Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

Simple, the Hawaian islands are spaced across a huge expanse of the pacific. If the plates haven't been moving 'sedately' for millions of years how is that? Are the island spaceings and ages right for the current motion of the pacific floor? What would it mean if they were right?Now, what would Walt's theory predict for the location of the island chain? Can he calculate anything about the ages and locations of the islands?Which 'theory' seems to predict what we see?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-05-2004]

---

Common sense isn't

No, actually a theory is some idea which has been subject to rather intensive testing and debate. A speculation is an interesting idea that isn't supported yet. A complete fantasy is something which has been shown to be wrong.If Walt has a 'theory' then perhaps it can make some predictions about the placement of the Hawaiian islands. Care to try?

---

Common sense isn't

Instead of running off all over the world how about sticking to the Hawaiian islands. Explain the ages and positions please. Check this against the measured movement of the Pacific floor today.You don't get it yet.

---

Common sense isn't

Well, I'm just asking about Hawaii. He actually predicts nothing. His explanations can not produce what we see for this or, it seems, anything else.It seems you went off on a tangent about volcanos and seamounts all over the world. How about just Hawaii?If you think there is a problem with the pt explanation give the exact details as to why it is a problem.Then give the details of how Walt's work solves the problem. So far just hand waving.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-05-2004]

---

Common sense isn't

That's how it gets to be a good theory. Lots and lots of things fit the predictions of the idea. And, of course, none of them contradict it.Walt's idea predicts what exactly? And, of course, much of what we know contradicts it.Even if any one of the correct results is a coincidence (and that is not impossible) if you get enough of them coincidences start to be a very unlikely explanation.Are you going to suggest that the fossil sorting is also a coincidence? That is beyond 'unlikely'.

---

Common sense isn't

Off topic here. There are a number of threads for dating.

You should be refering to his chart and discussing what it means. Then bring up where PT fails.Then discuss the exact predictions that he makes.

Seamounts: In what way do they support the flood? A bit of detail please.Unfortunatly the pacific is moving. So it seems you have that wrong.What sort of "fractures" are you talking about?

Good then there is one thing he has right. The seamounts are casued by magma coming from underneath. But not the inner earth of course.You are actually going on and supporting Walt and you don't even know what he is saying? And on top of that you don't know what plate tectonics is saying?What on earth makes you think you have any right to an opinion?Why do you think anything would scape them off?(though in fact I am sitting on land that was scaped off the floor of the pacific. )

I'm in British Columbia. I'd have to check the book in the next room that show exactly what bit I'm on.

Continental mountains do have significant foundations.The Hawaiian islands form, one at a time, as a magma plume is pushed through the seafloor. The floor moves east and eventually an island moves off the plume carried on the seafloor. Oahu moved off about a million years ago. To some degree Hawaii is starting that now as a new vent is active under the sea next to it.Again you should do a quick google or go to sites suggested. As was noted in an earlier post of mine (with a reference) the actual real movements of the plates are measured by, among other things GPS. It is not a matter of "if the tectonic plates actually moved" they are actually moving right now.I don't know the understructure of Hawaii but I can bet that you are right, they may well have foundations pressed down into the underlying seafloor. Joe might have a better idea of how much.As long as the plate doesn't run into light continental material the islands are carried with it. If they do run into a continent they will either be subducted (as is also happening under my feet (yikes! )) or stuck on the edge of the continent as the land under me was. It depends on densities.If you don't get this then go here to see some detail:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/...ns/text/hotspots.html#anchor19316266

What do you need as "proof"? Do you think that the US Geologic folks are telling lies?I thought you were the supporter of Walt. I'm sure, however, that he says the plates are still moving. They have just, in his view slowed down. He has to. They are moving.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-05-2004]

That is what the site I referenced said was used for measuring motion of the plates. Is that adequate for you?Here is another:
SCIGN Module Redirect | Southern California Earthquake CenterIt talks of, astonishingly,

quote:

---

The Southern California Integrated GPS Network (SCIGN) is a dense array of GPS receivers in the Los Angeles Basin and surrounding region. The network continuously records minute movement of the Earth's crust, measuring millimeter-scale deformation caused by tectonic plate motions

---

Note the "millimeter-scale"![This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-05-2004]

The same methods are used to measure movement all over the world. Are you actually suggesting that all these results are wrong? Is Walt actually saying that they aren't moving now?Why are you asking for more? What is it you want to see?If it is demonstrated that the pacific plate is moving then what?By the way it is not the islands that are moving relative to the plate. It is the whole seafloor moving relative to the plume and, I presume, the axis of rotation of the earth (you need some kind of reference when the whole thing is like the surface of a boiling pot of soup (without the pot).Again let me ask: Why are you so hung up on this? If it is shown that the plates are moving then what?How much work will you go to understand the data and the details. If you really want to check the method out you're going to have to read a text book on the process and the math. Is that what you want?This smacks of a stalling tactic to me and I don't see wasting effort until you explain both what you want and why?but just to help you here is one place that discusses it a bit and talks about other methods
http://www.agu.org/...node3.html#SECTION00021000000000000000[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-06-2004]

You are a bit muddled on the scraping off. The plate is riding on rock that gets more and more molten as you descend. It is the molten rock under the plates that is moving them. There isn't anything hard down there to scrape anything off. So Hawaii is "rooted" in the plate but the whole plate, Hawaii and it's extension down under it are all moving together.Is that clearer now?I have asked for what you need as proof of the plates moving. Could you give me some idea of what you need? Did you read the sites I referenced? How much work are you willing to do?