but fail to pick up
> on them and I no more speculate on the causes beyond which is
> necessary,the clues are there nonetheless.
Yes, ..and they're usually that big that we need to stand really well
back to see them. Also added in to the Moon capture scenario is the
existence of the banded iron formations. I think they're linked,
when we trace crustal evolution via that 'torsional' picture right
back I think we end up in the Proterozoic. (And we';ve already got a
model for the Moon that includes masses of iron dust.)
> I could not afford to use speculation in a promiscuous way for the
> whole thing would amount to guesswork and unfortunately there has been
> too much of that.It being a matter of using older investigations in a
> new way,scientists pay the phi and pi proportions lip service and
> carry on with their 'profound ' matters when these things are really
> the jewels inherited from remote antiquity.
>
> http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html
Well, ...guesswork. But surely that's where it begins with a good
guess. I would not be afraid to guess, so long as I'm ready to
discard.
> > > Geologists already
> > > know or at least should know that there is an imbalance in orbital and
> > > axial speeds but they also know that the axial tilt has a long term
> > > cyclical variation.
> >
> > ...early in the evolution of the planet - but it doesn't quite gel,
> > doesn't quite account for the 'mass' aspect.
> >
>
> I will point out to you that no attempt is being made to seperate
> continuing geological evolutionary processes intrinsic to the planet
> (insofar as they are more dominant that astronomical conditioning) and
> astronomical processes that sometimes affect it abruptly such as
> collisions.
That's because desk-driven 'best authority' has it that the
astrophysical aspects (equatorial bulge notwithstanding) are grossly
insignificant compared to the forces generated by internal planetary
heat. So why would anyone bother to say otherwise? Or even think
otherwise. That's the heat by the way consequent on the dissipation
of radioactivity and accretion - with a crust somehow in between in
the way. But they don't like to think about that either.
> I could speculate that the ancient supercontinent is itself
> partly of astronomical collisional origin,or water,or the minerals and
> elements but to affirm or reject these things requires a disciplined
> facility which is not bounded on one side by wild speculation or on
> the other by dullards.
This is not just speculation. There is very good reason to think that
the primordial crust is not of 'magmatic' origin, but that's in the
field of physical chemistry - another no-go area for traditionalists.
('Dullards'? You mean sheep in sheepland?)
> > > The geologists also know that the Earth's Equatorial bulge is
> > > conditioned by axial rotation but why introduce expansion as anything
> > > but a physical transfer from mantle to crust as a process.
> >
> > Why? Because there's too much of it to attribute to matter as we
> > know it.
> >
>
> So go ahead and appeal to the physics community,they will find 'dark
> matter' and cosmological osmosis to accomodate your expanding
> earth,have a ball !.
Let them. There will always be one to illuminate the circus. A
suicide bomber. (Such trubblesum people. Listen to them? No, ..we
need to legislate more)
> > > Why
> > > shortcircuit the ability to adjust the mechanism of plate tectonics
> > > from the weaker mechanisn of convection cells to astronomical origins
> > > by imposing an ambiguous twisting-expanding format that cannot account
> > > for where themass for expansion comes from.
> >
> > Because doing that is like fiddling with an abhortion to make it more
> > attractive/ less unattractive. Like trying to beautify the two ugly
> > sisters. Why would you want to when Cinderella is strutting her
> > stuff? There's nothing in plate tectonics that hangs together.
>
> It does'nt hang together as a complete explanation because the
> precedence of a supercontinent and crust has at present no
> evolutionary explanation.What would you have geologists teach ?,do you
> want to throw Steno as well as Wegener out,no Don,I have seen what
> happens when that occurs.
I quite agree with what you say about the crust. So much really does
need re-examined. That's the way it seems to me at any rate, having
travelled the road and now looking back at it from this different
perspective. So in answer to your question I would have them teach
the field facts rather than the model. Begin with the maps. There's
far too much that's the other way around. Just look at all the
courses on the web and see how many of them are teaching 'plate
tectonics as geology' It's laughable. And how much supposedly
'factual' stuff is framed in those terms (would make you weep). It
would almost be fair to say "come back in another decade and see
what's new" - as I did - cos there's been nothing for the last one
(two or three). Plate tectonics is a dawdle to teach. Why would
teachers, with their workloads, go to the work of having to clue up on
global geology and put it in a framework that hangs together and makes
sense? When they've got plate tectonics? As a result, graduates
who have been spoon fed this guff - and paid for it - think it
actually says something. No wonder they get upset when you try to
disabuse them. Hey, good safeguard to ensure the quality of
information, isn't it = get them to pay for it.
> It's
> > a fall-about abortion and has all got to go, but something needs to be
> > put in its place, something that includes the Earth's bigtime increase
> > in size. It's too bad that this throws a whole lot of things that are
> > generally accepted as 'fact' into doubt, but it is so. The ships
> > sails are appearing over the horizon again. All Earth expansion does
> > is accept/ assume that they belong to a ship. We're waiting for some
> > bright spark to come up with an equivalent reason for why the Earth is
> > round.
> >
>
> I cannot go on like this.
<laugh> There's a lot of unpicking to do, ..sure is. But you're
right (obviously) about including the astronomical aspects, and yes,
as the starting point (top down v. bottom up) I would work back from
the present, but teachers like to begin at the 'beginning' and go
forward.
Mmm, ..no, ...If I'm appealing to anybody it's the free spirit of
enquiry, ..not any crowd. 'Crowd will be crowd' - an olympic stadium
full of them. A great deal is made these days of science abrogating
its responsibility to bring its science to the public. That's what I
would rather do. Our children and youth deserve better than they're
getting. ('firstlust')
Facilities? The web. It is the perfect forum for disseminating
information. Publications are just notches on the post of career
advancement. In a century there are less than a handful of
significant ones, yet it's an industry. How come? But one being
increasingly called to account. Turf? Career? Who needs it (when
you're retired). (Grey power.)
And the weekend press - Korner for Kids. "A funny one to ask your
teacher".
Well that's right. There should be more books about the people. But
you can only do it with dead ones. If you try it with nobel prize
winners (say) still alive you risk a libel suit. These things are
handed out as added security to the professions. It's an interesting
thought that the reason for giving is not so much for the benefit of
the recipient, as the profession. I'm told Carey's letters present
a bit of a problem in that regard. So ...consensus again... the
truth concealed/ revealed.
> The Book of Job and the great answer attached to that work refers to
> this generosity of humanity under trying conditions,living with
> impatience rather than being patient,accepting injustice for the sake
> of accepting nothing in return save that of the love of those close
> by.John Harrison,who invented the clock for measuring distance via the
> longitude problem is one such Jobian figure but in truth there have
> been many and this is why it is more important to bring back their
> insights and inventiveness than it is to challenge those who would
> have it lost and subverted.Do you want to destroy Wegener all over
> again so you can be justified ?.
No, ..everybody's voice stands, and what they say is always for
posterity to judge, ... but I couldn't agree more that the context of
the day needs to be included. Excision of it is like missing out the
punctuation a thousand fold (lawyers' field days). It's been pretty
clear from the exchanges on this ng for instance, that any remarks to
do with Carey that I've read have been from people who clearly haven't
(but should have) read him (excepting one exchange from David Ford and
Charles Cagle which laboured an esoteric point)
don findlay
> d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
> > > > THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
> > > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
> > >
> > > You are pointing out a correlation without supporting it with a
> > > mechanism that relates orbital motion with axial rotation.
> >
> > I don't know what the mechanism is, ..all I see is the result, and am
> > prepared to take a guess that the cause cannot be intrinsic to the
> > Earth itself, but must be external.
>
> Sir.
>
> In order to ascertain astronomical causes effecting geological surface
> feature development,it is more productive to fit them into existing
> principles that facilitate the geological/astronomical connection such
> as variations in the elliptical motion in the planet affecting climate
OoohhOO.... Well, so long as it isn't plate tectonics
> My interest
> in the matter is that not only is the Earth's planetary history read
> like a book in the rock but also its astronomical history,at least up
> to a point.
>
> When men are faced with two seperate facts,in this case geology,one
> relating to layering and one relating to crustal motion,the obvious
> puzzle is that if you construct a supercontinent and a crust already
> formed,it looks like defered creationism without any reference to how
> the supercontinent and crust formed and this strains the
> imagination.
Deferred creationsism: yes. When we read geological history from the
top down it seems to me that there never was a point where we could
draw a line and say this is when the crust formed (and thereafter it
deformed). Maybe it's still forming. Adding in the Moon factor
(below) does help to draw a line, but ...I guess that's what I'm
saying: it all needs looking at a bit more carefully.
> It is a habit that when faced with a dilemma,scientists
> cut their losses, not wait for additional data that might be helpful
> and create a specialised vocabulary to hide the dilemma.This is no
> exagerration despite the attempt to fictionalise that all is rosy -
>
> http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
>
> These men were not naive,they were honest enough to admit that the Sun
> attraction to the Earth does'nt require a mediun while the Sun's
> illumination of the Earth does.In 1905 they simply dumped the medium
> on Newton whether he wanted it or not and fabricated the most spurious
> concept ever seen on the planet.
>
> Had they waited until stellar rotation around the galactic axis showed
> up,much of what Newton wrote could have been altered by conditioning
> the influences of that motion on the solar system without jettisoning
> everything but the physics discipline had painted itself into a
> contrived corner where it remains.
Well, isn't that a good argument for pressing physics to reassess its
position?
> If you argue for astronomical elements affecting geological
> evolution,you cannot appeal to the physics/astronomical community that
> has a different agenda,final theories and things like that.They are
> waiting for a man with a set of equations to describe everything but
> remarkably the most productive line of inquiry should be the great
> geological book formed in layers of rock and mountain ranges rather
> than more powerful telescopes and satellites looking for things that
> are not there.
...and why Geology, once it's properly sorted out, will set them on
the right road? It wouldn't be the first time that geology has.
It's facile to think that the last time they looked at it they got
everything right when since then we have all the satellite data and
computers with the facility to put all of that on round spheres rather
than flat maps. It's as pedestrian as that ('tools')
> Orbital motion / axial
> > rotation? Sure., ..sounds good to me. The symmetries support it.
>
> Please Don,it would be offensive to continue on this matter not least
> that it would not support your avenue.Orbital motion does not align
> with independent axial rotation over the course of an annual orbit.We
> have a change in seasons due to axial orientation remaining constant
> while orbital orientation changes and the difference in the two
> generates the change in seasons.Contemporaries say that axial tilt to
> the Sun causes seasonal change but that is a poor interpretation.
I was just meaning that crustal deformation has a symmetry with the
polar rotation, but its trace from Pangaean times is very skewed.
Exactly how skewed needs looked at.
> I
> > would have hoped the geological observations supporting it would have
> > been of more interest than they apparently have. Which confirms to me
> > that the essence of 'science' is not as it's portrayed. I guess
> > there are a lot reading this that are amused at this demonstration of
> > 'charming naivety'.
> >
>
> Those who have an eye and talent for drawing conclusions from
> correlations accurately have little time for lamenting on priority or
> correctness.If a theory suddenly appears out of the blue that it
> acceptable to a line of inquiry that is in itself inadequate why would
> you wish to appeal to them.
I don't really, ... I'm not appealing to them (for approval?). I'm
here on the street with dirty jeans and bad hair, and talking the
lingo. I thought I might be saying something people would find
interesting, peer-to-peer, you know? ...and by rubbishing the
shortcomings of plate tectonics we might get a bit of a reaction.
Bovver boy, you know, ... But they're all peeking out from behind
the corner of tenth street. (Who's this geezer, telling it like it
is?) (Heard it before?..?)
> The cycle of
> astronomical/climatatological/geological evidence is already there and
> I learn more of astronomy through geology than having them split into
> two seperate disciplines.It is a turf problem if geologists enter the
> astronomical arena with a different view of how to look at the 'past'.
>
> The current fad of the astronomer,geologist,archaeologist,ect saving
> the planet betrays the fact that they cannot save their own
> disciplines.
I'm not getting involved in that one (turf wars). I'm just bringing
the Good News (and trying to keep off the cross that most of them
would try to hang me on)
> > > "And why are those mountains situated exactly where they are on the
> > > planet? ....exactly where they are that is, in relation to the
> > > Earth's rotational axis and the ecliptic? "
> > >
> > > From your website.
> > >
> > > "Earth expansion? = .The Earth's crust - a single plate, in
> > > torsional, dilational disruption due to an imbalance in rotational -
> > > gravitational dynamics. Plate tectonics has ignored, and continues
> > > to ignore, this definitive torsional architecture of the Earth's
> > > crust."
> > >
> > > The imbalance is not in the ecliptic the imbalance is the variable
> > > orbital rotational speed in combination with constant axial
> > > rotation.Having the Earth 'twist' or torsion due to axial rotation
> > > against the ecliptic generates nothing on its own.
> >
> > This is why I speculated on Moon Capture ....
> >
>
> Look Don,I had worked on supernova rings long before they were ever
> discovered,the copyright being only there for the purpose of
> demonstrating that it was a pre-discovery work in terms of being
> visible than an explanation after the visible fact and even then I
> regret it.It is not meant to fit into the contemporary framework of
> stellar evolution but more an intimate relationship between the
> tendency of forms towards a particular geometry both terrestial and
> celestial.Like geology,we are surrounded by clues but fail to pick up
> on them and I no more speculate on the causes beyond which is
> necessary,the clues are there nonetheless.
Yes, ..and they're usually that big that we need to stand really well
back to see them. Also added in to the Moon capture scenario is the
existence of the banded iron formations. I think they're linked,
when we trace crustal evolution via that 'torsional' picture right
back I think we end up in the Proterozoic. (And we';ve already got a
model for the Moon that includes masses of iron dust.)
> I could not afford to use speculation in a promiscuous way for the
> whole thing would amount to guesswork and unfortunately there has been
> too much of that.It being a matter of using older investigations in a
> new way,scientists pay the phi and pi proportions lip service and
> carry on with their 'profound ' matters when these things are really
> the jewels inherited from remote antiquity.
>
> http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html
Well, ...guesswork. But surely that's where it begins with a good
guess. I would not be afraid to guess, so long as I'm ready to
discard.
> > > Geologists already
> > > know or at least should know that there is an imbalance in orbital and
> > > axial speeds but they also know that the axial tilt has a long term
> > > cyclical variation.
> >
> > ...early in the evolution of the planet - but it doesn't quite gel,
> > doesn't quite account for the 'mass' aspect.
> >
>
> I will point out to you that no attempt is being made to seperate
> continuing geological evolutionary processes intrinsic to the planet
> (insofar as they are more dominant that astronomical conditioning) and
> astronomical processes that sometimes affect it abruptly such as
> collisions.
That's because desk-driven 'best authority' has it that the
astrophysical aspects (equatorial bulge notwithstanding) are grossly
insignificant compared to the forces generated by internal planetary
heat. So why would anyone bother to say otherwise? Or even think
otherwise. That's the heat by the way consequent on the dissipation
of radioactivity and accretion - with a crust somehow in between in
the way. But they don't like to think about that either.
> I could speculate that the ancient supercontinent is itself
> partly of astronomical collisional origin,or water,or the minerals and
> elements but to affirm or reject these things requires a disciplined
> facility which is not bounded on one side by wild speculation or on
> the other by dullards.
This is not just speculation. There is very good reason to think that
the primordial crust is not of 'magmatic' origin, but that's in the
field of physical chemistry - another no-go area for traditionalists.
('Dullards'? You mean sheep in sheepland?)
> > > The geologists also know that the Earth's Equatorial bulge is
> > > conditioned by axial rotation but why introduce expansion as anything
> > > but a physical transfer from mantle to crust as a process.
> >
> > Why? Because there's too much of it to attribute to matter as we
> > know it.
> >
>
> So go ahead and appeal to the physics community,they will find 'dark
> matter' and cosmological osmosis to accomodate your expanding
> earth,have a ball !.
Let them. There will always be one to illuminate the circus. A
suicide bomber. (Such trubblesum people. Listen to them? No, ..we
need to legislate more)
> > > Why
> > > shortcircuit the ability to adjust the mechanism of plate tectonics
> > > from the weaker mechanisn of convection cells to astronomical origins
> > > by imposing an ambiguous twisting-expanding format that cannot account
> > > for where themass for expansion comes from.
> >
> > Because doing that is like fiddling with an abhortion to make it more
> > attractive/ less unattractive. Like trying to beautify the two ugly
> > sisters. Why would you want to when Cinderella is strutting her
> > stuff? There's nothing in plate tectonics that hangs together.
>
> It does'nt hang together as a complete explanation because the
> precedence of a supercontinent and crust has at present no
> evolutionary explanation.What would you have geologists teach ?,do you
> want to throw Steno as well as Wegener out,no Don,I have seen what
> happens when that occurs.
I quite agree with what you say about the crust. So much really does
need re-examined. That's the way it seems to me at any rate, having
travelled the road and now looking back at it from this different
perspective. So in answer to your question I would have them teach
the field facts rather than the model. Begin with the maps. There's
far too much that's the other way around. Just look at all the
courses on the web and see how many of them are teaching 'plate
tectonics as geology' It's laughable. And how much supposedly
'factual' stuff is framed in those terms (would make you weep). It
would almost be fair to say "come back in another decade and see
what's new" - as I did - cos there's been nothing for the last one
(two or three). Plate tectonics is a dawdle to teach. Why would
teachers, with their workloads, go to the work of having to clue up on
global geology and put it in a framework that hangs together and makes
sense? When they've got plate tectonics? As a result, graduates
who have been spoon fed this guff - and paid for it - think it
actually says something. No wonder they get upset when you try to
disabuse them. Hey, good safeguard to ensure the quality of
information, isn't it = get them to pay for it.
> It's
> > a fall-about abortion and has all got to go, but something needs to be
> > put in its place, something that includes the Earth's bigtime increase
> > in size. It's too bad that this throws a whole lot of things that are
> > generally accepted as 'fact' into doubt, but it is so. The ships
> > sails are appearing over the horizon again. All Earth expansion does
> > is accept/ assume that they belong to a ship. We're waiting for some
> > bright spark to come up with an equivalent reason for why the Earth is
> > round.
> >
>
> I cannot go on like this.
<laugh> There's a lot of unpicking to do, ..sure is. But you're
right (obviously) about including the astronomical aspects, and yes,
as the starting point (top down v. bottom up) I would work back from
the present, but teachers like to begin at the 'beginning' and go
forward.
Mmm, ..no, ...If I'm appealing to anybody it's the free spirit of
enquiry, ..not any crowd. 'Crowd will be crowd' - an olympic stadium
full of them. A great deal is made these days of science abrogating
its responsibility to bring its science to the public. That's what I
would rather do. Our children and youth deserve better than they're
getting. ('firstlust')
Facilities? The web. It is the perfect forum for disseminating
information. Publications are just notches on the post of career
advancement. In a century there are less than a handful of
significant ones, yet it's an industry. How come? But one being
increasingly called to account. Turf? Career? Who needs it (when
you're retired). (Grey power.)
And the weekend press - Korner for Kids. "A funny one to ask your
teacher".
>
>
>
> >
Well that's right. There should be more books about the people. But
you can only do it with dead ones. If you try it with nobel prize
winners (say) still alive you risk a libel suit. These things are
handed out as added security to the professions. It's an interesting
thought that the reason for giving is not so much for the benefit of
the recipient, as the profession. I'm told Carey's letters present
a bit of a problem in that regard. So ...consensus again... the
truth concealed/ revealed.
> The Book of Job and the great answer attached to that work refers to
> this generosity of humanity under trying conditions,living with
> impatience rather than being patient,accepting injustice for the sake
> of accepting nothing in return save that of the love of those close
> by.John Harrison,who invented the clock for measuring distance via the
> longitude problem is one such Jobian figure but in truth there have
> been many and this is why it is more important to bring back their
> insights and inventiveness than it is to challenge those who would
> have it lost and subverted.Do you want to destroy Wegener all over
> again so you can be justified ?.
No, ..everybody's voice stands, and what they say is always for
posterity to judge, ... but I couldn't agree more that the context of
the day needs to be included. Excision of it is like missing out the
punctuation a thousand fold (lawyers' field days). It's been pretty
clear from the exchanges on this ng for instance, that any remarks to
do with Carey that I've read have been from people who clearly haven't
(but should have) read him (excepting one exchange from David Ford and
Charles Cagle which laboured an esoteric point)
Oriel36
> geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
> > > > > THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
> > > > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
> > > >
> > > > You are pointing out a correlation without supporting it with a
> > > > mechanism that relates orbital motion with axial rotation.
> > >
> > > I don't know what the mechanism is, ..all I see is the result, and am
> > > prepared to take a guess that the cause cannot be intrinsic to the
> > > Earth itself, but must be external.
> >
> > Sir.
> >
> > In order to ascertain astronomical causes effecting geological surface
> > feature development,it is more productive to fit them into existing
> > principles that facilitate the geological/astronomical connection such
> > as variations in the elliptical motion in the planet affecting climate
> > change which in turn shows up in strata, be it ice or rock.
>
> OoohhOO.... Well, so long as it isn't plate tectonics
>
Sir,I am isolated from astronomical contemporaries,not because I
proposed a new theory and it does not suit the approach they take,I am
isolated because in a given era they fudged astronomical methods and
insights to get their universal gravitation laws to work.Despite the
gravitational pandemic,men still manages to get work done and moreso
in geology and climatology and you would have the physics community
show up here and destroy the delicate connection between
astronomy,climatology and geology.
>
> > My interest
> > in the matter is that not only is the Earth's planetary history read
> > like a book in the rock but also its astronomical history,at least up
> > to a point.
> >
> > When men are faced with two seperate facts,in this case geology,one
> > relating to layering and one relating to crustal motion,the obvious
> > puzzle is that if you construct a supercontinent and a crust already
> > formed,it looks like defered creationism without any reference to how
> > the supercontinent and crust formed and this strains the
> > imagination.
>
> Deferred creationsism: yes.When we read geological history from the
> top down it seems to me that there never was a point where we could
> draw a line and say this is when the crust formed (and thereafter it
> deformed). Maybe it's still forming. Adding in the Moon factor
> (below) does help to draw a line, but ...I guess that's what I'm
> saying: it all needs looking at a bit more carefully.
>
Even if the moon is a remnant from a collision as it has been
proposed,its orbit is still conditioned by the same effects that
condition the Earth's motion around the Sun and the solar system's
motion around the galaxy.Mr Troelsgard was correct in bringing up the
coriolis force and its effects but you have never adapted anything
that was said and imagine that I am working on the same principle of
guesswork and I assure you I am not.
There are very little 'maybes' in what I have done save that in
treating large scale geological evolution in terms of physical
features as they present themselves as a record of the past,first the
present position of the continents and the positions they held in the
past,secondly the strata formation that condition development of
mountain ranges and more immediate events such as volcanoes and
earthquakes and thirdly the layering of the strata themselves.
One overlaps the other but the mechanism for crustal motion appears
too weak.I can point out that the strata layering contains not only
the history of physical formation of planetary surface structures it
also contains elements of astronomical history also.In the absence of
a suitable explanation for the origins supercontinent surrounded by
sea and crust I am not about to front a wild theory to resolve the
dilemma but neither would I pretend that the puzzle did not exist
>
> > It is a habit that when faced with a dilemma,scientists
> > cut their losses, not wait for additional data that might be helpful
> > and create a specialised vocabulary to hide the dilemma.This is no
> > exagerration despite the attempt to fictionalise that all is rosy -
> >
> > http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
> >
> > These men were not naive,they were honest enough to admit that the Sun
> > attraction to the Earth does'nt require a mediun while the Sun's
> > illumination of the Earth does.In 1905 they simply dumped the medium
> > on Newton whether he wanted it or not and fabricated the most spurious
> > concept ever seen on the planet.
> >
> > Had they waited until stellar rotation around the galactic axis showed
> > up,much of what Newton wrote could have been altered by conditioning
> > the influences of that motion on the solar system without jettisoning
> > everything but the physics discipline had painted itself into a
> > contrived corner where it remains.
>
> Well, isn't that a good argument for pressing physics to reassess its
> position?
>
Now you are being naive and I would be delighted if they never changed
their position.
Oh great,everything I fought tooth and nail against for ultimately it
all descends into action and reaction with nobody knowing what it is
they are attacking or defending.What happens when the same guys you
are appealing to have a better lingo than yours and can reduce a valid
point to an argument over definitions.Every time you bring up an
astronomical point it is no more than what I have been dealing with
for years,men who are prepared to use astronomy as a means to an end.
> Bovver boy, you know, ... But they're all peeking out from behind
> the corner of tenth street. (Who's this geezer, telling it like it
> is?) (Heard it before?..?)
>
You operate on the surface and as is your right you can contend with
these matters as you see fit.I regret only that some aspects which are
already known are under-utilised and some completely blocked.What is
worse, a defered creationism presented as a tectonic puzzle inasmuch
as it is every bit as intriguing as its strata layering antecent or
speculation based on whatever comes into your head and having no
connection with past investigations ? .Crustal motion as expressed as
plate tectonics may not be a complete explanation and I doubt if any
would disagree with that but as a natural progression from its strata
layering roots, it far exceeds any other attempt to mesh strata
evolution with large scale surface structures.
>
> > The cycle of
> > astronomical/climatatological/geological evidence is already there and
> > I learn more of astronomy through geology than having them split into
> > two seperate disciplines.It is a turf problem if geologists enter the
> > astronomical arena with a different view of how to look at the 'past'.
> >
> > The current fad of the astronomer,geologist,archaeologist,ect saving
> > the planet betrays the fact that they cannot save their own
> > disciplines.
>
> I'm not getting involved in that one (turf wars). I'm just bringing
> the Good News (and trying to keep off the cross that most of them
> would try to hang me on)
>
Look around,nobody is here .
What did I do to have you insult me like this when I would have done
as much as possible to demonstrate that you had valid points and
concerns.I do see the introduction of a 'torsional force' in
geological principles and geologists can expect much of the same
assault,not because it is right but because there is nowhere left for
the gravitational guys to go.
It would stand to reason that the orbital motion of the Earth is
affected by the solar system's motion around the galactic axis insofar
as the dominant motion around the Sun would tend to keep the orbit
circular and motion around the galactic axis would vary it.
A person goes outside and determines that over the course of an annual
orbit,the Earth will be closer to the galactic axis than six months
later when the orbital position is further away.Sometimes the Earth
will be closer to the galactic axis than the Sun and at other times
further away.Not one single person goes outside and recognises this
and prefers the idea of 'every valid point is the center of the
universe'.You wish to introduce a torsional/dilational vocabulary that
is designed to impress but the real impressions are before men every
moment of their existence.
>
> > I could not afford to use speculation in a promiscuous way for the
> > whole thing would amount to guesswork and unfortunately there has been
> > too much of that.It being a matter of using older investigations in a
> > new way,scientists pay the phi and pi proportions lip service and
> > carry on with their 'profound ' matters when these things are really
> > the jewels inherited from remote antiquity.
> >
> > http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html
>
> Well, ...guesswork. But surely that's where it begins with a good
> guess. I would not be afraid to guess, so long as I'm ready to
> discard.
>
They call them 'free creations of the mind' in the other community,a
peculiar way to make guesses,do experiments ,remove doubt and be left
with 'certainty'.This is what is known as empirical science,they will
have thousands upon thousands of experiments that prove a concept
correct when the founding principles of the concept do not emerge from
nature itself but in what men think nature and the universe should be
like.I'm sure you model is right up their alley.
No.Even if I bring up the point of defered creationism and the origins
of a supercontinent meshing with strata layering,it could only be
considered perjorative if in response it was ignored.Rather than go
bananas and descend into wild speculation,it is more favorable to mesh
the Earth's geological history with its astronomical history,partly
because orbital variations do show up in strata layering emerging from
climatological changes and the need to discriminate them from sudden
astronomical collisions and partly from the ongoing astronomical
influences on surface feature evolution,not as a dominant feature but
there nonetheless.
There is always a difference between the limits of a model and its
validity or invalidity.The opposite is almost as bad insofar as I
would not be so swift to reduce everything to a molten state and
recast it,again,I have seen this happen before with awful
consequences.Why should I not determine that it is possible to learn
more about astronomy through geology than worry about whether geology
will lapse into the same condition that befell its more glamorous
counterpart where physics hijacked astronomy.It is not a matter of
telling people that the geological arena is unapproachable and
understood only by a few men but that it very much belongs to the
people as astronomy once did.
Earth expansion sounds to me like it sounds to everyone else,it has
the ring of 'warped space' about it,trying to explain what you mean
after the fact is a sure good way to introduce that remoteness that
cuts us off from the very ground we are standing on just as it did for
the motions of the Earth,on its axis,around the Sun ,around the
galactic axis or any other rotation there may be.
It
> would almost be fair to say "come back in another decade and see
> what's new" - as I did - cos there's been nothing for the last one
> (two or three). Plate tectonics is a dawdle to teach. Why would
> teachers, with their workloads, go to the work of having to clue up on
> global geology and put it in a framework that hangs together and makes
> sense? When they've got plate tectonics? As a result, graduates
> who have been spoon fed this guff - and paid for it - think it
> actually says something. No wonder they get upset when you try to
> disabuse them. Hey, good safeguard to ensure the quality of
> information, isn't it = get them to pay for it.
>
You have heard of Copernicus and how the Earth goes around the Sun but
left to itself it is an extraneous fact.To recognise his composition
or Kepler's or Roemer's is no different than the same experience as
appreceating music and in much the same way,it requires little or no
effort and is a dawdle but it is oh so powerful even if it is only
possible to remain in the experience for a short while,especially the
initial experience.
Between this experience of the great motions of the Earth's
astronomical beneath our feet is the history of those motions cast in
rock.If the magnificence of the connection were any less, with
humanity partaking in them ,there would be no reason to show up here
and promote them.
The astronomical language which facilitates more more gentler
connection is there for those who read it but always will be remote
from those who approach it with brute reasoning.
>
> > It's
> > > a fall-about abortion and has all got to go, but something needs to be
> > > put in its place, something that includes the Earth's bigtime increase
> > > in size. It's too bad that this throws a whole lot of things that are
> > > generally accepted as 'fact' into doubt, but it is so. The ships
> > > sails are appearing over the horizon again. All Earth expansion does
> > > is accept/ assume that they belong to a ship. We're waiting for some
> > > bright spark to come up with an equivalent reason for why the Earth is
> > > round.
> > >
> >
> > I cannot go on like this.
>
> <laugh> There's a lot of unpicking to do, ..sure is. But you're
> right (obviously) about including the astronomical aspects, and yes,
> as the starting point (top down v. bottom up) I would work back from
> the present, but teachers like to begin at the 'beginning' and go
> forward.
>
Go outside before you do anything.
I am not exempt from all those pressures which fall under the heading
of civilised living ,perhaps there would have been a time when the
atmosphere would have been more favorable to handle the effort
without having to suffer the indignity of calling it a hobby or a
superficial interest beyond human economic concerns but this is often
an accident of history and explains why concepts take a long time to
change.It appears that those paid to do geology are in a worse
position then I am however out of that tension between convention and
invention much of humanity's great achievements take place,for the
moment astronomy has lost the battle and baring the assault to
'revolutionise ' the way geology is done by others who already have
destroyed theirs,it will turn out with some effort to be as
magnificent as those insights which we inherited.
don findlay
don findlay
> d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
> > > > > > THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
> > > > > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
> proposed a new theory and it does not suit the approach they take,I am
> isolated because in a given era they fudged astronomical methods and
> insights to get their universal gravitation laws to work.Despite the
> gravitational pandemic,men still manages to get work done and moreso
> in geology and climatology and you would have the physics community
> show up here and destroy the delicate connection between
> astronomy,climatology and geology.
Don't know what you're getting at Gerald. I'm just saying plate
tectonics is wholly based on a wrong assumption, therefore needs
throwing out. The assumption being wrong, anything kosher that might
(*might*) derive from it needs reappraised. But I don't think there
will be much. It hasn't even got the spreading ridges right.
> Even if the moon is a remnant from a collision as it has been
> proposed,its orbit is still conditioned by the same effects that
> condition the Earth's motion around the Sun and the solar system's
> motion around the galaxy.Mr Troelsgard was correct in bringing up the
> coriolis force and its effects but you have never adapted anything
> that was said and imagine that I am working on the same principle of
> guesswork and I assure you I am not.
I prefer to leave coriolis out just simply because it's an obvious
sort of thing anyone can add in if they like. It was the first thing
I considered, but I leave it out because it detracts from the more
important residual hemispherical rotation as the Pangaean crustal
poles pivot away from the main one. I'm more concerned with the
effect of global dilation/ growth. Migration of the hemispheres is
the issue. The intracrustal swivelling of crustal sectors such as:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/scorpion.html> could of course be
seen in terms of coriolis effects if anyone is inclided to, but to me
it's not an issue. It detracts from the main game.
> There are very little 'maybes' in what I have done save that in
> treating large scale geological evolution in terms of physical
> features as they present themselves as a record of the past,first the
> present position of the continents and the positions they held in the
> past,secondly the strata formation that condition development of
> mountain ranges and more immediate events such as volcanoes and
> earthquakes and thirdly the layering of the strata themselves.
>
> One overlaps the other but the mechanism for crustal motion appears
> too weak.I can point out that the strata layering contains not only
> the history of physical formation of planetary surface structures it
> also contains elements of astronomical history also.In the absence of
> a suitable explanation for the origins supercontinent surrounded by
> sea and crust I am not about to front a wild theory to resolve the
> dilemma but neither would I pretend that the puzzle did not exist
There was no supercontinent surrounded by sea, ...just a
supercontinent - Pangaea. No sea (in the sense of mantle-floored
ocean).
> ...and by rubbishing the
> > shortcomings of plate tectonics we might get a bit of a reaction.
>
> Oh great,everything I fought tooth and nail against for ultimately it
> all descends into action and reaction with nobody knowing what it is
> they are attacking or defending.What happens when the same guys you
> are appealing to have a better lingo than yours and can reduce a valid
> point to an argument over definitions.Every time you bring up an
> astronomical point it is no more than what I have been dealing with
> for years,men who are prepared to use astronomy as a means to an end.
Well, ...we didn't get a reaction, so we're in phase two I guess,
where if they just ignore it, it goes away. (We'll see... ) I'm
leaving the astronomical aspects to those who can deal with it better
than me. All I'm doing is pointing out the geometries and symmetries.
Observations. Speculations I'm happy to put aside. It's those that
have to become consensus in order to take root. The observations
belong to everyone.
> You operate on the surface and as is your right you can contend with
> these matters as you see fit.I regret only that some aspects which are
> already known are under-utilised and some completely blocked.What is
> worse, a defered creationism presented as a tectonic puzzle inasmuch
> as it is every bit as intriguing as its strata layering antecent or
> speculation based on whatever comes into your head and having no
> connection with past investigations ?
Past investigations often lead us down wrong roads. You have to
return to the point of departure. You can't fudge. Ditch it. When
it's 'rediscovered' it has to be in an entirely different context.
> Crustal motion as expressed as
> plate tectonics may not be a complete explanation and I doubt if any
> would disagree with that but as a natural progression from its strata
> layering roots, it far exceeds any other attempt to mesh strata
> evolution with large scale surface structures.
That's right, ...but in adopting subduction rather than overriding the
got it wrong. In a choice of simple alternatives one won out, with
the other not even getting a consideration. You'll note that many
sites now use the two interchangeably as if they are the same thing.
> > I'm not getting involved in that one (turf wars). I'm just bringing
> > the Good News (and trying to keep off the cross that most of them
> > would try to hang me on)
> >
>
> Look around,nobody is here .
Shocking, ..isn/t it? I rather enjoyed them trying to get a hold of
me, and swivelling round so I could biff them with the cross-piece,
and give them one on the shins while I was at it..
> > Yes, ..and they're usually that big that we need to stand really well
> > back to see them. Also added in to the Moon capture scenario is the
> > existence of the banded iron formations. I think they're linked,
> > when we trace crustal evolution via that 'torsional' picture right
> > back I think we end up in the Proterozoic. (And we';ve already got a
> > model for the Moon that includes masses of iron dust.)
> >
>
> What did I do to have you insult me like this when I would have done
> as much as possible to demonstrate that you had valid points and
> concerns.
Don't know why you've taken offence, ..certainly none intended.
I do see the introduction of a 'torsional force' in
> geological principles and geologists can expect much of the same
> assault,not because it is right but because there is nowhere left for
> the gravitational guys to go.
Torsion is the architecture of the planet - even in plate tectonics.
I don't know what's so difficult. I'm just trying to goad them into a
bit of common sense. Obviously they see it. That's why (when we look
around) they're "not here". (The fun will be in watching it unravel.)
> It would stand to reason that the orbital motion of the Earth is
> affected by the solar system's motion around the galactic axis insofar
> as the dominant motion around the Sun would tend to keep the orbit
> circular and motion around the galactic axis would vary it.
>
> A person goes outside and determines that over the course of an annual
> orbit,the Earth will be closer to the galactic axis than six months
> later when the orbital position is further away.Sometimes the Earth
> will be closer to the galactic axis than the Sun and at other times
> further away.Not one single person goes outside and recognises this
> and prefers the idea of 'every valid point is the center of the
> universe'.You wish to introduce a torsional/dilational vocabulary that
> is designed to impress but the real impressions are before men every
> moment of their existence.
Yes, every day when they get up and the morning light triggers their
ablutions. It's as prosaic as that.
> > > I could not afford to use speculation in a promiscuous way for the
> > > whole thing would amount to guesswork and unfortunately there has been
> > > too much of that.It being a matter of using older investigations in a
> > > new way,scientists pay the phi and pi proportions lip service and
> > > carry on with their 'profound ' matters when these things are really
> > > the jewels inherited from remote antiquity.
> > >
> > > http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fib.html
> >
> > Well, ...guesswork. But surely that's where it begins with a good
> > guess. I would not be afraid to guess, so long as I'm ready to
> > discard.
> >
>
> They call them 'free creations of the mind' in the other community,a
> peculiar way to make guesses,do experiments ,remove doubt and be left
> with 'certainty'.This is what is known as empirical science,they will
> have thousands upon thousands of experiments that prove a concept
> correct when the founding principles of the concept do not emerge from
> nature itself but in what men think nature and the universe should be
> like.I'm sure you model is right up their alley.
Well as a model it's evidently not (yet), though I keep saying it's
not a model, but an observation. We're waiting for something that
links quantum mechanics with gravity, before we can talk about
'models'
> > This is not just speculation. There is very good reason to think that
> > the primordial crust is not of 'magmatic' origin, but that's in the
> > field of physical chemistry - another no-go area for traditionalists.
> > ('Dullards'? You mean sheep in sheepland?)
> >
>
> No.Even if I bring up the point of defered creationism and the origins
> of a supercontinent meshing with strata layering,it could only be
> considered perjorative if in response it was ignored.Rather than go
> bananas and descend into wild speculation,it is more favorable to mesh
> the Earth's geological history with its astronomical history,partly
> because orbital variations do show up in strata layering emerging from
> climatological changes and the need to discriminate them from sudden
> astronomical collisions and partly from the ongoing astronomical
> influences on surface feature evolution,not as a dominant feature but
> there nonetheless.
Global stratigraphy needs properly appraised. I don't know myself
much about it and it doesn't seem to be currently a particularly
fertile field of investigation. And so long as plate tectonics offers
uncountable instances of 'hiatus' it won't be one either.
> There is always a difference between the limits of a model and its
> validity or invalidity.The opposite is almost as bad insofar as I
> would not be so swift to reduce everything to a molten state and
> recast it,again,I have seen this happen before with awful
> consequences.Why should I not determine that it is possible to learn
> more about astronomy through geology than worry about whether geology
> will lapse into the same condition that befell its more glamorous
> counterpart where physics hijacked astronomy.It is not a matter of
> telling people that the geological arena is unapproachable and
> understood only by a few men but that it very much belongs to the
> people as astronomy once did.
Which is why I'm putting mine on the web ( - Kiddie's Korner.)
> Earth expansion sounds to me like it sounds to everyone else,it has
> the ring of 'warped space' about it,trying to explain what you mean
> after the fact is a sure good way to introduce that remoteness that
> cuts us off from the very ground we are standing on just as it did for
> the motions of the Earth,on its axis,around the Sun ,around the
> galactic axis or any other rotation there may be.
Well I didn't introduce the term. Sure, it does have that 'ring'
about it you say, ...but that's just too bad, That's no fault of the
term, but rather the complexion that others' ridicule has given it.
(rather like, in another context 'boudin' / sausages/ 'boudine').
...we have to respect precedent in nomenclature. Going down the road
of coining new terms to replace perfectly good old ones appropriates
all that has gone before, but in a new guise. It's thievery. I think
you'll agree with the plethora of unnecessary terms (in many
disciplines) academia really excells at this (thievery).
> The astronomical language which facilitates more more gentler
> connection is there for those who read it but always will be remote
> from those who approach it with brute reasoning.
I don't think your analogy with music applies in the least to the
abortion that is plate tectonics though (but I know you're probably
not saying that it does).
<big snip>
> > > > > Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow;
> > > > > He who would search for pearls must dive below.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Dryden (1631?1700)
>
> I am not exempt from all those pressures which fall under the heading
> of civilised living ,perhaps there would have been a time when the
> atmosphere would have been more favorable to handle the effort
> without having to suffer the indignity of calling it a hobby or a
> superficial interest beyond human economic concerns but this is often
> an accident of history and explains why concepts take a long time to
> change.It appears that those paid to do geology are in a worse
> position then I am however out of that tension between convention and
> invention much of humanity's great achievements take place,for the
> moment astronomy has lost the battle and baring the assault to
> 'revolutionise ' the way geology is done by others who already have
> destroyed theirs,it will turn out with some effort to be as
> magnificent as those insights which we inherited.
I thoroughly understand. It's called 'Life' and how rather than use
our creations we are used by them. The way of 'rightness' (let's not
call it 'truth') is continually appropriated at its leading edge by
others for their mean intentions. But, there again, .."we get the
'governments' we deserve" Since we elect them. Work the system, and
you get worked by it. Meanwhile there's the web. I completely agree
that geology has got to the point where it all needs an astronomical
framework. Laughable how they're bickering over plumes versus
convection. I'll get around to saying so one day. Maybe.
Oriel36
> geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
> > > > > > > THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOUNTAINS:-
> > > > > > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html>
>
> > Sir,I am isolated from astronomical contemporaries,not because I
> > proposed a new theory and it does not suit the approach they take,I am
> > isolated because in a given era they fudged astronomical methods and
> > insights to get their universal gravitation laws to work.Despite the
> > gravitational pandemic,men still manages to get work done and moreso
> > in geology and climatology and you would have the physics community
> > show up here and destroy the delicate connection between
> > astronomy,climatology and geology.
>
> Don't know what you're getting at Gerald. I'm just saying plate
> tectonics is wholly based on a wrong assumption, therefore needs
> throwing out. The assumption being wrong, anything kosher that might
> (*might*) derive from it needs reappraised. But I don't think there
> will be much. It hasn't even got the spreading ridges right.
>
I have travelled off the continental shelf enough times to recognise
that the sounder readings indicate sedimentary fracturing,even without
accounting for how the continental structure composed of sedimentary
layering got there in the first place.I can go to a construction site
where there are plenty of greywackes and their wafer thin layes and
see the same thing in action where one piece of the rock puzzle is
snapped off from the other.
http://gdcinfo.agg.nrcan.gc.ca/app/images/crustageposter.gif
Nothing in the plate tectonics concept opposes this seperation even if
the puzzle of the original continental landmass and crustal evolution
sticks out like defered creationism and the mechansim for the
continuing evolution of surface features appears too weak to account
for all but short term effect like earthquakes and volcanoes.
>
> > Even if the moon is a remnant from a collision as it has been
> > proposed,its orbit is still conditioned by the same effects that
> > condition the Earth's motion around the Sun and the solar system's
> > motion around the galaxy.Mr Troelsgard was correct in bringing up the
> > coriolis force and its effects but you have never adapted anything
> > that was said and imagine that I am working on the same principle of
> > guesswork and I assure you I am not.
>
> I prefer to leave coriolis out just simply because it's an obvious
> sort of thing anyone can add in if they like.It was the first thing
> I considered, but I leave it out because it detracts from the more
> important residual hemispherical rotation as the Pangaean crustal
> poles pivot away from the main one. I'm more concerned with the
> effect of global dilation/ growth. Migration of the hemispheres is
> the issue. The intracrustal swivelling of crustal sectors such as:-
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/scorpion.html> could of course be
> seen in terms of coriolis effects if anyone is inclided to, but to me
> it's not an issue. It detracts from the main game.
>
Again,I can't deal with bluffing anymore especially as there is a
precise record of not only the Earth's terrestial evolution in rocks
but also its astronomical history.
Mr Troelsgard could have moved up to orbital motion wrt axial rotation
and then recognised long term effects such as equatorial bulge without
incuring any disagreement but explaining Keplerian motion requires the
addition of the next rotation of the solar system about the galactic
axis.He is blocked off by a community which adheres to the motion of
the planets about the Sun as an isolated system,has no mechanism why
the planets move from circular to more elliptical which in turn affect
climatology and then into sedimentary layering.
Well wait then !,these people have a very different idea of the 'past'
than geologists and the principles that encompass investigation into
terrestial evolutionary history.In attempting to reconcile the very
large with the very small,you just repeat the mantra which places you
squarely on their indoctrinated level,cannon fodder which uphold the
destruction of astronomy and the once noble methods of that
discipline.The primary astronomical method being the discrimation
between the observed motions of planets as seen from Earth and their
actual motions.
The planet adjusts to imbalances due to long term variations in its
orbit or sudden impacts of astronomical origin or those of terrestial
origin,if you wish to adhere to 'uncertainty principles' then be my
guest,when you attempt to reconcile it with relativity and people with
a peculiar idea of what the 'past',you can get to say anything you
want.Just don't mistake vitality of speculation for novelty and 'Earth
expansion' falls into that category.
> > > This is not just speculation. There is very good reason to think that
> > > the primordial crust is not of 'magmatic' origin, but that's in the
> > > field of physical chemistry - another no-go area for traditionalists.
> > > ('Dullards'? You mean sheep in sheepland?)
> > >
> >
> > No.Even if I bring up the point of defered creationism and the origins
> > of a supercontinent meshing with strata layering,it could only be
> > considered perjorative if in response it was ignored.Rather than go
> > bananas and descend into wild speculation,it is more favorable to mesh
> > the Earth's geological history with its astronomical history,partly
> > because orbital variations do show up in strata layering emerging from
> > climatological changes and the need to discriminate them from sudden
> > astronomical collisions and partly from the ongoing astronomical
> > influences on surface feature evolution,not as a dominant feature but
> > there nonetheless.
>
> Global stratigraphy needs properly appraised. I don't know myself
> much about it and it doesn't seem to be currently a particularly
> fertile field of investigation. And so long as plate tectonics offers
> uncountable instances of 'hiatus' it won't be one either.
>
Plate tectonics represents a more convenient progression from the
principles of sedimentary layering without destroying it.
The historical records which comprise the geological evolution of the
planet contain an astronomical record also and these records can only
be as good as the people interpreting them.Insofar as correct
astronomical interpretation stops dead with Newton and with very
specific reasons,you can construct any astronomical framework you wish
based on the gravitational agenda but you cannot mesh terrestial and
cosmological history within it.
It must be great to remain silent while geology descends into the
condition bounded by fundamentalism on one side and undisciplined
speculation on the other.You can beat geologists over the head with
the origins of a supercontinent and its defered creationist tendency
for your own ends when the intention was to present a new puzzle every
bit as intriguing as seashells on the mountaintop.
For now,at least,it is over.
don findlay
don findlay
--------------------------------------
I like this one from JPL/ NASA:-
**************************************
"This leads us to the second type of plate boundary, which is called a
convergent boundary or subduction zone. These are plate margins where
one plate is overriding another, thereby forcing the other into the
mantle beneath it. These boundaries are in the form of trench and
island arc systems.
**************************************
<http://scign.jpl.nasa.gov/learn/plate4.htm> (Teaching all about
plates.)
I can go along with this 100% because it's talking my kind of
language:- <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/cards.html> But
immediately in the next sentence they stuff it up.
"Convergent boundaries also explain why crust older than the
Cretaceous cannot be found in any ocean basin-- it has already been
destroyed by the process of subduction."
Subduction? overriding? (which?) Same thing or different? What in
plate tectonics causes overriding? Ah, subduction of course.
Subducting plates pull the crust over the top in a great big "The
Earth sucks". Convection?
Who needs it? Chilling plates mate, that all we need. "Coal out thar
in space". Cold space causes the plates to swim around. Believe
me.... I mean NASA, ...and 'Stu', ...and 'George'
"But Teach, ...how do we know it was there in the first place? ..and
what causes overriding?"
don findlay
> d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.0408...@posting.google.com>...
> > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > d...@tower.net.au (don findlay) wrote in message news:<5f164087.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> I have travelled off the continental shelf enough times to recognise
> that the sounder readings indicate sedimentary fracturing,even without
> accounting for how the continental structure composed of sedimentary
> layering got there in the first place.I can go to a construction site
> where there are plenty of greywackes and their wafer thin layes and
> see the same thing in action where one piece of the rock puzzle is
> snapped off from the other.
>
> http://gdcinfo.agg.nrcan.gc.ca/app/images/crustageposter.gif
>
> Nothing in the plate tectonics concept opposes this seperation even if
> the puzzle of the original continental landmass and crustal evolution
> sticks out like defered creationism and the mechansim for the
> continuing evolution of surface features appears too weak to account
> for all but short term effect like earthquakes and volcanoes.
Earth expansion accounts for the separation rather better. And that
crustageposter needs revised. It's based largely on *assumed* cooling
curves, derived in turn from the slopes off the ridges. The slope
off the ridges is 'assumed' to be dependent on cooling. It is not
based on temperature difference. (Another bit of PT 'Junk' that needs
tossed overboard). Also, no account is taken of structural sequence
of ocean floor creation
(e.g.,<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/triple.html> beyond the idea
(*idea* - no fact) of the *BIG DYKE* (Shut up, George, ...back to
Florida!)
> Again,I can't deal with bluffing anymore especially as there is a
> precise record of not only the Earth's terrestial evolution in rocks
> but also its astronomical history.
Astronomical history in the stratigraphic layering? Banded Iron
Formations is my bet for the most direct and informative correlation
(cf Lunar impacts, micrometeorites in the sequence) Weather/ climate
> erosion> stratigraphic layering is much more diffuse. Astronomical
history in the structure of the planet is the main thing though
(torsional history; structural sequence of the ocean floors)
> Mr Troelsgard could have moved up to orbital motion wrt axial rotation
> and then recognised long term effects such as equatorial bulge without
> incuring any disagreement but explaining Keplerian motion requires the
> addition of the next rotation of the solar system about the galactic
> axis.He is blocked off by a community which adheres to the motion of
> the planets about the Sun as an isolated system,has no mechanism why
> the planets move from circular to more elliptical which in turn affect
> climatology and then into sedimentary layering.
Yeah, Carsten, ...where are you now? (Plate bloody Tectonics)
Working within the Paradigm. %0 Years Old? Ah dear, ...and he
nearly got there with that post where he said even a nut could see the
Earth is getting bigger, if you ignore the unwarranted assumption of a
Panthalassa. What logic is in his head I don't know... Probably
that he thinks it's warranted, ..But that's something to do with
physics, for which Carsten is conned by 'Big Science' . Doesn't seem
to realise that's why it's big - because nobody can work it out. If
it was worked out there would be virtually nothing to do and they'd
all be pusing brooms - Kings of the Road..... A bit like Plate
tectonics is 'big' - and everybody's got something to do - Subdiction
mostly, ..peeing in each other's pockets then shoving it down the
furgler. (Mob of 'furglers')
> > Well as a model it's evidently not (yet), though I keep saying it's
> > not a model, but an observation. We're waiting for something that
> > links quantum mechanics with gravity, before we can talk about
> > 'models'
> >
>
> Well wait then !,these people have a very different idea of the 'past'
> than geologists and the principles that encompass investigation into
> terrestial evolutionary history.In attempting to reconcile the very
> large with the very small,you just repeat the mantra which places you
> squarely on their indoctrinated level,cannon fodder which uphold the
> destruction of astronomy and the once noble methods of that
> discipline.The primary astronomical method being the discrimation
> between the observed motions of planets as seen from Earth and their
> actual motions.
>
> The planet adjusts to imbalances due to long term variations in its
> orbit or sudden impacts of astronomical origin or those of terrestial
> origin,if you wish to adhere to 'uncertainty principles' then be my
> guest,when you attempt to reconcile it with relativity and people with
> a peculiar idea of what the 'past',you can get to say anything you
> want.Just don't mistake vitality of speculation for novelty and 'Earth
> expansion' falls into that category.
Well, again, .. There could not *be**more* speculation than is wrapped
up in the theory of plate tectonics. Witness the number of times it's
shifted its goalposts, and it's still got heaps of 'research' to do.
Earth Expansion is an observation that even a fool can see (if you
drop off the unwarranted assumption). That right, Carsten? Bores
you numb, the obviousness of it - right up to the back teeth. That
right Jo? (Fifteen fingers.) Nothing more exciting than the
speculation that there might have been a Panthalassa crowded with owls
and pussycats, dripping with honey and money.
I agree it's a bad show - about the physics and the astronomy.
They're not doing too well about explaining gravity in terms of what
we know about the elemental parts of mass, and it should all hang
together, shouldn't it? I'm just the messenger, like you Why are
*you* shooting me? Get stuck into them.
> Plate tectonics represents a more convenient progression from the
> principles of sedimentary layering without destroying it.
Convenient? Well there you are, you've said it. Plate tectonics is
not short of 'convenient' expanations. Panthalassa -convenient.
Subduction (instead of overriding) Convenient. The two mainstays of
plate tectonics - Convenient assumptions (*/nonsense/cards.html). I
thought you were lobbying against 'convenient' explanations/
assumptions in science. There is nothing contradictory between
expansion and plate tectonics other than those two **convenient**
fabrications of plate tectonics. (Except that plate tectonics cannot
explain the stratigraphic sequence on the continental crust - if it
operated in the past the way it has for the last 300million years.)
(Where that's what Earth expansion is all about.) What would you
make of that? Such a first-order aspect of global geology and plate
tectonics has no answer. (I believe it doesn't even recognise
there's a question. (!!) ) It really has no sensible answer to *any*
question. And even less of consistent ones (see yesterday posting on
subduction/ overriding/ pushing plates down/ etc etc. And that is
from Nasa teaching schools! No wonder 'George' is full of crap with
his "striaight A's". And Stu so quiet.... (Encyclical : Subduction
exits).
> The historical records which comprise the geological evolution of the
> planet contain an astronomical record also and these records can only
> be as good as the people interpreting them.Insofar as correct
> astronomical interpretation stops dead with Newton and with very
> specific reasons,you can construct any astronomical framework you wish
> based on the gravitational agenda but you cannot mesh terrestial and
> cosmological history within it.
>
> It must be great to remain silent while geology descends into the
> condition bounded by fundamentalism on one side and undisciplined
> speculation on the other.You can beat geologists over the head with
> the origins of a supercontinent and its defered creationist tendency
> for your own ends when the intention was to present a new puzzle every
> bit as intriguing as seashells on the mountaintop.
(You mean the mountain top that is flat as a tack and sharp as a
pin...) (Good one - I rather like that...) Well, ...doing *my bit
Gerald, ... What about formalising yours and I'll put you up on my
site, or help you put one up on yours and put up a linking page for
you that will get you top spot on the web for "plate tectonics - the
astronomical connection".
don findlay
<"plate tectonics" "astronomical connection"> currently googles 12
entries
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22plate+tectonics%22+%22Astronomical+connection%22&meta=
(Top spot no problem. Easy.)
don findlay
STOP PRESS
Physicists think slightly more than do Earth scientists
- but only slightly.
*********************************************************
Do the Ooglie Googlie and:-
<"plate tectonics" "scientists believe"> = 1,960
<"plate tectonics" "scientists think"> = 550
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22plate+tectonics%22+%22scientists+believe%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22plate+tectonics%22+%22scientists+think%22&meta=
= 550
proportionally, physicists think slightly more
<physics "scientists believe"> = 21,200
<physics "scientists think"> = 7,400
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22physics%22+%22scientists+believe%22&meta=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22physics%22+%22scientists+think%22&meta=
So much for 'belief', yet 'truth' has no place in science? So what's
going on? Do they go to church? Do they partake in the ritual? Does
the flock follow in pastures green? Do they obey encyclicals? Do
they munch on grass? Is that why their brain only copes with thinking
a quarter or a third of the time?
*******************************************************************
BELIEF TRAVELS FURTHER FASTEST -
Put a BELIEF in *YOUR* head ... today!
(12.00, 2.30pm, 5.15pm)
(support your local order. Combat creationism NOW!)
(Onward, Pteros! - UP, ...ever UP, to that Big Dyke in the sky)
(Science needs you NOW more than EVER!)
*******************************************************************
don findlay
Bill gets a mention on don's blog
**********************************
Bill (I think he learned his stuff same place as Stu an' Straight-A
George) has jumped in to take the opportunity of a shot at oriel and
spin the classic geophysical party line to show how much he knows, and
says:-
___________________________
"Continental landmasses do not sink because of the reason you have
already built into your question - they are too light. The subducting
plate is denser than the subducting plate - not lighter as you seem to
suggest. And before you run off an say the the subducing plate is
lighter than the mantle it is sinking into - NOT TRUE! It is true
that basalt (slab) is less dense than peritotite (mantle) - however
don't forget that basalt is converted to eclogite via phase changes at
pressures >10 kb. And eclogite IS denser than peridotite - hence the
slab sinks - gravity driven. Continental crust cannot convert to
eclogite because it has the wrong chemistry to do so.
cheers"
Bill
____________________________
He's been institutionalised, but he's cheerful about it, ...
This is the 10,9,8,7,6. and 5's 11 'short-of-a-few-fingers' trick.
It goes like this "Basalt is less dense (so it can't go down) ( until
it gets to 10kb pressure that is) when it can - because it converts to
eclogite". But how does it get to that pressure (depth?) of 10kb in
the first place. How does it do that? Gravity can't do it, ..(?)
(Yet Pteros everywhere say it does - "cold slabs" ) (yes, it can go
down and stay cold and not warm up and try to rise) because of RIDGE
PUSH - ridge-push from half-a-world away... It's being pushed down,
aaAAaaalll the way from the spreading ridge - way over there, ...with
absolutely no hint of any resulting compression bar the going down
slab (that can't be seen). Now this is strange, because if that
stretch of mantle doing the pushing had a continent on top, then that
continent would batter the buggery out of any other continent that got
in its way, without itself getting up even so much as a sweat, much
less a wrinkle, and in fact keep the extensional basin that typically
exists all along the front of its leading edge - eg., all the way
around the top of Africa, Saudi Arabia, India.... So how does it do
it? How do Africa and India collide with Eurasia to throw up
mountains, with an extensional basin in between - in the case of
Africa - Saudi Arabia, two extensional basins in between (Red Sea and
Persian gulf)? <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/afar.html>, because
of "RIDGE PUSH"? ...at the same time as Nasa is reckoning it's the
mountains sitting on top that *pushes* the slab down... )
"Scientists believe"
So once it gets *pushed* down there, *THEN* it can get converted to
denser stuff. And *SINK* Yaayyyyyy..... And when it sinks, the
rest of the mantle gets pushed up! Ambient mantle rise. (Double
Yaayyyyyy) Straight A's, ..straight A's, ... Join the ranks of
Georges in the front row.
Worriesome...
(...Ah Bill, ...use your education mate, ..to better ends... Show us
what you're really capable of... Why not ask a sensible question,
instead of hanging around to give nonsense answers. Contribute to the
font of evolving knowledge, not the garbage of kindergarten rejects.
It's depressing. Oriel wants to know why all youse geologists don't
have a question as to why the astronomical connection doesn't figure
in the model of plate tectonics, when the Earth is round as a planet,
and has a great big bulge round its gut that relates to its rotation.
And so do I, ..and so do a lot of others reading this that are
looking at you.. And George, and Stu, ...and Googlie Ooo, which has
virtually nothing on it (seven entries) compared to the hundred and
thirty three thousand on plate tectonics with the spiel you just gave.
) Not to mention all the others keeping their heads down,
...munching grass.
Landy
Morisset?
Is it me who is short a few fingers or is it you that has the extra arm.
Perhaps you live in Tasmania? (apologies to Taswegians out there).
cheers
Bill
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5f164087.04082...@posting.google.com...
Oriel36
Don
This is infuriatiating for the points you bring up are indeed good but
why attempt to utilise conceptual weaknesses to prove plate tectonics
false in order to justify your own concept.
Someone said in the early 20th century that 'space' was warped in
terms of gravity,it is an absurd leap of speculation insofar as space
has no geometric properties yet their idea is to create experiments to
remove doubt and prove that 'warped space' is a certainty.If your
talent is to spot a geologically weak argument and it does appear that
way,why adopt a wildly speculative position with 'Earth expansion'.
New crust is lighter than older compressed crust but gravitationally
these guys have 'slab pull' as the cause for creation of new crust a
quarter of a hemisphere away.To drag the crust open at the divergent
boundaries requires that the subducting crust remains intact while
sinking a quarter of the way to the Earth's core to accomplish this
feat !.
For goodness sake Don,drop 'Earth expansion' for I would have no part
in it no more than I would slab pull even as a provisional
explanation.You are making yourself ineffective while bringing up
excellent geological points,even if the outlines of a better mechanism
for geological evolution have yet to emerge the direction is pretty
obvious.In order to present the mechanism for the cyclical change in
orbital motion from circular to elliptical,I do not appeal to
physicists and their equations but to geology where the astronomical
material properly belongs.
don findlay
> Institutionalized? I see you already have been. Is it Gladesville or
> Morisset?
> Is it me who is short a few fingers or is it you that has the extra arm.
> Perhaps you live in Tasmania? (apologies to Taswegians out there).
> cheers
> Bill
Yes, ..I confess I once was, ..under the aegis of the Dark Lord. But
where's this Taswegia? Is it someplace like Rodinia? Or Laurasia? or
Baltica-Uralia? Is it an interesting construction of the 20th
Century?
Out where anyway?
And yes, I'll admit to having an extra arm, if you'll admit to being
'short of a few fingers'.
Landy
> news:<cgm86h$8tr$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>...
>> Institutionalized? I see you already have been. Is it Gladesville or
>> Morisset?
>> Is it me who is short a few fingers or is it you that has the extra arm.
>> Perhaps you live in Tasmania? (apologies to Taswegians out there).
>> cheers
>> Bill
>
> Yes, ..I confess I once was, ..under the aegis of the Dark Lord. But
> where's this Taswegia? Is it someplace like Rodinia? Or Laurasia? or
> Baltica-Uralia? Is it an interesting construction of the 20th
> Century?
a common colloquialism for "Tasmanian". But then I don't suppose you're
fair dinkum anyway.
cheers
Bill
don findlay
Jeez Bill! You really do have a knack of keeping me in the
confessional! I guess my spelling got you. ....Tasouija then. Is it
pulling or pushing or skating overriding or subducting? Or is it just
(like it always was) tacked on Ozzie's bottom?
don findlay
>
> Don
>
> This is infuriatiating for the points you bring up are indeed good but
> why attempt to utilise conceptual weaknesses to prove plate tectonics
> false in order to justify your own concept.
No, Gerald, ..You have it wrong. Pointing out conceptual weaknesses
in plate tectonics is not in order to justify "my own concept". It's
to demonstrate that they are indeed conceptual weaknesses. Flaws.
Errors.
Plate tectonics stands in direct opposition to Earth Expansion on the
key point of the fundamental assumption: "the Earth cannot be getting
bigger". The geological evidence is that it is (getting bigger.
Plate tectonics is "a model", "a theory", whose fundamental premise is
just exactly that. When you go down a wrong road, then in order to
undo things you have to go back to the point of departure. That
funamental premise is the point of departure. It is wrong at its root,
and needs to be exposed as such. It's a thing quite apart from
supporting Earth expansion. It has nothing to do with supporting
Earth esxpansion. But what we're doing is the necessary two part
thing: Undoing plate tectonics (on the basis of empirical geology and
conceptual premise) and constructing Earth expansion - the empirical
geological parts of it at any rate. The conceptual part I don't have
a clue. Some help would be good.
> Someone said in the early 20th century that 'space' was warped in
> terms of gravity,it is an absurd leap of speculation insofar as space
> has no geometric properties yet their idea is to create experiments to
> remove doubt and prove that 'warped space' is a certainty.If your
> talent is to spot a geologically weak argument and it does appear that
> way,why adopt a wildly speculative position with 'Earth expansion'.
"wildly speculative"? How? Empirical observation shows the Earth has
got bigger by the extent of the ocean floors. It's well accepted for
the Atlantic - Indian ocean fits, and is also obvious for the
retrofitting on transforms in the Pacific. Sauce for the
Atlantic-Indian goose is also sause for the Pacific gander. Where's
the problem?
> New crust is lighter than older compressed crust but gravitationally
> these guys have 'slab pull' as the cause for creation of new crust a
> quarter of a hemisphere away.To drag the crust open at the divergent
> boundaries requires that the subducting crust remains intact while
> sinking a quarter of the way to the Earth's core to accomplish this
> feat !.
Ah, ..now you're getting a hint of the idea what these guys are all
about...
> For goodness sake Don, drop 'Earth expansion'
You're just worried about what you said before about how the tone of
it is regarded in the community, but again, that's because of all the
dead dogs that have been unfairly hung on it by others. Scrape the
maggots off and it's fine
> for I would have no part
> in it no more than I would slab pull even as a provisional
> explanation.You are making yourself ineffective while bringing up
> excellent geological points,even if the outlines of a better mechanism
> for geological evolution have yet to emerge the direction is pretty
> obvious.In order to present the mechanism for the cyclical change in
> orbital motion from circular to elliptical,I do not appeal to
> physicists and their equations but to geology where the astronomical
> material properly belongs.
The climate change aspect is pretty well documented in the geological
record, so it's not really an issue how climate change translates into
the stratigraphic record. The other aspect, the helicity of transform
aggregates, is an obvious candidate for additional consideration. but
that means taking on board aspects of torsional variation, which seems
to be anathema for gravity-driven plate tectonics (obvious though it
is.)
don findlay
don findlay
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=273f8e06.0408310416.21b4fa08%40posting.google.com
I keep trying to placate him, and he keeps pummelling me up against
the ropes. He sees me as 'one of them', but I don't know why, 'coz I
can't tell one rock from another without a microscope, when he's got
it in for people who think they can, and then use this as evidence
that they know how the world works. I quite agree with him about
this. It always cracks me up when people post scans of rocks and
'George' rushes in to say what it is. Some hand lens! Something like
roadside geology at ninety miles an hour.. when the roadside is on the
other side of the Eath.
And he's lobbing TS Eliot at me:-
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first
time." -T. S. Eliot
I say "all roads lead to Rome", but Rome's got a rather bad name with
Christians from way back, .. so I'll repeat this one about
exploration and change, which I think is along the same lines:-
"However, once the change is made and the sense of the new model
becomes apparent, it seems simple. So simple in fact that it seems
impossible to see it any other way. It has such a quality of truth
about it that it seems as if we have always known it, ...and,
moreover, have always known it in that particular form. It is just as
if it has always been so."
Returns us, ...I think that's the essence of real scientific advance,
it bypasses the 'clever newness', and returns us to a deeper
'knowing', almost the position we had in the first place, but seen
differently. And when empiricism gets us there, then that's good. A
triumph of logic. Geo-logic, in the case of the Earth. He's talking
about ancestors becoming puppets for empirical ends, but I don't see
anything wrong with building on what others have done.
http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/image_gifs/exper.gif
You have to, to a large extent. But I think he means building on
others' conclusions though, and sure, that's risky. You *do have to
go back to the raw data, all the time. It's like logging a hole.
Every time you do, you have to re-log (check back) all the previous
ones to make sure you got them right, haven't missed anything. Ho
ho, I'll bet there aren't too many geo's that appreciate the *Symphony
of Drill Core*, conducting the cadences of about 140,000 metres of
drill core in their noddles whilst they draw up their flitches.
They're happier shooting poor little lost stones from the hip at
ninety miles an hour. It's that raw data, that is what "others have
done". Makes me wince to see the standard of work today compared to
the stuff that was around a century ago, as we become more
tool-oriented. Anyone ever noticed how GPS units thoroughly stuff up
sense of direction? Lost without them. Before? No problem. The
price we pay for accuracy. Gotta always be on guard over that one,
not to trade insight for the perfidy of accuracy. Got that, you
'rithos? - Rubbish in, rubbish out, all neat and bundled though it
might be. He really has a point, what he says about the trickle down
of peer reviewed anonymity, and mediocrity, and holocausts supported
by intimidated silence - another expression of tool-driven 'science'.
We're getting increasingly tool-driven, the 'tool' in this case being
that of academic excellence (pseudo). Crikey, it wasn't that long ago
the most complicated tool was a wheel and the hinge on a wooden gate
(the gif-pic above) and look where we are now, still squabbling over
grain and water, and oil. What are the tools that nature uses to put
us lot together, and that tree and the sheepish grain, and the light?
Insight v. accuracy, ..and perfidy.
"A little (honest) contemplation saves a lot of perspiration.."
I like the bit where he says:- "the support has always been the
silence of those who are too intimidated or feebleminded to raise
protest amid the conceptual rubble,astronomy suffered that fate and
geology looks likely to follow." There are a lot on this newsgroup
buried under conceptual rubble, and are too intimidated and
feebleminded in the face of 'George' and 'Stu'. I think we're making
progress though. There was a post about Earth expansion just a day or
so ago, that drew this reponse from George:-
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=9THYc.53098%24_h.39638%40bignews3.bellsouth.net
and nothing at all from Stuart, when ordinarily both would be quite
garrulous on this topic. Something is shutting them up. I wonder
what it can be... The astronomical connection I think, ...written in
the ocean floors and the stratigraphic sequence. Though Gerald
protests about "getting bigger". He sees no reason for plate
tectonics being wrong, just that it is not (yet) 'exquisitely right'.
So it's here we have to part company, because I think it's absolute
crap, from go to wo! Doan I!
don findlay
don findlay
Michigan Basin.
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/panhinge.html>
don findlay
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/panhinge.html#mountains>
High mountains are flat. Lower mountains and mountain roots show
nappes and overthrusts as collapse structures.
???Shift in the Barycentre.
don findlay
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html>
Knock this leg out, and the entire edifice of plate tectonics
collapses. Thubducth'n - Ith' no more than a myth.
So how did it go from 'convenient assumption' to 'fundamental
support'. (Arsk yo'self.) But don't look at me for answers. The
answer's in the deepest recessess of 'George''s mind as he
piggie-backs the Pope around in his litter. Ask HIM.
(But you see,...as the quotes on the page show, and 'George'
notwithstanding, ...it's not a fundamental support at all, it *STILL
IS* - just as it ever was - a *CONVENIENT ASSUMPTION*.. By no
means anything to base 'science' on.
What was it Oriel's quote on Pascal said:-
"But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and
are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort
is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight." ...." We must
see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of
reasoning."
And that's it! You either see it or you don't.
And Seeing is Believing - mostly. But thinking? Leads you right up
the garden path. Rationality? And the reptilian brain (The football
match again..and the goal scored. I bet somebody can give a good
rational explanation of this).
(I wonder why we were given senses, ..why bother with them much,
..when we have a brain we can think with.) Science, ...and real
scientists!
Senses. Not honed. Not honed at all. (Maybe if they tagged along
with Cathy, they might pick up a clue about senses.
don findlay
across in my browser. I think his computer must be getting tired and
keeps forgetting to press <enter> for him. It's reneging. It's
trying to tell him something. My eyes can hardly keep track on lines
that long. OK to write, but they're bloody hard to read for people
with shifty eyes like mine. Pretty good on the Women's Gymnastics
though, and the likes of that lioness that popped up recently on Bob
Grumbine's beach <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/cathy.html> (Half his
luck!) She caught my eye because there she is, proving all about
mountains being flat, at the same time looking like she's looking
through last year's frocks in Wallmart or somewhere, for something
passable to wear. And with about as much interest as well, because
*she's* got *her eye on the *ball - and dead sure what she's doing.
Not like this mob around here who are all over the place. Somebody
asked about how the world's oceans got here, and Stuart immediately
wants to say something about changes in angular momentum. I ask
you... And Now Carsten's complaining. He sounds a bit blue I must
say, with his post about 'Professional Network'
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=41497b57%240%24263%24edfadb0f%40dread14.news.tele.dk
like he's feeling like you do when met with that guff you get when you
step into the subway. You know where it's coming from, but you don't
quite know how it manages to stay so, ...so the way it does - a
potpourri of subterranean malodours when the wind behind it is so
strong, and should clear it away like a good wind should. He
doesn't realise it's a necessary ingredient of getting down and dirty.
I think he's got his good suit on, and thinks everything should
therefore rearrange itself somehow like Buckingham Palace. And smell
nice. He can't have ever been in there because he obviously doesn't
understand plumbing in places like that, and that it's on account of
plumbing that he's feeling it. Guff. The geological residue of
plate tectonics' internal plumbing. He's saying "If only, ..if only,
.." Now he's turned up in a suit he thinks maybe Oriel will
apologise. He wants everybody to be massaging each other nicely, and
telling them nice things, like what's on their mind if you ask them
nicely. That's the last thing they'll tell you. I made the same
mistake right at the beginning, but it took me about two posts and a
run-in with the chief heidkicker with the studs and tatts, to suss out
what was going on. Hey, Carsten, ..you need to go home and put your
jeans on. George 's answer is dancing shoes, ...Stuart wears the full
regalia - combat suit, medals, whistles for the entourage when they
step out of line, and promises of writs for that other crowd, ... and
steel toecaps for everybody else. But being you, you might need a gas
mask in addition to your outfit of choice. ..... I mean, they'll tell
you what's on everybody *else's mind, but they won't tell you what
*THEY* think. I think they don't know what they think. I don't
think they know how. They're pretty big on Belief though. They'll
believe just about anything anybody else thinks, provided somebody
else thinks so too. And George, ...making sure everybody is kept
*informed* on the matter. Just about every matter under the sun.
Gee they're a funny lot. And Carsten wants to put paid man-hours in
on this basis. What's wrong with you, Carsten? Why don't you dream
the impossible dream, reach for that cascade of heavenly stars and
join Cathy for a walk on that flat luminescent beach of hers?
Stardust Carsten, it's everywhere. Seek and ye shall find. Amongst
the Guff. (Why does he think I'm here, running around where the brave
dare not go, ....covered in scars, flagellating myself, marching into
this Hell for this Heavenly Cause, righting the unwriteable wrong?)
(Doesn'twanttotalktomeanymore) . No splendour rolling in the grass
with me... Awww, ...Carsten...
don findlay
don findlay
have discovered a new class of "ultraslow" spreading ridge, where
cold, solid slabs of mantle are being heaved to the surface to build
new seafloor. The new findings may require the rewriting of marine
geology textbooks and cause geoscientists to rethink their
understanding of the mid-ocean ridge system."
<http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/eesj/gradpubs/web_pub/SPgeotimes120403.pdf.>
See how, as obvious, not from the most remote part of the galaxy, but
from a sea floor near you:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/ridgegrow.html>
don findlay
don findlay
don findlay
> Bodgers:-
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/consensus.html>
Hey, Carsten, ...How's the suit? Does it fit? Stuart's fits a
beauty. How's yours?
don findlay
don findlay
don findlay
and 'Stu') by now it is time to revise our understanding re. "the age
of the ocean floors".
Funny, ....if you google up that string you get 22 entries *ONLY* -
entries that have seen fit, in the hundred and fifty *THOUSAND*
(thousand) on plate tectonics to mention one of the most critical
bits of evidence for it.
What's even funnier is that half of the links on the pages listed are
disabled, and the images withdrawn. What's going on? Maybe
something to do with the fact that the ages depicted in the
'crustageposter' images (and similar) are now being recognised to be
nonsense?
Why might that be? Because the Americas were fully dilated about the
Caribbean Pivot before the Atlantic began to open? I.e., the
peripheral contours of the Pacific ("Panthalassa") were fully formed?
Because the Pangaean ambital Circumglobal Mountain Belt Loop was
developed *before* the Pacific began to open? (Pacific about
260-300myo according to plate tectonics.)
Putting that another way, the peneplain surface that eventually formed
the high mountains of the world:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/panhinge.html#mountains
predated the opening of the Pacific. (Pretty well.)
The Himalayas are reckoned to be only about 56-60my.
Uhh?? Something's not adding up. Something is not well in the State
of Plate Tectonics. GPS for a start charting plate movements at
fingernail rates - ignoring the strong motions of Earthquakes;
filtering out the really big ones that level cities (flat) in order to
show the whispers that describe 'plate movement' (which isn't movement
at all but growth).
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/movass.html
Things are happening one heck of a lot faster than plate tectonics
makes out. (Watch this space)
(Meanwhile keep your eye on flat mountains around the world as helping
to mark the uplifted *YOUNG* peneplain which capped the uplift of -
and predated - Pacific breakthrough:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/to/index.html#list>
don findlay
Pteros - UTTER NUTTERS, rabitting on about about 'creationsim' at the
same time as teaching plate tectonics in schools. Certainly you got
to hand it to them for not being overly endowed with creation, that's
true, (about as creative in their thinking as a panful of wet
noodles.) (Nutters.) (and getting paid for it too.)(!)
(Plate tecbloodytonics...) Snap out of it, you lot, for goodness
sake. Have I got to do this all on my own?