Re: Don's blog

From: don findlay (don_at_tower.net.au)
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: 18 Jul 2004 18:46:55 -0700

"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message news:<40f92324$0$209$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>...
> "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:5f164087.0407160741.5be70e4e@posting.google.com...
> > "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:<40f66bfe$0$213$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
> > > "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > news:5f164087.0407141919.54ab44ca@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:<40f1359a$0$161$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
> > > > > I've started out with two comments *1) and *2) that favorably can be
> read in
> > > > > ordered succession before
> > > > >
 
> The large scale may equel or not, give a shrink or an expanse.
> I have pointed out elsewhere that expanse has all the reason for showing in
> separating the already loosely connected strips of plate, and appear in the
> magnetic signature.

Do you mean you would expect to see transforms dilated? (and have this
show in the magnetics)?

> > > > The magnetics of the ocean floor are a fact. Yes, the
> > > > detail in the gravity suggests the contouring could propably do with a
> > > > complete overhaul
> > >
> > > like physics
> >
> > I do believe there is an opinion so. But physics 'works' (mostly),
> > ... you know, 24 hours a day (without maintenance). (If it ain't
> > broke, don't fix it.)
> >
>
> It seems as if a big-bang has been underway for some time. In the heart of
> our planet.

Slow/ controlled 'explosion' ? Yes.. that is how it seems to me.

> > Yes, but you didn't state what your calculation was trying to show,
> > whether coriolis could or couldn't work, or whether it was a valid
> > consideration in the first place. You didn't make clear where you
> > were coming from. Are you 'glass' or 'mirror'?
> >
>
> If you don't know what I talk about, you prove that your first 'rule' of EE
> is byond your comprehension.

(This is wife-talk.) Don't be such a 'George' State your position
clearly. C'mon, ...'science'.

> > > > > It's difficult to imagine that some differentiated movement or
> growth of
> > > > > ocean plates
> > > > > has not happened, but it's byond me why it should be in any contrast
> to
> PT.
> > > > > To take it as the main 'proof' of EE is ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > The main proof of Earth Expansion lies in the deficit that plate
> > > > tectonics ignores - Along-ridge spreading.
> > >
> > > That, inspite of your insurance, does not manifest itself in the
> magnetic
> > > contours.
> >
> > By definition it must.
>
> It does not.

You need to answer the above question first, about whether you think
transforms are dilated or not, before you can be so sure.

> > (Growth does not take place in the
> > transforms). It is however implied in the orthogonal 'network' of
> > ocean floor gravity.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Plate tectonics recognises
> > > > the extra length of the ridges relative to the continental margins,
> > > > but cannot accommodate it in its model ("propagating ridges" "ridge
> > > > propagation").
> > >
> > > You use the PT model of propagation. There is no hint of expansion in
> it.
> >
> > No, I don't. I used the plate tectonic words as reflections in the
> > mirror. The ridges don't 'propagate' from their ends; they get
> > bigger in the middle, and finally break in the middle.
>
> This is close to fraud. One whole splitting up in two halves is not 'growth
> by cell-division', it's just division.

The cells enlarge from below, and split when they get too big
according to the strength of the material, which can be either due to
length or thickness (or both)

> The oceanic crust is thin at the
> transforms and would expand to enlarge the surface of the earth, if this is
> growing. It does not. If it did, it would be visible in the magnetic
> signature.

Not following you, if you are saying differently from this:- "the
ocean floors have grown, and that growth is manifest in the magnetic
signature". Your defense is 'subduction', based on your unwarranted
assumption of a Panthalassa.

> You 'see' that ridge created 'now' is cracked to accomodate a growing
> curvature that happens tomorrow. The old crust that really needs ajusting
> get no cracks.

This is a good point (but I take it you are talking about mantle
crust), and one I think is best answered by homogeneous ductile
spreading:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/size.html> coupled with
breakthrough of lower mantle in specific areas on transforms and along
old sections of ridge. Also in older sections of the Western Pacific
the Palimsests seem to be related to flat (torsional) detachments -
which would also answer your point. about old crust adjusting.

> That you put faith in the inverted order enough to make it a
> 'proof' that expansion is ... as you express in the most positive term ...
> counterintuitive.
> If rule number 1, 2 or 3 is not understandable then you have no bricks to
> build with.

"Faith"? Rule 1, 2, 3? (rule?)

> > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/transpropind.html> And yes there
> > is expansion in it. But read any of the popular sites on plate
> > tectonics and you will find no mention of it. Because this is one of
> > those 'splintery knobbly bits' that refuse to fit, that is an area
> > requiring "more research". Pteros can't accommodate their own
> > observation in their own model. (Oh so the model needs shifting; we
> > can be even cleverer if we show how)
> >
> >
> > > > But you won't find much explanation how to accommodate
> > > > it in the cycle of ridge - subduction. Look at the difference in
> > > > length of the ridges compared to their continental equivalents. Of
> > > > course the ridges have grown along their length. The architecture of
> > > > that growth is shown in the stepped offsetting of ridge terminations
> > > > (ignored in plate tectonics), which proves the direction of growth is
> > > > **RIDGE-AWAY-FROM-THE-CONTINENTS**
> > >
> > > You fail to deliver logic.
> >
> > It's a simple observation that the African 'plate' margin is bigger
> > around its perimeter than the African continental margin, and I'll
> > agree a modicum of logic is required to infer that they were once one
> > and the same thing. But I wouldn't have thought it much. Are you
> > saying it's not a logical inference?
>
> I get what you mean. There is no subduction around the plate, so one can see
> it as the ridge growing away from the continent. There is nothing in the
> structure itself that convey this logic.

"Nothing in the structure that conveys the logic"? Of course there
is - its length, just as I've pointed out - the difference in ridge
length from continental-margin length. Surely you don't mean to say
you would go so far as ignore the difference between its size now, and
the size it used to be? But I guess if you did you would have plenty
of company. The difference forces the logic in favour of earth
expansion, whilst simultaneously amputating the plate tectonic option.
  Nothing in what structure? The ridge? If you're saying that then
your missing the point, which is the 'miss' plate tectonics makes all
the time. You can't interpret the bigger picture from one element.
It has to be done on the larger scale pattern of as many elements as
you can get.

> > > Your local growing mountain doesn't seem to have a welldefined sharp
> ridge.
> >
> > Do you mean Plate tectonics' sharp ridge is sharper than Earth
> > expansion's sharp ridge? (Same ridge.)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Not the other way round. [Plate
> > > > tectonics glosses over this as merely a question of relativism, but
> > > > it's not] And the only way this can happen is if the ridges move up
> > > > - and keep moving up - that ridge, which at any snapshot in time
> > > > shows, is a ridge - is moving up. UP. What's ridiculous about it
> > > > Carsten? It's obvious: Ridge. *UP* actually means 'up'. Why do you
> > > > want to keep shoving it sideways
> > >
> > > And it is the mantle that slides sideways? You do recognize that the
> globe
> > > is not 200 km high at the spreading zone.
> >
> > You don't do it justice Carsten, it's more like 2,000km. (But gravity
> > is a wonderful thing). Look, ..you're happy enough to use gravity as
> > a means to buoyancy, why are you not happy to use its effect directly?
>
> Why don't you? Letting the globe swell by changing petrological fases would
> create density-light matter that pop to to the surface through boyancy. This
> is not happening. The change of fase would be the have to be something like
> swapping a volume with density 11 into two volumes of 5,5 at the core/mantle
> boundary. Doubling the radius would give your early globe a surface-gravity
> four times the present and a severe change in speed of rotation. Letting
> matter appear like in 'big-bang' would make the globe heavy enough either to
> 'fall into the sun', or, if the matter is 'born' with an initial velocity,
> just lets momentum swel in the same pace. Where is Oriel if momentum isn't
> constant?

