Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during CPT

You only continue wining like Kent Hovind
Click to expand...
you’re the one wining
about things being ridiculous without even knowing the relevant processes involved and no evident desire to ever know them.
Click to expand...
What like radioactive decay, Heat transfer, plate tectonics, bouncy and density relation, sedimentary analysis, the magnetosphere, and a shit load of other stuff related to geology. Ohh and now for a party trick, I can talk about the crazy Christian CPT theory.

You’re the first person I have ever encountered that calls him self a scientist, yet uses religious bullshit as the basis of a so called scientific paper. You are a puzzle. What is your motivation? maybe you just want to be popular in your Christian group.

I do not see it as conclusive that flood geology could never be a credible alternative
Click to expand...

Its easy..<b> there was no flood </b>, There is no proof of a global flood, CPT stands so far from excepted science as to be a joke. (CPT) Almost the most cataclysmic event in all of earth’s history, supposedly occurring during human habitation, then to subside and return to a state that looks like it been there for hundreds of millions of years opp’s billions of years.

If you just except the fact that the bible, like all the other religious books ,is just a group of stories, popular law converted to religious status over time. That the flood is just a story. There is no need for “accelerated radiogenic heat production” no need for new cooling models, no runaway subduction, no magic time dilations, no hand of god. No need to explain a flood at all because <b>it did not happen.</b>

You have been an interesting lunch time diversion.
So long and best of luck making a living out of geology you’ll need it..
 
you’re the one wining
Click to expand...
--Your diluding yourself again.

What like radioactive decay, Heat transfer, plate tectonics, bouncy and density relation, sedimentary analysis, the magnetosphere, and a shit load of other stuff related to geology.
Click to expand...
--lol, so, when are you going to list some processes you do understand? You have attempted to refute various assertions and implications of my paper with a few of these examples, but have done so highly unsuccessfully. There is no flaw in my paper in regards to those examples you have given (radioactive decay, Heat transfer, plate tectonics, bouncy and density relation, sedimentary analysis, the magnetosphere...)

Ohh and now for a party trick, I can talk about the crazy Christian CPT theory.
Click to expand...
--You mean you will actually talk about it!? I thought you already considered it bunk. If you actually want to engage in discussion regarding CPT, please be my guest, you havent done this yet dispite.

You’re the first person I have ever encountered that calls him self a scientist, yet uses religious bullshit as the basis of a so called scientific paper.
Click to expand...
--Where did I call my self a scientist? I am merely scientifically-minded. Also, I don't use 'religious bullshit' as the basis for my paper. But I guess you wouldn't know that because you either don't understand it, or havent read it.

You are a puzzle. What is your motivation? maybe you just want to be popular in your Christian group.
Click to expand...
--I'd rather call myself a scientific pioneer, "engaging in inquisitions which are held by the majority to be utterly ridiculous" some might say. But of course that is usually where the largest scientific breakthroughs occur. And really, I am not popular in my Christian group because of my praise for the scientific standing of evolutionary theory and other perspectives of mine which are not held in high regard by my fellow YEC's.

Its easy.. there was no flood , There is no proof of a global flood, CPT stands so far from excepted science as to be a joke.
Click to expand...
--It does? Well obviously you would know, your the scientist, your the geophysicist, and your the one who knows how CPT works.

(CPT) Almost the most cataclysmic event in all of earth’s history, supposedly occurring during human habitation, then to subside and return to a state that looks like it been there for hundreds of millions of years opp’s billions of years.
Click to expand...
--Oop's? And yes, in terms of the current consensus on geochronology you can derive your date from about the Cambrian+ strata.

If you just except the fact that the bible, like all the other religious books ,is just a group of stories, popular law converted to religious status over time. That the flood is just a story. There is no need for “accelerated radiogenic heat production” no need for new cooling models, no runaway subduction, no magic time dilations, no hand of god. No need to explain a flood at all because it did not happen.
Click to expand...
--Yes, well if you don't accept many things such as the the expansion of the universe, we wouldn't have to conjure up some Big Bang theory either.

So long and best of luck making a living out of geology you’ll need it..
Click to expand...
--We will see.

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

is your paper based on any observations other than textbooks? (observations of course meaning scientifically reliable ones, not stories).
 
Well, in consideration of the earths crust and lithosphere, rises and events of mass flooding due to changes in the contour or depths of surface crust,lithoshere,plates ect....
the main cause of variant topography, is the effects of pole reversals, where in the events of magnetic pole reversals the crust and atmosphere of earth collaspe. This event of collaspe is seen on the Sun during the first phases of magnetic pole reversals on the sun. In general the sun diameter collaspes by 10%, the main magnetic pole splits into various pieces and migrates to the equator, during such time the sun cools on its surface as the cold vaccum of space engulfs the surface.
This same event on earth occurs during earths pole reversals where the earths crust collaspes about 10%. 10% of the earths diameter is about 790 miles(800), divided in the the radius this is about 400 miles, the atmosphere of earth retains the majority of the collaspe, the collaspe of the crust is equal to the increase in gravity per unit square area(surface) or about a quater of the total collaspe at about 100 miles in each hemisphere. This collaspe of the crust is distributed to various dpeths of the internal earth, where there exist vacant cavities in the earths curst like the rings of saturn, but are more like orbitals that encompass the internal area( vacant, empty layers) that normally act to hold gases and magma flows, these areas act as barriers that gases and magam must gain veloicty to breech. at various times the upper and lower interiors breech this vacant barrier and friction contact cause the creation of magma, ect.... whitin the earths crust there are several of these vacant orbitals at various depths, the largest located about 1,500 miles in depth is about 5 miles to 10 mile in vertical width, from here the barriers get smaller as they approach the earths surface, with the smallest actual barrier about 1,500 ft in vertical width,being the main carrier of surface magma, smaller barriers exist much closer to the surface but are very frequently breeched and act as cavities for water,and other fluids,gases ect... the same reduction in size of these barriers beigns at the 1,500 mile make and inward to the center of earth having the same organiztion, relavant to more gases at the distinct depth simluar to the earths surface cavites. at center the earth is hollow surrounded by cold gases that generate the magnetic feild.
These barries of the internal earth recieve the remaining distribution of the collaspe, leaving the actuall surface of the earth with a 40 to 20 mile collaspe effect that shapes the earths surface. this 40 to 20 mile collaspe of the crust is distributed across the surface of the earth causing various degrees of collaspes, reduceing in depth of the collaspe from the intial collapse zone or area and traveling west ward or east ward. The ital collaspe travels in a spike from each of the poles to the equator, resulting a graded collaspe either east of west. The origin of the spike will collaspe some 40 miles grading to 20 miles
around the equator, and then travel west ward or east with a grading effect from 20miles to 3 miles in collaspe.
The effect of collaspe causes great friction and then massive magma is produced, resulting in many volcanic eruptions, super volcanos,(the effect of internal degassing results releasing masive gaeous carbons,hydrogen,helium,oxyegn ect...) heavyier metals are brought to surface such as iridium ect.. . land masses are formed.
At this point during a magnetic pole reversal there is no major magentic field, only remiant feilds. In the return of the magnetic feild the earth has taken on exterior hydrogen and helium in the upper atmosphere and the earths crust begins to reexspand, with the addition of other forces as well, this creates various areas of rexspansion at different rates of rexspansion.
The collaspe of the crust creates deeper ocean basins, and exsposes new surface that will exist as habitalbe or walking land surfaces. As the crust reexspands the oceans sea level rises, the land and ocean balance out, plates slip ect....
The most prominet effect of this collaspe can be seen in the marina trench of the pacific ocean, which exstends from the asian region of the equator to the alaska interior coast and as well seen in the west coast of brazil,being prominet in exstent to the equator and beyond. the grading of the pacific floor is a very classic example of collaspe.
It is clear that the earth was much more covered in water untill the last collaspe of the earths crust, which deeping the ocean basins exsposed more habitable land surface that we take for granet today.
This type of collaspe in its grading effect is why we have a record of the magnetic pole reversal, indicated in the ocean crust, and a more spratic, random record in land samples.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON
 
is your paper based on any observations other than textbooks? (observations of course meaning scientifically reliable ones, not stories).
Click to expand...
--Could you elaborate a little bit on your question? It may be easiest to clarify what exactly your inquiry is if you use an example from my paper. Also, if you can address why that example must have support from such an observation in order to be considered scientifically tenable. Thanks.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
There is a major problem with your paper if you can't point out your own results. I suggest you fix that.
Click to expand...
--No, I mean, what 'results' are you talking about? Ocean floor bathymetry, mean surface heat flux, eustasy? If it is ocean floor bathymetry, I discuss this in section 5. See Figures 1.9a&b.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
I have split the article into three. Two of which I have just submitted for peer-review.

Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/OYSI/Articles/Draft/heattransfer2.htm

An acceleration in radioisotopic decay as the initiation event for Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and Runaway Subduction
http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/OYSI/Articles/Draft/initiation.htm

Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Geoscience Editor
Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
http://www.oysi.promisoft.net
 
depends on the journal...some are quick, some are slow

I'm a bit pissed at the moment, because I had reviewed a paper twice already and the second time I accepted it. With the option that I didn't need to see it again. What do you think. The other reviewers are of the anal retentive type and suddenly come up with a shopping list of details that need to be 'improved' And honestly, they just want these changes because it will fit better then with their view. These people willingly delay the publication time. And I am inclined to say that they do it on purpose. The changes they want are stupid and petty.
 
What if the earth's core is warming from nuclear decay, rather than cooling?

Originally posted by Blindman


... If you just except the fact that the bible, like all the other religious books ,is just a group of stories, popular law converted to religious status over time. That the flood is just a story. There is no need for “accelerated radiogenic heat production” no need for new cooling models, no runaway subduction, no magic time dilations, no hand of god. No need to explain a flood at all because <b>it did not happen.</b> ...
Click to expand...

I have a theory that the earth's core isn't still molten from its creation, but may be melting from slow nuclear decay, and thousands of miles of land/soil/rock/mantle, whatever you want to call it, trapping the heat and allowing it to build up. Perhaps my theory might somehow account for an increase in things like earthquakes towards the Biblical endtimes?

How does that hypothesis change all those fancy-smancy "scientific" models out in some futile effort to somehow magically discredit Genesis?

BTW, I like Kent Hovind's Creation Seminar 5 or 6? tape video tape series. Kent Hovind is fascinating to listen to. He doesn't use a bunch of pseudo-scientific mumble-jumble, to make everybody think the speaker/writer is smarter than everybody else, hiding behind a lot of big words and unproven scientific theories that nobody can really understand.
 
I'm wondering about the ocean floor bathymetry.
YOu admit that:
"This Equation predicts that the depth of the ocean increases with the square root of the distance from the ridge, or the square root of the age of the ocean floor1. One problem for catastrophists arises when we find that this theoretical result, based on geologic time scales, is significantly consistent with the data[Fig 1.4] obtained from the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) and Ocean Drilling Project (ODP) [Johanson and Carlson, 1992]. "

Then say that you instead input catastrophic data instead and say that would require some other subsidence and such activity. So whre is the evidence for such subsidence?

Then as for acceleration of radioactive decay, by how much? and how? How do you cause acceleration of radioactive decay?
 
OK, how does this fit in......

The earth is in a solar system that revovles around a sun, the sun is traveling thorugh a galaxy which has many suns, billions of them, since this union of gravity made by the various suns defines what atomic elemetns are stable in various regions of the galaxy, our sun proxcimity to other suns defines atomic stablity and chemistry for earth.
The earths sun traveling at it present speed is leaving the region of are closest neighbor alpha centuri a triple system, with a binary star, as the earth leaves this region of its cloest stellar neighbor chemistry and atmoic stablity will change, which is currently a on going event, but in 9,000 years will be a complete event leaving earth with a total different range of chemisty and stable atomic elements.
knowing that this will occur in 9,000 years tells us that are sun when traveling into the alpha centuri start triple system would have takin to form are current chemistry about 9,000 years to 11,000 years befor reaching mid stream, which would be betwwen to the two points equal to the decline and rise of are current chemistry. the mid stream point or middle point of are current chemistry would be the most chemically active time on earth. because of gravity and its attraction the middle point of chemical activity cycle would be longer than the begining and the end as we where closer to stellar neighbor alpha, the two beging and end periods give a time of 11,000 years the middle portion could have no more time than 15 or 16,000 years, this stelllar calculation give a time for earths chemistry current and that which has suported past life, at about 38,000 years, with 27,000 years already used up./
geologists, scientist, professionals of all types and study groups can argue what they like but the current chemistry of earth has only been around for 27,000 years, this is a fact that can not be disputed, and is know by the speed at which are sun travel through the galaxy. so then people who say that dinosaurs and other acheolgical finds are billions or millions of years old have a lot of exsplaining to do.

why bring this up, well the fact is that prior to know earth was covered in water, had larger water reserves, and had a much less dense soil, as the earth gained gravity solidifciation of the soil and a increase in density have made smaller oceans, in addtion cruistal collaspe during magnetic pole reversal which occur at time noting a increase in gravity have made ocean basins. these facts change the dating system of geologsit and acheologist, dating soils and dinosaur remains, the earth may have atoms 4 to 2 billion years old in it, but the accurace of decay dating can only be used in spartic or random uses, and to given objects ect..... stratus is soils and ocean floor sediments are structures that have resulted from compression in a time of 27,000 years to form the current state, this event also exsplain the various finds of different dinosaurs and other finds of acient animals in various stratus of soils, they are simply remains that have seeped down ward, or where compresed down ward or where animals that die during a pole reversal, when geological masses are in a turent of activity, and found in vaiours stratus.

what does that say about the ocean floor that it has changed during pole reversal and various compressions, it also says that current land mass was covered in water, that now rest in our oceans because of crustal collaspe caused by pole reversal and by increases in gravity.

take it how you what but the sign says 27,000 years like it or not.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON
 
"since this union of gravity made by the various suns defines what atomic elemetns are stable in various regions of the galaxy"

Do you have any evidence of this?

"which is currently a on going event, but in 9,000 years will be a complete event leaving earth with a total different range of chemisty and stable atomic elements."

Again, any evidence?

increased gravity? more water? Any evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top