- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ May 25 2012,12:49) Quote (terraricca @ May 25 2012,05:44) Quote (Stu @ May 25 2012,00:37) Quote (terraricca @ May 24 2012,04:11) stu then why are the tropical,trees and animal fossils found in the north pole,and Siberia
…and in Antarctica too. Good question, but surely irrelevant to your claim of some dome of water.The answer is here.
Quote or was the scientists wrong wen they unravel their core drill,and findings,???
Good of you to bring it up. This alleged dome of water, when exactly would you say that existed? There should be a record of it in the Antarctic and Greenland icecore data if it happened within the past 800,000 years.Quote and one more thing;it is the same motion that we use to believe in things; the same way of what we believe , you believing in what it is that you believe in, and me in the same way ,but we are total opposite in our believes don't we
I believe that one should pay attention to the evidence. Do you not believe that?Stuart
stuQuote
Quote (terraricca @ May 24 2012,04:11)
stuthen why are the tropical,trees and animal fossils found in the north pole,and Siberia
…and in Antarctica too. Good question, but surely irrelevant to your claim of some dome of water.
The answer is here.
I went in your “HERE” and it seems that scientist have still not agree to what is what ,this is the cause of their ignorance ,
and the unclear cut of their info ,
it is like someone try to make a globe fit in a cube of the same size in volume ,and try to explain why it is the same in shape,because it as the same volume.
if you find my explanation confusing try to read what the scientist says about the Plate tectonics,
Please say EXACTLY which aspect you think is the problem, and explain it, or withdraw your accusation that the reason for the tropical remains in non-tropical areas is because of the movement of tectonic plates.Stuart
stuPlate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός “pertaining to building”)[1] is a scientific theory that describes the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere. The theory builds on the concepts of continental drift, developed during the first decades of the 20th century. It was accepted by the geoscientific community after the concepts of seafloor spreading were developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Tectonic plates are able to move because the Earth's lithosphere has a higher strength and lower density than the underlying asthenosphere. Lateral density variations in the mantle result in convection. Their movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of seafloor away from the spreading ridge (due to variations in topography and density of the crust that result in differences in gravitational forces) and drag, downward suction, at the subduction zones. A different explanation lies in different forces generated by the rotation of the globe and tidal forces of the Sun and the Moon. The relative importance of each of these factors is unclear, and is still subject to debate (see also below).
As explained above, tectonic plates can include continental crust or oceanic crust, and many plates contain both. For example, the African Plate includes the continent and parts of the floor of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The distinction between oceanic crust and continental crust is based on their modes of formation. Oceanic crust is formed at sea-floor spreading centers, and continental crust is formed through arc volcanism and accretion of terranes through tectonic processes; though some of these terranes may contain ophiolite sequences, which are pieces of oceanic crust, these are considered part of the continent when they exit the standard cycle of formation and spreading centers and subduction beneath continents. Oceanic crust is also denser than continental crust owing to their different compositions. Oceanic crust is denser because it has less silicon and more heavier elements (“mafic”) than continental crust (“felsic”).[9] As a result of this density stratification, oceanic crust generally lies below sea level (for example most of the Pacific Plate), while the continental crust buoyantly projects above sea level (see the page isostasy for explanation of this principle).
Plate boundary zones occur where the effects of the interactions are unclear and the boundaries, usually occurring along a broad belt, are not well defined, and may show various types of movements in different episodes
Driving forces of plate motion
Plate tectonics is basically a kinematic phenomenon: Earth scientists agree upon the observation and deduction that the plates have moved one with respect to the other, and debate and find agreements on how and when. But still a major question remains on what the motor behind this movement is; the geodynamic mechanism, and here science diverges in different theories.
As a consequence, in the current view, although it is still a matter of some debate, because of the excess density of the oceanic lithosphere sinking in subduction zones a powerful source of plate motion is generated. When the new crust forms at mid-ocean ridges, this oceanic lithosphere is initially less dense than the underlying
Driving forces related to Earth rotation
Alfred Wegener, being a meteorologist, had proposed tidal forces and pole flight force as main driving mechanisms for continental drift. However, these forces were considered far too small to cause continental motion as the concept then was of continents plowing through oceanic crust.[20] Therefore, Wegener converted to convection currents as the main driving force in the last edition of his book in 1929.
In the plate tectonics context (accepted since the seafloor spreading proposals of Heezen, Hess, Dietz, Morley, Vine and Matthews (see below) during the early 1960s) though, oceanic crust is in motion with the continents which caused the proposals related to Earth rotation to be reconsidered. In more
recent literature, these driving forces are:
Tidal drag due to the gravitational force the Moon (and the Sun) exerts on the crust of the Earth
Shear strain of the Earth globe due to N-S compression related to the rotation and modulations of it;
Pole flight force: equatorial drift due to rotation and centrifugal effects: tendency of the plates to move from the poles to the equator (“Polflucht”);
Coriolis effect acting on plates when they move around the globe;
Global deformation of the geoid due to small displacements of rotational pole with respect to the Earth crust;
Other smaller deformation effects of the crust due to wobbles and spin movements of the Earth rotation on a smaller time scale.
For these mechanisms to be overall valid, systematic relationships should exist all over the globe between the orientation and kinematics of deformation, and the geographical latitudinal and longitudinal grid of the Earth itself. Ironically, these systematic relations studies in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century do underline exactly the opposite: that the plates had not moved in time, that the deformation grid was fixed with respect to the Earth equator and axis, and that gravitational driving forces were generally acting vertically and caused only locally horizontal movements (the so-called pre-plate tectonic, “fixist theories”).Of the many forces discussed in this paragraph, tidal force is still highly debated and defended as a possible principle driving force, whereas the other forces are used or in global geodynamic models not using the plate tectonics concepts (therefore beyond the discussions treated in this section), or proposed as minor modulations within the overall plate tectonics model.
In a more recent 2006 study,[24] scientists reviewed and advocated these earlier proposed ideas. It has also been suggested recently in Lovett (2006) that this observation may also explain why Venus and Mars have no plate tectonics, since Venus has no moon and Mars' moons are too small to have significant tidal effects on Mars. In a recent paper[25] it was suggested that, on the other hand, it can easily be observed that many plates are moving north and eastward, and that the dominantly westward motion of the Pacific ocean basins derives simply from the eastward bias of the Pacific spreading center (which is not a predicted manifestation of such lunar forces). In the same paper the authors admit, however, that relative to the lower mantle, there is a slight westward component in the motions of all the plates. They demonstrated though that the westward drift, seen only for the past 30 Ma, is attributed to the increased dominance of the steadily growing and accelerating Pacific plate. The debate is still open.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE THE DEBATE STILL OPEN ,AND THE CAT STILL CHASE HIS TAIL.
What I see there is that plate tectonics explains why there are tropical remnants in non-tropical locations.
Thanks for confirming what I said.
I've no idea what you are claiming though; you haven't said anything about tropical fossils.
Like a dog with a bone, you've clamped onto the last bit as if it makes any difference. It doesn't.
The same kind of arguments happen in the case of evolution by natural selection. There is a debate about the RELATIVE IMPORTANCE of the different mechanisms of natural selection, but only a complete moron would use that to deny that evolution has happened, or that natural selection does describe the different processes that cause the effect observed.
Stuart
terraricca, If you are going to cut and paste an entire article from wiki that you appear to not understand, you should at least credit your source.
It is plagiarism to not do so.Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ May 26 2012,04:42) terraricca, If you are going to cut and paste an entire article from wiki that you appear to not understand, you should at least credit your source.
It is plagiarism to not do so.Tim
timthis is only a few comment that i picked out of STU quote “HERE”
and if you read what i quote you will notices all the controversy in in the scientist court ,
The universe that you observe is seen as vision created by your brain from a finite range of signals from an almost infinite spectrum.
You guys obviously subscribe to there being noting outside of your own brain.
As is often said by Atheists, seeing is believing. Ha ha. How narrow minded can a person be.
Back to the drawing board Atheist.
Quote (t8 @ May 26 2012,11:18) The universe that you observe is seen as vision created by your brain from a finite range of signals from an almost infinite spectrum.
Speaking for myself, I have never denied my working assumptions. I have two:1. I actually exist
2. The universe we sense is not an illusion.I can't prove these to be true but I have no choice but to carry on as if they are.
On the other hand “you guys” add at least two more:
3. There is a supernatural being that runs the universe
4. It is possible to know what it wants you to doYou can't prove those, either. It is a philosophical principle of science that the quality of your model improves whenever you can eliminate untestable assumptions.
I have only two assumptions, and my attitude is that of the skeptic: question everything and don't forget that certainty of knowledge is ridiculous.
There you are, with at least twice as many untestable assumptions as me, and all but 100% certain of your fantasy conspiracy of talking donkeys.
Stuart
stu
Quote 2. The universe we sense is not an illusion. we only see and perceive something like 10 t0 20 % so most of what we see and sense is untrue or partially only ,this is why science is always digging to see smaller and in different ways at the same things what the eyes or senses can not do
Quote (terraricca @ May 27 2012,13:10) stu Quote 2. The universe we sense is not an illusion. we only see and perceive something like 10 t0 20 % so most of what we see and sense is untrue or partially only ,this is why science is always digging to see smaller and in different ways at the same things what the eyes or senses can not do
Did you consider stopping and thinking before you posted?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 28 2012,05:18) Quote (terraricca @ May 27 2012,13:10) stu Quote 2. The universe we sense is not an illusion. we only see and perceive something like 10 t0 20 % so most of what we see and sense is untrue or partially only ,this is why science is always digging to see smaller and in different ways at the same things what the eyes or senses can not do
Did you consider stopping and thinking before you posted?Stuart
stuI just look at a NOVA show about what the eyes of men can see and do not see ,
very interesting ,and trust me according to the show we do not see much of what there is to see
Quote (terraricca @ May 28 2012,04:21) Quote (Stu @ May 28 2012,05:18) Quote (terraricca @ May 27 2012,13:10) stu Quote 2. The universe we sense is not an illusion. we only see and perceive something like 10 t0 20 % so most of what we see and sense is untrue or partially only ,this is why science is always digging to see smaller and in different ways at the same things what the eyes or senses can not do
Did you consider stopping and thinking before you posted?Stuart
stuI just look at a NOVA show about what the eyes of men can see and do not see ,
very interesting ,and trust me according to the show we do not see much of what there is to see
Right. Now, back to my working assumption, which says nothing about what we CAN'T see…Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
