Your statements are so full of proviso's
You prefer dogma? BTW, Ellis, this has to be one for your collection!
LIKE, e.g., THINNER THAN WATER
Not something I said. I hope you are not suggesting that a substance needs to be thinner than water in order to flow. Take a look at the windows in, for example, some very old churches. You will find clear indications of flow marks in the glass, with no history of melting.
"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.
What was said was: “There is absolutely no evidence for this.” That could equally well be construed as saying there was absolutely no evidence for local variations in temperature.
It's like saying; If steel was as plastic as water then hot steel would rise (in convection?), relative to colder steel.
You think I have difficulty understanding what I read?
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.
How likely is it that it would still be cooler than the surrounding material if it had been in that position for so long?
