OIM, You miss certain differences between the Earth and the Sun. For instance our surface is cooled, we have Water and Atmosphere that have come from somewhere. The sun is a giant gas ball that's generating heat and photonic output because of it's overall mass. The sun can expand as it's made of Gas. Rudimentary Science lessons you should of had back when you were about the age of 12 should of explained to you the difference between a Gas, Liquid and Solid. A solid is so because it takes up less volume but a higher density, where as Gas (or technically Plasma when you are dealing with the sun) takes up a larger area with less density. (Although in the suns case due to it's gravity it actually causes a greater density because the gas can't escape it's gravity.) Obviously with stars the exertion of energy slowly degrades the overall Mass which then allows the gases to start to expand out and cool. Therefore an Expanding earth I'm afraid is not possible, the only expansion that has come from it's makeup has been gases to create an atmosphere while solids remained so. (If the Earth was expanding then a majority of our rock formations would have entrapped bubbles like Pumice stones) Incidentally you should of already known this, after all we've already talked about Methane and gases emerging and obviously such gases are necessary to push your beloved oil to the surface, without that pressure we'd have to pump oil and find that we use more energy than we get from it to do so.
Stryder, Are you saying there is no gas in the Earth? What about natural gas? What about the bubbling hydrogen that came out of the Kola Superdeep Borehole? The sun exists in all three states: gaseous, liquid plasma, and solid. Link
I think you've just proven you like to "skim read", which is probably why you use so many quotes. Rather than bogging yourself down in someone's text, you just deal in paragraphs. I say this because you obviously missed some comments I made in my posts in regards to this: Therefore I have stated, There is gas, if finds the easiest route to escape and come to the surface (Since Gases are of less mass than solids). Escaping gas can cause "pockets/bubbles" (Pumice, although Pumice also required the solids to be "Liquid" to capture such bubbles). Once it's escaped to the surface it expands out "Atmosphere" not the Earth's Crust.
I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion. You just provided evidence for the very thing you seek disprove. We observe porous rocks and porosity all throughout the crust, pumice being a fine example.
It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion. Correct. Correct. What growth rate are you infering? I suggest you infer a different growth rate. I don't know how you would possibly know that although the cause of the birth of the oceans is mysterious and puzzling and certainly needs to be addressed.
Let me explain it simpler for you since you seem to be missing the boat on this one. Take a can of fizzy drink and shake it. Now you should know that if you attempt to open it you'll find it explodes everywhere. This is due to the Carbon Dioxide in the liquid attempting to escape, usually the escape means the bubbles come up from inside the liquid itself meaning bubbles. The only way to deal with a can that has been "shaken" is to actually Flick the tin a bit before opening, flicking the tin causes the bubble formations which are still under pressure to rise to the top of the liquid. When you do eventually open the tin, you still have the same pressure come out from the can being excited, however it's not coming up through the liquid, it's just gas from above the surface. What I am trying to explain is that the gases originally would have been much like the can being shaken to begin with, but over time those gases below the surface have slowly moved to the surface while under pressure. This can generate gas pockets and bubbles to become trapped in cooling rocks but only at the Surface level (rock below the Surface is under pressure) Some rock formation will maintain those bubbles while under pressure, other rock formations lose those bubbles because it escapes to the surface to generate atmosphere. What you should be really asking is how long a can of Fizzy pop the size of the planet would stay fizzy for, especially with the number of leaks it has in it's container.
That question can be asked regardless of the earth's expansion. Apparently over 15,000 years of methane release has had zero impact: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008/09/over-15000-years-of-methane-release.html (Oh and btw, methane is 10 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 so 200 years of human CO2 emissions are irrelevant.)
Stryder, once you have established clearly in your own mind that OIM is incapable of rational thought, cannot construct a logical argument, fails to properly address any points that refute his speculations, quotes out of context, and generally behaves in a thoroughly trollish fashion......once you have established that, would you please boot the despicable turd of this forum permanently. Much appreciated.
I'm inferring the growth rate that is shown on the map you posted. It requires a little bit of actual thinking, so I'll try to walk you through it. We see a color change coming from the fault lines to the edges of continents, and this color change corresponds to how old the crust is. Right at the fault lines we have red, which means less than 20 million years old. At the edges of continents we have green and blue, which means less than 140 million years old. That means the entire ocean floor is not older than 140 million years. Which means in just 140 million years the Earth must have expanded enough to create the ocean floor. How do you explain that without subduction?
Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Ophiolites also require subduction. And again, simple spreading can not account for Ophiolites resting ontop of crustal sequences. Try again.
Bzzzzt. Neal Adams has, as near as I can tell, no credible background in science. The video you link to also contains false hoods in the form of land masses that don't actually exist (beyond the scope of what he claims he accounted for). Or are you going to try and argue in favour of Mu again?
Don't be so rude. And you're also blatantly wrong here. If subduction was not real there would be no Ophiolites, because they require subduction. If Subduction was not real there would be no OPhiolites in crustal sequences. The point remains that Ophiolites are evidence of oceanic crust older than anything shown on that map that you're mis-representing.
In that case I must be hallucinating because this sur elooks like a Benioff zone to me. (Map generated curtosey of Geonet, using earthquake data 1948 - to, greater than 40km depth. <40km depth excluded because they're so numerous and wide spread they hide everything). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oops, looks like you're wrong again.
Very easily. It's called oceanic seafloor spreading. "The greatest disturbance of traditional geological views came from the concept of oceanic seafloor spreading. By now, this has developed into a well-balanced theory which is in agreement with the results of geological and geophysical observations." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998 "Now that the subduction concept has been developed for almost 30 years, it can be said that it has not been fruitful geologically." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998 "There is no doubt that the subduction model constitutes the weakest link in the construction of plate tectonics, as has been repeatedly pointed out." -- Yury V. Chudinov, geologist, 1998
You're missing the point completely. Read my post again, I think it was pretty clear, especially this part: Which means in just 140 million years the Earth must have expanded enough to create the ocean floor. How do you explain that without subduction?
