Just A Theory wrote:
Yet you don't accept tomographic data which reveals the geology of subducted crust.

Do you understand tomographies? Do you know how there made? the weaknesses of the method? You should read THIS.

Just A Theory wrote:
While I understand that you may not have read the entirety of the thread, we have already discussed a paper by Wu et al (link) which gives a stated accuracy to the non-expansion of the Earth down to 0.2mm/year.

Now, other EE proponents claimed that Wu and his colleagues could not possibly measure the data to that accuracy due to their exclusion of certain geologic features which they believed supported EE. And yet, now, you are claiming that GPS is accurate to 0.3mm/day precisely at those features which were discounted in the Wu study and that EE proponents claim are the source of the error.

Nope, you did not understand the issues in Wu's paper. It is not a problem of data accuracy, but of data selection and modeling. (See in details HERE)

ginckgo wrote:

Florian wrote:

ginckgo wrote:

Florian wrote:
We know that McCarthy's figure is wrong, because Australia was along Laurentia, not south America (according to geological and geochemical data).

Can you give me the references that show these geological and geochemical dat, please.

This one is about the relationships between Australia, East-antartica and South West Laurentia:
A Positive Test of East Antarctica

Except that's discussing the juxtaposition around 1,400 Ma in the Mesoproterozoic, a lot has happened since then.

So what? That's the predictive power of the theory. It can prediction that goes far back in time unlike PT.
I chose 1.4 Ga, because that allows to remove large chunks of lithosphere which makes the prediction more dramatic.
By the way, a Google Earth overlay for the age of continental lithosphere is available HERE.

ginckgo wrote: But I guess for EE this is still relevant because it assumes that the continents didn't rift until <200Ma.

I guess that by "didn't rift" you meant that modern ocean basin did not open until <200 Ma? Except that there was production of lithosphere before the opening of the modern oceans, so that cratons still moved apart before 200Ma.

ginckgo wrote: I'd be more interested by a study that looks at the relationships from <500Ma.

Given the poor accuracy of the map for the age of continental lithosphere, relationships at age older than 500 Ma are more practical. If you have a better map, you're welcome to provide it.

ginckgo wrote:
You don't understand the significance of ophiolites? You mean how they often preserve nicely the layers of oceanic crust squeezed between collided continental plates? How this fact (despite ad hoc protestations to the contrary) is evidence of the continental "bumper cars", but is quite incompatible with EE.

It is a typical error to deduce from ophiolites the former existence of a wide ocean. Luts remind us that:

"The ophiolite hyperbasite-gabbro-basalt complexes in the oceans, transition zones, and continental mobile belts are discussed in terms of essential individual differences between the ophiolite complexes confined to the mid-oceanic ridges, deep-water trenches, island arcs, deep-water basins of marginal seas, and minor oceanic basins. Several types are distinguished in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic ophiolitic sections of the continental mobile belts with the conclusion that a number of ophiolitic complexes cannot be described as oceanic formations and that the major types of continental ophiolitic sections have no immediate actualistic analogies in modern oceans and transition zones."

Luts, B. G. (1990). Types of ophiolitic formations (are they remnants of oceanic crust?). In Barto-Kyriakidis, 1990, vol. 2, pp. 281-305.

ginckgo wrote:

PleaseReadThis wrote: Is there something observed in the isochron map that contradicts EE?

Yes, the triangular oldest oceanic crust pattern in the NW Pacific is impossible according to all the realistic scenarios of the Pacific opening up according to EE, but is perfectly congruent with the PT reconstruction of a Pacific Basin that has been open for a long time.

Not even true. The EE scenario is the only plausible one given the evidence at hand, and solve many paradoxes like that of the formation of the Zodiac fan in the gulf of Alaska.

Erakivnor wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:Wow. 23 guests at the moment. Strangely popular thread.

Because we are all fascinated by our Mother Earth...someone maybe too much

EE is "geology reloaded"

Florian wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

Florian wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:

Florian, your treatment of the subject is too simplistic and it has generated an error.

A more comprehensive and detailed look is given by this paper: Conditions for the onset of plate tectonics on terrestrial planets and moons O'Neill et al 2006. In short, both brittle and elastic deformations are possible; see section 2.2 for a good discussion.

Regardless of the rheology of the lithosphere at the lithosphere/asthenosphere interface, do you think there is no friction?

Of course there is friction. However, as the paper demonstrates, your treatment of the friction is too simplistic and the real scenario is substantially more complex.

It might be simplistic, but do you believe that my simplification overestimate or underestimate the resistive force?

As the paper shows, you are overestimating the resistance to the movement of tectonic plates.

Florian wrote:
Do you understand tomographies? Do you know how there made? the weaknesses of the method? You should read THIS.

That page deals with the difficulties of mapping the entire mantle. Even with the weaknesses of seismic tomography, it is still capable of showing subducted crust.

Nope, you did not understand the issues in Wu's paper. It is not a problem of data accuracy, but of data selection and modeling. (See in details HERE)

[/quote]

You should take that up with earthexpansion. He claimed that (original post here) 0.3mm/day could be measured at ocean ridges etc. He used that claim to attempt to refute another scientific paper that I had discussed.

Florian wrote:
EE is "geology reloaded"

EE is loaded with something, but it ain't geology.

"Orogenic plateaus" - That's when it's time to call it a day.

Well, .. that was that. Once they start talking about "orogenic plateaus" (colliding plates pushing up plateaus) it's time to call it a day. They've lost the plot, .. up the creek. Hamstrung by their "plates and plate convergence". It's what happens when they try to interpret what they're seeing in terms of the wrong paradigm - because _they_thought_of_it. They refuse to let it speak for itself.

Get this: ... On the one hand the colliding plates are supposed to crumple the crust (and throw up "mountains" which are all rugged bumps) and on the other hand colliding plates are supposed to *not* crumple the crust, .. and throw up plateaus instead, .. which are flat as a tack - or as near as makes no difference. "Elevator Tectonics" they call it, creating "orogenic plateaus" Well, .. if that doesn't make any self-respecting geologist throw up, nothing will, .. driven by geophysicists of course, spinning fantasy fairy-brain floss off the top of their collective head, in the knowledge that everybody will nod (if they're not asleep already). I haven't seen one instance of "vigourous debate", where somebody actually contradicts somebody else's effort. (It's the original 'old boy club' where they vie with each other over the fineness of spun sugar.)

I ask you, .. how inconsistent can you get - if not just bloody, outright stupid? Can it be reconciled numerically? Of course it can. Does it make sense? Of course it doesn't (10, 9, 8, 7, 6, .. and five's 11) (heard it before?) (Wanna see my toes?)

To lend authority to this ridiculous state of affairs they invoke a "multidisciplinary approach" that includes geodynamics, seismology, geodesy, metamorphic and igneous petrology and geochemistry, structural geology, sedimentology, tectonic geomorphology, and mineral physics - which happily allows everybody to have a finger in the 'research pie' - which is the point of it all ("We are a community of scientists"). The phalanx of respectable science, in a white coat. The emperor's given away his dude-suit for white. All he needs is a fluffy cloud for a friend, and everybody's supposed to think they're looking at the Promised Land - With Just a Theory there citing and ripping papers on the gate.

Talk about a waste of effort(!) (and money). What's it going to take to puncture this jamboree of free lunch? Eh?

"Orogenic Plateaus ... " ( Ungghh !) What rubbish!

If Just a Theory thinks just by citing this stuff he can turn this swamp of escapes into high dry ground he's got another thing coming.

The changing liturgy of Plate Tectonics a.k.a. "Advances in the field of Plate Tectonics":-
"Flat Subduction"
"Orogenic plateaus"
"Elevator Tectonics"
"Diffuse Plate Boundaries."
"Whenever ideas fail, men invent words" (~Martin H. Fischer).

(Holding on like grim death, right enough! )

^$^$#@!! ( Anything to try to pull the wool over your eyes.)

(to be continued...)

Gosh! Burning a strawman is SO easy!

Inorite?

Florian wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Florian wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

It's got to be better than a non-existent one, whichever way you look at it.

Global expansion is a mechanism that explains the observations.

What a piss-taking load of old cobblers.

If that's all you can offer, there's no wonder you're not taken seriously.

Evidently, if you can't understand how expansion is connected to tectonic, you'll go nowhere...

Evidently it's not, as the scientific consensus agrees it's falsified.

Florian wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Florian wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:


Actually, JaT hit the nail on the head. You keep stating there's a whole new area of physics to be discovered.... just because it's necessary for your conjecture to operate.

Whatever it is, Florian, it ain't science.

See, you logic is bogus (bold emphasis).
EE is not a conjecture because there are empirical evidence that the surface of earth is expanding. Empirical evidence are not conjecture.

The problem is that your own logic is non-operative when it comes to this particular topic, thus you do not have the meta-cognitive capacity to judge other people's responses when it comes to EE. You can't understand why the consensus is against your cherished notion, then you outright ignore and wave away the hard questions. If you can't face up to them, then you've got no hope of even persuading a bunch of ignoramuses on the internet, let alone specialists working in the field.

I had a friend who was an astrologer for many years... and when I finally admitted (I hadn't previous because it was so important to him) that I thought it was all a load of old baloney, he was outraged - much like your reaction to the fact that people don't instantly fall for the half-baked set of claims you keep touting. The difference is, though, that when I asked him how his pet theory worked... he actually stopped and realised a simple fact: if you can't actually explain how it works, then you don't know that it even does work. The observations you keep referring to can all be explained by other methods that don't require nebulous New Physics being invoked.Funnily, it was the very fact that my friend had a very strong scientific background that lead him to realise how problematic it actually is when you strongly believe something is true yet have no actual idea how it operates. You, of course, seem to think it's just something you can handwave away.

Out of subject. EE is a theory that does explain tectonics. It explains why there is tectonic activity, and how it works at all scales (regional/global). If EE brought nothing to Earth Sciences, I would have zero interest in it.
For your information, I don't care about your états d'âme regarding this particular theory, but I will continue to debunk the load of bullshit you and others are spreading on it.

Morton's Demon.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

Florian wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
The bit I don't get... and it's the bit that keeps me coming back to find out more... is why there's a desire to proselytise it to complete strangers who, by and large, don't really give a fuck?

Personally, It is not about about proselytism but debunking.

No, it's clearly proselytizing Florian, even if you're unaware of it.

You go out of your way to find non-specialist fora to preach at non-specialists about The Good Word.

Florian wrote:

earthexpansion wrote:
Older sea-floor ages are the grey area in Mueller's diagram. The great circle of the ocean floor = the structure of the circumPacific. (Fig.2 here)
http://earthexpansion.blogspot.com.au/2 ... n-one.html
Therefore crustal dilation culminated in the Mesozoic to extrude the Pacific. The continental crust covered the entire Earth. There was no Panthalassa.

You should not oversimplify. There never was a Panthalassa ocean covering half the planet, but there were bit of oceanic crust in narrow seaways (geoscynclinal) and back-arcs.

You must adhere to the one true doctrine, or you will be cast out of the recognised believers!

earthexpansion wrote:"Orogenic plateaus" - That's when it's time to call it a day.*snip*

I thought your business was done here?

I do so hate drawn-out goodbyes.

your litany of psychopathic narcissistic reversals

Can someone find a single example of one of my psychopathic narcissistic reversals? I just want to know what they look like.

Spearthrower wrote:

your litany of psychopathic narcissistic reversals

Can someone find a single example of one of my psychopathic narcissistic reversals? I just want to know what they look like.

Would be futile if you're a narcissist

mindhack wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

your litany of psychopathic narcissistic reversals

Can someone find a single example of one of my psychopathic narcissistic reversals? I just want to know what they look like.

Would be futile if you're a narcissist

That brings up a whole new litany for narcissists who are nihilistic.

mindhack wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

your litany of psychopathic narcissistic reversals

Can someone find a single example of one of my psychopathic narcissistic reversals? I just want to know what they look like.

Would be futile if you're a narcissist

Hey man, stop trespassing in my metaphysics!

Earth Expansion wrote:
Get this: ... On the one hand the colliding plates are supposed to crumple the crust (and throw up "mountains" which are all rugged bumps) and on the other hand colliding plates are supposed to *not* crumple the crust, .. and throw up plateaus instead,

I'm wondering why you would expect all crustal formations to be of the same rocks and thickness. Also why every collision would be the same? Under different conditions different things happen.

.. which are flat as a tack - or as near as makes no difference.

I suggest that you take a look at some actual plateaus. I live on the Colorado plateau and there is very little flat about it.

Erakivnor wrote:
Here is the whole story. You believe that mountains grow, and just erode, then collapse.
I can hardly believe you ignore that the structure of mountains clearly disprove you. Orogens do not behave as expanding features.

You cannot ignore "ballooning" in large orogens: Sombrero Uplift Above the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body: Evidence of a Ballooning Mid-Crustal Diapir Yuri Fialko and Jill Pearse Science 338, 250 (2012)

Erakivnor wrote:
Not from the Global Scale (plate movement by magnetic anomalies or GPS, Continental crust thicker below orogens)
Not at the large scale (arcuation vs linearity, vergence of major thrusts)
Not at moderate scale (km- scale vergence of folds and thrusts)
Not at the mesoscale (folds foliations, veining)
Not at the micro scale (fiber orientation, mylonitization and cleavage)

All these geometries point towards a kinematics where blocks converge. Hence they converge.

I don't think that Don denies convergence. You disagree on the origin of the convergence for mobile belts: mantle driven, not lithosphere driven. The lithosphere is not at the origin of the motion, the job is done by mantle material advection and spreading near the surface. The formation of the Scotia sea is a good illustration of that process.