The Nonsensical "Growing Earth" "Theory"

[Trippy]

No need for an expanding earth at this point. It is simply about the driving force that put a slab in the mantle: on one side, this is the slab itself, on the other side, this is a mantle flow. Evidence support the latter and only the latter.

It's a meaningless trivial distraction that has nothing to do with the mechanism.

The difference between "A plate is being subducted" and "a plate is subducting" lies in the tense and/or the voice.

It's no different to "The door is being opened" versus "The door is opening". Neither statement implies whether the door is being pushed open or pulled open.

As a reminder:
sub·duc·tion (sb-dkshn)
n.
A geologic process in which one edge of one crustal plate is forced below the edge of another.

And yes, I know subduction originates from French, however, a reminder of the fact that the definition makes no allusion to the driving force, whether it be a push or a pull, seemed appropriate at this juncture.

And seeing as how this is supposedly a science forum, even if we are in the pseudo science section, here is some peer reviewed literature that proves my point:

Intra-oceanic subduction systems: tectonic and magmatic processes By Robert D. Larter
I quote from page 215:

...An alternative perspective is that subduction is driven largely by 'slab pull' (e.g. Hamilton 1988, 1995) so that the descent of the SUBDUCTED lithosphere is controlled by the weight of the slab, with the extreme case that overriding plates move passively (or deform) in response to their SUBDUCTING neighbours...

(emphasis mine)

Clearly, the paragraph is phrased in the context of slab pull, and equally clearly the only difference between subducted and subducting is the voice being used by the author. To put this in perspective, I could change it to this:

...An alternative perspective is that subduction is driven largely by 'slab burial' (e.g. Scalera) so that the descent of the SUBDUCTED lithosphere is controlled by the outpouring of the exceeding material, which causes the the gravitational nappes to overthrust the sediments, with the end result that overriding plates bury their SUBDUCTING neighbours...

(or something similar)

So clearly, your trivial nitpick is tantamount to trolling, and wholly irrelevant, because the use of subducting versus subducted depends on the voice being used, not the mechanism.

Addendum:
I am of the personal opinion that you now owe Ophiolite an apology for your... Whatever you want to call this... And given that timely apologies seem so important to you - given your earnest pursuit of Ophiolite for such, there is no doubt in my mind that you will take the earliest possible opportunity to apologize to him.

 

[florian]

Terminology and semantic in science is not a trivial distraction, and discussing it is neither trolling or irrelevant. It is pointless to debate in science if there is no agreement on the terminology used in the discussion.

The tense and/or the voice changes the meaning of a sentence. At least in french, but I suppose it is similar in english.

If I write: "the slab is subducting", I mean that the slab is active, provides the driving force (its own weight).
If I write: "the slab is subducted", I mean that the slab is inactive, does not provide the driving force. The latter come from outside the slab, which is the weight of the overriding mantle.

That makes a whole difference.

If we examine this definition of subduction:

"sub·duc·tion (sb-dkshn)
n.
A geologic process in which one edge of one crustal plate is forced below the edge of another."

The keyword is "forced". If the crustal plate is "forced", it suggests that the driving force does not come from the weight of the crustal plate but from outside. This definition corresponds to the early view of the "conveyor belt", but is at odd with the current consensus view described by R.D. Larter.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The tense and/or the voice changes the meaning of a sentence. At least in french, but I suppose it is similar in english.

If I write: "the slab is subducting", I mean that the slab is active, provides the driving force (its own weight).
If I write: "the slab is subducted", I mean that the slab is inactive, does not provide the driving force. The latter come from outside the slab, which is the weight of the overriding mantle.

Then your supposition is incorrect.

Either of them could indicate that the process is taking place, neither of them indicate where the driving force comes from.

 

[florian]

Then your supposition is incorrect.

Either of them could indicate that the process is taking place, neither of them indicate where the driving force comes from.

OK. This is a language issue. Then what phrasing would be appropriate to discriminate both cases?

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't doubt that you could "satisfy yourself" in a snap. So why don't you just do it?

Once again you display an amzing ability to be wrong. If (i could 'staisfy myself in a snap' I would do so. Please don't make presumptions as to what it takes to satisfy me. I have already indicated that if and when I am satisfied I shall apologise on the relevant thread, by pm and initiate a new thread for that specific purpose. This is certainly more than I have seen any other member do when they have made errors. Whether or not you consider it satisfactory, further comment from you will have no effect on the outcome, so don't waste your time.

This inability to recognize a mistake does not help to trust your judgement for other subjects like this expanding earth thing.

1. I have agreed that I may be mistaken, but have no intention of compounding that mistake by rushing towards an admission of error until I am comfortable that Ii have made an error.
2. I am not asking for anyone to trust my judegment on the expanding Earth theory. I am asking people to consider the evidence against it and the evidence for plate tectonics.

So I'd have a hard time to refute the body of evidence supporting plate tectonics.

It is more interesting to discuss evidence refuting plate tectonics .

could you explain the difference between refuting the evidence for plate tectonics and discussin the evidence refuting plate tectonics? Apparently one of these is more interesting, but as far as I can see, in English, they are the same.

 

[Trippy]

Then your supposition is incorrect.

Either of them could indicate that the process is taking place, neither of them indicate where the driving force comes from.

Thankyou.

OK. This is a language issue. Then what phrasing would be appropriate to discriminate both cases?

What Dwydder said.

As I said - there is no discrimination, subducting versus subducted is simply a matter of case and voice, neither subducting nor subducted gives any indication as to the origin of the driving force, and I even gave you some fairly specific examples as to why this is the case, which either you haven't understood, or have completely ignored.

Terminology and semantic in science is not a trivial distraction, and discussing it is neither trolling or irrelevant. It is pointless to debate in science if there is no agreement on the terminology used in the discussion.

The tense and/or the voice changes the meaning of a sentence. At least in french, but I suppose it is similar in english.

If I write: "the slab is subducting", I mean that the slab is active, provides the driving force (its own weight).
If I write: "the slab is subducted", I mean that the slab is inactive, does not provide the driving force. The latter come from outside the slab, which is the weight of the overriding mantle.

Go back here and re-examine the examples I gave you. It's either a difference in voice or tense, Fraggle Rocker could probably expound in greater detail.

That makes a whole difference.

If we examine this definition of subduction:

"sub·duc·tion (sb-dkshn)
n.
A geologic process in which one edge of one crustal plate is forced below the edge of another."

The keyword is "forced". If the crustal plate is "forced", it suggests that the driving force does not come from the weight of the crustal plate but from outside. This definition corresponds to the early view of the "conveyor belt", but is at odd with the current consensus view described by R.D. Larter.

If we examine that definition, where, precisely does it imply anything about how one slab is being forced under the other? It doesn't

Saying that one slab is forced under the other doesn't imply whether it's being forced under by its own weight, or whether it's being forced under by burial. In that regard the sentence is neutral. It doesn't specify whether the subducting plate is being pushed under or pulled under, just like talking about an opening door doesn't specify whether the door is being pushed open or pulled open.

It only states that the edge of one plate is being forced under the edge of another plate.

 

[Gneiss2011]

Do you refer to figure 5?

No.

Then how does he account for the continuation of the pattern of earthquakes at depths >70km?

He claim that this pattern indicate a rise of material (instead of sinking material as claimed by mainstream geology).

"Real Wadati-Benioff zones do not correspond to what is prescribed by plate tectonic theory [...] It seems more credible that an upward migration of matter or energy (wide sense) would be involved in these zones." (Scalera 2006 and Scalera 2010)

 

[Trippy]

He claim that this pattern indicate a rise of material (instead of sinking material as claimed by mainstream geology).

"Real Wadati-Benioff zones do not correspond to what is prescribed by plate tectonic theory [...] It seems more credible that an upward migration of matter or energy (wide sense) would be involved in these zones." (Scalera 2006 and Scalera 2010)

Yes, I understand that, but that's not the point that I was driving at.

Consider this:

Do you refer to figure 5?
Scalera always uses the term "subduction" in the sense of "slab sinking". In that sense, he denies subduction=sinking slabs, but not the presence of a slab. From the abstract:
"The outpouring of the exceeding material drives the gravitational nappes to overthrust the sediments of the preexisting trough, forcing them on a burial path which emulate the subduction process, but without reaching depths greater than 50-70 km. At the boundary between uplifting material and down-pushed crust and lithosphere, phenomena like metamorphism, mixing, migmization, upward transport of fragments of the buried lithosphere etc. are possible."

If the sinking slab does not reach depths of greater than 70km - which is clearly what the first sentence states, then there is no mechanism to account for, for example, this trend:

Compared to what is observed for a mid-ocean ridge eg:

Where we haveno comparable trend

Which (in the main stream at least) represents the continuation of the WBZ, and therefore the sinking slab beyond a depth of 70km.

If Scalera's assertions were correct, then in the region in that first map, there should be no earthquakes with M>5.5 at depths greater than 33-50km, certainly no more than 70, however, the map clearly indicates that the descending slab extends down past 70km, which is supported by other work eg Heise et al.

This can not simply be dimissed as a 'one off' or a local anomaly either, because clearly the second map shows the same pattern under Japan, South America, the Aleutians, the Carribean, the Himalayas and so on and so forth.

From this then there can be only one logical conclusion, and that is that Scalera was wrong to assert that subduction zones are the result of descending plates being forced "on a burial path which emulate the subduction process, but without reaching depths greater than 50-70 km." And that WBZ's can be account for with such.

 

[wlminex]

Trippy Post #121:

"As a reminder:
sub·duc·tion (sb-dkshn)
n.
A geologic process in which one edge of one crustal plate is forced below the edge of another."

se-duc-tion (see-dkshn)
n.
A social process in which one person may get screwed by another.

Reminder: Brevity and Levity - cornerstones of the Universe!

wlminex

 

[jsispat]

PLS SEE THE DEPTH .

first let me introduce myself as a independent scientist researching on earth formation . i have very much different idea for earth formation as below . i need help to continue my work.


1) Earth is itself a single living organism like a tree. And covered by crust like a trunk covered by bark. crust = bark

2) some type of meteoroids contains amino acid and biological chemistry are seeds of planets. one planet is a result of one meteoroid as one tree is a result of one seed.

3) out these meteoroids some can germinate in asteroids only and out of these asteroids some can convert in big planets .

4) continents separated from each other like a puzzle is very much clear visual evidence for its growth and expansion. PT is playing vital role for this and same type of PT is also playing vital role for the growth and expansion of trunk of tree.

5) Crude oil (an organic compound ) is produce by earth itself due to metabolism in the earth only. fossil oil theory is not true. it is linked with living organism because it is produced by earth only and earth is itself a single living organism.


pls observe the following links for more clarification with depth only.

http://img861.imageshack.us/i/treebarkcontinents.png/ --- Bark & Continents



http://yfrog.com/5ucorecrustj Core Crust

http://yfrog.com/0g72697054j Plate Tectonic 4.

http://yfrog.com/m9meteoriodj Meteoroids Seeds

http://yfrog.com/5rasteoidplantj Asteroid Plant

http://yfrog.com/5xvalcano2j Volcano Lava

http://yfrog.com/6zpicxaj bark Earth & Tree

http://yfrog.com/gh08810treebark1221170loj TREE BARKS



http://yfrog.com/0tplatetectonics2j Subduction Zone

http://www.mediafire.com/?va0pjtfjjn4m2md Pdf theory complete

http://yfrog.com/h4moo6j Safeda

http://img705.imageshack.us/i/platetectonics.jpg/ PLATE TECTONIC LINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7i5CY6XNo&NR=1 fossil oil theory is not true and oil is producing in crust as this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lG3FX9D68


regs
suresh bansal

 

[Emil]

1) Earth is itself a single living organism like a tree. And covered by crust like a trunk covered by bark. crust = bark

Yep, I already read this.

 

[florian]

Once again you display an amzing ability to be wrong. If (i could 'staisfy myself in a snap' I would do so.

Given that "satisfying yourself" consist in the calculation of the centrifugal acceleration.

Given that the formula was given many time in the discussion and that you actually use it yourself, in this post, but stupidly forgot to square the multiplying factor (the equatorial acceleration would be 16 times, not 4 times).

Given that the calculation you must now check, at 17 times the current rotation rate, is a simple multiplication:
6,371,000*(17*7.2921150E-05)*(17*7.2921150E-05)= ? m/s^2

Then, either you can't make a simple multiplication or you are a smartass caught at your own game and trying to sweep your mistake under the carpet.

At this point, if you have a bit left of intellectual honesty and ethic, you should just apologize, to show that you actually learn something from that stupid episode, and move on.
Hopefully, you can.

 

[florian]

could you explain the difference between refuting the evidence for plate tectonics and discussin the evidence refuting plate tectonics? Apparently one of these is more interesting, but as far as I can see, in English, they are the same.

The evidence supporting plate tectonics are not the same as the evidence refuting plate tectonics. Definitively not.
For example, seafloor spreading is an evidence supporting plate tectonics, but it is certainly not an evidence that must be refuted to refute plate tectonics.
It follows that refuting evidence supporting plate tectonics is not the same as discussing evidence refuting plate tectonics, in any language.

 

[florian]

If the sinking slab does not reach depths of greater than 70km - which is clearly what the first sentence states, then there is no mechanism to account for, for example, this trend

Shallow earthquakes and deep earthquakes have clearly different mechanisms. shallow earthquakes, down to 70 km or so, occurs at the interface between the overthrusting and underthrusted lithosphere. But below, all earthquakes are related to phase changes which occur inside the slab according to the orthodox interpretation, but inside channels of rising mantle according to Scalera.
Scalera's interpretation is based on the fact that hypocenters at depth larger than 70 km tend to cluster into filaments (See figure 3 for example).

 

[Trippy]

Shallow earthquakes and deep earthquakes have clearly different mechanisms. shallow earthquakes, down to 70 km or so, occurs at the interface between the overthrusting and underthrusted lithosphere. But below, all earthquakes are related to phase changes which occur inside the slab according to the orthodox interpretation, but inside channels of rising mantle according to Scalera.
Scalera's interpretation is based on the fact that hypocenters at depth larger than 70 km tend to cluster into filaments (See figure 3 for example).

Thankyou for, once again, only addressing half the point.

Let me phrase it more succinctly for you.

If Earthquakes with Hypocenters >70km deep in subduction zones are being caused by rising mantle, why are there no earthquakes with hypocenters >70km deep under Mid Ocean Ridges?

 

[florian]

If Earthquakes with Hypocenters >70km deep in subduction zones are being caused by rising magma...

Bad start, earthquakes with hypocenters > 70 km deep in subduction zones are not being caused by rising magma. Just a reminder, magma is molten rock.

 

[Trippy]

Bad start, earthquakes with hypocenters > 70 km deep in subduction zones are not being caused by rising magma. Just a reminder, magma is molten rock.

And you wonder why people use words like 'troll' to describe your behaviour?

Are not not capable of infering that I was refering to Scalera's rising mantle?

I mean seriously, was it not immediately obvious from the context what I was referring to?

And what happens?

Instead of posting something intelligent, or even vaguely useful like "Well the word Scalera used was mantle, and he accounts for the differences by blah blah blah blah" - like most reasoning human beings interested in an honest discourse might, you come back with this:

Bad start, earthquakes with hypocenters > 70 km deep in subduction zones are not being caused by rising magma. Just a reminder, magma is molten rock.

Which completely evades the question. It's an answer without answering.

Is it not clear, from the context of the discussion, that the point that I am trying to get you to address is this:

Scalera (and others) argue that Mid Ocean ridges are the ultimate end point of subduction zones.
They argue that what mainstream science call subduction zones, and orogenesis are merely transitive states, that begin with orogensis through diapirism and bulging, which leads to the formation of a subduction zone by burial, and back arc spreading, which ultimately leads to the formation of a midocean spreading ridge, all because of rising mantle material.

My question, which you have transparently and disingeniously avoid, for the second time, is that if slabs are not buried past 70km, and if earthquakes below this are created by rising mantle, then why are there no earthquakes at depths greater than this at Mid Ocean ridges? For that matter, why do mid ocean ridges generally not display earthquakes to depths greater than ~35km?

Now please, this is the third time I have asked this question, have the common courtosey to answer it this time instead of trying to distract the conversation.

 

[florian]

Are not not capable of infering that I was refering to Scalera's rising magma?

Scalera describes rising columns of mantle, not magma.
He argues that deep earthquakes take place as phase changes happen in the rising column.
I have a different interpretation which is that of Brudzinski: deep earthquakes are due to phase changes that take place in the buried lithosphere.

 

[Trippy]

It is not magma. Magma is molten rock.
Scalera describes rising columns of mantle, not magma.
He argues that deep earthquakes take place as phase changes happen in the rising column.
I have a different interpretation which is that of Brudzinski: deep earthquakes are due to phase changes that take place in the buried lithosphere.

And once again, you avoid addressing the question!

Is it not clear what I am referring to? I even made it explicit that I was refering to the rising mantle!! Twice!! In the same post!!! And yet you choose to focus on the singular mistake that I made in the post!!!!

They argue that what mainstream science call subduction zones, and orogenesis are merely transitive states, that begin with orogensis through diapirism and bulging, which leads to the formation of a subduction zone by burial, and back arc spreading, which ultimately leads to the formation of a midocean spreading ridge, all because of rising mantle material.

My question, which you have transparently and disingeniously avoid, for the second time, is that if slabs are not buried past 70km, and if earthquakes below this are created by rising mantle, then why are there no earthquakes at depths greater than this at Mid Ocean ridges? For that matter, why do mid ocean ridges generally not display earthquakes to depths greater than ~35km?

Now, for the FOURTH TIME!!! Answer the question!!!

I'm familiar with Scalera's explanation for deep earthquakes, that's not what I am asking!!

I am asking, for the fourth time now, why are there no deep earthquakes at mid ocean ridges, only at subduction zones, when both are supposedly caused by rising mantle!!!

 

[florian]

I am asking, for the fourth time now, why are there no deep earthquakes at mid ocean ridges, only at subduction zones, when both are supposedly caused by rising mantle!!!

Could you just calm down?
I gave you a clear answer in my previous post:
"I have a different interpretation which is that of Brudzinski: deep earthquakes are due to phase changes that take place in the buried lithosphere."

If you want details about Scalera's interpretation not found in his papers, why don't you ask him directly by email?