Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:
For note that is unnecessarily speculation. The data is available. If Florian is so shore that the measurements are sued by error then he can look and find it.

I don't question the possibility of errors in the measurements but in the methodology chosen to measure a growth of Earth at our timescale.
Could you please provide answers to my question regarding this paper? Thank you.
What stations did they use to make the measurement? all? a subset? what guided their choice? Is their choice adapted to measure a growth? What kind of growth do they expect? homogenous? heterogenous? by bulging? Why? Was vertical displacements separated from horizontal displacements in the data treatment? Why? What model was used to model horizontal displacement? Why? Is the methodology appropriate to measure a growth?

Can you read? If so the information is available for you to read an review. I'm not a moma bird and you aren't my chick.

Again you are just hunting for a place to shove EE in. sorry but do you're own work.

Now you confuse hypothesis and theory.

lucek wrote:Again, however prove me wrong.

What about understanding the implications of the observations made using GPS in the aegean sea? The figure is just a few posts above.

lucek wrote:
Can you read? If so the information is available for you to read an review. I'm not a moma bird and you aren't my chick.

I read the paper, I'm wondering if you did? If so, do you understand the methodology described in that paper and the flaws. My questions are very simple to answer for someone who read the paper.

Florian wrote:

ginckgo wrote:

Florian wrote:
It is very justifiable. Subduction is actually a mantle driven process, and not lithosphere driven process as assumed in plate tectonics (slab pull mechanism).

You're creating a false dichotomy here. Mantle characteristics and processes are probably important part of how the tectonic plates behave as they move across the earth. However, I'm not at all convinced that the mantle is the dominant factor that decides where, when and how plates subduct (spreading may be different, though I still doubt that mantle dynamics always dominate). This is largely controlled by the relative ages of converging oceanic plates; also, oceanic plates will always subduct under continental plates no matter what the mantle does. I also gather that mantle flow itself would not be sufficient alone without the addition of slab-pull.

No. Jolivet (If I remember correctly) showed that there is no relation whatsoever between the age of lithosphere and dip angle of a slab. Doglioni further elaborate and showed that the difference in dip angle between Eastern and Western margins of the pacific are due to a global eastward mantle flow. Doglioni further listed at least 20 arguments showing why the slab pull mechanism can't work (see this paper)The subducted lithosphere is passive and the mantle is dynamic. This is a mantle driven process well illustrated in cases like that of the Eastern mediterranean basin (see figure again):

Um yes it does. But given PT is driven by convection of the mantle I don't see how this supports you're case in the slightest. I'm not shore how well supported the proposed mechanism in that paper of rotation is, but again the paper is talking about actually physics and geology not EE.

Florian wrote:Now you confuse hypothesis and theory.

lucek wrote:Again, however prove me wrong.

What about understanding the implications of the observations made using GPS in the aegean sea? The figure is just a few posts above.

And doesn't indicate an expanding earth.

You have to understand that you actually have to have something to back up you're theory to back up you're theory.

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:
Can you read? If so the information is available for you to read an review. I'm not a moma bird and you aren't my chick.

I read the paper, I'm wondering if you did? If so, do you understand the methodology described in that paper and the flaws. My questions are very simple to answer for someone who read the paper.

Then perhaps you can share with us the correct margin of error in the study. Again you made a claim about the paper. You support it or drop it. The burden of proof is on you're shoulders.

lucek wrote:
Um yes it does. But given PT is driven by convection of the mantle I don't see how this supports you're case in the slightest.

You do not see why, because your conception of PT is at least 20 years old. You should read that review by Stern:
RJ Stern Subduction initiation: spontaneous and induced, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 226 (2004) 275–292

I quote Stern:

"Earth is a spectacularly unusual planet and one of its most remarkable features is the plate tectonic system. Missions to other planets reveal that ours is the only planet in the solar system with subduction zones and plate tectonics [1]. The unique nature of plate tectonics on Earth is equivalent to saying that only Earth has subduction zones [2]. In spite of this singularity, there are fundamental misconceptions that concern aspects of plate tectonics and mantle con- vection. Not only are these wrong, they are deeply embedded prejudices of many earth scientists that continue to be taught to students. The most important misconception is that mantle convection moves the lithosphere (see dJargon BoxT), dragging the plates as it moves. This is repeatedly shown in introductory textbooks. In fact, Earth’s mantle convects mostly because cold lithosphere sinks at subduction zones [3] with mantle plumes representing a d. . .clearly resolved but secondary mode of mantle convectionT ([4], p. 159)."

then:

"There is a consensus among geodynamicists that the sinking of cold, gravitationally unstable litho- sphere drives the plates and indirectly causes mantle to well up beneath mid-ocean ridges. Some estimate that 90% of the force needed to drive the plates comes from the sinking of lithosphere in subduction zones, with another 10% coming from ridge push [11]."

So according to Stern, subduction is the driving force.

The problem is that others like Doglioni, completely refute it using well supported arguments. Read this paper:
C. Doglioni, M. Cuffaro and E. Carminati (2006) What moves slabs? Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata Vol. 47, n.3, September 2006 pp. 227-247

And now, there is no more consensus about what drives plate tectonics at the point that top geodynamists like Doglioni explore some old hypothesis. Read this paper:
Federica Riguzzi Giuliano Panza, Peter Varga, Carlo Doglioni (2010) Can Earth's rotation and tidal despinning drive plate tectonics? Tectonophysics Vol484, Issue 1-4, pages 60-73

But the answer is quite clear from some recent analysis of the anatolia/aegean sea region. The displacement of the lithosphere is mantle driven. Read this paper:
Le Pichon & Kreemer (2010) The Miocene-to-Present Kinematic Evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East and Its Implications for Dynamics. Earth and Planetary Sciences Volume 38, pp. 323-351

So the lithosphere does not move in blocks, but it follows mantle currents. This has fundamental implications, especially in the case of Wadati Benioff zone which become the front of mantle flows. This clearly limits the maximum surface of recycled lithosphere
as I explained earlier in this post.

I'll let you some time to digest these papers and concepts and we can continue this discussion later.

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:
Um yes it does. But given PT is driven by convection of the mantle I don't see how this supports you're case in the slightest.

You do not see why, because your conception of PT is at least 20 years old. You should read that review by Stern:
RJ Stern Subduction initiation: spontaneous and induced, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 226 (2004) 275–292

I quote Stern:

"Earth is a spectacularly unusual planet and one of its most remarkable features is the plate tectonic system. Missions to other planets reveal that ours is the only planet in the solar system with subduction zones and plate tectonics [1]. The unique nature of plate tectonics on Earth is equivalent to saying that only Earth has subduction zones [2]. In spite of this singularity, there are fundamental misconceptions that concern aspects of plate tectonics and mantle con- vection. Not only are these wrong, they are deeply embedded prejudices of many earth scientists that continue to be taught to students. The most important misconception is that mantle convection moves the lithosphere (see dJargon BoxT), dragging the plates as it moves. This is repeatedly shown in introductory textbooks. In fact, Earth’s mantle convects mostly because cold lithosphere sinks at subduction zones [3] with mantle plumes representing a d. . .clearly resolved but secondary mode of mantle convectionT ([4], p. 159)."

then:

"There is a consensus among geodynamicists that the sinking of cold, gravitationally unstable litho- sphere drives the plates and indirectly causes mantle to well up beneath mid-ocean ridges. Some estimate that 90% of the force needed to drive the plates comes from the sinking of lithosphere in subduction zones, with another 10% coming from ridge push [11]."

So according to Stern, subduction is the driving force.

The problem is that others like Doglioni, completely refute it using well supported arguments. Read this paper:
C. Doglioni, M. Cuffaro and E. Carminati (2006) What moves slabs? Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata Vol. 47, n.3, September 2006 pp. 227-247

And now, there is no more consensus about what drives plate tectonics at the point that top geodynamists like Doglioni explore some old hypothesis. Read this paper:
Federica Riguzzi Giuliano Panza, Peter Varga, Carlo Doglioni (2010) Can Earth's rotation and tidal despinning drive plate tectonics? Tectonophysics Vol484, Issue 1-4, pages 60-73

But the answer is quite clear from some recent analysis of the anatolia/aegean sea region. The displacement of the lithosphere is mantle driven. Read this paper:
Le Pichon & Kreemer (2010) The Miocene-to-Present Kinematic Evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East and Its Implications for Dynamics. Earth and Planetary Sciences Volume 38, pp. 323-351

So the lithosphere does not move in blocks, but it follows mantle currents. This has fundamental implications, especially in the case of Wadati Benioff zone which become the front of mantle flows. This clearly limits the maximum surface of recycled lithosphere
as I explained earlier in this post.

