Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
As an excesize, can someone here post a clear summary of the evidence that a Paleozoic mountain chain was entirely uplifted prior to the Mesozoic being deposited? Let us look carefully at the actual data. In our sceanrio the uplift could have been occurring gradually during the flood with its peak being achieved only after the 100% covering. Can we really identify the height prior to the Mesozoic or is it actaully a lot of guess work?

---

edge has already mentioned the Appalachian mountains (and with that I'm including the equivalent mountain belts in the Europe, Greenland, and Africa). Another I can think of is the Ancestral Rocky Mountain orogeny in western North America. This event occurred from the Pennsylvanian to the Permian. This event was finished by the start of the Triassic, when the area where there had previously been mountains was covered by Triassic sediments.The Antler Orogeny in western North America is another example. It began in the Devonian and was finished by the end of the Pennsylvanian.

t[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 01-21-2003]

There are also the Grenville Orogeny (that John has alluded to) and Pan-African orogenies in the Precambrian.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by David unfamous:
LRP,

​

I've entered into this a bit late, but since when has Pangea thought to have been a circular continent?

---

​

Snider (1858) was I think the first person to reconstruct the continents and this was to all intents and purposes circular
when plotted on the curved surface of the globe.

​

Wegener(1915) also managed to get it close to circular.
Du Toit(1937) Smith and Hallam (1970), Tarling (1972) and Powell et al (1980) seem to have made it a bit more elliptical.

​

An eliptical shape would be more in keeping with the method of formation I have suggested.

---

Maybe 'contained within' an elipse of sorts, but Pangea was as eliptoid as a Cashew nut from what I have seen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
What are you talking about? The surface heat flow is directly proportional to the bathymetry of the ocean floor and hence, eustasy.

---

I don't care about the mechanism, TC. Just answer the question. How in bloody hell can people not notice the ocean drop thousands of feet?

quote:

---

What others have layed out and I have agreed with here is that that is exactly what I cannot show yet, that bathymetry & eustatic levels would drop rapidly after the flood.

---

Yes, and the question is how can people not notice this drop? I can't think of any way to pull this off. I am imagining a continent and an ocean, and I can't think of a way to make the ocean drop and it not be damned obvious to someone on shore. I am thinking only of the water-line against the shore and pretending that I can pull and push the land masses at will as if by giant hands.

quote:

---

"You are saying that whatever mechanism you cook up will explain why no one noticed that the sea levels dropped?"
--No, I'm saying that if the mechanism doesn't explain this, it isn't plausible.

---

LOL.... so whatever mechanism you cook up will explain this effect.

quote:

---

Well someone obviously would have observed it. Just not in recent times.

---

Not in recent times, eh? Fine. Bet the Egyptians would have noticed given the location of Egypt. Come on, there were sea-faring people at the time. You can't think they wouldn't have noticed. Of course, I suppose you would deny the sea-faring people and insist that only the few on the ark were around at the time.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

(Comment on message 64)An eliptoid still fits the shape satisfactorily for the way I think the supercontinent was formed. A simple experiment could be tried. Take a small lump of very soft clay and hurl it on to a rotating sphere Aim for just above the equator. Hopefully the clay will flatten and stick to the sphere. Will it form a circle or an ellipse or an eliptoid I wonder. If centrifugal (or is it centripetal?) forces are considered it may well be an eliptoid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRP:
A simple experiment could be tried. Take a small lump of very soft clay and hurl it on to a rotating sphere Aim for just above the equator.

---

Your experiment won't come close to approximating the enormous speeds and hence, energies, associated with planetary collisions. Even firing your clay ball out of a cannon will only get it up to a few hundred miles an hour and this isn't even close to the speeds at which planets travel. Even so, fire your clay ball at a globe and you won't get an ellipse, a circle or anything else except thousands of fragments stuck to the walls of the lab.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I disagree. You will ofcourse get fragmentation if the relative velocities are high enough. If the velocity was too low the ball would remain intact and just sit on the sphere (assuming it was sticky enough to cling to it and then flatten into a circle. In between these two extremes it would flatten into some other shape.When dealing with planetissimals the relative velocity between a planet and the planetissimal can be extremely high or quite low depending on their respective orbits prior to collision.I know that the word 'earth' used in the Bible is also used for the dry land (supercontinent?) that arose out of the ocean on the second day of the Genesis creation account. The shape of the earth gets a few mentions in the Bible eg'the earth takes shape like clay under a seal' {Job 38:14}'He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth' {Isaiah 40:22}

"That there is a reason, no one is researching this. It makes no sense to do so."
--Not for you, why do you think I said there's work to be done? Because it hasn't been. Why work within a Young Earth framework when your premise is that it is old? Hence my assertion that, "Its difficult to do these things without hundreds of other scientists even having the interest, things don't get done for us as fast as the mainstream.""Let's see, could it be that is because it never happened? "
--Obviously any scientific initiative attempting to verify a hypothesis must accept this as a possibility."Why do you assume that because we cannot see it today that it must have happened and various laws of physics must have been violated before we could have seen them?"
--I never said that it therefore 'must have happened'."I am sorry, but if the oceans receded thousands of feet between 4000 and 2000 years ago, we would have some record of it, and possibly a verbal record."
--Maybe, we have a lot of flood stories out there, but I'm no archaeologist and haven't done any of this sort of research. But I think I will allow myself to work one step at a time.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by LRP:
If the velocity was too low the ball would remain intact and just sit on the sphere (assuming it was sticky enough to cling to it and then flatten into a circle.

---

Sure, if the velocities were low enough. They won't be. Gravitational attraction will take care of that.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

--In your scenario it seems more plausible that you would create a global magma ocean rather than new continents just from the impact itself. What might you presume existed prior the pangean continent? And how do you account for continental paleomagnetism?------------------

I'm not a physicist, but wouldn't there also be an issue with the moon's gravitational attraction and/or the moon simply swatting the thing out of the sky if it's really going slowly enough to avoid shattering and/or burning up on earth re-entry? What I mean is, IF the hypothetical planetissimal was going slowly enough to sort of ease itself into the atmosphere wouldn't it be spending quite a bit of time crossing the moon's orbit? It would have to be coming in practically on the ecliptic at almost exactly the speed of earth's orbital velocity around the sun (say, a few meters per second closure rate) - especially if it was the consistency of a soft squishy ball of clay like LRP proposes. This would also imply that it had to do some really fancy ricocheting around the outer solar system to get into that vector in the first place...Any mathematically/physics inclined people here care to try and calculate the three-body problem here?

quote:

---

I'm not a physicist, but wouldn't there also be an issue with the moon's gravitational attraction and/or the moon simply swatting the thing out of the sky if it's really going slowly enough to avoid shattering and/or burning up on earth re-entry?

---

I thought about the moon too. The moon is going to be a huge problem for the planetissimal theory. To tell the truth, I just pretended it wasn't there to simplify thinking about main collision.Here are a couple of thoughts.1) There is no way a planet could approach earth directly and impact at the incredibly slow speeds required. Gravitational attraction will accelerate anything to thousands of miles per hour long before it gets to earth. A parachutist will accelerate to a couple of hundred miles per hour in a few seconds and then level off due to air resistance. I once saw a report about a man who worked on the early pre-space program. He jumped out of a balloon at 100,000 feet and accelerated to faster than the speed of sound. In space there is no air resistance to slow anything down. Gravitational attraction weaken with distance, to be sure, but at 385 or so thousand kilometers the earth's gravitation is still strong enough to hold onto the moon. So a slow acceleration for 400,000 kilometers or more is going to give speeds well in excess of a few meters per second. This will be the case even if the offending planet approaches from behind.2) The only other option is that this planet was first captured into a moon-like orbit and spiralled inward. This puts the moon very much in the way. However, as the planet gets closer to earth it will speed up. That is the way orbital mechanics work. Go to the mall and drop a coin into one of those funnel shaped charity gadgets. You will still have enourmous impact speeds.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Yeah, I figured it was something like that... I was just scratching my head to see if there was any conceivable way an unpowered something could make a semi-soft landing on Earth without catastrophe. I came up with some really neat Earth-moon-object configurations to make it ooooze into the atmosphere but once I got to a certain point, ol' Newton took over. Maybe Hoyle's aliens put contragravity generators on it or something. Ytivarg might work...

Thinking about it some more. Even if we could cancel gravity and place a continental-mass equivalent sphere on the surface of the earth, I am not sure it would work. Once we reinstated gravity, I wonder if the sheer force of gravity wouldn't generate so much heat and stress as to pop the invading sphere like a firecracker. An explosion like that wouldn't make continents, maybe a few islands....------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com