Florian wrote:

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.

That doesn't change the fact that your pseudo theories only work with no motion (or only one plate is moving). That is contradicted by pretty much all observations in the last 40 years at least.

Florian wrote:...
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.

The surface reduction occurs near the boundary of subduction (where data resolution is lowest, according to the note), as indicated by the term subduction. Where are the maps that show the area changes you claim? Both horizontal and vertical displacements must be accounted for in any vector plots. Without accompanying data and error analysis, your word salad remains irrelevant here.

Stawman bullshit! The only people claiming the plates are “rigid” is you expansion delusion lot.

Do we need to cover the geochemistry of subduction fueled stratovolcanoes again, and how we know for an absolute fact that the content of said volcanic emissions is sourced from subducted sea floor? Of course not because just like every other time this is explained, and documentational evidence is provided, you delusional woo mongers will claim some bizarre bullshit which is counter factual.

Let me ask one simple question, and if there is an ounce of honor within you please provide an answer. What would constitue a valid falsification of your hypothesis?

RS

aban57 wrote:

Florian wrote:

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.

That doesn't change the fact that your pseudo theories only work with no motion (or only one plate is moving). That is contradicted by pretty much all observations in the last 40 years at least.

Also contradicted by the observation that the earth's diameter didn't increase.

felltoearth wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Florian wrote:

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.

That doesn't change the fact that your pseudo theories only work with no motion (or only one plate is moving). That is contradicted by pretty much all observations in the last 40 years at least.

Also contradicted by the observation that the earth's diameter didn't increase.

But but... that's because we haven't been looking for long enough, right ??? RIGHT ?????

aban57 wrote:

Florian wrote:

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.

That doesn't change the fact that your pseudo theories only work with no motion (or only one plate is moving). That is contradicted by pretty much all observations in the last 40 years at least.

Gibberish, the expanding Earth is the first mobilist theory.

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:...
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.

The surface reduction occurs near the boundary of subduction (where data resolution is lowest, according to the note), as indicated by the term subduction. Where are the maps that show the area changes you claim? Both horizontal and vertical displacements must be accounted for in any vector plots. Without accompanying data and error analysis, your word salad remains irrelevant here.

The displacement at the boundary is balanced by an extension in the arc as shown in Fig6C. There is no surface reduction.

Florian wrote:...


The displacement at the boundary is balanced by an extension in the arc as shown in Fig6C. There is no surface reduction.

This is your vector and associated error analyses?

In conclusion you have, "The Earth expands because word salad."

theropod wrote:Stawman bullshit! The only people claiming the plates are “rigid” is you expansion delusion lot.

If you do not assume that plates are fully rigid over thousand km, you can't assume that if one side of the plate move by 15 cm/y, then the other side move by the same amount. You should revise you plate tectonics.

theropod wrote:Do we need to cover the geochemistry of subduction fueled stratovolcanoes again, and how we know for an absolute fact that the content of said volcanic emissions is sourced from subducted sea floor? Of course not because just like every other time this is explained, and documentational evidence is provided, you delusional woo mongers will claim some bizarre bullshit which is counter factual.

Irrelevant comment, the sea floor IS subducted by the arc.

theropod wrote:Let me ask one simple question, and if there is an ounce of honor within you please provide an answer. What would constitue a valid falsification of your hypothesis?

You repeat yourself. I answered multiple times, see there for example. In short, expansion tectonics allows the prediction of the topological relations of cratons across geological time just from their current relative position. That is because far from the unpredictible ballet of plate tectonics, the topological relation between elements at the surface of a sphere are conserved if the sphere is growing. It is a very strong predictive tool.

Now your turn, what would constitute a valid falsification of plate tectonics? Is the absence of surface reduction at active margins enough?

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:...


The displacement at the boundary is balanced by an extension in the arc as shown in Fig6C. There is no surface reduction.

This is your vector and associated error analyses?

In conclusion you have, "The Earth expands because word salad."

Whatever, these are the published data. If you can't read that figure, ask someone clever to explain you instead of calling it "word salad".

Florian wrote:...
Whatever, these are the published data. If you can't read that figure, ask someone clever to explain you instead of calling it "word salad".

The legend for Fig6C begins:

(a) Horizontal and (d) vertical components of observed postseismic displacements from 23 April 2011 to 10 December 2011. ...

So the figure does not show a vector analysis of area where horizontal and vertical displacements would be combined. When you present the requested analyses, you'll have more than word salad. Then we'll be in a position to extend such analysis to the rest of the planet and possibly get to a position where we can infer and estimate any Earth expansion. I'm only guessing that this will be a fruitless exercise because of the Wu et al conclusions already presented - but here's your chance to disprove my skepticism.

I'm happy to wait until you have more than the word salad presented hitherto.

newolder wrote:
So the figure does not show a vector analysis of area where horizontal and vertical displacements would be combined.

The horizontal vectors are necessary and sufficient to determine if there is surface reduction or not.
This is how it is done in plate tectonics papers including Wu's paper where the vectors are attached to plates that move on the surface of the globe, thus only tangentially to the surface.

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:
So the figure does not show a vector analysis of area where horizontal and vertical displacements would be combined.

The horizontal vectors are necessary and sufficient to determine if there is surface reduction or not.
This is how it is done in plate tectonics papers including Wu's paper where the vectors are attached to plates that move on the surface of the globe, thus only tangentially to the surface.

You appear to live in an alien world or, you are being deliberately obtuse. On this planet, subduction involves downward vertical transport and is not a product of horizontal-only movements.

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:
So the figure does not show a vector analysis of area where horizontal and vertical displacements would be combined.

The horizontal vectors are necessary and sufficient to determine if there is surface reduction or not.
This is how it is done in plate tectonics papers including Wu's paper where the vectors are attached to plates that move on the surface of the globe, thus only tangentially to the surface.

You appear to live in an alien world or, you are being deliberately obtuse. On this planet, subduction involves downward vertical transport and is not a product of horizontal-only movements.

You persist in your misunderstanding. To measure a surface reduction, you have to measure displacements of the surface, independently of what happens beneath.
To do that, you make a projection of the vectors on the globe surface to get the horizontal component of the vectors. Do you understand now that the horizontal vectors are necessary and sufficient to determine if there is surface reduction or not?
I hope you don't need a scheme, don't you?

Florian wrote:
You persist in your misunderstanding. To measure a surface reduction expansion, you have to measure displacements of the surfaceexpansion, independently of what happens beneath.

FIFY

Florian wrote:...

You persist in your misunderstanding. To measure a surface reduction, you have to measure displacements of the surface, independently of what happens beneath.
To do that, you make a projection of the vectors on the globe surface to get the horizontal component of the vectors. Do you understand now that the horizontal vectors are necessary and sufficient to determine if there is surface reduction or not?
I hope you don't need a scheme, don't you?

Your continued failure to understand and account for plate subduction leads you to erroneous conclusions. Heigh ho.

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:...

You persist in your misunderstanding. To measure a surface reduction, you have to measure displacements of the surface, independently of what happens beneath.
To do that, you make a projection of the vectors on the globe surface to get the horizontal component of the vectors. Do you understand now that the horizontal vectors are necessary and sufficient to determine if there is surface reduction or not?
I hope you don't need a scheme, don't you?

Your continued failure to understand and account for plate subduction leads you to erroneous conclusions. Heigh ho.

You DO need a scheme!

Here is one. This is a view from above a subduction zone, inspired from the Scotia Sea region.



The horizontal component of the GPS vectors provide a complete picture of the evolution of the surface of the region. What happens under the surface is evidently irrelevant to determine if the surface area increases or decreases in that region.

So tell me now, does the surface of the whole area reduces with time?

FFS, the Scotia plate is a sub region of a larger system. It’s like saying the Mediterranean is representative of the world’s climate. You derive understanding of the Mediterranean climate by understanding global climate nit the other way around.

Florian wrote:

newolder wrote:

Florian wrote:...

You persist in your misunderstanding. To measure a surface reduction, you have to measure displacements of the surface, independently of what happens beneath.
To do that, you make a projection of the vectors on the globe surface to get the horizontal component of the vectors. Do you understand now that the horizontal vectors are necessary and sufficient to determine if there is surface reduction or not?
I hope you don't need a scheme, don't you?

Your continued failure to understand and account for plate subduction leads you to erroneous conclusions. Heigh ho.

You DO need a scheme!

Here is one. This is a view from above a subduction zone, inspired from the Scotia Sea region.

GPS vector field of a mantle flow with subduction.png

The horizontal component of the GPS vectors provide a complete picture of the evolution of the surface of the region. What happens under the surface is evidently irrelevant to determine if the surface area increases or decreases in that region.

So tell me now, does the surface of the whole area reduces with time?

You see those vectors either side of what I recognise as a Cold Front?
Those to the east are larger than those on the west of the front. Hence, the surface to the east has either risen or fallen - which could be determined from the vertical position vectors - but since it is marked as a subduction zone...

You seem to think that such a discontinuity in the vector field causes zero change in surface character but why you think this is beyond reason.