Geology

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Which theory of the motion of the Earth's crust or merely its lithosphere is right?

The theory of continental drift (plate tectonics).
5
63%
The theory of thermal cycles.
1
13%
The theory of expansion.
1
13%
The theory of contraction.
0
No votes
The theory of oscillation.
0
No votes
The theory of stream-stretching.
0
No votes
The theory of undercurrent and swallowing.
0
No votes
Another theory.
0
No votes
No theory.
1
13%
 
Total votes : 8

Re: Geology

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 19, 2015 3:59 am

How planets and moons came into existence.

Arminius wrote:Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets has been true since 1755 when he invented this theory by thinking about it - without science, because the scientists knew nothing about it at that time. Compare: Immanuel Kant, "Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels", 1755.

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets has been true since 1755 when he invented this theory by thinking about it - without science, because the scientists knew nothing about it at that time. Compare: Immanuel Kant, "Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels", 1755.

What was Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets?

And of suns!

Immanuel Kant was sure that (1) the sun emerged from a cosmic cloud, that (2) a dust disk with floating particles was formed by the centrifugal force of the still rapidly rotating sun, and that (3) the planets were „glued“ in this dust disk with floating particles. According to Kant suns and solar systems originate in a rotating cloud of gas that has become so much dense that it collapses, and planets originate as „collections of sun dust parts“.

See also here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2557820#p2557820 .

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:There are two apparent options;
1) forming from a cloud, as suggested.
2) stemming from an explosion, perhaps black holes colliding.

But black holes could not be known at that said time, thus: were not known at that said time.

James S Saint wrote:There must be a continuous source for such events, but either of those could be eternally occurring and perhaps both are eternally occurring. But at least he didn't proclaim that the entire universe arose from a Big Bang. :icon-rolleyes:

Yes. Probably Kant would not have accepted it as we do not accept it. However: No human of the 1750's was talking about a "big bang" ( :wink: ).

Kant said, for example, one should overcome dogmatism by using the own intellect.

The hypothesis of the "big bang" has much more to do with dogmatism than with science.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Geology

Postby James S Saint » Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:05 am

Even "solid uranium" wouldn't explode. It would have to be weapon's grade, purified, and under explosively extreme pressure. Uranium isn't the only thing down there:
Based on the relative prevalence of various chemical elements in our solar system, the theory of planetary formation, and constraints imposed or implied by the chemistry of the rest of the Earth's volume, the inner core is believed to consist primarily of a nickel-iron alloy known as NiFe: 'Ni' for nickel, and 'Fe' for ferrum or iron.[11] Because the inner core is denser (12.8 ~ 13.1)g⁄cm³[12] than pure iron or nickel at Earth's inner core pressures, the inner core must contain a great amount of heavy elements with only a small amount of light elements, mainly Si with traces of O.[13] Based on such density a study calculated that the core contains enough gold, platinum and other siderophile elements that if extracted and poured onto the Earth's surface it would cover the entire Earth with a coating 0.45 m (1.5 feet) deep.[14] The fact that precious metals and other heavy elements are so much more abundant in the Earth's inner core than in its crust is explained by the theory of the so-called iron catastrophe, an event that occurred before the first eon during the accretion phase of the early Earth.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Geology

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:41 am

James S Saint wrote:Even "solid uranium" wouldn't explode. It would have to be weapon's grade, purified, and under explosively extreme pressure. Uranium isn't the only thing down there:
Based on the relative prevalence of various chemical elements in our solar system, the theory of planetary formation, and constraints imposed or implied by the chemistry of the rest of the Earth's volume, the inner core is believed to consist primarily of a nickel-iron alloy known as NiFe: 'Ni' for nickel, and 'Fe' for ferrum or iron.[11] Because the inner core is denser (12.8 ~ 13.1)g⁄cm³[12] than pure iron or nickel at Earth's inner core pressures, the inner core must contain a great amount of heavy elements with only a small amount of light elements, mainly Si with traces of O.[13] Based on such density a study calculated that the core contains enough gold, platinum and other siderophile elements that if extracted and poured onto the Earth's surface it would cover the entire Earth with a coating 0.45 m (1.5 feet) deep.[14] The fact that precious metals and other heavy elements are so much more abundant in the Earth's inner core than in its crust is explained by the theory of the so-called iron catastrophe, an event that occurred before the first eon during the accretion phase of the early Earth.

I have already answered his question about the uranium in the Earth's core: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188592&start=25#p2565310 .
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Geology

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 19, 2015 8:32 pm

The Geoid.

The geoid is a physical model of the earth's shape, which in 1828 developed by the German Carl Friedrich Gauß (Gauss) - in contrast to the geometric model of the earth ellipsoid. The term "geoid" goes back to the German Johann Benedict Listing, who described it in 1871 as a surface equal gravity potential. The geoid is used to define heights and for measuring and describing the earth's shape.

According to Gauß (Gauss), who first described it, it is the "mathematical figure of the Earth", a smooth but highly irregular surface whose shape results from the uneven distribution of mass within and on the surface of the Earth. It does not correspond to the actual surface of the Earth's crust, but to a surface which can only be known through extensive gravitational measurements and calculations. Despite being an important concept for almost two hundred years in the history of geodesy and geophysics, it has only been defined to high precision in recent decades. It is often described as the true physical figure of the Earth, in contrast to the idealized geometrical figure of a reference ellipsoid.

The surface of the geoid is higher than the reference ellipsoid wherever there is a positive gravity anomaly (mass excess) and lower than the reference ellipsoid wherever there is a negative gravity anomaly (mass deficit).


Image Image Image
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Geology

Postby Platospuppy1 » Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:47 am

[quote="Arminius"]

I am repeating my last post because it clearly debunks the 'Plate Tectonic Theory' and nobody has responded to this information in an appropriate manner thus far.

Transform faults are GROWTH FAULTS, but only the active sectors are typically shown on plate maps (the short jagged sections offsetting the ridges in Fig.1). Omitting their inactive sectors and calling these 'fractures' and thus implying that there is no movement associated with them is misleading in the extreme, and completely belies the importance of these structures in the growth of the ridges over time. But fractures are fractures, ...discontinuities in the rock on which (by definition) there has been no movement - ever. The 'fracture' sectors of transform faults however define the *trace of movements past*. They are entirely about movement! Yet Plate Tectonicists call them 'fractures'. Why? Because to Plate Tectonics they are really something of an embarassment - as the expression of earthquake- mediated brittle failure they cannot be accommodated in a ductile flow/ convection model. Attempts to do so describe them as zones of ductile flow, ..not brittle failure. So they are left off plate maps. One can only surmise the reason to be because they interfere with the depiction of 'plates' and therefore what 'Plate' Tectonics is properly about.
Well, ...clearly the Earth is not divided into a "number of plates"; the distribution of transform faults, their continuity and global extents uniting the spreading ridges proclaims the unity of the ocean floors from the Pacific to the Atlantic, not their segmentation into "a number of plates" that "move independently".

Below - a satellite picture which shows growth faults of the expanding Earth Theory.

Image

As we can see in the fabricated diagram below - the growth faults are conveniently omitted from plate tectonics maps because they are an inconvenient embarrassment to the theory.



Image

Still no reply to the fact that a solid uranium core could explode?????

How do you think the planets and moons came into existence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... s-ago.html
Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
User avatar
Platospuppy1
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Geology

Postby Arminius » Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:20 pm

Your said post "debunks" nothing, and your "fabricated diagram" does not prove anything.

And I have answered all your questions, some of them even several times.

But you have not answered my questions. Here is one of them again:

What do you think about the cause of the Earth's expansion?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Geology

Postby Platospuppy1 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:15 am

Arminius wrote:Your said post "debunks" nothing, and your "fabricated diagram" does not prove anything.

And I have answered all your questions, some of them even several times.

But you have not answered my questions. Here is one of them again:

What do you think about the cause of the Earth's expansion?


The cause of the expansion is unimportant in resolving of whether it is occurring or not. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Expansion Theory.
Personally, I believe that matter is just aether particles in rotation around mini-black holes known as neutrons. Internal pressure can force aether particles to stop spinning which creates heat energy and expansion.(creation of new matter and growth of old matter)

You are still not responding appropriately to my posts.
In order to be a good philosopher, you must address each point with equal vigour and attention.
1. Why do plate tectonic diagrams always appear in an artificial or non-satellite format?
2. Is it because there are lots of small lateral fault lines which don't fit into the plate tectonic theory story line?
3. The lateral fault lines follow a pattern which is unified and global and doesn't add anything to the plate tectonics theory. Thus, the lateral fault lines have been excluded from the artificial diagrams to reinforce a false and poorly conceived theory.
4. Plate tectonic ignores the Earth's rotation and its twisting effect on the fault lines. Note - The s- shape of the longitudinal fault lines. Thus, the convection theory must be false.
5.The crazy subduction theory
There are ways of interpreting that zone (as described on this site) other than plate tectonics says. The mantle is not necessarily 'subducting', nor even (as it supposedly 'descends') is it cold, .and the 'slab' is actually constituted of the entire ocean floor right back to the ridge, not simply the turned-down sector that Plate Tectonics usually labels 'slab'. If coldness and slabness is the point, why doesn't the entire ocean floor just sink? It is after all cold, and more dense than the mantle on which it is sitting. And it is huge - making up two thirds of the Earth's surface in fact. Why must it travel so far from the ridge before it is cold enough to sink? It's pretty cold right where it is, on an Icelandic slope, say, ..even in the sunshine. And why (if it is cold) must it always sink on a line (a continental margin)? Why doesn't it just sink anyhow, ...like a 'plate' - and zig-zag to the bottom? Because there is a space problem? ...no room for all that ocean floor at the surface to sit on the much smaller curvature of the core-mantle boundary? Or maybe, because gravitational force tapers off with depth it will tend not to sink at all after a while?
Nope, ..that's not it. According to Plate Tectonics it's not cold (/dense) enough. To become cold (/dense) enough it has to be pushed down into the hotter regions of the mantle where it can undergo a phase transition to its denser equivalent of eclogite. THEN it can sink ("because it's cold" - "because it's dense").

What? It has to sink into the hot mantle to become cold /dense enough to sink? Yup! That indeed is Plate Tectonic logic. And just in case we need another bit of logic in order to swallow that one we have to consider the other bit of PT-ers' logic, ...that to get down there in the first place the slab has to be forced down. How? Well, ...by the continental lithosphere at a 'plate boundary'. What's that? By the continental lithosphere that is lighter than the oceanic lithosphere, do I hear you ask? Well, .. yes again. That's more Plate Tectonic logic. It goes on and on, this logic, a bottomless Christmas Stocking jamboree of Wonderland possibilities to aid publication and career advancement. Can there be any wonder it's considered the greatest thing since sliced bread?
Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
User avatar
Platospuppy1
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Geology

Postby Arminius » Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:44 pm

Platospuppy1 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Your said post "debunks" nothing, and your "fabricated diagram" does not prove anything.

And I have answered all your questions, some of them even several times.

But you have not answered my questions. Here is one of them again:

What do you think about the cause of the Earth's expansion?

The cause of the expansion is unimportant in resolving of whether it is occurring or not.

That is nonsense, because it is no scientifical and thus also no philosophical answer. Every theory must be compatible with the last possible cause.

Platospuppy1 wrote:The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Expansion Theory.

That is not true.

Platospuppy1 wrote:You are still not responding appropriately to my posts.
In order to be a good philosopher, you must address each point with equal vigour and attention.

That is your personal self-description, because you are the one who is still not responding appropriately to my posts.

So again: What do you think about the cause of the Earth's expansion?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Geology

Postby Platospuppy1 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:08 am

Arminius wrote:
Platospuppy1 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Your said post "debunks" nothing, and your "fabricated diagram" does not prove anything.

And I have answered all your questions, some of them even several times.

But you have not answered my questions. Here is one of them again:

What do you think about the cause of the Earth's expansion?

The cause of the expansion is unimportant in resolving of whether it is occurring or not.

That is nonsense, because it is no scientifical and thus also no philosophical answer. Every theory must be compatible with the last possible cause.

Platospuppy1 wrote:The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Expansion Theory.

That is not true.

Platospuppy1 wrote:You are still not responding appropriately to my posts.
In order to be a good philosopher, you must address each point with equal vigour and attention.

That is your personal self-description, because you are the one who is still not responding appropriately to my posts.

So again: What do you think about the cause of the Earth's expansion?


You are still ignoring the evidence and not responding appropriately.

You have to state the reasons why Plate Tectonic maps always are artificial and never use modern satellite photography, but instead, rely on 100 year old graphic techniques to depict the fault lines.

Why do Plate Tectonic Theory maps omit the thousands of lateral fault lines which circle the globe?

Are you defending the religious view that the Earth was created by God and that the earth was formed in its current size and hasn't changed one iota since its Biblical creation 5,000 years ago?
Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
User avatar
Platospuppy1
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Geology

Postby Arminius » Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:29 pm

You are derailing the thread again, Puppy. I warn you: Stop your personal attacks. They have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So if you are not interested in it and want to be still off-topic, then post in the threads of the off-topic sector.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Geology

Postby Platospuppy1 » Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:17 am

Arminius wrote:You are derailing the thread again, Puppy. I warn you: Stop your personal attacks. They have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So if you are not interested in it and want to be still off-topic, then post in the threads of the off-topic sector.


Now you are pulling the authoritarian card, in the hope of disguising your deceptions. You are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel now! Note- There were no personal attacks in the last post, so I guess you must be just imagining it. I am discussing geology, so how can this be off topic? Please explain.
Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
User avatar
Platospuppy1
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Geology

Postby Platospuppy1 » Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:25 am

Arminius wrote:
Platospuppy1 wrote:You are still not responding appropriately to my posts.
In order to be a good philosopher, you must address each point with equal vigour and attention.

That is your personal self-description, because you are the one who is still not responding appropriately to my posts.

So again: What do you think about the cause of the Earth's expansion?


My last post was - [ Personally, I believe that matter is just aether particles in rotation around mini-black holes known as neutrons. Internal pressure can force aether particles to stop spinning which creates heat energy and expansion.(creation of new matter and growth of old matter]

Thus, you have ignored the answers and evidence yet again!
Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
User avatar
Platospuppy1
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Geology

Postby Arminius » Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:43 am

Stick to the topic, Puppy, or post in another thread. I am not interested in your personal attacks.

I am not playing a card at all, but you are playing every and any card, because it seems to be opportune to you.

Stick to the topic! No single "you" is needed, if one sticks to the topic of this thread: Geology. We (except you) are talking about geology not about "persons".

If there will be still any word like "you" or similar words in your next posts, then I am going to not respond any of your posts.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Geology

Postby Platospuppy1 » Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:48 am

Arminius wrote:You are derailing the thread again, Puppy. I warn you: Stop your personal attacks. They have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So if you are not interested in it and want to be still off-topic, then post in the threads of the off-topic sector.


You have used the word "you", Thus you have contravened your own pathetic standards of non-excellence and evasiveness. Why don't you just admit that you are like your hero Adolf H and that you can only dictate and not listen or react appropriately.

"I love the smell of smoking Christians in the morning"

Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
User avatar
Platospuppy1
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Geology

Postby Arminius » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:22 pm

Flannel Jesus !
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Geology

Postby Platospuppy1 » Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:06 am

Arminius wrote:Flannel Jesus !


Mommy! Mommy! Help me! That nasty clown is making fun of me! Bwaaaa! Bwwaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Never mind little one. It is just a bad dream. Go back to sleep now, and it will disappear. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
User avatar
Platospuppy1
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: Geology

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:16 pm

Sorry if I haven't been around much lately peeps.

Platospuppy, you seem to be behaving like a bit of a dick. Unofficial warning to stop behaving like a dick.

That is all.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 5161
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Previous

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users