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

don findlay wrote:
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*

Well, why do you care?

Are you expecting to make money out of this?

Anyway, I recently heard an interesting 45 minutes BBC radio discussion
of the long history of beliefs about the heart, and the discovery of
circulation of the blood as its true function, which can be heard with
RealPlayer by visiting this internet address,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20060601.shtml
The interesting argument was made that Harvey - whose work was not
unique and was not fully applied to medical practice (it undermined the
theoretical basis of bloodletting as therapy, which nevertheless was
continued by Harvey himself and by others for many years afterwards,
even after Harvey's work was accepted) - that Harvey did a particular
new thing: he described how the blood circulates, but he had no
"explanation", no argument that the body needs to have its blood
circulating - only that evidently it does, since if it stops then the
patient dies.

It happens. He didn't know why. We have had a few ideas since, of
course.

Likewise, even if there are mysteries inside the earth, that doesn't
mean that there's anything wrong with what we do know.

I suggest, probably echoing previous comments, a careful reading of the
Wikipedia pages,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone
in order to equip the reader to criticise intelligently the current
orthodox theory, instead of presenting what talk.origins usually calls
"the argument from incredulity" - or of course from ignorance.

Robert Carnegie wrote:
don findlay wrote:
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*

Well, why do you care?

Are you expecting to make money out of this?

Anyway, I recently heard an interesting 45 minutes BBC radio discussion
of the long history of beliefs about the heart, and the discovery of
circulation of the blood as its true function, which can be heard with
RealPlayer by visiting this internet address,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20060601.shtml
The interesting argument was made that Harvey - whose work was not
unique and was not fully applied to medical practice (it undermined the
theoretical basis of bloodletting as therapy, which nevertheless was
continued by Harvey himself and by others for many years afterwards,
even after Harvey's work was accepted) - that Harvey did a particular
new thing: he described how the blood circulates, but he had no
"explanation", no argument that the body needs to have its blood
circulating - only that evidently it does, since if it stops then the
patient dies.

It happens. He didn't know why. We have had a few ideas since, of
course.

Likewise, even if there are mysteries inside the earth, that doesn't
mean that there's anything wrong with what we do know.

I think that is precisely my position, except I give priority to
conclusions from what we can see (at surface) over what we can't see
(in depth) but must postulate a pyramid of imaginings upon, in order
to make sense thereof.


I suggest, probably echoing previous comments, a careful reading of the
Wikipedia pages,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone
in order to equip the reader to criticise intelligently the current
orthodox theory, instead of presenting what talk.origins usually calls
"the argument from incredulity" - or of course from ignorance.

Again, ..you are being asked to respond to the point in the original
post, which the wiki-pages on subduction supports: convection is driven
by the subducting slab; the subducing slab is forced down by the
'overriding plate' (read 'continental crust/ lithosphere', since that
*IS* the overriding plate). And convection drives Plate Tectonics...

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Robert Carnegie wrote:
don findlay wrote:
So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc.../thread/5dbde0
704e917d5b/?hl=en#
Somebody warned me about getting off-topic in origins, but that's
ridiculous.

Starting over

*PLATE TECTONICS - NO CREDIBLE MECHANISM - 1*

Well, why do you care?

Are you expecting to make money out of this?

Anyway, I recently heard an interesting 45 minutes BBC radio discussion
of the long history of beliefs about the heart, and the discovery of
circulation of the blood as its true function, which can be heard with
RealPlayer by visiting this internet address,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20060601.shtml
The interesting argument was made that Harvey - whose work was not
unique and was not fully applied to medical practice (it undermined the
theoretical basis of bloodletting as therapy, which nevertheless was
continued by Harvey himself and by others for many years afterwards,
even after Harvey's work was accepted) - that Harvey did a particular
new thing: he described how the blood circulates, but he had no
"explanation", no argument that the body needs to have its blood
circulating - only that evidently it does, since if it stops then the
patient dies.

It happens. He didn't know why. We have had a few ideas since, of
course.

Likewise, even if there are mysteries inside the earth, that doesn't
mean that there's anything wrong with what we do know.

I think that is precisely my position, except I give priority to
conclusions from what we can see (at surface) over what we can't see
(in depth)

Why limit yourself that way?

but must postulate a pyramid of imaginings upon, in order
to make sense thereof.

huh?

I suggest, probably echoing previous comments, a careful reading of the
Wikipedia pages,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone
in order to equip the reader to criticise intelligently the current
orthodox theory, instead of presenting what talk.origins usually calls
"the argument from incredulity" - or of course from ignorance.

Again, ..you are being asked to respond to the point in the original
post, which the wiki-pages on subduction supports: convection is driven
by the subducting slab; the subducing slab is forced down by the
'overriding plate' (read 'continental crust/ lithosphere', since that
*IS* the overriding plate). And convection drives Plate Tectonics...

We are responding to that point. The wikipedia page on plate tectonics does not
support your interpretation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_t...f_plate_motion

--
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:

Again, ..you are being asked to respond to the point in the original
post, which the wiki-pages on subduction supports: convection is driven
by the subducting slab; the subducing slab is forced down by the
'overriding plate' (read 'continental crust/ lithosphere', since that
*IS* the overriding plate). And convection drives Plate Tectonics...

We are responding to that point. The wikipedia page on plate tectonics does not
support your interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_t...f_plate_motion

Wrong. Your link takes you right to the point of the post:-
" Plate motion is driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking
into the mantle at trenches." ...." Slab pull is widely believed to be
the strongest force directly operating on plates."

(That's the cold dense plates by the way that have to heat up in order
to reach the eclogite transition so that they can be heavy enough to
sink..) ( and while they do so - being cold - partially melt what
they're grinding along in oder to fire up the ring of the Pacific..)

....and the other link which Will has pointed out to you which you are
also disputing:-
"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone

You're barking up the wrong tree, Woof. Don't worry about learning to
"read for comprehension" Just learn to read. It's spelt out for you.
Growl at him, Kermit. Have him for breakfast.

(What_ a_ DawWWwg...)


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.

On 19 Jun 2006 08:28:43 -0700, "don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

Again, ..you are being asked to respond to the point in the original
post, which the wiki-pages on subduction supports: convection is driven
by the subducting slab; the subducing slab is forced down by the
'overriding plate' (read 'continental crust/ lithosphere', since that
*IS* the overriding plate). And convection drives Plate Tectonics...

We are responding to that point. The wikipedia page on plate tectonics does not
support your interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_t...f_plate_motion

Wrong. Your link takes you right to the point of the post:-
" Plate motion is driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking
into the mantle at trenches." ...." Slab pull is widely believed to be
the strongest force directly operating on plates."

(That's the cold dense plates by the way that have to heat up in order
to reach the eclogite transition so that they can be heavy enough to
sink..) ( and while they do so - being cold - partially melt what
they're grinding along in oder to fire up the ring of the Pacific..)

...and the other link which Will has pointed out to you which you are
also disputing:-
"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone

You seem to read selectively. The Wikipedia site on Plate Tectonics,
Sources of Plate Motion clearly specifies that " Dissipation of heat
from the mantle is acknowledged to be the source of energy " and that
"convection of some sort is occurring throughout the mantle".

Everyone knows that in convection, the heat engine exerts its will by
having hot, less dense material rise and cold, more dense material
sink. In between those two locations, the risen material rises above
the sinking material so that the material moves horizontally by
gravity from the source of upwelling to the sink of subduction. So to
ascribe the entire process as driven by subduction is simply a
complete misreading of the notion of convection. What drives the
process is the exchange of heat from a hot source in the interior of
the earth to a cooler sink at the surface and into space.

But you already have been told this innumerable times on the "real
science" groups.

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Timberwoof wrote:

Again, ..you are being asked to respond to the point in the original
post, which the wiki-pages on subduction supports: convection is driven
by the subducting slab; the subducing slab is forced down by the
'overriding plate' (read 'continental crust/ lithosphere', since that
*IS* the overriding plate). And convection drives Plate Tectonics...

We are responding to that point. The wikipedia page on plate tectonics
does not
support your interpretation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_t...f_plate_motion

Wrong. Your link takes you right to the point of the post:-
" Plate motion is driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking
into the mantle at trenches." ...." Slab pull is widely believed to be
the strongest force directly operating on plates."

The section you're referring to offers more sources of plate motion than that.
You're quote-mining. That means you're picking and choosing just those parts of
the source material that appear to support your position. You need to stop that;
it makes people think you're a kook.


(That's the cold dense plates by the way that have to heat up in order
to reach the eclogite transition so that they can be heavy enough to
sink..) ( and while they do so - being cold - partially melt what
they're grinding along in oder to fire up the ring of the Pacific..)

...and the other link which Will has pointed out to you which you are
also disputing:-
"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone

You're barking up the wrong tree, Woof. Don't worry about learning to
"read for comprehension" Just learn to read. It's spelt out for you.
Growl at him, Kermit. Have him for breakfast.

(What_ a_ DawWWwg...)


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 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.
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. .....

......aaaaah so there *is* an old grey bearded fella living 'up thar in the clouds' after all.

Thanks



*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..
------------------------

Its Findaly versus several thousand earth scientists and thousands of
peer-reviewed papers. The former thinks everyone else is wrong.

In article .com,
"rick++" wrote:

Its Findaly versus several thousand earth scientists and thousands of
peer-reviewed papers. The former thinks everyone else is wrong.

Don, have you read the chapter in Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Hauinted World"
entitled "The Baloney Detector Kit"? If you haven't, I recommend 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.

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
So, I said nothing and it generated over 50 odd replies.
...
Every part of the cycle is flawed. (Return-cycle first):-
It goes like this...

Don, There are two types of errors out there, errors of calculation and
errors of logic. Errors of calculation are relatively easy to find and

correct. However, errors of logic are sometimes extremely difficult to find.
You are trying to prove earth expansion by "falsifying" plate

tectonics. This is an error of logic. Plate tectonics has many components,
some of which are difficult to explain, nevertheless still observable

and measurable, and given enough time, predictable. It works. Do you get it?
IT WORKS! You are trying to debunk something that works in

order to prove some thing that has not yet been proven to even exist.

Now, earth expansion has some interesting aspects that can explain local
phenomena, as can current plate tectonic theory. You need to get off

the debunking track and move on to the "Here is the proof" track. Instead of
putting everyone on the defensive, strengthening their positions

concerning current theories of plate motions and supporting geophysics, you
need to show us your evidence and proofs for an expanding

earth. Can it work with current ideas? You do not need to falsify one in
order to prove another. Hell, if you prove plate tectonics is wrong, and

"they" prove expansion wrong, then what? Intelligent geological design?
Continents, oceans, fossils, basalt...6 days. Bye Bye earth expansion

your web site and this thread.

The weekend is over and I really have to put my attention on analog
realities and move on. No matter what comes of this, I'll still be out in
the

field collecting rocks to put into my little collection. I'll check in once
in a while. Until then, regards, Will E.