Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by timojin, Sep 28, 2017.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Let me ask . Assume the globe was smooth no mountain , the surface was covered with one meter of water.
What would be your so called logical path to form dry land ?
Oceanic crust, I think. My understanding is that that continental crust developed by a process of fractionation and chemical alteration of oceanic crust, driven by plate tectonics.
Today, volcanoes at destructive plate margins get their magma from descending slabs of oceanic crust which are altered by the entrained seawater so that different (hydrated) minerals are formed, some of which have lower melting points than the oceanic crust itself. The lower melting point species melt when they reach sufficient depth for the temperature to be high enough, expand and then rise due to lower density (buoyancy) towards the surface, where they are erupted as lavas, ash etc. I think this process is thought to be the one by which continental rocks (which have lower density than mantle or oceanic crust and float higher than it) formed in the first place.
Although I see this model is challenged by this recent work: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120312140318.htm which suggests that fractionation in the early Earth could have taken place at shallower depths than subducting oceanic crust. But they don't say what process, if not subduction, would lead to oceanic crust thickening enough to cause partial melting. So I'm not sure what this really signifies.
......If there was liquid water at that stage, which there may well not have been, due to the higher temperatures......
See my post 183 for my understanding of the prevalent model for this.
Don't you think ,if every thing is relative covered with sand were is even , some sort of explosion or uplevel have to come to break the crust. Than after in some thin area breakage take place , than movement of the surface crust can take place . Than you can call it tectonic plate movement will take place , subduction and collision to produce mountain.
NO what . What are your bases
The strength of tectonic convection in the mantle.
What do you know about them ? Keep in mind if the surface have no fracture there is no movement.
Untrue. Subduction is thought to be able to start spontaneously, due to the increasing weight of thickening and cooling oceanic crust as it gets farther from a spreading centre. So it cracks and subsides. More details here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X04004984
Your argument or their is on folding. Next . think what you said cooling What is your answer , the mantle is hotter than the crust , are you afraid to say there will be hot spot were eventually produce a hole and we will call it a volcano were will be like the ring of fire , or the Atlantic volcano band that separate South America from African continent.
A world wide flood would not leave fossils embedded in the rock on the tops of mountains.
Centripetal force (from the rotation) and prevailing wind would do it. Tidal forces would help. Sea level right now varies more than 2 meters from one place to another in the open ocean.
Where you got that ? The water connects at the Magallanes strait and by South Africa to Indian ocean
And centripetal force ? at what longitude ?
Noah’s Flood and the Associated Tremendous Rainfall as a Possible Result of Collision of a Big Asteroid with the Sun.
A good correlation between the growth rate of the cave speleothems and the annual precipitation at the cave site allow quantitative reconstruction of the precipitation. Measuring the growth rate of a speleothem from Duhlata Cave, Bulgaria we found that around 7500 B.P. the speleothem growth rate (averaged for 120 years) exceeds 53 times its recent value suggesting that enormous precipitation flooded the Black Sea basin at that time. Its possible connection with the Bible (Noah’s) Flood is discussed. We propose a possible mechanism of the flooding of the Black Sea during the Flood involving production of a super- Tsunami by pushing of the Black Sea water towards the Crimea cost by Mediterranean waters. We propose also an Astronomical Theory of the origin of the Bible Flood. We attribute higher water evaporation and rainfall to be caused by rapid increasing of the solar radiation resulting from a collision of a large asteroid or comet with the Sun.
The Bible Flood (catastrophic rainfall) as recorded in a speleothem, had probably happened 5500 years B.C., causing Black Sea level rise. It is probably due to much higher water evaporation caused by rapid increasing of the solar radiation resulting from a collision of a large asteroid or comet with the Sun. Humanity even now is not prepared to face such catastrophic disaster so it is important to know its mechanism in order to help to predict it and to make proper actions to reduce the damage cause by it.
This has the smell of junk science to me. (There seems to be quite a lot of 3rd rate "research" emanating from former East Bloc countries.) How the hell do these jokers get from rates of stalactite growth in one cave to inferences about huge rainfall across the whole Black Sea area? It could easily be that there was just a different pattern of subterranean drainage during that period. Now, if they had data showing the same thing from a range of unconnected cave systems, right across the region, then there might be something to write up. But they haven't done that.
There is no proper peer review at arxiv, so one needs to be careful with papers from that source.
Try again with proper sentences, grammar and punctuation? I can't work out what you are saying.
There are reasonable scientific reports and research that suggest a "great flood" may have taken place, covering a large portion of the then known world or in actual fact, a local garden variety flood.
Along the lines of melting glaciers that flowed to the Black sea and Med.
No evidence at all of course re any Noah's Arc bullshit, or such, but something our god botherers do chose to hang there collective hat on as they do on much areas of science when it suits their agenda. eg: The BB and an obvious beginning to space, time and the universe.
Perhaps......but floods would have occurred that may have given rise to the mythical biblical belief, and of course sea levels have also varied.eg: Much of Australia shows evidence of being covered by an inland sea eons ago.
Try reading the thread. All this has already been exhaustively discussed.
Separate names with a comma.