« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Down

plate tectonics

  • 235 Replies
  • 51703 Views
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #90 on: November 23, 2007, 05:52:23 AM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 23, 2007, 05:51:28 AM
I believe that Jacks diagram is wrong. In actuality, there would be a 'flat' core. Basically a layer of crust, a layer of mantle, a layer of solid inner core.

Fascinating stuff, but I've already proven in this thread that a FE wouldn't work.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #91 on: November 23, 2007, 05:54:34 AM »
when? I see no such proof.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #92 on: November 23, 2007, 06:46:44 AM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 23, 2007, 05:51:28 AM
I believe that Jacks diagram is wrong. In actuality, there would be a 'flat' core. Basically a layer of crust, a layer of mantle, a layer of solid inner core.
you write like you are arguing for FE for the sake of it, but don't really believe it (that's how it comes across in your phrasing). Is that the case?
Answer my question about the convergent/divergent boundary length disparity in the FE model.
Logged
?

SparteX

  • 411
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #93 on: November 23, 2007, 06:47:49 AM »
It would have a spherical core as only a sphere can contain these forces. Being why the earth is a sphere. FE'ers is an ancient believe. Much like when they thought if you have sex with the woman on top, she won't get pregnant. a time when they burned "witches". When earth was the centre of the universe. looking at that. does your FE theory make any sense?
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #94 on: November 23, 2007, 06:50:00 AM »
Quote from: SparteX on November 23, 2007, 06:47:49 AM
It would have a spherical core as only a sphere can contain these forces. Being why the earth is a sphere. FE'ers is an ancient believe. Much like when they thought if you have sex with the woman on top, she won't get pregnant. a time when they burned "witches". When earth was the centre of the universe. looking at that. does your FE theory make any sense?

That's a straw man, and has no relevance.

Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 06:46:44 AM
Quote from: Agent Z on November 23, 2007, 05:51:28 AM
I believe that Jacks diagram is wrong. In actuality, there would be a 'flat' core. Basically a layer of crust, a layer of mantle, a layer of solid inner core.
you write like you are arguing for FE for the sake of it, but don't really believe it (that's how it comes across in your phrasing). Is that the case?
Answer my question about the convergent/divergent boundary length disparity in the FE model.

What's the question?
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #95 on: November 23, 2007, 07:01:22 AM »
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 05:05:49 AM
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 03:41:02 AM
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 02:00:08 AM
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 22, 2007, 09:56:01 AM
The edge of the FE is one giant ring plate.  As the outgoing plates contact this ring, they subduct at this location.  As the plate subducts, it is heated, melted and recycled.  Due to this subduction, the ice wall formed.

Wouldn't work. There would be a "surplus" of subduction, as on the FE map, the Antarctic plate would have a longer boundary than in the real world. There would have to be more divergent boundaries than actually exist.

answer that JACK?


That was my point.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #96 on: November 23, 2007, 07:06:22 AM »
well, i don't know enough about plate tectonics to answer your question. I guess you'll have to wait for Jack.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #97 on: November 23, 2007, 07:11:20 AM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 23, 2007, 07:06:22 AM
well, i don't know enough about plate tectonics to answer your question. I guess you'll have to wait for Jack.

It is clear to me Jack doesn't know much about plate tectonics either. Of course, you could use a similar argument that you used in another thread, "anomalies in measuring equipment"
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #98 on: November 23, 2007, 07:13:03 AM »
Should I?
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #99 on: November 23, 2007, 07:24:40 AM »
go on, probably good as it's going to get.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #100 on: November 23, 2007, 07:34:00 AM »
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 02:00:08 AM
Wouldn't work. There would be a "surplus" of subduction, as on the FE map, the Antarctic plate would have a longer boundary than in the real world.
Obviously.

Quote
There would have to be more divergent boundaries than actually exist.
Just more than you've been told about.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #101 on: November 23, 2007, 07:35:29 AM »
Quote from: SparteX on November 23, 2007, 06:47:49 AM
It would have a spherical core as only a sphere can contain these forces.
You also believe light travels faster than radio waves.  Can we all just assume you know very little about physics?
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #102 on: November 23, 2007, 07:38:25 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 23, 2007, 07:34:00 AM
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 02:00:08 AM
Wouldn't work. There would be a "surplus" of subduction, as on the FE map, the Antarctic plate would have a longer boundary than in the real world.
Obviously.
Then a FE model doesn't work.

Quote
There would have to be more divergent boundaries than actually exist.
Just more than you've been told about.



