New theory on how Earth's crust was created

Science Daily ^ | 5/5/2017 | Don R. Baker, et al

[Rebelbase]

“I can read, but I’m afraid this is way beyond my education & comprehension. The layers of rock along the Smoky Mountains are stunning and I have wondered how they were formed.”

The process that formed those mountains is still going on today.

The mississippi river sends sediment into the Gulf of Mexico. The sand settles out quickly and eventually gets buried deep enough that it forms sandstone. The finer slits and clay settle farther out and become siltstone and shale. (sedimentary process)

As time goes on they get buried deeper and deeper to the point heat and pressure change the sedimentary structures (layers) and new minerals are formed and separated out (metamorphism)

Then a couple of continents slam into each over a bazillion years and the whole mess gets uplifted, similar to sliding two floor rugs into each other.

After the two continents get tired of being married they separate. In the divorce North America kept most of the mountains (blue ridge) and Africa got screwed (Atlas Mountains).

The smokies used to rival the Himalayas. All we see now are the worn down stumps.

All this happens with several bazillion years, give or take a few.

[Rebelbase]

Get one of those Thermoses that keeps things hot instead of cold.

[norwaypinesavage]

"My thermos can’t keep my soup warm until lunch."

Your thermos has an insulating value (R) of roughly 5. Since it's about a half inch thick, that gives it an R value of roughly 10 per inch. Dirt has an R value of about 1 per inch. The dirt is roughly 1,000,000 inches thick. That gives it a total insulating value of about 1,000,000, compared to your thermos of 5. Earth also has residual radioactivity making up for any loss. That's sort of like putting an electric heater inside your thermos.

[JimSEA]

Well, this Spring has been wet and cold with today being one of the few great days. I’m enjoying it.

With all the granite in the first land masses, the silica had to come from somewhere and it wasn’t in the mantle in sufficient amounts. This is one swag that seems to fit.

[blueunicorn6]

4,500,000,000 years x 365 days x 24 hours

vs

4 hours of keeping my soup hot

I still want a dirt thermos.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Yes I like this theory. Inner planets like the Earth and Mars are actually the cores of gas planets like Jupiter and Saturn, but close enough to the sun for all that atmosphere to have been blown away by the solar wind. So it makes sense that Earth's atmosphere was once much, much thicker than today. The medium-density elements like silicon and oxygen solidified as the crust while the heavier elements sank to the core. All the iron, gold, silver, copper, etc. are from asteroid impacts after the crust solidified.

By the way, if you're in Oregon, are you getting ready for the August 21^st solar eclipse (about 10:15 AM)? It goes right over my part of it.

[huldah1776]

God has His own timeline and creation is so absolutely wonderful that I personally like the long time theory. Gives me some hope, too, that this crusty human can still be morphed into His image since that didn’t happen instantaneously either.

[Manly Warrior]

‘kay.

While I am a believer in both the value of scientific methodology ( not scientism- which is based on a myriad of “assumptions” made into natural “law”, which by self proclaimed virtue then eliminate all other posits and theories- see the “theory of evolution”), I also accept the obvious inability of “knowledge” ( science) to explain things that have no reasonable primary cause other than an external actor.

I really like Hawkings’ explanation of the beginning of the universe- he stated basically that “it had to come into being because it needed to”. Smart man huh?

A simple examination of that line of thinking is circular- and I mean really circular. Not a shred of “science” ( scientific method, I mean).

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

(Roberts, L. Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe. Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk September 2, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.)

And the science ( knowledge) community bows down to such as he.

Basically he is saying that a closed system operates on its own- and no input is needed. He fails at level one. Nothing (not even physical laws), then something. Where did the law of gravity originate? Only bodies with mass and matter evidence gravity- no mass/matter, no gravity. Back to square one. He automatically provides the fatal flaw in his reasoning- that of assuming something already existed- the laws of physics?

Wow!

No reply necessary. It won’t help the “scientism” cause.

[Larry Lucido]

So I need radioactive soup.

I wonder if I can get that in tomato?

Yes. In Japan.