Well, I’ve been waiting since the first of April for some of these, the second for others. I thought I’d remind you of these open questions:
Are you now claiming anything volcanic in the pacific is part of the ring of fire?
Or that anything volcanic, in the pacific, is due to the cracks from the collision?
How do you account for the strike-slip faults, and other areas with no vulcanism, along the edges of the pacific?
I ask this as your claim of cracks are not a mainstream view and cracks are not mention in the body of the paper. Since they are not mentioned in the body of the paper, it appears that your interpretation of the figure 1 diagram is in error. And, as a point of interest, figure 1 is not seismic wave data.
You have not commented on my call to refute the paper, do you plan on refuting the paper?
Remember, Figure 1 is not seismic wave data.
So, where exactly is the crack?
And, I suggest you actually read the paper, in addition to looking at the pictures. The paper points out, supported by seismic data, that the subducted crust is cool, but the mantle surrounding it isn't. The subducted crust, especially oceanic, can stay solid down through the mantle, but the mantle itself is not solid, (it has flow characteristics, not to mention, if it was solid, the oceanic crust could not stay solid all the down to the core-mantle boundary.).(see figure 7, especially the color enhanced version below the references).
What is the difference between those features on the "ring of fire" and those that are not?
And why do the regions outside the “ring of fire” look the same in seismic wave studies as those regions along the “ring of fire”?
The plate movement is driven by the motions of the mantle beneath it.. Is that a well reasoned argument.
If it is. It damages this proposed theory.
I can see and to a 'nth' degree see some room for the general idea that Mr Toonces has been proposing.. BUT.
You only need to research the crustal edges around and into the 'Pacific's ring of fire'
to see that 'No' such impact scar is found.. It's just not there.
Folds collisions of plates and consequent volcanic activity do not depict a circular impact scar..
There is no evidence for the proposal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction says "Rates of subduction are typically measured in centimeters per year, with the average rate of convergence being approximately 2 to 8 centimeters per year."
2cm/year is 20,000 km in a billion years. A typical plate, say 5000 km wide, at this slowest rate will fully subduct in 250 million years, or about 1/15th of the time since the postulated moon-earth separation. At 8cm/year it will subduct in 60 million years. Good luck unscrambling that omelette. After each subduction period, the world will have an entirely new set of plates with new boundaries, a process that it appears has repeated 15-60 times over the history of the earth.
Does your acceptance that subduction causes vulcanism contradict your 'deep scar tissue' hypothesis of the ring of fire being caused at the level of the mantle rather than the crust? Is not the ring of fire primarily a ring of volcanoes?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection to explain the process that drives the movement of plate boundaries.
Thread Closed. I don't see any real answers to any of the questions asked, just more handwaving and guessing.
Captain Toonces Beofre you think of starting another thread in the ATM Forum read the rules for posting and the advice for ATM Posters linked at the bottom of this post.
If anyone can think of a reason for re=opening the thread report this post.
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple