Creationists, Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers.... People who reject science.

@farmerman,

A lot of the geosyncline story hqs been incorporated into fact-free beliefs of the "Hollow Erth" crowd.
Adm Byrd (who may have been loded at the time), hd often reported about the "Unknown lqnd around the North Pole. A green lush land about as big as the US.

Nobody's been able to repeat any of this

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I wondered where that story got started.
I thought it was an invention of the New Age religion crowd.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

My biggest point is that expertise matters. An expert in science has gone through 12+ years of study in University, has learned the mathematics, has done the problem sets, has done lab work and had feedback from peers and professors, and has worked in the field.

You are too focused on people and not enough on science. Science is not whatever scientists think/know. The moment you start saying that people have earned a title and thus their thinking is above questioning, you are defying the fundamental spirit of science as critical knowledge practice.

Quote:

An expert has an understanding of how science is done. They understand the current theories and the way they were developed. An expert understands the mathematics and knows how to ask the right questions... and more importantly how to test the answers for themselves.

Stop talking about who has expertise about how science is done and just do it. It's not about who people are but about doing the work of questioning received knowledge and bringing new data and/or thinking to bear on existing knowledge and theory.

Quote:

Someone with no more than a high school understanding in science simply doesn't have the tools. They answer questions in any real way... they can't even understand the questions.

That's a mindless statement that denies that higher-level science is nothing more than work done on the foundations of basic science taught in middle/high school. Basic laws of motion, thermodynamics, etc. are the foundation for all higher scientific analysis.

Quote:

The idea that anyone can simply do science is simply wrong. It is the same way as if someone could play concert piano with no training, or kick a field goal without having touched a football.

Anyone can do science badly. Having a higher degree and/or even having a position in academia doesn't prevent people from making mistakes and doing bad science. In fact, the nature of higher academic discourse leads to people getting so wrapped up in the complexities of higher level discourse that they lose perspective on the basic foundations that would allow them to reason beyond esoteric rhetorical complexities.

Quote:

All this training that Yo Yo Ma did to master the cello really matters. I would never in a million years criticize his playing. I could likely draw a bow across the cello strings and get some noise to play.... maybe after a couple of hours I could play a scale. But what I am doing is nothing like what Yo Ya Ma is doing.

You are just a person who throws himself at the feet of skilled people and fails to grasp that everyone is human and that skills are developed through practice. Just because someone is an impeccable cellist doesn't prevent a critic who has never bothered playing a single note on any instrument from hearing mistakes that they could never even begin to avoid if they practiced the instrument for the rest of their life.

Quote:

These attempts to take scientific phrases picked up from the internet and pretend to invent new understandings aren't science.

Expertise; all that time taken to master a field, matters.

You are not even an expert in expertise, though you seem to think you are.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im not aqqare ofany. All instrumentation has been able to MAP the energy sources as the upper mantle magma . When two such reas oppose each other (like in mid oceanic ridges or hot spots or thinning areas ofcontinental crusts), the mantle induces some degree of movement above it. Since the overlying plates are of lower density, they actually float.

Why don't we post a thread on this topic instead of on anti-'pseudoscience' and have some actual critical dialogue about real science?

Quote:

Im not gonn get into it with LL , I dont know where to even begin wxcept for one observation, where does he understand that NEW plates are being formed.

Why not? You seem more interested in avoiding questions than in fielding them.

Quote:

I think my pizza pie in a conveyor oven is about as simple as I can make it xcept for one thing. EXCESS energy of subduction usually DOES become expended as volcanic vents along our "rings of fire" Where we have andesitic volcanoes we usually see subduction zones and earthquakes.(All means of energy resolution)

We just need to have a more in-depth discussion about the energy specifics. Calling energy 'excess' implies a lot that should be unpacked.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
The Earth is bathed in sunlight, just like Venus. It radiates heat away because greenhouse gases like CO2 and water condense and get out of the way of escaping infrared waves. But as the CO2 and water condense and go through their cycles, along with nitrogen, etc. they absorb energy and cause it to accrue as sediments, which end up underground and ultimately get compressed and/or moved around so that growing volcanoes and mountains covert the energy into potential energy.

Its interesting because this is xactly a small piece of explanation as to how sediment basins used to be explained away in the geosynclinal "theory". Its not correct but its all we had before we understood about the creaation of lower density plates were created at mid ocean ridges and moved as a result of SEA FLOOR SPREADING .
(Its a 2 part mechanism)
The mantle magma spits out plate material that moves in both directions away from the center of spreading (We see this going on today in Iceland and along the Phillipines and in the Afar (Horn of Africa), and in the Northern Andes ). These plates either help push a lndmass along (Like its doing in Western Europe and Eastern North and S America. On the opposite side of a continental mass the plates are in a collision course and here is where CONTINENTAL DRIFT is seen to be most dangerous as far as volcanoes, earthquakes, splitting land masses etc.
We hve good instrumentation to map and investigate the plates, the mantle, the M discontinuity as well as to model the spherical vectors to understand how and where its all moving and times involved.

I'm familiar with the concept of spreading-ridges. I can't tell for sure, but I think the difference between us is that I think actively about possible mechanisms to explain observed discoveries instead of just accepting as gospel what experts have published.

I didn't outright reject your pizza-conveyer analogy, but all analogies are just analogies. They illustrate some aspects of phenomena while leaving others invisible/unrepresented within the analogy.

If spreading-ridges are moving apart, the question is why. What is causing material to rise up at the spreading-ridge and push the plates toward the subduction zones, and what gives those plates enough energy to power their way under the continental plates and compress and/or push them upward against the force of gravity? My sense is that the energy bound up in the sediments that are getting dragged under the subducted plate are not just bubbling up as volcanism but that it is also getting dragged further down and over extremely long periods of time, it builds up and contributes to the high temperatures of the mantle and deeper down.

Basically I just don't see how it could be possible that the mechanisms that capture/absorb sunlight and bury it through sedimentation year after year and millennium upon millennium would not eventually merge with the deeper geological energy. How could any think that the surface energy doesn't ultimately connect with the deeper energy that keeps the interior warm and powers tectonic movements? A model that treats the biosphere/lithosphere energy separately from the deeper energy doesn't even pass Occam's razor, does it?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I think actively about possible mechanisms to explain observed discoveries instead of just accepting as gospel what experts have published.

Id been on several RV's sent to conduct new surveys of magnetometrics and density as well as seismic studies on several areas of the N Atlantic mid-ocean ridges. Have you??

rather than being impertenant sonny, I think you should know that my own education involved the "Hunt for mMEchanisms" as you so naively call them.

You havent discussed anything substantive or ven accurate. See, the mechanisms can be redone in a lab and in a computer model. If youve ever been to Iceland and could see the spreading centers in action rather than just reading dot com sites on the internet and convincing yourself that youre on to something. We can visit and actually see the very spreading center that occured during the Early Cambrian as a serpentinte ophiolite rige of magma . In the US its located in a Nto S stripe of greenstones that stretch from Maine, to Mass to NJ/Pa Md Va. To teh Carolinas.
If youre interested , I can supply you with some lisstings of GSA Technical Volumes that have been put together from Pensleton Conferences deling just with the questions of
What does a sea floor spreading center do, WHats it made of

What makes a sea floor spreading center affect continental drift

What are the spreding rates then and now(4-6 cm/yr)

Interested? PS, analogies often, are what people who understand a concept use to explain it to people who may be off on a different voyage of non- understanding and who may not be on a track that leads to a correct conclusion.

PS, weve actually now got sensors calibrated in location by WAAS corrected GPS data ,(sub cm accuracy) in which most spreading centers and tectonic plates are MONITORED and we can create moving maps of the way plates are actually going.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I think actively about possible mechanisms to explain observed discoveries instead of just accepting as gospel what experts have published.
Id been on several RV's sent to conduct new surveys of magnetometrics and density as well as seismic studies on several areas of the N Atlantic mid-ocean ridges. Have you??

You may be telling the truth, but a person who abuses the fact that they participate in scientific data collection/research to suppress someone else's active thinking about a topic is anti-science, not pro-science.

Quote:

rather than being impertenant sonny, I think you should know that my own education involved the "Hunt for mMEchanisms" as you so naively call them.

It sounds like your own ego is your biggest obstacle to controlling your bias.

Quote:

You havent discussed anything substantive or ven accurate. See, the mechanisms can be redone in a lab and in a computer model. If youve ever been to Iceland and could see the spreading centers in action rather than just reading dot com sites on the internet and convincing yourself that youre on to something.

How is looking at volcanic activity or anything else in person any better than watching video of it or reviewing other data about it?

Are you the type of person who finds it compelling evidence that Galileo invited church authorities to look through his telescope for themselves in order to prove the sun is the center of the solar system and not the Earth?

Quote:

We can visit and actually see the very spreading center that occured during the Early Cambrian as a serpentinte ophiolite rige of magma .

Ok, looking at something that has been identified and interpolated as a spreading-ridge is totally separate from research that dates it the way you are describing. You sound totally ignorant of how knowledge works.

Quote:

In the US its located in a Nto S stripe of greenstones that stretch from Maine, to Mass to NJ/Pa Md Va. To teh Carolinas.
If youre interested , I can supply you with some lisstings of GSA Technical Volumes that have been put together from Pensleton Conferences deling just with the questions of
What does a sea floor spreading center do, WHats it made of

What makes a sea floor spreading center affect continental drift

What are the spreding rates then and now(4-6 cm/yr)

Interested? PS, analogies often, are what people who understand a concept use to explain it to people who may be off on a different voyage of non- understanding and who may not be on a track that leads to a correct conclusion.

I was trying to have a respectful discussion with you until you started putting me down and going on about how you've been on boats and committees and whatnot.

Quote:

PS, weve actually now got sensors calibrated in location by WAAS corrected GPS data ,(sub cm accuracy) in which most spreading centers and tectonic plates are MONITORED and we can create moving maps of the way plates are actually going.

Great, but data has to be explained. You don't just get to make up whatever theory you want because you own the data you collected.

If the church had owned the telescope that Galileo used, that wouldn't make their theory about the Earth being the center of the solar system any more or less right than if Galileo owned it.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

you are continuing to sound like youve got an anti-science agenda.Are you a day-date Creationist??

Youve got no evidence and youve got only question that a trip to the library can easily resolve. Are you even mildly familiar with the interiror of the earth an Continental Drift because your just bluffing your way around here.

If I may be the first to say , you have little idea about what youre even saying.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you are continuing to sound like youve got an anti-science agenda.Are you a day-date Creationist??

My religious views are irrelevant. I was trying to have a scientific discussion with you about scientific topics because you seem like someone who knows a lot of science. What I've found, however, is that you launch into talking about the professional basis for your authority and accusing others of being anti-science instead of just sticking to scientific discussion of physical reality.

Quote:

Youve got no evidence and youve got only question that a trip to the library can easily resolve. Are you even mildly familiar with the interiror of the earth an Continental Drift because your just bluffing your way around here.

If I may be the first to say , you have little idea about what youre even saying.

All I am asking is how anyone who studies the science can fail to question the assumption that underground energy processes occur separately from surface energy except because the two scientific discourses have evolved in disciplinary separation?

It's like people who actually believe that the quantum level is governed by separate forces than the macro-gravitational level of planets/galaxies/etc. Just because quantum physics evolved as a separate discipline from general relativity doesn't mean they are two separate realities. People are afraid to step on the toes of other academicians, but that is nothing more than scholarly bias, which interferes with the real pursuit of good science.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

No, youre jut whining. I believe I started quite respwectfully about where you could gain further information nd you immeditely lunched into a ditribe about the vluelessness of training nd experience. Then you were intimating that were the only one with an open mind.

If I may make a final comment about your "beliefs " on Global Tectonics by another analogy, that is NOT related to geophysics and structural geology.
Years ago, the discussion was that there was life on the Moon . AFter many flyovers nd lndings, we iscovered that its a lifeless rock.
Our understandings about Global Tectonics are like that.,We beleieved one set of "scientific facts" that were wrong but were , without any alternative at the time, ccepted and worked with . This theory called the geosynclinal theory was the source of lots of error and understanding.
During WWII, when our Navy was trolling the Ocean floors searching for subs and other electronic gear, they discovered magnetic "Stripes" that later were found to be the rsult of remnant magnetism emplaced on underwater magma and lava fields acquiring an inclination , declnation and field strength. These "Stripes" ere apparently acquired as the magma reached its Curie Temp and all the Iron and Nickel acquired the magnetic field of the earth t that time. This was studied and mapped the world over and only on the Magma PLATES in the Ocean. All these plates were almost prfectly aligned perpendicularly to continental margins that were those which were spreading from each other.The dates of sea floor spreading were also mappable because most all the ATlantic margins are bound landward by sediments (deep ocean sediments li atop the magma plates and are part of the plate networks.). These seiments are of Jurassic age pretty much all over before hitting beach and continental margin sediments which were flowing atop the plates as the plates marched landward.
ALL DATA AND EVIDENCE does NOT SUPPORT anything youve been aying. (When in doubt always look at the data-do NOT run to soe bogus hollow earth Bullshit and then claim that science is being denied)

I think , once again, Ive wasted enough time with you because you are apparently uninterested in finding out what and how but are only interested in sounding like an internet genius.
I can highly recommend an excellent text on the subject, Its by Rogers and Santosh and is called Continents and Supercontinents Oxford Press. Its in its 2nd edition. The mechanisms hve been clearly worked out and anyone is able to understand the mechanics of Continental Drift and Global Tectonics, (You just have to really be open minded and toss away your agendas, religious beliefs, and legends about what you have been thinking about). Chapters 1 through 6 are a really well written xplanation and the attending data and evidence about everything from the geochemistry , melt history, sediment "piles" , to assemblies of continental cratons through time.
Im still waiting for your take on where your plates are "born" aand how they assemble and migrate at similar rates of spreading.

One area of your "idea" about solar powered drifting mechanisms bothers me. You do realize that these plates , beginning at centers of sea floor spreading are often a mile or more UNDER THE SEAS.

Or , how about "hot spots" like YEllowstones portion of the Snake River Plain. These hot spots are all fairly local a few hundred square miles at most. Howcome the Solar Powering only effects a small area and not several states or the entire west.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

No, youre jut whining. I believe I started quite respwectfully about where you could gain further information nd you immeditely lunched into a ditribe about the vluelessness of training nd experience. Then you were intimating that were the only one with an open mind.

You telling me to go somewhere else to 'gain further information' does nothing to further this discussion on this forum. If you don't want to discuss the topics I raise, you can just say that.

Quote:

If I may make a final comment about your "beliefs " on Global Tectonics by another analogy, that is NOT related to geophysics and structural geology.
Years ago, the discussion was that there was life on the Moon . AFter many flyovers nd lndings, we iscovered that its a lifeless rock.
Our understandings about Global Tectonics are like that.,We beleieved one set of "scientific facts" that were wrong but were , without any alternative at the time, ccepted and worked with . This theory called the geosynclinal theory was the source of lots of error and understanding.
During WWII, when our Navy was trolling the Ocean floors searching for subs and other electronic gear, they discovered magnetic "Stripes" that later were found to be the rsult of remnant magnetism emplaced on underwater magma and lava fields acquiring an inclination , declnation and field strength. These "Stripes" ere apparently acquired as the magma reached its Curie Temp and all the Iron and Nickel acquired the magnetic field of the earth t that time. This was studied and mapped the world over and only on the Magma PLATES in the Ocean. All these plates were almost prfectly aligned perpendicularly to continental margins that were those which were spreading from each other.The dates of sea floor spreading were also mappable because most all the ATlantic margins are bound landward by sediments (deep ocean sediments li atop the magma plates and are part of the plate networks.). These seiments are of Jurassic age pretty much all over before hitting beach and continental margin sediments which were flowing atop the plates as the plates marched landward.

I don't want to let the fact they we are bickering over nonsense interfere with my telling you that I appreciate what you are saying here and wishing that you weren't so hostile so we could have more in-depth critical discussion regarding the information/facts you post.

Just FYI, there is a good PBS video that explains what you are talking about, albeit with slightly different details, geared toward a popular audience on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tnqPmwWvk
You should realize that lay people can watch mainstream documentaries and think about the information presented. It may be that when we do, we come up with thoughts that fail to take into account other information that we haven't received yet because the documentaries, books, and articles we've read didn't contain them, but that's when it's your job as someone with more information to present it to us in a way that helps us see how we are misguided, so that we can 'revise and resubmit' our thoughts after taking the new information into account. In this sense, public discussion among lay people and/or between lay people and more academically-trained scholars fulfills the same function as public education.

In short, science should go beyond the walls of the ivory tower, not fight against public dissemination/development of knowledge among lay people.

This issue is as fundamental as Martin Luther's struggle to publish the Bible in the vernacular of common people instead of keeping them out of discourse by restricting it to Latin. I hope that as a science-supporter, you would also support the right of the public to have access to scientific discourse and to think for themselves when studying it at whatever level.

Quote:

ALL DATA AND EVIDENCE does NOT SUPPORT anything youve been aying. (When in doubt always look at the data-do NOT run to soe bogus hollow earth Bullshit and then claim that science is being denied)

That may be your conclusion, but how would I be able to assess whether it is reasonable or just your own personal bias unless you submitted a full explanation of your reasoning?

You are just expecting me to blindly accept your assessment because of status claims you've made about yourself. Doing so would make me a fool and you a fool for expecting me to.

Quote:

I think , once again, Ive wasted enough time with you because you are apparently uninterested in finding out what and how but are only interested in sounding like an internet genius.

Don't waste your time if that's what you feel you are doing when communicating about science, which is what you seem to want to advance over religion/etc.; but no, I am not just interested in how I sound or otherwise come across for the sake of status. I am genuinely interested in how energy transmutes through the different spheres of the Earth and I am applying basic thermodynamics to asking general questions about the connection between sun, exosphere, atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, etc. Your knowledge would be helpful to me if you were capable of discussing it in an egoless way without kneejerking into arguments about how great your expertise and others' are verses how unworthy I am and others like me.

Quote:

I can highly recommend an excellent text on the subject, Its by Rogers and Santosh and is called Continents and Supercontinents Oxford Press. Its in its 2nd edition. The mechanisms hve been clearly worked out and anyone is able to understand the mechanics of Continental Drift and Global Tectonics, (You just have to really be open minded and toss away your agendas, religious beliefs, and legends about what you have been thinking about). Chapters 1 through 6 are a really well written xplanation and the attending data and evidence about everything from the geochemistry , melt history, sediment "piles" , to assemblies of continental cratons through time.
Im still waiting for your take on where your plates are "born" aand how they assemble and migrate at similar rates of spreading.

