Re: Detailed ocenaic floor analysis. What does it really tell us?

On 9 Apr 2007 20:26:54 -0700, "Stuart" <bigdakine@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 9, 1:19 pm, firstn...@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) wrote:
George <geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not your secretary, Flo.

You make the claim that McCarthy was discredited, you back up your
claim. Period. I won't read the whole google archives just because
you're lazy to tell me when and where this discussion took place.

The paper contains a map and a description of the map. None of the data
that was used to make the map was included in the paper. You know what data
is, right? Charts, graphs, analysis, numbers? He talks about geomagnetic
data but doesn't include that data in the report. So how is anyone
supposed to check the data against his interpretation?

Jeez... Georgie. Are you a scientist?
Do you know what represents the numbers in brackets all over the text of
that paper? We call them REFERENCES. So I suggest you to read these
references in the paper before making dumb remarks like above.



Guess what? These data are in agreement with EE.

You're living in a dream world. EE doesn't even recognize that ancient
oceans existed much less any landmasses older than Pangea.

Then you should update your notes on EE. It is perfectly accepted there
was water on the earth before 200 MA, but not in ocean bassins like we
know them.

EE says that
the earth began expanding 250 million years ago, and they use as evidence
the growth of the atlantic and Pacific oceans.

wrong again. EE says that a particular phase of growth started 200
millions MA ago. This phase corresponds to the spreading of current
seafloors.

They've never once
discussed Rhodinia, not in any paper I've seen.

Of course, rhodinia never existed!
rhodinia is just an attempt by PT theorists to explain data showing that
the pacific was closed. The only issue is that they made a 500 millions
years error.

And they have repeatedly
insisted that there were no ocean basins before 250 million years ago, and
cite as evidence the fact that no ancient oceans exist (ignoring the fact
that there ample evidence of ancient oceans, as I've pointed out dozens of
times).

Absolutly. The oceans bassin as we know them did not exist. But it is
clear that the Earth already expanded by rifting as demonstrated by
the discovery of ophiolites sequences 3.8 BYA old. After all, Ophiolites
are just the products of underwater rifts.

Perhaps you EEers need to get your collective act togethar. According
to most EEers the
expansion didn't start until the Cambrian as proposed by McCarthy and
others.

You are wrong and intentionally misrepresenting the evidence.

The claim is not when it started, it is the evidence on the ocean
floor shows expansion and the ocean floor has an age, which limits the
period of time for the expansion from this evidence.

This is about evidence which can be saw with the eye when assembled,
rather than trying to get the evidence to fit with a theory.

That is the essential point you are missing.



Which is it? 3.8 billion years ago or 500mya? Whats 3.3 billion years
among friends.

To know what happen in that time frame requires evidence. PT has it
destroyed, despite the fact it CANNOT produce the current pattern.

The ancient ophiolite suites represent obducted chunks of ancient
oceanic crust. Which
is one reason they tend to be found embedded in cratons.

The present shows there is not enough energy in convection from either
spreading, or subduction to even drive the movement, but only has
enough once the slab turns, let alone enough to lift ocean floor.

Increasing the energy for convection to make this happen will give
less time for ocean floor to acquire the density necessary for
subduction and make the difference between ocean crust and continental
crust less significant, and would expect either of having a good
chance of being subducted, and there goes the reason for continental
crust being so older.



The paper you cite shows just such an ancient ocean, and DOESN'T
show all the continents in one solid continuous landmass that circles the
globe.

Another very clever remark. Of course it doesn't! They're workin inside
the PT framework!

PT does not produce the pattern on the ocean floor, so it does not
work, end of story.


They have a much smaller earth starting 250 million years
ago that was one continuous continental crustal landmas (where the water
went if there were no oceans, and where it came from after, they never
explain).

Your lack of knowledge of EE is embarrassing. Water is continuously
feeding the ocean through the hydrothermal vents all along the rifts.
Massive amounts of water were identified in the mantle not too long ago:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.htm
l

That water exists within stable mineral forms. What you sea coming
out of deep-sea vents has little to do with that.
Hence that is a red heering and holds no promise for EE.

And 4.5 billion years of losing it to space



Most of the water
coming form black smokers e.g., is simply recylcled sea-water laden
with sulfides.

Stuart

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... You claim that there is one pattern which allows the continents to ... with evidence that it is so. ... claiming the lack of this evidence as support they never fit together. ... I am not saying EE is true, I am saying the pattern on the ocean floor ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... > Assuming that the continents were at the elevations then that they are now. ... These Greenland rocks have been ... >> I asked Moorbath what he thought the ocean levels were at that time. ... >> that release of water would parallel expansion, ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: CBS Sunday nights--Screwed up by sports ... again
    ... If anyone knows about "transference" it's a forensics expert. ... his "tools of trade" are the most damaging evidence against from the ... is dump everything into a garbage sack and then pour it out in the ocean ... retrieve the stuff back out of the water. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: Do Oceans Cause Plate Tectonics?
    ... presence of significant water ocean coverage. ... that earth is the "only" planet to show plate tectonics. ... something to do with the formation of continents, ... deep ocean floor is mostly made of dense rocks like basalt. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... You're claiming earth expansion, ... > If you're saying that cratons were the initial continents, ... >> Unless, of course, the original ocean basins were formed from impact basins. ... >> evidence to support either slow or fast hypothesis. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)