Birth of Earth

There might just be one.
Astronomers use the Earth's surface as a baseline to measure the wobble (precessional rate of change, nutation) in the Earth's rotation. The points, used as references, outside the system (as far outside as possible) are things like quasars and any regular kinds of events out there in the cosmos; to have, to describe or measure, a fixed external frame (an inertial frame, in fact). It's about as inertial as you get these days.

It has to account for the few cm. of drift [annually] between various "fixed" points, on that surface. That's pretty convincing to me (and I sniff solder fumes occasionally).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so according to you tree log has also white crust . the lighter material flown to out side the core means tree log is dead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

jsispat: The planet you and I, and everyone are stuck to, is not alive.
Rocks aren't alive, volcanoes aren't either. The sea has a lot of live things in it - mostly tiny one-celled things. The surface of the land has live things on it, including us, and we know there are bacteria living way down beneath the surface in some of the rocks.

Rocks are not living, are they? When did you last see a rock cross the road?
Or buy a Big Mac and eat it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

true rocks to whom we have aproch is dead but we have not aproach to real layer of earth that are alive. we have aproach only dead skin that is why we do not know about that earth is a living thing.

 

How can you be certain that we've only found "dead skin"?
Or certain that we will find a "living" part of the planet one day?
If it looks dead (it isn't eating its Big Mac, or following you across the road to the McDonalds), it probably is dead.
So when will we find this living part, you think? How much longer?

 

Th Earth is not alive by definition. Enough said.

 

I dont think we know enough about life to have a good definition of it. All we know is life on this planet and EVEN that we still have not learned everything.

Take a look at this picture of the ocean floor map showing the various ridges located in the oceans.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now if the pacific ocean was getting smaller as EVERYONE seems to be claiming it is, then why is the spreading of the mid ocean ridge in the pacific GOING FASTER than the spreading in the Atlantic? (You can tell by the color gradients)

Furthermore this picture only seems to show ridges that spread, where are the subduction zones?
Look at how much sea floor has been newly created in the last 70 million years. If subduction was taking place it seems the continents should be MUCH smaller than they are today. (Or are continents immune to subduction?) There is no evidence to suggest that the continents themselves are being replenished like the sea floor.

So what gives? WHERE are the subduction zones on this map?

 

Well then, what can we do but try our best to find out about it and update our definition along the way ?
If, as you say, we don't know enough about life to have a good definition you can certainly not know that the Earth is alive.

Not this again ! :bugeye:

 

Are you going to answer the question, or avoid it? If the pacific is getting smaller, why is the rate of new ocean floor being created HIGHER there?
Where are the subduction zones to cancel expansion?

 

Because the Earth is alive.

 

*sigh* You done?
Answer the questions?
Do you not know? Then dont post smartass remarks.

 

Subduction is a crock, then?
So how do you explain the fact that the ocean floor is oldest at the margins, but no older than ~200my? Why isn't there some 4.5b yr old ocean floor somewhere?

 

Did I say it was a crock?
I simply asked where the subduction zones where, I was TOLD they were in the pacific because its "shrinking" but when I looked up a map of the ocean floor I found an EXPANDING mid ocean ridge.

And there isnt a 4.5Byr old ocean floor, because as the creator of the video I posted earlier stated, expansion has only been happening for about 70Myr, as indicated by the ages of the new material near the mid ocean ridges.

So again I ask, where are the subduction zones? Why are continents seemingly immune to subduction?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone

 

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.

 

Both subduction (at continental margins, and deep trenches) and ocean-floor spreading occur simultaneously, all over the surface. All the time.
They aren't the only dynamics, either. It's somewhat more complex than just the two things, in some kind of cyclic equilibrium.

Why don't you read some of the hundreds of thousands of online articles. You found the mid-oceanic ridge map, didn't the site have anything to say about subduction?

Can you explain why the continents are almost at the limit of divergence? Or what the tectonics model predicts will happen in ~12-15 mil yrs, or ~240 mil later?

 

pls see the following points
1. i am not educated just small businessman so facing the technical language problem.
2. i have already attached the links of log of tree. actually i am comparing the birth of earth like birth of tree, because every log of tree has same core and crust like earth and well managed layers that earth also has.
3.tree log has bark same we have continents or bark of earth , and we have only aproch to that bark only or shrinked skin or dead skin.
4. plate tectonics is also part of my theory. i also accept plate tectonics.
5. in earlier stage of earth expantion was very fast because of growing time.
6. i have not read anywhere that earth is expanding and continents are shrinking . these are only my views.
7. better is if some one monutely watch the log of tree and after cutted it also.
8. universe is like a soil where planets are growing with the help of sun and perparing there food also and growing

 

Well, there you go then.

 

It does in a plate tectonic paradigm: subduction is > spreading rate. The subduction eventually caught up with the spreading ridge and down it goes... It does not make sense in an EE paradigm (i.e. EE is wrong). This was one of the points I gave earlier as to how EE is inconstant with the evidence...

What you actually mean is: "That doesn't make sense to me". It makes sense to me (and other geologists all over the world).

That is a small segment of the whole subduction zone around the entire pacific. Evidence:
- Mountain ranges around whole pacific
- Earthquakes around whole pacific
- volcanic activity around whole pacific (which is different kind to that on ocean ridges - compare Mt St Helens to a spreading ridge).
- Ocean trench around whole pacific
- Imaging of subduction slab around whole pacific (by gravity, seismic tomography, moment tensors, location of earthquakes (Benioff Zone))
- Relative plate motions (calculated from the magnetic stripes, Hawaiian hotspot, GPS, etc)
- The existence of andesitic volcanic islands (like Japan and the Aleutian's - go read about their geologic history or better yet go and look at it yourself!)

Here are some nice videos (after all, it's easier than actually reading stuff or going out into the field to do some research...): http://emvc.geol.ucsb.edu/downloads.php#RegionalTectGeolHist

 

can you provide me some reasons that why we we consider that earth is dead .