Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 15.

George wrote:
"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.

**** off George. Go and offer your services elsewhere. You're full of
old wank, ...you old codger, ...you and all the 'prizewinners'.
---------------------------------------------
"Subduction happens where the crust pushes the mantle plate down."
"The subducting slab drives convection."
"Convection drives plate tectonics."
I.E., the crust pushing the mantle down drives global tectonics.
---------------------------------------------


George

bad link was
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstr...verriding.html

In article ,
"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...a33577ee?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.

At least that long, and probably much longer.

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?

Don will probably say no and write a verbal spew about how there is no
mechanism. And he will work very hard to ignore the fact that while he
insists on a fully explained mechanism for plate movement, he allows his
own non-hypothesis to violate numerous conservation laws have nothing
resembling a mechanism.

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.

Any observation that validates plate tectonics Don considers, a priori,
invalid.

--
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:

George wrote:
"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...97a33577ee?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.

**** off George. Go and offer your services elsewhere.

Are you going to make him?

You're full of
old wank, ...you old codger, ...you and all the 'prizewinners'.

The bulwark of expanding Earth theory -- Teh Ad Hominem.

---------------------------------------------
"Subduction happens where the crust pushes the mantle plate down."
"The subducting slab drives convection."
"Convection drives plate tectonics."
I.E., the crust pushing the mantle down drives global tectonics.
---------------------------------------------


George


--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

Timberwoof wrote:

In article ,
"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...7a33577ee?hl=e
n
&

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.

At least that long, and probably much longer.

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?

Don will probably say no and write a verbal spew about how there is no
mechanism. And he will work very hard to ignore the fact that while he
insists on a fully explained mechanism for plate movement, he allows his
own non-hypothesis to violate numerous conservation laws have nothing
resembling a mechanism.

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.

Any observation that validates plate tectonics Don considers, a priori,
invalid.

It is an "observed fact", thus he doesn't have to provide any evidence.

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

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

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.

I don't care that you don't think so. You interpret the map your way, and
I'll interpret the map my way.


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

Any information you may wish to pass along in these links is wasted. If any
valid observations are presented they are hidden amongst all the
unscientific rants, conspiracy claims and incoherent, run on paragraphs, all
in a lees than scientific language. Why would anyone spend time digging
through a garbage dump with the offhand chance of finding a bauble that
might, or might not, be worth anything. If you have something to say why
don't you just say it, in clear, precise, scientific language; in as few
words as is necessary.

Then again, the fact that you believe it is all a scientific conspiracy says
a lot.



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?

About the same time that the mechanism for the Expanding Earth becomes
relevant. If the mechanism for one is not relevant for a discussion, then by
default, the mechanism for the other becomes irrelevant.

I didn't say anything about convection, so why did you find it necessary to
bring it up. Remember... I said the mechanism that drives PT is irrelevant
right now.

What would you like to see settled first?

What's not settled?



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

The misprepresentation that you claim is your conclusion. Many others
conclude that it is a valid representation.

I see no proof that you have offered that should tend to chnage my
conclusion. Besides, you have returned to a discussion of what you claim is
an invalid PT mechanism. I said that the mechanism is irrelevant at this
time.

If it is relevant to the discussion, then it would follow that the mechanism
for Expanding Earth would be just as relevant. Shall we discuss the driving
mechanism for Expanding Earth, so that we may compare PT and EE on equal
terms?


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.

So, it all is driven by a science wide, whole earth conspiracy.

I think I see the light.


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)

There you go with the convection again. Isn't that a claimed mechanism?
Didn't I say that I believe that the mechanism claimed for PT is irrelevant.

If you must keep bringing convection back into the discussion, then let us
at least compare it to the mechanism that drives EE. That would be what?



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.

That would be your logic. Correct?

I don't see any grounds for considering that subduction never happened, much
less solid grounds. You might, but I don't. So your logic would be be
wrong, in my case.




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)?

My observation is that the maps I have looked at all clearly show that PT is
a valid theory, and that the earth has not expanded in the manner claimed by
EE over the last 200 million years.



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) ?

I don't know what mountains you have ever climbed, but I have traversed a
lot of crumpled strata. You know, even in the tightest of folds there is
always going to be some part that is horizontal. In broad folds, there can
be some pretty good runs of flat ground. Overall, it's still crumpled
ground. But of course, you knew that, didn't you.

Gerry

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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if Earth were expanding at the same rate as the universe? With
nothing to compare it to, how could you tell?

Just a question

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

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.

I don't care that you don't think so. You interpret the map your way, and
I'll interpret the map my way.


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

Any information you may wish to pass along in these links is wasted. If any
valid observations are presented they are hidden amongst all the
unscientific rants, conspiracy claims and incoherent, run on paragraphs, all
in a lees than scientific language. Why would anyone spend time digging
through a garbage dump with the offhand chance of finding a bauble that
might, or might not, be worth anything. If you have something to say why
don't you just say it, in clear, precise, scientific language; in as few
words as is necessary.