I'll let you some time to digest these papers and concepts and we can continue this discussion later.

Again you aren't making a case for EE. You are attempting to set up a false dilemma and failing as you've not provided evidence against PT either.

The proposed limit on PT based on mantel activity is consistent with PT.

lucek wrote:

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:EE is based off the geographic boundaries of the plates and a lot of wishful thinking.

I'm afraid you confuse the hypothesis with Neal's pet theory.

FIFY
No I'm not. The only observations behind EE are that the plates look boundaries similar and that they are moving. Again, however prove me wrong.

The matching outlines from the north to south pole of the pacifc are uncanny!

"The regions that interlock along matching outlines (New Zealand - South Chile; Tasmania and South-central Chile, etc.) share hundreds of poor-dispersing sister taxa found nowhere else in the world. The distributional problems created by the hypothesis of a now vanished pre-Pacific superocean are overwhelming."

~Dennis McCarthy

"Countless narrow-range, sister taxa that are rejoined in expanding Earth paleomaps are separated by vast oceans in plate tectonics. These taxa include purely freshwater fish; terrestrial vertebrates; shallow, bottom dwelling marine taxa that cannot survive in the deep ocean; weakly-flying birds; even lumbering dinosaurs.

Not only would all of these taxa have to manage a jump-dispersal event across the full-breadth of a superocean -- a feat otherwise unknown in these types of organisms -- they then would have had to never end-up anywhere else. For some reason, the taxa would have had to prefer jaunts between regions that were juxtaposed on expanding Earth paleomaps. To mention one of hundreds of examples: the closest relatives of the Fijan banded occur in California and Mexico. No other iguanas inhabit any other island in the Central or West Pacific."



~Dennis McCarthy

Light Storm wrote:

That's such a cute little picture. So where is the New Zealand micro-continent? And where is eastern part of New Guinea? And how did East Antarctica fit in there?

lucek wrote:
Again you aren't making a case for EE. You are attempting to set up a false dilemma and failing as you've not provided evidence against PT either.

Do yo agree that if the accretion of basaltic ocean floor is orders larger than the destruction of basaltic ocean floor, then the surface of ocean floor increases globally?

Light Storm wrote:


The matching outlines from the north to south pole of the pacifc are uncanny!

No they are not. This is not so simple for active margins. And Dennis based his reconstruction on biogeographical data to make this suggestion. It is not enough.
The geological and geophysical data are very clear. The australian craton was much higher in latitude (and rotated) along North America (Laurentia).

New Zealand was in between Australia and Antarctica, it is very clear from the isochrons data (Follow the white arrows):



You can also easily see from the central and lower globe, that there was an ocean in between Australia and south america which extinct ridge is now oriented along the East/West direction. this ridge was active from 140 My to 90 My.
This is much easier to visualize using the isochrons overlays for google Earth.

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:
Again you aren't making a case for EE. You are attempting to set up a false dilemma and failing as you've not provided evidence against PT either.

Do yo agree that if the accretion of basaltic ocean floor is orders larger than the destruction of basaltic ocean floor, then the surface of ocean floor increases globally?

That's the thing it's not. You've never shown that, nor has anyone. Again however we can look at this claim. What you are claiming there would result in subduction rates in millimeters per year and expansion in centimeters per year. Simply put We don't observe that.

Light Storm wrote:

lucek wrote:

Florian wrote:
I'm afraid you confuse the hypothesis with Neal's pet theory.

FIFY
No I'm not. The only observations behind EE are that the plates look boundaries similar and that they are moving. Again, however prove me wrong.

The matching outlines from the north to south pole of the pacifc are uncanny!

First off that is using the relative fit of the outlines, that's what I claimed was the only basis of EE, next, this is a map of the contonetal shelves, IE granitic rock that is billions of years old and just happens to be underwatter,

"The regions that interlock along matching outlines (New Zealand - South Chile; Tasmania and South-central Chile, etc.) share hundreds of poor-dispersing sister taxa found nowhere else in the world. The distributional problems created by the hypothesis of a now vanished pre-Pacific superocean are overwhelming."

~Dennis McCarthy

"Countless narrow-range, sister taxa that are rejoined in expanding Earth paleomaps are separated by vast oceans in plate tectonics. These taxa include purely freshwater fish; terrestrial vertebrates; shallow, bottom dwelling marine taxa that cannot survive in the deep ocean; weakly-flying birds; even lumbering dinosaurs.

Not only would all of these taxa have to manage a jump-dispersal event across the full-breadth of a superocean -- a feat otherwise unknown in these types of organisms -- they then would have had to never end-up anywhere else. For some reason, the taxa would have had to prefer jaunts between regions that were juxtaposed on expanding Earth paleomaps. To mention one of hundreds of examples: the closest relatives of the Fijan banded occur in California and Mexico. No other iguanas inhabit any other island in the Central or West Pacific."



~Dennis McCarthy

Neal brought this up a while ago. Animals didn't have to swim across the panthalassa ocean. They habitat tracked on and around Pangaea.

lucek wrote:

Florian wrote:

Do yo agree that if the accretion of basaltic ocean floor is orders larger than the destruction of basaltic ocean floor, then the surface of ocean floor increases globally?

That's the thing it's not. You've never shown that, nor has anyone.

Pardon me? Does it mean that you don't understand the implications of the geodynamic of a region like that of the Aegean sea?
Would you please go back to the figure and tell us where is the subducted floor and how its surface compare to that of the mantle flow?
Could you further predict where is the mediterranean seafloor that will be overrun by this mantle flow? What prediction can we make when this current will reach the margin of Africa in Libya ?

lucek wrote:
Neal brought this up a while ago. Animals didn't have to swim across the panthalassa ocean. They habitat tracked on and around Pangaea.

If an animal species uses a large route, members of that species must be found all along the route. This is not the case.
It implies that the region where these close species are now, used to be in contact.
As a matter of fact the craton configuration required to fit the biogeographical data is predicted by the expanding earth theory and further verified by geological and paleomagnetical data. The proto pacific did not start in the middle of a panthalassa ocean, but was a narrow basin engulfed in between (clockwise) South China, Siberia, Laurentia, Amazonia, East antarctica and Australia (back to South China).

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:

Florian wrote:

Do yo agree that if the accretion of basaltic ocean floor is orders larger than the destruction of basaltic ocean floor, then the surface of ocean floor increases globally?

That's the thing it's not. You've never shown that, nor has anyone.

Pardon me? Does it mean that you don't understand the implications of the geodynamic of a region like that of the Aegean sea?
Would you please go back to the figure and tell us where is the subducted floor and how its surface compare to that of the mantle flow?
Could you further predict where is the mediterranean seafloor that will be overrun by this mantle flow? What prediction can we make when this current will reach the margin of Africa in Libya ?

Well I need do nothing of the sort. Scientist working in the field have already predicted that the Mediterranean will closeup and the rock you are talking about will be either subducted or part of a new mountain range.

Now, you are still anomaly hunting to attack PT not supporting EE.

Florian wrote:

lucek wrote:
Neal brought this up a while ago. Animals didn't have to swim across the panthalassa ocean. They habitat tracked on and around Pangaea.

If an animal species uses a large route, members of that species must be found all along the route. This is not the case.
It implies that the region where these close species are now, used to be in contact.
As a matter of fact the craton configuration required to fit the biogeographical data is predicted by the expanding earth theory and further verified by geological and paleomagnetical data. The proto pacific did not start in the middle of a panthalassa ocean, but was a narrow basin engulfed in between (clockwise) South China, Siberia, Laurentia, Amazonia, East antarctica and Australia (back to South China).

And there are reasons we shouldn't see their trail. For one quite a bit of what was then land is now the Continental shelf, Further the rarity of fossilization comes into play. But if you want could you furnish us with examples of animals cited and their habitats that with the insurmountable barriers in between.

lucek wrote:Well I need do nothing of the sort. Scientist working in the field have already predicted that the Mediterranean will closeup and the rock you are talking about will be either subducted or part of a new mountain range.

You can avoid thinking and rely on what you read in some "science for dummies" magazine. I have no problem with that.
But you can't use an argument of authority to claim that EE is bullshit.

lucek wrote:
And there are reasons we shouldn't see their trail. For one quite a bit of what was then land is now the Continental shelf, Further the rarity of fossilization comes into play..

Do you really believe that biogeographists are not competent enough to recognize a vicariance? Because this is exactly what you are suggesting in the sentence above...

lucek wrote:But if you want could you furnish us with examples of animals cited and their habitats that with the insurmountable barriers in between.

Light storm did already. Why would you ignore the example he cited: The banded iguana from Western America to Fiji was cited earlier. It would have rafted for more than 8000 km. And don't forget that EE explains this vicariance (and all the others) very well.