Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 7

In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Radix2 wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 7
snip rubbish strike 0

Let us assume for a moment that Tectonics is "rubbish". Your
replacement hypothesis is expansion. First question - What known
geophysical actions could cause this. Now bear in mind that it has to
fit within the known laws of Physics and explain all observed
formations. Start there and then we'll move on

We'll make no such assumption at all, than youo very much. And
nothing of the veracity of growth/ enlargement/ increase in size
negates Plate Tectonics. Here we are giving the lie to Plate Tectonics
itself. Directly. And that's your job on this thread. Not to light
fires talking about the state of physics as it is known today.

We began with the Plate Tectonics' own assertion that the crust is
floating on the mantle, that subduction zones occur where the crust
pushes the mantle down

You're either being deliberately dense or a liar.

(or continental lithosphere pushes oceanic
lithosphere down in order to move it through the eclogite transition),
that the subducting slab drives convection which drives Plate Tectonics

Another statement that's either stupid or a lie.

(which breaks up the crust). Here we are saying that the 'slab' of the
subduction zone (illustrated by a section of the Western Pacific),
(which is a zone of earthquakes active since the Mesozoic) is logically
no more than a pile of rubble by today, so broken up is it.

Evidence?

Every day
we get about 180-200 earthquakes around that Pacific Margin which are
hapening on faults, ..i.e., that are breaking up the 'slab' (which is
about 200km wide), multiply that up by days then about 200million
years, and make any assumptive corrections you like, and by any account
it is just RUBBLE, ..- a point you will no doubt concede is not much
advertised.

Well, .. I'm advertising it. It's up to you to refute it. I say
Rubble is Rubble and can push or pull NOTHING, ... and falls through
the mantle like sand through an egg timer.

That's so dumb it's not even wrong.

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

In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 7

THE TROUBLE WITH RUBBLE

OK you guys, .. come on now. I can understand you all wanting to run
a mile, but let's hear it for some common sense before we make with the
valedictions. We're only up to Number 7,

Um, no.

This is number one, for the seventh time.

..and you're thinking of
running off? Come come.. With all those earthquakes, ..what are
we looking at? ...the slab as a 'slab' grinding away beneath the
overriding plate? ...or as a heap of rubble? That picture shows it to
be about 200km thick - as thick as the lithosphere. And it's been
cracking up ever since the Mesozoic.

Why do you describe an increasingly hotter slab of viscous fluid as a
pile of rubble?

Because it has earthquakes (/ faults) in it, ..cummulative since the
Mesozoic.

Your conclusion is wrong. It has earthquakes in it because it is rigid
enough to withstand the forces of plate tectonics ... until they build
up to a certain point and then whack! An earthquake breaks something. If
it actually were rubble, then the tectonic forces would just move it
without any drama.

Get a loaf of bread, freshly kneaded. Bend it. Squoosh. Bake it nice and
crispy. Now bend it ... crack! Bend it a lot and make crumbs. Now bend
them ... no resistance. No crack!

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

don findlay wrote:
Marc wrote:
don findlay wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 7

THE TROUBLE WITH RUBBLE

OK you guys, .. come on now. I can understand you all wanting to run
a mile,


No. The regulars in Talk.Origins would just like you to post
these off-topic threads in the groups where they are more or
less "on topic" (as far as you can on topic be with stupidity).

IF we ever do get a newbie creationist lurking in talk.origins
your multiple threads on geology will not be helpful in getting
the creationist ? ID lurker to delurk and join in the debate.

Don't be daft, as soon as they see how nutty you all are they'll be in
like Flynn. I'm doing you all a great big favour, if your purpose is
to draw in unsuspecting 'newbies' just to skewer them. Regard me as
your secret weapon. In fact, Maybe I'm just wheedling you round to a
corner where I can skewer you.

Do yourself a favour....


Would you please drop this group from your future posts?

I'm sure those who want to keep in touch with you have
the experience and understanding to watch the geology
groups that you are also posting to. Your lame comment
with regard to evolution does not make all of these threads
somehow relate to gene pools, change over time, species
and other such things, does it? Post where the topic belongs.

Look, the nonsense of Plate Tectonics is not only of concern to
geology. By the measure of commentators and as an achievement of
science it is touted as on a par with space exploration. You are
raising the point of ID and creation. What is at issue here is not
simply the geology (as a framework for your own topic), but how
scien(ce)(tists) conducts themselves when confronted with dissent.

If you think that they "publish" it in internet newsgroups it says
a lot for your thinking process and your experience in science.

In another reply, which *you* ignored, I offered to help you
with the basic process that science follows - to submit an
abstract of your work to a proper meeting. If you are not going
to try to present your work to scientists as a talk or a poster
presentation (the usual meeting options), then you are just
joking about making a contribution to geological understanding.

I may not agree with your ideas (actually I certainly don't agree),
but if you want to present them then I am happy to help you
with the abstract wording and submission. You are in Australia,
right? So let's look ahead and see what geological workshops
or meetings might be happening here or across the tasman and
get you started on your new science career. That's what it takes.

Posting to internet newsgroups is fun and all but does not count
in the arena of science. First, give a talk at a meeting and defend
your ideas to those attending. Second, write a paper. That's it.

You could put a thesis project in there somewhere, but it isn't
as important as the other two steps. If you are not able to give
a talk at a meeting, or if you are not willing to, then you are
just being an arrogant asshole in spamming newsgroups with
your multiple off-topic threads. How is claiming "science doesn't
understand me" in talk.origins going to prove anything to anybody?


Quite apart from the number of people with geological training Bob
Grumbine said were here, there are surely many people interested in the
second as much as the first.

You have made a point that some people here have knowledge about
geology and you have made maybe ten threads here, perhaps more.

My point is that those who haven't "plonked" you already can easily
follow your threads in the appropriate newsgroup. What is wrong with
that happening? If they won't go read your posts there, doesn't that
tell you something? If you won't submit an abstract on your work to
a meeting, at least keep your future posts in the right newsgroup.

Again, I will help you get up to a podium to give a talk if you are up
to the task. (I will NOT even ask to co-author with you.)

We are talking about origins on many
levels, and you have in any case already ignored the two aspects I
replied to you earlier that were of direct relevance to the group and
your complaint.


Origins is origins. Those who wish to skip or who do not see
relevance, easily can. From personal experience and from observing
the way ID and creationst topics are regarded as sport for derision
your complaint is baseless. But it is a fine contribution to the way
that scientists conduct themselves when their 'science' doesn't hold
up. I am widening the exposure of a topic that has far more relevance
(and interest) than the sport of derision you unashamedly consider part
of your accoutrments for 'discussion'.

My "sport" here is explaining evolution, especially vertebrate immune
evolution, to those who are interested or to try to explain it to those
who somehow doubt evolution could work. See, for example, the PoTM
page for this year where I have the Jan. post. Your feeble attempt to
push a single aspect of your "theory" into the evolution box was not
really worth any reply on my part, was it? You weren't really trying to
discuss evolution at all, just making an excuse for posting here,
right?

Here are some meetings for you to consider...

Heat Transfer (Sydney)
http://events.australia.com/Business...ent_id=8032784
http://ihtc-13.mech.unsw.edu.au/
(abstracts closed long ago... you might consider attending anyway)

Oh.... even better - and sooner - next week in Melbourne
...... http://www.earth2006.org.au/ ... and especially this:
http://www.earth2006.org.au/progsess...ml#geodynamics

you *really* have to attend this for at least one day, just to have
a chance to hear some talks and view the posters, plus you get
the abstract book to study as well. If you are at all serious and
not just a ****** mouthing off on the internet, you *must* attend
this meeting start to finish. It's next week, dude, so make some
plans.

The other important thing about attending a meeting such as this
is that other upcoming meetings will have flyers available there,
possibly even included in your information pack. THIS IS THE ONE.
Go and talk to the speakers there, listen to the symposium talks,
meet the students and SHARE YOUR IDEAS with *them*.

IT STARTS THIS WEEKEND, dude. Go for at least one day!

(signed) marc

In article om,
"Marc" wrote:

Here are some meetings for you to consider...

Heat Transfer (Sydney)
http://events.australia.com/Business...spx?event_id=8
032784
http://ihtc-13.mech.unsw.edu.au/
(abstracts closed long ago... you might consider attending anyway)

Oh.... even better - and sooner - next week in Melbourne
..... http://www.earth2006.org.au/ ... and especially this:
http://www.earth2006.org.au/progsess...ml#geodynamics

you *really* have to attend this for at least one day, just to have
a chance to hear some talks and view the posters, plus you get
the abstract book to study as well. If you are at all serious and
not just a ****** mouthing off on the internet, you *must* attend
this meeting start to finish. It's next week, dude, so make some
plans.

The other important thing about attending a meeting such as this
is that other upcoming meetings will have flyers available there,
possibly even included in your information pack. THIS IS THE ONE.
Go and talk to the speakers there, listen to the symposium talks,
meet the students and SHARE YOUR IDEAS with *them*.

