The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?  (Read 33056 times)

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Albert Einstein
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
To re-reiterate; the subduction of Earth's tectonic plates are not the cause for the uplifting our planet's greatest mountain chains...
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
If you think, I have failed, failed, failed...why are you still posting?  Good bye Ophiolite
I am pointing out to you what you can do to succeed.
 
Offer meaningful evidence to support your position.
Produce research from other workers that supports your position.
Directly answer questions that were directed to you.
Address the issues that were raised.
Stop avoiding some questions and some issues.

 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
OK.. I stand to say. Subduction is BS!

How the mountains formed?

Expansion explains it quite sensably and without soft land masses having to push up mountains either on the coast or interior regions of continents.

Quite simply they were formed by the reshaping of the expanding earth.

The whole earth was a solid mass with a shallow sea covering it. Almost totaly as there are a few places on earth there is no fossil record. These fossil beds were pushed up and folded during the earths reshaping to a larger radius during expansion.

If you have a 12" globe and expand it to 20" the radius reshape of the surface forces would cause uplift and folding. Either deep in a continent or at its coast. And the oceans. The pressures cause the folding seen in the field. Also causing down force like seen in death valley.

Look at the ridges in the ocean. Subduction has many adhock explanations that do not make sense. But study them with subduction as a bases for the motion and it is obvious the ocean floor also reshapes just as the continents do.

There is no subduction !

A simple look..Explanation.

Place your fingertips of both hands together. This makes a 6" to 8" sphere/radius.
Now expand the radius out to approx. double (as expansion theory suggests)  letting your thumbs seperate to create the larger radius. Some fingers go/create into peaks. Joints of fingers create valleys.

 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
If you look  in a box of Rice Crispies, all of the small bits go to the bottom, and all of the big bits go to the top. It's the small bits that have the most freedom to go wherever they want. The big bits are like two fat people trying to go through the same door at the same time.

I'm not sure if that is applicable to your mountains. Is a sediment pushing them up?

Anyway, that's just something to think about.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
OK.. I stand to say. Subduction is BS!
Then how do you account for the evidence, from earthquakes, of subducting slabs?

Quote
These fossil beds were pushed up and folded during the earths reshaping to a larger radius during expansion.
Folding requires compression. Expansion generates tension. Where is the compressive force coming from to induce folding?
 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
If you reshape the surface of a small round to double its radius that's what you would have. Tremendous folding, with extreme pressures causing upward and downward forcing of the surface. What isn't pushed up or down is folded and miss formed and pushed to the weird angles we see the once horizontal layers pushed into.
 O and there are no sub ducting plates.

Study this map a few minutes while thinking about this:
 http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_noplates.jpg [nofollow]

 Our planet is scarred. There are stretchmarks from head to toe beginning at the North pole. They go down through the Atlantic and around Africa, continue from the Indian ocean down under Australia and all the way around Antarctica. Now these stretchmarks are undeniably the result of continents moving away from each other. Agreed? The Atlantic is expanding?.. So we have the same patterns and stretch marks on the floor of the Pacific that are exactly the same as the marks on the Atlantic ocean floor.  It is all formed the same on the whole planet. The same stretch marks are in the Pacific. It is so obvious. How can you be fooled?
 And the age pattern of the map. Its so obvious. I really do-not understand how anyone with a small amount of common sense can swallow plate subduction. It does not make good sense.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2013 16:48:36 by colorshapetexture »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Then how do you account for the evidence, from earthquakes and from seismic tomography, of subducting slabs? Please answer the quesiton this time. Repating an error does not make it true.
 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Then how do you account for the evidence, from earthquakes, of subducting slabs?

  You say/believe/look at the evidence with a one track mind. That's the main reason I am in this conversation. Just the chance you don't have earths geology figured out perfectly and the gathering of the information understood perfectly correct. The result would be we will have lost and continue to loose all the data being gathered.
 You know Giordano Bruno dared to say that the sun was a star and that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings? He was burned at the stake by the scientist/society of the day for having such thoughts. Seems most in here like to set fires without a thought.
 The earth is a pressure vessel gassing off and heating and churning. It rises and falls as the GPS proves.
 And I would like to ask you the same question?
 Where is the evidence of/from earthquakes, of sub ducting slabs?

Folding requires compression. Expansion generates tension. Where is the compressive force coming from to induce folding?

 Your right!
  But your definition of expansion makes me think of a supple surface elastic balloon. The earth has a cooled hard rock crust. Put a solid crust on your balloon/pressure vessel. Now inflate it to a larger radius. The outer shell will not only crack and shift as the subsurface expands but in the reshaping of the crust to a larger radius the solid sections of earth create great pressures pushing  up/down/lateral. Thus explaining mountain building, the rise of the great plateaus that are pushed up(that were covered by the sea and now show the fossil record), and also the great depressions and cracks like the central US/Mississippi.

Now don't that make a hell of a lot more sense than the whole frickin ocean is sub ducting. And being pushed under a frickin continent?

« Last Edit: 27/03/2013 00:29:37 by colorshapetexture »
 

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Yes I did...

 Here is part of the first sentence... that a lot of people overlook when reading.


 Earth's surface may be lubricated by a layer of partial melting, according to researchers

Problem is the may be

!

 Hell it may be lubricated with KY jelly. Thats about the only way your gonna get the ocean floor/rocks/silt/sand to slip under a continent without a trace.

And the below from the researchers. This seems to be the norm.
 The team goes out expecting to find one thing. Then find something totaly different or not to the norm and the whosale add-hock begins. Its no wonder we are looking for other avenues.
 
"We went out looking to get an idea of how fluids are interacting with plate subduction [and] we discovered a melt layer we weren't expecting to find at all – it was pretty surprising," says another team member, Kerry Key, also from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.


Here is another study close to the same.
Published online20 March 2013

(Quote)studies identify a prominent velocity discontinuity at depths thought to coincide with the LAB but disagree on its cause?
we interpret the conductor to be a partially molten layer capped by an impermeable frozen lid that is the base of the lithosphere
Because this boundary layer has the potential to behave as a lubricant to plate motion, its proximity to the trench may have implications for subduction dynamics.(end quote)

This is the latest factual information?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11939.html [nofollow]



« Last Edit: 26/03/2013 20:16:17 by colorshapetexture »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
You are talking about details of mechanism. I am asking you to account for the clear evidence, in the form of earhquakes, of plate movement along slab that penetrate the mantle. You have totally ignored that evidence. That is what I am asking you, for the fourth time, to address. (You do realise that avoiding a question as often as that implies one of two things, neither of which is flattering.)
 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Beloussov (1980, 1990) held that plate tectonics was a premature generalization of still very inadequate data on the structure of the ocean floor, and had proven to be far removed from geological reality. He wrote:


It is ... quite understandable that attempts to employ this conception to explain concrete structural situations in a local rather than a global scale lead to increasingly complicated schemes in which it is suggested that local axes of spreading develop here and there, that they shift their position, die out, and reappear, that the rate of spreading alters repeatedly and often ceases altogether, and that lithospheric plates are broken up into an even greater number of secondary and tertiary plates. All these schemes are characterised by a complete absence of logic, and of patterns of any kind. The impression is given that certain rules of the game have been invented, and that the aim is to fit reality into these rules somehow or other. (1980, p. 303)
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
And still you refuse to account for the clear evidence, in the form of earhquakes, of plate movement along slab that penetrate the mantle. If you fail to respond to that request  on this occassion I shall take it as a tacit admission that your argument is wrong.
 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
This broken pot is about as simple a picture as I can make you.
 Hell its surface even resembles the earths.
 Pieces go up and pieces go down. Pieces spread in plates forming voids. Gee looks like an ocean forming?

 Mechanical forces of the expansion of a sphere with a solid earthlike surface.... Simple.

 Love the rusty wire for gravity...lol

Like Neal says....

Notice there is no subduction. Only the natural forces cracking and moving the plates to different position on the larger sphere and creating large ocean like spaces. But if you relax the pressure the pieces will fall back into place. Nothing subduction or no great mystery. The pieces fit.
 Now to try to explain the mountain building...
The sphere is like a natural geode. The forces holding it together pushing in from all directions to the center. This force would make its piece pie shape from the center out to the crust. This crust is/was a lets say 6" radius. If this radius of the crust was changed/grew to a 12" radius, that outer solid crust would have to break into many pieces or blocks to reshape into the new Pie. lol Much like figuring Pie.
 The force is that with all high pressure. It is going to give at its weakest point. And the crust will crack the pie separate the pieces laying new ocean floor between the pieces to reform the larger radius. The continents which are the original pieces had to reshape also. Where the inter continent plate like sections rose creating the giant plateaus and plains also pushing up smaller sections of crust that were more solid. Squirting the mountains up in the amazing short times that studies propose.

 The simple examples....
 Tiddly Winks! Ever played it? Put pressure on the tiddly and the wink shoots out.
 Have you ever squeezed a watermelon seed between your finger and thumb? They shoot out pretty well.
The same senerio pushed up the mountain ranges when the crust cracked in reshaping. And with the internal pressure and the pressures created in the re-radiusing.
 Just like a pimple.

If we could look at and study, trying understand the forces at work on the planet with an open mind instead of being chained to geology's bible and not even being allowed to think even more could be understood.

As..
 How did all the fossil record end up above sea level?
 The earth was mostly covered by shallow seas. The evidence is everywhere.
 The growing earth broke up and pushed them up in big plateau sections.
 Folding and tilting all evidence.

 How did fossil record end up at the top of all the mountain ranges in the world?
 Think watermelon seeds and pimples...lol

I can go on. But this was to try to explain mountain building.


 
« Last Edit: 01/04/2013 19:18:41 by colorshapetexture »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
There are only two explanations for your refusal to answer the question I have asked repeatedly. The first explanation is that you are deceitful, the second touches on your intellectual capacity. Will you please answer the question: how do you account for the clear evidence, in the form of earhquakes, of plate movement along slabs that penetrate the mantle?
 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Hi Ophiolite.

I didn't know your questions were directed to me as I got into this conversation late.

Wow love your red letters. Real high class there.

First I did not refuse to answer your question I simply did not and could not have thought it was for me as I do not see any clear evidence of anything that is proported by subduction. I believe subduction is a theory that will be proved wrong. Earthquakes indicate nothing to prove subduction. And your plate movement along slabs? WTF is that?

I am saying to you Ophio.

Show me the clear evidence.

I dont have to account for your silly unsubstantiated claims. Ocean crust that is 5 miles thick. Does not and can not force or subduct under a 35 mile thick continent. Can't happen!

Penetrate the mantle? I thought it was hot and viscous and under great pressure down there? Thats like trying to shove a wet noodle up a bulls ass. It ain't gonna happen.

You call these sapposed subducting things plates like they are something ridgid that can be forced in some giant sheet. This is fractured rock, there is nothing ridgid about it. But then according to your story it bends to drive/force under the continent? And its sinking, being sucked and is forced under 35 miles of continent. In a big plate? Show me!
  O and it deforms this continent and pushes up mountains while its melting and folding. And the real piece. Its a boiling cycle that drives the whole thing?

All I have ever seen to prove your idea are cartoons.

I showed you a picture of a basic sphere with a solid crust that expanded. The result looks very much like the surface of the earth if it were growing/expanding. Its real!

And as far as intellectual capacity? You sir are the one that is trying to sell me a stupid cartoon as proof of your fantastic hypothesis that has had so many add ons in the last 40 years it sounds like a Jules Verne fantasy.

Show me the subduction, or plate movement along slabs that penetrate the mantle.

 

Your intellect is obvious.

 

Post by Pincho click to view.

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
I have solved Subduction now. So that I do not send your thread off topic I will post a link. Read the next 3 posts. It leads to subduction from the AMS data...

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47070.msg408327#msg408327
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Hi Ophiolite.
I didn't know your questions were directed to me as I got into this conversation late.
How strange. When I first asked the question you repeated it in the following post, then proceeded to avoid answering it.

Wow love your red letters. Real high class there.
Since you refused to answer question(s) repeatedly it was necessary to use something dramatic to get your attention. Your refusal to answer reveals how much class is associated with yourself.

First I did not refuse to answer your question I simply did not and could not have thought it was for me as I do not see any clear evidence of anything that is proported by subduction.
Bollocks. As noted above you even repeated my question in one of your posts.

.... I do not see any clear evidence of anything that is proported by subduction. I believe subduction is a theory that will be proved wrong. Earthquakes indicate nothing to prove subduction. And your plate movement along slabs? WTF is that?
Proported is not a word I am familiar with, so the first clause has no meaning.

Your beliefs are not what is under discussion.

How do you account for the presence of earthquakes whose locations and sense of movement clearly pick out zones that are descending into the mantle from the surface? The evidence is there. The accepted explanation is subduction. You need to address that evidence and offer  a superior explanation. You have not done so. you appear to refuse to do so. This is not surprsing since you do not have an alternative explanation for the evidence.

Here is a helpful note: arm waving and expressing your own incredulity do not constitute counter evidence. Now please cut the crap and address the point properly.
 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
LOL Ophiolite.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Besides if we both agree on everything then one of us would not be nesseary.

Sorry I messed up the subject on you topic. Back to that subject.
(If you are truly interested in science I invite you to look into this.
 It will help explain my view.)

NO!

Subduction did not uplift any mountains.

There is no subduction.


http://www.ncgt.org/nws/4d73ae23d2d7c906fbd5351b05260c33.pdf [nofollow]
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
LOL Ophiolite.

Lets just agree to disagree.
So you admit that you are unable to refute the evidence for subduction despite being given repeated opportunities to do so.

And no, I shall not agree to disagree. You are posting on a science forum and asserting a belief that constitutes no more than an ill informed opinion, then asking that it be accorded the same weight and respect as a very well validated concept. Put simply you are wrong and you have offered nothing, other than your own incredulity, to support your wrongness.
 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
 You preach geology as if it is a religion.


 Blind to the real world of science and new discovery.

Ophiolite..
 One more time... I say to you... There is NO subduction.
 Your argument is fantasy and there is no proof of subduction anywhere on earth.
 Why do you think that I will try to validate your fantasy for you?

“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

“All marine fossils from 200 million years ago or earlier are found exclusively on continental locations — just as expanding Earth theory predicts. That’s because all large marine environments pre-Jurassic were epicontinental seas — not oceans. Incredibly, if we deny expanding Earth theory, all the pre-Jurassic oceanic marine fossils must have vanished, along with all pre-Jurassic oceanic crust, as well as all of the fossils of all the trans-Pacific taxa that simply “walked” from one location to the other. Hmmm. Even your mainstream fixist geologist counterparts of the first half of the twentieth century didn’t have to accept that many miracles.” — Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics.” — Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 1999

Ophio- is Greek for "snake"

« Last Edit: 08/04/2013 16:37:55 by colorshapetexture »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
So you admit that you are unable to refute the evidence for subduction despite being given repeated opportunities to do so.

 

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
There is no subduction!



Talking to you about this makes about as much sense as talking about Zombies.


Show me your evidence.

 You asked me how do you account for the clear evidence, in the form of earhquakes, of plate movement along slabs that penetrate the mantle?

 I am gonna tell you one more time!
 I do not believe in subduction. There are NO slabs penetrating the mantle.
 I can not and I do not have to account for your lack of evidence.

Show me a "plate" being subducted!

Show me evidence of where a plate has ever subducted!

The origina subject is simple.

You think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains? 


No!
« Last Edit: 09/04/2013 19:22:34 by colorshapetexture »
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
There is no subduction!



Talking to you about this makes about as much sense as talking about Zombies.


Show me your evidence.
You implicitly claim to have some knowledge of Earth science. If that is true then you would be aware of the clear evidence of subducting slabs that is provided by earthquake data descending from oceanic trenches along consisten planes into the mantle. I should not need you direct you to this evidence. Now you are free to challenge the interpretation of that evidence, but to do so you must provide an alternative explanation for it. This, despite endless requests from me that you do so, you have failed to do.

The other possibility is that you are unaware of this evidence. In which case you are not entitled to pontificate upon subduction. So, either address the issue of the earthquake evidence, or admit your deep ignorance.

Thank you.

If you are un
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums