Ocean Floor Bathymetry and Plate Cooling during CPT

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by TrueCreation, Apr 30, 2003.

  1. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Dwayne D.L.Rabon-
    "these concepts of which you base your most fundmental security are all false and have been reprted as false since the comming of their ideas as theorys more than 60 years ago."

    By whom? Ill accept arguing by authority here if it makes anything easier? Or are you more than 60 years old?
    And like I say, evidence please.

    "the simply fact that our solar system travels through the galaxy at a certain speed defines that our solar system has only been associated with a given star fo a given poit of time, in this case alpha centurei for the last 27,000 years. which defines that life on earth relative to our chemistry has only been possible for 27,000 years. it is your arragonce and pride that some how humans and earth life is better and more invincable than it is."

    Well, the nearest star to us is the Sun. So your saying Alpha centauri has a masssive effect on us and that the earth etc didnt exist in this state as it is now before we got near alpha centauri? You really think alpha centauri has that effect on us? Why not Barnards star, or Sirius? why does it matter about the closest one so much? I have not said that human life is more invincible than it is, your just assuming that from me attacking your ideas.


    "you basic argument against influnce of stars on life atoms and earth chemistry is the argument that the gravity of stars does not effect atomic structure to cause a signifcant change chemically or in the stablity of subatomic particles compsoing the atoms."

    Yup. And yours is that they do affect it all catastrophically, which the science that is the basis of the theory of this computer you are using is says isnt really correct. Or not correct enough to notice.


    "I have given information that is common to nuclear reactions, man made or other wise, simply the act of the sun to create helium involves the the unifcation of at least three hydrogen atoms, and as many as four called a aplha particle. this basic process seen in the sun and in nuclear reactions is the key point in understanding the development of the atomic structure as a proccess of action that exist."

    Why three hydrogen atoms? And yes, I do know nuclear fusion in stars creates elements. your point is that?



    "understanding the above as a event, in addtion to the knowledge that the universe is x number of years old, and composed many of hydrogen and helium, some 98% hydrogen, and that hydrogen and helium are the basic forms of atom internal struture, meaning not onle are they emitted in such manner, they are calculated to operate with in the atom in such formation, this defines that atoms are built from hydrogen and helium, or protons and alpha particles."

    Whooaa, atoms are built from protons, neutrons and electrons. The mass of a neutron is somewhat similar to that of an electron and a proton added together. Emmited by what? what formation of operation in the atom? Like I say, what are yoru experiments that show that the last 100 years of particle physics, is total bunk?

    "in furthure approach to understanding we find that the basic unit of distrubance to the atomic sturture is the event of removal of a electron the uint of stablity for a hydrogen atom, and progresses to helium two electrons, this is called ionzation, which is the fundmental of chemistry and directly relative to subatomic structure. for earth the normal state of ionzation is 3 to 4 postive ion, which results in the distrubance of 4 protons, or 2 alpha particles or 8 proton/neutrons, ionzation beynd this poit demonstrtes the begining of radioactive behavior meaning stripping of electrons from other atoms in the enviroment, and the emmission of xrays, beta particles and gamma, in general this becomes a serious event with the state of 7 postive ion states. which is the distrubance of 7 protons or 4 alpha particles or 16 proton/neutrons, the total distrubance is 16 bodies or 14th of uraniums atomic weight and a 4th of iron. the even of disturbance can be seen to effect the stablity of the atom just by evalution of proportions of particles."

    So nearly there, yet so far, you seem to be drawing unwarranted confused conclusions from the standard model of atoms, namely that ionisation directly affects the nucleus and brings on radioactive decay.

    "the event of removal of a electron from the orbit of the atom causes a orbital change, which changes as the atom seeks to fill its energy requirments of its sub atomic particles protons and neutrons, a failure to fill this requirement causes increasing instablity over time as the atom disapates energy and can not maintain uniform energy requirements to staifiy the subatomic particles, at which point the atom becomes radioactive and exsperinces transmutaion, or the emmmission of its most unsatble subatoimc particle, which begings to move about the atomic internal structure randomly usally this is a hydrogen atom or proton, in other cases a aphal particle, it is this same disbalnce that is the cause of iostopes and their short life span before transmutaion."

    Wow, could it be you have explained radioactivity? Nope, i dont think so. You notice that radioactivity runs on the half life, if its so dependent on ionisation, why the half life of the atoms? Dissipates energy due to instability? Lets see your experimental results then.

    "having said that little bit for your information, the event of hydrogen to congreate to build atoms requires given conditions, these condtions inorder to form heavy atomic structure require near zero gravity, cold temptures and hydrogen, here atoms can form, in say for conversation deep space as in the beging of the galaxy more easily as the condtion that would appera in a sun furing the proccess of helium formation exist abundamtly through out space, by this proccess heavy atoms may form. for understanding what has been said the condtions of the sun in its proccess to make a heavier atom are distributed though out space as the rate of presssur and energy have changed, meaing the condtions of the sun has become the background constant making atoms formable from hydrogen, and helium in the congreation proccess to the building structure of a atom.
    as hydrogen ionznizes and congreates it form heavy atoms resultong in the formation of planets from the gaseous orgins of the galaxy and cosoms as we know it."

    So your now discarding the entirety of modern physics? Wow. Have you got an experiment designed to create heavier atomic strcutures in orbit around earth or wherever further afield you need to go? And your still rather garbled, its hard to say whether you think heavy atom formation can go on with the sun present or not, but saying it goes on in low G and temp etc is just nuts. Remember, the standard model postulates a big bang roundabout 12 billion years ago, that formed hydrogen as a major part of teh universe, which then got together and formed suns etc and through a process of fusion in stellar temps and pressures and gravities, creating all the heavier atoms around us now.

    "genrally speaking this means that uranium was one of the last atoms to form in the formation of planets and suns or that region of the galaxy, the heavier the atom the younger it is, therefore exspaining its present existance."

    See, you like to get standard conclusions, just by a rather personal way of getting there.

    "the event of super nova in our local region of stars or even spartic dirtubnace in stars effects the atomic stablity of atoms on earth and in our region, causing radioactive reactions such as beta and gamma emmissions, a super nova would with out doubt cause proton emmssions "

    nope. But we may well get showered with radiation and heavier elements taht had been cooked up in the star.

    "the effect of that gravity matrix can be effected by solar emmission, changes in background constant that effect the overal condtion of the atom in that space, meaning that on earth a x ray is needed to penitrate the atome and cause a distrubance but in another region of our local gravity matrix red light or a green light wave may produce the same disturbance."

    Yah think so? Against all the evidence for the same behaviour of atoms in far off older stars, teh observations of jupiter and our nearby stars, the apparent cohrence of atoms behaviour clsoer/ further away from the sun, etc etc.

    "on earth it will take 400 years. the present motion of the magentic poles and there proxicimty to the axis give a time fram at the magentic pole current motion as 10 to 40 years, before collaspe of the magenmtic poles, it is stated as little as ten years as the suns pole reversal may provoke the earths magntic poles to prematureally reverse."

    So you say, as you deny the evidence of far older magnetic reversals and greter tiems between them. YOu are denying the evidence for a rock and iron and nickel mantle and core etc then, despite that being able to explain teh facts rather well. What information do you have that nobody else has? Why has the hydrogen in the centre of the earth been trapped there and surrounded by all this heavier elements? Are you saying this has all been formed by hydrogen condensing into ehavier elements 27,000 years ago?
    AS for prematurely reversed magentic poles, stated where???
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    "tell me would you denie that the magntic pole is inducted by the axis of the earth. it is your only chance at denial of the fact or pole reversal in the short time given. if so then what would give as a account of present magnetic pole motion."

    I'm still confused by what you mean by inducted by the axis of the earth, do you mean by teh earths rotation?
    You might like this:
    http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/northpole_e.shtml
    and by the way, its located at 82 degrees latitude north, not west or east.
    Then what about this:
    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11808.html
    sums it up nicely I thought. Why do you need to have a hydrogen core with reversals every few hundred years when tehres no particular evidence for it and it just complicates things?
    http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/reversals_e.shtml
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dwayne D.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    199
    First offf gurthie your meathod of attempted rebuttal is worthless and projects concepts that have no bearing to the points made, you are delibertly off topic to push a unrelative point, causeing the arguement to drift in various areas. the fact that i give you argument is appearntly to your benift. regardless the point being that you are unrelative to point of subject other than comment it is for this reason that i must educate you to every step of the fundmental proccess. here it is evident that you are confused, first from your coments second because you lack the information.
    it has truned from a simple statment of facts to a endevor in which i must provide now not only the basic otline but also the numrical vaules as well, in addtion you as me for exsperiments conducted, as if your statement where to have the efffect to present that i have no knowlegde of even the electron. if i give you the values then you want pictures, i gave you a very inportant value already one which you certainly lack, for you that was worth a million dollars, but yet even that appearntly has not been considered by you thoguht proccess or you would have known by know that you are out of context. it would also appear that i must invite you to place to conduct a exsperiment so that you can wittness the event because you lack the ablity to beable to confirm events on your own, this suggest that you do not have the skill to question in the first place, if you had the skill to question in the first place you would know that science is a continueing developing study, and that many things that others in the feild have takeing for grante are simply proven to be false latter, even so those same misguided to a certain or forumla have made some contriibution to scientific advancement or its study. point is that you have based you understanding on structrues that are fasle, and in many cases argued to be false many year prior to there popular idea effecting the feild of science.
    in general it seems that you ask for complete deliverance with out any of your own work, in the sense of the great aspect of science and human advancement according to science this may not be too selfish, in fact the burden would in some cases be correct for me to apply the truth for better benift. so it was given i gave you the average value of gravity, form here you should have been able to assemble the rest of the facts.
    you lacked there, you continued to lack in the fact that atoms are derived from hydrogen, your bases was that the structures of atoms simply appeared from radation into their present form. so then you said that the background constant was of no event to the strutrue of particles,atoms.
    it would seem that you live in magical world from your comments

    tell me what fact of physics defines that atoms where magically crated from nothing and not hydrgoen. where in the universe is the atom not effected by backgorund constant, whereaslo in that same universe is gravity creteaed, where also is congreation created without gravity.

    my point is estblished,


    the creation of atoms is determined by the local region of stars in a region of a galaxy, this local group determin the chemistry and atomiv stablity of a region as well life.


    if i remember corrcectly you gave me a stament of gravoty as having noe long range effect, but yet when asked of gravity and it form and occurance you had no idea.

    so then i will ask you again what do you think gravity is.

    Dwayne D.L.Rabon
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    "First offf gurthie your meathod of attempted rebuttal is worthless and projects concepts that have no bearing to the points made, you are delibertly off topic to push a unrelative point, causeing the arguement to drift in various areas."

    Nope, utter rubbish. You dont see that it is all related? If you can for example, discredit isotopic dating, then you knock out part of the evidence for older earth and thereby would require most of the evidence to be re-appraised with regards to the oceanic floor spreading and plate growth.

    " i must educate you to every step of the fundmental proccess. "

    Yup, because what you are propsing turns most of modern science on its head, which is a pretty hard thing to do.

    "it has truned from a simple statment of facts to a endevor in which i must provide now not only the basic otline but also the numrical vaules as well, in addtion you as me for exsperiments conducted, as if your statement where to have the efffect to present that i have no knowlegde of even the electron"

    But fo course. What you are propsing is no use if it cannot eb independently verified, and evidence of experiments is pretty useful in that regard. And so far you do look like you have little knowledge of the electron as currently understood, or rather, you have your own pet theory.


    "i gave you a very inportant value already one which you certainly lack, for you that was worth a million dollars"

    Like what? so far your maunderings have been nearly worthless to me.



    "it would also appear that i must invite you to place to conduct a exsperiment so that you can wittness the event because you lack the ablity to beable to confirm events on your own, this suggest that you do not have the skill to question in the first place, if you had the skill to question in the first place you would know that science is a continueing developing study, and that many things that others in the feild have takeing for grante are simply proven to be false latter, even so those same misguided to a certain or forumla have made some contriibution to scientific advancement or its study. "

    I'll settle even for some reports from TV or third party witnesses, cant you even show these? Adn yes, if you are being scientific about it, you have to demonstrate what you are trying to prove. Moreover you are correct in saying that many things are later proven false after being taken for granted for a while, but that requires that the previous results are proved false, by experiemnt and observation. SO far you cannot do that. I have the skill to question, why do you think I am asking you all this? And of course those that have gotten it wrong have shown that some avenues are not worth exploring.

    "you lacked there, you continued to lack in the fact that atoms are derived from hydrogen, your bases was that the structures of atoms simply appeared from radation into their present form. so then you said that the background constant was of no event to the strutrue of particles,atoms."

    Nope, my basis was that hydrogen was created in vast amounts in the big bang, and then fused up the periodic table into heavier and heavier elements by stars. That is not the same as saying atoms apeared from radiation in their present form. Your twisting mywords and showing poor grasp of science and english. You rpesumably mean background constant of gravity, which as is blatantly obvious changes with distance to heavier objects, something that is already taken into account.

    "it would seem that you live in magical world from your comments"

    HAHHAHA. Once again, I doubt your sanity. YOu could say i live in a magical world, in one sense, but that is more of a philosophical sense than anything else.

    "tell me what fact of physics defines that atoms where magically crated from nothing and not hydrgoen. where in the universe is the atom not effected by backgorund constant, whereaslo in that same universe is gravity creteaed, where also is congreation created without gravity."

    See, you misunderstand me. Gravity is a very weak force over very long distances, and depends on the mass present. The atom is affected in some ways, but these ways have already been enumerated by modern physics and chemistry, and clearly clash with your pathetic efforts to show that the earth is 27,000 years old. I have not denied that gravity is necessary to the formation of stars, and tehnce heavier elements, but I do deny that the effects on all atoms and suchlike is as large as you seem to be trying to claim.

    "the creation of atoms is determined by the local region of stars in a region of a galaxy, this local group determin the chemistry and atomiv stablity of a region as well life."

    tripe. I have mentioned before the observations of distant stars, presumably with different gravities and neighbourhoods, yet they all seem to have the same atoms and elements present. Odd that.

    "so then i will ask you again what do you think gravity is."

    ive told you what i think gravity is.
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm
    The simple fact is that the current models and ideas and so on astill do not explain exactly what gravity is. How in your model is gravity transmitted and how does it work?

    Finally, teh simple solution to all yoru problems is to use yoru suppsoed expert knowledge of the real state of this part of the cosmos to build some sort of machine that doesnt work according to normal physics. Or perhaps you can explain something that has not yet been explained about soem observable natural phenomena? Or perhaps you cant, and your attempts at pseudo science are worthless.
     
  8. TrueCreation Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    94
    "Well, firstly, theres the dating problem, that suggests rocks etc are millions of years old."
    --Not really. As has been discussed above, decay was accelerated during CPT. So that the rocks present the appearence of age is not a direct falsification.

    "secondly, if you have a catastrophic speed up of production of crust at the bottom of the ocean, would that crust therefore not have less sediment on it?"
    --Depending on the distance of the new sea-floor from the adjacent continents and the age of the new sea-floor relative to older sea-floor.

    "The point i perhaps didnt make clear also included that the depth of sediment apparently matches the more continous long term deposition over millions of years, whereas if you had a catastrophic event as you describe, surely there would be a long stretch of ocean floor with roughly the same depth of sediment"
    --Not at all. Sedimentary thickness would not be of uniform depth because sea-floor spreading would have been syncronous to sedimentation. Not only that but most of the sediments on the ocean floor are terrigenous (ie. originating from the continents) and would thusly be deposited nearer to their origin. Older sea-floor would also have more time for the accumulation of sediments.

    "likely nearly devoid of fossils and suchlike or filled with the bodies of whatever lifeforms lived in the ocean then"
    --Why wouldn't there be? I certainly would expect plenty of fossil fauna in sediments off the coasts of continents.

    "whereas from what ive read, the depth increases on a reasonably constant amount the further from the crack between the plates you are."
    --Not really, the rise becomes more exponential than linear the closer you get to the continents:

    http://www.promisoft.100megsdns.com/evcforum/sedthick.jpg

    "Furthermore, i would assume that they have checked the progression of the fossil evidence in the sediment, so if it is checked over million sof years you can find different kinds of fossils present, according to the orthodox geological column."
    --so what is it that would be different between the predictions of uniformitarian geology and the CPT regime with fossil evidence?

    "If there was a catastrophic event one woould expect some sort of discontinuity or at the very least a large stretch of sediment that comes from the actual event, and therefore is different in particle size, distribution, and geology. Ie if you look at a delta from a river, there is definite distribution of particles and so on that makes it all obvious to the eye."
    --Indeed, but it would not be obvious to the eye. Any discontinuity from flood and post-flood sediments on the ocean floor would be difficult to find. The rapid sea-floor spreading associated with catastrophic plate tectonics would not stop quickly--there would have been a deceleration in the velocity of plate divergence. Thus, you would not expect to find an obvious discontinuity between flood sediments(rapid sedimentation) and post-flood sediments(slow sedimentation). Not only that, but the discontinuity would be extremely close to the mid-ocean ridge. Here is some sedimentary thickness data near an spreading ridge:

    http://www.ocean.cf.ac.uk/people/neil/seds/accnrate.gif

    http://www.ocean.cf.ac.uk/people/neil/seds/gscflows.gif

    --I don't know how to determine exactly what sea-floor was formed during the flood and that formed after, though it would probably be on the order of 2-10km from the ridge axis (that being post-flood sea-floor). The thickest sediments at ~10 km from the ridge are only about 10-12 m thick. The problem is that the sediments this close to the ridge are so irregular that no discontinuity would be possible to be found.

    --if you would expect a discontinuity noticable because of graded bedding you would also be mistaken because the sediments deposited on the ocean floor almost always produces graded bedding. The flux of sediments to the ocean is not necessarily constant because much of the sediments deposited off the coasts of continents are due to turbidity currents which always produce graded bedding. Seeing this any post flood sediments still in suspention and being deposited post-flood would merely be interpreted as a turbidite.

    Cheers,
    -Chris Grose
    Geoscience Editor
    Organization for Young Scientists Inquiry
     
  9. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    "Not really. As has been discussed above, decay was accelerated during CPT. So that the rocks present the appearence of age is not a direct falsification."

    So you claim. If you can prove it, then yes, you have a viable theory, but otherwise, your just making things up.

    "Depending on the distance of the new sea-floor from the adjacent continents and the age of the new sea-floor relative to older sea-floor"

    Fair enough.

    "Why wouldn't there be? I certainly would expect plenty of fossil fauna in sediments off the coasts of continents."

    But if we're talking a catastrophe here like you say then surely tehre would eb massive amounts of sediment taking down all the forms of life marine and otehrwise, in fact if its a massive flood perhaps we're talking land fauna and flora here as well, which would then surely be bundled in one part of it as the initial sweep of water etc gathers them altogether. Rather like the mammoths they find in Siberia, there were various collections of them where they had collected, apparently blown together by a massive wind.

    "Not really, the rise becomes more exponential than linear the closer you get to the continents:"

    But I would prefer to look at the mid ocean floor ridges, where there is less likelihood of contamination and sediment from the land getting in the way.

    "so what is it that would be different between the predictions of uniformitarian geology and the CPT regime with fossil evidence?"

    The evolution of creatures. there is it seems enough evidence left to show that they changed form over the millions of years the seafloor has been spreading. However, if you could show that they were all the same form, then that would change things.

    Which links directly into:
    "The sediments accumulating on mid-ocean ridges are mostly formed from the calcareous and siliceous tests of pelagic organisms. This research is concerned with understanding how the rate of sediment supply varies from place to place due to variable productivity of pelagic organisms, how the sediments accumulate on the complex topography of a mid-ocean ridge, and with using the sediments to study mid-ocean ridge processes such as faulting and volcanism. "

    From:
    http://www.ocean.cf.ac.uk/people/neil/seds/seds.html
    Which then suggests that we should be looking more closely at the fossil record in this case.

    "I don't know how to determine exactly what sea-floor was formed during the flood and that formed after, though it would probably be on the order of 2-10km from the ridge axis (that being post-flood sea-floor). The thickest sediments at ~10 km from the ridge are only about 10-12 m thick. The problem is that the sediments this close to the ridge are so irregular that no discontinuity would be possible to be found."

    OK, in that case, would isotopic dating work? After all, your saying it didnt work properly during a massive increase in radioactive decay during a worldwide catastrophic event, so woudl it not return to normal afterwards?
    Then of course how much would such an event affect the already laid down sediment?


    "if you would expect a discontinuity noticable because of graded bedding you would also be mistaken because the sediments deposited on the ocean floor almost always produces graded bedding. The flux of sediments to the ocean is not necessarily constant because much of the sediments deposited off the coasts of continents are due to turbidity currents which always produce graded bedding. Seeing this any post flood sediments still in suspention and being deposited post-flood would merely be interpreted as a turbidite."

    Except, if you are postulating a worldwide event with massive speedup of both plate movement and processes of erosion, then you would expect the sediment to be much thicker. Much, much thicker.
     
  10. Dwayne D.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    199
    Well my point comes clear, relavant to the age of possiblity of life on earth some 27,000 years, and that atomic dating does not have the ablity to provide acurate dates as to various times periods or age of objects, as well the event cause for inaccuracy in atmoic dating is random events is atomic decay that change the atomic structure, placing sea floor and other geological inturptations out of context of fact, meaning that the samples aquired in study have been mistupred as to actual event of occurance over the alotted time.
    geological structures are subject to changes in chemistry within that time frames that are relative are solar systems postion and interactnce with the local star group. in this definition the present sample studied my have some relative consistancy for the last 27,000 years and continue for the next 9,000 years, but pior to this time frame in earth histroy it was subject to chemical change, density change, and pressure changes, as well atomic changes as a result of decay or stabltiy as the solar system gained stable postion in the local region og stars deterimining it is atomic stablity and chemistry.
    this is not to say the the earth in its formation as a planet is not 2 to 4 billion yeasr old, simply the atoms that compose the earths mass have been subject to chemical and atomic change, that places the current study of geology in a relative time of 27,000 years, meaning that the geological structures studied can result in no more accurate determination then what has occured in the last 27,000 years.
    Defining a new meathod of atomic dating and relative circumstances would yeild a better understanding of atomic decay relative to geology. in fact understanding the role that the local star group plays in atomic stabltiy and chemistry would provide a more accurate hisrtory of geology.
    The current limits of geology are to the time period for understanding of 27,000 years, a record of flood occurances such as depicted in the bible would place such major events in a time period less than 27,000 years, considering the fact that biological life is in decline as we depart from the aplha centuris binary star, such biblical records depicted would place such events in a time frame of greater bioloical thriving at least 10,000 years of that 27,000 years, giving life a period of 17,000 years to evolve and 10,000 years to ponder in the most biologically active enviroment resulting in dinosaurs and mastdons, wooly mamoths ect..... this enviroment with its closer procimity to alha centuri would subject to a more water enviorment, due to the gavity matrix effect of alpha on chemistry, an earth lower density, this defines a large precentage of water on the earth surface and in its soil, in addtion to a very water vapor enviroment, the graduale departure from alpha would decrease the chemical formation of water, placing greater formation of water at surface levels, creating larger oceans. i.e less vapor or clould formation and more condensation at surface levels, this would cause a flood of existing land.
    in addtion to this event of chemical change relavant to water, the event of magnetic pole reversal would cause collaspe of the earth crust resulting in new ocean basins, this would cause grouping of the water in to oceans, as gravity increases during pole revesals due to density increase water as well be pushed from sediment in to the vaious channels and directly to the oceans ect..... this would exspalin the vaious constuients of sea water sucn as nitrogen, carbon, ect...in sea water.
    the formation of ocean plates islands ect... is the result conglomeration due to gravity at surface, and magama from the gravity center of earth about 2000 mile depth where resulting spikes of magma seep up from under the conteints spreading the ocean floor, during period of magnetic reversal of the pole there exist a liner record due to the event distrubance of geology occurance to the conentients not the ocean basins, this means that collaspe of the curst occurs in large sections that include suface land and ocean basins, the surface land mass is subject to large distrubance by volcanic activity and convergence, pushing up land mass and making mountain ranges ect..... as currently exist. The ocean basins exsperince collaspe as a result of the entire action of curstal collaspe, this establishes that large section of ocean may be former surface mass and that surface mass my be in sections land mass that was once ocean floor, the magnetic record of sea floor is a result of regions that have sunk by collaspe entirlly, or remained uneffected by the distrubance, these regions exspeince magama spikes from under the contients resluting in a magnetic record of pole reversals, sediment deposits are large during this time frame and become polarized as the magentic feild restores itself to normal.
    the event that magnetic reversal occur during currently in 5,000 year periods does not effect the prior time frames of pole reversals whcih may be shorter or longer by time according to the rotation of the earth, of which inductive forve determins the motion of the magentic poles. periods of high rotaion speed give shoter periods of pole reversal, slower speed give longer time frames before reversal, the result is a continual changeing surface of earth and its ocean basins due to periodic events of pole reversal,

    given the event of 27,000 years relavant to present chemistry effecting geology but not effecting pole reversal as a event, however star gavity of the local start group, such as alpha will have a effect of duration of time for reversal ect..... the avergae provides about 6 pole revesals relavant to the formation of life forms on earth, since the biblical notes that would provide for a time frame of 2 pole reversals, resulting in condenstaion of vapors as well great movements of ocean water accross the earth surface.


    Dwayne D.L.Rabon
     
  11. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    And thus we have the world according to Dwayne D L Rabon, one that bears striking departures to the scientifically derived world view that somehow seems to explain most of geology and cosmology in a far more lucid and simple manner than dwaynes.
    To put it quite simply, your wrong. But its impossible to show you that you are because you are in yoru own little universe.
    So have a nice time trying to persuade people your right. Tell us how your getting on in a year or two.
     
  12. Dwayne D.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    199
    Another blostered comment and insult from gurthie the challange and no nothing mystry person.

    since you obviously think that there is some grave deprature, however you are clearly a speculate person given your post, tell me then what is the cause of decay, the reason for the occurance of isotpes in the periodic chart.

    what i see is a person bent on false ideas that can not back them up, but yet wishes to challange the more stable and affrimitive facts. contreyverse, contreyverse,


    Dwayne D.L.Rabon
     
  13. Dwayne D.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    199
    Here's a note if a supernova where to occur in our local region of stars, our oxgen atomsphere would turn into carbon!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    the most eratic neighbor that we have with a effect on chemistry and atomic stabltiy is alpha proxmia. it is actually the closet star to the sun and our earth/solar system is the cause of most eratic behavior of atoms and chemistry. this is due to the starts periodic and frequent ditrubance, with enormuos solar flares suggesting freaquent gravity distrbance, and emmission in the background constant of our region.



    dwayne d.l.rabon
     
  14. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    "Another blostered comment and insult from gurthie the challange and no nothing mystry person."

    Ok, ill finally ask yuo, why if your so clever is your spelling worse than mine?
    And your the mystery person here, with your one track mind and weird ideas.

    "since you obviously think that there is some grave deprature, however you are clearly a speculate person given your post, tell me then what is the cause of decay, the reason for the occurance of isotpes in the periodic chart."


    Firstly, you have not yet pointed out any problem with the standard scientific viewpoint of the beahviour of radioactive decay, all you have asserted is that its wrong, and given some nutty ideas with no evidence, merely a chain of reasoning based on no empirical evidence. Decay occurse becasue of unstability in the nucleus due to the presence of an imbalance of nuetrons and protons, or so i think. Some arrangements are more stable than others, ie when neutrons and protons are the same nuber in the nucleaus, but when you have heavier nuclei, they egt out of kilter and decay to more stable ones.
    Why, how do you think it happens?

    "what i see is a person bent on false ideas that can not back them up, but yet wishes to challange the more stable and affrimitive facts. contreyverse, contreyverse,"

    Nope, thats what you are. You say everythign we exploit to make out technology work, and everythign that has been built up about our past, is wrong, yet do not provide any evidence. I cannot personally prove to you the veracity of all the particle physics experiments, the research on radioactivity, cosmology etc, but the information is out there. Go educate yourself.
    And you still cannot show how yoru interpretation is more stable adn true. And you also still cannot spell, contrayverse is not in my oxford english dictionary.
     
  15. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    "Here's a note if a supernova where to occur in our local region of stars, our oxgen atomsphere would turn into carbon!!!!"

    But how? By gaining nutrons and protons?

    "cause of most eratic behavior of atoms and chemistry."

    But what erratic behaviour have you seen? What makes you say that what we have now is utterly wrong?
     

Share This Page