Jump to content
arc

Plate tectonic mechanism ?

Recommended Posts

Please can you be as brief as possible.

 

 

You must be joking?

 

 

 

Are you still needing a oscillating temperatures of the Earth's inner parts?

Have you been able to link this to the Earth's magnetic field?

 

Let's imagine I'm standing next to you and shining a bright light on a my last post.

 

 

Hi Rob, have you not read any of the last several pages of this thread? Do I have to repost what has been already argued and supported in conversations in the last three pages?

 

This thread has been down this road already. If you read the last 4 pages you may save a lot of repetition in post content. In fact, I would start at post 348 on page 18, that would bring you up to date and save a lot of time and trouble.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114

 

I'm not wanting you to prove anything. I just want you to describe the basic principles behind your hypothesis, the ones you have stuck with up to this stage.

 

Did you not read my last post? Hell, The last three even? Do I need to repost them?, and all the posts I referred you to? Do you know what those number at the top of the page are for?

 

 

So you are using an obvious local measurement and suggesting that the rate has some bearing to the global effect.

Surely you are not suggesting that rate is the global rate!

 

 

So you still haven't read the last several pages and the very well supported arguments I made of the Atlantic MOR?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

 

In that series of posts I made a series of observations that were clearly supported by the overwhelming evidence of the Atlantic MOR was at or near the surface of the ocean during at least two occasions, one of them at the same time that the Himalayan, Andean and other mountain ranges were forming around the world.

 

That, I think, is what would be considered global, No?

 

Then this model showed they also match 56 boundary sequences going back 545 MY, each episode lasting several million years, that are, as the paper said, the result of the mantle's cycling and that are also well documented to have occurred globally.

 

OK, one more time. I want you to take a deep breath and concentrate on this while you read it reeeeal slowly.

 

“Fifty-six, large magnitude sequence boundaries have been delineated in the Phanerozoic succession of Arctic North America. The characteristics of the boundaries indicate that they were primarily generated by tectonics. The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. Such episodes likely lasted for a few million years and were separated by longer intervals of relative tectonic quiescence. There are indications that the recognized tectonic episodes affected basins throughout the world.”

 

You should realize that you need to deal with those two research papers to argue these oscillations are not a global phenomena.

 

You can now back to your argument based on willful ignorance of the what is posted on this thread.

 

 

He found a paper with the word "oscillation" and "mantle" in and then completely bastardised it. This is the quality of science we are having to deal with here.

 

And I still wait for you to make even one prediction of observation using the standard model that would explain every prediction of observation this model has made on this thread. How about making just one, maybe the Atlantic MOR rising to the surface for several million years at the exact same time as those other mountain ranges were forming. That would be great! I'm sure everyone would like to see some rigor out of that tired old standard model of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you do the exact opposite of what I ask?

 

I just wanted your latest framework of ideas. I don't want to look at specific examples that may or may not support your case.

So anything that happened in the MOR or globally 10 million years ago is irrelevant.

You seem to want to swamp the forum with the same studies and graphs over and over again. I just skip these for they are irrelevant to what I need at this stage and that is the hypothesis in a nutshell.

Maybe I will give you the multichoice answers and you just tell me which ones fit your hypothesis. Would you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can you be as brief as possible.

You must be joking?

 

No you have a serious problem. Hiding behind walls of text is no excuse for bad science. Make it brief and stay on point: you might get more response.

 

 

 

 

And I still wait for you to make even one prediction of observation using the standard model ...

Why would I waste my time? It wouldn't help assess your speculation one bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you do the exact opposite of what I ask?

 

Because you didn't do as I had asked. It starts out with me posting what is in my opening post and half of page 1, then reiterating what's in many other posts. And of course you would have follow up questions or objections that have also been ask by others and I get sucked into repeating more content.

 

I just wanted your latest framework of ideas. I don't want to look at specific examples that may or may not support your case.

 

That would be what I pointed out for you to read. With this thread at 23 pages, why would I repost what is a sizable amount of content because one person demands it.

 

 

So anything that happened in the MOR or globally 10 million years ago is irrelevant.

 

Ummm . . . . .No, do you possibly recall me posting something like this in my last post;

 

"this model showed they also match 56 boundary sequences going back 545 MY, each episode lasting several million years, that are, as the paper said, the result of the mantle's cycling and that are also well documented to have occurred globally."

 

And see my response to billiards.

 

 

You seem to want to swamp the forum with the same studies and graphs over and over again.

 

Pot calls kettle

 

 

I just skip these for they are irrelevant to what I need at this stage and that is the hypothesis in a nutshell.

 

Please see post below.

 

 

 

No you have a serious problem.

 

Ummm . . . . .No, you have broken model.

 

Hiding behind walls of text is no excuse for bad science. Make it brief and stay on point: you might get more response.

 

OK. How's this;

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry843598

 

Posted 25 December 2014 - 10:37 PM

snapback.png

BASICS:

 

Convergent margins: where one plate goes under another and is "destroyed". Subduction zone is the three dimensional picture of a convergent margin. The plate goes down sinking into the mantle, it isn't destroyed, it just goes underground (deep).

 

MAJOR IMPORTANCE:

 

1) Subduction is the primary mode of mantle convection. Plumes (if they exist) are of secondary importance.

 

2) Subduction drives plate tectonics.

 

3) Subduction controls the chemical and thermal evolution of the planet. -- positive spinoff: conditions for life, minerals for industry and our enjoyment -- negative spinoff: killer volcanoes and earthquakes.

 

 

PROBLEM:

 

Dynamics of subduction not understood. You can solve this one, then you get massive kudos. Effectively you turn plate tectonics from a kinematic theory to a dynamic theory. Nobel prize in geology (if it existed) coming your way.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

I strongly believe that if we understand subduction zones, then we can find the key to understanding plate tectonics. Mid ocean ridges are important too, but less so. Plumes are probably not that important either, although will help explain some anomalies.

 

I wanted to post on this thread when it was originally started. But it would have been considered thread high jacking because I will use my model as a solution. The thread now looks to have been sitting idle long enough that I would like to take a crack at it here.

 

The key to subduction zones can be derived very easily using this model. This is a minimalists approach.

 

This model simply requires that the temperature of the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods. An increase in energy will always include an increase in temperature. The temperature increase will in turn always produce thermal expansion of the molten iron. This will displace the mantle and produce strain energy in the form of heat at the crust/mantle boundary. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension.

 

These tension relieving mechanisms are the mid ocean ridges located where the crust could not sustain itself against the shear forces displacing it from beneath.

 

post-88603-0-35255000-1419573451_thumb.p

 

Eventually the magnetic field energy lowers and the outer core contracts placing the crust in compression against the most recent deposits of seafloor. The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean. When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other.

 

post-88603-0-37296100-1419573658_thumb.p

 

As there were no continents yet the subduction was very flat, providing the genesis for the formation of the first proto continents.

 

As the cycle repeated, the slow expansion added additional magmatic material into the divergent boundary now known as a mid ocean ridge. Then when the cycle changed to a cooler outer core the new material would leverage the opposite edge of the adjoining crust further under the overriding section.

 

As this cycle repeated the areas of crust where large scale laminations of two and then three and so on layers of subducting crust had been placed would begin to press those lowest layers deeper into the mantle, farther than ever before.

post-88603-0-08302000-1419573863_thumb.p

 

http:// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Craton

An associated class of inclusions called eclogites, consists of rocks corresponding compositionally to oceanic crust (basalt) that has metamorphosed under deep mantle conditions. Isotopic studies reveal that many eclogite inclusions are samples of ancient oceanic crust subducted billions of years ago to depths exceeding 150 km (90 mi) into the deep kimberlite diamond areas. They remained fixed there within the drifting tectonic plates until carried to the surface by deep-rooted magmatic eruptions.

 

If peridotite and eclogite inclusions are of the same temporal origin, then peridotite must have also originated from spreading sea floor ridges billions of years ago, or from mantle affected by subduction of oceanic crust. During the early years of Earth's existence, when the planet was much hotter, greater degrees of melting at spreading oceanic ridges generated oceanic lithosphere with thick crust, much thicker than 20 km (12 mi), and a highly depleted mantle. Such a lithosphere would not sink deeply or subduct, because of its buoyancy and the removal of denser melt that in turn increased the density of the residual mantle. Accordingly, cratonic mantle roots are probably composed of buoyantly subducted slabs of a highly depleted oceanic lithosphere.These deep mantle roots increase the stability, anchoring and survivability of cratons; this makes them much less susceptible to tectonic thickening by collisions or destruction by sediment subduction.

 

The greater depth and heat in combination with whatever water and minerals that were brought with the crust were processed into gradually more complex petrologic examples. These first layers of ocean crust that were raised from below out of that ancient ocean have long since eroded away as the newer igneous rocks came up under them from the depths below.

 

 

The more complex tectonic processes that are now observed today rely still on the simple outer core thermal cycles described above. The continents have evolved into cratonic structures that are still built, moved and destroyed by the simple mechanism that the model provides.

 

The “key” to subduction in our contemporary geology can be deduced by carefully examining the observable evidence.

 

The Atlantic oceanic plates are connected to their adjoining continents. We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against.

 

The Pacific plate is no longer connected to the Asian continent, and we could expect that a model that could explain why the Atlantic has not separated (yet) and why the Pacific has separated would be making predictions of observation quite well.

post-88603-0-56126600-1419574066_thumb.p

post-88603-0-27067600-1419574126_thumb.p

The shear forces that the outward displacing mantle applies to the plates are what cause the plates to fracture. Then as these cycles continue they will establish convergent boundaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

.....

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry843598

 

Posted 25 December 2014 - 10:37 PM

snapback.png

 

I wanted to post on this thread when it was originally started. But it would have been considered thread high jacking because I will use my model as a solution. The thread now looks to have been sitting idle long enough that I would like to take a crack at it here.

 

The key to subduction zones can be derived very easily using this model. This is a minimalists approach.

 

This model simply requires that the temperature of the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods. An increase in energy will always include an increase in temperature. The temperature increase will in turn always produce thermal expansion of the molten iron. This will displace the mantle and produce strain energy in the form of heat at the crust/mantle boundary. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension.

 

These tension relieving mechanisms are the mid ocean ridges located where the crust could not sustain itself against the shear forces displacing it from beneath.

 

post-88603-0-35255000-1419573451_thumb.p

 

Eventually the magnetic field energy lowers and the outer core contracts placing the crust in compression against the most recent deposits of seafloor. The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean. When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other.

 

post-88603-0-37296100-1419573658_thumb.p

 

As there were no continents yet the subduction was very flat, providing the genesis for the formation of the first proto continents.

 

As the cycle repeated, the slow expansion added additional magmatic material into the divergent boundary now known as a mid ocean ridge. Then when the cycle changed to a cooler outer core the new material would leverage the opposite edge of the adjoining crust further under the overriding section.

 

As this cycle repeated the areas of crust where large scale laminations of two and then three and so on layers of subducting crust had been placed would begin to press those lowest layers deeper into the mantle, farther than ever before.

post-88603-0-08302000-1419573863_thumb.p

 

http:// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Craton

An associated class of inclusions called eclogites, consists of rocks corresponding compositionally to oceanic crust (basalt) that has metamorphosed under deep mantle conditions. Isotopic studies reveal that many eclogite inclusions are samples of ancient oceanic crust subducted billions of years ago to depths exceeding 150 km (90 mi) into the deep kimberlite diamond areas. They remained fixed there within the drifting tectonic plates until carried to the surface by deep-rooted magmatic eruptions.

 

If peridotite and eclogite inclusions are of the same temporal origin, then peridotite must have also originated from spreading sea floor ridges billions of years ago, or from mantle affected by subduction of oceanic crust. During the early years of Earth's existence, when the planet was much hotter, greater degrees of melting at spreading oceanic ridges generated oceanic lithosphere with thick crust, much thicker than 20 km (12 mi), and a highly depleted mantle. Such a lithosphere would not sink deeply or subduct, because of its buoyancy and the removal of denser melt that in turn increased the density of the residual mantle. Accordingly, cratonic mantle roots are probably composed of buoyantly subducted slabs of a highly depleted oceanic lithosphere.These deep mantle roots increase the stability, anchoring and survivability of cratons; this makes them much less susceptible to tectonic thickening by collisions or destruction by sediment subduction.

 

The greater depth and heat in combination with whatever water and minerals that were brought with the crust were processed into gradually more complex petrologic examples. These first layers of ocean crust that were raised from below out of that ancient ocean have long since eroded away as the newer igneous rocks came up under them from the depths below.

 

 

The more complex tectonic processes that are now observed today rely still on the simple outer core thermal cycles described above. The continents have evolved into cratonic structures that are still built, moved and destroyed by the simple mechanism that the model provides.

 

The “key” to subduction in our contemporary geology can be deduced by carefully examining the observable evidence.

 

The Atlantic oceanic plates are connected to their adjoining continents. We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against.

 

The Pacific plate is no longer connected to the Asian continent, and we could expect that a model that could explain why the Atlantic has not separated (yet) and why the Pacific has separated would be making predictions of observation quite well.

post-88603-0-56126600-1419574066_thumb.p

post-88603-0-27067600-1419574126_thumb.p

The shear forces that the outward displacing mantle applies to the plates are what cause the plates to fracture. Then as these cycles continue they will establish convergent boundaries.

 

How much of this is your own work for you use the words "we" rather than "I" in the last section after a quote out of Wikipedia? For example "We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against."

Edited by Robittybob1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much of this is your own work for you use the words "we" rather than "I" in the last section after a quote out of Wikipedia?

 

Wiki is everything that is italicized. The "we" and everything else including the drawings is mine.

 

"We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against."

 

I took liberties to assume that everyone but the crazy people believe the Atlantic was created when the single supercontinent Pangaea broke-up.

 

So you can see now this model covers a time period of billions of years. And is quite relevant in regards to it.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arc, I would suggest you listen to the advice by billiards and refrain from constantly posting ridiculously long wall of text. Constantly posting the entire theory without being asked to can be considered preaching; these huge walls of text are very hard to follow; and this is explicitly discouraged by the Guidelines for Participating in Speculations Discussions:

 

 

 

2. Huge "walls of text" are usually difficult to get through and discourage participation. Present an abstract — a distillation of your idea first. Get into the details afterwards. It has to be posted here, though. Simply linking to an outside site for text or video is not sufficient, and against the rules.

 

Could you please just answer questions presented without spilling out the entire theory with all pictures and graphs and external links? Greatly appreciated.

 

Now back to the discussion.

 

 

 

This model simply requires that the temperature of the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods.

 

As this is a cornerstone of the model we're discussing, I'd suggest you present the mechanism that would create such temperature variances, especially, given that you think it's such a simple matter. Although, maybe you have already presented it, but I can't persuade myself to browse through all other 22 pages of gigantic posts.

 

How does your model reconcile with the fact that the Earth has been cooling ever since the end of Late Heavy Bombardment. Do you have any data that shows the overall increase of the number of subduction zones over last couple billions of years?

 

 

 

An increase in energy will always include an increase in temperature.

 

Well, this is just plain wrong in the form it's currently phrased.

 

 

 

This will displace the mantle and produce strain energy in the form of heat at the crust/mantle boundary.

 

Have you considered a possibility of structural change of mantle minerals in the contact area between outer core and lower mantle, which could reduce the volume and allow to dissipate the stress without the need to lift the entire mantle?

 

The process of metamorphism is extremely abundant in nature due to the fact that it's energetically more viable than all alternatives.

 

 

 

Eventually the magnetic field energy lowers and the outer core contracts placing the crust in compression against the most recent deposits of seafloor.

 

How exactly did you link the magnetic field into the mix? Is it your mechanism for temperature variance?

 

 

 

The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean.

 

Any evidence for this?

 

 

 

When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other.

 

Explain how, if the original proto-crust was more or less uniform (not separated into oceanic and continental), why is one of the plates subducted below the other rather than forming a mountain ridge, like Himalayas or Tibet, for example?

 

 

 

 

As there were no continents yet the subduction was very flat, providing the genesis for the formation of the first proto continents.

 

By "flat" are you referring to a shallow angle of subduction? Why "flat" subduction specifically provides genesis for the first continents, while, say, "steep" subduction wouldn't?

 

 

 

As the cycle repeated, the slow expansion added additional magmatic material into the divergent boundary now known as a mid ocean ridge.

 

Why wouldn't your divergent boundary during the cycle of expansion not become a convergent boundary during the contraction phase? Think of it, it's a new part of crust that has a lower thickness, perchance it hasn't cooled down completely, it's much weaker. Why would convergent boundary form anywhere else?

 

I'm not sure why you've decided to bold parts of the passage from Wikipedia. There's no contradiction in the existing model between having mineral associations of billions of years old that have been at one stage subducted and are now exposed on the surface. A very knowledgeable forum member even have said structure as his forum name.

 

 

 

The continents have evolved into cratonic structures that are still built, moved and destroyed by the simple mechanism that the model provides.

 

Since you've decided to quote Wikipedia article on cratons, why do you then go and contradict the very definition of a craton which is in paragraph 1 on the page:

 

 

 

A craton (/ˈkrtɒn/, /ˈkrætɒn/, or /ˈkrtən/;[1][2][3] from Greek: κράτος kratos "strength") is an old and stable part of the continental lithosphere.

