Re: ALL the oceanic crust is recycled in 180 My: unrealistic


"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1in9v0x.ammrhb1y5eeonN%auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George <George@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Two issues. First "given reasonable H2O abundances". Define "reasonable
with regard to this statement".

That's not my paper. Ask the authors.

I never said it was your paper. You posted the link as some sort of
verification of your argument, yet the authors don't come to your
conclusion.

Secondly, the experiment is showing how
material is becoming more mafic with increasing pressure, not less mafic
with decreasing pressure.

So what?

If the experiment was demonstrating material becoming less mafic with
decreasing pressure, you'd have an argument. Since it doesn't, you don't.

Third, how is this evidence that "deep mantle"
material is upwelling beneath subduction zones?

Beneath the arc, at upduction zones. Because the earthquakes below the
arc do not belong to a slab, but to a column of rising material. And
that material is rich in water because it forms andesitic magmas. it
follows that it must rise from where water is present in the deep
mantle.

Beneath the arc you have crustal emplacement of magma originating at shallow
depth that forms from the partial melt of basaltic crust that reacts with
wall rock as it ascends, becoming more silica rich once it differentiates
within the magma chamber. Deep focus earthquakes have not been shown by
anyone to be a result of rising material. In fact, using John's earlier
argument, since the geothermal gradient is depressed at subduction zones, it
stands to reason that the cold subducting crustal slab would act as a heat
sink, depressing the gradient further, and that, along with olivine-spinel
phase transition is most likely what causes the earthquakes. The fact is
that hot, viscious rock is ductile (such as is found within the mantle),
while cool, rigid rock is brittle, and subject to fracture. And you can't
get the hot ductile mantle to produce earthquakes no matter how much you
slice and dice other people's work.

That is not a conclusive argument. Evaporites are also present at
the
place of former epicontinental seas.

The Gulf of Mexico is not an epicontinental sea, and yet it has lots
of
evaporites. The Baltic and the Mediterranean Seas are not
epicontinental
seas and yet they are loaded with evaporites. Floppy, the presence of
evaporites is not a definitive argument that a sea is epicontinental.

You're the moron infering from what I wrote that evaporite would be
restricted to epicontinental seas.

You brought it up, floppy.

Moron can't read: "Evaporites are *also* present at the place of former
epicontinental seas."

And your point is?

Tethys and Panthalassa are assumed to be large because it is also
assumed that the globe hs a constant size.
Garbage in garbage out.

No, they are measured based on field data to have been large, in
Panthalassa's case, VERY large.

Bull***. You must make a postulate about the size of Earth to estimate
the width of paleooceans from field data.

No I don't. Since there is no unambiguous evidence that the Earth has ever
been any size other than it's current size once it formed from the
primordeal solar nebula, there is no reason to assume otherwise.

list of ancient oceans that apparently, according to a non-geologist
(you)
never existed:

Liar. All of these oceans existed, but they were narrow.

Really? Where is your field data that backs up that claim?

Yawn, that is the same dataset. The estimates yield different results
because in Plate tectonics, it is assumed that Earth has a fixed radius,
whereas in auxotectonics, we know it was smaller and we actually can
predict where the different pieces of crust were sitting during the
evolution of the planet.

It has been demonstrated in Maxlow's thesis.

Maxlow is an idiot who can't get anyone but a handful of other idiots to
come to his lectures. Got anything else?

since EE claims that all of the continents were once together and made up
the sum total of the Earth's crust "prior to expansion", then these
ancient
oceans shouldn't exist at all, and in fact, this has been the argument of
EEers for many years. I guess you didn't get the memo.

You're such a simple mind that you're very easily confused.
There were no Panthalassa size ocean, all modern basin were not open
yet, but there were narrow extension basins between cratons. Can't be
clearer than that.

And what of the rather extensive basins within cratons? You do realize, of
course that the oldest oceanic crust found to date is in the Canadian
shield, right? And another was found in China. Right? And if there were no
oceans BEFORE the modern ones began to form, where was all the water at that
time? You do realize, of course, that without all that water, there would
have been no life on this planet then, right? So it would appear that you
have the same problem that those who claim Noah's Ark actually happpened.
Where did the water come from, and where did it go? Only in your case, it's
much worse. Where did all the extra mass come from, Floppy?

George


.

Loading