----------------------
"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. )

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
: ----------------------
: "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?

Yes. You are ****ing 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

don findlay wrote:

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?

Androcles wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
: ----------------------
: "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?

Yes. You are ****ing 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

Corr, ... you again!

John Harshman wrote:
don findlay wrote:

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?

On Aug 17, 10:05 am, don findlay wrote:
----------------------
"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. )

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.

don findlay wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

don findlay wrote:


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?

You are becoming tiresome.

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Androcles wrote:
: "don findlay" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: : ----------------------
: : "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?
:
: Yes. You are ****ing 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
:
: Corr, ... you again!

You have to admit you are stupid.

Androcles wrote:
:
: : You know why?
:
: Yes. You are ****ing 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
:
: Corr, ... you again!

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.

Robert Weldon wrote:
On Aug 17, 10:05 am, don findlay wrote:
----------------------
"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. )

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,

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 he- 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
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.

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.