Notices
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 436
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: plate tectonics

  1. #101  
    Iuvenis ducis Darkhorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105
    @florian: Do you have any predictions or even better hard data that indicates the amount that the Earth is increasing in diameter and mass each year?
    A change such as this would be discernible through several means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    It doesn't matter what is active and passive, and what is moving relative to what. The African plate is being subducted, as shown by the trace of the benioff zone and the associated anomalies.
    The mediterranean seafloor "is being subducted" by the aegean flow is not equivalent to the mediterranean seafloor "is subducting". As long as you believe that what is active and passive is not important, you will not make any progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Actually, it is, or what we expect from what we consider rigid blocks in geology.
    In geology, not in geophysics. :wink:
    Plastic deformations are not included in plate models like Nuvel1A.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    It's also worth considering faults in the plate interior (not sure how relevant they are, could probably look it up for this case study).
    The transverse faults in anatolia are very relevant to crustal flow. Another good example of their relevance being the case of the tibetan plateau (eastward flow) that overruns the indian lithosphere on its southern border.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    and GPS vectors are shorter in eastern turkey along the east anatolian fault compared to western turkey, which implies that there is extension between both region and not compression.
    GPS vectors represent a snapshot in geological time. Major slips occurring in the West can easily have skewed these figures; the "extension" is more likely the release of built up stress.
    Kind of. This extension is the signature of spreading. Spreading occurs when the lithosphere gravitational potential is very high, typically due to uplift.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    So, even if no lithosphere is being recycled into the rest of the mantle, no new lithosphere is being formed, making this example non-sequitur with regards to your original hypothesis.
    If what you mean by "no new lithosphere is being formed" is equivalent to "no net surface is consumed", then this is exactly my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    It does not. There is no obvious mantle plume-type volcanism, there is no plate divergence, there is no lithosphere being produced. All the boundaries involved are convergent or transform.
    Your view is too fragmented. There is extension upstream, transform faults on the border, and overthrusting at the front: These are the characteristics of a tectonic flow.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    The irony is, the book you're referencing makes a very convincing case for explaining intraplate volcanism in terms of plate tectonics.
    I've read some of her book, and been to some of her lectures here in Durham. None of her work that I'm aware of leads to the conclusion that plate tectonics does not accurately explain the observed evidence; quite the reverse - she quite clearly states that the evidence can be better explained by plate tectonics (specifically intraplate tension and stress) than by mantle plumes.
    Did I say otherwise? My point is that while she is highly critical of plumes, she is not critical of plates tectonic which is plagues by the same issues. What is also unusual is that she goes against Ockam's razor principle by prefering multiple independent scenario to a unique one (plumes), well in apparence.


    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Here, a much better model, in agreement with all the data, is that the lithosphere of Anatolia and the Aegean sea is carried by a mantle flow, which translates into brittle flow of the upper crust (aka crustal flow), and overthrusting at the front of the flow (aka Benioff zone).
    Except that you have no spreading centre for new lithosphere to form, and this convergence/overthrusting has not lead to large regions of high elevation away from the centre of convergence that would be expected.
    There is extension in eastern Turkey, in the Aegean Sea, and the gulf of Corinth is an active rift.
    I thought that I explained you why high elevation is not systematic. It depends on the point of isostatic equilibrium of the upwelling. And look at the geoid, anatolia corresponds to a geoid high.

    Instead, it has clearly lead to the African plate being pushed down into the mantle, as predicted by plate tectonics.
    Sorry, but plate tectonics does not predict that lithosphere is "pushed down". On the contrary, plate tectonics relies on "sinking" lithosphere. If lithosphere is not sinking but is pushed down, then there is no plate tectonics.

    Here is a few quotes from Stern a leading specialist in plate tectonics geodynamics:

    "The sinking of lithosphere at subduction zones couples Earth’s exterior with its interior, spawns continental crust and powers a tectonic regime that is unique to our planet." RJ Stern (2004) EPSL 226, p275

    "There is a consensus among geodynamicists that the sinking of cold, gravitationally unstable lithosphere 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" RJ Stern (2004) EPSL 226, p275

    "Plate tectonics is the horizontal motion of Earth’s thermal boundary layer (lithosphere) over the convecting mantle (asthenosphere) and is mostly driven by lithosphere sinking in subduction zones. " R.J. Stern (2007) Chin. Sci. Bull 52, 578.

    This notion is fundamental and since you apparently don't know it, then it is evident that you won't be able to understand my demonstration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkhorse
    @florian: Do you have any predictions or even better hard data that indicates the amount that the Earth is increasing in diameter and mass each year?
    A change such as this would be discernible through several means.
    Quantifications of the growth has been made quite recently (see here), but if you don't understand why lithosphere creation and destruction are not in balance, then this is useless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The mediterranean seafloor "is being subducted" by the aegean flow is not equivalent to the mediterranean seafloor "is subducting". As long as you believe that what is active and passive is not important, you will not make any progress.
    All motion is relative. You are choosing to consider the Anatolian plate as moving relative to the African plate; it is no less correct to consider the African plate as moving relative to the Anatolian.

    You are only seeing it this way because it is convenient for your hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    In geology, not in geophysics. :wink:
    Plastic deformations are not included in plate models like Nuvel1A.
    A flaw with the models, perhaps, but not a flaw with the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The transverse faults in anatolia are very relevant to crustal flow. Another good example of their relevance being the case of the tibetan plateau (eastward flow) that overruns the indian lithosphere on its southern border.
    Ha. No. In the case of the Himalayas, we can actually see evidence of the subducted oceanic lithosphere, and track the palaeolatitutes of the Eurasian and Indian plates. Plate convergence in this case is very apparant.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Kind of. This extension is the signature of spreading. Spreading occurs when the lithosphere gravitational potential is very high, typically due to uplift.
    The extension is not necessarily evidence of anything. Since this is the only evidence you have for uplift, and the relative plate movements do not require a spreading centre or new lithosphere to form at this location, this is very weak evidence indeed.

    There are none of the characteristics seen at known spreading centres.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    If what you mean by "no new lithosphere is being formed" is equivalent to "no net surface is consumed", then this is exactly my point.
    No. What I meant is that the lithosphere does not appear to be expanding. No new material is being added to the lithosphere here, whereas lithosphere is being recycled at the subduction zone - exactly the opposite of what your hypothesis would tend to predict.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Your view is too fragmented. There is extension upstream, transform faults on the border, and overthrusting at the front: These are the characteristics of a tectonic flow.
    Since you invented the term, the characteristics of a tectonic flow can be whatever the hell you want them to be. It doesn't make your hypothesis correct if you base your predictions for a feature you have invented, on observations.

    While there is limited evidence of extension, this does not suggest a mantle upwelling, nor a net increase in the size/mass of the plate (or "tectonic flow"). Nor, incidentally, would a spreading centre at this location lead to the conclusion that the Earth is expanding. Nor would the same occurring worldwide, since the Mediterranian seafloor is moving downwards into the mantle.

    You whole hypothesis breaks down, because it relies on a series of questionable pieces of evidence and groundless assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Did I say otherwise? My point is that while she is highly critical of plumes, she is not critical of plates tectonic which is plagues by the same issues.
    Despite the fact that the whole message of the book is that plate tectonics explains these issues without the same problems? You're not making any sense. You're drawing a conclusion completely opposite to the point of the book you're referencing.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    What is also unusual is that she goes against Ockam's razor principle by prefering multiple independent scenario to a unique one (plumes), well in apparence.
    Independant scenarios governed by a single underlying theory [plate tectonics], yes. Such is the nature of the Earth, that unique scenarios pop up all over the place - regardless of what theory or hypothesis you use to explain plate movement.


    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    There is extension in eastern Turkey, in the Aegean Sea, and the gulf of Corinth is an active rift.
    Extension I dealt with above.

    I wasn't familiar with the gulf of Corinth, but a quick google search reveals it is dominated by normal faults - meaning the area is undergoing subsidance due to plate movement, not being uplifted by a mantle upwelling. It is also a very young rift still in the early stages of formation, and can't really be used to explain the past plate movements.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Sorry, but plate tectonics does not predict that lithosphere is "pushed down". On the contrary, plate tectonics relies on "sinking" lithosphere. If lithosphere is not sinking but is pushed down, then there is no plate tectonics.
    Rubbish. The lithosphere is less dense than the rest of the mantle, hence its position at the surface of the Earth. lithosphere 'sinks' when it is subducted and reaches the same pressure as the surrounding asthenosphere, but remains much cooler, and so is denser. Lithosphere does not spontaneously sink.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    All motion is relative. You are choosing to consider the Anatolian plate as moving relative to the African plate; it is no less correct to consider the African plate as moving relative to the Anatolian.
    All motions are relative but all interpretations are not realistic. Your later interpretation would be equivalent to say that the table is really moving under immobile ketchup.
    The GPS-measured velocities leave no doubt that this is the Aegean and Anatolian lithospheres that are moving through stable lithosphere including Norther Africa, the mediterranean seafloor, Europe from Italy to Romania.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    A flaw with the models, perhaps, but not a flaw with the theory.
    Not a flaw but a requirement. If the plates are not rigid, then it is no more possible to calculate whole plate velocities using rotations around euler poles.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The transverse faults in anatolia are very relevant to crustal flow. Another good example of their relevance being the case of the tibetan plateau (eastward flow) that overruns the indian lithosphere on its southern border.
    Ha. No. In the case of the Himalayas, we can actually see evidence of the subducted oceanic lithosphere, [...]
    Hardly, this is continental India that is overthrusted...

    and track the palaeolatitutes of the Eurasian and Indian plates. Plate convergence in this case is very apparant.
    No. For example, the arguments in Crawford's paper "The Myth of a vast oceanic tethys, the India-Asia problem and earth expansion" (1979) Journal of Petroleum Geology 2(1), p3–9, have never been refuted.

    It is actually a prediction of the growing earth theory that if India was at a very high southern latitude, then it has moved to northern latitude as the indian ocean and earth grew.


    The extension is not necessarily evidence of anything.
    ??? extension is an evidence that the lithosphere is creeping away.

    No. What I meant is that the lithosphere does not appear to be expanding. No new material is being added to the lithosphere here,
    hmm, you seem to believe that there must be seafloor accretion? Why? Extension is sufficient.
    Besides, extension in the aegean sea is well documented. I strongly suggest you to read the related literature.

    whereas lithosphere is being recycled at the subduction zone
    lithosphere is being overran and pushed down/subducted by the tectonic flow and as a consequence, the Benioff zone moves southward.
    I just found this abstract presented at the EGU by Laurent Jolivet, and we're on the exaxt same lines: " The main engine is not collision but a combination of slab retreat and potential energy, and part of extensional stresses are transmitted to the deforming upper plate by the basal drag due to mantle flow toward the retreating slab."

    => A mantle flow carrying lithosphere on its back and pushing the Benioff zone southward.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Despite the fact that the whole message of the book is that plate tectonics explains these issues without the same problems? You're not making any sense. You're drawing a conclusion completely opposite to the point of the book you're referencing.
    You are drawing these conclusions. I just note that Foulger's critical thinking is reserved to plumes. That's all.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I wasn't familiar with the gulf of Corinth, but a quick google search reveals it is dominated by normal faults - meaning the area is undergoing subsidance due to plate movement, not being uplifted by a mantle upwelling.
    Will you ever learn that due to lower isostatic equilibrium level, mantle upwellings actually lead to surface subsidence at the rift stage?

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Sorry, but plate tectonics does not predict that lithosphere is "pushed down". On the contrary, plate tectonics relies on "sinking" lithosphere. If lithosphere is not sinking but is pushed down, then there is no plate tectonics.
    Rubbish.
    Amazing, I cite three quotes from Stern claiming that sinking lithosphere is what drives plate tectonics, and you say that it is rubbish. Understanding plate tectonics concepts is a prerequisite to understand the growing earth theory. And you simply don't. I'm speechless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    All motions are relative but all interpretations are not realistic. Your later interpretation would be equivalent to say that the table is really moving under immobile ketchup.
    An entirely possible scenario, although not often encountered in everyday life. I'm reminded of the joke about how many physicists it takes to change a lightbulb; 2 - one to hold the lightbulb and the other to rotate the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The GPS-measured velocities leave no doubt that this is the Aegean and Anatolian lithospheres that are moving through stable lithosphere including Norther Africa, the mediterranean seafloor, Europe from Italy to Romania.
    The GPS-measured velocities suggest only that there is convergence between the two plates. Your assertion that the Anatolian plate is in motion relative to the African plate and not the other way around is based solely on the assumption that your model for "flowing" lithosphere over "stable" lithosphere is an accurate representation.

    It makes absolutely no difference which you use as a reference, since they're both in motion relative to a "stationary" point on the Earth's surface.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Hardly, this is continental India that is overthrusted...

    ...For example, the arguments in Crawford's paper "The Myth of a vast oceanic tethys, the India-Asia problem and earth expansion" (1979) Journal of Petroleum Geology 2(1), p3–9, have never been refuted.
    I skimmed it because I need to sleep tonight, but the only argument I could find was this:

    "Owen (1976) states that the vast Tethys is an artefact. So does Carey (1976). I agree."

    Whatever relevant information you're trying to quote - any chance you could save me the time and quote it directly?

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    It is actually a prediction of the growing earth theory that if India was at a very high southern latitude, then it has moved to northern latitude as the indian ocean and earth grew.
    Which would be fine, except that at the same time, the Eurasian continent was at a Northern lattitude, and the Indian plate has also been rotated before its convergence with Asia. Not to mention biostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic markers across Africa, India and Australasia but not Asia.


    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    hmm, you seem to believe that there must be seafloor accretion? Why? Extension is sufficient.
    No, it isn't. Entension doesn't demonstrate the the Earth must be growing, or that there is a mantle upwelling. It demonstrates that there is built-up stress in the plate which is being released.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    lithosphere is being overran and pushed down/subducted by the tectonic flow and as a consequence, the Benioff zone moves southward.
    Which does not come close to excluding recycling, nor suggest a "tectonic flow" rather than a tectonic plate.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    I just found this abstract presented at the EGU by Laurent Jolivet, and we're on the exaxt same lines: " The main engine is not collision but a combination of slab retreat and potential energy, and part of extensional stresses are transmitted to the deforming upper plate by the basal drag due to mantle flow toward the retreating slab."

    => A mantle flow carrying lithosphere on its back and pushing the Benioff zone southward.
    How the hell did that lead you to assume mantle flow is responsible? And, again, how does this lead you to assume that the African plate is not being recycled at the subduction zone? You keep nit-picking over irrelevant details that have nothing to do with whether or not eh Earth is epxanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You are drawing these conclusions. I just note that Foulger's critical thinking is reserved to plumes. That's all.
    Fine, a random non-sequitur that's not worth further discussion, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Will you ever learn that due to lower isostatic equilibrium level, mantle upwellings actually lead to surface subsidence at the rift stage?
    OK, so I didn't think my post through. Regardless, plate tectonics predicts rifting and spreading. Sgain, you're not getting any closer to demonstrating an expanding Earth, only described effects predicted by, and central to, plate tectonics. I'm rapidly losing interest in this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Amazing, I cite three quotes from Stern claiming that sinking lithosphere is what drives plate tectonics, and you say that it is rubbish. Understanding plate tectonics concepts is a prerequisite to understand the growing earth theory. And you simply don't. I'm speechless.
    Try reading what I wrote after the first word of my reply.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    All motions are relative but all interpretations are not realistic. Your later interpretation would be equivalent to say that the table is really moving under immobile ketchup.
    An entirely possible scenario, although not often encountered in everyday life. I'm reminded of the joke about how many physicists it takes to change a lightbulb; 2 - one to hold the lightbulb and the other to rotate the universe.
    Do you know why this joke is funny? Because it is unrealistic.
    And strangely, you don't see that claiming that the whole block of lithosphere including North Africa+Mediterranean sea+Italy+Balkans+Romania+Black Sea is moving toward the aegean sea and making a right turn to anatolia is no more realistic that these physicists rotating the universe.
    If you were a creationist-like person, I would be amazed by the power of that faith clouding your judgment. But you're not supposed to be a creationist-like person.
    If people who are supposed to be rational behave the same way than creationist, then I truly wonder where this world is going? <scratching my head>


    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    ...For example, the arguments in Crawford's paper "The Myth of a vast oceanic tethys, the India-Asia problem and earth expansion" (1979) Journal of Petroleum Geology 2(1), p3–9, have never been refuted.
    I skimmed it because I need to sleep tonight, but the only argument I could find was this:

    "Owen (1976) states that the vast Tethys is an artefact. So does Carey (1976). I agree."

    Whatever relevant information you're trying to quote - any chance you could save me the time and quote it directly?
    Sorry, I don't have the paper at hand over the week-end but the abstract is here.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    It is actually a prediction of the growing earth theory that if India was at a very high southern latitude, then it has moved to northern latitude as the indian ocean and earth grew.
    Which would be fine, except that at the same time, the Eurasian continent was at a Northern lattitude, and the Indian plate has also been rotated before its convergence with Asia.
    That is also expected. On a smaller earth before the opening of the indian ocean, there is a continuum of continental lithosphere from the north pole to the south pole with the tethys epicontinental sea (an extensional basin) in the middle. Eurasia being to the north of Tethys and India to the south. You should look a Maxlows PhD thesis to picture it (here, see section 2.6.5 p44)

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Not to mention biostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic markers across Africa, India and Australasia but not Asia.
    False. These markers exists (see Crawford above) and Carey:
    Quote Originally Posted by Caery
    Dr Augustino Gansser, one of the leading authorities, if not he leading authority, on Himalayan geology, wrote in 1979: "Plate-tectonic models have had India drifting thousands of km, while all the fields relations suggest India and Eurasia could never have been far appart." Fr. Jovan Stöklin, another authority on th himalayas, has written: "The geology of the himalaya fails to indicate a Tethys ocean of paleozoic-earliest Mesozoic age, and in this respect supports the theory of Earth expansion". Dr Fakhruddin Ahamd, of the inidanAcademy, showed at length that only shallows and intermittent seas covered the Himalayan region during the relevant times, then went on:"As no oceanic Tethys existed, and India and Angaraland [Suess' name for the central Siberian block] did not collide, the himalayas could not have been born of collision nor of subduction, but resulted from vertical uplift.
    Actually, the tibetan plateau and Himalayas are formed by the most powerful tectonic flow on Earth. A flow that is running probably down to indonesia and which tip forms the Banda Arc. But this is for advanced students, not beginners like you



    All biogeographic data that India and Eurasia were not isolated for millions years, follow a few papers as examples:

    "Late Cretaceous continental vertebrate fossil record from India: Palaeobiogeographical insights"
    "New Late Cretaceous mammals from the Intertrappean beds of Rangapur, India and paleobiogeographic framework"
    "Origins and affinities of the ant fauna of Madagascar"

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    hmm, you seem to believe that there must be seafloor accretion? Why? Extension is sufficient.
    No, it isn't. Entension doesn't demonstrate the the Earth must be growing, or that there is a mantle upwelling. It demonstrates that there is built-up stress in the plate which is being released.
    You're very confused. I do not demonstrate that there is net surface increase in the eastern mediterranean. I demonstrate that there is no net surface decrease.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    I just found this abstract presented at the EGU by Laurent Jolivet, and we're on the exact same lines: " The main engine is not collision but a combination of slab retreat and potential energy, and part of extensional stresses are transmitted to the deforming upper plate by the basal drag due to mantle flow toward the retreating slab."

    => A mantle flow carrying lithosphere on its back and pushing the Benioff zone southward.
    How the hell did that lead you to assume mantle flow is responsible? And, again, how does this lead you to assume that the African plate is not being recycled at the subduction zone? You keep nit-picking over irrelevant details that have nothing to do with whether or not eh Earth is epxanding.
    Could you please read that quote again please? Jolivet argues that the mantle flow is the driving force here. It is evident from geodetic measurements, but you believe in the physicists rotating the universe… You will never understand the evidence for earth growth if you fail at the first stage of the demonstration.
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Amazing, I cite three quotes from Stern claiming that sinking lithosphere is what drives plate tectonics, and you say that it is rubbish. Understanding plate tectonics concepts is a prerequisite to understand the growing earth theory. And you simply don't. I'm speechless.
    Try reading what I wrote after the first word of my reply.
    You wrote that the lithosphere cannot sink unless it reaches a certain depth.
    One more time you show that you don't know plate tectonics.

    As an update you should do that classical exercise for highschoolers (!):

    Defining:
    TOC=thickness of the oceanic crust = 6 km
    TLM=thickness of the lithospheric mantle
    TOL=thickness of the oceanic lithosphere in meters = 9.2*sqrt(t) with t the age (in years) of the oceanic lithosphere.
    dOC=density of the oceanic crust = 2.9
    dLM=density of the lithospheric mantle = 3.3
    dOL=density of the oceanic lithosphere
    dAS=density of the asthenosphere = 3.25

    1) Find the mathematical formula giving the average density of the lithosphere in function of its age.
    2) Find at what age the oceanic lithosphere becomes denser than the asthenosphere.

    You have 5 minutes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    18
    I have one or two things to add after reading this thread, but I can honestly say that I am not able to reply to everything in a satisfactory way so I decided that instead of being frustrated at not being able to present the reasons why "the expanding Earth" hypothesis has been proven unsatisfactory in explaining the things that plate tectonics offers, though it must be said that plate tectonics is no theory of everything, we do not know everything; we don't know the exact mechanism why it works, but we have an general idea and a few theories; so I decided to mail my university professor of several courses and ask him to give me some answers or come to his office and discuss with him. Unfortunately, he is away on a field course right now, but hopefully he will read his mail when he gets back and reply to me.

    I am aware that this post so far hasn't contributed to anything really so I say this, I find it strange to say the least, that a thread that started regarding
    Hi,

    I'd like to discuss if someone thinks that what was know as plate tectonics; if this was merely a free fabrication by Alfred Wegener (and others )?

    What was, if, lets say, earth shaped, then rain poured down and all of the planets surface that got colder was being inundated?

    The Planet would have a full like complete crust instead of single land masses that are swimming on top of the hotter earth interior.

    Steve
    ends up being about something else, especially something that has apparently been mentioned in another thread. I won't go into speculation why that is but if the thread creator hasn't posted anything for a while and anything new related to his/hers question has been answered, then why is this still an ongoing thread?
    Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever.

    - Albert Einstein

    Earth Science undergrad at your service
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    An entirely possible scenario, although not often encountered in everyday life. I'm reminded of the joke about how many physicists it takes to change a lightbulb; 2 - one to hold the lightbulb and the other to rotate the universe.
    Do you know why this joke is funny? Because it is unrealistic.
    It's completely accurate. The two motions are indistinguishable; whether it is the lightbulb that rotates or the rest of the universe, what we observe is exactly the same. What is moving depends only on your inertial frame of reference.

    Am I saying that the physicist is impartin a force on the whole of the universe except the lightbulb? Of course not; that's the joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    And strangely, you don't see that claiming that the whole block of lithosphere including North Africa+Mediterranean sea+Italy+Balkans+Romania+Black Sea is moving toward the aegean sea and making a right turn to anatolia is no more realistic that these physicists rotating the universe.
    It doesn't matter which you percieve as being in motion and which you percieve as being stationary; it's essentially a matter of which you're stood on. The only relevant part when looking at these boundaries in isolation is that there is relative motion between them.

    I'm not sure why you're spending a lot of time stressing that it is Anatolia which is moving and not Africa; it makes no difference to anything. It doesn't affect anything I have to say, and it won't affect anything you have to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    If you were a creationist-like person, I would be amazed by the power of that faith clouding your judgment. But you're not supposed to be a creationist-like person.
    If people who are supposed to be rational behave the same way than creationist, then I truly wonder where this world is going? <scratching my head>
    I admit, I was being deliberately obtuse to combat your apparant assertion of absolute motion of the Anatolian plate. Can we move on?

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    That is also expected. On a smaller earth before the opening of the indian ocean, there is a continuum of continental lithosphere from the north pole to the south pole with the tethys epicontinental sea (an extensional basin) in the middle. Eurasia being to the north of Tethys and India to the south. You should look a Maxlows PhD thesis to picture it (here, see section 2.6.5 p44)
    This might be expected to some extent, but with a difference in lattitude of around 90 degrees between regions that are now in contact/overlapping, you are describing either a tiny Earth or a huge Tethys. A huge Tethys is consistent with the plate tectonics explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    False. These markers exists (see Crawford above) and Carey:
    Quote Originally Posted by Caery
    Dr Augustino Gansser, one of the leading authorities, if not he leading authority, on Himalayan geology, wrote in 1979: "Plate-tectonic models have had India drifting thousands of km, while all the fields relations suggest India and Eurasia could never have been far appart." Fr. Jovan Stöklin, another authority on th himalayas, has written: "The geology of the himalaya fails to indicate a Tethys ocean of paleozoic-earliest Mesozoic age, and in this respect supports the theory of Earth expansion". Dr Fakhruddin Ahamd, of the inidanAcademy, showed at length that only shallows and intermittent seas covered the Himalayan region during the relevant times, then went on:"As no oceanic Tethys existed, and India and Angaraland [Suess' name for the central Siberian block] did not collide, the himalayas could not have been born of collision nor of subduction, but resulted from vertical uplift.
    The geology of the Himalayas represents part of the continental slope, not the subducted, abyssal Tethys. It was even conceded in your previous link that the Tethys was almost certainly abyssal in places (presumably based on ophiolites and accretory prisms).

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Actually, the tibetan plateau and Himalayas are formed by the most powerful tectonic flow on Earth.
    That is known as a 'bare assertion' fallacy.

    I'm not sure they say what you think they do... None of them compared biostratigraphic records between Asia and India.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You're very confused. I do not demonstrate that there is net surface increase in the eastern mediterranean. I demonstrate that there is no net surface decrease.
    You haven't demonstrated that, either. Not that this would support an expanding Earth anyway, since plate tectonics predicts no net surface increase or decrease.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Could you please read that quote again please?
    My bad...



    Sorry for my slow reply. I'm fairly busy recently, and was also without internet for 2 days.


    EDIT: Quotations edited to show the correct name.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by NijuuDuosaba
    I have one or two things to add after reading this thread, but I can honestly say that I am not able to reply to everything in a satisfactory way so I decided that instead of being frustrated at not being able to present the reasons why "the expanding Earth" hypothesis has been proven unsatisfactory in explaining the things that plate tectonics offers, though it must be said that plate tectonics is no theory of everything, we do not know everything; we don't know the exact mechanism why it works, but we have an general idea and a few theories; so I decided to mail my university professor of several courses and ask him to give me some answers or come to his office and discuss with him. Unfortunately, he is away on a field course right now, but hopefully he will read his mail when he gets back and reply to me.
    Very good idea. This theory has to be discussed among specialists. Any specialist in geodynamics is welcome to join the debate.

    I won't go into speculation why that is but if the thread creator hasn't posted anything for a while and anything new related to his/hers question has been answered, then why is this still an ongoing thread?
    I propose earlier in the thread to move back to the other thread "Is earth growing?". But people continue to post here. Besides the other thread has been moved to the pseudoscience forum, which is totally inappropriate in this case, because the pseudoscience forum if full of cranks and not visible to Earth science specialists.
    I suggest to move back the "Is earth growing?" thread here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    An entirely possible scenario, although not often encountered in everyday life. I'm reminded of the joke about how many physicists it takes to change a lightbulb; 2 - one to hold the lightbulb and the other to rotate the universe.
    Do you know why this joke is funny? Because it is unrealistic.
    It's completely accurate.
    No. The second interpretation is unrealistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    The two motions are indistinguishable; whether it is the lightbulb that rotates or the rest of the universe, what we observe is exactly the same.

    What is moving depends only on your inertial frame of reference.
    Agree for that part.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Am I saying that the physicist is impartin a force on the whole of the universe except the lightbulb? Of course not; that's the joke.
    That is exactly my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    It doesn't matter which you percieve as being in motion and which you percieve as being stationary; it's essentially a matter of which you're stood on. The only relevant part when looking at these boundaries in isolation is that there is relative motion between them.
    Not at all. It would be exactly as claiming that it is not important wether the physicist are rotating the whole universe or just the bulb. It is the mostimportant.


    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    This might be expected to some extent, but with a difference in lattitude of around 90 degrees between regions that are now in contact/overlapping, you are describing either a tiny Earth or a huge Tethys. A huge Tethys is consistent with the plate tectonics explanation.
    Correction: A huge Tethys is deduced from the plate tectonics explanation. You can't use a deduction from a theory to prove that theory. This is circular reasoning. And plate tectonics is full of these logical fallacies.


    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    The geology of the Himalayas represents part of the continental slope, not the subducted, abyssal Tethys.
    Not completely accurate because of the ophiolites. And these specialists were also discussing the geology of the tibetan plateau.


    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    It was even conceded in your previous link that the Tethys was almost certainly abyssal in places (presumably based on ophiolites and accretory prisms).
    The point is that a few km of ophiolites does not make a thousand km wide ocean. This is an extrapolation that is unsupported. And plate tectonics is full of these unsupported extrapolations.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Actually, the tibetan plateau and Himalayas are formed by the most powerful tectonic flow on Earth.
    That is known as a 'bare assertion' fallacy.
    Nope. You just don't know the litterature on this subject. The assertion that the tibetan plateau is a tectonic flow is based on a lot of data (Geology, Geodynamics Geodesy...) .

    Try:
    The Geological Evolution of the Tibetan Plateau
    Crustal deformation of the eastern Tibetan plateau revealed by magnetotelluric imaging
    Evidence for mechanical coupling and strong Indian lower crust beneath southern Tibet

    I'm not sure they say what you think they do... None of them compared biostratigraphic records between Asia and India.
    I said "biogeographic data". And they all show that India was never isolated as it should have been according plate tectonics.
    In summary, an hypothesis was made that India was isolated according to plate tectonics principles. Facts is that it was not. Does it ring a bell? This is a refutation of plate tectonics. And this refutation leads straight to the growing Earth theory.

    I don't understand why people are so prompt to deny the facts. Just because it has deep implications in physics? Who cares about the qualms of a bunch of physicists?

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You're very confused. I do not demonstrate that there is net surface increase in the eastern mediterranean. I demonstrate that there is no net surface decrease.

    You haven't demonstrated that, either.
    As long as you consider that "physicist rotating the universe" does not make differences with "physicists rotating the bulb", the demonstration can't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Not that this would support an expanding Earth anyway, since plate tectonics predicts no net surface increase or decrease.
    The point that I want to make is that this situation of 'no net decrease in surface' is the rule. So in absence of 'a net decrease in surface', we're left with a large increase in surface at the MORs (and I don't even count intracontinental extension).
    And the conclusion is that Earth is growing.

    I thought that it was the easiest way to prove it to you. But it appears that I was wrong. There are other ways to prove it, based on very different line of evidences. But I still hope that this one will work. :wink:


    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Sorry for my slow reply. I'm fairly busy recently, and was also without internet for 2 days.
    It does not matter. I'm very busy myself, and we have plenty of time.

    Actually, it gave me time to read a couple of recent papers on the geodynamics of the Aegean Sea (I admit I should have done that before). And I was pleasantly surprised to see that people like Le Pichon are currently working on it, proof that they feel the importance of what is going on there.
    Evidently, they don't go as far as I do regarding the general implications of these tectonic flow (no generalisation), but they do insist that these tectonic flows are what drives the geodynamics in anatolia and aegean sea. They're catching up. Fast.

    Here are the papers (Le Pichon and Jolivet):
    The Miocene-to-Present Kinematic Evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East and Its Implications for Dynamics
    Cenozoic geodynamic evolution of the Aegean


    BTW. Question. Who is epignosis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    I propose earlier in the thread to move back to the other thread "Is earth growing?". But people continue to post here. Besides the other thread has been moved to the pseudoscience forum, which is totally inappropriate in this case, because the pseudoscience forum if full of cranks and not visible to Earth science specialists.
    I suggest to move back the "Is earth growing?" thread here.
    Yes, it would be best to continue the discussion there, imo.

    Further, (I'm going to assume you know the scientific method) in science not everything deserves the spotlight, especially from the start. Otherwise the scene would be crowded and people wouldn't know what is currently believed to be true or not. What I am trying to say, is that many hypothesis' originally were treated with scepticism, to say the least, but that is in a way a good thing (within reasonable limits) because, just because some guy named Albert claims that everything you know to be true is wrong, doesn't mean that he is right, especially since he hasn't published anything major prior. The only true test of a hypothesis is time. Sure, sometimes it can feel frustrating to have to wait for maybe decades in order for a hypothesis to become a theory, but that is the only way to distinguish a correct, working theory, from an incorrect flawed theory.

    Lastly, this may be provoking, perhaps, and if so, then it is not intentional, most have probably heard of the recent movement in the US regarding evolution, to present creationism and the theory of evolution by means of natural selection (and with complementary modern knowledge of DNA, etc) as though they are even competing theories is just wrong. Sure, true competing theories should be mentioned in the class and course books but not every theory out there(!) However you are right when you say that in the pseudo-science section the thread might not get the desired attention. You just have to hang tight, and if it will be proven in 20-30 years time, then so be it.
    Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever.

    - Albert Einstein

    Earth Science undergrad at your service
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    NijuuDuosaba,

    I agree globally with your post. :wink:

    Yes I'm familiar with the scientific method (that's actually my job ), and I also know that it often takes awful lot of time for a theory to become mainstream.
    But this will be a record for this one, since I think it was already evoked in the 17th century, then later by Darwin in the 19th, then a bit later by Dutoit and Roberto Mantovani in the early 20th century. To my knowledge, Mantovani was probably the first to describe it with some details in his writings, see his biography here (he actually predicted seafloor spreading).
    It was close to emerge in the 50s and 60s thanx to Carey, but you probably know that quote from Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". At this time the claim was so extraordinary that the evidence, though strong and decisive, were probably not extraordinary enough. Plus Plate tectonics was already a big fish to swallow, and there was that apparent refutation based on paleomagnetic data that killed the development of the theory in the 70s.

    But, now, we're in 2011 and we have accumulate so much data that we can likely change Sagan's quote to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amount of evidence".

    Anyway, I'm a fan of Thomas Kuhn, and I know how hard it is to think out of the box, and adapt interpretations to a new paradigm. In that sense, the discussion with Drowsy Turtle about physicists rotating the whole universe or a bulb is very telling. :-D .

    But I simply can't bear that people trash that theory by ignorance. This is no different than what cranks do, and it is unacceptable from scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    BTW. Question. Who is epignosis?
    The last person I was quoting, sorry. I copy the opening part of the quote code to save time; obviously I forgot to do so this time, and used the already-copied quote code for epignosis.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Florian

    I made an effort to understand your arguments. I don't understand what's wrong with plate tectonics, and I really don't understand how this "tectonic flow" can subsume plate tectonics, let alone how that can lead to whole earth expansion.

    I don't understand how your flow arguments tie in with the presence of transform faults. These are places where nothing overrides anything, not compatible with your flow model as far as I can see.

    Also, do you believe that the whole of the subducted slab is assimilated into the mantle and is recycled? Because that is demonstrably false.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Florian

    I made an effort to understand your arguments. I don't understand what's wrong with plate tectonics, and I really don't understand how this "tectonic flow" can subsume plate tectonics, let alone how that can lead to whole earth expansion.
    Do you believe that the physicists rotate the universe rather than the bulb?
    Do you believe that Africa+Mediterranean Sea+Europe is moving northward rather than the aegean sea and anatolia are flowing over the Mediterranean sea?


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    I don't understand how your flow arguments tie in with the presence of transform faults. These are places where nothing overrides anything, not compatible with your flow model as far as I can see.
    The flow model applies to regions with Wadati-Benioff zone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    ...For example, the arguments in Crawford's paper "The Myth of a vast oceanic tethys, the India-Asia problem and earth expansion" (1979) Journal of Petroleum Geology 2(1), p3–9, have never been refuted.
    I skimmed it because I need to sleep tonight, but the only argument I could find was this:

    "Owen (1976) states that the vast Tethys is an artefact. So does Carey (1976). I agree."

    Whatever relevant information you're trying to quote - any chance you could save me the time and quote it directly?
    Here is a pdf of the paper (link to pdf).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Do you believe that the physicists rotate the universe rather than the bulb?
    Do you believe that Africa+Mediterranean Sea+Europe is moving northward rather than the aegean sea and anatolia are flowing over the Mediterranean sea?
    It doesn't matter. There are no preferred reference frames. Each are equally valid.


    I'll just note now how you've again completely failed to address the points put to you in a reasonable way, and have instead tried to deflect and evade with new questions of your own. It's like interacting with a creationist on the topic of evolution, if I'm to be honest with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Do you believe that the physicists rotate the universe rather than the bulb?
    Do you believe that Africa+Mediterranean Sea+Europe is moving northward rather than the aegean sea and anatolia are flowing over the Mediterranean sea?
    It doesn't matter. There are no preferred reference frames. Each are equally valid.
    No. You confuse kinematics and dynamics. Both situations are not equivalent at all in term of dynamics. Is that so hard to understand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    No. You confuse kinematics and dynamics. Both situations are not equivalent at all in term of dynamics.
    I wasn't even talking about geology, and was referencing physics, but whatever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    No. You confuse kinematics and dynamics. Both situations are not equivalent at all in term of dynamics.
    I wasn't even talking about geology, and was referencing physics, but whatever.

    If you don't understand the difference between kinematics and dynamics for geology, then you certainly don't understand it either for physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    An entirely possible scenario, although not often encountered in everyday life. I'm reminded of the joke about how many physicists it takes to change a lightbulb; 2 - one to hold the lightbulb and the other to rotate the universe.
    Do you know why this joke is funny? Because it is unrealistic.
    It's completely accurate.
    No. The second interpretation is unrealistic.
    How realistic it is depends only on how you percieve things to work. Being scientific, you should have no preconceptions. I'm only picking up on this because it's analogous to how you present your hypothesis; it only works because your preconceptions allow it to.

    None of the evidence you've shown so far actually demonstrates that the Earth is expanding; you are narrowly focusing on a few facts that, in isolation, represent a real challenge to plate tectonics; on a global scale they do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Am I saying that the physicist is impartin a force on the whole of the universe except the lightbulb? Of course not; that's the joke.
    That is exactly my point.
    Which shows that you are missing my point. While the physicist and the lightbulb is a joke, the two tectonic plates impart equal forces on each other. To say one is in motion and the other is not is simply incorrect; both are in motion relative to each other, and both are exerting the same force. The resultant motion may be different for each plate, but to say one is imparting a force and the other is passively 'accepting' the force? This is not an accurate representation of the laws of physics.

    Ultimately, you can't say that one is in motion and the other is not, because both are. End of.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Not at all. It would be exactly as claiming that it is not important wether the physicist are rotating the whole universe or just the bulb. It is the mostimportant.
    Is the universe rotating the physicist, or is the physicist rotating the universe? (Answer: both.)

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    This might be expected to some extent, but with a difference in lattitude of around 90 degrees between regions that are now in contact/overlapping, you are describing either a tiny Earth or a huge Tethys. A huge Tethys is consistent with the plate tectonics explanation.
    Correction: A huge Tethys is deduced from the plate tectonics explanation.
    No, a huge Tethys is deduced from evidence which demostrated the difference in lattitudes of rocks forming on the two plates prior to the closure of the ocean. Or, as I said, you could deduce a tiny Earth at this time - probably on the order of 100 times smalle than it is today (I can't be bothered to do the maths and say exactly how small, especially considering you haven't said exactly how wide you think the Tethys was).


    The evidence suggests that the two continents were seperated by a significant distance.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    The geology of the Himalayas represents part of the continental slope, not the subducted, abyssal Tethys.
    Not completely accurate because of the ophiolites. And these specialists were also discussing the geology of the tibetan plateau.
    And they also admit that there were abyssal depths in the Tethys. So why should I trust this interpretation of a shallow Tethys, when these claims are not consistent?

    There are sediments preserved in the himalayas representing abyssal depths, which is consistent with the plate tectonic explanation, but not with a narrow, shallow Tethys required by expansionism.


    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    It was even conceded in your previous link that the Tethys was almost certainly abyssal in places (presumably based on ophiolites and accretory prisms).
    The point is that a few km of ophiolites does not make a thousand km wide ocean. This is an extrapolation that is unsupported. And plate tectonics is full of these unsupported extrapolations.
    What is a realistically stable gradient for a continental slope? What would be the minimum width of the Tethys, therefore, based on this gradient and and a maximum depth of, say, 3km? Also consider that is is likely to be an underestimate, since Tethysian sediments are not dominated by greywackes or other sediments/rocks charicteristic of a steep gradient.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    That is known as a 'bare assertion' fallacy.
    Nope.
    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You just don't know the litterature on this subject. The assertion that the tibetan plateau is a tectonic flow is based on a lot of data (Geology, Geodynamics Geodesy...)
    Data which you have not provided. Also, "tectonic flow" is not a term that you have adequately defined. Tectonic plates and flows are seemingly interchangable where you see fit; what makes something a flow as apposed to a plate?

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    I said "biogeographic data". And they all show that India was never isolated as it should have been according plate tectonics.
    Considering they mostly compare India to Madigascar (the last landmass thought to have been in contact with India before its collision with Asia according to plate tectonics), your point is either moot, or in favour of plate tectonics.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    This is a refutation of plate tectonics. And this refutation leads straight to the growing Earth theory.
    Interesting idea. What leads you to suggest that one or the other has to be correct? Isn't this like me saying that, because evolution can't fully explain the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, creationism must be the correct hypothesis?

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    I don't understand why people are so prompt to deny the facts.
    Facts, or assertions?

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Just because it has deep implications in physics? Who cares about the qualms of a bunch of physicists?
    Me. The laws of physics are far more established than the "laws" of geology (as an applied science). If an interpretation disagrees with the laws of physics, it is most likely wrong - and I say this as a geologist, not a physicist.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    As long as you consider that "physicist rotating the universe" does not make differences with "physicists rotating the bulb", the demonstration can't work.
    And my point is that the demonstration does not work. Make a post in the physics subforum if you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The point that I want to make is that this situation of 'no net decrease in surface' is the rule. So in absence of 'a net decrease in surface', we're left with a large increase in surface at the MORs (and I don't even count intracontinental extension).
    And the conclusion is that Earth is growing.
    And yet, you chose and example where there is both a rift and a subduction zone and no net surface expansion or contraction - exactly as predicted by plate tectonics?

    And what would happen if you chose the Pacific/South American boundary as an example? Is the low-density, but ancient, South American plate a "flow" compared to the younger, but denser, Pacific plate? Is there no net surface change, despite the measured convergence of the Americas and Asia?

    Your model breaks down on a global scale, and since it's supposed to represent crustal movement on a global scale, this means it fails altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    It does not matter. I'm very busy myself, and we have plenty of time.
    OK, cool.



    BTW I'm drunk
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    No. You confuse kinematics and dynamics. Both situations are not equivalent at all in term of dynamics.
    I wasn't even talking about geology, and was referencing physics, but whatever.

    If you don't understand the difference between kinematics and dynamics for geology, then you certainly don't understand it either for physics.
    Irrelevant to my point. You are working as if there is such a thing as a preferred reference frame. There is not. This is demonstrably true and accurate (see: Relativity, Theory of). Your comment is moot, and mine remains valid. Usage of the rolleyes smilie and accusations trying to poison the well about my knowledge / skill doesn't change that one bit (and is, in fact, little more than another logical fallacy from you further demonstrating the weakness of your position).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Irrelevant to my point. You are working as if there is such a thing as a preferred reference frame. There is not.
    This means that you do not understand the joke with the bulb.

    I make a last effort to explain you why it is not equivalent in dynamics.
    After that, I'll give up.

    In dynamics, we're interested in the cause of motion.

    What is the cause of the relative motion between the universe and the bulb?
    a) Physicists are rotating the bulb?
    b) Physicists are rotating the universe?
    One way to answer this question is to consider the amount of energy required in each case. Obviously it takes much less energy to rotate the bulb than the universe. So both cases are clearly not equivalent.

    Let's take another simple example: a ball rolling on a table.
    What consumes less energy to put that ball in motion relatively to the table? To push the table or to push the ball? Most probably, pushing the ball cost less energy.

    Now back to the Anatolian/Aegean flow and its bended path. What is the cause of the relative motion?
    a) Is there something dragging a huge lithospheric block (Africa+Mediterranean sea+Europe) without any deformation?
    b) Is this just the lithosphere of anatolia/aegean sea that is flowing down, following a gravity gradient?

    These are very different cases and obviously, case b is more realistic than case a.

    Actually, the kinematic analysis is already sufficient to get the correct interpretation, because when Africa+Mediterranean sea+Europe is the referential, the large variation in the direction and norm of the GPS vectors of the Anatolian/Aegean region prevent any accurate modelling of the displacement using one or even a couple of rigid blocks. The region must be completely fragmented to account for all variations in velocity. In other words a flow model is much more appropriate.

    So when both kinematics and dynamics analysis lead to the interpretation of the motion in term of a flow, there are no doubts, the motion of the Anatolian/Aegean region is driven by a flow, downhill. But downhill from where? From a mantle upwelling, obviously.

    And guess what, this is exactly what is suggested by one of the founder of plate tectonics, Xavier Le Pichon, in one of his very recent papers: The Miocene-to-Present Kinematic Evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East and Its Implications for Dynamics

    All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    I don't understand how your flow arguments tie in with the presence of transform faults. These are places where nothing overrides anything, not compatible with your flow model as far as I can see.
    The flow model applies to regions with Wadati-Benioff zone.
    So the flow models does not apply to transform faults? Yet you use the Anatolian Fault Zone as an example of your model? (A prime example of a transform fault!)

    Huh? Can you see why I'm confused?

    Why should we believe in your flow model over plate tectonics if your flow model doesn't even explain transform faults? And what do we get in return? The ridiculous implication that the Earth is expanding without any known mechanism.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    So the flow models does not apply to transform faults? Yet you use the Anatolian Fault Zone as an example of your model? (A prime example of a transform fault!)

    This transform fault marks the border of the anatolian flow, but it has a different origin than the transform faults that cross Mid-Ocean Ridge.

    Are you still confuse?.

    BTW, this is not "my" flow model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    So the flow models does not apply to transform faults? Yet you use the Anatolian Fault Zone as an example of your model? (A prime example of a transform fault!)

    This transform fault marks the border of the anatolian flow, but it has a different origin than the transform faults that cross Mid-Ocean Ridge.

    Are you still confuse?.

    BTW, this is not "my" flow model.
    If it marks the border to flow then why is there movement across the fault? Why is there anisotropic fabric aligned with deformation either side of the fault?
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...576.x/abstract

    Further, why is this deformation fabric in the Upper Mantle? Accorcding to the flow model shouldn't it be limited to the crust?

    As far as I can see this flow model has BIG problems.

    BTW, this is not "my" flow model.
    Please reference us to the source of the flow model, then perhaps we can better understand it.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Do you believe that the physicists rotate the universe rather than the bulb?
    Do you believe that Africa+Mediterranean Sea+Europe is moving northward rather than the aegean sea and anatolia are flowing over the Mediterranean sea?
    It doesn't matter. There are no preferred reference frames. Each are equally valid.
    I have to disagree here. Plates drift relative to each other but also relative to a more fundamental frame -- the deep interior. Hence the concept of absolute plate motion. Evidence for absolute plate motion is seen in hotspot tracks and also in the anisotropy of the upper mantle.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If it marks the border to flow then why is there movement across the fault?
    Not sure to understand this comment. GPS measurements show a clear limit between flowing anatolia and the rest of Europe. So what do you mean by movement across the fault?


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Why is there anisotropic fabric aligned with deformation either side of the fault?
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...576.x/abstract
    To what distance of the fault, what depth. I don't have access to that paper. Could you provide a link to the full pdf? Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Further, why is this deformation fabric in the Upper Mantle? Accorcding to the flow model shouldn't it be limited to the crust?
    If you believe that flows are limited to the crust, then you're clearly wrong, especially knowing that their cause is mantle upwelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    As far as I can see this flow model has BIG problems.
    Or more probably, you have big holes in your level of understanding of these concepts.

    Please reference us to the source of the flow model, then perhaps we can better understand it.
    Just a few lines above, you cite a paper discussing the anisotropy related to that flow, and now you ask for references to describe it? You're weird.
    Besides, I cited twice a paper by Le Pichon that you should have read, especially because he's discussing the relation between geodynamics and mantle flow in that region.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Do you believe that the physicists rotate the universe rather than the bulb?
    Do you believe that Africa+Mediterranean Sea+Europe is moving northward rather than the aegean sea and anatolia are flowing over the Mediterranean sea?
    It doesn't matter. There are no preferred reference frames. Each are equally valid.
    I have to disagree here. Plates drift relative to each other but also relative to a more fundamental frame -- the deep interior. Hence the concept of absolute plate motion. Evidence for absolute plate motion is seen in hotspot tracks and also in the anisotropy of the upper mantle.
    Appreciate the information. That's good to know.



    However, when viewed in context my comment remains valid. It was in response to this previous series of exchanges a few pages back:


    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=290794#290794

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The African lithosphere is not moving as a block to the North to meet the aegean sea. Therefore it is not subducting. But it is subducted by the aegean flow. It is about what is active and passive.
    It doesn't matter what is active and passive, and what is moving relative to what. The African plate is being subducted, as shown by the trace of the benioff zone and the associated anomalies.
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The mediterranean seafloor "is being subducted" by the aegean flow is not equivalent to the mediterranean seafloor "is subducting". As long as you believe that what is active and passive is not important, you will not make any progress.
    All motion is relative. You are choosing to consider the Anatolian plate as moving relative to the African plate; it is no less correct to consider the African plate as moving relative to the Anatolian.

    You are only seeing it this way because it is convenient for your hypothesis.
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    All motions are relative but all interpretations are not realistic. Your later interpretation would be equivalent to say that the table is really moving under immobile ketchup.
    An entirely possible scenario, although not often encountered in everyday life. I'm reminded of the joke about how many physicists it takes to change a lightbulb; 2 - one to hold the lightbulb and the other to rotate the universe.









    My reading of florian's problems is further reinforced by the way he evades addressing specific critiques by throwing personal barbs toward critics and instead of addressing the challenge chooses to poison the well (repeatedly) about the knowledge or intelligence of the poster. I say again, it's like watching a creationist argue against evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    As far as I can see this flow model has BIG problems.
    Or more probably, you have big holes in your level of understanding of these concepts.

    <snip>

    you cite a paper discussing the anisotropy related to that flow, and now you ask for references to describe it? You're weird.
    The prolific use of logical fallacies shows both 1) the problems in his logic and reasoning, and 2) the weakness of the position he defends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Why is there anisotropic fabric aligned with deformation either side of the fault?
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...576.x/abstract
    To what distance of the fault, what depth. I don't have access to that paper. Could you provide a link to the full pdf? Thank you.
    I don't have the paper on my home computer, you'll have to wait until Tuesday I'm afraid, until I get back to the office.


    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Further, why is this deformation fabric in the Upper Mantle? According to the flow model shouldn't it be limited to the crust?
    If you believe that flows are limited to the crust, then you're clearly wrong, especially knowing that their cause is mantle upwelling.

    Florian, correct me if I am wrong but as I have gathered the principal difference between "tectonic flows" and plate tectonics is that at ocean-continent interfaces the continent is actively flowing over the top of the oceanic lithosphere, the oceanic lithosphere gets subducted a little bit and creates a Wadati-Benioff zone. Transform faults are where the flow is at its edge.

    So what happens to the upper mantle flow when the continental lithosphere goes over the top of the oceanic lithosphere? Seems to me like flow would be pretty much confined to the Continental crust -- the bit that goes over the top of the oceanic lithosphere.

    Why are transform faults deep vertical features with anisotropic fabric developed on either side (c.f. the San Andreas fault)? That just doesn't fit my picture of what the edge of a flow should look like.

    Why are there oceanic slabs commonly imaged to penetrate deep into the mantle? Surely that can't be explained with tectonic flow?


    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    As far as I can see this flow model has BIG problems.
    Or more probably, you have big holes in your level of understanding of these concepts.[/florian]

    Perhap I don't understand "flow" because flow is nonsense?

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Please reference us to the source of the flow model, then perhaps we can better understand it.
    Just a few lines above, you cite a paper discussing the anisotropy related to that flow, and now you ask for references to describe it? You're weird.
    Besides, I cited twice a paper by Le Pichon that you should have read, especially because he's discussing the relation between geodynamics and mantle flow in that region.
    By your own admission you haven't even read that paper yet you're telling me it describes "flow"!! Ha!! You're pretty cock sure of yourself aren't you.

    If you could link me to the Pichon article (pdf) I would be grateful.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If you could link me to the Pichon article (pdf) I would be grateful.
    It looks to be behind a paywall:
    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs...rnalCode=earth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    My reading of florian's problems is further reinforced by the way he evades addressing specific critiques by throwing personal barbs toward critics and instead of addressing the challenge chooses to poison the well (repeatedly) about the knowledge or intelligence of the poster. I say again, it's like watching a creationist argue against evolution.
    You're the one questioning the intelligence of the poster by repeating ad nauseam that I behave like a creationist... that's quite ironic given the time I spent debunking creationists and other cranks. I suspect that you're a bit confused because I'm not a creationist-like person. So please forget the poster and focus on the science.

    Thank you in advance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If you could link me to the Pichon article (pdf) I would be grateful.
    It looks to be behind a paywall:
    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs...rnalCode=earth
    Yes, not for me. Try there: https://rapidshare.com/files/4136660...r_Dynamics.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    I don't have the paper on my home computer, you'll have to wait until Tuesday I'm afraid, until I get back to the office.
    Nevermind, I'll probably get access to it before tuesday.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Florian, correct me if I am wrong but as I have gathered the principal difference between "tectonic flows" and plate tectonics is that at ocean-continent interfaces the continent is actively flowing over the top of the oceanic lithosphere, the oceanic lithosphere gets subducted a little bit and creates a Wadati-Benioff zone. Transform faults are where the flow is at its edge.

    So what happens to the upper mantle flow when the continental lithosphere goes over the top of the oceanic lithosphere? Seems to me like flow would be pretty much confined to the Continental crust -- the bit that goes over the top of the oceanic lithosphere.
    OK, now I understand the problem. There is no limit to the thickness of the flowing layers since the cause is mantle upwelling. Depending on the context, only the crust could glide down, or the whole lithosphere, or the lithosphere+ asthenospheric mantle. I invent nothing, google scholar "mantle flow", "asthenospheric flow", "crustal flow" and you should easily find plenty of literature.

    When there is a benioff zone, there is mantle wedge and thus the mantle is involved.

    Why are transform faults deep vertical features with anisotropic fabric developed on either side (c.f. the San Andreas fault)? That just doesn't fit my picture of what the edge of a flow should look like.
    You don't expect that the flowing material is inducing shear stress? The opposite would be very surprising.

    Why are there oceanic slabs commonly imaged to penetrate deep into the mantle? Surely that can't be explained with tectonic flow?
    Not tectonic flow alone, but that is easily explained by the theory.
    Let's say that the radius of Earth was 5600 km just 40 millions years ago. At that time, a mantle flow started to overrun and subduct a region of oceanic lithosphere. 40 millions years later, the radius of the planet increased to 6400 km. If the edge of the slab did not move up, then in theory, it is now 800 km under the surface, well below the transition zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    By your own admission you haven't even read that paper yet you're telling me it describes "flow"!! Ha!! You're pretty cock sure of yourself aren't you.
    Pardon me? Isn't it the last sentence of the abstract:
    Quote Originally Posted by abstract
    The regional tectonic framework favours a SW direction of asthenospheric flow due to the forces acting on the upper-mantle exerted by the slab-roll-back taking place along the Aegean and the Cyprean Subduction Zones.
    Then you can read Le Pichon's paper showing that the flow is the driving force, and not slab-driven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    By your own admission you haven't even read that paper yet you're telling me it describes "flow"!! Ha!! You're pretty cock sure of yourself aren't you.
    Pardon me? Isn't it the last sentence of the abstract:
    Quote Originally Posted by abstract
    The regional tectonic framework favours a SW direction of asthenospheric flow due to the forces acting on the upper-mantle exerted by the slab-roll-back taking place along the Aegean and the Cyprean Subduction Zones.
    Then you can read Le Pichon's paper showing that the flow is the driving force, and not slab-driven.
    Ah! So the asthenosphere deforms, ergo plate tectonics is wrong? :? I think that's where I get lost. (Or perhaps that's where you get lost?)

    You see, to me that's intrinsically part of plate tectonics. There's no problem here. Plate tectonics is merely the surface expression of mantle convection. Of course the mantle "flows", that's what you'd expect! Everybody knew that! I'm curious now as to exactly what is your problem with plate tectonics?

    As it stands plate tectonics is a kinematic theory, the underlying dynamics are yet to be understood. So it is incomplete. Yet as a conceptual framework it is extremely powerful and unifies everything from geochemistry to geophysics and is a vital component in the carbon cycle (without which we'd not be here!).

    There is scope to complete plate tectonics (and it will probably take a new generation of scientists to achieve it). But it seems to me that what you are describing is merely an aspect of plate tectonics, with the advantage of being dynamic, yet the disadvantage that it only "explains" a few isolated cases (and that remains to be seen) which do not seem to contradict plate tectonics.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You don't expect that the flowing material is inducing shear stress? The opposite would be very surprising.
    Well yes. But not at its boundary.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Not tectonic flow alone, but that is easily explained by the theory.
    Let's say that the radius of Earth was 5600 km just 40 millions years ago. At that time, a mantle flow started to overrun and subduct a region of oceanic lithosphere. 40 millions years later, the radius of the planet increased to 6400 km. If the edge of the slab did not move up, then in theory, it is now 800 km under the surface, well below the transition zone.
    Speculative! Yet still cannot explain observations of slab impingement at the core mantle boundary.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    By your own admission you haven't even read that paper yet you're telling me it describes "flow"!! Ha!! You're pretty cock sure of yourself aren't you.
    Pardon me? Isn't it the last sentence of the abstract:
    Quote Originally Posted by abstract
    The regional tectonic framework favours a SW direction of asthenospheric flow due to the forces acting on the upper-mantle exerted by the slab-roll-back taking place along the Aegean and the Cyprean Subduction Zones.
    Then you can read Le Pichon's paper showing that the flow is the driving force, and not slab-driven.
    Ah! So the asthenosphere deforms, ergo plate tectonics is wrong? :? I think that's where I get lost. (Or perhaps that's where you get lost?)
    Oh yes, you're lost. I don't know why, but you try desperately to oppose plate tectonics concepts and flow tectonics concepts. There are no real opposition. They are just different. The point is that flow tectonics concepts are much better at explaining tumultuous region like the Mediterranean, Philippine sea, Zealandia region.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    You see, to me that's intrinsically part of plate tectonics.
    No no, this is your mistake. Mantle flows are not part of plate tectonics much like mantle plumes are not part of plate tectonics, in the sense that they can exist in a planet without plate tectonics. I mean, plate tectonics does not exist elsewhere than on Earth, but would you deny that mantle flow and plumes do not exist in other planet? Plate tectonics is a very singular theory, because up to now, it has not been seen on another planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    There's no problem here. Plate tectonics is merely the surface expression of mantle convection.
    Plate tectonics is only one possible surface expression of mantle convection among others, flow tectonics being another one.


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Of course the mantle "flows", that's what you'd expect! Everybody knew that! I'm curious now as to exactly what is your problem with plate tectonics?
    For a start, plate tectonics predicts that the ocean lithosphere is entirely recycled in 180 millions years. But this is clearly not true. As soon as you admit this fact, plate tectonics crumples like a house of cards.
    Do you agree that if the recycling prediction is wrong, then all the theory is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    As it stands plate tectonics is a kinematic theory, the underlying dynamics are yet to be understood. So it is incomplete. Yet as a conceptual framework it is extremely powerful and unifies everything from geochemistry to geophysics and is a vital component in the carbon cycle (without which we'd not be here!).
    Plate tectonics is a kinematic theory based on a constant earth-radius. Since earth has not a constant radius, the whole kinematic theory is wrong and every interpretation dependent on that theory is probably wrong.

    The plate tectonics conceptual framework was a big step forward compared to the previous fixist theories. but it is actually a half-step. The growing earth theory is much more universal, it does explain everything at the surface of earth and also apply to many other planets, and may be most importantly, it has profound implications in very different scientific fields, way outside geology.
    The amount of work ahead is astonishing.
    It has all the ingredients to become the most important scientific revolution of all time. Sorry to be so much enthusiast, but this is why I'm doing this job
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You don't expect that the flowing material is inducing shear stress? The opposite would be very surprising.
    Well yes. But not at its boundary.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Not tectonic flow alone, but that is easily explained by the theory.
    Let's say that the radius of Earth was 5600 km just 40 millions years ago. At that time, a mantle flow started to overrun and subduct a region of oceanic lithosphere. 40 millions years later, the radius of the planet increased to 6400 km. If the edge of the slab did not move up, then in theory, it is now 800 km under the surface, well below the transition zone.
    Speculative!
    Actually not. These numbers were not invented, they are the result of the quantification.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Yet still cannot explain observations of slab impingement at the core mantle boundary.
    Observations or speculations? Let's see what's the opinion of Don Anderson from Caltech: http://www.mantleplumes.org/TomographyProblems.html

    Anyway, in essence, the mantle is heterogenous in the growing earth model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Plate tectonics is only one possible surface expression of mantle convection among others, flow tectonics being another one.
    Perhaps. But if you take this stand you are in no position to posit an expanding Earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    For a start, plate tectonics predicts that the ocean lithosphere is entirely recycled in 180 millions years. But this is clearly not true. As soon as you admit this fact, plate tectonics crumples like a house of cards.
    Do you agree that if the recycling prediction is wrong, then all the theory is wrong?
    But you just said that plate tectonics exists as one possible aspect of mantle convection. So where do you stand? Does it exist or not?

    I don't agree that the oceanic lithosphere is entirely recycled (back into the lithosphere). Perhaps as much as 80% of the sedimentary column does, but the vast majority of the plate is subducted deep into the mantle and may never be assimilated and recycled.

    I do not agree that this means plate tectonics crumples like a house of cards. Why would it?


    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Plate tectonics is a kinematic theory based on a constant earth-radius. Since earth has not a constant radius, the whole kinematic theory is wrong and every interpretation dependent on that theory is probably wrong.
    Plate tectonics assumes that the Earth's radius stays approximately constant. It might change a little bit, but that's not the most important thing.

    Since we have no evidence that the Earth's radius has changed it would be rather idiotic to make the following statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Since earth has not a constant radius, the whole kinematic theory is wrong and every interpretation dependent on that theory is probably wrong.
    ....

    It has all the ingredients to become the most important scientific revolution of all time. Sorry to be so much enthusiast, but this is why I'm doing this job
    Out of interest, what is your job? Have you published?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Plate tectonics is only one possible surface expression of mantle convection among others, flow tectonics being another one.
    Perhaps. But if you take this stand you are in no position to posit an expanding Earth.
    The point is that mantle advection does not imply plate tectonics, neither does it imply a growing Earth. This was not clear in your previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    For a start, plate tectonics predicts that the ocean lithosphere is entirely recycled in 180 millions years. But this is clearly not true. As soon as you admit this fact, plate tectonics crumples like a house of cards.
    Do you agree that if the recycling prediction is wrong, then all the theory is wrong?
    But you just said that plate tectonics exists as one possible aspect of mantle convection. So where do you stand? Does it exist or not?
    It is an existing model, and this model predicts that the oceanic lithosphere get totally recycled, mostly in the mantle, in 180 millions years.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    I don't agree that the oceanic lithosphere is entirely recycled (back into the lithosphere).
    Me neither. It is recycled in the mantle and goes partially back to form continental lithosphere through arc magmatism.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    I do not agree that this means plate tectonics crumples like a house of cards. Why would it?
    Plate tectonics requires that the surface of lithosphere accreted at divergent zones is equal to the surface of lithosphere destroyed at convergent zones.
    If this equality is not respected, plate tectonics becomes obsolete.
    Do you agree, yes or no?
    If you do agree, then let's demonstrate that the surface of lithosphere destroyed is negligible by analyzing the implications of flow tectonics.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Since we have no evidence that the Earth's radius has changed it would be rather idiotic to make the following statement
    correction: you don't have evidence. I do. So let's go back to the point of the discussion: is there significant destruction of the oceanic lithosphere at WBZ.


    Out of interest, what is your job? Have you published?
    I'm a scientist. Yes, regularly.
    What does it change? Or are you sensible to the argument from authority?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    correction: you don't have evidence. I do. So let's go back to the point of the discussion: is there significant destruction of the oceanic lithosphere at WBZ.
    If you have evidence then fire away. (Remember though that you need to provide evidence for GLOBAL expansion.)

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Out of interest, what is your job? Have you published?
    I'm a scientist. Yes, regularly.
    What does it change? Or are you sensible to the argument from authority?
    What kind of "a scientist" are you?

    If you have published on this topic then wouldn't it be better to show us something that has got through the peer review process?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    correction: you don't have evidence. I do. So let's go back to the point of the discussion: is there significant destruction of the oceanic lithosphere at WBZ.
    If you have evidence then fire away. (Remember though that you need to provide evidence for GLOBAL expansion.)
    In the context of flow tectonics, is there significant destruction of the oceanic lithosphere at WBZ? When I mean significant, I mean as lot as lithosphere created at divergence zones. So, yes or not?


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If you have published on this topic then wouldn't it be better to show us something that has got through the peer review process?
    I did not published on this topic yet. Would you please focus on the demonstration please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144 A known and stubborn krank. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    correction: you don't have evidence. I do. So let's go back to the point of the discussion: is there significant destruction of the oceanic lithosphere at WBZ.
    If you have evidence then fire away. (Remember though that you need to provide evidence for GLOBAL expansion.)

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Out of interest, what is your job? Have you published?
    I'm a scientist. Yes, regularly.
    What does it change? Or are you sensible to the argument from authority?
    What kind of "a scientist" are you?
    Florian is a known and stubborn krank.
    Florian has his place at the Museum of science-pretending impostures :
    http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...oard,21.0.html
    Florian pretends to revolutionarize all physics, mechanics, astrophysics, geology, mineralogy, petrography, geochemistry, paleontology and tectonics, not forgetting the psychopathology of course, just by the means of his humble genius...

    Of course, as a frustrated krank, Florian uses now abundantly the insults as his main mean for reasoning and argumenting, pretends that I would be a homosexual...
    No limits to the delirium of Florian.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    In the context of flow tectonics, is there significant destruction of the oceanic lithosphere at WBZ? When I mean significant, I mean as lot as lithosphere created at divergence zones. So, yes or not?
    In the context of "flow tectonics"?

    You know what your problem is. You have completely misrepresented the work of real geophysicists in support of your own personal theory. You have used that strategy to divert attention away from flaws in your own understanding and flaws in your personal theory.

    There may well be some non-rigid component to plate motions, plate motions are undoubtedly affected by toroidal currents and topographic swells in the mantle, the asthenosphere does flow. All of this stuff is understood by the geophysical community, yet it is still very much an open book. You exploit that by claiming that these observations culminate in some new kind of "flow tectonics" which the geophysicists just haven't been bright enough to pick up on yet. They'll catch up with you in the end, after all, you represent "science at its best".

    You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between scientific data, and interpretations. You seem to think that if you base an interpretation on data, then if the data are true, the interpretation must be true.

    Your one saving grace seems to be this "James Maxlow, PhD". This James Maxlow's PhD thesis looks like a joke. I had a quick look and I didn't see any figures, tables, diagrams, equations; just rambling text full of speculative crap. As far as I can tell James Maxlow has yet to publish in a peer reviewed journal, very strange for a PhD.

    Please don't waste any more of your own time on this.

    ps. It looks like you have a fan in a certain J.C. Lavau.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    In the context of flow tectonics, is there significant destruction of the oceanic lithosphere at WBZ? When I mean significant, I mean as lot as lithosphere created at divergence zones. So, yes or not?
    In the context of "flow tectonics"?

    You know what your problem is. You have completely misrepresented the work of real geophysicists in support of your own personal theory. You have used that strategy to divert attention away from flaws in your own understanding and flaws in your personal theory.
    I did not invent this interpretation:
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Pichon in Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2010.38:323-351
    Whatever its origin, the asthenospheric rise led to uplift and the establishment of a progressive topographic gradient between the uplift and the subduction zone toward which Anatolia is moving. This scenario is similar to the effect of the Afar plume on the motion and topography of Arabia. In both cases, the beginning of the motion (for Anatolia) or the rapid increase of motion (for Arabia) coincides with the initiation of the uplift.
    This is a mantle upwelling initiating the flow motion, with slab rollback of encountered lithosphere as a consequence at the front of the flow. It is very clear.
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Please don't waste any more of your own time on this.
    I don't waste my time, thank you. But please don't waste your time by debating on a theory for which you have apparently no interest. Why not just ignoring it?
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    ps. It looks like you have a fan in a certain J.C. Lavau.
    Oh yes! Actually, almost a proof of sanity to have Jacques Lavau in his "fanbase". The guy is a wannabe known to open multiple websites and webforums where he's basically alone to post hundred of articles (see the link he gave), because he was banned from everywhere else for his asocial personality (wikipedia for example). Too bad that you can't read french, (or may be you can?) because you would learn in his website everything from his intimate life. In short, he complains that he's a poor victim, his ex-wife hating him, his children hating him, everybody in the world hating him. The truth is that nobody cares about him. Be sure that he will reply to what I just wrote, but the best attitude is to ignore him. And I will do so, so should do everybody else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147 The No-subduction theory should explain why Japan ... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    The No-subduction theory should explain why Japan suddenly skid 2,40 meters Eastwards, towards America, the 11 of March... Well, it pretends that it is impossible, just an illusion.

    For more than four years, Florian plagues us wih his personal delirium : as he has no knowledges nor practice in Geology nor in Mechanics, he does not fully understand the subductions, so he concludes that subductions cannot exist, and subsequently, that the Earth should be in expansion for the last 200 millions years of its existence. And subsequently that all the law of physics - the laws of conservation, for instance - should be bent to accomodate his own delirium.

    Though Mr. Florian N. is a biologist in his real professionnal life, he has not yet assimilated the basis of scientific methodology, and especially the working methods of the Nobel prize winner Baruch Samuel Blomberg. Instead of sticking to a foolish and unique theory, as Florian does, Blomberg encouraged his team to produce tons of hypothesis. Then they screened them by producing a first proof of falseness, as quick and cheap as possible.
    Only the theories that survived this first screening had a second look on. A second screening for falsity, that is to say, and so on...

    And the No-subdution theory of Florian cannot pass any one of these experimental screening tests.

    Only a mythomaniac and megalomaniac as Florian can stick to a so krankish theory. The case of Florian is not a scientific case, but a psychiatric case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    This is a mantle upwelling initiating the flow motion, with slab rollback of encountered lithosphere as a consequence at the front of the flow. It is very clear.
    Well, I finally made an additional figure to illustrate my point. I made a side view and top view at 3 different time point. 1) is present, 2) is +5 My and 3) +10 My. For simplification, the given age of seafloor is absolute :



    This figure demonstrates that when a mantle flow induces a rollback of static lithosphere, then the surface of fresh lithosphere formed by extension/accretion in the back arc is in balance with the surface of lithosphere that get subducted.
    Thus, there is locally conservation of the surface lithosphere, not destruction.
    Now it is possible to show that this situation is the most common one, so that there is clearly not an equilibrium between lithosphere destruction and formation at the global scale.
    This implies that the surface of Earth is dramatically expanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    This figure demonstrates that when a mantle flow induces a rollback of static lithosphere, then the surface of fresh lithosphere formed by extension/accretion in the back arc is in balance with the surface of lithosphere that get subducted.
    Thus, there is locally conservation of the surface lithosphere, not destruction.
    Now it is possible to show that this situation is the most common one, so that there is clearly not an equilibrium between lithosphere destruction and formation at the global scale.
    This implies that the surface of Earth is dramatically expanding.
    According to your theory, Japan could NOT skid 240 cm Eastward towards America, the 11th march. Unless it had left the Korea 240 cm further...

    However, no one fact fits with your ideations, Florian.

    What to do ? To burn Japan for crime of heresy against the holy doctrine of Florian ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    florian,

    Please show the scientic data that shows that the earth is expanding.

    You know, like measurements...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    You know, like measurements...
    From (1), table 2.1 page24:

    Period Age Palaeoradius
    Present 0 Ma 6370 km
    Pliocene 6 Ma 6240 km
    Miocene 23 Ma 5910 km
    Oligocene 37 Ma 5650 km
    Eocene 59 Ma 5270 km
    Paleocene 66 Ma 5160 km
    Mid Cretaceous 118 Ma 4435 km
    Late Jurassic 160 Ma 3960 km
    Triassic 245 Ma 3240 km
    Early Carboniferous 320 Ma 2800 km
    Early Devonian 380 Ma 2540 km
    Mid Ordovician 455 Ma 2290 km
    Cambrian 565 Ma 2060 km
    Early Neoproterozoic 700 Ma 1895 km


    (1) James Maxlow (2001) "Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets" PhD thesis; http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au:...object_id=9645
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152 Measurements ? Measurements ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    You know, like measurements...
    From (1), table 2.1 page24:

    Period Age Palaeoradius
    Present 0 Ma 6370 km
    Pliocene 6 Ma 6240 km
    Miocene 23 Ma 5910 km
    Oligocene 37 Ma 5650 km
    Eocene 59 Ma 5270 km
    Paleocene 66 Ma 5160 km
    Mid Cretaceous 118 Ma 4435 km
    Late Jurassic 160 Ma 3960 km
    Triassic 245 Ma 3240 km
    Early Carboniferous 320 Ma 2800 km
    Early Devonian 380 Ma 2540 km
    Mid Ordovician 455 Ma 2290 km
    Cambrian 565 Ma 2060 km
    Early Neoproterozoic 700 Ma 1895 km


    (1) James Maxlow (2001) "Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets" PhD thesis; http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au:...object_id=9645
    Measurements ? Measurements ?
    So what in the Earth could be the protocol of these "measurements" ?
    What could be the maximum errors values ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Those are not measurements. They are model reconstrunctions based on the assumption of the expanding earth "theory".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    does anyone know of a way to estimate the earth's mass and/or diameter from the geological record ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    It occurs to me that the sorting characteristics of sediments would be dependent upon g. If we could detect systematic variations in such characteristics in sediments understood to have been deposited in the same environment then any such change would be detectable and quantifiable.

    I suspect the differences would be small and the signal buried in a lot of noise, so that a very large number of data points would be needed. However, I think this would work. In a similar manner we could look at the run out of lava flows. This would be influenced, among other things such as slope and magma viscosity, by g, so that once again any variation could be detected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156 The No-subduction theory should explain why Japan .. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    And moreover, how could a so tiny planet, as Florian and his guru imagine, could retain oceans of liquid water ?
    And without these oceans about the end of the Hadean phase, no elaboration of life at all...

    Very, very odd for a biologist...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Those are not measurements. They are model reconstrunctions based on the assumption of the expanding earth "theory".
    You believe there is an assumption because you do not understand the implications of the figure a few post above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It occurs to me that the sorting characteristics of sediments would be dependent upon g. If we could detect systematic variations in such characteristics in sediments understood to have been deposited in the same environment then any such change would be detectable and quantifiable.

    I suspect the differences would be small and the signal buried in a lot of noise, so that a very large number of data points would be needed. However, I think this would work. In a similar manner we could look at the run out of lava flows. This would be influenced, among other things such as slope and magma viscosity, by g, so that once again any variation could be detected.
    Thank you for this constructive hypothesis. Yes, I thought about it as well. The signal is probably weak, but may be sufficient to measure a change that is probably not larger than 10 to 5 m/s2? I guess that erosion rates could be affected as well, but there are so many factors involved. Probably very tricky to extract a signal from the noise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    does anyone know of a way to estimate the earth's mass and/or diameter from the geological record ?
    Paleomagnetic data can be used to calculate the paleoradius from comparison of paleolatitude of the sample sites, but they have provided controversial results in the past due to some limitation in the method (Ward's method), some unjustified assumptions (symmetrical growth) and the availability of appropriate sample sites (not on the plar path for example).
    Though, I don't think that it has been tested with sets of the most recent data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160 Do not forget to check the systematic errors, 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Do not forget to check the systematic errors ; please check that they are not bigger than the postulated and mystic effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    does anyone know of a way to estimate the earth's mass and/or diameter from the geological record ?
    I was thinking of something more current. Satillittes have been around long enough that if there were changes it would be very noticeable at this point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Foxx
    I was thinking of something more current. Satillittes have been around long enough that if there were changes it would be very noticeable at this point.
    Except that the center of mass is changing continuously (many cm during the japan earthquake), so it is not that easy to measure changes of a few cm that are irregularly distributed all over the surface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Foxx
    I was thinking of something more current. Satillittes have been around long enough that if there were changes it would be very noticeable at this point.
    Except that the center of mass is changing continuously (many cm during the japan earthquake), so it is not that easy to measure changes of a few cm that are irregularly distributed all over the surface.
    It's not only center of mass. Gravity would be increasing and that would be directly measurable. Elevation would be increasing as well. Atmospheric pressure would be decreasing as well. In short there would be all kinds of physical measurements that would confirm an expanding mass or size. I'm guessing that no such changes are being observed. Or, can you show us some?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's not only center of mass.
    My point was that the permanent changes in the center of mass complicate the measurements using satellite geodesy. Anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Gravity would be increasing and that would be directly measurable. Elevation would be increasing as well. Atmospheric pressure would be decreasing as well. In short there would be all kinds of physical measurements that would confirm an expanding mass or size. I'm guessing that no such changes are being observed. Or, can you show us some?
    What kind of growth rate do you expect? The average over millions years give 2 cm radius/year, but that is an average. So even if the growth appears to be smooth at that time scale, we cannot exclude that it is very irregular at our timescale. It is an impossible guess as long as we don't understand the physics at work. Of course, the existence of earthquakes and geodetic measurements show current activity. But at which rate? Is it really possible to quantify the growth at the global scale? Even the tidal deformation of Earth is an order of magnitude larger.

    Regarding other specific issues with elevation (excluding the center of mass issue), the growth has not a spherical symmetry (it's larger in the southern hemisphere), and it is expected that only some regions upwell and spread at our time scale. So again, very difficult to measure something without a very dense network covering all the land and ocean floor. Besides, for oceans, the measured increase in sea surface elevation could also have a "growing earth" component in addition to the expansion in volume due to temperature increase. So there is also often a mix of phenomenon.


    Regarding gravity, even if we consider that the growth in mass/size is very smooth, a 2 cm growth in radius at constant density would correspond to a yearly increase in mass of: (4/3*pi*(63700000+0.2)^3-4/3*pi*(63700000)^3)*5.5=5.6E16 kg/yr
    The mass of Earth is 6E24 kg, so that would be an annual variation of 10E-6%. we don't have that accuracy for gravity measurements.

    See, there is nothing trivial at hand. Quantifications like that made by Maxlow is much more appealing, especially because it gives a relatively accurate history of the growth for at least the last 100 Millions years
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165 The Earth smaller than the Moon ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    You know, like measurements...
    From (1), table 2.1 page24:

    Period Age Palaeoradius
    Present 0 Ma 6370 km
    Pliocene 6 Ma 6240 km
    Miocene 23 Ma 5910 km
    Oligocene 37 Ma 5650 km
    Eocene 59 Ma 5270 km
    Paleocene 66 Ma 5160 km
    Mid Cretaceous 118 Ma 4435 km
    Late Jurassic 160 Ma 3960 km
    Triassic 245 Ma 3240 km
    Early Carboniferous 320 Ma 2800 km
    Early Devonian 380 Ma 2540 km
    Mid Ordovician 455 Ma 2290 km
    Cambrian 565 Ma 2060 km
    Early Neoproterozoic 700 Ma 1895 km


    (1) James Maxlow (2001) "Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geophysical Data Sets" PhD thesis; http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au:...object_id=9645
    So, according to James Maxlow - Maxlowhou akbar, and Florian is his prophet - the Earth was not bigger, 700 My ago, than the actual Moon...
    Well. So their common center of inertia was midway between these two planets.

    We know enough of the geology of the Moon to know there were no more major tectonic moves in it for 3 about milliards years.
    If we continue the maxlowian crunch of the Earth backwards in time, we soon come to era when the Earth was far smaller than Moon, was indeed a satellite of the Moon.
    Hin hin !
    So how Florian-the-prophet-of-Maxlow will explain that only the Moon is oblong to synchronize its rotation towards Earth, and not the Earth at all ?

    The duration of the day in Jurassic is known, by some shells. So the loss of energy of rotation of the Earth by tides is known, too.


    But however, James Maxlow remains of divine nature, and Florian remains his divine prophet !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Regarding gravity, even if we consider that the growth in mass/size is very smooth, a 2 cm growth in radius at constant density would correspond to a yearly increase in mass of: (4/3*pi*(63700000+0.2)^3-4/3*pi*(63700000)^3)*5.5=5.6E16 kg/yr
    The mass of Earth is 6E24 kg, so that would be an annual variation of 10E-6%. we don't have that accuracy for gravity measurements.
    Actually we do. The supercooled gravimeters are very capable and in use are even able to detect the increased gravity of a snowfall with accuracies of 0.01nm/s^2
    http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut...n/studieso.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry

    Average highly sensitive barometers are close as well. Has anyone looked into that?

    How about volumes of a mol of gases? Or does Avogadro's number change too?

    See, there is nothing trivial at hand. Quantifications like that made by Maxlow is much more appealing, especially because it gives a relatively accurate history of the growth for at least the last 100 Millions years
    As the duration of this thread and general rejection of the hypothesis indicates, most find it unconvincing.

    My point is if true it would show up and be consistent with other measurements in the physical sciences and thus far non of that has been shown. I was surprised that it wasn't discussed elsewhere in this thread; particularly since consistency with other measurements outside it's particular field are often at the center of building proof for a hypothesis. From what's presented so far, it doesn't even seem to have been explored.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Actually we do. The supercooled gravimeters are very capable and in use are even able to detect the increased gravity of a snowfall with accuracies of 0.01nm/s^2
    http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut...n/studieso.pdf
    OK, I meant satellite-based measurements like GRACE/GOCE.
    Very interesting thesis. Thank you.

    I could not find the exact quote for a measurement of snowfall effect with accuracy about 0.01 nm/s2. Though, the effect of snow on the roof is reported to be about 20 nm/s2. After all, it makes sense as the snow is close enough to the gravimeter to have a measurable effect.

    Anyway, we can calculate the increase in surface gravity assuming a smooth symetrical growth at the year scale (in opposition to a periodic asymetrical growth): (5.6E16+6E24)*G/6370000.02^2-(6E24*G/6370000^2)=3E-8 m/s2=30nm/s2=3 µgal
    And you probably read page 14 that there is a reported drift of that order. I don't expect that one can draw any conclusion from a single gravimeter, but may be that a comparison study could provide interesting informations. May be.

    Average highly sensitive barometers are close as well. Has anyone looked into that?
    How about volumes of a mol of gases? Or does Avogadro's number change too?
    ?? Avogadro's number is calculated by dividing the charge of a mole of electrons by the charge on a single electron. So what do you mean by a change in Avogadro's number?

    Anyway, could you describe a possible experiment based on a barometer? I have a hard time to picture it.
    How would it take into account a putative evolution of the total mass of the atmosphere?

    [quote]As the duration of this thread and general rejection of the hypothesis indicates, most find it unconvincing.[quote]
    That's opinion, not Science.
    The hypothesis is verified for example by the implications of the mechanism presented in the figure here, and its application to real world: http://thescienceforum.com/viewtopic...=asc&start=147

    Besides, the models derived from the hypothesis has been tested against many data sets by Maxlow, and all of them support the model. This is described in Maxlow's PhD thesis. As many others, you jumped to conclusion without carefully reading his thesis. I don't understand why people do that with that particular theory. There is a kind of crazyness surrounding that theory that I don't like too much. People must abandon emotion and prejudice, and just consider the facts, only the facts. Because they never lie.


    My point is if true it would show up and be consistent with other measurements in the physical sciences and thus far non of that has been shown. I was surprised that it wasn't discussed elsewhere in this thread; particularly since consistency with other measurements outside it's particular field are often at the center of building proof for a hypothesis. From what's presented so far, it doesn't even seem to have been explored.
    I understand your point. Some expansionists have done that kind of job: http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstrea...%20Scalera.pdf
    There is also a discussion on the current growth rate in that paper.

    Of course, you're encouraged to play with this theory. You will never regret it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168 What about the Moon, the tides and the duration of the day ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Of course, you're encouraged to play with this theory. You will never regret it.
    And what about the Moon, the tides and the duration of the day, Ô Divine Prophet of the Voice of the Holy Maxlow ?
    http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...pic,127.0.html
    What about the folding and the microfolding of the metamorphic rocks yould could see you were a field geologist, and not a geologist-in-room-and-pajamas ?
    What about your confusion between compression and traction of the rocks ?
    http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...pic,125.0.html
    What about the conservations laws of physics, you have thrown away, just to keep yourself glued in your mystic dream ?
    http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...pic,186.0.html
    http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...opic,95.0.html
    What about the geochemical constraints on the accumulation of the continental crusts, besides the first cratons of anorthosite ? Constraints on the Potassium and water content of the plutons ? Mmmh ?
    http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...opic,97.0.html
    ...
    http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...oard,21.0.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Anyway, we can calculate the increase in surface gravity assuming a smooth symetrical growth at the year scale (in opposition to a periodic asymetrical growth): (5.6E16+6E24)*G/6370000.02^2-(6E24*G/6370000^2)=3E-8 m/s2=30nm/s2=3 µgal
    And you probably read page 14 that there is a reported drift of that order. I don't expect that one can draw any conclusion from a single gravimeter, but may be that a comparison study could provide interesting informations. May be..
    Accuracy of the instruments are well within that range with some models well below 1 µga.
    http://catalog.gwrinstruments.com/category/gravity-meters&bc=100|1001

    Furthermore several satellite mission such as GRACE have carried these types of instruments for years and shown themselves very capable of measuring changes in snow cover, land water tables and even atmospheric pressure diurnal and seasonal variations as well as greatly improved our estimates of the planet's mass. Yet I doubt, despite all these measurements you'll find one that reports an increase or even a systemic problem of growing "apparent" mass or any other measurement that matches your hypothesis.

    --
    To me the hypothesis your putting forth is equivalent to the geocentric model of the universe, where by imposing epicycles within epicycles you could match limited observations from earth but completely fail to explain why things moved as they did, lacked supporting hypothesis, and would not match subsequent observations. Like geocentric model you've not really addresses the underlying physics: where does the additional mass come from? Why don't don't we see the increase increasing in other substances on earth...like grow Avogrado's number) nor direct observations (e.g. increasing gravity).

    The expanding earth hypothesis is utterly unconvincing. The gravity measurements alone are enough to dispel it into the dustbin of history.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Accuracy of the instruments are well within that range with some models well below 1 µga.
    http://catalog.gwrinstruments.com/category/gravity-meters&bc=100|1001
    No comments on the different drifts well above 1 µgal reported p14 and associate figure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Furthermore several satellite mission such as GRACE have carried these types of instruments for years and shown themselves very capable of measuring changes in snow cover, land water tables and even atmospheric pressure diurnal and seasonal variations as well as greatly improved our estimates of the planet's mass. Yet I doubt, despite all these measurements you'll find one that reports an increase or even a systemic problem of growing "apparent" mass or any other measurement that matches your hypothesis.
    Actually, GRACE was very good at showing the redistribution of mass resulting from the Sumatra earthquake, and showing and extrusion of mass toward the Indian Ocean.

    To me the hypothesis your putting forth is equivalent to the geocentric model of the universe, where by imposing epicycles within epicycles you could match limited observations from earth but completely fail to explain why things moved as they did, lacked supporting hypothesis, and would not match subsequent observations.
    False. This is a verified hypothesis. It matches all observations, including the observations that refutes plate tectonics (like mantle flow driven roll-back).

    Like geocentric model you've not really addresses the underlying physics: where does the additional mass come from?
    It is not a requirement to know where matter does come from as long as the whole set of observations can be exclusively explained by a theory based on an increase in size and mass.

    Why don't don't we see the increase increasing in other substances on earth...like grow Avogrado's number) nor direct observations (e.g. increasing gravity).
    Unsupported opinions. And I still fail the see a relation with Avogadro's number?

    The expanding earth hypothesis is utterly unconvincing. The gravity measurements alone are enough to dispel it into the dustbin of history.
    You have absolutely the right to believe to whatever you want. But don't present your belief as scientifically supported. It is not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    No comments on the different drifts well above 1 µgal reported p14 and associate figure?
    You've mentioned it twice now. Why?
    "The apparent drift rate for the last block of data starting September 1, 2000 was
    +31 nms -2 (yr) -1. The secular gravity change at the site is about -10 nms-2(yr)
    -1 according to the co-located absolute gravimeter record (JILAg-5) and is thought to be due to postglacial rebound. The net drift of the T020 is thus about 40 nms-2
    (yr)-1. "
    The co-located meter is actually measuring a drop in gravity. And gravitimeter, like most other instruments, have a natural and systemic drift.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Actually, GRACE was very good at showing the redistribution of mass resulting from the Sumatra earthquake, and showing and extrusion of mass toward the Indian Ocean.
    But yet don't show the total increase, meaning it doesn't support your hypothesis one whit.

    False. This is a verified hypothesis. It matches all observations, including the observations that refutes plate tectonics (like mantle flow driven roll-back).
    It supports the observations you want to cherry pick and completely unconfirmed by others.

    Like geocentric model you've not really addresses the underlying physics: where does the additional mass come from?
    It is not a requirement to know where matter does come from as long as the whole set of observations can be exclusively explained by a theory based on an increase in size and mass.
    What? It absolutely is a requirement. It's connection to other observations and physics is ultimately what confirms any hypothesis. Your hypothesis might explain some observations but like using "epicycles within epicycles" to match geocentric hypothesis, is failing because it's inconsistent with other physics and observation.

    Unsupported opinions. And I still fail the see a relation with Avogadro's number?
    Because you want to completely ignore that mass must also be added to the atmosphere to maintain pressure and as the you post above this shows you refuse to get into "where the mass is coming from."


    You have absolutely the right to believe to whatever you want. But don't present your belief as scientifically supported. It is not.
    I'm not proposing a hypothesis here. You are and must show how it's consistent with all observation, not just particular ones you want to examine. The burden of proof is on you, and it is lacking.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Accuracy of the instruments are well within that range with some models well below 1 µga.
    http://catalog.gwrinstruments.com/category/gravity-meters&bc=100|1001
    No comments on the different drifts well above 1 µgal reported p14 and associate figure?
    The problem with using gravity is that there is an ambiguity in two unknowns: mass of Earth and distance to centre. One can fiddle the numbers to fit what they will. It is indeed possible (mathematically) to have an expanding Earth with increasing mass which has g going up, going down, or staying the same.

    To me the hypothesis your putting forth is equivalent to the geocentric model of the universe, where by imposing epicycles within epicycles you could match limited observations from earth but completely fail to explain why things moved as they did, lacked supporting hypothesis, and would not match subsequent observations.
    False. This is a verified hypothesis. It matches all observations, including the observations that refutes plate tectonics (like mantle flow driven roll-back).
    I don't necessarily agree with the epicycles with epicycles view. To me the hypothesis is worse. Epicycles within epicycles work, kinematically at least. We have to remember that NONE of the physical modelling has been done with this "hypothesis" to actually model any crustal movements whatsoever. Florian has not done any geodynamical modelling (and nor has anyone else) which uses actual geophysical data as input to his model to model data from kinematic GPS studies, structural geology, metamorphic geology, large scale transform faults, the persistence of normal faults, subduction related volcanism (and associated geochemistry), seismic activity in 3D distribution, seismic tomography, anisotropic fabrics in the mantle, gravitational observations of the elastic thickness of the lithosphere, the moon and point raised by JC Lavau, etc.. etc... The work just isn't there. This hypothesis is completely untested. It is an idea in a head.
    The reason why it hasn't been tested? Because it requires that the Earth is expanding, a notion which defies the laws of physics, as it requires the creation of mass from nothing. It's a complete non-starter. At least epicycles within epicycles did something to progress science; this expanding Earth is flawed to the point where it doesn't even deserve the status of "science fiction".


    On another point, I am angered by the utter fallacy thrown up that plate tectonics does not fit observation of mantle driven slab roll back. This has been explained in terms of toroidal currents in the mantle, e.g. the Le Pichon paper that Florian himself linked to earlier. This is purely Florian's failing to understand plate tectonics.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You've mentioned it twice now. Why?
    Because an instrument showing a drift of the order of what could be measured using "ideal" assumptions, (and even much larger drift in earlier blocks) is not appropriate to refute or support one hypothesis or the other. Especially with one single instrument. Besides, if the instrument is in a region of strong uplift it is even possible to observe a decrease in g despite an global increase in the mass of earth. That is why I wrote that we can't draw any conclusion from a single instrument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    But yet don't show the total increase, meaning it doesn't support your hypothesis one whit.
    It does support the diapir extrusion model. So does the japanese earthquake with a strong uplift and motion toward the pacific, but without significant displacement of the west coast of Japan. Only the east-coast and margin moved toward the pacific.

    It supports the observations you want to cherry pick and completely unconfirmed by others.
    I wrote that it matches all observations including the observations refuting plate tectonics. Prove me that it does not if you're so knowledgeable.

    What? It absolutely is a requirement. It's connection to other observations and physics is ultimately what confirms any hypothesis. Your hypothesis might explain some observations but like using "epicycles within epicycles" to match geocentric hypothesis, is failing because it's inconsistent with other physics and observation.
    You do not understand how inference works in Science. If observations show that apple fall down, you don't need the mechanism (General relativity) to support this observation. It is a fact. And as expansion of Earth happens, it can't be inconsistent with other laws of physics. It simply proves that there exists one phenomenon that allows the growth of Earth (and some other celestial bodies). Of course, this mechanism must be identified in the future. A very challenging work for physicist since we don't know much at this stage. But it does exists.

    Because you want to completely ignore that mass must also be added to the atmosphere to maintain pressure and as the you post above this shows you refuse to get into "where the mass is coming from."
    Fallacy. I don't ignore it, mantle devolatilization of the mantle is ongoing and can explain the increase in mass of the atmosphere and hydrosphere. And there is no link to the Avogadro's number whatsoever.


    I'm not proposing a hypothesis here. You are and must show how it's consistent with all observation, not just particular ones you want to examine. The burden of proof is on you, and it is lacking.
    Lacking? Is that a joke? Listen, I provided many points of discussion including the link to Maxlow's PhD thesis in which the expanding earth model is tested against many different dataset. If you're too lazy to examine these arguments and discuss them, then what can I do? So it's time to do your part of the job.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    The problem with using gravity is that there is an ambiguity in two unknowns: mass of Earth and distance to centre. One can fiddle the numbers to fit what they will. It is indeed possible (mathematically) to have an expanding Earth with increasing mass which has g going up, going down, or staying the same.
    Finally! Thank you!


    Florian has not done any geodynamical modelling (and nor has anyone else) which uses actual geophysical data as input to his model to model data from kinematic GPS studies, structural geology, metamorphic geology, large scale transform faults, the persistence of normal faults, subduction related volcanism (and associated geochemistry), seismic activity in 3D distribution, seismic tomography, anisotropic fabrics in the mantle, gravitational observations of the elastic thickness of the lithosphere,
    You're wrong about that. You're simply not aware of the work that has been done.


    the moon and point raised by JC Lavau, etc.. etc...
    Refuted. These points rely on unverified assumptions like gained mass with zero
    momentum or constant orbital period for Earth.


    Because it requires that the Earth is expanding, a notion which defies the laws of physics, as it requires the creation of mass from nothing.
    This idea that a growing earth requires creation of mass from nothing can't be more wrong. This matter must come from somewhere, and telling otherwise is a strawman used to discredit the expanding earth theory.
    Is that so difficult to make the reasonable hypothesis that weakly interacting matter is accumulating inside earth and transforms into common baryons and fermions? Or do you deny that dark matter constitutes more that 80% of the matter in the universe?


    On another point, I am angered by the utter fallacy thrown up that plate tectonics does not fit observation of mantle driven slab roll back. This has been explained in terms of toroidal currents in the mantle, e.g. the Le Pichon paper that Florian himself linked to earlier. This is purely Florian's failing to understand plate tectonics.
    You persist in missing the whole point! Mantle driven slab roll back implies no significant lithosphere destruction and this refutes plate tectonics as a whole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You're wrong about that. You're simply not aware of the work that has been done.
    If you're referring to the cartoon reconstructions of Maxlow then I pity you. Maxlow has invented methodology to infer that the Earth is expanding. It would be foolish to take his thesis at face value. His models are unphysical and fail to account for all the data. His models have not made it through the peer review process.

    If good work has been done which demonstrates the Earth is expanding, then please refer us to it. Do not confuse the situation by misrepresenting other scientists' work for your own agenda of "flow tectonics".


    Is that so difficult to make the reasonable hypothesis that weakly interacting matter is accumulating inside earth and transforms into common baryons and fermions?
    I think someone might've already quoted Sagan in this thread, but I don't care.
    'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'

    Or do you deny that dark matter constitutes more that 80% of the matter in the universe?
    Now that's a strawman if ever I saw one.


    You persist in missing the whole point! Mantle driven slab roll back implies no significant lithosphere destruction and this refutes plate tectonics as a whole.
    No. You miss the point. Look at the whole world. Does your argument apply globally?

    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176 Wow ! The nice confession ! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    the moon and point raised by JC Lavau, etc.. etc...
    Refuted. These points rely on unverified assumptions like gained mass with zero
    momentum or constant orbital period for Earth.
    Wow ! The nice confession ! Florian confesses that besides not serving any useful purpose in geology and tectonics, the Florians's fake-of-tectonic-theory requires changing all the astronomic experimental data, all the laws of mechanics, all the paleontologic data, all the geochemical data, ... All that to accomodate his own fake-of-tectonic-theory to-him-he-has...


    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Because it requires that the Earth is expanding, a notion which defies the laws of physics, as it requires the creation of mass from nothing.
    This idea that a growing earth requires creation of mass from nothing can't be more wrong. This matter must come from somewhere, and telling otherwise is a strawman used to discredit the expanding earth theory.
    Is that so difficult to make the reasonable hypothesis that weakly interacting matter is accumulating inside earth and transforms into common baryons and fermions? Or do you deny that dark matter constitutes more that 80% of the matter in the universe?
    Good ! Good confession ! Now you recruit the speculations on dark matter, in order to produce the nuclear reactions you demand in a particular planet and not in the others (not in the Moon, not in Mars, not in Venus, not in Mercury... There the facts are too obvious)...

    Florian, you live in Grenoble. There is no lack in Grenoble of geologists and geological societies, who organise geological excursions in the surrounding Alps.
    When will we see photos of you with true geologists, with your boots, your meter, your hammer, your compass and clinometer ? Your photos of the foldings of metamorphic rocks, where are they ? I remember very spectacular foldings above the refuge of Champoleon. Aren't you interested at all in the tectonics on the field ? Only in the in-room-and-pajamas-tectonics by internet ?
    You have one of the most wonderful field around you, to learn the basis of tectonics. Please explain to these englishmen where the flysch of the Chablais comes from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If you're referring to the cartoon reconstructions of Maxlow then I pity you. Maxlow has invented methodology to infer that the Earth is expanding.
    Maxlow has made a model based on the expanding Earth theory, i.e., negligible Seafloor destruction. Then he tested his model against many dataset and everything clicked demonstrating the pertinence of this model. hypothesis->prediction->validation = the scientific method.

    I think someone might've already quoted Sagan in this thread, but I don't care.'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'
    Double check who quoted Sagan.


    Or do you deny that dark matter constitutes more that 80% of the matter in the universe?
    Now that's a strawman if ever I saw one.
    So why do you evoke "creation from nothing" if not for discrediting the theory? At least, assume your strawman argument.

    You persist in missing the whole point! Mantle driven slab roll back implies no significant lithosphere destruction and this refutes plate tectonics as a whole.
    No. You miss the point. Look at the whole world. Does your argument apply globally?
    Oh yes it does, mantle flows play the dominant role in most of the tumultuous regions of the globe. But I don't expect that an obscurantist will get it as long as his faith in plate tectonics blinds him.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    [Because it requires that the Earth is expanding, a notion which defies the laws of physics, as it requires the creation of mass from nothing. It's a complete non-starter.
    I must take exception to these remarks. An expanding Earth might be accomodated by a suite of phase changes, variations in G ( as proposed by Dicke, or Dirac, or maybe both), or some other currently unknown mechanism. Outright declaration of defiance of the laws of physics is reminiscent of Eddington and his chums lambasting poor old Wegner for the nonsense of continental drift.

    And, when sea floor spreading was first recognised Carey was not the only one who contemplated Earth expansion. It was a viable starter, it just couldn't finish the race.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It was a viable starter, it just couldn't finish the race.
    I agree that it is still in the starting blocks, but the race is not yet finished.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    [Because it requires that the Earth is expanding, a notion which defies the laws of physics, as it requires the creation of mass from nothing. It's a complete non-starter.
    I must take exception to these remarks. An expanding Earth might be accomodated by a suite of phase changes, variations in G ( as proposed by Dicke, or Dirac, or maybe both), or some other currently unknown mechanism. Outright declaration of defiance of the laws of physics is reminiscent of Eddington and his chums lambasting poor old Wegner for the nonsense of continental drift.

    And, when sea floor spreading was first recognised Carey was not the only one who contemplated Earth expansion. It was a viable starter, it just couldn't finish the race.
    OK I take your point. Although I was specifically attacking Florian's expanding Earth which does require the creation of mass from ... something. Yes there could be some unknown physical mechanism, if you like. But the point I was really trying to make is that there has not been anywhere near enough work done to demonstrate that such a mechanism is required.

    And Florian Maxlow's models are basically 3D cartoons (or actually 2D cartoons on an expanding surface). There is no physics behind them. And is it really surprising that his models faithfully reproduce the Earth when the starting point for his models is a faithful reproduction of the Earth?? It's circular. Science at its worst, if you can call it science at all.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    And Florian Maxlow's models are basically 3D cartoons (or actually 2D cartoons on an expanding surface). There is no physics behind them.
    Very strange statement. Maxlow's model is based on the geological map of the world. And that map is based on geological, geochemical and geophysical data (seafloor age to name one). Besides the reconstructions are more strictly constraint because on a growing sphere, continents cannot wander randomly. Their relative position must be conserved though time (billions years). That's why I find very exciting that despite of the strong constraints, Maxlow's reconstruction fit so well the most recent geochemical/geochimical/geological data used to rebuild Rodinia, and even solve issues that can't be solved on a fixed-radius Earth. Thanks to these strong constraints, at some point, and with a lot of work and refinement, we should be able to rebuild the whole history of Earth, something that was utopia with the plate tectonics model. Excuse me for my enthusiasm, but that is truly exciting!

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    And is it really surprising that his models faithfully reproduce the Earth when the starting point for his models is a faithful reproduction of the Earth?? It's circular. Science at its worst, if you can call it science at all.
    Again, very weird perception of Maxlow's model. His models reproduce the Earth through time. In other words it makes predictions that can be tested and were tested against independent data with success. It is exactly what we expect from a scientific theory.
    By contrast, Plate tectonics is more like a scenario, a framework inside which coherent interpretations can be provided for different observations. It's better than a bunch of limited independent theories, but it does not have much predictive power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    That's why I find very exciting that despite of the strong constraints, Maxlow's reconstruction fit so well the most recent geochemical/geochimical/geological data used to rebuild Rodinia, and even solve issues that can't be solved on a fixed-radius Earth.... Excuse me for my enthusiasm, but that is truly exciting!
    Peer reviewed paper to support any of these claims??

    The obvious question is how did Pangea form after the breakup of Rodinia? Surely the Earth didn't shrink?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Peer reviewed paper to support any of these claims??
    Examine any paper describing Rodinia's reconstruction. I suggest Goodge et al (2008) Science 321, p235. Compare it to Maxlow's reconstruction.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    The obvious question is how did Pangea form after the breakup of Rodinia? Surely the Earth didn't shrink?
    The break up of Rodinia corresponds to the slow opening of the Pacific ocean, and the break up of Pangea corresponds to the opening of the Atlantic/Indian oceans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184 Systematically discarding the data... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    ... based on geological, geochemical and geophysical data ... the most recent geochemical/geochimical/geological data ...
    You ? geological, geochemical and geophysical data ? When ? Where ?
    For more than four years, you have systematically discarded them, as not fitting your dream, and far beyond your competence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Florian. In accordance with the version of expanding earth theory that you are in agreement with, no oceans have ever closed.

    Is this a true statement.

    In other words, if it can be shown that oceans have closed in the past, will you accept that the theory you have supported must be wrong?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Florian. In accordance with the version of expanding earth theory that you are in agreement with, no oceans have ever closed.
    If oceans are defined by their type of crust (basaltic), they are not defined by their size. For example, the Red Sea is an ocean.

    Now I'll cite Crawford which view I share:
    "I should like nevertheless to make it clear that the existence of a former epicontinental sea (a) need not imply the absence of areas of abyssal depth and (b) that some of these might have been narrow zones of continental crustal separation at times. The sedimentary and igneous rocks of the latter could now be represented in part by the 'ophiolite" assemblages of the Alpine-Himalayan mountain belt, which are so confidently assumed by plate tectonist to be the relics of vanished extensive oceans. [...] Meyerhoff & Meyerhoff (1978) forcibly remind us, and in particular Johnson et al (1976), that a century's geological work in India and generally in southern and central Asia suggests permanent association of peninsular India with that part of Asia Lying to its north."

    in A.R. Crawford (1979) "The Myth of a vast Oceanic Tethys, the India-Asia problem and Earth Expansion" Journal of Petroleum Geology 2(1), p 3-9

    Meyerhoff A.A. and Meyerhoff H.A. (1978) Spreading history of the eastern Inidan Ocean and India's northward flight from antarctica and Australia: discussion. Geol. Soc. Amer.Bull. 89, p637

    Johnson et al (1976) Spreading history of the eastern Inidan Ocean and India's northward flight from antarctica and Australia. Geol. Soc. Amer.Bull. 87, p1560

    So an uplift and folding of an epicontinental sea including narrow regions of basaltic crust, can close these "oceans".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    So an uplift and folding of an epicontinental sea including narrow regions of basaltic crust, can close these "oceans".
    You're a slippery snake.

    So if I'm reading you correctly, oceans can close, but the mechanism for this does not involve subduction?

    By the way, I'm still waiting for a peer reviewed article which explicitly backs Maxlow. (It's a shame Maxlow himself never managed to get peer-review published )
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    .... and in particular Johnson et al (1976), that a century's geological work in India and generally in southern and central Asia suggests permanent association of peninsular India with that part of Asia Lying to its north..
    Please provide quotations from this citation that support this statement. I have access only to the abstract and see nothing in that to support your claim.

    Indeed, this paper cites Johnson to establish a relative motion and a change in that motion between India and Eurasia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    You're a slippery snake.
    I describe what happens from the observations we have. And "a century's geological work" (and biogeographical work) shows that India always remained close to Asia and that Tethys was an epicontinental sea with narrow zones of basaltic crust. If you prefer to believe into an extensive ocean despite all evidence, that's not my problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    So if I'm reading you correctly, oceans can close, but the mechanism for this does not involve subduction?
    Wrong. Uplift is mantle driven and leads to gravity gliding and thus folding and subduction. It happens that uplift/folding/subduction all occur in Asia as a consequence of crustal/mantle flows:



    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    By the way, I'm still waiting for a peer reviewed article which explicitly backs Maxlow. (It's a shame Maxlow himself never managed to get peer-review published )
    So if a peer-reviewed article backs Maxlow, you will readily jump in the bandwagon? I don't think so. You would probably deny it as usual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    By the way, I'm still waiting for a peer reviewed article which explicitly backs Maxlow. (It's a shame Maxlow himself never managed to get peer-review published )
    So if a peer-reviewed article backs Maxlow, you will readily jump in the bandwagon? I don't think so. You would probably deny it as usual.
    Your point is moot. He asked for some references, and again you've done little more than evade and deflect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    You're a slippery snake.
    I describe what happens from the observations we have. And "a century's geological work" (and biogeographical work) shows that India always remained close to Asia and that Tethys was an epicontinental sea with narrow zones of basaltic crust. If you prefer to believe into an extensive ocean despite all evidence, that's not my problem.
    I'm trying to establish something to pin you down. You wriggle your way out. YOu have get out clauses for everything. You mould your model to fit data, without stopping to consider whether it is possible within the bounds of known physics. If later the physics becomes a problem, you wriggle out of that by saying the physics must be wrong.

    If you're the fine scientist you seem to think you are, why don't you tell us what explicit test would prove your theory wrong....

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    By the way, I'm still waiting for a peer reviewed article which explicitly backs Maxlow. (It's a shame Maxlow himself never managed to get peer-review published )
    So if a peer-reviewed article backs Maxlow, you will readily jump in the bandwagon? I don't think so. You would probably deny it as usual.
    No I won't jump on the band wagon, but it gives me something with a lot more weight to get my teeth into. Do you think I have time to critically read Maxlow's PhD, there are many more wholesome things to read than a fishy PhD by some crackpot who never got published.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    .... and in particular Johnson et al (1976), that a century's geological work in India and generally in southern and central Asia suggests permanent association of peninsular India with that part of Asia Lying to its north..
    Please provide quotations from this citation that support this statement. I have access only to the abstract and see nothing in that to support your claim.
    I was explicitly citing Crawford. So this is not my claim but Crawford's claim. I think he cited it as part of the discussion about that initial paper "Spreading history of the eastern Inidan Ocean and India's northward flight from antarctica and Australia":

    http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...act/87/11/1560
    http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...tract/89/4/637

    So I guess that the rebuttal is in the second paper.

    At this time, I also have only access to the abstract. Without knowing the details, I can only say that the apparent northward motion of India is well explained by the asymmetric growth of the Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193 Discarding the unconvenient geological data.... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    ... Without knowing the details, I can only say that the apparent northward motion of India is well explained by the asymmetric growth of the Earth.
    And again and again and again by discarding the unconvenient geological data.
    What about the traps on the Deccan, when India was upon the hot plume which now spits a the Piton de la Fournaise, in Réunion island ? 2 000 meters thick, 65 Millions years ago...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Your point is moot. He asked for some references, and again you've done little more than evade and deflect.
    I cited already two papers. But the arguments presented were never discussed and will never be. So why would that change?

    Scalera (2007) "Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography – A comment to a discussion on Journal of Biogeography" ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 50,(6), p789.

    "Mantle plumes and dynamics of the Earth interior — towards a new model" by Stefan Stefan Cwojdziński, (2004) Geological Review, 52, no. 8/2, p817

    Anyway, this behavior is well explained by Kuhn in "the structure of scientific revolutions"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    .... and in particular Johnson et al (1976), that a century's geological work in India and generally in southern and central Asia suggests permanent association of peninsular India with that part of Asia Lying to its north..
    Please provide quotations from this citation that support this statement. I have access only to the abstract and see nothing in that to support your claim.
    I was explicitly citing Crawford. So this is not my claim but Crawford's claim. I think he cited it as part of the discussion about that initial paper "Spreading history of the eastern Inidan Ocean and India's northward flight from antarctica and Australia":

    http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...act/87/11/1560
    http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...tract/89/4/637

    So I guess that the rebuttal is in the second paper.

    At this time, I also have only access to the abstract. Without knowing the details, I can only say that the apparent northward motion of India is well explained by the asymmetric growth of the Earth.
    This has to be a joke. Please tell me you're joking....

    Your use of references is reminiscent of a drunk using lamp-posts. You stumble into them for support.

    In this case you're not even sure the lamppost will support your weight.

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Your use of references is reminiscent of a drunk using lamp-posts. You stumble into them for support.
    What don't you understand in "I was explicitly citing Crawford".

    Crawford writes:
    "Meyerhoff & Meyerhoff (1978) forcibly remind us, and in particular Johnson et al (1976), that a century's geological work in India and generally in southern and central Asia suggests permanent association of peninsular India with that part of Asia Lying to its north"
    in A.R. Crawford (1979) "The Myth of a vast Oceanic Tethys, the India-Asia problem and Earth Expansion" Journal of Petroleum Geology 2(1), p 3-9

    If I cite a peer-reviewed paper, I expect that the reviewers made their job and verified that the reference used by Crawford is correct. I will not verify all the references found in all the papers I cite, and the references in those references and so on ad vitam aeternam.

    So you're remark on the way I use citation is ludicrous and demonstrate that you have a poor understanding of the way peer-reviewed literature is used.
    In conclusion, you should cry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    You mould your model to fit data, without stopping to consider whether it is possible within the bounds of known physics.
    Do you know any physics that could explain the gain in mass of some planets?
    Of course not. So this theory is by definition out of the bounds of known physics.
    The problem is that you confuse unknown physics and impossible physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If later the physics becomes a problem, you wriggle out of that by saying the physics must be wrong.
    I never said that the physics is wrong. The known physics can't be wrong because it is supported by experiments.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If you're the fine scientist you seem to think you are, why don't you tell us what explicit test would prove your theory wrong....
    I don't claim to be a "fine scientist". That's your claim.

    One explicit test is to make reconstructions based on the imbalance between seafloor spreading and seafloor destruction, then verify if the resulting disposition of terranes is compatible with all the data that allow to determine the relative paleoposition of terranes (geochemistry, paleomagnetism, paleoclimate, fossils etc...).
    Guess what? That's exactly what Maxlow did...

    And now your turn: tell me one explicit test that would prove that plate tectonics is wrong. I'm waiting...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198 Huge dishonesty. Faking for the pleasure of faking... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    You mould your model to fit data, without stopping to consider whether it is possible within the bounds of known physics.
    Do you know any physics that could explain the gain in mass of some planets?
    Of course not. So this theory is by definition out of the bounds of known physics.
    The problem is that you confuse unknown physics and impossible physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If later the physics becomes a problem, you wriggle out of that by saying the physics must be wrong.
    I never said that the physics is wrong. The known physics can't be wrong because it is supported by experiments.
    Huge dishonesty.
    For years and years and years, Florian has pretended that the conservations laws in physics must be wrong as they contradict the baryonic reactions he postulated deep inside Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If you're the fine scientist you seem to think you are, why don't you tell us what explicit test would prove your theory wrong....
    I don't claim to be a "fine scientist". That's your claim.

    One explicit test is to make reconstructions based on the imbalance between seafloor spreading and seafloor destruction, then verify if the resulting disposition of terranes is compatible with all the data that allow to determine the relative paleoposition of terranes (geochemistry, paleomagnetism, paleoclimate, fossils etc...).
    Guess what? That's exactly what Maxlow did...

    And now your turn: tell me one explicit test that would prove that plate tectonics is wrong. I'm waiting...
    Huge dishonesty.
    Florian has never been engineer, has never worked as an engineer, has never formed metals, nor clays, nor soils. He has proved he is not even able to distinguish compression stress from traction stress by their effects. He has never studied the mechanisms of rocks plasticities. He has always despised to go on the field to confront the models to the field facts.
    Florian has no professional background in celestial mechanics too, not in mineralogy, not in petrology, not in geochemistry, ... nowhere but in biology. Florian simply ignores the whole bulk of experimental data any model should cope with.

    So what ?

    Florian fakes to have an innovative theory, just for the pleasure of faking, just for the need to capture the attention of his preys. He has a bag of rhetorical tricks for that, and a huge impudence.

    What I do not know is the anamnesis of his case. I do not know from which familial cases he inherited such a bloating and invading pathology.

    However, you can easily punch his effigy at ...
    Oh no !
    Florian is no more at the entartometre of Uncle Dom !
    http://oncle.dom.pagesperso-orange.f...e/entartez.htm
    And he is not yet at "For the dumbs" collection :
    http://oncle.dom.pagesperso-orange.f.../nuls/nuls.htm
    Uncle Dom will hear me !

    However, Florian remains at the Museum of Science-Faking Impostures, where he has a full room for himself :
    http://deonto-ethics.org/impostures/...oard,21.0.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Your use of references is reminiscent of a drunk using lamp-posts. You stumble into them for support.
    What don't you understand in "I was explicitly citing Crawford".

    Crawford writes:
    "Meyerhoff & Meyerhoff (1978) forcibly remind us, and in particular Johnson et al (1976), that a century's geological work in India and generally in southern and central Asia suggests permanent association of peninsular India with that part of Asia Lying to its north"
    in A.R. Crawford (1979) "The Myth of a vast Oceanic Tethys, the India-Asia problem and Earth Expansion" Journal of Petroleum Geology 2(1), p 3-9

    If I cite a peer-reviewed paper, I expect that the reviewers made their job and verified that the reference used by Crawford is correct. I will not verify all the references found in all the papers I cite, and the references in those references and so on ad vitam aeternam.

    So you're remark on the way I use citation is ludicrous and demonstrate that you have a poor understanding of the way peer-reviewed literature is used.
    In conclusion, you should cry.
    (a) When you cite work it's a good a idea to read it to make sure it really does agree with what you're saying. (Citing someone who cites someone else is not an excuse and in fact it's much worse.)

    (b) This clearly demonstrates that you haven't actually looked at the evidence yourself. For example, you can't answer the simple question: What evidence is there that there was no vast oceanic Tethys?

    (c) Just because it has been published, doesn't make it true. Especially, when there are many studies that demonstrate that there must have been a vast Tethys (the exact opposite!). These studies are more numerous and are published in more reputable journals such as Nature which has more rigorous peer-review process. One such example from the same year is the MID-MESOZOIC CLOSURE OF PERMO-TRIASSIC TETHYS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS, AM CELALSENGOR, Nature, 1979 vol. 279 (5714) pp. 590-593.

    I myself have mapped Tethys sediments in Greece and in Italy, I have seen the marine fossils, I have logged the marine successions of rocks. Tell me, where did these sediments came from if there was no Tethys?

    There is no controversy in the scientific world on this issue. It is pretty desperate to drag out a thirty something year old paper that has been widely ignored to support your agenda.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    .... and in particular Johnson et al (1976), that a century's geological work in India and generally in southern and central Asia suggests permanent association of peninsular India with that part of Asia Lying to its north..
    Please provide quotations from this citation that support this statement. I have access only to the abstract and see nothing in that to support your claim.

    Indeed, this paper cites Johnson to establish a relative motion and a change in that motion between India and Eurasia.
    I have got hold of the paper in question, hopefully you can download it from here. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UJ79BH6B

    Perhaps now Florian can read it and point us to the bit which tells us about 'permanent association of peninsular India with that part of Asia Lying to its north'.

    I read the paper briefly and it mostly talks of the break up of India, Australasia, and Antarctica and the subsequent formation of the Southern Ocean. It talks little about what is happening North of India. However there are clues that indeed, this paper actually says the exact opposite of what is claimed, e.g.
    'From 130 m.y. B.P., when India began its northward flight from Antarctica-Australasia....'

    'This path of Greater India passed through the present position only after it migrated from the east, with concurrent subduction of sea floor as the Andaman-Java Trench moved westward.'

    'Greater India reached this latitude by the end of the Paleocene ... by which time it had collided with Asia (Powell and Conaghan,1973; Curray and Moore, 1974; Le Fort, 1975).'


    Note that Powell is a coauthor of this paper (and so we can dig a little deeper to see what these authors really thought about whether India collided with Asia or was permanently associated) -- I think it's pretty clear that this paper bluntly disagrees with the statement extracted from Crawford (1979) by Florian.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •