The Pleistocene Extinction

atlantisquest ^

[RadioAstronomer]

Talk about a lack of "synapses." You take the cake.

You happen to be talking to a personal friend of mine who is presently completing a graduate degree in Geochemistry.

[RadioAstronomer]

I'm speaking of some type of rapid, large crustal displacement, the astronomical pole would stay the same, but worldwide, except for antipodal nodes, the latitudes would change.

From what I have read, the evidence from the mid Atlantic ridge does not support this. However, it does support the fact that the MAGNETIC poles reverse. Also there may be tens of millions of years between each of these events. (Note; should not effect the plate tectonic drift rates)

However, I am NOT a geophysicist so I will leave this up to far more qualified folks than I to correct me if I am wrong here.

[js1138]

pole reversing placemarker

[ASA Vet]

that think all their nuclear waste should go to Nevada

It would be better to store it on the moon,
but of course if it detonated the moon would be
thrown out of orbit.

[ThinkPlease]

What a charmer! Tell me, did you attend the G3K School of Affrontery? If you did, you must have aced the coursework.

Could be that Chuckie Cagle pried himself off of usenet and dropped himself on Free Republic! A Usenet kook of Medvedian proportions!

[Movemout]

To all of you posters who are interested in this stuff. Go get Bill Bryson's new book, "A Short History of Just about Everything."

He spent three years talking to real bright folks and translating the data into something that most of us can understand.

[null and void]

Possibly more so than you.

Rilly? How many silane fires have you put out?

[ThinkPlease]

My contention is that the bulk of the Geochemistry and Geophysics being taught to graduate students such as your personal friend will face the same fate as the G. de Vaucouleurs tome. Plate Tectonics with Subduction I expect to see rejected in my lifetime as I also expect the Halton Arp model to replace most of the Standard Model in Astronomy. What Cal Tech and generally the Astronomical community did to Arp is unconscionable.

I wonder, then, what is your mechanism for an expanding earth? Or the Standard model. You do know that Arp's model has long been shown to be statistically untenable, right?

[Aracelis]

You are the genius who started the insults with your: "Sigh...Democrats and Liberals have done their jobs well. Not only do we have a nation of non-thinkers, but they now go so far as to deny the existence of empirical evidence..."

You took a general lament personally...

Of course the ACE thinker, Piltdown_Woman, never answers any of the 10 points of empirical evidence I raised on where Plate Tetonic Theory is NOT born out by the hard facts of data. Said in another way: the predictions of what one would expect to find associated with a subduction zone, are not born out when one actually examines such a zone. The logic tight mind of Piltdown_Woman has a response however: when the thinking gets hard, deny that the other point of view exists by Calling such thoughts Pseudo Science.

...and have resorted to emotionally-driven, personal attacks.

You are the person having a temper tantrum. I just answered you in kind. If you reread my posts, the vitriol begins with your insults. The actual problem appears to me that you lack critical thinking about the topic. To you the question is settled: Plate Tectonics is not just a theory; it is revealed truth.

More personal attacks, but with a new wrinkle: now you can actually read my mind.

Plate Tectonics is now dogmatized yet an objective examination of its predictions leaves much to be desired as the ten points I raised demonstrated. ( I could have easily have raised 10 more.)

10 points? Hmmm...if you are in reference to this post you made only 6 statements.

2. collapses when examined under the laws of physics ( less dense crumbly material some how diving into a vastly more dense medium without a source of energy or mechanism even postulated as to how this is done );

I have only one thing to say about this obvious falsehood. Oceanic crust is high in magnesium. It is not "less dense" than high-silica continental crust, nor is it "crumbly"...and yes, it can and does subduct under relatively bouyant continental crust. Please see my previously posted links for an introduction to plate tectonics.

4) it ignores the Hydritic model for the deep earth quake data.

Indeed...because support for this hypothesis comes from the Creation Research Society.

As far as your other questions, I suggest you enroll in an introductory geology class at a local junior college - the subject of plate tectonics is covered quite well at this level.

[Aracelis]

My chief professor, I recall, told me my head was in the clouds

Could you possibly mean, your Advisor???

[js1138]

...any hapless sap who couldn't READ HIS MIND as to answers he expected on the topic.

Been there, been that helpless sap. Went to a college where that was the standard style of teaching.

[null and void]

Ah, but he was tenured and therefore above reproach, question, or error.

Right?

[dirtboy]

ping for later refuation of this nonsense

[dirtboy]

2) Plate Tectonitc creed pairs spreading ridges with trenches. New crust added at the mid ocean ridges is balanced by old crust being subducted at the trenches. Therefore spreading ridges and trenches should be paired. But the mid Atlantic ridge has NO trenches either along the Atlantic coasts of America nor Europe or Africa

Of course, if you go across North America you'll find subduction zones on the other side. Nice try, but this was accounted for years ago in plate techtonic theory, with the Atlantic-type/Pacific-type model.

[dirtboy]

not to mention the absence of an energy source to power such a plunge

Try radioactive decay within the Earth itself.

Try to make whipped cream plunge into and below the ice cream in a sundae.

Try to put a styrofoam block against one end of a pool and then slide a semirigid plastic sheet against it. Try tracing the depths of earthquakes around subduction zones. Try correlating andesitic volcanic chains to subduction zones. In other words, look at the natural world and devise a theory, instead of devising a theory and then twisting the natural world as you have done.

[RadioAstronomer]

As far as your other questions, I suggest you enroll in an introductory geology class at a local junior college - the subject of plate tectonics is covered quite well at this level.

A basic astronomy class would not hurt as well.