Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
From: Matt (matt.edwards_at_utoronto.ca)
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- In reply to: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Next in thread: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Reply: Carsten Troelsgaard: "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: 4 Mar 2005 07:37:37 -0800
"Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message news:<4226f403$0$191$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
> I believe one of the EE's favoured points is, that the marine sediments on
> the crust is the EE evidence that earth indeed was different then
> (continents had the ocean on top, not next to it). A thorough oceanic earth
> does, by and large, not erode and deposit at all; compared to the present
> situation. It obviously did, but I hardly dare consider the relief and the
> gradients, a rugged earth for sure.
Not quite following you here. In EE we would say that in the initial
phases the Earth's crust was entirely continental (sial) crust. It
was more water-covered than today's crust, but gradually emerged over
time (especially in slow EE). Erosion could have taken place once
enough basins were present for sediments to be deposited in.
> What do they gain by such a construction? Continental rocks, sima, wouldn't
> it basicly have been placed and composed 'as is' and express a factual
> decompression of heavier rock at an earlier period and thus loose the
> observed incentive for the earth to expand by evolving lighter rocks? It's
> often been pointed out, that the 'lighter rock evolved' is not continental
> as it preferentially places itself as a heavy oceanic rock.
You're saying that lighter 'continental' rocks tend to form or be
deposited on older rocks, which then become denser rocks. But ocean
crust is formed in situ as more dense rock than the sial rock. This
process is ongoing. Now some continental rocks are added
volcanically, but in general the EE picture of lighter continental
blocks being uplifted by newly formed rocks of heavier density is
quite simple, even elementary. You might find the paper by Weijermars
interesting.
> I squinted at the online presentation of Owen's model of expansion. He
> places plasma in the core with a reference to physicists for details. I did
> then look for Owen's own credentials since he respects professionalism, but
> he did not present himself. I have some preconsieved notions and no real
> knowledge on plasma, but wouldn't it's eledged presence (however unlikely)
> be a result of compression and heat rather than a course for the uppersit?
> Is there any scientific rationale for plasma to aggregate in space as a
> precurser for planets?
>
> Carsten
Where did you find Owen's work online? In his papers he is listed as
being at the British Museum of Natural History. Is that credentials
enough for you? In any case, I don't find the plasma core idea that
compelling.
Matt
- Next message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- Previous message: Rand Simberg: "Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!"
- In reply to: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Next in thread: Carsten Troelsgaard: "Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion"
- Reply: Carsten Troelsgaard: "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
|