Science and Technology news... :: View topic - A question for Stuart on the geo-logic of Plate Tectonics

don findlay · Guest

Touted as "the means by which plates move past each other", transform
faults *by Plate Tectonics own animations* -
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/transoffsets.html
DO NOT displace the spreading ridges (Fig 2 and click the links)

So what is the Plate Tectonic Mechanism whereby all the spreading
ridges become offset, if not by transform fault movement?

The question is moreover focussed by there being no rotation of any
segments http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/noplates.html
....and further, that they are all locked as one away from the ridge -
one Plate.

What displaces the spreading ridges?

Plate Tectonics - Lobotomic drivel
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/drivel.html

don findlay · Guest

Uncle Al wrote:

[quote]don findlay wrote:

Touted as "the means by which plates move past each other",
[snip crap]

GPS montors it day by day. Tell us why observation is wrong, idiot.
[/quote]
(One big stooge massaging the other.)
Why do you say they>re wrong?
Read the question.
Dope.

[quote]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2[/quote]

Uncle Al · Guest

don findlay wrote:
[quote]
Touted as "the means by which plates move past each other",
[snip crap][/quote]

GPS montors it day by day. Tell us why observation is wrong, idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

J. Taylor · Guest

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:42:16 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:

[quote]don findlay wrote:

Touted as "the means by which plates move past each other",
[snip crap]

GPS montors it day by day. Tell us why observation is wrong, idiot.
[/quote]
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

Which observation, you dolt?

GPS has movement many degrees opposite to the age pattern on the ocean
floor. Do you think the massive convection cell moving the Pacific
plate just turned directions for GPS?

What you want to bet, because of this, you do not know what you are
observing?

Idiot!

JT

Guest

On Oct 19, 5:19 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:42:16 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net
[/quote]
*>
*> http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

John,

Do you have a zoom for that one link ( above )
Thanks

To dear Uncle Al

By the way Uncle Al practices Kosher Geology ... in Kosher Geology the
Earth is where & how it is since Birthday and will remain put to
Judgment Day,
Hence it is obvious in Kosher Geology that the movements of the Crust,
irrefutably recorded from Satellites & with a constant volume Earth,
should conduct to the fringe of moving part being eaten and digested
by the Mantle. The Creation of the Earth on present orbit is a
article of faith in Kosher Geology as well in the other JIC sects of
Slamists and Bristians Now I admit some variations of the Creation
tale have been validated by the so-called Geology science explaining
that the Earth was "created" in fact through accretion of random
banging planetoids ! This looks more serious & more sci000ntific
indeed.

The problem with Uncle Al as well as for Stuart & Georges is that
drifting from Kosher Geology put those dudes and related articles of
Faith completely off balance.... as well as the refutation of
Glaciations, volcanic origin of CO2 sedimentations

As a consequence one should speak of Celtic Geology ( alternatively
Franc & German ) whereby reality & the consequence of studying reality
should be infeoded to the JIC sects dogmas & hence to the ignorant
sectarian Rabbids, Preeeests & Mollards of said JIC sects

Yours sincerely

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Founder of the True Geology

hanson · Guest

Hey, Jean Paul, common ca va?
I just love your religo/ethinc geology... ahahaha...
Tell me, in a few lines, what is that geologally
fanatic Findlay whining about. He wrote dozens
of pages, contradicts himself, except that he wants
donations... Give me your take on it... ... hanson
[quote]
sir.jpturcaud@neuf.fr> wrote in message[/quote]
news:f69b619a-4847-4f67-b765-e113d33f858b@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 19, 5:19 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:42:16 -0700, Uncle rect-Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net

John Taylor wrote[/quote]
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html .... [1]
John,
[quote]
Jean-Paul <sir.jpturcaud@neuf.fr> wrote:[/quote]
Do you have a zoom for that one link ( above )
Thanks
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
JP, in the chart [1], the movement arrows are labeled
by 3 letters. Underneath the chart there>s an array
of boxes with these 3 letters. Click on one and you>ll
see the shift/drift down to the millimeter/year.
[quote]
Jean-Paul <sir.jpturcaud@neuf.fr> wrote:[/quote]
To dear Uncle rect-Al
[quote]
By the way Uncle rect-Al practices Kosher Geology ... in Kosher[/quote]
Geology the Earth is where & how it is since Birthday and will
remain put to Judgment Day,
Hence it is obvious in Kosher Geology that the movements of the Crust,
irrefutably recorded from Satellites & with a constant volume Earth,
should conduct to the fringe of moving part being eaten and digested
by the Mantle. The Creation of the Earth on present orbit is a
article of faith in Kosher Geology as well in the other JIC sects of
Slamists and Bristians Now I admit some variations of the Creation
tale have been validated by the so-called Geology science explaining
that the Earth was "created" in fact through accretion of random
banging planetoids ! This looks more serious & more sci000ntific
indeed.

The problem with Uncle Al as well as for Stuart & Georges is that
drifting from Kosher Geology put those dudes and related articles of
Faith completely off balance.... as well as the refutation of
Glaciations, volcanic origin of CO2 sedimentations

As a consequence one should speak of Celtic Geology ( alternatively
Franc & German ) whereby reality & the consequence of studying reality
should be infeoded to the JIC sects dogmas & hence to the ignorant
sectarian Rabbids, Preeeests & Mollards of said JIC sects

Yours sincerely

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Founder of the True Geology

Stuart · Guest

On Oct 18, 5:19 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:42:16 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net
wrote:

don findlay wrote:

Touted as "the means by which plates move past each other",
[snip crap]

GPS montors it day by day. Tell us why observation is wrong, idiot.

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

Which observation, you dolt?

GPS has movement many degrees opposite to the age pattern on the ocean
floor. Do you think the massive convection cell moving the Pacific
plate just turned directions for GPS?
[/quote]
Its rather hard to combine those two maps in your head.
[quote]
What you want to bet, because of this, you do not know what you are
observing?
[/quote]
I>ll bet he does. This shows the predictions of the NUVEL-1A
plate motion model based on geological and plate kinematic data
vs. current GPS measurments.

http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Stuart

J. Taylor · Guest

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com>
wrote:

[quote]On Oct 18, 5:19 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:42:16 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net
wrote:

don findlay wrote:

Touted as "the means by which plates move past each other",
[snip crap]

GPS montors it day by day. Tell us why observation is wrong, idiot.

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

Which observation, you dolt?

GPS has movement many degrees opposite to the age pattern on the ocean
floor. Do you think the massive convection cell moving the Pacific
plate just turned directions for GPS?

Its rather hard to combine those two maps in your head.
[/quote]
Combining them is not so hard, what is hard is making GPS fit, which
it does not.

[quote]
What you want to bet, because of this, you do not know what you are
observing?

I>ll bet he does. This shows the predictions of the NUVEL-1A
plate motion model based on geological and plate kinematic data
vs. current GPS measurments.

http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
[/quote]
http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/swpactect.html

Which still shows GPS with movement different than the age pattern.
Clearly you wish to ignore what does not fit to make it appear you
know something, which shows you do not.

JT

Stuart · Guest

On Oct 23, 5:54 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 23, 4:01 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:07:12 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 22, 5:59 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:12:23 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 22, 4:29 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 22, 10:35 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:14:47 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 21, 3:15 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:42:13 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 21, 10:55 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 20, 6:25 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 18, 5:19 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:42:16 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net
wrote:

don findlay wrote:

Touted as "the means by which plates move past each other",
[snip crap]

GPS montors it day by day. Tell us why observation is wrong, idiot.

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

Which observation, you dolt?

GPS has movement many degrees opposite to the age pattern on the ocean
floor. Do you think the massive convection cell moving the Pacific
plate just turned directions for GPS?

Its rather hard to combine those two maps in your head.

Combining them is not so hard, what is hard is making GPS fit, which
it does not.

What you want to bet, because of this, you do not know what you are
observing?

I>ll bet he does. This shows the predictions of the NUVEL-1A
plate motion model based on geological and plate kinematic data
vs. current GPS measurments.

http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/swpactect.html

Which still shows GPS with movement different than the age pattern.

You said "GPS has movement many degrees opposite to the age pattern on
the ocean
floor." On this map only the site in Japan is "many degrees off" and
if you
read the information you would know that GPS receiver is in an area
undergoing
active deformation apart from plate motion.

Clearly you wish to ignore what does not fit to make it appear you
know something, which shows you do not.

Clearly, you can>t read, or understand what you>re looking at. Or
maybe your
criteria for "many degrees off" is much different than what most
people would think.

Silly goose.

http://w3.gorge.net/jota/_jt/gps_ca.jpg

http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/swpactect.html

Both Maui and Huahine for GPS are many degrees, almost 90, opposite
the age pattern on the floor of the Pacific.

So go right ahead and explain how these GPS movements produced the age
pattern of the floor of the Pacific.

We both know it did not, and since plates move as one great big
monolith then the whole Pacific plate, must have just turned
directions just when we started using GPS.

A better explanation, the floor of the Pacific is NOT a plate, nor is
it moving as a monolithic whole, and the GPS for Maui and Huahine are
relative movements NOT representative movements for a plate.

JT

Does the expression "No net-Torque frame of reference" mean anything
to you?

This is hilarious. We have Don F lecturing me on why relative motions
are
"not real" and now we have JT telling us that "absolute motions" are
not real.

Have no idea how you got "absolute motions" out of "NOT representative
movements for a plate"

But it does distract from the real issue, GPS showing something
different than the age pattern

No it doesn>t. You have absolutely no idea what it is you>re doing.
First of all Nuvel 1-A is a "current plate motion model". GPS can only
tell you "current plate motions". Moreover they tell you plate motions
in
an absolute frame of reference. Technically, Nuvel 1-A is an average
plate
motion for the past 2.5 million years or so.

Isochrons will only strictly follow the relative motions. In an
absolute frame of
reference that relationship is not guaranteed to hold.

Furthermore, if NUVEL 1-A is wrong, then clearly GPS is wrong too. For
GPS doesn>t
follow along what you>d expect from the isochrons either.

Could you be more silly?

Really? So the Pacific plate is still going in the same direction it
has for the last 180 MY? Still moving as a monolithic whole heading
for the same subduction zones?

It is not me that is being silly, but you attempting to baffle with
bullshit.

No, what I wrote is not bullshit.
Yes, you are clearly baffled.

But that is not my fault. None of this discussion has anything to do
with what the Pacific Plate was doing 180myr ago. You raised the issue
of current plate motions (whether you realize that is another issue)
by bringing up GPS. Do you remember what you post?

I merely showed that plate motions averaged over the past 2.5 million
yrs
in the no-net Torque frame of reference are very consistent with GPS.
The only
comparison that makes any scientific sense is to compare GPS
measurements with
"instantaneous" plate motions derived from plate kinematic data. GPS
and plate kinematic data
like fracture zone azimuths, isochrons, etc are completely independent
data sets.

Hence the agreement between GPS and NUVEL-1A is a stunning
confirmation of PT.

Yes, I was confused, now it is made clear. GPS is in an agreement
with a model which confirms the theory it was built from. Talk about
circular reasoning.

The NUVEL-1A model is not built from GPS.

I made that clear up above. There is no circular logic.
NUVEL-1A is built from plate kinematic data like fracture zone
azimuths, isochrons, etc. I repeat NUVEL-1A does not use GPS.

Need I be more clear? There is no circularity.

Do you understand that yet? If you still persist in thinking
there is circularity here, there is no point in continuing this
discussion with you.

So it is NUVEL-1A that does not match the age pattern?

It does. It is based on the age pattern over the last 2.5 million
years.

And it is GPS
which matches NUVEL-1A which confirms PT?

GPS tells us how the plates are actually moving right now.

That NUVEL-1A agrees with GPS is quite remarkable.

If so, then they all do not match the age pattern.

They do.

Which begs the
question, what planet were they working with?

Earth.

And the bottom line, what you are so desperately trying to avoid, GPS
to day, NUVEL-1A for the last 2.5 million years show a direction
DIFFERENT than the direction for the previous 180 MY.

The Euler pole the Pacific plate has changed several times.

Which means we just happened to be so fortunate to be living at a time
when the massive convection cell under the Pacific plate just happened
to turn directions.

? The Pacific Plate is part of one or more convection cells. If it
changes so must they.

If it is multiple convection cells then it would have multiple ridges
and subduction zones, and then the plate would not move as a whole
[/quote]
Not necessarily.
[quote]
Are you claiming convection for the Pacific works some way different
than how convection, which can be observed, works?

[/quote]
Not at all. You are simply uninformed as to the structure convection
can take
depending on heating mode, rheology etc.

[quote]Maybe, you think they are in radio contact with each other to
coordinate their effort.
[/quote]
Not radio contact. Does the expression "viscous coupling" mean
anything to you?

Didn>t think so.

[quote]
Whatever the case, it is special pleading.

[/quote]
Um no, it is not.

Invoking unobserved processes that flatly contradict the laws of
physics
is the essence of special pleading.

Hmm ... that>s what EE does.

Stuart

J. Taylor · Guest

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdakine@aol.com>
wrote:

[quote]On Oct 23, 5:54 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:51:41 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 23, 4:01 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:07:12 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 22, 5:59 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:12:23 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 22, 4:29 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 22, 10:35 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:14:47 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 21, 3:15 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:42:13 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 21, 10:55 am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 20, 6:25 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com
wrote:

On Oct 18, 5:19 pm, J. Taylor <nchiw...@embarqmail.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:42:16 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net
wrote:

don findlay wrote:

Touted as "the means by which plates move past each other",
[snip crap]

GPS montors it day by day. Tell us why observation is wrong, idiot.

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

Which observation, you dolt?

GPS has movement many degrees opposite to the age pattern on the ocean
floor. Do you think the massive convection cell moving the Pacific
plate just turned directions for GPS?

Its rather hard to combine those two maps in your head.

Combining them is not so hard, what is hard is making GPS fit, which
it does not.

What you want to bet, because of this, you do not know what you are
observing?

I>ll bet he does. This shows the predictions of the NUVEL-1A
plate motion model based on geological and plate kinematic data
vs. current GPS measurments.

http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/slrtecto.html

You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/swpactect.html

Which still shows GPS with movement different than the age pattern.

You said "GPS has movement many degrees opposite to the age pattern on
the ocean
floor." On this map only the site in Japan is "many degrees off" and
if you
read the information you would know that GPS receiver is in an area
undergoing
active deformation apart from plate motion.

Clearly you wish to ignore what does not fit to make it appear you
know something, which shows you do not.

Clearly, you can>t read, or understand what you>re looking at. Or
maybe your
criteria for "many degrees off" is much different than what most
people would think.

Silly goose.

http://w3.gorge.net/jota/_jt/gps_ca.jpg

http://cddis.nasa.gov/926/swpactect.html

Both Maui and Huahine for GPS are many degrees, almost 90, opposite
the age pattern on the floor of the Pacific.

So go right ahead and explain how these GPS movements produced the age
pattern of the floor of the Pacific.

We both know it did not, and since plates move as one great big
monolith then the whole Pacific plate, must have just turned
directions just when we started using GPS.

A better explanation, the floor of the Pacific is NOT a plate, nor is
it moving as a monolithic whole, and the GPS for Maui and Huahine are
relative movements NOT representative movements for a plate.

JT

Does the expression "No net-Torque frame of reference" mean anything
to you?

This is hilarious. We have Don F lecturing me on why relative motions
are
"not real" and now we have JT telling us that "absolute motions" are
not real.

Have no idea how you got "absolute motions" out of "NOT representative
movements for a plate"

But it does distract from the real issue, GPS showing something
different than the age pattern

No it doesn>t. You have absolutely no idea what it is you>re doing.
First of all Nuvel 1-A is a "current plate motion model". GPS can only
tell you "current plate motions". Moreover they tell you plate motions
in
an absolute frame of reference. Technically, Nuvel 1-A is an average
plate
motion for the past 2.5 million years or so.

Isochrons will only strictly follow the relative motions. In an
absolute frame of
reference that relationship is not guaranteed to hold.

Furthermore, if NUVEL 1-A is wrong, then clearly GPS is wrong too. For
GPS doesn>t
follow along what you>d expect from the isochrons either.

Could you be more silly?

Really? So the Pacific plate is still going in the same direction it
has for the last 180 MY? Still moving as a monolithic whole heading
for the same subduction zones?

It is not me that is being silly, but you attempting to baffle with
bullshit.

No, what I wrote is not bullshit.
Yes, you are clearly baffled.

But that is not my fault. None of this discussion has anything to do
with what the Pacific Plate was doing 180myr ago. You raised the issue
of current plate motions (whether you realize that is another issue)
by bringing up GPS. Do you remember what you post?

I merely showed that plate motions averaged over the past 2.5 million
yrs
in the no-net Torque frame of reference are very consistent with GPS.
The only
comparison that makes any scientific sense is to compare GPS
measurements with
"instantaneous" plate motions derived from plate kinematic data. GPS
and plate kinematic data
like fracture zone azimuths, isochrons, etc are completely independent
data sets.

Hence the agreement between GPS and NUVEL-1A is a stunning
confirmation of PT.

Yes, I was confused, now it is made clear. GPS is in an agreement
with a model which confirms the theory it was built from. Talk about
circular reasoning.

The NUVEL-1A model is not built from GPS.

I made that clear up above. There is no circular logic.
NUVEL-1A is built from plate kinematic data like fracture zone
azimuths, isochrons, etc. I repeat NUVEL-1A does not use GPS.

Need I be more clear? There is no circularity.

Do you understand that yet? If you still persist in thinking
there is circularity here, there is no point in continuing this
discussion with you.

So it is NUVEL-1A that does not match the age pattern?

It does. It is based on the age pattern over the last 2.5 million
years.

And it is GPS
which matches NUVEL-1A which confirms PT?

GPS tells us how the plates are actually moving right now.

That NUVEL-1A agrees with GPS is quite remarkable.

If so, then they all do not match the age pattern.

They do.

Which begs the
question, what planet were they working with?

Earth.

And the bottom line, what you are so desperately trying to avoid, GPS
to day, NUVEL-1A for the last 2.5 million years show a direction
DIFFERENT than the direction for the previous 180 MY.

The Euler pole the Pacific plate has changed several times.

Which means we just happened to be so fortunate to be living at a time
when the massive convection cell under the Pacific plate just happened
to turn directions.

? The Pacific Plate is part of one or more convection cells. If it
changes so must they.

If it is multiple convection cells then it would have multiple ridges
and subduction zones, and then the plate would not move as a whole

Not necessarily.
[/quote]
Am sure there is nothing PT cannot do, but the fact remains there is
nothing in the age pattern which shows a change of direction

[quote]
Are you claiming convection for the Pacific works some way different
than how convection, which can be observed, works?

Not at all. You are simply uninformed as to the structure convection
can take
depending on heating mode, rheology etc.
[/quote]
Since none of this has been observed inside the Earth, you are simply
holding it on faith.

[quote]
Maybe, you think they are in radio contact with each other to
coordinate their effort.

Not radio contact. Does the expression "viscous coupling" mean
anything to you?

Didn>t think so.
[/quote]
This has been observed inside the Earth?

Didn>t think so

[quote]

Whatever the case, it is special pleading.

Um no, it is not.

Invoking unobserved processes that flatly contradict the laws of
physics
is the essence of special pleading.

Hmm ... that>s what EE does.
[/quote]
Um no, it does not

The age pattern on the ocean floor using the most basic of physics,
length, width, height and time shows expansion. How it was done does
not require the invoking of anything. It is a fact it was done, and
just as importantly, the age pattern shows PT is false, regardless of
how consistent you want to make the mechanism with know physics, the
mechanism could not possibly produce the pattern.

JT

don findlay · Guest

Stuart wrote:

[quote]
There is no problem with plate changing directions, and certainly no
problems with changing directions as a whole.
[/quote]
Is that right Stuart? ...So why does the ridge not change
orientation?

[quote]Sorry, but you>ve embarrassed yourself, and not for the first time or
last time.
[/quote]
For Gawd>s sake, Stuart, ..It>s you who>s the embarrassment ("not for
the first time"). Come on, ..try to answer the question, what causes
the ridges to be offset before transform faulting begins.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/transoffsets.html
You>ve been silent thus far (silly goose), prove that you can cum like
a sausage, .. Fry, ... and spit the good oil over everybody.

don findlay · Guest

Stuart wrote:

[quote]
Does the expression "No net-Torque frame of reference" mean anything
to you?

This is hilarious. We have Don F lecturing me on why relative motions
are
"not real"
[/quote]
No we don>t.... The only thing don findlay is asking you (right now)
is to clarify what cause the spreading ridges to be offset, if it is
not transform faulting:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/transoffsets.html

[quote]
Stuart[/quote]

don findlay · Guest

Stuart wrote:

[quote]

This is hilarious. We have Don F lecturing me on why relative motions
are
"not real" and now we have JT telling us that "absolute motions" are
not real.
[/quote]
You can always do with a bit lecturing, Stuart, ..no just answer the
question:
How do the spreading ridges become offset, when the offset predates
the transform faulting?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/transoffsets.html

[quote]
Go figure.

Stuart
[/quote]
No rubber numbers needed. Just pure common sense.

And while you>re at it, you could also answer the question why, if the
direction of plates movement can change at the drop of a hat, the
orientation of the spreading ridges remains the same.
http://tinyurl.com/5rm3lf

don findlay · Guest

Stuart wrote:

[quote]

This is hilarious. We have Don F lecturing me on why relative motions
are
"not real" and now we have JT telling us that "absolute motions" are
not real.
[/quote]
You can always do with a bit lecturing, Stuart, ..no just answer the
question:
How do the spreading ridges become offset, when the offset predates
the transform faulting?
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/transoffsets.html

[quote]
Go figure.

Stuart
[/quote]
No rubber numbers needed. Just pure common sense.

And while you>re at it, you could also answer the question why, if the
direction of plates movement can change at the drop of a hat, the
orientation of the spreading ridges remains the same.
http://tinyurl.com/5rm3lf


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Geology - Earthquakes Forum
Page 1 of 1