Birth of Earth

Well this discussion is WAY off topic, and has resorted to mocking an individual whose english is not so good.
hooray elitism
 
EndLightEnd said:
Well this discussion is WAY off topic, and has resorted to mocking an individual whose english is not so good.
hooray elitism
Click to expand...
No, it's not mocking someone whose English isn't very good.
It's giving up on someone that
1. comes up with a completely ridiculous idea,
2. then never supports any of it with even the tiniest bit of evidence,
3. still ignores everybody else's thoughts on the matter
4. and keeps insisting that he's right despite the numerous people that have pointed out why he is not.

And how is it mocking ? My "theory" is equally wacky as his. Maybe he's mocking us..
Behold:
Enmos said:
If you can help me with an issue I have..
I have this theory that green bottle flies can read an understand English.
I have meticulously observed their behavior and they really seem to understand it !
Can you help me understand how they do it ?
Click to expand...

jsispat said:
reg green bottle fly understand english. than what make you so strange. elephant is more enteligents for making sum and deduction. it has better brain.same green bottle flies may be found in english speaking area or understand different language.
Click to expand...

Enmos said:
About the flies..
The strange part is that I live in The Netherlands and the flies don't seem to understand Dutch at all, only English :shrug:
Please help me understand this ?
Click to expand...

jsispat said:
there origin may be from english speaking country and there mother toungue may be english that is transfering from mother. simple.
Click to expand...
 
Baron Max said:
Interesting viewpoint, but it ignores the fact that much of our science is based on the laws of physics .....one of which says you can't create something out of nothing. So for science to basically say that the universe was nothing, then POOF, it was something sorta' stretches those laws of physics to the limit (or beyond?), wouldn't you say?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

terrific stuff here...
 
Plate tectonics has its criticisms as well, and really isnt scientifically testable in anyway. Sounds like you are learning only what fits into your paradigm.
 
Im not saying I necessarily think this is true, Im just trying to get people to realize that knowledge is ALWAYS changing and to stay stagnant in thought is the worst things humans can do.

We have seen many times throughout history of those who made the claim that something was impossible and ended up being wrong, and those who we thought crazy for thinking of an idea so far fetched it must be impossible (but actually ended up right).

I believe that saying ANYTHING is impossible is foolish, because with that claim you are basically saying you have all the knowledge in the universe.
 
EndLightEnd said:
Plate tectonics has its criticisms as well, and really isnt scientifically testable in anyway. Sounds like you are learning only what fits into your paradigm.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. Europe and US are moving away from each other according to plate tectonics. Place a GPS receiver on each side. Wait for 10 years. Look at results, low and behold a 25cm further apart.

(see for example:
Author(s): Geirsson, H; Arnadottir, T; Volksen, C, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH Volume: 111 Issue: B9 Article Number: B09407 Published: SEP 28 2006

Title: Results from geodetic measurements in the western part of the African-Eurasian plate boundary
Author(s): Bastos, L; Osorio, J; Barbeito, A, et al.
Source: TECTONOPHYSICS Volume: 294 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 261-269 Published: SEP 15 1998

Title: A high-resolution model for Eurasia-North America plate kinematics since 20 Ma
Author(s): Merkouriev, S; DeMets, C
Source: GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL Volume: 173 Issue: 3 Pages: 1064-1083 Published: 2008
)

This matches rates gleaned from looking at magnetic reversals and dating of the oceanic crust and using vector-based methods and knowledge of other plate movements.

From USGS site (which I can't link to 'cos of the stupid 20 post rule)
Space-geodetic data have already confirmed that the rates and direction of plate movement, averaged over several years, compare well with rates and direction of plate movement averaged over millions of years.
Click to expand...


What specific criticisms are there for plate tectonics? There are no major one as far as I know. Please do list the, I'd be interested to know. Expanding Earth simply does not match the evidence and in fact a lot of evidence contradicts it (past orogenies, for example - how do plate collisions occur on an expanding earth?).
 
geologyrocks said:
Yes you can. Europe and US are moving away from each other according to plate tectonics. Place a GPS receiver on each side. Wait for 10 years. Look at results, low and behold a 25cm further apart.
Click to expand...

This also supports expanding earth theory you realize that? I suspect Asia and California are ALSO moving apart.

geologyrocks said:
Expanding Earth simply does not match the evidence and in fact a lot of evidence contradicts it (past orogenies, for example - how do plate collisions occur on an expanding earth?).
Click to expand...

What evidence directly conflicts with expanding earth theory?
And to answer your second question, there are no plate collisions according to this theory.
If subduction zones actually existed why is there such a stark difference between the age of dry land and ocean floor? One would expect some land masses to subduct and therefore be much younger than we see today, comparable to that of the sea floor.

Mountain ranges are formed by the "folding" of the land as it is twisted by expansion. This is why the age of the land on one side of the mountain range is the same age as the opposite side. (Two seperate land masses colliding you would expect different ages)
 
EndLightEnd said:
This also supports expanding earth theory you realize that? I suspect Asia and California are ALSO moving apart.
Click to expand...

Nope, the Pacific is getting smaller. Just have a look at Keary and Vine (Global Tectonics).


EndLightEnd said:
What evidence directly conflicts with expanding earth theory?
Click to expand...

The fact that the UK has undergone at least 4 orogenies. How can an orogeny occur, if the Earth is constantly getting bigger, nevermind 4 on what is a tiny island!

EndLightEnd said:
And to answer your second question, there are no plate collisions according to this theory.
If subduction zones actually existed why is there such a stark difference between the age of dry land and ocean floor? One would expect some land masses to subduct and therefore be much younger than we see today, comparable to that of the sea floor.
Click to expand...

Again, the evidence for subduction zones is quite extraordinary.

see: http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/plate_tectonics_evidence

EndLightEnd said:
Mountain ranges are formed by the "folding" of the land as it is twisted by expansion. This is why the age of the land on one side of the mountain range is the same age as the opposite side. (Two seperate land masses colliding you would expect different ages)
Click to expand...

Errr...mountains form by collision, therefore compression, not expansion. You therefore get lots of thrust faulting, which thrust units over others. The ages of rocks in the Himalayas are all sorts of ages (see a map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/2_6_tectomap2.gif). See, complex faulting structures, Precambrian to fairly recent stuff, ophiolites (i.e. oceanic crust) - everything you'd expect from a tectonic collision. No offence, but I think you need to read up more on plate tectonics and geology in general.
 
EndLightEnd said:
If subduction zones actually existed why is there such a stark difference between the age of dry land and ocean floor? One would expect some land masses to subduct and therefore be much younger than we see today, comparable to that of the sea floor.
Click to expand...

Sorry forgot to answer this bit.

Nope, you wouldn't expect that. The continental crust is less dense and generally thicker (i.e. hard to subduct) that oceanic crust, therefore it's oceanic crust that gets subducted. You might then say, "why is the Earth not covered in continental crust then?". The continental crust is eroded (wind, rain), brought down to the sea by rivers, dumped in the ocean and...subducted with the oceanic plate! Actually, not all of it is. Sometimes it's scrapped from the plate and forms the accretionary wedge, which is in the fore-arc basin.
 
This is weird, I dont know if you guys remember jsispat talking about holes on the poles, but check out these NASA photos I found with the auroras at the south pole.

http://www.holloworbs.com/Antarctic aurora.htm

AND a movie directly from NASA themselves.

http://www.nasa.gov/mov/133778main_FUV_640x480.mov



geologyrocks said:
Nope, you wouldn't expect that. The continental crust is less dense and generally thicker (i.e. hard to subduct) that oceanic crust, therefore it's oceanic crust that gets subducted.
Click to expand...

Can you please list where the current subduction zones on the Earth are? I did a google search and really couldnt find much except one possible candidate. All I found was what subduction zones were, not WHERE they were.

Also I find it quite convenient that when two landmasses collide they always form mountains. Can you tell me the exact process why they always push each other up? I would imagine slight differences in vertical position of the landmasses relative to one another, tension, and density differences would produce subduction on land at least ONCE. But we dont see that. Please explain.
 
EndLightEnd said:
Can you please list where the current subduction zones on the Earth are? I did a google search and really couldnt find much except one possible candidate. All I found was what subduction zones were, not WHERE they were.
Click to expand...
Around the Pacific ocean. Hence why it's getting smaller.

There's also a subduction zone under the Himalayas, a small one under southern Europe and another in the Caribbean.

Map: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/world5.gif

Also I find it quite convenient that when two landmasses collide they always form mountains. Can you tell me the exact process why they always push each other up? I would imagine slight differences in vertical position of the landmasses relative to one another, tension, and density differences would produce subduction on land at least ONCE. But we dont see that. Please explain.
Click to expand...

There is subduction - of the oceanic plate of one or both of the masses. This is where things get really complicated :) This is the cutting edge of research as we only really have the Himalayas to go on at the present time and understanding exactly what is going on is complicated.

This page (http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/plate_tectonics_introduction) has a simple diagram (fig 4 C) for "simple cases".


For more complex example, look at the Iapetus: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118846697/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

(Translation: it subducted one way, then starting subducting the other way!).

However, there are more complications as other continents were involved: http://jgs.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/6/871

The geological history of Cyprus is also worth a look at if you're interested in subductive processes.

Again, read up some text books. Keary and Vine (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1405107774/geologyrocks-21) is an excellent start.

HTH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top