Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during CPT

[TrueCreation]

--This is an article I have been working on. For those knowledgable in geophysics/geodynamics and heat transfer, a review of my article would be well appreciated. Given that it is an article on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and Runaway Subduction, I guess I expect harsh critisism. Don't care as long as it carries with it examples of objective inconsistencies in my article--unfounded criticism will probably be ignored anyways.

--Have fun!

Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

<i>Abstract
In this paper I illustrate in sufficient detail some of the current successes of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics theory and, with much more emphasis, the inconsistencies which must be resolved in the future.

I explain that the function of heat transfer and lithospheric plate cooling is among the largest of inconsistencies in current models for catastrophic plate tectonics which requires a solution. I provide fundamental incite on the relevance of heat transfer through the oceanic lithosphere on resultant ocean floor bathymetry. We begin by addressing the geophysical process of lithospheric cooling for oceanic plates and show that isostasy is the most influential factor in determining the topography of the new oceanic lithosphere. I will also show that isostatic induced bathymetry has a direct correlation with models for plate cooling and heat transfer of the newly formed oceanic lithosphere. In comparing mainstream models for plate cooling with the data we note that uniformitarian geophysics accurately predicts bathymetry.

Next I discuss the initiation of runaway subduction and suggest that the onset of accelerated radioisotopic decay is a very plausible mechanistic trigger for catastrophic plate tectonics. Horstemeyer and Baumgardner and have made other suggestions for the initiation though I maintain that such an acceleration of nuclear decay is still tenable. Venusian data suggest that Venus has gone through a global resurfacing event which can be shown to be of brief duration. My inferential conclusions of the data lends support for a universally correlated mechanism and that it was not a terrestrial event.

Thereafter, I discuss the consequences of attributing the appearance of age in the geologic record to an acceleration in radioisotopic decay with details from the effects on the mean surface heat flux from mantle radioisotopes. I show that this is the most problematic consequence of using it as the mechanism for radioisotopic distribution in the geologic record. Seeing that it is likely to be the only explanation for this appearance of age, we must find a solution in the future if we are to ever forward catastrophic plate tectonics as a plausible alternative to mainstream geophysics.

Lastly I return to ocean floor bathymetry and its direct correlative consequence on eustasy according to varying rates of heat transfer and models for plate cooling. It is possible that research inquiries into shock hydrodynamics are promising to provide the solution to our inconsistencies with the implications for current tranquil models for heat transfer.</i>

http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/OYSI/Articles/Draft/heattransfer2.htm

--Comments and suggestions are welcome. Keep in mind it is currently in a draft phase.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[spuriousmonkey]

i made some comments here, but don't read them if you can't take criticism. It will be the last thing you ever wrote if you do.


comments

 

[Blindman]

Nice bit of mathematics.

I have to say as a programmer you should express your calculations as algorithms rather then mathematical notation, but that’s me. I always find it difficult to remember the variable when expressed as t0(temp of sea water ), Pm-Pw. Anyway besides the point.

Basically you are saying that the buoyancy of the lithosphere can become so great that it would displace the ocean and cover the continents with water.
I have entered your calcs into my own program. I agree that your theory could work but below are the reasons that I would not apply it to earth.

No account as to continental plate density and volume.
To much faith in the isothermal symmetry. There are only lab results we have no real numbers.
No explanation of other possible subduction mechanisms.
No account for forced subduction due to continental plates
No account for decreasing area of aging Lithosphere. Due to other subduction mechanisms
No calculations involving the effects cooling and settling (subduction )of the Asthenosphere has on the aging Lithosphere.
No account for horizontal deformation pressure in the Lithosphere. Fracturing, folding of the lithosphere.
Total disregard to the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of a global ocean on earth.

If you’re arguing a global flood, shouldn’t you tell us how much water there is and more.

So what would I know.. I am modifying your code into a global system. This includes the size of the planet, Its average density, total volume of water, Total area of the continental land mass, number of mid ocean ridges.

Ok work in progress. I have discovered that aging Lithosphere will tend to pile up at subduction zones. The youngest will fall and the older will pile up and create continents.

Anyway im no geologist. But I would not publish your paper.


It was and still is fun..

 

[Dwayne D.L.Rabon]

I am unsure of you investigation into the rising flow of magma dischrage. however i see the event of such dischrage orginating from under the given conteniets, and seeping from such depths to the ocean basins, in large rivers forced from under the contenits by luna gravitation( with contential lifts of up to 6ft) allowing magma releases in varible order, and variation in the solar medium causing changes in rotation al speeds.
Wherein the ocean basins are the thickest protion of the earths curst,and the conteniets the thinest. in addtion making the ocean basins the oldest geological formations on earth, allowing for erosion and a increase in radioactive decay measurements that you note.
Here I also find that the bi products of these decays account for the ocean water, and hydrogen,helium as the princlpe agents as the heat source producing the magma at deeper levels under conteints. When periods of mass stablity occurs or lack of decay,stress is created on plates, and the variablity of that stablity determines the increase in magma pressure, resulting in volcanic eruptions at land source, and in release allowing for magama plumes at the sea basin from the soruce rivers. Where release factors are determined by earths variable rotation speed and luna approaches, angle,apogee,perigee ans solar background constant.

In addtion lastly i find that the center of gravity, is not at the center of earth but 1000 miles to 1,500 miles below earth surface, and that only materials above this depth are projected to the surface to cause for magma flow,plumes rivers,volcanos ect.... .

Note that the litoshpere is thickest in the middle regions of plates.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

 

[Blindman]

How do you account for the fact that center of gravity of the earth moves over time.
True the center of gravity is close to the surface but most of the time it is not, half the time it is greater then the radius of the earth. Magma moves slowly. Earth moon interaction will have minimal effect. Earth sun even less…

Note that the litoshpere is thickest in the middle regions of plates.

You will have to back that up with a little proof.

 

[TrueCreation]

There is a awfull lot going on on Terra-not-so-Firma. Do you have any actual substantiation of evidence in mind of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and Runaway Subduction. The siberian traps perhaps?

--Yes, forthcoming papers by Baumgardner <i>et al.</i> will attempt to bring forth diagnostic and more unequivocal evidences for the rapidity of plate tectonics. This was not the objective of my paper, my paper addressed geophysical modeling of the process(whether it has occured or not is a question on its own).

Unfortunately the paper seems to pose a hypothesis that is based on other hypotheses like the layering of the Lithosphere (which seems to be sieged right now) and the geo-nucleair reactor. That is distracting from it's convincing power. ( BTW This may be a useful hypothesis too: http://nuclearplanet.com/pnas 2003.pdf )

--The 'layering of the lithosphere', I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean the point of differentiation between the lithosphere and athenosphere by the isothermic signature (explained in the article), this is very well substantiated. I get most of my information from the recent work of Turcotte & Schubert [2002].
--I am also not exactly sure what you mean by the 'geo-nuclear reactor', but I would assume it has to do with the recently postulated Uranium core. I do not draw any of my information from this postulate and is not needed to substantiate any application in my paper.

From the evidence, it seems that Venus may have had a much more powerful Venus-reactor that is obsolete now.

--"Venus-Reactor"? In my paper I forwarded the possibility that the rapid global resurfacing of Venus may have been induced just as it would have on earth if it were not for the presence of water.

Anyway the foundation of a second degree hyphothesis is not that strong as I have experienced. The only way to recognision looks like a total system approach in which every aspect of evidence as been covered like geomagnetism, oceanography, isotope behaviour, direct geologic evidence, etc, etc.

--I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I was looking for qualified geophysicist too, but to date nobody here demasked himself as such. You may like to peek here or here for one. [/B]

--I will have to check up on those forums later. Thanks

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[TrueCreation]

Nice bit of mathematics.

I have to say as a programmer you should express your calculations as algorithms rather then mathematical notation, but that’s me. I always find it difficult to remember the variable when expressed as t0(temp of sea water ), Pm-Pw. Anyway besides the point.

--This is the usual format for mathematical illustrations in geophysics and other physical sciences--so would be more appropriate it would seem.

Basically you are saying that the buoyancy of the lithosphere can become so great that it would displace the ocean and cover the continents with water.
I have entered your calcs into my own program. I agree that your theory could work but below are the reasons that I would not apply it to earth.

No account as to continental plate density and volume.

--Density is as I have elaborated on exhaustively in my article, a function of lithospheric cooling as the new oceanic lithosphere is created at mid ocean ridges and drifts toward its corresponding convergent plate boundary.

To much faith in the isothermal symmetry. There are only lab results we have no real numbers.

--Isothermal symmetry? And how do I have too much faith in this? If you are talking about the isothermal boundary and its symmetry for both sides of the mid-ocean ridge--this is a realistic assumption. At both sides of the mid ocean ridge the same processes are occuring at the same rate including lithospheric cooling.

No explanation of other possible subduction mechanisms.

--"Other possible subduction mechanisms"?? Elaborate on this please.

No account for forced subduction due to continental plates

--How is this not accounted for? This is a given, well founded, and undisputed phenomena in my paper. I am not trying to overthrow the currently prevailing wilson cycle.

No account for decreasing area of aging Lithosphere. Due to other subduction mechanisms

--Due to other subduction mechanisms? The decreasing area of the aging lithosphere is not directly discussed in my paper because it does not make significant contribution to the resultant bathymetry. I do not see how this is an inconsistency in my paper.

No calculations involving the effects cooling and settling (subduction )of the Asthenosphere has on the aging Lithosphere.

--What? If I read you right, this is what is discussed non-stop all throughout my paper--lithospheric cooling as the new oceanic lithosphere is manufactured at mid-ocean ridges and its ultimate effects on eustasy.

No account for horizontal deformation pressure in the Lithosphere. Fracturing, folding of the lithosphere.

--I do not need to discuss the effects of stress, strain, elasticity, or flexure of the continental lithosphere. Why would you think differently?

Total disregard to the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of a global ocean on earth.

--I would interpret the remnants in the geologic column differently, but this is not relevant to the veracity of my paper.

If you’re arguing a global flood, shouldn’t you tell us how much water there is and more.

--I am not arguing a global flood, I am modeling the geophysical processes of catastrophic plate tectonics during the global flood and why there may have been such a flood in the first place.

So what would I know.. I am modifying your code into a global system. This includes the size of the planet, Its average density, total volume of water, Total area of the continental land mass, number of mid ocean ridges.

--From what I can see, nothing you have presented pleads to remove credibility from my paper.

Ok work in progress. I have discovered that aging Lithosphere will tend to pile up at subduction zones.

--You have? You sure that it won't just oh say.. subduct?

The youngest will fall and the older will pile up and create continents.

--You might want to read up on the subject before-hand.

--Thanks for your comments!

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[TrueCreation]

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
I am unsure of you investigation into the rising flow of magma dischrage. however i see the event of such dischrage orginating from under the given conteniets, and seeping from such depths to the ocean basins, in large rivers forced from under the contenits by luna gravitation( with contential lifts of up to 6ft) allowing magma releases in varible order, and variation in the solar medium causing changes in rotation al speeds.
Wherein the ocean basins are the thickest protion of the earths curst,and the conteniets the thinest. in addtion making the ocean basins the oldest geological formations on earth, allowing for erosion and a increase in radioactive decay measurements that you note.
Here I also find that the bi products of these decays account for the ocean water, and hydrogen,helium as the princlpe agents as the heat source producing the magma at deeper levels under conteints. When periods of mass stablity occurs or lack of decay,stress is created on plates, and the variablity of that stablity determines the increase in magma pressure, resulting in volcanic eruptions at land source, and in release allowing for magama plumes at the sea basin from the soruce rivers. Where release factors are determined by earths variable rotation speed and luna approaches, angle,apogee,perigee ans solar background constant.

In addtion lastly i find that the center of gravity, is not at the center of earth but 1000 miles to 1,500 miles below earth surface, and that only materials above this depth are projected to the surface to cause for magma flow,plumes rivers,volcanos ect.... .

Note that the litoshpere is thickest in the middle regions of plates.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

--Wow, what in the world are you talking about? So much of what you've said is conjecture, I don't know what to say. You might want to note my suggestion to Blindman for reading up on the relevant geophysical processes.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[TrueCreation]

How do you account for the fact that center of gravity of the earth moves over time.
True the center of gravity is close to the surface but most of the time it is not, half the time it is greater then the radius of the earth.

--The center of gravity of the earth moves?? I don't think so. Until we pass a star as we move through the galaxy our center of gravity will be at or very near the center of the earth.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[Blindman]

Just went back to re-read you papers and it has completely changed. Your conclusion has been removed and the length has increased.. My comments still stand on your first draft that I read just a few days ago.

--The center of gravity of the earth moves?? I don't think so. Until we pass a star as we move through the galaxy our center of gravity will be at or very near the center of the earth.

It is completely obvious that you live on a completely different planet then most of us. On my planet we look up and see the moon. We realized that earth and moon are connected by gravity.

