|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|