Re: Owen's Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion

From: George (george_at_wtfiswrongwithyou.com)
Date: 03/15/05 

Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:58:33 GMT

"Matt" <matt.edwards@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:e25c654e.0503150700.25966ef@posting.google.com...
> "George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
> news:<K02Zd.65416$Ze3.18486@attbi_s51>...
>> "Matt" <matt.edwards@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
>> news:e25c654e.0503131018.2165caf3@posting.google.com...
>> > "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
>> > news:<423233a5$0$21781$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>...
>> >> "Matt" <matt.edwards@utoronto.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
>> >> news:e25c654e.0503111026.35d455ba@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> >> > I saw your earlier post, but now I can't spot it. I seem to recall
>> >> > that your comments were based on the fast expansion hypothesis, which
>> >> > I am not addressing here. Here is what Weijermars says about sea
>> >> > level drop in slow expansion model (.5 mm/yr):
>> >> >
>> >> > - at 4.8 Ga oceans were 6.3 km deep worldwide if the volume of water
>> >> > were the same as today
>> >> > - at 3.5 Ga when life first evolved oceans were 3.2 km above present
>> >> > levels
>> >> > - at 2 Ga Earth's radius went over 5500 km and ocean level was 1 km
>> >> > above present (time of red bed deposition)
>> >>
>> >> The first hit I get is your local rock dated 2,4 billion years old.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/geol/jgs/1984/00000141/00000002/14120235
>> >>
>> >> Red beds are generally considered intracontinental shallow
>> >> water/lakustrine
>> >> sands. In the above also containing evaporites.
>> >
>> > I don't see a problem here. If the oceans were 1 km above present at
>> > 2 Ga, then much of the continental area was submerged,
>>
>> Assuming that the continents were at the elevations then that they are now.
>> What data do you have to support notion?
>
> It would be the EE assumption that the elevation of the continents
> above the level of the ocean floors represents the effects of
> expansion. The original continent-type lithosphere cracked and was
> lifted up by mantle expanding beneath. New ocean-type crust is made
> in the area exposed by the cracks in the original crust.

Bad assumption. There are lots of known ancient spreading centers within the
continents (the Reelfoot rift comes to mind) and they are areas where the
continent has not uplifted at all. In fact, these rifts have created very deep
basins, some of which are 13 km deep. Oops.

>> > with
>> > considerable area at shallow levels suitable for red bed/evaporite
>> > formation.
>> >>
>> >> Check an eqvivalent type of rock 1,2-1,4 billion years old ('Garder
>> >> sandstone', Greenland, Proterozic)
>> >>
>> >> The oldest sedimentary rock: Isua 3,7 bill year old.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.geus.dk/publications/review-greenland-97/gsb180p94-99.pdf
>> >>
>> >> It mentiones a carbonate matrix ... the depth would have been below the
>> >> (present) calcite compensation depth. ~1,2 km
>> >> It mentions traces of ignembritic texture ... a subaeric phenomena
>> >> They term the rock terrestrial - I havn't read it all, but you get the
>> >> gist.
>> >>
>> > This seems like more of a problem. These Greenland rocks have been
>> > highly controversial from the standpoint of the origins of life.
>> > Carbon isotope ratios seemed to suggest a photosynthetic process was
>> > already in operation then. This evidence was later questioned on the
>> > grounds that the rocks could not be unambiguously identified as having
>> > all originated 3.8 billion years ago.
>> >
>> > http://home.earthlink.net/~douglaspage/id87.html
>> >
>> > I attended a lecture by Stephen Moorbath here relating to this. He is
>> > one who questions whether the isotope evidence is valid. There was
>> > some spirited opposition from some researchers from the opposing camp.
>> > I asked Moorbath what he thought the ocean levels were at that time.
>> > He said that while it is commonly supposed that the volume of ocean
>> > water was not too different from today, there was not too much
>> > evidence to actually support this notion. From the slow EE
>> > standpoint, there is plenty of wiggle room here. We don't actually
>> > know when or even how the ocean water was added (volcanic outgassing,
>> > comets). The problem is greater for fast EE models. Carey reasoned
>> > that release of water would parallel expansion, and so the ocean water
>> > is very young too. That idea could also be adapted to slow EE. What
>> > I would ask is, what level of ocean water absolutely needed to exist
>> > prior to 3.8 billion years ago in order to have sedimentary rocks at
>> > 3.8 Ga?
>> >
>> >> http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:pD4I7DMmldcJ:inqua.umb.no/congress/dwyka/b12.doc+%22Archaean+quartzite%22&hl=da%20target=nw
>>
>> Matt, the only requirement for sedimentary rocks to form is a shallow sea
>> (lake,
>> or stream) adjacent to dry land with active weather, or the necessary
>> chemical
>> conditions to exist for chemical precipitates to form. In the former case,
>> that
>> would preclude the entire surface of the earth having been submerged. In
>> addition, you can get sedimentry rocks from riverine and lacustrine
>> environments. Of course, turbidites do form on continental slopes in the
>> oceans. But, ignoring these, there are still plenty of sedimentary rocks
>> evidence to show that dry land existed. In the latter case, there are
>> varying
>> conditions, depending on the precipitate. In the case of carbonate, you need
>> warm, carbonate-oversaturated waters. In the case of evaporites, two
>> conditions
>> can exist to form them. One is a shallow, closed, evaporating sea that
>> concentrates brine at the seafloor. Once all the water has evaporated, then
>> you
>> have evaporate deposits. The other case involves a sea in which there is
>> less
>> freshwater influx than there is freshwater ourflux, brines concentrate at the
>> bottom. The latter is more complicated that that, but that is the gist of
>> how
>> it works, I think.
>
> I think you mentioned to Carsten that the ocean water was added after
> about 4 Ga. If this water was added incrementally, then at some point
> there would have had to have been water with exposed land areas,
> allowing sediments to form. From that standpoint, sedimentary rocks
> of 3.8 Ga would not be surprising. (I think I read that Moorbath has
> redated those rocks to 3.6 Ga)

Incrementally is a loaded word that can mean any of a number of things. The
fact is that by 3.8 billion years, there is evidence that the world ocean was
deep and widespread.

>> Since the rate of subduction in the south Pacific outpaces the rate of
>> spreading
>> by several orders of magnitude, why would you assume that the south pacific
>> is
>> getting larger?
>
> I mentioned earlier that GPS indicates that the chord between
> Australia and South America was increasing. You said "what do you
> expect?". But why do you say the subduction rates in the south
> Pacific are much greater than the spreading rate there? The spreading
> rate in the Pacific is the largest.

Yes, the spreading rate in the Pacific is the largest anywhere. So what? The
plates at the subduction zones in the indian/Pacific Oceans are moving 6 times
faster than the east Pacific rise which is why you get 9.0 earthquakes at these
subduction zones.

>> >> >> but your expansion is below the detection limit, so, what's your point.
>> >> >> Could you repeat why an insignificant error in altitude should
>> >> >> ceriously
>> >> >> alter a much larger horizontal component.
>> >> >
>> >> > Weijermars accepts the rapid plate motions. He also says Pangaea
>> >> > broke up 180 million years ago just as in PT. There would seem to be
>> >> > no difference in his predictions and what GPS is telling us.
>> >>
>> >> ??????????
>> >
>> > Weijermars' rate of .5 mm/yr is below the detection limit of GPS at
>> > the moment. Weijermars supports PT otherwise, so he is in accord with
>> > GPS.
>>
>> So, since you admit this, why try to use his data to support expansion?
>
> Just because the GPS data can't detect slow expansion doesn't mean
> that it's not happening.

Just because I'd like to think that my wife is the most beautiful woman in the
world doesn't mean that she actually is. My personal opinion is that slow
expansion is like "Intelligent Design". It is just another attempt to slip
pseudo-science in through the backdoor. But that is just my own opinion.

>> >> maybe? .. It's not there in the Atlantic where you need it!
>> >
>> > Well, in slow EE, we could have the Atlantic opening up fairly
>> > recently, without much subduction so far. That would be similar to
>> > PT. Same for new crust near Antarctica.
>>
>> The Atlantic open 180 million years ago. Sorry, the facts don't bear out
>> your
>> assumption about the Atlantic.
>
> I realize this is the usual date given for this separation. You've
> said that rock strata and fossils support this date. I still have
> reservations on this, based on the other papers I've read indicating a
> much earlier breakup.

I really don't care if you have reservations about it. The dates are accurate
and have been measured many times by many independant researchers. Now either
you accept the dates or you don't. If you don't, that is certainly your right.
But don't expect very many researchers to listen to your opinion on the issue,
especially those researchers who have actually collected the samples and
analyzed them while you haven't. There is no oceanic crust within the Atlantic
basin that is older than 180 million years. There is oceanic crust that has
acreted to the eastern U.S> seaboard, as I've said many times. This oceanic
crust has been shown to have come from more than one pre-Atlantic oceanic basin.

> It seems to me that if there is a recycling of
> ocean crust within the Atlantic basin (my suggestion), then it's
> critical to indicate where the rock strata are being considered.

This is what happens when people who are not geologists pretend that they know
what the hell they are talking about. Fact: There are only two subduction
zones on the fringe of the Atlantic Ocean (and they are both small), and so
there is no way that significant portions of the atlantic ocean has been
recycling itself. If you know of a process that can recycle entire ocean basins
without the presence of subduction zones, by all means, we are all ears. I must
warn you, though, that any horse*** you present here will be tossed with the
wash water.

> You can't use rocks that are right on the edge of the coasts adjacent to
> the ocean crust, since those could contain ocean rocks that are
> possibly of a much younger age. Also, how do the shelves fit into
> this picture? Are rocks compared from the shelves or the coasts? I
> would just like to nail this down somehow. I realize that 99.99% of
> geologists wouldn't question your figure of 180 Ma.

No, 100% of geologists would not question this date. Only one or two people I
know of would question it, and neither of them are geologists. Clue: The
Youngest oceanic crust in the Atlantic basin is at the Mid-Atlantic ridge. The
oldest crust is at the edge of the North American continent and at the edge of
the European sub-continent. The oldest crust in the Atlantic is 180 m.y.
Frankly, I have to question again why you keep doubting such rock solid data if
you are not a creationist, because they are the only ones who keep insisting
that the dating methods are wrong (despite the fact that the vast majority of
these people are totally clueless on how rocks are dated).