Thread: How did the Oceans form?

I'm having trouble grasping this concept. If anyone can break it down for me I'd greatly appreciate it.

Surprised no one addressed this yet.

Most of the water in the oceans was probably already on the planet during it's early accretion and/or collision with the body that ultimately created our moon. Most of the lighter materials, including the volatiles such as water vapor ended up on the surface by gravitational separation or volcanic out gassing. Unlike Mars for example, our gravity is high enough that we don't loose much H2 from upper atmospheric photo dissociation. Also we continue to receive some water from meteor comet ice.

so, if you are saying that we receive water from meteorites, i want to pose a completely hypothetical question: suppose, that the aerth never lost any water (as all water will inevutably vaporise when earth is engulfed by the dying sun) would comets eventually turn earth into a watery planet? (more so than right now)

The intake of water from cometary impact is small compared with the total volume of water on the planet. Even over billions of years the net increase in water on the planet would be minor as a percentage of the present water level.

There is a view that the majority of the volatiles were lost during the impact that created the moon. This view holds that most of the water is derived from cometary impact between that event and the end of the Heavy Bombardment Period about 3.7 billion years ago. Recall that at this time the Solar systme had not fully settled down and there wer many strays running around.

I think this ties in with a question on another thread about solar system ejecta in the early stages that did not fully escape and formed the Oort cloud. From my perspective, the presumed high volume of water in the Oort cloud might be testament to the high amount of water that was floating around early on. If one is to assume that most of the matter in the solar system is still within Pluto's orbit, would that not account for enough external water to make up the oceans?

the oceans formed on earth 3.8 billion years ago. at this time the solar system was about 1 billion years old. they are primarily composed of gases and ice, and are less dense than the terrestrial planets. the geochemical cycles had their beginnings here, with minerals entering the oceans from the land and sky and minerals leaving the oceans through tectonic activity and by evaporation/deposition processes. these cycles were well established about 1 billion years ago. since then the overall composition of the oceans (chemically, that is) has remained very constant.
------------------
dwella


inspire internet marketing

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Sedimentary rocks formed 4.2 Gyrs about. This would be an indicate the formation of water.

Originally Posted by portcontrol7

I'm having trouble grasping this concept. If anyone can break it down for me I'd greatly appreciate it.

As the earth cooled, condensation formed everywhere due to hot gases emerging from the interior coming into contact with the now cooler surfaces. After millions of years, clouds began to form and it rained for a couple more millions of years giving us the water we have today. At one point the entire surface of the earth was covered in water.

G'day from the bedroom of zzzzzzzz

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Sedimentary rocks formed 4.2 Gyrs about. This would be an indicate the formation of water.

Are you basing this on the Jack Hills zircons?

In the context of Excess Mass Stress Tectonics (EMST) and Growing Earth Theory, the oceans formed by tectonic spreading via pair production in the earth's core.

Originally Posted by dwella

the oceans formed on earth 3.8 billion years ago.

Absolute and utter unscientific nonsense. All of the oceans on Earth are less than 180 million years old. See the Age of the Oceanic Lithosphere provided by the National Geophysical Data Center posted above.

Read my name. (Not my lips.) Ophiolites are ancient oceanic crust welded onto continental crust.
Account for the existence of ophiolites, including their chemical, petrographic and structural peculiarities, without recourse to plate tectonic theory.
Further, please do this without quoting uninformed, out of context opinions.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Read my name. (Not my lips.) Ophiolites are ancient oceanic crust welded onto continental crust.
Account for the existence of ophiolites, including their chemical, petrographic and structural peculiarities, without recourse to plate tectonic theory.
Further, please do this without quoting uninformed, out of context opinions.

It's called tectonic spreading, the opposite of subduction.

Originally Posted by Total Science

In the context of Excess Mass Stress Tectonics (EMST) and Growing Earth Theory, the oceans formed by tectonic spreading via pair production in the earth's core.

Where does the water come from? The surface of the Earth is dominated by oceans. The Earth must have been a waterworld before the alledged expansion. This should be verifiable in the sediments of the land masses.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Where does the water come from?

The oxidation of mantle hydrogen/hydrocarbons. Hydrogen is the most common chemical element in the universe and oxygen is the third most common chemical element in the universe.

The surface of the Earth is dominated by oceans.

Indeed.

The Earth must have been a waterworld before the alledged expansion. This should be verifiable in the sediments of the land masses.

According to theory, the oceans are a recent development therefore there was far less water 180 million years ago.

Originally Posted by Total Science

According to theory, the oceans are a recent development therefore there was far less water 180 million years ago.

But this would strongly conflict with findings that life began its evolutionary process billions of years ago in water and later made landfall before it populated the continents. There is clear evidence that large creatures (animals, not bacteria) were already present 180 Million years ago. So, do you challange this, too?

I am not an expert, but isn't there evidence for marine fossils or sediments that are much older than this age?

Originally Posted by Total Science

According to theory, the oceans are a recent development therefore there was far less water 180 million years ago.

what theory ?

Total Science is a troll. Please do not feed the troll.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

But this would strongly conflict with findings that life began its evolutionary process billions of years ago in water and later made landfall before it populated the continents.

Not necesarily. There were shallow seas, no oceans.

There is clear evidence that large creatures (animals, not bacteria) were already present 180 Million years ago. So, do you challange this, too?

No. However they roamed the supercontinent, not the oceans. Roger Buick believes he found 3.2/3.6 billion year old cyanobacteria fossils although some have disputed this claim saying the oldest cyanobacteria are 2.4 billion years old: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

I am not an expert, but isn't there evidence for marine fossils or sediments that are much older than this age?

No. There is no fossil in the ocean older than ~180 million years old.

Originally Posted by marnixR

what theory ?

Growing Earth.

So, you claim that life could have emerged from shallow seas? But current theories seem to rule out this possibility. According to those, deep seas are needed to avoid the hard radiation that was not properly absorbed by the early atmosphere, aren't they. Furthermore, large marine creatures seem to have lived already, before life conquered the continents. Prosauropods have lived long before 180 Million years ago. It is hard to imagine that they have ancestors in shallow lakes. Have they evolved from many lakes at the same time (very unlikely)? Also the ammonites are dated back to about 400 Million years ago and are supposed to be deep sea creatures. They are discovered all over the world. This is hard to explain, if there was no connection between the "lakes".

don't forget graptolites - planktonic creatures nearly always found in deep-water sediments

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

So, you claim that life could have emerged from shallow seas?

I'm not arrogant or ignorant enough to make any claim about the origin of life. You must have me confused with the PT fundamentalists in this thread.

But current theories seem to rule out this possibility.

You can throw current theories into the science garbage can.

"As you understand my way is not paved with roses, because if what I claim is right, as, of course, I think it is, then mainstream scientists have to throw their claims into the garbage can." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geoscientist, September 2008

According to those, deep seas are needed to avoid the hard radiation that was not properly absorbed by the early atmosphere, aren't they.

How do you know life wasn't born in the deep hot biosphere, away from cosmic radiation? How do you know a shallow sea isn't sufficient? How do you know the atmosphere wasn't sufficient? How do you know the magnetosphere wasn't sufficient?

Furthermore, large marine creatures seem to have lived already, before life conquered the continents. Prosauropods have lived long before 180 Million years ago.

Not a marine creature. A land animal.

It is hard to imagine that they have ancestors in shallow lakes.

It's hard to imagine they can swim at all. Look at it!!! If those can swim then pigs can fly.

Have they evolved from many lakes at the same time (very unlikely)? Also the ammonites are dated back to about 400 Million years ago and are supposed to be deep sea creatures. They are discovered all over the world. This is hard to explain, if there was no connection between the "lakes".

Just a friendly note, Wikipedia is unreliable, unscientific, dogmatic, political, and grossly inaccurate.

http://www.charmouthfossils.com/products.php?cat=10

PSILOCERAS Details

Description: Free standing, Psiloceras Planorbis is Britains oldest ammonite. These are collected from loose material from the beach. The blue iridescent colour is natural, but its very thin and must not be rubbed or brushed. Postage included for UK customers.
Age: 200 million years.

So Britain's oldest ammonite is ~200 million years old (LOL coincidence?) and is found on the beach (not ultra-deep water). Shock and awe.

But I guess all the peer reviewed scientists at the National Geophysical Data Center that took core samples and dated the oceanic lithosphere don't know what they are talking about because the Quran says otherwise.

Originally Posted by marnixR

don't forget graptolites - planktonic creatures nearly always found in deep-water sediments

Planktonic would mean they are floating as opposed to benthonic (bottom dwelling) in habitat...

But thanks for bringing that up. Now I have more evidence to support my case.

Originally Posted by Total Science

So Britain's oldest ammonite is ~200 million years old (LOL coincidence?) and is found on the beach (not ultra-deep water).

and as you're very much aware (or at least should be) ammonites are only the most recent subgroups of the ammonoidea, the oldest representatives of which can be found about 400 million years ago, not 200 million - so what's left of your famous coincidence ?

or are you going to do a creationist logic-flip and disregard anything older than 200 million years just because it wouldn't otherwise fit ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

and as you're very much aware (or at least should be) ammonites are only the most recent subgroups of the ammonoidea, the oldest representatives of which can be found about 400 million years ago, not 200 million - so what's left of your famous coincidence?

Ah I see, and where were these ammonites found? Link please.

or are you going to do a creationist logic-flip and disregard anything older than 200 million years just because it wouldn't otherwise fit ?

Nope. But if you find the National Geophysical Data Center dating to be inaccurate, I suggest you submit a peer reviewed paper to a scientific journal refuting their core sampling and carbon dating techniques.

Originally Posted by Total Science

Originally Posted by marnixR

and as you're very much aware (or at least should be) ammonites are only the most recent subgroups of the ammonoidea, the oldest representatives of which can be found about 400 million years ago, not 200 million - so what's left of your famous coincidence?

Ah I see, and where were these ammonites found? Link please.

an example of a deep-sea goniatite occurrence in the devonian of poland :

Molluscs from the Early Frasnian Goniatite Level at Kostom�oty in the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland

there's more entries in the literature if you care to look for them

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Total Science

Originally Posted by marnixR

and as you're very much aware (or at least should be) ammonites are only the most recent subgroups of the ammonoidea, the oldest representatives of which can be found about 400 million years ago, not 200 million - so what's left of your famous coincidence?

Ah I see, and where were these ammonites found? Link please.

an example of a deep-sea goniatite occurrence in the devonian of poland :

Molluscs from the Early Frasnian Goniatite Level at Kostom�oty in the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland

there's more entries in the literature if you care to look for them

Thanks. The last time I checked there is no ocean in Poland. The evidence grows at an accelerating rate just as all astronomical bodies surely must do (that pesky gravity thing).

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

deep seas are needed to avoid the hard radiation that was not properly absorbed by the early atmosphere, aren't they.

Just a few meters water will do. Water happens to shield this kind of radiation splendidly.


Not that I begin to follow TS's argument against deep seas. :?

Originally Posted by Total Science

Thanks. The last time I checked there is no ocean in Poland. The evidence grows at an accelerating rate just as all astronomical bodies surely must do (that pesky gravity thing).

But there has been one. Also almost the entire area that is now known as Germany was covered by seawater millions of years ago. This is why we have so many saltmines and limestone mountains. There are sea fossils and sea sediments in the Alps. They have been the sea floor before tectonics started to push them to thousands of metres height.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by Total Science

Thanks. The last time I checked there is no ocean in Poland. The evidence grows at an accelerating rate just as all astronomical bodies surely must do (that pesky gravity thing).

But there has been one. Also almost the entire area that is now known as Germany was covered by seawater millions of years ago. This is why we have so many saltmines and limestone mountains. There are sea fossils and sea sediments in the Alps. They have been the sea floor before tectonics started to push them to thousands of metres height.

Yup. That's the only place we find fossils that old because the Earth had a smaller radius. The Earth formed (and continues to form) by gravitational accretion of matter as all astronomical bodies do.

Originally Posted by Total Science

The Earth formed (and continues to form) by gravitational accretion of matter as all astronomical bodies do.

have a look at the following site with facts on the earth :

"At the present rate, Earth gains about 40,000 metric tons each year from space debris that bombard our planet. Yet it loses an amount so small (atmospheric gases, etc.) as to not really warrant any serious consideration. So, will Earth's weight gain have an impact on its orbit, relative mass (gravitational pull) or any other properties? Although 40,000 metric tons a year sounds like a huge gain, when you compare it to the immense size of Earth, it dwindles to a meager 0.000003 of one percent of the Earth's mass. The impact is insignificant."

so unless you can provide evidence that accretion was substantially larger between now and about 200 millions years ago, the accretion explanation is a non-starter

Originally Posted by marnixR

"At the present rate

In other words, you are assuming a constant growth rate which is the most unscientific thing you can possibly do. The oceans are only ~180 million years old. Therefore growth does not occur at a constant rate. There is nothing constant about impact events. They are world changing.

so unless you can provide evidence that accretion was substantially larger between now and about 200 millions years ago, the accretion explanation is a non-starter

Chicxulub turned the Earth into Jello: http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...lo_001122.html

There is no reason to assume that the average mass impact rate on Earth was any different 180 Mio years ago. Single events of larger impacts have always been rare and do not change the average gain in a considerable way. The reservoir of interplanetary dust, asteroids and comets has already been widely depleted after the planets were formed billions of years ago. All the mass available in the soalr system is REALLY small. Look here and do the math.

The impact history can also be witnessed very well by analysing the crater statistics on our moon, where erosion does not happen as on Earth. From this we learn that the impact rate was fairly constant during the recent 3 billion years.

Originally Posted by Total Science

In other words, you are assuming a constant growth rate which is the most unscientific thing you can possibly do. The oceans are only ~180 million years old. Therefore growth do

and you're assuming a substantially (we're speaking at least several orders of magnitude here) larger accretion rates - do you have any evidence for this assumption ? if not, then my assumption is the default condition for being more parsimonious

Originally Posted by marnixR

and you're assuming a substantially (we're speaking at least several orders of magnitude here) larger accretion rates - do you have any evidence for this assumption?

The evidence I have is the zircon dating which shows the oceans are less than ~200 million y.o. Yet we know from rocks in Canada and on the moon that the earth is at least ~4.5 billion y.o.

Furthermore, data obtained by Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) LAGEOS and analyzed by Smith (1993) indicates the following:

http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_9.htm

Further evidence of expansion is provided by the +65.3 mm/yr rate of increasing width in the trans-Pacific distance between Yaragadee, Australia, and Arequipa, Peru, measured by Smith, et al [1993]. This study, and others like it, was published as evidence of subduction, but the addition of width contradicts the principle of Pacific basin width reduction required by subduction on a fixed-diameter Earth; e.g., any increase in width is an increase in surface area of the Pacific basin and Earth's total surface area, circumference, and diameter-- with or without subduction.

Coincidentally we have zircons from the Jack Hills near Yaragadee, Australia, 4.1 to 4.4 billion years old and apparently formed in water.



As for the Pacific basin stretching: there are several plates between Australia and Peru, not just "the Pacific basin".

Pong, with all due respect, the map you have provided is primitive 20th century pseudoscience in light of the following.

This map shows no subduction - only spreading. There is no subduction.

Originally Posted by Total Science

The evidence I have is the zircon dating which shows the oceans are less than ~200 million y.o.

correction : the current oceans are no older than 200 million years - you ignore all evidence for older oceans, e.g. the Iapetus ocean

as for there being no subduction : what causes the earthquakes in indonesia, japan, and the west coast of south america then ?

Dude, I'm sitting over a subduction and it's quite apparent. The coast is buckling, and in my area about every 450 years it slips back down ~1m and seaward (tsunami). This is real easy to observe in layers, and historic record, and just measuring the yearly subduction.


Your maximum zircon age is correct, but that dates oceanic plates not ocean. You can't find old oceanic plates because they keep growing and sliding under the longer-lived continents. Dating "the oceans" your way is like dating "a garden" by the age of this year's crop.


I guess your view dovetails with Creation by God. Here, you can have more fun playing God. Drag your pointer on the maps to animate the plate movements.

The oceans are only ~180 million years old.

How could the Permian extinction event (251.4 million years ago) happen to marine animals if there were no oceans? What did the Ichthyosaurs swim in? Are you going to question radiometric dating?


P.S: Cool link Pong!

Originally Posted by Pong

Dude, I'm sitting over a subduction and it's quite apparent.

You were subducted into the mantle? What's it like down there? Lots of fossils?

The coast is buckling, and in my area about every 450 years it slips back down ~1m and seaward (tsunami).

Yup. It's called spreading.

See here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_a...eans_p1024.jpg

Originally Posted by KALSTER

The oceans are only ~180 million years old.

How could the Permian extinction event (251.4 million years ago) happen to marine animals if there were no oceans?

There were only shallow seas.

What did the Ichthyosaurs swim in?

Shallow seas.

Are you going to question radiometric dating?

The oceanic lithosphere is only 180 million years old: are you going to question zircon dating?

There were only shallow seas.

How do you know?

The oceanic lithosphere is only 180 million years old: are you going to question zircon dating?

Nope, and nobody else is either. The thing is that, because of the continual renewal of the lithosphere, that not a lot of the current oceanic crust is much older than a few hundred million years, BUT the continental crust is older on average(oldest around 4 BY and average is 2 BY) and these contain fossils of marine animals.

So, how do you know there were only shallow seas up until around 200 mya?

Originally Posted by Total Science

There were only shallow seas.

so you've decided that there were nothing but shallow seas for more than 4 billion years - you can only do this if you decide to ignore any evidence of deep-sea sediments prior to 200 million years ago, such as this one

Originally Posted by KALSTER

There were only shallow seas.

How do you know?

By studying fossils and zircon dating.

The oceanic lithosphere is only 180 million years old: are you going to question zircon dating?

