Archaeologica.org

Digit wrote:Absolutely, now you know what killed the dinosaurs.

No, I don't. I'm still here!

dannan14 wrote:RS, what do you think is happening in the trenches where two plates meet?

RS, there is a deafening silence where your answer should be.

dannan14 wrote:

dannan14 wrote:RS, what do you think is happening in the trenches where two plates meet?

RS, there is a deafening silence where your answer should be.

So you think the amount of subducted material equals the amount that bulged the planet? I don't. My impresssion of the striae – especially their vastness and extent across all oceans – is that they indicate a considerable increase in Terran volume. 10% minimum, but 50% wouldn't surprise me either.

Actually not RS. There is an entirely opposite possible cause.
We are told that the Earth started as a molten ball, logic would suggest that it then cooled from the out side, to form a crust.
Subsequently the interior would then lose heat slowly and shrink, what would then happen to the crust do you suggest?

Roy.

Digit wrote:Actually not RS. There is an entirely opposite possible cause.
We are told that the Earth started as a molten ball, logic would suggest that it then cooled from the out side, to form a crust.
Subsequently the interior would then lose heat slowly and shrink, what would then happen to the crust do you suggest?

It would shrink too, collapse regionally, and generally condense. Not extend/expand, creating striae.

Basic forensic science...

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Digit wrote:Actually not RS. There is an entirely opposite possible cause.
We are told that the Earth started as a molten ball, logic would suggest that it then cooled from the out side, to form a crust.
Subsequently the interior would then lose heat slowly and shrink, what would then happen to the crust do you suggest?

It would shrink too, collapse regionally, and generally condense. Not extend/expand, creating striae.

Basic forensic science...

Ok, the plate tectonics wiki acknowledges that the expansion (or contraction) idea still exists as an alternative theory. However, i can't find any references to it elsewhere. Care to share any links? or is this another of your beliefs which you characterize as "independent thinking"?

Ok, i did another search and found this:

"There is no evidence supporting expansion of the Earth: measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size, and there is no source of energy to power expansion. This is in contrast to plate tectonics, which is supported by a large range of geological and geophysical measurements, including direct measurements of plate motions by geodesy and of subduction at plate boundaries.[13][14][15]

Mass accretion on a scale required to change the Earth's radius is contradicted by the current accretion rate of the Earth, and by the Earth's average internal temperature: any accretion releases a lot of energy, which would warm the planet's interior. Expanding Earth models based on thermal expansion contradict most modern principles from rheology, and fail to provide an acceptable explanation for the proposed melting and phase transitions.

Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[16] Furthermore, examinations of earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years.[17]"

dannan14 wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Digit wrote:Actually not RS. There is an entirely opposite possible cause.
We are told that the Earth started as a molten ball, logic would suggest that it then cooled from the out side, to form a crust.
Subsequently the interior would then lose heat slowly and shrink, what would then happen to the crust do you suggest?

It would shrink too, collapse regionally, and generally condense. Not extend/expand, creating striae.

Basic forensic science...

Ok, the plate tectonics wiki acknowledges that the expansion (or contraction) idea still exists as an alternative theory. However, i can't find any references to it elsewhere. Care to share any links? or is this another of your beliefs which you characterize as "independent thinking"?

You're starting to get the the idea, dannan. But not just independent thinking: independent observation as well.
Like my good friends Copernicus, Keppler, and Galileo. So I'm in good company.

Ok, i did another search and found this:

"There is no evidence supporting expansion of the Earth: measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size, and there is no source of energy to power expansion. This is in contrast to plate tectonics, which is supported by a large range of geological and geophysical measurements, including direct measurements of plate motions by geodesy and of subduction at plate boundaries.[13][14][15]

Mass accretion on a scale required to change the Earth's radius is contradicted by the current accretion rate of the Earth, and by the Earth's average internal temperature: any accretion releases a lot of energy, which would warm the planet's interior. Expanding Earth models based on thermal expansion contradict most modern principles from rheology, and fail to provide an acceptable explanation for the proposed melting and phase transitions.

Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today's radius.[16] Furthermore, examinations of earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth's radius in the last 620 million years.[17]"

Interesting, and certainly worthy of consideration. But not convincing me yet.

To be sure: I never claimed it happened – if it happened at all – in the last 620 MYA. In fact, because of the above I think it's likely that it happened – if it happened at all – before the last 620 MYA...

And Earth did collide with a HUGE cosmological body that dwarfed the 65 MYA K/T boundary impact. Before 620 MYA. The ejector debris from that collision formed the moon. The impactor, the injector debris, drilled itself through the Earth's crust (not very difficult: at an average 20 miles it's paperthin). Injecting a gazillion tons of material, at unimaginable pressures, into the Earth's globe. That pressure had to go somewhere. It's perfectly imaginable that it was that event that caused vast amounts of striae where the pressure pushed violently against the crust from the inside. At the weak spots. The Earth's rift valleys, where the (newest) crust is of course thinnest, and still softest. Thus weakest. Thus most malleable. Ergo: striae.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:You're starting to get the the idea, dannan. But not just independent thinking: independent observation as well.
Like my good friends Copernicus, Keppler, and Galileo. So I'm in good company.

*groan* /facepalm

Interesting, and certainly worthy of consideration. But not convincing me yet.

To be sure: I never claimed it happened – if it happened at all – in the last 620 MYA. In fact, because of the above I think it's likely that it happened – if it happened at all – before the last 620 MYA...

i'm pretty sure all the oceanic crust is less than 620MY old.

Basic forensic science

A subject that you have in the past claimed to be weak on RS. Please explain how you can tell from sriae expansion from contraction.
An expanding planet would defy all the principles of entropy, something that even your friends would have difficulty supporting.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Please explain how you can tell from sriae expansion from contraction.

Empirical research.

An expanding planet would defy all the principles of entropy, something that even your friends would have difficulty supporting.

The entropy principle doesn't apply as extra matter, and a lot of it, added itself into the equation.

extra matter, and a lot of it, added itself into the equation.

Where did that come from?

Roy.

Digit wrote:

extra matter, and a lot of it, added itself into the equation.

Where did that come from?

From the mini planet/drifter moon/asteroid/comet that collided with earth and thus created the moon and those striae.

Problem there old son, well two actually, that supposed impact occured 4.5 billion years ago and liquified the mantle, they claim.
How old are you grooves?

Roy.

Digit wrote:Problem there old son, well two actually, that supposed impact occured 4.5 billion years ago and liquified the mantle, they claim.

Ah, a 'claim'!
We know how precise those are!
Especially when they describe events of over 4 billion years ago, whence there were no CCTV cams to record 'm!

Besides: it happened a number of times (e.g. the 5 great mass extinctions).

How old are you grooves?

Hold on!
I'll go and check.
Wait for it!

We know how precise those are!

Better or worse than your own?

Besides: it happened a number of times (e.g. the 5 great mass extinctions).

See first line!

Roy.