That dosen`t matter because my pont was that a meter huit the surfase and went into the Earth, maybe not into the core but close to so the gold in the core was pressed out the easiest way out and thats the way the metor went into the Earth. When the gold was pressed up to the surface, I mean this and another minerals from the deep filled up some of the cracks this metorite made when it hit the crust.
Hmmm, it is hard to imagine an impact this large in Ediacaran time that would not leave a substantial mark on the earth, particularly if it could cause gold veins to occur 500 million years later. I am curious as to why we do not see more therm metamorphic effects around gold veins, not to mention shock features in Ediacaran rocks.
Second, you article explains one possible reason why there is still gold in the crust and it has nothing to do with liquid gold spurting up through the mantle and into the crust.
Exactly my point.
No, these articles tells us that we have a lot of gold inside the middle of the Earth. And it is realy hot there and therefore is the gold liquid too. This metal are so heavy that if we find this metal in veins here in the on the surfase, this veins most have been created one way or another. And there most have been a reason to that the gold ended into this veins too.
I don't suppose you'd consider geochemical transport (for which there is ample evidence, by the way), would you?
I think you understand what I mean to say, but I also think you only want to argue against everything I say here, of principle.
Like many YECs, not to say that you are one, you know enough dicsonnected facts that you can build a wishful story around them and think you have solved some mystery, or found some weakness in mainstream theory.
ou don`t like new ideas at all and you belive that you have learned evertything you need at the University you went on. That isn`t sciense at all. Sciense demands that we are open to new ideas, curious and investigative. Nobody likes changes, but without changes we will not make progress either. It does not help to insist on school lessons, and dismiss any new ideas just because we think we know everything about geology and don`t need to listen to new ideas.
Wrong. I love change. I thrive on change. However, new ideas have to honor the facts that I know. All of them. Your ideas do not do that. YOu cannot go carelessly tossing continents about and expect anyone to listen to you. You have gotten a pretty fair hearing here and I think it is time to go back to your drawing board.
As you can see at : my Web Site , I had only moved Gondwanaland and I detected that the most part of the gold fields in the world came at the same area in the world, in stead of spread all over the world like they are today. Just the same happend to the fossils from the Ediacara perioid.
Except that they don't occur on the same part of the world, even on your map.
And no. You didn't 'just move gondwana', you tranlated Africa 180 degreses and moved to a point east of Japan. And you have provided no evidence for this.
There are more. Africa and the whole Eurasia are moving the same direction today as I have told in my theory the last 20 years. The scientist have used GPS to determine this. Here is a picture I have from this page (Norwegian, sorry):
Forbruksln - Billig Ln Med Geoportalen.no
No, Helge, read closely. They are moving in the same direction
at different rates. That means in relative terms Africa is colliding with Europe in the Mediterranean Sea area.
Having said that, I cannot determine what all of these motions are relative to. Usually, in paleogeographic reconstructions, one plate is considered stable and the only motions we can resolve are relative to it. So, I am skeptical of this dynamic interpretation. Maybe there is an explanation in the text, but I don't have time to translate.
And no. I do not see the directions that you show on this diagram.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
