Re: Why are Island Arcs arced?



Stuart wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:26 pm, don findlay <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stuart wrote:
On Dec 23, 2:45 pm, don findlay <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bruce Bathurst wrote:
On Dec 23, 12:25 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

<SNIP, SNIP>

That would suggest then that the curvature should be correlated with
age of the arc. Is that true?

<SNIP>

Stuart

This is great: a reasonable prediction based upon an hypothesis for
the curvatures of island arcs, framed within the expanding Earth
theory. Whether you consider the theory or hypothesis 'far fetched' is
irrelevant: this is real science.

Bruce

"a reasonable prediction based upon an hypothesis for the curvatures
of island arcs, framed within the expanding Earth theory." ?? Real
science?? Well it fails straight away, on account of the tendency
for the Earth's crust to deform- by gravitational correction.

<snip>

Well that is so typical. You see, every time you propose a test of an
EE
claim, they tell you its untestable. None the less, they will tell you
it supports
their theory.

And therein lies the difference between geology and geophysics that
you do not appear to understand. Geological support is *observation*,
based on integration over hundreds of millions of years as these are
WRITTEN in the rock (stratigraphic sequence, structural displacement,
intrusive relations, etc etc). Intrinsically it is
obsservational, ..not "testable";

Lord no.

Golly.

Observations are not *testable*. Theories based on those observations
are.
If all you have are obs and no theories, then you're not doing
geology; you're
a rockhound in that case.

(*So what's wrong with being a rockhound?) Interesting point. It's a
matter of degree, bearing on rationality and logic. A prospector
following gold to source is using rational logic about the way that
the gold will be transported - and is successful; a professor
speculating about convection crumpling the crust by plate collision
and contradicting logic on numerous fronts - particularly in relation
to the flat-lying strata that make up the highest mountains of the
world - has overstepped the mark and is awa' with the fairies and
risking tenure.


Geological theories makes testable predictions, as does any other
other forensic science like Cosmology, archeaology etc.

(in which Stuart has another go at spelling 'archaeology' and still
gets it wrong.) Yeah, .. but we're not talking about cosmology or
(the other one). So how do you test whether transform faults are
offsetting spreading ridges or not - with your 'theories' - your
'models'? There. That should be an easy one for you with your
numbers and rubbers.


it depends on rational and logical
assessement. How many hundreds/ thousands/ millions of years for
example, do you think it would be reasonable to admit measurements
showing the Earth getting bigger, before accepting that the next day
it's not going to start shrinking?

There are no measurements showing the earth getting bigger Don. EEers
keep
pretending that expansion results from some direct measurement.


Rubbish. EE-ers say that the Earth getting bigger is a *direct
observation- tantamount- to-fact*, deriving from rational assessment
of the pattern of global tectonics. They also say that measurements
in our lifetime - and possibly on the scale of human existence as a
whole - counts for nothing against this rational assessment of
geological pattern over the geological timeframe of 300my.



Geophysics on the other hand begins with a "let-this-be-that and that-
be-this" confabulation of up-front assumptions (models) against which
reality is tested until it fits in a 'sort-of' way. Any
discrepancies are then overcome by adding yet more contraptions, more
'epicycles'.

This is very funny. Because the opposite is true.

No it's not. Plate Tectonics begins with the assumption that the
mantle must be destroyed at the same rate as it's created (thereby
offending logic that if this were the case, then the continents would
never separate - the oceans would never open. Unless of course you
assume the existence of a Panthalassic ocean as well, ..for which
evidence is nil. That was an assumption made in the beginning, which
because it is a pillar of the whole of PT, has morphed into supposed
'fact'.


Plate tectonics
makes some very basic prediction using the simple rules of rigid body
kinematics.

Yes? "The simple rules of rigid body kinematics"? You mean if you
hit it very slowly with a hammer, the rock will flow rather than
shatter? And on which day of the geological timescale is this
transition from brittle to ductile as the elastic limit is exceeded,
supposed to happen?


EE on the other hand states that the earth expanded here
and then it expanded there and when it expanded here new material had
this composition and when it expanded there it had that composition.

Yes, ..this could be true. The Earth expands essentially at the
ridges and all else is (essentially) equilibration. Ergo a test could
be the changing composition of the mantle away from the ridge -
correlatable with magnetic striping. And interesting something of a
test, but hardly definitive.

When it expanded hither it made a ridge, when it expanded yon it
resulted in *eduction*.

The hither and yon are the same place over geological time.


That is purely epicycle like.

<snip>

Its worth repeating that EE has so many special pleadings, nevermind
its *epicycles*, that it is rendered a useless theory.

(Not a theory.) Theories are useless, when they are put over the
facts they are supposed to be based on.


1. Mass is added in such a way that the ang momentum of the Earth-Moon
system has not changed
during the said expansion.

Mass? (What's that?) Something to do with gravitational attraction?
(How does that actually work, bearing in mind the quantum
constituents?) What *really* is the relationship between mass and
gravitational attraction, when what we have (an equation) is simply a
restatement of the fact of the relationship. How, exactly, does that
relationship actually work over galactic distances??? (or between
here and the Moon for that matter..) What is the physical means?
What *IS* gravitational attraction? (And what therefore is angular
momentum?




2. Mass is added in such away that it has the same composition as the
ambient matter, no matter where the mass is injected.

The geological evidence is that water and mantle silicates are the
main constituents created in commensurate proportions. And thus far
we leave it at that. The rest (for now) is for theorists.


3. Mass is added in such away that its temperature also approximately
matches the ambient temperature where the mass is injected.

Well, I suppose there is a balance there that figures. I think if you
look at the time-slices of the ocean floors the rate of extrusion at
the ridges is increasing with time.


And thats just for starters.

Is it? Starters? We're still waiting with a startling explanation
from you how transform faults manage to offset spreading ridges, when
animations show they don't, and Plate Tectonics explicitly states that
the offsets are there before transform faulting begins. (For
startlers.)


You don't have a scientific theory, you have a religious doctrine
replete with miracles.

No. We have an observation. You know, ..like the one about how the
Americas fit with Africa-Europe with a big bit of extruded mantle in
between? ..and an observation of transform faults to support that
the trace of the ridge growth is *AWAY* from the continents so that
ridge-lengths increase with time in relation to where they started
from (and not the other way round like the way Plate Tectonics would
have it).

And really, (though there is much more) that's virtually all we
need. PT on the other hand needs all these cogs gears bells and
whistles of 'theories' 'hypotheses' and assumptions in order to make
all that rubbery stuff you think is 'science work, .. and a heap of
money to do what you call 'more research' in order to explain all the
stuff you can't fit in (like transform faults). Earth Expansion on
the other hand explains everything of the at-surface geological
facts. It makes no assumptions, makes no theories. It's a hands
down, ..laydown misere. Sure, it needs filling out, ..
corroboration. Don't know what's holding everybody up, all those
people who robustly declare an interest in exploring 'science'.


Stuart
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Expanding Earth
    ... >>Heard it before ?the shrinking earth? ... Expanding at the ridges ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The pseudo miracles of Plate tectonics Zealots
    ... planets/moons (Encelade, Earth, Venus, Io...) and at the same time very ... But this approach ruins the other pretensions of the false geology & ... fraudulent time scale based on fosssils & radio-nucleides decay. ... I enjoy at all times reading your evidence on the Plate Tectonics ' ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Kook warning, Oriel36
    ... > realise what Newton's bulltalk of the sun around the earth is the same ... The exact analogy in geology is ... the oblate shape of the Earth that the couple of gravity - rotation ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Welcome home, Discovery
    ... >>> The earth cools and freezes, the earth warms and becomes tropical. ... we are heading toward an ice age. ... But I did take ALL the Geology courses I could ... This is just an EFFECT of the Pollution, and if the Effect of the ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: The geological column
    ... The geological column is incomplete. ... in the field of geology that has furthered mankind. ... fossils were because there was no dating methods when the column ... Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading