Re: Where did the extra mass come from?


"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1in7t2n.1gfgi1619xwccpN%auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George <George@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


That question does not make sense as gravity is always part of the
system.

So you admit that gravity can overcome buoyancy.

More non sense form an ingorant. Gravity does not overcome buoyancy.
gravity *creates* buoyancy.

So you are saying that I can't attach a heavy object on a cube of ice and
get it to sink into a glass of water, or a swimming pool? Do they ever let
your out of your padded cell?

Idiot. My claim is supported by a reference. A reference in a peer
review paper is a way for us, scientists, to support a claim. You would
know it if you were one.

You claim to be supported by ONE person,

Idiot! you're confused again! The reference in question was published in
Science 2 weeks ago.

And that makes a difference, because? You also like to ignore when your
"references" make conclusions that are contrary to your claims. Why is
that?

[...] You can't get an andesite from peridotite or any other mantle
rock because it is silica poor.

Fractional crystallization enriches the magma in silica, resulting in
low density rocks. That's why it is not obvious to get systematically a
positive anomaly at arcs.

Peridotites do not undergo silica enrichment


partial melts form peridotite do, by fractional crystalization,
ignorant goose.

No, partial melts of peridotite differentiate (as Stuart pointed out - in
magma chambers) to form basalt. And since we've already established that
peridotites do not occur in the deep mantle, how is any of this evidence for
deep mantle upwelling beneath subduction zones?

evidence of surfaceward displacement: totally expected from inside
growth. Learn the difference between upwelling at ridges and upwelling
at upduction.

The rest is refuted when one know how determine absolute motion at both
side of a trench.

So you are in disagreement with the author's conclusions (the author YOU
cited), despite the fact that he conducted the work, and published it,
and
you've not published anything?

Doglioni is struggling with Plate tectonics concepts. He's refuting slab
pull and ridge push and try to replace these unrealistic concepts by
global mantle flow.
He's close to figure out what's really happening, but not quite there
yet.


And Doglioni is yet another example of one of your references who is
conducting research and makes conclusions that are inconguous with your
claims. Note, for instance, how many papers he's written on subduction:

http://tetide.geo.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Doglioni_home.html

For instance you say that Africa and Europe are not converging. However,
that is not what he has concluded:

http://tetide.geo.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/CarminatiDoglioniMeditetTectonics.pdf

The direction of the relative motion between Africa and Europe since the
Neogene is still under debate. Most reconstructions show directions of
relative motion between north-west and north-east. Recent space geodesy data
confirm this overall trend, in which Africa has a north-south component of
convergence relative to Europe of about 5 mm year, but they also show that
the absolute plate-motion directions of both Europe and Africa are
north-east and not north or north-west as is usually assumed (see the NASA
database on present global plate motions,
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov:80/mbh/series.html). Also note his figure 1.

George


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast