Re: India adrift

On Oct 23, 9:13 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 22, 10:18 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Florian) wrote:
Stuart <bigdak...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
This one is OK.

Not the following one, because nothing justifies that India should be
away from Arabia:

http://www.scotese.com/K/t.htm

You mean besides the development of the Central Indian Ridge between
Madagascar and India?

No evidence justifies that India was not still connected to Arabia,
when that ridge developed.

Again, see Scotese's animation of the evolution of the Indian Ocean
over the past 90 million years.
Please show where in these reconstructions that evidence based on the
isochrons is ignored.

Isn't the real problem from the EE point of view, that EE doesn't
accept subduction and therefore as a result India was always
docked with Asia?

You really don't understand that theory...

There's no "theory" to understand.

More denial does not help your case.

Thats not denial, but a statement of fact.

You've offered no testable hypothesis.

Oh yes I did. One testable prediction (not hypothesis) is that all the
old cratons surrounding the Pacific must have been close to each other,
250 millions years ago and before. This is testable and tested.

<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5886/235>

Plate tectonics is not a theory capable of making such predicitions,
because it can't predict the motion of cratons over 100 millions years.
It need geological data and geochemistry to figure out where the cratons
were.


Touche'.

Thats me tooism.

PT predicts the existence of Pangea.

What EE cannot explain are apparent polar wander paths older
than 250mya.


There was a narrow basin between India and Asia, the so called tethys
sea.

How narrow? Dimensions please.

"The Tethys was primarily an epicontinental sea which in Palaeozoic time
transgressed on an undivided Indo-Tibetan platform.

I've never seen anything that referred to the Tethys as "primarily
epicontinental". Your reference is perhaps well out of date.

That's because plate tectonists systematically ignore the work made by
hundred of geologist before Plate tectonics emerged.

Umm no. We just incorporate all the work done since then.


So your reference is saying that India was separated from Asia by an
epicontinental sea.
It even says "undivided Indo-Tibetan platform". Doesn't that mean that
India was attached to Asia in Paleozoic time?

Dude, try to quote properly and reply after the whole quote. You missed
the "axial oceanic trough".
If you don't know what it means, then go have a look at the south china
sea.

[...]



Within this sea an
axial oceanic trough separating India from Tibet came into being only in
the Mesozoic. This oceanic trough reached its maximum development only
in the Late Cretaceous.

What geological information is this based on? When somebody writes
"axial oceanic trough"
that means there was oceanic crust. If there was no oceanic crust, why
is the term "oceanic"
used?

Oh, jeezzz, you're soooo sloooowwwwww.....There*was* oceanic crust. But
belonging to a narrow ocean trough, much like the South China sea. There
never was a 5000 km long ocean.

Wait a minute and this is hilarious. Previously you chided me for
saying
there was oceanic crust..

I said
So you are claiming that the Himalayas are underlain by oceanic crust
that was the floor of the Tethys?


You replied:
"Why do you make so stupid comments, despite you know certainly that
the
remains of the oceanic crust corresponds to the ophiolitic suture? "

[...]

So now you claim there was oceanic crust between India and Asia.

Lets deal with this first.

If there was Oceanic crust between India and Asia, and there was no
subduction, then
what was wrong with me asking..
"> So you are claiming that the Himalayas are underlain by oceanic
crust
that was the floor of the Tethys?

Your previous claims suggested that upwelling "crust" over-rode the
lithosphere, like
when you claimed the Marianas slab was pushed down by upwelling
material, not because it
was subducting.

In that case the ocean floor is getting buried by upwelling material
and forced down;
in this case as you explain below the ocean floor is buckled by the
process.

This is not consistent.

Stuart
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: India adrift
    ... No evidence justifies that India was not still connected to Arabia, ... "The Tethys was primarily an epicontinental sea which in Palaeozoic time ... This oceanic trough reached its maximum development only ... that means there was oceanic crust. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: India adrift
    ... No evidence justifies that India was not still connected to Arabia, ... "The Tethys was primarily an epicontinental sea which in Palaeozoic time ... that means there was oceanic crust. ... how wide did this separation get? ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: ALL the oceanic crust is recycled in 180 My: unrealistic
    ... Plate tectonics claims that ALL the oceanic crust is recycled in 200 ... Except a small area in the Med sea, ALL of the ocean floor is less than ... former oceanic crust as acretions onto the continent as well as composin the ... that recycling occurs, how is growth occurring? ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Plate techtonics and asteroid hits
    ... df>> areas of continental and oceanic crust can't change. ... df>> 3) And there never was a situation in which the whole Earth ... df> So you mean the original Earth was covered with ocean floor? ... df> (It never did differentiate into a crust/ mantle/ core? ...
    (talk.origins)