Nope, and nobody else is either. The thing is that, because of the continual renewal of the lithosphere, that not a lot of the current oceanic crust is much older than a few hundred million years, BUT the continental crust is older on average(oldest around 4 BY and average is 2 BY) and these contain fossils of marine animals.

So, how do you know there were only shallow seas up until around 200 mya?

It's a theory I will have until someone persuades me it's wrong.

Originally Posted by marnixR

you can only do this if you decide to ignore any evidence of deep-sea sediments prior to 200 million years ago, such as this one

No evidence the radiolarians are benthonic. How do you know the radiolarians aren't planktonic?

most radiolarians are planktonic
however, that is no reason to state that the sediments in which they have been found are not of deep-sea origin

deep-sea sediments can (amongst other things) be recognised by the predominance of planktonic species such as coccolitophores, radiolarians and in paleozoic rocks by the presence of graptolites and conodonts, to the exclusion of other organisms simply because there's very little other sedimentation going on

i'm sure there's other ways of recognising deep-sea sediments rather than purely on the basis of their fossil content (if any of the proper geologists can fill in the blank here), but more often than not fossils are the easiest means

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_a...eans_p1024.jpg

The significance of this map is that it shows subduction and plate tectonics are myths.

The oceanic lithosphere has been zircon dated by the National Geophysical Data Center. No part of the ocean floor is older than ~180-200 million years old.

If the so-called "plates" were subducting, the rifts would be the oldest part of the lithosphere, not the youngest.

There is no subduction. This is called oceanic seafloor spreading.

Every rift above is a divergent spread as indicated by zircon dating.

There is drift, but it's not random, it's temporally diverging away from the rifts and causing spreads.

If there were subduction going on at continental margins wouldn't people on the beach in Oregon and California be sucked into the earth during earthquakes? So far as I know that has never happened. I'm from California; I grew up with the San Andreas fault.

The Earth is growing. The significance of this map is that it shows subduction and plate tectonics are myths.

The oceanic lithosphere has been zircon dated by the National Geophysical Data Center. No part of the ocean floor is older than ~180-200 million years old.

If the so-called "plates" were subducting, the rifts would be the oldest part of the lithosphere, not the youngest.

There is no subduction. This is called oceanic seafloor spreading.

Every rift above is a divergent spread as indicated by zircon dating.

There is drift, but it's not random, it's temporally diverging away from the rifts and causing spreads.

If there were subduction going on at continental margins wouldn't people on the beach in Oregon and California be sucked into the earth during earthquakes? So far as I know that has never happened. I'm from California; I grew up with the San Andreas fault.

The Earth is growing.

Originally Posted by Total Science

If the so-called "plates" were subducting, the rifts would be the oldest part of the lithosphere, not the youngest.

surely you can't say this with a straight face ? everyone knows that mid-ocean ridges are the place where magma wells up to the surface and pushes plates apart

it's near the continents where oceanic crust sinks below the continents that subduction takes place

for crying out loud, what do you think seismologists have made images of if not subduction : "Seismic imaging of subduction zone metamorphism" is just one example out of many

Originally Posted by Total Science

Originally Posted by Pong

Dude, I'm sitting over a subduction and it's quite apparent.

You were subducted into the mantle? What's it like down there? Lots of fossils?

Lots of mountains around here. What's pushing the land up? Why are the layers folded over?

Originally Posted by Total Science

this map

We've seen it already. That map corroborates tectonics. Show it again.

Originally Posted by Total Science

No part of the ocean floor is older than ~180-200 million years old.

Right! Does this young floor mean the oceans must be as young?

Try an experiment: Get yourself a plastic juice container, with 1L water in it. This represents the ocean basin. Next, pour the contents into a second container. Careful not to let any water spill off the edge of the Earth! Chuck the first container into the recycling bin. Now, roughly date the second container by reading the product expiry date on it. What does this prove?

Originally Posted by Total Science

If there were subduction going on at continental margins wouldn't people on the beach in Oregon and California be sucked into the earth during earthquakes? So far as I know that has never happened. I'm from California; I grew up with the San Andreas fault.

Bingo.

I'm from British Columbia; I grew up with Vancouver Island. According to some folk, Vancouver Island was expected to flip over on its side - catastrophically, one might think. Just imagine that! And crumpled layers of old sandstone prove the land has moved before! A kid can get so excited.

So you, TS, grew up expecting sunbathers swallowed whole by California's monsterous subduction, surfers dragged down by the undertow, and, feeling cheated of a good show, you decided subduction is a myth.

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Total Science

If the so-called "plates" were subducting, the rifts would be the oldest part of the lithosphere, not the youngest.

surely you can't say this with a straight face ? everyone knows that mid-ocean ridges are the place where magma wells up to the surface and pushes plates apart

it's near the continents where oceanic crust sinks below the continents that subduction takes place

for crying out loud, what do you think seismologists have made images of if not subduction : "Seismic imaging of subduction zone metamorphism" is just one example out of many

Apparently you have reading comprehension issues.

If there were subduction going on at continental margins wouldn't people on the beach in Oregon and California be sucked into the earth during earthquakes? So far as I know that has never happened. I'm from California; I grew up with the San Andreas fault.

Total Science won't acknowledge subduction until the Earth yawns apart and swallows him. Let us all pray.

Originally Posted by Total Science

If there were subduction going on at continental margins wouldn't people on the beach in Oregon and California be sucked into the earth during earthquakes? .

