Plate Tectonics:- (No credible mechanism - 1.)

So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...917d5b/?hl=en#
Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's
ridiculous.

Starting over

*PLATE TECTONICS - NO CREDIBLE MECHANISM - 1*

Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):-
It goes like this:- the ocean plate moves along till it meets a
continent, the continent (/continental lithosphere) bends it down
forcing the slab to sink. .....

*stop right there* Come again?

Sure, ....it's a bit crude (and it is for schools) but that's basically
the reason why consensus says that subduction occurs on the continental
edge where the mantle plate meets the continental lithosphe the
overriding plate pushes it down, converting it to eclogite which makes
it sink (easier) ('ridge-push' later)

1. The crust floats on the mantle
2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink
3. The sinking mantle ('slab' as it is now called) drives convection.
4. Convection drives plate tectonics.
5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates

Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around.

Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we
haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...50c373aa5b9d72
Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm
'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what
it says. It matters not what the up-part of the cycle is, unless it
goes down it is not convection. If it just comes up, then it's just
rise (diapiric rise : 'plume'). It has to go back down and around more
than one cycle to be convection - right? And what makes it go down
(on a continental edge)? Well, that's what jpl-nasa / usgs says:- the
floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down.
I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed?

------------------------
*Claim:- 1 strike*
Plate Tectonics has no credible mechanism for the return of the
convecting cell on continental margins - or anywhere for that matter.
For if it doesn't get pushed down to the eclogite transition, then it
doesn't sink..
------------------------

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.

Did you read mine? Parts of it were odd, but most of it was on topic.


http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...ead/5dbde0704e
917d5b/?hl=en#
Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's
ridiculous.

Starting over

*PLATE TECTONICS - NO CREDIBLE MECHANISM - 1*

Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):-
It goes like this:- the ocean plate moves along till it meets a
continent, the continent (/continental lithosphere) bends it down
forcing the slab to sink. .....

*stop right there* Come again?

Sure, ....it's a bit crude (and it is for schools) but that's basically
the reason why consensus says that subduction occurs on the continental
edge where the mantle plate meets the continental lithosphe the
overriding plate pushes it down, converting it to eclogite which makes
it sink (easier) ('ridge-push' later)

1. The crust floats on the mantle
2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink
3. The sinking mantle ('slab' as it is now called) drives convection.

No, that's not correct.

The core of the earth is hot. The mantle is fluid. Very viscous, but
fluid nevertheless. Convection is the process of rising currents of
mantle material bringing heat up to the crust and in other places
sinking currents sometimes bringing surface stuff with them.


4. Convection drives plate tectonics.
5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates

Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around.

That's an incorrect description.

Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we
haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...50c373aa5b9d72

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...e840c7a6c81?hl
=en&

That's just one scientist, quoted not in entirety, to prove your point.
You're quote-mining.


Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm
'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what
it says.

I've got a hockey game to go to; I'll try to find out what this rocket
scientist said about geology later.

It matters not what the up-part of the cycle is, unless it
goes down it is not convection. If it just comes up, then it's just
rise (diapiric rise : 'plume'). It has to go back down and around more
than one cycle to be convection - right? And what makes it go down
(on a continental edge)? Well, that's what jpl-nasa / usgs says:- the
floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down.

No, that's what that one guy seems to say. Most others others say
different.

I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed?

I agree. The way you deliberately misrepresent plate tectonics in order
to try to falsify it is silly.

BTW, your phrase "no credible mechanism" is falsifiable. All it takes to
falsify it is one credible counterexample, and I've presented it.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com

Timberwoof wrote:
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.

Did you read mine? Parts of it were odd, but most of it was on topic.

Yes I did. You had a number of reply-posts there, most of which were
replying to others who were responding to an empty space (in a
generally derisory way). I had said nothing - just that I would be,
shortly, to which you did reply directly:-
"Mantle convection is a perfectly good mechanism. People smarter than
you who know how to calculate such things have done so and found that
it
ought to work."
and other general vacuous and disparaging remarks, within which were
some valid points to do with the geological 'facts'/ 'evidence', which
was off-topic for the thread of the moment and will be dissected later
when we deal with that particular aspect. Right now this thread is
about the onus being on you to defend the mechanism of plate tectonics,
in particular the bit about descent of the convection cycle. It is not
about my defence of expansion. I highlight this part of Plate
Tectonics (and others have said so too) to be nonsense.

This thread is about dissecting plate tectonics and your remark above
doesn't cut it form me. The tenet is stated by plate tectonics - that
the action of the floating crust crust pushing the mantle down drives
plate tectonics which breaks up the crust. Note it is not me saying it,
...this is what Plate Tectonics itself says about the return cycle
(we'll deal with the up-cycle later). Do you hold it to be
supportable?

If you say "obviously not", *THEN* can you give your own version of why
the oceanic plate subducts on a continental margin? Why doesn't it
sink before it reaches? ..or later.


1. The crust floats on the mantle
2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink
3. The sinking mantle ('slab' as it is now called) drives convection.

No, that's not correct.

The core of the earth is hot. The mantle is fluid. Very viscous, but
fluid nevertheless. Convection is the process of rising currents of
mantle material bringing heat up to the crust and in other places
sinking currents sometimes bringing surface stuff with them.

Again, we are not talking about the up-cycle. We are talking about the
down-cycle, and how Plate Tectonics rationalises its position


4. Convection drives plate tectonics.
5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates

Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around.

That's an incorrect description.

It's not a description, it's a rational conclusion from those points:
Point 5 looks like it had something missing. It was intended to
complete the cycle by saying something like Plate Tectonics is what
breaks up the crust.


Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we
haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...50c373aa5b9d72

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...e840c7a6c81?hl
=en&

That's just one scientist, quoted not in entirety, to prove your point.
You're quote-mining.

The quote does not refer to Klaus, but to the consensus position within
my response to his post, which is how jpl-nasa (and many others)
represent it. 'Mining' or no, it's what the position is. If you
complain I am taking it out of context on account of the -up and along-
part of the cycle, then as I say we'll deal with that later, but as it
stands, it stands.


Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm
'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what
it says.

I've got a hockey game to go to; I'll try to find out what this rocket
scientist said about geology later.

It matters not what the up-part of the cycle is, unless it
goes down it is not convection. If it just comes up, then it's just
rise (diapiric rise : 'plume'). It has to go back down and around more
than one cycle to be convection - right? And what makes it go down
(on a continental edge)? Well, that's what jpl-nasa / usgs says:- the
floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down.

No, that's what that one guy seems to say. Most others others say
different.

You mean the fellow/ sophomore writing the page? Say different? Do
they? Like what? What is the mechanism whereby the subduction zone
is initiated on a continental margin?


I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed?

I agree. The way you deliberately misrepresent plate tectonics in order
to try to falsify it is silly.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. That's what Plate Tectonics says, in
many more authoritative sites than that too - I just chose it it
because it is demonstrably 'consensus'. The onus is now on you to
represent it properly. Otherwise the strike stands.


BTW, your phrase "no credible mechanism" is falsifiable. All it takes to
falsify it is one credible counterexample, and I've presented it.

If you did, I missed it. Can you repeat it and we'll deal with it.


Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:
In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.

Did you read mine? Parts of it were odd, but most of it was on topic.

Yes I did. You had a number of reply-posts there, most of which were
replying to others who were responding to an empty space (in a
generally derisory way). I had said nothing - just that I would be,
shortly, to which you did reply directly:-
"Mantle convection is a perfectly good mechanism. People smarter than
you who know how to calculate such things have done so and found that
it
ought to work."
and other general vacuous and disparaging remarks, within which were
some valid points to do with the geological 'facts'/ 'evidence', which
was off-topic for the thread of the moment and will be dissected later
when we deal with that particular aspect. Right now this thread is
about the onus being on you to defend the mechanism of plate tectonics,
in particular the bit about descent of the convection cycle.

I have done.

It is not
about my defence of expansion.

Since you brought it up as an alternative explanation for the surface features,
you can be expected to defend it. And since you really don't want to defend it,
it's fair to conclude you're a crackpot.

I highlight this part of Plate
Tectonics (and others have said so too) to be nonsense.

This thread is about dissecting plate tectonics and your remark above
doesn't cut it form me. The tenet is stated by plate tectonics - that
the action of the floating crust crust pushing the mantle down drives
plate tectonics which breaks up the crust. Note it is not me saying it,
..this is what Plate Tectonics itself says about the return cycle
(we'll deal with the up-cycle later). Do you hold it to be
supportable?

"Plate tectonics" doesn't say anything. Geologists say what the theory of plate
tectonics is. You've been making a hash of that in order to support your
alternative hypothesis. And the previous paragraph needs some revision to make
it comprehensible.


If you say "obviously not", *THEN* can you give your own version of why
the oceanic plate subducts on a continental margin? Why doesn't it
sink before it reaches? ..or later.

I think it happens because spreading centers and subduction zones define the
boundaries of convection cells. Convection means cyclic currents of material, up
in some places and down in others. Where two cells meet in a "downdraft", the
overlying plates collide and the heavier one of the two is dragged under. Where
two cells meet in an "updraft" new crust is formed.

What appeals to me about this model is that mass is conserved, thermodynamics is
satisfied, and there's no need to invoke goofy mass-creation nonsense such as
solar neutrinos (my roommate chortled at this point when relayed this
conversation) interacting with the Earth's magnetic field (at this point he had
to put down his Armadillo Willy's sliced brisket sandwich) to produce silicon.
(Why isn't there sand in my air conditioner motor?) (Oh, sorry, I forgot I can't
call growing earth into question in this thread.)



1. The crust floats on the mantle
2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink
3. The sinking mantle ('slab' as it is now called) drives convection.

No, that's not correct.

The core of the earth is hot. The mantle is fluid. Very viscous, but
fluid nevertheless. Convection is the process of rising currents of
mantle material bringing heat up to the crust and in other places
sinking currents sometimes bringing surface stuff with them.

Again, we are not talking about the up-cycle. We are talking about the
down-cycle, and how Plate Tectonics rationalises its position

Up cycle and down cycle? No, together the up and down comprise the cycle. Plate
Tectonics has a perfectly good explanation for both.


4. Convection drives plate tectonics.
5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates

Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around.

That's an incorrect description.

It's not a description, it's a rational conclusion from those points:
Point 5 looks like it had something missing. It was intended to
complete the cycle by saying something like Plate Tectonics is what
breaks up the crust.

Well, then, it's a wrong conclusion. You appear to be deliberately misreading
plate tectonics theory by quoting people out of context to create your own
flawed version of the theory. Then you can easily poke holes in that flawed
version.

Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we
haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...50c373aa5b9d72

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...e840c7a6c81?hl
=en&

That's just one scientist, quoted not in entirety, to prove your point.
You're quote-mining.

The quote does not refer to Klaus, but to the consensus position within
my response to his post, which is how jpl-nasa (and many others)
represent it. 'Mining' or no, it's what the position is. If you
complain I am taking it out of context on account of the -up and along-
part of the cycle, then as I say we'll deal with that later, but as it
stands, it stands.

It's easier for you to not deal with it now, just as it's easier for you not to
have to deal wtih defending growing-earth.

Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm
'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what
it says.

I've got a hockey game to go to; I'll try to find out what this rocket
scientist said about geology later.

It matters not what the up-part of the cycle is, unless it
goes down it is not convection. If it just comes up, then it's just
rise (diapiric rise : 'plume'). It has to go back down and around more
than one cycle to be convection - right? And what makes it go down
(on a continental edge)? Well, that's what jpl-nasa / usgs says:- the
floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down.

No, that's what that one guy seems to say. Most others others say
different.

You mean the fellow/ sophomore writing the page? Say different? Do
they? Like what? What is the mechanism whereby the subduction zone
is initiated on a continental margin?

I explained above.

I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed?

I agree. The way you deliberately misrepresent plate tectonics in order
to try to falsify it is silly.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. That's what Plate Tectonics says, in
many more authoritative sites than that too - I just chose it it
because it is demonstrably 'consensus'. The onus is now on you to
represent it properly. Otherwise the strike stands.

Yes, you are. Not, it's not. I and others did. No, it doesn't.

BTW, your phrase "no credible mechanism" is falsifiable. All it takes to
falsify it is one credible counterexample, and I've presented it.

If you did, I missed it. Can you repeat it and we'll deal with it.

I stated it in every on-topic post in this thread. Perhaps if you read for
context and tried to understand what I and others are actually presenting
instead of what you want plate tectonics to contain, you'd get it.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship,
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.

Timberwoof wrote:

If you say "obviously not", *THEN* can you give your own version of why
the oceanic plate subducts on a continental margin? Why doesn't it
sink before it reaches? ..or later.

I think it happens because spreading centers and subduction zones define the
boundaries of convection cells.

loose thinking. Are you sure it's not the convection cells that define
where the subducting slab is going to be instead? Because what you
just said is exactly what Plate Tectonics says when it says subduction
defines/ and drives convection, which is what you are disputing...

Convection means cyclic currents of material, up
in some places and down in others. Where two cells meet in a "downdraft", the
overlying plates collide and the heavier one of the two is dragged under. Where
two cells meet in an "updraft" new crust is formed.

This is the "mantle wind" Plate Tectonics talks about, right? It's not
just 'not-a-solid-but a-fluid', ...but a wind as well.


What appeals to me about this model is that mass is conserved, thermodynamics is
satisfied, and there's no need to invoke goofy mass-creation nonsense such as
solar neutrinos (my roommate chortled at this point when relayed this
conversation) interacting with the Earth's magnetic field (at this point he had
to put down his Armadillo Willy's sliced brisket sandwich) to produce silicon.
(Why isn't there sand in my air conditioner motor?) (Oh, sorry, I forgot I can't
call growing earth into question in this thread.)

"What appeals to you"... And forget the geology right? Why is your
convection cell on the continental edge? What's that got to do with
conservation of mass?


Up cycle and down cycle? No, together the up and down comprise the cycle. Plate
Tectonics has a perfectly good explanation for both.

We'll deal with its "good explanation" for the up-cycle later


It's not a description, it's a rational conclusion from those points:
Point 5 looks like it had something missing. It was intended to
complete the cycle by saying something like Plate Tectonics is what
breaks up the crust.

Well, then, it's a wrong conclusion. You appear to be deliberately misreading
plate tectonics theory by quoting people out of context to create your own
flawed version of the theory. Then you can easily poke holes in that flawed
version.

Let's just say that so many different people have so many different
interpretations of what Plate Tectonics is supposed to be saying -
other than that it is hot below and cool above - therefore convection -
...and that it has just one hell of a job trying to squeeze any geology
at all into that infantile moribund construction that it is virtually
impossible to ascertain any coherence in it at all. Whichever way you
look you will find contradictory statements: "the crust pushes the
mantle down - the mantle pushes the crust up"; "the ridges push the sea
floors along, ..the sea floors pull the ridges apart." The mantle
grows, shrinks, moves spreads, ..

(Plate Tectonics ...the white noise of the Earth sciences. )

I stated it in every on-topic post in this thread. Perhaps if you read for
context and tried to understand what I and others are actually presenting
instead of what you want plate tectonics to contain, you'd get it.

There are so many on-topic posts in this thread I guess I missed it.
you wouldn't mind repeating which one it was in would you?

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

If you say "obviously not", *THEN* can you give your own version of why
the oceanic plate subducts on a continental margin? Why doesn't it sink
before it reaches? ..or later.

I think it happens because spreading centers and subduction zones define
the boundaries of convection cells.

loose thinking. Are you sure it's not the convection cells that define where
the subducting slab is going to be instead? Because what you just said is
exactly what Plate Tectonics says when it says subduction defines/ and drives
convection, which is what you are disputing...

I did not mean that the plate boundaries cause the locations of the convection
cessl; I meant that the plate boundaries show you where the convection cells
area.

Convection means cyclic currents of material, up in some places and down in
others. Where two cells meet in a "downdraft", the overlying plates collide
and the heavier one of the two is dragged under. Where two cells meet in an
"updraft" new crust is formed.

This is the "mantle wind" Plate Tectonics talks about, right? It's not just
'not-a-solid-but a-fluid', ...but a wind as well.

When you get rocks really hot, they get melty: a highly viscous fluid.
Have you ever melted glass in a kiln? My father had a glassblower set up two
slabs of glass, different colors, in a kiln on some bricks angled slightly
downward like an upside down roof. Gravity would act on the melty slabs the same
way that the mantle "conveyor belt" does. The fused slabs look like diagrams of
subduction zones.

Since the wind thing doesn't pass any kind of sanity check, maybe you should
have considered the possibility that I was making a metaphor. (I can do biting
sarcasm, too, so be careful.)


What appeals to me about this model is that mass is conserved,
thermodynamics is satisfied, and there's no need to invoke goofy
mass-creation nonsense such as solar neutrinos (my roommate chortled at
this point when relayed this conversation) interacting with the Earth's
magnetic field (at this point he had to put down his Armadillo Willy's
sliced brisket sandwich) to produce silicon. (Why isn't there sand in my
air conditioner motor?) (Oh, sorry, I forgot I can't call growing earth
into question in this thread.)

"What appeals to you"... And forget the geology right?

No.

Why is your
convection cell on the continental edge?

The edge of two cells are on the continental margin.

What's that got to do with
conservation of mass?

Simple. Your favorite alternative model violates conservation of mass. Plate
tectonics does not.

Up cycle and down cycle? No, together the up and down comprise the cycle.
Plate Tectonics has a perfectly good explanation for both.

We'll deal with its "good explanation" for the up-cycle later

Why not deal with it now? What's an "up-cycle"? I understand "upwardly flowing
part of the cycle." Is that what you mean?

It's not a description, it's a rational conclusion from those points:
Point 5 looks like it had something missing. It was intended to complete
the cycle by saying something like Plate Tectonics is what breaks up the
crust.

Well, then, it's a wrong conclusion. You appear to be deliberately
misreading plate tectonics theory by quoting people out of context to
create your own flawed version of the theory. Then you can easily poke
holes in that flawed version.

Let's just say that so many different people have so many different
interpretations of what Plate Tectonics is supposed to be saying - other than
that it is hot below and cool above - therefore convection

Oh, my goodness! You get it!

- ..and that it
has just one hell of a job trying to squeeze any geology at all into that
infantile moribund construction

Infantile? It's certainly complex enough that it took you several days of hard
thinking to wrap your brain around it. Moribund? I think that this word does not
think what you think it means.

that it is virtually impossible to ascertain
any coherence in it at all.

Impossible for you, perhaps.

Whichever way you look you will find
contradictory statements: "the crust pushes the mantle down - the mantle
pushes the crust up";

Since those things happen in different places, they're not contradictory.
Consider these two statements: The piston pushes the crankshaft; the crankshaft
pushes the piston. On the surface, with infantile analysis, they are
contradictory. But when considered in proper context, they make perfect sense.


"the ridges push the sea floors along, ..the sea floors
pull the ridges apart."

I'm not so sure about those; the mantle drags the sea floor along.

The mantle grows, shrinks, moves spreads, ..

I don't think a geologist would use most of those verbs on the mantple, but it
strikes me that you don't seem to have a problem with the mantle growing in your
Expanding Earth thing.

(Plate Tectonics ...the white noise of the Earth sciences. )

I stated it in every on-topic post in this thread. Perhaps if you read for
context and tried to understand what I and others are actually presenting
instead of what you want plate tectonics to contain, you'd get it.

There are so many on-topic posts in this thread I guess I missed it. you
wouldn't mind repeating which one it was in would you?

Yes, I would mind. Having done me the miscourtesy of not actually reading what I
wrote, you can make up for it by going back into Google Groups to look for it.
That shouldn't be too hard; quote-miners do it all the time.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship,
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.

don findlay wrote:

So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.

You're a highly effective troll.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...917d5b/?hl=en#
Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's
ridiculous.

Starting over

*PLATE TECTONICS - NO CREDIBLE MECHANISM - 1*

I find it ironic that this is your objection, considering that your
preferred theory not only has no credible mechanism, but any mechanism
that can be imagined is physically impossible based on our most
fundamental understanding of physics. Yet you say you don't need a
mechanism to support your theory.

Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):-
It goes like this:- the ocean plate moves along till it meets a
continent, the continent (/continental lithosphere) bends it down
forcing the slab to sink. .....

*stop right there* Come again?

Sure, ....it's a bit crude (and it is for schools) but that's basically
the reason why consensus says that subduction occurs on the continental
edge where the mantle plate meets the continental lithosphe the
overriding plate pushes it down, converting it to eclogite which makes
it sink (easier) ('ridge-push' later)

1. The crust floats on the mantle
2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink
3. The sinking mantle ('slab' as it is now called) drives convection.
4. Convection drives plate tectonics.
5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates

No, you misunderstand. The slab doesn't drive convection. Convection is
what's happening below the lithosphere. (No phase changes required, by
the way.) The subducting plate is driven partly by friction with the
convecting mantle and partly by its own weight. The slab is not part of
a convection cell. Nobody is saying it is.

Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around.

GIGO.

Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we
haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...50c373aa5b9d72
Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm
'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what
it says. It matters not what the up-part of the cycle is, unless it
goes down it is not convection. If it just comes up, then it's just
rise (diapiric rise : 'plume'). It has to go back down and around more
than one cycle to be convection - right? And what makes it go down
(on a continental edge)? Well, that's what jpl-nasa / usgs says:- the
floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down.
I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed?

No. It seems obvious. When two plates collide, the rock has to go
somewhere. The lighter rock goes on top, the heavier rock goes on the
bottom. And of course much subduction involves no continental crust at
all, and happens between two plates bearing oceanic crust only. But I
forget: you pretend that the Marianas trench doesn't exist, right?

------------------------
*Claim:- 1 strike*
Plate Tectonics has no credible mechanism for the return of the
convecting cell on continental margins - or anywhere for that matter.
For if it doesn't get pushed down to the eclogite transition, then it
doesn't sink..
------------------------

Again, you are confused as to what the convecting cells are. No part of
a convecting cell is lithosphere. It's all in the lower mantle.

By the way, you haven't answered my questions about paleomagnetic
studies that show the paleolatitude of India and Asia to be quite
different from each other, requiring that they must have been far apart
during the Cretaceous. I suspect you think remanent magnetism has been
incorrectly interpreted. But how?

John Harshman wrote:
don findlay wrote:

So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.

You're a highly effective troll.

You mean because I'm looking for more than just answers to homework?


http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...917d5b/?hl=en#
Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's
ridiculous.

Starting over

*PLATE TECTONICS - NO CREDIBLE MECHANISM - 1*

I find it ironic that this is your objection, considering that your
preferred theory not only has no credible mechanism, but any mechanism
that can be imagined is physically impossible based on our most
fundamental understanding of physics. Yet you say you don't need a
mechanism to support your theory.

Oh, come on, I have been rubbished by many, and when I say the pot is
calling the kettle 'black' you squeal "not fair". Plate Tectonics
enjoys the advantage of high ground on account of which you think it
deserves exemption from criticism. But when the Judge breaks the
speed limit and kills, do you similarly claim exemption for him because
he has respect and standing? One rule for all is justice.


Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):-
It goes like this:- the ocean plate moves along till it meets a
continent, the continent (/continental lithosphere) bends it down
forcing the slab to sink. .....

*stop right there* Come again?

Sure, ....it's a bit crude (and it is for schools) but that's basically
the reason why consensus says that subduction occurs on the continental
edge where the mantle plate meets the continental lithosphe the
overriding plate pushes it down, converting it to eclogite which makes
it sink (easier) ('ridge-push' later)

1. The crust floats on the mantle
2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink
3. The sinking mantle ('slab' as it is now called) drives convection.
4. Convection drives plate tectonics.
5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates

No, you misunderstand. The slab doesn't drive convection. Convection is
what's happening below the lithosphere. (No phase changes required, by
the way.) The subducting plate is driven partly by friction with the
convecting mantle and partly by its own weight. The slab is not part of
a convection cell. Nobody is saying it is.

OohHHhh, I think they do, .. As I said before, you need to clue up on
the currently held position. The 'conveyor belt' theory was dismantled
long ago. Mind you Plate Tectonics changes its position more often
than a whore drops her knickers (an apt metaphor in this instance),
...it is difficult to keep up with what it is actually saying - which
also presents a challenge to discuss, since so many supporting it seem
to hold so many different views. Views which were once relevant to it,
but no longer are. ....Which by the way, if you hadn't noticed, is
why those who purport to know most about it are conspicuous by their
absence here. They know perfectly well that, being all things to all
people, it is unsupportable on any / all points.


Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around.

GIGO.

Say why. Otherwise the strike stands. It is not me putting the
garbage in.


Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we
haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...50c373aa5b9d72
Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm
'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what
it says. It matters not what the up-part of the cycle is, unless it
goes down it is not convection. If it just comes up, then it's just
rise (diapiric rise : 'plume'). It has to go back down and around more
than one cycle to be convection - right? And what makes it go down
(on a continental edge)? Well, that's what jpl-nasa / usgs says:- the
floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down.
I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed?

No. It seems obvious. When two plates collide, the rock has to go
somewhere. The lighter rock goes on top, the heavier rock goes on the
bottom. And of course much subduction involves no continental crust at
all, and happens between two plates bearing oceanic crust only.

Obvious? Indeed. If I was being smart I would say "Go rumple your
tablecloth", but since I'm being serious I'll say exactly the same
thing, and that the 'rumplecoth' tectonic model is exactly the
hang-over that persists in the fabric of Plate Tectonics. That is
exactly the model to which tacit appeal to your logic is made. So
think about that particular piece of 'gryt'. The crust is not a
tablecloth, nor does it deform like one. Ask your Big Number Dogs
Kermit goes on about, about the scaled strength of that particular
model.


But I
forget: you pretend that the Marianas trench doesn't exist, right?

Wrong. The Marianas trench exists along with its circumPacific
continuity. The ridge however is a different matter, which we can deal
with later too if you like


------------------------
*Claim:- 1 strike*
Plate Tectonics has no credible mechanism for the return of the
convecting cell on continental margins - or anywhere for that matter.
For if it doesn't get pushed down to the eclogite transition, then it
doesn't sink..
------------------------

Again, you are confused as to what the convecting cells are. No part of
a convecting cell is lithosphere. It's all in the lower mantle.

(Would someone be good enough to disabuse John here of his
misconception..) There you go, John. You're damned if the do and
damned if they don't. I'll bet we get no replies, probably for the
reason that half of them are thinking like you, and wouldn;t be seen
being in support of you in case you're wrong, ..and those who know
you're wrong will say nothing because they don't want to disrupt
solidarity. A quick google along lines of what drives/ convection/
subduction/ "plate tectonics" should do the trick


By the way, you haven't answered my questions about paleomagnetic
studies that show the paleolatitude of India and Asia to be quite
different from each other, requiring that they must have been far apart
during the Cretaceous. I suspect you think remanent magnetism has been
incorrectly interpreted. But how?

Yes I do. I think it highly unlikely that the smaller Earth model will
have been factored in. In fact I would say it's a dead cert. that it
hasn't. The pivoting apart of Pangaea would obviously screw up any
'constant-sized Earth' calculation - as well as which Palaeomagnetism
assumes no dislocation on the crust/ upper mantle/ asthenosphere
interfaces, which the overall geological picture (my assessment) of the
Indian Ocean region says is manifestly untrue (far less dislocation/
differential movement between the core and the mantle (glatzmeir). To
me, India and the Himalayas have been in their respective positions
since the beginning - if anything India a bit further north (and at the
same time - which is the same thing - tagged on to Madagascar/ Africa)
I think Palaeomagnetics is intrinsically a flawed line of research
till the major crustal segments are better 'palaeo-located'. I might
not even be valid at all if we allow the dislocations just mentioned.

don findlay wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

don findlay wrote:


So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.

You're a highly effective troll.


You mean because I'm looking for more than just answers to homework?

No, because you said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...917d5b/?hl=en#

Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's
ridiculous.

Starting over

*PLATE TECTONICS - NO CREDIBLE MECHANISM - 1*

I find it ironic that this is your objection, considering that your
preferred theory not only has no credible mechanism, but any mechanism
that can be imagined is physically impossible based on our most
fundamental understanding of physics. Yet you say you don't need a
mechanism to support your theory.

Oh, come on, I have been rubbished by many, and when I say the pot is
calling the kettle 'black' you squeal "not fair". Plate Tectonics
enjoys the advantage of high ground on account of which you think it
deserves exemption from criticism. But when the Judge breaks the
speed limit and kills, do you similarly claim exemption for him because
he has respect and standing? One rule for all is justice.

So you aren't sincere in your complaint that there is no mechanism for
plate tectonics?

Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):-
It goes like this:- the ocean plate moves along till it meets a
continent, the continent (/continental lithosphere) bends it down
forcing the slab to sink. .....

*stop right there* Come again?

Sure, ....it's a bit crude (and it is for schools) but that's basically
the reason why consensus says that subduction occurs on the continental
edge where the mantle plate meets the continental lithosphe the
overriding plate pushes it down, converting it to eclogite which makes
it sink (easier) ('ridge-push' later)

1. The crust floats on the mantle
2. The floating crust forces the mantle plate to sink
3. The sinking mantle ('slab' as it is now called) drives convection.
4. Convection drives plate tectonics.
5. Plate Tectonics = moving plates

No, you misunderstand. The slab doesn't drive convection. Convection is
what's happening below the lithosphere. (No phase changes required, by
the way.) The subducting plate is driven partly by friction with the
convecting mantle and partly by its own weight. The slab is not part of
a convection cell. Nobody is saying it is.

OohHHhh, I think they do, ..

Obviously you think they do. But you're wrong. Show me an example of
someone saying that subducting slabs drive convection. You will find
plenty of people saying that subducting slabs drive plate movements (as
least partially), but that's a different claim, isn't it?

[snip rant]

Ergo the crust floating on the mantle moves the plates around.

GIGO.

Say why. Otherwise the strike stands. It is not me putting the
garbage in.

Of course it is. You're the only one to make that claim. You're garbling
the positions of mainstream geologists.

Klaus found this offensive when he thought it was me saying it, but we
haven't heard from him since he found out it was jpl-nasa.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...50c373aa5b9d72
Kermit (who is growling for his dinner of Roast Brave Youth) says I'm
'data-mining', talking it out of context. What context? It says what
it says. It matters not what the up-part of the cycle is, unless it
goes down it is not convection. If it just comes up, then it's just
rise (diapiric rise : 'plume'). It has to go back down and around more
than one cycle to be convection - right? And what makes it go down
(on a continental edge)? Well, that's what jpl-nasa / usgs says:- the
floating crust ("floating on the mantle") pushes the mantle slab down.
I think most people here found that silly. Me too. All agreed?

No. It seems obvious. When two plates collide, the rock has to go
somewhere. The lighter rock goes on top, the heavier rock goes on the
bottom. And of course much subduction involves no continental crust at
all, and happens between two plates bearing oceanic crust only.

[snip pointless rant]

But I
forget: you pretend that the Marianas trench doesn't exist, right?

Wrong. The Marianas trench exists along with its circumPacific
continuity. The ridge however is a different matter, which we can deal
with later too if you like

So you will agree that, in the standard theory, there is much subduction
that doesn't involve continents.

------------------------
*Claim:- 1 strike*
Plate Tectonics has no credible mechanism for the return of the
convecting cell on continental margins - or anywhere for that matter.
For if it doesn't get pushed down to the eclogite transition, then it
doesn't sink..
------------------------

Again, you are confused as to what the convecting cells are. No part of
a convecting cell is lithosphere. It's all in the lower mantle.


(Would someone be good enough to disabuse John here of his
misconception..) There you go, John. You're damned if the do and
damned if they don't. I'll bet we get no replies, probably for the
reason that half of them are thinking like you, and wouldn;t be seen
being in support of you in case you're wrong, ..and those who know
you're wrong will say nothing because they don't want to disrupt
solidarity. A quick google along lines of what drives/ convection/
subduction/ "plate tectonics" should do the trick

Convection is not the same as subduction is not the same as plate
tectonics. There are in fact real theories that subducting slabs drive
plate tectonics. But there is no theory that subducting slabs drive
convection. Do you see the difference?

By the way, you haven't answered my questions about paleomagnetic
studies that show the paleolatitude of India and Asia to be quite
different from each other, requiring that they must have been far apart
during the Cretaceous. I suspect you think remanent magnetism has been
incorrectly interpreted. But how?

Yes I do. I think it highly unlikely that the smaller Earth model will
have been factored in. In fact I would say it's a dead cert. that it
hasn't. The pivoting apart of Pangaea would obviously screw up any
'constant-sized Earth' calculation - as well as which Palaeomagnetism
assumes no dislocation on the crust/ upper mantle/ asthenosphere
interfaces, which the overall geological picture (my assessment) of the
Indian Ocean region says is manifestly untrue (far less dislocation/
differential movement between the core and the mantle (glatzmeir). To
me, India and the Himalayas have been in their respective positions
since the beginning - if anything India a bit further north (and at the
same time - which is the same thing - tagged on to Madagascar/ Africa)
I think Palaeomagnetics is intrinsically a flawed line of research
till the major crustal segments are better 'palaeo-located'. I might
not even be valid at all if we allow the dislocations just mentioned.

That was gibberish that does nothing to explain why two rocks that are
now close together were once far apart. Now on a smaller earth different
paleolatitudes would indeed be closer together than they are on the
current earth, but no less than half the calculated distance (under your
theory) even 300 million years ago. You can't just handwave it away. And
there are many other examples of paleolatitudes that show much greater
separation in the past than today.

John Harshman wrote:

OohHHhh, I think they do, ..

Obviously you think they do. But you're wrong. Show me an example of
someone saying that subducting slabs drive convection.

"Subduction Zone Physics: Sinking of mantle lithosphere provides most
of the force needed to drive plate motion and is the dominant mode of
mantle convection."
-Wikipedia - (google a string)

You will find
plenty of people saying that subducting slabs drive plate movements (as
least partially), but that's a different claim, isn't it?

Only if you're twisting words to suit your theory
(Plates grow/ shrink/ move/ spread/ push/ pull, ...and of course,
'subduct' and 'rollback' and probaly a few other too when I think of
them - like grind, slide, fall, dock. .) (I do believe they probably
have still to slither though.. Let's see
googles "plate tectonics" "plates slither"
Nope it's right enough, they haven't slithered yet, ..leaving a
research opportunity wide open for somebody...)


Convection is not the same as subduction is not the same as plate
tectonics. There are in fact real theories that subducting slabs drive
plate tectonics. But there is no theory that subducting slabs drive
convection. Do you see the difference?

If your talking porridge-in-a-pot, yes. If you're talking Plate
Tectonics then no. And netiher do many sources more authoritative than
you (you knotted piece of erudite string, you.) (If authority means
anything to you). Convection is directly all about density, and
buoyancy, and 'negative buoyancy'. The 'heat' is incidental. You
might as well talk about vibrating particles as heat. When Push comes
to tectonic pull, it's all about buoyancy - an' density. See? And
Plate Tectonics *IS* subduction, otherwise it's Earth Expansion. ..
See that too