newolder wrote:
Observations of mid ocean floor spreading and plate boundary subduction, i.e. "the way active margins work and evolve", do not lead to a rational conclusion that the Earth is expanding.

Oh yes it does, because it shows that there is no surface reduction of the lithosphere at active margins.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:
If you cannot comprehend a simple case study, you will never understand the global picture. So far, nothing indicate that you comprehend the case study of the Scotia sea. Nothing. so prove me you understand the point made with he Scotia sea, then only we can move forward with more complicated cases.

I don't have to explain the Scotia Sea, because I'm not a bullshit artist trying to promote a bullshit theory on an obscure skeptic forum.

If you don't want to comprehend that case study, then you are in denial.

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:
Observations of mid ocean floor spreading and plate boundary subduction, i.e. "the way active margins work and evolve", do not lead to a rational conclusion that the Earth is expanding.

Oh yes it does, because it shows that there is no surface reduction of the lithosphere at active margins.

So you say, Florian. Ten years of study to say shit like that? Bullshit.

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:
If you cannot comprehend a simple case study, you will never understand the global picture. So far, nothing indicate that you comprehend the case study of the Scotia sea. Nothing. so prove me you understand the point made with he Scotia sea, then only we can move forward with more complicated cases.

I don't have to explain the Scotia Sea, because I'm not a bullshit artist trying to promote a bullshit theory on an obscure skeptic forum.

If you don't want to comprehend that case study, then you are in denial.

Name-calling doesn't make your case. Use your purported ten years of study to say something more scientific. Ten years of study? Bullshit!

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:
Observations of mid ocean floor spreading and plate boundary subduction, i.e. "the way active margins work and evolve", do not lead to a rational conclusion that the Earth is expanding.

Oh yes it does, because it shows that there is no surface reduction of the lithosphere at active margins.

There was no local surface reduction as a result of the subduction/recoil earthquakes at active margins that produced the tsunami of 2004 & 2011, yeah, riiiight.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote: I can play that game: eclogitization.

You can look up terms on the internet. Well done, you. Ten years of study? Bullshit.

Arf (again), I have about 2000 pdf reprint on the subject that I've read over the years in my personal library. Among them, the "Volcanic arcs fed by rapid pulsed fluid flow through subducting slabs" NatGeo 2012 (DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1482) which discusses among other things the role of eclogitization in arc magmatism.

You truly know nothing. Why am I not surprised at all?
Your error is to believe that you know better. Sure, there are certainly a few domains that you master way better than me, but one thing I learned during my PhD is that one has to be humble to make good science. You apparently missed that lesson.

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote: I can play that game: eclogitization.

You can look up terms on the internet. Well done, you. Ten years of study? Bullshit.

Arf (again), I have about 2000 pdf reprint on the subject that I've read over the years in my personal library. Among them, the "Volcanic arcs fed by rapid pulsed fluid flow through subducting slabs" NatGeo 2012 (DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1482) which discusses among other things the role of eclogitization in arc magmatism.

You truly know nothing. Why am I not surprised at all?
Your error is to believe that you know better. Sure, there are certainly a few domains that you master way better than me, but one thing I learned during my PhD is that one has to be humble to make good science. You apparently missed that lesson.

National Geographic? Mentioning subducting slabs? What are you at? How about JGR? If you look it up, you can figure out what JGR stands for. Get with the program! Ten years of study? Bullshit! You failed as a scientist or you would not be selling wolf tickets on the internet after ten years of study. As far as I am concerned, you are lying about possessing a Ph.D.. You don't talk like a researcher with expertise in geophysics and geodynamics, but like a wannabe with a baccalaureate. In something like underwater basket-weaving. You sound like a hobbyist.

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:
Observations of mid ocean floor spreading and plate boundary subduction, i.e. "the way active margins work and evolve", do not lead to a rational conclusion that the Earth is expanding.

Oh yes it does, because it shows that there is no surface reduction of the lithosphere at active margins.

There was no local surface reduction as a result of the subduction/recoil earthquakes at active margins that produced the tsunami of 2004 & 2011, yeah, riiiight.

If you had read the papers on the subject, you would know there was indeed no reduction of surface. The record of the GPS stations show the coseismic displacements (See figure). A large block of the Japanese forearc extruded and moved over the Pacific lithosphere. So there was a displacement at the surface, but no reduction of the surface.

You are full of preconceived ideas, but none of you really examine the details that give you all the keys.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Arf (again), I have about 2000 pdf reprint on the subject that I've read over the years in my personal library. Among them, the "Volcanic arcs fed by rapid pulsed fluid flow through subducting slabs" NatGeo 2012 (DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1482) which discusses among other things the role of eclogitization in arc magmatism.

You truly know nothing. Why am I not surprised at all?
Your error is to believe that you know better. Sure, there are certainly a few domains that you master way better than me, but one thing I learned during my PhD is that one has to be humble to make good science. You apparently missed that lesson.

National Geographic? Mentioning subducting slabs? What are you at?

NatGeo = Nature Geoscience !!

You can be really funny at times!!

Florian wrote:
You can be really funny at times!!

I try, but sometimes it's inadvertent. At any rate, you're probably done trying to document the expanding earth with peer-reviewed publications. There's just nothing that prevents cool metasomatized lithosphere from subducting. You're still spouting bullshit to try to deny it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:
You can be really funny at times!!

I try, but sometimes it's inadvertent. At any rate, you're probably done trying to document the expanding earth with peer-reviewed publications. There's just nothing that prevents cool metasomatized lithosphere from subducting. You're still spouting bullshit to try to deny it.

You are building a strawman. I never said that a slab cannot sink. My point is that the driving force that makes it sink is the load of what is progressively pilling up on it.

You still did not explain me what physics support that a slab of brittle lithosphere can drag thousands km of brittle lithosphere without a glitch.

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:
You can be really funny at times!!

I try, but sometimes it's inadvertent. At any rate, you're probably done trying to document the expanding earth with peer-reviewed publications. There's just nothing that prevents cool metasomatized lithosphere from subducting. You're still spouting bullshit to try to deny it.

You are building a strawman. I never said that an slab cannot sink. My point is that the driving force that makes it sink is the load of what is progressively pilling up on it.

Well, you do seem to like the non-physical explanations, so I guess it's back to ice-cream cones, then. Why don't you give us a dissertation on isostatic balance, now? Be sure to include some commentary on gravity anomalies. Since I've prompted you for the terms, you can just look them up. Be sure to document carefully what 'piling up' is all about, except in someplace like the Alpine-Himalaya. Anyway, do give an account of how "piling up and sinking" helps the case for expansion. Sinking stuff doesn't create more surface area. Ten years of study? Bullshit! You're debunked with high-school physics.

Florian wrote:I have about 2000 pdf reprint on the subject that I've read over the years in my personal library.

Now, if only you could recall what you read, instead of spouting random drivel that sounds like something you might have read.

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:
Observations of mid ocean floor spreading and plate boundary subduction, i.e. "the way active margins work and evolve", do not lead to a rational conclusion that the Earth is expanding.

Oh yes it does, because it shows that there is no surface reduction of the lithosphere at active margins.

There was no local surface reduction as a result of the subduction/recoil earthquakes at active margins that produced the tsunami of 2004 & 2011, yeah, riiiight.

If you had read the papers on the subject, you would know there was indeed no reduction of surface. The record of the GPS stations show the coseismic displacements (See figure). A large block of the Japanese forearc extruded and moved over the Pacific lithosphere. So there was a displacement at the surface, but no reduction of the surface.

You are full of preconceived ideas, but none of you really examine the details that give you all the keys.

The linked article shows that one plate slipped over another. The upper plate now covers an area of the lower plate that used to be the sea bed but now lies beneath (aka subduction). Indeed, the legend to Figure 1 includes:

The broken red lines show the depth of the subducting plate interface50

How is that not indicative of an area reduction local to the lower plate?

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:
You can be really funny at times!!

I try, but sometimes it's inadvertent. At any rate, you're probably done trying to document the expanding earth with peer-reviewed publications. There's just nothing that prevents cool metasomatized lithosphere from subducting. You're still spouting bullshit to try to deny it.

You are building a strawman. I never said that a slab cannot sink. My point is that the driving force that makes it sink is the load of what is progressively pilling up on it.

You still did not explain me what physics support that a slab of brittle lithosphere can drag thousands km of brittle lithosphere without a glitch.

Florian, you have to admit that subduction is the only explication for the constant radius.

South America is moving 34mm/year to the west relative to the mid-atlantic ridge.
Spreading ridge in the Pacific 86mm/year, direction east.
So if are able to count, the subduction speed at Chile = 120mm/year !!
Data is proving this number so I'm starting to take the side of those friendly people around here that are supporters of the plate tectonics theory.

LucidFlight wrote:

Thank you for caressing my trunkie. It feels so good, lady Luv hmmm

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:
You are building a strawman. I never said that an slab cannot sink. My point is that the driving force that makes it sink is the load of what is progressively pilling up on it.

Well, you do seem to like the non-physical explanations, so I guess it's back to ice-cream cones, then. Why don't you give us a dissertation on isostatic balance, now? Be sure to include some commentary on gravity anomalies. Since I've prompted you for the terms, you can just look them up. Be sure to document carefully what 'piling up' is all about, except in someplace like the Alpine-Himalaya. Anyway, do give an account of how "piling up and sinking" helps the case for expansion. Sinking stuff doesn't create more surface area.

Sinking stuff doesn't reduce any surface when the stuff sinks because it is overloaded by stuff running over it and pilling up on it. If your ice-cream were dense enough, you sidewalk would sink under it. And they would not be any reduction of the surface of the sidewalk.

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:
You are building a strawman. I never said that an slab cannot sink. My point is that the driving force that makes it sink is the load of what is progressively pilling up on it.

Well, you do seem to like the non-physical explanations, so I guess it's back to ice-cream cones, then. Why don't you give us a dissertation on isostatic balance, now? Be sure to include some commentary on gravity anomalies. Since I've prompted you for the terms, you can just look them up. Be sure to document carefully what 'piling up' is all about, except in someplace like the Alpine-Himalaya. Anyway, do give an account of how "piling up and sinking" helps the case for expansion. Sinking stuff doesn't create more surface area.

Sinking stuff doesn't reduce any surface when the stuff sinks because it is overloaded by stuff running over it and pilling up on it. If your ice-cream were dense enough, you sidewalk would sink under it. And they would not be any reduction of the surface of the sidewalk.

You seem to conveniently forget that plates are moving...

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:
If you had read the papers on the subject, you would know there was indeed no reduction of surface. The record of the GPS stations show the coseismic displacements (See figure). A large block of the Japanese forearc extruded and moved over the Pacific lithosphere. So there was a displacement at the surface, but no reduction of the surface.

You are full of preconceived ideas, but none of you really examine the details that give you all the keys.

The linked article shows that one plate slipped over another. The upper plate now covers an area of the lower plate that used to be the sea bed but now lies beneath (aka subduction). Indeed, the legend to Figure 1 includes:

The broken red lines show the depth of the subducting plate interface50

How is that not indicative of an area reduction local to the lower plate?

Look carefully at what happened to the surface of the "upper plate", as partially shown by the horizontal displacements due to the post seismic slip (Fig6C).

See the vectors? They show that the east coast of that area of Japan moved eastward, but the west coast did not move. So it means that the east coast went away from the west coast, in other words, there was extension in between the two coasts => the surface of Japan increased!

This is exactly the same situation than for the Scotia arc or any active margin: The arc expands over the "lower plate" => no surface reduction.

aban57 wrote:
You seem to conveniently forget that plates are moving...

We measure relative displacements and there is no need to cut the lithosphere into multiple rigid plates to explain them.
These relative displacements are explained by spreading ridges and active regions of flowing mantle and/or lithosphere.