Re: Was the moon ever close enough to pull on the mantle?

On Dec 23, 2:03 pm, milla <miasc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 23, 10:56 am, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:27 am, milla <miasc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mauna Kea (the tallest volcano in Hawa'ii) rises more than 10km from
the ocean floor, and has a volume of over 30,000 cubic km.  Even so,
it is only one of five separate eruptive masses making up the
island.   How 'rapid' do you think this event was?

  You are talking about the current location of the hotspot, and I
would guess that it has been building for as long as the hotspot has
been resting there.

And how long do you think that has been? Perhaps you should ask the
geologists who do things like radiometric dating.

So are you saying that the building of the Big Island was rapid, or
was not rapid? What kind of time frame are you proposing?

  On the other hand, the oldest seamount in the chain is the Meiji
Seamount which is 6,562 ft below the surface of the water. Which could
either indicate erosion or that the hotspot wasn't there for very
long.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Seamount


Erosion appears to be the most parsimonious explanation.

You have not proposed any mechanism by which the
tides (a daily occurance) could stop and start the continental
plates.  

Massive tides being dragged over the surface of the earth by the
forming moon acting like a rolling pin on the earth's surface.


The moon causes a daily 4cm 'tide' in the continental crust now. Why
don't we see a correlation between geologic events (such as
earthquakes) and the position of the moon?

You have not addressed the measured rate of the drift of the
pacific plate, and the measured rate of the undersea extrusion (the
hotspot is now building a new island to the East of the current
islands).

 
I was talking about events that occured long ago and I was postulating
a situation where there was rapid plate tectonics which would have
nothing to do with current trends.

in other words "special pleading". It's a fallacy, look it up.



You have not addressed the wealth of geologic evidence
showing that the continents were in vastly different configurations in
the distant past.  

The continents were once one large continent, it was mostly flat and
was populated with dinosaurs. The earth was struck by a large object
which eventually formed the moon. While the moon was forming, the
gravitational pull of the moon caused huge tides which piled the ocean
waters up onto the continent and the continent sank under the weight
of the water and it cracked. The next day and the next the huge tide
pushed the peices apart a little further as it rolled across the crust
of the earth like a rolling pin.

That's a fanciful story, but it doesn't hold up.

1) We know how old the moon is: 4.5 giga-years.

2) We know when the various supercontinents formed (yes, there was
more than one). Vaalbara 3.3 Gya, Ur 3.0 Gya, Kenorland 2.7 Gya,
Columbia 2.0 Gya, Rodinia 1.3 Gya, Pannotia 750 Mya, Pangaea 250 Mya,
Gondwana/Laurasia 200 Mya

3) We know how old the islands of Hawa'ii are: Kauai and Ni'ihau are
about 5 million years old, while the big island is only about 500
thousand years old. The seamounts to the northeast are older. With
points 1 2 and 3 combined, it should be blazingly obvious that your
proposition doesn't match the data. The data are saying that the moon
formed a very long time ago, and that the Hawa'iian islands are much
more recent.

4) The bit about the Earth being struck by an object which then formed
the moon: Such a collision would completely melt both bodies. Nothing
would survive. No fossils, no dinosaurs, nothing.

5) Continents would not 'sink under the weight of the water', the
water would run off in a daily cycle, unless you're proposing that at
the time the Earth was tidally locked, in which case there would be
*no* movement.

6) What happens when a continent 'cracks'?



Why not ask the question of the geologists how this fact fits in with
the existing theory, rather than tossing out everything and starting
over with a new idea?

ridge-transform-intersections, because in the Yellowstone example it
doesn't look that:http://www.swisseduc.ch/stromboli/perm/yellowstone/geol-en.html


I'm sorry, but I don't understand this sentence. What is your point?

The diameter of the hotspot is thought to be about 80km.  The hotspot
is still under the Big Island, and the new seamount, loihi, is on the
southern flank of Mauna Loa (Seehttp://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanoes/loihi/
)   Why isn't the entire hotspot one big 80km wide caldera?

It's a sheilded volcano.

That's a 'sheild' volcano, and my question still remains: if what you
are proposing is true, and the current position of the Hawa'iian
islands are 'parked' over the hotspot, then why isn't there an 80km
caldera there, instead of a few scattered volcanoes? Shouldn't the
hotspot have burned through the entire crust by now if your idea of
rapid formation is correct?


16,000 ybp was shortly after Lake Bonneville emptied through Red Rock
Pass.  So the remnant (The Great Salt Lake) would have been fresh at
that time too.  One thing to note about the GSL is that there is no
natural outlet.  All of the water that leaves the GSL leaves through
evaporation, leaving the mineral content behind.

I was talking about before the water level rose to 800 feet above the
current level, which would have been before the influx of water from
the ocean/glaciers. At that time it was a fresh water lake with fresh
water fish indicating that the land around the lake was not salty
before the influx of water.

No, it doesn't indicate anything of the kind.

Where do you think the salt in the oceans comes from?


Yes, this whole scenario does depend on a moon being created after
there was life on earth, that's why there would be fossils in the
sedimentaion laid down by the tides. Which is not standard creation
theory or evolutionary theory which both have the moon formed before
life.

The current data do not support this conjecture. A 'giant
impact' (the current leading proposal for the formation of the moon)
would leave absolutely no trace of any life that existed before the
impact. The entire body of the earth would be completely melted.



- These factors become exponentially higher as the object draws closer
to the source of the gravitational strength."

gravity follows the inverse square law.

So what would the gravitational force of the moon be at about 30,000
km away, the distance it which it formed? Significant. Not-significant

The moon at 30,000 km would exert a tremendous force on the earth (and
vice versa). However, it would immediately begin receeding due to the
same factors as are in play today. Because the earth was completely
melted, and because the moon would create a significant tide in the
melted rock, and because the earth was rapidly rotating, there would
be a significant transfer of momentum between the earth and moon.
NOTE: There are no oceans or continents at this stage. The entire
body of the earth would be molten.

That's way closer than the 360,000 to 405,000 kilometers that the moon
is at now.

Yes.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps
    ... > more water to boil, ... > Our next stepping stone will be a colony in geosynchronous orbit about the Earth. ... > house or office will be a bubble with a 6.66 meter radius. ... the Moon can easily be made hospitable ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Bad News for Moon Hoax Buffs
    ... It looks like many more missions have landed on the moon. ... Google has yet to yield exact information on the film used. ... how much water is needed to cool an active person for two hours (the ... > see on earth. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Searching for Theia, the mother of the Moon
    ... Oh, I see, they assumed that the spin of the Earth would be affected ... if all of the continents piled up on one side of the globe. ... possibly a lot of water locked up in ice. ... America through the shallow seas of the Bering Straits. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Fusion Rocket to the Moon
    ... Melting glaciers added 6,000 cubic kilometers of water to the world's ... has happened in the past on Earth in as little as 500 years. ... Removing this water to the moon terraforms the moon as well as ... smaller volumes would be contained in pressure vessels spread ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Interesting pressure question
    ... in a change of actual depth to pressure depth of approximately 4.5 ft. ... to dive on the moon. ... surface of the water, your earth calculated pressure gauge would ...
    (rec.scuba)
Loading