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

From: Matt (matt.edwards_at_utoronto.ca)
Date: 03/16/05 

Date: 16 Mar 2005 09:53:27 -0800

"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message news:<ZuEZd.72179$Ze3.43405@attbi_s51>...
> "Matt" <matt.edwards@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:e25c654e.0503150700.25966ef@posting.google.com...

> > 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.

It is the expansion which generates the rifts, whether on sea or on
land. The cracks occur because the crust can't contain the expanding
mantle beneath.

> >
> > 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.

How deep? How wide? That's the info we need to test slow EE.

> >> 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.

On the topic of the Pacific, you'll notice I'm hedging a bit. The GPS
data I'm referring to are from Owen's paper. In slow EE, we could
have the Pacific shrinking while the Atlantic is expanding, so long as
the total area of basins is expanding.
>
> >> >> >> 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.

I've listed some of the data points suugestive of EE. One of them is
the water levels, which we've been trying to pin down. If you think
slow EE is pseudoscience you can add the names of Paul Dirac, Pascual
Jordan, Paul Wesson and many more to the pseudoscience camp. Fact:
slow EE can explain the continent/ocean basin surface dichotomy on
Earth and on Mars. PT can't.

> >> >> 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.

I've asked several times for some definite sites and dates on this and
you haven't given any. Then I notice in your post to Don that you
downplay stratigraphic sequences as concordant sequences except on a
very local basis. Well, which is it to be? I'm just trying to sort
out when the south Atlantic opened up for sure, not on the basis of
"all scientists agree". Sometimes they all agree to the wrong thing.
If the dates are based mainly on the ocean rock ages, I'm just saying
they could be wrong. There needs to be some data in the strata in
South America and Africa which support this.
>
> > 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.

The Atlantic basin may not be wide enough where significant subduction
is occurring yet. Maybe too Americas are being pushed westward, so
subduction is less.

> > 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).

And once again, I would ask what the strata in the actual continents
say about this.

Sorry to hear you go back to the creationist bit - thought we'd passed
that.

I'll be away for several days. But I'm thinking that we may have gone
as far as we can with this topic for now, and so for me the best thing
is to research these topics more. Thanks again for your helpful input
on these problems. Maybe I'll start a new discussion on this
sometime.

Matt

Quantcast