Then again, the fact that you believe it is all a scientific conspiracy says
a lot.

It's a 'conspiracy' (your word) of willing participants. ... There is
not a lot of point in struggling to get a controversial view past
reviewers when the writing can be squeezed into the square hole of
consensus, thus ensuring three of four (or more) may be published in
the same time, ..when publication is the name of the game, and when
there are no peer credits for being controversial.


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?

About the same time that the mechanism for the Expanding Earth becomes
relevant. If the mechanism for one is not relevant for a discussion, then by
default, the mechanism for the other becomes irrelevant.

No, not so. At present there *IS* no theory to support the
observation that the Earth has got bigger over time. And so we wait
for someone well-placed to come forward with one, ... one that probably
will have to take into account how matter can be created. Meanwhile,
Plate Tectonics claims at least three theories, all them nonsense in
themselves, each contradictory in relation to the other, ...each
founded on false assumptions, and each flying in the face of the
geological facts. Its tenets are so crass it needs to be undone for
the nonsense it is. (And there should be more here doing it instead of
trying to shore it up. ) "If it's a house of cards, then it needs to
be undone."



I didn't say anything about convection, so why did you find it necessary to
bring it up. Remember... I said the mechanism that drives PT is irrelevant
right now.

(Hm, ..A strange view.) In any case, Plate Tectonics *IS* mechanism,
....all mechanism. And anyway, if you say Plate Tectonics is
irrelevant, which particular version of it are you referring to?



What would you like to see settled first?

What's not settled?



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

The misprepresentation that you claim is your conclusion. Many others
conclude that it is a valid representation.

I see no proof that you have offered that should tend to chnage my
conclusion. Besides, you have returned to a discussion of what you claim is
an invalid PT mechanism. I said that the mechanism is irrelevant at this
time.

Again, ..Plate Tectonics *is* mechanism. All mechanism. Plate
Tectonics is a model. (Three in fact, by my count)



If it is relevant to the discussion, then it would follow that the mechanism
for Expanding Earth would be just as relevant. Shall we discuss the driving
mechanism for Expanding Earth, so that we may compare PT and EE on equal
terms?

'Expanding Earth', 'Plate Tectonics' are both unfortunate terms in that
they are both *mechanism*. However we seem to be stuck with them.
Perhaps you would like to discuss instead the *geological evidence* for
the Earth having doubled its size since the Mesozoic rather than for it
having *not* done so. Or even the geological evidence for the
"mechanism" of Plate Tectonics.

(We can begin with the notion of continental retrofits. ??
Or?...What would you like, ...crumpled crust as evidence for plate
collision?)



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.

So, it all is driven by a science wide, whole earth conspiracy.

I think I see the light.


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)

There you go with the convection again. Isn't that a claimed mechanism?
Didn't I say that I believe that the mechanism claimed for PT is irrelevant.

If you must keep bringing convection back into the discussion, then let us
at least compare it to the mechanism that drives EE. That would be what?



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.

That would be your logic. Correct?

I don't see any grounds for considering that subduction never happened, much
less solid grounds. You might, but I don't. So your logic would be be
wrong, in my case.




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)?

My observation is that the maps I have looked at all clearly show that PT is
a valid theory, and that the earth has not expanded in the manner claimed by
EE over the last 200 million years.

The creation of the ocean floors over time is observed (fact). What is
your observed evidence for its destruction


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) ?

I don't know what mountains you have ever climbed, but I have traversed a
lot of crumpled strata. You know, even in the tightest of folds there is
always going to be some part that is horizontal. In broad folds, there can
be some pretty good runs of flat ground. Overall, it's still crumpled
ground. But of course, you knew that, didn't you.

Correct ...So? We're not talking about deformation of crust per se,
but about 'crumpled crust' being an artifact of so-called 'Plate
Collision' Where in the world would you consider to be the type
example, which would lend substance to Plate Tectonics?


Gerry

Art Deco wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:

In article ,
"Gerry Seaton" wrote:



Any observation that validates plate tectonics Don considers, a priori,
invalid.

It is an "observed fact", thus he doesn't have to provide any evidence.

The evidence needed is to show that the ocean floors have been emplaced
over time, and that the continents have been separated to that extent.
That's all. And oh, of course, ..everything that follows as a
consequence of that. Much the same as the evidence needed to show
that the Earth is round (which was also once a theory).

On the other hand, the evidence needed to show that the two thirds of
the Earth's crust has been destroyed is much more onerous. Do you have
any?



--

Jimmy wrote:
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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if Earth were expanding at the same rate as the universe? With
nothing to compare it to, how could you tell?

Just a question

Exactly the same way as we can tell now (as if there were no universe)
- by the simple observation of global geology, coupled with its logical
interpretation.

The basic starting point for both Plate Tectonics and Earth Expansion
is that the continents can be fitted back together again, and that the
emplacement of the ocean floors is young: the Earth has 'got bigger'
since the Mesozoic by the extent of the ocean floors. Earlier crustal
mobility (mobile belts) is the precursor to mantle penetration.