I don't actually have to 'toss away' anything, because I am perfectly capable of reviewing different POVs without automatically judging them based on my own biases, which I am aware of.

I recall you recommended this book before, and I looked it up; but it is an expensive academic textbook, so until I come across it at a library or used I won't be reading it; i.e. because textbooks are a big investment, as is higher education generally, which doesn't payoff even if you get a higher-paying job as a result; i.e. because the point of life isn't to make more money but to live ethically, which becomes more difficult as you make more money.

Quote:

One area of your "idea" about solar powered drifting mechanisms bothers me. You do realize that these plates , beginning at centers of sea floor spreading are often a mile or more UNDER THE SEAS.

Biological sediments sink to the bottom. They pile up in sediments, the same as on land. By the time the Jurassic sediments make it to the subduction zone, how much chemical energy has built up on and under the sea floor? Think about it.

Quote:

Or , how about "hot spots" like YEllowstones portion of the Snake River Plain. These hot spots are all fairly local a few hundred square miles at most. Howcome the Solar Powering only effects a small area and not several states or the entire west.

Thank you for thinking critically about my thoughts. Generally, sunlight is doing numerous things when it reaches the surface. It penetrates below the ocean surface, so it must have some warming effect there besides just reflecting, which it also does if you look at videos from orbit. Green light reflects and scatters off tree canopies, and blue and red light get absorbed and converted into chemical energy. There is also heating of un-treed land, such as prairies and deserts that creates more hot air, which circulates and causes various effects such as evaporation and other warming effects.

Now, why are there certain 'hot spots,' you ask? I can't answer that, obviously, but I can assume that they are due to convection patterns that move energy around below and/or through the tectonic plates. I would be happy to have a more critical/deep discussion of the data and various possible theoretical explanations, but I think it would be good to post a specific thread about it, e.g. "Why are hotspots like Yellowstone hot?" and then tag the thread with 'geology,' 'plate-tectonics,' etc.

We might not come to agreement in our POVs and beliefs, but I'm sure that discussing the subject matter would stimulate us both to think further about what we currently know/think, which would benefit us in furthering our own understandings. E.g. even the questions of a fool can stimulate a master to think beyond his or her current limits.

3 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

You are too focused on people and not enough on science. Science is not whatever scientists think/know. The moment you start saying that people have earned a title and thus their thinking is above questioning, you are defying the fundamental spirit of science as critical knowledge practice.

...

Stop talking about who has expertise about how science is done and just do it. It's not about who people are but about doing the work of questioning received knowledge and bringing new data and/or thinking to bear on existing knowledge and theory.

Science is done by scientists.
Piloting an airplane is done by pilots.
Surgery is done by surgeons.

These titles are earned. You can pick up a scalpel, say things you heard on Gray's anatomy, and then cut open someone's abdomen to perform an appendectomy. That doesn't make you a surgeon and it is a pretty damn bad idea for you to try.

Is there a chance that you would do a better appendectomy than someone who had actually been through medical school, residency and trained under an expert surgeon? No! really there is not.

The experts have learned things that you have no clue about. You don't even know how little you know... I can feel Farmerman's frustration. You completely reject his expertise and make up stuff as if your guesses are equal to his education and years of actual experience.

Anyone can do science... that is true. But they have to put work in first getting an education an honing your skills. Just reading stuff on the internet and deciding you know stuff isn't how you become a scientist. Doing real science means going to University, learning advanced math, doing labs, writing papers, doing labs and working with peers and professors. People who actually know science have dedicated years of their lives to hard work and serious study.

Doing science without having done your homework... that doesn't make any sense. You aren't doing real science. You are just making stuff up. You haven't provided any evidence that you even understand what real scientists do.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

If I may be the first to say , you have little idea about what youre even saying.

I've been saying that ever since he first arrived on A2K.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Sometimes science does arrive at answers .
You say youre interested in basic Thermodynamics and Im here to say that you havent even given it a thought Otherside youd be ablle to just view the earths "ENERGY BUDGET" starting with its core to the mantle and overlying sediments. Youve failed to understan what the real "work of giants" like Izzy Zeits, ewey and Bird, etc etc have provided to our understanings of how Plates are generated , moved, subducted, and obducted. Your misplaced interest in stored energy (most of which is topographical AFTER the plate has infinitesimally slowly "crashed" against a continents margin.

Your model is an ok place to start (if we were 9 years old), however, if you claim that you are so interested in Thermo, you would need to consider HOW and the hell, does your sedimentary theory comport itself with what we know about thermal gradients from ocean ridges and how Phase Rule predicts the geochemistry o minrals like Blueschists and Komatiites without really hot mantle rock transporting . Weve been able to carefully and accurately map a Phase Rule stability graph That accuratley shows the solidus/liquidus boundris of all these minerals wrt thir positions on Plates and plate boundaries..
If you are familiar with thermo then you should be familiar with the phase rule and would have to take notice that mineral assemblages on plates are T/P dependent and the only way theyd appear as they do in the crust is if theyd been heted and transported by enrgy FROM BELOW, This energy is provided at the point of discontinuity between the crust and the underlying mantle (Recall the 960's when the Mohoroviczic discontinuity was an unknown big deal nd everybody wanted to drill to it?) We soon learnt that our drill rigs would MELT just around the MOHO. The thermo frctionation of rising silicate minerals an the "Geogoo" at the Moho left us with a series of mantle "plumes", or "conveyor belts" that move at greter V thn the overlying crust that is being deposited UNDER WATER and being carried along as plates.

Im sorry but your about 50 years behind in your undertnding (Actully I dont think anyone seriously looked at plates moving wrt their "energy storage" .

I cant think of a rational mechanism (otehr than a sub Moho conveyance) that allow for the creation of plates at mid ocean ridges, loding plates with sediment as they are being pushed away from the mid ocen ridges, how they subduct an then are recreated at the ridges at a v (4-6 cm/yr) that roughly equals each other. When the plate migrtion is faster than its rate of piling up on shore (either subducting or forming a trailing edge) then we have earthquake swarms and eaward faulting.

Mantle conveyance can explain and evidence ALL the mechanisms we know of in global tectonics.

I must say that , without rally understanding what science has been working on these last 50 years (theories abounded and were tossed or revised) , youve decided to go on a one person lecture tour about denying things of which (its quite obvious) you are quite ignorant .

When you try to present something you need to have some evidence , data, and even some fotos . Remember, Its yours to try to prove. So far you are in some belief mode that says you are on to something. You aint.
If you were, youd be able to give a simple "pizza oven" explanation of plate tectonics. Try it, youve gotta in order to sound scientistic, add a buncha baloney terms aabout Thermodynamics when you arent even aware about phase rule governing mineral and rock assemblages at depth .This was known from the really early days and presented in some of the older undergrad Petrology texts like Turner an Verhoogen (ed 3)

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

That may be your conclusion, but how would I be able to assess whether it is reasonable or just your own personal bias unless you submitted a full explanation of your reasoning?

I did, If youre unable to understand, try asking questions not hitting back at my experience and training.

YOU proposed a mechanism thats quite flaky because it hs no basis of geophysics or chemistry behind it. Did you understand that youtube about convction?? Its basically what I was saying but geared up as entertainment. It was petty accurate.
Now the science behind that is (and you noticed the geologist was all dressed up for field work) understood and NOT under debate. Weve been able to clear up many mis representations of the real world that the geosynclinal theory was preaching.

If you care not to understand and , by understanding, accept, then I have only the gladness that you aint a real scientist. We do have a lot of erzats science guys who get bogus advanced degrees and then refute everything theyve learnt going for their PhD's in order to continue their mission as FUNADMENTALIST "SCIENTISTS"

Im not too surprised at your positions because anyway that one can try to deny basic facts by casting doubt on their underpinnings of evidence or understanding, thats a way that Fundamentalist scientists can abjure their degrees and "Awaken" to the truth of the BIBLE. I hqve neither respect nor patience for that kind of thinking. Its fraudulent, dishonest, and a shot at both good science and good religion.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Biological sediments sink to the bottom. They pile up in sediments, the same as on land. By the time the Jurassic sediments make it to the subduction zone how much chemical energy has built up on and under the sea floor? Think about it.

So what??? we can do an energy balance and its not even the issue. YOUVE NEVER explained how the damned plates move. Youve been slowly ignoring the fact that you somehow have plate movement be associate with solar energy or something like that.

Quote:

Now, why are there certain 'hot spots,' you ask? I can't answer that, obviously, but I can assume that they are due to convection patterns that move energy around below and/or through the tectonic plates. I would be happy to have a more critical/deep discussion of the data and various possible theoretical explanations, but I think it would be good to post a specific thread about it, e.g. "Why are hotspots like Yellowstone hot?

See, after denying that there are many ways to create a volcano and that all plate tectonics is a result of warming from above, you now are slowly trying to occupy what my position has been all along. CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND HOT SPOTS < PLUMES< DIAPIRS tc , are ALL due to mantle convection. If youve finally accepted that , then thank you. It wasnt that difficult now was it?
I gave you time to look things up and help you in your journey.

Bon Voyage.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

PS LL, dont whine about academic texts. Unless you live in an isolated minehole, you are probably not too far from a large university with a geology department and an ability to read at the library or use their e-book repositories and download . Rogers and Santosh is a great little text about the state of the art in globl tectonics going back at least 2 BILLION years. Its not a dunting piece of work, Its highly illustrated with maps and figures and appendices of supportive sciences that tell you WHY WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW about the subject.

.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

just read your views . Calmly and well stated, I get awfully frustrated with students who play these "denial based on ignorance" games.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The experts have learned things that you have no clue about. You don't even know how little you know... I can feel Farmerman's frustration. You completely reject his expertise and make up stuff as if your guesses are equal to his education and years of actual experience.

Anyone can do science... that is true. But they have to put work in first getting an education an honing your skills. Just reading stuff on the internet and deciding you know stuff isn't how you become a scientist. Doing real science means going to University, learning advanced math, doing labs, writing papers, doing labs and working with peers and professors. People who actually know science have dedicated years of their lives to hard work and serious study.

If you have a headache and you take an aspirin, it just might be the case that your medical decision coincides with a licensed doctor. In fact, you are free to practice medicine with anything OTC or other dietary/therapy choices that aren't controlled substances. Some people even choose to take drugs that are controlled substances, thinking they they know what's in their best interest. Does that make them equal to a doctor? No. Are they practicing medicine based on what they know and the data they have? Yes.

Science is science, i.e. the practice of questioning received knowledge instead of accepting it blindly. People were told in the middle ages that the sun and all the planets went around the Earth. Most probably accepted it because they didn't care and it wasn't worth the harassment they would get to question it. Others questioned it and applied logic and empirical observation, analysis, inference, and hypothesis-testing in pursuit of support for their hunch that there was better knowledge to be discovered.

It's the same whenever you question received knowledge, whether it's your 8-year old's lie that she didn't sneak any cookies or whether it's an article that claims Mars and Jupiter are going to be near the moon in the evening sky, and so you go outside to see for yourself.

You can also read about climate and anything else and apply logic to questioning and critically thinking about what you read. That is what you are supposed to do with science, not accept it mindlessly. Dogmatism is the opposite of science. Everything you are saying about only academic scientists being qualified to think scientifically is just discouragement against the way that science is supposed to be read/studied and thought about. It doesn't matter whether you're in a college classroom or reading scientific information at home on the internet; the purpose is to think deeply about what you read, question it, and do further research/discussion to strengthen your understanding along with that of others who are in communication with you.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Sometimes science does arrive at answers .
You say youre interested in basic Thermodynamics and Im here to say that you havent even given it a thought Otherside youd be ablle to just view the earths "ENERGY BUDGET" starting with its core to the mantle and overlying sediments.

When I say that, it is a summary of all the various aspects I've been looking at and am still looking for, assuming I have missed them.

Quote:

Youve failed to understan what the real "work of giants" like Izzy Zeits, ewey and Bird, etc etc have provided to our understanings of how Plates are generated , moved, subducted, and obducted. Your misplaced interest in stored energy (most of which is topographical AFTER the plate has infinitesimally slowly "crashed" against a continents margin.

I think what you mean is that I've failed to express sufficient worship to satisfy your sense that science is about bowing before masters greater than yourself. I am not interested in science as a religion of worshiping genius, but as a source of food for thought. I have no qualms with studying information such as that you're referencing, but as I told you, if it's not online I'm not going to spend $100 to buy a college textbook or enroll in classes that cost $100s.

Yes, I understand a plate can 'slowly crash' and thus transfer its lateral momentum into power, which can push material upward against gravity. When it does so, it converts kinetic energy into potential energy, so kinetic energy is lost, so to speak. As in the atmosphere, where heat and wind are connected forms of kinetic energy, the movement of tectonic plates must also be connected with heat and other kinetic energy that propels the plates. I.e. pizza slices on a conveyor require power for the conveyor. Otherwise, energy would be gradually lost to friction and conversion to potential energy of elevation and the planet would completely cool and then solar-powered weathering and erosion would wash all the land away into the oceans.

Quote:

Your model is an ok place to start (if we were 9 years old),

Nothing you've posted has taken me by surprise or confused me, so I don't know why you would consider it a dumb discussion to have with me.

Quote:

however, if you claim that you are so interested in Thermo, you would need to consider HOW and the hell, does your sedimentary theory comport itself with what we know about thermal gradients from ocean ridges and how Phase Rule predicts the geochemistry o minrals like Blueschists and Komatiites without really hot mantle rock transporting .

I don't don't that 'really hot mantle rock' is involved, but I question how fast that rock would have cooled if energy wasn't being fed in gradually through time. When you talk about an 'infinitesimally slow collision' between plates, why don't you simultaneously consider that energy can be stored up in sediments at an equally slow rate and add up to immense quantities over geological time spans?

If you had a well-insulated pot of sand and you fed in a kwh of energy every day that didn't escape by radiation or otherwise, how long would it be before the contents of the pot were glowing-hot liquid glass?

Quote:

Weve been able to carefully and accurately map a Phase Rule stability graph That accuratley shows the solidus/liquidus boundris of all these minerals wrt thir positions on Plates and plate boundaries..

I see that you have a big vocabulary of esoteric concepts, but do you actually critically unpack them in a way that makes it possible for you to explain their efficacy to others/students, or do you just like to wax scientific by deploying lots of big concept words so others will cower at your big brain and run away with their tail between their legs?

If the goal is to intimidate, then you haven't grasped the purpose of science.

Quote:

If you are familiar with thermo then you should be familiar with the phase rule and would have to take notice that mineral assemblages on plates are T/P dependent and the only way theyd appear as they do in the crust is if theyd been heted and transported by enrgy FROM BELOW, This energy is provided at the point of discontinuity between the crust and the underlying mantle (Recall the 960's when the Mohoroviczic discontinuity was an unknown big deal nd everybody wanted to drill to it?) We soon learnt that our drill rigs would MELT just around the MOHO. The thermo frctionation of rising silicate minerals an the "Geogoo" at the Moho left us with a series of mantle "plumes", or "conveyor belts" that move at greter V thn the overlying crust that is being deposited UNDER WATER and being carried along as plates.

How do you know how much sediment built up under the plates before? How do you know that the underwater sediments don't contain significant energy?

Since you are entertaining my 9-year old mind (as you call it), please tell me if the following thought I had is off-base: Spreading-ridges seem to be underwater mountain ranges that are growing from the inside out. I wonder if such mountains couldn't occur because sediments pile up over time and gradually compress the stored energy within them to the point that the energy comes up to force the spreading ridge apart. How can you know that the energy coming up is due to primordial energy that was present already when the nascent Earth formed vs. accruing as sedimentation over extremely long time spans?

Quote:

Im sorry but your about 50 years behind in your undertnding (Actully I dont think anyone seriously looked at plates moving wrt their "energy storage" .

What does 'wrt' mean here?

Quote:

I cant think of a rational mechanism (otehr than a sub Moho conveyance) that allow for the creation of plates at mid ocean ridges, loding plates with sediment as they are being pushed away from the mid ocen ridges, how they subduct an then are recreated at the ridges at a v (4-6 cm/yr) that roughly equals each other. When the plate migrtion is faster than its rate of piling up on shore (either subducting or forming a trailing edge) then we have earthquake swarms and eaward faulting.

You said, quite eloquently, that the ocean floor that is currently being subducted began at the spreading ridge during Jurassic times. How much biological sediment would pile up during that time on the sea floor? How deep would such sediments be after all that time? How much would they compress as they are forced under by the continental plate?

Quote:

Mantle conveyance can explain and evidence ALL the mechanisms we know of in global tectonics.

Theories are great. Using them as food for thought is scientific. Picking winners and fighting against questioning is not.

Quote:

I must say that , without rally understanding what science has been working on these last 50 years (theories abounded and were tossed or revised) , youve decided to go on a one person lecture tour about denying things of which (its quite obvious) you are quite ignorant .

How else am I supposed to communicate my thoughts in order to invite discussion on the topic?

Quote:

When you try to present something you need to have some evidence , data, and even some fotos . Remember, Its yours to try to prove. So far you are in some belief mode that says you are on to something. You aint.

Maybe all I'm onto is gaining a better understanding that ultimately agrees with the theory you are claiming is valid. Or maybe not. The point is that it doesn't matter where the path leads, only that you remain critical and true as you tread forward. If you abandon the independent-critical path in order to accept established dogma unquestionably, you may or may not be onto something true - but as far as your scientific mind is concerned, you're lost because you've given up on gaining deep understanding by questioning and having your questioning satisfied.

Quote:

If you were, youd be able to give a simple "pizza oven" explanation of plate tectonics. Try it, youve gotta in order to sound scientistic, add a buncha baloney terms aabout Thermodynamics when you arent even aware about phase rule governing mineral and rock assemblages at depth .This was known from the really early days and presented in some of the older undergrad Petrology texts like Turner an Verhoogen (ed 3)

Look, everything has to make sense in terms of thermodynamics because thermodynamics applies to all systems of the universe.

As for the 'phase rule,' please explain; or would you prefer I google it myself?

Pizza oven analogy may work, but that doesn't make it a complete explanation. If I posted a thread that said plate tectonics works like a pizza oven conveyor, you and others would say my explanation lacked depth and I should study the subject in more detail. Analogies are useful for communicating some aspects and not others. Like the elephant described in different ways by the three blind men, different analogies and other forms of explanation work to elucidate different aspects of phenomena.

I don't know why you have to put so much hostility and condescension into your discussions. I guarantee that if you were invited to consult someone important like a royal or big corporate CEO on this topic, you would be more respectful and patient regardless of the person's level of ignorance. You are only disrespecting me because this is the internet and you're not getting paid.

0 Replies

Creationists, Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers.... People who reject science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know