You'd do better sticking to the point. Don't dodge. We've got one
table-dancer on this ng already, and believe me Carsten you'd swear
he's got *eight* legs. ...the mass density angular momentum problems
have been gone through many times. The question was to do with the
2000km 'spike' of ridge growth that has to be accommodated by
gravitational correction, and how this is manifested in the ocean
floors, and why, if you are happy to use density-as-buoyancy, you are
not happy to use it for gravitational correction to keep the Earth a
(sort of) sphere. What's your answer?

>
> > And you talk about coriolis, why are you not happy to use rotation
> > directly? What is it about this ridge that keeps moving up, that you
> > want to be keep turning it through 90 degrees?
>
> You wave the word 'torsion' and 'twist' around as primery constituents of
> your construction - the clue to understand expansion. Since you cannot apply
> these in any attempt to describe the mechanics, you lost your case.

I wouldn't have thought it necessary: it's opening your eyes every
time you wake up in the morning. Each day that dawns documents the
mechanics. The Earth's rotational evolution that shifted the south
pole from the centre of Africa to where it is at the present day
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html> (You're taking
absolutely nothing of this in at all, are you?)

> > You didn't answer
> > either what all these "dykes intruding the ridge" are supposed to be
> > feeding. What about it? How do you see it?
>
> Do you ask becourse you do not know the PT answer?
> There is a picture of it at Fowler's 'The solid earth' pg 287.

Well, I'll try and catch up with the picture, ..in the meantime you
could answer the question as you see it - how all these dykes are
manifest on the ocean floors and what they're supposed to be feeding.
Billions upon billions of them, about 10cm thick, over time, ...and
how they relate to the +ve -ve of magnetic striping and the rodding
known as 'abyssal hills'. (Magic).

 
> > > If an expanding earth is covering one third of the surface of the globe
> by a
> > > diapire ... how is it related to the local diapire at 'the ridge'?
> >
> > Well, it grows, grows, ..keeps growing,
>
> Up, according to you
>
> > ..to make that big circular
> > thing called the Pacific.
>
> Horizontal expanse of an area not logically connected to upward growth.
> A petrologic fase-change would focus negative gravity anomalies in the area
> and the geoide lie low enough to lift the area well out of the water. The
> reverse seems to be more pronounsed.

Why have you started talking about phase change? And where did the
Coriolis go?

> > If subduction worked the way you want, the
> > Pacific would never open. Nor would the Atlantic. Nor the Indian/
> > antarctic oceans. As soon as opening cranks up, subduction would
> > accommodate it. So, ...now,.. you explain your logic
> > (of Panthalassic
> > proportions). (And leave out the hocus pocus of intuition.)
> > (Gotcha!)
>
> You want it from 'Adam and Eve' and forward?
> It initially started out as 'oceanic plate' and grew continents.

Oceanic plate, ..with no continental crust? No primordial continental
crustal differentiate? (You do say in your post to Oriel that " It's
after all this differentiation that has made the continents
possible"). Basalts that stuck out of the water to be eroded to give
sediments that would presumably 'pool' over a subduction zone, and
have more greywacke-type sediments plastered on them? Not just the
odd volcanoe sticking out of the water here and there, but continental
sized areas of basalt sticking out of the water? But the Archean
greenstone belts sit on granitic 'crust', and the Archaean sequences
are full of arkoses and granitic conglomerates that underly greenstone
successions. Greywackes are not common till the Early Palaeozoic, and
in between there is the Proterozoic, again with more arenaceous
sequences - and Banded Irons and shales. Greywackes?..?? Basalts
getting eroded? NOt a lot.

> Not the
> other way round as you suggest. How does EE explain continents anyway? You
> never left a reference to that, and that's after all the primary concern for
> a lot of geologists.

Differentiation/ formation of the Earth into a core mantle and a
crust - from the heat of planetisimal accretion (with nothing left
over to drive its deformation), would be the madatory position of
yore, but with the recognition of expansion I'm not sure about that. A
lot of things are up for reinterpretation. Empirically a granitoid
crust (such as exists on the Moon) would appear to be mandatory.
Breaking this up makes continents.

