Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 3

Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 3
Plates do not move.


Who, in their right (or left) lobotomic tectonic mind, would ever think
of representing the primary structure of the Earth in this way
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/slabs.html ????

This is crazy. Any depiction of global structure should make obvious to
any uninitiate what the major structures of the Earth are - which are
the spreading ridges, the transform faults and the subduction zones.)
But the map obviously doesn't, does it?

No. Well, ..yes, but no. Yes because it's showing what Plate
Tectonics calls 'The Plates' (in different colours to emphasise their
difference and independence), but "NO' because in no way can that
picture imply plate MOVEMENT - not if by 'plate' we mean what is
defined within its boundaries.

Where are the 'plates' (shown in the figure) moving to? And from
where? The plates are supposedly of the lithosphere, i.e. everything
above the transition zone, but how can they be moving when their
boundaries are locked as we see in the figure? What is represented in
the figure is not plates, but the trace on the Earth's surface through
which they may be seen. It's a bit like when you go out in a
glass-bottomed boat to observe the pretty fish and you get there and
put the anchor down so the boat stays still. If you can imagine the
current with the fish passing underneath the boat then by 'movement'
that's what the figure is representing as 'plates'. Just like the
anchored boat with its window the plates *as defined by their crustal
boundaries* are going nowhere. They're fixed. And the *real*
boundaries of what's underneath, the cycling cell, are much
broader.and mostly unknown.

So what's all this about "PLATE" movement. How can the plate move, but
its boundaries not? So,..even by Plate Tectonics' own measure *PLATES*
do not move (if by 'plate' we mean what is defined by its boundaries.)

They're stuck; going nowhere. Just like porridge/soup/tea. With
everything whirling abaht dahn below in that thaar Davy Jones'
Lockah....

See?

See?

don findlay kirjoitti:

Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 3
Plates do not move.

Seeing that we can detect plate movement in real time with satellite
measurements, you're out.

-- Wakboth

Wakboth wrote:
don findlay kirjoitti:

Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 3
Plates do not move.

Seeing that we can detect plate movement in real time with satellite
measurements, you're out.

-- Wakboth

Nah, ..you didn't get the point. Plates are defined by their
boundaries. Plate Tectonics sez so. So you can measure all the
whirling and moving about inside them you like, ..the plates themselves
are locked, ..and not going any place.

(Are that mob not back from the pub yet? Ask them. They'll find that
one quite easy by now I should think.)

Strike 3 stands

Hi Don,
You needed to continue following the links on the page you suggested we
consider. here is one:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/und...#anchor6715825

I am doing a bit of EE VS PT "homework" this weekend and will get back to
you. Will E.


"don findlay" wrote in message
ups.com...
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 3
Plates do not move.


Who, in their right (or left) lobotomic tectonic mind, would ever think
of representing the primary structure of the Earth in this way
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/slabs.html ????

This is crazy. Any depiction of global structure should make obvious to
any uninitiate what the major structures of the Earth are - which are
the spreading ridges, the transform faults and the subduction zones.)
But the map obviously doesn't, does it?

No. Well, ..yes, but no. Yes because it's showing what Plate
Tectonics calls 'The Plates' (in different colours to emphasise their
difference and independence), but "NO' because in no way can that
picture imply plate MOVEMENT - not if by 'plate' we mean what is
defined within its boundaries.

Where are the 'plates' (shown in the figure) moving to? And from
where? The plates are supposedly of the lithosphere, i.e. everything
above the transition zone, but how can they be moving when their
boundaries are locked as we see in the figure? What is represented in
the figure is not plates, but the trace on the Earth's surface through
which they may be seen. It's a bit like when you go out in a
glass-bottomed boat to observe the pretty fish and you get there and
put the anchor down so the boat stays still. If you can imagine the
current with the fish passing underneath the boat then by 'movement'
that's what the figure is representing as 'plates'. Just like the
anchored boat with its window the plates *as defined by their crustal
boundaries* are going nowhere. They're fixed. And the *real*
boundaries of what's underneath, the cycling cell, are much
broader.and mostly unknown.

So what's all this about "PLATE" movement. How can the plate move, but
its boundaries not? So,..even by Plate Tectonics' own measure *PLATES*
do not move (if by 'plate' we mean what is defined by its boundaries.)

They're stuck; going nowhere. Just like porridge/soup/tea. With
everything whirling abaht dahn below in that thaar Davy Jones'
Lockah....

See?

See?

don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 3
Plates do not move.


Who, in their right (or left) lobotomic tectonic mind, would ever think
of representing the primary structure of the Earth in this way
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/slabs.html ????
(snip)
So what's all this about "PLATE" movement. How can the plate move, but
its boundaries not? So,..even by Plate Tectonics' own measure *PLATES*
do not move (if by 'plate' we mean what is defined by its boundaries.)

Where does it say that the plates are defined strictly by their
boundaries? If that was the case, why did they not just color code
the boundaries? Plates are all the surface features that move
essentially as a unit, while the boundaries change. At spreading
ridges, area is added to the co-moving plate surface features, and at
subduction zones, material is removed from the co-moving plate surface
features. The colored areas are a snapshot of a moment in time, of
the surface features that happen to be co-moving at this moment.

This concept of plates being defined strictly by their boundaries
comes from your imagination, not plate tectonics.

wrote:
You think that's bad? Check this out:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.gray2...ansmission.jpg

In a real transmission, there's an engine built around it and all the
gears are, like, moving and stuff.


Well, ..I can see the convection cells, .. (and it's automatic too)
That's your point isn't it?... How plate tectonics incorporates spin -
it's in those convection cells, spinning like billy-O. I could buy
that. But how do they engage to make the thing move? There's a big
Dakine in Hawaii, but is there a big gear stick?

In article . com,
"don findlay" wrote:

a remarkable essay demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of
plate tectonics or his mastery of obfuscation, misdirection, and lying.

You stupid twit. The same web site, on another page, answers all your
dumb questions:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

And yes, your questions are dumb because you have asked and been
answered before.

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

In article .com,
wrote:

You think that's bad? Check this out:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.gray2...ansmission.jpg

In a real transmission, there's an engine built around it and all the
gears are, like, moving and stuff.

How cool. A motorcycle transmission. Mine, as a safety feature, goes
CLUNK really loud with every gear change.

How can that drawing show movement? Doesn't everyone know that the real
components of a transmission are the gear meshings, the dog engagements,
the pawl action, the barrel rotation, and the fork movement?!

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

don findlay kirjoitti:

Wakboth wrote:
don findlay kirjoitti:

Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 3
Plates do not move.

Seeing that we can detect plate movement in real time with satellite
measurements, you're out.

Nah, ..you didn't get the point. Plates are defined by their
boundaries. Plate Tectonics sez so. So you can measure all the
whirling and moving about inside them you like, ..the plates themselves
are locked, ..and not going any place.

Except that they aren't locked; where did you get that idea? And they
are moving: away from the places where the sea floor spreads, such as
the mid-Atlantic ridge and towards and over subduction zones.

(Are that mob not back from the pub yet? Ask them. They'll find that
one quite easy by now I should think.)

Strike 3 stands

In your fevered dreams only.

-- Wakboth

don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 3
Plates do not move.


Who, in their right (or left) lobotomic tectonic mind, would ever think
of representing the primary structure of the Earth in this way
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/slabs.html ????

This is crazy. Any depiction of global structure should make obvious to
any uninitiate what the major structures of the Earth are - which are
the spreading ridges, the transform faults and the subduction zones.)
But the map obviously doesn't, does it?

No. Well, ..yes, but no. Yes because it's showing what Plate
Tectonics calls 'The Plates' (in different colours to emphasise their
difference and independence), but "NO' because in no way can that
picture imply plate MOVEMENT - not if by 'plate' we mean what is
defined within its boundaries.

Where are the 'plates' (shown in the figure) moving to? And from
where? The plates are supposedly of the lithosphere, i.e. everything
above the transition zone, but how can they be moving when their
boundaries are locked as we see in the figure? What is represented in
the figure is not plates, but the trace on the Earth's surface through
which they may be seen. It's a bit like when you go out in a
glass-bottomed boat to observe the pretty fish and you get there and
put the anchor down so the boat stays still. If you can imagine the
current with the fish passing underneath the boat then by 'movement'
that's what the figure is representing as 'plates'. Just like the
anchored boat with its window the plates *as defined by their crustal
boundaries* are going nowhere. They're fixed. And the *real*
boundaries of what's underneath, the cycling cell, are much
broader.and mostly unknown.

So what's all this about "PLATE" movement. How can the plate move, but
its boundaries not? So,..even by Plate Tectonics' own measure *PLATES*
do not move (if by 'plate' we mean what is defined by its boundaries.)

They're stuck; going nowhere. Just like porridge/soup/tea. With
everything whirling abaht dahn below in that thaar Davy Jones'
Lockah....

See?

See?

I like this picture. It shows the wrinkled appearance of the terrain
created by two plates colliding and deforming.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/gra...Fig24tibet.gif

It looks a little like this picture.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=2...10352&t=k&om=1