Oh I see, yet another group of scientists are in on the conspiracy  ::) This is a shit argument
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #103 on: November 23, 2007, 07:41:19 AM »
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 07:38:25 AM
Then a FE model doesn't work.
Wow.  That is an amazing argument.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #104 on: November 23, 2007, 07:47:47 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 23, 2007, 07:41:19 AM
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 07:38:25 AM
Then a FE model doesn't work.
Wow.  That is an amazing argument.

No. There would be a "surplus" of subduction, as on the FE map, the Antarctic plate would have a longer boundary than in the real world.

That was my argument. You argument is that we just haven't found these mysterious convergent zones yet. Brilliant.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #105 on: November 23, 2007, 07:53:39 AM »
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 07:47:47 AM
No. There would be a "surplus" of subduction, as on the FE map, the Antarctic plate would have a longer boundary than in the real world.
The FE is the real world, so the Antarctic plate is just the right size.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #106 on: November 23, 2007, 07:57:16 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 23, 2007, 07:53:39 AM
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 07:47:47 AM
No. There would be a "surplus" of subduction, as on the FE map, the Antarctic plate would have a longer boundary than in the real world.
The FE is the real world, so the Antarctic plate is just the right size.

you've changed your argument  :o You said about 5 posts ago that there would obviously be a surplus of subduction. That there are undiscovered divergent boundaries. Now you're saying because of the shape of the real world, everything makes sense.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #107 on: November 23, 2007, 08:00:28 AM »
Right.  A surplus from what the RE would like you to believe, but the right amount in reality.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #108 on: November 23, 2007, 08:05:56 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 23, 2007, 08:00:28 AM
Right.  A surplus from what the RE would like you to believe, but the right amount in reality.

No, because we know how far the plates are moving apart per year. Fact. In the FE model these rates would have to be different, and wrong. Do you use different methods of measuring in your weird FE world?
PS You're mad
Logged
?

eric bloedow

Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #109 on: November 23, 2007, 08:11:06 AM »
in the FE model, antarctica is a giant ring surrounding the world, not a plate!
Logged
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #110 on: November 23, 2007, 08:17:28 AM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 23, 2007, 08:11:06 AM
in the FE model, antarctica is a giant ring surrounding the world, not a plate!

the ring of mountains sits on plate. It doesn't really matter anyway. It doesn't work whatever you assume about the FE world plate tectonics.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 08:19:02 AM by lambie »
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #111 on: November 23, 2007, 08:22:11 AM »
The outer ring is solid due to the coldness of space around it.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #112 on: November 23, 2007, 08:23:56 AM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 23, 2007, 08:22:11 AM
The outer ring is solid due to the coldness of space around it.
I don't care if it's solid. This has no bearing on you theory.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 08:29:28 AM by lambie »
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #113 on: November 23, 2007, 08:29:32 AM »
No, tis the right thread. In FE theory Antarctica does not move for my previously stated reason.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #114 on: November 23, 2007, 08:31:58 AM »
Quote from: Agent Z on November 23, 2007, 08:29:32 AM
No, tis the right thread. In FE theory Antarctica does not move for my previously stated reason.

All plates move.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #115 on: November 23, 2007, 08:33:18 AM »
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 08:31:58 AM
Quote from: Agent Z on November 23, 2007, 08:29:32 AM
No, tis the right thread. In FE theory Antarctica does not move for my previously stated reason.

All plates move.
Not the outer ring.  It kind of has nowhere to go...
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #116 on: November 23, 2007, 08:36:22 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 23, 2007, 08:33:18 AM
Quote from: lambie on November 23, 2007, 08:31:58 AM
Quote from: Agent Z on November 23, 2007, 08:29:32 AM
No, tis the right thread. In FE theory Antarctica does not move for my previously stated reason.

All plates move.
Not the outer ring.  It kind of has nowhere to go...

It can't just stay where it is, not physically possible for a plate to stay where it is. The convection currents in your FE model don't exist then. You're saying there is no heat transfer in the mantle. You're implying that continental drift doesn't occur.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #117 on: November 23, 2007, 08:38:18 AM »
No, I'm saying the outer ring doesn't move.  The plates and such do, relative to the outer ring.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #118 on: November 23, 2007, 08:40:06 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer on November 23, 2007, 08:38:18 AM
No, I'm saying the outer ring doesn't move.  The plates and such do, relative to the outer ring.

What is the ring made of? What does it sit on? Four elephants?
Logged
?

Triskellion

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #119 on: November 23, 2007, 08:45:10 AM »
Sorry to crash but could the Engineer answer my questions in the slow clock thread also as it seems to be being ignored for some reason.......cant imagine why.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8   Go Up
« previous next »