Hehe, did i say a page or two ago that the oldest parts of the ocean's crust were at most a few hundred million years old? Funny how that escaped ya RS.
dannan14 wrote:Hehe, did i say a page or two ago that the oldest parts of the ocean's crust were at most a few hundred million years old? Funny how that escaped ya RS.
No it didn't, my friend. I'm waiting for adequate support of your outspoken position. Until then it's just that: your position, afaic.
dannan14 wrote:Hehe, did i say a page or two ago that the oldest parts of the ocean's crust were at most a few hundred million years old? Funny how that escaped ya RS.
No it didn't, my friend. I'm waiting for adequate support of your outspoken position. Until then it's just that: your position, afaic.
Pretty map.
Unfortunately lo-res and specifically uninformative where it matters.
Let's see those cool guys drill near a couple subduction zones.
In drill cores, age is a function of depth.
Just because they couldn't get any deeper doesn't mean there's nothing older beyond. To the contrary. It virtually guarantees that what's beyond is older.
dannan14 wrote:Well, then, maybe you should read up on oceanic crust formation at mid ocean ridges.
If I were looking for rocks of "at most a few hundred million years old", I should. But it so happens we're discussing much older rock here that you specifically won't find around mid ocean ridges!
Well just to clarify a point, striae are not the result simply of expansion, they are the result of friction between two moving faces, that all. Grooves, in other words.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Digit wrote:Well just to clarify a point, striae are not the result simply of expansion, they are the result of friction between two moving faces, that all. Grooves, in other words.
No, they are the result of being pushed up, expanded.