rogerharris
Registered Senior Member
I think my point is made. This is the elephant in the room they all run away from.
I haven't run away yet, but you seem to have leapt to some conclusion ahead of me.I think my point is made. This is the elephant in the room they all run away from.
I haven't run away yet, but you seem to have leapt to some conclusion ahead of me.
Give me a week or so to go through it please.
I haven't run away yet, but you seem to have leapt to some conclusion ahead of me.
Give me a week or so to go through it please.
I think my point is made. This is the elephant in the room they all run away from.
I have discussed it. I've even said that it's completely consistent with the predictions made by modern plate tectonic theory.So why is it not possible for you to discuss the removal of the sea floor bed ?
Yes. It's old hat.have you seen this...
Yes, I've seen that video, along with all of his others. He's still a fraud.
I don't have to lie and fudge to make my point.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.
Then would that be a valid linear regression to carry out or not ?
i was referring to trippy running away.
I have seen this so many times. Keep forcing, repeating the question, and eventually they storm off accusing me of this and that rather than answer this very simple question.
What time in history are they saying the expansion occurred. The work I saw by Herndon the expansion was left far to late.Indeed, I have a colleague working on a new algorithm to make a more rigorous model. But it is very tricky. Plate tectonics models are a piece of cake compared to Expansion tectonics models, because the former is 2D (well, on a sphere) and the latter is full 3D.
I don't have to lie and fudge to make my point.
Reregression has a very specific meaning, and what Adams (for example) is doing isn't it. I can understand why you might use the word, in that the definition is "a return to a former or less developed state", however, it is more accurately termed a reconstruction, rather than a regression.
However, as I believe I have stated several times now, the same thing is predicted by moder tectonic theories, although the timing of some events may differ.
The difference between your assumption and mine is that you assume that because older sea floor crust does not exist, it never existed.
Meanwhile, I look at factors such as the proximity of the old crust to continental margins, and (especially) destructive margins, the pattern of earthquakes at those margins, the patterns and composition of the vulcanism generated at those margins, the density profiles at those margins revealed by seismic tomography, seismic reflection profiles, and evidence available in places such a sutured or inactive subduction zones, and look at elements , and come to the conclusion that the evidence stronly supports the hypothesis that the missing oceanic crust is subducted, and then destroyed
Meanwhile, Neal Adams is still spinning nonsense like "The mantle is 2 times denser than solid granite".
Granite has a density of 2.65-2.75 g/cm[sup]3[/sup]
Mantle density is variable, but 3.4 at 200km depth and 4.4 at 800km depth.
But the point is (and the reason why it's nonsense, and why it makes Neal (at best) dishonest, is that the ocean floors aren't made of Granite, they're made of basalt, and become denser as they cool and thicken. What Neal Adams presents is called a Red Herring, or a Strawman argument.
Indeed, I have a colleague working on a new algorithm to make a more rigorous model. But it is very tricky. Plate tectonics models are a piece of cake compared to Expansion tectonics models, because the former is 2D (well, on a sphere) and the latter is full 3D.
I guess he also believes in Lemuria.I never said you did, but you have not provided any evidence that neal has either.
Yes there is, it's called a reconstruction, same word that gets used in the mainstream.I know what the traditional term means. I am taught linear regression at stanford machine learning classes. However there is still no better term to describe this.
Pure BS.In many disciplines the same terms are used for different things because there is simply no better word to put it. A regression computes back in time. A reconstruction does not say this. Also if we use the mathematical technique of linear regression on this problem it would yield the same result. A continuous rather than discrete set of functions that operate in parallel. So the term is still valid.
And I have explicitly stated several times that it does not.that really does not make any difference to the point i am trying to discuss here. We are not discussing plate tectonics. We can have another thread for that. All we are discussing at this stage is does this regression of the sea floor produce a linear function for which there is no other solution.
:yawn:so all that is left is to call the animation fudged and a lie right ?
And produced a wrong result, and then lied about that wrong result.So this is the question we are returning to. Forget neals actual result. James maxlow ran the same simulation in a university computer and the result was the same. The University at that time in 1990 could not provide maxlow massive funds to produce high resolution graphics that would wow people. Neal then used the same data later on high power graphic system and provided a bulk of his personal life savings, to educate people from his generosity.
No, it is not.you can look at this way if you like. I have to write such geology essays for university and agree on it or else i will fail the course. this is again going off track from the question i am asking.
No, I meant what I said.You mean surely at best it makes him bad at geology. At worst dishonest?
He says no such thing. He point blank asserts that because the mantle is twice as dense as granite, that subduction is impossible.As far as i remember he says they are made of basalt.
No, it is completely relevant.Again this is irrelevant and off track.
His renderings are wrong, unless you believe in Lemuria, and his logic is flawed.his primary contribution was the vision to realise now was the time to use imaging to have high resolution renderings made, and those have indeed worked and rocked this issue back into action.
And here we go again. None of this is relevant. People might have laughed at Galileo, but they also laugh at Bozo the Clown. And yes, I've read a number of their papers, something that you might have gleaned had you bothered to read this thread before jumping in feet first and shooting your mouth off.As for the rest of his abilities, better reading james maxlow and other brave geologists i think. I just had an email from a geologist interested in this. Well there is a group of them. Do you know that they are writing papers but what they have to do to get published is hide the fact they are researching earth expansion mechanisms. Thats how closed this field is. They will irritate their colleagues and may even lose promotions, opportunity or even jobs. Neal adams personal correspondence with geologists tells the same story.
Asked and answered.So back to the point. Is this regression of the ocean floor removal valid as a method to examine what happens when you do that or is it not. If the method is not valid for that purpose then can you answer why is it not valid ?
You're the one that brought Neal's work into the discussion in the first place. You asked his video to be addressed, and it was, based on its content.In that situaion there is a real wide open world wide online debate, rather than paranioa focussed on neals work.
What time in history are they saying the expansion occurred. The work I saw by Herndon the expansion was left far to late.
The actual breakup of the super-continent maybe late but the expansion must have started billions of years ago.No, its a gradual process. Actually, in Expansion tectonics, any tectonic activity is related to the growth, so any evidence for tectonics activity in the past is an evidence for the growth itself.
The actual breakup of the super-continent maybe late but the expansion must have started billions of years ago.
I sort of imagine the original ocean being a very active hot spot that just kept the continent together. There was no where it could go as it was being held together till about 500 million years ago.
Does that make sense?
These ideas are a work in progress, so if they don't make immediate sense it is quite possible. That is why I asked the question, for I wasn't sure it did but I'll try again some time.The actual breakup of the super-continent maybe late but the expansion must have started billions of years ago.
I sort of imagine the original ocean being a very active hot spot that just kept the continent together. There was no where it could go as it was being held together till about 500 million years ago.
Does that make sense?
Asked and answered.
Roger,
Just removing seafloor will lead to a not so accurate model, because active margins are tricky to wind back in time. Active margins are the place where both new seafloor is created and old seafloor is buried down. You must get a good knowledge of their history. See the Philippine sea for example:
no you still havent answered. all you have done is evade.
Is this regression of the ocean floor removal valid as a method to examine what happens when you do that or is it not.
If the method is not valid for that purpose then can you answer why is it not valid ?