Plate tectonic mechanism ?

[arc]

Hi arc,

 

You still flogging this dead horse?

 

You call it a dead horse – I call it convection;

 

 

Yes. However.... You must also answer all the criticisms that have been raised in this thread. Waiting a year between posts does not make them go away I'm afraid.

 

That’s strange . . . . . . . I’ve looked the whole thread over, can’t find even one moderator admonishing me for not answering all the criticisms, not even one mod note addressed to me. I don’t think they would have allowed me to get away with that. Are you accusing them of dereliction of their duties?

 

Maybe it’s because you haven’t directly answered to those problems I raised about the Standard Model.

I do remember I had insisted several times that you should address those three criticisms of the Standard Model and convection’s inability to actually work.

 

Here they are again;

1. How does the material in the mantle actually convect in regards to Doglioni et al? http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_

MANTLE DYNAMICS AND PLATE KINEMATICS

Carlo Doglioni, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Roberto Sabadini, University of Milan, Italy

 

". . . . . none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle."

 

1. How does the material in the mantle convect in regards to Doglioni et al?

2. How are mantle dynamics and plate kinematics linked at the surface in regards to Doglioni et al?

3. How does mantle convection produce the required levels of GPE in the crust in regards to Ghosh et al?

[billiards]

That’s strange . . . . . . . I’ve looked the whole thread over, can’t find even one moderator admonishing me for not answering all the criticisms, not even one mod note addressed to me. I don’t think they would have allowed me to get away with that. Are you accusing them of dereliction of their duties?

Wow, typically evasive response. Turning it back around on me, nice touch.

 

Is not answering *all* criticisms against the rules?

If you like I'm sure we could arrange some mod intervention if we started hitting the report button.

But that wouldn't be very nice, would it? I doubt the mods want to trawl through this mess of a thread. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you just haven't got around to answering the Qs yet.

 

Maybe it’s because you haven’t directly answered to those problems I raised about the Standard Model.

I do remember I had insisted several times that you should address those three criticisms of the Standard Model and convection’s inability to actually work.

 

Here they are again;

1. How does the material in the mantle actually convect in regards to Doglioni et al? http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-15-03-13-TXT.aspx.html#10._Plate_Kinematics_versus_Mantle_Dynamics_

 

2. How are mantle dynamics and plate kinematics linked at the surface in regards to Doglioni et al?

 

3. How does mantle convection produce the required levels of GPE in the crust in regards to Ghosh et al http://ceas.iisc.ernet.in/~aghosh/Ghosh_geology06.pdf

 

Still waiting, didn’t you say you were an expert on mantle dynamics?

 

Waiting a year between posts does not make them go away I'm afraid.

Again, deflection tactic. What does your theory say about this? Convection in the mantle doesn't exist? So how exactly is heat transferred? Conduction, radiation? Have you looked at the physical plausibility of this? What's the Rayleigh number in the mantle?

 

Right, that’s why predicting the observation of the phenomena ahead of the discovery by over a year, is so important to help distinguish between making legitimate predictions of observations and simple cherry picking. I’m sure that’s what you meant, right?

 

So, how about another one then, wouldn’t that be great!

 

So here’s a research paper, this one from Sept 2015, describing a specific type of plate movement. Please note the timing between advance, retreat and break-off. You can see that same cycle of several million years that I have repeatedly shown in the other research I’ve posted since outlining this model at the beginning of this thread.

 

Repeated slab advance–retreat of the Palaeo-Pacific plate underneath SE China

Yao-Hui, Jiang; Guo-Chang, Wang; Liu, Zheng; Chun-Yu, Ni; Long, Qing; Zhang, Qiao

(2015): Repeated slab advance–retreat of the Palaeo-Pacific plate underneath SE China.

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1328415Retrieved 04:37, Sep 08, 2015 (GMT)

 

"Integrating these observations, we propose a repeated slab-advance–retreat model for the late Mesozoic magmatic evolution of southeast China. Palaeo-Pacific plate subduction underneath southeast China initiated in the Late Triassic Rhaetian and reached southern Jiangxi by ca. 197 Ma, followed by slab rollback during 197–191 Ma and by slab break-off at ca. 189 Ma. Then slab advance was reestablished with the northwestward subduction approaching southern Hunan at ca. 178 Ma. From ca. 174 Ma, slab rollback reinitiated and gradually migrated from inland to the coastal area. This repeated slab-advance–retreat model is helpful to further understand the geodynamic mechanism of the late Mesozoic tectono-magmatism and related metallogenesis of southeast China."

 

Below in post #6 in 2013 I describe how the plates can be pulled during the thermal expansion portion of the cycle, causing it to break off and withdraw, then during the mantle’s subsidence, to advance again.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-1#entry735753

 

“The story that I see in these images is told by that big green depression just east of the San Andreas Fault, it's known as the Central Valley and it has an interesting alignment to the Mendocino and Murray Fault lines. Just beyond the valley is the Sierra Nevada Mountains and on past farther east is the Basin and Range extension. So we already according to the model have the Basin and Range pulled out to the west by the tension in the plate section due to the thermal cycles slow expansion of the crust, causing the retraction of the overran Pacific Plate. It looks to me that the plate section broke from the massive tension at the east side of the Central Valley. As the plate was slowly pulled west the overriding continental crust filled in the slowly developing void. . . . . . . . The broken and decoupled plate will not stop the eventual compression of the thermal cycle that in millions of years from now will take this spread out assemblage of ranges and valleys and slowly over millions more bulldoze it into a pile of tilted rock and debris that will then require maybe 50 million years more to erode to resemble the current American Cordillera.”

So the cartoon image of a trench rolling forward then backwards "fits" your model. What about the timescales? Do they fit with the solar cycles? What about the Japanese earthquakes? Have you looked to see whether any of the timescales actually tell the same story?

[arc]

Wow, typically evasive response. Turning it back around on me, nice touch.

 

Is not answering *all* criticisms against the rules?

If you like I'm sure we could arrange some mod intervention if we started hitting the report button.

But that wouldn't be very nice, would it? I doubt the mods want to trawl through this mess of a thread. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you just haven't got around to answering the Qs yet.

 

I'm not being evasive at all. I'm consistently showing this model's ability to predict the observations discovered. And in turn showing the Standard Model's inability to explain the same evidence. That is all that is needed.

 

What I'm also trying to do is establish a base line of understanding of the current Standard Model's abilities and more importantly your apparent and probable bias in regards to its ability to perform to the degree that your confidence in it seems to portray.

 

Doglioni et al is the touchstone that will tell whether convection is this - "do all" - "does everything" - mechanism that everyone has been told it was since grade school or it has been over relied on due to a lack of viable alternatives. You know those cartoon pictures showing convective cells rising under the plates, diverging in opposite directions and dragging the plates along. Then later they morph the story and tell the students its more of a ridge push/slab pull thing that is the physical representation of convective movement. As you said once "subduction is convection".

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-19#entry846940

 

"Subduction is contingent on mantle convection. You can't have subduction without convection, because subduction is a type of convection!"

That is a pretty bold statement from someone who refuses to address the Doglioni et al paper. Not to mention your own thread outlining the fact that you and the Standard Model are completely at a loss as to how subduction actually initiates.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85501-subduction-zones-the-key/

 

Wait . . . what? You're absolutely sure convection IS subduction but you don't even know how subduction begins.

 

Yet your confidence in convection as a mechanism runs counter to Doglioni et al.

 

​So who is wrong here. Doglioni et al's opinion looks to be based on actual evidence while yours looks like a bold presumption base on a institutional bias that is due more on what was assumed to be a lack of evidence of other mechanisms rather than convection's vast and superior abilities to predict plate movement.

 

Again, deflection tactic. What does your theory say about this? Convection in the mantle doesn't exist? So how exactly is heat transferred? Conduction, radiation? Have you looked at the physical plausibility of this? What's the Rayleigh number in the mantle?

 

Bold mine. See, that right there is a deflection tactic.

 

There is a massive jump in tectonic viability between saying there is a passive heat content convecting out of the planet to it robustly driving a planetary wide geologically resurfacing regime. Those subduction boundaries , divergent boundaries and vast mountain building in regards to Ghosh et al.

 

Wouldn't it, instead, make more sense that it was my mechanism that actually allowed convection to operate more effectively. The plates moving are helping to move that heat out instead of it being trapped under a stagnate lid. Doglioni et al and Ghosh et al. supports this idea while at the same time, rather fatally, eliminates convection as a plate moving mechanism.

 

So the cartoon image of a trench rolling forward then backwards "fits" your model.

I'm not sure what cartoon you are referring to.

 

 

What about the timescales? Do they fit with the solar cycles? What about the Japanese earthquakes? Have you looked to see whether any of the timescales actually tell the same story?

 

 

So here’s a research paper, this one from Sept 2015, describing a specific type of plate movement. Please note the timing between advance, retreat and break-off. You can see that same cycle of several million years that I have repeatedly shown in the other research I’ve posted since outlining this model at the beginning of this thread.

 

Do I really need to repost every one of the examples that I have posted ?

Edited April 1, 2017 by arc

[billiards]

 

What I'm also trying to do is establish a base line of understanding of the current Standard Model's abilities and more importantly your apparent and probable bias in regards to its ability to perform to the degree that your confidence in it seems to portray.

 

 

When what you SHOULD be doing is establishing that your model is even physically feasible in the first place. Something you have repeatedly avoided. Simple energetic considerations expose your model for being the fraud that it is.

 

What you ARE doing is finding areas where scientific knowledge is lacking and then claiming that your theory can explain all the gaps. You are CLAIMING victory over ground you see as fair game.

 

Take these Doglioni problems you keep coming back to. (Note you have never actually stated yourself what the "Doglioni" problems actually are, only referring readers to a LONG document. A classic and pitiful obfuscation tactic.) Let me have a go at summarising them:

 

(1) We do not precisely know the kinematics of the convection flow patterns inside the mantle; and

(2) We do not fully understand how the plate is coupled to these underlying flow patterns (convection).

 

Let's take argument (1) and say your model tells us the flow direction at every point inside the mantle. So what is the flow direction 500 km deep beneath the UK? What is the flow direction 2800 km deep beneath Hawaii? Please answer these questions and if you can't then your model automatically fails "Doglioni test #1".

 

Now let's assume you do give quantitative answers, let's compare your position to the "standard" model. There are plenty of models in the literature that will give you an answer to that question. However, they are just models, and the "problem" Doglioni is talking about is just that: they are only models! We need better observational constraints in order to TEST the models. So how is it possible that your model can improve over the existing models when the observational constraints needed to directly TEST this are missing? You cannot possibly claim this ground over the "standard model".

 

Now let's take point (2). You claim your model can explain the link between the underlying flow and the tectonic plate movement. Well first of all how can you do that if you are not SURE you even know what the underlying flow is? (see point 1) Second of all what IS the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary? That is a subject of intense scientific debate right now, something I doubt you've even heard of, and certainly something you've never mentioned. Understanding the nature of this boundary is CRITICAL to this question and your model says absolutely ZERO about it. Thirdly, and this really is the killer, your model contains NO PHYSICS. Not only is the physical basis underlying the WHOLE of your model a COMPLETE SHAM, you have NO NUMBERS anywhere to explain how the tectonic plates move in relation to any mantle process whatsoever. So you really cannot claim this ground either.

