 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Earth Science / Geology / August 2007transform faults, ..all over again
---------------------- "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these structures and radically altered our interpretation of the ocean's physiographic features was the concept of the transform fault. This theory, proposed in 1965 by J.Tuzo Wilson, suggested that transform faults were a class of faults with characteristics very much different from those associated with faults on land. Wilson's concept of the transform fault was key in the development of the theory of plate tectonics and was important in explaining how plates interact." -------------------------- 1965 = 52 years ago more than half a century Transform fault Results 1 - 10 of about 131,000 for "transform fault" [definition]. (0.12 seconds) Transform faults Results 1 - 10 of about 125,000 for "transform faults". (0.16 seconds) "how transform faults form" = Results 1 - 10 of about 43 for "how transform faults form" . (0.24 seconds) And all but three of them are mine. What do you make of that? In half a century only three (actually I think it's only two) other sites have posted on the web using that string... You know why? Because nobody knows how transform faults form. The web entries say it all. How can you build up a theory of Plate Tectonics without knowing how transfgorm faults form, .. or spreading ridges for that matter, .. or subduction zones... (There, ..I've just added another web entry one about how transform faults form.... which will make it 44. ) : ---------------------- : "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] : : You know why? Yes. You are f.cking stupid, that's why. : Because nobody knows how transform faults form. And you are that nobody, far too stupid to understand the Earth is a sphere or even the difference between transform and transverse. Transverse fault : A fault that strikes obliquely or perpendicular to the general trend of the region > : ---------------------- > : "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > A fault that strikes obliquely or perpendicular to the general trend of > the region Corr, ... you again! : > : ---------------------- : > : "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] : : Corr, ... you again! You have to admit you are stupid. > : > : > : You know why? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You have to admit you are stupid. Well, of course I'm stupid. I'd have to be to be undertaking this, ...talking to the likes of you, ...Wooden Eye? But if you have anything to say about transform faults - one of the lynchpins of Plate Tectonics - then we'll do our best to struggle along, ..Woan Wee? Look, ..I'm promoting this site here http://tinyurl.com/2e386l ...as one of the authoritative ones on "How Transform Faults Form", but it doesn't really (tell us). All it tells us is how they are supposed to *move* (different thing). Have a look at it and see if you can work out how it kills Plate Tectonics *STONE DEAD*. 'Coz it does. : > : : > : > : You know why? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] : : 'Coz it does. You are flogging a dead horse. But then, you admit to being stupid... <shrug> Goodbye. *plonk* > How can you build up a theory of Plate > Tectonics without knowing how transfgorm faults form, .. or spreading > ridges for that matter, .. or subduction zones... How can you build up a theory of Earth Expansion without knowing how earth expands? > > How can you build up a theory of Plate > > Tectonics without knowing how transfgorm faults form, .. or spreading > > ridges for that matter, .. or subduction zones... > > How can you build up a theory of Earth Expansion without knowing how > earth expands? What was that about a theory? Can you rephrase that please? >>>How can you build up a theory of Plate >>>Tectonics without knowing how transfgorm faults form, .. or spreading [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What was that about a theory? Can you rephrase that please? You are becoming tiresome. > >>>How can you build up a theory of Plate > >>>Tectonics without knowing how transfgorm faults form, .. or spreading [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You are becoming tiresome. Why do you keep insisting it's a theory? Theories begin with obsesrvations. The observation is that the ocean floors have grown over time. The THEORY is that they have also shrunk. That's what Plate Tectonics has to support. And *THAT ONE* is based on the convenient assumption that they have. (= Junk Science; assuming your conclusion so you can make one.) You do not understand the structure of plate Tectonics' argument. >> > How can you build up a theory of Plate >> > Tectonics without knowing how transfgorm faults form, .. or spreading [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >What was that about a theory? Can you rephrase that please? It's this "science" thing... Observation, conjecture, data accumulation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing (usually via prediction), further testing, maturity into a theory. You seem to have stopped prior to step 3.  SignatureBob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless > >> > How can you build up a theory of Plate > >> > Tectonics without knowing how transfgorm faults form, .. or spreading [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You seem to have stopped prior to step 3. That's exactly right. What I call "Observation-tantamount-to-fact" It's where it begins, with the observation(s). They have to be consolidated before progressing to the next step, ..and if the first observation is right then the following supporting data will fall into place virtually of its own accord. It has to. That's the so-called 'scientific bit' - what others have called a "mopping up" operation. That's the work for a century of geologists, as this whole lot gets put together. What we're trying to do here is set some foundation for that, so it will be a bit easier for those who come along to do it, ..give them permission (so to speak) that it's ok to ask qeustions, and come up with alternatives; the groundwork has been laid. Now the trundling wheels can begin to turn. To expedite that it is very necessary to point to the holes in the existing theory, and show that it is unsupportable. Every knows Plate Tectonics has aspects that are at the very least highly questionable ("bullshit" in this bearpit.). Why don't they come out and say so? Because consensus is like a nappy, ..you can get away with the most puerile logical glitsches no problem. It's self serving (publications). And nice for parents, ..they think their children have the backing of authority, which they do, ..just that authority does not equate with the core elements of science, which are falsification and enquiry. Of course the rigour has to be applied to the emerging theory. That's why I've given you that rather nice animation to work on:- http://tinyurl.com/2e386l ..Tell us (or yourself) why it shoots Plate Tectonics down. 'coz if you don['t I will. (I already have actually, ..it's on my site... along with a whole lot of others. (Fanny T. (for terrorist) Dildo) > -- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > evidence that the observation is wrong." > - McNameless >> >> > How can you build up a theory of Plate >> >> > Tectonics without knowing how transfgorm faults form, .. or spreading [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >observation is right then the following supporting data will fall into >place virtually of its own accord. It has to. I see. So you skipped the "data collection" through "further testing" parts and went straight from "conjecture" to "declare mature theory", since you assume the data will support your conjecture based on your observations. Uh-huh... Well, I'm glad we got *that* straight. > That's the so-called >'scientific bit' - what others have called a "mopping up" operation. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >authority, which they do, ..just that authority does not equate with >the core elements of science, which are falsification and enquiry. Since anyone able to actually *demonstrate* that EE is correct (or al least more correct than standard PT) would be a shoo-in for a Nobel, it seems strange that no one seems to want to gather the data which would actually support it. Are *all* scientists slaves to The System (TM), with only a small brave handful willing to forego all the money and fame so normally associated with research? >Of course the rigour has to be applied to the emerging theory. That's >why I've given you that rather nice animation to work on:- >http://tinyurl.com/2e386l >..Tell us (or yourself) why it shoots Plate Tectonics down. It doesn't, but feel free to pontificate. >'coz if you don['t I will. (I already have actually, ..it's on my >site... along with a whole lot of others. Sorry; I'm not interested in visiting your site. Just post it here. SignatureBob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless > ---------------------- > "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > (There, ..I've just added another web entry one about how transform > faults form.... which will make it 44. ) You keep blathering about this, but I have two points to make: 1.) Even if your are correct about Plate Tectonics being wrong, you haven't produced any convincing evidence that you are correct, just assertions and insults to anyone who challenges you on your assertions. Without any hard evidence, you aren't going to convince anyone, except possibly gullible loons and conspiracy theory nutbars, two types who are already predisposed to fall for unsubstantiated stupidity. You have inspired me, however, to do some research into the matter. I have reviewed the available information, and at this point I see no reason to abandon the Plate Tectonics theory. And while I am not a geologist, I am a geotechnical engineer, and do have some understanding of the field, and the available observations and data support Plate tectonics quite nicely. Provide some convincing facts, and I will change my mind, that's how science works. Hell, overturn Plate Tectonics, and you would be in line for some serious fame and fortune, not to mention those pretty groupies always hanging around scientists. 2.) Even if your are correct, and the Plate Tectonics theory is abandoned, you have provided zero evidence of this expanding earth nonsense, and the available observations directly refute any expansion of the earth, or any other planet for that matter. What is the mechanism for this alleged earth expansion, where is the matter coming from and where is it collecting on the planet? Internally? Externally? How do you explain the total lack of affect of the increasing mass from this supposed earth expansion on the orbit of the earth, moon or nearby planets? how about the lack of any measured changes in gravity? How about the rather convincing refutation by our estemed moderator establishing that this alleged smaller earth would not have been able to hold an atmosphere? How do you explain the fact that GPS measurements completely refute your allegations of expansion, and support Plate Tectonics quite nicely? You need actual data and hard facts (I know, terribly inconvenient but what can you do?) before you are going to convince anybody, until then you will considered an amusing loon and treated accordingly. > > ---------------------- > > "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > 1.) Even if your are correct about Plate Tectonics being wrong, you > haven't produced any convincing evidence that you are correct, Of course I have:- http://users.indigo.net.au/don > just > assertions and insults to anyone who challenges you on your > assertions. I only reply in like vein in language they understand. Don't be so one- eyed. > Without any hard evidence, you aren't going to convince > anyone, There is plenty of *Hard Evidence*. I wouldn't be persisting in this if there weren't. Plate Tectonics just have everything upside down. Which bit of it do you think is most supportive of it? ...we can begin there to show how it doesn't work. It doesn't work whichever way we look at it. > except possibly gullible loons and conspiracy theory nutbars, > two types who are already predisposed to fall for unsubstantiated > stupidity. ..What about this bit here:- http://tinyurl.com/2e386l This is what is being taught to schools the world over, and it's nonsense. And anyone who cares to think about it can see it's nonsense. Do you support rubbish being taught in schools? ..by organisations who make money out of publications promoting it? >You have inspired me, however, to do some research into > the matter. I have reviewed the available information, Well, ..that was was quick!! > and at this > point I see no reason to abandon the Plate Tectonics theory. And [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fame and fortune, not to mention those pretty groupies always hanging > around scientists. Are you joking? Seriously? You do not understand the first thing about tackling consensus. This is a poison chalice, mate, ..Why else do you think nobody else in the profession will handle it? It's professional suicide. Do you seriously think that all those people who are well-versed in Plate Tectonics can see nothing wrong with it? Surely you understand that (in anything) the, more you think about something, the more questions arise? Hell, whenever have you heard three people agree on just about anything? Whenever you have a consensus, then you want to look at the subtexts. And Plate Tectonics is a monolithic consensus. "If it is consensus, it is not science" http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=871 http://brinnonprosperity.org/crichton2.html > 2.) Even if your are correct, and the Plate Tectonics theory is > abandoned, you have provided zero evidence of this expanding earth > nonsense, the < http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ > link above > and the available observations directly refute any expansion > of the earth, or any other planet for that matter. What is the > mechanism for this alleged earth expansion, where is the matter coming > from and where is it collecting on the planet? Internally? > Externally? It's collecting on the surface so we can see it. It's an observation. It's the bit underneath the surface that we can't see is what Plate Tectonics "convenient assumptions' depend on http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/subass.html > How do you explain the total lack of affect of the > increasing mass from this supposed earth expansion on the orbit of the > earth, moon or nearby planets? how about the lack of any measured > changes in gravity? I don't really know, ..but I don't think anybody knows for sure what the previous orbits of Earth, Moon, and other planets were. Do you? > How about the rather convincing refutation by our > estemed moderator establishing that this alleged smaller earth would > not have been able to hold an atmosphere? Your esteemed moderator, of the moderate language, and leader of the naked mole rats of talk origins apparently does not seem to realise that the atmosphere did not happen when it rained for forty days and forty nights, but like water is an ongoing production from the Earth itself, not something that was always there to condense like dew in the morning > How do you explain the fact > that GPS measurements completely refute your allegations of expansion, > and support Plate Tectonics quite nicely? They don't. > You need actual data and hard facts (I know, terribly inconvenient but > what can you do?) before you are going to convince anybody, until then > you will considered an amusing loon and treated accordingly. The hard fact is the presence of the ocean floors. The imagination part is its destruction, and Plate Tectonics has copyright on that one, but still has it cocked up. There is NOTHING about Plate Tectonics that hangs together. Consider the link to transform faults above as a starting point. > > 1.) Even if your are correct about Plate Tectonics being wrong, you > > haven't produced any convincing evidence that you are correct, > > Of course I have No, you haven't. I have read more than the last two month of sci.geo.geology, and you haven't produced any evidence. > And Plate Tectonics > is a monolithic consensus. "If it is consensus, it is not science" > http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=871 > http://brinnonprosperity.org/crichton2.html Thank you. Thank you very much. In quoting the conspiracy agent Michael Crichton, you show in which side you are. > > 2.) Even if your are correct, and the Plate Tectonics theory is > > abandoned, you have provided zero evidence of this expanding earth > > nonsense, > > the < http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ > link above I have read many page of this web site, and i have found zero evidence in. > > > 1.) Even if your are correct about Plate Tectonics being wrong, you > > > haven't produced any convincing evidence that you are correct, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I have read many page of this web site, and i have found zero evidence in. Do you hear that, everybody? Nicolas has read many pages.. He's streets ahead of the lot of you. > 1965 = 52 years ago more than half a century You really were serious about not being able to do simple math. --D. > > 1965 = 52 years ago more than half a century > > You really were serious about not being able to do simple math. > > --D. That's right. You're dead right. So it is. ( Hurray! I can put in for a rebate.) ( Phew, ...it did sound a bit funny...) Anyhow, my arithmetic was not the point. When did Plate Tectonics come in? Carey was teaching it way back when:- ------------------------ "...Hence it had to go back to the mechanism I had adopted in the 1930's and 1940's of swallowing great areas of crust down the ocean trenches, but which, after 20 years of working with it, I had found by 1956 to be unworkable on a global scale. Hence my Elsevier book set out to quash this subduction myth" ------------------------ Now, ..stop jumping about from one sewer neck to the next one, . You're confusing me. Have you done any arithmetic yet to work out how that animation negates Plate Tectonics? Or is it perfectly obvious without any numbers? On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 06:11:13 +0000 (UTC), the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by David Iain Greig <dgreig@ediacara.org>: >> 1965 = 52 years ago more than half a century > >You really were serious about not being able to do simple math. 42, 52, whatthehell... SignatureBob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless > ---------------------- > "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > (There, ..I've just added another web entry one about how transform > faults form.... which will make it 44. ) How about this? "transform fault formation" Patas...@gmail.com wrote: > > ---------------------- > > "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > "transform fault formation" Oh, well, look, ..that one has nine. (And my goodness, ..the Bozos here won't like the first one, ..not_One_Little_Bit. ) We'll look at the others later, ..meanwhile I just tried " "transform fault development" and got 78 in google.- but they seem a lot more obfuscatory, and don't talk about "How transform faults form", .. (What about the animation, has anyone worked out how it Kills Plate Tectonics? ) (stone dead) (clue: Number one mentioned above...) > Patas...@gmail.com wrote: > > > ---------------------- [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How about just "fault formation" or (fault OR faults) form? Although I'm really beginning to think you're nitpicking on an imaginary issue... Patas...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > ---------------------- > > > > "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Although I'm really beginning to think you're nitpicking on an > imaginary issue... No. ... Not at all. In Plate Tectonics transform faults are special. (Read the quote.) But they are not special at all, if interpreted correctly. It's another of Plate Tectonic furphies that they have to invent yet another class of faults to explain their imagined dynamics. In fact, to date, nobody is able to do it. They describe the movement (wrongly) , but there is still no view on how they come into being. Do they all form at once? Or Is there a first one then a second and a third and so on? Or what? Where did the first ones form? There is nothing on this at all. > Patas...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > one then a second and a third and so on? Or what? Where did the > first ones form? There is nothing on this at all. It would be a better area for you to work on than this expanding earth crap, this is if you're as qualified as you claim. > Patas...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Tectonics? ) (stone dead) > (clue: Number one mentioned above...) Published in any recognized peer reviewed journal then? > (There, ..I've just added another web entry one about how transform > faults form.... which will make it 44. ) You're speaking to your bottle. Signature"sepehr in bAgh bas kardast yaghmA man emruzam bedin khAri to fardA marA bAyad degar tarke chaman goft gole pazhmorde digarbAr nashkoft torA khoshbAd bA khubAn neshastan ke mA rA bAyad inak rakht bastan cho in peymAne rA sAghist gardun bebAyad khord gar shahd asto gar khun" - Parvin E'tesami > ---------------------- > "The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > (There, ..I've just added another web entry one about how transform > faults form.... which will make it 44. ) So , ..there we have it. You're all ready enough to ad homin, ... but nobody is prepared to address the question. (No explanation how transform faults form) You're a useless fat lot. And the transforms are easy too.. What hope have we got of getting sense out of you on spreading ridges? ...or subduction zones? <Chalking another one up> >>---------------------- >>"The major conceptual breakthrough that explained the origin of these [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > <Chalking another one up> Another imaginary chalk-up then. The process doesn't make a question into an answer, it seeks out the answer to the question. You don't know the process at all, just another dunce making noises while lacking any substance. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.