Posted: Jan 27, 2013 2:10 pm
Florian wrote:And the expansion of surface is supported by the empirical data. So no circular reasoning there.
Constant oceanic plate surface area is accounted for by mass balance between generation of oceanic lithosphere at divergent plate boundaries and subduction of lithosphere at convergent plate boundaries. Seismic tomography shows descending oceanic lithosphere to depths of hundreds of km. What empirical data support expansion of the surface? All you have are hand-waving assertions that massive amounts of old lithosphere are not observed in the process of subduction. That's denialism. And a complete absence of a model to explain either the failure of mass balance or the mechanism of volumetric expansion in accord with knowledge of condensed-matter physics of silicate materials.
Florian wrote:Except that evidence show that crust is not significantly shortened or destroyed
You are now simply denying the evidence revealed by seismic tomography at convergent plate boundaries. When you do try to confront this evidence, you hand-wave, miserably, and without explanation, that the quantities of oceanic lithosphere subducted are 'insufficient'. Subduction slabs are hundreds of kilometers in extent.
Florian wrote:
Did you just accuse me of being a troll?
Did anyone accuse you of being a troll? I don't think so. But your ridiculous and extremely repetitious capitulation to circular argument leaves me wondering what salutary influence you hope to have on this forum.