Edited April 9, 2017 by billiards

[billiards]

Do I really need to repost every one of the examples that I have posted ?

You do need to make a much better effort to present your evidence. How about putting it all together in a nice easy to read table?

Edited April 11, 2017 by billiards

[Argent]

You do need to make a much better effort to present your evidence. How about putting it all together in a nice easy to read table?

I have tried to work my way through the thread, but have not yet completed it. There does seem to be a lot of repetition of material without it being clear how that material fits into the overall argument. What I would like to see, in addition to the table you have proposed, would be a clear connection between the evidence and each point in the structured argument.

[arc]

 

When what you SHOULD be doing is establishing that your model is even physically feasible in the first place. Something you have repeatedly avoided. Simple energetic considerations expose your model for being the fraud that it is.

 

That sounds rather hypocritical when one considers the Doglioni et al paper gives an honest evaluation of convection’s failures in regards to the Standard Model.

 

“nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects”

 

That is pretty blunt and to the point. In other words; No one has developed a solution to make convection more than an almost certain impossibility due to its technical difficulties.

 

Doglioni et al has reset the clock. Geology in regards to convection is back to square one. The Doglioni et al paper has basically taken you back to 1919 when the great Arthur Holmes first theorized the idea. An idea he himself suggested was a “purely speculative” idea.

 

http://www.amnh.org/explore/resource-collections/earth-inside-and-out/arthur-holmes-harnessing-the-mechanics-of-mantle-convection-to-the-theory-of-continental-drift/

It was Holmes, in 1919, who suggested the mechanism: that the continents are carried by flow of the mantle on which they sit, and that the mantle is flowing because it is convecting. Warning that his ideas were “purely speculative,” he suggested that rocks in the interior of the Earth would buoyantly rise toward the surface from deep within the Earth when heated by radioactivity and then sink back down as they cooled and became denser.

 

 

Arthur Holmes understood at the very start that his idea was totally dependent on evidence being found to support it. Only accurate predictions of observations would work to either support or dismiss his conjecture.

 

So, here we are just short of the hundred year anniversary of his idea and what is the most descriptive, accurate and sobering account on convection’s viability?

 

". . . . . none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle."

 

Do you see any predictions of observations in that statement above that supports convection or the argument in favor of it?

 

No, there isn’t any. In fact, just the opposite, it bluntly declares that mantle convection is, as you accused this model of being;

Not “even physically feasible in the first place”.

 

Well, what was that about convection? - Quote: “nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects.”

 

Hmmm. Sounds like Doglioni et al are not going to follow your course and are instead expecting something much closer to reality for an answer.

 

Why do you suppose they would say something so refreshingly honest?

 

Because Doglioni can. He can tell every person in the geoscience community today that convection does not work to explain plate tectonics and they will consider it with the regard due its author.

 

http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/doglioni

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LBFxf2IAAAAJ&hl=en

 

Carlo Doglioni, Sapienza University, Roma, Italy

Geosciences, Geodynamics, Earth sciences, Geophysics, Marine geology

 

All Since 2012

Citations 9431 3874

h-index 53 36

i10-index 135 93

 

So, Doglioni is one of the preeminent geoscientist on the planet. He’s not some run of the mill geologists. He has ascended the highest position possible for any person in geoscience to attain. He is truly a remarkable scientist.

 

I’m going to step out on a limb here and assume that Holmes himself would have greatly appreciated the candor of the Doglioni et al paper. He was a remarkably humble man and I would venture He would not have attempted to counter argue what is now his conjecture’s obviously troubled situation.

 

What you ARE doing is finding areas where scientific knowledge is lacking and then claiming that your theory can explain all the gaps. You are CLAIMING victory over ground you see as fair game.

 

It’s interesting that you view almost an entire century of “0” predictions of observations supporting convection as just a “gap” in “scientific knowledge”.

 

Take these Doglioni problems you keep coming back to. (Note you have never actually stated yourself what the "Doglioni" problems actually are,

 

What? Really!

 

Posted 31 January 2016 - 11:52 PM

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-24#entry903463

 

Posted 1 April 2017

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-24#entry980003

 

 

Maybe it’s because you haven’t directly answered to those problems I raised about the Standard Model.

I do remember I had insisted several times that you should address those three criticisms of the Standard Model and convection’s inability to actually work.

 

Here they are again;

1. How does the material in the mantle actually convect in regards to Doglioni et al? http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-15-03-13-TXT.aspx.html#10._Plate_Kinematics_versus_Mantle_Dynamics_

 

2. How are mantle dynamics and plate kinematics linked at the surface in regards to Doglioni et al?

 

 

 

only referring readers to a LONG document. A classic and pitiful obfuscation tactic.)

 

Really? That paragraph was much too “LONG” for you, huh?

 

 

 

Let me have a go at summarising them:

 

(1) We do not precisely know the kinematics of the convection flow patterns inside the mantle;

 

But, that was not the point of Doglioni et al quote, was it?

 

“At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface”

 

 

(2) We do not fully understand how the plate is coupled to these underlying flow patterns (convection).

 

"Is coupled"? Really?

 

“At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached.”

 

 

Let's take argument (1) and say your model tells us the flow direction at every point inside the mantle. So what is the flow direction 500 km deep beneath the UK? What is the flow direction 2800 km deep beneath Hawaii? Please answer these questions and if you can't then your model automatically fails "Doglioni test #1".

 

 

And that is what we like to call a lot of hand waving. Pointlessly comparing similarities between apples to oranges as if they could be. My model has no point of contention for a hypothetical “flow direction at every point inside the mantle.” That is the morass that you and the convection of the Standard Model are bogged down into and that Doglioni et al aims squarely to address.

 

Nice try – no not really.

 

 

Now let's assume you do give quantitative answers, let's compare your position to the "standard" model. There are plenty of models in the literature that will give you an answer to that question. However, they are just models, and the "problem" Doglioni is talking about is just that: they are only models! We need better observational constraints in order to TEST the models. So how is it possible that your model can improve over the existing models when the observational constraints needed to directly TEST this are missing? You cannot possibly claim this ground over the "standard model".

 

Again you are projecting your model’s problems onto my model. My model has made predictions of observations already. It’s your model that doesn’t work. Think about it. It doesn’t make predictions or even been remotely linked to any “plate kinematics at the surface”.

 

 

Now let's take point (2). You claim your model can explain the link between the underlying flow and the tectonic plate movement.

 

Again, trying to make this mechanism dependent on the same vulnerabilities as convection is. This model’s mechanism does not need or is concerned with mantle flow of any sort to move the tectonic plates. This model outlines the creation and disposition of GPE in the crust to facilitate the tectonic plate movement.

 

 

Well first of all how can you do that if you are not SURE you even know what the underlying flow is? (see point 1) Second of all what IS the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary? That is a subject of intense scientific debate right now, something I doubt you've even heard of, and certainly something you've never mentioned. Understanding the nature of this boundary is CRITICAL to this question and your model says absolutely ZERO about it.

 

Yet, you ignore what Doglioni says about convection.

And again, you are projecting your model’s problems onto this one that actually works.

 

 

Thirdly, and this really is the killer, your model contains NO PHYSICS.

 

Really! Yet it makes accurate predictions of observations! What a paradox!

And again, you ignore what Doglioni says about convection.

 

 

Not only is the physical basis underlying the WHOLE of your model a COMPLETE SHAM, you have NO NUMBERS anywhere to explain how the tectonic plates move in relation to any mantle process whatsoever. So you really cannot claim this ground either.

 

Here’s your problem, I only have to make accurate predictions of observations. It doesn’t matter how or why or whether or not I have mathematics to explain it.

 

If I produce an explanation that is simple enough to be preferred by Occam’s razor and it makes accurate predictions of observations – It wins.

 

If your model is complex, convoluted, has not produced predictions in 98 years and is discounted by one of the most renowned geoscientists alive – you lose.

 

If convection has gone 98 years without results then you have way bigger problems than just this model. Dogioni et al allows me to disregard convection until you or someone else can produce actual evidence that it exists - or in other words – show that it can make some predictions of observations.

 

The Standard Model and convection will need to do better.

[Argent]

arc, nowhere in the forgegoing post do you appear to provide what both billiards and myself have requested, a summary of your argument with the evidence for each of the key steps in the flow of logic. You may feel that your argument and evidence are well represented by the many lengthy posts you have made in this thread. I must tell you that such is not the case.

 

What you seem to be doing is attacking the current theory, using Doglioni's work as evidence for that attack. This reminds me of the creationist tactic whereby they think that poking holes in current evolutionary theory automatically proves their alternative explanations must be correct. That doesn't work. It's not science, it's not even a smart debating tactic.

 

Will you now please take the time to present your hypothesis in a nicely structured way with the key evidence linked to each step? If you are unwilling to do so there doesn't seem much point in keeping this thread rolling.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Argent

[billiards]

Sigh. There is just no point. The layers of ignorance are just too thick.

 

OK, let me elaborate.

 

What? Really!

 

Posted 31 January 2016 - 11:52 PM

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-24#entry903463

 

Posted 1 April 2017

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-24#entry980003

 

 

Really? That paragraph was much too “LONG” for you, huh?

Fair enough. They were buried in a couple of your posts. You'll just have to forgive me. I can't be expected to trawl through everything you've ever written.

 

That sounds rather hypocritical when one considers the Doglioni et al paper gives an honest evaluation of convection’s failures in regards to the Standard Model.

 

“nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects”

Note that this is not the same thing as saying the mantle does not convect!

 

That is pretty blunt and to the point. In other words; No one has developed a solution to make convection more than an almost certain impossibility due to its technical difficulties.

False. We can agree that the mantle does convect, we just can't agree on exactly what the convection looks like.

 

Doglioni et al has reset the clock. Geology in regards to convection is back to square one. The Doglioni et al paper has basically taken you back to 1919 when the great Arthur Holmes first theorized the idea. An idea he himself suggested was a “purely speculative” idea.

Again. False. Because you're starting from a false premise.

 

http://www.amnh.org/explore/resource-collections/earth-inside-and-out/arthur-holmes-harnessing-the-mechanics-of-mantle-convection-to-the-theory-of-continental-drift/

It was Holmes, in 1919, who suggested the mechanism: that the continents are carried by flow of the mantle on which they sit, and that the mantle is flowing because it is convecting. Warning that his ideas were “purely speculative,” he suggested that rocks in the interior of the Earth would buoyantly rise toward the surface from deep within the Earth when heated by radioactivity and then sink back down as they cooled and became denser.

 

 

Arthur Holmes understood at the very start that his idea was totally dependent on evidence being found to support it. Only accurate predictions of observations would work to either support or dismiss his conjecture.

Interesting historical aside.

 

So, here we are just short of the hundred year anniversary of his idea and what is the most descriptive, accurate and sobering account on convection’s viability?

 

". . . . . none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle."

 

Do you see any predictions of observations in that statement above that supports convection or the argument in favor of it?

Still spectacularly missing the point.

 

No, there isn’t any. In fact, just the opposite, it bluntly declares that mantle convection is, as you accused this model of being;

Not “even physically feasible in the first place”.

Where does it say that convection is not physically feasible? Perhaps you should read the extensive literature on the subject before clinging so tightly to one paragraph you have taken out of context.

 

Well, what was that about convection? - Quote: “nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects.”

 

Hmmm. Sounds like Doglioni et al are not going to follow your course and are instead expecting something much closer to reality for an answer.

Yes, you're still talking about the same thing and you're still missing the point. Can we move on now?

 

Why do you suppose they would say something so refreshingly honest?

 

Because Doglioni can. He can tell every person in the geoscience community today that convection does not work to explain plate tectonics and they will consider it with the regard due its author.

 

http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/doglioni

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LBFxf2IAAAAJ&hl=en

 

Carlo Doglioni, Sapienza University, Roma, Italy

Geosciences, Geodynamics, Earth sciences, Geophysics, Marine geology

 

All Since 2012

Citations 9431 3874

h-index 53 36

i10-index 135 93

 

So, Doglioni is one of the preeminent geoscientist on the planet. He’s not some run of the mill geologists. He has ascended the highest position possible for any person in geoscience to attain. He is truly a remarkable scientist.

Dig your heels in a little deeper and commit the appeal to authority fallacy while you're at it. Can we move on yet? I think you've got all the milk out of that sentence now!

 

I’m going to step out on a limb here and assume that Holmes himself would have greatly appreciated the candor of the Doglioni et al paper. He was a remarkably humble man and I would venture He would not have attempted to counter argue what is now his conjecture’s obviously troubled situation.

 

 

Whilst we're stepping out on limbs, I'm going to step out on a limb here and say that Holmes (and hell, Doglioni too) would reckon you're completely off your trolley.

 

It’s interesting that you view almost an entire century of “0” predictions of observations supporting convection as just a “gap” in “scientific knowledge”.

Dude, you really need to catch up and do some reading. Here you go: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/9780444538031#ancv0040

 

But, that was not the point of Doglioni et al quote, was it?

 

“At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface”

 

 

"Is coupled"? Really?

 

“At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached.”

They are not frictionlessly decoupled. They are obviously decoupled to some extent hence the plates can move as rigid objects independently of the more complex visco-plastic deformation of the underlying mantle. Though we do not know what that decoupling looks like or how it is controlled.

 

 

 

And that is what we like to call a lot of hand waving. Pointlessly comparing similarities between apples to oranges as if they could be. My model has no point of contention for a hypothetical “flow direction at every point inside the mantle.” That is the morass that you and the convection of the Standard Model are bogged down into and that Doglioni et al aims squarely to address.

 

Nice try – no not really.

But that IS the point of Doglioni's first sentence. “nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects”. You just haven't realised it yet as you've been too blinkered.

 

If your model has zero convection then the simple answer to the question would be: "There is no flow in the mantle". The flow is zero everywhere. Easy, right?

 

But we've already been over this ground haven't we? You claim your model has zero convection but can explain subduction. A frankly impossible situation.

 

 

Again you are projecting your model’s problems onto my model. My model has made predictions of observations already. It’s your model that doesn’t work. Think about it. It doesn’t make predictions or even been remotely linked to any “plate kinematics at the surface”.

Classic Dunning-Kruger. You've not taken the time to actually study the material. Have you ever run a geodynamics calculation? Do you know what the Rayleigh number is? How about the Prandtl number?

 

 

 

Again, trying to make this mechanism dependent on the same vulnerabilities as convection is. This model’s mechanism does not need or is concerned with mantle flow of any sort to move the tectonic plates. This model outlines the creation and disposition of GPE in the crust to facilitate the tectonic plate movement.

Not trying to do anything of the sort. Was trying to get you to stand up to the same "Doglioni" test you insist the standard model lives up to. Of course you failed spectacularly with hilarious consequences. You fell into your own trap.

 

 

Yet, you ignore what Doglioni says about convection.

And again, you are projecting your model’s problems onto this one that actually works.

More repetition. You need to cut down on that. It's tiring.

 

 

Really! Yet it makes accurate predictions of observations! What a paradox!

And again, you ignore what Doglioni says about convection.

Unfortunately when replying to your thread I can't see what you were quoting. Therefore, without going back to look, I can't easily respond to this. That's a limitation of this site.

 

 

Here’s your problem, I only have to make accurate predictions of observations. It doesn’t matter how or why or whether or not I have mathematics to explain it.

Not my problem mate. Without maths you can't make a testable prediction.

 

 

If I produce an explanation that is simple enough to be preferred by Occam’s razor and it makes accurate predictions of observations – It wins.

But your model is horrendously complicated and involves impossible forces. It fails.

 

 

If your model is complex, convoluted, has not produced predictions in 98 years and is discounted by one of the most renowned geoscientists alive – you lose.

But your wrong, wrong, and wrong, in all the assertions you have made. Take your head out of the sand. Read some more literature.

 

 

If convection has gone 98 years without results then you have way bigger problems than just this model. Dogioni et al allows me to disregard convection until you or someone else can produce actual evidence that it exists - or in other words – show that it can make some predictions of observations.

Quit with the Doglioni thing. Please. I'm embarrassed for you. Perhaps if you make an honest effort to understand the science you will be able to open your eyes. Unfortunately I can't do that for you. You have to do it for yourself.

 

 

The Standard Model and convection will need to do better.

Yes the science is not there yet. Unfortunately your model is a wild leap in the wrong direction.

Edited April 12, 2017 by billiards

[arc]

I have tried to work my way through the thread, but have not yet completed it. There does seem to be a lot of repetition of material without it being clear how that material fits into the overall argument. What I would like to see, in addition tThese below give the initial outline of the mechanism with some basic predictions of observations

Argent, this will have to do at the moment.

 

These outline the model as it was at the beginning in 2012-13. There has been improvements since.

Post #1 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry735239

Post #4 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry735438

Post #5 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry735622

Post #6 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry735753

Post #7 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry735919

Post #8 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry735989

Post #9 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry736253

Post #10 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/#entry736447

 

These posts below outline how this model's mechanism produces the dramatic differences between the Atlantic mid-ocean ridge and all other ridges around the world. And also, the Atlantic ridge's position within a world wide periodic mountain building regime. Post 422 shows the full application with several direct and rigorous predictions of observations.

Post #377http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-19#entry850845

Post #388 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-20#entry852466

Post #399 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-20#entry852923

Post #419 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-21#entry856500

This post is a great predictor of plate movement in general and more specifically for the Atlantic MOR.

Post #422 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

 

This post below further supports #422 with additional predictions regarding timing and movement of the Yellowstone complex.

Post 426 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry900283

 

This post below is in regards to Solar magnetic proxy data showing a link to Pacific plate movement by way of Japanese earthquake record.

Post #348 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry815114

 

The post below (349) is in response to a thread that billiards started on the subduction initiation dilemma facing the standard model and convection; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85501-subduction-zones-the-key/page-1#entry826091

 

Post #349, My model's solution to it ; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry843598

Post #474, This is an observation that post #349 predicted over a year earlier before its publication in a journal. Predictions like these are what gives this model advantage over the Standard Model.

 

Post #457, a critique of post #349 by pavelcherepan; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-23#entry902258

Post #459, is a rebuttal; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-23#entry902273

 

Here's another critique by pavelcherepan, This one is more general, post #466; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-24#entry902370

 

And my response to it. Post #470 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-24#entry903463

 

Sigh. There is just no point. The layers of ignorance are just too thick.

Still spectacularly missing the point.

Yes, you're still talking about the same thing and you're still missing the point. Can we move on now?

Dig your heels in a little deeper and commit the appeal to authority fallacy while you're at it. Can we move on yet? I think you've got all the milk out of that sentence now!

Whilst we're stepping out on limbs, I'm going to step out on a limb here and say that Holmes (and hell, Doglioni too) would reckon you're completely off your trolley.

Classic Dunning-Kruger.

 

Still the same condescending billiards we all know and love.

 

Note that this is not the same thing as saying the mantle does not convect!

 

As I've repeatedly said; This thread is about "Plate Tectonic Mechanism?" This means the conversation should only involve mechanisms that can be shown to make predictions of observations of plate movement. Which you have been unable to do for the entire time you have been on this thread.

 

The Doglioni et al paper is your qualifier.

That is why I have repeatedly asked you to answer those two questions.

 

1. How does the material in the mantle convect in regards to Doglioni et al?

2. How are mantle dynamics and plate kinematics linked at the surface in regards to Doglioni et al?

And, the third one if you recall was;

3. How does mantle convection produce the required levels of GPE in the crust in regards to Ghosh et al?

 

I have watched you attempt every conceivable method to move the goal post away from this requirement. The last few posts were the most recent, and desperate I might add.

 

To use your own words;

 

"More repetition. You need to cut down on that. It's tiring."

 

Here's your post #479;http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-24#entry981756

 

Quote: "Take these Doglioni problems you keep coming back to. (Note you have never actually stated yourself what the "Doglioni" problems actually are, only referring readers to a LONG document. A classic and pitiful obfuscation tactic.) Let me have a go at summarising them:

(1) We do not precisely know the kinematics of the convection flow patterns inside the mantle; and

(2) We do not fully understand how the plate is coupled to these underlying flow patterns (convection).

Let's take argument (1) and say your model tells us the flow direction at every point inside the mantle. So what is the flow direction 500 km deep beneath the UK? What is the flow direction 2800 km deep beneath Hawaii? Please answer these questions and if you can't then your model automatically fails "Doglioni test #1".

Now let's assume you do give quantitative answers, let's compare your position to the "standard" model. There are plenty of models in the literature that will give you an answer to that question. However, they are just models, and the "problem" Doglioni is talking about is just that: they are only models! We need better observational constraints in order to TEST the models. So how is it possible that your model can improve over the existing models when the observational constraints needed to directly TEST this are missing? You cannot possibly claim this ground over the "standard model".

Now let's take point (2). You claim your model can explain the link between the underlying flow and the tectonic plate movement. Well first of all how can you do that if you are not SURE you even know what the underlying flow is? (see point 1) Second of all what IS the lithosphere-asthenosphere boundary? That is a subject of intense scientific debate right now, something I doubt you've even heard of, and certainly something you've never mentioned. Understanding the nature of this boundary is CRITICAL to this question and your model says absolutely ZERO about it. Thirdly, and this really is the killer, your model contains NO PHYSICS. Not only is the physical basis underlying the WHOLE of your model a COMPLETE SHAM, you have NO NUMBERS anywhere to explain how the tectonic plates move in relation to any mantle process whatsoever. So you really cannot claim this ground either."

 

Your back must be killing you from moving the goal post so far away from where it was.

 

I can't wait for your next trick. How about "it's better to have no predictions of plate movement than many predictions of plate movement". That would keep you in the game also, according to your new rules.

 

But let's look at those two points you set out up there;

 

(1) We do not precisely know the kinematics of the convection flow patterns inside the mantle; and

(2) We do not fully understand how the plate is coupled to these underlying flow patterns (convection).

 

But, that was not the point of Doglioni et al quote, was it?

 

“At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface”

 

"Is coupled"? Really?

 

“At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached.”

 

 

I figured if I pointed out that you were moving the goal post you would maybe step back and make the correction yourself. But no, you just keep going as if the fact that the goal and requirement here wasn't;

 

Mechanisms that can be shown to provide plate movement through predictions of observations.

 

Quote: "Now let's take point (2). You claim your model can explain the link between the underlying flow and the tectonic plate movement."

 

Bold mine; I did not say "underlying flow", and you know this mechanism is based on a multi million year thermal variable of outer core expansion/contraction that slowly displaces the mantle, that above statement is more of your ridiculous attempts to move the goal post. First you claim I said it and then propose its required to explain some convoluted movement regime that you yourself are mired in. Is this a sign of a pathological tendency on your part.

 

You have seen the predictions of observations this model has made, you can go to them on the list above.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry843598

 

Yet, you just dance around, move goal posts and avoid providing real evidence that convection can produce plate movement.

 

 

 

You fell into your own trap.

 

It's very revealing that you refer to it as a trap. So, you feel those two Doglioni et al requirements have you trapped? So that convoluted goal post relocation exercise of yours that I quoted above is your desperate attempt to extricate yourself? Sorry to disappoint you, but you're still "trapped"

 

1. How does the material in the mantle convect in regards to Doglioni et al?

2. How are mantle dynamics and plate kinematics linked at the surface in regards to Doglioni et al?

 

Dude, you really need to catch up and do some reading. Here you go: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/9780444538031#ancv0040

 

 

Nice, you provide links to pay walls.

 

They are not frictionlessly decoupled. They are obviously decoupled to some extent hence the plates can move as rigid objects independently of the more complex visco-plastic deformation of the underlying mantle. Though we do not know what that decoupling looks like or how it is controlled.

 

 

"The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle."

 

Talk about not being coupled. That looks like more of that optimistic "Goal post moving" of yours. Oh, what the hell, you guys are just being "technically optimistic"

 

It makes it seem so much more possible when you can nudge that goal post over a little, right?

 

You know, while were at it, you never explained the Standard model's solution for how those Mid-Atlantic ridge segments ended up at or near the oceans surface as I explained and showed in post #422 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-22#entry891454

 

Maybe we could have you give us an explanation of that whole "synchronous mountain building in both hemispheres" that this model explained so easily in that #422 post. That would be great!

 

 

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

If Tectonic Plate movement were electrically-powered, the currents would be most shocking!

 

Anyone within a hundred miles of such a boundary would be electrocuted.

 

However, even an old-fashioned nine-dollar magnetic compass is hardly moved by them.

 

What is the conventional explanation for Tectonic Plate movement?

[Argent]

arc, here is what I see so far.

 

I noted that there does seem to be a lot of repetition of material without it being clear how that material fits into the overall argument.

 

I asked you to take the time to present your hypothesis in a nicely structured way with the key evidence linked to each step.

 

What you have responded with is basically a suggestion that I go back and reread the material I have already told you does not come across to me as a coherent, structured argument. I acknowledge that you said "this will have to do at the moment". This post is to let you know that it doesn't help my understanding at all.

 

To exemplify - In post number 1 you state

 

A. The Earth's core is an electromagnetic field generator that produces a variable current and field. This is established science and requires no further justification.

B. The Sun's magnetic field could be imposing further variation on the Earth's field. Interactions between the geomagnetic field and charged particles from the sun are well established. You need to provide evidence that a significant variation in the field occurs internally. You need to provide evidence that this is a direct consequence of variation in the sun's magnetic field.

C. This could induce a thermal cycle within the Earth. You need to provide quantitative evidence that such is the case.

 

And so on. You have an interesting idea, but without addressing these points, as a start, it is groundless. Perhaps you have addressed them, buried in the many pages of this thread. By all means refer me to those pages, but do so with an accompanying concise summary of your argument and evidence. Thank you.

[arc]

I asked you to take the time to present your hypothesis in a nicely structured way with the key evidence linked to each step.

 

Hello Argent, I'm a little curious as to how many words do you expect this to be. At the bottom of all my posts is a link to my .com web site that has the hypothesis just as you describe above. " in a nicely structured way with the key evidence linked to each step"

 

It is as compact as I can currently make it at the moment due to the "key evidence" involves describing both the mechanics and the predictions of observations that support the overall general outline. Right now it is 214 pages with 51,469 words. This is just the Plate Tectonic part of the hypothesis, the overall "idea" is 370 pages at 97,555 words.

 

Perhaps you have addressed them, buried in the many pages of this thread. By all means refer me to those pages, but do so with an accompanying concise summary of your argument and evidence. Thank you.

 

 

It will take me a little while to put something together that I feel is adequate to fulfill the requirement. Your feedback is appreciated. The idea is generally present in those links I had put in that last post. Take a look at this one here, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73730-plate-tectonic-mechanism/page-18#entry843598

 

I will probably begin the summery using it as a template and just add in more details and links. BTW, you refer to "evidence", surprisingly, that detail takes up quite a lot of space and is what ended up making my web page version so long. Evidence requires a detailed explanation.

 

A forum is the worst place to introduce an idea. The OP wants to just tell the story and everyone else just wants to edit it. It's sort of like having a bus with everyone on board having their own steering wheel and gas pedal. It just turns into a wrestling match.

Edited April 18, 2017 by arc

[Argent]

 

Hello Argent, I'm a little curious as to how many words do you expect this to be. At the bottom of all my posts is a link to my .com web site that has the hypothesis just as you describe above. " in a nicely structured way with the key evidence linked to each step"

 

It is as compact as I can currently make it at the moment due to the "key evidence" involves describing both the mechanics and the predictions of observations that support the overall general outline. Right now it is 214 pages with 51,469 words. This is just the Plate Tectonic part of the hypothesis, the overall "idea" is 370 pages at 97,555 words.

I fear that you are serious. I fear that you have never read, or certainly not noticed a well written abstract. I fear that the word summary is a neologism to you.

 

I expect your summary to be no longer than a single A4 page. I do not expect you to present the key evidence. I expect you to present a summary of the key evidence. Here is an example of how I would deliver a portion of the key evidence for the current conventional view of plate tectonics.

 

Deep sea trenches are lengthy linear features whose depths are substantially below those of the general depth of the ocean floor (reference). They occur within ocean basins and along some continental/oceanic margins. They are often, although not always, accompanied by a volcanic arc (reference). In addition to these topographic features they are distinguished by gravity anomalies (reference) and high heat flow (reference).

 

Ideally the references should be to primary papers or review papers. The end result should be short, yet omit nothing of importance. It should follow a logical progression, with conclusions building on and being clearly related to what has gone before.

 

I am sorry if my opening sentences come across as aggressive, but really, your inability to understand what a well written summary would be like is truly astounding. It makes me question whether you actually have a clear vision of your hypothesis. At present it just seems a jumble of detail with no coherence whatsoever. I hope you will be able to rectify this soon.

[billiards]

 

Still the same condescending billiards we all know and love.

 

I have watched you attempt every conceivable method to move the goal post away from this requirement. The last few posts were the most recent, and desperate I might add.

 

 

Your back must be killing you from moving the goal post so far away from where it was.

 

 

Yet, you just dance around, move goal posts and avoid providing real evidence that convection can produce plate movement.

 

 

It's very revealing that you refer to it as a trap.

 

 

 

Arc, you continually avoid all the science questions I throw at you. You spend your time on these light weight digs at me. That's the thing that is very revealing.

 

Rather than tackling the science head on you go for me.

 

What goal posts have I moved exactly?

 

Remember I'm not here to defend the "standard theory". You're here to defend YOUR theory. I think you forget that.

 

Let me know when you are ready to answer some science questions.

[arc]

I fear that you are serious. I fear that you have never read, or certainly not noticed a well written abstract. I fear that the word summary is a neologism to you.

 

I expect your summary to be no longer than a single A4 page. I do not expect you to present the key evidence. I expect you to present a summary of the key evidence. Here is an example of how I would deliver a portion of the key evidence for the current conventional view of plate tectonics.

 

Deep sea trenches are lengthy linear features whose depths are substantially below those of the general depth of the ocean floor (reference). They occur within ocean basins and along some continental/oceanic margins. They are often, although not always, accompanied by a volcanic arc (reference). In addition to these topographic features they are distinguished by gravity anomalies (reference) and high heat flow (reference).

 

Ideally the references should be to primary papers or review papers. The end result should be short, yet omit nothing of importance. It should follow a logical progression, with conclusions building on and being clearly related to what has gone before.

 

I am sorry if my opening sentences come across as aggressive, but really, your inability to understand what a well written summary would be like is truly astounding. It makes me question whether you actually have a clear vision of your hypothesis. At present it just seems a jumble of detail with no coherence whatsoever. I hope you will be able to rectify this soon.

 

Hello again Argent, Yes I'm sure you are probably right. As I said, your feedback is appreciated.

[Argent]

 

Hello again Argent, Yes I'm sure you are probably right. As I said, your feedback is appreciated.

Well that is nice, but do you intend to act upon it? That is, will you prepare a proper short, cogent overview of your hypothesis in the manner I have suggested?

[arc]

Well that is nice, but do you intend to act upon it? That is, will you prepare a proper short, cogent overview of your hypothesis in the manner I have suggested?

 

I'm sorry I don't think I will be able to finish it now, I suffered a rather unfortunate accident. In reviewing your previous posts my Troll Detector exploded with such ferocity I was nearly blinded.

[billiards]

 

I'm sorry I don't think I will be able to finish it now, I suffered a rather unfortunate accident. In reviewing your previous posts my Troll Detector exploded with such ferocity I was nearly blinded.

 

Wow. Just wow. You've been asked multiple times by multiple users over the course of this thread to summarise your ideas. This is stooping pretty low as far as excuses go.

 

It's a testament to how COMPLICATED your theory is that you cannot do it. Now what were you saying about Occam's razor?

Edited April 19, 2017 by billiards

[swansont]

 

I'm sorry I don't think I will be able to finish it now, I suffered a rather unfortunate accident. In reviewing your previous posts my Troll Detector exploded with such ferocity I was nearly blinded.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Sorry, no. This kind of attitude is not going to fly. We have indulged you to the extent of ~500 posts; the deal is that you respond to reasonable requests to clarify your idea. billiards is quite correct: this thread is not about defending mainstream theory, it is about you defending your conjecture. If you are refusing to do that, this thread will not remain open.

[arc]

Yes swansont, I think this is a perfect time to close this thread. It has ran its coarse. I had considered doing it a year ago when things came to an end back then. I'd much rather spend my time searching for and reading research papers to strengthen the model then maintain this thread. It's better time spent, with a much greater reward. My website has been needing my attention for years. So much to do!

 

I'm quite happy with how well it has done over its run time here. Remember, its first 8 months was in the Earth Sciences section. I think it has probably made a few SFN firsts. I believe it's #3 for total views in the speculations section currently. And I'm confident it will make it to #1 on it's own from here, last July it was on page 8 and idle for 5 months but was going crazy in view numbers anyway, and later it was doing great on page 15 before I started it again.

 

 

I would have been posting the summary today, but after reading post 489 and then seeing that three of the posts that I had provided to tide things over until now had been down voted following it, I decided I could see pretty clearly what will be next with this thread. Those posts were ones that made very good predictions, good enough that someone had felt they deserved a plus 1 at the time they were posted well over a year ago. Funny how all of a sudden all three of them didn't make the grade now. Rather then seeing more of this type of behavior I would rather end the thread on a high note without regrets.

 

I'd like to thank billiards for his time here, he made it a lot of fun, and I sincerely mean that, our dueling was epic. And studiot, a true gentleman and scholar who helped me greatly despite my stubbornness.

 

A big special thanks to Unity for all his help when I really needed it. And Mike Smith who helped me get the conversation going at the beginning and has always had my back.

 

 

OK, I have to go now my wife is doing cartwheels and hand springs in the front yard for some reason.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Locked, as per request.