Originally Posted by Total Science

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Total Science

If the so-called "plates" were subducting, the rifts would be the oldest part of the lithosphere, not the youngest.

surely you can't say this with a straight face ? everyone knows that mid-ocean ridges are the place where magma wells up to the surface and pushes plates apart

it's near the continents where oceanic crust sinks below the continents that subduction takes place

for crying out loud, what do you think seismologists have made images of if not subduction : "Seismic imaging of subduction zone metamorphism" is just one example out of many

Apparently you have reading comprehension issues.

no - YOU have comprehension issues : you clearly said "if the so-called plates were subducting, the rifts would be the oldest part of the lithosphere, not the youngest", which is absolute poppycock
the rifts could only be the oldest part of the lithosphere if the plates were subducting at the rifts, which is exactly the opposite of what is happening in reality

the second part where you have comprehension issues is when you state that "if there were subduction going on at continental margins wouldn't people on the beach in Oregon and California be sucked into the earth during earthquakes?" - no, subduction doesn't mean continental margins being sucked in because oceanic crust is heavier than continental crust and dips underneath the continental plate
the only effects you get are earthquakes and volcanoes

i repeat my question : what do you think seismologists have been imaging if not subduction zones in places like Alaska and off the western US coast ? you obviously have either not read the link in my previous post, or you failed to understand its significance - there is UNDENIABLE evidence for subduction taking place near the active continental margins and you know what ? not a single person has ever been sucked into one of these damned trenches

Originally Posted by marnixR

the rifts could only be the oldest part of the lithosphere if the plates were subducting at the rifts, which is exactly the opposite of what is happening in reality

Exactly. There is no subduction at the rifts or anywhere else: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_a...eans_p1024.jpg

oceanic crust is heavier than continental crust

And you know this how? Andesite is heavier than the Andes?

and dips underneath the continental plate

And you know this how? How is that possible?

what do you think seismologists have been imaging if not subduction zones in places like Alaska and off the western US coast?

Good question because there is no such thing as subduction.

there is UNDENIABLE evidence for subduction taking place near the active continental margins and you know what ? not a single person has ever been sucked into one of these damned trenches

Why is that?

Originally Posted by Total Science

Andesite is heavier than the Andes?

The Andes are essentially Andesite. Didn't you know that?

There is no subduction at the rifts or anywhere else:

Subduction zones today are found along the western coast of South America, along the coast of Japan, in the Phillipines and many other places.
The existence of these is evidenced by seismic reflections, Bouguer anaomalies, topography, sea floor palaeomagnetism, lava geochemistry, plate motion studies and other data.
Until you can demonstrate how the observations in each of these fields is better explained by an expanding Earth theory your posts will be rightly treated as pseudoscience.

Would you also like to explain why you would think that movements along a subsduction zone of the order of one metre would 'suck' anyone in? Imagine for a moment that subduction does exist, as described by 99.999% of geologists today. Can you tell me how such a mechanism could ever 'suck' someone into a subduction zone? And if you cannot tell me how this would occur, can you explain how the observation that no one has been sucked in is somehow relevant?

Originally Posted by Total Science

what do you think seismologists have been imaging if not subduction zones in places like Alaska and off the western US coast?

Good question because there is no such thing as subduction.

circular reasoning of the worst kind : you start off by stating there's no subduction in order to prove that there's no subduction

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Subduction zones today are found along the western coast of South America, along the coast of Japan, in the Phillipines and many other places.

No. There is no subduction. Welcome to the 21st century.

welcome to cloud-cuckoo land

The carrousel of discussion:

"There is no subduction, the Earth expanded."
"Yeah, how do you know?"
"Look at the fancy coloured map, dude! The sea floor is so young. That's why."
"Hey man. Nice map! I agree with the ages. But the age shows that the sea floor has disappeared below the continents."
"That's not possible, because there is no subduction. The Earth expanded."
"Yeah, how do you know?"
"Look at the fancy coloured map, dude! ..."

I have to agree - it is a pretty map.

Total Science, your entertainment value has been exhausted ans with it my patience. Put up, or shut up. Answer direct questions, without circular reasoning, or do not post. Comprendez?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

movements along a subsduction zone of the order of one metre

Just in case that's taken the wrong way, 1m here (Cascadia subduction zone) is the sudden vertical drop of continental plate during earthquake, not the oceanic plate movement. The horizontal slippage is much greater.

The oceanic plate is subducting at a yearly rate of 4cm. However, in the Pacific Northwest that plate locks up under the continental plate, perhaps due to low angle, and compression builds over centuries. The land folds, but more importantly it also compresses eastward. Finally, there's a massive slip, like releasing a spring. The normally locked subduction interface liquifies/untooths so the plate above freely slips to its uncompressed position. Last time, that resulted in a 1m vertical drop along shorelines, and, assuming all the 4cm/year accumulated compression was released: a horizontal slide of ~20m. We mark this event at 9:00pm January 26th 1700, by the progression of a jaw-dropping tsunami recorded in Japan. Locally, the winter of 1700 is confirmed by growth rings in submerged trees.

This catastrophe repeats about every 500 years, but the earliest interval would have it today. Some seismologists think they may detect characteristic tremors foreboding "the big one" days in advance. We could really use work in this area.



@Total Science.

As a child, I lived in the valley beneath a glacier. The glacier moved, I was told. I never saw it move. Some folks joked about that looming mass of ice suddenly sliding down upon us. Well, that never happened and I can't say I wasn't a bit disappointed. Perhaps if I had felt very disillusioned I would have said the glacier doesn't move at all.

It is clear to me that your vision of subduction is not the picture scientists see. Subduction as scientists know it progresses at a glacial rate, it doesn't open up the Earth and swallow stuff. So we're talking about different things, and yeah, subduction as you learned it does not exist. You say " There is no subduction. Welcome to the 21st century." and I agree there is no subduction as you understood it. No one here is talking about the "subduction" you imagined as a child. Now please quit flogging that horse of yours and take a sober look at subduction as scientists see it.

Mr. Maturity,

Please tell me where, according to mature people, subduction occurs in the map I've provided.

Here is the most scientific, logical, rigorous, and mature defense of plate tectonics I've seen so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjWdGZB3No

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

movements along a subsduction zone of the order of one metre

Just in case that's taken the wrong way, 1m here (Cascadia subduction zone) is the sudden vertical drop of continental plate during earthquake, not the oceanic plate movement. The horizontal slippage is much greater..

Your clarification will be helpful to those who do not understand what is meant by the phrase of the order of one metre. That does not mean movement of one metre. It means a ten fold difference in magnitude centred aroun one metre.

Formation of today's oceans: Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home

Wasn't this in the Archaean?

In the Archaean the water was still mixed with other compounds forming the protoplanet earth.

If you understand, how the earth really formed ( NOT from any magma ocean ) you understand

easily, where the water comes from. Understanding the changes the young earth went through,

the origin as a gas giant, the exposition of the gas giant to the young sun with T-Tauri eruptions,

the simultaneous forming of Pacific and Antlantic after Permian, then you understand everything.

Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Wasn't this in the Archaean?

Are you referring to the date of this thread, by any chance?

And whats with the link spamming Geomensch?

Originally Posted by Geomensch

In the Archaean the water was still mixed with other compounds forming the protoplanet earth.

If you understand, how the earth really formed ( NOT from any magma ocean ) you understand

easily, where the water comes from. Understanding the changes the young earth went through,

the origin as a gas giant, the exposition of the gas giant to the young sun with T-Tauri eruptions,

the simultaneous forming of Pacific and Antlantic after Permian, then you understand everything.

Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home

Geomensch (or should it be Geofrau?), it is inexcusable on a discussion forum to claim knowledge or insights that you will not explain to readers, unless they download something from an unknown source on the internet. That's a damned good way of picking up viruses.

So either explain yourself, here, or get lost.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Geomensch

In the Archaean the water was still mixed with other compounds forming the protoplanet earth.

If you understand, how the earth really formed ( NOT from any magma ocean ) you understand

easily, where the water comes from. Understanding the changes the young earth went through,

the origin as a gas giant, the exposition of the gas giant to the young sun with T-Tauri eruptions,

the simultaneous forming of Pacific and Antlantic after Permian, then you understand everything.

Evolution and Geological Planet Formation - Home

Geomensch (or should it be Geofrau?), it is inexcusable on a discussion forum to claim knowledge or insights that you will not explain to readers, unless they download something from an unknown source on the internet. That's a damned good way of picking up viruses.

So either explain yourself, here, or get lost.

On second thought don't bother: this is another attempt to get your woo-woo, about the Earth giving birth to the moon and all that, an airing in this forum. I see it was all gone through, and duly demolished, over a year ago, here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/perso...ost378061.html

38 pages in a forum???? There is no virus in this file.

Originally Posted by Geomensch

38 pages in a forum???? There is no virus in this file.

Yes but we only have your word for that, and we don't know who you are. If you had put a virus in it, you would say exactly what you have just said. Wouldn't you?

More importantly, it is absurd to contend that you cannot summarise the key points of your theory in a couple of paragraphs. And it is rather self-important to assume that people should bother to read through 38 pages of stuff from an unknown person, without anything to justify to them why it might be worth their while.

But as I said later, not to worry, this is a repeat of a thread a year ago in any case.

On my homepage you see who I am. In earth history 1000 years are less

than a second. In geosciences 10 years of research are almost nothing.

Originally Posted by Geomensch

On my homepage you see who I am. In earth history 1000 years are less

than a second. In geosciences 10 years of research are almost nothing.

And the time required to read 38 pages of probable tripe is more than many of us are prepared to spend.

You can't afford to spend much time, because you waist all your time complaining.

" Please Madame, explain to me the origin of the earth in 5 minutes. It only took

about 4 500 000 000 years, so one should be able to write it down on 2 pages".

Originally Posted by Geomensch

You can't afford to spend much time, because you waist all your time complaining.

" Please Madame, explain to me the origin of the earth in 5 minutes. It only took

about 4 500 000 000 years, so one should be able to write it down on 2 pages".

I do not believe you are so stupid that you cannot understand my point. I conclude you are being deliberately obtuse and evasive. This does not surprise me, but it does make me and, I hope, other readers, all the more disinclined to view your web page.

Every scientific publication has an ABSTRACT right at the beginning.

On page 2 of the publication you find the CONTENTS. It is one page.

If you only want to have a quick overview, just read the CONTENTS

and the ABSTRACT. Everybody would do so. Where is the problem?

If YOU don't want to read it, just don't read it and have a good day.

Psychic Vampires (How to Recognize and Protect Yourself From an Energy Vampire) - YouTube

Originally Posted by Geomensch

Every scientific publication has an ABSTRACT right at the beginning.

On page 2 of the publication you find the CONTENTS. It is one page.

If you only want to have a quick overview, just read the CONTENTS

and the ABSTRACT. Everybody would do so. Where is the problem?

If YOU don't want to read it, just don't read it and have a good day.

Psychic Vampires (How to Recognize and Protect Yourself From an Energy Vampire) - YouTube

So you have time to search out silly YouTube videos but not to summarise your theory. That tells me all I need to know.

Originally Posted by Geomensch

" Please Madame, explain to me the origin of the earth in 5 minutes. It only took

about 4 500 000 000 years, so one should be able to write it down on 2 pages".

The collapse of a vast cloud of interstellar gas and dust, as a consequence of gravitational instability, or supernova shock wave, generated a central proto-sun surrounded by an accretion disc. Complex gravitational, hydrodynamic and magnetic processes within the disc led to the growth of planetesimals, from which - via collision - proto-planets were formed and angular momentum was transferred from the sun to these objects. Over some tens of millions of years these proto-planets and remaining planetesimals were either ejected from the system, fell into the sun, or settled down to become the planets known today. The Earth reached close to its present form following a giant impact, either of a Mars sized planet with the proto-Earth, or of two similar sized bodies about half the mass of the Earth.

You see, it doesn't need two pages, or five minutes.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Geomensch

" Please Madame, explain to me the origin of the earth in 5 minutes. It only took

about 4 500 000 000 years, so one should be able to write it down on 2 pages".

The collapse of a vast cloud of interstellar gas and dust, as a consequence of gravitational instability, or supernova shock wave, generated a central proto-sun surrounded by an accretion disc. Complex gravitational, hydrodynamic and magnetic processes within the disc led to the growth of planetesimals, from which - via collision - proto-planets were formed and angular momentum was transferred from the sun to these objects. Over some tens of millions of years these proto-planets and remaining planetesimals were either ejected from the system, fell into the sun, or settled down to become the planets known today. The Earth reached close to its present form following a giant impact, either of a Mars sized planet with the proto-Earth, or of two similar sized bodies about half the mass of the Earth.

You see, it doesn't need two pages, or five minutes.

The bit that seems in error is the sentence "....growth of planetesimals, from which - via collision - proto-planets were formed and angular momentum was transferred from the sun to these objects."
There seems to be some deficiency in that mechanism of transferring angular momentum. Can you describe how that operated?

Steven P. Ruden¹ says it so much better than I ever could.

In two seminal papers, Lynden-Bell & Pringle (1974) and Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) demonstrated that the evolutionary behavior of accretion disks is governed by the outward transport of angular momentum, which allows mass to flow inward to be accreted by the central object. The precise mechanisms that cause the transport in any astrophysical disk are still far from certain. Numerous suggestions have been made in the case of protostellar disks (see the review by Adams & Lin 1993): gravitational instabilities (Lin & Pringle 1987; Shu, Tremaine, Adams, & Ruden 1990), magnetic instabilities (Stepinski & Levy 1990; Balbus & Hawley 1991), thermal convective instabilities (Lin & Papaloizou 1980; Ruden & Lin 1986), stellar or disk winds (Hartmann & MacGregor 1982; Wardle & K¨onigl 1993) and fluid dynamical shear instabilities (Dubrulle 1993).

1. [astro-ph/9910331v1] The Formation of Planets

Originally Posted by John Galt

Steven P. Ruden¹ says it so much better than I ever could.

In two seminal papers, Lynden-Bell & Pringle (1974) and Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) demonstrated that the evolutionary behavior of accretion disks is governed by the outward transport of angular momentum, which allows mass to flow inward to be accreted by the central object. The precise mechanisms that cause the transport in any astrophysical disk are still far from certain. Numerous suggestions have been made in the case of protostellar disks (see the review by Adams & Lin 1993): gravitational instabilities (Lin & Pringle 1987; Shu, Tremaine, Adams, & Ruden 1990), magnetic instabilities (Stepinski & Levy 1990; Balbus & Hawley 1991), thermal convective instabilities (Lin & Papaloizou 1980; Ruden & Lin 1986), stellar or disk winds (Hartmann & MacGregor 1982; Wardle & K¨onigl 1993) and fluid dynamical shear instabilities (Dubrulle 1993).

1. [astro-ph/9910331v1] The Formation of Planets

So do you personally have no particular favorite but rely on a bunch of suggestions?

Certainly the Sun would and could not form if the angular momentum had not been lost to the disk. OK it could all of them playing a part.

~ and for my friend; "I tend to quote Douglas Adams; " The universe was formed which many still think was a very bad idea."
But to the point that oceans formed as atmospheric conditions dictated that condensation ie, moisture found it's way to the lowest point. That over a period of time when the conditions were tolerant of it.. Water from ice and from atmospheric condensation a mineral rich condensate that closely resembled water. Oceans formed. The sky is blue...next ? Are you asking from where did the water come ? Some have said that it could have dropped in from interplanetary comets. I see no proofs of that and suggest that what we now see as water was always here, just in different forms.. Dampened volcanic ash can be called mud.
Looking across this thread I detect a contributor attempting to introduce a known woo, woo strand of ideas. If you think the planet was smaller and grew. Say so in a thread of your own. But you will find without scientific proofs and testable a wall.

Originally Posted by astromark

~ and for my friend; "I tend to quote Douglas Adams; " The universe was formed which many still think was a very bad idea."
But to the point that oceans formed as atmospheric conditions dictated that condensation ie, moisture found it's way to the lowest point. That over a period of time when the conditions were tolerant of it.. Water from ice and from atmospheric condensation a mineral rich condensate that closely resembled water. Oceans formed. The sky is blue...next ? Are you asking from where did the water come ? Some have said that it could have dropped in from interplanetary comets. I see no proofs of that and suggest that what we now see as water was always here, just in different forms.. Dampened volcanic ash can be called mud.

In fact, did I not read recently that a lot of rocks deep in the mantle are now thought to be composed of hydrated minerals? Something about "blue rocks", I think…...

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So do you personally have no particular favorite but rely on a bunch of suggestions?

That is an asinine question.

"bunch of suggestions" implies that these were haphazard ideas dreamed up at random with little or no justification. In reality, each of them is a carefully considered possibility, with supporting evidence generated in peer reviewed research, and that has been meticulously investigated by the authors. In such a situation it is wholly unscientific to have a personal favourite, as though one might like strawberry ice cream rather than vanilla.

You have the possible mechanisms. Use google scholar, search from 2010 onwards, look for review papers, or see which mechanism is now favoured. Search term example: "gravitational instability" "angular momentum" "planetary formation"

Originally Posted by astromark

Some have said that it could have dropped in from interplanetary comets. I see no proofs of that and suggest that what we now see as water was always here, just in different forms..

So you:
1. Reject the isotope data pointing to a late term addition of water.
2. Discount a magma ocean as a consequence of the moon forming impact and consequent loss of volatiles.

Is that scientific?

Note: I have merged two posts. exchemist's Like was for my response to RobittyBob1.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So do you personally have no particular favorite but rely on a bunch of suggestions?

That is an asinine question.

"bunch of suggestions" implies that these were haphazard ideas dreamed up at random with little or no justification. In reality, each of them is a carefully considered possibility, with supporting evidence generated in peer reviewed research, and that has been meticulously investigated by the authors. In such a situation it is wholly unscientific to have a personal favourite, as though one might like strawberry ice cream rather than vanilla.

You have the possible mechanisms. Use google scholar, search from 2010 onwards, look for review papers, or see which mechanism is now favoured. Search term example: "gravitational instability" "angular momentum" "planetary formation"

Originally Posted by astromark

Some have said that it could have dropped in from interplanetary comets. I see no proofs of that and suggest that what we now see as water was always here, just in different forms..

So you:
1. Reject the isotope data pointing to a late term addition of water.
2. Discount a magma ocean as a consequence of the moon forming impact and consequent loss of volatiles.

Is that scientific?

Note: I have merged two posts. exchemist's Like was for my response to RobittyBob1.

Specifically, I guffawed to read your opening line, as I had barely been able to stop myself making an equivalent observation.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So do you personally have no particular favorite but rely on a bunch of suggestions?

That is an asinine question.

"bunch of suggestions" implies that these were haphazard ideas dreamed up at random with little or no justification. In reality, each of them is a carefully considered possibility, with supporting evidence generated in peer reviewed research, and that has been meticulously investigated by the authors. In such a situation it is wholly unscientific to have a personal favourite, as though one might like strawberry ice cream rather than vanilla.

You have the possible mechanisms. Use google scholar, search from 2010 onwards, look for review papers, or see which mechanism is now favoured. Search term example: "gravitational instability" "angular momentum" "planetary formation"

Originally Posted by astromark

Some have said that it could have dropped in from interplanetary comets. I see no proofs of that and suggest that what we now see as water was always here, just in different forms..

So you:
1. Reject the isotope data pointing to a late term addition of water.
2. Discount a magma ocean as a consequence of the moon forming impact and consequent loss of volatiles.

Is that scientific?

Note: I have merged two posts. exchemist's Like was for my response to RobittyBob1.

I never doubted they were all thoroughly researched John, but I wanted to see if you had one concept that you felt "really hit the nail on the head".
Maybe it is hard to pick out one and there seemed to be a whole bunch of suggestions, and I suppose they were all being proposed as the main mechanism. It would be a research topic to consider at some stage as you suggest.

I have already considered it in the past and I looked through the list to see if my idea was there and without researching each of them I wasn't sure, but none of them sounded like my idea.
It is a true mystery why this transfer of momentum happens and that is why I wanted to pick your brains on the topic.

~ Quote;

Originally Posted by astromark
Some have said that it could have dropped in from interplanetary comets. I see no proofs of that and suggest that what we now see as water was always here, just in different forms..



So you:
1. Reject the isotope data pointing to a late term addition of water.
2. Discount a magma ocean as a consequence of the moon forming impact and consequent loss of volatiles.

Is that scientific?

Note: I have merged two posts. exchemist's Like was for my response to RobittyBob1. ( ~ end Quote..)

~ To which I reply... No, I most certainly do not cast aside the collision of the Moon forming mass , object.
or the isotopic readings conclusions.. I simply state that proof's conclusive have not been made regarding Earths water being of cometary impactors.. It's still on the table as a interesting theory but is not yet the only answer is it ?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I never doubted they were all thoroughly researched John, but I wanted to see if you had one concept that you felt "really hit the nail on the head".

It is a trait of a scientific mind to be able to entertain many possible solutions to a problem without picking a favorite. I call it maintaining a healthy skepticism.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I never doubted they were all thoroughly researched John, but I wanted to see if you had one concept that you felt "really hit the nail on the head".

It is a trait of a scientific mind to be able to entertain many possible solutions to a problem without picking a favorite. I call it maintaining a healthy skepticism.

I can accept that. Especially when it comes to the oceans, such a choice.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

It is a true mystery why this transfer of momentum happens and that is why I wanted to pick your brains on the topic.

No, it is not a true mystery, in any shape, form, or fashion, unless you wish to use the vocabulary and style of Hello magazine, or Fox News.

It is a problem for which we have a range of plausible explanations, some combination of which will eventually be shown to be the active mechanisms. What we are currently unsure of is the proportionate role played by each mechanism and how these vary during the evolution of the system. That, assuredly, is not a true mystery.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

It is a true mystery why this transfer of momentum happens and that is why I wanted to pick your brains on the topic.

No, it is not a true mystery, in any shape, form, or fashion, unless you wish to use the vocabulary and style of Hello magazine, or Fox News.

....

I prefer CNN.

From the viewpoint of a astronomer or a geologist.. Oceans exist when a atmosphere is found of density appropriate and containing water molecules ie; H2O. unbound. That a temperature and air pressure and gravity sufficient is vital to the finding of a liquid state water.. As atmospheric moisture as particles per million and a solid forms as ice are found as abundant. Finding such as a ocean of liquid water and of some purity are a case study thus far of one. Earth. Where seven tenths of the planet have water oceans.. With gravity air pressure and a place for it to exist in. Lucky us a.. ?

Msnbc or NPR. Pretty ladies, men with hair; that's all faux has. 'cept when Carl Rove is ranting.

Scientists have unearthed extraordinarily preserved fossils of a 520-million-year-old sea creature, one of the earliest animal fossils ever found, according to a new study.

Earliest Animals Were Sea Sponges, Fossils Hint





The fossilized animal, arthropod called a fuxhianhuiid, has primitive limbs under its head, as well as the earliest example of a nervous system that extended past the head. The primitive creature may have used the limbs to push food into its mouth as it crept across the seafloor. The limbs may shed light on the evolutionary history of arthropods, which include supergiant-crustaceans-deep-sea.crustaceans and insects.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...2bDwIulWVxdDxw

How Ocean formed? Make big hole, fill with water. Where is problem?

Seriously. I live in Vermont, USA. The whole state is the floor of an ancient Ocean, the proto Atlantic. The Geology is all Marble and slate and similar metamorphic rock, composed of ocean floor sediments mashed together under the force of colliding continents. Current Oceans are indeed fairly young but they are just the latest ones.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by portcontrol7

I'm having trouble grasping this concept. If anyone can break it down for me I'd greatly appreciate it.

As the earth cooled, condensation formed everywhere due to hot gases emerging from the interior coming into contact with the now cooler surfaces. After millions of years, clouds began to form and it rained for a couple more millions of years giving us the water we have today. At one point the entire surface of the earth was covered in water.

This is what I have been inclined to think. The volcanos underground have been partly responsible for the gradual upbuilding of land as well as their outgassing providing elements for life to develop and sustain. It also takes several thousand s of years for only 1 inch of soil to be created.

Originally Posted by hannah40

The volcanos underground have been partly responsible for the gradual upbuilding of land .

this sounds like 'expanding earth' theory. what is your source for this staement ?

and what is an 'underground' volcano ?

I have read material that mentions water molecules changing size when being affected by heat etc...This is another aspect to consider in the climate debate.