> > > Should I spend money on getting it, to convert you?
> > > Why don't you end the discussion by providing a deep seismic section
> that
> > > shows the lack of it.
> >
> > Well I could repeat the link you posted with the section of the
> > Kuriles, showing how it all turns flat (instead of bending down), but
> > I think the tomography shows it generally.
>
> If you defy tomography, then be consequent about it.
>
> > Goodness, it's (the
> > so-called subduction zone) it's only defining the edge of the
> > lithosphere, ...which is regarded as basically 'crustal' How is
> > that proof of "bending down into the mantle"? The 'ghost droppers'
> > you see are simply bits that get left behind in the growth -
> > 'palimpsests' - like in two dimensions a ridge is a palimpsest of a
> > continental margin.
>
> Subduction or override, the tomography shows the phenomenon to be very
> extensive.
>
> > > > In fact the reflectors actually rise into
> > > > the overthrust.
> > >
> > > You should use a real pointer.
> >
> > No,
>
> I do not know what you talk about, that's why you should use a pointer.
>
> > ..if you want to illustrate subduction you should use something
> > that shows bending down, not something that shows overriding (or
> > bending under).
>
> Don, if EE has anything, the crust would come up from beneath. It does the
> reverse.

The oceanic (mantle) crust shows multiple breakthroughs. Globally
speaking the continental crust seems always to have sat on the top of
the mantle. So what do you mean?

> > I don;'t want to illustrate subduction. I want to
> > illustrate overriding, and the sections you have posted thus far of
> > the cocos, himalyas and kuriles all illustrate it nicely.
> >
> >
> > > A collaps and slush off that does not reveal the 'real thing' beneath
> >
> > 'real thing' = the Pacific. What do you mean it is "not revealed"?
>
> The Asian continent 'slushes in' over the Pacific as it skid down a none
> existing gradient, and in absens of not being where it just left, should
> reveal considerable stretches of 'upward grown earth' open to public view.
> Since stacking and folding, which you acknowledge, contributes to the area
> of 'lain bare', this area should be very considerable and not have the
> location of 'slushed off' matter as it's primary location.
> Have I made myself clear enough?

Sort of. But you do leave me wondering what you must be making of my
pictures. It's the other way round (as always) The Pacific has
sloped *out from under* the Himalayas (so the H. don't have so far to
go - crustally speaking).. After doing the collapsing 'marginal slip'
(stacking and folding) thing, they just settle down again. It's the
difference between 'moving' and 'growing'. (continental crust moves;
mantle grows) (towards the ridge) (and up). By the way, the gradient
is doing its level best to get back to horizontal/ flat/ sea-level.

> > > > ('settling') against the continent. The real
> > > > global motion
> > >
> > > According to what mechanical principles?
> >
> > The rotation of the Earth. I don't rightly know what physical
> > principle this reflects. Some would say conservation of angular
> > momentum of planetisimal accretion (but I find that difficult)
>
> You take it as your primary proof of expansion. Shouldn't your lack of
> understanding it prevent you from using it as such? Have you forgot ... you
> are trying to show us all the logic behing EE, and you get stuck in your
> first sentence!

No, you have it wrong. As primary proof I take the torsional GEOMETRY
of aggregate architecture of transforms as the 'proof' ('support'
would be a better word). I agree I've been a bit sloppy in
abbreviating this simply to 'torsion', but I wouldn't have thought I
would have met anyone this picky. I don't know what's causing the
Earth to rotate. I might be completely wrong in relating the
torsional growth of the planet to the sorts of changes in the Earth's
rotation that have moved central Africa from the Pole to whre it is
now <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/re/christmas.html> (but I don't
think so). And in any case it doesn't matter, mechanism is not the
issue. . The two bits of GEOMETRY (transforms and ocean floors) go
hand in hand as regards ENLARGEMENT. Sure, we can argue (or others
can - leave me out of it) about the dynamics and the cause. I stick
with the empirical observation.

