Oldest crustal formation

[superluminal]

This is pretty funny! OIM just posted an exerpt that fully supports the accurate measurement of plate motion by two different techniques!

That pretty fucking funny right there.

 

[OilIsMastery]

This is pretty funny! OIM just posted an exerpt that fully supports the accurate measurement of plate motion by two different techniques!

That pretty fucking funny right there.

Apparently you don't know what the word "reconstruction" means. No surprise. The author is Dr. James Maxlow and the book is called "Terra Non Firma Earth" if you're at all interested in science: http://books.google.com/books?id=BfU1P7Nv_wYC&printsec=frontcover

 

[Vkothii]

You're starting to go round in circles again - the standard ploy of a deluded idiot who thinks consistency means learning how to repeat the same crap over and over.

 

[superluminal]

Apparently you don't know what the word "reconstruction" means. No surprise. The author is Dr. James Maxlow and the book is called "Terra Non Firma Earth" if you're at all interested in science: http://books.google.com/books?id=BfU1P7Nv_wYC&printsec=frontcover

The enitre "expanding earth" theory is so absurd as to be laughable. You need to explain away so many features that are better explained by PT and in the process invent new physics too. It's too rediculous to even spend another minute on.

 

[Trippy]

I know what it is -- it's a myth. Do you know what a chimera is?

We're not talking greek mythology here. We're talking about your inability to prove something.

Besides, it's a description of an observation.

I refer you to my answer posted above which you deliberately ignored: oceanic seafloor spreading.

No, I addressed it. Sea floor spreading occurs at mid ocean ridges, not oceanic trenches (which these wadati-benioff zones are at).

Try again.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Try again.

I don't know why I bother. It's futile to try and convert religious fanatics.

WHY DID SCIENTISTS DELUDE THEMSELVES ABOUT SUBDUCTION?

The answer to this question stems partially from ignorance of the first question, but is more directly attributable to the Kant-Laplace (1796) “nebular hypothesis” of Earth’s creation, which at that moment in history had to agree with a fully-formed Earth as suggested by the biblical account of Creation in Genesis.

The nebular hypothesis still remains the most basic and fundamental assumption underlying every scientific discipline dealing with Time, life on Earth, the physical Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe, but, as noted earlier, the nebular hypothesis is not only false, but confirms past surface growth of the planet.

Today’s widespread belief in subduction, the keystone of plate tectonics dogma, can now be recognized as a classic misinterpretation of valid factual evidence by scientists indoctrinated by generations of their professors and the peer review system into believing, literally, that Earth was suddenly created 4.6 billion years ago in its present size, shape and composition, complete with oceans, by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas and dust surrounding the Sun.

That assumption can be refuted in its entirety by known empirical evidence properly interpreted to show an Earth constantly increasing in mass and diameter by constant accretion of extraterrestrial matter AND concurrent expansion of the molten core after reaching spherical shape. Internal core expansion has now become the dominant mechanism in expansion of the planet, greatly exceeding the slow rate of external accretion of matter from outer space.

The nebular hypothesis is completely false and one day will be recognized as one of the greatest errors in the history of science, possibly surpassing the centuries- old dogma of geocentrism overturned in the 16th and 17th centuries by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the prevailing dominance of religion in that era makes that error less egregious than the adoption of subduction in the 20th Century.

Link

 

[OilIsMastery]

and in the process invent new physics too.

Pair production isn't new. It was discovered in 1932. And pair instability was observed in 2006, namely SN 2006gy. If anything requires a new physics, it's PT.

If subduction were real there would be no Pacific Ocean and no seafloor spreading.

SUBDUCTION’S FATAL FLAW

Subduction’s fatal flaw is easily demonstrated. Cup both hands, thumbs together, to represent Wegener's single Pangaean landmass covering one hemisphere of an imaginary fixed-diameter Earth, with Panthalassa (the eo-Pacific Ocean) occupying the rest of the planet.