IT STARTS THIS WEEKEND, dude. Go for at least one day!

Timberwoof's Hypothesis: Don's a kook and a crackpot. He won't go.

It's easily refutable. Go, Don.

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

George wrote:
"Marc" wrote in message
ups.com...

George wrote:
"Inez" wrote in message
ps.com...

don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 7

THE TROUBLE WITH RUBBLE

The Subduction Zone. They call it a 'slab' . I mean, ..how dopey
can
you get? A slab of rubble - falling off the back of a truck pulls
the
prime mover right up over the front end of the tray and off the back
end?

Or if you were building a house and contracted your foundation slab
from Plate Tectonics Ltd, and they came along and dumped a heap of
rubble about 200km thick in your back yard, .. still pulsing with
earthquakes, and told you it was coherent and competent enough to
fall
through the mantle if you liked, ..AND pull half of the Earth surface
down with it, ..wouldn't you think they were just a mob of pullers,
..and ask for your money back?

Don, it's all very fun to tease trolls on the internet, but I'm
beginning to believe you seriously need mental help. What you've
written in incoherent raving, and what little sense can be made of it
has been refuted many times in recent days.

If you are just trolling, please think of some new bait, this stuff is
getting tiresome.

Don Findlay - knitting imaginary expanding sweaters in a padded cell in
Aussieland since 1976.


Oh, why did you have to clue me in to his being from Australia.

My only hope is that he is either from Queensland or Tasmania.

Please God don't let him be here in Sydney. (The odds are about
one in six of that just by population size.)

(signed) marc


Sorry, mate.

George



Well, if he is anywhere around the southeast part of Australia
the he *really* should get to Melbourne for next week's geology
meeting there -- http://www.earth2006.org.au/ and especially this:
http://www.earth2006.org.au/progsess...ml#geodynamics
main session on "Geodynamics of Earth's Evolution".

The updated programme is available, and a list of posters is also
available ... http://www.earth2006.org.au/poster.shtml

If he can claim to be a student or to be retired, it only costs $325
but even at $920 full non-member price ($350 for one day) it is still
worth attending. If he wants a chance to speak with the people who
will certainly understand the issues, to listen to the main sessions,
he *has* to attend. I mean, this is next week in Melbourne.

If Don can't even attend for just one day, his credibility is shot as
far
as this newsgroup goes. This is the one really big meeting coming
up anywhere in the world with main sessions on his topic and if he
has any interest at all he will make immediate plans to get there. It
is happening here in his backyard. Flights from Sydney to Melbourne
are dirt cheap, and unless he is in Perth or Darwin he has very little
excuse for not going. With a couple of e-mails he might even be able
to score a ticket to the dinner, whenever it is, and of course there is
an opening function - usually with nice aussie wines and beer.

Yep - Sunday 5 to 7 pm in Melbourne for the opening drinks...
the dinner ($110) on Wednesday (lots of time to figure out who
to sit with at the dinner, eh? I'm sure Don would love the dinner.)
http://www.earth2006.org.au/socialevents.shtml

(signed) marc

..

In article , Shane wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 7

Wow, a few more strikes and Plate Tectonics has bowled a perfect 300.
Has the expanding earth nonsense knocked over a pin yet, or has it just
been gutter balls for it.

I thought he was using a baseball analogy. Thanks, I'm even more
confused about ball games now.
Spherical ball, or ellipsoidal?

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:08 +0100, but posted later.

don findlay wrote:
Radix2 wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 7
snip rubbish strike 0

Let us assume for a moment that Tectonics is "rubbish". Your
replacement hypothesis is expansion. First question - What known
geophysical actions could cause this. Now bear in mind that it has to
fit within the known laws of Physics and explain all observed
formations. Start there and then we'll move on

We'll make no such assumption at all, than youo very much. And
nothing of the veracity of growth/ enlargement/ increase in size
negates Plate Tectonics. Here we are giving the lie to Plate Tectonics
itself. Directly. And that's your job on this thread. Not to light
fires talking about the state of physics as it is known today.

It is not my "job" at all. You have come up with a series of baseless
assertions, which many others have already refuted. Seeing as you
ignored these, I invited you to explore your hypothesis as an
alternative. By the way - if you do find holes in Tectonic theory,
that doesn't automatically make your expansion hypothesis correct.
Strictly speaking, you have to provide supporting evidence and detail
how existing observations are explained by your model. I would also be
interested in your account of conservation of angular momentum, lunar
orbit and the matter/energy question in the contect of yoru model (BTW
- none of these present a problem for Tectonics).


We began with the Plate Tectonics' own assertion that the crust is
floating on the mantle, that subduction zones occur where the crust
pushes the mantle down (or continental lithosphere pushes oceanic
lithosphere down in order to move it through the eclogite transition),
that the subducting slab drives convection which drives Plate Tectonics
(which breaks up the crust). Here we are saying that the 'slab' of the
subduction zone (illustrated by a section of the Western Pacific),
(which is a zone of earthquakes active since the Mesozoic) is logically
no more than a pile of rubble by today, so broken up is it. Every day
we get about 180-200 earthquakes around that Pacific Margin which are
hapening on faults, ..i.e., that are breaking up the 'slab' (which is
about 200km wide), multiply that up by days then about 200million
years, and make any assumptive corrections you like, and by any account
it is just RUBBLE, ..- a point you will no doubt concede is not much
advertised.

It is not rubble as has been pointed out to you many times.


Well, .. I'm advertising it. It's up to you to refute it. I say
Rubble is Rubble and can push or pull NOTHING, ... and falls through
the mantle like sand through an egg timer.
Not rubble - already refuted. Now just a baseless assertion.

"Marc" wrote in message
ups.com...

George wrote:
"Marc" wrote in message
ups.com...

George wrote:
"Inez" wrote in message
ps.com...

don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 7

THE TROUBLE WITH RUBBLE

The Subduction Zone. They call it a 'slab' . I mean, ..how dopey
can
you get? A slab of rubble - falling off the back of a truck
pulls
the
prime mover right up over the front end of the tray and off the
back
end?

Or if you were building a house and contracted your foundation
slab
from Plate Tectonics Ltd, and they came along and dumped a heap
of
rubble about 200km thick in your back yard, .. still pulsing with
earthquakes, and told you it was coherent and competent enough to
fall
through the mantle if you liked, ..AND pull half of the Earth
surface
down with it, ..wouldn't you think they were just a mob of
pullers,
..and ask for your money back?

Don, it's all very fun to tease trolls on the internet, but I'm
beginning to believe you seriously need mental help. What you've
written in incoherent raving, and what little sense can be made of
it
has been refuted many times in recent days.

If you are just trolling, please think of some new bait, this stuff
is
getting tiresome.

Don Findlay - knitting imaginary expanding sweaters in a padded cell
in
Aussieland since 1976.


Oh, why did you have to clue me in to his being from Australia.

My only hope is that he is either from Queensland or Tasmania.

Please God don't let him be here in Sydney. (The odds are about
one in six of that just by population size.)

(signed) marc


Sorry, mate.

George



Well, if he is anywhere around the southeast part of Australia
the he *really* should get to Melbourne for next week's geology
meeting there -- http://www.earth2006.org.au/ and especially this:
http://www.earth2006.org.au/progsess...ml#geodynamics
main session on "Geodynamics of Earth's Evolution".

He lives in Perth.

George

In article , George
wrote:

Please God don't let him be here in Sydney. (The odds are about
one in six of that just by population size.)

(signed) marc


Sorry, mate.


Does the phone book have anything interesting to say?

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:21 +0100, but posted later.

don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 7

THE TROUBLE WITH RUBBLE

Could a shear wave travel through rubble?

Lee

The Subduction Zone. They call it a 'slab' . I mean, ..how dopey can
you get? A slab of rubble - falling off the back of a truck pulls the
prime mover right up over the front end of the tray and off the back
end?

Or if you were building a house and contracted your foundation slab
from Plate Tectonics Ltd, and they came along and dumped a heap of
rubble about 200km thick in your back yard, .. still pulsing with
earthquakes, and told you it was coherent and competent enough to fall
through the mantle if you liked, ..AND pull half of the Earth surface
down with it, ..wouldn't you think they were just a mob of pullers,
..and ask for your money back?

Or would you feel ok and take their advice when they said, .."Well,
..we'll dump it in the sea for you, right there. How would that be,
Sir?"

And that's just the rubble of the subduction zone. That's not counting
all the rubble that happened at the ridge and getting it over there.
How does Plate Tectonics work as a heap of rubble - 100-200km thick?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstr...verriding.html

Why hasn't physics had something to say about this nonsense (spouted
ever since records?) Because they've had the support of a worldful of
geologists who know what they're talking about? Or Wot?

(Thick as two timbers. I tell you...)