Can Gravitational Bodies Grow?

[OilIsMastery]

In the absense of destructive exogenous collision/impact events with other major gravitational bodies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923164646.htm), do gravitational bodies grow over time with the accretion of mass (i.e. the attraction of interstellar dust particles and iron meteorites such as those found all over the surface of Mars today (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926755.200-mars-iron-is-ideal-for-building-future-bases.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_mg19926755.200)), just as black holes grow and accrete mass from stars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgfbjHz_UTo)? And does that mass accretion accelerate over time as more matter is captured by the ever increasing gravitational field?

"My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

[AlphaNumeric]

Yeah, he sounds reliable, being both a cryptologist and a geoscientist and saying "Irrefutable evidence".... Doesn't explain the structure of planets' interiors or the lack of dust on the surfaces of planets.

Yet another example of you having no clue about geophysics.

[superluminal]

In the absense of destructive exogenous collision/impact events with other major gravitational bodies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923164646.htm), do gravitational bodies grow over time with the accretion of mass (i.e. the attraction of interstellar dust particles and iron meteorites such as those found all over the surface of Mars today (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926755.200-mars-iron-is-ideal-for-building-future-bases.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_mg19926755.200)), just as black holes grow and accrete mass from stars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgfbjHz_UTo)? And does that mass accretion accelerate over time as more matter is captured by the ever increasing gravitational field?

"My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005
Ok. Here's why this is moronic.

1) We already know that "The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process". This is accepted. But the last period of any significant accretion was ~4.5bya.

2) "still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power."

This is absurd because we know the approximate rate of mass infall (< ~40000 tons per year?) and that it will decrease over time as there is less and less material in our general neighborhood, discounting the occasional passage through a galactic region of denser interstellar medium.

40000000 kg/yr / 6e24 kg = 6.6e-18% of earths mass per year. over 4.5e9 years thats about 3e-8 or 30 billionth's of the earths total current mass.

Fuck. This is just rediculous.

[spidergoat]

I'm confused. What does this have to do with oil?

[superluminal]

I'm confused. What does this have to do with oil?
Nothing except what's leaking out of three of the four cylinders in OIM's head.

[OilIsMastery]

the lack of dust on the surfaces of planets.

Yet another example of you having no clue about geophysics.
Note footprint in powdery dust.

http://www.tradewindsgroupinc.com/assets/images/technology_moon_footprint.jpg

:crazy: LOL.

[OilIsMastery]

Ok. Here's why this is moronic.

1) We already know that "The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process". This is accepted. But the last period of any significant accretion was ~4.5bya.
So let me get this straight. All of the meteorites, including Chicxulub, in the past ~4.5 billion years have had a net mass of zero? Fascinating.

2) "still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power."

This is absurd because we know the approximate rate of mass infall (< ~40000 tons per year?) and that it will decrease over time as there is less and less material in our general neighborhood, discounting the occasional passage through a galactic region of denser interstellar medium.

40000000 kg/yr / 6e24 kg = 6.6e-18% of earths mass per year. over 4.5e9 years thats about 3e-8 or 30 billionth's of the earths total current mass.

Fuck. This is just rediculous.
So no more meteorites will ever hit the earth and a black hole is impossible?

[superluminal]

So let me get this straight. All of the meteorites, including Chicxulub, in the past ~4.5 billion years have had a net mass of zero? Fascinating.
What? Not zero you dimwit. Just incredibly small compared to the mass of the planet.


So no more meteorites will ever hit the earth and a black hole is impossible?
WTF? Again for the gray-matter impaired:

Meteors will continue to hit the earth with the same microscopic effect as usual.

And what does the fact that a black hole can violently accrete material (like whole stars at a time in some cases) have to do with the fact that the earth is NOT a BH and is in a wasteland of available material to accrete (thankfully)?

[Trippy]

So let me get this straight. All of the meteorites, including Chicxulub, in the past ~4.5 billion years have had a net mass of zero? Fascinating.
That's not what he's saying at all you dishonest toad.

He's saying the same thing that I am - that when compared to the mass of the earth, it's negligeble.
As a percentage, it's marhin of error material.
Even at 40,000,000 kg/year over a period of 4.5Ga, that's 'only' 18,000,000,000,000,000 kg.

18,000,000,000,000,000 kg IS insignificant when compared to 5,970,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, it equates to 0.0000003% of the earths mass, in other words, to directly measure the change in the earths mass over the last 4.5 Ga, we would need to be able to measure the earths mass to an accuracy of better than 300 parts per billion.

This is the same as measuring the mass of a 100kg person to an accuracy of 3 Micrograms.

[OilIsMastery]

I'm confused. What does this have to do with oil?
Everything.

"Generally in science, whenever new advances are made, old ideas should be re-examined in light of those advances. In the case of the abiotic origin of natural gas and petroleum, that is especially true, as the advances made pertaining to the processes operant during the formation of the solar system, and to the composition and dynamics of planet earth, all appear to greatly enhance the prognosis for those abiotic resources." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, September 2006

[OilIsMastery]

the earth is NOT a BH
Yet it does have mass and gravity, no?

and is in a wasteland of available material to accrete (thankfully)?
I guess shooting stars, meteorites, and impact crators are just a figment of my imagination. Thanks for clarifying.

[superluminal]

Yet it does have mass and gravity, no?
Certainly. Are you the least bit concerned with the relative magnitudes of the effects you're talking about?


I guess shooting stars, meteorites, and impact crators are just a figment of my imagination. Thanks for clarifying.
Errr... no. Again, do you concern yourself with the basic arithmetic of scale at all?

[OilIsMastery]

Allow me to give you a lesson in scale.

Here is what happens in large scale collisions: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923164646.htm

Here is what happened on Mars:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19826624.700

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14827-giant-impact-explains-marss-wonky-magnetic-field.html

[Trippy]

Allow me to give you a lesson in scale.

That's really funny from someone who has repeatedly failed to grasp basic concepts relating to orders of magnitude.

