Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
From: Matt (matt.edwards_at_utoronto.ca)
Date: 02/20/05
- Next message: Jo Schaper: "Re: Who writes this stuff?"
- Previous message: dar7yl: "Re: NASA Claims No Life On Mars and Embargos Mars Rover Data."
- In reply to: George: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Next in thread: George: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Reply: George: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 20 Feb 2005 11:11:12 -0800
Hi George,
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
>
> Not necessary. EE violates the laws of thermodynamics, among other physical
> laws. An expanding earth would suggest an increase in the moment of inertia of
> the earth, which would mean that the rate of rotation of the earth would have to
> decrease in order to conserve angular momentum. But the retardation that the
> earth does experience seems to be more than adequately explained by tidal
> friction. In addition, increased mass would necessarily increase the earth's
> gravity, which in turn would affect the orbit of the moon. There is no evidence
> that this has occurred.
Maybe you're suggesting EE violates the law of conservation of angular
momentum, rather than a thermodynamical violation. If you were to say
'fast expansion' is contradicted by Earth's rotation change, I might
agree. Almost every study supports you on this. However, if you're
using a slow expansion model, where (dr/dt) = rH, and if you suppose
the moon's influence is NOT causing the retardation, then the evidence
supports slow expansion. There is also an interesting paper by Maslov
in the new book "Why Expanding Earth". Maslov shows that the Earth's
rotational history can be mapped out using three parameters - radius,
length of day (LOD) and the Earth's surface gravity g. He shows that
if the Earth's surface gravity was 1.5-2 times greater at 500 Ma (and
Stewart's studies give an upper limit of g of roughly this magnitude
then), then the Earth could have expanded by about 25 per cent over
this period. This would also be in accord with Owen's model.
Also, I personally do not support EE via increase in mass (though
there are many others nowadays who do). I agree that increase in mass
leads to trouble for EE.
>
> Some EEers have suggested that there are many more spreading centers than
> subduction zones, and that this is strong evidence for expansion. Well, when
> you look closely, the facts don't actually bear that out. The percentage of
> difference between the total linear distance of all spreading centers to the
> total linear distances of all subduction zones is very small (less than 5%).
> And that difference is more than made up for by the fact that spreading centers
> spread at a average rate which is at least 5-6 times less than the average rate
> of subduction.
You may be off the mark here. What are you using for subduction
zones? If it's the trenches then there's no way the trenches balance
out the ridges, even if you're just talking about the Pacific. As for
the spreading rates, you're assuming that the fast motions of plates
in the Pacific, as measured by GPS for instance, translates out as
fast subduction. Not necessarily so!
>
> What EEers also seem to leave out of this little thought experiment is that
> subduction zones and spreading centers only constitute two of the four major
> plate boundary types. Any theory for the structure of the earth's crust has to
> consider the other two plate boundaries, namely, transform faults, and
> collisional boundaries such as the Alps and the Himalayas.
On the collisional boundaries, the evidence on this is inconclusive.
In EE of course there was no collision between India and Asia. India
was attached to Asia the whole time, as is well reflected in the
fossil record. The Indian dinosaurs resembled those of the northern
continents. You can see India's proper position in Owen's book.
>
> If continents had been replaced wholesale, you wouldn't have vast areas of
> proterozoic craton and vast deposits of paleozoic fossils turning up in the
> continental U.S. and continental Australia, for instance, and you definitely
> would not see 1-3.8 billion year old continental crust throughout Canada,
> Africa, and Australia as these would have been devoured long ago.
That's just the point I'm trying to make. On the continents the crust
is many times thicker than in the oceans, so the processes which
replace surface rocks would tend to be much slower. In areas with
very thick crust, there was no replacement at all for billions of
years. In the ocean, such processes were far more frequent, as
possibly reflected in seamount formation. I'm curious, however, as to
the mainstream opinion on why the rocks in the western U.S., for
instance, are so young. In some discussions, I've heard that some
people think the western U.S. was sort of tacked onto an earlier
continent - talk about unlikely!
> Oh, and as
> for sea-floor spreading, there is ample evidence that it has been going on for
> at least a billion years or more:
>
> http://www.uky.edu/KGS/emsweb/ecrb/pcrift2.html
>
In Owen's model, there could have been seafloor spreading prior to the
breakup of Pangea. Thanks for the links - I'll check them out.
Matt
- Next message: Jo Schaper: "Re: Who writes this stuff?"
- Previous message: dar7yl: "Re: NASA Claims No Life On Mars and Embargos Mars Rover Data."
- In reply to: George: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Next in thread: George: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Reply: George: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
