Cito di Pense wrote:
There is not constant upwelling of mantle. [...]

First, I wrote "if". Second, there are mantle upwellings (that's is your "up" part of convection).

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:... If there is a constant upwelling of mantle, there is permanent supply of melt and "free refill" of the magma chambers.

If there is no return flow (which, of course there is) [...]

This is a belief.

newolder wrote:, what is the source of this mantle? If there is a constant flow then its source is replenished by what? Magic or more "free refill" from the vacuum?

Nothing is magic in this world my dear. Remember, if it happens, it must be possible.

aban57 wrote:

Florian wrote:
Would you say that the sidewalk subducted under the ice-cream

Clearly you don't make the difference between an immobile sidewalk and a moving subducting plate.

Jeez, you totally missed the point... What you did not understand is that the ice-cream/sidewalk example is representative of the Scotia sea region and every subduction zone. What is truly moving is the ice-cream (Scotia expanding flow), not the sidewalk (Atlantic lithosphere)!
Got it now?

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:... If there is a constant upwelling of mantle, there is permanent supply of melt and "free refill" of the magma chambers.

If there is no return flow (which, of course there is) [...]

This is a belief.

It's a model-dependent conclusion. The model is built from both theoretical and empiric considerations and, so far, has failed no test.

newolder wrote:, what is the source of this mantle? If there is a constant flow then its source is replenished by what? Magic or more "free refill" from the vacuum?

Nothing is magic in this world my dear.

I'm not your "dear".

Remember, if it happens, it must be possible.

Remember, if you can supply no evidence for your beliefs then they can be dismissed without further consideration.

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
There is not constant upwelling of mantle. [...]

First, I wrote "if".

You wrote 'if' because you knew fuck all about mantle upwellings at the time you wrote 'if'. Otherwise, you'd have mentioned it.

Florian wrote:
Exactly, so your assumption that there must be a global net tension is obviously wrong. Compressions must happen when there is migration of material to their point of isostatic equilibrium, especially if that point is at the surface.

"net" means overall and it means evaluating the stress state including both compression and tensional regimes. If you don't understand how people evaluate the net stress in the lithosphere, then you fucking don't, and you should probably shut the fuck up about that problem in that case.

Florian wrote:
Did you mean atmosphere or asthenosphere? I suppose asthenosphere.

No, I meant atmosphere. On an expanding earth, the surface would not support a net compression state from internal expansion of the planet. The mechanics of this is not subtle, and your mistakes and poor guesses are becoming abundant. The crust has to be in a net tensional state with an expanding planet, even while there are local regions of compression because the surface is brittle and fails. Your analysis involves non-physical assertions, IOW, "magic".

Florian wrote:
Once the lithosphere fails why would you expect that there is remaining tension in it. Let's take the example of an egg in which you continuously inject something to increase its internal pressure until the shell breaks into pieces. Once the shell is fragmented, is there still tension in the pieces? I do not think so.

Well, your thinking is idiotic. If the eggshell cracks and the interior keeps inflating, the spaces between the pieces of eggshell get larger and larger filled with egg. The egg does not turn back into eggshell. Find a better analogy. The EE notion is that the earth has been expanding continuously, as part of an ongoing process. This tensional state, then, has to be maintained over time, despite local relaxations of the stress field. If you suggest we are not able to observe this due to our special situation (in time) as observers, you're resorting to special pleading, which your audience recognizes is hardly a new thing with you.

Florian wrote:Remember, if it happens, it must be possible.

You haven't fucking shown that it happens. That's where you went wrong to begin with. Showing it happens will at least involve showing that the crust and lithosphere are in a state of net tension when the stress state is evaluated thoroughly and the accounting is not fudged, the way it goes with the fantasy theories of the dickheads whose drivel you read and swallow whole.

"Free refill from the vacuum". LOL.

Florian wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Florian wrote:
Would you say that the sidewalk subducted under the ice-cream

Clearly you don't make the difference between an immobile sidewalk and a moving subducting plate.

Jeez, you totally missed the point... What you did not understand is that the ice-cream/sidewalk example is representative of the Scotia sea region and every subduction zone. What is truly moving is the ice-cream (Scotia expanding flow), not the sidewalk (Atlantic lithosphere)!
Got it now?

Oh, sure. Tell us another one that makes analogies between ice cream or eggshells and planetary geodynamics. Your rationalizations have childlike simplicity and consequently, childlike effectiveness at displacing accepted theories. Childlike simplicity in the thinking of adults dealing with complex systems suggessts a case for cognitive impairment.

Florian wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:I once saw an ice cream expand onto a sidewalk.

Very good example!
Would you say that the sidewalk subducted under the ice-cream with subsequent reduction of the surface of the sidewalk+icecream? Because that is exactly equivalent to what plate tectonics assumes!

There is no bottom to the depths of stupidity, is there?

To the plate tectonics believers: Can you draw the convection cycle for the Atlantic Ocean?

I can't believe this discussion is still on. It's so obvious, even to the blind, that Earth has expanded 180 million years ago. Even Mantovani published his expanding earth paper in 1909. More than 100+ years later, you haven't figured it out? What a joke.

Newstein wrote:To the plate tectonics believers: Can you draw the convection cycle for the Atlantic Ocean?

The Atlantic Ocean geographically is not a tectonic regime. This involves understanding that the relevant subduction zones need not be on the same side of continental landmasses as the spreading ridges, nor even on the same plate. It involves understanding that portions of the American plates are ocean basins. It involves underatanding that the geochemistry and thermodynamics of the oceanic lithosphere makes it impossible that subduction will not eventually occur. You apparently understand none of these things, but you could just be ignoring facts that are inconvenient for your eccentric theory. If you look at plate tectonics as if it were a jigsaw puzzle, you're going to analyze it as a child would. Next?

Newstein wrote:I can't believe this discussion is still on. It's so obvious, even to the blind, that Earth has expanded 180 million years ago. Even Mantovani published his expanding earth paper in 1909. More than 100+ years later, you haven't figured it out? What a joke.

Oh, OK. What's next is more tedious trolling. See ya.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Newstein wrote:To the plate tectonics believers: Can you draw the convection cycle for the Atlantic Ocean?

The Atlantic Ocean geographically is not a tectonic regime. This involves understanding that the relevant subduction zones need not be on the same side of continental landmasses as the spreading ridges, nor even on the same plate. It involves understanding that portions of the American plates are ocean basins. It involves underatanding that the geochemistry and thermodynamics of the oceanic lithosphere makes it impossible that subduction will not eventually occur. You apparently understand none of these things, but you could just be ignoring facts that are inconvenient for your eccentric theory. Next?

Did I mention subduction? I said, draw the convection cycle. How the Atlantic Ocean is growing. Or whatever your explanation is.

Does anyone have a world map with the correct movements of the plates? in mm/year?

Newstein wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Newstein wrote:To the plate tectonics believers: Can you draw the convection cycle for the Atlantic Ocean?

The Atlantic Ocean geographically is not a tectonic regime. This involves understanding that the relevant subduction zones need not be on the same side of continental landmasses as the spreading ridges, nor even on the same plate. It involves understanding that portions of the American plates are ocean basins. It involves underatanding that the geochemistry and thermodynamics of the oceanic lithosphere makes it impossible that subduction will not eventually occur. You apparently understand none of these things, but you could just be ignoring facts that are inconvenient for your eccentric theory. Next?

Did I mention subduction? I said, draw the convection cycle. How the Atlantic Ocean is growing. Or whatever your explanation is.

Fuck that shit, Newstein. Draw a picture of what's creating the mass that is causing the earth to expand, or else fuck off.

Of course you want to avoid talking about subduction: It's the wooden stake in the heart of the EE vampire. What happened? Did Florian get you on the horn asking for your 'help'? Yes, it must be exhausting spouting EE idiocy for x hours a day.

The planet is the control volume, and you just blurt out that it's expanding. You couldn't manage a control volume balance if your life depended on it.

Does anyone have a world map with the correct movements of the plates? in mm/year?

This is routinely available information, and you're extemporizing, dissembling. Entirely expected when internet trolling is involved.

I'm talking with a six year old boy here who thinks I'm conspiring with other people I don't know here . Anyone else?

This is the mechanism for the Expanding Earth. No mass addition. Just gravity.
Thank you

Newstein wrote:I'm talking with a six year old boy here who thinks I'm conspiring with other people I don't know here . Anyone else?

You're asking for drawings that support plate tectonics, but your own theory is not accepted yet. Get busy drawing some pretty pictures about how we get something from nothing. You know how that's done. The above sketch looks like a child's fingerpainting with shit on the bathroom walls.

There isn't really an EE vampire any more. There's just the undead EE apologetics.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Newstein wrote:I'm talking with a six year old boy here who thinks I'm conspiring with other people I don't know here . Anyone else?

You're asking for drawings that support plate tectonics, but your own theory is not accepted yet. Get busy drawing some pretty pictures about how we get something from nothing. You know how that's done. The above sketch looks like a child's fingerpainting with shit on the bathroom walls.

There isn't really an EE vampire any more. There's just the undead EE apologetics.

Seriously? Hmm. I'm sure adults will understand my fingerpainting. It also confirms that gravity as in mass attracts mass is an illusion.

Look how perfectly the isochrons close on a calculated, smaller sphere. EE will be the new accepted theory in science. Soon

There is no tectonic closure at 60My. On a Earth with radius 6371km. Let that sink in guys