Newstein wrote:Ow the source is not good?

Mantle plumes: Why the current skepticism

They are that 1) many observations do not agree with the predictions of the original model, 2) it is possible that convection of the sort required to generate thermal plumes in the Earth’s mantle does not occur, 3) so many variants of the original model have been invoked to accommodate conflicting data that the plume hypthesis is in practice no longer testable, and 4) alternative models are viable, though these have been largely neglected by researchers. Regardless of the final outcome, the present vigorous debate is to be welcomed since it is likely to stimulate new discoveries in a way that unquestioning acceptance of the conventional plume model will not.

August 2005, Volume 50, Issue 15, pp 1555–1560| Cite as
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1360/982005-919

No, your source didn’t even come close to the challenge I presented you. You know full well you have no source which meets my challenge, or you would have presented it. Fail.

RS

felltoearth wrote:Annals of Geophysics. From the website.

Editorial Policies[/size]

II. Overview of the Editorial Process
Annals of Geophysics will provide all Authors with an efficient editorial process. Our aim is to identify those submissions that warrant inclusion in the scientific record and present them to the scientific community with as few hurdles as possible.

“SJR Impact Factor : 0.483”

https://www.scijournal.org/sjr-impact-f ... TALY.shtml

I think you'll find that a single paper published in an open access journal is sufficient to prove a complete consensus among geophysicists...

Newstein wrote:Oh boy. How do you suspend your account?

You could show some strength of character and just stop posting. Failing that message one of the Moderators.

Newstein wrote:Earth's primitive radius was 4175km in 180 million years, so do the math.

Done. But I think you meant "180 million years ago" and couldn't quite manage the mechanics. What's your mother tongue, anyway? Pidgin English? You're hell on wheels when it comes to pigeon chess.

Got any evidence from sedimentation rates revealed in the rocks of that time? Where was all the water in the ocean basins, you know, the ocean basins that didn't exist when the planet had that radius? Surely it would have affected sedimentation rates by covering up everything like some sort of biblical Flud. Had it done that, sedimentation rates would have been zero, so where did we get the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks? What caused Paleozoic orogenic events? Geosynclines filled with petroleium? Why are there rocks representative of oceanic crust of Paleozoic age? No citations of vetted research that doesn't exist, please.

Newstein wrote:Oh boy. How do you suspend your account?

Fasten a piece of rope overhead, make a noose in it, stand your account on a chair, stick the noose around the neck of your account, and kick the chair away. When your account stops twitching, cut it down and bury it in an unmarked grave.

newolder wrote:

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.

The model is built on a assumption, global lithosphere recycling, that is not verified, the recycling is local. The model fails.

newolder wrote:

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.

I believe in nothing. I observe something (the way active margins work and evolve) and draw the rational conclusions. I encourage you to do the same.

Florian wrote:
The model is built on a assumption, global lithosphere recycling, that is not verified, the recycling is local. The model fails.

So you say. I'm sure the geodynamics community hearkens to your every word, so you can point to all the citations your bullshit has in the literature.

Cito di Pense wrote:

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.

You know nothing about me. Quit assuming bullshit. I studied the subject for 10 years. I send you back to the mantle plume debates.

You make the most basic error of skepticism.....being informed.

Boehr could be skeptical of Einstein.

You simply do not have the knowledge base even to be an informed observer let alone draw rational conclusions.

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

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.

You know nothing about me. Quit assuming bullshit. I studied the subject for 10 years. I send you back to the mantle plume debates.

Lucky for you, no one has asked you to integrate those into the EE bullshit and seen your bullshit responses. Then we'd see how much you'd studied and how much you'd integrated what you'd studied. I don't want you to list your credentials. I can't verify them. Demonstrate your knowledge of 10 years' study by using your knowledge for something besides rude retorts.

Cito di Pense wrote:

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.

Could you please correct your language?
I repeat, there can't be overall tension in the pieces of a brittle material that has failed! Overall continental lithosphere floats over an expanding mantle. where would the tension comes from???
And the oceanic lithosphere is nothing else than "weathered" mantle.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Well, your thinking is idiotic.

Come on, I'm just trying to find simple analogies that you can comprehend... because your understanding of the surface mechanisms of Earths expansion is apparently non existent.

Cito di Pense wrote: 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.

Oceanic lithosphere does not turn back into continental lithosphere.
So, you agree that there is no tension in the pieces of eggshell. But is there any tension in the egg that is filling the gaps?
Now let's imagine that the egg is weathering once exposed to air, its surface forming a membrane rigidifying and thickening with time. If the egg continue to expand under the weathered surface, the membrane will continuously crack were it is the weakest because the youngest. This is the equivalent of a spreading mid ocean ridge.

Florian wrote:Overall continental lithosphere floats over an expanding mantle. where would the tension comes from???

Because the material cools and becomes brittle again, or don't you accept the notions of heat dissipation theorems? You keep showing pretty pictures of ocean crust of different ages, some of which is cold and brittle enough to support the tension that opens the spreading ridge wider above an expanding mantle, before it fails again. So much for your years of study which seem to have ignored a lot of basic physics. Go troll somewhere else where you don't find critiques that are wise to your absolute bullshit. What do you think keeps the 'cracks' open in your 'theory' except tension?

Florian wrote:
So, you agree that there is no tension in the pieces of eggshell. But is there any tension in the egg that is filling the gaps?

You're pissing up a rope, here, Florian. Go piss up a rope somewhere you'll get more love for the display.

felltoearth wrote:

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

Does anyone have evidence that the earth’s radius has grown in the last 50-60 years?

And what about the last 120 My?

I send you back to the Scotia sea.

Florian wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

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

Does anyone have evidence that the earth’s radius has grown in the last 50-60 years?

And what about the last 120 My?

I send you back to the Scotia sea.

Oh, come on, Florian. Global plate tectonics does not focus obsessively on the Scotia Sea, and addresses tectonics all over the planet. Global plate tectonics does not create models involving eggshells in which the entire brittle lithosphere should be in tension (except for anything that isn't), and does not observe it, either. Those obsessing about crank theories focus obsessively on the Scotia Sea.

Florian wrote:
And the oceanic lithosphere is nothing else than "weathered" mantle. ...

Oceanic lithosphere does not turn back into continental lithosphere.

Damn Skippy. It cools and turns into something dense enough to sink, according to well-accepted models of phase changes in cool hydrated oceanic lithosphere. Ooh, look. You learned another new word, "hydrated". Let's go for two: "metasomatized". You know nothing about REE and isotopic probes of recycled mantle that you've mentioned (nor the implied subduction). Ten years of study? Bullshit!

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:
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.

The model is built on a assumption, global lithosphere recycling, that is not verified, the recycling is local. The model fails.

So you keep saying. Where is the supporting peer reviewed evidence? It's only notable by its absence, hitherto.

newolder wrote:

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.

I believe in nothing. I observe something (the way active margins work and evolve) and draw the rational conclusions. I encourage you to do the same.

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.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:Overall continental lithosphere floats over an expanding mantle. where would the tension comes from???

Because the material cools and becomes brittle again, or don't you accept the notions of heat dissipation theorems? You keep showing pretty pictures of ocean crust of different ages, some of which is cold and brittle enough to support the tension that opens the spreading ridge wider above an expanding mantle, before it fails again. So much for your years of study which seem to have ignored a lot of basic physics. Go troll somewhere else where you don't find critiques that are wise to your absolute bullshit. What do you think keeps the 'cracks' open in your 'theory' except tension?

The tension can not build up in the whole lithosphere if the oceanic lithosphere fails continuously at the ridge. That would be interesting to make an analogical model with captors.

On the other hand, Plate tectonics requires that a sinking slab of a few hundred km drags thousands km2 of brittle lithosphere without any failure, no intraplate tension and you accept that as good physics??? Come on! Wake up!

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:
And the oceanic lithosphere is nothing else than "weathered" mantle. ...

Oceanic lithosphere does not turn back into continental lithosphere.

Damn Skippy. It cools and turns into something dense enough to sink, according to well-accepted models of phase changes in cool hydrated oceanic lithosphere. Ooh, look. You learned another new word, "hydrated". Let's go for two: "metasomatized". You know nothing about REE and isotopic probes of recycled mantle that you've mentioned (nor the implied subduction). Ten years of study? Bullshit!

Arf, I can play that game: eclogitization.

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:Overall continental lithosphere floats over an expanding mantle. where would the tension comes from???

Because the material cools and becomes brittle again, or don't you accept the notions of heat dissipation theorems? You keep showing pretty pictures of ocean crust of different ages, some of which is cold and brittle enough to support the tension that opens the spreading ridge wider above an expanding mantle, before it fails again. So much for your years of study which seem to have ignored a lot of basic physics. Go troll somewhere else where you don't find critiques that are wise to your absolute bullshit. What do you think keeps the 'cracks' open in your 'theory' except tension?

The tension can not build up in the whole lithosphere if the oceanic lithosphere fails continuously at the ridge. That would be interesting to make an analogical model with captors.

On the other hand, Plate tectonics requires that a sinking slab of a few hundred km drags thousands km2 of brittle lithosphere without any failure, no intraplate tension and you accept that as good physics??? Come on! Wake up!

Write the analysis, in detail, and stop waving your hands at the problem. Nobody but you is saying that the oceanic lithospere is failing continuously at the ridge. Nobody but you fails to cite the necessary research to support yet another bullshit claim.

Florian wrote: I can play that game: eclogitization.

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

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

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

Does anyone have evidence that the earth’s radius has grown in the last 50-60 years?

And what about the last 120 My?

I send you back to the Scotia sea.

Oh, come on, Florian. Global plate tectonics does not focus obsessively on the Scotia Sea, and addresses tectonics all over the planet. Global plate tectonics does not create models involving eggshells in which the entire brittle lithosphere should be in tension (except for anything that isn't), and does not observe it, either. Those obsessing about crank theories focus obsessively on the Scotia Sea.

If you cannot comprehend a simple case study, you will never understand the global picture. So far, nothing indicates 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.

Florian wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Florian wrote:

felltoearth wrote:
Does anyone have evidence that the earth’s radius has grown in the last 50-60 years?

And what about the last 120 My?

I send you back to the Scotia sea.

Oh, come on, Florian. Global plate tectonics does not focus obsessively on the Scotia Sea, and addresses tectonics all over the planet. Global plate tectonics does not create models involving eggshells in which the entire brittle lithosphere should be in tension (except for anything that isn't), and does not observe it, either. Those obsessing about crank theories focus obsessively on the Scotia Sea.

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. You haven't made a case for EE by blabbing about a flake of lithosphere somewhere off over yonder.