| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"don findlay" |
| Date: |
02 Jul 2006 10:56:27 PM |
| Object: |
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
'Plates' - are 'moving', ...but our view of them (as defined by
spreading ridges and trenches/ 'subduction zones') remains fixed, ...It
is this fixed *static* view which is depicted on plate maps as 'Plate
Boundaries'. 'Plates', as depicted on maps, are a window to the tops
of supposed convecting cells, ...cells which cycle on the spot;
....*PLATES* which cycle, ..on the spot. The plates 'move' , but our
physical view of them - and our depiction of them doesn't.
But our *conceptual* view of them very much does.
----------------------------
"According to the plate tectonic model, the surface of the Earth
consists of a series of relatively thin, but rigid, plates which are in
constant motion."
http://www.hartrao.ac.za/geodesy/tectonics.html (but any site will
do)
"..The location of plate boundaries is not fixed in either space or
time; the boundaries are in constant motion, just as the plates are" -
The encyclopedia of Plate Tectonics (/unquote)
-----------------------
But "rigid plates" (defined by 'plate boundries') cycling 'on the
spot', do not collide, ...and yet one of the fundamental tenets of
Plate Tectonics is that they do: - "plates collide". Another is the
concept of 'plate margins' where one plate is 'thrust under' another .
But what is a 'plate margin' in the dynamic sense of it being a part of
a conveting cell? It has no meaning other than an arbitrary area
between arbitrarily scribed lines - a sector of a convecting cell,
...yet the entirety of Plate Tectonics is predicated on the physicality
of Plate *Margins*, which only exist as our static 'window' to a
continuous cycle which has no beginning, no end, .. and no *margin*.
Yet, we are told, Plate Tectonics is what happens "at the margins of
plates" Again, ...'margins' are merely aribtrary scribed lines on
the backs of the convecting cell (/ 'plate') marking the lithospheric
shell.
Much dichotomy follows from this confusion, which moves the Geological
Society of London to explicitly deal with the problem as regards
teaching.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere
...and John Harshman to be rescued by our Stu, who from past
correspondence, doesn't understand it either. It's a case of them both
clutching at straws as they hold on to each other as they go over the
cliff. (Smooth lemons.)
.
|
|
| User: "will1" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
03 Jul 2006 12:47:22 PM |
|
|
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1151898987.653713.314540@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
Just out of curiousity, do you envision the continents as "boudins" and the
ocean basins as... what, in the E.E. model? Is there a provision for
compressional geological features in the E.E. model? I am not an expert in
these areas, although I have observed these structures in the field.
Will E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
04 Jul 2006 01:57:08 AM |
|
|
will1 wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1151898987.653713.314540@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
Just out of curiousity, do you envision the continents as "boudins" and the
ocean basins as... what, in the E.E. model?
Yes, ..if you like, the continents (/lithosphere) are the largest
'boudins' and the sea floors the largest necks. The structures are
highly irregular though, and the terminology ('sausages') is wanting.
(I like 'knockers' better.)
Is there a provision for
compressional geological features in the E.E. model?
Of course. Compression happens through gravitational collapse (e.g.
Iran, Alps) and as the compressional component of shear.
I am not an expert in
these areas, although I have observed these structures in the field.
Will E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "will1" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
04 Jul 2006 10:47:32 AM |
|
|
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1151996228.398231.166720@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Of course. Compression happens through gravitational collapse (e.g.
Iran, Alps) and as the compressional component of shear.
I have a difficult time visualizing the Alps and the Himalayas as giant
toreva blocks. They are at a higher elevation than the surrounding regions.
(Careful using the term 'gravitational collapse'. Could be taken to mean
something else by sci.astro and sci.physics, like black holes.)
What is going on under the continents in the E.E. model? That is, will Earth
Expansion revive "The Granite Controversy"?
And just for fun, what do you think about this:
http://www.oneoffpublishing.com/dee.html Later, Will E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
04 Jul 2006 11:45:53 AM |
|
|
In article <12al3foo592eq60@corp.supernews.com>,
"will1" <wille1@cableone.net> wrote:
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1151996228.398231.166720@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Of course. Compression happens through gravitational collapse (e.g.
Iran, Alps) and as the compressional component of shear.
I have a difficult time visualizing the Alps and the Himalayas as giant
toreva blocks. They are at a higher elevation than the surrounding regions.
(Careful using the term 'gravitational collapse'. Could be taken to mean
something else by sci.astro and sci.physics, like black holes.)
But you forget, the laws of physics don't enter into it, and neither
does astronomy. Don has repeatedly requested that the discussion be kept
to geology. (We must be especially careful to keep that pesky so-called
"law" of conservation of mass out of it.)
What is going on under the continents in the E.E. model? That is, will Earth
Expansion revive "The Granite Controversy"?
And just for fun, what do you think about this:
http://www.oneoffpublishing.com/dee.html Later, Will E.
hah! That's funny. How come some of them were so small? And get this:
it's "groundbreaking" science! I looked it up on Amazon.com: There
aren't any reviews of the book there, other than, "Compare Appliance,
Furnishing, Pet, Home and Garden Product Bargains."
