Only... The WBZ isn't in the Okhotsk plate is it?A typo? Really? Let me remind you what you wrote.
About the Kuril trench (boundary between Okhotsk/Pacific), on 06-02-11 06:54 PM, you wrote:
Here you clearly states that the WBZ is parallel to the plate motion of Okhotsk. If the boundary was parallel to the plate motion then the boundary would be transform fault, not a megathrust (!)
The WBZ is in the Pacific plate, isn't it.
Which would mean that yes, the WBZ is paralell to the motion of the plate that it's on - the pacific plate.
Mostly correct - I didn't ignore the motion of the pacific plate, I had already addressed it, you just failed to recognize that I had done so.Here you clearly states again that the Okhotsk plate moves parallely to the boundary, to the southwest, and not to the southeast toward the Pacific. But you splendily ignore the fact that the Pacific is moving toward the Okhotsk plate (!)
This, I have explained to you, was a typo.Then on 06-06-11 06:08 PM, you wrote.
Suggesting again that both the pacific plate and Okhotsk plate move in the same direction.
I'm back peddling on nothing. So far you've presented two wrong interpretations of what was said, interpretations that I wouldn't even be willing to give you as reasonable inferences, and rehashing what has already been explained to you as a typo - all because you can't imagine how my suggesting that one plate is moving towards a boundary, and the other is moving paralell to it - or heaven forbid, away from it, it can still be a convergent boundary. This is a failing on your part, not mine.Who could believe that 3 times the same mistake is just a typo. Give me a break. you're backpeddling and denying the facts.
And yet...Thanks but no thanks. If I provided this reference, it is evidently because I have the pdf and read it.
No, not really, because I can trivially wrap my head around how two plates can be moving in a sub paralell fashion, and still have a convergent boundary, you, on the other hand, keep missing the point, as to why I bought it up in the first place. Here's a clue for you, it had nothing to do with trying to contradict the notion that the Kurile trench is a covergent margin, in fact, it's kind of, umm, essential to my point that it is a convergent margin.Incredible, you persist in your error! Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum!
If it appears sub parallel, it is simply because the velocity of the global mantle flow is larger than the norm of both the Okhotsk and Pacific velocity vector. In other words, if the norm of two vectors u and v is smaller than 1, and if we add a vector w of norm 10 to u and v, then u+w and v+w will appear sub parallel. Very very basic math.
Let me spell it out for you, yet again, I am not asserting that the Kurile margin is anything other than a convergent margin, with the pacific plate subducting under the Okhotsk plate, this is a strawman hypothesis invented by you.
Clearly my spatial reasoning surpasses yours, because I do not need to choose a preferred reference frame to understand whether something is convergent or divergent.You confirm that you really don't understand what you're talking about and that you have serious issues with the comprehension of relative motion.
And you insit wrongly.This is becoming ludicrous. I insist, to clearly show that two blocks are converging, one must choose one block or the other as a referential. Any other referential will provide a less appropriate representation of the convergence.
So, according to you, insisting on accuracy, and universal applicability is being in denial?So according to you, it is poor logic to choose as the referential one of the two blocks that we want to show to converge? Because it leads to misleading impressions? There is no more doubt. You're in denial.
Interesting.
You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.This is a special effort for you. And deniers like you deserve it.
I do not accept expanding earth theories because I have not seen one shred of evidence that supports them to the exclusion of any other theory, and because most of them require things such as the Earths orbital parameters to have changed in very specific, very contrived ways to counter lines of evidence against expanding earth theories.