No, they didn't, they found that if it was expanding, it was doing so at a rate of less than 18mm. The set an upper limit.
Do you understand that saying that the upper limit on my height is 3m does not in any way imply that I am 3m tall?
Is the earth expanding?
- Thread starter bgjyd834
- Start date
No, they didn't, they found that if it was expanding, it was doing so at a rate of less than 18mm. The set an upper limit.
Do you understand that saying that the upper limit on my height is 3m does not in any way imply that I am 3m tall?
Expanding Earth Tectonics was one of the 'stumbling blocks' that plate tectonics had to overcome before it was accepted.
Perhaps you should explain why you expect them to be randomized in the first place?
Plate Tectonics predicts that there should be a clear, linear progression of ages as one moves from the mid ocean ridge, to the trench, the specifics of which are dependent upon the activity of the trench
It might have stable periods but there would be a lot of factors they would limit how far you can extrapolate any current data. The way South America is separating from Africa is very regular but other other continental movements have not struck me as being so applicable to regression.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
that didnt answer the primary question
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
yes
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
all avoiding the question it would seem.
is this because you find the question i asked unclear ?
It precisely answers your question, although I am unsurprised that you would fail to recognize as much.
The answer to your question is that Modern Plate Tectonic Theory does not predict that the sea floor isochrons should be random. It predicts that they should be related to the direction of motion of the plate, and the level of activity of the mid ocean ridge.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
plate tectonics does not have a clear linear regression model for the entire earth. Its based on pieces taken here and there to produce some strange idea that all the land somehow ended up together on one spot of the planet, and then skitted all over the place.
there is no global map for fiitting continents on a linear regression like there is for expansion tectonics. In this sense the expansion model is now superior to continental drift.
it seems you are arguing against tectonics in some way.
Still the elephant in the room about the regression not answered of course.
When i make 20 posts we can have the animations up and get on with the business of dodging questions about the scientific validity of the seafloor removal and calling them a hoax.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
i was not referring to the idea that "Modern Plate Tectonic Theory does not predict that the sea floor isochrons should be random."
I was asking this. once again.
the isochrons are the vector patches of paleomagnetic seafloor data with the colours, i presume you know what i mean. Cant post links as newbie.
In animations such as maxlows and the more crystal clear neal adams..
google "Growing Earth - Rainbow - Neal Adams" on youtube.
they map this entire seafloor onto a spherical earth.
the seafloor is then removed piece by piece according to the ages its formed in time periods depending on how long you want the animation. in neal adams its about 1 Ma per second obviously divided by frame rate.
that is linear time regression of geological data and so is scientific. Not only is it time periodic (the sea floor removal), the manner in which the plates move back also has a directional vector. The isochron stripe lines.
This means the entire animation is on rails.
do you agree this is global linear regression for that time period or not ? If not why ?
Make a comment or two on another thread. I see the value of both concepts. I see plate tectonics and expansion as playing a part.
Trouble with questions is that it is sometimes to be sure they have been answered clearly. In fact I have not yet understood it.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
Make a comment or two on another thread. I see the value of both concepts. I see plate tectonics and expansion as playing a part.
Trouble with questions is that it is sometimes to be sure they have been answered clearly. In fact I have not yet understood it.
have you seen the video "Growing Earth - Rainbow - Neal Adams" on youtube ?
No I haven't
put the link in here please?
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
btw plate tectonics and expansion are proposed to work together. James maxlow received a P.hD in the late 90's from Australias top geology university for his integration of about 7 datasets (some entirely new) into a theory he calls "expansion tectonics".
Of course then all you hear then is rubbish like, his advisors should be fired, and the university must be incompetent etc etc..
Of course then all you hear then is rubbish like, his advisors should be fired, and the university must be incompetent etc etc..
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
Isochrons are regions where the sea floor has the same age, just like Isobars are regions where the atmospher has the same pressure, and Isotopes are atoms that have the same atomic number.
This has been largely developed by, as you say, measuring the magnetic anomaly of the sea floor, however, that is not the end of it, because the only reason that is useful in determining age is because it can (and has) been compared to land based sequences. There are other lines of evidence used to derive the age as well.
Neal Adams is a fraud, and should have stuck with illustrating comic books.
Really? Wow! No Geologist has ever thought of trying that... Oh wait, my bad.
Not neccessarily. I could come perform a linear regression on chocolate consumption and car accident rates. Does that make it scientific? Does that automatically validate the conclusion that chocolate consumption causes car accidents?
As do modern plate tectonic reconstructions.
You're going to have to clarify what you mean by this, it's not at all clear.
What I think is that what you have described is precisely what modern plate tectonics predicts, with one or two exceptions.
What I think is that matching continental margins, and matching contemperaneous fossil assemblages were some of the first pieces of evidence to support the continental drift hypothesis.
What I think is that you still have yet to explain how you think any of this is different from the predictions made by modern plate tectonic theory.
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
so basically this is this relatively new dataset
the newer seafloor material as indicated by the bar is removed first in periodic chunks of about one million years per second. As they are removed from the seafloor in the 3d modeller (just slice out).. this leaves a gap.
The plates are then moved over the gap following the lines of the coloured stripes. You will notice banding in the coloured lines.
That gives the plates a vector. So the regression is both vectorized and periodically time regressed.
that plates fit back together. That under any circumstances would be considered irrefutable to prove the point that all the continents wind back neatly together.
So the question is why is it not...but first... is it understandable what this animation represents in scientific terms. i.e. Its a clear regression going back in time using an entire global map with no parts missing ?
the newer seafloor material as indicated by the bar is removed first in periodic chunks of about one million years per second. As they are removed from the seafloor in the 3d modeller (just slice out).. this leaves a gap.
The plates are then moved over the gap following the lines of the coloured stripes. You will notice banding in the coloured lines.
That gives the plates a vector. So the regression is both vectorized and periodically time regressed.
that plates fit back together. That under any circumstances would be considered irrefutable to prove the point that all the continents wind back neatly together.
So the question is why is it not...but first... is it understandable what this animation represents in scientific terms. i.e. Its a clear regression going back in time using an entire global map with no parts missing ?
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
im not asking you for a conclusion of any type that i recall.
I am asking if the regression itself as it was carried out is a valid linear regression or not ?
we can get to that later, but for some reason we dont appear to be able to focus on just this one simple regression and agree if its a regression or not.
So why is it not possible for you to discuss the removal of the sea floor bed ?
have you seen this...
then this regression from the data ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQSrsy9xg70
Now supposing you were to carry out this regression, and so presumably do it with honesty rather than lie and fudge as i presume you are accussing neal adams of doing.
In this regression you would be removing One million years of sea floor bed per second (or longer if you wish), then moving the plates back over the gap along the vectors given by the banding as in the figure above which demarcate the sea floor bed spreading vector.
Then would that be a valid linear regression to carry out or not ?
rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
chicken !!