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


"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1io00z0.sxsl861t8jql6N%auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

No they didn't say that at all. "the experiment is showing how material is
becoming more mafic with increasing pressure, not less mafic with decreasing
pressure." The experiment has nothing to do with what you are trying to
prove.

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.:

Floppy, here is the classification diagram that I've been trying to get you
to post:

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/GRAPHIC0/ROCKMIN/Ig-Rocks/LeMaitrePlot.gif

You cannot get an andesite from a peridotite.

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.

Nope. It forms at shallow depth from water saturated oceanic/basaltic crust
that has been subducted beneath the overbearing slab. Mantle rock doesn't
form andesite, otherwise the MORs would be awash in it, and they aren't.

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.

Non-sequtur. We've already extablish that. What did you think the above
actually said?

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

So you don't have a point. I didn't think so, either.

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.

Facts are not denied. Facts are facts.

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.

Floppy, Maxlow and I go way back. He's still an idiot, and you are his sock
puppet. You have my sympathy.

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.

So I guess all those geologists working on all these old ocean rock are also
idiots, eh? I think I am starting to firgure out how your theory works.

God made a balloon. The balloon looked like a saggy Earth. He got Floppy
to blow it up, and blow it up, and blow it up, until he passed out in
exhaustion (that would be about the time real geologists started looking at
the Earth and didn't see that it was or ever has expanded). In ten million
years, when man least expects it, god will ask Don Findlay's ghost to blow
and blow until the Earth gets really really big (due to his releasing all
that spent up ego). Hoo-Haw!! But hey, you will have figured out where all
that extra mass came from - hot EEer air.

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.

Really? Where was that?

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."

Ah yes, but Newton actually understood that gravitational theory had to obey
the laws of physics, and it does. EE violates every law of physics and
orbital mechanics. It requires one to throw 400 years of physics in the
trash can, but fails to say what it should be replaced with. And that,
Floppy, is the fingerprint of a crackpot theory, especially when on
considers that there is a perfectly good theory already in acceptance that
doesn't violate the known laws of the universe.

George


.