 

I.e. cratons are stable and have been so for billions of years. There are by no means regularly created and destroyed. And there is a plethora of data to prove this based on radioisotope dating.

 

 

 

The Pacific plate is no longer connected to the Asian continent, and we could expect that a model that could explain why the Atlantic has not separated (yet) and why the Pacific has separated would be making predictions of observation quite well.

 

I think I should have a surprise for you. The current model explains quite well the difference in the character of interaction with a continent between Atlantic and Pacific.

Edited by pavelcherepan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered other alternatives that could cause an oscillating temperature of the core?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As this is a cornerstone of the model we're discussing, I'd suggest you present the mechanism that would create such temperature variances, especially, given that you think it's such a simple matter. Although, maybe you have already presented it, but I can't persuade myself to browse through all other 22 pages of gigantic posts.

 

I believe I just did in post 454.

 

 

 

How does your model reconcile with the fact that the Earth has been cooling ever since the end of Late Heavy Bombardment. Do you have any data that shows the overall increase of the number of subduction zones over last couple billions of years?

 

I didn’t claim there had been. I‘m simply answering the question raised by billiards, how did/does subduction originate? Perhaps you know the answer?

 

 

 

Well, this is just plain wrong in the form it's currently phrased.

 

In regards to the earth’s magnetic field increasing in strength, the outer core’s liquid iron wouldn’t increase in temperature?

 

 

 

Have you considered a possibility of structural change of mantle minerals in the contact area between outer core and lower mantle, which could reduce the volume and allow to dissipate the stress without the need to lift the entire mantle?

 

The process of metamorphism is extremely abundant in nature due to the fact that it's energetically more viable than all alternatives.

 

No I haven’t due to the rather nice fit the model has to surface geology, it was built in a top down fashion and this fits the surface geology rather nicely, it is the simple approach to the problem. Use what you can see to deduce what you can’t. Rather than the “think of some sort of unseen movement and think you can math your way to the surface” as is the current situation.

 

These two posts give a nice example of this model's abilities. But they are long, but that is how I make my counter argument and show the model's strength.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283

 

 

 

How exactly did you link the magnetic field into the mix? Is it your mechanism for temperature variance?

 

Subtle clues in the solar magnetic and Japanese earthquake records . . . . . . I’m so tempted to bomb you with a wall of text and graphs, I can hardly contain myself! You should just read the post, It’s long, you’ll roll your eyes when you see it. But it will outline it pretty well. I did make an error on one of the graph sources, ice core not 14C, can’t go back and fix it though.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114

 

 

"The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean."

 

Any evidence for this?

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267746567_Early_solar_system_Early_accretion_of_water_in_the_inner_solar_system_from_a_carbonaceous_chondrite-like_source

 

“Eucrites provide a substantially earlier data point, which suggests that the source of Earth’s water was present in the inner solar system very early,~8 to 20 million years after CAIs (15,16). This evidence moves back the time at which the terrestrial water reservoir is thought to exist and have been available for accretion. Additionally, this reservoir was present between 1 and 2.4 AU and perhaps throughout the inner solar system. Late-stage addition of water to planets from outer parts of the solar system is therefore unlikely to have affected the water budgets of inner solar system bodies.”

 

And this a news story on the same research.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/

 

 

 

Explain how, if the original proto-crust was more or less uniform (not separated into oceanic and continental), why is one of the plates subducted below the other rather than forming a mountain ridge, like Himalayas or Tibet, for example?

 

Those mountain ranges are on subduction zones, they would not exist but for subduction. Is this some kind of trick question? The post said;

 

“Eventually the magnetic field energy lowers and the outer core contracts placing the crust in compression against the most recent deposits of seafloor. The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean. When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries.”

 

 

 

By "flat" are you referring to a shallow angle of subduction? Why "flat" subduction specifically provides genesis for the first continents, while, say, "steep" subduction wouldn't?

 

I took the liberties to assume the first skim that formed on that early Earth’s surface was made of lighter less dense “slag” type crust compared to later more chemically complex mineral varieties that would have formed as these stacked sections were gradually forced deeper in time. Eventually they would come up as the upper layers were eroded away as the post expresses. I doubt they would have the durability to do anything at a sharper angle, they are slag, they would just pile up like a train wreck or slid over or under one another.

 

 

Why wouldn't your divergent boundary during the cycle of expansion not become a convergent boundary during the contraction phase? Think of it, it's a new part of crust that has a lower thickness, perchance it hasn't cooled down completely, it's much weaker. Why would convergent boundary form anywhere else?

 

I think you should read it again.

“When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other."

 

And there's no reason that the crust could not fracture next to a convergent boundary or anywhere else, becoming a new divergent boundary tension relieving mechanism and staying one as long as there is a convergent compression relieving mechanism/s somewhere to counter the need to process the crust as the GPE waxes and wanes.

 

 

I'm not sure why you've decided to bold parts of the passage from Wikipedia. There's no contradiction in the existing model between having mineral associations of billions of years old that have been at one stage subducted and are now exposed on the surface. A very knowledgeable forum member even have said structure as his forum name.

 

I do these things in hopes it will cause the reader to stop and read the wiki’s or other quotes instead of just skipping over them and make an argument about something that would have been explained by it. And also all of this ends up on my website or comes from it first, and that site is for regular people, you know us simple folk that don’t know the lexicon of geologists.

 

 

 

Since you've decided to quote Wikipedia article on cratons, why do you then go and contradict the very definition of a craton which is in paragraph 1 on the page:

 

I.e. cratons are stable and have been so for billions of years. There are by no means regularly created and destroyed. And there is a plethora of data to prove this based on radioisotope dating.

 

They are continually being eroded away from the top down and all sides. They are continually driven over oceanic crust. Interesting isn’t it. They seem to be slowly moved up as they are worn down.

 

Lithospheric Layering in the North American Craton

Huaiyu Yuan (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory),

Barbara Romanowicz (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory)

 

"Recent receiver function studies detect structural boundaries under continental cratons at depths too shallow to be consistent with the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) as inferred from seismic tomography and other geophysical studies. Using the new results from our regional surface wave tomographic inversion for the North American upper mantle shear wave structure, we show (Figure1) that changes in the direction of azimuthal anisotropy with depth reveal the presence of two distinct lithospheric layers throughout the stable part of the North American (NA) continent [Yuan and Romanowicz, 2010]."

 

. . . . ."American craton may be exceptionally simple, the application of this tool to other continents should provide further insights on the assembly and evolution of cratons worldwide."

 

Earth is a little over halfway to the end of its habitable-zone lifetime but I would venture to guess plate tectonics will go a ways longer. But I see what you mean; I may work on that some more and see what I find. I may change that on my website depending if they can substantially survive to the end of PT.

 

 

 

I think I should have a surprise for you. The current model explains quite well the difference in the character of interaction with a continent between Atlantic and Pacific.

 

Maybe so, but I like how easily my model works through everything. A very simple idea. It’s the model T of PT.

 

Have you considered other alternatives that could cause an oscillating temperature of the core?

 

For 545 million years it has oscillated at least 56 times.

 

"The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. Such episodes likely lasted for a few million years and were separated by longer intervals of relative tectonic quiescence. There are indications that the recognized tectonic episodes affected basins throughout the world.”

I will stick to my model's suggestion that they are solar magnetic in origin, the timing is fairly consistent, the increase/decrease in the planet's magnetic field generating components could produce the mantle displacement.

You can see the subtle influence of the Sun on the proposed mechanism in this post.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114

But have a go at it, you might find a better idea than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming the core does expand by heating up due to some fanciful mechanism. (Which it should be noted is firmly in the realms of science fiction, but let's just assume it for fun.) Then does it follow that the "crust" would split open as arc suggests?

 

Well, we should at least think seriously about this possibility ...

 

Have you considered a possibility of structural change of mantle minerals in the contact area between outer core and lower mantle, which could reduce the volume and allow to dissipate the stress without the need to lift the entire mantle?

 

The process of metamorphism is extremely abundant in nature due to the fact that it's energetically more viable than all alternatives.

But let's just go a step further and assume the crust does split open, then would you get plate tectonic behaviour by expansion/contraction oscillations?

 

Probably not ...

 

Why wouldn't your divergent boundary during the cycle of expansion not become a convergent boundary during the contraction phase? Think of it, it's a new part of crust that has a lower thickness, perchance it hasn't cooled down completely, it's much weaker. Why would convergent boundary form anywhere else?

I think we see a pattern emerging here. Arc's entire theory is nothing but a house of cards. Assumption upon assumption. Dismissed at a glance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming the core does expand by heating up due to some fanciful mechanism. (Which it should be noted is firmly in the realms of science fiction, but let's just assume it for fun.) Then does it follow that the "crust" would split open as arc suggests?

 

Well, we should at least think seriously about this possibility ...

 

 

But let's just go a step further and assume the crust does split open, then would you get plate tectonic behaviour by expansion/contraction oscillations?

 

Probably not ...

 

 

I think we see a pattern emerging here. Arc's entire theory is nothing but a house of cards. Assumption upon assumption. Dismissed at a glance.

I would not dismiss the idea completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not dismiss the idea completely.

Arc's work is a patch-work synthesis of science tied together in an original way by giant leaps of imagination. It is those giant leaps of imagination that you should look at and question.

 

One giant leap of imagination, backed up by evidence and strong theoretical arguments, would be the work of a genius.

Many unsupported giant leaps of imagination without any clear evidence and zero theory would be the work of a crackpot on an internet forum.

 

I'll leave it to you to decide which of these arc is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arc's work is a patch-work synthesis of science tied together in an original way by giant leaps of imagination. It is those giant leaps of imagination that you should look at and question.

 

One giant leap of imagination, backed up by evidence and strong theoretical arguments, would be the work of a genius.

Many unsupported giant leaps of imagination without any clear evidence and zero theory would be the work of a crackpot on an internet forum.

 

I'll leave it to you to decide which of these arc is.

What is your background that allows you to dismiss arc so harshly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your background that allows you to dismiss arc so harshly?

I don't think I'm being overly harsh; it's his idea, not him, that I dismiss.

 

His idea doesn't stand up. I've given a lot of patience to arc if you look through the thread. I took the time to understand his ideas and to challenge them from many angles.

 

This is what the speculations forum is here for. To challenge ideas. However, it's reached a point where it has become clear (to me) that arc is not interested in dialogue. Every challenge arc faces he either ignores or sweeps under the carpet of a wall of (largely duplicated) text. You could boil down all the hard science content from arc in this entire thread probably into something about as long as his average post.

 

Oh, and I have a PhD in geophysics; my dissertation was about the mantle. I've been through the peer review process and have a better than fair idea of how arc's theory would cope under professional scrutiny. It would crumble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ....

Oh, and I have a PhD in geophysics; my dissertation was about the mantle. I've been through the peer review process and have a better than fair idea of how arc's theory would cope under professional scrutiny. It would crumble.

OK very good. I don't have any such qualifications but I was always very good at physics at school.

 

So I think the basic concept of an heated/expanded Earth's interior could result in the cracking of the crust.

Instead of heating and cooling I was trying to see if he could think in terms of interrupted periods of expansion.

 

One particular aspect in this thread was the imbalance between the linear measurement of mid-ocean ridges and the subduction zones. Was this ever proven incorrect? How can there be more places where crust is formed compared to where it disappears?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arc, I have a new theory of subduction mechanism. By my thinking subduction occurs because a bazillion of dwarves get together and pull the oceanic plate down. Sometimes they decide to stop and have a break, sometimes they pull harder and sometimes they suddenly decide to start pulling in an entirely different place.

 

This sounds retarded, doesn't it, but given enough time I could bring my "theory" in a complete accordance with all the observational evidence and even make some predictions based on it. Unfortunately, everyone will still think it's retarded until I'm able to prove in a mathematical framework or modelling that these dwarves can exist and that they can create forces required.

 

You hypothesis has dwarves too, they live in the core, run currents through it to heat it up and then come together and push the core-mantle boundary upwards. Regardless of how well your idea matches observations, you still have to show that these "dwarves" are there. You need to show mathematically, that induction currents from solar magnetic field can produce amounts of energy required, that the expansion of the core is significant enough to influence expansion of lithosphere and that rather than relieving stress in many other ways the mantle has at its disposal, it would, for some weird reason, just lift up. Unless you can show that your idea will never be accepted.

 

And once again I'll have to refer you to Guidelines for Speculations Discussions which coincidentally is exactly on the point of my comment above (bolded part):

 

 

 

3. Specific predictions often require math. Do not expect others to do your math for you, nor should you consider the math to be a trivial and therefore unimportant part of your conjecture it's usually crucial. e.g. a vague explanation that something will get hot would not separate your idea from some other idea. Predicting a temperature dependence on certain conditions would allow for that.

In cases where math may not be required, you still need to be able to make predictions that distinguish your idea from existing theories, e.g. predicting some result where mainstream theory predicts nothing happens, or some other clear distinction. If you can't do this, it's a sign you need a more detailed model.

 

Also it's quite fascinating how you consider that for a top-down theory using observational evidence for both deriving a theory and proving its validity is acceptable. You can't do that. It's a circular logic.

 

I'm also quite amazed how you managed to comment on all of my questions without actually answering them.

 

 

I didn’t claim there had been. I‘m simply answering the question raised by billiards, how did/does subduction originate? Perhaps you know the answer?

 

We're not talking about what I know. We're talking about your hypothesis. Please stick to it.

 

Do you not agree that since all short-lived isotopes have decayed and most of high-energy impacts have finished, the Earth started to slowly cool down at a modeled rate of ~100oC/billion years? By your idea such a decrease in temperature should lead to an overall increase in the number of subduction zones over time. Can you show that this is happening?

 

 

In regards to the earth’s magnetic field increasing in strength, the outer core’s liquid iron wouldn’t increase in temperature?

 

You're mixing cause and effect here. Earth's magnetic field originates from a geodynamo in the liquid outer core. If, for some reason Earth's magnetic field strength increased, this could be because the temperature of outer core has increased, but it would not lead to a further increase of the core temperature, because then you're stuck in an infinite positive feedback loop.

 

 

No I haven’t due to the rather nice fit the model has to surface geology, it was built in a top down fashion and this fits the surface geology rather nicely, it is the simple approach to the problem. Use what you can see to deduce what you can’t. Rather than the “think of some sort of unseen movement and think you can math your way to the surface” as is the current situation.

These two posts give a nice example of this model's abilities. But they are long, but that is how I make my counter argument and show the model's strength.

 

Well, you should seriously consider it. Changes in crystal structure of minerals under pressure and temperature influence are well documented and are a very efficient way of relieving stress. You can't just dismiss it.

 

Yet again, you can't use observations to prove validity of the model when it's already created in a top-down fashion and is based on that same evidence. And please stop linking enormous posts, can't you present a short and condensed extract of what it's all about?

 

 

Subtle clues in the solar magnetic and Japanese earthquake records . . . . . . I’m so tempted to bomb you with a wall of text and graphs, I can hardly contain myself! You should just read the post, It’s long, you’ll roll your eyes when you see it. But it will outline it pretty well. I did make an error on one of the graph sources, ice core not 14C, can’t go back and fix it though.

http://www.sciencefo...-18#entry815114

 

Just so that I don't look like a person who refuses to properly study argumentation, I went and read the post you've linked. It did not open my eyes, if only a few times in a honest befuzzlement. I see absolutely no point in discussing it or even reading it in the first place.

 

 

https://www.research...ite-like_source

“Eucrites provide a substantially earlier data point, which suggests that the source of Earth’s water was present in the inner solar system very early,~8 to 20 million years after CAIs (15,16). This evidence moves back the time at which the terrestrial water reservoir is thought to exist and have been available for accretion. Additionally, this reservoir was present between 1 and 2.4 AU and perhaps throughout the inner solar system. Late-stage addition of water to planets from outer parts of the solar system is therefore unlikely to have affected the water budgets of inner solar system bodies.”

 

I did not ask you for evidence about water presence on early Earth. We're talking about subduction. You made a claim of when it started and I want you to back it up. Why couldn't subduction have started before water has largely condensed? Is the presence of the shallow ocean somewhat important to your model?

 

 

 

Those mountain ranges are on subduction zones, they would not exist but for subduction. Is this some kind of trick question? The post said;

 

Ok, say we have Himalayas where the Indian subcontinent collided with the Eaurasian plate. These are both continental plates of similar average thickness and composition and even though Indian plate was actually being pulled down by the still attached subducting slab of oceanic plate, it didn't go under Eurasian plate. Instead, we had collision and orogeny. Then, in your model, if you have a more or less uniform proto-crust, why would one of the pieces of it get subducted under the other, rather than resulting in orogeny as well?

 

If, on the other hand, we say that there were areas of different density then we're looking at the existing model of subduction initiating mechanism.

 

 

 

I took the liberties to assume the first skim that formed on that early Earth’s surface was made of lighter less dense “slag” type crust compared to later more chemically complex mineral varieties that would have formed as these stacked sections were gradually forced deeper in time. Eventually they would come up as the upper layers were eroded away as the post expresses. I doubt they would have the durability to do anything at a sharper angle, they are slag, they would just pile up like a train wreck or slid over or under one another.

 

 

You seem to have taken a lot of liberties with your model. Yet again, I repeat my question - what is so different between "flat" subduction and "steep" subduction so that the former will result in creating of continental crust and the latter wouldn't?

 

 

 

And there's no reason that the crust could not fracture next to a convergent boundary or anywhere else, becoming a new divergent boundary tension relieving mechanism and staying one as long as there is a convergent compression relieving mechanism/s somewhere to counter the need to process the crust as the GPE waxes and wanes.

 

There are plenty of reasons why it wouldn't. Just as I said, the new crust is thinner, weaker, comprised of more dense mantle material and it's much more likely that the convergent boundary would form there almost 100 times out of 100.

 

 

 

They are continually being eroded away from the top down and all sides. They are continually driven over oceanic crust. Interesting isn’t it. They seem to be slowly moved up as they are worn down.

 

Well, cratons do get eroded, at least in areas where they are exposed but they don't get destroyed or created since the time they formed.

 

 

 

Maybe so, but I like how easily my model works through everything.

 

You don't have a model. It doesn't work.

 

 

 

I will stick to my model's suggestion that they are solar magnetic in origin, the timing is fairly consistent, the increase/decrease in the planet's magnetic field generating components could produce the mantle displacement.

 

Refer to the beginning of my post.

 

Yay! Dwarves!

Edited by pavelcherepan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay! Dwarves!

Your dwarves sound a bit my like my ants.

 

The plates moved because there is a giant ant colony living in the mantle and they carry the plates on their backs. They live about 200 km deep and eat their way through the mantle material. They are evolved to withstand the tremendous pressure and temperatures found down there and never come up to the surface which is why we don't see them. They eat through the mantle leaving behind a soft residue thus -- my model predicts the existence of the asthenosphere -- this is a simple, accurate prediction not made by any of the competing theories. They converge at subduction zones to mate, and this process drags the plates behind them opening up rifts forming the new oceanic lithosphere.

Out of the three theories presented in this thread I'd definitely say my one has got the most legs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your dwarves sound a bit my like my ants.

 

 

Out of the three theories presented in this thread I'd definitely say my one has got the most legs!

My theory uses the power of billions of millipedes. I win if that is the criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arc, I have a new theory of subduction mechanism. By my thinking subduction occurs because a bazillion of dwarves get together and pull the oceanic plate down. Sometimes they decide to stop and have a break, sometimes they pull harder and sometimes they suddenly decide to start pulling in an entirely different place.

 

This sounds retarded, doesn't it, but given enough time I could bring my "theory" in a complete accordance with all the observational evidence and even make some predictions based on it. Unfortunately, everyone will still think it's retarded until I'm able to prove in a mathematical framework or modelling that these dwarves can exist and that they can create forces required.

 

You hypothesis has dwarves too, they live in the core, run currents through it to heat it up and then come together and push the core-mantle boundary upwards.

 

Pavelcherepan, we could call this billiards part II, because this thread has been down this road already. Those dwarfs or whatever you personally want to call them (your choice) have been busy for at least 545 million years doing what this model predicted from post #1. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry735239

 

“The cycle begins with a small thermal increase in the molten iron core from increased current due to induction from the strengthening of the Sun's magnetic field. As the molten core presses out from thermal expansion it expands the mantle ever so slightly which opens the divergent plate boundaries in the currently observed manner, filling with magma as they expand. After several million years of this solar increase induced cycle the Sun's magnetic field lowers and the Earth's field generator's core begins a cooler period of operation. As the core and mantle slowly recede the crust is put into compression against the newest divergent boundary deposits which leverages the crust towards the trench as the crust follows the mantle as it recedes from the cooling core.” (Pay close attention to that underlined part.)

 

The mantle oscillates - as predicted by this model. They are real measurable phenomena.

 

Here are the two papers regarding them.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10736864_Bonatti_E_et_al_Mantle_thermal_pulses_below_the_Mid Atlantic_Ridge_and_temporal_variations_in_the_formation_of_oceanic_lithosphere_Nature_423_499-505

 

http://www.geoconvention.com/archives/2013/183_GC2013_Episodic_Tectonics.pdf

 

“Fifty-six, large magnitude sequence boundaries have been delineated in the Phanerozoic succession of Arctic North America. The characteristics of the boundaries indicate that they were primarily generated by tectonics. The boundaries occur with an approximate 10 million year frequency (9.8 +/- 3.1). Each boundary was generated during a tectonic episode interpreted to reflect a mantle-driven, plate tectonic reorganization and consequent changes in regional stress fields. It is estimated that the duration of each of the tectonic episodes was in the range of a few million years and was significantly shorter than the intervening times of tectonic quiescence.” (Hey look at that! It says several million years too!)

 

Now, being a professional geologist, you must still be operating under the assumption that massive mathematically modeled convective movements of mantle material are at work in the mantle. Rising up, moving the tectonic plates around, building mountain ranges, pushing plates into convergent boundaries and all that stuff. And you feel fine believing that . . . .good.

 

Now could you please explain without resorting to dwarfs (because those are for my model.)

1. How the material in the mantle convects

2. How mantle dynamics and plate kinematics are linked at the surface

 

Now if you can’t do that I’m quite worried that your foundational understanding of geology may be based on an incorrect mathematical model. And further, that you have based your entire premise on an unseen and purely imagined idea that is little more than a figment of imagination.

 

Let’s call those figments; mantle Gnomes.

 

The mantle oscillations that this model uses to make accurate predictions of observations are actually real and documented to have taken place, while the mantle convections of the standard model have remained unobserved and are merely a mathematical hypothesis.

 

So, please clear this up. Give us the answers to those two questions.

 

Hint: I know you won’t/can’t answer those two questions.

 

Why do I know you can’t?

 

http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

MANTLE DYNAMICS AND PLATE KINEMATICS

Carlo Doglioni, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Roberto Sabadini, University of Milan, Italy

 

". . . . . none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle."

 

“nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects”

 

Yup . . . . . you have a bad case of the Gnomes . . So, . .pot calls kettle . . .

 

But this quote is my favorite:

"The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle"

 

It is interesting how this sentence describes the behavior of a crust that has an outward displacing mantle beneath it, just as it was proposed by this model. That whole paragraph has so much good information; it’s rather refreshing to hear the honest truth about convection instead of all that rainbows, lollipops and convection Gnome’s mathematical speculations that is commonly sweetened with so much self-deluded confidence.

 

Again, the mantle oscillations have been actually documented to have occurred above and below the crust. Reality and my Dwarves are kicking the crap out of your imaginary convection model and its Gnomes.

 

This model predicted them (the Dwarves and their oscillations, not the Gnomes) and their effects were debated with several members of the forum for several pages to what I feel was a satisfactory conclusion.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283

 

Mathematical models are great and are the foundation of science but at this point in time if you’re a geologist and you’re getting your Gnomes squished by some guy’s Dwarves, it’s time to get a better model.

 

So, billiards has dodged these questions for many pages now, I keep asking for predictions of observations, just some simple causes and effects for the standard model’s convection theory . . . . . . and they never seem to show up . . . . .DAMB UNRELIABLE GNOMES!

 

. Regardless of how well your idea matches observations, you still have to show that these "dwarves" are there.

 

My model predicted what the Dwarves do, how they do it and when they do it.

 

And what can your model predict?

 

“none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects.”

 

Oh right, that would be nothing.

 

You need to show mathematically, that induction currents from solar magnetic field can produce amounts of energy required, that the expansion of the core is significant enough to influence expansion of lithosphere and that rather than relieving stress in many other ways the mantle has at its disposal, it would, for some weird reason, just lift up. Unless you can show that your idea will never be accepted.

 

Well, If they’ll accept mantle Gnomes, I’ll assume for now they’ll accept my accurate predictions of observations of plate movement that were derived from the mantle oscillations seen in Doglioni et al and Embry et al research papers, and the predictions of observations in post’s 422 and 426 where I explained in a simple dynamic model how these oscillations put in place enough GPE to raise the Atlantic MOR.

 

And once again I'll have to refer you to Guidelines for Speculations Discussions which coincidentally is exactly on the point of my comment above (bolded part):

 

3. Specific predictions often require math. Do not expect others to do your math for you, nor should you consider the math to be a trivial and therefore unimportant part of your conjecture it's usually crucial. e.g. a vague explanation that something will get hot would not separate your idea from some other idea. Predicting a temperature dependence on certain conditions would allow for that.

 

Exactly why you need to show some predictions of observations for that vague, hypothetical mantle convection (I know you can’t because Doglioni spilled the beans) unlike those mantle oscillations. (Because those are real!)

 

This is where you need to show by direct cause and effect what Doglioni said has not been done yet. Since the whole standard model is dependent on and supported by mantle convective currents, you must show first that the convective currents even exist like the oscillations do. Then you need to show with a simple dynamic model of cause and effect how they drive the plates around and produce the observable results such as mountain orogeny.

 

But I know you won’t, what you are going to do instead is do the only thing you can, vacillate and give ambivalent generalizations;

 

It’s soooo elegant

 

And then when pressed;

 

"Ooooh, . . . . it’s a veeeery complicated problem, but were reeeeally closing in on it."

 

 

 

In cases where math may not be required, you still need to be able to make predictions that distinguish your idea from existing theories, e.g. predicting some result where mainstream theory predicts nothing happens, or some other clear distinction. If you can't do this, it's a sign you need a more detailed model.

 

Right, exactly what I have done, I showed the existing theory is flawed, and that it could not make any accurate predictions of observations. Again, that whole Atlantic MOR post several pages back where this model kicked your Gnomes’ butt.

 

Also it's quite fascinating how you consider that for a top-down theory using observational evidence for both deriving a theory and proving its validity is acceptable. You can't do that. It's a circular logic.

 

No, convection gnomes are circular logic. Again, you need to get your own speculative house in order before you can tell someone else how to run theirs, I have stayed true to the model I started this thread with and it has performed wonderfully, you should be so fortunate. But you would first need to dump that out of date model you have.

 

I'm also quite amazed how you managed to comment on all of my questions without actually answering them.

 

Let’s see how you do with those two questions regarding Doglioni’s revelation that the standard model is powered by some mysterious phenomena we can now, by your logic, refer to as Gnomes.

 

We're not talking about what I know. We're talking about your hypothesis. Please stick to it.

 

Oh we certainly are, you need to back-up what you’re saying, I’ve called into question the accuracy of the standard model with statements by a renowned geologists. You are challenging my model from a position of authority. If you cannot satisfactorily show the convection model to be superior to my model in making predictions then my model stands.

 

Do you not agree that since all short-lived isotopes have decayed and most of high-energy impacts have finished, the Earth started to slowly cool down at a modeled rate of ~100oC/billion years? By your idea such a decrease in temperature should lead to an overall increase in the number of subduction zones over time. Can you show that this is happening?

 

No, I believe it is your idea that according to the standard model the cooling planet would lead to more subduction zones. In my model subduction zones occur where I explained in post 454. This is due to those periodically occurring oscillations that determined how much or how little GPE is available in the crust to drive subduction or to raise mountain ranges.

"The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle"

 

The outward displacing mantle (as noted above) could at certain times impose substantial shear forces on the crust that could reduce the GPE and in turn produce extensional features like the Basin and Range and pull Island Arc’s towards their trenches. During the eventual mantle subsidence the crust would once again begin loading with increasing GPE that will, in turn, push the plates once more into the convergent boundaries or more rarely, upwards as mountain ranges.

 

 

You're mixing cause and effect here. Earth's magnetic field originates from a geodynamo in the liquid outer core. If, for some reason Earth's magnetic field strength increased, this could be because the temperature of outer core has increased, but it would not lead to a further increase of the core temperature, because then you're stuck in an infinite positive feedback loop.

 

No, I’m referring to time varying Solar magnetic induction of the planetary geodynamo. Similar to this paper regarding how Ganymede responds to Jupiter’s much larger and more powerful field.

 

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf

 

"Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field."

 

 

 

Yet again, you can't use observations to prove validity of the model when it's already created in a top-down fashion and is based on that same evidence. And please stop linking enormous posts, can't you present a short and condensed extract of what it's all about?

 

My reference to "top down" is in regards to;

 

The surface observations should direct you to what is unobservable. If you cannot see the source then what is observable should direct you to the answer, It should be reverse engineered from what is observable.

 

Do I need to quote Doglioni again? You have 89 years of efforts to fit Arthur Holmes' 1927 model to what is continually developing on the surface as a completely different series of causes and effects. How long are you going to keep trying to pound that square peg into that round hole?

 

Just so that I don't look like a person who refuses to properly study argumentation, I went and read the post you've linked. It did not open my eyes, if only a few times in a honest befuzzlement. I see absolutely no point in discussing it or even reading it in the first place.

 

Nice, obvious bias on your part. Many others have managed to overlook my horrendous lack of skill and were able to plod through it. By the way, it does compare and correlate the solar magnetic 14C proxy, climate variability and the Japanese earthquake records in time and intensity to those busy little dwarves. So it works, despite its warts.

 

I did not ask you for evidence about water presence on early Earth. We're talking about subduction. You made a claim of when it started and I want you to back it up. Why couldn't subduction have started before water has largely condensed? Is the presence of the shallow ocean somewhat important to your model?

 

I believe it is an essential ingredient in either model. Do you believe “dry” plate tectonics is possible? Would the standard model work without the ocean basins?

 

But it is an ongoing debate. I found this paper outlining it helpful.

 

http://www.ens-lyon.fr/DSM/SDMsite/M2/stages_M2/Bouffard2013.pdf

 

For me, I consider Venus’ stagnant lid and Earth’s mobile lid a compelling argument for the need of water. That paper on my last post showed of a very early watering of Earth and eliminated for me the likelihood that plate tectonics existed prior. Also neither planet shows evidence of changing regimes for any period of time; it doesn’t appear to switch off and then switch back on later. But Venus could reveal more on this question after future missions have been made.

 

In this model the plate tectonic would begin when the crust was finally capable of sustaining substantial amounts of shear forces from the outward displacement of the mantle and then the compression forces when the mantle subsided once again. A shallow ocean would supply a means to cool and strengthen the crust, allowing the process to begin, and more important, become a continuous cycle.

 

"The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean."

 

"Any evidence for this?"

 

Oh yes I see, it is so obvious due to the specificity of your question. The record of mantle oscillations suggests they have been occurring for 545 million years. I’m going to assume the planet has always oscillated from its earliest beginnings with plate tectonics beginning long after when the crust could finally withstand the dynamic load forces applied to it by the oscillations.

 

Ok, say we have Himalayas where the Indian subcontinent collided with the Eaurasian plate. These are both continental plates of similar average thickness and composition and even though Indian plate was actually being pulled down by the still attached subducting slab of oceanic plate, it didn't go under Eurasian plate. Instead, we had collision and orogeny.

 

Well, let’s stop there for a moment; this is a perfect example of why I think the standard model is overrated.

 

http://ceas.iisc.ern...h_geology06.pdf

 

Gravitational potential energy of the Tibetan Plateau and the forces driving the Indian plate

 

Attreyee Ghosh, William E. Holt Department of Geosciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11790, USA

 

Lucy M. Flesch* Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA

 

A. John Haines† Bullard Laboratories, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0EZ, UK

ABSTRACT

"We present a study of the vertically integrated deviatoric stress field for the Indian plate and the Tibetan Plateau associated with gravitational potential energy (GPE) differences. Although the driving forces for the Indian plate have been attributed solely to the mid-oceanic ridges that surround the entire southern boundary of the plate, previous estimates of vertically integrated stress magnitudes of 6–7 1012 N/m in Tibet far exceed those of 3 1012 N/m associated with GPE at mid-oceanic ridges, calling for an additional force to satisfy the stress magnitudes in Tibet. We use the Crust 2.0 data set to infer gravitational potential energy differences in the lithosphere. We then apply the thin sheet approach in order to obtain a global solution of vertically integrated deviatoric stresses associated only with GPE differences. Our results show large N-S extensional deviatoric stresses in Tibet that the ridge-push force fails to cancel."

 

. . . ."there is no complete dynamic explanation for this large GPE of the Tibetan Plateau and the relatively fast movement of the Indian plate. There is no apparent down going slab attached to the Indian plate that might assist in driving the plate into Eurasia through the slab pull mechanism" . . . . .

 

. . . . "However, the ridge push, or vertically integrated deviatoric stress magnitude, which is 3 1012 N/m (Richardson, 1992; Harper, 1975; Lister; 1975; Parsons and Richter, 1980), is not sufficient to satisfy inferred stress magnitudes of 6–7 1012 N/m that result from GPE differences between the Tibetan Plateau and the surrounding lowlands (Molnar and Lyon-Caen, 1988). An additional force is required to explain the disparity between the excess GPE of Tibet relative to that of the mid-oceanic ridges" . . . .

 

Conclusions;

. . "It is clear that something is missing as a driving force that does not have its source within the lithospheric shell."

 

Well, the standard model's convection model seems to be unable address the reality of this research. Would you please to the best of your abilities explain how convection can lead to the levels of GPE needed to produce the world’s mountain ranges?

 

So here now is another very difficult question for standard model to answer.

 

Add this one to the other two;

1. How does the material in the mantle convect?

2. How mantle dynamics and plate kinematics are linked at the surface?

 

And now;

3. How does mantle convection produce the required levels of GPE in the crust?

 

We all know already the standard model is incapable of dealing with this reality. Poor little Gnomes.

 

Mantle oscillation in this model will produce massive loads of GPE. When the mantle is slowly raised the divergent boundaries are slowly being filled, then after several million years the mantle moves down again and the ridge infill will begin loading the crust with GPE. The level of GPE is determined by the length of the expansion period and the quantity of the MOR material that was put in place during it. This value will then be balanced against the length of time and the degree that the mantle subsides. This resulting GPE drives the planet’s subduction and during rare occasions produces global periods of mountain building as was explained in post 422 and repeatedly explained throughout this thread.

 

 

 

Then, in your model, if you have a more or less uniform proto-crust, why would one of the pieces of it get subducted under the other, rather than resulting in orogeny as well?

OK, you saw that image, the description said;

 

When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other.”

 

In that diagram, a compression ridge is a mountain range, the subduction that followed is no less similar to what N. America is currently doing in overriding the Pacific Plate.

 

And what is seen here; https://www.iris.edu/hq/NSFProposal/Volume2/Lith.pdf

 

Lithospheric Layering in the North American Craton

Huaiyu Yuan (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory),

Barbara Romanowicz (Berkeley Seismological Laboratory)

 

"Recent receiver function studies detect structural boundaries under continental cratons at depths too shallow to be consistent with the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary (LAB) as inferred from seismic tomography and other geophysical studies. Using the new results from our regional surface wave tomographic inversion for the North American upper mantle shear wave structure, we show (Figure1) that changes in the direction of azimuthal anisotropy with depth reveal the presence of two distinct lithospheric layers throughout the stable part of the North American (NA) continent [Yuan and Romanowicz, 2010]."

 

. . . . ."American craton may be exceptionally simple, the application of this tool to other continents should provide further insights on the assembly and evolution of cratons worldwide."

 

The crust would take the path of least resistance, and only change its subduction angle when required to add one more layer under the existing craton. At some point it stops when the craton's thickness exceeds the available GPE and the plates abilities to do so, the resulting plate angle produces instead the currently observed Island Arc subduction regime.

 

If, on the other hand, we say that there were areas of different density then we're looking at the existing model of subduction initiating mechanism.

 

And that’s fine, if you feel that model satisfies all your questions about plate movement and mountain building great.

 

I’m not satisfied, hence this model.

 

You seem to have taken a lot of liberties with your model. Yet again, I repeat my question - what is so different between "flat" subduction and "steep" subduction so that the former will result in creating of continental crust and the latter wouldn't?

 

Beating dead horses, eh. Well because, if you happened to notice that Huaiyu Yuan et al paper I showed above and in my last post, it described a very similar scenario.

 

“reveal the presence of two distinct lithospheric layers throughout the stable part of the North American”

 

It appears from the above description the early subduction was likely very flat, and when you also consider these rocks sometimes date back from 2 to 3.5 billion years, this model’s contention that as these layers were added to the underside of the ones above them, they were gradually pushed deeper and then rose again as the upper portions were eroded fit rather nicely to the observations as well.

 

In the Grand Canyon’s Great Unconformity the Tonto Group is overlying the Vishnu Basement Rocks where there is a gap of around 1.2 billion years between the 550 million year old Tapeats Sandstone and the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Basement Rocks.

 

As this cycle repeated the areas of crust where large scale lamination of two and then three and so on layers of subducting crust had been placed would begin to press those lowest layers deeper into the mantle, farther than ever before. The more complex tectonic processes that are now observed today rely still on the simple outer core thermal cycles described above. The continents have evolved into cratonic structures that are still built, moved and destroyed by the simple mechanism that the model provides.”

Does this somehow sound out of line with the Huaiyu Yuan et al research paper? Would you not agree that the 1.2 billion years’ worth of missing material from the GC Great Unconformity was destroyed through erosional and tectonic processes?

 

 

There are plenty of reasons why it wouldn't. Just as I said, the new crust is thinner, weaker, comprised of more dense mantle material and it's much more likely that the convergent boundary would form there almost 100 times out of 100.

 

Well, you’re mixing your model with mine, mine has the displacing mantle, but I’m not getting sucked into that abyss of sorting the two out for you.

 

 

.Well, cratons do get eroded, at least in areas where they are exposed but they don't get destroyed or created since the time they formed.

 

And PT has a long way to go. The show is not over by any means or measurement. But more importantly, that 1.2 billion year's worth of missing continental material above the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Basement Rocks indicates that the continental material is being removed as the craton is being slowly raised toward the surface by what appears from that Huaiyu Yuan et al paper is additional layers of crustal material from below, material BTW that is probably younger than the material above it.

 

 

You don't have a model. It doesn't work.

 

Gnome calls Dwarf . . . .

 

 

 

 

Yay! Dwarves!

 

Go! Gnomes!

 

And, based on the issues raised by Ghosh et al and Doglioni et al, I’m going to need those three questions answered along with some predictions of observations for the mantle convection and mountain orogeny when you get a chance, you know, some clear and understandable series of causes and effects like I did in post 422. Or I’m going to pound you about it with every post.

 

 

The standard model is under as much scrutiny as this model is, if you keep demanding answers and then refuse to produce evidence that the standard model can produce the answers to those three questions and predictions as accurate as this model did in post 422, then you will lose. As of post 422 this model is more than one up on the standard model's mantle convection.

 

Here they are again;

1. How does the material in the mantle convect in regards to Doglioni et al?

2. How are mantle dynamics and plate kinematics linked at the surface in regards to Doglioni et al?

3. How does mantle convection produce the required levels of GPE in the crust in regards to Ghosh et al?

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing here is that subduction is actually a (really important) mode of mantle convection. It's cold material from the surface that is dense, buoyantly unstable, and sinks into the hotter (more buoyant) fluid below (only fluid over long timescales mind) -- that's pretty much the definition of convection.

 

Subduction = convection

 

Arc denies convection and ridicules it by calling it 'gnomes' yet at the very same time he claims that his model (which kicks the gnomes' collective butt) elegantly explains subduction. So ironically his model "explains" convection. Yet convection is the very thing that he hates (and that every Earth scientist (including Doglioni by the way) is too stupid enough to "believe").

 

Arc hates convection, but subduction's just fine.

 

Arc's stuck in a kind of dumb position here, it's a bit like saying "I hate animals that fly, but birds are okay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put, billiards.

 

One more thing for you, arc. So you seem to be entirely sure that you're right and we have a broken theory. That's fine. 24 pages of discussion don't seem to have put a dent in your resolve to prove you're right. In that case what you need to do is to write a scientific paper and send it to a good peer-reviewed journal and see how it stands up to a proper scientific scrutiny. Not many people on this forum are qualified to peer-review and fewer yet to discuss this particular topic. So if you want a proper response from scientific community then that's what you need to do, rather than waste our time and yours here.

 

I'd also suggest not to wait too long. Modern science is all about timing. If you wait too long, someone else will come up with a similar idea and then they would reap all of the benefits of discovery.

Edited by pavelcherepan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me, putting a lot of effort into an idea is a bit like climbing a mountain; you've got to know when to turn around and give up..

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important function of a model is to make accurate predictions of observations. Many researchers build models towards solving specific phenomena in a “build to suite” fashion where the problem is known, and through diligent hard work and using all of the resources available, including the investigator’s own experience and education - a creative solution is prescribed. These models, though, are usually dependent on the Standard Model, and reflect a heavy reliance on it to support the solution’s functionality in solving the observed and targeted phenomena.

 

When an alternate to the Standard Model such as this one proposes a solution in the same “build to suite” manner it will need to outperform the accepted Standard Model in providing predictions that extend beyond the current body of known phenomena.

 

That is, the alternate model should, or really, must describe, or predict, in a detailed way a process that has not yet been observed or described, preferably by others, to have occurred in nature. And, also preferably, this discovery should be made at some appreciable time in the future after it was described and predicted by the model. This predictability is the optimum criteria for science. That it not only describes what is currently being observed, but will describe in detail a solution to various phenomena observed at a later date that are currently unknown to the science at hand.

 

This model has offered an alternate solution to many geologic phenomena;

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

 

This model has made some very accurate predictions of observations, some in the manner described above, where a substantial lead-time was given between the model’s description of the phenomena and the actual discovery of the predicted observation.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry843598

 

In the post above this model described solutions for and made many predictions of observations of existing phenomena besides directly and completely answering the original problem raised and described by billiards. That post presented a complete, yet compact model of the Earth’s crustal development from plate tectonics’ earliest beginning to the development and formation of current plate dynamics.

 

I now would like to show some research that was received for review June 20, 2016 and approved October 11, 2016.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/47/E7359

 

Rapid conversion of an oceanic spreading center to a subduction zone inferred from high-precision geochronology

Timothy E. Keenan, John Encarnación, Robert Buchwaldt, Dan Fernandez, James Mattinson, Christine Rasoazanamparany, and P. Benjamin Luetkemeyer

 

Significance

“Subduction, the process by which tectonic plates sink into the mantle, is a fundamental tectonic process on Earth, yet the question of where and how new subduction zones form remains a matter of debate. In this study, we find that a divergent plate boundary, where two plates move apart, was forcefully and rapidly turned into a convergent boundary where one plate eventually began subducting. This finding is surprising because, although the plate material at a divergent boundary is weak, it is also buoyant and resists subduction. This study suggests that buoyant, but weak, plate material at a divergent boundary can be forced to converge until eventually older and denser plate material enters the nascent subduction zone, which then becomes self-sustaining.”

 

Abstract

“Where and how subduction zones initiate is a fundamental tectonic problem, yet there are few well-constrained geologic tests that address the tectonic settings and dynamics of the process. Numerical modeling has shown that oceanic spreading centers are some of the weakest parts of the plate tectonic system [Gurnis M, Hall C, Lavier L (2004) Geochem Geophys Geosys 5:Q07001], but previous studies have not favored them for subduction initiation because of the positive buoyancy of young lithosphere. Instead, other weak zones, such as fracture zones, have been invoked. Because these models differ in terms of the ages of crust that are juxtaposed at the site of subduction initiation, they can be tested by dating the protoliths of metamorphosed oceanic crust that is formed by underthrusting at the beginning of subduction and comparing that age with the age of the overlying lithosphere and the timing of subduction initiation itself. In the western Philippines, we find that oceanic crust was less than 1 My old when it was underthrust and metamorphosed at the onset of subduction in Palawan, Philippines, implying forced subduction initiation at a spreading center. This result shows that young and positively buoyant, but weak, lithosphere was the preferred site for subduction nucleation despite the proximity of other potential weak zones with older, denser lithosphere and that plate motion rapidly changed from divergence to convergence.”

 

The above research involves many of the same questions raised by billiards and raises many new ones that strain the Standard Model even further than just the subduction initiation problem posed by billiards.

 

The limitations that the Standard Model imposes on these problems include that subduction and divergent boundaries are considered to be caused by separate phenomena. That oceanic crust must be old and heavy (less buoyant) to subduct, and newer (bouyant) oceanic crust cannot become or even initiate a subduction regime. Divergent boundaries are then assumed to be initiated by continental break-up (Atlantic) and then perpetuated by ridge push and/or slab-pull at the corresponding convergent boundary.

 

The Standard Model is thus left with a “chicken or egg first” quandary. The Atlantic has no convergent boundaries, yet the oceanic crust is connected to the N. American plate that moves without the slab pull of a convergent boundary pulling it. It is in all actuality, driving or being driven over the Pacific plate, this would then require the source to be ridge push at the Atlantic divergent boundary.

 

At some point though it is assumed the Atlantic plate sections will separate from their adjoining continents and develop into convergent boundaries. But wouldn't an outward shear force to the plate from below provide that separation? And wouldn't a following opposing shear force from below change that new divergent boundary into a convergent boundary?

 

Nowhere in the Standard Model are there solutions for the problems posed by billiards or Keenan, et al.

 

Fortunately, this model had described and predicted the exact scenario observed and described by the Keenan, et al paper of October 11, 2016 over a year and a half earlier on 25 December 2014.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry843598

 

 

 

This model simply requires that the temperature of the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods. An increase in energy will always include an increase in temperature. The temperature increase will in turn always produce thermal expansion of the molten iron. This will displace the mantle and produce strain energy in the form of heat at the crust/mantle boundary. The slow increase in the mantle's circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension.

 

These tension relieving mechanisms are the mid ocean ridges located where the crust could not sustain itself against the shear forces displacing it from beneath.

 

post-88603-0-77159400-1490574178_thumb.png

 

Eventually the magnetic field energy lowers and the outer core contracts placing the crust in compression against the most recent deposits of seafloor. The first subductions probably began during that time long ago when all that existed was proto crust beneath a shallower ocean. When the compression reached a critical level a compression ridge formed at one of the weaker divergent boundaries. As it failed under the increasing pressures it became a convergent boundary as one edge subducted under the other.

 

post-88603-0-91847400-1490574291_thumb.png

 

As there were no continents yet the subduction was very flat, providing the genesis for the formation of the first proto continents.

 

As the cycle repeated, the slow expansion added additional magmatic material into the divergent boundary now known as a mid ocean ridge. Then when the cycle changed to a cooler outer core the new material would leverage the opposite edge of the adjoining crust further under the overriding section.

 

As this cycle repeated the areas of crust where large scale laminations of two and then three and so on layers of subducting crust had been placed would begin to press those lowest layers deeper into the mantle, farther than ever before.

post-88603-0-72548100-1490574338_thumb.png

 

http:// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Craton

An associated class of inclusions called eclogites, consists of rocks corresponding compositionally to oceanic crust (basalt) that has metamorphosed under deep mantle conditions. Isotopic studies reveal that many eclogite inclusions are samples of ancient oceanic crust subducted billions of years ago to depths exceeding 150 km (90 mi) into the deep kimberlite diamond areas. They remained fixed there within the drifting tectonic plates until carried to the surface by deep-rooted magmatic eruptions.

 

If peridotite and eclogite inclusions are of the same temporal origin, then peridotite must have also originated from spreading sea floor ridges billions of years ago, or from mantle affected by subduction of oceanic crust. During the early years of Earth's existence, when the planet was much hotter, greater degrees of melting at spreading oceanic ridges generated oceanic lithosphere with thick crust, much thicker than 20 km (12 mi), and a highly depleted mantle. Such a lithosphere would not sink deeply or subduct, because of its buoyancy and the removal of denser melt that in turn increased the density of the residual mantle. Accordingly, cratonic mantle roots are probably composed of buoyantly subducted slabs of a highly depleted oceanic lithosphere. These deep mantle roots increase the stability, anchoring and survivability of cratons; this makes them much less susceptible to tectonic thickening by collisions or destruction by sediment subduction.

 

The greater depth and heat in combination with whatever water and minerals that were brought with the crust were processed into gradually more complex petrologic examples. These first layers of ocean crust that were raised from below out of that ancient ocean have long since eroded away as the newer igneous rocks came up under them from the depths below.

 

 

The more complex tectonic processes that are now observed today rely still on the simple outer core thermal cycles described above. The continents have evolved into cratonic structures that are still built, moved and destroyed by the simple mechanism that the model provides.

 

The “key” to subduction in our contemporary geology can be deduced by carefully examining the observable evidence.

 

The Atlantic oceanic plates are connected to their adjoining continents. We are rather certain that the continents in question were once joined, so we have a rather good analog to compare other plates against.

 

The Pacific plate is no longer connected to the Asian continent, and we could expect that a model that could explain why the Atlantic has not separated (yet) and why the Pacific has separated would be making predictions of observation quite well.

 

post-88603-0-21562900-1490574403_thumb.png

post-88603-0-06361600-1490574442_thumb.png

 

The shear forces that the outward displacing mantle applies to the plates are what cause the plates to fracture. Then as these cycles continue they will establish convergent boundaries.

 

This model described in great detail the formation of divergent boundaries that were then converted to convergent boundaries long before Keenan, et al suggested that such a situation could exist. The Standard Model on the other hand is unable to resolve this dichotomy or even the much simpler subduction initiation problem that billiards had posed earlier.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi arc,

You still flogging this dead horse? :P

That is, the alternate model should, or really, must describe, or predict, in a detailed way a process that has not yet been observed or described, preferably by others, to have occurred in nature. And, also preferably, this discovery should be made at some appreciable time in the future after it was described and predicted by the model. This predictability is the optimum criteria for science. That it not only describes what is currently being observed, but will describe in detail a solution to various phenomena observed at a later date that are currently unknown to the science at hand.


Yes. However.... You must also answer all the criticisms that have been raised in this thread. Waiting a year between posts does not make them go away I'm afraid.

I now would like to show some research that was received for review June 20, 2016 and approved October 11, 2016.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/47/E7359

Rapid conversion of an oceanic spreading center to a subduction zone inferred from high-precision geochronology
Timothy E. Keenan, John Encarnación, Robert Buchwaldt, Dan Fernandez, James Mattinson, Christine Rasoazanamparany, and P. Benjamin Luetkemeyer


Nice find. Of course cherry picking results from the literature that "fit" your model is not how science is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.