Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 156 of 156

Thread: The Pacific Ring of Fire is a remnant of the Moon-creating impact event

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    What a beautiful non-answer... state the obvious, then add "the properties of my material are whatever is necessary for my theory to work".
    Is that supposed to be not obvious?...because I believe everyone sees it.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I like how you remember to note 1atm for your quote of diamond's melting point, and then completely ignore the effects of pressure in the following line. The pressure at the bottom of the mantle is ~136 GPa (1.4 million atm). This has a considerable effect on the melting point
    Should we mention the considerable effect, that you ignore, that ~136 GPa has on making a material flow like as if it were a fluid, with a high viscosity? That is why we keep saying the mantle is not a solid. At the pressures and temperatures in the mantle, even a solid would flow, acting as a high viscosity fluid.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I never said that the features have to be subduction zones, I'm only saying they are volcanically active, indicating SOME kind of trauma in the mantle beneath, that could manifest itself as subduction zones or rifts or all manner of "cracks" inside the Earth.
    In your original post, you said nothing about any features in the middle of the plates, you said specifically, the “Ring of Fire”. And even in post #19, you didn’t say anything about features in the middle of plates:

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    And those cracks lie below what we see today as The Ring of Fire.
    And I didn't say the rifts are on the "ring of fire", I said they are in the middle of the plates, not near the "ring of fire".

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I don't think these cracks are invisible to seismic waves. These cracks are accepted in the mainstream view of the mantle. See figure 1 in the paper that Tensor linked to.
    Can you point out, exactly in figure 1 what you consider a crack?

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    Again I don't think the pressure wave data denies the existence of cracks in the mantle,
    Yes it does. Specifically explain to us how the data in the body of the paper (mineral composition(see table 2) and P-wave data (as found in figures 2, 6, 7, and 15) supports the existence of cracks.

    Remember, Figure 1 is not seismic wave data.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    The very first diagram in the paper you cite shows a crack stretching from the Outer Core zone of the Earth, through the mantle, to the crust.
    There is oceanic crust. There is a mantle plume, and several other features, but no crack. And besides, diagrams aren't all that useful. Why don't you look at actual observations. For instance, check out Fig 6, where the P-wave speed is shown. If there was a crack, there would be a discontinuity in the speed of the waves, showing a crack. Such discontinuities are not visible in the 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”?

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    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.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainToonces View Post
    I do believe that, Robert [that subduction causes earthquakes and volcanoes]. But let me ask you this: how have the plate boundaries moved relative to each other over the history of Earth, and what is the process that drives the movement of plate boundaries? 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 to explain the process that drives the movement of plate boundaries.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    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

Similar Threads

  1. Ring of Fire! Annular Solar Eclipse on May 20
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-May-17, 11:30 PM
  2. The K-T Impact event - How Bright in the Sky??
    By beethovenspiano in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-11, 09:46 PM
  3. What Impact Would Set the World on Fire?
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-10, 11:30 AM
  4. Deep Impact: Extinction Event
    By Zarkov in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 2005-Jun-20, 08:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
The forum is sponsored in-part by: