Don 2012-04-13 20:07:59
Here are some platie-questions from TL for plate tectonics to answer.
Anybody got any more? What about, if anyone feels like answering them
and just to keep track, they start a new thread called “Question 1”
(or 2, 7, etc.) and refer to this question page.
Here are some of the questions
that Plate Tectonics still has to answer, remember, this is by no
1) Initially, does the spreading ridge spread due to upwelling, or
spread because gravity is pulling at the denser albeit farther away
2) If the plates are being pulled, why then does the North American
continue to move West (relative), and why does the Indian subcontinent
continue to be pushed into the Eurasian Plate?
3) If the plates are being pushed, how is it that such a thin section
such a long distance produce enough force to subduct the Pacific Plate
thickest in the world) under another oceanic plate (the Philippine Sea
4) Why are the basin and range of North America, and the Great Rift of
Africa forming when there does not appear to be a triple junction near
I know there are theories, fellow Geologists, I’m just giving him some
Robert ehrlich 2012-04-14 18:57:45
Sadly you are missing the point. Your questions are either irrelevant
or have long been either obsolete or purile. I myself would love to
find a big flaw in plate tectonics, announce it to the world in a
refereed Journal and then be showered with acclaim, prizes and enhanced
s** appeal. Would make for a bit of fun and a lot of activity by lots
of earth scientists to test the new paradigm. Kind of a welfare program
for academia. But alas not yet.
J. taylor 2012-04-14 18:58:32
If you do not have answers to the question, they are irrelevant,
obsolete, or puerile, how?
This is just more smoke from Robert!
It will not happen the way you think. JT
Don 2012-04-14 18:59:21
Doesn’t work that way Bob (if you hadn’t noticed.) You’re witnessing
what happens when somebody *does. (though I agree with you about the
welfare for academia.) You don’t get credits for going against the
grain – in *any* field.
The questions are not mine either. Hey, …TL, Bob here (if he could
read) thinks your questions are puerile. Have a word with him and he
might (just might) explain something about plate tectonics to you.
(This is where we find out what he knows (as against what he thinks he
does. You pick him up. You know far more about this stuff than me.)
Bob, …we’re looking for any question *you* might have about plate
tectonics that still niggle you. Surely it’s not **ALL** cut and
dried? The thread was not a BASHDON op. Play the ball on the Park.
And it’s not my head. My head’s on my web page. If you feel like
commenting on any point on my site you get top spot on an accompanying
By the way, if you want to go back a while, and talk about “obsolete”,
maybe you could help Telly with a question I *did* ask him, which was,
when was it that Fred J. Vine’s comment about subduction being just an
assumption (and John Dennis chipped in with “convenient”), became
obsolete? What was it that overtook these definitive people,
restructured their argument, and subduction and convection became
‘fact’ (instead of the “convenient assumption” – that turns plate
tectonics automatically into Junk Science – and massive academic
It would also help if physicists could do something similar, and
address the issue from their side. (“What if, …the Earth, *Has*
got bigger”; what if there *was* no Tethys, ….no Panthalassa?)
There are no credits for kicking consensus in the teeth. Don’t kid
yourself. There’s a debate going on here, and it would be nice to
lift the tone of it by addressing the issues, instead of me. How
about it (Helping Telly)
…..”Call for questions from the PT side”… For PT gurus to
(C’mon Platies, Roll up, …have your shoelaces untied here – and your
wee buttons reset.) Ask them. Don’t put up with the ‘sophomore’
George 2012-04-15 15:51:41
I fine it interesting that TL asked you these questions in relation to EE,
and asked you to answer them. Your answer appears to be that you don’t
know, since you have come to the rest of us to answer the questions for you.
That’s a cheap shot, dude.
Don 2012-04-15 15:52:49
For Goodness sake George, are you dyslexic or what? If I didn’t think
from your previous postings you just might be, I’d swear at you! In
an earlier post TL made reference to questions that plate tectonics
needed to answer. I said it would be good if he would list them. He
didn’t respond. In this post I made reference to that, and said to
him to ask you and Stuart for an answer. He said he wouldn’t bother
you, but said “HERE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT PLATE TECTONICS
STILL HAS TO ANSWER, … remember, this is by no means a complete list.”
Why the H*** do you think he would be asking me to answer them? Do
you think he think’s I’m an expert on plate tectonics? The poor guy
wants set right! I’m pretty voluble about what’s *wrong with it, but
I don’t know the first thing about what’s *right about it. Why do you
think he would be asking me? For goodness sake get your marbles into
gear! (and stop casting aspersions around!) The questions are for
**YOU** to answer, and anyone else who thinks they can set him right.
You really excel yourself sometimes (most times) the way you dance
around and fall over! Your feet are as dyslexic as your mind!
Anyhow, have **you** got a question for the pool? …something about
plate tectonics that strikes you as iffy? Don’t answer this for two
days, then concentrate hard, right?
George 2012-04-15 15:52:51
Because he WAS asking YOU. He wanted you to answer them. The point is that
if you don’t know the answer to those questions, then how in the h*** can
you make a proper assessment of plate tectonics at all? It goes to your
credibility, and is the reason why people think you are a pseudo-scientist
when you denigrate plate tectonics instead of providing real hard data that
EE actually occurs. If you don’t understand Plate Tectonics, how can you
possibly tell anyone that it is wrong, and expect anyone to believe you?
Ncp 2012-04-15 15:53:21
I think these questions from TL are dammed interesting and show the
limitations indeed of the PT theories… especially question 3 really makes
it, and shows the impropriation of that approach, all the more since PT is
seen as the cause of Orogenesis and Quakes generation. What a laugh really
for a True Geologist !
Robert comments are quite interesting as well, since they demonstrate that
for the Orthodox ( and Robert is a Pharisee indeed ) everything is set and
packed. Na vely though he feels that if he would come up with some new views
on the b***** thing, he would be acclaimed by the Oxford & ANU blokes as the
Messiah ( Iashoud ) ! Robert ! Mon pauvre Robert ! Haven’t you understood
that they don’t want anyone to rock that boat ? Everything is in balance and
Don has described it magisterially with his parabola of the Platies vs
Pteros ! … and J Taylor remarks are indeed appropriate in this regard !
Coming with something new in this fields is akin to place yourself in the
Death Row !
Now the problem in all that is Georges ! Georges the saboteur, who
represents on sci.geo.geology the Inquisitor, whose sight is set on the
horizon of the Platiefish ( cf Sir Don Findlay ‘s tale ) and considers
himself as the Head *Congregation of the Gogologiical Faith” ! The one
whose duty is to stop any heretic drift challenging the Authority of the
Oxford Bullocks and the ANU Emus ! Georges, are you a mole of those
definitive frauds !
Please tell us in the contrary, and if not leave a True Geologist set up the
tune of a decent exchange
Don 2012-04-16 12:07:42
People can work out the degree of pseudoscience (and my credibility)
of each directly from my website. You lot have already made your
inquisitorial position clear. Put it this way. If I expound these
answers for the benefit of TL here, …you know, do websearches all
over and get it all off pat, and then turn around and tell you it’s
all rubbish, would you believe me? Would that make me believable?
Would you kow-tow to my ‘credibility’? It’s that what you’re looking
for? Somone who is an authority on plate tectonics to pass an edict
that he’s been wrong all his life, …been leading you up the garden
Rocket-logic, …you’re full of it.
Anyhow you’re missing the point. We’re making a list of questions.
Do you have any?
Don 2012-04-16 12:07:47
(I don’t know if this will post: I keep getting post failure messages
from google. (Anyone else??)
They’re just waiting for an **EDICT** , a *MEA CULPA** from that
geezer in the chair at the rear, …the one piling up all the empties
in the moonlight with his guard dogs sneaking around… to say that
he’s had a revelation from God that there’s a new face on plate
tectonics that they’re all going to have to apy attention to, …and
he’s giving up his front seat to heaven for his sins in misleading
them all this time, and he’s now going on a sackcloth and ashes
pilgrimmage for the rest of his life. But I don’t think they’re
holding they’re breath….
George 2012-04-16 12:08:31
When the percentage of PT bashing is much higher than any serious analysis
of the alternative, then you have a problem.
Oh, for heaven’s sake. Don, you take yourself too seriously, dude. I know
you honestly believe that you are right, and I can respect the effort you
put into it, even if my opinion is that the effort is misplaced.
If you could produce a solid, *objective* review of the current theory of
plate tectonics, in all its aspects, citing the work of others in the field,
and then demonstrate concisively where it clearly fails (not with pretty
globes with lots of unintelligible squiggly lines – sorry, that’s what they
are), and do it with demonstrable facts that are repeatable in the field,
laboratory, and/or with a calculator, you might get someone’s serious
attention. And you need to complete it as a whole work, not piece meal,
then submit it for peer review and publication. Yes it takes time to get
published. We all know that. Its frustrating. Agonizing even. We’ve all
been through it. My first paper took seven years to be accepted, and
another year before it was finally published. But that’s the way the world
works. You can’t swim upstream all your life and expect to get where you
want to be. That will only lead to exhaustion and burn-out. Trust me on
this, I have some experience with burn-out.
Colorful metaphors don’t do it. Good luck. I just don’t think the science
is there. But if it is, you have to prove it to us.
Yeah? Who cut your hair? :-)))) Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I’ll get back
to you, if I have time.
Don 2012-04-17 10:09:21
It’s an aggressive exposition of a collection of PT’s oversights.
There is nothing to argue about within the framework of PT’s argument.
Since it’s founded on assumption and belief, there is nothing of
*substance* to base an argument on – either for or against. But try
telling that to a board of reviewers. And how can anyone make a case
for or against plate tectonics when there are such obvious
*omissions*? Again, try telling that to a review board (something
I’ve done before – no credits etc – Bob’s wrong – the only thing that
tells is time.)(that geezer in BHP (whoever he was) who crawled out of
the woodwork that JPT found)
I’m documenting the ‘architecture’ of ‘torsion-in-expansion’. The
biting at plate tectonics is not for the readership of the faithful,
but for the less-informed public and students who are under the
impression that plate tectonics is actually saying something of
substance. The tone is for emphasis. Yes, sure, I need to modify it,
and I will eventually, but right now it’s, shall we say, a device for
readership I’m willing to stand by and let others make up their own mind about.
I think there is a point to make. I also think that this is the best
way of making it. I don’t know if it’s a question of rightness
actually, not in the obvious egotistical way.
They are pretty (some of them) aren’t they? (D*** site prettier than
what the well-funded get away with.) But you see, you’re not my
readership… I’m not pitching it at you (if you hadn’t noticed…)
Actually, the bit about termination offsets was a prediction. (Which
others can make up their minds about – but thus far, they’ll only find
it on my site. That’s actually a bit of a bomb waiting to go off..
You watch.) There are similar aspects about propagating ridges…
The “whole work”, is what Bob Ehrlich higher up the thread said is “a
meal ticket for academics” for this century. Nothing less, I can
assure you. The change is already under way.
Yes it takes time to get
Ah, …George (‘ ‘), If you hadn’t noticed, I’m not interested in
what you call ‘publication’. Despite what some seem to think,
publication (again) is not about getting information ‘out there’, it’s
a different agenda, the agenda of the machinery of academia, against
which some indictment can (and should) be levelled. And I’m levelling it. Watch.
If there is one thing I have learned, it is exactly that: they do.
“In the beginning was the word, and the word was the meme”.
Publication hint. Never, never, never, *EVER* …explicitly say what
you mean, if it is in any way controversial. Do *not* rejoice in
having found something new. For there are people like stuart on
editorial boards everywhere, whose job it is, to “objectively appraise
the evidence”, and their object is not yours. You just give them
permission to think it, and only a very little, for they are simply
not capable of taking on board the full thing. (I mean if there’s
anything substantial in it). They are too anchored in consensus. And
rightly so. (I’m not saying consensus is bad: it *IS* science – ‘real
science’ But it is also it’s greatest hindrance. Coins are like
that). It’s why they’re doing what they’re doing. The trick is
knowing just how much to rouse them. Sometimes you need to wait a few
years, and pass a few furfies around just to introduce them to where
you’re (going to be) coming from. Because they’re not looking at you,
they’re looking at how it affects them, and their own agenda. I
think it’s a common experience. Yes it’s a hurdle, but it doesn’t
mean it should be that way.
Good luck. I just don’t think the science
Again, you don’t understand what ‘the science’ is. The proof will be
when the penny drops for you. I’m trying to make it easier, by
illustrating things the best way I can. Looking back on it, I cannot
see that it was possible to see things in any other way, and yet I
remember very well the resounding clang… The ‘science’ you’re
talking about is the science of consensus agreement, which is for the
future to fill out (JPT’s ‘tradesmen’). The science of consolidation.
What I’m doing is very much “NOT SCIENCE” Which is why it’s on
the web. I don’t think you understand what science is, how it begins
(what it’s based on) how it grows, and how it consolidates, and above
all, how it changes. (As a ‘hired assassin’ out to square with that
crusty old “Barbwire – Ba.ba..babe.”, and not quite making it,
….these things occur to you from time to time… beneath the midnight
stars… in the wide alone.)
OK George, take care. I’ve got some work to do. Field that reply of
Stuart’s about ‘propagators’ will you. I’ll put a page up about it
later… Though I doubt he’ll reply… (Christsake, more b*****
shoelaces to undo. No wonder MUMMY gets MAD. All these wee
platiefish swimming around… Just fodder for others.
Hey, George, …Collect THE QUESTIONS, won’t you? Press Stu for
some… But he’s tight! Get the inside story, and something might be
yet made out of it.