Thus the earth’s center of gravity is about 1000 miles below the surface facing the moon. Because the earth rotates faster then the moon rotates around it, the center of gravity will move around the earth. There is also the sun which further complicates it, and so on.

I am not arguing a global flood, I am modeling the geophysical processes of catastrophic plate tectonics during the global flood and why there may have been such a flood in the first place.

Silly me of course your not. You already know it happened..

 

[Blindman]

Cooling the lithosphere. There is little evidence for lithosphere heating due to radioactive decay causing subduction or even interfering with standard subduction theory..
http://topex.ucsd.edu/geodynamics/07cooling.pdf
Current age map of oceanic lithosphere... Clearly shows that aging lithosphere deceases in area over time.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/WorldCrustalAge.jpg


Catastrophic plate tectonics. This would involve planet wide volcanic activity.. Such event would involve massive volcanic discharges. Overall these discharges would decrease the surface temperature warming due to the sun. Decreasing surface temperature plus massive evaporation rates of oceans due to heating from global magna release would result in a rapid increase in ice sheets.

THIS CPT is suppose to have happened 500-550M years ago… For your theory to work you must provide some sort of number as to the continental plate area at this time. Your theory does not include the continental plates. Continental plates have very low density and are very old. (I live on top of the oldest rock WA (Western Australia) close to 4 billion years). Continental plates also provide a glacial source which can lock vast amounts of water.

In my view and in relation to Venus resurfacing. Such a CPT even would result in an intense Ice age. Heavy snow fall over continents and poles (Need to be know if continental plates where covering polar regions at 500-550Myears) Ocean level would actually decrease.

 

[TrueCreation]

Originally posted by Blindman
Just went back to re-read you papers and it has completely changed. Your conclusion has been removed and the length has increased.. My comments still stand on your first draft that I read just a few days ago.

--On my first draft, yes, most of your [oops, I am directing this at spurious monkey's post in the other thread]comments do stand. One of your comments would probably still apply to my new version--having to do with my conclusions. I havent gotten to the conclusions section yet, it will be modified greatly to compensate for much of the additive content and altered interpretations of previously known data.

It is completely obvious that you live on a completely different planet then most of us. On my planet we look up and see the moon. We realized that earth and moon are connected by gravity.

--We also know that the moon, gravitationally, has very little effect on the earth. Why do you think lithophilic elements tend to concentrate at or near the geometric center of the earth?

Thus the earth’s center of gravity is about 1000 miles below the surface facing the moon. Because the earth rotates faster then the moon rotates around it, the center of gravity will move around the earth. There is also the sun which further complicates it, and so on.

--Sounds to me like your talking about tidal bulges, so please, what is your reference?

Silly me of course your not. You already know it happened..

--This assertion reaks of prejudice.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[TrueCreation]

Blindman:

Cooling the lithosphere. There is little evidence for lithosphere heating due to radioactive decay causing subduction or even interfering with standard subduction theory..

--What are you trying to say? As explained in my article ~75% of the surface heat flow is due to radionucleic decay (ie, ~75% of the earths heat is derived directly from nuclear decay). And what are you trying to say; "causeing subduction"? Do you understand the process of subduction? Nothing in my paper interferes with 'standard subduction theory' as you say it.

Current age map of oceanic lithosphere... Clearly shows that aging lithosphere deceases in area over time.

--If it is old enough, obviously. This is due to the subduction of the aging oceanic lithosphere approaching its corresponding plate convergent boundary.

Catastrophic plate tectonics. This would involve planet wide volcanic activity.. Such event would involve massive volcanic discharges.

--This is besides the point in regards to my paper--but to say the least, this must be something you have modeled extensively to come to this conclusion. I suggest you compile your information and publish it.

Overall these discharges would decrease the surface temperature warming due to the sun. Decreasing surface temperature plus massive evaporation rates of oceans due to heating from global magna release would result in a rapid increase in ice sheets.

--Decrease in surface temperature?? I suggest you re-read section 4 of my paper. Of course I speculate a subsequent ice age due to meteoric impact dust in the high atmosphere, but that is merely my speculation.

THIS CPT is suppose to have happened 500-550M years ago…

--I don't know when it happend, but this is the value I use for the amount of accelerated decay occuring during the event.

For your theory to work you must provide some sort of number as to the continental plate area at this time.

--Continental? You can use the same value which is extant today. I don't see the relevance though.

Your theory does not include the continental plates.

--Catastrophic plate tectonics obviously does include continental plates, but for my paper the motion of the continental plates is irrelevant--I seek to model the cooling of the new oceanic lithosphere and its effects on eustasy and not a whole lot more.

ntinental plates have very low density and are very old. (I live on top of the oldest rock WA (Western Australia) close to 4 billion years). Continental plates also provide a glacial source which can lock vast amounts of water.

--This is trivia in regards to the veracity of my paper.

In my view and in relation to Venus resurfacing. Such a CPT even would result in an intense Ice age. Heavy snow fall over continents and poles (Need to be know if continental plates where covering polar regions at 500-550Myears) Ocean level would actually decrease.

--This seems like conjecture--resultant from being uninformed as to the relevant geophysical dynamics. Again, read over my section 4 and tell me we will have an immediate ice age on our hands.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[Blindman]

TrueCreation…

Im not saying that tidal forces have a large influence on earth tectonics (manly because its movement around the earth is averaged out over time, Earths internal convection system moves very slowly). I was just surprised that you were not aware of it…

--This assertion reaks of prejudice.

Sorry I am but human.. I have my own faith and don’t see why I cant express it.

I am enjoying this thread. Will reply on your second post soon…

 

[Blindman]

Im am still finding it difficult to understand what you are trying to prove.

I have searched and searched and asked…

IS CPT a global subduction event or a global uplift event???

It is only a global uplift event that would result in a global flood. Ignoring climate change due to increased volcanic activity.

Continental plate size will change over time?? Continental area can be reduced at continental subduction zones. All continental material is supported by (is on top of) the lithosphere. Volcanic activity (discharge produces continental strata) increases continental area.

There is reason to suspect that such further analysis is forthcoming. Regardless, the effects of catastrophic plate tectonics for continental inundation have been shown to be well founded in this paper and the results are tenable.

How about you explain what a catastrophic plate tectonics event is.. Your paper provides no clue..


Venus CPT.

Current theory of Venus is that it was resurface due to massive volcanic discharges..

For some reason its surface became so heavy that magna erupted and covered almost all the surface area.

 

[TrueCreation]

Blindman:

"Im not saying that tidal forces have a large influence on earth tectonics (manly because its movement around the earth is averaged out over time, Earths internal convection system moves very slowly). I was just surprised that you were not aware of it…"
--I not aware?? You are greatly misunderstanding me. I didn't say anything about tectonics in my assertions regarding the earths center of gravity. I asked you to back up yours which stated that. "...the earth’s center of gravity is about 1000 miles below the surface facing the moon." I asked you in response to tell me why the core is located at the center of the earth and not 1000 miles below the surface if that is not the center of gravity. I also asked you to provide a reference which you have chosen not to do--or maybe this is just something 'you heard from some guy'. That mantle convection is slow has nothing to do with anything I have said in this regard.

--Support your yet-unsupported assertion please.

"Sorry I am but human.. I have my own faith and don’t see why I cant express it."
--Why are you bringing faith into a science forum?

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[TrueCreation]

Im am still finding it difficult to understand what you are trying to prove.

I have searched and searched and asked…

--More like you have asserted and accused. I am not trying to 'prove' anything--proof is a naughty word in science. I am trying to show and illustrate the correlation between the cooling of the oceanic lithosphere with isostasy and resultant sea-level and how other factors contribute to eustasy. With this I am also trying to show that since accelerated nuclear decay is a given somewhere in the process that it serves as an effective initiation for the runaway subduction regime.

IS CPT a global subduction event or a global uplift event???

--CPT is a global <i>tectonic</i> event. The course of CPT does not merely effect subduction or tie into some uplift event, it is much more comprehensive than that.

Continental plate size will change over time?? Continental area can be reduced at continental subduction zones.

--Not by any significance.

All continental material is supported by (is on top of) the lithosphere. Volcanic activity (discharge produces continental strata) increases continental area.

--Not by any global significance. Not to mention I have no idea why we are talking about this.

How about you explain what a catastrophic plate tectonics event is.. Your paper provides no clue..

--The quote you have taken from my paper will be modified. Catastrophic plate tectonics is a very simple idea--it is the theory that plate tectonics has gone through a rapid acceleration in the past(hence the term, catastrophic--those knowledgable in basic geology know it in its geological context). It will be assumed that those reading my paper will already be familiar with the basic fundamentals of the idea for CPT and runaway subduction.

Venus CPT.

Current theory of Venus is that it was resurface due to massive volcanic discharges..

--Yup, poor planet got too hot and didn't have an effective way for it to cool down. How could this not have been caused by runaway subduction?

For some reason its surface became so heavy that magna erupted and covered almost all the surface area.

--This happend because its surface became too heavy? You assume too much--this is conjecture.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net

 

[Blindman]

I have spent some of day reading dozens of papers on both excepted scientific theories and catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) theories.

CPT is contradictorily and lacks evidence. It involves massive explosive volcanic eruptions along mid ocean ridges. Yet gives no evidence of global ice age or mass extinction. Most surprising is that some CPT papers provide evidence in the form of fossil changes of animal life due to the CPT (always thought you guys didn’t like evolution). I could go on.

Thus I will not spend more time on your paper. You are ether young and have been mislead, or older and corrupted with dubious motives.

Hope you are young. You are obviously bright, don’t waist your time trying to prove the improvable. The bible is proof enough.

Your paper could have merit but you must remove all religious doctrine. The word flood occurs 7 times in the body of your paper. More if you include the refs.

From your paper.

“Since we must attribute this accelerated decay episode to around the time of the flood”

“attributing particular effects to divine causes”

“in which the creator himself had to have infixed in the earth initial conditions”

“Most certainly there must be some sort of divine hand in at least the initiation”

It has been fun but your paper is tainted by religious fervor.

Best wishes Blindman.

Good science
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/depthsci.html
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mcnutt01/mcnutt01.html

Bad science
http://www.icr.org/research/as/platetectonics.html


PS.. If you interested in the earth’s center of gravity look up “tidal forces”.

 

[Dwayne D.L.Rabon]

BLINDMAN you are a serious CRACKPOT, appearntly suffereing from logic and mental defieciency disease, Really you lack the information and appearly the insight of math to make a decision.
You would not know if the magnetic feid was stronger at earths surface or in the outter of earths atmosphere.

Laslty i hate spending the time to spank idiots that make such remarks as your incompetent self. wacth it cause i can make you eat it.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

 

[TrueCreation]

"I have spent some of day reading dozens of papers on both excepted scientific theories and catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) theories."
--Wow, you've impress me. A whole day! You most assuredly are a scientist!

"CPT is contradictorily and lacks evidence. It involves massive explosive volcanic eruptions along mid ocean ridges. Yet gives no evidence of global ice age or mass extinction."
--Back to class--geologic record 101.

"Most surprising is that some CPT papers provide evidence in the form of fossil changes of animal life due to the CPT (always thought you guys didn’t like evolution). I could go on."
--I have no difficulty with evolutionary theory, unlike some of my fellow YECist counterparts. It is a scientific theory which accounts for the diversity of life, but that is quite irrelevant to the subject of my paper.

"Thus I will not spend more time on your paper. You are ether young and have been mislead, or older and corrupted with dubious motives."
--Well with your absolutely astounding geophysical experience! Well if you just want to leave it at that, its been fun, but I guess I'll just have to contact a real scientist(oh, never mind, I've already done this, he was impressed at my grasping these difficult concepts).

"Hope you are young. You are obviously bright, don’t waist your time trying to prove the improvable. The bible is proof enough."
--Then you have an ignorance of my motive and long-term scientific endeavor. And are you still using that naughty word? "proof"? Again, I am not a religious fundy.

"Your paper could have merit but you must remove all religious doctrine. The word flood occurs 7 times in the body of your paper. More if you include the refs."
--Yup, what else are you going to get with a 50 meter deep ocean basin! Have you read my paper?

"It has been fun but your paper is tainted by religious fervor."
--You inappropriately assume that the ultimate implications for this paper (that this CPT event may have been the genesis account for the 'Global Flood') is unfalsifiable. My paper contains potential falsification and unless it is otherwise it is purely scientific.

"PS.. If you interested in the earth’s center of gravity look up “tidal forces"."
--Yup, I've read plenty, sorry but the earths center of gravity is not 1000 km below the surface--I have asked you for a reference to back up your claim that it is, where is it? Why do you think that it is 1000 km below the surface. What is the basis for that claim. Please answer me or drop it, its irrelevant anyways, were not talking isotope geochemistry or anything.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net