Birth of Earth
- Thread starter sureshbansal
- Start date
Of course, just as before once again we place ourselves at the center of the Universe.
Fact: Earth is the only planet with subduction
But lets not just leave it to Earth, weve done that before and got us nowhere. Let us consider for a moment the planet Venus. This is a planet which is 95% of Earth's diameter and 80% of Earth's mass so one would expect tectonics similar to what we observe on Earth. It also has volcanism and lava flows. Shield volcanoes are observed as well as mountain ranges, very similar indeed.
Ok so Venus doesnt have plate tectonics because it has a stronger and thicker crust. Wikipedia had this to say:
So Venus doesnt have plate tectonics but still exhibits similar features one would expect from plate tectonics?!:shrug:
Continuing from Wikipedia...
Oooh so we arent so similar after all! Venus lacks the appropriate layer in its mantle to facilitate the movement of the tectonic plates...plates which arent even observed.
But how can Venus have mountains if subduction isnt taking place?
Gee that sounds almost like EE theory doesnt it? Similar arguments can be made for Mars as well.
Other evidence for planetary expansion include...
Ganymede: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fsg1XJTbKA
Europa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo&feature=related
Moon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fcc3Simcoo
We are not special, we are not the only planet that has plate tectonics because plate tectonics doesn't exist. Look at Venus.
Fact: Earth is the only planet with subduction
But lets not just leave it to Earth, weve done that before and got us nowhere. Let us consider for a moment the planet Venus. This is a planet which is 95% of Earth's diameter and 80% of Earth's mass so one would expect tectonics similar to what we observe on Earth. It also has volcanism and lava flows. Shield volcanoes are observed as well as mountain ranges, very similar indeed.
from http://www.nineplanets.org/venus.html
Ok so Venus doesnt have plate tectonics because it has a stronger and thicker crust. Wikipedia had this to say:
So Venus doesnt have plate tectonics but still exhibits similar features one would expect from plate tectonics?!:shrug:
Continuing from Wikipedia...
Oooh so we arent so similar after all! Venus lacks the appropriate layer in its mantle to facilitate the movement of the tectonic plates...plates which arent even observed.
But how can Venus have mountains if subduction isnt taking place?
Gee that sounds almost like EE theory doesnt it? Similar arguments can be made for Mars as well.
Other evidence for planetary expansion include...
Ganymede: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fsg1XJTbKA
Europa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo&feature=related
Moon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fcc3Simcoo
We are not special, we are not the only planet that has plate tectonics because plate tectonics doesn't exist. Look at Venus.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Strawman argument or gross stupidity. You decide.
I know of no geologist who claims plate tectonics is unique to the Earth.
Not true. It is the only planet we currently know of on which plate tectonics is occuring and has been occuring for a long time period.
We expect to find a variety of tectonic behvaiours on terrestrial planets depending upon their size, composition, structure, age and tenperature profile. The number of possible tectonic regimes may well exceed the number of solid planets (and large satellites) within the solar system. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that we find only one planet, thus far, on which plate tectonics is the norm.
Read your bloody quote and try to pretend you understand some of the terminology. Tectonics and plate tectonics are not synonomous terms. The quotation says there is evidence of tectonic activity on Venus. It does not say there is evidence of plate tectonic activity.
No it doesn't. Unless you are devoted to cherry picking and will see only observations that can, with much manipulation, support your distorted view of reality.
You're claiming Omniscience?
You know everything about the surface of every planet in this solar system?
You know everything about the surface of every planet in this Galaxy? The Universe even?
Your initial premise is false, therefore everything that follows from it is inherently flawed.
Earth is the only planet that we've observed what we recognize as plate tectonics.
You can not reasonably claim that there is no evidence of plate tectonics until you've been there and looked.
Have you stopped to consider what effect the atmospheric temperature and pressure on the surface of Venus might be having on the way it behaves?
No, you obviously haven't. You obviously don't know that the surface temperature and pressure of Venus are equivalent to being at a depth near the base of the earth's crust. Practically speaking, this means that the surface of venus may be capable of undergoing plastic flow.
Have you stopped to consider what implications this might have for tectonics on Venus? Obviously you haven't, otherwise you would have realized that plate tectonics, as it exists on earth requires a thin brittle crust that's capable of fracturing, but Venus has a thick plastic crust capable of flowing.
You've failed to grasp the fact that maybe surface conditions affect the way the surface responds to stress applied to it from below.
You've failed to comprehend the basic fact that maybe the differences in responses between earth and venus to mantle heat loss, and mantle flow are due to the fact that although they may be physically similar in some respects, they are vastly different in many others.
You've failed to appreciate the simple fact that Ice flows, and the impact that this might have on the surface of an icey moon, and the way it responds to stresses applied to it from below.
You've failed to realize that the Earth has a number of features that make it unique among the terrestrial planets of this solar system, and then consider what the implications of that might be (The presence of liquid water and oxygen at the surface, the atmosphere (and before you start with the obvious, consider their thickness and composition), and the rather large moon.
In short, the only thing you have demonstrated with your post is not the 'truth' of expanding earth theories, but the simple fact that you, personally, have failed to consider all of the information available to you, and failed to comprehend precisely what that information may mean.
And no, although the process of compression, expansion, and lateral movements described in the Wikipedia article might superficially sound similar to EE theories, it is in fact describing a process that is substantially different.
Where did this come from?
Fair enough.
Youve failed to realized this is all speculation, like you say we dont know until we go there.
My point is that Venus still has mountain ranges, volcanoes, faults, and rift zones. And there is no evidence for plate tectonics as of yet.
The only way the first claim can be known as a fact is if you are omniscient.
No, it's inference, there's a substantial difference.
The surface conditions of Venus have been measured directly.
There's a substantial body of evidence discussing the conditions at the base of the earths crust (including those parts of it that now form part of it's surface).
The fact that how a rock responds to stress is temperature and pressure dependant is something that has been measured directly.
Therefore, using only predicate logic, I conclude (or infer) that because the conditions on the surface of Venus, which we have measured directly, are the same in terms of temperature and pressure, as the conditions at (or near)the base of the earths crust, then I would expect the surface of venus to be behaving in a similar fashion to the base of the earths crust.
Your argument is based on speculation and a faulty premise, mine is based on a logical conclusion (Namely that if the material is similar, and the conditions are similar, then the behaviour must also be similar).
None of which is actually relevant, until you realize some simple facts.
Plate tectonics does not claim Subduction to be the ONLY means of generating a Mountain range - this is purely your misunderstanding.
Stating that the collision of plates on earth causes mountain ranges on earth does not imply the statement all mountain ranges are caused by collision.
The simple fact of the matter is that where erosion is important, compression is required to maintain a mountain range. On earth, the source of that compression is mainly colliding plates, but, colliding plates is not the only source for compression.
If I take a sheet of elastic, and wrap it around a ball of steel, the simple fact of the matter is that I can create 'mountain ranges' - in the form of compression wrinkles, and if I try hard enough rifting faults without changing the over all diameter of the steel, and without subduction, and tectonic theory in general allows for it.
I think I see now where some of the confusion is coming in. Apparently you think that tectonics is limited to JUST plate tectonics - subduction and all that.
But that's not the case. Plate tectonics is but a sub-set of the overall science of tectonics.
I believe you'll find this little short article helpful and enlightening - be sure to read the associated links provided because they contain even more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonics
Just for starters, please take note of this one statement taken from the article: "Tectonic studies have application to lunar and planetary studies, whether or not those bodies have active tectonic plate systems."
Enjoy!
I think I see now where some of the confusion is coming in. Apparently you think that tectonics is limited to JUST plate tectonics - subduction and all that.
But that's not the case. Plate tectonics is but a sub-set of the overall science of tectonics.
Drats, you beat me to it.
Good point.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
With respect gentlemen I said this in post 463 "Tectonics and plate tectonics are not synonomous terms."Drats, you beat me to it.
Good point.
I beat you both to it, thought pointing out the errors in EndLightEnd's thinking is becoming tedious.
With respect gentlemen I said this in post 463 "Tectonics and plate tectonics are not synonomous terms."
I beat you both to it, thought pointing out the errors in EndLightEnd's thinking is becoming tedious.
Indeed you did - but I believe he either ignored it or just let it fly by without understanding. I thought it was worth a second try.
With respect gentlemen I said this in post 463 "Tectonics and plate tectonics are not synonomous terms."
I beat you both to it, thought pointing out the errors in EndLightEnd's thinking is becoming tedious.
Indeed you did, and as Readonly said...
subduction zones are must for growth of any planet. it may be possible that numbers of subduction zones varies in different different planets. you will see in some trees there are lot of subduction zones and some has less.see attached link for referance.
http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=38188_SUBDUCTION_ZONE
http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=38188_SUBDUCTION_ZONE
Well this is confusing. :bawl:
On the one hand we have an 'Alternative scientest' claiming that Subduction doesn't exist because the earth is growing. :shrug:
On the other hand we have an 'alternative scientest' claiming that the growth of the earth can't occur without subduction zones.. :shrug:
What's a poor little narrow minded Acolyte supposed to do?
They can't both be right, can they?
On the one hand we have an 'Alternative scientest' claiming that Subduction doesn't exist because the earth is growing. :shrug:
On the other hand we have an 'alternative scientest' claiming that the growth of the earth can't occur without subduction zones.. :shrug:
What's a poor little narrow minded Acolyte supposed to do?
They can't both be right, can they?
means you agree that growth og log of tree is better example that of orange you sugest earlier. althow both has biological growth.again all has to agree that earth has biological growth only and meteroids are seeds of planets. i am sure. now people thinks this is joke or not serious theory but this is fact .
it i s also true that i am not school educated in geophysics that is why getting trouble to convince the people only but theory is true.
it i s also true that i am not school educated in geophysics that is why getting trouble to convince the people only but theory is true.
"Mineral Kingdom Has Co-evolved With Life
"Evolution isn't just for living organisms. Scientists at the Carnegie
Institution have found that the mineral kingdom co-evolved with life, and
that up to two thirds of the more than 4,000 known types of minerals on
Earth can be directly or indirectly linked to biological activity. The
finding, published in American Mineralogist, could aid scientists in the
search for life on other planets.
Robert Hazen and Dominic Papineau of the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical
Laboratory, with six colleagues, reviewed the physical, chemical, and
biological processes that gradually transformed about a dozen different
primordial minerals in ancient interstellar dust grains to the thousands of
mineral species on the present-day Earth. (Unlike biological species, each
mineral species is defined by its characteristic chemical makeup and crystal
structure.)
"It's a different way of looking at minerals from more traditional
approaches," says Hazen. "Mineral evolution is obviously different from
Darwinian evolution-minerals don't mutate, reproduce or compete like living
organisms. But we found both the variety and relative abundances of minerals
have changed dramatically over more than 4.5 billion years of Earth's
history."
All the chemical elements were present from the start in the Solar Systems'
primordial dust, but they formed comparatively few minerals. Only after
large bodies such as the Sun and planets congealed did there exist the
extremes of temperature and pressure required to forge a large diversity of
mineral species. Many elements were also too dispersed in the original dust
clouds to be able to solidify into mineral crystals.
As the Solar System took shape through "gravitational clumping" of small,
undifferentiated bodies-fragments of which are found today in the form of
meteorites-about 60 different minerals made their appearance. Larger,
planet-sized bodies, especially those with volcanic activity and bearing
significant amounts of water, could have given rise to several hundred new
mineral species. Mars and Venus, which Hazen and coworkers estimate to have
at least 500 different mineral species in their surface rocks, appear to
have reached this stage in their mineral evolution.
However, only on Earth-at least in our Solar System-did mineral evolution
progress to the next stages. A key factor was the churning of the planet's
interior by plate tectonics, the process that drives the slow shifting
continents and ocean basins over geological time. Unique to Earth, plate
tectonics created new kinds of physical and chemical environments where
minerals could form, and thereby boosted mineral diversity to more than a
thousand types.
What ultimately had the biggest impact on mineral evolution, however, was
the origin of life, approximately 4 billion years ago. "Of the approximately
4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two thirds of them are
biologically mediated," says Hazen. "This is principally a consequence of
our oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is a product of photosynthesis by
microscopic algae." Many important minerals are oxidized weathering
products, including ores of iron, copper and many other metals.
Microorganisms and plants also accelerated the production of diverse clay
minerals. In the oceans, the evolution of organisms with shells and
mineralized skeletons generated thick layered deposits of minerals such as
calcite, which would be rare on a lifeless planet.
"For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life,
Earth's mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology," says Hazen. "One
implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of
other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological
influences beyond Earth."
Citation: Robert M. Hazen, Dominic Papineau, Wouter Bleeker, Robert T.
Downs, John M. Ferry, Timothy J. McCoy, Dimitri Sverjensky and Hexiong Yang
(2008) Mineral evolution. American Mineralogist.
Provided by Carnegie Institution"
----------------------------------------------------
PhysOrg.com
November 13, 2008
"Evolution isn't just for living organisms. Scientists at the Carnegie
Institution have found that the mineral kingdom co-evolved with life, and
that up to two thirds of the more than 4,000 known types of minerals on
Earth can be directly or indirectly linked to biological activity. The
finding, published in American Mineralogist, could aid scientists in the
search for life on other planets.
Robert Hazen and Dominic Papineau of the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical
Laboratory, with six colleagues, reviewed the physical, chemical, and
biological processes that gradually transformed about a dozen different
primordial minerals in ancient interstellar dust grains to the thousands of
mineral species on the present-day Earth. (Unlike biological species, each
mineral species is defined by its characteristic chemical makeup and crystal
structure.)
"It's a different way of looking at minerals from more traditional
approaches," says Hazen. "Mineral evolution is obviously different from
Darwinian evolution-minerals don't mutate, reproduce or compete like living
organisms. But we found both the variety and relative abundances of minerals
have changed dramatically over more than 4.5 billion years of Earth's
history."
All the chemical elements were present from the start in the Solar Systems'
primordial dust, but they formed comparatively few minerals. Only after
large bodies such as the Sun and planets congealed did there exist the
extremes of temperature and pressure required to forge a large diversity of
mineral species. Many elements were also too dispersed in the original dust
clouds to be able to solidify into mineral crystals.
As the Solar System took shape through "gravitational clumping" of small,
undifferentiated bodies-fragments of which are found today in the form of
meteorites-about 60 different minerals made their appearance. Larger,
planet-sized bodies, especially those with volcanic activity and bearing
significant amounts of water, could have given rise to several hundred new
mineral species. Mars and Venus, which Hazen and coworkers estimate to have
at least 500 different mineral species in their surface rocks, appear to
have reached this stage in their mineral evolution.
However, only on Earth-at least in our Solar System-did mineral evolution
progress to the next stages. A key factor was the churning of the planet's
interior by plate tectonics, the process that drives the slow shifting
continents and ocean basins over geological time. Unique to Earth, plate
tectonics created new kinds of physical and chemical environments where
minerals could form, and thereby boosted mineral diversity to more than a
thousand types.
What ultimately had the biggest impact on mineral evolution, however, was
the origin of life, approximately 4 billion years ago. "Of the approximately
4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two thirds of them are
biologically mediated," says Hazen. "This is principally a consequence of
our oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is a product of photosynthesis by
microscopic algae." Many important minerals are oxidized weathering
products, including ores of iron, copper and many other metals.
Microorganisms and plants also accelerated the production of diverse clay
minerals. In the oceans, the evolution of organisms with shells and
mineralized skeletons generated thick layered deposits of minerals such as
calcite, which would be rare on a lifeless planet.
"For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life,
Earth's mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology," says Hazen. "One
implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of
other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological
influences beyond Earth."
Citation: Robert M. Hazen, Dominic Papineau, Wouter Bleeker, Robert T.
Downs, John M. Ferry, Timothy J. McCoy, Dimitri Sverjensky and Hexiong Yang
(2008) Mineral evolution. American Mineralogist.
Provided by Carnegie Institution"
----------------------------------------------------
PhysOrg.com
November 13, 2008
I agreed but this topic little helps my theory that earth has biological growth only . i have another topic it also little help my theory.this topic has totally diffent meaning but little helps that meteroids may be seeds of planets as it has neccessary amino acids and proteins.
http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=08396_Picture_001_122_1176lo.jpg&loc=loc1176
http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=08396_Picture_001_122_1176lo.jpg&loc=loc1176
find more fine snap in this link
http://img34.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=08810_tree_bark_122_1170lo.jpg&loc=loc1170
http://img34.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=08810_tree_bark_122_1170lo.jpg&loc=loc1170