[OilIsMastery]

Here is what happens on Earth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdSTE4jWJmk

Nope. No mass there. Move along. This isn't the mass you're looking for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKXX6Fwxk1Y

[OilIsMastery]

Observational evidence: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041019082930.htm

ScienceDaily (Oct. 19, 2004) — Planets are built over a long period of massive collisions between rocky bodies as big as mountain ranges, astronomers announced today.

New observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope reveal surprisingly large dust clouds around several stars. These clouds most likely flared up when rocky, embryonic planets smashed together. The Earth's own Moon may have formed from such a catastrophe. Prior to these new results, astronomers thought planets were formed under less chaotic circumstances.

"It's a mess out there," said Dr. George Rieke of the University of Arizona, Tucson, first author of the findings and a Spitzer scientist. "We are seeing that planets have a long, rocky road to go down before they become full grown."
Grown? Yes. Grown!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114203718.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 15, 2007) — Rocky terrestrial planets, perhaps like Earth, Mars or Venus, appear to be forming or to have recently formed around a star in the Pleiades ("seven sisters") star cluster, the result of "monster collisions" of planets or planetary embryos.
Embryos? Yes. Embryos!!!

[Trippy]

Observational evidence: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041019082930.htm

Grown? Yes. Grown!!!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114203718.htm

Embryos? Yes. Embryos!!!

Once again, OIM is barking up the wrong tree.

Once again, OIM is appealing to ignorance, and presenting logical fallacies.

OIM would have the casual reader of the thread believe that those of us arguing that the earth has not grown substantially in the last 4-4.5 Ga some how deny that the earth was formed through accretion.

Quite simply, this is not the case.
Perhaps the opposing argument would be best stated as 'Since the end of the late heavy bombardment' although arguably even the large heavy bombardment would not have resulted in a substantial increase in mass (There were only an estimated 22,000 odd impacts).

The simple fact of the matter is that citing articles that discuss accretionary theory does nothing to contradict the statement that "The earth has not grown substantially in the last 4.5 Ga" and certainly does nothing except illustrate the original posters ignorance when posted as opposition to the statement "The earth has not grown substantially in the last 620 Ma".

However, I feel compelled to point out that, generally speaking, the theories hold that the impact that is thought to have caused the moon is believed to have occured 4.533 Ga, and the accretionary phase was all but over and done with by 4.5Ga.

So once again, OIM is trying to mislead the casual reader, and is arguing against an argument that no one saying he is wrong is making.

[OilIsMastery]

So how do you account for the age of the oceanic seafloor spreads?

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

[Trippy]

So how do you account for the age of the oceanic seafloor spreads?

We've already had this discussion.

We've already established that oceanic crust - in the form of Ophiolite sequences, significantly older than that currently present, exists incorporated in crustal squences.

A simple fact that you have never been able to explain with your... Ideas.

"The late Neoproterozoic rhythmite data do not support significant change in Earth’s moment of inertia and radius over the past 620 Myr." - George E Williams, 1999.

[OilIsMastery]

Do you or do you not believe in the the carbon dates of core samples of oceanic seafloor spreads? Yes or no?

[James R]

In the absense of destructive exogenous collision/impact events with other major gravitational bodies (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923164646.htm), do gravitational bodies grow over time with the accretion of mass (i.e. the attraction of interstellar dust particles and iron meteorites such as those found all over the surface of Mars today (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19926755.200-mars-iron-is-ideal-for-building-future-bases.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_mg19926755.200)), just as black holes grow and accrete mass from stars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgfbjHz_UTo)? And does that mass accretion accelerate over time as more matter is captured by the ever increasing gravitational field?

No. It is thought that most planetary accretion occurred in the early stages of the formation of our solar system. Essentially, the Sun and Jupiter swept up much of the remaining material, so accretion rates are virtually negligible now.

"My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun.

Why does nobody else believe this (except you, of course)?

So how do you account for the age of the oceanic seafloor spreads?

Plate tectonics.

Look it up.

[OilIsMastery]

No. It is thought that most planetary accretion occurred in the early stages of the formation of our solar system.
It is thought by whom? By you?

So let me try and get this straight. Gravity just miraculously and magically stopped all of the sudden and there were suddenly no more impacts?

Essentially, the Sun and Jupiter swept up much of the remaining material, so accretion rates are virtually negligible now.
No shooting stars anymore? No meteorites? No potential future impacts?

Why does nobody else believe this (except you, of course)?
I guess all the PhDs I've quoted for you time and time and again are all named "nobody." Fascinating.

Plate tectonics.

Look it up.
Myth.

Look it up.

"We have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter which science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions that we draw." -- Alfred L. Wegener, astrophysicist/geoscientist, 1928

[Trippy]

Do you or do you not believe in the the carbon dates of core samples of oceanic seafloor spreads? Yes or no?

Another fallacy/falsehood.
Nothing I have said contradicts that map.
Carbon dating is irrelevant.

One could ask you.

Do you or do you not accept radiometric dating that dates sea floor sequences that have since been incorporated into continental sequences as being greater than 200 Ma?

[OilIsMastery]

Another fallacy/falsehood.
A question is neither a fallacy nor a falsehood. Nice way to dodge the question though. Your typical puerile response.

[Trippy]

So let me try and get this straight. Gravity just miraculously and magically stopped all of the sudden and there were suddenly no more impacts?
No shooting stars anymore? No meteorites? No potential future impacts?

Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension of basic numeracy skills in relation to orders of magnitude.

[Trippy]

Another fallacy/falsehood.
Nothing I have said contradicts that map.
Carbon dating is irrelevant.

One could ask you.

Do you or do you not accept radiometric dating that dates sea floor sequences that have since been incorporated into continental sequences as being greater than 200 Ma?

A question is neither a fallacy nor a falsehood. Nice way to dodge the question though. Your typical puerile response.