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
03 Jul 2006 12:37:37 AM |
|
|
In article <1151898987.653713.314540@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
No, Don, you don't understand their model. You don't understand how the
model has evolved over time, or why, or how different geophysicists
could have different similar models at the same time. You can't properly
explain the PT model, so you are in no position to refute it.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Don tries, but can't. |
03 Jul 2006 04:06:28 AM |
|
|
On 2 Jul 2006 20:56:27 -0700, "don findlay" <don@tower.net.au>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
[cut the crap]
You are an idiot who constantly refuses to produce even a single
shread of evidence for his daft "Expanding Earth" ideas.
Put up or shut up.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
03 Jul 2006 08:50:47 AM |
|
|
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
'Plates' - are 'moving', ...but our view of them (as defined by
spreading ridges and trenches/ 'subduction zones') remains fixed, ...It
is this fixed *static* view which is depicted on plate maps as 'Plate
Boundaries'. 'Plates', as depicted on maps, are a window to the tops
of supposed convecting cells, ...cells which cycle on the spot;
...*PLATES* which cycle, ..on the spot. The plates 'move' , but our
physical view of them - and our depiction of them doesn't.
But our *conceptual* view of them very much does.
----------------------------
"According to the plate tectonic model, the surface of the Earth
consists of a series of relatively thin, but rigid, plates which are in
constant motion."
http://www.hartrao.ac.za/geodesy/tectonics.html (but any site will
do)
"..The location of plate boundaries is not fixed in either space or
time; the boundaries are in constant motion, just as the plates are" -
The encyclopedia of Plate Tectonics (/unquote)
-----------------------
But "rigid plates" (defined by 'plate boundries') cycling 'on the
spot', do not collide, ...and yet one of the fundamental tenets of
Plate Tectonics is that they do: - "plates collide". Another is the
concept of 'plate margins' where one plate is 'thrust under' another .
But what is a 'plate margin' in the dynamic sense of it being a part of
a conveting cell? It has no meaning other than an arbitrary area
between arbitrarily scribed lines - a sector of a convecting cell,
..yet the entirety of Plate Tectonics is predicated on the physicality
of Plate *Margins*, which only exist as our static 'window' to a
continuous cycle which has no beginning, no end, .. and no *margin*.
Yet, we are told, Plate Tectonics is what happens "at the margins of
plates" Again, ...'margins' are merely aribtrary scribed lines on
the backs of the convecting cell (/ 'plate') marking the lithospheric
shell.
Much dichotomy follows from this confusion, which moves the Geological
Society of London to explicitly deal with the problem as regards
teaching.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere
..and John Harshman to be rescued by our Stu, who from past
correspondence, doesn't understand it either. It's a case of them both
clutching at straws as they hold on to each other as they go over the
cliff. (Smooth lemons.)
As usual, any point you may think you have is lost in the opaque,
lunatic ranting, which you apparently are quite unable to control.
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
03 Jul 2006 09:42:02 AM |
|
|
John Harshman wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Much dichotomy follows from this confusion, which moves the Geological
Society of London to explicitly deal with the problem as regards
teaching.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere
..and John Harshman to be rescued by our Stu, who from past
correspondence, doesn't understand it either. It's a case of them both
clutching at straws as they hold on to each other as they go over the
cliff. (Smooth lemons.)
-
As usual, any point you may think you have is lost in the opaque,
lunatic ranting, which you apparently are quite unable to control.
(Sourpuss.) :-)) Do you understand the plate-thing in relation
to the convection cell any better now, John? Was Stuart a help? Were
you appalled that you have been struggling along under misapprehension
about convection since the 70's? What about plate margins? Do you
feel Stuart may be hiding anything anything from you?
And what about that apology you owe me? Am I going to get one?
And have you come to terms with the Himalayas not being crumpled by the
collision of plates?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
03 Jul 2006 10:24:11 AM |
|
|
don findlay wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Much dichotomy follows from this confusion, which moves the Geological
Society of London to explicitly deal with the problem as regards
teaching.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=lithosphere
..and John Harshman to be rescued by our Stu, who from past
correspondence, doesn't understand it either. It's a case of them both
clutching at straws as they hold on to each other as they go over the
cliff. (Smooth lemons.)
-
As usual, any point you may think you have is lost in the opaque,
lunatic ranting, which you apparently are quite unable to control.
(Sourpuss.) :-)) Do you understand the plate-thing in relation
to the convection cell any better now, John? Was Stuart a help? Were
you appalled that you have been struggling along under misapprehension
about convection since the 70's? What about plate margins? Do you
feel Stuart may be hiding anything anything from you?
And what about that apology you owe me? Am I going to get one?
And have you come to terms with the Himalayas not being crumpled by the
collision of plates?
Case in point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
03 Jul 2006 09:33:56 AM |
|
|
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
<snip incoherent rambling>
Still can't describe plate tectonics, can you?
You could just cut and paste from a website, but then it would be hard
for you to misrepresent it. Better to patch together a selection of
sentence fragments from geologists with different but similar models.
Of course, then you make it clear that you are dishonest and
incompetent.
If you can't describe it, you can't refute it. I'm waiting for your
well-practiced stream of insults in response, but not evidence for
expansion. I know which to expect.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
02 Jul 2006 11:09:24 PM |
|
|
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
Don, if you were in Melbourne right now you might be able to
make such an observation, but since you are just wanking off
over the internet I don't think anybody will really be interested
in what you are trying to say.
You had the chance to find out what geologists are thinking
at this point in time, to hear it for yourself in Melbourne, and
you have made the choice not to go. Don't come here are
try to tell us what geologists are thinking or what they are
saying, when you clearly have no idea and have shown that
you don't even want to know what real geologists really think..
(I'll bet one thing is true - they don't think much of your "theory".)
(signed) marc
...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
03 Jul 2006 09:45:24 AM |
|
|
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
"Plate Tectonicsists?" Okay, I surrender: I concede the fact that "don
findlay" is a troll and not the raving lunatic he is pretending to be.
I lost the bet: who do I send the $5 to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
04 Jul 2006 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151937924.103333.244540@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
don findlay wrote:
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
"Plate Tectonicsists?" Okay, I surrender: I concede the fact that "don
findlay" is a troll and not the raving lunatic he is pretending to be.
I lost the bet: who do I send the $5 to?
I could have saved you a lot of trouble had you simply asked me, so cough
up the bucks. Lol.
George
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
03 Jul 2006 10:19:54 AM |
|
|
Desertphile wrote:
don findlay wrote:
-
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
-
"Plate Tectonicsists?" Okay, I surrender: I concede the fact that "don
findlay" is a troll and not the raving lunatic he is pretending to be.
I lost the bet: who do I send the $5 to?
(Let's make it double or quits, shall we? .... )
And who says I'm pretending anything. I don't think I'm a raving
lunatic - Just because Stuart and John Harshman find it politic to say
things like that, doesn't mean you have to believe them. I'll bet more
than half the people here thought the same as John, but what can they
do when that geezer in the board shorts fancy dress parades in front of
them with his frangipani showing? They're bound to feel a bit, ..you
know, ...less.... But he's still to explain what happens on the u'p'
part of the cycle. And oh, yes, ..how transform faults form. That's a
highly significant word string, by the way. There's over 4 million
sites on Plate Tectonics on the web, and that string (keep it in
quotes) has virtually not been used. How come? Will Stuart have the
answer? Will he tell John? And more to the point, everybody else too?
After publishing on plates all his life he's sure to have an answer.
Ask him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
04 Jul 2006 11:16:51 AM |
|
|
don findlay wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
don findlay wrote:
-
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
-
"Plate Tectonicsists?" Okay, I surrender: I concede the fact that "don
findlay" is a troll and not the raving lunatic he is pretending to be.
I lost the bet: who do I send the $5 to?
(Let's make it double or quits, shall we? .... )
And who says I'm pretending anything. I don't think I'm a raving
lunatic - Just because Stuart and John Harshman find it politic to say
things like that, doesn't mean you have to believe them. I'll bet more
than half the people here thought the same as John, but what can they
do when that geezer in the board shorts fancy dress parades in front of
them with his frangipani showing? They're bound to feel a bit, ..you
know, ...less.... But he's still to explain what happens on the u'p'
part of the cycle.
Now this the funny part.
Don now understands why things go down.
Can't figure that out for the life of him. And yet he has a PhD!
And oh, yes, ..how transform faults form.
Funny, myself and several other researchers have shown how transforms
can form.
Don hasn't actuallyread a paper on PT, mantle convection etc. Real
science scares the crap out of him.
STuart
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11 |
04 Jul 2006 06:25:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1152029810.294922.272940@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Stuart" <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Desertphile wrote:
don findlay wrote:
-
Negating Plate Tectonics - Strike 11
Plate Tectonicsists don't understand their own model.
-
"Plate Tectonicsists?" Okay, I surrender: I concede the fact that "don
findlay" is a troll and not the raving lunatic he is pretending to be.
I lost the bet: who do I send the $5 to?
(Let's make it double or quits, shall we? .... )
And who says I'm pretending anything. I don't think I'm a raving
lunatic - Just because Stuart and John Harshman find it politic to say
things like that, doesn't mean you have to believe them. I'll bet more
than half the people here thought the same as John, but what can they
do when that geezer in the board shorts fancy dress parades in front of
them with his frangipani showing? They're bound to feel a bit, ..you
know, ...less.... But he's still to explain what happens on the u'p'
part of the cycle.
Now this the funny part.
Don now understands why things go down.
Can't figure that out for the life of him. And yet he has a PhD!
And oh, yes, ..how transform faults form.
Funny, myself and several other researchers have shown how transforms
can form.
Don hasn't actuallyread a paper on PT, mantle convection etc. Real
science scares the crap out of him.
As is shown by his refusal to attend a conference on geodynamics.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
