| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Florian
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: Re: Where did the extra mass come from? |
 |
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1iokex0.1ht2oo11iw6e2jN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
Idiot, deformations at transform faults are out of topic when discussing
deformations far from boundaries.
Since there are plenty of transform faults extending far from boundaries
into the interiors of plates, they certainly are completely relevant to
intraplate deformation.
[/quote]
Idiot. learn the difference between active transform faults and fracture
zone that are not tectonically active.
[...]
[quote]Those deformations are not significant. Period.
No?
[/quote]
Idiot. Your own words a few lines above: "Relative to the boundaries, it
is true that the
deformation is insignificant."
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
dale_peterson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: Re: Where did the extra mass come from? |
|
|
Yah! OK, who left the Mass? Will someone slide that bottle of Jack
Daniels down the bar plizzzzzzz?
Diddly
"oriel36" <kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:73550401-a8b7-4ad8-9662-ee054b932ae9@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 11, 1:42 am, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
[quote]Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Anyway, the references are not accessible online. Nor can I find the
book.
Jeez, I already gave you the link and the ISBN:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MI4FtNlgnaQC
And guess what? chapter 2 about paleoradius calculation is online, in
the preview. Lucky you!
It looks like you were wrong one more time.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
[/quote]
I will say one thing,the Chudinov guy made a global point about the
mid Atlantic ridge whereas those who organise the interior Earth
around a stationary Earth mechanism of 'convection cells' are going to
have an impossible job explaining generation of crust off the entire
length of the ridge.
Ah,who am I kidding,you are like kids playing aound with peer reviewed
articles which is the same as trying to play snooker with a rope.To
your credit,you managed to detach the guys who support 'convection
cells' from the main arguments for plate tectonics where they can now
join you at your ee level,again,that is a good thing for geology in
the long run.
The convection cell guys are trying to make themselves feel better at
your expense while being entirely oblivious to there own premises and
conclusions and while there are genuine geologists who have made
incredible discoveries,their insights will be diminished by
intransigence on the matter of the internal mechanism driving plate
motion.It is like having a Rolls Royce driven by pedal power and that
is the way I see Plate tectonics in relation to those who propose
convection cells are the dynamic for crustal evolution/motion. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Stuart
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: Re: Where did the extra mass come from? |
|
|
On Oct 10, 2:42 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
[quote]Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
Anyway, the references are not accessible online. Nor can I find the
book.
Jeez, I already gave you the link and the ISBN:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MI4FtNlgnaQC
And guess what? chapter 2 about paleoradius calculation is online, in
the preview. Lucky you!
[/quote]
But the references aren>t, at least not that I can find.
Stuart |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Stuart
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: Re: Even better, George does not understand how lava lamps w |
|
|
On Oct 10, 1:50 pm, auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net
(Florian) wrote:
[quote]George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
No It is not. Building a model assuming rigid lithosphere whereas
everybody knows it is not at all, is part of the reason why geosciences
are in such a mess.
Stuart has already supported me on this.
Look at that... little Ron needs Bro Stuart to hold his hand because he
can>t have an opinion by himself.
So according to you, Stuart said that lithosphere is rigid, so that it
can not deform away from the boundaries?
Let>s see what you>re big brother has to say about that statement...
[/quote]
I didn>t say that, and that>s not what George is claiming. What we
both have said
is that deformation on the boundaries is far greater than in the
interiors. Nobody
claims there is no deformation in the interior. To first order, it can
be ignored
in most places.
You claim that if the plates are moving large distances they should
show large
amounts of internal deformation.
You have claimed that maximum strain occurs where the displacement is
maximum.
Are you going to correct that?
Or will continuum mechanics continue to be one of your poorer
subjects?
Stuart |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: gravity theory |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]No it>s not. Relative to the plate margins where most of the action occurs,
the interior of the plate is rigid.
[/quote]
You confuse tectonically inactive and rigid. this is a fatal flaw.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: gravity theory |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]The article and the graph are perfectly clear. The frequency of major
episodes increased in time.
http://www.esa.int/images/ChronologyModel_v02_L.jpg
When are you going to figure out that we haven>t even had the first boots on
the ground on Mars? All of this data is tentative, and based on sketchy
information.
[/quote]
Denying the data without arguments other than "sketchy". You>re a true
crank.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: Where did the extra mass come from? |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1inz2un.w1929lei0xtjN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
No, I don>t say that idiot. I say that "does gravity overcome buoyancy"
is a question that does not make sense for anybody understanding
buoyancy.
Gravity depends on the interaction of two or more objects with mass.
[/quote]
Gravity depends on the interaction? Dude, gravity IS the attraction of
two massive objects.
[quote]When
you add mass, the gravitational pull becomes stronger such that the two
objects of combined mass will overcome buoyancy and sink.
[/quote]
That statement is correct. Now, the buoyancy force exists because there
is a gravity field.
Now do you understand why "does gravity overcome buoyancy" does not make
sense?
[quote]You read the work of
others and then cherry pick the data
[/quote]
Yet again you don>t understand the meaning of "cherry picking".
[quote]to come up with conclusions that aren>t actually supported by either the
data, the conlcusions of the paper, or the author who wrote the paper.
[/quote]
Data have no odor. Data support the best model. Period.
[quote]And then call anyone an idiot who disagrees
with this pseudo-scientific enterprise of yours
[/quote]
Not anyone, just you. Because you>re a true idiot. And don>t use term
like "pseudo-scientific" whereas you can>t make the difference between
pseudoscience and science.
[quote]
partial melts form peridotite do, by fractional crystalization,
ignorant goose.
No, partial melts of peridotite differentiate (as Stuart pointed out -
in
magma chambers) to form basalt.
Andetisic magma. You continue to ignore fractional crystallization.
What fraction of a peridotite melt will form andesite? Please post your
phase diagram showing how this occurs.
Yawn. You really don>t know what is fractional crystallisation. For a
layman like you, wikipedia is ok:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_crystallization_(geology)
Perhaps you should read a real paper on the petrology of ultramafic rocks:
[/quote]
Hey dude, you>re the ignorant who has to read book. So dude, what did
you learn about fractional crystallization? Nothing about SiO2
enrichement?
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: more struggle with the buoyancy principle for our brilli |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1inzz47.he57vxkl6wvmN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
Moron. Fat is less dense than water.
How many fatasses sank to the bottom of the ocean inside the Titanic?
[/quote]
Said idiot, that got trapped like a rat.
[quote]And there is certainly one. Period.
Really? Perhaps you could enlighten the planet as to what that one is?
[/quote]
Idiot. Don>t you understand that scientists do not know everything? Only
crank can imagine that scientist know everything but simply want to hide
it.
[quote]you can>t read, the answer to the question was in the text embeded in
the term "buoyancy", because if you had basic education, you would know
that as soon as one evoke buoyancy, then gravity is involved, as there
is no buoyancy without gravity.
No one is claiming otherwise, Floppy.
You do moron, by separating both.
I didn>t separate anything.
[/quote]
You did by claiming that gravity could overcome buoyancy, as if gravity
was opposed to buoyancy. All parts of the system are subject to gravity,
including the fluid, and that is the reason why there is buoyancy.
Without gravitational attraction of the fluid, no buoyancy. You fail to
understand that basic principle because you are an idiot.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: sinking iceberg. |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]As the definition pointed out, sinking is relative to a surface. If an
object drops in elevation relative to the surface, it has sunk relative to
that surface. Whether or not the object sinks completely to the bottom or
not, if it acheive a lower elevation relative to the surface, it has sunk.
[/quote]
Oh yeah, an iceberg is less dense than water and according to Ron Yates,
it is sinking. You>re a good plate zealot, you deserve a price.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: Stuart, why don>t you tell Ron that he sucks with his le |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1inzzzm.4g7rr51gp84kqN%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
Can>t you read? You>re not "every geologist".
I could produce a list, if you like.
Stuart
He started insulting me but I never called him an idiot because he>s not[/quote]
one.
[quote]George
mouarff!! you said geologist![/quote]
[quote]Nicholas
Mouarrfffffffff!!!!! even better.[/quote]
Good joke, though...
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: OMG! According to George, sinking slabs are less dense t |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1io001q.trizrakgcc49N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
George <George@george.net> wrote:
Give me a break. You made moronic statements like " gravity and other
forces can overcome buoyancy " which does not make sense at all.
Gravity and mass are intimately linked, kimosabe.
[/quote]
And buoyancy is dependent on gravity. No gravity, no buoyancy.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: Even better, George does not understand how lava lamps w |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]No It is not. Building a model assuming rigid lithosphere whereas
everybody knows it is not at all, is part of the reason why geosciences
are in such a mess.
Stuart has already supported me on this.
[/quote]
Look at that... little Ron needs Bro Stuart to hold his hand because he
can>t have an opinion by himself.
So according to you, Stuart said that lithosphere is rigid, so that it
can not deform away from the boundaries?
Let>s see what you>re big brother has to say about that statement...
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: Even better, George does not understand how lava lamps w |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]"Stuart" <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f591d072-b9df-4468-9582-cc8b00d657e9@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Thats because Carey stupidly rejected the notion of subduction.
Stuart
Not to mention that the Sumatra megathrust in 2004 experienced significant
displacement along a 1,000 km segment of the thrust zone (all in 9 minutes).
[/quote]
Overthrusting dude, a big bloc moved to the west over the indian ocean
seafllor. That is even visible by gravimetry:
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/313/5787/658.pdf>
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: ALL the oceanic crust is recycled in 180 My: unrealistic |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]If all peridotitic mantle wedges produce andesitic magmatization, then, like
I said, you could surely come up with one specific example. After all, you
claim that they are everywhere. One example, Floppy.
[/quote]
Central Kamchatka Depression, Idiot.
"We envision two petrogenetic models, which relate the composition of
erupted magmas to the subduction parameters beneath the CKD. The first
model suggests that mantle temperature governs melt-peridotite
equilibria and favors generation of andesitic primary melts in cold
mantle regions above the shallowly subducting Pacific slab edge."
<http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/7/519>
[quote]Only where overthrusting of oceanic lithosphere take place (under the
forearc, not at the volcanic arc itself.
But the volcanic arc is not where subduction is occurring, [...]
[/quote]
This is where upduction occurs dude, upduction.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Florian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: ALL the oceanic crust is recycled in 180 My: unrealistic |
|
|
George <George@george.net> wrote:
[quote]"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net> wrote in message
news:1io00z0.sxsl861t8jql6N%auxotectonics_deletethis@nachon_andthis.net...
You>re in denial. They clearly stated int he paper that melting of water
saturated peridotite lead to the formation of andesitic magma. Period.
No they didn>t say that at all. "the experiment is showing how material is
becoming more mafic with increasing pressure, not less mafic with decreasing
pressure." The experiment has nothing to do with what you are trying to
prove.
[/quote]
Idiot in denial. Can>t you read *starting peridotite* and *andesitic
composition* in that sentence:
"The experimental partial melts monotonously became more mafic with
increasing pressure from andesitic composition at 1 gigapascal to more
mafic than the starting peridotite at 10 gigapascals."
[...]
[quote]You cannot get an andesite from a peridotite.
[/quote]
For sure, you>re an idot that can>t get it. Ask bro Stuart if he
supports you on that one.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D>abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
