Jet Propulsion Laboratory Honored By Scientific American

I am somewhat aghast that your web page managed to escape notice
on crank.net up to this point. Rest assured that Erik has been
apprised of your existence and you will shortly be classified
properly for all time.

-george william herbert



C'mon, George William at Retro.com. You started this, you're supposed
to leading the charge here. Don't leave Carsten looking so
dishevelled. Him and his pal passing the bottle between them,
...they're off topic already.

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
don findlay wrote:

Are you claiming that the theory of plate tectonics is
fundamentally
incorrect,


Yes. From Go to woh. It's fundamental premise is wrong.

Ah. So you are claiming that the putative plates are not moving
as required by Plate Tectonics?

Yes, First, "plates" is not the way to look at it. 'PLATE' is. The
Earth's crust is not broken into numerous plates that 'scoot aboot',
pulling apart here and colliding there after the fashion of plate
tectonics, throwing up mountains and subducting. It is a single plate
from way back, breaking up. And this is not splitting hairs, it's a
fundamental difference in approach to how you look at things - plate
tectonics versus Earth expansion. And the difference is not
*conceptually* determined. It is how the global geology presents
itself, ...of the relationship between continents and oceanic crust -
either as the 'jigsaw' pieces of plate tectonics, or as different
expressions (crustal levels) of intraformational detachment and
stretching. (Mountains are not collisional in the sense of plate
tectonics.)

Second, 'plates' move according the numerous pages on my site.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/index.html


And, you are claiming that if we measured the motion of
points on the surface of the eart -- say, by using GPS --
they would not show the relative motion predicted by plate
tectonic theory?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the relative motion predicted by plate
tectonic theory". Plate tectonic theory predicts nothing of the
integrated picture that GPS provides us with. I don't know the
underpinnings of what relative base you people use to relate movement
to, but the geologically speaking the crust shows numerous levels of
detachment and relative motion.

Paul, why don't you lobby JPL to subscribe to my site? In fact, why
don't you fund me to do it, and save me keep robbing my children's
piggie bank? I'm just putting up the outline just now. There's a
worldful of geology to go over the top of it, and the way consensus is
going about it, it won't be done for a thousand years. Now that would
suit a lot of people I'm sure, which is the nature of real science, but
not in the interest of the research you people are doing, if you are
the Paul F. Dietz I think you are. Progress will not be made just by
giving a clue that everyone else can follow. It requires an entirely
different mindset from what they apparently have. And that is simply
not in evidence in the current milieu. (If it were, my site would not
exist.). God knows, my perspectives have been changed some, and not
nearly enough for the job in hand. It is not just a case of 'carrying
on from where we are', switching points on the railroad of progress so
to speak, it requires lifting a whole lot of track right back to the
last junction -wherever that was, and that is not an easy question to
answer. It'a a political thing also. Too many people can't do it,
even if they would like. My site is just based on topography -
"morphotectonics", which I'm trying to tell people is staring them in
the face. Hell, if it's that hard with the topogrpahy, what chance
have they got with the geology? I said a thousand years as a joke,
but 10% of it is already up and we are no further forward, and worse,
no indication of wanting to.

Sorry for the delay in answering yours. It was a casualty of this new
format of Google's, and trying to find ways around it.

Paul