The Trouble with Plate Tectonics....

This lady, politely, is telling only half the story:-

" Even with advances in the field, however, crucial pieces of
information are missing, especially in these studies of the Earth's
surface. One of the main reasons is that geophysicists have been
strangers to the field of geology for such a long time. In many
researcher's minds, and for obvious reasons, deep Earth science leaves
off where surface science begins - in other words, where geology
begins. For decades there has been a lack of communication, some even
say a disdain for each other, between the two fields.

As geologist Christopher Scotese at the University of Texas explains
it, geophysicists have always had the upper hand in terms of making
models and amassing numbers. Theirs was the dominant field so there
has been resentment as a result of that. The main reason however is
that each group has defined itself and its work in a certain way and
each has continued along that path. Geologists and geophysicists
rarely go to the same meetings or collaborate on the same
problems.

Geologists have all grown up believing that the rocks tell a story.
The layers upon layers of stone are all laid down in a specific
sequence, and those who know how to read that sequence can read the
story of a region - when uplift took place, when volcanoes loosed
their contents. Geophysicists on the other hand have become so
specialised in the subfield that few of them know how to read
geologists' maps or understand the subtleties of strata. This
parochialism leads many geologists to believe that without the hard
evidence geophysicists are missing a big piece of the Earth's story."

(Shawna Vogel, 'Naked Earth, the new Geophysics, p.139, Dutton,
Penguin Books, 217pps.)
Shawna Vogel holds a B.S. from MIT, where she was awarded the
prestigtious Knight Science Journalism Fellowship. A former editor at
Discover magazine, she writes for various popular science magazines,
including Scientific American, Earth, and Discover.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...tetrouble.html
-------------------------------------------------

On Dec 9, 4:04*pm, don findlay wrote:
This lady, politely, is telling only half the story:-

" * Even with advances in the field, however, crucial pieces of
information are missing, especially in these studies of the Earth's
surface. *One of the main reasons is that geophysicists have been
strangers to the field of geology for such a long time. *In many
researcher's minds, and for obvious reasons, deep Earth science leaves
off where surface science begins - in other words, where geology
begins. *For decades there has been a lack of communication, some even
say a disdain for each other, between the two fields.

As geologist Christopher Scotese at the University of Texas explains
it, geophysicists have always had the upper hand in terms of making
models and amassing numbers. *Theirs was the dominant field so there
has been resentment as a result of that. *The main reason however is
that each group has defined itself and its work in a certain way and
each has continued along that path. *Geologists and geophysicists
rarely go to the same meetings or collaborate on the same
problems.

Geologists have all grown up believing that the rocks tell a story.
The layers upon layers of stone are all laid down in a specific
sequence, and those who know how to read that sequence can read the
story of a region - when uplift took place, when volcanoes loosed
their contents. *Geophysicists on the other hand have become so
specialised in the subfield that few of them know how to read
geologists' maps or understand the subtleties of strata. *This
parochialism leads many geologists to believe that without the hard
evidence geophysicists are missing a big piece of the Earth's story."

(Shawna Vogel, 'Naked Earth, the new Geophysics, p.139, Dutton,
Penguin Books, 217pps.)
Shawna Vogel holds a B.S. from MIT, where she was awarded the
prestigtious Knight Science Journalism Fellowship. *A former editor at
Discover magazine, she writes for various popular science magazines,
including Scientific American, Earth, and Discover.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...tetrouble.html
-------------------------------------------------

All this geological hand-wringing,my goodness,I think it has a lot to
do with the inability to perceive the consequences of the rotating
viscous interior and its effects on the fractured surface crust,both
interior and exterior combine geologically to form the word 'Earth'.

oriel36 wrote:

On Dec 9, 4:04�pm, don findlay wrote:
This lady, politely, is telling only half the story:-

" � Even with advances in the field, however, crucial pieces of
information are missing, especially in these studies of the Earth's
surface. �One of the main reasons is that geophysicists have been
strangers to the field of geology for such a long time. �In many
researcher's minds, and for obvious reasons, deep Earth science leaves
off where surface science begins - in other words, where geology
begins. �For decades there has been a lack of communication, some even
say a disdain for each other, between the two fields.

As geologist Christopher Scotese at the University of Texas explains
it, geophysicists have always had the upper hand in terms of making
models and amassing numbers. �Theirs was the dominant field so there
has been resentment as a result of that. �The main reason however is
that each group has defined itself and its work in a certain way and
each has continued along that path. �Geologists and geophysicists
rarely go to the same meetings or collaborate on the same
problems.

Geologists have all grown up believing that the rocks tell a story.
The layers upon layers of stone are all laid down in a specific
sequence, and those who know how to read that sequence can read the
story of a region - when uplift took place, when volcanoes loosed
their contents. �Geophysicists on the other hand have become so
specialised in the subfield that few of them know how to read
geologists' maps or understand the subtleties of strata. �This
parochialism leads many geologists to believe that without the hard
evidence geophysicists are missing a big piece of the Earth's story."

(Shawna Vogel, 'Naked Earth, the new Geophysics, p.139, Dutton,
Penguin Books, 217pps.)
Shawna Vogel holds a B.S. from MIT, where she was awarded the
prestigtious Knight Science Journalism Fellowship. �A former editor at
Discover magazine, she writes for various popular science magazines,
including Scientific American, Earth, and Discover.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...tetrouble.html
-------------------------------------------------

All this geological hand-wringing,my goodness,I think it has a lot to
do with the inability to perceive the consequences of the rotating
viscous interior and its effects on the fractured surface crust,both
interior and exterior combine geologically to form the word 'Earth'.

No it's just talking about geophysicists not having a geological clue
as Stuart, the definitive geophysical net-cop, has definitely shown.
If he did. We wouldn't be here.

On Dec 9, 6:04*pm, don findlay wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 9, 4:04 pm, don findlay wrote:
This lady, politely, is telling only half the story:-

" Even with advances in the field, however, crucial pieces of
information are missing, especially in these studies of the Earth's
surface. One of the main reasons is that geophysicists have been
strangers to the field of geology for such a long time. In many
researcher's minds, and for obvious reasons, deep Earth science leaves
off where surface science begins - in other words, where geology
begins. For decades there has been a lack of communication, some even
say a disdain for each other, between the two fields.

As geologist Christopher Scotese at the University of Texas explains
it, geophysicists have always had the upper hand in terms of making
models and amassing numbers. Theirs was the dominant field so there
has been resentment as a result of that. The main reason however is
that each group has defined itself and its work in a certain way and
each has continued along that path. Geologists and geophysicists
rarely go to the same meetings or collaborate on the same
problems.

Geologists have all grown up believing that the rocks tell a story.
The layers upon layers of stone are all laid down in a specific
sequence, and those who know how to read that sequence can read the
story of a region - when uplift took place, when volcanoes loosed
their contents. Geophysicists on the other hand have become so
specialised in the subfield that few of them know how to read
geologists' maps or understand the subtleties of strata. This
parochialism leads many geologists to believe that without the hard
evidence geophysicists are missing a big piece of the Earth's story."

(Shawna Vogel, 'Naked Earth, the new Geophysics, p.139, Dutton,
Penguin Books, 217pps.)
Shawna Vogel holds a B.S. from MIT, where she was awarded the
prestigtious Knight Science Journalism Fellowship. A former editor at
Discover magazine, she writes for various popular science magazines,
including Scientific American, Earth, and Discover.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...tetrouble.html
-------------------------------------------------

All this geological *hand-wringing,my goodness,I think it has a lot to
do with the inability to perceive the consequences of *the rotating
viscous interior and its effects on the fractured surface crust,both
interior and exterior combine geologically to form the word 'Earth'.

No it's just talking about geophysicists not having a geological clue
as Stuart, the definitive geophysical net-cop, has definitely shown.
If he did. *We wouldn't be here.

There are many who make themselves feel better at your expense insofar
as you believe in an expanding Earth and look to surface correlations
to achieve that conceptual objective but as far as I can tell you have
reached an objective of sorts by exposing the weakness of the
'convection cell' mechanism underlying crustal evolution and motion,in
some small way it is a victory for you whether you know it or not.

It is no surprise that people who present themselves as dynamicists or
geophysicists never discuss dynamics and specifically rotational
dynamics of the Earth in both the shape of the planet due to the
rotation of the viscous interior and the simultaneous effect of that
rotation on surface crustal dynamics.My agenda only handles a rotating
Earth and its consequences so rather than challenge the 'convection
cell' proponents it is much easier to just enjoy the outlines of a new
approach where the motions of the Earth mesh with planetary shape and
surfaces features.I would like to see things move faster but maybe
all that exists are those who are not capable of handling planetary
dynamics or who find it productive to argue against ee or for
'convection cells'.

oriel36 wrote:

On Dec 9, 6:04�pm, don findlay wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 9, 4:04 pm, don findlay wrote:
This lady, politely, is telling only half the story:-

" Even with advances in the field, however, crucial pieces of
information are missing, especially in these studies of the Earth's
surface. One of the main reasons is that geophysicists have been
strangers to the field of geology for such a long time. In many
researcher's minds, and for obvious reasons, deep Earth science leaves
off where surface science begins - in other words, where geology
begins. For decades there has been a lack of communication, some even
say a disdain for each other, between the two fields.

As geologist Christopher Scotese at the University of Texas explains
it, geophysicists have always had the upper hand in terms of making
models and amassing numbers. Theirs was the dominant field so there
has been resentment as a result of that. The main reason however is
that each group has defined itself and its work in a certain way and
each has continued along that path. Geologists and geophysicists
rarely go to the same meetings or collaborate on the same
problems.

Geologists have all grown up believing that the rocks tell a story.
The layers upon layers of stone are all laid down in a specific
sequence, and those who know how to read that sequence can read the
story of a region - when uplift took place, when volcanoes loosed
their contents. Geophysicists on the other hand have become so
specialised in the subfield that few of them know how to read
geologists' maps or understand the subtleties of strata. This
parochialism leads many geologists to believe that without the hard
evidence geophysicists are missing a big piece of the Earth's story.."

(Shawna Vogel, 'Naked Earth, the new Geophysics, p.139, Dutton,
Penguin Books, 217pps.)
Shawna Vogel holds a B.S. from MIT, where she was awarded the
prestigtious Knight Science Journalism Fellowship. A former editor at
Discover magazine, she writes for various popular science magazines,
including Scientific American, Earth, and Discover.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...tetrouble.html
-------------------------------------------------

All this geological �hand-wringing,my goodness,I think it has a lot to
do with the inability to perceive the consequences of �the rotating
viscous interior and its effects on the fractured surface crust,both
interior and exterior combine geologically to form the word 'Earth'.

No it's just talking about geophysicists not having a geological clue
as Stuart, the definitive geophysical net-cop, has definitely shown.
If he did. �We wouldn't be here.

There are many who make themselves feel better at your expense insofar
as you believe in an expanding Earth and look to surface correlations
to achieve that conceptual objective but as far as I can tell you have
reached an objective of sorts by exposing the weakness of the
'convection cell' mechanism underlying crustal evolution and motion,in
some small way it is a victory for you whether you know it or not.

It is no surprise that people who present themselves as dynamicists or
geophysicists never discuss dynamics and specifically rotational
dynamics of the Earth in both the shape of the planet due to the
rotation of the viscous interior and the simultaneous effect of that
rotation on surface crustal dynamics.My agenda only handles a rotating
Earth and its consequences so rather than challenge the 'convection
cell' proponents it is much easier to just enjoy the outlines of a new
approach where the motions of the Earth mesh with planetary shape and
surfaces features.I would like to see things move faster but maybe
all that exists are those who are not capable of handling planetary
dynamics or who find it productive to argue against ee or for
'convection cells'.

The Consensus Science of Plate Tectonics is not interested in things
moving *at all*, much less faster. It suits most people very well if
things stay just exactly the way they are.

On Dec 9, 5:02 pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 9, 4:04 pm, don findlay wrote:



This lady, politely, is telling only half the story:-

" Even with advances in the field, however, crucial pieces of
information are missing, especially in these studies of the Earth's
surface. One of the main reasons is that geophysicists have been
strangers to the field of geology for such a long time. In many
researcher's minds, and for obvious reasons, deep Earth science leaves
off where surface science begins - in other words, where geology
begins. For decades there has been a lack of communication, some even
say a disdain for each other, between the two fields.

As geologist Christopher Scotese at the University of Texas explains
it, geophysicists have always had the upper hand in terms of making
models and amassing numbers. Theirs was the dominant field so there
has been resentment as a result of that. The main reason however is
that each group has defined itself and its work in a certain way and
each has continued along that path. Geologists and geophysicists
rarely go to the same meetings or collaborate on the same
problems.

Geologists have all grown up believing that the rocks tell a story.
The layers upon layers of stone are all laid down in a specific
sequence, and those who know how to read that sequence can read the
story of a region - when uplift took place, when volcanoes loosed
their contents. Geophysicists on the other hand have become so
specialised in the subfield that few of them know how to read
geologists' maps or understand the subtleties of strata. This
parochialism leads many geologists to believe that without the hard
evidence geophysicists are missing a big piece of the Earth's story."

(Shawna Vogel, 'Naked Earth, the new Geophysics, p.139, Dutton,
Penguin Books, 217pps.)
Shawna Vogel holds a B.S. from MIT, where she was awarded the
prestigtious Knight Science Journalism Fellowship. A former editor at
Discover magazine, she writes for various popular science magazines,
including Scientific American, Earth, and Discover.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...tetrouble.html
-------------------------------------------------

All this geological hand-wringing,my goodness,I think it has a lot to
do with the inability to perceive the consequences of the rotating
viscous interior and its effects on the fractured surface crust,both
interior and exterior combine geologically to form the word 'Earth'.

Earth is after all 98.5% fluid, and continually receiving 2e20 N/s of
tidal force by way of holding onto our Selene/moon.

~ BG

don findlay wrote:
[snip]

Unless your facts-in-evidence chronic psychosis has empirical support,
it's crap. Are you the git who spews the Flintstones comported with
dinosaurs, or the git who spews the Earth is forever expanding, or the
git who spews the Earth is hollow, or the git who spews Australia is a
jabberwocky, or the git who spews...

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Uncle Al wrote:

don findlay wrote:
[snip]

Unless your facts-in-evidence chronic psychosis has empirical support,
it's crap. Are you the git who spews the Flintstones comported with
dinosaurs, or the git who spews the Earth is forever expanding, or the
git who spews the Earth is hollow, or the git who spews Australia is a
jabberwocky, or the git who spews...

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Wrong, mate. You're the toxic git who spews... So do something
simply super and **** off.

don findlay wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:

don findlay wrote:
[snip]

Unless your facts-in-evidence chronic psychosis has empirical support,
it's crap. Are you the git who spews the Flintstones comported with
dinosaurs, or the git who spews the Earth is forever expanding, or the
git who spews the Earth is hollow, or the git who spews Australia is a
jabberwocky, or the git who spews...

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Wrong, mate. You're the toxic git who spews... So do something
simply super and **** off.

Uncle Al is intolerant of stupidity and those who are proud of it.
Ignorance is not a form of knowing things.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Dec 9, 4:04 pm, don findlay wrote:
This lady, politely, is telling only half the story:-

" Even with advances in the field, however, crucial pieces of
information are missing, especially in these studies of the Earth's
surface. One of the main reasons is that geophysicists have been
strangers to the field of geology for such a long time. In many
researcher's minds, and for obvious reasons, deep Earth science leaves
off where surface science begins - in other words, where geology
begins. For decades there has been a lack of communication, some even
say a disdain for each other, between the two fields.

As geologist Christopher Scotese at the University of Texas explains
it, geophysicists have always had the upper hand in terms of making
models and amassing numbers. Theirs was the dominant field so there
has been resentment as a result of that. The main reason however is
that each group has defined itself and its work in a certain way and
each has continued along that path. Geologists and geophysicists
rarely go to the same meetings or collaborate on the same
problems.

Geologists have all grown up believing that the rocks tell a story.
The layers upon layers of stone are all laid down in a specific
sequence, and those who know how to read that sequence can read the
story of a region - when uplift took place, when volcanoes loosed
their contents. Geophysicists on the other hand have become so
specialised in the subfield that few of them know how to read
geologists' maps or understand the subtleties of strata. This
parochialism leads many geologists to believe that without the hard
evidence geophysicists are missing a big piece of the Earth's story."

(Shawna Vogel, 'Naked Earth, the new Geophysics, p.139, Dutton,
Penguin Books, 217pps.)
Shawna Vogel holds a B.S. from MIT, where she was awarded the
prestigtious Knight Science Journalism Fellowship. A former editor at
Discover magazine, she writes for various popular science magazines,
including Scientific American, Earth, and Discover.http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonse...tetrouble.html
-------------------------------------------------

What Plate Tectonics? (you mean Selene driven crust tectonics and
otherwise global heating)

Remove 2e20 N/s of tidal radius force, then see what crust moves,
reshapes and otherwise of what environment starts freezing up.

~ BG