Notices
Results 1 to 73 of 73
Like Tree44Likes
  • 5 Post By seagypsy
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By babe
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 4 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By wegs
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 3 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 3 Post By MacGyver1968
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 2 Post By Flick Montana
  • 2 Post By sculptor
  • 5 Post By John Galt
  • 3 Post By John Galt

Thread: Archaic Crust Theory:

  1. #1 Archaic Crust Theory: 
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Genesis 1:9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

    Most scientists believe that there was no continental crust originally on the Earth, but the continental crust ultimately derived from the fractional differentiation of oceanic crust over the eons. This process was primarily a result of volcanism and subduction.

    http://www.universetoday.com/73597/what-is-lithosphere/"Fractional differentiation"

    -is the modern theory on the origin of Earth's continents. Plate tectonics is supposedly older than continents. The story goes: subduction zones and volcanism create mountains. The sea floor migrates and piles more stuff on them. Over eons the piles get quite large. *Poof* you have continents.The Archaic Crust Theory of continents asserts Earth's continents are what remains of protoEarth's original crust.So there was protoEarth. It was a world much smaller than the one we have now. Along comes this other planet like thing (Theia) and smacks right into protoEarth. ProtoEarth had a crust. All of the lightest stuff had already floated to the surface and formed a solid crust of rock that covered the entire sphere. About half of this crust was destroyed upon impact. This wasn't a hit and run type of event. Whatever hit us, mostly joined us. It is now part of the world we know today. Our moon is a collection of some of the fallout from that impact. The portion of the original crust that survived the impact are what we know as continents. We got an increase of volume when the mass of Theia joined our own so the existing crust wound up covering closer to a third of our surface area. If you take an egg shell and force it to adhere to the volume of an orange, you're gonna create a few fractures. I'm guessing an original one is what separates North America from Siberia. A comet helped break India from Antartica. Anyway, the fact we didn't get blown to bits has got to be one of the most remarkable cosmological coincidences the universe has ever witnessed. The tolerances on that one were so, so small. That also speaks of the rarity of our continents.

    Our continents, as we have them on Earth are unique to all known planets and moons. Earth forms crust still but as mentioned above, all the lightest stuff had already floated to the surface so the crust formed today is much more dense than the original crust. We call it sea floor and our continents float on it. Take a look at a sea floor map of the Indian Ocean... India left clear tracks as it migrated north, away from Antarctica. That's what makes our continents, our world so rare: having 2 distinct types of crust.

    Fractional Differentiation makes specific assertions/implications/predictions about our planet. Here's a look at a few of those point through Archaic Crust Theory:

    Where did plate tectonics come from? Modern theory states tectonics arose long after the moon collision, after the entirety of the crust was destroyed. So there's new crust. -Brand new, cohesive unfractured crust. Cool. How did it get broken? What set off all this activity?What subduction? Crust is formed at nearly uniform density. Crust at uniform density does not subduct. No subduction also means no migration. Even if an event happened to fracture the crust, individual plates would not move very far relative to another. Imagine the world's land mass was more like 95% and our oceans were more like channels, continents would move, but not far. There would be no wide sweeping action relative to another as they imply. Hence, they have no collection technique -no way to form continents.

    They action they say exists simply doesn't.What stuff? Where did all THIS stuff come from? This isn't material from ocean floor crust. This stuff, the material in our continents came from somewhere else. Crusts form at uniform densities because they are composed with more or less uniform materials. If prevailing theory were correct, continent chemical composition would look a lot more like ocean floor composition. Rather, they are very distinct.

    Plus, the whole "it all just got swept over to one side" mentality is shaky to begin with. We don't see sea floor getting swept up and adding to continental crust anywhere on this planet. Only the continental crust rises and falls. If anything it's the reverse of their views: continental crust is adding to oceanic crust.

    Welcome to a crash course in Archaic Crust Theory! Don't bother running a search for it because no work has been published. Actually, I'm the originator of this theory and I have more important things to attend to. No telling when you might see something like this coming from "science".


    Last edited by adelady; November 8th, 2013 at 01:54 AM. Reason: Breaks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    can you separate that into legible paragraphs ? until you do i'm not willing to spend the time to even start reading it


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Done. iPad dysfunction or something. My apologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    First tip. Stop calling it a theory. It is a hypothesis. I have no comments on it's merit, but please for the love of whatever god you believe in. Use proper language or you will be chewed up and spit out before you get a single foothold in the door of this forum. Consider that friendly advice. I am sincerely trying to help you out here. I think you will need all the help you can get with this one. Especially since you opened up with Bible verse that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with your hypothesis and therefore serves no obvious purposed other than to proselytize, something that is strictly forbidden on this forum.

    When you state that claims of an accepted theory are wrong, you need to give clear evidence for why the particular elements of the theory are not sound. Saying it is silly or crazy is not sufficient in explaining why you believe something is wrong. When you explain why you believe a counter possibility is more plausible you need to give solid evidence why you believe it is more plausible. You also need to be open to correction and genuine discussion. Debate is good for the ego. But discussion is how knowledge and understanding is achieved. I anticipate many corrections and challenges being posed to you. You will need to be as willing to listen to those you discuss this with as you hope for the other participants are to you.

    Good luck.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,054
    I rather echo the sentiments of seagypsy. Those who are familiar with these topics are rather demanding of supporting details.

    Welcome to the forum and good luck with the formalities of the debate which may follow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Even if an event happened to fracture the crust, individual plates would not move very far relative to another.
    Why not? They don't have a schedule to keep. They can keep plodding on forever. They don't have a boss or a mum urging them to get a move on, they just move at the rate that the plate they're on moves.

    Australia is currently moving northwards at a steady 7 cms a year. Not in a hurry by human standards, but that's 70cms a decade, 7 metres a century. 70 metres per millennium. At 70 kms per million years, that's two thirds of a degree of latitude.

    India on the other hand is crashing into Asia at 2 to 3 times that rate. Hence the height of the Himalayas.

    Remember, the North and South American continents have only been "joined up" at Panama for about 4 million years.

    Time is not an issue. At least not the sort of clock, diary, calendar time we live by.
    RedPanda and DogLady like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    deleted
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Seagypsy, I know many of the nuances were not discussed. It was a crash course, after all. Any questions?

    Look up fractional differentiation. I explained just as elaborately as they do. They don't know shit about where continents came from and they call that a theory. Lake Bikal and the fault line in the Mississippi River valley were formed thanks to making a sphere of solid rock adhere to a larger sphere. You may call it what you like. The only traits that matter are a more complete and reasonable description.

    Adelady, why not? Because there is no subduction when you're dealing with plates of similar densities. There is no migration. What clearly distinguishes earth unique among known worlds is we have crust floating on a distinct type of crust.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    Seagypsy, I know many of the nuances were not discussed. It was a crash course, after all. Any questions?

    Look up fractional differentiation. I explained just as elaborately as they do. They don't know shit about where continents came from and they call that a theory. Lake Bikal and the fault line in the Mississippi River valley were formed thanks to making a sphere of solid rock adhere to a larger sphere. You may call it what you like. The only traits that matter are a more complete and reasonable description.

    Adelady, why not? Because there is no subduction when you're dealing with plates of similar densities. There is no migration. What clearly distinguishes earth unique among known worlds is we have crust floating on a distinct type of crust.
    When you say "they" where I bolded it, who, specifically, are you referring to?

    The link you posted gives a "Page not found" error.

    More specifically it said :

    Universe Today
    You 404’d it. Gnarly, dude.

    Surfin’ ain’t easy, and right now, you’re lost at sea. But don’t worry; simply pick an option from the list below, and you’ll be back out riding the waves of the Internet in no time.

    Hit the “back” button on your browser. It’s perfect for situations like this!
    Head on over to the home page.
    Punt.


    Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/73597/w...#ixzz2k2W3cZNG
    What other sources have you used to learn about Fractional Differentiation? I am not familiar with it and would like to see what you have so I understand how you reached your conclusions about it.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    If someone else has given a comprehensive description of origin of continents I'd like to see it too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    No telling when you might see something like this coming from "science".
    No indeed.

    But one can make an informed guess.

    You seem to be just another ignorant and deluded creationist. Aggression is a poor substitute for intelligent understanding and rational argument.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Sorry about the link.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Welcome and good luck....it's a tough crowd.
    Rift Zone likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    No telling when you might see something like this coming from "science".
    No indeed. But one can make an informed guess.You seem to be just another ignorant and deluded creationist. Aggression is a poor substitute for intelligent understanding and rational argument.
    Who's guessing? Please don't take this the wrong way but this theory is irrefutable.

