"Agreed, but I did say "less important", not unimportant."
Your statements are so full of proviso's they often say nothing at all. Another example;
"Theory maintains that the hotter rock will be lighter than the colder rock, so, given that the material is sufficiently plastic, LIKE, e.g., THINNER THAN WATER, the hotter rock will rise, relative to the colder."
Well, yes.... the statement is true but says nothing. The statement loses all meaning. It's like saying; If steel was as plastic as water then hot steel would rise (in convection?), relative to colder steel.
You must be ImagingGeek, or genetically related to him.
"There is considerable evidence for mantle inhomogeniety"
Nobody said there wasn't. What was said was that there is absolutely no evidence for inhomogeniety in radioactive elements.
So you seem to have trouble understanding what you read.
So you are ImagingGeek then,..... :>)
"How do you explain the apparently descending bodies of rock with increased seismic wave velocities detected by seismic tomography in what current thinking identifies as subduction zones?"
The impact pushed large chunks of the original crust/surface material all over the place. It pushed some of it down into what are called subduction areas, where it remains.
"Does your theory provide a better explanation for temperature variations..."
The evidence for your temperature variations is exceedingly tiny, to non-existent. For example, estimates of the temperature of the centre of the Earth vary be a couple of thousand degrees and you claim that small local differences are well-established,... I don't think so.
"Recent studies of antineutrinos from within the Earth..."
Yes I know of these studies. Basically they don't tell you where the radioactive material is, so they tell you nothing about the distribution of the radioactive materials, which is what you are talking about.
And, as to the overall levels of radioactivity in the mantle, they are still educated guesses, just a tiny bit more educated than before the antineutrino experiments (the last I heard the antineutrino experiments were unable to differentiate between any of the proposed Earth models).
Around 2004 various antineutrino experiments were proposed that would determine the angular distribution of antineutrino intensity. This would give a load of valuable information concerning the distribution of the radioactive materials,....
However, the antineutrino experiments seem to have "gone cold". I have heard nothing about them for many years now. If you know some recent papers please let me know about them. Maybe the antineutrino experiments are giving the "wrong" results and are thus being "forgotten".
