Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370 |
Just for the record,....
The 2nd post above was written to point out some of the shortcomings of the current theories of Earth formation. It was printed and delivered to some 600 academics in the Auckland area (New Zealand) towards the end of March, 2011. It was added to http://www.preearth.net in December, 2011.
Mantle currents, and thus plate-tectonics, is wrong.
Those who push plate-tectonics are so amazingly stupid, that they never even bothered to check whether, or not, the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle was really lighter than the colder rock above it, as is required by their theory. And, this is though most geology books actually tell you that the hot rock, 3740 K, at the bottom of the mantle has a density of 5,560 kg/m³, and that the density decreases almost linearly from 5,560 kg/m³ to 3,370 kg/m³ as one approaches the top of the mantle (3,370 kg/m³ is the density the cold rock, 930 K, at the top of the mantle, about 40 kms down).
This, totally contradicts the assumptions of the theory of mantle currents/plate-tectonics (that is, contrary to known fact, plate-tectonics assumes that the rock at the bottom of the mantle becomes hotter, and thus lighter than the colder rock above it, and consequently rises).
How could scientists be so stupid? Well, whatever the reason, they certainly are extremely stupid.
I also note that, various scientists have now had a year to come up with some sort of answer to this problem (and the other problems presented below) but they have not.
From: Why was the continent Pangea circular?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=39820
|
