Thread: Birth of Earth

  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by jsispat View Post
    can you provide me some reasons that why we we consider that earth is dead .
    If I remember correctly, living things have to do 5 things to be considered living:
    - reproduce
    - eat
    - expel waste
    - respond to stimuli
    - regulate their own body

    These could be wrong as I've not done biology since school

    The Earth doesn't reproduce (I've seen no baby Earth's around...), eat, expel waste or respond to stimuli. It kind of regulates itself (as do many complex systems). In short, the Earth does not fulfil all the criteria for being alive. The fact that it's composed of minerals (by definition inorganic, regular arrangements of molecules) also points to the fact that it's not alive. It doesn't grow (expand or shrink). It's been here for 4.6 billion years (or 4,600,000,000 years), as have the rest of the planets in this solar system. In short, it's a sphere of rock, floating in space, with a thin coating of life on the surface (or top few hundred kms).

    Please, read some reputable webpages - you've been given plenty of links on this forum, in other fora and by email by lot's of people - go read them. Absorb and understand. Your "theory" is incorrect and has no basis in evidence other than vague coincidences and spurious observations. Really, I've been a geologist for 14+ years, have read the books you haven't, and have spent > 6 years doing geological research. Trust my expert opinion (you should be glad of this, it usually costs a lot of money to get such an opinion!) - your theory is incorrect.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by EndLightEnd View Post
    Subduction zone located right ON TOP of the expanding mid ocean ridge? That doesnt make sense.
    And that subduction zone is MUCH smaller than the entirety of the pacific ridge.
    Just to show some very recent research on subduction zones in the Pacific, this was in my inbox yesterday:

    Rapid change in drift of the Australian plate records collision with
    Ontong Java plateau pp754-757
    Geochronological data on hotspot volcanoes in eastern Australia are presented, which reveal a strong link between collision of the plateau with the Melanesian arc and motion of the Australian plate. The timing and brevity of this collisional event correlate well with offsets in hotspot seamount tracks in the Pacific, including the archetypal Hawaiian chain, and thus provide strong evidence that immense oceanic plateaus can contribute to initiating rapid change in plate boundaries and motions on a global scale.
    Kurt M. Knesel, Benjamin E. Cohen, Paulo M. Vasconcelos and David S. Thiede
    doi:10.1038/nature07138
    Abstract: http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/...hl0HjB0B2bS0Eu
    Article: http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/...hl0HjB0B2bT0Ev
    See another line of evidence for subduction! Geochronological data on hotspot volcanoes. Seriously, how much evidence do you want? the literature is full of it. A search on Web of Science with "subduction" in the title gives 3260 result. I have a PDF of the 1st 50 (including abstracts) if you'd like. I tried to upload it, but it failed...

    I thought it might be of interest to see how EE was examined in the literature too. Trying the same exercise for "expanding earth" produces 52 results. A quick scan reveals some very old papers (60's & 70's), which are discussed EE. Some more recent (80's) from the Journal of Indian Geology which appear to be debunking it in terms of energy requirements and few more obscure articles. However, the older papers (which span '63 to early 80's - 1981 appears to be the last credible article) are very insightful. It appears that EE was seriously considered in the early 70's (few publications in Nature), but evidence since then has simply discounted it - projections for change in Earth's radius since the Devonian is less than 0.1cm/yr, which means that although a possible expansion of 1000km might be possible, this is too small to account for the present ocean basins, even if they started growing in the Devonian (which they didn't). Coupled with major ocean basins being present during most of Earth's history, the stability in the volume of the hydrosphere and countless other arguments, meant that EE died a death (although very long and lingeringly!).

    The point I'm trying to make here is that if you actually did some research, the answers you seek are right there, laid out clearly, for anyone to read (if they have access )

  3. #163

    birth of earth

    Quote Originally Posted by geologyrocks View Post
    If I remember correctly, living things have to do 5 things to be considered living:
    - reproduce
    - eat
    - expel waste
    - respond to stimuli
    - regulate their own body

    These could be wrong as I've not done biology since school

    The Earth doesn't reproduce (I've seen no baby Earth's around...), eat, expel waste or respond to stimuli. It kind of regulates itself (as do many complex systems). In short, the Earth does not fulfil all the criteria for being alive. The fact that it's composed of minerals (by definition inorganic, regular arrangements of molecules) also points to the fact that it's not alive. It doesn't grow (expand or shrink). It's been here for 4.6 billion years (or 4,600,000,000 years), as have the rest of the planets in this solar system. In short, it's a sphere of rock, floating in space, with a thin coating of life on the surface (or top few hundred kms).

    Please, read some reputable webpages - you've been given plenty of links on this forum, in other fora and by email by lot's of people - go read them. Absorb and understand. Your "theory" is incorrect and has no basis in evidence other than vague coincidences and spurious observations. Really, I've been a geologist for 14+ years, have read the books you haven't, and have spent > 6 years doing geological research. Trust my expert opinion (you should be glad of this, it usually costs a lot of money to get such an opinion!) - your theory is incorrect.
    1. tree or plants are alive.did they fulfill all requrements of alive.
    2. i have already given all explantion that fulfilling all requirement of alive of earth.
    3. i have mentioned that earth is produced from seeds that are meteroids and planets also produce that seeds out of very few can germinate.
    4. universe is like a soil for planets and they sre growing in that soil with the help of sun they are making there foods and eating.
    5. actual the whole process is like a growth of tree in forest same process planets growth in universe.

  4. #164

    birth of earth

    Quote Originally Posted by geologyrocks View Post
    If I remember correctly, living things have to do 5 things to be considered living:
    - reproduce
    - eat
    - expel waste
    - respond to stimuli
    - regulate their own body

    These could be wrong as I've not done biology since school

    The Earth doesn't reproduce (I've seen no baby Earth's around...), eat, expel waste or respond to stimuli. It kind of regulates itself (as do many complex systems). In short, the Earth does not fulfil all the criteria for being alive. The fact that it's composed of minerals (by definition inorganic, regular arrangements of molecules) also points to the fact that it's not alive. It doesn't grow (expand or shrink). It's been here for 4.6 billion years (or 4,600,000,000 years), as have the rest of the planets in this solar system. In short, it's a sphere of rock, floating in space, with a thin coating of life on the surface (or top few hundred kms).

    Please, read some reputable webpages - you've been given plenty of links on this forum, in other fora and by email by lot's of people - go read them. Absorb and understand. Your "theory" is incorrect and has no basis in evidence other than vague coincidences and spurious observations. Really, I've been a geologist for 14+ years, have read the books you haven't, and have spent > 6 years doing geological research. Trust my expert opinion (you should be glad of this, it usually costs a lot of money to get such an opinion!) - your theory is incorrect.
    moon is the baby of earth.
    actual moon is germinated from seed produced by earth.

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by jsispat
    moon is the baby of earth.

  6. #166
    So the moon is alive as well then huh.. ? How does your theory account for that one ?

  7. #167
    This too shall pass. EndLightEnd's Avatar
    Posts
    1,301
    Ok geology Ill submit for now, but Im still gonna be looking for something else.

    I want to go back to something you said about the moon earlier...

    Quote Originally Posted by geologyrocks View Post
    The large craters you show on the "informative" video are mares - volcanic eruptions. Essentially a lake of basalt. They formed ~3Ga (which can be dated from crater amounts and from radiometric dating).
    If they had formed so long ago, why is there such a significant lack of craterization apparent ONLY in these huge areas?

    Craters are all over the place on the moon, but almost completely absent within these mares, as if it is new material.

    I havent found a sufficient explanation yet.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by EndLightEnd View Post
    Ok geology Ill submit for now, but Im still gonna be looking for something else.

    I want to go back to something you said about the moon earlier...



    If they had formed so long ago, why is there such a significant lack of craterization apparent ONLY in these huge areas?

    Craters are all over the place on the moon, but almost completely absent within these mares, as if it is new material.

    I havent found a sufficient explanation yet.
    There was a period of heavy bombardment of planets in the first 600Myr or so of the solar system. This finished at around 4Ga. As the mares are ~3Ga, they have very few craters. The same is true for other planets. Look at Mars' northern volcanic plains - almost crater free compared to the south. Same reason. So you are right - it is new material.

  9. #169
    This too shall pass. EndLightEnd's Avatar
    Posts
    1,301
    Why are the mares only on the side facing earth?

  10. #170
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,078
    Quote Originally Posted by EndLightEnd View Post
    So what gives? WHERE are the subduction zones on this map?
    They're simply not marked.

    http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/data/ftp/gtam.gif

  11. #171
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,078
    Quote Originally Posted by EndLightEnd View Post
    Why are the mares only on the side facing earth?
    Probably because that's the side that the lunar crust is thinnest on.

    There is at least one mare on the far side, it's just smaller.

  12. #172

  13. #173
    This too shall pass. EndLightEnd's Avatar
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Probably because that's the side that the lunar crust is thinnest on.

    There is at least one mare on the far side, it's just smaller.
    Link?

  14. #174
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,078
    Quote Originally Posted by EndLightEnd View Post
    Link?
    It's pay per view, but http://rimg.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/...tract/60/1/221 talks about the crust being 15km thinner on the near side then on the far side (which makes sense, when you think about it).

    It has also been suggested that the difference in distribution of vulcanism might be due to the difference in the distribution of radioactive elements (a heat source) observed by the Lunar Prospector mission

    Finally, the video is factually inaccurate.

    There are several maria on the far side, they're just not as extensive.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_PIA00304.jpg

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by EndLightEnd View Post
    Why are the mares only on the side facing earth?
    In addition to the other replies note that this may be a) pure chance b) significant in some other way we haven't determined yet.

    I'm not sure when tidal lock set in, but if it preceded mare eruption then tidal heating superimposed on legacy temperatures would likely have been higher on the side closest to the Earth and so vulcanism would have been more sustainable. (Pure speculation!)

  16. #176
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    969
    From center layer (carbon) to near surface (silicon)

    Carbon 440 miles thick
    Nitrogen 243 miles thick
    Oxygen 174 miles thick
    Florine 19 miles thick
    Neon 50 miles thick

    Sodium 22 miles thick
    Mg 14 miles thick
    Alumin. 83 miles thick
    Silicon 2.7 miles thick

    In my assement of the moons compostion, it appears that the center of the moon is, or the majority of the moon is of gaseous elements,(or liquid in normal state) where the gas portion of the moons interior comprises 486 miles of the radius of the moon. The moon appears to be a mere shell.

    This type of condition is suggestive of a early formation with the earth, having a slow seperation rate from the proto-earth.

    So it also seems that the moon would have out gasing marks on its surface.

    The thickness of the aluminium on the moon is as thick as the aluminium layer on earth, so the moon really could absorb asteroid strikes.


    DwayneD.L.Rabon

  17. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon View Post
    From center layer (carbon) to near surface (silicon)

    Carbon 440 miles thick
    Nitrogen 243 miles thick
    Oxygen 174 miles thick
    Florine 19 miles thick
    Neon 50 miles thick

    Sodium 22 miles thick
    Mg 14 miles thick
    Alumin. 83 miles thick
    Silicon 2.7 miles thick

    In my assement of the moons compostion, it appears that the center of the moon is, or the majority of the moon is of gaseous elements,(or liquid in normal state) where the gas portion of the moons interior comprises 486 miles of the radius of the moon. The moon appears to be a mere shell.

    This type of condition is suggestive of a early formation with the earth, having a slow seperation rate from the proto-earth.

    So it also seems that the moon would have out gasing marks on its surface.

    The thickness of the aluminium on the moon is as thick as the aluminium layer on earth, so the moon really could absorb asteroid strikes.


    DwayneD.L.Rabon


    http://www.godigitalscrapbooking.com...ilies/lmao.gif

  18. #178

    birth of earth

    what about my theory that earth is alive and growing day by day by absorbing energy from universe with the help of sun.

  19. #179

  20. #180
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    969
    Well jsispat
    when looking at the earth as a living form, it depends on what stage you are determing it as a life form.

    within the solar system it would be considered a organ such as a heart or liver. A organ that interacts with the other planets in our solar system. The role of a organ is to complete a specific proccess such as the secreation of a chemical that the body or another organ is dependant upon. making survival possible.
    If we look at the earths as a organ then the communication or reaction that makes it a member of the solar system, the reaction that other planets are dependant upon would be a gravitional signal or pretubance. in such a view the moon would play a significant role.
    Certainly the world exspans and contracts and has oscilation/vibration simular to a organ of a living body such as the liver.

    Generally speaking the earth is contracting becoming denser overtime as it approachs the sun, the center of solar gravity. evenso there are conditions that cause the earth to exspand.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •