Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 15.

Ian Parker wrote:

What about magnetic reversal? They occur at regular intervals. The sea
floor MUST be streading as the polarity of its ferromagnetic components
shows regualar striations. This was the clinching proof of continental
drift.

.... And is also the clinching proof for Earth expansion, ... unless
of course we imagine that somehow all this creation of ocean floors is
matched by 'equal-to' destruction. Plate Tectonics is not defined by
the creation of the ocean floors, but by its destruction.

BTW - The magnetic field of the Earth is now weaking and we are due for
a reversal soon.

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

We need no theory of gravity to tell us
the Earth is round, ..likewise we need no theory of expansion to tell
us the Earth has got bigger over time.

Likewise? There's no connection between those to statements.

No? Prove this assertion.

It's easy to support a wacky non-theory/non-hypothesis when the
standards of evidence for it are a lot weaker than the ones for another
theory.

It's an easily supportable geological observation that does not require
support from fluid mechanics , quantum mechanics, nor whatever that
other one was. ...
How do *you* think an observation should be tested? Which bit of it
would you like to begin with? The explurgence of the mantle maybe?
Crumpled crust? Maybe the amount of stratigraphic sequence that has
been exhumed from beneath the surface of the sea as sea level has
dropped to accommodate enlargement? Fossils on the tops of Ken's
walkmountains?

Which bit?

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

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

We need no theory of gravity to tell us
the Earth is round, ..likewise we need no theory of expansion to tell
us the Earth has got bigger over time.

Likewise? There's no connection between those to statements.

No? Prove this assertion.

Easy, if I'm allowed the same rigor of proof you hold yourself to.

Let's see now, how does it go? You're too dumb to understand, so I won't
explain it to you; alternatively you're too educated to let the simple
obvious truth of it enter your thick head. Your grasp of logic is
obviously flawed; either that or this statement points to the truth that
logic needs to be reworked to accommodate it, and anyone who disagrees
is a boring wooden-brained fuddy-duddy who can't learn anything new.
Besides, you should stick to geology; gravity doesn't enter into it.

It's easy to support a wacky non-theory/non-hypothesis when the
standards of evidence for it are a lot weaker than the ones for another
theory.

It's an easily supportable geological observation that does not require
support from fluid mechanics , quantum mechanics, nor whatever that
other one was. ...

ROFL!

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

In article .com,
"don findlay" wrote:

Ian Parker wrote:

What about magnetic reversal? They occur at regular intervals. The sea
floor MUST be streading as the polarity of its ferromagnetic components
shows regualar striations. This was the clinching proof of continental
drift.

... And is also the clinching proof for Earth expansion, ... unless
of course we imagine that somehow all this creation of ocean floors is
matched by 'equal-to' destruction. Plate Tectonics is not defined by
the creation of the ocean floors, but by its destruction.

BTW - The magnetic field of the Earth is now weaking and we are due for
a reversal soon.

So what about the rocks whose magnetic fields are in the wrong
orientation (either altitude or azimuth) to have solidified if the
continent was in that place at that time?

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

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

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

We need no theory of gravity to tell us
the Earth is round, ..likewise we need no theory of expansion to
tell
us the Earth has got bigger over time.

Likewise? There's no connection between those to statements.

No? Prove this assertion.

Easy, if I'm allowed the same rigor of proof you hold yourself to.

Let's see now, how does it go? You're too dumb to understand, so I won't
explain it to you; alternatively you're too educated to let the simple
obvious truth of it enter your thick head. Your grasp of logic is
obviously flawed; either that or this statement points to the truth that
logic needs to be reworked to accommodate it, and anyone who disagrees
is a boring wooden-brained fuddy-duddy who can't learn anything new.
Besides, you should stick to geology; gravity doesn't enter into it.

It's easy to support a wacky non-theory/non-hypothesis when the
standards of evidence for it are a lot weaker than the ones for
another
theory.

It's an easily supportable geological observation that does not require
support from fluid mechanics , quantum mechanics, nor whatever that
other one was. ...

ROFL!

I'll second that ROFL, and add a LOL!

George

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

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

We need no theory of gravity to tell us
the Earth is round, ..likewise we need no theory of expansion to tell
us the Earth has got bigger over time.

Likewise? There's no connection between those to statements.

No? Prove this assertion.

Easy, if I'm allowed the same rigor of proof you hold yourself to.

Let's see now, how does it go? You're too dumb to understand, so I won't
explain it to you; alternatively you're too educated to let the simple
obvious truth of it enter your thick head.

What's this? Did you say you were educated? I thought you issued a
denial on that score, saying it was your father who was the geologist,
and considered it reasonable neverhteless to claim legitimacy-by-proxy.
(Does seem it's the way of the world though.)

Your grasp of logic is
obviously flawed; either that or this statement points to the truth that
logic needs to be reworked to accommodate it, and anyone who disagrees
is a boring wooden-brained fuddy-duddy who can't learn anything new.
Besides, you should stick to geology; gravity doesn't enter into it.

It's easy to support a wacky non-theory/non-hypothesis when the
standards of evidence for it are a lot weaker than the ones for another
theory.

It's an easily supportable geological observation that does not require
support from fluid mechanics , quantum mechanics, nor whatever that
other one was. ...

ROFL!

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...

Timberwoof wrote:-
"The fundamental error in your thinking, Don, is the notion that
disproving either Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth automatically
proves the other one."
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...33577ee?hl=en&

No, ..that's not what's being said. What *IS* being said is that Plate
Tectonics is nonsense in its own right and needs its geological support
scrutinised, when it will be found to have no geological legs
whatsoever. And no credible supporting *mechanism* either. Plate
Tectonics is based on false observations (crumpled crust/ mountains -
upheaval/ dyke intrusion as a ridge-driver/ etc.) and false theory -
the balance of ridge creation with subduction (but if subduction
balances ridge creation, then no ocean floor could ever develop in the
first place). Plate Tectonics has two mutually exclusive models -
subducting slabs and plumes, and therefore no credible rationale at
all, neither in geological fact, nor in theory.

I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with subduction. It has been an
active process in the past 200 million years all around the Pacific Ocean.

It is easy to conclude that from the interpretation of any map of the
region. Pure geology.

The precise mechanism that drove the subduction is irrelevant right now. The
fact that subduction was an ongoing process surrounding an entire region is
the important factor. The discovery of the actual mechanism that caused it
will be determined in due course.

You can have subduction, as a fact, without knowing at this time what the
exact driving mechanism might be. Correct?

You just can't see subduction ongoing all the way around the Pacific at this
time, or measure it everywhere right at this moment, because it isn't
happening everywhere right now. But it did happen everywhere in the past;
you just weren't there to see it. That's not a problem; correct?

My conclusion is just as valid as that of anyone else. What you consider as
false observations I consider as valid observations.

Gerry

"Gerry Seaton" wrote in message
...

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...

Timberwoof wrote:-
"The fundamental error in your thinking, Don, is the notion that
disproving either Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth automatically
proves the other one."
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...33577ee?hl=en&

No, ..that's not what's being said. What *IS* being said is that Plate
Tectonics is nonsense in its own right and needs its geological support
scrutinised, when it will be found to have no geological legs
whatsoever. And no credible supporting *mechanism* either. Plate
Tectonics is based on false observations (crumpled crust/ mountains -
upheaval/ dyke intrusion as a ridge-driver/ etc.) and false theory -
the balance of ridge creation with subduction (but if subduction
balances ridge creation, then no ocean floor could ever develop in the
first place). Plate Tectonics has two mutually exclusive models -
subducting slabs and plumes, and therefore no credible rationale at
all, neither in geological fact, nor in theory.

I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with subduction. It has been an
active process in the past 200 million years all around the Pacific
Ocean.

It is easy to conclude that from the interpretation of any map of the
region. Pure geology.

The precise mechanism that drove the subduction is irrelevant right now.
The fact that subduction was an ongoing process surrounding an entire
region is the important factor. The discovery of the actual mechanism
that caused it will be determined in due course.

You can have subduction, as a fact, without knowing at this time what the
exact driving mechanism might be. Correct?

You just can't see subduction ongoing all the way around the Pacific at
this time, or measure it everywhere right at this moment, because it
isn't happening everywhere right now. But it did happen everywhere in the
past; you just weren't there to see it. That's not a problem; correct?

My conclusion is just as valid as that of anyone else. What you consider
as false observations I consider as valid observations.

Gerry


Don Findaly doesn't think that subduction occurs because if it does, his
house of cards comes tumbling down. So when you discuss anything with Don
Findlay, remember the adage "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil", and
those little monkey statues.

George

Don Findley must be a Republican.

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

Timberwoof wrote:-
"The fundamental error in your thinking, Don, is the notion that
disproving either Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth automatically
proves the other one."
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...33577ee?hl=en&

No, ..that's not what's being said. What *IS* being said is that Plate
Tectonics is nonsense in its own right and needs its geological support
scrutinised, when it will be found to have no geological legs
whatsoever.

The implication is that a half a century of scrutiny was not enough to
find the faults (so to speak) of plate tectonics.

And no credible supporting *mechanism* either.

Yeah, especially since Don Findlay banned the use things learned from
other sciences, such as atomic physics, thermodynamics, and fluid flow.

Plate
Tectonics is based on false observations (crumpled crust/ mountains -
upheaval/ dyke intrusion as a ridge-driver/ etc.) and false theory -
the balance of ridge creation with subduction (but if subduction
balances ridge creation, then no ocean floor could ever develop in the
first place). Plate Tectonics has two mutually exclusive models -
subducting slabs and plumes, and therefore no credible rationale at
all, neither in geological fact, nor in theory.

Don Findlay's interpretation of plate tectonics is a straw-man
description. He knows nothing about recent work, and makes fer damn sure
that he learns nothing new. A few months ago he avoided going to a
conference on geodynamics because he thought he'd be bored, but probably
because he was afraid he'd have to defend his wacky non-theory form real
scientists.

The coupling with Earth Expansion you suggest is parallel, not
vertical. *IN ITS OWN RIGHT* The parallel rail of Earth Expansion is a
*conclusion* based on sound observation.

... of strictly limited data

It purports NO THEORY.

Especially no other scientific theory that would contradict it.

The
conclusion admits of none at the present time. Which is not to say
that what is known is wrong, simply incomplete. We are probably being
given a graphic demonstration that mass can come into existence, and,
through mineral paragenesis, some guidelines regarding the path taken.

IOW, it's magic.

Earth expansion fills the gap left by Plate Tectonics' inadequacies. It
explains the same data better, it explains more data, ..And it is
predictive - even to the simple point that it predicts the way forward
for global tectonics is to include the element of the Earth's spin.

It's interesting that this non-theory is expected to make scientific
predictions.

It
is already happening, probably thanks in good measure to my website
(which has been advertising it for the last six years.). It also
highlights the nonsense of Plate Tectonics.

What more do you want? A mechanism for expansion? Sure, ..All in good
time.

Ah, I see. One of the shortcomings of plate tectonics is that there's no
credible mechanism ... but it's okay for there to be no credible
mechanism for earth expansion.

First consolidate the expansion (/growth/ getting bigger/). Try
to disprove it, in other words. And just to say "Every believes etc
etc.." is no answer. Neither is it to say "No mechanism".

How about "The laws of physics don't allow it".

Geological
principles admit the acknowledgement of the passage of time, and its
integration into geological architecture as fact, ...and time and
architecture tell us that the Earth is getting bigger, as surely as
geometry tells us it is round. We need no theory of gravity to tell us
the Earth is round, ..likewise we need no theory of expansion to tell
us the Earth has got bigger over time.

Likewise? There's no connection between those to statements.

It's easy to support a wacky non-theory/non-hypothesis when the
standards of evidence for it are a lot weaker than the ones for another
theory.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.

Gerry Seaton wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...

Timberwoof wrote:-
"The fundamental error in your thinking, Don, is the notion that
disproving either Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth automatically
proves the other one."
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sc...33577ee?hl=en&

No, ..that's not what's being said. What *IS* being said is that Plate
Tectonics is nonsense in its own right and needs its geological support
scrutinised, when it will be found to have no geological legs
whatsoever. And no credible supporting *mechanism* either. Plate
Tectonics is based on false observations (crumpled crust/ mountains -
upheaval/ dyke intrusion as a ridge-driver/ etc.) and false theory -
the balance of ridge creation with subduction (but if subduction
balances ridge creation, then no ocean floor could ever develop in the
first place). Plate Tectonics has two mutually exclusive models -
subducting slabs and plumes, and therefore no credible rationale at
all, neither in geological fact, nor in theory.

I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with subduction. It has been an
active process in the past 200 million years all around the Pacific Ocean.

It is easy to conclude that from the interpretation of any map of the
region. Pure geology.

Is it? I don't think so. You have to begin with what the word is
actually saying, which is "sub" - "duction" ('down'-carrying') and
balance that against what is actually there.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstr...ubduction.html
see also:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/lingo1.html


The precise mechanism that drove the subduction is irrelevant right now.

"Subduction versus overriding" ... Noting that overriding is now the
preferred position of both Nasa and the USGS, and the dichotomy between
'subduction' and 'plumes' as driving mechanisms for the hypothesised
convection renders convection as a mechanism for anything whatsoever to
do with crustal deformation highly questionable (and that global
deformation is in any case symmetrical with spin) ..when do you think
it might become relevant? What would you like to see settled first?


The
fact that subduction was an ongoing process surrounding an entire region is
the important factor. The discovery of the actual mechanism that caused it
will be determined in due course.

The nature of that interface is of course the crux of the matter. Now,
...it actually defines where the spreading ridge was initiated - just
like the coastlines of Africa/ Europe and the Americas define where the
Atlantic spreading ridge started. (This is not negotiable. It is an
obvious observation, ..every bit as significant as in those links above
showing the Earthquakes, ... that they only go down as deep as the
lithosphere then slide along the asthenosphere. "Flat Subduction" (a
contradiction in terms but nevertheless an emerging part of the
changing lingo of plate Tectonics) is what all of that represents,
...the lithosphere 'skating' on the mantle. It is exactly the mechanism
(or part of it) that the models of continental drift were looking for a
century ago. That Plate Tectonics has provided it, and spent the
latter half of the last century misrepresenting it as convetive return
rather than lithospheric dislocation, is shameful, and draws
graphically into question what the business of 'real science' is about,
namely a consensus publication bandwagon, where alternative
explanations are not welcome, because it makes it so much harder to get
stuff published.

You can have subduction, as a fact, without knowing at this time what the
exact driving mechanism might be. Correct?

Yes, provided you have an alternative proof for the existence of
convection other than the thing you are trying to prove is
convected.(And concepts of lighter crust pushing denser mantle down is
not it.) (and neither is the concept of glacially slow transfer of heat
in a solid medium)


You just can't see subduction ongoing all the way around the Pacific at this
time, or measure it everywhere right at this moment, because it isn't
happening everywhere right now. But it did happen everywhere in the past;
you just weren't there to see it. That's not a problem; correct?


I think you need to revise some logic here. If there are solid grounds
for considering subduction never happened anywhere in the past, there
are no grounds for suggesting it once happened everywhere.


My conclusion is just as valid as that of anyone else. What you consider as
false observations I consider as valid observations.

So what (exactly) *IS* your observation (apart from the locus of
Earthquakes)?

Anyway, if you think subduction is a goer, ..how do you go with the
absence of crustal crumpling where mountain belts are "thrown up" (by
plate collision) ?


Gerry