Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is true. You were not there. Comparing forensics with the distant past is apples and oranges.
Is your issue with imaging the mantle and finding the subducted slabs? Or with currently subjecting slabs?Not fully understood. How deep is the issue, what makes it happen, - not whether there are zones of subduction. To claim zones of subduction mean that it is understood is wrong.
Another example is the fermi bubbles. (mysterious structures that emanate from the Milky Ways center and extend roughly 20,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane). -NOT understood.
Then there is the recently discovered rectangular galaxy. NOT understood. (The galaxy LEDA 074886 is shaped more or less like a rectangle)
By the way. let's do a fact heck on you. Show the source for plates going deep into the mantle.
No, it really isn't. We still have the physical (not only the rocks, but structures associated with conditions of formation. For sed rocks that includes sedimentary structures like ripples and graded bedding. For igneous and metamorphic rocks, that means the size of the crystals, foliation for mm rx and flow structures for Ig rx) and chemical records.It is true. You were not there. Comparing forensics with the distant past is apples and oranges.
There are 2 mechanisms that cause plate motion and both are a consequence of mantle convection.Did someone deny plate tectonics? I think the issue is what makes plates move, not whether they do. Science doesn't understand. Like to pretend you do?
Only if you know how things were then.That would be apples to apples. If events in the past create evidence that we can observe in the present, then we can use that evidence to reconstruct the events that happened in the past.
From your linkIs your issue with imaging the mantle and finding the subducted slabs? Or with currently subjecting slabs?
Subducted slab "graveyards" citations: Seismic evidence for slab graveyards atop the Core Mantle Boundary beneath the Indian Ocean Geoid Low - ScienceDirect
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo855.html?foxtrotcallback=true
That may be neat but it doesn't address the issue of them not knowing what really is at work under there and causing the plate movement.The neat thing about the subduction beneath South America is that to there are multiple plates subducting along the east Pacific of SA and Latin America, and also that the angle of subduction changes (which causes corresponding changes, such as the distance the volcanic arc is from the trench)
NO. That is the general theory. Look at the link where they admitted not knowing. In your explanation, you have the ridge doing something for untold ages. The reality could be that a rapid event in the past was the main factor, and subsequent spreading was just a comparatively minor recent after the fact event. You do not know.There are 2 mechanisms that cause plate motion and both are a consequence of mantle convection.
1) Ridge push: Mid-Ocean Ridges (and Continental Rifts too) are elevated with respect to the sea floor around them, because they rest on a geothermal high as a consequence of mantle up-welling between two adjacent slabs that are diverging away from one another. The mantle convects beneath the ridge, pushing it up. As the elevation increases, the mass at the higher elevation pushes down on the rest of the slab due to gravity (basically the same thing as a glacier pushing itself downslope into the ocean).
Maybe. But merely relying on seismic waves is not sufficient evidence to reach such sweeping conclusions.2) Slab Pull: the subducting slab beneath an over-riding plate is colder than the mantle into which it subducts. Because it is cold, it is also denser.
Or maybe a rapid event rammed the plates causing subduction, in which case, your conclusion would need revisiting.The subducting slab is being pushed by the Ridge Push, and the cold slab is also being pulled downwards by gravity.
Think of it like the video below of a ball chain coming out of a container. Once it starts accelerating downwards, the weight of the subducting portion (the ball chain thrown out of the cup) pulls the rest of the slab with it
NO. That is the general theory. Look at the link where they admitted not knowing. In your explanation, you have the ridge doing something for untold ages. The reality could be that a rapid event in the past was the main factor, and subsequent spreading was just a comparatively minor recent after the fact event. You do not know.
Maybe. But merely relying on seismic waves is not sufficient evidence to reach such sweeping conclusions.
Or maybe a rapid event rammed the plates causing subduction, in which case, your conclusion would need revisiting.
Do we know what gravity is like down there? If so, what are the tests? Do we know what the consistency of the crust and mantle and rock was at the time of the rapid event? (or do you insist on a narrow view and looking at it only as if it was a great ages event?) Do we know that thermodynamics is at work there as it is on the surface, and if so, how? You would be best to say you just don't really know.
A lot of area did get subducted. Today, in slow motion we also have some suducting action. That does not mean the hole theory of PT is correct. That does not mean we know when or how it got that way. That does not mean science fully (to say the least) understands what goes on down there.Its more than just temperatures that cause one slab to move beneath another. Mafic rocks are heavier than felsic. Diamond formation is also caused by subducting carbonaceous material.
@time Do you not believe subduction is real or?
A lot of area did get subducted. Today, in slow motion we also have some suducting action. That does not mean the hole theory of PT is correct. That does not mean we know when or how it got that way. That does not mean science fully (to say the least) understands what goes on down there.
I can see now that there is a larger void of ignorance on geology than I had anticipated. You speak as if you know what you're talking about, but your words betray you and indicate a profound ignorance of the subject. You shouldn't parade about ignorance as knowledge, it makes you an obvious fraud to those of us that know what we are talking aboutNO. That is the general theory. Look at the link where they admitted not knowing. In your explanation, you have the ridge doing something for untold ages. The reality could be that a rapid event in the past was the main factor, and subsequent spreading was just a comparatively minor recent after the fact event. You do not know.
Maybe. But merely relying on seismic waves is not sufficient evidence to reach such sweeping conclusions.
Or maybe a rapid event rammed the plates causing subduction, in which case, your conclusion would need revisiting.
Do we know what gravity is like down there? If so, what are the tests? Do we know what the consistency of the crust and mantle and rock was at the time of the rapid event? (or do you insist on a narrow view and looking at it only as if it was a great ages event?) Do we know that thermodynamics is at work there as it is on the surface, and if so, how? You would be best to say you just don't really know.
Only if you know how things were then.
Yes and that measure is --slow! So what?Actually it does. We can measure how fast plates move. We can see that they have always moved at roughly the same rate.
Not believing the whole package offered by the speculation of science equals ignorance in your mind. You see, not using the parts of science they are admittedly ignorant about is a very good thing actually. Yes, there WAS subduction, and areas that are subducted. Yes, we see a slow rate of subduction today. The rest, basically is your invention. Rather than resort to name calling and childish behavior, I would suggest you try to support your invented stories, and maybe try to address the OP.I can see now that there is a larger void of ignorance on geology than I had anticipated. You speak as if you know what you're talking about, but your words betray you and indicate a profound ignorance of the subject. You shouldn't parade about ignorance as knowledge, it makes you an obvious fraud to those of us that know what we are talking about
Yes and that measure is --slow! So what?
The topic of this thread is geological dating techniques. You also brought up the subject trying to imply that plate tectonics was not understood.Yes and that measure is --slow! So what?
I've addressed the OP in an earlier post.Not believing the whole package offered by the speculation of science equals ignorance in your mind. You see, not using the parts of science they are admittedly ignorant about is a very good thing actually. Yes, there WAS subduction, and areas that are subducted. Yes, we see a slow rate of subduction today. The rest, basically is your invention. Rather than resort to name calling and childish behavior, I would suggest you try to support your invented stories, and maybe try to address the OP.
No doubt it tells you things. I think dad pointed out here for years that the present is not actually the key to the past. I have pointed out even longer than that, how time possibly does not exist beyond the bubble of earth. I really don't want to argue about it. I do not accept beliefs about the unknown that you offer.The evidence in the present tells us how things were then.
Not believing the whole package offered by the speculation of science equals ignorance in your mind. You see, not using the parts of science they are admittedly ignorant about is a very good thing actually. Yes, there WAS subduction, and areas that are subducted. Yes, we see a slow rate of subduction today. The rest, basically is your invention. Rather than resort to name calling and childish behavior, I would suggest you try to support your invented stories, and maybe try to address the OP.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?