| |
| Were the continents once gathered by Equator? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| florian |
 Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| florian wrote: |
| (Referring to greenstone belts.)Again, the byproducts of diapirism, aka surfaceward migration of mantle material. |
I know of no instance in which denser rocks become involved in diaparism as the intruding body. The whole point of diaparism is that the less dense material rises through the denser. Greenstone belts, composed as they are of basic and ultra-mafic materials are not lighter than the granitic crust through which you claim they have risen. |
You forget that a diapir is dynamic. It depends on relative density of the whole column and its surrounding. If the whole column is less dense that its surrounding on the full heigth, the top of the diapir will continue to move up despite it is more dense than the material it is intruding. This is actually often observed for salt diapirs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| florian |
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Cran wrote: |
That may well be how things are on your world - welcome to Earth - it's a bit different here ... |
Obviously, your Earth is different than mine. On mine, theories do not dictate facts but facts inspire theories and rational/critical thinking dominates wishful thinking.
Let's quit the rhetoric, and let's talk about some interesting Science.
Last edited by florian on Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Time Lord
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 6394
Location: Scotland
|
| florian wrote: |
| You forget that a diapir is dynamic. It depends on relative density of the whole column and its surrounding. If the whole column is less dense that its surrounding on the full heigth, the top of the diapir will continue to move up despite it is more dense than the material it is intruding. This is actually often observed for salt diapirs. |
Demonstrate in what way, with specific numbers and dimensions, how a column of greenstone can in any way be less dense than the 30kms+ of sial through which it is allegedly being intruded.
While you are at it explain where the associated clastics came from.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| florian |
| Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| Demonstrate in what way, with specific numbers and dimensions, how a column of greenstone can in any way be less dense than the 30kms+ of sial through which it is allegedly being intruded. |
It looks like I was no clear enough.
Let's say there is a 300 km-high column of stuff X which density averages 3.
The density of the surrounding stuff Y is around 4 from -300 to -30 with stuff Z about 2.5 sitting at the top (from -30 to 0). It means that the density of the whole column of X is less than that of Y+Z, so that X will continue to rise through stuff Z. Is that clear enough or do you need a scheme?
This happens quite often for salt diapirs. Their top intrudes sediments that are less dense, because of the energy of the whole column of salt. Now, keep in mind that in the Growing Earth model, stuff does not sink, but is engulfed/buried. When stuff gets buried, it can reach relatively great depth as more materials accumulate above. but the stuff might finally rise because the density of the surrounding material become denser. This is not much different than salts getting buried under sediments, but that will finally rise when the sediments above becomes denser.
You must make the effort to think in term of Growing Earth or you won't make any progress in your understanding of this theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cran |
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 192
Location: Goomalling, Western Australia
|
| florian wrote: |
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| Demonstrate in what way, with specific numbers and dimensions, how a column of greenstone can in any way be less dense than the 30kms+ of sial through which it is allegedly being intruded. |
It looks like I was no clear enough.
Let's say there is a 300 km-high column of stuff X which density averages 3.
The density of the surrounding stuff Y is around 4 from -300 to -30 with stuff Z about 2.5 sitting at the top (from -30 to 0). It means that the density of the whole column of X is less than that of Y+Z, so that X will continue to rise through stuff Z. Is that clear enough or do you need a scheme?
This happens quite often for salt diapirs. Their top intrudes sediments that are less dense, because of the energy of the whole column of salt. Now, keep in mind that in the Growing Earth model, stuff does not sink, but is engulfed/buried. When stuff gets buried, it can reach relatively great depth as more materials accumulate above. but the stuff might finally rise because the density of the surrounding material become denser. This is not much different than salts getting buried under sediments, but that will finally rise when the sediments above becomes denser.
You must make the effort to think in term of Growing Earth or you won't make any progress in your understanding of this theory. |
Ignoring for the moment that greenstone belts are not a single rock type,
but cyclic layers, you've provided a couple of questions -
| Quote: |
| keep in mind that in the Growing Earth model, stuff does not sink, but is engulfed/buried. When stuff gets buried, it can reach relatively great depth as more materials accumulate above. |
how does it get buried if it includes primary igneous and metamorphic rocks,
and starts out on the surface?
how does it reach a relatively great depth if nothing sinks?
_________________
Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.
"I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zzpluralz |
| Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 25
|
| tenderheart bear wrote: |
| florian wrote: |
You're welcome. |
No one's thanking you for your useless 'contribution'. |
May I be the first then!
I am no expert in EET - and I am far from being convinced by it - but I am very grateful to have the contribution of someone who seems to understand the theory. Tenderheart, really, issues about EET were raised and Florian addressed them. You appear threatened by EET! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zzpluralz |
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 25
|
Another issue related perhaps to EET is the size of dinosaurs.
Calculations have been done by some that suggest that dinosaurs are 'impossible' in our current gravity, and that gravity may have needed to be less (up to 1/4 less) than it is today for dinosaurs to have existed at the size suggested by their fossils.
I think EET suggests that Earth Expansion is exponential, and that the rate of growth only 'steepened' after dinos became extinct...
Anyone else know anything about dinosaurs and gravity? Have the puzzles been solved? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cran |
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 192
Location: Goomalling, Western Australia
|
| zzpluralz wrote: |
Another issue related perhaps to EET is the size of dinosaurs.
Calculations have been done by some that suggest that dinosaurs are 'impossible' in our current gravity, and that gravity may have needed to be less (up to 1/4 less) than it is today for dinosaurs to have existed at the size suggested by their fossils.
I think EET suggests that Earth Expansion is exponential, and that the rate of growth only 'steepened' after dinos became extinct...
Anyone else know anything about dinosaurs and gravity? Have the puzzles been solved? |
tricky - much more is preserved and known about the Tertiary,
including some mammals which approached the dimensions of the great dinosaurs ...
and birds (like the moa) which survived until the evolution of fast food franchises ...
or maybe it was spears, nets, and traps?
arguing for a lower surface gravity in the Mesozoic compared to the Tertiary is either
arguing for a contracting Earth, or setting up the missing mass paradox ...
another piece of evidence against the introduction of mass to the Earth is the Moon -
it would be closing in, not moving away ...
so, I don't think you want to go there ...
_________________
Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.
"I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 4578
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| zzpluralz wrote: |
| Calculations have been done by some that suggest that dinosaurs are 'impossible' in our current gravity, and that gravity may have needed to be less (up to 1/4 less) than it is today for dinosaurs to have existed at the size suggested by their fossils. |
and Lord Kelvin's calculations proved that heavier-than-air craft could never fly
_________________
how about visiting a foreign country, like Philosophorum ? plenty of møøse there ...
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting, and less interesting than drinking a beer  (although that's still moderately interesting) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| florian |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Cran wrote: |
how does it get buried if it includes primary igneous and metamorphic rocks,
and starts out on the surface?
how does it reach a relatively great depth if nothing sinks? |
It does not have to sink if it is buried. You must keep in mind that earth's radius increased about 400 km during the last 25 My, according to the age of seafloor. It means that the surface 25 My ago was relatively 400 km below the current surface. Of course, most of the crust "float" over the denser mantle as the later grow, but it is expected that part of the crust get deeply buried at some margins along the rising mantle, i.e. Benioff zone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| florian |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Cran wrote: |
another piece of evidence against the introduction of mass to the Earth is the Moon -
it would be closing in, not moving away ...
so, I don't think you want to go there ... |
I don't think you want to go there either, because you have absolutely no clues about the gain in momentum associated to the gain in mass. If the gain is sufficient, it is expected that the Moon should move away from Earth due to tidal effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cran |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 192
Location: Goomalling, Western Australia
|
| florian wrote: |
| Cran wrote: |
how does it get buried if it includes primary igneous and metamorphic rocks,
and starts out on the surface?
how does it reach a relatively great depth if nothing sinks? |
It does not have to sink if it is buried. You must keep in mind that earth's radius increased about 400 km during the last 25 My, according to the age of seafloor. It means that the surface 25 My ago was relatively 400 km below the current surface. Of course, most of the crust "float" over the denser mantle as the later grow, but it is expected that part of the crust get deeply buried at some margins along the rising mantle, i.e. Benioff zone. |
so, you're telling me that less dense material gets buried - by what?
then spends how much time at depths around 400 km?
then becomes diapiric?
and that the mantle is growing by some means beyond our science?
and you think that's a simpler explanation than the one supported by deep seismic studies?
| florian wrote: |
| Cran wrote: |
another piece of evidence against the introduction of mass to the Earth is the Moon -
it would be closing in, not moving away ...
so, I don't think you want to go there ... |
I don't think you want to go there either, because you have absolutely no clues about the gain in momentum associated to the gain in mass. If the gain is sufficient, it is expected that the Moon should move away from Earth due to tidal effects. |
you're right - I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this ...
so please explain it in detail -
and the inertial effects on Earth rotation under increasing mass and radius ...
_________________
Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.
"I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| florian |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Cran wrote: |
so, you're telling me that less dense material gets buried - by what?
then spends how much time at depths around 400 km?
then becomes diapiric?
and that the mantle is growing by some means beyond our science?
|
LOL, you're really struggling. Probably my lack of communication skills.
Let's try again:
Let's assume that the growth is related to the accumulation of matter inside Earth. Part of this matter forms new mantle which translates into a mantle growth. As the mantle grows part of it will redistribute toward the surface and Earth radius will increase.
Now, the redistribution of mantle toward the surface is not uniform, and some mantle is channeled to the surface (mantle diapirs). These mantle diapirs can intrude the surface, pierce it and finally spread with their margin engulfing the crust nearby. This happens in the Philippine Sea as shown in the figure I posted earlier. In this figure, you can see that a fresh diapir (which margin forms the Mariannas Benioff zone) is engulfing the old pacific crust that is 140-150 My old:
Click on the image to view it at its original size
Note that the oldest crust (170 My) is still far away from being engulfed whereas Plate tectonics predicts that the older the crust the more likely it should sink. In truth none of the oldest oceanic crust in the world (>150 My) is near a Benioff zone. That is yet another failed prediction of plate tectonics.
As the mantle continue to extrude, the crust can eventually get buried, metasomatized, releasing its water leading to partial melting and arc volcanism.
This is not different at all from the plate tectonics interpretation except that the slab does not actively sink, it get simply and passively buried.
Another point. If you look at the Banda arc (lower left part of the figure) you can see that the arc extends over 180°, which implies that subducting crust would converge from 180°. This is non sense. By contrast, a diapir centered on the back arc (5 My old crust in red) makes perfect sense as it is spreading outward.
| Cran wrote: |
you're right - I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this ...
so please explain it in detail -
and the inertial effects on Earth rotation under increasing mass and radius ... |
If the matter accumulating inside Earth has momentum, Earth's momentum can increase. In this case Earth can transfer part of this momentum to the Moon which will recede. So the fact that the Moon is receding is not an argument at all against earth's growth.[img][/img] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| markhaldane |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 24 Dec 2009
Posts: 6
|
| florian wrote: |
Let's assume that the growth is related to the accumulation of matter inside Earth. Part of this matter forms new mantle which translates into a mantle growth. As the mantle grows part of it will redistribute toward the surface and Earth radius will increase.
|
Are you suggesting that matter is being created within Earth? I'm not sure how else you are suggesting the mantle can be "growing".
| florian wrote: |
As the mantle continue to extrude, the crust can eventually get buried, metasomatized, releasing its water leading to partial melting and arc volcanism.
This is not different at all from the plate tectonics interpretation except that the slab does not actively sink, it get simply and passively buried.
|
Do you honestly think that the depositional processes occuring at the edge of the continental shelf could actively bury oceanic crust deep enough to where it could melt? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cran |
| Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 192
Location: Goomalling, Western Australia
|
| florian wrote: |
...
Now, the redistribution of mantle toward the surface is not uniform, and some mantle is channeled to the surface (mantle diapirs). These mantle diapirs can intrude the surface, pierce it and finally spread with their margin engulfing the crust nearby. This happens in the Philippine Sea as shown in the figure I posted earlier. In this figure, you can see that a fresh diapir (which margin forms the Mariannas Benioff zone) is engulfing the old pacific crust that is 140-150 My old:
Click on the image to view it at its original size
Note that the oldest crust (170 My) is still far away from being engulfed whereas Plate tectonics predicts that the older the crust the more likely it should sink. In truth none of the oldest oceanic crust in the world (>150 My) is near a Benioff zone. That is yet another failed prediction of plate tectonics. |
sorry - the oldest mobile oceanic crust is a Tethyan remnant in the Mediterranean Sea, and it is immediately bounded to the north by the Aegean island arc ...
most of the oldest oceanic crust have already been lost; the parts that remain are either not bounded by a convergence zone (passive margins) or result from a shift in plate direction ...
| florian wrote: |
As the mantle continue to extrude, the crust can eventually get buried, metasomatized, releasing its water leading to partial melting and arc volcanism.
This is not different at all from the plate tectonics interpretation except that the slab does not actively sink, it get simply and passively buried.
Another point. If you look at the Banda arc (lower left part of the figure) you can see that the arc extends over 180°, which implies that subducting crust would converge from 180°. This is non sense. By contrast, a diapir centered on the back arc (5 My old crust in red) makes perfect sense as it is spreading outward. |
The Banda arc is the junction of two convergence zones; you're ignoring the NE-moving Australian plate and eastern limb of the Java Trench, which lie immediately south of the Banda microplate ...
just as you've ignored the shift in direction of the Pacific plate, which is why the oldest part is now a wedge - what you've been calling diapirs in and around the Philippines collection of microplates are the broken remnants of spreading ridge (other sections lie in the Tasman Sea, the China Sea, and off the coast of Korea);
all sorts of interesting things are happening there, including one microplate which is overriding another older one, even as it is forced under a neighbouring younger one ... the Marianas includes both transform and convergence boundaries ...
[quote="florian"]
| Cran wrote: |
you're right - I have absolutely no clue what you mean by this ...
so please explain it in detail -
and the inertial effects on Earth rotation under increasing mass and radius ... |
| florian wrote: |
| If the matter accumulating inside Earth has momentum, Earth's momentum can increase. In this case Earth can transfer part of this momentum to the Moon which will recede. So the fact that the Moon is receding is not an argument at all against earth's growth. |
what?
the only way the Earth's momentum can increase is if this mythical mass appears inside the Earth with more intrinsic momentum than the Earth's ...
what evidence is there for increases in the Earth's intrinsic momentum over time?
_________________
Nature abhors perfection; cats abhor a vacuum.
"I don't know; I'm making it up as I go ..." Dr H Jones (Jr). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