Then, to portray creation of the Atlantic Ocean, slowly move the hands apart and slide them around this imaginary globe (the left hand representing North and South America; the right hand representing Eurasia/Africa and Australia, with the Atlantic Ocean opening up between them). Now, observe what happens to the Pacific basin on the opposite side of the globe as the Atlantic basin keeps widening in conformity with plate tectonics dogma.

Note that, as the continents are pushed around the planet under pressure of an ever-widening Atlantic Ocean, a fixed, unchanging diameter would result in subduction eventually swallowing the entire Pacific Ocean basin—IN SPITE OF continuous propagation of new ocean seafloor at the rate of ~80-160 mm/yr (~3-1/4 to ~6-1/2 in/yr) along the hyperactive East Pacific Rise (EPR) west of South America (the most active volcanic area on the planet) right in the middle of the supposed subduction area. (This is also a volatile heat source directly beneath the area where El Niños are spawned by heated Pacific waters.)

If carried to its ultimate conclusion, subduction would cause North and South America to be moved half way around the planet from the western edge of Pangaea to the eastern edge of Pangaea, ending up against Asia and Australia after having eliminated the entire Pacific Ocean! This would occur in spite of the massive growth of new seafloor in the Pacific along the East Pacific Rise, which is today expanding the width of the Pacific Ocean basin.

The good news is that this simple demonstration provides a method to determine which of the two processes, subduction or expansion, is correct simply by measuring any change in width of the Pacific Ocean basin. In order to prove subduction, the Pacific basin must rapidly decrease in size in order to accommodate the continuous growth occurring in the other oceans of the world. However, any increase in size would confirm that the Earth is increasing in diameter, surface area, and circumference.

Link

It's too rediculous to even spend another minute on.

:wave:

 

[superluminal]

What a load of pseudoscientific twaddle. Pretty funny though.

Yes. The evil/ignorant scientists were indoctrinated with the dogma of... blah, blah, blah.

 

[superluminal]

If subduction were real there would be no Pacific Ocean and no seafloor spreading.

That's absolutely rediculous. The size of the continents clearly accomodate both the atlantic and pacific.

That sounds like a description designed to fool a not-so-bright grade school kid.

 

[Vkothii]

I found a single article, outlining one or two little problems with an expanding earth (not that PT is a problem-free theory, note).

[A]n expanding earth would suggest an increase in the moment of inertia of the earth, which would mean that the rate of rotation of the earth would have to decrease in order to conserve angular momentum.
But the retardation that the earth does experience seems to be more than adequately explained by tidal friction (Bursa 1984, Bursa 1987, Van Diggelen 1976).
However, Talobre claims that an expansion of the radius of the earth of about two centimeters per year is necessary to account for the increased duration of the day (Talobre 1983).
On the other hand, it is possible to have a constant-mass object expanding and differentiating in such a way that the moment of inertia stays constant or even decreases (Carey 1988, p. 196).

Burrett has also noted that "no reconstruction of the Early Paleozoic hypothesis [based on the expanding-earth model] has yet been produced that places the north pole in any paleomagnetically or paleoclimatically reasonable position" (Burrett 1983).

But the main problems associated with the expanding earth are the mechanism of expansion and some of the consequences associated with some of the most commonly suggested mechanisms (Taylor 1983).
The most frequently mentioned mechanism is a structural or a chemical phase change that involves an increase in volume with constant mass (Carey 1976, pp. 124, 450; Stewart 1983). (The development of ice from liquid water, for example, involves a structural change in which there is an increase in volume.)
This could be occurring at the core/mantle interface. In this process the mass of the earth would remain essentially constant while its volume is increased.
Consequently, if the radius of the earth doubled, the force due to gravity on the surface of the earth would now be only one fourth of what it was prior to the expansion.
But paleogravity studies indicate that the force of gravity has never been significantly greater than it is now (Stewart 1983).

Another suggested phenomenon is a change in Newton's universal gravitational constant, G (Van Flandern 1979).
This possibility was earlier suggested by Dirac to explain an expanding universe (Heirtzler 1977, Stewart 1983).
As applied to the earth, the idea is that if G decreases, then the earth would expand due to reduced interior gravitational pressure.
But, of course, if such expansion happened for the earth it would also happen for other planets, moons and the sun.
And most astrophysicists see little evidence that such expansion happened on other planets such as Mars (McElhinny, Taylor and Stevenson 1978).
Also, any significant change in G during the existence of the solar system would noticeably change the planetary distances which would change the thermal environment of the earth.
Finally, calculations of the equation of state for the earth have been made in the context of general relativity (Einstein's gravitational theory) which shows that a changing G would not affect the size of the earth (Canuto 1981).
Some scalar models of gravity would even have the earth shrink if G were to become smaller.

--Bill Mundy
Professor of Physics
Pacific Union College, Angwin, California

The rest of the article is here

Ho hum.

 

[superluminal]

As I said, it requires some amazing new physics.

It's patently absurd.

 

[OilIsMastery]

But the main problems associated with the expanding earth are the mechanism of expansion and some of the consequences associated with some of the most commonly suggested mechanisms (Taylor 1983).

"The insinuation that we still do not know a physical process responsible for an accelerated expansion of the Earth is not a scientific counterargument. The physical nature of many processes has regularly been recognized in science, long after they were first recognized as real phenomena. It is not the task of the geologist to explain problems beyond their discipline. Their task is to see and correctly explain all geological facts." -- Dr. Stefan Cwodjzinski, Polish Geologcal Institute, Lower Silesian Branch, Wroclaw Poland, 2005

Link

Here is one possible mechanism: "The creation of electron–positron pairs constitutes an example for the conversion of energy into mass." -- Jörg Eichler, physicist, March 2005

Here is another: "My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

 

[OilIsMastery]

As I said, it requires some amazing new physics. Patently absurd.

"Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Meyers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

 

[Trippy]

I don't know why I bother. It's futile to try and convert religious fanatics.



Link

None of which does absolutely anything whatsoever to address the point i'm questioning you on, and asking you to explain - the observed trend in earthquake depths associated with oceanic trenches, or how it relates to the directions of plate motion.

Do you want to try again, or are you ready to admit that you can't?

 

[OilIsMastery]

the observed trend in earthquake depths associated with oceanic trenches, or how it relates to the directions of plate motion.

You are projecting your religion onto the data. Earthquakes provide less than zero scientific support for subduction.

According to your subduction model, the Pacific Ocean shouldn't exist.

See the replies you deliberately ignored posted above.

 

[pjdude1219]

Remember people we are dealing with some who is arguing against basic applied math.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Remember people we are dealing with some who is arguing against basic applied math.

If that's the best argument you can come up with, it's no wonder 21st century science treats subduction as a myth.

 

[Cazzo]

The oldest crustal formation is located on OIM's butt.

lol, that wasn't very nice.

BTW, the only way Earth is "getting bigger" is if you measure the minute amounts of cosmic dust (and meteors)
falling on it all the time; which is practically negligable compared to Earth's total mass.

 

[Vkothii]

According to your subduction model, the Pacific Ocean shouldn't exist.

And yet, there is a big accumulating (expanding) pile of evidence for subduction of oceanic plates into the asthenosphere. There is a Pacific Ocean (I can see it from here), which has existed for hundreds of My.

But since you aren't even a geologist's asshole, you don't understand "the evidence"; since you aren't even a scientist's turd-tunnel, you don't know what "evidence" is.

 

[pjdude1219]

If that's the best argument you can come up with, it's no wonder 21st century science treats subduction as a myth.

Do you not understand the threshold of change in angle were talking about? We are talking about a change in measured in millionths of a second being enough to move the laser off the mirror. It a wonder you managed to graduate from highschool.