Birth of Earth

[OilIsMastery]

Still waiting for this citation, OIM, by the way. Having trouble finding it?

Show them this:

No citation required.

 

[OilIsMastery]

If they don't believe their eyes, or they don't believe an unit equals one, or they deny mathematics, or they don't know how to count, or they deny the existence of time, or they deny the reliability of zircon dating, you can cite the following:

"Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 1999

In order to maintain Earth’s current diameter, subduction MUST remove older Pacific Ocean seafloor at a rate equal to ALL new seafloor area added anywhere on the planet—not just the small ~25-40 mm/yr (~1 to 1-1/2 in/yr) of new seafloor added annually along the Atlantic Ocean midocean ridge. The total new seafloor growth, both E-W and N-S, along the ~65,000 kilometers of midocean ridges undoubtedly exceeds ~300 mm/yr (~12 in/yr), and ALL of it must be vectored into the Pacific Ocean basin, the only area on the planet where subduction is believed to occur.

There are other reasons to doubt the validity of subduction. One is the illogical question of why the East Pacific Rise (EPR) should generate ~80 to ~160 mm/yr (~3-1/4 to ~6-1/2 in/yr) of new ocean seafloor—right in the middle of the supposed subduction area, and simultaneously subduct a greater amount elsewhere around its perimeter, leaves one puzzled. This EPR growth is four times greater than seafloor growth anywhere else on the planet and this large amount of new oceanic seafloor does not appear to be accounted for in the VLBI measurements. Where are measurements showing the Pacific Ocean basin DECREASING IN WIDTH?

Also unaccounted for are the vast amounts of new N-S seafloor being added circum-Antarctica that are causing Antarctica to INCREASE IN TOTAL SURFACE AREA AND EXPAND RADIALLY OUTWARD FROM THE PLANET’S CENTER.

This raises the pivotal questions of HOW and WHERE subduction could be occurring because there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of seamounts or soft sedimentary debris filling the deep ocean trenches or piled up on North or South American shores, semi-liquid debris that would easily have been scraped off the top of any subducting ocean floor.

The Pacific Rim of Fire, the supposed subduction area, suffers frequent earthquakes, but Benioff zones and seismic tomography that scientists point to when trying to justify subduction, only APPEAR to support subduction because they merely provide epicenter depths of earthquakes without providing the direction or extent of movement.

The only way subductionists can PROVE SUBDUCTION is to demonstrate that the Pacific Ocean basin is actually being REDUCED IN SIZE, and that offshore islands or seamounts are rapidly moving closer to shore or are descending into the deep ocean trenches. The simplest solution would be direct trans-Pacific measurements of the changing distances between fixed points on each of the five Pacific continents and Alaska. (Use of satellite measurements (VLBI, LAGEO, GPS) should be avoided because the global grid system of latitude and longitude has itself changed by increased distances between parallels and meridions.)

However, there is no need to go to all this trouble. Since it has been shown earlier that the planet is obviously expanding there is no comparable problem, either physical or mathematical (except for the expanded global grid system). Midocean ridges are the enabling mechanism of global expansion, acting like cranial sutures that permit the human skull to grow to maturity. The midocean ridges simply add new basaltic seafloor from core magma that increases Earth’s total surface area, diameter and circumference, and, like Antarctica, EXPANDS ALL SURFACE AREAS RADIALLY OUTWARD FROM THE CENTER OF THE PLANET!

http://expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm

Expansion poses no geophysical problems--the planet just keeps on growing and expanding, wherever and in whatever form it occurs, but the annual increase in diameter (~5-10 cm/yr or ~2-4 in/yr) is very small and difficult to measure.

Subduction, on the other hand, is purely hypothetical because it is based on a fundamental assumption that the planet has always been the same size since it was formed 4.5-4.6 billion years ago; something almost impossible to prove. This philosophical assumption requires that any addition of surface area to one part of the planet would require an equal compensatory loss in some other region of the planet. Maintaining a constant diameter, however, raises a number of troubling questions about the mechanics of subduction:

a. Not generally realized is that subduction, at a minimum, would require the Pacific basin to decrease in width by at least the ~2-4 cm/yr increase in width of the Atlantic basin in order to maintain Earth at a constant diameter and permit the entire Pacific Ocean basin to be swallowed! But, for subduction to be valid, another ~8-16 cm/yr of East Pacific Rise (EPR) growth (the greatest rate of new seafloor growth on the planet [Fig. 2]) also must be swallowed, for a total minimum subduction rate of ~10-20 cm/yr (~4-8 in/yr).

b. And to the above totals one must add an amount equal to additional seafloor growth along thousands of kilometers of midocean ridges in the Indian Ocean and around Antarctica. The Indian Ocean, which has opened even wider than the Atlantic, also has no evidence of subduction within its confines. How can worldwide seafloor growth in oceans outside the Pacific be vectored smoothly into the Pacific basin where the EPR is generating a prodigious volume of new seafloor in the middle of the Pacific subduction area?

c. A major flaw in subduction dogma is the very young age of the oldest Pacific Ocean sediments ever found in the Pacific basin. These sediments were cored on Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 129 at Site 801B (18° 38.52´N, 156° 21.582´E, Central Pigafetta Basin, just east of the Mariana Trench) and were found to be only ~169 Ma (Middle Jurassic) in age; roughly equal to the oldest sediments found in the Atlantic Ocean.

d. Using these ODP data and extrapolations from magnetic anomaly lineations (isochrons) in the same area, Nakanishi, et al, arrived at a slightly older age of ~195 Ma, postulating “the shape of the early Pacific plate was a rough triangle” covering an area of 0.04x10[6] km² at ~190 Ma, 0.6x10[6] km² at ~180 Ma, and 3x10[6] km² at ~170 Ma. The Pacific plate is now estimated to cover an area of 108x10[6] km²—which means that the entire Pacific plate has been generated within the last ~195 Ma, thereby constraining the age of the Pacific basin to be no more than ~200-205 Ma.

e. Proponents of subduction may argue that sediment ages less than ~200 Ma supports their contention that all the older Pacific seafloor has been subducted since the Atlantic basin first opened approximately ~160-175 Ma, and therefore none of the original Panthalassan seafloor can be found today. But this is only an inferred assumption and valid only if subduction has really existed. This is now a moot point because the evidence shown in Heezen and Tharp’s map shows that Panthalassa (Wegener's eo-Pacific Ocean) never existed.

f. If subduction were actually occurring to offset worldwide seafloor growth, there should be constant and sustained seismic activity reflecting disappearance of older seafloor at the same rate new seafloor is being generated. There is indeed a great deal of earthquake activity throughout the Ring of Fire, but it is not equally distributed around the Pacific Ocean perimeter commensurate with the constancy of new seafloor growth that must be vectored in from oceanic areas outside the Pacific basin.

g. There is no empirical proof that Pacific perimeter earthquakes are caused by subduction; this is inferred and purely hypothetical. There are more logical explanations such as crustal adjustments due to relaxed curvature and flattening of the Earth's crust as a consequence of expansion in diameter. Earthquakes, though powerful, are merely secondary effects of planetary expansion, not primary geophysical actions with independent motive power.

h. Subduction fails to explain a satisfactory causative mechanism able to force thin ocean floors only 10 km thick to dive beneath thick continental shields 25-40 km thick without leaving behind some physical evidence. There is no evidence of ocean floors and seamounts diving into the deep ocean trenches (the trenches show little or no sedimentation, and no toppled seamounts). As noted by Roger Revelle in 1955, material recovered from even the deepest trenches “resemble in many ways deposits laid down in shallow water.”

i. This exposes a related problem--the missing soft sediments that should have been scraped off the ocean floor when descending beneath a rigid continental shield over a period of two hundred million years. These soft sediments are an unconsolidated top layer of ocean floor ~10 meters thick. Massive amounts of sediments should be piled up against continental shores, or in the deep ocean trenches off the eastern coasts of Asia and Australia, the western coasts of North and South America, or in the Aleutian Trench. The sediments just aren't there; the ocean trenches are relatively free of sediments and there are no mountains of soft sediments piled up against any Pacific shore.

http://expanding-earth.org/page_4.htm

 

[geologyrocks]

Show them this:


No citation required.

No - you stated that the Pacific Basin is growing. Where's the citation? A map showing age of the lithosphere is not a citation to demonstrate that the Pacific Basin is growing.

 

[OilIsMastery]

No - you stated that the Pacific Basin is growing. Where's the citation? A map showing age of the lithosphere is not a citation to demonstrate that the Pacific Basin is growing.

See post above.

 

[geologyrocks]

See post above.

I said from reputable sources (not EE sites).

 

[Ophiolite]

The ocean floors are growing. They are not magic conveyor belts that defy the laws of physics.
.

The ocean floors are simultaneoulsy growing (at the mid-ocean ridges) and shrinking (at subduction zones). Why do you find this so difficult to understand/accept. There is nothing magical about it and nothing that defies the laws of physics. Which specific law of physics does plate tectonics defy?

"To date however, there is no direct unambiguous evidence that mantle convection and/or mantle circulation actually takes place; in fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. Moreover, there is no evidence that oceanic basalt can be repeatedly recycled through the mantle without being substantially and irreversibly changed. Yet, mantle convection/circulation and basalt recycling are fundamental necessities for the validity of plate tectonics. Furthermore, plate tectonics theory does not provide an energy source for geodynamic activity." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, 2005

There is no unambiguous evidence for most things, but the weight of the evidence points clearly to convection and recirculation. Herndon is in a very small minority with his contrary view. Stop trying to present it as the acceptable view. You are fucking up a good debate with your intransigent stupidity and incessant trolling.
all the research I have seen argues that the recycling substantially and irreversibly changes the character of the erupted basalts. So I don't see what Hendron and you hope to achieve by stating this rather obvious point that is wholly in agreement with the concepts of recycling.

"Calling someone a dickhead is not a logical or scientific argument but no one expects that from plate tectonics fundamentalists so go right ahead.

I didn't call you a dickhead. I gave you fair warning that if you continue to act like one people will come to believe you are one.
Yet again you have demonstrated that you do not even understand simple English sentences. Are you partly autistic? If you are I shall back of my comments and perhaps set up an OIM charity.

 

[OilIsMastery]

I said from reputable sources (not EE sites).

I'll make you a deal, you show me the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates the Pacific is shrinking and then I'll show you one that demonstrates it is growing.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Which specific law of physics does plate tectonics defy?[/COLOR]

It is impossible for granite or basalt to be subducted into the mantle because peridotite is more dense than granite or basalt.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Here's an idea.

In other threads, it has been suggested that energy is being released in the interior of the earth; both from radioactive decay of Uranium and Thorium [which is essentially known], as well as potentially from radioactive fission of those elements [which is conjecture based on an assumption of a large bolus of those materials forming a natural fission reactor]. When metals are heated, they expand slightly. Same with most other materials.

Is it not possible that there is a slight amount of expansion in volume of the earth over time due to an increasing overall average temperature? Or is the overall average temperature believed to be exactly constant? I don't believe so. Of course, this does not discuss the subduction of plates, which appears certain based on excellent evidence [types of volcanic outputs from volcanoes above subduction zones, uplift of plates at subduction zones to form mountain ranges, etc. Extensive travel of plates far greater than could be accounted for from expansion, etc.].

 

[geologyrocks]

I'll make you a deal, you show me the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates the Pacific is shrinking and then I'll show you one that demonstrates it is growing.

One recent paper is:

Xiqiao Xua, C. Lithgow-Bertellonia, Clinton P. Conrad, 2006. Global reconstructions of previous Cenozoic seafloor ages: Implications for bathymetry and sea level. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Volume 243, Issues 3-4, 30 March 2006, Pages 552-564.

The Cenozoic decrease in productivity is largely reflected in the Pacific (∼25%) and Indian (∼13%) basins

The decrease in
seafloor consumption rates is primarily a Pacific
phenomenon, which is expected given the area decrease
of the Pacific basin during the Cenozoic.

The paper is pretty good.

Your turn.

 

[OilIsMastery]

"Over twelve years of laser ranging to the LAGEOS spacecraft have enabled the motions of the Earth's crust to be determined at approximately twenty laser tracking sites around the world. ...The relative motion of Hawaii and Arequipa is 80±3 mm/yr from our solution compared to the geologically predicted 66 mm/yr." (Smith et al, 1990).

So if Hawaii and Arequipa are moving away from eachother at 80±3 mm/yr, then the Nazca Plate cannot possibly be subducting. Therefore the Pacific is growing.

Furthermore, +65.33 mm/yr increasing width between Yaragadee Australia and Arequipa Peru (Smith et al., 1993). Therefore the Pacific is growing.

 

[jsispat]

i still can not understand that why are you not serious on my fine exanpme of subduction zones in tree and same in earth. this is fine and serious examlple.
http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php...122_1064lo.JPG

 

[geologyrocks]

"Over twelve years of laser ranging to the LAGEOS spacecraft have enabled the motions of the Earth's crust to be determined at approximately twenty laser tracking sites around the world. ...The relative motion of Hawaii and Arequipa is 80±3 mm/yr from our solution compared to the geologically predicted 66 mm/yr." (Smith et al, 1990).

So if Hawaii and Arequipa are moving away from eachother at 80±3 mm/yr, then the Nazca Plate cannot possibly be subducting. Therefore the Pacific is growing.

Furthermore, +65.33 mm/yr increasing width between Yaragadee Australia and Arequipa Peru (Smith et al., 1993). Therefore the Pacific is growing.

Few things here:
1 - you need to supply a full reference. Especially when the first author is Smith! I went to the LAGEOS publications page and did not find any papers authored by Smith in 1993. There were also 5 or 6 authored by Smith in 1990 - which one is it?

2 - The Hawaii/Arequipa motion is to be expected - there's a spreading ridge right between them! If you look at the plate motions (http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html)
it's very clear why these two places are moving apart. Additionally, Peru isn't on the Nazca plate - it's on the South American plate. The Nazca plate can still be subducting, whilst Hawaii and South America move apart. (And the above motions maps shows this.)

In short this does not prove the Pacific Basin is getting bigger.

3 - The Australia/Peru motion is also explained by the plate motion map. Again - it doesn't prove the Pacific Basin is getting bigger. Looking at the motion map it's clear that it is getting smaller.

4 - Measurements over the last 20 years cannot show a long term increase in the size of the Pacific Basin. If the Earth is expanding then you need long term data - 10's of millions of years. Only plate tectonic reconstructions can show this.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Few things here:
1 - you need to supply a full reference. Especially when the first author is Smith! I went to the LAGEOS publications page and did not find any papers authored by Smith in 1993. There were also 5 or 6 authored by Smith in 1990 - which one is it?

The 1990 paper is titled "The determination of present-day tectonic motions from laser ranging to LAGEOS." The 1993 paper is titled, "SLR Results from LAGEOS." However the exact paper is irrelevant since the scientific literature contains countless papers purporting to prove subduction, but which unwittingly include several measurements that show the Pacific Ocean basin to be increasing in width--not decreasing in width as required by subduction.

2 - The Hawaii/Arequipa motion is to be expected - there's a spreading ridge right between them! If you look at the plate motions (http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html)
it's very clear why these two places are moving apart. Additionally, Peru isn't on the Nazca plate - it's on the South American plate. The Nazca plate can still be subducting, whilst Hawaii and South America move apart. (And the above motions maps shows this.)

Are you aware that the Nazca Plate is in between Hawaii and Peru?

In short this does not prove the Pacific Basin is getting bigger.

Keep telling yourself that.

3 - The Australia/Peru motion is also explained by the plate motion map. Again - it doesn't prove the Pacific Basin is getting bigger. Looking at the motion map it's clear that it is getting smaller.

Keep telling yourself that.

4 - Measurements over the last 20 years cannot show a long term increase in the size of the Pacific Basin.

Even though they do?

If the Earth is expanding then you need long term data - 10's of millions of years.

You don't believe the measurements for the past 20 years but you believe the speculation of what happened 10 million years ago? Why is that?

Only plate tectonic reconstructions can show this.

Of course only plate tectonics can show fake made up make believe continents that didn't exist millions of years ago. No other tectonic theory has people gullible and stupid enough to believe in Mu or Pangea.

 

[Enmos]

The 1990 paper is titled "The determination of present-day tectonic motions from laser ranging to LAGEOS." The 1993 paper is titled, "SLR Results from LAGEOS." However the exact paper is irrelevant since the scientific literature contains countless papers purporting to prove subduction, but which unwittingly include several measurements that show the Pacific Ocean basin to be increasing in width--not decreasing in width as required by subduction.


Are you aware that the Nazca Plate is in between Hawaii and Peru?


Keep telling yourself that.


Keep telling yourself that.


Even though they do?


You don't believe the measurements for the past 20 years but you believe the speculation of what happened 10 million years ago? Why is that?


Of course only plate tectonics can show fake made up make believe continents that didn't exist millions of years ago. No other tectonic theory has people gullible and stupid enough to believe in Mu or Pangea.

I thought James kicked your ass on this crap earlier ? You are still at it ?

 

[OilIsMastery]

I thought James kicked your ass on this crap earlier ? You are still at it ?

If you don't have anything intelligent or relevant to say and you don't want to contribute to the thread or conversation then stay out.

The forum already has too many people who focus all their energy researching new ad hominem fallacies but who have no logical or scientific arguments.

 

[Enmos]

If you don't have anything intelligent or relevant to say and you don't want to contribute to the thread or conversation then stay out.

The forum already has too many people who focus all their energy researching new ad hominem fallacies but who have no logical or scientific arguments.

Really ? In my recollection James pretty much proved you were wrong. So I don't see how you can justify continuing to spout this nonsense..

And there is another thing. You admitted today to either one of the following things:
- You have not read up on plate tectonics at all.
- You are too dumb to understand it.

Before you report me, let me assure you that I can quote you on that.

 

[geologyrocks]

The 1990 paper is titled "The determination of present-day tectonic motions from laser ranging to LAGEOS." The 1993 paper is titled, "SLR Results from LAGEOS." However the exact paper is irrelevant since the scientific literature contains countless papers purporting to prove subduction, but which unwittingly include several measurements that show the Pacific Ocean basin to be increasing in width--not decreasing in width as required by subduction.

The only reason I wanted more info is so I could get hold of the actual papers to read them, that's all.

Are you aware that the Nazca Plate is in between Hawaii and Peru?

Fully aware. However, just because Peru and Hawaii are moving apart does not mean that the Nazca plate is increasing in size. If the spreading rate on the EPR is approximately equal to the subduction rate on the Nazca/S. America plate then Hawaii would *still* move away from Peru! In order for Hawaii to move closer to Peru the Nazca plate cannot exist - the Pacific plate must subduct directly under South America. This is not the case.

Looking at the data on the page I posted earlier (http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html). The site EISL is clearly on the Nazca plate. It's velocity is about 68mm/yr (using some vector maths on the log/lat velocities). The Peruvian site is moving at 13mm/yr in nearly the opposite direction. How is that happening if the Nazca plate is getting bigger?

Hawaii is moving north-west at about 68mm/yr using the same figures. Can you see how Peru and Hawaii moving apart does *not* show the Pacific getting bigger or is this a lost cause?

To see if the Pacific is getting bigger, we need to look at sites on the opposite sides of the basin. Doing this, we see North America is heading towards Australia, Australis is heading for North America. Asia is heading towards South America (south east) and South America is moving north east. If the Pacific was growing, we'd be seeing Asia and America moving apart, Australia moving away from North America and South America moving in a definite easterly direction. On South America appears aware of this...

Keep telling yourself that.

I'm not telling myself anything - the data are telling me this.

You don't believe the measurements for the past 20 years but you believe the speculation of what happened 10 million years ago? Why is that?

I *do* believe the figures. I meant that to show *long term* changes you must use *long term* data. Ideally humans would've invented GPS before fire and we'd have 100Kyr of data. But we don't, so we need to rely on plate tectonic reconstructions.

Of course only plate tectonics can show fake made up make believe continents that didn't exist millions of years ago. No other tectonic theory has people gullible and stupid enough to believe in Mu or Pangea.

This is really rather sad. You claim to be a "scientist" but you ignore data and cling to outdated and incorrect theories. Why? I'm not tying to be sarcastic or anything. I genuinely would like to understand *why* you think EE is more convincing that plate tectonic theory, despite the data showing otherwise.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is impossible for granite or basalt to be subducted into the mantle because peridotite is more dense than granite or basalt.

That's not a law of physics. That is a poorly formulated opinion.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you don't have anything intelligent or relevant to say and you don't want to contribute to the thread or conversation then stay out..

This is excellent advice. When can we expect you take it?