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

George <George@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"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.

You're in denial. They clearly stated int he paper that melting of water
saturated peridotite lead to the formation of andesitic magma. Period.


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.

Idiot that can't read, the material is andesistic in nature at the
lowest pressure and becomes more mafic at highest pressure.:

"The experimental partial melts monotonously became more mafic with
increasing pressure from andesitic composition at 1 gigapascal to more
mafic than the starting peridotite at 10 gigapascals."

Can't be clearer than that. Only morons could be confused.


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,

Only partly. It forms mainly from water saturated mantle that form
andesitic magmas.


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.


Revise your theory. In plate tectonics, nobody consider that slabs could
be still brittle below 200 km. That's why phase changes are evoked.



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?

That you're a moron in denial spending time gathering straws.



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

No I don't.

Futile answer.

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.

More denial.

[...]


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

Only morons would trash a guy without carefully examining his arguments.
Maxlow is infinitely more clever that you are. And that is not a
performance either.


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?

Don't forget that YOU are the ignorant idiot of the block.

And if there were no
oceans BEFORE the modern ones began to form, where was all the water at that
time?

At the same place as at least 7/8th of current earth volume, idiot.

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?

I will simply quote someone else who had a good analysis about the
requirement of a "mechanism" to describe a observable phenomenon:

"Again you avoid the substance of the discussion. You are allowed to
have
an opinion, even if others disagree! You are allowed to say that your
original statement was hasty and incomplete.

You say that physics will not advance without "mechanism". Consider
Newton's theory (i.e., mathematical model) of universal gravitation. As
above, you note (well, claim without evidence, but it does appear that
Newton was interested in knowning about mechanisms), Newton wanted to
know
the mechanism behind gravity. But he never found a satisfactory answer.

Did physics progress, based on Newton's mathematical model of gravity,
despite Newton's lack of mechanism?

Again, your insistence on the "mechanism" behind observable phenomena
would divorce theory from observation and experiment, which in the past,
has by-and-large led to useless crap, not advances."


--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
.

Loading