Re: Even better, George does not understand how lava lamps work!
Florian
> > No It is not. Building a model assuming rigid lithosphere whereas
> > everybody knows it is not at all, is part of the reason why geosciences
> > are in such a mess.
>
> Stuart has already supported me on this.
Look at that... little Ron needs Bro Stuart to hold his hand because he
can't have an opinion by himself.
So according to you, Stuart said that lithosphere is rigid, so that it
can not deform away from the boundaries?
Let's see what you're big brother has to say about that statement...
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Stuart
(Florian) wrote:
> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > > No It is not. Building a model assuming rigid lithosphere whereas
> > > everybody knows it is not at all, is part of the reason why geosciences
> > > are in such a mess.
>
> > Stuart has already supported me on this.
>
> Look at that... little Ron needs Bro Stuart to hold his hand because he
> can't have an opinion by himself.
>
> So according to you, Stuart said that lithosphere is rigid, so that it
> can not deform away from the boundaries?
>
> Let's see what you're big brother has to say about that statement...
I didn't say that, and that's not what George is claiming. What we
both have said
is that deformation on the boundaries is far greater than in the
interiors. Nobody
claims there is no deformation in the interior. To first order, it can
be ignored
in most places.
You claim that if the plates are moving large distances they should
show large
amounts of internal deformation.
You have claimed that maximum strain occurs where the displacement is
maximum.
Are you going to correct that?
Or will continuum mechanics continue to be one of your poorer
subjects?
Stuart
Florian
> On Oct 10, 1:50 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
> (Florian) wrote:
> > George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> > > > No It is not. Building a model assuming rigid lithosphere whereas
> > > > everybody knows it is not at all, is part of the reason why geosciences
> > > > are in such a mess.
> >
> > > Stuart has already supported me on this.
> >
> > Look at that... little Ron needs Bro Stuart to hold his hand because he
> > can't have an opinion by himself.
> >
> > So according to you, Stuart said that lithosphere is rigid, so that it
> > can not deform away from the boundaries?
> >
> > Let's see what you're big brother has to say about that statement...
>
> I didn't say that, and that's not what George is claiming.
Let's see.
> What we both
> have said is that deformation on the boundaries is far greater than in the
> interiors. Nobody claims there is no deformation in the interior. To first
> order, it can be ignored in most places.
This is my point. Ron keep repeating there are deformation despite
they're not significant.
> You claim that if the plates are moving large distances they should show
> large amounts of internal deformation.
Yes. It is the realistic point of view, because the rigidity of the
oceanic lithosphere is a conjecture based on one observation, the
absence of important internal deformation, and one assumption, the crust
move uniformally as a whole block.
The realistic point of view is that the crust can't move uniformally
over thousand km, so that the absence of deformation means that it does
not move relatively to what's beneath it.
> You have claimed that maximum strain occurs where the displacement is
> maximum.
Obviously, you did not understand the meaning of that sentence.
Of course I know that the strain tensor is the spatial derivative of
displacement, i.e., it is the change in length over length.
But you're so close-minded, that you totally missed the point.
I meant that there is more chance to get maximum deformations if there
is maximum displacement where resistance to the displacement is met. If
the whole pacific crust was sliding, inevitably, it would meet some zone
of resistance to its motion, and would deform there
(fold/faults/overthrusts). This is not what is observed. The logical
conclusion is that the pacific lithosphere is not sliding.
Its motion is the radial and lateral motion expected at the surface of
an unevenly growing globe.
Besides, heavy deformations occur at upduction zones, because this is
were surfaceward migrating material reach the surface and meet
resistance => displacement of material => large deformation.
Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times
(Florian) wrote:
according to the 'Thé au riz' ak theories defended by Georges &
Idiots Inc, the Svalbard Archipelago ( larger island being the
(Spitzberd) comes all the way from the South Pole picking sand & coal
on its way through Tropics & Equator !
No use wasting time arguing with such sterile fools, since anyway the
only thing they can really understand are the Knout & the Gudgeon ...
and if possible a few weeks on the racks the London Tower to make see
the light !
Such George imbecile believes as well his diabetes came out of thin
air ... see
By the way there are NO PLATES AT ALL even by Plate Tectonic
standards ... these would be spherical poles !!!
Even on the elementary Geometry level those fraudulent Gogology
Rascals are still unable to cope supporting Wegener 's Madness .. just
like those Archeologist fools supporting the Pyramids as Kheops ' &
sundries grave ....
What a shameful Universilyties clueless Rabble indeed !