Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST

From: Carsten Troelsgaard (carsten.troelsgaard_at_mail.dk)
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:29:27 +0200

"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5f164087.0407181747.11bc72eb@posting.google.com...
> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:<40f6dc14$0$236$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>...
>
> > > You're trying to interpret Expansion in terms of what you know about
> > > plate tectonics. Won't do. The crack is not being fed (dykes/
> > > volcanoes/ whatever else). The crack is a crack, that all. It's a
> > > growth crack. It keeps working its way down as each 'subcutaneous'
> > > mantle layer is added below- like a blade keeps slitting downwards
> > > through each new growth of skin. I don't know how extensive
> > > subcutaneous growth is, but far more than the immediate ridge. Surface
> > > moves up. Mantle layers move up and apart, crack moves down.
> >
> > You have a layered upward two-dimentional growth with a one-dimensionl
> > surfaceexpression ... and no feedersystem to support it. And a globe
that
> > trippled in volume since late mesozoic.
>
> ...a three dimensional planet, ..a whole lot of stuff that organised
> itself into a great big lump, from mass that we know is made up of
> subatomic particles (that spin like billy-O! - is that right? Do
> sub-atomic particles spin?) (and why?). Until we can answer the
> question at what point subatomic mass particles and electromagnetic
> force bow out as a property binding mass, and gravity (whatever
> *exactly* that is) kicks in, and how it all behaves under the
> pressure temperature conditions of the Earth's interior, it seems to
> me we are not in a position to even remotely broach the question of
> understanding the mass of the planet, either its aggregation and
> formation, or its deformation. To me, the accretion theory is the
> astrophysical equivalent of subduction, no more.

So far you don't relate to my objection.

> All we *can* do is
> look at the two dimensions.

The statement does not apply to the situation - looking at maps, yes.

> But that doesn't mean we should accept
> that;'s all there is. Plate tectonics is grossly inadequate,

And you are grossly inadequat of keeping focus.

> and
> doesn't work, not even by its own measure.

That you don't understand it is no measure for it's inadequacy.

> And if there's one thing
> we do learn from geology it is that *a map is a section*, and the
> Pacific and the Atlantic (with their continental margins) provide us
> (+ve -ve +ve -ve, ...and with 'palimpsests') with thousands of
> kilometres of opportunity to investgate sections down through the
> mantle that plate tectonics would forever ignore in its facile Mickey
> Mouse model (that doesn't work).

So, instead of getting to the point, you give your personal opinion. You
don't have to.

You dodge on my objection. The planet has a linear growth that expresses
itself on a sphere. It adds up in final as areal growth which you interpret
as volumetric expance. As I've pointed out, the globe is riddled with
thin-crusted transforms that are ready to take up the areal growth come by
volumetric expanse. It doesn't happen.

I notice that your account of the 'counterintuitive' order of transforms has
vanished from the other thread - or you stopped relating to the problem.

3. The stepped offsets of transform terminations by which the evolution of
the ocean floors is inscripted

Since you still has it on the menu as a main proof of EE, maybe you could
explain why it's there. After all, a counterintuitive concept cannot be
tought too often.

> (Ah yes, ...but it works for you... / "If it ain't broke don't fix
> it...." Mmm?

> Head in the sand, Carsten.

Who is speeding away from the subject?

> (I bet you've never
> thought about plate tectonics before this....)

Did you?

> > > Nothing
> > > is being added in the way plate tectonics says. The 'magnetic slices'
> > > are like a deck of cards that have been spread across the table. All
> > > this business of 'dykes' is a furphy (what are they feeding?) (and
> > > volcanoes are on transforms). And what you see as a 'jigsaw puzzle',
> > > isn't:-
> > > <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/scangist.html>

Relevant Pages

  • They verified a wrong theory
    ... Special relativity Lorentz transforms do not describe anything real. ... Put the velocity dependent masses into Newtons Law of Gravity because ... Einsteins Law that the mass is ... The universe is an unbound infinite universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ping jem
    ... The transforms describe what one inertial observer measures, in terms of what a different inertial observer measures. ... Put the velocity dependent masses into Newtons Law of Gravity because ... Einsteins Law that the mass is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: They verified a wrong theory
    ... > Special relativity Lorentz transforms do not describe anything real. ... Einsteins Law that the mass is ... There are several formulation of Newtonian gravity with higher order ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST
    ... >> question at what point subatomic mass particles and electromagnetic ... >> mantle that plate tectonics would forever ignore in its facile Mickey ... It adds up in final as areal growth which you interpret ... > I notice that your account of the 'counterintuitive' order of transforms has ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: They verified a wrong theory
    ... >Special relativity Lorentz transforms do not describe anything real. ... Put the velocity dependent masses into Newtons Law of Gravity because ... Einsteins Law that the mass is ... >The universe is an unbound infinite universe. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)