Notices
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 436
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: plate tectonics

  1. #201  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards

    (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.)
    Actually, I read Carey, who cited Crawford (that I read), who cited the discussion of the 1976 Johnson paper by Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff (1978), that I did not read.

    I thank you for the Johnson paper, but could you get the Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff which is likely the paper in which the contradiction between India's asserted motion and geological records is commented?

    Here is the ref: http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...tract/89/4/637

    I thank you in advance.


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    (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?
    I admit that I know better the biogeographic paper showing no species endemic to India despite its predicted isolation for millions years. I have read papers about the geological evidence but I have to dig in my archives.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    (c) Just because it has been published, doesn't make it true.
    I agree. Keep that in mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    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?
    Could you stop inventing stuff please?
    I never wrote that there was no Tethys. The point is that Tethys was an epicontinental sea much longer than wide with narrow bands of oceanic crust testifying of some continental crust separation. And this sea and narrow bands of oceanic crust got uplift and folded as a consequence of mantle flows. Exactly the same thing happened recently in the eastern mediterranean basin with anatolia.
    And this is compatible with all available data (!).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian

    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...
    You assume that the Earth is growing because more sea floor is being created than is being destroyed. (Correct?)

    But we only have seafloor dating back 180 m.y.. and the Earth is something like 25 times older than that -- so you have seafloor data for 1/25 of geological time, or 4%. (Agree?)

    How do you reconstruct the first 96%?

    Given that there is a lot of data to fit that is older than 180 m.y.. how does this data get fitted?

    To claim that ALL data fit is plainly ridiculous! There is always unexplained data! To claim that one man fitted it all is ridiculous squared. Even if the man were a genius and had the brains to understand the limitations (from theoretical motivation, the acquisition, the processing, the interpretation) of each data set across the whole range of (diverse) disciplines, and to bring it all together neatly within a model, the sheer volume of data would be overwhelming. Note that his PhD thesis doesn't even have a table of data, or a mathematical equation in it, so the claim that he has fitted a wide range of data is seriously lacking in support. In fact, this comment is an insult to all those scientists who have spent years struggling with just a comparably small data set just to put a constraint on the system they are studying.

    Bottom line, Maxlow's work is not peer reviewed and so it doesn't count.

    Now back to the theory. Stop drunkenly leaning on the very shaky lamp post of Maxlow. Please provide a reasonable test that would show the theory is wrong.

    Maybe I can make your job easier for you, for example do you agree that ....

    If it can be shown that India was not permanently attached to Asia then this expanding Earth theory must be wrong.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards

    (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.)
    Actually, I read Carey, who cited Crawford (that I read), who cited the discussion of the 1976 Johnson paper by Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff (1978), that I did not read.

    I thank you for the Johnson paper, but could you get the Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff which is likely the paper in which the contradiction between India's asserted motion and geological records is commented?

    Here is the ref: http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...tract/89/4/637

    I thank you in advance.
    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VQHOUPHC

    You're welcome.

    Note that the reply at the bottom of this paper observes that the discussion of Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff is irrelevant, because they fail to recognise the correct boundary for the Indian tectonic plate.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    You assume that the Earth is growing because more sea floor is being created than is being destroyed. (Correct?)
    Incorrect. I conclude that Earth is growing from many independent evidence, one of them being that more seafloor is currently created than being destroyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    But we only have seafloor dating back 180 m.y..
    That is incorrect. Seafloor in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean sea is older, up to 270 millions years. And ophiolites prove that there was even older seafloor accretion.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    and the Earth is something like 25 times older than that -- so you have seafloor data for 1/25 of geological time, or 4%. (Agree?)
    Most of seafloor data is for 1/25 geological time. Agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    How do you reconstruct the first 96%?
    This is explained in Maxlow's thesis, you know the thesis that you don't want to read because you believe it is evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    To claim that ALL data fit is plainly ridiculous! There is always unexplained data!
    I meant that no data refutes the theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Maybe I can make your job easier for you, for example do you agree that ....

    If it can be shown that India was not permanently attached to Asia then this expanding Earth theory must be wrong.
    This phrasing is not accurate.

    I suggest If it can be shown that there was oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then the expanding Earth theory must be wrong.

    Now would you agree that If it can't be shown that there was oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then plate tectonics must be wrong.?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian

    I suggest If it can be shown that there was oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then the expanding Earth theory must be wrong.
    Why 1500 km? That's about 1/25 of the Earth's circumference -- (coincidence???) Did you just pull that figure out of your hat?

    That seems like quite a lot for an expanding Earth to swallow.

    However, I will accept it as the scientific consensus is that the Tethys was about 2000 km wide (Paleogeographic and paleotectonic evolution of the Himalayan Range as reflected by detrital modes of Tertiary sandstones and modern sands (Indus transect, India and Pakistan)
    Eduardo Garzanti, Salvatore Critelli and Raymond V. Ingersoll
    Geological Society of America Bulletin 1996).




    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Now would you agree that If it can't be shown that there was oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then plate tectonics must be wrong.?
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would rephrase that:

    If it CAN be shown that there was NO oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then plate tectonics must be wrong.

    Again I am not sure of the distance of 1500 km. However I will accept this within the spirit of the forum debate.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Excellent!

    Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff were fixists and did not accept the apparent northward migration of India. Interestingly, you probably did not miss that in their reply, Johnson et al actually recognised that the only way to reconcile both geological data and geophysical data is earth expansion. Indeed it is a prediction from Earth expansion in consequence of the asymmetrical growth.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Note that the reply at the bottom of this paper observes that the discussion of Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff is irrelevant, because they fail to recognise the correct boundary for the Indian tectonic plate.
    But doesn't it address just a single point qualified as "the main point raised of Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff"?

    BTW, you may be surprise that the putative suture zone is not clearly identified yet. It is generally claimed that Yarlung Tsangpo suture zone is the boundary but there are strong argument that it is actually just representative of a back-arc basin between the Himalaya front and the Lhassa terrane (see this presentation).
    And it happens that mobile arc, that are representative of the front of mantle flows, can be responsible for the closure of existing basin. Again the anatolian flow is a good contemporary illustration of this phenomenon. Expect to find a "suture" when the head of that flow will collide with Libya.

    PS: Are you OK to let me benefit from your access to some journals like GSA bulletin, if I need some papers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    I have got hold of the paper in question, hopefully you can download it from here. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UJ79BH6B
    Thank you for that. Unfortunately I cannot download it from my office location because of access policy and my home internet is down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Why 1500 km? That's about 1/25 of the Earth's circumference -- (coincidence???) Did you just pull that figure out of your hat?
    Funny. No, 1500 km is roughly the maximum width of the tibetan plateau in the North/South Direction (90° East). So that is also the upper limit width of the Tethys Sea. To get a better estimate of the width of the Tethys Sea, we must calculate the shortening related to thrusting. If I remember correctly that should be around 500 km or so?

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    However, I will accept it as the scientific consensus is that the Tethys was about 2000 km wide (Paleogeographic and paleotectonic evolution of the Himalayan Range as reflected by detrital modes of Tertiary sandstones and modern sands (Indus transect, India and Pakistan)
    Eduardo Garzanti, Salvatore Critelli and Raymond V. Ingersoll
    Geological Society of America Bulletin 1996).
    I suppose that 2000 km is not the original length deduced from thrusting alone?

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would rephrase that:

    If it CAN be shown that there was NO oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then plate tectonics must be wrong.
    Good point. I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Interestingly, you probably did not miss that in their reply, Johnson et al actually recognised that the only way to reconcile both geological data and geophysical data is earth expansion.
    Wrong. Their exact words were:

    'This view [that India has always been close to Asia] is difficult to reconcile with paleomagnetic data, unless one resorts to an expanding earth.'

    That is clearly different from what you said for two reasons:
    (i) The data fit the interpretation of northward drift of India on an Earth of constant radius.
    (ii) The data mentioned are paleomagnetic only.


    Please do not try to trick readers of this forum by twisting words.
    Also, try to be more precise when you talk about data. It is near impossible to study your arguments when you talk of "geological and geophysical" data.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Note that the reply at the bottom of this paper observes that the discussion of Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff is irrelevant, because they fail to recognise the correct boundary for the Indian tectonic plate.
    But doesn't it address just a single point qualified as "the main point raised of Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff"?
    Most (decent) papers are essentially "single points". That main point is essentially the whole paper. Read it again if you don't believe me.


    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    BTW, you may be surprise that the putative suture zone is not clearly identified yet. It is generally claimed that Yarlung Tsangpo suture zone is the boundary but there are strong argument that it is actually just representative of a back-arc basin between the Himalaya front and the Lhassa terrane (see this presentation).
    This point might be important and I need time to look into it further. Is this Yarlung Tsangpo suture zone north or south the Indus-Brahmaputra line?

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    PS: Are you OK to let me benefit from your access to some journals like GSA bulletin, if I need some papers?
    No promises but it should be OK if you ask nicely enough
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would rephrase that:

    If it CAN be shown that there was NO oceanic lithosphere that was significantly wider than 1500 km between Asia and India, then plate tectonics must be wrong.
    Good point. I agree.
    Great!

    Now we can review the literature.

    I expect we will end up disagreeing, but in the process I hope we can both learn something and leave a decent amount of information lying around from which readers can draw their own conclusions.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    If I remember correctly that should be around 500 km or so
    I found a paper discussing this point : Structural evolution and sequence of thrusting in the Tethyan fold-thrust belt and Indus-Yalu suture zone, southwest Tibet.

    They calculate "a minimum of 176 km of north-south horizontal shortening partitioned by the Tethyan fold-thrust belt (112 km) and Indus-Yalu suture zone (64 km)".
    And for the whole orogen, that is about 750 km of shortening.

    But, in the diapiric model, the terranes that were emplaced at the hearth of the orogen do not count for shortening. Here is a figure showing a South-North Cross section of the whole region:

    The terranes that got emplaced by upwelling are between the Indus-Zangbo suture to the south up to the Kunlun suture to the North. Thus, to estimate the size of Tethys we must consider only fold-thrust shortening of what is south of the Indus-Zangbo suture (Terranes North of the Kunlun suture are not considered as part of the Tethys right?).

    The distance from the MFT to Indus-Zangbo suture is about 200 km (North-South). So that is 200+176 km, or roughly 376 km for the Tethys sea. Probably need some refinement but you get a rough idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Wrong. Their exact words were:

    'This view [that India has always been close to Asia] is difficult to reconcile with paleomagnetic data, unless one resorts to an expanding earth.'

    That is clearly different from what you said for two reasons:
    (i) The data fit the interpretation of northward drift of India on an Earth of constant radius.
    (ii) The data mentioned are paleomagnetic only.


    Please do not try to trick readers of this forum by twisting words.
    I don't know if I'm twisting words, but you're certainly playing with words. Their view [that India has always been close to Asia] is supported by geological data (and paleontological data; e.g. lystrosaurus). So it means without any doubt that geological data are "difficult to reconcile with paleomagnetic data, unless one resorts to an expanding Earth."

    I did not say something different.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Most (decent) papers are essentially "single points". That main point is essentially the whole paper. Read it again if you don't believe me.
    I read the introduction again and in that introduction alone they present multiple line of evidence in support of their view (India was close to Asia). For the reader who did not download the paper:

    "For 104 years or more (Mallet, 1873; Oldham, 1883), Field geologists and palaeontologists working in India and contiguous areas of southern Asia and the Soviet Union have published a cumulative body of tectonic, lithostratigraphic, and bisserait graphic evidence demonstrating that peninsular India has been an integral part of Eurasia since Precambrian time. The continuity of lithostratigraphic and biostratigraphic units and floral and faunal zones — westward into Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian_ peninsula; northward into Afghanistan, the Soviet Union, and western and interior China; and eastward into Burma and China is firmly established by lithofacies and paleontological correlation. The intertonguing of strata containing Gondwana and Tethys biotas has been known at least since 1901 (Noetling, 1901), notably in Kashmir and the Salt Range, and both faunal zones and correlative lithofacies are known to extend from the central part of the Indian shield (Maria, Manendragarh, and Rajhara) into the Sinkiang-Uighur Autonomous Region of China, Szechwan Province (China), the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (China), the Mongolian People’s Republic, Soviet Central Asia, the Kuznets basin (just southeast of Novosibirsk), and the Primor'ye region near Vladivostok. In fact, our work during the past few years shows that more than 2,000 geological and paleontological works have been published from 1883 to 1977 to show the contiguity of India with Asia since middle Proterozoic time (Meyerhof and Meyerhof, 1974).
    The paper by johnson and others (1976) contains not a single reference to this voluminous literature, much of which is readily accessible. All of this literature deals with geologic features which can be revisited, and with facts that can be reconfirmed. We therefore list at the end of this discussion some pertinent references, the reading of which is essential to the understanding of the geological positions of India-through time."

    Then there are at least 80 papers in a bibliography list. So, with the hindsight the reply of Johnson et al appears as nothing else than data mining.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    BTW, you may be surprise that the putative suture zone is not clearly identified yet. It is generally claimed that Yarlung Tsangpo suture zone is the boundary but there are strong argument that it is actually just representative of a back-arc basin between the Himalaya front and the Lhassa terrane (see this presentation).
    This point might be important and I need time to look into it further. Is this Yarlung Tsangpo suture zone north or south the Indus-Brahmaputra line?
    It is north of the Brahmaputra river but roughly on the same line than the Indus river. Anyway, It is not very important because this suture (from an arc) does not favor one particular theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    No promises but it should be OK if you ask nicely enough
    Then I'll better be nice
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    so let me get this clear - are you denying that subduction exists, or that it plays a significant role in plate tectonics ?

    how else do you explain evidence for oceans closing the way the Iapetus Ocean did ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Their view [that India has always been close to Asia] is supported by geological data (and paleontological data; e.g. lystrosaurus). So it means without any doubt that geological data are "difficult to reconcile with paleomagnetic data, unless one resorts to an expanding Earth."
    Don't you get it? You're confusing issues and mixing things up.

    Let's deal with one thing at a time please. First let's deal with the paleomagnetic data issue. You seem to either be deliberately deceiving readers by claiming that the paleomagnetic data ONLY fit the expanding Earth theory, or you are genuinely missing the point. I will assume you are honest and it is the latter case, and so I will explain this point to you.

    The paleomagnetic data CAN be explained quite elegantly without resorting to an expanding Earth. You imply in your statement that it cannot. That is my bone of contention.

    The issue hinges centrally on the location of India in relation to Asia. If we assume that India was close to Asia then the paleomagnetic data only fit if we resort to an expanding Earth. However (and this is key), on an Earth of constant radius the paleomagnetic data fit beautifully if we let India drift northwards.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    The paleomagnetic data CAN be explained quite elegantly without resorting to an expanding Earth. You imply in your statement that it cannot. That is my bone of contention.
    Sorry, but my statement is not that paleomagnetic alone can't be explained without resorting to an expanding Earth.
    My statement is that both geological data (proving the constant proximity of Asia and India) and paleomagnetic data (proving a northward drift of India) can only be reconciled by the expanding Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    so let me get this clear - are you denying that subduction exists, or that it plays a significant role in plate tectonics ?
    You probably missed that post: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=295532#295532

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    how else do you explain evidence for oceans closing the way the Iapetus Ocean did ?
    The Iapetus ocean is a very good example as Carey proved why the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-Caledonian axis, and not transverse to it.

    I now quote a chapter of his book "Theories of the earth and universe: a history of dogma in the earth sciences"
    This chapter is entitled the Myth of the Iapetus Ocean:

    "Current orthodoxy claims that more than 600 million years ago, ocean-floor spreading had produced an ocean called Iapetus a couple of thousand kilometers wide, roughly but not exactly on the site of the present North Atlantic Ocean, which separated North America and Africa-Europe, much as the North Atlantic does today. This ocean was filled with sandstone, shale, and limestone during the early Paleozoic (609 to 400 million years ago), but during the Middle Devonian (some 370 million years ago), earlier ocean-floor spreading was replaced by subduction, which dragged the ocean floor down into the mantle, bringing northern Africa and Europe back against North America, and squeezing up the sediments to form the Caledonian fold mountains of Scandinavia, Scotland, and Ireland, and the Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America, which completely obliterated the Iapetus Ocean. It was not until the Rhaetic Epoch, about 200 million years ago, that a long chain of rift valleys, which rapidly filled with coarse sediments and basaltic lava, initiated the opening of the modern Atlantic Ocean. The axis of this new rifting had rotated some 30 degrees counterclockwise from the early Paleozoic trend, so most of the early fold mountains were on the eastern side of the new ocean in Britain and Scandinavia and most of them on the western side in North America, although residuals of the Appalachians were left in northwestern Africa and parts of the Caledonides on the east coast of Greenland.
    No one disputes that the Caledonian and Appalachian fold mountains in Scandinavia, the British Isles, Greenland, northwestern Africa, and eastern North America were a single mountain system that was folded during the Devonian (also at some other times), and fragmented and separated during the Mesozoic opening of the North Atlantic. But what I do deny is that the Iapetus Ocean ever existed. The primary reason for postulating Iapetus was the orthodox assumption that fold mountains result from subduction of earlier ocean floor. Hence in this view a significant seaway had to be postulated there before the subduction. Moreover, this appeared to be strongly confirmed by the fossil faunas and paleontography. Whereas clear evidence of Ordovician continental glaciation was found throughout the northwestern bulge of Africa, limestones with subtropical faunas were traced along the western slopes of the Appalachians, apparently much too close to the frigid ice sheets unless there was wide separation between Africa and North America at that time. The Ordovician trilobite faunas on the west side of the axial zone of the Appalachians and Caledonides were also incompatible with those adjacent to them on the east side. Trilobite genera occupying similar ecological environments were so different genetically that it seemed impossible that they could have lived so close together for so many millions of years. They needed to have been separated by a barrier such as a wide ocean a thousand kilometers or more wide.
    Certainly these trilobite faunas could not have been so near each other as they are now found. But the separation was 3000 km along the axial line of the Appalachians and Caledonides, not across it. Restoring this separation brings the trilobites of Pennsylvania back to face those of Scandinavia, with which they are compatible. I first recognized this gross shear along the axial zone of the Appalachians from the S-shaped distortion of the ''Granville front,'' the boundary of the Late Proterozoic fold-mountains that preceded the 1 Appalachians (Fig. 38 ). Later, firm confirmation came from paleomagnetic measurements.



    During the early Paleozoic time interval when the Iapetus Ocean is alleged to have existed, lavas and other suitable rocks were magnetized by the contemporary magnetic held, so that these rocks recorded their latitude and the direction to the pole. Such rocks, irrespective of whether they were in North America, Africa, or Europe, would indicate the same position for the pole. But if during the Devonian Period the hypothetical Iapetus Ocean was closed by the subduction of its floor, and the Africa-Europe plates collided with the North America plate, the pole indicated by Africa and Europe would come to differ from the pole indicated by the America plate by the amount of the closure and in the direction of the closure.
    Dr. W. A. Morris pioneered the investigation of this question, and found that indeed the poles had separated by some 30 degrees, but the separation was in the direction of the Appalachian-caledonian axis, and not transverse to it as it would have to be if the alleged lapetus Ocean had been subducted. Throughout the Early Paleozoic Era up to and including the Early Devonian (about 370 million years ago), southern Britain lay adjacent to North Carolina (Fig. 39). The Ordovician trilobite fauna of Pennsylvania was adjacent to the Baltic faunas. During the Middle Devonian (a time when the Appalachian and Caledonian belts were strongly folded), Africa and Europe were sheared 30 degrees counterclockwise, bringing northwestern Africa opposite North Carolina. Morris's conclusions have since been confirmed by other paleomagneticians with some variations in detail; for example, some think that the shearing displacement continued for 50 million years into the Carboniferous. This is quite acceptable, because both the Caledonian shearing torsion and the later Tethyan torsion movements probably lasted something like 100 million years. Caution is necessary with paleomagnetic data because some rocks have been demagnetized several times, making it essential that the geologic date of each separate magnetization be identified.



    The alleged anomaly between the northwest African glaciation and the subtropical limestones of the western slopes of the Appalachians during the Ordovician is also eased by the displacement along the Appalachian axis, but on an expanding Earth, it was not anomalous anyway. If the pole be assumed to have been in the center of the records of glaciation and the earth's radius assumed to have been 0.7 of the present radius, the most northerly glaciate in northwest Africa would have been in latitude 43° (the same as the most northerly Quaternary glaciate at sea level in Tasmania), and the subtropical Ordovician limestones would have been in the latitude of the present Great Barrier Reef of Queensland. The evidence for Iapetus, and the mythical ocean itself, vanish."

    Yes Carey was a true genius.

    I made a figure to further illustrate why Wilson cycles are actually artefactual:



    Every letter identifies a terrane that formed at a specific time. Let's say that the age of the different terranes is:

    A: 400 Ma
    B: 700 Ma
    C: 100 Ma
    D: 1000 Ma
    E: 1300 Ma

    The different part are now dispersed on different continents but their age can help to make a reconstruction of the globe history.

    We note that if the globe radius has remained fixed, we must break up the present continents and then rebuild new one to reform terrane A, and then break up the continents again and so on, to reconstruct the full history of these terranes. This is Wilson's cycle of supercontinents.

    But there is another solution which does not require to break up the continents and yet allows to explain the current dispersal of the terranes. This solution is to simply reduce the size of the globe.

    When multiple independent problems can be solved by the same solution, then this is probably the right solution, even if it seems a priori implausible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Sorry, but my statement is not that paleomagnetic alone can't be explained without resorting to an expanding Earth.
    My statement is that both geological data (proving the constant proximity of Asia and India) and paleomagnetic data (proving a northward drift of India) can only be reconciled by the expanding Earth.
    I wasn't talking about your statement. I was talking about the statement in the reply by Johnson et al. As you were too. Please try to stay on track.

    The geological data is a slightly separate issue, which is addressed in a separate paragraph in the Johnson et al reply. Johnson et al actually show that the main reference of Mayerhoff and Mayerhoff is irrelevant to the debate, clearly demonstrating that Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff did not have a firm understanding of the science. In fact, this was obvious from the beginning as Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff completely missed the point of the original Johnson paper which had nothing to do with the collision of India with Asia, but rather the breakup of India, Australia, and Antarctica.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    The geological data is a slightly separate issue, which is addressed in a separate paragraph in the Johnson et al reply. Johnson et al actually show that the main reference of Mayerhoff and Mayerhoff is irrelevant to the debate, clearly demonstrating that Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff did not have a firm understanding of the science. In fact, this was obvious from the beginning as Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff completely missed the point of the original Johnson paper which had nothing to do with the collision of India with Asia, but rather the breakup of India, Australia, and Antarctica.
    The reply by Johnson et al is not very long. I'll quote it entirely (italic text) and insert my comments.

    "Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff’s (1977) discussion is not strictly about our paper, which deals with the separation of India from Antarctica and Australia, but is a restatement of their view that India has always been close to Asia."

    Indeed, the paper of Johnson et al (1976) is about the spreading of the indian ocean reconstructed from paleomagnetic data. Thanx to the paleolatitudes calculated from the paleomagnetic data, there is no doubt that India drifted northward. Even better, the isochrons allow to identify the former connections between India/Australia/Antarctica. But the paper remains silent about what lays to the north of India during the drift.
    However in 1976 there was overwhelming literature, more than 2000 papers covering 100 years of geological research according to Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff’s (1978), proving that India remained constantly close to Asia. According to Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, continuities were found at different levels between India and Asia "westward into Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian peninsula; northward into Afghanistan, the Soviet Union, and western and interior China; and eastward into Burma and China ". The continuity is proved and not only south of the putative suture.

    It was also already known in 1976 that Asia was in the Northern hemisphere for most of the relevant geological time, hence the following paradox:
    If India drifted northward from high latitude in the southern hemisphere, while Asia was at thousands km in the northern hemisphere, then how is it possible that Asia and India remained close during all that time???

    It seemed impossible to reconcile both the northward drift and the India/Asia proximity for Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff. They were geologists of the old school (fixists) trust the geological data more than the paleomagnetic data, thus voluntarily ignored the latter and rejected the drift. This rejection is evidently irrational.

    "This view is difficult to reconcile with existing paleomagnetic data, unless one resorts to an expanding earth (Carey, 1958, 1976)."

    Johnson was evidently aware of the apparent contradiction between the conclusions from geological data and paleomagnetic data, but he was also aware that the only way to reconcile both conclusions was to resort to an expanding Earth. Indeed, with a smaller radius, Asia can be in the northern hemisphere and India in the southern hemisphere but remain close to each other. Then a growth of the southern hemisphere would leads to an apparent drift of India to the North.
    A figure worths more than a thousands word. I made a figure for the reader, illustrating the northward drift of India on a growing earth:



    "Meyerhof and Meyerhof ignore the evidence that shows the oceans to be much younger than the continents, so that continents now separated by oceans must have been joined at some earlier time."

    Here, Johnson et al point that Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff splendidly ignore the paleomagnetic evidence for the Northward drift.

    "The main point raised by Meyerhof and Meyerhof- the stratigraphical and paleontological affinity of northern India with the Himalayas, as summarized by Fuchs (1975) — is irrelevant. Fossils in the crystalline core of the Himalayas (Powell and Monaghan, 1973a; Pickett and others, 1975) are interpreted (Powell and Con agha, 1973b, 1975; Le Fort, 1975) as showing that the Himalayas and India` are indeed part of a single plate, originally part of Gondwanaland, consistent with Gansserʼs (1974 identification of the Indus-Brahmaputra line, north of the Himalayas, as the suture between India and Asia. Hence the fossils and sedimentary rocks south of the suture are naturally related."

    Here, Johnson et al focus on the data proving a connection between India and Himalayas. These data are irrelevant to prove a proximity between Asia and India, because the Himalayas were part of greater India. But Johnson et al remain silent for all the relevant data proving the proximity of Asia and India across the putative suture line. Thus they prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Asia and India remain close to each other because it can't be explained without resorting to a growing Earth.
    The intentional ignorance by Johnson et al of the proximity between Asia and India is not more rational that the intentional ignorance of the northward drift by Meyerhoff & Meyerhoff.

    "REFERENCES CITED
    Carey, S. W., 1958, A tectonic approach to a continental drift, in Continental drift - a symposium: Univ. Tasmania, p. 177-355.
    Carey, S. W., 1976, The expanding earth: Amsterdam, Elsevier, 470 p.
    "

    The classical references to Carey's expanding Earth.

    "Fuchs, G. R., 1975, Contributions to the geology of the north-western Himalayas: Vienna, Geol. Bundesanstalt Abhand., v. 32, 59 p. Ganser, A., 1974, Himalaya, in Spencer, A. M., ed., Mesozoic-Cenozoic orogenic belts, data for orogenic studies: Geol. Soc. London Spec. Pub. 4, p. 267-278."

    The reference establishing with the proximity of the himalayas and India and irrelevant to establish a proximity between India and Asia.

    "Le Fort, P., 1975, Himalayas: The collided range. Present knowledge of the continental arc: Am. jour. Sci., v. 275A, p. 1-44.
    Pickett, j., jell, j., Monaghan, P., and Powell, C., 1975, jurassic inverted brasses from the Himalayan Central Gneiss: Alcheringa, v. 1, p.71-85.
    Powell, C. McA., and Monaghan, P. j., 1973a, Polyphase deformation in Phanerozoic rocks of the Central Himalayan Gneiss, north-west India:jour. Geology, v. 81, p. 127-143.
    Powell, C. McA., and Monaghan, P. j., 1973b, Plate tectonics and the Himalayas: Earth and Planetary Sci. Letters, v. 20, p. 1-12.
    Powell, C. McA., and Monaghan, P. j., 1975, Tectonic models of the Tibetan plateau: Geology, v. 3, p. 727
    731.
    "

    The references establishing that the himalayas were part of greater India.

    And that's it.

    So in conclusion, Johnson et al never refuted that India and Asia remained close to each other during the relevant geological time. They only remind that the Himalayas were part of India.

    The only solution that satisfies both the proximity of India and Asia and the Northward drift is the Growing Earth theory.

    At this point, a rational person must abandon the plate tectonics theory and accept the expanding Earth theory.

    I'm a rational person and I abandoned the plate tectonics theory.
    Now, are you a rational person?

    Sidenote: For the reader, the work of Johnson is now superseeded by that of Muller (müller et al.: digital models of the world’s ocean crust).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    And yet all this happened while life was thriving on earth with no apparent change to flight or walking characteristics to adjust to the amazing increase in gravity.

    (dark matter...lol)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220 Childish panic... Invention of a new god. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Yes Carey was a true genius.

    I made a figure to further illustrate why Wilson cycles are actually artefactual:



    Every letter identifies a terrane that formed at a specific time. Let's say that the age of the different terranes is:

    A: 400 Ma
    B: 700 Ma
    C: 100 Ma
    D: 1000 Ma
    E: 1300 Ma

    The different part are now dispersed on different continents but their age can help to make a reconstruction of the globe history.

    We note that if the globe radius has remained fixed, we must break up the present continents and then rebuild new one to reform terrane A, and then break up the continents again and so on, to reconstruct the full history of these terranes. This is Wilson's cycle of supercontinents.

    But there is another solution which does not require to break up the continents and yet allows to explain the current dispersal of the terranes. This solution is to simply reduce the size of the globe.

    When multiple independent problems can be solved by the same solution, then this is probably the right solution, even if it seems a priori implausible.
    No logic at all in that garbage, just childish panic. And invention of a new-god-explaining-all-and-predicting-nothing : the bloating of a planet. Hmm, pretending explain all the inventor knew, just excluding what he wanted not to know, and ignoring all the remaining.

    On french Usenet, Florian N. has pretended that paleontological data support his thesis on India, and pretended that this paper brought proves :
    <1jqy2le.3pdf781gt4530N%usenet@nachon.net> (19923)
    http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sc...fe178ecf?hl=fr
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

    At botttom of page 3 is the sentence that makes Florian to dream :
    The Cambay amber fauna thus shows widespread, even global, affinities, with only minor indication of isolation or insularity (43, 44), and surprisingly no African or Malagasy connections yet found.
    What these authors and Florian had just forgotten, is that India suffered a massive extinction during the eruption of 1 500 000 km² of basalts, at the transition K/T or just before. And the Cambay gulf is precisely in this region of basaltic trapps. Where the ecologic niches were swept for new asian fauna already living in the insular bows.

    Besides the eruptions of basalts, there was too the impact of Shiva meteor, which certainly did not help to protect the endemic fauna of Indian continent.
    http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/12...her-k-t-impact
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps

    In the meantime, the paper from B.L. Fischer (>> Fisher, B.L. 1996. Origins and affinities of the ant fauna of
    >> Madagascar. In: Biogéographie de Madagascar. W.L. Lourenço (ed.), pp.
    >> 457-465. Editions ORSTOM, Paris.

    > http://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010008486
    > http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/...es/pleins_text...
    > http://www.madadoc.mg/v02203_ORI.pdf
    ), proves that the Indian Ocean was never crossed by the endemic fauna od Madagascar. So the theory of Florian Nachon and Samuel Carey, that the width of the Indian Ocean is just a recent innovation provided by their bloating, Ploof ! Sunk in the water !

    Florian has just to travel 100 km southward from his house to study the Briançonnais Terrane, which is fully incompatible to his theory of interlocked continental crusts. Or little more eastward to study the Matterhorn and Dent Blanche klippe, the remaining of a piece of hercynian ridges belonging to Africa. In Britanny too, Florian could study the Armorican Terrane... But Florian is not a geologist at all.

    Florian Nachon and Samuel Carey are just not aware of the effects of the buoyancy of the continental crusts, which make them very durable while the oceanic crusts are not. No background in mechanics, nor in physics, nor in geochemistry, nor in lithology, nor in mineralogy, just bloated pretentions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    So in conclusion, Johnson et al never refuted that India and Asia remained close to each other during the relevant geological time. They only remind that the Himalayas were part of India.
    I agree with this assessment of the Johnson et al reply. However, this cannot be read as 'Johnson et al accept that India has always been close to Asia.'

    The only solution that satisfies both the proximity of India and Asia and the Northward drift is the Growing Earth theory.
    This is jumping the gun.

    At this point, a rational person must abandon the plate tectonics theory and accept the expanding Earth theory.
    Disagree. At this point we must review the evidence. I note that you neglected to list those reference which prove that India has always been close to Asia.

    I suspect you haven't read them and have failed to examine the evidence yourself. I also suspect you have not looked for any contradictory evidence, and have failed to gauge a sense of the actual scientific consensus in this matter. Perhaps you can prove me wrong?

    I'm a rational person and I abandoned the plate tectonics theory.
    I have my doubts.

    Now, are you a rational person?
    I try my best.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    4
    billiards wrote:
    However, I will accept it as the scientific consensus is that the Tethys was about 2000 km wide (Paleogeographic and paleotectonic evolution of the Himalayan Range as reflected by detrital modes of Tertiary sandstones and modern sands (Indus transect, India and Pakistan)
    Eduardo Garzanti, Salvatore Critelli and Raymond V. Ingersoll
    Geological Society of America Bulletin 1996).
    I quote below two Himalaya specialists who were critical of the plate tectonics hypothesis on the width of the former Tethys Ocean, regarding this as being much greater than the amount permitted by the field facts. The second quote from Stoecklin raises the question of whether Billiard's consensus figure of a 2000 km width actually pertains only to the post-collisional (Eocene and later) phase. The title of the paper refers to the Tertiary, hinting that my hunch is correct. In any case, both the 2000 km and the 6000 figure seem to be derived only from the spreading data from _behind_ India, not from geological facts in the Himalayas.

    "Expansion [or rather contraction] of a Tethyan ocean of over 6,000 km based on paleomagnetics and extreme plate tectonic reasoning, has been uncritically accepted by many authors dealing with the Alpine-Himalaya belt (Klootwijk 1984, Dewey and Burke 1973)"
    Augusto Gansser, "Facts and Theories on the Himalayas," Eclogae geol. Helvetica, 84/1: 33-59 (1991), p. 47

    "If the Earth has not expanded, crustal expansion by ocean floor spreading must have been compensated by equal amounts of crustal shortening. All estimates of crustal compression in the foldbelts north of India fall far short of the approximate 6000 km of shortening required to compensate crustal expansion in the Indian Ocean..."

    "At any rate, Tethyan subduction can in no way account for compensation of the continued expansion of the Indian Ocean after collision of India with Eurasia in Eocene time. The structure of the Himalaya leaves no doubt that very considerable compression of continental crust was achieved here by folding and thrusting in post-Eocene time. But actual estimates fall again far short of the amount required to accommodate postcollisional north-drift of India, which according to spreading data from the Indian Ocean was in the range of 1500-2000 km. Le Fort (44) considered 600-700 km of shortening in the Himalaya as a maximum, Gansser (45) estimated about half of this amount 500 km less 200 km of pre-collisional compression). Compared to the Himalaya, post-Eocene crustal shortening farther north, in Tibet, seems to have been insignificant; folding occurred here mainly in the Mesozoic. The strike-slip mechanism proposed by Molnar and Tapponier (35) may account for some shortening, but hardly for the amount required: strike-slip along the Chaman fault was perhaps in the order of 200-300 km (43); and while displacement along the Herat fault may have been considerable till Miocene, post-Miocene deposits are no more clearly offset along it (24)."
    --Jovan Stoecklin, "Tethys evolution in the Afghanistan-Pamir-Pakistan region," In: A.M.C. Sengor, ed., Tectonic Evolution of the Tethyan Region, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1989, pp. 258, 259.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by sathearn
    I quote below two Himalaya specialists who were critical of the plate tectonics hypothesis on the width of the former Tethys Ocean, regarding this as being much greater than the amount permitted by the field facts. The second quote from Stoecklin raises the question of whether Billiard's consensus figure of a 2000 km width actually pertains only to the post-collisional (Eocene and later) phase. The title of the paper refers to the Tertiary, hinting that my hunch is correct. In any case, both the 2000 km and the 6000 figure seem to be derived only from the spreading data from _behind_ India, not from geological facts in the Himalayas.
    I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.

    The crustal shortening your quotes spoke of is a bit of a straw man -- most of the ocean was subducted. Try reading this:

    Guillot, S., E. Garzanti, D. Baratoux, D. Marquer, G. Mahe ́o, and J. de Sigoyer, Reconstructing the total shortening history of
    the NW Himalaya, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 4(7), 1064, doi:10.1029/2002GC000484, 2003.

    Incidentally, the best argument expanding earthists can come up with against extensive subduction is mere incredulity -- "it seems impossible".
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224 Deccan Traps ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    I suggest you a game :
    To find where Florian could ever concede that the Deccan Traps ever exist...

    Could the eruption of 1 000 000 km^3 of tholeitic lava have some ecological impact on the Indian continent ?
    Just remember the lethal consequences of the Laki eruption, in 1783 :
    10 000 persons (1/4 of the total) died in Island in 1783-1784, 80 % of the sheep, 70 % of the horses died, mainly by the fluorosis. Intoxications and mortality by the fluor up to Britanny, Ireland, Great Britain, Bergen and up to Prague.
    Its volume of lava ? 14 km^3.

    So ? What about the Deccan Traps ? Their impact on the flora and fauna of India at the K/T transition and the early Paleocene ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    So in conclusion, Johnson et al never refuted that India and Asia remained close to each other during the relevant geological time. They only remind that the Himalayas were part of India.
    I agree with this assessment of the Johnson et al reply. However, this cannot be read as 'Johnson et al accept that India has always been close to Asia.'
    I never read it nor wrote it that way. Indeed Johnson et al never accepted that India has always been close to Asia. If they had accepted that view they would not have try to refute it using the Himalayas/India evidence, and they would have turned into expansionists.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    The only solution that satisfies both the proximity of India and Asia and the Northward drift is the Growing Earth theory.
    This is jumping the gun.
    You do not accept that if India and Asia remained close while India drifted northward, then the only solution is earth expansion? What other compatible solution do you propose? Even Johnson says that if one accept India/Asia's proximity, then we must resort to an expanding earth.

    At this point we must review the evidence. I note that you neglected to list those reference which prove that India has always been close to Asia.
    A lot of those references are listed in Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff. Do you really want to list them all here?

    I suspect you haven't read them and have failed to examine the evidence yourself. I also suspect you have not looked for any contradictory evidence, and have failed to gauge a sense of the actual scientific consensus in this matter. Perhaps you can prove me wrong?
    Obviously, I could not have read all these references especially as they're harder to find now. But we can examine some of them together if you want. Which one do you want to read for a start?

    If a single of these references prove the India/Asia link, then you will admit that the expanding Earth theory is essentially correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    The crustal shortening your quotes spoke of is a bit of a straw man -- most of the ocean was subducted.
    Actually, that applies to the second quote, but not to the last quote which discusses post-collisional shortening. I consider that Aitchinson et al 2007 "When and where did India and Asia collide?" is the primary reference for discussions about that subject. Aitchinson et al argue for a collision no earlier than 35 Ma with prior event around 55 Ma being associated to a collision with an oceanic arc, probably the one that is suggested to be at the origin of the Yarlung Tsangpo suture zone elsewhere. They also argue for an extension of greater india about 500-600 km, not more. That's for the basic numbers.

    Now I never heard about the argument that there is not enough continental crustal shortening to account for the amount of spreading in the indian ocean. But that is an interesting argument.
    Considering that the continental collision started only 35 millions years ago, we can calculate the amount of spreading seafloor that got emplaced in the Indian Ocean since that time (35 Ma). And that is about 1600 km along the North-South direction according to the data from Müller (the G3 paper I cited earlier).

    So at 35 My, continental greater India get in contact with continental Asia. And it is expected that India continued to move northward for 1600 km. So 1600 km of continental crustal shortening+continental subduction are expected. According to Murphy and An Yin , the total crustal shortening across the full orogen is ≈750 km. So we expect 1600-750=850 km of continental subduction for the extension of greater India.

    The extension of greater India begins at the MFT going to the north (600 km maximum; see Aitchinson 2007). Knowing that the distance between the MFT and the YTSZ is ≈200 km and that crustal shortening (by thrusting) is 176 km, it means that we have 200+176≈375 km of the extension that is not subducted. It follows that a maximum of 600-375 km=225 km of the extension got subducted.

    So we have 850-225=625 km of continental subduction minimum that is nowhere to be found.

    Billiards, how do you explain that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    I consider that Aitchinson et al 2007 "When and where did India and Asia collide?" is the primary reference for discussions about that subject. Aitchinson et al argue for a collision no earlier than 35 Ma with prior event around 55 Ma being associated to a collision with an oceanic arc, probably the one that is suggested to be at the origin of the Yarlung Tsangpo suture zone elsewhere.
    BTW, Aitchinson et al (2007) argue that India was much to far away from Asia for a collision around 55 My, hence the arc hypothesis. 65 My ago, India was at least 700 km to the south of the arc. So India was completely isolated according to the most refined plate tectonics model.

    But it is claimed in Jaeger et al (1989) and Rage et al (1995) that terrestrial vertebrate fossils indicate continuity had been established between India and Asia prior to 65 Ma.

    Billiards, how do you explain that?


    Jaeger, J.-J., V. Courtillot, and P. Tapponnier (1989), Paleontological view of the ages of the Deccan Traps, the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary, and the India-Asia collision, Geology, 17, 316–319.

    Rage, J. C., H. Cappetta, J. L. Hartenberger, J. J. Jaeger, J. Sudre, M. Vianey-Liaud, K., Kumar, G. V. R. Prasad, and A. Sahni (1995), Collision age, Nature., 375, 286.


    PS: Rage et al (1995) is a short letter and I quote it entirely below:


    Collision age

    Rage, J.-C.; Cappetta H.; Hartenberger, J.-L.; Jaeger, J.-J.; Sudre, J.;
    Vianey-Liaud, M.; Kumar, K.; Prasad, G. V. R.; Sanhi, A.

    Sir--Beck et al. [1] have reported new biogeographical data, concluding that the
    collision of the Indian subcontinent with Asia was older than previously
    claimed. They suggested that the collision occurred between 66 and 55.5 Myr
    (million years) ago. However, palacontological data constrain the latest
    possible date even more accurately. From the study of continental faunas and
    floras, it has been known for several years that terrestrial continuity between
    India and mainland Asia was already established by the time of the K/T boundary,
    65 Myr ago, or probably slightly earlier [2,3]. More recent data again support
    this view [4,5].

    Nevertheless, an Eocene collision, which was accepted for a long time, appears
    still to be admitted by various workers. The biostratigraphical result of Beck
    et al. is an additional argument which demonstrates that such an age can no be
    longer accepted.


    REFERENCES

    1. Beck, R. A. et al. Nature 373, 55-58 (1995).

    2. Sahni, A. et al. Bull. Soc. geol. Fr. 14, 1093-1099 (1982).

    3. Hartenberger, J.-L. Bull. Soc. Palaeont. Ital. 21, 283-288 (1982).

    4. Prasad, G. V. R. et al. J. Vertebr. Paleont. 14, 260-277 (1994).

    5. Prasad, G. V. R. & Rage, J.-C. Cretaceous. Res. 16, 95-107 (1995).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    4
    I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.

    The crustal shortening your quotes spoke of is a bit of a straw man -- most of the ocean was subducted.
    What is at issue in those quotations is whether the field evidence from the region is compatible with an ocean wide enough (at the right times) to compensate Indian Ocean growth. You seem to be begging the question.

    The point that I was specifically getting at was the quotation, attributed to you, which accepted the figure of 2000 km of shortening as the consensus view. I presented information which suggested that this figure applies only to the post Paleocene, and that it was not seemingly based on field evidence, but only on the spreading history on the other side of India.


    Incidentally, the best argument expanding earthists can come up with against extensive subduction is mere incredulity -- "it seems impossible".
    That's a hackneyed charge. It is not true of Stoecklin, and it is not true of other arguments familiar to anyone who knows the expansionist literature - for example, the constraints put on northward subduction in the Pacific plate by the paleomagnetic latitude of the Detroit Seamount and the need for a huge sediment source for the Zodiac fan, the age progression of deep sea drill cores at varying distance from the Sunda Trench, which is supposed to be the recipient of Antarctica's and Africa's share of subduction (basement seeming to age oceanward from the trench), and others I could put together if I weren't rushed.

    But thanks for the reference. I look forward to having a look at it. In the mean time, you can read one of Stoecklin's papers on the subject (a different one, but the only one I have available electronically): http://www.mediafire.com/?8ozb95lq69yd8b2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Obviously, I could not have read all these references especially as they're harder to find now. But we can examine some of them together if you want. Which one do you want to read for a start?
    Florian, you are trying to prove that India was always close to Asia. The burden is on you to provide the primary evidence. If 100 years of geological work demonstrate the point, then one paper will be enough. But please bring it to the fore so that we can critically assess whether it stands up. So far your argument is supported off the back of a secondary interpretation.

    The claim you are making, that would imply that there is unknown physics at play at the centre of the Earth, rests on secondary literature. Are alarm bells not ringing, that perhaps, just maybe, Mayerhoff and Mayerhoff got it wrong?

    To emphasize the main point of this post, Florian, please pick a paper which demonstrates form primary evidence, that India has always been close to Asia.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230 Apologies but..... 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    ... Just a note that this thread is interesting to me, but due to my commitments outside of this forum (yes I have a life) I will not be contributing or even thinking about contributing inside the normal working hours -- in other words, don't expect me to post anything before about 7 or 8 pm GMT.

    Thank you for your patience.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231 Indian Ocean, Indian continent, Madagascar... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Obviously, I could not have read all these references especially as they're harder to find now. But we can examine some of them together if you want. Which one do you want to read for a start?
    Florian, you are trying to prove that India was always close to Asia. The burden is on you to provide the primary evidence. If 100 years of geological work demonstrate the point, then one paper will be enough. But please bring it to the fore so that we can critically assess whether it stands up. So far your argument is supported off the back of a secondary interpretation.

    The claim you are making, that would imply that there is unknown physics at play at the centre of the Earth, rests on secondary literature. Are alarm bells not ringing, that perhaps, just maybe, Mayerhoff and Mayerhoff got it wrong?

    To emphasize the main point of this post, Florian, please pick a paper which demonstrates form primary evidence, that India has always been close to Asia.
    And there are proves that Madagascar has never been close to Asia, only close to Africa :
    the paper from B.L. Fischer (>> Fisher, B.L. 1996. Origins and affinities of the ant fauna of
    >> Madagascar. In: Biogéographie de Madagascar. W.L. Lourenço (ed.), pp.
    >> 457-465. Editions ORSTOM, Paris.

    > http://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010008486
    > http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/...es/pleins_text...
    > http://www.madadoc.mg/v02203_ORI.pdf
    ), proves that the Indian Ocean was never crossed by the endemic fauna od Madagascar. So the theory of Florian Nachon and Samuel Carey, that the width of the Indian Ocean is just a recent innovation provided by their bloating, Ploof ! Sunk in the water !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Florian, you are trying to prove that India was always close to Asia. The burden is on you to provide the primary evidence. If 100 years of geological work demonstrate the point, then one paper will be enough. But please bring it to the fore so that we can critically assess whether it stands up. So far your argument is supported off the back of a secondary interpretation.
    You're absolutely right. We must rely on primary evidence. So I'm currently doing a bibliographic research on that particular subject.
    However, the references in M&M are quite old, and I did not find web access to them yet. I'll probably have to go to a library to look in the old collections of journals.

    Anyway, meanwhile, I'm looking for evidence for a cretaceous connection between India and Asia which is also problematic due to the updated late eocene collision date by Aitchinson (35 My ; yes I don't forget the arc collision circa 55 My).

    I'm following the track of Rage (1995) Nature., 375, 286.

    I read the most recent paper cited in Rage (1995), which is its own work: Prasad and Rage Cretaceous Research (1995) 16, 95-107.

    In this paper they provide evidence of a clear connection between India and Laurasia during the Maastrichian. I quote the relevant part of the discussion:

    "The fauna from Nasal confirms that India was connected to Laurasia as early as the latest Cretaceous. This hypothesis was first proposed on the basis of the presence of a pelobatid frog at Takli (= Gitti Khadan), which was considered to be of Maastrichtian/Palaeocene age (Sain at al., 1982) but is now regarded as Maastrichtian (Jaeger at al., 1989; Jaeger & Rage, 1990). The hypothesis of an early contact has been corroborated by the discovery of various taxa (including plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates) of Laurasian affinities in the Maastrichtian of India: charophytes (Bhatia at al., 1990a), non-marine ostracodes (Bhatia at al., 1990b; Sain 8t Bajpai, 1991), discoglossid frogs (Paras 8: Rage, 1991), and palaeoryctid mammals (Paras & Sain, 1988; Paras er al., 1994). To this evidence, the presence of an anguid lizard at Naskal can now be added. The Anguidae are of Laurasian, apparently North American, origin (Estes, 1982) and their presence in the Maastrichtian of India provides further support for a terrestrial connection between Laurasia and India as early as the latest Cretaceous.
    [...]
    Moreover vertebrates are not only fossils which argue for a latest Cretaceous connection (see above); data on plants, inverterates, and vertebrates alos support this interpretation. In conclusion, the avlaible palaeontological evidence argues for a Maastricjian connection, which is now corooborated by palaeomagnetic data (Klootwijk et al, 1992)."



    According to a quite recent review from Ali and Aitchinson (Ali & Aitchison 2008 Earth-Science Reviews 88, 145–166), this issue is not yet resolved. They actually cite a later paper by Rage (2003) and Van Bocxlaer (2006), that further support the connection. I read Rage (2003) and he is arguing for a late cretaceous northern route from Asia to Madagascar through India, mosly based on his earlier work.
    Van Bocxlaer is a PlosONE paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0000074 (thanx to the open journals! I also published a PlosONE paper this year :-). Van Bocxlaer studied the vicariance of frogs (notoriously salt intolerant), and show three "deeply nested Madagascar-Eurasia/india relationships recovered in [their] phylogenies" dated in the late cretaceous. The madagascar/ India connection is possible through the seychelles plateau, but not the India/Eurasia connection.
    And the only solution proposed by Ali is... "rafting"

    Noteworthy, Ali cited the expanding earth theory in this review, because he was involved in a literature discussion with a fellow expansionist, McCarthy (McCarthy, D., 2005. Biogeographical and geological evidence for a smaller,
    completely-enclosed Pacific basin in the Late Cretaceous. J. Biogeogr. 30,
    1545–1561.). And of course, he denies it. For his defence, McCarthy had wrong reconstructions. But I found almost surprising that he evokes it at all. It is a bit unexpected.
    It happens that I already got in touch with Ali in the past. I was still in debunking mode at this time, but I will eventually try to contact him again and may be invite him to join this discussion. I will also try to contact Rage who is french.

    Well, I'll wait for your reply. We have plenty of time and I have also a life
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233 Subductions, post-perovskite, crypto-continents... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Subductions, post-perovskite, crypto-continents, crypto-vulcanos...
    In 40 years, Earth Sciences have done some journey.
    http://planet-terre.ens-lyon.fr/plan...1.xml#id425678

    http://planet-terre.ens-lyon.fr/plan...ue-plaques.xml

    http://planet-terre.ens-lyon.fr/plan...au-manteau.xml

    http://planet-terre.ens-lyon.fr/plan...ue-manteau.xml

    These authors are frenchmen. However most of their references are in english.
    The subducting plates are three times more fast in their drift than non-subducting plates.
    The drift of India was precisely a fast one.
    The deep structures of subductions, plumes and rifts are now well studied. Some of the verdicts are crushing for the hopes of Florian to become the new genius of tectonics.
    However, mechanics of rocks, celestial mechanics, geochemistry, geology and physics had already closed the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    So we have 850-225=625 km of continental subduction minimum that is nowhere to be found.

    Billiards, how do you explain that?
    Slightly ironic that you should invoke an argument that relies on conservation principles, don't you think? :-D

    One possible solution is that the subduction of the continents was very steep.

    See for example:

    Seismic evidence: Tilmann et al. (2003)

    Or metamorphic evidence: Leech et al. (2005)
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Slightly ironic that you should invoke an argument that relies on conservation principles, don't you think? :-D

    One possible solution is that the subduction of the continents was very steep.
    Deep, shallow, whatever you want, that is not the issue. The issue is "1600 km of spreading". So do you know if the Indian ridge migrated north, south, or stayed at the same latitude? In other words, do you know if antarctica migrated north, south or stayed at the same latitude. If Antarctica did not move, then the ridge migrated 800 km north and India drifted 1600 km to the north since the beginning of the collision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Slightly ironic that you should invoke an argument that relies on conservation principles, don't you think? :-D

    One possible solution is that the subduction of the continents was very steep.
    Deep, shallow, whatever you want, that is not the issue. The issue is "1600 km of spreading". So do you know if the Indian ridge migrated north, south, or stayed at the same latitude? In other words, do you know if antarctica migrated north, south or stayed at the same latitude. If Antarctica did not move, then the ridge migrated 800 km north and India drifted 1600 km to the north since the beginning of the collision.
    I said steep not deep.

    The Indian plate moved northwards. This movement is neatly traced out by the imaginatively named 90 East ridge, which is a >3,500 km chain of ocean islands which formed as the Indo-Australian plate passed over the Kerguelen hotspot. And even better, the ages of the basalts give the game away, they get older the further North they go, which is exactly what you'd expect for northward drifting plate, and the ages tie in neatly with the ages of continental drift independently derived from other lines of evidence.

    How do you explain that Florian?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    The Indian plate moved northwards.
    Of course India moved northward. But once more, you miss the point which is how much. If the Indian ridge does not migrate, then India moved 800 km northward. If the ridge migrated northward, then India moved 1600 km northward. So which one is correct?
    Note that intermediary solutions are possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    How do you explain [northward indian drift] Florian?
    Did you really miss this figure?




    I now doubt that you really understand how India moved northward on a growing earth? I thought the figure was straightforward?

    I also would like to hear your comments on the late cretaceous connection of India and Asia, at odd with an early eocene arc collision and late eocene continent collision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    I also would like to hear your comments on the late cretaceous connection of India and Asia, at odd with an early eocene arc collision and late eocene continent collision.
    Firstly the age of Aitchison et al (2007) at about 35 Ma for continental collision is by far the youngest age I have seen. I have read quite a few papers and the general consensus for initiation of continental collision is about 50-55 Ma.

    The oldest age I have seen is Jaeger et al (1989) ~65 Ma based on palaeontological evidence. It is worth noting that this work and its implications for the timing of Indian Asian collision has been been challenged (e.g. replies from Thewissen, 1990; Buffetaut, 1990).

    However, there are two points to make. First, is it possible that geological process could have pushed the ocean floor upwards enough to make a passage between the continents prior to their collision? (e.g. The Mobile Indian Raft: A Reply to Rage and Jaeger, McKenna, 1995.)

    I wouldn't rule it out.

    I speculate (and don't quote me on this, I'm just throwing it out there) that uplift due to the plume head responsible for the Deccan traps might have helped to raise the land above water.

    Secondly, if India has always been so close to Asia, why can't you find palaeo evidence that goes further back in time? Surely there should be evidence way back in time? To find something that establishes a tenuous link maybe 10 Ma before contact is not very convincing. Finding a link 100 Ma prior to contact would be stronger. In short, I don't find this evidence inconsistent enough with the other data to throw away plate tectonics.


    Obviously we need to look at all of the evidence before jumping to conclusions.

    Perhaps the most glaringly obvious bit of evidence of all awaits trial: The Himalaya mountain range. Surely this is irrefutable evidence of large scale tectonic compression. How do you explain that on an expanding Earth?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239 And the tides and the Moon ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    First in french, as Florian is a frenchman, living 120 km East of myself, next translated into english.

    In french :
    Florian, sens-toi tout à fait libre d'exposer en quoi ta théorie de l'enflure terrestre serait compatible avec les faits suivants :
    • * Sur la Lune les épanchements de lave basaltiques sont vieux de 3 à 3,5 Ga en large majorité.
      * On a sous les yeux les preuves qu'il n'a eu aucun mouvement tectonique notable dans la Lune depuis 3 Ga.
      * Les cratons d'anorthosite sont nettement plus anciens, typiquement 4 Ga.
      * A cause des marées lunaires, la Lune nous présente toujours la même face depuis plus de 3 Ga.
      * Toujours à cause des marées, la rotation de la Terre ralentit, et la Lune s'éloigne. Ces valeurs sont connues, notamment par des stries diurnes dans des coquilles fossiles.
      * Mais pourtant selon Maxlow-le-Très-Haut (et Florian est son Prophète), il y a 800 Ma la Lune était plus grosse que la Terre. Beaucoup plus grosse que la Terre si l'on remonte plus loin dans le passé.
      * Il faudra aussi expliquer pourquoi la tectonique Lunaire est figée depuis 3 Ga, et pas la tectonique terrestre. Il y a comme un problème de thermodynamique, là...
      * Il faudra aussi expliquer comment la Lune a perdu toute eau et toute atmosphère il y a plus de 4 Ga alors que la Terre a encore tout cela. Mais Florian peut encore changer la loi de la gravité. Après tout, la loi de la gravité, il ne l'a pas votée...

    Alors ?
    ________________

    In english :
    Florian, please feel free to explain how your theory of bloating Earth could be compatible with the following experimental facts :
    • * On the Moon, the "seas" of basalt are 3 Gy to 3,5 Gy old, mostly.
      * Any astronomer can see that there were no more tectonic moves for 3 Gy in Moon. The meteoritic craters are well conserved. And no lunar bloating of course.
      * Anorthosite cratons are older, typically 4 Gy.
      * Because of the lunar tides, the rotation of the Moon is now synchroneous with its orbital revolution, and so for 3 Gy.
      * Because of the lunar tides, the rotation of the Earth is slowly slowing, and the orbit of the Moon is increasing. The values are known, for instance by the stria on fossiles shells.
      * However, according to Holy-Maxlow (and Florian is his Prophet), 800 My ago, the Moon was bigger than the Earth. Much bigger earlier...
      * Thermodynamically, the maxlowian theory has to explain why the tectonic of the Moon is freezed for approx. 3 Gy, and not yet in Earth. There is some thermic problem, there...
      * And why the Moon has lost any water and any atmosphere for 4 Gy, while the small, small, small Earth kept water and atmosphere ? There is a problem with gravity, there...

    So ?


    So you may again reply that we have juste to bend all the laws of mechanics, all the astronomical facts, all the thermodynamics, all the fundamental physics, and all the geological data, just to accommodate your megalomaniac fantasies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Firstly the age of Aitchison et al (2007) at about 35 Ma for continental collision is by far the youngest age I have seen. I have read quite a few papers and the general consensus for initiation of continental collision is about 50-55 Ma.
    It is now outdated. The event around 55 Ma is an arc collision, not a continental collision. (see ALi & Aitchison, Earth-Science Reviews 88 (2008) 145–166.)


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    The oldest age I have seen is Jaeger et al (1989) ~65 Ma based on palaeontological evidence.
    These paleontological data simply reflect the proximity of India and Asia in the late creataceous.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    However, there are two points to make. First, is it possible that geological process could have pushed the ocean floor upwards enough to make a passage between the continents prior to their collision? (e.g. The Mobile Indian Raft: A Reply to Rage and Jaeger, McKenna, 1995.)

    I wouldn't rule it out.
    You should. There was just that collision with an arc at 55 Ma. Ocean floor can be pushed upward by overthrusting, but only in compressive regime. I remind you that India was dragged by the sinking tethys seafloor according to the plate tectonics theory, thus everything between India and the sinking slab should be under tension. By the way do you believe that the oceanic crust could really resist to the tension? Carlo Doglioni argues that it can't.

    Ali & Aitchinson also argue that the extension of greater India was completely undersea. It makes a lot of sense because it was the tethys epicontinental sea of the expanding Earth theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Secondly, if India has always been so close to Asia, why can't you find palaeo evidence that goes further back in time? Surely there should be evidence way back in time?
    They exist, but we have to digg in the references given by Meyerhoff & Meyerhoff. I also have to digg into Carey's bibliography.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    To find something that establishes a tenuous link maybe 10 Ma before contact is not very convincing.
    10 Ma if you consider that the arc collision is sufficient to bring salt-intolerant frogs.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Finding a link 100 Ma prior to contact would be stronger. In short, I don't find this evidence inconsistent enough with the other data to throw away plate tectonics.

    Obviously we need to look at all of the evidence before jumping to conclusions.
    Agree. 100 Ma or older would be better.
    What do you think about 750-950 Ma

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Perhaps the most glaringly obvious bit of evidence of all awaits trial: The Himalaya mountain range. Surely this is irrefutable evidence of large scale tectonic compression. How do you explain that on an expanding Earth?
    Actually, you did not noticed it, but I answered this question in this post: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=297555#297555
    The diapiric orogenesis model was developped by Carey more than 40 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Perhaps the most glaringly obvious bit of evidence of all awaits trial: The Himalaya mountain range. Surely this is irrefutable evidence of large scale tectonic compression. How do you explain that on an expanding Earth?
    Actually, you did not noticed it, but I answered this question in this post: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=297555#297555
    The diapiric orogenesis model was developped by Carey more than 40 years ago.
    Actually I did catch that post before, but to be frank I still fail to see how those few lines explain the presence of a whopping great mountain range. Perhaps you could try a bit harder to make your point. Please try not to obfuscate your point by borrowing terminology from genuine papers you have read and misapplying it to support your own agenda. Thanks.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    It is now outdated. The event around 55 Ma is an arc collision, not a continental collision. (see ALi & Aitchison, Earth-Science Reviews 88 (2008) 145–166.)
    This debate about the timing of the collision is a straw man. Does it matter whether India collided with Asia at 65 Ma, 50 Ma, or 35 Ma? Not for this debate. The key point is that India collided with Asia, Jaeger and Rage (your own references) clearly say this in their papers, so to use their work to posit an expanding Earth is misrepresentative. It is cherry picking data, and what's more it is a fundamentally weak argument because on an expanding Earth you would expect a continuum of data that ties India to Asia over all of geological time. Instead the earliest you can find is 65 Ma.... what about before then? oh wait ...

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    What do you think about 750-950 Ma
    Rodinia. When the continents were previously gathered, very good. I'm sure we could play this game a little longer and you could establish links to various parts of the world around about 250 Ma also (when we had Pangaea). But as I've preempted that move, please let's just skip to the evidence about 100 Ma when India was more-or-less isolated from Eurasia. Cheers
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    What happened to Florian? Did he run off to another forum to spread his wisdom?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    What happened to Florian? Did he run off to another forum to spread his wisdom?
    Be patient, I have a life and had a lot of work these days (I remind you that I'm running a research lab). I also wanted to make a figure to illustrate diapiric orogenesis in Tibet, but I think I will simply scan one of Carey's figure (there is one for the tibetan orogenesis in his last book).
    Hopefully, I'll get back to you tomorrow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Actually I did catch that post before, but to be frank I still fail to see how those few lines explain the presence of a whopping great mountain range. Perhaps you could try a bit harder to make your point. Please try not to obfuscate your point by borrowing terminology from genuine papers you have read and misapplying it to support your own agenda. Thanks.
    The terminology I used is that of Carey. The best is that I quote his description of Tibet using his diapiric orogenesis model:

    "The Himalaya-Tibet region is complicated by a succession of Tertiary diapiric events and the transcurrent movements of global torsions (next chapter). a very generalised sequence is given in figure 25. The gross diapiric zone is the high flat-topped oval 2,700 km long and a third as wide between the Main Central Thrust and the Kunlun, which pushed the Himalayan front arc 800 km south from its axis and the northern front a similar distance north to the southern boundary the Tarim basin and Tsaidam.



    Through the paleozoic and early Mesozoic, the whole region was part of the south Asia-Austalia-India Arbia platform with many basin subsidences and uplifted plateaus, but no granites, no flesh, and no orogenesis. North of Mt Everest is a little deformed sequence from Ordovician to Eocene. The Zanskar-Spiti region has 5 km of relatively continuous sequence from the late Proterozoic to the Eocene. The Himalayan climate changed from the periglacials of the Permo-Carboniferous to the tropical conditions of the Triassic.
    The Neogene granitoid domes, described by Le Fort (1988) as "a string of pearls" (Fig26) are two-mica adamellite diapirs surrounded by a dense stockwork of aplitic and pegmatite domes, which extend for some 1,300 km parallel to the Indus-Tsangpo line and some 100 km south of it, are still rising. South of Lhasa is Yamdrock Tso (7,200 m), then Kingmar, Lhagoi Kangri (6,500 m), and finally Gurla Mandhata.
    The recognition that Gurla Mandhata (Fig31) and Rupshu belong to this belt could prolong it all the way to Zanskar and Ladakh. One such dome near Gilgit when enlarged is found to consist of a dozen smaller domes up to 10 km in diameter (Fig27), a typical diapir complex, like the interior of a salt dome (Fig28).


    SW Carey, "Earth, Universe and Cosmos" (2nd Edition 2000), p48-49, University of Tasmania

    The Appalachian also formed this way, the Rockies, the Alps with a beautiful counter clockwise rotation of the diapir...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Actually I did catch that post before, but to be frank I still fail to see how those few lines explain the presence of a whopping great mountain range. Perhaps you could try a bit harder to make your point. Please try not to obfuscate your point by borrowing terminology from genuine papers you have read and misapplying it to support your own agenda. Thanks.
    The terminology I used is that of Carey. The best is that I quote his description of Tibet using his diapiric orogenesis model:

    "The Himalaya-Tibet region is complicated by a succession of Tertiary diapiric events and the transcurrent movements of global torsions (next chapter). a very generalised sequence is given in figure 25. The gross diapiric zone is the high flat-topped oval 2,700 km long and a third as wide between the Main Central Thrust and the Kunlun, which pushed the Himalayan front arc 800 km south from its axis and the northern front a similar distance north to the southern boundary the Tarim basin and Tsaidam.



    Through the paleozoic and early Mesozoic, the whole region was part of the south Asia-Austalia-India Arbia platform with many basin subsidences and uplifted plateaus, but no granites, no flesh, and no orogenesis. North of Mt Everest is a little deformed sequence from Ordovician to Eocene. The Zanskar-Spiti region has 5 km of relatively continuous sequence from the late Proterozoic to the Eocene. The Himalayan climate changed from the periglacials of the Permo-Carboniferous to the tropical conditions of the Triassic.
    The Neogene granitoid domes, described by Le Fort (1988) as "a string of pearls" (Fig26) are two-mica adamellite diapirs surrounded by a dense stockwork of aplitic and pegmatite domes, which extend for some 1,300 km parallel to the Indus-Tsangpo line and some 100 km south of it, are still rising. South of Lhasa is Yamdrock Tso (7,200 m), then Kingmar, Lhagoi Kangri (6,500 m), and finally Gurla Mandhata.
    The recognition that Gurla Mandhata (Fig31) and Rupshu belong to this belt could prolong it all the way to Zanskar and Ladakh. One such dome near Gilgit when enlarged is found to consist of a dozen smaller domes up to 10 km in diameter (Fig27), a typical diapir complex, like the interior of a salt dome (Fig28).


    SW Carey, "Earth, Universe and Cosmos" (2nd Edition 2000), p48-49, University of Tasmania

    The Appalachian also formed this way, the Rockies, the Alps with a beautiful counter clockwise rotation of the diapir...
    Absolute tosh. It's rubbish. Just a weird drawing. Doesn't mean anything. Pure fantasy. Absolutely impossible. Baseless. Fundamentally flawed.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    This debate about the timing of the collision is a straw man. Does it matter whether India collided with Asia at 65 Ma, 50 Ma, or 35 Ma?
    Of course it is important! Because if frogs or Lystrosaurus could freely move from India to Asia between 70-65 Ma whereas the hypothetic collision took place at 35 Ma with the extension of greater India that was fully immersed according to Ali, then it means that this collision never happened and that instead of a collision there were multiple diapir which pushed outward the surrounding terrane leading to overthrusting, with inner zones always over-riding those farther out.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    What do you think about 750-950 Ma
    Rodinia. When the continents were previously gathered, very good. I'm sure we could play this game a little longer and you could establish links to various parts of the world around about 250 Ma also (when we had Pangaea).
    That's more than a game. Do you understand that the spatial relation of cratons must be conserved back in time on an expanding earth? this is a very strong test of the theory. For example, by removing the recent seafloor expansion it can be predicted that Australian cratons were surrounded clockwise by North-America/Antarctica/India/South China/Siberia (Antarctica is predicted to be along South America). We can build a network of relationships for every craton based on the current distribution. According to the growing theory, these relationships must be conserved up to the date of formation of the different cratons.

    But as I've preempted that move, please let's just skip to the evidence about 100 Ma when India was more-or-less isolated from Eurasia. Cheers
    Could you get this paper?: http://www.jstor.org/pss/30080140

    I found this weird abstract: http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1338186.html. But not the related paper.

    I'm looking for recent literature for the late cretaceous period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Absolute tosh. It's rubbish. Just a weird drawing. Doesn't mean anything. Pure fantasy. Absolutely impossible. Baseless. Fundamentally flawed.
    You don't know what you're talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Because if frogs or Lystrosaurus could freely move from India to Asia between 70-65 Ma whereas the hypothetic collision took place at 35 Ma with the extension of greater India ...
    Lystrosaurus was 250 million years ago, not 70-65
    at that point Pangea was still intact
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You don't know what you're talking about.
    ha ha! Good one

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

  51. #251  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Of course it is important! Because if frogs or Lystrosaurus could freely move from India to Asia between 70-65 Ma whereas the hypothetic collision took place at 35 Ma with the extension of greater India that was fully immersed according to Ali, then it means that this collision never happened and that instead of a collision there were multiple diapir which pushed outward the surrounding terrane leading to overthrusting, with inner zones always over-riding those farther out.
    Perhaps you should actually read the papers you cite, because although they might have the little cherry of data you wish to pick out, they actually explain what was going on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ali & Aitchison, Earth-Science Reviews 88 (2008)
    The new pole places the southern Lhasa block ~28°N at 55 Ma, and that since this time this part of Eurasia has rotated ~21° clockwise relative to the spin axis and migrated 1100 km east. As will be seen below, this new information is critical to understanding plate tectonic models indicating that collision between India and southern Tibet took place in the latest Eocene, ~35 Ma, but that
    biological exchange between the sub-continent and Asia began 20– 25 million years earlier in the late Paleocene–early Eocene.

    With regards to the paleobiogeography issue, the computer animation provided by Aitchison et al. (2007a) is telling, indicating that northeastern corner of Greater India came in to contact with western Indonesia in the Late Paleocene (see the 57.5 Ma panel and Section 13.2 below). Subsequently, India tracked along western SE Asia (first Sumatra, then Burma) until it made a hard impact with the Lhasa block 22–23 million years later.


    ....

    Although it is widely perceived that India became progres- sively isolated from its old Gondwana neighbours during the Cretaceous Period (145.5–65.5 Ma), a case can be made for the sub-continent maintaining various physical connections with the other landmasses throughout much of this time interval, and indeed beyond until its northeast corner eventually impinged on western SE Asia at around the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. The model thus appears compatible with India having various forms of biological linkages with the other southern landmasses in the Late Cretaceous, although the passageways were not totally open, ostensibly because of their narrow width and discontinuous nature. Hence the fossil record (e.g., Thewissen et al., 2001; Karanth, 2006) and present-day amphibian catalogue (e.g., Daniels, 1992; Bossuyt and Milinkovitch, 2001; Biju and Bossuyt, 2003) which inform us that India had also developed endemic forms prior to its glancing contact (~ 57 Ma) followed by hard collision (~35 Ma) with Asia. The paleogeographic modelling, however, does not support all biologically-based proposals, for instance, the idea that Madagascar was linked to South America via a “Kerguelen Plateau” route between 80 and 65 Ma, or that northern India was directly connected with Asia in the Maastrichtian.
    Rana and Wilson (2003) recently suggested that the some of the apparent conflicts with the biological patterns and plate tectonic models were possibly due to inadequate databases with the former (see also Forster, 1999, p. 179; O'Connor et al., 2006 p. 285). Hopefully, future paleontological studies will help rectify this issue. Also, for some of the “problematic” bio- logical data the now rehabilitated “oceanic dispersal” process (e.g., Vences et al., 2003; de Queiroz, 2005) might provide a better explanation.
    The above (your own citation no less) pretty much demolishes your need for an expanding Earth based on biological data. Read: No evidence, and no need for an expanding earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by florian

    Could you get this paper?: http://www.jstor.org/pss/30080140
    Yes. A paper discussing a contracting Earth. With beautiful figures such as this one.



    Which for me does way more to show the need for plate tectonics and subduction than any other point the authors may have been trying to make.

    So why are you citing a paper that argues for a contracting Earth when you are arguing the exact opposite? This is yet another example of you using references as a drunk uses lampposts I'm afraid. This is probably a symptom of the fact that you have no geological training and are unable to critically assess the literature.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    Because if frogs or Lystrosaurus could freely move from India to Asia between 70-65 Ma whereas the hypothetic collision took place at 35 Ma with the extension of greater India ...
    Lystrosaurus was 250 million years ago, not 70-65
    at that point Pangea was still intact
    I stand corrected. I wrongly use Lystrosaurus as an example from the Maastrichtian. The fact is that Lystrosaurus is often used as an example of SouthAm/Antarctica/India/China/Vietnam connection, the two latter being not obvious at all on plate tectonics reconstruction (230 Ma, see details):


    Noteworthy no fossils were found in other gondwanaland subcontinents (Australia-South America).

    This is discussed in
    Chatterjee (1986) "the paleoposition of India" Journal of Southeast Asian Earth Sciences 1(3), p145 (link to pdf)

    Colbert (1977) "Mesozoic tetrapods and the Northward migration of India" J of Palaeont. Soc of India 20, p138 (link to pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    You don't know what you're talking about.
    ha ha! Good one
    Not even a good one. What do you really know about diapiric orogenesis? Did you know about it before I introduce it in this discussion?

    I suggest you this paper: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17289707
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Perhaps you should actually read the papers you cite, because although they might have the little cherry of data you wish to pick out, they actually explain what was going on.
    What do you imagine? I read it entirely, including the passages you quote.

    At 55-60 Ma, the contact is made with the immersed extension of greater India and only in Acton's model (see figure 11). So no land connection. The land contact is around 45 Ma for Acton's model and later than 35 Ma for Scotese's model (Figure 12 and 13). So it can't explain connection during the Maastrichtian and earlier (See Colbert and Chatterjee papers)

    Regarding other connections, I suggest you to examine Muller's reconstruction that are now considered as the most accurate plate tectonics since they rely directly on seafloor age (link to animation movie) It appears that India has been completely isolated from 125 to 50 Ma. An isolation that is incompatible with the paleontological data (see again
    Colbert and Chatterjee papers)

    So your report of a "demolished need for an expanding Earth" are greatly exaggerated.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian
    So why are you citing a paper that argues for a contracting Earth when you are arguing the exact opposite? This is yet another example of you using references as a drunk uses lampposts I'm afraid. This is probably a symptom of the fact that you have no geological training and are unable to critically assess the literature.
    Don't get too much excited. I was looking for this paper not for his conclusions, which are totally irrelevant, but because it was listed by Meyerhoff as presenting evidence for an Asia/India connection during the early cretaceous. Even if their interpretations are wrong the evidence might be of interest for the present discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    24
    un-educated creationist,
    not here to argue, have inputs, stays within the framework of the bible for science research.

    over,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Then don't post in the science fora. Stick to Philosophy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by lot2do
    un-educated creationist,
    not here to argue, have inputs, stays within the framework of the bible for science research.

    over,
    are you implying that florian is a creationist ? surely even a cursory glance at his posts makes it obvious that's not the case ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    24
    sorry for the confusion, I don't think, or I'm not implying that Florian is a creationist. I was just stating my position on this subject.

    My reasearch is correlating information gleaned, and deducted from the written Word of God in wich science in my view finds its origin of what we are allowed to learn as creation. I am not here to argue like children, but only to ask questions and learn as much as I can from those of you who are higher educated than I.
    Of course I don't believe evolution theory, and so thus I only stick to proven facts that are not in conflict with physics, chemistry, geology, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by lot2do
    I am not here to argue like children,
    That is excellent news. However, I suspect that you may conflate 'arguing like children' with 'conducting a vigorous and robust debate in which nonsensical positions and logical flaws are roundly condemned'.

    Quote Originally Posted by lot2do
    My reasearch is correlating information gleaned, and deducted from the written Word of God in wich science in my view finds its origin of what we are allowed to learn as creation.
    I'm confident that if you reread this sentence you will realise that it makes no sense. Would you like to give it another try?

    Quote Originally Posted by lot2do
    Of course I don't believe evolution theory, and so thus I only stick to proven facts that are not in conflict with physics, chemistry, geology, etc.
    Hmm. Please tell me which aspect of evolutionary theory is conflict with physics, chemistry and geology. Remember that the evidence for evolution arose in large part from geology. The support for evolution was derived from biochemicak and genetic studies. You will be performing a miracle if you can actually demostrate a genuine conflict. (I'm not holding my breath.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    24
    As far as debate goes, that would be in a religious forum, I'm talking about science in its form that is, and has been lab verified, and theory is always good to consider. Although it is hard for both parties to come to an agreement and never will, I am not here to sway your belief becuase the arguement is on the religious level for both sides. "evolutionists" are also on level with religion because of the way "creationists" are treated by "evolutionists" (you don't see too many "creationists" as teachers in higher learning) Were not allowed by the reigning evolutionist mandate. I do not like using the term "evoultionist", and "creationist" for the reason it implies to each school; that the other is a big green ugly beast. if you have a reasoning mind science is good, if not then feelings go flying and there is bad social behavior over this forum.


    You can correlate, deduct, by gleaning historical accounts from the bible.


    I won't give you any food for arguement, even though we are polar opposites in our schools of thought and naturally creates conflict. nor am I here to try to prove to you as if your school was the bar. I won't fall for that vacuum. so what shall we say to each other? should we just shake our fists at each other? What forward progress could be made in science. Science cannot prove that there is a God, nor can it prove that there is no God. "you can't find God through science" He choses the mode of his revelation. So if a "creationist" is trying to prove God and makes every evolutionist mad in the process what has he accomplished? I'm not here to push God on you, thats his domain. instead I want to know a little more about the mid-ocean ridge! What have you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by lot2do
    instead I want to know a little more about the mid-ocean ridge! What have you?
    Then get a good textbook. I suggest you "Global tectonics" by Kearey, Klepeis and Vine.
    This discussion is already sufficiently complicated, we don't need it to be hijacked by creationists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    24
    ok then,
    last post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Then don't post in the science fora. Stick to Philosophy
    If it can be empirically answered it doesn't belong in philosophy. There's enough rubbish there as it is.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    I scanned a few papers from the 1983 proceedings of the Expanding Earth symposium in Sydney presenting evidence that Tethys has never been a wide ocean but transgressional epicontinental seas with narrow oceanic domain. A lot of references are included in these 3 papers.

    "Himalayan Orogeny and Earth Expansion" by Stöcklin
    "Late Palaeozoic to Early Mesozoic Palaeogeography of the Tethys Region" by Ahmad
    "Tethys, and her Forebears" by Carey.


    I made a single pdf with all three papers. It is freely downloadable here: 1983-AhmadStocklinCarey-EEsymposium-Tethys&ExpandingEarth

    Good reading!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    A nice bit of confirmation that plate tectonics--and in particular deep subduction of oceanic crust--is real:

    Walter et al. Deep Mantle Cycling of Oceanic Crust: Evidence from Diamonds and Their Mineral Inclusions. Science (2011)
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    A nice bit of confirmation that plate tectonics--and in particular deep subduction of oceanic crust--is real:

    Walter et al. Deep Mantle Cycling of Oceanic Crust: Evidence from Diamonds and Their Mineral Inclusions. Science (2011)
    I read that paper in september and Nope, burying basaltic lithosphere at depth around 1000 km is not specific to plate tectonics. Besides the origin of light carbon isotopic values is highly controversial.
    But for sure, it proves that deep source mantle upwellings exist, the later being very important for the mechanism of growth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,160
    which still does not have a method of matter production to drive it an d which does not match the core structure as it is known.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Besides, magma moving from the mantle to the surface does nothing to support an expanding earth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    A nice bit of confirmation that plate tectonics--and in particular deep subduction of oceanic crust--is real:

    Walter et al. Deep Mantle Cycling of Oceanic Crust: Evidence from Diamonds and Their Mineral Inclusions. Science (2011)
    I read that paper in september and Nope, burying basaltic lithosphere at depth around 1000 km is not specific to plate tectonics. Besides the origin of light carbon isotopic values is highly controversial.
    But for sure, it proves that deep source mantle upwellings exist, the later being very important for the mechanism of growth.
    We know that Carbon must be subducted, it's intrinsic to the carbon cycle, which interacts with the solid Earth.

    Then again I suppose if you don't worry about conservation laws you can make anything happen.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    More evidence for deep subduction. Folded slabs at the core mantle boundary.

    Hutko et al. Seismic detection of folded, subducted lithosphere at the core-mantle boundary. NATURE-LONDON- (2006)
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    More evidence for deep subduction. Folded slabs at the core mantle boundary.

    Hutko et al. Seismic detection of folded, subducted lithosphere at the core-mantle boundary. NATURE-LONDON- (2006)
    You should read more about tomographies and their interpretation: Slabs & plumes on command!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    We know that Carbon must be subducted, it's intrinsic to the carbon cycle, which interacts with the solid Earth.
    Carbon can be buried by the swelling mantle, but do you pretend you solved the controversial origin of light carbon values?


    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    Then again I suppose if you don't worry about conservation laws you can make anything happen.
    Do you claim that conservation laws are not respected in some way? Please, provide evidence supporting this claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    More evidence for deep subduction. Folded slabs at the core mantle boundary.

    Hutko et al. Seismic detection of folded, subducted lithosphere at the core-mantle boundary. NATURE-LONDON- (2006)
    You should read more about tomographies and their interpretation: Slabs & plumes on command!
    *Ahem*

    First: your point is?

    Second: this is not even a tomography study!! (You probably only read the first sentence of the abstract)

    You'd do well to learn a little seismology. Does this mean anything to you:

    Here, we present images of the D″ region beneath the Cocos plate using Kirchhoff migration of horizontally polarized shear waves...
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    We know that Carbon must be subducted, it's intrinsic to the carbon cycle, which interacts with the solid Earth.
    Carbon can be buried by the swelling mantle, but do you pretend you solved the controversial origin of light carbon values?
    The evidence is what it is. It's amazing how easily it fits into the paradigm of plate tectonics and is revealing of the true nature of the planet's Carbon cycle.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    Then again I suppose if you don't worry about conservation laws you can make anything happen.
    Do you claim that conservation laws are not respected in some way? Please, provide evidence supporting this claim.
    No, to the contrary I believe the conservation laws ARE respected in nature. You seem not to worry about them in positing an Earth with ever increasing mass. Why therefore would you worry about conserving Carbon in the Carbon cycle? Surely this increasing mass must take on some elemental form?
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    I scanned a few papers from the 1983 proceedings of the Expanding Earth symposium in Sydney presenting evidence that Tethys has never been a wide ocean but transgressional epicontinental seas with narrow oceanic domain. A lot of references are included in these 3 papers......
    This was an interesting link. You seem to imply that the references contained in these papers support the evidence against a wide, oceanic Tethys. As far as I can see they fall short of this. In the Stocklin paper, for example, the references fall into three categories:
    1) Papers by Carey, who is of course the primary expanding Earth proponent. (Or was; is he dead?)
    2) Pre-plate tectonic paradigm papers that will have a confined point of view.
    3) Later papers that are unlikely to contain anything other than material that the author has chosen to interpret as supporting the argument, but that do not independently support it.

    If I summarise, I am saying that while these papers are interesting they are from a symposium that failed to ignite significant interest in the expanding Earth hypothesis and contain papers whose references offer no real support for the theory. If you had intended these offerings to be part of a powerful argument I think they have failed. If you were just sharing some research, then thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    Second: this is not even a tomography study!! (You probably only read the first sentence of the abstract)
    So you don't know who is Don Anderson... That explains a lot...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    This was an interesting link. You seem to imply that the references contained in these papers support the evidence against a wide, oceanic Tethys. As far as I can see they fall short of this. In the Stocklin paper, for example, the references fall into three categories:
    1) Papers by Carey, who is of course the primary expanding Earth proponent. (Or was; is he dead?)
    Yes he sadly passed away about 10 years ago. Whoever the author was, the good question is: are the arguments valid, yes or no?


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    2) Pre-plate tectonic paradigm papers that will have a confined point of view.
    Again, are the arguments valid?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    3) Later papers that are unlikely to contain anything other than material that the author has chosen to interpret as supporting the argument, but that do not independently support it.
    Could you provide specifics regarding this last remark?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    Second: this is not even a tomography study!! (You probably only read the first sentence of the abstract)
    So you don't know who is Don Anderson... That explains a lot...
    What?? Of course I know who Don Anderson is -- I've met him (I doubt you have somehow!) -- but that has nothing to do with it.

    In response to a paper I referenced which imaged reflections and scatterings from the D" (by Kirchhoff migration), you countered with a somewhat outdated "tomography is untrustworthy" article. (Which incidentally you seem to go back to again and again when disregarding any form of seismic evidence which goes clearly against your favoured hypothesis.) There is more to seismology than just tomography. The point is, the paper I referenced is not a tomography paper. You criticism is off the mark and rendered null. The fact that you then inferred I don't know who Don Anderson is not only further demonstrates your ignorance, but further shows your tendency for logical fallacy by your obvious attempt to reach for the argument from authority.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Whoever the author was, the good question is: are the arguments valid, yes or no?
    I agree that the quality of the argument is central to acceptance, or rejection of any hypothesis (with the proviso that evidence is a central element in any argument). However, while one should not fall victim to the Argument from Authority fallacy, one must also consider that when many perceptive investigators reach similar conclusions on a concept, using self consistent observations, then the 'lone voice' in opposition may well not be a Galileo, but a Johann Becher.

    The underlying point of my queries was this: you seemed to be offering your linked papers and their associated references as substantive material weighing in on the side of an expanding Earth. If this was your intent I wished to point out that it was not valid as an approach. In the case of the Carey references it is equivalent to saying "There is a lot of support for Carey's expanding Earth hypothesis and here is some of it: look at all these papers by Carey."


    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    2) Pre-plate tectonic paradigm papers that will have a confined point of view.
    Again, are the arguments valid?
    The arguments that they contain will not be arguments for an expanding Earth. The arguments will relate to something else entirely. but they will contain evidence that Carey and others may use to support an expanding Earth case (or in this case a narrow Tethys case).

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    3) Later papers that are unlikely to contain anything other than material that the author has chosen to interpret as supporting the argument, but that do not independently support it.
    Could you provide specifics regarding this last remark?
    Let me give you one example. If you wish more I shall be happy to provide them, but I think this will illustrate my thinking.

    In the Stocklin paper he references Dewey and Burke (1973) to suupport the possible thickening of the Tibetan plateau.
    But neither the thickening of the Tibetan plateau, nor the explanation offered by Dewey and Burke relate directly to the width of the Tethys. The implication of your original post is, as I noted before, "look at all these references that support expanding Earth". If you did not mean to imply that, it's fine, but if you did, then I think you were being misleading.
    Last edited by marnixR; November 9th, 2011 at 11:21 AM. Reason: restored last quote for better readability
    Paleoichneum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    In response to a paper I referenced which imaged reflections and scatterings from the D" (by Kirchhoff migration), you countered with a somewhat outdated "tomography is untrustworthy" article. (Which incidentally you seem to go back to again and again when disregarding any form of seismic evidence which goes clearly against your favoured hypothesis.)
    Ok, I read the paper and this is not a tomography since they are looking at scatterers. But their interpretation of the scatterer is wishful thinking. It is just a way to explain the data, not the absolute truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,160
    Science does not deal with "Absolute truth" it deals with evidence and ways to explain the evidence.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The underlying point of my queries was this: you seemed to be offering your linked papers and their associated references as substantive material weighing in on the side of an expanding Earth. If this was your intent I wished to point out that it was not valid as an approach. In the case of the Carey references it is equivalent to saying "There is a lot of support for Carey's expanding Earth hypothesis and here is some of it: look at all these papers by Carey."
    No I meant: "There is a lot of support for the expanding Earth hypothesis and here is some of it: look at all these papers by Carey."

    The argument presented by Carey exist. If you question their validity, you must explain why.


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    In the Stocklin paper he references Dewey and Burke (1973) to suupport the possible thickening of the Tibetan plateau.
    But neither the thickening of the Tibetan plateau, nor the explanation offered by Dewey and Burke relate directly to the width of the Tethys.
    It does, because thickening of the Tibetan Plateau is assumed to be the result of continental collision (well "continental subduction" is the new terminology), which implies a reduction in width of Tethys. If one can explain the tibetan Plateau and bordering chains (Himalaya, Kunlun) without collision, then it is no more necessary to evoke the closing of a wide Tethys, and this can reconcile both the paleontological and geophysical data in the unified framework of the Expanding earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Science does not deal with "Absolute truth" it deals with evidence and ways to explain the evidence.
    I agree, to consider one way to explain the evidence as the unique way is a fatal error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,160
    you are the one who stated science should be looking for the "absolute truth"
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    you are the one who stated science should be looking for the "absolute truth"
    Not at all. You misinterpreted. I pointed that Billiard seems to believe that the interpretation of the scatterers was the unique possible interpretation, a kind of absolute truth. this is evidently not the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    The argument presented by Carey exist. If you question their validity, you must explain why.
    Why? The explanations of plate tectonics are more convincing in the depth, breadth, detail and interlocking of the evidence.


    ......thickening of the Tibetan Plateau is assumed to be the result of continental collision (well "continental subduction" is the new terminology), which implies a reduction in width of Tethys. If one can explain the tibetan Plateau and bordering chains (Himalaya, Kunlun) without collision, then it is no more necessary to evoke the closing of a wide Tethys, and this can reconcile both the paleontological and geophysical data in the unified framework of the Expanding earth.
    All well and good, but the Dewey and Burke paper specifically posits continental collision. Here are some extracts from the abstract:

    "Extensive terranes of basement reactivation are interpreted as resulting from crustal thickening following continental collision."

    "...we consider that continental collision is followed by crustal thickening to accomodate further plate convergence..."

    And from the main text:

    "The Asian continent and the Indian sub-continent collided during the Oligocene, about 37 m.y. ago along a zone marked by the Indus suture."


    So Dewey and Burke are whole hearted supporters of the thickening of the Tibetan plateau by continental collision and subduction. Your post implies that their paper contests this view. It does not. Your post is therefore at best misleading and at worst dishonest.
    Last edited by John Galt; November 22nd, 2011 at 07:23 AM. Reason: correct typos
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    The argument presented by Carey exist. If you question their validity, you must explain why.
    Why? The explanations of plate tectonics are more convincing in the depth, breadth, detail and interlocking of the evidence.
    The arguments presented by Carey refute plate tectonics and you tell me that the explanations of plate tectonics are more convincing? This does not make any sense. Please be more specific to clarify your position.


    So Dewey and Burke are whole hearted supporters of the thickening of the Tibetan plateau by continental collision and subduction. Your post implies that their paper contests this view. It does not. Your post is therefore at best misleading and at worst dishonest.
    Pardon me? Do you understand that I was making the general comment that there is an obvious relation between the mechanism of continental thickening and the estimation of the width of Tethys? I was not referring to the content of Dewey & Burke 1973 which I totally ignore. I also have to check the context of Stocklin's citation of their paper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #288  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    I was not referring to the content of Dewey & Burke 1973 which I totally ignore
    Is it this paper? Tibetan, Variscan, and Precambrian Basement Reactivation - JSTOR
    And in which Stocklin paper is it cited?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #289  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    you are the one who stated science should be looking for the "absolute truth"
    Not at all. You misinterpreted. I pointed that Billiard seems to believe that the interpretation of the scatterers was the unique possible interpretation, a kind of absolute truth. this is evidently not the case.
    No, please, I was simply laying out a bit more evidence in favour of plate tectonics. I simply corrected you when you clearly did not understand what type of data you were looking at. The interpretation was just that, an interpretation, and not even mine!
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #290  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    The arguments presented by Carey refute plate tectonics and you tell me that the explanations of plate tectonics are more convincing? This does not make any sense. Please be more specific to clarify your position.
    I find Carey's arguments weak in comparison with the volume of varied and interlocked evidence in favour of plate tectonics.


    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    So Dewey and Burke are whole hearted supporters of the thickening of the Tibetan plateau by continental collision and subduction. Your post implies that their paper contests this view. It does not. Your post is therefore at best misleading and at worst dishonest.
    Pardon me? Do you understand that I was making the general comment that there is an obvious relation between the mechanism of continental thickening and the estimation of the width of Tethys? I was not referring to the content of Dewey & Burke 1973 which I totally ignore. I also have to check the context of Stocklin's citation of their paper.
    You are seeking to demonstrate that there is much evidence in support of an expanding Earth. I am pointing out that the authors cited by Stocklin have no doubt that their evidence supports plate tectonics. Stocklin's dissenting view is just that. Your original post seemed to take the position "look at all this work supporting Carey's view". I am simply pointing out that that is misleading. This is not rocket science.
    Last edited by John Galt; November 23rd, 2011 at 08:42 AM. Reason: Correct mismatched quote brackets
    billiards likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #291  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    I was not referring to the content of Dewey & Burke 1973 which I totally ignore
    Is it this paper? Tibetan, Variscan, and Precambrian Basement Reactivation - JSTOR
    And in which Stocklin paper is it cited?
    Yes, that is the paper.

    You ask, which Stocklin paper is it cited in? Do you even read your own posts?

    I scanned a few papers from the 1983 proceedings of the Expanding Earth symposium in Sydney presenting evidence that Tethys has never been a wide ocean but transgressional epicontinental seas with narrow oceanic domain. A lot of references are included in these 3 papers.

    "Himalayan Orogeny and Earth Expansion" by Stöcklin
    "Late Palaeozoic to Early Mesozoic Palaeogeography of the Tethys Region" by Ahmad
    "Tethys, and her Forebears" by Carey.
    How many other Stocklin papers have you mentioned in this thread? More to the point, how many other Stocklin papers relating to the issue I am concerned about have you mentioned in this thread?
    Answer: none. so, I ask again - do you even know what you are posting?

    Again I draw your attention to the sentence in red. You make the clear implication that those references support the notion that Tethys was never wide. It does not matter if you did not intend that, that is how it comes across. Will you please acknowledge that this is misleading so that we can move one.

    And to put it another way, how can you say that you are "totally ignoring the Dewey and Burke paper, when you have previously implicitly recommended it by drawing our attention to it as one of the lot of references included in these three papers?
    Last edited by John Galt; November 23rd, 2011 at 09:00 AM. Reason: Add a further paragrpah
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #292  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    No, please, I was simply laying out a bit more evidence in favour of plate tectonics.
    And you persist! This is not evidence in favor of plate tectonics! This is evidence that there are scatterers near the core-mantle boundary. Do you understand the difference?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #293  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I find Carey's arguments weak in comparison with the volume of varied and interlocked evidence in favour of plate tectonics.
    You have to be more specific than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    You ask, which Stocklin paper is it cited in? Do you even read your own posts?

    Of course I do. But when I looked at the Dewey & Burke 1973 reference in what I thought was the list of Stocklin's references, I slipped to Ahmad paper which is next in the pdf document. No surprise that I could not find it. My mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    You are seeking to demonstrate that there is much evidence in support of an expanding Earth. I am pointing out that the authors cited by Stocklin have no doubt that their evidence supports plate tectonics. Stocklin's dissenting view is just that. Your original post seemed to take the position "look at all this work supporting Carey's view". I am simply pointing out that that is misleading. This is not rocket science.
    You are truly misleading. Page 127, Stocklin cited Dewey & Burke 1973 in a paragraph about folding without crustal shortening to highlight that "Tibet is not a high plateau, but a composite fold belt". So he clearly cited Dewey & Burke 1973 for the observation that Tibet is all about folding, and nothing else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #294  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    No, please, I was simply laying out a bit more evidence in favour of plate tectonics.
    And you persist! This is not evidence in favor of plate tectonics! This is evidence that there are scatterers near the core-mantle boundary. Do you understand the difference?
    Well look we have our very own Sherlock Holmes. Seismic scatterers were used as evidence to show that were seismic scatterers! And the Nobel prize goes to ...

    Please.

    This is the data and any inferences drawn from it are bound to be uncertain. However, the evidence is in favour of plates being subducted to the CMB. Don't take this without looking at the broader context, the study is over a known subduction zone with tomography showing fast velocities with slab geometry all the way down to the CMB. Note also I said "in favour of plate tectonics", there are many other branches of evidence that are also in favour of plate tectonics, their consistent unified story is what delivers the strength of the argument.
    Don't bother visiting my Earth Sciences forum, it died a death due to lack of love
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #295  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I find Carey's arguments weak in comparison with the volume of varied and interlocked evidence in favour of plate tectonics.
    You have to be more specific than that.

    No I don't. You are the one proposing an alternative view that has not offered geologists a better way of explaining observations in their particular fields. They don't find Carey's explanation convincing. I don't find Carey's explanation convincing. What do you find difficult to understand abotu that.

    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    You are seeking to demonstrate that there is much evidence in support of an expanding Earth. I am pointing out that the authors cited by Stocklin have no doubt that their evidence supports plate tectonics. Stocklin's dissenting view is just that. Your original post seemed to take the position "look at all this work supporting Carey's view". I am simply pointing out that that is misleading. This is not rocket science.
    You are truly misleading. Page 127, Stocklin cited Dewey & Burke 1973 in a paragraph about folding without crustal shortening to highlight that "Tibet is not a high plateau, but a composite fold belt". So he clearly cited Dewey & Burke 1973 for the observation that Tibet is all about folding, and nothing else.
    Florian, what is it that Dewey and Burke think caused the folding? The collision of India with Asia. Dewey and Burke leave us in no doubt, as per my earlier quotes from their paper, that the thickening of the Tibetan plateau is a consequence of plate tectonics. You continue, even here, to imply that they are making statements in support of Carey's expanding Earth view. That is either misguided or downright deceitful. You do not seem like an uneducated person so you are forcing me to suspect the latter.
    Last edited by John Galt; November 25th, 2011 at 02:03 AM. Reason: Correct quote brackets
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #296  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    Please.
    Please what? This is one interpretation of what these scatterers could be.

    Quote Originally Posted by billiards View Post
    Note also I said "in favour of plate tectonics", there are many other branches of evidence that are also in favour of plate tectonics, their consistent unified story is what delivers the strength of the argument.
    Most of the evidence you claim to favor plate tectonics also favors expansion tectonics. This is evident knowing that expansion tectonics supersedes plate tectonics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #297  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    No I don't. You are the one proposing an alternative view that has not offered geologists a better way of explaining observations in their particular fields. They don't find Carey's explanation convincing. I don't find Carey's explanation convincing. What do you find difficult to understand abotu that.


    What? of course you must be more specific to sustain a viable discussion! You cannot just say "I don't find Carey's explanation convincing". You must explain what specific argument you find is not convincing and why.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    You are truly misleading. Page 127, Stocklin cited Dewey & Burke 1973 in a paragraph about folding without crustal shortening to highlight that "Tibet is not a high plateau, but a composite fold belt". So he clearly cited Dewey & Burke 1973 for the observation that Tibet is all about folding, and nothing else.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Florian, what is it that Dewey and Burke think caused the folding? The collision of India with Asia. Dewey and Burke leave us in no doubt, as per my earlier quotes from their paper, that the thickening of the Tibetan plateau is a consequence of plate tectonics. You continue, even here, to imply that they are making statements in support of Carey's expanding Earth view. That is either misguided or downright deceitful. You do not seem like an uneducated person so you are forcing me to suspect the latter.

    For once and for all, Stocklin cites Dewey & Burke to highlight that Tibet is formed by folding. He cites the observation, not the interpretation made by Dewey & Burke from that observation. Stocklin explains that folding does not imply true shortening. As a matter of fact, tibet formed by successive and multiple extrusions of diapiric material, exactly like the intrusive lobes of a salt diapir! See this illustration of the Heide Salt Diapir:




    See the folding? See the overthrusting (on the right side)? But there is no true shortening.
    For tibet, these intrusions push the intruded lithosphere outward, leading to overthrusting, analogous to what happens on the side of the salt diapir. So despite overthrusting, there is a net increase in surface of the region because of the large amount of newly emplaced material. So there is really folding, but no shortening.
    I understand that these concepts are new to you because you're not familiar with expansion tectonics (rare are those who are), but did you got it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #298  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    For once and for all, Stocklin cites Dewey & Burke to highlight that Tibet is formed by folding. He cites the observation, not the interpretation made by Dewey & Burke from that observation. Stocklin explains that folding does not imply true shortening.
    Exactly. It is an interpretation by Stocklin. Your posts imply that Dewey and Burke support this interpretation. That is misleading and your persistent refusal to acknowledge this calls into question your honesty, or your intellect.

    What? of course you must be more specific to sustain a viable discussion! You cannot just say "I don't find Carey's explanation convincing". You must explain what specific argument you find is not convincing and why.
    It is the totality of his argument that fails completely to offer the range of solutions provided for by plate tectonics. It is the same reason I find the Modern Synthesis more convincing thant Young Earth Creationism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #299  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    For once and for all, Stocklin cites Dewey & Burke to highlight that Tibet is formed by folding. He cites the observation, not the interpretation made by Dewey & Burke from that observation. Stocklin explains that folding does not imply true shortening.
    Exactly. It is an interpretation by Stocklin. Your posts imply that Dewey and Burke support this interpretation. That is misleading and your persistent refusal to acknowledge this calls into question your honesty, or your intellect.
    I think I clearly explained the case (so did Stocklin), but of course, you can call me an idiot if that makes you feel happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    What? of course you must be more specific to sustain a viable discussion! You cannot just say "I don't find Carey's explanation convincing". You must explain what specific argument you find is not convincing and why.
    It is the totality of his argument that fails completely to offer the range of solutions provided for by plate tectonics.
    Isn't it curious that you persist in evading with vague general comments instead of addressing specific arguments? It does not look much as a scientific approach of a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    It is the same reason I find the Modern Synthesis more convincing thant Young Earth Creationism.
    Creationism and plate tectonics share the same flawed perception that things do not evolve much. And both are wrong, because we have indisputable evidence that life and planets can evolve dramatically.
    Of course, you're free to stay with your probably comfortable/reassuring beliefs that Earth did not deeply evolved. But don't call it "science".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #300  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by florian View Post
    Creationism and plate tectonics share the same flawed perception that things do not evolve much.
    Wait, what? In plate tectonics, the Earth is constantly evolving, just as I suppose it is in expansion theory. The fundamental difference is that in plate tectonics there is no huge gain in mass that goes unexplained - most of the other mechanisms are pretty much the same. "Lithospheric material couldn't reach the lower mantle but a planet can randomly double in mass" is a very weak argument.
    "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  
     

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •