Actually, I was refering to it's shape - it covers something like 40 degrees of longitude, but only about 5 degrees of latitude.
Biogeographical Falsification of Subduction
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
Actually, I was refering to it's shape - it covers something like 40 degrees of longitude, but only about 5 degrees of latitude.
It's shape is because of the way it has moved over the margin, and subduction along the western edge of Zealandia isn't it? The North Is. in the chain is largely volcanic because of where the fault is, and how it now divides the chain?
This is from an article by J Tuzo Wilson (1963 SciAm), "Convection currents in the earth's mantle may move blocks of material with different effects. Continental mountain chains and island arcs could form where [convection] currents sink and blocks meet; mid-ocean ridges [could form] where currents rise and blocks are [rifted] apart."
And : "Two convection currents perpendicular to each other suggest a mechanism for producing large horizontal faults such as the one that has offset western New Zealand 300 miles northward."
NZ is the only island chain directly over the margin of two plates, [that are moving transversely].
This is from an article by J Tuzo Wilson (1963 SciAm), "Convection currents in the earth's mantle may move blocks of material with different effects. Continental mountain chains and island arcs could form where [convection] currents sink and blocks meet; mid-ocean ridges [could form] where currents rise and blocks are [rifted] apart."
And : "Two convection currents perpendicular to each other suggest a mechanism for producing large horizontal faults such as the one that has offset western New Zealand 300 miles northward."
NZ is the only island chain directly over the margin of two plates, [that are moving transversely].
Your point the other side of south america lines up with africa just as well.
No. The earth is clearly not expanding, as a whole.
Yes and no. NZ is the shape it is because of the subduction zones, however, i's only in the South Island that the subduction occurs in the west, off the North Island, it occurs to the east. My understanding is that it all used to occur to the east, because the pacific plate is older, and less bouyant than the Indo-australian plate, however, the Fiordland Terrane 'rafted' into the subduction zone, and gummed the whole thing up, so the subduction shifted focus, and moved to the west coast - where the Alpine fault now is, and of course, needless to say, the top most part of the south Island, and the bottom most part of the North Island are emeshed in a suitably complex set of faults where the plates make their transition.
The Alpine fault is (I believe) largely transform, however, there is obviously substantial compression involved (cif the Southern Alps), my understanding is that south of Fiordland Subduction resumes, but it's Indoaustralia that subducts.
Not quite, my recollection is that the North Island gets a lot of back ark vulcanism (which appears to have shifted focus over time) and that elements of the North Island Vulcanism are as a result of the fact that there's a back arc spreading zone.
Yeah, the Geology of the west coast is smeared in a northern direction, and the area that is now Nelson used to be part of Fiordland
Yeah, I think this is right.
The original of the specific map that OIM has used?
No.
This however is what Australasia actually looks like.
Looking at OIM's age maps should, IIRC, show that Zelandia has (for the last few hundred MA at least) been between South America and Australia, in fact, IIRC in the Jurasic, Zelandia was in an Oceanic trench off the coast of the Australian continent.
As previously stated, the map he is currently using removes Zelandia and half of PNG, and is therefore falsified.
Also note that I'm not accusing OIM himself of having falsified the evidence, as I have precisely zero proof that he edited the map.
So you are sure but you're wrong.
"I cannot give any scientist of any age advice better than this: the intensity of a convicttion that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not." -- Sir Peter Medawar
LOL. Keep telling yourself that. You have a very bizarre recollection of events.
BUT
Why is OIM so sure that "the earth is not expanding" is wrong? Is he ever going to come up with an idea, or just keep trawling the internet, looking for something, anything, that might say so for him?
Even when he doesn't understand the gist of a lot of it, to start with? Why so sure, McClure?
Was it like a revelation?
Was your mission made clear by the mysterious visitor?
Why is OIM so sure that "the earth is not expanding" is wrong? Is he ever going to come up with an idea, or just keep trawling the internet, looking for something, anything, that might say so for him?
Even when he doesn't understand the gist of a lot of it, to start with? Why so sure, McClure?
Was it like a revelation?
Was your mission made clear by the mysterious visitor?
Oh also, I just found out that Halley discovered this thing called the "secular acceleration of the moon." That means the moons orbit is expanding as the Earth's circumference expands.
"An increase in oceans and mass will increase both the gravitational force and tidal forces -- forcing the moon to speed up and expand its orbit. Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time -- the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963). This was a mystery for decades that surprised mainstream planetary scientists. It is now explained away by assuming that tidal forces were not as great during the Mesozoic as they are today." (McCarthy, 2003)
"Slichter, L. B. Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation. Journal of Geophysical Research 68(14), July 15, 1963"
And also, as predicted and confirmed by Kant in 1754, perhaps the greatest discovery of all time, time is slowing down and the days and nights are getting longer (as the Earth expands).
"An increase in oceans and mass will increase both the gravitational force and tidal forces -- forcing the moon to speed up and expand its orbit. Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time -- the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963). This was a mystery for decades that surprised mainstream planetary scientists. It is now explained away by assuming that tidal forces were not as great during the Mesozoic as they are today." (McCarthy, 2003)
"Slichter, L. B. Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation. Journal of Geophysical Research 68(14), July 15, 1963"
And also, as predicted and confirmed by Kant in 1754, perhaps the greatest discovery of all time, time is slowing down and the days and nights are getting longer (as the Earth expands).
Last edited:
They do because it's "accelerating" meaning the Earth's mass must be growing.
That's one of the most thorough, logical, and persuasive arguments I've seen from a radial-fixist.
"About twenty years ago, when I expressed my reservations about the plate tectonics theory to one of its supporters, I got the answer, 'You either believe in it or not.' Unfortunately the religious mentality of the supporters of plate tectonics did not change in the years to come." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geoscientist, National Observatory of Athens, 1997
Tassos, S.T., Earth Expansion Versus Plate Tectonics or Approaching Reality Versus Mental Artifacts, New Concepts In Global Tectonics, Volume 4, Pages 13-17, 1997
Last edited:
With respect to Zealandia, it was formed by oceanic seafloor spreading aka expansion/growth just as all continental crust formed and just as basalt pillow lava and oceans form now.
Score another loss for plate tectonics.
Expanding Earth 1-Plate Teconics 0
Wegener, A.L., The Origin of Continents and Oceans, 1915
Mortimer, N., Zealandia, ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2006
Zealandia is young (that pesky old core sample and zircon dating thing). It didn't exist in the Jurassic and was formed in the Cretaceous, when, according to plate tectonics dogma, there were no land bridges.
Score another loss for plate tectonics.
Expanding Earth 1-Plate Teconics 0
Wegener, A.L., The Origin of Continents and Oceans, 1915
Mortimer, N., Zealandia, ASEG Extended Abstracts, 2006
Last edited:
As usual, you don't bother realising that quote can be applied to your argument too. No matter how much you wish the Earth is expanding, simply wishing and misconstruing what people tell you doesn't make it so. Over whelming evidence says otherwise.
Except it isn't a point against plate tectonics and if we (or scientists) were keeping score it would be about 0-20 for Plate tectonics.