Re: PLATE MAPS OF THE PAST

From: Carsten Troelsgaard (carsten.troelsgaard_at_mail.dk)
Date: 07/21/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:01:45 +0200

"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5f164087.0407202220.df1dd93@posting.google.com...
> " George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:<VUjLc.5251$%S4.3941@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
> > "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
> > news:40fd944c$0$214$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...
> > >
> > > " George" <george@george.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > news:_0gLc.2388$QO.2374@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > >>
> > >> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
> > >> news:40fce57b$0$282$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> > >> >
> > >> > "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> > >> > news:5f164087.0407191750.7c4fe54e@posting.google.com...
> > >> >> " George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
> > >> > news:<UkRKc.302$%S4.241@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
> > >> >
> > >> > snip
> > >> >
> > >> >> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/ridgegrowth.html#s0s>]
> > >> >
> > >> > snip
> > >> >
> > >> >> Check out the Abusal Hills, and the scarps, and the
> > >> >> growth faults, and then tell us all what the dykes are feeding...
> > >> >> Lava flows?
> > >> >
> > >> > I've checked out your link.
> > >> > I don't see any issues with PT, unless you try to make the
appearance of
> > >> > magnetic contours a diacronous affair. Your figure 2 seems to let
the
> > >> > surface of the atlantic fit into the opening gap and thus gets it's
> > magnetic
> > >> > signature by stretching the thing. And you wonder why George think
that
> > you
> > >> > are wearing down your credibillity! Who wouldn't? Turning people
mute by
> > >> > sheer quantity of information seems to be your strategy - that it
> > generally
> > >> > lack reason does not disturbe you the least, on the contrary:
another 15
> > >> > pages will do the trick.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> As someone else said recently in this newsgroup, "Generating a 5
dollar
> > opinion
> > >> supported by a nickel's worth of data is
> > >> stupid in ANY context. It's called "wild speculation", and it has NO
> > place in
> > >> what is supposed to be a scientific discussion." What say you,
Carlsten?
> > >
> > > It could make a big difference. Making a new model as Don does is
admirable,
> > > but it sooner or later has to face geological reality.
> > > Popping a suggestion as above could be ok, but either I get it wrong
or it
> > > just is wrong. I cann't figure Don out though - it seems to be a very
> > > extensive joke, if that is what it is.
> > >
> >
> > He's a creationist. Pure and simple. The fact that he hangs out with
JPT
> > should clue you in to his reasoning, or lack thereof.

It sure is a dishonest fellow he ran into lately

> __________________________________________________________________
>
> "The very extensive joke of geological reality" - Here:-
> <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/pr/abyshills.html>

Nice picture
Since it is a deep crack in a non-moving substrat as you suggest, doesn't it
ajust back to 'horizontal' rather quickly and generally lack the rigid
nature you impose on the structure you model?
The topography better convey an impression of something comming up and being
pulled/pushed aside, as PT suggests. As far as I know, dikes feed
pillowlavas on the floor, in good accordance with PT. If you have other
lithological data then lets have a look.
Or just face reality.

> Oh, ...George (...the Balrog of Kha^z^ad D^umb)(!) Get back to yer
> lair, Ye dirty piece of wall-eyed slate, and stop spoiling the
> firweworks!

Sure, you love geologists as kids teachers: The hotter the better.
Which brings me back to my doubt that you have formal geological training.

> Study some spelling or something.
>
> (Gandalf)

Quantcast