Real Science Radio: Plate Tectonics. Not.

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It's all been presented. Feel free to assess them.

Already did.

 

[Stripe]

Already did.

You have to listen to the show first. :thumb:

 

[resurrected]

What, and pay all that money? :noway:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

You have to listen to the show first. :thumb:

So you can call me a liar? I've already presented my evidence, if you don't want to discuss it or present yours it is of no disadvantage to me. You're only hurting your own position. Have a nice day. :wave2:

 

[Stripe]

So you can call me a liar?

Yip. You haven't listened to the show.

I've already presented my evidence

You've presented evidence that PT is unworkable? :AMR:

if you don't want to ... present yours it is of no disadvantage to me.

Presented. Listen to the show. :thumb:

Have a nice day. :wave2:

Bye. :wave2:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Yip. You haven't listened to the show.

You've presented evidence that PT is unworkable? :AMR:

Presented. Listen to the show. :thumb:

Bye. :wave2:

At about 18:30

Bob Enyart: "If one part of the earth's crust is diving down beneath another, then when we measure the amount of gravity, the gravity in that location of the earth, we should see that there is a lot of mass down there because you've got sort of double-crust down there...But instead they find what they did not expect, but that hydroplate indicates; they find mass deficiency, there is no excess mass as they would think there would be"

Walt Brown: "and I jokingly tell people that if you're on a boat going over a trench that's the time to weigh yourself, because you will weigh slightly less" **both laugh**



They laugh and yet.....

It's actually true. There is indeed a gravitational difference over oceanic trenches. Literally the opposite of what Bob said is actually true.




NASA: Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, findings

Gravity Anomalies.

Outer Trench Swell

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Hey look at that! Stripe's "evidence" that defies known facts. That was just one of the numerous errors I heard in the broadcast, but most of it was just an accumulation of half-truths and ignoring of contrary facts.

 

[Stripe]

At about 18:30

:BRAVO:

Let's try to get on topic a little earlier next time, shall we?

Bob Enyart: "If one part of the earth's crust is diving down beneath another, then when we measure the amount of gravity, the gravity in that location of the earth, we should see that there is a lot of mass down there because you've got sort of double-crust down there...But instead they find what they did not expect, but that hydroplate indicates; they find mass deficiency, there is no excess mass as they would think there would be"

Walt Brown: "and I jokingly tell people that if you're on a boat going over a trench that's the time to weigh yourself, because you will weigh slightly less" **both laugh**

They laugh and yet.....

They laugh and I laugh because you haven't understood the challenge. If there is one crust overriding another there should be added mass at that location. However:
"the presence of ocean trenches ... can cause negative gravity anomalies."

-NASA: Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, findings]source.​

Your links talk of a negative gravity anomaly.

It's actually true. There is indeed a gravitational difference over oceanic trenches. Literally the opposite of what Bob said is actually true.

Nope. You've just gotten positive and negative confused.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

:BRAVO:

Let's try to get on topic a little earlier next time, shall we?



They laugh and I laugh because you haven't understood the challenge. If there is one crust overriding another there should be added mass at that location. However:
"the presence of ocean trenches ... can cause negative gravity anomalies."

-NASA: Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, findings]source.​

Your links talk of a negative gravity anomaly.

Nope. You've just gotten positive and negative confused.

:doh:

How did I know you would get confused by this? The mass isn't being added under the trench it's being added under the adjacent plate that it's diving under; the "double crust" that Bob speaks about. There is less mass under the trench itself. Go listen to what Walt says, he says jokingly "you will weigh less" over a trench, but that actually turns out to be the case.

I haven't gotten anything confused, you simply have poor reading comprehension.

 

[Stripe]

How did I know you would get confused by this?

I'm not. You are.

The mass isn't being added under the trench it's being added under the adjacent plate that it's diving under

And it isn't being removed either. The negative anomaly exists where two plates are said to converge. When you double up on mass, the gravity should increase.

There is less mass under the trench itself.

We know. That goes against what PT should predict. The gravity difference should only ever increase where two plates meet.

Go listen to what Walt says, he says jokingly "you will weigh less" over a trench, but that actually turns out to be the case.

He doesn't jokingly say it because he thinks it not true. He jokingly says it because it is true.

I haven't gotten anything confused, you simply have poor reading comprehension.

Sure, you have. Read more here:
Gravity anomaly at trenches

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

And it isn't being removed either. The negative anomaly exists where two plates are said to converge. When you double up on mass, the gravity should increase.

The gravity does increase, where the mass is being added, which is under the adjacent plate where there is overlap of the two plates. There is no overlap at the trench nor is there any additional mass. The trench itself is a depression in the sea-floor, ergo there is less mass, not more. Look at the graph I provided, it shows a stark increase in gravitational force over the adjacent continental crust.

 

[Stripe]

The gravity does increase, where the mass is being added, which is under the adjacent plate where there is overlap of the two plates.

Sure. But even the cause of that is unclear. Much of the positive anomaly there is probably due to limitations imposed by the model assumed.

Spoiler

-source.​

It's not really relevant though and doesn't address the challenge.

There is no overlap at the trench nor is there any additional mass.

There need not be any additional mass. There should never be a negative anomaly.

The trench itself is a depression in the sea-floor, ergo there is less mass, not more.

We know there is less mass. PT theory proposes, however, that there is an oceanic plate moving down through that area. Where did the mass go? Does it magically disappear for the time it is moving through the trench region and reappear afterward or something?

Where did it go? Look at the graph I provided, it shows a stark increase in gravitational force over the adjacent continental crust.

How does it get from one side of the trench to the other without registering on the gravity map?

 

[gcthomas]

Stripe, the downgoing slab does not have extra gravity, so it is not being measured directly. The trench has lower gravity because you have a trench, full of water instead of rock, so the average density at the trench is lower with less gravity.

It's not rocket science, Stripe. Get with it! This is the easy bit.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, the downgoing slab does not have extra gravity, so it is not being measured directly. The trench has lower gravity because you have a trench, full of water instead of rock, so the average density at the trench is lower with less gravity.It's not rocket science, Stripe. Get with it! This is the easy bit.

There's a thing called a "free air correction" which should be called a "free water correction" in this case. The gravity anomaly is real because it takes into account and compensates for the change in distance between the measurement device and the topography.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Sure. But even the cause of that is unclear.

Hey, we're making progress! :cheers: We've gone from there not being a positive gravity anomaly at all to accepting that there is, but not understanding what causes it.

Much of the positive anomaly there is probably due to limitations imposed by the model assumed.

:crackup: Haha! Sure it is Stripe. Any contrary evidence you find is "probably due to limitations imposed by the model assumed." I'm guessing we should accept this as true because you said it.

It's not really relevant though and doesn't address the challenge.

I think you're confused. The challenge will always be for the person making the positive claim to present evidence. Which you've neglected to do.

There need not be any additional mass. There should never be a negative anomaly.

Negative anomaly doesn't mean negative gravity, it means that the gravity is less than the earthly norm.

We know there is less mass. PT theory proposes, however, that there is an oceanic plate moving down through that area. Where did the mass go? Does it magically disappear for the time it is moving through the trench region and reappear afterward or something?

The plate isn't moving straight across it's moving downward into the mantle, leaving a trench at the surface, and where-ever you have a depression in the land you are going to have less mass. So just as there will be higher mass over mountains there will be lower mass over deep ocean trenches.

Where the plate meets the mantle it's being melted and then re-distributed elsewhere. Understanding this, your question looks more like "Why is there a trench?" Which is simple enough to answer.

 

[Stripe]

Hey, we're making progress! :cheers: We've gone from there not being a positive gravity anomaly at all to accepting that there is, but not understanding what causes it.

Are you on drugs? :AMR:

:crackup: Haha! Sure it is Stripe. Any contrary evidence you find is "probably due to limitations imposed by the model assumed." I'm guessing we should accept this as true because you said it.

It's not contrary evidence, moron. I didn't deny the existence of a positive gravity anomaly.

I think you're confused. The challenge will always be for the person making the positive claim to present evidence. Which you've neglected to do.

Oh, OK. So you say there are two plates colliding. So where is your evidence for this. Here is my evidence against (something I'm not obliged to provide).

Negative anomaly doesn't mean negative gravity, it means that the gravity is less than the earthly norm.

Thank you for that totally useless comment. :up:

The plate isn't moving straight across it's moving downward into the mantle, leaving a trench at the surface, and where-ever you have a depression in the land you are going to have less mass. So just as there will be higher mass over mountains there will be lower mass over deep ocean trenches.

No, there cannot be less mass. If it goes downward it simply becomes more compacted mass. The gravity anomaly means the mass is missing where evolutionists say there are plates converging.

Where the plate meets the mantle it's being melted and then re-distributed elsewhere. Understanding this, your question looks more like "Why is there a trench?" Which is simple enough to answer.

I think you need to go have a nice long lie down and think this one through. :up:

 

[Stripe]

Graphical explanation of the challenge:

Spoiler

 

[gcthomas]

Graphical explanation of the challenge:

Where you get a strong negative gravity anomaly this indicated that the rock is depressed by the weight of the continental crust further below the surface, leaving a trench.

*So, we have a negative gravity anomaly at the trench (calculated and measured to be true).
*The subducted slab has hydrated minerals and water in the sediment, which lower the mantle melting temperature, so molten material rises and comes through the crust as volcanoes and with a chemical composition consistent with subduction (and different from the lava at spreading plate zones where there shield volcanoes).
*We have earthquakes in a diagonal zone below island chains in the pacific rim which trace the passage of the slab.
*We have mountain formation, folded rocks, continental drift (historical, by magnetic stripes and magnetic pole tracking) and currently measured by satellite timings and GPS), continents that fit together, fossil groups which cross current oceans, mountain ranges which cross the Atlantic (Norway, Scotland, eastern US), etc, etc.

Your model, Stripe, does not reproduce this set of observations, so it is not as good as the one that does.

 

[gcthomas]

And while I am here, here is some experimental evidence that rocks buried at great depth can deform hugely without cracking:

Experimental setup:

Results:

source

Note that limestone is especially ductile (i.e. flexible without cracking), with a failure strain of ten times the surface observations described by Stripe.

(Stripe: What made you think that rocks behave the same deep down as on the surface? Even though you suggest that the subducted crust can become "compacted", whatever that means?)

 

[Stripe]

The oceanic crust is less dense than the mantle rock, hence it floats. When it is subducted, it displaces denser mantle rock. When you allow for the topography, when you get a strong negative gravity anomaly this indicates a lot of lower density rock below the surface: the basaltic subducted crust!

That's your story and you're sticking to it, are you?

Have you a link to this description?

Your model, Stripe, does not reproduce this set of observations, so it is not as good as the one that does.

What model? :idunno: