Oldest crustal formation

Vkothii said:
The point, though, is that the total amount of matter making up the planet varies, because some is lost and gained constantly.
Click to expand...
Matter is constantly lost? By what mechanism?

Yet there is zero evidence the overall mass is changing noticeably. So an expanding earth hypothesis needs to get around that little problem, too.
Click to expand...
What's the problem?

"The causal understanding of Earth expansion is not yet fully understood, but the empirical processes involved are confirmed by such numerous and different sets of data that this should be considered fact." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005

"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, 2005
 
OilIsMastery said:
What's the problem?

"The causal understanding of Earth expansion is not yet fully understood, but the empirical processes involved are confirmed by such numerous and different sets of data that this should be considered fact." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005

"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, 2005
Click to expand...
You've really hitched your wagon to a bunch of wingnuts.
 
Moderator message: OilIsMastery is warned that deliberately quoting people out of context in order to attempt to misrepresent their position may result in a temporary ban from sciforums.

Please do not do it again. Thankyou.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Take your politics and religion to the Pseudoscience Forum and stop trolling with ad hominems. I'm trying to have an intelligent scientific debate. Clearly you aren't.
Click to expand...
You've got to be fucking joking! There is no way that can be your intention unless you have an IQ of less than 80. Please don't insult the intelligence of people who actually have some, by making such inane statements.

You are a deluded dickhead, an immature child, who thinks they have achieved something of value by having their own website/blog and a contrary opinion. Life is more complex than that sonny boy and the sooner you learn that, the sooner you might manage to lose your virginity.

You wouldn't know an intelligent scientific debate if one bit you in the ass. (Which no self respecting intelligent scientific debate would do.)
 
Trippy said:
When i'm feeling more polite, I might reply to this in detail, but for now I have nothing more to say to a lying ignorant zealous religous fundamentalist, as demonstrated by the bolded portions.
Click to expand...
I just want to check out a couple of points with yourself and some of the others who, like myself, have wasted time exploring OIMs nonsense.
1) Is it true that murder is still illegal in most countries?
2) Are we prohibited by forum rules from making physical threats against fellow members?
3) Does anyone have experience in the use of voodoo dolls?
 
OilIsMastery said:
Matter is constantly lost? By what mechanism?
Click to expand...
How ruddy ignorant are you? For one thing hydrogen, formed by disassociation of water molecules by UV radiation, is continuously lost from the upper atmosphere.
Schoolchildren know this. Ah! But you never went to school, or if you did your ADD prevented you from taking anything in.

It is people like you who give idiots a bad name.
 
Ophiolite said:
How ruddy ignorant are you? For one thing hydrogen, formed by disassociation of water molecules by UV radiation, is continuously lost from the upper atmosphere.
Schoolchildren know this. Ah! But you never went to school, or if you did your ADD prevented you from taking anything in.

It is people like you who give idiots a bad name.
Click to expand...
Ah yes so if the Earth is constantly losing mass, why isn't it shrinking and decreasing in mass and size?
 
The Earth is both gain and losing mass all the time. Atoms in the atmosphere do occasionally find the energy to escape, when hit by cosmic rays and the like, at the same time the "space" the earth plows through is not really devoid of all matter there are atoms in our path as well as meteorites and micrometeorites that hit the planet on a regular basis.

That said, apart from the odd catastrophic event, my understanding is that the rate of accretion or depletion is so small as a percentage of the current mass of the Earth, that it can be ignored.

If the Earth were growing, either it would need major increases in its mass, or its density would drop which would have a significant effect on surface gravity. Gravity in the past would have been much stronger than it is at present because you have the same mass packed into a smaller area.

I do not think OIM is doing his abiotic oil theory any favors, as it seems like he won some converts to his side on that and now he's trotting out an even less mainstream theory. What's next, Hollow Earth Theory? Ontology Recapitulates Phylogeny? The Empedoclean system of four elements, earth, air, water and fire (take you "chemical element theory" to the Religion forum, where it belongs)?
 
Pandaemoni said:
The Earth is both gain and losing mass all the time. Atoms in the atmosphere do occasionally find the energy to escape, when hit by cosmic rays and the like, at the same time the "space" the earth plows through is not really devoid of all matter there are atoms in our path as well as meteorites and micrometeorites that hit the planet on a regular basis.

That said, apart from the odd catastrophic event, my understanding is that the rate of accretion or depletion is so small as a percentage of the current mass of the Earth, that it can be ignored.
Click to expand...
How can that possibly be your understanding? Have you heard of embryonic planets? Guess what? They grow.

Planets Forming In Pleiades Star Cluster, Astronomers Report

Astronomers Discover Planet Building Is Big Mess

If the Earth were growing, either it would need major increases in its mass
Click to expand...
Agreed.

or its density would drop which would have a significant effect on surface gravity.
Click to expand...
What if there is pair production in the core? Wouldn't that increase it's density?

Gravity in the past would have been much stronger than it is at present because you have the same mass packed into a smaller area.
Click to expand...
That's what Tesla thought but he may not have been right. How do you explain the size of the dinosaurs? Brachiosaurus for example or Pterodactyl?

I do not think OIM is doing his abiotic oil theory any favors, as it seems like he won some converts to his side on that and now he's trotting out an even less mainstream theory. What's next, Hollow Earth Theory? Ontology Recapitulates Phylogeny? The Empedoclean system of four elements, earth, air, water and fire (take you "chemical element theory" to the Religion forum, where it belongs)?
Click to expand...
I'm not married to any theory. I will happily abandon it if convinced it is false.
 
Last edited:
If the plates were subducting, the rifts would be the oldest part of the lithosphere, not the youngest!

2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg
 
OilIsMastery said:
If the plates were subducting, the rifts would be the oldest part of the lithosphere, not the youngest!
Click to expand...

I'm utterly incredulous that anyone could make a statement this blatantly ignorant and wrong.

The new crust is generated at the ridges.
Therefore the youngest crust should be at the ridges.
The ridges are the rifting zones.

Get it?

I doubt it.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Ah yes so if the Earth is constantly losing mass, why isn't it shrinking and decreasing in mass and size?
Click to expand...
Because the loss of mass is miniscule, just as the gain in mass from ontinuous streams of meteoric dust and occasional impacts of large bolides is miniscule.

Get an education.
 
The Wilkes Land impact crater in Antarctica is 300 miles wide. It happened 250 million years ago and is theorized to have caused the Permian-Triassic extinction. The earth was a single continent at the time of the impact. There were no oceans. Nope no mass accretion at all.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031202065204.htm

* "About 60 meteorites five or more kilometers across have hit the earth in the past 600 million years. The smallest ones would have carved craters some 95 kilometers wide.

* "Most scientists agree that one such impact did in the dinosaurs, but evidence for large collisions coincident with other mass extinctions remained elusive -- until recently.

* "Researchers are now discovering hints of ancient impacts at sites marking history's top five mass extinctions, the worst of which eliminated 90 percent of all living species."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
Exactly. Spreading. Not subduction.
Exactly. Spreading. Not subduction.
Exactly. Spreading. Not subduction.
Click to expand...

Again.

Congratulations on missing the point.

You still haven't explained the trend in earthquake depths observed at Oceanic Trenches.
You still haven't explained the presence of Oceanic crust older then 200 Ma.
You still haven't explained why the arc vulcanism is so substantially different from rift vulcanism.

The list goes on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top