> > > > All I hope I'm doing is helping people to look at things a bit
> > > > differently. To 'see it'.
> > >
> > > You managed to provide a vision that the world is screwed up.
> >
> > No no no no, ..Just Pteros that are screwed up... The world is
> > behaving exactly as it should.
>
> You made a drawing of the globe, not of a pterorist.
>
> > > And still ignore that structural activity is focussed in spreading and
> > > subduction zones.
> >
> > I don;'t know why you keep saying this. My whole site is all about
> > how spreading ridges and subduction zones and transforms form. Do
> > the google search and see if you don't believe me (google believes me)
> >
> >
> > > The 'slush off' is very active and should be accompanied
> > > by an equel activity of 'upward growing' and reveal considerable
> stretches
> > > of exposed mantle or 'grown up stuff' that, unfortunately to your
> theory,
> > > does not exist.
> >
> > No the "slush-off" is dead; kaput (mostly), left behind.
>
> No, it's actively happening as Asia is busy 'overriding' the oceanic crust

I did say "mostly". You're talking of the whispering tumbleweed of
GPS, now that the 'longitudinal' element dominates. Pacific dilation
was rather more agressively latitudinal (finger exercise).

 
> > (mountain
> > belts on the continents that are now being worn away) According to
> > my "theory" (it's not a theory, it's a fact) the 'upward growing' is
> > the ocean floors.
> > Why do you keep inverting this? What is it about
> > what I;'m saying that is going past you?
>
> Becourse you adress the Himalayns, the 'roof of the world' as the center of
> the rise of the pacific diapire.

Both are centres - laterally displaced on 'flats'. So is the
Indonesian 'wheel'
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/diapirdisc.html> The 'Pacific' was
once co-centric with the red, yellow and white in the figure too.
(Mindboggling? It's not the half of it)

> > What you see is what you
> > get. It's simple. Ridges, growth, ocean floors, ... You have to
> > believe the evidence of your own eyes before you accept your
> > 'intuition'
>
> I used my intuition to accept a linear sidewards growth from the
> spreadingridge though the line is not straight. That's as far as I have
> applied my intuition on behalf of a more rigid deduction.

Och, ...Man, ... (Here, ...have a swig o' this...) (We haven't far to
go...) And what did your intuition tell you about things like the
difference in length between the ridges and continental margin around
Africa, for example?

> > > > J.F Moyen set me straight long ago on the plate tectonics' view of
> > > > convection cells vitually in reply to my first post. He put it in
> > > > capital letters with marching ants "CONVECTING CELLS DON'T EXIST".
> > > > (Stuart had something to say about that - I forget what)
> > >
> > > There is several points to "J.F Moyen" on a google. Does he have an
> english
> > > one dealing with the problem?
> >
> > (I thought you would google up the "convecting cells don't exist") (my
> > intuition got screwed up) Try here:-
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%40lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dmoyen%2Bconvection%2Bexist%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D1fk1uts.1tspplcjg8dmoN%2540lap-moyen.univ-lyon1.fr%26rnum%3D1
> >
>
> He doesn't seem to have any issues with PT.

What? you mean chucking out convection cells wasn't an issue? It sure
got Stu jumping in. (On second thoughts, spit that mouthful out.
Looks like you're going to need every ounce of concentration for the
rest of the journey.)

> > > > > use straight physics all
> > > > > the way from condensation (cooling) of our solarsystem over
> surfacegeology
> > > > > to a few inferences of the obvious principle (cooling) by geophysics
> > > > > (seismics and tomography).
> > > >
> > > > And DAH's recent post on the fundamentals of physics puts that in its
> > > > place right away.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It occurs to me that you start out with a principle of expansion,
> > > >
> > > > You won't believe this, but I started out with the connection between
> > > > mountain belts and boudinage. Mind you, I've modified/ adapted things
> > > > along the way, but it has proved a good working template. ( Takes you
> > > > in only one direction though.) I mean by that I'm not following any
> > > > 'creed' of anyone else's. Expansion is the way that global geology
> > > > makes sense to me, and all the sheckels are still tumbling out. It's
> > > > a fascinating thing, this difference between opposite sides of the
> > > > glass, that you'd swear should be transparent, but isn't.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > put your
> > > > > main observations on tomography and explain surfacegeology from
> there
> with
> > > > > the addition of mechanical functions who's details you omit.
> > > > > I don't see anywhere that you involve factual surfacegeology except
> for
> the
> > > > > oceanic-plate maps, so look at *2).
> > > >
> > > > I think I do, with a broad brush.
> > >
> > > PT stacks crust through compression.
> >
> > So does Earth Expansion, but there is a significant difference. Plate
> > tectonics sees vertical lift as a RESULT of the compression; Earth
> > expansion sees it as the CAUSE of compression.
>
> Expansion is an expression of pressure-release,

Is it? Then you know something I don't (but JPT does)

> so stating that it's a cause
> of compression contradicts your principle. As I said before, you cannot make
> a metamorphic compression by adding matter from below. That is, if you want
> to involve the above matter into the metamorphism.

Not at all. I meant compression as in what happens when your condo
falls on you. Simple. Not fancy. vertical lift causes compression
when things fall over.

> > Now just think: which
> > is the more economical in terms of what you know about geology?
> > Plate tectonics: exactly aligned compression; half a world of travel:
> > convective overturn; Asymmetrical uplift (e.g. India goes down;
> > himalayas up; why isn't it symmetrical?) etc etc
>
> I'm sure that the world contains a lot of geology that I have not payed
> attention to.

Ah, ... so you haven't thought about plate tectonics before now....

> > And importantly -
> > IGNORES TORSIONAL
> > ADJUSTMENTS
> > Earth expansion: uplift in situ; collapse in situ; torsional
> > adjustment <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion.html>
>
> Have I put my point on you and torsion clear enough?

No, not really. You have made clear about your doubts as to
mechanism, but have not yet said whether you accept the ARCHITECTURE
OF GROWTH (leaving 'mechanism' aside). My point is, if you accept
the *GEOMETRY* that is displayed there, then the exercise of
retrofititing forces a *CONCLUSION* of planetary growth. Mechanism
is left entirely aside as something consequential to be argued about.
 But the enlargment of the planet is itself not in question. If you
accept the *GEOMETRY* then you have to accommodate it into the model
of plate tectonics, and plate tectonics doesn't do that. If it did,
it would abandon subduction. That's what I mean about a "lay-down
misere". I'm just doing the fun bit of the shortcut, but obviously
the documentation of the detail needs much more. There's a century
of work in it - for an army of people too. That abstract JT posted a
while back from Arizona about a "new paradigm" based on a "necklace"
of transforms, hints at it, but I think they don't realise where it's
leading them. I can hardly believe (but it seems to be true) that at
the same time as recognising Euler Poles, people have left out the
larger picture of this consequence. That much is really puzzling.
And just as puzzling is that in consideration of this 'torsion'
no-one has raised the issue either of Euler poles (pivots of
rotation), or abyssal hills as the expression of ridge-growth that
relate to that. Instead it's all the 'George' of the past - about
dykes dykes and more dykes... Those scarps and the + - + - magnetic
expression, define mantle layering. Scarps are scarps. If it was
the crust it would be Basin and Range (sort of), except it's in the
mantle. I see nothing 'puzzling' about abyssal hills, not even why
plate tectonics can't accommodate them. It's model of 'ridge-push' or
contraction (and therefore age dates of the ocean floors) simply
can't.

> > > You have not applied factual geology to
> > > your model of this.
> >
> > I think I have / am
>
> Yes, considering the oceanfloor. And your result is counterintuitive.
> You have not used/added continental geology data and compared it to your
> model.

("..The last current bed in the last riverbank...") ('Armies')

> > > > The detail, which I think is what
> > > > you want, is the domain of armies, and decades. What we're doing
> > > > here, geologically speaking, is pressing the reset button.
> > > > But as
> > > > you can see, there are no marks for doing it, when the machine is
> > > > working nicely, and smoothly, 24 hours a day, with no maintenance
> > > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > > I have been involved in reconstruction
> > > > > of palaeogeology and it's second to impossible to get reliable
> results
> (in a
> > > > > regional area) unless you are a pro. Noone can blame you for putting
> a
> > > > > question to it. But from there to offer your own plan that reverses
> most
> > > > > known physics brings you nowhere.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if it reverses physics. DAH had a comment about first
> > > > principles on that score <refe4ence> and I must say, mostly I just see
> > > > mystery, in all the stuff they claim as 'understanding'.
> > >
> > > So do I. That's a good start for learning geology.
> >
> > Nah, ..you have a guru Carsten, somewhere, hidden.. (Though it's not
> > stuart I'll grant you that.) You've blotted your copybook, talking to
> > me, you know. ( Trouble with gurus teaching you, you don't get to
> > make mistakes.)
>
> I took a turn with Ed too.

Oh, .. ho, .. ho ho... ( Roast Brave Youth indeed.)

> > > > > You have no chance anywere to explain your principle of expansion
> without
> > > > > hitting a malstroem of absurdities. IMO.
> > > >
> > > > 200%. This is exactly in the nature of paradigm change
> > >
> > > Find something solid for your paradigmeshift.
> >
> > Aww, Carsten, ...I thought I'd made it clear by now paradigm shifts
> > aren't based on anything solid at all,
>
> I wasted a considerable amount of time then.

No, I don't think you have thought much about plate tectonics, But
now, ...you will never see geology/ mountain belts, ..etc the same
way again, ...guaranteed. Every fold you see will worry you, every
tract of horizontal strata that reaches beyond the horizon, and beyond
to the next, and beyond that again. NOthing will seem the same. You
wait. That you have persisted this far shows you are already
infected (the 'meme') Get out there and bend it like Beckham. (or
"in neon" ) The change is not in question - only how fast it will
happen.

> > they are based on the meme on
> > people's lips.
> > That's why Oriel feels sorry for me. In a few years,
> > all the stuff I've been saying ..nobody will know where it all came
> > from, ...and it won't matter. And by that time anyway your memory
> > will be fucked too. And it will matter even less. People will think
> > I got it all from somewhere (nobody is allowed to think anything by
> > themselves any more. Whoever flashes the biggest 'big' will get the
> > credit. What counts is right now, .. Just think of all those poor
> > buggers cowering in the dark, that are missing out on the fun of
> > showing off how dumb plate tectonics is. Or even Earth expansion (!)
> > They could make a career out of the difference between the two, and
> > save the world billions of dollars in the process that could be used
> > for something useful, like find water in Africa, stop the killing, etc
> > etc.. But no, they hang about, indignant at the notion of "academic
> > fraud" and intellectual dishonesty, and accusing the likes of me of
> > saying 'conspiracy'. They don't understand what conspiracy is, though
> > even in denial, they "bend it in neon". (Not too much flashing on
> > this ng though.)
> >
> >
> > > In other words, when you say that your model of a regional geology is
> > > better, you don't base your evaluation on achtual geological data.
> >
> > No, I mean it's a 'lay-down misere'
>
> You have no adress to factual geological data, so my point stands.
>
> > > > > > than anything plate tectonics can deliver, once you 'translate'
> all
> > > > > > the jargon about microplates, and allow for the slices of mantle
> going
> > > > > > the wrong way.
> > > > > > and the notion of "far field tectonics" bred of the
> > > > > > notion of India 'colliding with Asia and causing all the
> deformation
> > > > > > as far as the Kamchatka Peninsula. (Why, ... even pushing the
> > > > > > Kuriles over the subduction zone there....)
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not the plate that's pushing. If mantleconvection from south
> dives
> it
> > > > > could well be expected to be synchronized with an equel dive or
> orientation
> > > > > of a neighbouring convection (counterclockwise from north). My
> speculation.
> > > >
> > > > What? More speculation? You'll be suggesting *TWO* panthalassas next!
> > > > And why not. If you've got one,. why not two? (Three even). Also,
> > > > it's very economical since only the same logic is needed, not twice or
> > > > three times as much. (By which I mean that is precisely the basis of
> > > > plate tectonics - 'if' and 'could' - speculation of a Panthalassa)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > snip

Quantcast