George wrote:

"Gerry Seaton" <seatong@equate.net> wrote in message
news:ed78s20km8@news3.newsguy.com...

"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1156846477.459789.154820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Timberwoof wrote:-
"The fundamental error in your thinking, Don, is the notion that
disproving either Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth automatically
proves the other one."

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/c10f9297a33577ee?hl=
en&

No, ..that's not what's being said. What *IS* being said is that Plate
Tectonics is nonsense in its own right and needs its geological support
scrutinised, when it will be found to have no geological legs
whatsoever. And no credible supporting *mechanism* either. Plate
Tectonics is based on false observations (crumpled crust/ mountains -
upheaval/ ***** intrusion as a ridge-driver/ etc.) and false theory -
the balance of ridge creation with subduction (but if subduction
balances ridge creation, then no ocean floor could ever develop in the
first place). Plate Tectonics has two mutually exclusive models -
subducting slabs and plumes, and therefore no credible rationale at
all, neither in geological fact, nor in theory.

I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with subduction. It has been an
active process in the past 200 million years all around the Pacific
Ocean.

It is easy to conclude that from the interpretation of any map of the
region. Pure geology.

The precise mechanism that drove the subduction is irrelevant right now.
The fact that subduction was an ongoing process surrounding an entire
region is the important factor. The discovery of the actual mechanism
that caused it will be determined in due course.

You can have subduction, as a fact, without knowing at this time what the
exact driving mechanism might be. Correct?

You just can't see subduction ongoing all the way around the Pacific at
this time, or measure it everywhere right at this moment, because it
isn't happening everywhere right now. But it did happen everywhere in the
past; you just weren't there to see it. That's not a problem; correct?

My conclusion is just as valid as that of anyone else. What you consider
as false observations I consider as valid observations.

Gerry

Don Findaly doesn't think that subduction occurs because if it does, his
house of cards comes tumbling down. So when you discuss anything with Don
Findlay, remember the adage "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil", and
those little monkey statues.

***** off George. Go and offer your services elsewhere.

You're full of
old wank, ...you old codger, ...you and all the 'prizewinners'.

---------------------------------------------
"Subduction happens where the crust pushes the mantle plate down."
"The subducting slab drives convection."
"Convection drives plate tectonics."
I.E., the crust pushing the mantle down drives global tectonics.
---------------------------------------------

George

"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1157071288.576798.200450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Gerry Seaton wrote:

"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:1156846477.459789.154820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Timberwoof wrote:-
"The fundamental error in your thinking, Don, is the notion that
disproving either Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth automatically
proves the other one."
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.geo.geology/msg/c10f9297a33577ee?hl=en&

No, ..that's not what's being said. What *IS* being said is that Plate
Tectonics is nonsense in its own right and needs its geological support
scrutinised, when it will be found to have no geological legs
whatsoever. And no credible supporting *mechanism* either. Plate
Tectonics is based on false observations (crumpled crust/ mountains -
upheaval/ ***** intrusion as a ridge-driver/ etc.) and false theory -
the balance of ridge creation with subduction (but if subduction
balances ridge creation, then no ocean floor could ever develop in the
first place). Plate Tectonics has two mutually exclusive models -
subducting slabs and plumes, and therefore no credible rationale at
all, neither in geological fact, nor in theory.

I'm not quite sure why you have a problem with subduction. It has been an
active process in the past 200 million years all around the Pacific
Ocean.

It is easy to conclude that from the interpretation of any map of the
region. Pure geology.

Is it? I don't think so.

I don't care that you don't think so. You interpret the map your way, and
I'll interpret the map my way.


You have to begin with what the word is

actually saying, which is "sub" - "duction" ('down'-carrying') and
balance that against what is actually there.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/abstracts/subduction.html
see also:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tck/lingo1.html

Any information you may wish to pass along in these links is wasted. If any
valid observations are presented they are hidden amongst all the
unscientific rants, conspiracy claims and incoherent, run on paragraphs, all
in a lees than scientific language. Why would anyone spend time digging
through a garbage dump with the offhand chance of finding a bauble that
might, or might not, be worth anything. If you have something to say why
don't you just say it, in clear, precise, scientific language; in as few
words as is necessary.

Then again, the fact that you believe it is all a scientific conspiracy says
a lot.

The precise mechanism that drove the subduction is irrelevant right now.

"Subduction versus overriding" ... Noting that overriding is now the
preferred position of both Nasa and the USGS, and the dichotomy between
'subduction' and 'plumes' as driving mechanisms for the hypothesised
convection renders convection as a mechanism for anything whatsoever to
do with crustal deformation highly questionable (and that global
deformation is in any case symmetrical with spin) ..when do you think
it might become relevant?

About the same time that the mechanism for the Expanding Earth becomes
relevant. If the mechanism for one is not relevant for a discussion, then by
default, the mechanism for the other becomes irrelevant.

I didn't say anything about convection, so why did you find it necessary to
bring it up. Remember... I said the mechanism that drives PT is irrelevant
right now.

What would you like to see settled first?

What's not settled?

The
fact that subduction was an ongoing process surrounding an entire region
is
the important factor. The discovery of the actual mechanism that caused
it
will be determined in due course.

The nature of that interface is of course the crux of the matter. Now,
..it actually defines where the spreading ridge was initiated - just
like the coastlines of Africa/ Europe and the Americas define where the
Atlantic spreading ridge started. (This is not negotiable. It is an
obvious observation, ..every bit as significant as in those links above
showing the Earthquakes, ... that they only go down as deep as the
lithosphere then slide along the asthenosphere. "Flat Subduction" (a
contradiction in terms but nevertheless an emerging part of the
changing lingo of plate Tectonics) is what all of that represents,
..the lithosphere 'skating' on the mantle. It is exactly the mechanism
(or part of it) that the models of continental drift were looking for a
century ago. That Plate Tectonics has provided it, and spent the
latter half of the last century misrepresenting

The misprepresentation that you claim is your conclusion. Many others
conclude that it is a valid representation.

I see no proof that you have offered that should tend to chnage my
conclusion. Besides, you have returned to a discussion of what you claim is
an invalid PT mechanism. I said that the mechanism is irrelevant at this
time.

If it is relevant to the discussion, then it would follow that the mechanism
for Expanding Earth would be just as relevant. Shall we discuss the driving
mechanism for Expanding Earth, so that we may compare PT and EE on equal
terms?

it as convetive return
rather than lithospheric dislocation, is shameful, and draws
graphically into question what the business of 'real science' is about,
namely a consensus publication bandwagon, where alternative
explanations are not welcome, because it makes it so much harder to get
stuff published.

So, it all is driven by a science wide, whole earth conspiracy.

I think I see the light.

You can have subduction, as a fact, without knowing at this time what the
exact driving mechanism might be. Correct?

Yes, provided you have an alternative proof for the existence of
convection other than the thing you are trying to prove is
convected.(And concepts of lighter crust pushing denser mantle down is
not it.) (and neither is the concept of glacially slow transfer of heat
in a solid medium)

There you go with the convection again. Isn't that a claimed mechanism?
Didn't I say that I believe that the mechanism claimed for PT is irrelevant.

If you must keep bringing convection back into the discussion, then let us
at least compare it to the mechanism that drives EE. That would be what?

You just can't see subduction ongoing all the way around the Pacific at
this
time, or measure it everywhere right at this moment, because it isn't
happening everywhere right now. But it did happen everywhere in the past;
you just weren't there to see it. That's not a problem; correct?

I think you need to revise some logic here. If there are solid grounds
for considering subduction never happened anywhere in the past, there
are no grounds for suggesting it once happened everywhere.

That would be your logic. Correct?

I don't see any grounds for considering that subduction never happened, much
less solid grounds. You might, but I don't. So your logic would be be
wrong, in my case.

My conclusion is just as valid as that of anyone else. What you consider
as
false observations I consider as valid observations.

So what (exactly) *IS* your observation (apart from the locus of
Earthquakes)?

My observation is that the maps I have looked at all clearly show that PT is
a valid theory, and that the earth has not expanded in the manner claimed by
EE over the last 200 million years.

Anyway, if you think subduction is a goer, ..how do you go with the
absence of crustal crumpling where mountain belts are "thrown up" (by
plate collision) ?

I don't know what mountains you have ever climbed, but I have traversed a
lot of crumpled strata. You know, even in the tightest of folds there is
always going to be some part that is horizontal. In broad folds, there can
be some pretty good runs of flat ground. Overall, it's still crumpled
ground. But of course, you knew that, didn't you.

Gerry