Oh get stuffed you dishonest hack.
We've already been through this. A question can be both a falsehood and a fallacy, especially when it is so clearly intended to be misleading.

And I answered your question - carbon dating is irrelevant to ocean floor spreading, or dates as old as 200 Ma.

Carbon dating can not be reliably used to date materials more than 60,000 years old.

Oh, and i'm sure that no sane person reading this thread will overlook the fact that where I answered your question, you completely sidestepped mine.

If you meant something difference, then you should at least have the background knowledge to ask what you actually want to know.

[OilIsMastery]

carbon dating is irrelevant to ocean floor spreading, or dates as old as 200 Ma.

Carbon dating can not be reliably used to date materials more than 60,000 years old.
So the Earth is only 60,000 years old? How did they date the oceanic lithosphere?

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

[James R]

OIM:

No. It is thought that most planetary accretion occurred in the early stages of the formation of our solar system.

It is thought by whom? By you?

Yes. And also by the scientific experts in such matters.

So let me try and get this straight. Gravity just miraculously and magically stopped all of the sudden and there were suddenly no more impacts?

No. Impacts continue today, but at a far lower rate than in the past.

No shooting stars anymore? No meteorites? No potential future impacts?

There are still shooting stars. Go outside at night in a dark location, and you might even see some!

Did you not know this?

Plate tectonics.

Myth.

'fraid not.

[James R]

So the Earth is only 60,000 years old?

No.

Only a few days ago, it was announced that rocks have been found and dated to about 4.3 billion years.

[OilIsMastery]

Yes. And also by the scientific experts in such matters.
What you call "experts" I call 20th century fundamentalists.

No. Impacts continue today, but at a far lower rate than in the past.
So as mass is added to the Earth due to collisions, the Earth's gravity increases or decreases?

There are still shooting stars. Go outside at night in a dark location, and you might even see some!
I'm glad you're on the same page.

Did you not know this? 'fraid not.
You're not supposed to quote me out of context or put words into my mouth as you have "warned" me continually.

[OilIsMastery]

No.

Only a few days ago, it was announced that rocks have been found and dated to about 4.3 billion years.
On the moon and in Canada. The oldest rocks in the ocean are less than ~200 my.

[James R]

OIM:

What you call "experts" I call 20th century fundamentalists.

Fine. We can agree to disagree then.

So as mass is added to the Earth due to collisions, the Earth's gravity increases or decreases?

It increases, at a very slow rate, given the current rate of impacts.

You're not supposed to quote me out of context or put words into my mouth as you have "warned" me continually.

Not sure what you're talking about here. I haven't quoted you out of context. On the contrary, I quoted your entire post.

Only a few days ago, it was announced that rocks have been found and dated to about 4.3 billion years.

On the moon and in Canada. The oldest rocks in the ocean are less than ~200 my.

It's hard to dig for rocks at the bottom of the ocean.

How could Canada be 4.3 billion years old if the entire earth was only 60,000 years old?

[Trippy]

So the Earth is only 60,000 years old? How did they date the oceanic lithosphere?

Another fallacy posed as a question.

Your questioning a claim that I did not make - technicaly a strawman fallacy.

No, I am neither stating or implying that the earth is only 60,000 years old, and frankly it's really low to imply that I am.

My recollection is that the age of the ocean floor is measured by a variety of methods including stratigraphy, measurements of magnetic field strengths, and direct radiometric dating.

Here's a (partial) list of methods, all of which are valid over different time scales.

argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)

As you can see, we're not just limited to Radiocarbon dating.

So what's your next lie?

[Trippy]

Here's an article that discusses dating oceanic crust using Zircons:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104546

Here's one that uses U-Pb dating for sea floor dating.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5748/654?ck=nck

[OilIsMastery]

It increases, at a very slow rate, given the current rate of impacts.
In other words, on a daily basis.

It's hard to dig for rocks at the bottom of the ocean.
Not for an enhanced-Enterprise class drillship: http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Were_Never_Out_of_Our_Depth-140.html

http://www.marinetalk.com/images/06-03-02/deep_seas.jpg

How could Canada be 4.3 billion years old if the entire earth was only 60,000 years old?
Good question. Ask Trippy. He seems to think dating only goes back 60,000 years.

[Trippy]

Good question. Ask Trippy. He seems to think dating only goes back 60,000 years.

And this is precisely the sort of thing you have been warned about in the other thread.

This statement bears absolutely no resemblence to what I have said, and is in no way implied in what i've said.

As well as being a blatant lie, it's a strawman fallacy.

[OilIsMastery]

Carbon dating can not be reliably used to date materials more than 60,000 years old.
:rolleyes:

[Trippy]

:rolleyes:
Your questioning a claim that I did not make - technicaly a strawman fallacy.

No, I am neither stating or implying that the earth is only 60,000 years old, and frankly it's really low to imply that I am.

My recollection is that the age of the ocean floor is measured by a variety of methods including stratigraphy, measurements of magnetic field strengths, and direct radiometric dating.

Here's a (partial) list of methods, all of which are valid over different time scales.

argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)

As you can see, we're not just limited to Radiocarbon dating.

So what's your next lie?

Again, you're a liar and quoting me out of context.

They Radiocarbon dating can not be reliably used to date materials more than 60,000 years old.
They do not use Radiocarbon dating to date the age of oceanic crust.

carbon dating is irrelevant to ocean floor spreading, or dates as old as 200 Ma.

Carbon dating can not be reliably used to date materials more than 60,000 years old.

[OilIsMastery]

So how did the National Geophysical Data Center date the oceanic lithosphere?

[Trippy]

Here's an article that discusses dating oceanic crust using Zircons:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104546

Here's one that uses U-Pb dating for sea floor dating.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5748/654?ck=nck

So how did the National Geophysical Data Center date the oceanic lithosphere?

That also has been explained to you.

Zircon dating.
Magnetic reversal history (used to be the primary method, they compary the history of reversals to that measured in terrestrial lava flows that can be accurately and reliably dated).
Stratigraphy, based of seismology.

[OilIsMastery]

That also has been explained to you.

Zircon dating.
Magnetic reversal history (used to be the primary method, they compary the history of reversals to that measured in terrestrial lava flows that can be accurately and reliably dated).
Stratigraphy, based of seismology.
Thank you. Do you believe it yes or no?

[OilIsMastery]

Zircon
Crystals also provide evidence for growth.

[Trippy]

Thank you. Do you believe it yes or no?

Not that it's in anyway relevant to the age of oceanic crust/ophiolite sequences incorporated in continental sequences.

I accept that, based on what I understand of the methods used, and based on the raw data that I have seen for myself, yes, it is accurate.

Belief in the sense you often try to misconstrue it, is irrelevant to the discussion, as it is subjective, and at least one of us is attempting to have an objective discussion.

[Trippy]

Crystals also provide evidence of growth.

And in that simple statement you demonstrate that you are in fact completely ignorant of Zircon dating methods.

[OilIsMastery]

And in that simple statement you demonstrate that you are in fact completely ignorant of Zircon dating methods.
Crystals don't grow? How are they formed?

[Trippy]

Crystals don't grow? How are they formed?

AGAIN, you're being dishonest and misrepresenting my statement.

Jesus H Christ.

I didn't say that they don't grow, only that you don't understand how Zircon dating works.

[OilIsMastery]

Jesus H Christ.
Now I see where you're coming from.

[Vkothii]

Do you or do you not believe in the the carbon dates of core samples of oceanic seafloor spreads? Yes or no?Yes, I more or less believe that geologists have no good reasons to falsify data from oceanic core samples.

No, I don't believe that you have a clue how to explain the ages of seafloor basalts.

[OilIsMastery]

I don't believe that you have a clue how to explain the ages of seafloor basalts.
Ever heard of oceanic seafloor spreading?

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/793/5103669.JPG

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

[Vkothii]

Have you? What's that, then?

[Trippy]

Now I see where you're coming from.

And AGAIN with the out of context quoting, and deliberate deception.

Which you've already been warned about.

Wassamatta?

Run out of arguments?

Are they that weak that you have to resort to lies and deceit?

You spent?

Suffering from peek argument perhaps?

[OilIsMastery]

The embryonic growth of planets has been directly observed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114203718.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 15, 2007) — Rocky terrestrial planets, perhaps like Earth, Mars or Venus, appear to be forming or to have recently formed around a star in the Pleiades ("seven sisters") star cluster, the result of "monster collisions" of planets or planetary embryos.

Yup, you read that right: it says "planetary embryos."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041019082930.htm

Astronomers Discover Planet Building Is Big Mess

ScienceDaily (Oct. 19, 2004) — Planets are built over a long period of massive collisions between rocky bodies as big as mountain ranges, astronomers announced today.

New observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope reveal surprisingly large dust clouds around several stars. These clouds most likely flared up when rocky, embryonic planets smashed together. The Earth's own Moon may have formed from such a catastrophe. Prior to these new results, astronomers thought planets were formed under less chaotic circumstances.

"It's a mess out there," said Dr. George Rieke of the University of Arizona, Tucson, first author of the findings and a Spitzer scientist. "We are seeing that planets have a long, rocky road to go down before they become full grown."
Yup you read that right: "embroyonic planets" and "grown."

[Trippy]

The embryonic growth of planets has been directly observed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114203718.htm

Yup, you read that right: it says "planetary embryos."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041019082930.htm

Yup you read that right: "embroyonic planets" and "grown."

All irrelevant to the argument for reasons previously stated.

The earth stopped growing significantly approximately 4.5 Ga, at the end of the accretionary phase. Nobody disputes that.

What is disputed here how significant the growth (including the late heavy bombardment) since that time.

[OilIsMastery]

The earth stopped growing significantly approximately 4.5 Ga, at the end of the accretionary phase.
What mechanism caused the growth to stop? What caused gravity to stop? What caused the end of shooting stars, meteorites, and impacts?

Nobody disputes that.
LOL@U

"You only find complete unanimity in a cemetary." -- Abel Aganbegyan, economist, 1987

What is disputed here how significant the growth (including the late heavy bombardment) since that time.
What caused Pangea to split apart?

[Trippy]

What mechanism caused the growth to stop? What caused gravity to stop? What caused the end of shooting stars, meteorites, and impacts?

This has already been addressed.
These questions represent a strawman argument.
Nobody is claiming the growth has stopped - only that it's insignificant compared to the mass of the earth.
Nobody has cliamed gravity has stopped.
Nobody has claimed Shooting stars, meteorites, and impacts have stopped.

In short, the only thing you have demonstrated is that your ignorant of basic numeracy skills such as orders of magnitude.

LOL@U

"You only find complete unanimity in a cemetary." -- Abel Aganbegyan, economist, 1987

Whatever, this makes no sense in the context of the conversation, or the argument. ONe can only assume it's a cheap distraction, yet another dishonest tactic from you.

What caused Pangea to split apart?
My understanding is that it's caused by an overheating Asthenosphere.

Continental crust is thick, and it is low density, and therefore acts as a far more efficient insulator then oceanic crust.

Thus, when you have a supercontinent (Pangea being the most recent, but not the only one in the history of the earth) the Asthenosphere under the supercontinent tends to over heat, causing the crust to bow, and fracture, forming continents again.

It should also be pointed out that this process causes a cycle to occur.
Start with many continents.
Plate motions cause them to aggregrate into larger continents and super continets.
Those super ocntinents cause the astneosphere to overheat, causing the super continents to rift into many smaller continents which begin drifting apart, but there's only so far they can drift before they start bumping into other continents, and aggregating again, starting the cycle all over again.

[Vkothii]

What caused Pangea to split apart?Was it the same thing that caused Rodinia to split up?

[OilIsMastery]

it's insignificant compared to the mass of the earth.
Extinction event meteorites have "insignificant" mass? I can see the peer reviewed paper now "Chicxulub: Insignificant Mass."

Plate motions cause them to aggregrate into larger continents and super continets.
So the crust acts as a conveyor belt and eats itself? But then miraculously and magically recylces itself?

[D H]

Do you or do you not believe in the the carbon dates of core samples of oceanic seafloor spreads? Yes or no?
No, as that is not how geologists determine the age of the sea floor.

The observation of the world-girdling mid-oceanic ridge is confirming evidence of the plate tectonics theory and falsifies your silly theory of a growing earth. In fact, it was the discovery and understanding the implications of the mid-oceanic ridge that led to the acceptance of plate tectonics theory.

[James R]

Extinction event meteorites have "insignificant" mass? I can see the peer reviewed paper now "Chicxulub: Insignificant Mass."

I found one estimate of the Chicxulub comet/asteroid mass as 10^15 kg.

That's about 1 billionth of the mass of the Earth.

Insignificant.

[Trippy]

Extinction event meteorites have "insignificant" mass? I can see the peer reviewed paper now "Chicxulub: Insignificant Mass."

Once again Context please.

I didn't say that extinction event meteorites had insignificant mass.
I said they had insignificant mass when compared to the earth.

What part of 'Big, bigger, biggest' is it, precisely, that you have the conceptual difficulties.

I would also say that the earth has insignificant mass when compared to the sun.

I've already explained this to youin long form numbers, and you completely sidestepped it.


So the crust acts as a conveyor belt and eats itself? But then miraculously and magically recylces itself?

No miracles, no magic.

Or have you not heard of Mid ocean spreading ridges?

[OilIsMastery]

I found one estimate of the Chicxulub comet/asteroid mass as 10^15 kg.

That's about 1 billionth of the mass of the Earth.

Insignificant.
It's mass was so "insignificant" that it was an extinction event that sent the Earth into an ice age.

It's mass was so "insignificant" that it turned the crust of the Earth into Jello: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_jello_001122.html

Let me give you some more examples of insignificant mass impacts.

"Insinginificant mass" impact destroys planets: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923164646.htm

"Insignificant mass" impact creates planets and systems: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114203718.htm

"Insignificant mass" impact decapitated Mars: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19826624.700

"Insignificant mass" impact changes magnetic fields forever: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14827-giant-impact-explains-marss-wonky-magnetic-field.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14827

[OilIsMastery]

I would also say that the earth has insignificant mass when compared to the sun.

I've already explained this to youin long form numbers, and you completely sidestepped it.
Spreading is not recycling. It's birth.

No basalt can survive mythological "subduction" in the mantle just as no fossil can survive mythological "subduction" in the mantle.

[Trippy]

It's mass was so "insignificant" that it was an extinction event that sent the Earth into an ice age.

It's mass was so "insignificant" that it turned the crust of the Earth into Jello: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_jello_001122.html

Let me give you some more examples of insignificant mass impacts.

"Insinginificant mass" impact destroys planets: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923164646.htm

"Insignificant mass" impact creates planets and systems: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114203718.htm

"Insignificant mass" impact decapitated Mars: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19826624.700

"Insignificant mass" impact changes magnetic fields forever: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14827-giant-impact-explains-marss-wonky-magnetic-field.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14827

Still having trouble with the context of a comparison I see?

Still having trouble grasping the concepts of 'Big, bigger, biggest' I see.

Sheesh.

[Trippy]

Spreading is not recycling. It's birth.

No basalt can survive mythological "subduction" in the mantle just as no fossil can survive mythological "subduction" in the mantle.


And what do you think happens to the basalt if/when it's subducted into the mantle?

[OilIsMastery]

And what do you think happens to the basalt if/when it's subducted into the mantle?
There is no subduction. It's physically impossible. Granite and basalt cannot miraculously or magically teleport into or through the mantle.

[Trippy]

There is no subduction. It's physically impossible. Granite and basalt cannot miraculously or magically teleport into or through the mantle.

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

And it's nothing more magical than falling.

Jeeez.

[Vkothii]

Someone with an entirely constructed belief will always have difficulty when confronted with reality, and the possibility their construction is inconsistent, illogical, or just plain wrong.

They have to keep returning to the same irrational ideas, accuse others of lying, lie about what others actually say, and stick to their irrational, illogical ideas.
Admitting their constructed logic is faulty, will never happen. They think the world will collapse or blow up if they aren't absolutely convinced; if they can't 'prove' that everyone else is wrong.

[OilIsMastery]

If there were subduction going on at continental margins wouldn't people on the beach in Oregon and California be sucked into the earth during earthquakes? So far as I know that has never happened. I'm from California; I grew up with the San Andreas fault.

[Vkothii]

I'm from California; I grew up with the San Andreas fault.But you don't understand the theory of subduction at continental and oceanic plate margins; you don't understand seafloor spreading.

And you don't really want to, do you?

P.S. If seafloor spreading is going on at the mid-oceanic ridge, why isn't the planet splitting apart?

[Trippy]

If there were subduction going on at continental margins wouldn't people on the beach in Oregon and California be sucked into the earth during earthquakes? So far as I know that has never happened. I'm from California; I grew up with the San Andreas fault.

Another strawman/appeal to ignorance.

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/socal/geology/geologic_history/images/figure1_03.jpg

The subduction zone is off the coast, and further north.

Therefore, you conjectures are irrelevant.

[Trippy]

And here's an excellent explanation as to why this should be the case.

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/socal/geology/geologic_history/images/figure1_07.jpg

[D H]

There is no subduction. It's physically impossible. Granite and basalt cannot miraculously or magically teleport into or through the mantle.

If there were subduction going on at continental margins wouldn't people on the beach in Oregon and California be sucked into the earth during earthquakes? So far as I know that has never happened. I'm from California; I grew up with the San Andreas fault.

One of these two posts has to qualify as the wacko post of the week. The question is, which one?

[James R]

OIM:

It's mass was so "insignificant" that it was an extinction event that sent the Earth into an ice age.

It's mass was so "insignificant" that it turned the crust of the Earth into Jello: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_jello_001122.html

Let me give you some more examples of insignificant mass impacts.

Please try to keep up.

You claimed that the mass of a comet such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs would have a mass significant compared to the mass of the Earth. I told you that for that comet the mass was only 1 billonth of the mass of the Earth.

If you wish to have a discussion about the destructive force of the impact, that is another matter.

But this thread is on "Can gravitational bodies grow?"

Try to stay on topic.

[OilIsMastery]

The subduction zone is off the coast, and further north.
In other words, there is no subduction going on west of California. LOL. Plate Tectonics is laughable. Subduction is hilarious.

[Trippy]

In other words, there is no subduction going on west of California. LOL. Plate Tectonics is laughable. Subduction is hilarious.

Do try to keep up.

California is one example of this.

it's not the only example of this (the South Island of New Zealand being another example).

It can, and does happen.

There are many example of transform boundaries between plates.

[OilIsMastery]

How do you explain that there is no subduction west of California?

[Vkothii]

How far west of California?

[OilIsMastery]

How far west of California?
In the Pacific as far west as Asia.

[pjdude1219]

Note footprint in powdery dust. the moon is a satellite not a planet.

[Trippy]

How do you explain that there is no subduction west of California?

Because california represents a transform plate boundary (as has already been pointed out to you).

The San Andreas fault exists, as a transform plate boudary, between two triple junctions.

You do remember the part in the introductory geology where they discussed the different plate boundaries right?

[OilIsMastery]

Because california represents a transform plate boundary (as has already been pointed out to you).

The San Andreas fault exists, as a transform plate boudary, between two triple junctions.

You do remember the part in the introductory geology where they discussed the different plate boundaries right?
So people in California are being subducted into the San Andreas fault?

[Trippy]

So people in California are being subducted into the San Andreas fault?

back at it again i see?

did i or did i not say that san andreas was a transform plate boundary.

you're just being ridiculous, and setting up straw man arguments.

[OilIsMastery]

the moon is a satellite not a planet.
There is dust on Mars too. Mars is a planet the last time I checked.

Are you familiar with a Mars Exploration Rover by the name of Spirit?

http://www.teslasociety.com/marspic4.jpg

On the way to Columbia Hills Spirit's solar arrays were getting covered with...guess what? ...pause...wait for it...dust!!!

Spirit's solar arrays were so covered in dust that it was about to die. But a dust devil came and cleaned off the arrays...:rolleyes:

AlphaNumeric is simply ignorant of the universe he lives in. It's obvious you are too.

[pjdude1219]

There is dust on Mars too. Mars is a planet the last time I checked.

Are you familiar with a Mars Exploration Rover by the name of Spirit?

http://www.teslasociety.com/marspic4.jpg

On the way to Columbia Hills Spirit's solar arrays were getting covered with...guess what? ...pause...wait for it...dust!!!

Spirit's solar arrays were so covered in dust that it was about to die. But a dust devil came and cleaned off the arrays...:rolleyes:

AlphaNumeric is simply ignorant of the universe he lives in. It's obvious you are too.
and you missed the point.

[Trippy]

seeing as how you're obviously truggling with the basics.

http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/class/Gsc101/boundaries.gif

[OilIsMastery]

Divergent spreading is the only thing real that you show.

Convergent so-called "plates" would not subduct they would form mountain ranges.

"Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

[Vkothii]

Convergent so-called "plates" would not subduct they would form mountain ranges.Is that why there are mountains?

Or, let me guess, you have another theory about mountains being the result of positrons decaying in the mantle?

Why would converging plates form mountains? Why wouldn't one plate slide under the other?
Hang on, I think there's a name for that.

[Trippy]

Divergent spreading is the only thing real that you show.

Convergent so-called "plates" would not subduct they would form mountain ranges.

"Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

only if the pates are of equal density - for example the himilayas.

Are you trying to contradict your own sources again?

IE the USGS?

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topics/plate_tectonics/plate_color.gif

here's a jpl map.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/8/85/Global_plate_motion.jpg

[James R]

How did the Himalayas form, OIM? Did God make them? Or did they grow from pair production in the Earth's core?

[OilIsMastery]

Is that why there are mountains?
No. Mountains are caused by divergence because of oceanic seafloor spreading.

Why would converging plates form mountains?
Because subduction is physically impossible.

Why wouldn't one plate slide under the other?
Because basalt and granite cannot magically teleport themselves into the mantle and then magically recycle themselves.

Hang on, I think there's a name for that.
It's called mythology.

[OilIsMastery]

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/topics/plate_tectonics/plate_color.gif

The lines indicated as converging and transforming cannot possibly be due to zircon dating.

How old is that map? It must be 20th century..:rolleyes:

Allow me to share 21st century earth science with you:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

[Vkothii]

Mountains are caused by divergence because of oceanic sseafloor spreading.What's your personal mythological explanation for the existence of the Tibetan plateau?
And there's a range of mountains that lie along a transform boundary (the pacific-australian plate boundary), you can climb these babies, ski on them, etc. They're known as "the Southern Alps", and they're absolute thousands of km from any mid-ocean ridge?? How did they get there??
You haven't a clue, is that the answer?
subduction is phyically impossible.So is the possibility of someone who has their head stuck so far up their own ass as you, ever seeing the light of day.

[pjdude1219]

I would still like to know if the earth is growing how is the laser nasa is shining off a mirror bout a yard square hasn't needed to be adjusted for the change in angle that it would cause? We aren't talking about a large margin for error here.

[Vkothii]

if the earth is growing how is the laser nasa is shining off a mirror bout a yard square hasn't needed to be adjustedThat little problem isn't in OIM's mythology, so he won't be addressing it anytime soon.

[pjdude1219]

That little problem isn't in OIM's mythology, so he won't be addressing it anytime soon.

True, I do find it amusing that me who doesn't have a very high level understanding of this topic is able to refute his arguement.

[OilIsMastery]

I would still like to know if the earth is growing how is the laser nasa is shining off a mirror bout a yard square hasn't needed to be adjusted for the change in angle that it would cause? We aren't talking about a large margin for error here.
No adjustments after earthquakes?

http://expanding-earth.org/page_9.htm

Further evidence of expansion is provided by the +65.3 mm/yr rate of increasing width in the trans-Pacific distance between Yaragadee, Australia, and Arequipa, Peru, measured by Smith, et al [1993]. This study, and others like it, was published as evidence of subduction, but the addition of width contradicts the principle of Pacific basin width reduction required by subduction on a fixed-diameter Earth; e.g., any increase in width is an increase in surface area of the Pacific basin and Earth's total surface area, circumference, and diameter-- with or without subduction.

[James R]

OIM,

Please don't keep reposting the same image. It has already been discussed.

[pjdude1219]

No adjustments after earthquakes?

http://expanding-earth.org/page_9.htm

And you failed.

[Trippy]

The lines indicated as converging and transforming cannot possibly be due to zircon dating.

How old is that map? It must be 20th century..:rolleyes:

Allow me to share 21st century earth science with you:

What does Zircon dating have to do with measuring the direction the plates are moving in?

Answer: Nothing. See the earlier image I posted detailing GPS motion data.

As for the rest of your obnoxious conceited prattle.

Given that according to the USGS virtual directory listing lists the map as having been placed online January 25th, 2008, using the most up to date information available from NOAA, The Smithosnian Institute, Worldsat international, and ESRI.

Again, it's demonstrated that you've got nothing but hot air and dishonesty.

[Trippy]

Further evidence of expansion is provided by the +65.3 mm/yr rate of increasing width in the trans-Pacific distance between Yaragadee, Australia, and Arequipa, Peru, measured by Smith, et al [1993]. This study, and others like it, was published as evidence of subduction, but the addition of width contradicts the principle of Pacific basin width reduction required by subduction on a fixed-diameter Earth; e.g., any increase in width is an increase in surface area of the Pacific basin and Earth's total surface area, circumference, and diameter-- with or without subduction.

Once again - all one needs to do is look at the GPS data i've posted earlier in this thread that clearly demonstrates that North and South America are, effectively rotating around the Caribean plate.

Do you have anything that isn't based on smoke, mirrors, and deception?

[Trippy]

Five main ophiolite belts are identified in Mongolia. In the north of the country, the Hug accretionary wedge terrane, Zavhan craton, Lake and Bayangol island arc terranes, Dariv terrane, and Ilchir and Bayankhongor ophiolite terranes (Fig. 3) contain slivers of Neoproterozoic-Cambrian ophiolites constrained by Sm-Nd gabbro ages, sensitive high-resolution ion microprobe (SHRIMP) U/Pb zircon crystallization ages and ^sup 207^Pb/^sup 206^Pb zircon evaporation ages ranging from 665 ± 15 Ma to 539 ± 5 Ma (Badarch et al. 2002; Buchan et al. 2002; Khain et al. 2003; Windley et al. 2007).

Just to make what this means clear.

In Mongolia, there are sections of Oceanic crust that were formed in a body of water (the Ophiolite sequences include pillow basalts) at a mid ocean spreading ridge.

These segments of Oceanic Crust are three times older then OIM's 'expanding earth' allows them to be.

Therefore. OIM looses.
Game over.
(JamesR can lock/close the thread)

[Trippy]

"Ophiolitic rocks with a zircon age of 1020 Ma occur in the Dunzhugur complex of East Sayan, Siberia, and are part of a Neoproterozoic to early Palaeozoic segment of the Central Asian fold belt." - E. V. Khaina, E. V. Bibikovab, A. Kröner, D. Z. Zhuravlevd, E. V. Sklyarove, A. A. Fedotovaa and I. R. Kravchenko-Berezhnoy -2001

Oh looky, Billion year old Oceanic Crust in Siberia.
OIM looses again.

[Trippy]

Would you look at that...

" Results indicate that ophiolitic complexes older than 1.0 Ga mostly lack mantle tectonites below the magmatic rocks. Geochemically, these pre-Rodinian ophiolites display a mix of supra-subduction zone (SSZ), mid-oceanic-ridge, and oceanic- island compositions, with higher proportions of komatiite in complexes older than 1.6 Ga. Magmatic ages of identified and inferred complexes tend to cluster at times of 1.0–1.5 Ga, 1.8–2.3 Ga, ca. 2.5–2.7 Ga, and ca. 3.4 Ga." -Eldridge M. Moores, 2002.

So, we have records of Ophiolite complexes as old as 3.4 Ga.
15 times older then OIM's expanding earth allows for.

OIM looses again.

[OilIsMastery]

In Mongolia, there are sections of Oceanic crust
The last time I checked Mognolia is NOT included as part of the oceanic lithosphere. Thank you for supporting my case with more evidence.

See Mongolia: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

[OilIsMastery]

"Ophiolitic rocks with a zircon age of 1020 Ma occur in the Dunzhugur complex of East Sayan, Siberia, and are part of a Neoproterozoic to early Palaeozoic segment of the Central Asian fold belt." - E. V. Khaina, E. V. Bibikovab, A. Kröner, D. Z. Zhuravlevd, E. V. Sklyarove, A. A. Fedotovaa and I. R. Kravchenko-Berezhnoy -2001

Oh looky, Billion year old Oceanic Crust in Siberia.
OIM looses again.
The last time I checked Siberia is NOT included as being part of the oceanic lithosphere. Thank you for providing yet more evidence supporting my case.

See Russia: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

[Trippy]

The last time I checked Mognolia is NOT part of any oceanic lithosphere. Thank you for supporting my case with more evidence.

Are you contradicting your earlier arguments?
Are you arguing that Ophiolites don't form as a result spreading at mid ocean ridges?
Are you saying that MArine fossils found in the Himalayas and the European Alps aren't actually marine fossils?

You're being ridiculous, and dishonest.
You're contradicting yourself again.

The list of reasons goes on.

Are you suggesting that Mongolia has always been landlocked?
Seesh. Get real.

You're arguing for a static earth scenario.

[Trippy]

The last time I checked Siberia is NOT included as being part of the oceanic lithosphere. Thank you for providing yet more evidence supporting my case.

See Russia: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

Are you contradicting your earlier arguments?
Are you arguing that Ophiolites don't form as a result spreading at mid ocean ridges?
Are you saying that MArine fossils found in the Himalayas and the European Alps aren't actually marine fossils?

You're being ridiculous, and dishonest.
You're contradicting yourself again.

The list of reasons goes on.

Are you suggesting that Mongolia has always been landlocked?
Seesh. Get real.

You're arguing for a static earth scenario.

Substitute Mongolia for Siberia.

[OilIsMastery]

Substitute Mongolia for Siberia.
And you will find neither are included in the oceanic lithosphere.

See here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

[Vkothii]

And someone who knows next to nothing about geology, will find that both areas were part of the oceanic lithosphere, hundreds of My ago.
It explains the marine fossils, and the basalts you can find there, like today.

What's your mythology have to say about bivalve fossils that you can find inland?
Does it have a suggestion about why they're found to be so old, when they're dated?

Your utterly ludicrous, naive "theory" doesn't explain a whole lot of stuff at all, does it?

[OilIsMastery]

And someone who knows next to nothing about geology, will find that both were part of the oceanic lithosphere, hundreds of My ago.
Yup they sure were. But they aren't now. How do you explain that if they are being subducted?

It explains the marine fossils, and the basalts you can find there, like today.
Yup they sure were. But they aren't now. How do you explain that if they are being subducted and magically transformed into oil?

[Vkothii]

Yup they sure wereSo, you're prepared to admit there are inland areas of continents, that used to be seafloor?
. But they aren't now. No, obviously not. They aren't seafloor any more, because they're land now. They've been uplifted 'somehow' and now they're above current sea-level. Did you notice that, did you?
How do you explain that if they are being subducted?How do you get to the idea they're being subducted? They're now part of a continental craton. Continents are not subducted, they aren't heavy enough, you ignorant twat.
Your naivete isn't at all surprising; obviously you haven't learned much about the subject.

How about those marine fossils a few km up in the Himalayas? Are you going to claim the Tibetan plateau is supposed to be subducting?

[OilIsMastery]

So, you're prepared to admit there are inland areas of continents, that used to be seafloor?
Yes of course. That's where the fossils are found.

No, obviously not. They aren't seafloor any more, because they're land now. They've been uplifted 'somehow' and now they're above current sea-level. Did you notice that, did you?
It's called oceanic seafloor spreading.

How do you get to the idea they're being subducted?
Good question.

Continents are not subducted, they aren't heavy enough
I agree 100%. Excellent point.

How about those marine fossils a few km up in the Himalayas? Are you going to claim the Tibetan plateau is supposed to be subducting?
Only a moron would believe that the Tibetan plateau (or anywhere else on earth for that matter) is subducting....:crazy:

[Vkothii]

Hang on, you're saying the oceanic basalts in the middle of Mongolia got there from seafloor spreading?

This spreading process pushes plates apart? There's no pull from anywhere to drive the mid-ocean spreading?

[OilIsMastery]

Hang on, you're saying the oceanic basalts in the middle of Mongolia got there from seafloor spreading?
Mongolia isn't oceanic.

This spreading process pushes plates apart?
No. There are no plates. The spreading creates new crust out of the rift. Noone disputes this on either side of the debate.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo

There's no pull from anywhere to drive the mid-ocean spreading?
Pull?

[amark317]

YES!! YOUR MOM!!!!XD
but seriously I have no idea:D

[Trippy]

And you will find neither are included in the oceanic lithosphere.

See here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg

Not the current Oceanic lithosphere, no, because the regions have been incorporated as parts of continental sequences.

Once again.

Are you denying that Ophiolites are created at Mid ocean spreading centers?
Are you denying that there are numerous examples of Oceanic crust, substantially older then any current oceanic crust, inorporated in continental crust?
Are you denying the presence of deep ocean sequences in land locked areas?

[Trippy]

Yup they sure were. But they aren't now. How do you explain that if they are being subducted?


Yup they sure were. But they aren't now. How do you explain that if they are being subducted and magically transformed into oil?

It's called an accretionary wedge.
It's called a suture zone.

You're being dishonest (again) and raising a strawman argument (again).

[Trippy]

So, you're prepared to admit there are inland areas of continents, that used to be seafloor?
Yes of course. That's where the fossils are found.

No, obviously not. They aren't seafloor any more, because they're land now. They've been uplifted 'somehow' and now they're above current sea-level. Did you notice that, did you?

It's called oceanic seafloor spreading.


Mongolia isn't oceanic.

Speaking of crazy (and contradicting ones self).

[OilIsMastery]

LOL. You really have made no attempt to understand the theory.

[Trippy]

LOL. You really have made no attempt to understand the theory.

Yeah I have.

it's based on the observation that the oldest active oceanic crust is about 200Ma.

it ignores the fact that there exists Oceanic crust sequences, now incorporated into continental masses (by obduction) that were laid down by spreading ridges, in an ocean that are more than 3.4 Ga old.

You haven't made any attempt to understand the objections.

For example, as I have already asked.

If Mongolia isn't oceanic, then how does it contain sequences that you have explicitly aknowledged, originate from oceanic sea floor spreading?

[Vkothii]

LOL. You really have made no attempt to understand the theory.That's the wrong pronoun, Oillie; shouldn't it say: "I have made no attempt to understand any theory"?