Re: Earth expansion - puzzled......

From: George (george_at_wtfiswrongwithyou.com)
Date: 02/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:39:48 GMT

"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:76sl0117v21su87vijph4hbm5gvdvjusq0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:05:26 GMT, "George"
> <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>news:pt3l01hr0vcmldhl9b6nuug4i6i4mbdg2c@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:33:09 GMT, "George"
>>> <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Hank Oredson" <horedson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:bzcOd.3370$UX3.3141@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0D0Od.55729$EG1.45707@attbi_s53...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eh what? Why should I explain that?
>>>>>>> That part is geology, and you claim to be an expert.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expert? HA! Taylor is no geologist, and is certainly NOT an expert.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are, then?
>>>>> Good, you explain.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> ... Hank
>>>>
>>>>No problem. I am a geologist and have studied plate tectonics for many
>>>>years.
>>>>Taylor claims that earth expansion is demonstrated by the surface features
>>>>of
>>>>the earth, namely the mid-oceanic ridges.
>>>
>>> Not just the ridges
>>>
>>>>He claims that in order for earth
>>>>expansion to not occur there has to be a 1:1 ratio between the ridges
>>>
>>> Would you mind showing where this was said?
>>
>>Oh please, don't try to play the innocent one here. You've made that claim
>>many
>>times.
>>
>
> No, I did not. I said, spreadING. It refers to the action, not the
> object.

It's the object (ridges) that spread, dumbass. Do you think we are talking
about margarine here?

>>>>and the
>>>>subduction zones (in other words, he claims that the subduction zones should
>>>>be
>>>>equal length as the spreading zones), which is nonsense.
>>>
>>> First, you cannot say what I said, then you give it some imagined
>>> meaning, which you conclude is nonsense.
>>>
>>> It would be a bit like me saying, I heard you like dogs, in other
>>> words to ____ them, which is just perverted.
>>
>>So, now you want to take back ever saying this? And you dare call me a liar?
>>If you want to have an honest discussion, we can do that. But it is
>>abundantly
>>clear that you are incapable of being honest, even with yourself. You're
>>nothing but a troll.
>
> Cannot take back what was never said. It is a reading problem on your
> part. You jump to conclusions.

Right. You are a troll, nothing more. Let me ask you another question, one that
others have asked and you have never answered. Why are you posting here? You
are obviously clueless about geology, and have yet to make one single
constructive contribution to this newsgroup. If you want to play games, I
suggest you go to alt.usenet.kooks. There are plenty of dweebs there just like
you that you can play with.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've shown that he not
>>>>only fails to recognize that the in general plates at subduction zones are
>>>>coming together at a rate nearly 6 times faster than the plates at the
>>>>ridges
>>>>are spreading apart, he fails to consider that these aren't the only types
>>>>of
>>>>plate boundaries.
>>>
>>> There was no failure on my part. I was pointing out to you, how
>>> absurd is your position that crust creation does not have to equal
>>> crust destruction.
>>
>>So you are a liar after all, and even admit it right here.
>
> I do say crust creation must equal crust destruction for a period of
> time.

Really? If it is only for a period of time, how does that fit into Plate
tectonics? How does that fit with earth expansion? How does it fit with
anything, for that matter?

> It is about maintaining a balance. If your version of PT can
> have vacuums and require energy outside the system feeding it, then
> the pattern will be different for the time sequence on the ocean
> floor.

Who said anything about vacuums and energy outside the system? Oh right. You
did. You are the one who is have obvious difficulty read what is posted. I'd
suggest that you go back and read what was posted, but you are too stupid to
figure it our for yourself, and I'm not inclined to lend a hand.

>>
>>> Again, why are subduction zones going so fast if
>>> they can just let the new crust accumulate?
>>
>>Who said they can? Oh right. You did.
>
> Thought you wrote they were six times faster. This is not the case?

I did say that. What's your point? Oh right. You have none.

>>
>>> All you are doing is arguing against yourself, so that it undermines
>>> your position. You have passed over to the irrational. Not long now
>>> before you start foaming at the mouth.
>>
>>Are you going to sit there and tell me and everyone else here that all the
>>data
>>that has been collected that shows definitively that plates at subduction
>>zones
>>move at nearly 6 times the rate of the plates at oceanic ridges is nothing
>>more
>>than fudged numbers? If so, where is your evidence against these numbers?
>
> This is not what was said. It was to the inconsistency in your
> argument.
>

There is no inconsistency in my argument. There certainly is consistency to
your argument, the consistency of horse***.

>>>
>>>>There are transform boundaries where no crust is being
>>>>created and little is being destroyed.
>>>
>>> So no new stuff from below and no old stuff taken back down at these
>>> points? What difference do they make then? ZERO!
>>
>>The make all the difference in the world, because they are translational.
>>They
>>allow segments to move past one another. Otherwise, the plates would simply
>>be
>>locked together. You can't have spreading ridges without transforms anymore
>>than you can have subduction zones without transforms.
>
> Ok, but movement requires an open space. Unless you think two objects
> can occupy the same point in space and time.

So now you are arguing for the hollow earth theory are you? :-) Movement
requires a mechanism. That mechanism is convection.

>>
>>>>There are also plate boundaries
>>>>collisions such as the Alps (where Africa and Europe are colliding) and the
>>>>Himalayas (where India and Asia are colliding). The first boundary is
>>>>translational, allowing plates to slide past one another, while the latter
>>>>boundary is compressional - they are neither pulling apart, nor sliding
>>>>beneath
>>>>one another, but are being smashed together in a great crunch.
>>>
>>> Just make this easy. If it is not 1:1, What is it? What is the ratio
>>> for a 1000 years? A million years? 250 my?
>>
>>The number is meaningless, and irelevant, as I've already shown.
>
> There is no ratio? It is not slab pull, or slab push? Either of
> these two have a DIRECT relationships between spreading and
> subduction.

Total length of all active oceanic ridges is between 50,000 and 65,000 km,
depending on what source you use. Total length of all known active subduction
zones is 51,000 km
(http://www.geology.yale.edu/~markb/Eprints/Brandon2004_CascadiaWedge.pdf). The
difference, if any, is minimal at best and is easily made up for by the
remaining plate boundaries (continent-continent collisions, for example), and
the difference in plate movements at these boundaries. So, what's your point?
Oh right. Your point is that this is your only evidence for earth expansion.
Once again, you've been shown to be mistaken.

>
>>
>>> It only seems logical the ratio would need to be very near 1:1 for a
>>> period of time, if the system is to cycle. If the system is able to
>>> run matter deficits, it most likely has a source of energy external to
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> Hey, it is your call bozo!! If it is NOT near to 1:1 you have
>>> problems, big time.
>>
>>You still don't get it. Well, that is no big surprise. You say that there
>>has
>>to be a 1:1 relationship between plate destruction via subduction zones versus
>>plate creation via spreading ridges. And I've shown that that would be true
>>if
>>the rate of plate destruction was equal to the rate of plate creation. The
>>problem, dweeb, is that those rates are not equal. And not only that, but
>>there
>>are other plate boundaries to consider, as I've pointed out several times, but
>>you conveniently ignore repeatedly. What do you think has happened to the
>>plates when India and Asia slammed into each other? The Himalayas? Africa
>>and
>>Europe? The Alps? The Caucasus, the Rocky Mountains, etc.? Do you think
>>these
>>plate boundaries are insignificant? Do you think that the millions of square
>>miles of former oceanic crust in the western U.S. are insignificant? And what
>>of the former oceanic crust that exists within the Appalachians? Did it just
>>pop out of nowhere? Did geologists just make them up to piss off EEers?
>>
>
> You have shown only it is the position you hold, NOT that it is
> possible.

I've given you the facts. The facts are that the overall rate of subduction
worldwide is greater than the overall rate of seafloor spreading. The facts are
that the difference in overall length of the ocean spreading centers compared to
the overall length of the subduction zones is minimal. Any difference between
the two is made up for by other plate boundaries and the fact that the rates of
plate movements are faster at the subduction zones than they are at spreading
centers. Whether or not you believe those facts is your problem, not mine.

Quantcast