Berkeley.edu - Telling it like it is.
Berkeley.edu offers an excellent definition of Plate Tectonics, for which it should be applauded :-
"What is Plate Tectonics?" "Plate tectonics is a framework for understanding many geophysical observations, including the distribution of seismicity. These resources provide insight into the theory of plate tectonics and how it is used in research today. The USGS online publication "Earthquakes" is a nice, general introduction which includes information on the hows and whys of earthquakes. " http://seismo.berkeley.edu/faq/plate_0.html..and with which I would wholeheartedly agree, for it is exactly that : just what you can squeeze out of a shaking pen with your imagination, .. a loed of oeld wank, in other words, .. stirred with a mythical Panthalassa for good measure.
It's what I keep saying: - nothing to do with the geology. No geological connection necessary. No boots. Just get your tsunami suit on, and get down to the beach. Show everybody how to surf that big wave. Then once you've got the confidence of that one under your belt, show everybody how the big seismic one ripping through the crust throws up mountains.
Well! It can certainly knock them down if the houses and rotted bedrock on them is anything to go by ( La Paz ). Are we really supposed to think it can build them up? .. Plates, defined by the distribution of Earthquakes... Plates that move.. Move how? Because cold nights are cooling them down? ..so they sink? And in the sinking, leave in their wake a trail of earthquakes that knock the bejasus out of the planet?
I mean, have you ever heard such rubbish? No wonder our institutions are crawling with institutionalised, .. getting fed such pap. How do they get away with it?
What garbage, eh? ("A framework for geophysical observations".. ) Eh? Well, that it *most certainly* is, which may be why I am thinking what a parlous state the Earth sciences are in when all mention of the surface geology of the planet can be omitted from his definition of what Plate Tectonics is about. What a Berk (shoving geology under the carpet like that). Well, on second thoughts maybe he's extending the hand of friendship in fact, by implying that in the science stakes geology is not to be compared with geophysics, and that if we are informed enough to want to talk about a framework for understanding *geological* observations, then Earth expansion is what we should be talking about. If that's what he's trying to say then I agree wholeheartedly too. Is he? Somehow I don't think so.
This is exactly why the wikipedia talking about Earth expansion is in such a tizz with nothing useful to say about it. Have you read the 'Discussion' tab? They think Plate Tectonics is something to do with geological theory, when it isn't. As the man says, it's all about geophysics - a theory that tries to bind geophysical observations. Earth expansion on the other hand (when practised with empirical geological methodology) is a FACT. Heck! I see they've even deleted those references I mentioned!. How could they do that? Carey doesn't even get a mention in their bibiliography! Back then, all the guys supporting Earth expansion were *the* top-line geologists of the day. How it got usurped by then no-name geophysicists is a tale of scientific woe that remains to be properly told, and that 'History of Science' journals should be very much interested in. Thus far we've only had the media-fashion cheer squad, and a mob of tailcoats conned by it and the chance of a ride on a gravytrain. (Well, ..wouldn't you?) (Gravy train?)
Would you?
"Subduction", .. huh! If they think subduction's their lynchpin, they ought to give some thought to what happens to their ocean floor *before* it gets to their subduction zone - and what happens even before that, implied in the fact that the spreading ridges are longer than their equivalent continental margins, ..a GEOLOGICAL FACT conveniently ignored by Plate Tectonicists (and one which I don't see mentioned anywhere else except on my site). Which means that the ridges grow *UP* - and keep growing up. Which means *and can only mean* that since their inception the Earth has kept getting bigger. It's why those ridges keep falling down on account of all those extensional listric (so-called "new-class" 'transform') faults along them, that keep chopping them up so. Just like the mountains do on land (keep falling down). It's what mountains *do*: they don't grow up, ..they fall down!
Well, ..I guess that little bit of a conundrum (about mountains falling down instead of building up) will confuse the bibs off those gravy-trainers for sure. So maybe meanitme, till they're ready for the next dose of spectacular scientific erudition we should just let them hold on to their belief in a shrinking cooling Earth, .. and how cold dark nights are making the ocean floors sink, which is sending shock waves through the planet to batter the buggery out of it and build up mountains. (Dozy clowns.)
Cod liver oil and Orange Juice! Anybody for some CLOOJ? Come on, .. get with it. You can't build neurons on Pee -Tee, no matter how much you stew it up like soup in a pot.
Aren't they real doozies, these PTeros? (Bloody dinosaurs, ..in their tsunami suits.) (Doomed forever to extinction.) (And serve 'em right).
[ See also Expanding Earth blog at
http://www.earthexpansion.blogspot.com/ ]
0 comments:
Post a Comment