    I'm atheist. Like 6.97 on the Dawkins scale.

    That quote was followed by a corroborating existing theory then refuted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Hi babe, I'm no softie. =) I'm a different type of geek.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Just for fun, I thought I'd search on "fractional differentiation" to see if I could find any basis for the stuff in the OP.

    First page of results yielded these (there are over 200000 results all up). For anyone with no hobbies and with plenty of reading time.

    What Is Lithosphere
    Evolution and Differentiation of the Continental Crust
    Continental crust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The Earth: Differentiation and Plate Tectonics (A strong contender for a Bad Page Design From The 90s award.)

    If anyone can find anything in any of this variously presented information that backs up the OP, I'd be glad if you'd let us know. AFAICS most of it contradicts the OP.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    Hi babe, I'm no softie. =) I'm a different type of geek.
    Good luck !! *L* I am a softie!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I'm not sure I have the time or the inclination to dismantle the speculations of someone as arrogant and rude as Rift Zone. Tell me RZ, do you want to have an intelligent, productive discussion, in which you demonstrate that you have an open mind and are willing to admit you may be mistaken and that current views actually have been well validated, or do you intend to adopt the crank persona because it satisfies some Freudian need?

    I'm ready to engage you in the former, but if you want to trade insults and be deliberately provocative you can go **** yourself on another forum. Which is it to be? I'm happy to concede you might have a couple of points that need addressing and that you maybe have the next big thing in Earth science. But have you got the moral courage to rein in your ego long enough for us to find out?
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    I can't engage. I have no clue about any of this.. however..from what I see...this is my conception of this

    Buffalo Springfield - For What Its Worth (good sound quality!) - YouTube


    thank you Buffalo Springfield!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    After all his bragging in the Chat Box about being an "elite intellectual" this is the shit he comes out with. FFS *shakes head in pity*
    For real?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Hold on guys. There are serious questions about the formation of the first continents and about how plate tectonics was initiated. Rift Zone, who is very likely a reincarnation of a former member, has some valid points and raises some interesting questions. Unfortunately one of those questions is "Why do some people think it's sexy to be a dick?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    OP: Why did you start off your original post, with a Biblical reference? If your sole intent is to take us down a spiritual path …why not just admit that from the beginning? (and place the thread to start with, in the appropriate section) I’m respectful of people’s beliefs, but when members postthreads that have spiritual/religious undertones and are trying to put a scientific ‘’spin’’ on them…I find that to be disingenuous. FWIW, just my two cents.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    eggshell earth
    i kinda like the idea
    but
    so far, the oldest known continental crust was from after the theia collision
    true?
    the 2 oldest known are both within canada
    true?
    Rift Zone likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    eggshell earthi kinda like the ideabutso far, the oldest known continental crust was from after the theia collisiontrue?the 2 oldest known are both within canadatrue?
    I believe our oldest crust does date back to the Theia collision. Our oldest rocks are metamorphic and they contain zircons that are older still. I believe our oldest rocks date back to the collision and the zircons represent archaic crust formation. The collision event would have been significant enough to dramatically change what existed before but not enough to completely wipe the slate clean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,527
    OK, fair enough, my mistake.

    It was the aggressive swaggering attack on an existing theory that made me think "creationist". Consider it a warning about your communication style, if nothing else.

    But surely it is fractionation you have to dismiss, isn't it, if you think the idea of spontaneous formation of continental lithosphere is not possible? I see Adelady has taken you up on this and look forward to a less aggressive, polite discussion of this aspect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    No worries, exchemist. I get a little weird around bible quotes too.

    I was drinking quite a bit last night... And I'm not inclined to be intimidated by much. My communication style was likely influenced by both factors.

    I do have an attitude problem... I treat good people and worthy systems with kindness, humility and respect. Everything else is fair game. I thought I saw attacks on my being and I usually am quick to express I shouldn't be fucked with. My apologies if I've displayed poor form.

    I would delight in making the topic of discussion about scientific theories; I'm not interesting enough to have much concern over who I am.

    Indeed I do dismiss fractional differentiation as a valid description of origin of continents. Not sure what you imply by "spontaneous formation of continental lithosphere is not possible".
    Last edited by Rift Zone; November 8th, 2013 at 10:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    RZ your OP didn't mention anything about the part the oceans play in the way our plate tectonics works. The average ocean depth is 4.3 kilometers (2.65 miles). That's a great deal of weight and pressure on the crust and if I remember correctly that's one of the main reasons why the oceanic crust is denser than the continental crust. So without the oceans the entire crust of the earth would have stayed fairly uniform in density. We probably would still have some kind of plate tectonics, but they would not be anything like we have now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Let's get some basics out of the way. RZ you appear, though not definitively, to think plate tectonics is required to produce continental crust. Since this is not the case, I'd like clarity on that point first.

    Secondly, I'd like to see some citations supporting your claim that the oldest crust dates back to the Theia collision. I mean, I'd really like to see those - I like it when someone re-writes the facts. Alternatively - and more to the point - that is simply wrong. Seriously wrong. Now, by all means introduce a new hypothesis, but in that case please make it clear that is what you are doing.

    When do you think the Theia collisions occured? How old do you think the oldest metamorphic rocks are? How old do you think the oldest oceanic crust is? How old do you think the oldest Jack Hills zircons are? How do you reconcile the well established ages for each of these with what you have written? Now, by all means introduce a new hypothesis, but in that case please make it clear that is what you are doing. And provide something of substance to support those contentions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    I throw my breads out before the crust becomes archaic.
    Last edited by shlunka; November 8th, 2013 at 09:44 PM. Reason: The cows came home.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    There was a time when earth was completely molten. All the light stuff floats to the surface. Planetary crusts form at relatively uniform densities because they are nearly uniform in chemistry. What do you mean by plate techtonics? -cuz I think it's bumper cars with crust fragments. What we have on earth is entirely unique, no other planet displays a similar behavior: we have a distinct type of crust FLOATING on another type of crust. No known world displays a similar behavior, rocky crust, icy crust, nothing. India left clear tracks in its path northward, tracks on Earth's crust. Ocean floor crust is modern crust, it truly is earth's crust, we are standing on protoEarth's crust. Crust does not float on crust in other worlds. That's just about as wacky as having a, well, crazy big moon.

    Continents define oceans, not the other way around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Would you like to take a stab at answering my questions now? (Here's a clue, wild assed comments, loaded with ambiguity, an absence of technical terms, a clear agenda and the aroma of crank are not the way to properly answer serious questions on a science forum.)

    While you are contemplating that, will you also answer this. Do you feel tonalites did or did not make a major contribution to the formation of the early continents? If not, why not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    I think they're dating some rocks back to 3.7~3.8 bil years. Some of the zircons seem to be reporting 4.1 billion years. I'm gonna go with protoEarth's surface solidified around 4.1 bil yrs ago and the moon formation event happened about 3.7~3.8 bil yrs ago. It is very possible geologic processes could have wiped out older rocks but if we have original rocks then yes, those zircons have been there from the very beginning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Yes, but where is your evidence for any of this? Have you done any research or have you just decided to go ahead and believe this thing you came up with?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    I've done plenty of research. You'd be amazed at how much information you can find in books and online. Things like private tours of Stanford's Linear Accelerator and NASA helped too. Ya, I believe it. Galt, here's a clue, I have a knack for firm grasp of reality. Humanity has a pretty decent knowledge base, happy to be able to contribute to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    I've done plenty of research. You'd be amazed at how much information you can find in books and online. Things like private tours of Stanford's Linear Accelerator and NASA helped too. Ya, I believe it, I have a knack for firm grasp of reality. Humanity has a pretty decent knowledge base, happy to be able to contribute to it.
    Hate to break it to you, but you're not contributing to anything. What you are doing here is very far removed from science indeed. Anybody can come one here, claim intellectual superiority and then make a series of claims without backing any of it up according to the scientific method. In fact many do. You have done nothing to convince anyone that there is anything more to you and your ideas than the bad impression you are giving now.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    If you had any interest in the scientific method then you would be examining the the two theories against empirical information. I said I was an elite intellectual. I was hoping to find more. You were the one who made yourself out to be inferior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If you had any interest in the scientific method then you would be examining the the two theories against empirical information. I said I was an elite intellectual. I was hoping to find more. You were the one who made yourself out to be inferior.
    Oh my giddy aunt!

    You're the one contesting the well-established theories about this stuff. It's up to you to be clear and explicit. By this I mean setting out this is what is generally understood - brief synopsis, couple of relevant links, followed by setting out your alternative proposal.

    In detail.

    And by this I mean the generally accepted state of the not-quite-Earth-as-we-know-it at the time of the formation of the moon. Why you propose a different time for the event, what data supports your view. And then onto all the other comparisons with planets that do and don't have moons, do and don't have internal magma processes leading to vulcanism and all the other stuff you claim makes the earth so different from those. With data comparisons.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    I think they're dating some rocks back to 3.7~3.8 bil years. Some of the zircons seem to be reporting 4.1 billion years. I'm gonna go with protoEarth's surface solidified around 4.1 bil yrs ago and the moon formation event happened about 3.7~3.8 bil yrs ago. It is very possible geologic processes could have wiped out older rocks but if we have original rocks then yes, those zircons have been there from the very beginning.
    I've done plenty of research.
    Unfortunately the research appears to have been inadequate.

    You are more or less correct on the oldest rocks, although new data emerge with regularity.

    Aging zircons is complex. Your age is valid, but the hafnium isotopes reveal a source, both for the Jack Hills and North Qinling in the range of 4.4 to 4.5 Ga.

    Your moon forming event timing is completely wrong and makes nonsense of your conclusions. It is dated almost at the beginning of the solar system, at 4.56 Ga. So, you are out by 700 million years. (Longer than the entire Phanerozoic!)

    If this typifies your research you will forgive me if I doubt your conclusions. But I'm still keen to get your response to the tonalite question.

    Edit: In the interests of full disclosure, note that Carlson of the Carnegie Institute presented results at a September meeting of the Royal Society that suggest the moon formation may have occured 100 million years later than originally thought. This remains unconfirmed. Even if true it still screws up RZ's timelines.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Hold on guys. There are serious questions about the formation of the first continents and about how plate tectonics was initiated. Rift Zone, who is very likely a reincarnation of a former member, has some valid points and raises some interesting questions. Unfortunately one of those questions is "Why do some people think it's sexy to be a dick?"
    I will behave. I will behave. I will behave.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    The dates don't matter quite as much as the type of rock itself. What type of rock they were does have bearing on this discussion. Please feel free to inform me of the developments and how they may be even remotely pertinent to where continents came from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    double post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Question

    Sorry if I appear stupid.

    My understanding about tetonic plates is they are different in places. As in....ours in California are very different than ours in Hawai'i (I know this from what was discussed after the earthquake here.) Is that because of how the land CAME to be?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    My understanding about tetonic plates is they are different in places. As in....ours in California are very different than ours in Hawai'i (I know this from what was discussed after the earthquake here.) Is that because of how the land CAME to be?
    Crustal formation 101

    1. Earth forms by accretion of planetesimals (asteroid like bodies) of chondritic composition. (A type of meteorite thought to represent, the average composition of the accretion disc around the proto-sun)
    2. Earth is molten as a consequence of impact of all these planetesimals.
    3. This triggers the so called iron-catastrophe, in which molten iron (and some other elements) separates out and sinks to form the core. The rest forms a silicate mantle.
    4. A 'scum' of solid material begins to form on the surface. It's composition is different from the magma ocean as a consequence of a process called fractional crystallisation. (The process is well understood in the Earth science community, but not - it seems - by RiftZone).
    5. This lighter material is frequently reprocessed by downwelling currents in the magma ocean and by the moon forming event, about 4.5 billion years ago, when a planet the size o Mars strikes the proto-Earth.
    6. At some point, the timing still debated, the fully solid surface of the Earth forms a series of plates which move relative to each other under the action of convection currents in the mantle (and other mechanisms). The plates are of two kinds: continental - long lived, light and thick; oceanic, short lived (100 million years or so), dense and thin.

    Too much babe?
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    A bla bla called what? I'm sorry, I missed the part where there was a description of how continents formed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    My understanding about tetonic plates is they are different in places. As in....ours in California are very different than ours in Hawai'i (I know this from what was discussed after the earthquake here.) Is that because of how the land CAME to be?
    Crustal formation 101

    1. Earth forms by accretion of planetesimals (asteroid like bodies) of chondritic composition. (A type of meteorite thought to represent, the average composition of the accretion disc around the proto-sun)
    2. Earth is molten as a consequence of impact of all these planetesimals.
    3. This triggers the so called iron-catastrophe, in which molten iron (and some other elements) separates out and sinks to form the core. The rest forms a silicate mantle.
    4. A 'scum' of solid material begins to form on the surface. It's composition is different from the magma ocean as a consequence of a process called fractional crystallisation. (The process is well understood in the Earth science community, but not - it seems - by RiftZone).
    5. This lighter material is frequently reprocessed by downwelling currents in the magma ocean and by the moon forming event, about 4.5 billion years ago, when a planet the size o Mars strikes the proto-Earth.
    6. At some point, the timing still debated, the fully solid surface of the Earth forms a series of plates which move relative to each other under the action of convection currents in the mantle (and other mechanisms). The plates are of two kinds: continental - long lived, light and thick; oceanic, short lived (100 million years or so), dense and thin.

    Too much babe?
    A bit. I am trying to absorb. It is not my language, but I believe I get the gist. Thanks for your kindness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Planets don't form this way. There is nothing in physics that says our continents permissible without some serious remodeling. Yet, here we are. We cannot build this world from scratch, physics would deny it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    Planets don't form this way.
    OK. Please do the following:
    1. State why you think planets do not form in this way.
    2. Provide evidence for them not forming in this way.
    3. State clearly how you think planets do form.
    4. Provide evidence for that alternative method of formation.

    Please note:
    Iif it was your intention to introduce a new idea you should have starter the thread in New Hypotheses.
    If it was your intention to introduce a new idea with no supporting evidence you should have started the thread in Pseudoscience.
    If it was your intention to introduce a new idea with no supporting evidence and that contradicted well established science you should have started the thread in the Trash Can.

    Rift Zone, when I saw your name I was encouraged. I thought there was a good possibility that here was someone with an interest in Earth science in general and tectonics in particular who would introduce some novel ideas, provide interesting facts and engage in productive discussion. So far you are a disappointment. Meet my four point request above and we can be back on track. (Still waiting for a response on tonalites. It's almost as if you don't know what a tonalite is.)
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    You are more than welcome to move this thread to pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I'd be a lot happier if you'd just give a substantive answer to my questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    I'm not a geologist... So no, no idea what tonalite is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    That has nothing to do with the price of bread!

    You are making pronouncements about geology and planetology. You are making defintive, absolute pronouncements. You claim you have done research on these matters. So, either stop making absolute statements that are - for the most part - bollocks, or provide that meaningful support for your assertions.

    I am quite happy to be proven incorrect on any or all of these points. It would mean I have learned something new. I am not happy to see you maintain, over the course of multiple posts, a series of claims that geologists have got it wrong, only to be told by you that you aren't a geologist and, by implication, you cannot justify anything you say.

    Your entire position appears to be based on the premise that you don't understand current thinking on these issues. You sound like you've never even heard of Bowen's reaction series, yet your making pronouncements in which they are intimately involved.

    If you take the attitude that you have some great insight - based on ignorance - you'll learn damn all. A little bit of humility and some insightful questions from you and we could all learn. Give it a go?
    exchemist likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    I'm an astrophysics major. Planetary science is part of the deal. The chemistry of the medium doesn't mean shit anyway. We could be talking about an icy world and I'd still deny this set up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Deny all you like, but this is a science forum and any denial must be backed up by evidence, or reasoned argument based on evidence. All I am hearing from you is a litany of incredulity and not one iota of science. So are you going to provide justification for any of these denials? I mean on what basis do you reject what you've almost certainly been taught in your planetary science lectures? I'm incredulous as to your attitude as a supposedly trained scientist that you can be spouting this guff.

    Moderator Comment: Since I am actively engaged in this discussion with you it would be inappropriate of me to move this thread, but if you do not produce something scientific in pretty short order I shall ask the mod team to take a look at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    Go ahead an move this thread. Your progeny will read it in their science books no matter what you think of it. No science huh? If this were an editorial in scientific American you'd probably call it science. Do you really need me to prove less dense material floats on molten worlds. What bs process? It does what? Ya right. Do you have any idea what all that crap was trying to imply because my bullshit meter wouldn't let me assimilate it. -how, exactly, did the continents form? What were they smoking? I provide a comprehensive model that fits empirical data perfectly and you want to lecture me on what science is? If you think you know better than I do, be my guest. There is no geologic action occurring on any world that would lead us to believe it might differentiate crust so dramatically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    This is impeccable science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Pseudo it is then.

    What an impressive exhibition of a delusion of grandeur. Where do you people crawl out of?
    PhDemon likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    this eludes me...thanks John Galt for the answer but pissy posting is a waste of time in my book...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Rift Zone, at no time have you presented a coherent description of your model for continental formation. Nor have you offered an intelligible attack on the current model. You have revealed deep ignorance of several fundamentals relating to the problem and an arrogance surprising in one so ignorant.

    I have repeatedly invited you to correct these deficiencies. You will recall in an earlier post I urged other members to 'back off' since I felt you might have something of value to say. It seems I was mistaken.

    However, I remain the eternal optimist. I remain intrigued by your rejection of the nebular hypothesis for planet formation. Will you at least explain why you feel this is a flawed model? And if you do, please do so as a scientist, not as an angst ridden teenager. It's unattractive and scares the children.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    This is impeccable science.
    Apart from the lack of evidence supporting it and the fact it is contradicted by evidence.

    This must be some new definition of the word "impeccable" with which I was not formerly acquainted.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    RIft Zone....I told you from day one when you were in our chat place here on the forum....if you put it up..you better put it up with the back up to follow your put up or shut up...*chuckle*...I am not a science person but to prove your idea...you need to back it up....

    and thank GOODNESS I don't have to do that too much in music..but in theatre..your put up, do it, make it amazing or you are toast
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    before this thread goes under

    If I understood what i read, the oldest continental rocks were gneisses ?
    Gneiss is formed from previous rocks?
    So the acasta gneiss, or the one near the Hudson bay were reformed from earlier continental crust?
    As the acasta is understood to be over 4 billion years old, would this indicate Continental crusts predating the formation of that gneiss?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Pseudo it is then.

    What an impressive exhibition of a delusion of grandeur. Where do you people crawl out of?
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    KALSTER, Bad Robot and babe like this.
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    jeez mac
    sometimes you're funny
    sometimes not so much so
    ................
    repost that in male fantasies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman Rift Zone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    28
    If you look at how science proliferated throughout the ages, you'd notice this type of reaction to new concepts is rather typical. I have more important things to attend to than write a paper on continents. You're welcome for the bone I threw you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    If you look at how science proliferated throughout the ages, you'd notice this type of reaction to new concepts is rather typical. I have more important things to attend to than write a paper on continents. You're welcome for the bone I threw you.
    So, you have a great theory, but you're too busy to explain it, so content yourself with asserting that current science is wrong.

    ???

    I think you must be mentally ill.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    If you look at how science proliferated throughout the ages, you'd notice this type of reaction to new concepts is rather typical. I have more important things to attend to than write a paper on continents. You're welcome for the bone I threw you.
    Wow. What a limp-wristed cop out. I expected better.

    Is it also typical in the sciences for a real scientist to tell his colleagues, "I have better things to do than explain my crazy theories"? When I do research, I find that I spend quite a bit of time explaining what I am talking about. Seems to be a pretty popular thing among scientists.
    KALSTER and John Galt like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    well,
    this thread surely has deteriorated and deviated from the premise at hand
    (predeleted expletives)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    well,
    this thread surely has deteriorated and deviated from the premise at hand
    (predeleted expletives)
    Seems to me it started with a bad attitude and that hasn't changed. Regardless of how good an idea might be, it's nothing if you can't communicate it properly to others. RZ if you really don't have the time to do it right why even start it? I think you should drop this thread and plan your next one a little better. Also, if you like the science forum spend some time getting to know the people here, if you can't show respect to others they won't show you much either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    bad baby
    We could just ignore RZ's failure to engage in meaningful conversation and discuss archaic crust?

    Imagine someone having completed his dissertation, then going to the defense, and saying "It needs no defense.".
    KALSTER and adelady like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    If you look at how science proliferated throughout the ages, you'd notice this type of reaction to new concepts is rather typical. I have more important things to attend to than write a paper on continents. You're welcome for the bone I threw you.
    A handful of members have participated in this thread. Several more have read through parts, or all of it. But considerably more non-members have chanced upon it, read it and had some thoughts. This post is for you.

    I don't know what background you have in science, or the extent of your interest in it, but I do know you are a fellow human. As such, some of you may feel Rift Zone and his idea have been treated unfairly. After all, science is changing all the time and current ideas get replaced. So why have we been so hard on him?

    The reason science works lies in the objectivity of the scientific method. (Those of you who know science mainly from TV documentaries take note: science is not about what we know, but about how we know it. In other words the scientific method.) In science you are not allowed to have your own facts.

    That is worth repeating : In science you are not allowed to have your own facts. All observations need to be checked and double checked and validated by multiple researchers. Observations must be repeated, experiments carried out repeatedly. A hypothesis is constructed to explain those observations and experimental results. Tests are proposed to assess the validity of the hypothesis. On the basis of the results from those tests the hypothesis is provisionally accepted, or modified, or rejected.

    When it has become well established through rigorous testing, growth of a substantial body of supporting data, and a technically sound underpinning, it may be considered a theory, the highest "accolade" an idea can have in science.

    There are two important points there:
    1. The initial speculation grows out of existing observations and theory. The proponent of the speculation has intimate knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of current thinking.
    2. The idea is subject to intense scrutiny and attack. Attempts are made to destroy it. The initial attack must come from the originator of the idea, then from colleagues, then from the broader science community. Most ideas don't make it to that latter stage.

    That is, in summary, how science is conducted, and why it is so successful. Rift Zone has failed on every count: no understanding of current theory; no meaningful observations; no cogent explanation of their concept; no rigorous self assessment of the idea; close minded as to the possibility they may be wrong. That is the antithesis of science and that is why he has been given such a hard time.
    KALSTER, Strange, adelady and 2 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    We could just ignore RZ's failure to engage in meaningful conversation and discuss archaic crust?
    Your earlier comment was spot on: the most ancient rocks thus far identified are (or certainly include) gneisses. These must have formed from preexisting rocks that - obviously - must have been older still. It is analysis of zircons in these and other rocks that has allowed us to demonstrate that these zircons became engaged in the rock cycle (of sedimentation, diagenesis, metamorphism, partial melting, etc) as far back as 4.4 Ga. The oldest examples are found in Jack Hills in Australia, but examples almost as old have been identified in the Qinling orogenic belt (mountain building zone) in China.

    I expect other instances to be found in future. This is an area of very active research, promoted by the incredible advances made in analytical equipment.

    Amazingly, this means that within 150 million years of the formation of the planet there were crustal rocks that were subject to erosion and their detritus deposited as sediments. The oldest surviving whole rock yet identified is, as you suggested, the Acasta gneiss in Canada, which checks in at about 3.8 Ga, just at the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment, when something triggered a massive suite of impacts in the inner solar system.
    KALSTER, sculptor and Bad Robot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Pseudo it is then.

    What an impressive exhibition of a delusion of grandeur. Where do you people crawl out of?
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Hilarious......Mac...you are a nut!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Rift Zone View Post
    If you look at how science proliferated throughout the ages, you'd notice this type of reaction to new concepts is rather typical. I have more important things to attend to than write a paper on continents. You're welcome for the bone I threw you.
    Really? Now you're invoking the Galileo Gambit? Epic. Fail.

    Yes, they laughed at Galileo. And Fulton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown (thank you, Dr. Sagan).

    Your "new concepts" are conspicuously devoid of evidential support. You seem to think that all are to accept your pronouncements by virtue of your sheer mental force. That might fly with your friends, but not here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. I need help with the earth's crust
    By Casmo82 in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 10th, 2013, 03:23 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: October 17th, 2012, 06:20 PM
  3. The Origin and Evolution of Continental Crust
    By John Galt in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: August 12th, 2012, 06:36 PM
  4. Mountains and crust
    By termina in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 31st, 2010, 03:38 PM
  5. Reshaping the Crust
    By kingwinner in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 6th, 2006, 07:06 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •