|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
In message , J. Taylor
writes On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:04:08 -0700, Timberwoof wrote: In article , "J. Taylor" wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , J. Taylor writes On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and disappear. The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it. I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not read _that_. BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5 km deep http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been constant. What's the problem here? That's a perfectly reasonable assumption. "according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5 km deep" Fine, lets correct the statement According to this article the ocean basins have always been (assumed to be) about 3.5 km deep Maybe, you think an assumption is knowledge I do not. You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not exist. Yeah, like the Earth gaining mass from some unknown source. No, if the Earth gained mass in the last 200my, it is a fact it has to be from an unknown source. Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source. Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-) No evidence for it, but plenty against, yet you go on making that faulty assumption. You do not have plenty of evidence against mass from an unknown source because you do not know where mass comes from. All sources are unknown, yet we have mass. Check out Higgs Field Irrelevant. Even more irrelevant than your argument about dark matter. Because we aren't talking about mass but about matter - protons, neutrons and electrons in well-defined arrangements. Disregarding the problem of producing those arrangements, the relationship between matter and energy is well understood, and you can't have that amount of energy in the Earth. There is no evidence for deep ocean crust previous to what exist today. You're claiming that since there is no evidence for it, it never existed. Just more of you perverted thinking. No evidence means no evidence nothing more But there is good evidence. I've already mentioned eclogite, and a search for "Archaean ocean crust" gives DE Jacob and SF Foley, “Evidence for Archean Ocean Crust with Low High Field Strength Element Signature from Diamondiferous Eclogite Xenoliths,” Lithos 48 over and over again, but I was interested to read that "little Archean ocean crust survives, nearly all subducted" www.kean.edu/~csmart/Lectures/chapter20p.ppt That naively suggests that some has _not_ been subducted. According to http://www.schweizerbart.de/pubs/books/bo/pipertheig-003003000-desc.html you can find Mesozoic ocean crust in Northern Greece! Ophiolites have been dated as Cambrian and are usually thought to represent ocean crust - presumably you have an alternative explanation. |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:40:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote: In message , J. Taylor writes On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:04:08 -0700, Timberwoof wrote: In article , "J. Taylor" wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , J. Taylor writes On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and disappear. The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it. I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not read _that_. BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5 km deep http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been constant. What's the problem here? That's a perfectly reasonable assumption. "according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5 km deep" Fine, lets correct the statement According to this article the ocean basins have always been (assumed to be) about 3.5 km deep Maybe, you think an assumption is knowledge I do not. You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not exist. Yeah, like the Earth gaining mass from some unknown source. No, if the Earth gained mass in the last 200my, it is a fact it has to be from an unknown source. Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source. Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-) And I am sure Occam never intended to over look the obvious, the earth EXIST! Either it is eternal, or it gained mass. JT |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:02:06 -0700, (Charles Cagle)
wrote: HH-30 is generating mass in front of your eyes. Planets grow. Dos the new planarity mass come with necessary momentum to keep the observed orbital and rotational periodicity in synch with your claims? -- Boris Mohar -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity They are worthless spammers that are running a scam. |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
J. Taylor wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:40:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , J. Taylor writes On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 23:04:08 -0700, Timberwoof wrote: In article , "J. Taylor" wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:14:13 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , J. Taylor writes On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:00:46 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: You aren't just nitpicking, you're actively avoiding the question of how an ocean 2000km wide can appear and disappear. The article said 600 miles. Apparently you did not read it. I found an article that quoted a width of 2000km Apparently you did not read _that_. BTW, according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5 km deep http://www.earth.rochester.edu/ees201/labs/paleogeography.pdf And to know that, you would first have to believe the radius has been constant. What's the problem here? That's a perfectly reasonable assumption. "according to this article the ocean basins have always been about 3.5 km deep" Fine, lets correct the statement According to this article the ocean basins have always been (assumed to be) about 3.5 km deep Maybe, you think an assumption is knowledge I do not. You can claim anything you want when the evidence for it does not exist. Yeah, like the Earth gaining mass from some unknown source. No, if the Earth gained mass in the last 200my, it is a fact it has to be from an unknown source. Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source. Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-) And I am sure Occam never intended to over look the obvious, the earth EXIST! Either it is eternal, or it gained mass. Right...which has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that earth has doubled its radius in the past 200 million years. Earth has been its present size for at least 4 billion years. JT |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
In message , J. Taylor
writes On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:40:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source. Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-) And I am sure Occam never intended to over look the obvious, the earth EXIST! Either it is eternal, or it gained mass. Not a word about eclogite or ophiolite, I see. Rats! I thought "selective refutation" might be my own invention, but a quick search shows that it isn't. I'm quite happy to accept that the Earth gained mass during its formation, 4500 million years ago. There is no evidence that it has gained mass in the last 200 million years, except for a negligible amount from meteoroids (it is Lawrence Myers who is either fooling himself or trying to fool others). |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
The Expanding Earth and Mind and other paradox
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , J. Taylor writes On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:40:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: Quite. "If". And if the Earth didn't gain mass you don't need a source. Occam's Razor goes back a long way :-) And I am sure Occam never intended to over look the obvious, the earth EXIST! Either it is eternal, or it gained mass. Not a word about eclogite or ophiolite, I see. Eclogites exist as minor nodules and lenses in migmatitic gneissic terrains or trapped in kimberlitic plugs. That you cite them shows you don't now what you're talking about. Ophiolites are small slices of mantle caught up at the base of the collapsing edifice of the crustal pile as it slides out over the foreland (e..g. Asia over India). That you cite this one shows you have no sense of scale in the issue, and a misplaced sense of geology. The ocean floor (and previous ocean floors according to Plate Tectonics) takes up two thirds of the Earth's surface. You are arguing for total closure with peripheral obduction and citing these silly piddling little slices as evidence, when they are part of overthrust collapse belts, and from the 'wrong' side. You might as well cite some pyroxene/ garnet assemblage in your favourite thin section. The physical existence is meaningless in terms of 'closing oceans'. I suspect you read about it somewhere. You certainly have never thought about it, have you? You're shooting yourself in the foot and missing the issue by a mile. Try for the head. Rats! I thought "selective refutation" might be my own invention, but a quick search shows that it isn't. I'm quite happy to accept that the Earth gained mass during its formation, 4500 million years ago. There is no evidence that it has gained mass in the last 200 million years, except for a negligible amount from meteoroids (it is Lawrence Myers who is either fooling himself or trying to fool others). Lawrence seems also to suffer from a sense of scale. Why don't you tell him so? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|