The ocean floor has been dated to less then 200 my. You have no clue what you are talking about. "To date however, there is no direct unambiguous evidence that mantle convection and/or mantle circulation actually takes place; in fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. Moreover, there is no evidence that oceanic basalt can be repeatedly recycled through the mantle without being substantially and irreversibly changed. Yet, mantle convection/circulation and basalt recycling are fundamental necessities for the validity of plate tectonics. Furthermore, plate tectonics theory does not provide an energy source for geodynamic activity." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, 2005
Wrong again. Because this trend is so totally in my imagination. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Orange dots are 40-69km depth. Puprle dots are >300km depth. Notice how the move in the direction of motion of the pacific plate. What's you're explanation for that? I have wasted my time reading every one of your replies, and not one of them has addressed this point. PLease do so, or conceed that you can not, because your theory has no explanation for this observation.
I sugegst that this is true only of you. Once again, we come back to Ophiolites, and the fact that there are Ophiolites incorporated, and resting on top of crustal sequences that are substantially older than 200 Ma.
Ophiolites are sections that have been lifted by spreading and volcanism, not subducted. If they were in fact subducted as the religious fundamentalists claim, it would be impossible to observe them. "To date however, there is no direct unambiguous evidence that mantle convection and/or mantle circulation actually takes place; in fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. Moreover, there is no evidence that oceanic basalt can be repeatedly recycled through the mantle without being substantially and irreversibly changed. Yet, mantle convection/circulation and basalt recycling are fundamental necessities for the validity of plate tectonics. Furthermore, plate tectonics theory does not provide an energy source for geodynamic activity." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, 2005
Once again, you avoid addressing hard facts. This also represents a strawman fallacy, as well as an appeal to ignorance. For one thing, it takes time for an object to melt, so your assertion that they would be unobservable is a falsehood (and an appeal to ignorance). For another thing, you're completely addressing the issue that i'm trying to point out. That there are Ophiolites incorporated in crustal sequences, that are substantially older then the oldest existing oceanic crust - something your theory can not explain.
Is there any evidence at all for mantle convection and/or mantle circulation? What contrary evidence exists? How does tectonics not provide an energy source for geodynamic activity? What alternatives can you suggest for the existence of a geodynamo, and why it 'flips' polarity periodically? Or are you just practising your chanting technique? Or you're too uneducated to respond in any coherent way, all on your own? You have to keep accumulating a list of what you think is material evidence for your varied, transparent diatribes? (sorry about the big words)
No. But since when have so-called "geologists" ever needed evidence? I refer you to the quotes you deliberately ignored posted above. What energy source causes subduction? Polarity reversal is a mystery regardless of what model you use: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926105021.htm Note: it says illuminated by lava flows not illuminated by the fossil record. I suspect polarity reversal is related to positron-negatron pair production and the core.
Clearly you've never observed lava or volcanism before. I suggest you try leaving your cave or porch. I refer you to the Herndon quote you deliberately ignored posted above.
I thought you wouldn't have any answers. You think all you need is a bunch of quotes, and the ability to post them. You keep claiming a lot of things, then appear to have no way to support them. You don't even understand the stuff you're quoting repeatedly. All you're capable of is repeating the same laughable inane rubbish over and over again. Go find a cave somewhere and do it, willya?
Try leaving your trailer park. Oooh look at that, congratulations, you managed to provoke me into sinking to your level to respond. Happy? Does it give you that warm wet happy feeling in your crotch? Yes, I have observed Vulcanism before, and lava, but that does nothing to address the point. That is - the incoroporation of Ophiolites, which form as part of sea floor spreading (according to you even) have been incorporate in crustal sequences, and are older than any current part of the oceanic sea floor. There's an easy explanation for this - they were once part of the seafloor, an older sea floor that has since, for the most part, been subducted. No, I haven't deliberately ignored it, i've read it several times now, and it's still completely irrelevant to the discussion of Ophoilite sequences incorporated in crustal sequences, or the fact that I can graph a wadati-benioff zone.
"Runcorn [1964, 1966] showed how paleotidal and paleorotational data can be used to explore whether Earth’s moment of inertia has changed over geological time. Such analysis also can examine whether Earth’s radius has increased significantly with time, as required by the hypothesis of Earth expansion, because Earth’s moment of inertia would increase with secular increase in radius." George E Williams, 1999. "The late Neoproterozoic rhythmite data do not support significant change in Earth’s moment of inertia and radius over the past 620 Myr." - George E Williams, 1999.
How are you able to observe something after it has been subducted in the mantle? And I can draw a chimera. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1934
"When studying the history of the creation and formulation of plate tectonics one can come to the conclusion that it is, and was at best only a hypothesis. A hypothesis, which uses an assumption at its basis. This is the assumption that the Earth has retained a constant size during its geological evolution. This assumption however is not supported by facts." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005 "There is now a lack of reference or any factual basis in plate tectonic discussions." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005 "The causal understanding of Earth expansion is not yet fully understood, but the empirical processes involved are confirmed by such numerous and different sets of data that this should be considered fact." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005
Because, as I have explained already, things that have been subducted can, occasionally find their way back to the surface. Metamorphism takes time. Melting takes time. Irrelevant. It's an undeniable fact that at least one wadati-benioff zone exists - as demonstrated by the 3 maps I have posted for you, based on certified data collected over the last 50 years. You have thus far failed to offer a cause for this observation. Again, offer a cause, or concede the point. "Runcorn [1964, 1966] showed how paleotidal and paleorotational data can be used to explore whether Earth’s moment of inertia has changed over geological time. Such analysis also can examine whether Earth’s radius has increased significantly with time, as required by the hypothesis of Earth expansion, because Earth’s moment of inertia would increase with secular increase in radius." George E Williams, 1999. "The late Neoproterozoic rhythmite data do not support significant change in Earth’s moment of inertia and radius over the past 620 Myr." - George E Williams, 1999. (on top of which your tesla quote bears no relation to geology).
OIM, you seem to think that the opinions of a small group of scientists constitutes evidence. That might be true in religion, but not in science where opinions are worthless. Your style of debate reminds me of Sarah Palin. Spouting off things that other people have said in a vain attempt to look like you know what you're talking about.
"There is no direct unambiguous evidence that mantle convection and/or mantle circulation actually takes place; in fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. Moreover, there is no evidence that oceanic basalt can be repeatedly recycled through the mantle without being substantially and irreversibly changed. Yet, mantle convection/circulation and basalt recycling are fundamental necessities for the validity of plate tectonics. Furthermore, plate tectonics theory does not provide an energy source for geodynamic activity." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, 2005 How much time? At what rate does something spread back to the surface after it has been subducted? And how does the Pacific Ocean exist if it's been subducted into the mantle? And what happens to the basalt once it's been subducted and miraculously and magically passes through the denser granite and mantle? I can draw a chimera for you but it doesn't exist. For at least the third time: spreading. So what happens to the mass of a meteorite after it hits the Earth? It miraculously and magically goes to zero? "My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005
Just telling it how it is. I don't think anyone here takes you seriously, and if that's what you've set out to accomplish then congratulations.
Take your politics and religion to the Pseudoscience Forum and stop trolling with ad hominems. I'm trying to have an intelligent scientific debate. Clearly you aren't.
