Again, completely irrelevant.
You're leaving out the context provided by the qualifiers.
Negligible compared to the mass of the earth.
Again, you're being dishonest and setting up a strawman fallacy.
Oldest crustal formation
- Thread starter Vkothii
- Start date
Again, completely irrelevant.
You're leaving out the context provided by the qualifiers.
Negligible compared to the mass of the earth.
Again, you're being dishonest and setting up a strawman fallacy.
Assuming the earth was half the circumference and density of today, what was the mass of the earth?
http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_9.htm
Last edited:
Assuming the earth was half the circumference and density of today, what was the mass of the earth?
http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_9.htm
Jeez.
Remember the part where I said that crustal plates rotate, and the other part where I said that there was evidence of a subduction zone forming in the atlantic ocean off the coast of south america?
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Yes but in general they do not grow from two like-size bodies accreting, but from a large body gravitationally attracting nearby smaller ones, clearing its orbit. There are occasional exceptions to that, like the Mars'ish sized body many believe crashed into the Earth and causing the formation of the Moon.
Pair production in the core? As in particles and antiparticles? Unless you mean virtual pair production, it seems unlikely, and even virtual pair production wouldn't be a common occurrence in the core. The notion that particles and anti particles could be created in just the right balance to somehow counterbalance gravitational forces requires a mechanism in quantum gravity that I have never heard proposed.
Big animals do not necessarily mean low gravity anty more than big trees do, and there is no evidence that plants were bigger in the past than they are today. The species gave changed, but their sizes are comparable.
In any event how do you explain the birth of a oxygen atmosphere? How did early life forms survive in numbers capable of producing the world supply of oxygen in a landlocked planet with no ozone layer until *after* they supply the oxygen?
How do you explain the nice world-wide banded iron ore formations in sedimentary rocks at just the right places if you assume they rusted out of Precambrian oceans as the oxygen level increased? Since the presence of oxygen renders iron insoluble in water, it makes perfect sense to imagine iron rich seas losing their iron and leaving these formations....what caused an ocean poor Earth to cough up think deposits of iron all at once on a world wisde scale>
For that matter where was all the water. Water is less dense than rock (though I am sire some scientist somewhere disagrees), and would tend to rise. Expanding Earth seems to need water to trickle out from the interior of the Earth (or, one supposes, arrive on comets) at a suspiciously convenient rate...slow at first (where there was no room for oceans) but increasingly fast now that oceans predominate. When the crust was still molten, why was water vapor not shooting out at copious rates?
Then again, why do you believe that scientists get together and drop perfectly good theories in favor of new ones that, according to you are wrong and everyone should know they are wrong? Not even "some" scientists do this, but rather you think scientists do it en masse until the "competing" theory is such a minority position that proponents have to cite the same six people over and over again when making their arguments. Do you think scientists are prone to mass hallucinations, or that they just like to lie? Back in the 50's and 60's when geologists were jettisoning abiotic oil theory and the expanding Earth model, why wasn't the then existing "old guard"preventing them if these theories were good? Why were the new crop of grad students taken in?
For practical purposes, why should I, as a non expert, tell my college geology professor and his vast majority of geologist friends that they are wrong because "some guy on the internets" and the very few sources he could google up disagree?
I'm convinced.
That this Oily person will not, in my or your lifetimes, accept the possibility that he doesn't actually understand the accepted theories.
This guy's m.o. is to look for 'competing' ones, then believe that since he's found one or two they must be correct, since the majority of scientists are always wrong.
That this Oily person will not, in my or your lifetimes, accept the possibility that he doesn't actually understand the accepted theories.
This guy's m.o. is to look for 'competing' ones, then believe that since he's found one or two they must be correct, since the majority of scientists are always wrong.
Vkothii, he's either an agent provocateur extraordinaire or one fucked up individual, either way, no credence should be given, none!
That's right.
There has been no mechanism proposed thus far so you're quite correct.
So why were the dinosaurs so big?
Really? So why did sauropods have such long necks?
I don't usually speculate about such matters. There are multiple possible explanations. "Birth" of course implies griowth. How do you explain the growth of oxygen?
I leave such speculations to the Prophets who have time machines and crystal balls. I try not to construct models based upon hundreds of assumptions.
Yes.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
This is also speculation, but the long necks have been hypotheised to save energy. When you have a giant body and eat all the time, because you survive on relatively nutrient poor plant matter, it's more efficient to move just the neck and head than the whole body. Long necks provide greater range.
Besides that, have you seen trees? They can be pretty tall, taller, in fact, than sauropods. Plants also grow in elevated formations, plus the long neck gave them a potentially long range for their field of vision.
There are a variety of reasons why dinosaurs may have been large, much as there are a variety of reasons that megafauna existed 30,000 years ago that do not involve "low gravity" to explain them.
Usually it is explained as a waste product of plant respiration, with oxygen producing plants dominating the shallows of the Precambrian seas. First it filled the oceans, causing the iron to fall out of solution, and then whewn the ocean was oxygen saturated it started filling the atmosphere.
You must love Auguste Compte. He ridiculed science as well, in his case for its interest in the chemical composition of the Sun. After all, he "reasoned" since we can't go there and take a physical sample, we'll never know.
It's good to be a philosopher, as it's always easier to try to poke holes in a theory than to come up with a better one. Too bad you only use your powers for evil, while championing the crackpot theories.
Your prejudiced speculation is not supported by the facts.
Unfortunately for you this philosopher has found a better one and there are no holes in it so far.
Evil powers? Good argument for plate tectonics.
It's got more holes in it than a cheese grater, the real problem is you refuse to aknowledge or discuss them, and resort to abuse, lies and fallacies whenever anyone disagrees with you.
You've thus far been afraid to discuss EMST.
If I was an illiterate fundamentalist who thought 1998 is 2007 I would be afraid to discuss EMST as well.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...ass-stress.htm
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/...am/A112566.htm
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/...am/A112575.htm
http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284024.html
http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284030.html
If I was an illiterate fundamentalist who thought 1998 is 2007 I would be afraid to discuss EMST as well.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...ass-stress.htm
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/...am/A112566.htm
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/...am/A112575.htm
http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284024.html
http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1284030.html
Obviously this innumerate, illiterate cretin didn't bother checking the link I provided for him.
Wassamatta, scared by a little information?
You that concerned by your own errors that you react like this when someone makes a minor (and make no mistake, it was minor) error?
The ridiculous thing is that You have yet to provide any proof that the date you cited was the publication date.
The equally ridicualous thing is you're abusing me for discussing a paper from 1998, 10 years old, when you have regularly cited authors that are over 100 years old, and you're too scared and too dishonest to discuss this discrepancy.
Oh, and three of those links are dead you dumbass.
I cite old sources that are true because I've studied the history of the issues. You cite 20th century pseudoscience. See the difference?
So ignore the two that aren't so you can maintain your coward status.
What, you mean the two that I rad the first dozen times you post them?
You're being dishonest again.
Wassamatta, because I don't agree with you, I obviously haven't read them?
You think that because I haven't commented on them I haven't read them?
BZZZZZT wrong answer you dishonest Hack.
"Runcorn [1964, 1966] showed how paleotidal and paleorotational data can be used to explore whether Earth’s moment of inertia has changed over geological time. Such analysis also can examine whether Earth’s radius has increased significantly with time, as required by the hypothesis of Earth expansion, because Earth’s moment of inertia would increase with secular increase in radius... ...The late Neoproterozoic rhythmite data do not support significant change in Earth’s moment of inertia and radius over the past 620 Myr." - George E Williams, 1999
Your myths are not supported by observation, experiment, or logic, and they violate fundamental laws of physics.
Wrong on all counts.
Just because you're in denial doesn't make everyone else wrong.
You've been offered several lines of evidence, you've simply denied them.
You've also refused to address any of the fundamental flaws in the ideas you're promulgating.