Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 472 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#39783 - 08/28/11 03:51 AM Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update.
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

When Worlds Collided (the main paper).
The preearth.net Forum (have your say here).

Evidence supporting Kevin Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis.

The Hypothesis:

Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets, called Heaven and PreEarth (called Heaven, so that, the collision can be viewed as the mythical marriage between Heaven and Earth). These two, once comprised a double planet system. Heaven orbited PreEarth, and they both orbited the Sun (just like the Earth and Moon today, except that Heaven, with a radius some ninety percent that of PreEarth, was much larger than today's Moon).

Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed, Heaven crashed through the crust of PreEarth, taking most of its energy into the interior, while leaving the non-impacted crust relatively unscathed. Now, imagine that the mass of the apple and bullet are so large (planet sized) that the bullet cannot escape their combined gravity. Then you have the hypothesised situation. Of course, as PreEarth swallowed Heaven, it greatly expanded in size. This expansion, caused the non-impacted crust to break into large pieces.

The Evidence:

1) The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., the north west Pacific.

Heaven impacted PreEarth in what is now the north west Pacific. As the map of the age of the sea-floor, below, shows, the impact area is very different from all other regions of sea-floor. This difference is to be expected, as this area was the result of an impact, whereas, all other areas of ocean basin, including the southern and eastern Pacific, are the result of expansion. As expected, this region has no spreading ridges. The expansion and west to east spin of Heaven, ripped America away from the edge of the impact zone and Europe/Africa/Asia from America, creating new sea-floor in between. This same spin dragged molten material from under the eastern edge of the continent of Asia, and even the edge of Asia itself, over the western impact area, covering about a third of the area.



The map, above, shows the hypothesised impact zone outlined in red. Australia can be seen toward the bottom of the impact zone. The Australian plate was dragged over the impact region by Heaven's west to east spin.

The maps below show the impact zone viewed from space. On the left, it is viewed just after the impact, with little expansion, as yet (and showing the initial position of the ring of impact mountains). On the right, it is viewed after the expansion is complete.





2) The impact mountains around the Pacific Ocean, i.e., the ring of fire.

The impact mountains must have initially formed a complete circle. This was broken up by the expansion and distorted by the spin, giving us the ring of fire as we know it today. Starting with the mountainous islands of the Philippines and Japan, the impact mountains then traverse Kamchatka, gap to Alaska, from where they stretch right to the bottom of South America before continuing as the Antarctic Peninsula and Transantarctic mountain ranges. Their exact whereabouts from there is unclear, as the region has been extensively rearranged by the impact, however, they probably continue from the Transantarctic mountains, to the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the (submerged) Colville and Kermadec ridges and then gap back to the Philippines, completing the circle. The map on the left, above, shows, in blue, the initial positions of the, above named, impact mountains on a reconstructed PreEarth.

3) Western impact mountains ripped off continental block.

The west to east spin of Heaven ripped sections of the impact mountains off the Asian continental block, which were then expanded hundreds of kilometres away, leaving seas in between. Japan and the Philippines are examples of this. Australia and New Zealand have also been dragged eastward with New Zealand having been ripped off the Australian block.

4) The impact caused continental drift.

The impact destroyed a circular region of the Earth's crust (a spherical cap) about half the size of the hemisphere it hit. The crust within this cap was smashed into the interior. Although the crust outside this cap remained relatively unscathed, the expansion below it, caused it to crack into huge pieces that we now call continents. Further expansion, expanded these continents thousands of kilometres apart, to the positions they now occupy. This movement of these continents, is called continental drift.

Using an azimuthal equidistant projection, we can map PreEarth to a circular flat map. If we choose the origin of the projection to be the antipode of the centre of the impacted region, then we get the map on the left, below (imagine putting a small hole in the centre of the impact region and then stretching the planets skin to a flat disc). The impacted region is mapped into the outer ring and the non-impacted region into the circular region within that ring. We will call the region enclosed by the inner circle, i.e., the non-impacted region, PreEarth-Pangaea. It is the crust in this region that we are particularly interested in.





5) The theory predicts a single circular continent with splits, i.e., Pangaea.

The expansion cracked PreEarth's non-impacted crust into large pieces that became today's continents. These massive pieces of crust largely retained their shape throughout the expansion, although their curvature changed considerably. Since these pieces of crust had previously comprised the region, PreEarth-Pangaea, it is clear that Earth's continents should be able to be shuffled about Earth's surface and be reassembled as an area resembling PreEarth-Pangaea. Of course, it will not be possible to recreate PreEarth-Pangaea, exactly, because of the continents change in curvature.

Alfred Wegener was the first to notice this and reassemble all of Earth's continents (although, many had previously noted that two, sometimes three, or four, continents appeared to have once been joined and had since moved apart). Wegener patched all of the continents into a single landmass, which he called Pangaea. He claimed that Pangaea existed for millions of years, until, for some unknown reason, it broke into smaller continents, which then drifted, by some unknown process, to their current positions.

Above, on the right, is a map of the Earth showing Pangaea (the land area enclosed by the inner circle). The azimuthal equidistant projection has been used to create this map which is from the America Association of Petroleum Geologists, and is, reportedly, the most accurate available. For those who know this map, note that its creators trimmed (as uninteresting) a large area of ocean from it. I have extended the outermost ring to add this area of ocean and complete the map of the Earth (as imagined by geologists) when Pangaea existed.

If one took the crust from the PreEarth-Pangaea region and imposed Earth's curvature upon it, by say, placing it above the Earth and physically forcing it down until it lay on the Earth's surface, then the crust would necessarily split in one or two places and at least one of these splits would extend to the centre of the region. This is exactly what we see in Wegener's Pangaea. The splits being the polar sea and the large triangular shaped Tethys Ocean, which extends right to the centre of the region.

Of course, Pangaea never existed as a continent. It was never surrounded by ocean and the Tethys Ocean and polar sea never existed at all. These are understandable fictions, forced upon scientists because they reassembled Earth's continents on Earth, rather than on PreEarth, from whence the continents actually originated. However, even though these are fictional, they are all fictions predicted by the hypothesis.

To give you a better feel for the map projection used above, here is the azimuthal equidistant projection of Earth, with origin being the north pole (i.e., the antipode of the south pole). As you can see, the distortion at the south pole is maximal. The map on the right is the map of Pangaea from above, with colour and a few more features.





6) The theory predicts oceanic crust very different from continental crust.

Earth's continental crust is original PreEarth crust, whereas, oceanic crust is a mixture of material from both Heaven and PreEarth. Thus, one would expect oceanic crust to be noticeably different from continental crust. This is, indeed the case.

Continental crust is composed of granitic rock (65% silica and 2.7 g/cm³), whereas, oceanic crust is composed of basaltic rock (45% silica and heavier at 3.3 g/cm³). Continental crust is up to 4 billion years old, whereas, oceanic crust is less than 200 million years. Oceanic crust averages about 8 kms in thickness, whereas, continental crust averages about 40 kms, etc, etc.

So, here is a theory that explains the genesis of Earth's continental crust, why its chemical composition is so different to oceanic crust, why it dates much older and why they are of such different thicknesses. No current theory explains how continental crust came to be, let alone why it is so different from oceanic crust.

7) Warren Carey's evidence, is also evidence for this hypothesis.

Right till the end of his life, in 2002, the renowned Australian geologist S. Warren Carey insisted that the geological evidence clearly demonstrated that the Earth had expanded. Carey considered many explanations for this expansion, but never considered the possibility of a large impact (probably because he believed the splitting of Pangaea took place over millions of years). Over his career, Carey collected a large body of evidence for his "expanding Earth theory." Since, Mansfield's theory is an expanding Earth theory, most of Carey's evidence is also evidence for his theory.

8) Apparent sea-floor ages explained as geochemical gradient due to mixing.

Suppose, Heaven was involved in a previous catastrophic collision, in which the entire silicate rock layer was exploded away from the planet. Then, the impact would have melted and scattered its silicate rock, causing it to lose most of its Argon 40 (Ar40) to space. As the rump iron core of Heaven reconstituted its mantle by gathering these Ar40 depleted rocks in further collisions, even more argon would be lost and Heaven's new mantle would have almost no Ar40, while PreEarth's mantle would still have its full complement. So, when Heaven impacted PreEarth, we would expect to find argon gradients depending on the degree of mixing of their mantles. The more mixed the mantles, the more diluted the Ar40, and the younger the apparent age.

Thus, in the expansion of the oceans, we would expect that the oceanic crust of the continental margins would be mainly from PreEarth's mantle, as only partial mixing of the mantles would have occurred at this stage. Consequently, the continental margins would be richer in Ar40 and have a greater apparent age. As we proceed further from the continents the material forming the oceanic crust will have a progressively larger percentage of Heaven's mantle mixed in, and thus, date progressively younger. Similarly, one expects the material that closed over the impact area, to be mainly PreEarth's mantle, and thus date older.

So, the argon gradient used to date the sea-floor, can be interpreted as a geochemical gradient, one which can be explained by the mixing of materials with different initial argon concentrations.
Anyway, if the Atlantic opened in a matter of hours, then clearly the usual methods of dating the sea floor are well off the mark.

9) The theory predicts Earth's core is rotating faster than the rest of the planet.

When the planets collided, obviously their outer layers impacted first. Thus, the outer layers sustained a large change in angular momentum as their spins clashed. However, this change was not transmitted, in full, to the core, as there was slippage at the core-mantle boundary, due to the formation of a liquid iron layer. So, in the first moments of the collision, the mantles would have been slowed relative to the cores. The fusion of the cores would not change this, and thus, the Earth acquired a core that rotated faster than the rest of the planet. This prediction of the theory, has been known to be true since 1996, when Richards and Song found that the solid core spins about 20 kms/yr further than the material above it (this was revised down to about 8 kms/yr in 2005). Only the collision hypothesis explains why the Earth's inner core spins faster than the rest of the planet. One suspects that this extra spin of the core is the source of Earth's relatively strong magnetic field.

10) The theory predicts Earth's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing.

Even though the inner core is spinning in the liquid of the outer core, friction will gradually slow it until it spins at the same rate as the mantle. If the extra spin of the core is really the source of Earth's magnetic field, then this would imply that the magnetic field is decaying. Apparently, this is the case. The Earth's magnetic field has been measured to be decaying at about five percent per century. Since this cannot be denied, the problem of the magnetic field decaying to zero, is largely ignored, or brushed off, with the claim that on becoming weak the field will reverse and recover its strength, just like it has many times before.

11) The theory predicts/explains magnetic reversals.

As the two metallic cores fused, their combined magnetic field must have been in a state of extreme flux. The planetary fusion probably took less than a day and many reversals of magnetic polarity must have been experienced within this period. These reversals were recorded in the basalt of the expanding sea floors, as distinctive stripped patterns of magnetism. It is a fact, that this magnetic signature is mainly from the top 400 metres of the basalt (and exactly how the deeper rock lost its magnetic anomaly, has never been explained). For this 400 metre layer to have recorded the swiftly changing magnetic field, it must have cooled to below the Curie temperature, very rapidly. This rapid cooling was due to the new lava being immersed in the water of the oceans. This cooling, was not just a surface effect, as cracks and faults allowed the water to percolate to great depths.

12) The theory allows the force of gravity to have been smaller in the past.

There is a large amount of indirect evidence that the Earth's gravity is now greater than it once was. For example, pterosaurs, such as hatzegopteryx, had wingspans of over thirteen metres and large, solidly constructed heads, making it a great puzzle as to how they flew, or even if they flew. Similarly, it is not known why the larger dinosaurs such as, argentinasaurus, did not collapse under their own weight. It is also unknown, how the gigantic bird, argentavis magnificens, with a mass of seventy kilograms and a wingspan of seven metres, managed to fly, when an albatross, with a mass of only nine kilograms and a wingspan of three metres, finds it difficult to get off the ground. Of course, if gravity was once significantly less, then all this can be explained.

13) The Global Clay Layer.

The world has been covered in layer of very fine particles (less than two micrometres) called clay. Clays result when granite is ground into powder and weathered. When Heaven struck PreEarth, billions of tonnes of continental crust, that is, granite, was blown into orbit. The finest particles precipitated from the atmosphere last, forming the clay layer. This explains the global distribution of clay and why there is generally a clay layer on, or close to, the surface.

14) The Ice Sheets.

The ice-caps of the ice age, contained a massive volume of water. As the ice-caps formed, sea-levels dropped by some 200 metres. The evaporation of such a quantity of water, would have required an immense amount of heat. In certain regions, temperatures needed to be sufficiently hot to supply the necessary evaporation, yet at the poles, they needed to be sufficiently cold to enable a buildup of ice. And, of course, this temperature differential had to be maintained in the face of masses of warm moist air being transported to the colder region. All currently accepted theories fail to provide a plausible mechanism by which this temperature differential can be maintained. The impact hypothesis, however, has such a mechanism, built in.

With large areas of the oceans being heated from below, huge volumes of water entered the atmosphere. Strong weather systems carried the warm humid air towards the polar regions, where cooler temperatures precipitated snow. In this way, large ice sheets were built up. While the ocean and atmosphere over the mid-oceanic ridges were hot, the polar continental regions remained cold, as the flow of heat from the mantle to the surface was much lower, than the flow of heat from the continental surfaces into space (as continental crust is a very good insulator of heat). Also, the immense quantities of dust blown into the upper atmosphere, by the impact, kept the whole planet cooler than it would have otherwise been.

15) Animations of the expansion plus drift can be produced.

Animations have been produced, that trace the movement of the continents from the PreEarth-Pangaea region to todays arrangement. Each step of the animation preserves continental areas. This is strong evidence that one is on the right track.

16) Provides a new theory regarding the formation of the Moon.

Suppose, a catastrophic collision between Heaven and a large object, blasted Heaven's entire silicate rock layer into an extensive debris field, leaving its iron core as the largest remnant. Further collisions with the debris would lead to the rump iron core gathering a new mantle and cascading ever closer to PreEarth. The debris field beyond Heaven's reach, would also accumulate, creating a new satellite of low density, poor in volatiles, and lacking an iron core, namely, the Moon as we know it today. Among other things, this scenario would explain why the oxygen-17/oxygen-18 ratio of the lunar samples is indistinguishable from the terrestrial ratio. However, it would not explain the age of the lunar rocks.

17) No evolution in India while a separate continent.

Amber deposits, in India, have yielded thousands of fossil arthropods (insects, spiders, etc) from a period (52 million years ago) when India had supposedly been a separate continent for a hundred million years, yet none of these arthropods were unique to India. All have been found in other parts of the world. So, why hasn't India's long isolation led to many new species, in the same way, that the isolation of the Galapagos Islands led to many new species?

India supposedly became an island 150 million years ago and remained that way until it collided with Asia, some 35 million years ago. Arthropods started appearing about 110 million years ago (i.e., after India had become an island). So, how is it, that all of these arthropods found in isolated India, have evolved almost identical copies in places thousands of kilometres away? These difficulties for plate-tectonics are easily explained by the collision theory, as India was never an island separated from the rest of the world.

18) It explains the genesis of the Gamburtsev mountains.

The Gamburtsev mountains are located in the centre of the Antarctic continent. They extend for more than 1,200 kilometres and rise to about 3,400 metres. Although, similar in size to the European Alps, they are totally hidden below hundreds of metres of ice and snow. Their genesis is shrouded in mystery, as there is absolutely no evidence of plate collision in central Antarctica, and the shape of the Antarctic plate has barely changed over hundreds of millions of years. Thus, the mountains must be hundreds of millions of years old. However, the mountains appear young, with sharply chiselled river valleys, rather than the rounded features of an ancient eroded landscape. These difficulties, for plate-tectonics, are easily explained by the collision theory. The Gamburtsev mountains are simply an example of far-field compression, resulting from the impact.

19) It explains why the severity of volcanism (and probably earthquakes) has decreased.

In the past, huge outpourings of lava have created enormous igneous provinces. The most massive being the Ontong-Java Plateau in which 100 million km³ of lava spilled onto the Earth's surface. Others, include the area around Iceland (6.6 million km³) the Siberian Traps (4 million km³) an area in the Caribbean (4 million km³) the Karoo-Ferrar area (2.5 million km³) and the Parana-Etendeka traps (2.3 million km³). The largest continental outpouring of lava (in terms of area) is the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province, which covers about 11 million km². Volcanic activity on this scale no longer occurs. Current theories have problems explaining why these enormous quantities of lava should pour from the Earth in intense spurts, usually lasting less than a millions years, then stop, only to start much later at some distant location. It seems more likely that these igneous provinces all formed at around the same time. Namely, the time of the impact.

20) The theory provides a decent power source for continental drift.

The power source, that moves continents thousands of kilometres and raises the Himalayas to great heights, is a very diffuse heat, coming from radioactive decay and the cooling of the Earth. In fact, a segment of the Earth stretching 6371 kilometres from a point at the centre, to a one metre square at the surface, delivers only 0.08 watts of heat. This is less than one ten thousandth the power of sunlight on a bright day. It is true that if you accumulate this heat for a few hundred million years, it adds up to a lot of energy. But clearly, you would accumulate much more energy, if you let sunshine, shine for a few hundred million years, yet sunshine has never built mountains, or raised the Himalayas. To use this, widely distributed, extremely dilute power, you have to first, stop it from escaping, then, concentrate it where the work will be done. We are told that the Earth and mantle currents can do this, but some doubt it.

Expanding on point 15.

15) Animations of the expansion plus drift can be produced.

The opening of the Atlantic.



The opening around Antarctica.



The opening of the South Atlantic.



A brief history of the ideas.

Many of the ideas above were first presented in a public lecture, on November 2, 2008, at the Alexandra Park Raceway, Auckland, New Zealand. They were subsequently written up and published, on April 20, 2010, in the form of a 26 page paper. The preprint server arxiv.org refused to distribute this paper (the task of releasing preprints to the scientific community should be taken from those at arxiv.org and given to some responsible party). Consequently, toward the end of May, the website www.preearth.net was established to publicise the paper. This article was completed on July 29, 2010 and revised on March 19, 2011.

About Dr. Kevin Mansfield.

Dr. Kevin Mansfield has a BSc(Hons) [mathematics and chemistry] from the University of Auckland and a PhD [mathematics] from the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). His mathematical research involves the study of certain algebraic structures with normed topologies (these being of interest as a framework, in which both relativity and quantum theory, may eventually find a compatible home).
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
.
#39784 - 08/28/11 03:51 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

Here are a few more animations:

The opening of the Indian Ocean.



The opening around Australia.



The opening around India.



Notice that India is pushed under the rest of Asia, forming the Himalayas.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#39789 - 08/28/11 06:38 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

A word about the scalability of ideas concerning collisions.

As the mass of two objects increases, ones intuition as to their behavior decreases.

For example; if you put two apples side by side, nothing much happens.

However, if you put two planets side by side, then they pull each other together and reshape themselves into a single (spherical) planet. Something that apples certainly do not do.

Another example; if you have two apples collide (in space) at 3 km/s, they explode into little pieces.

However, if two planets collide (in space) at 3 km/s, they once again pull each other together and reshape themselves into a single (spherical) planet and there is essentially no splatter.

The reason for this Newton's law of gravity.

Newton's law of gravity, states that the gravitational force F between two masses m_1 and m_2, at a distance r, is

F = G * m_1 * m_2 / r²

where G is the gravitational constant.

Suppose that m_1 and m_2 are two single atoms, at a distance r from each other, and that the gravitational force between them is one unit.

Now increase both m_1 and m_2 to ten atoms, still at distance r, then the gravitational force between them is not ten units, but one hundred units.

This is because, for a fixed distance of separation, the gravitational force of attraction between two objects, is proportional to the product of their masses.

Now suppose the mass of an apple is 0.2 kg and the mass of the Earth is 5.97369 x 10^24 kg.

Then Earth is roughly 3 x 10^25 times as massive as the apple.

If the force between two apples, at a distance r from each other, is

z,

then the force between two Earth's, at a distance r from each other, is

900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 * z

i.e., 9 x 10^50 times as strong.

This is the reason that things that might happen to two apples are usually quite different from things that might happen to two planets.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#39806 - 08/29/11 02:24 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

Some comment concerning point 5 (from above).

The following is a map of Pangaea from the America Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG);



The above diagram can still be found at

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/9701904.gif
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/index.htm

The AAPG claim their maps of Pangaea are the most accurate ever produced.

Note that Pangaea (together with the shallow Tethys ocean) is neatly circumscribed by a circle.

Why do you think that Pangaea (plus Tethys) fits neatly within a circle?

Remember, the America Association of Petroleum Geologists drew the circle in this diagram, not me.

So; why do you think that Pangaea fits neatly within a circle?

Current geological theories provide no explanation.

However, the PreEarth-Heaven collision provides a simple explanation.

Namely;
The impacted area is contained within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

Therefore, the non-impacted area is also within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

The non-impacted area is by definition Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea).

Therefore, Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea) is circular.

To get from PreEarth-Pangea to Earth-Pangea you have to adjust for the fact that Earth has a smaller curvature than PreEarth (PreEarth has a larger curvature than Earth). This adjustment introduces splits. Indeed, if you reduce the curvature of a rigid circular cap (e.g., PreEarth-Pangea), i.e., you flatten it somewhat, then you necessarily introduce splits in the cap.

Therefore, Pangea (Earth-Pangea) is circular with splits.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#39809 - 08/29/11 04:53 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: preearth

A word about the scalability of ideas concerning collisions.

As the mass of two objects increases, ones intuition as to their behavior decreases.

For example; if you put two apples side by side, nothing much happens.

However, if you put two planets side by side, then they pull each other together and reshape themselves into a single (spherical) planet. Something that apples certainly do not do.

Another example; if you have two apples collide (in space) at 3 km/s, they explode into little pieces.

However, if two planets collide (in space) at 3 km/s, they once again pull each other together and reshape themselves into a single (spherical) planet and there is essentially no splatter.

The reason for this Newton's law of gravity.

Newton's law of gravity, states that the gravitational force F between two masses m_1 and m_2, at a distance r, is

F = G * m_1 * m_2 / r²

where G is the gravitational constant.

Suppose that m_1 and m_2 are two single atoms, at a distance r from each other, and that the gravitational force between them is one unit.

Now increase both m_1 and m_2 to ten atoms, still at distance r, then the gravitational force between them is not ten units, but one hundred units.

This is because, for a fixed distance of separation, the gravitational force of attraction between two objects, is proportional to the product of their masses.

Now suppose the mass of an apple is 0.2 kg and the mass of the Earth is 5.97369 x 10^24 kg.

Then Earth is roughly 3 x 10^25 times as massive as the apple.

If the force between two apples, at a distance r from each other, is

z,

then the force between two Earth's, at a distance r from each other, is

900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 * z

i.e., 9 x 10^50 times as strong.

This is the reason that things that might happen to two apples are usually quite different from things that might happen to two planets.



You seem to be hedging your bets here ... if they aren't side by side then you really are just talking about the giant impact theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis) and there really is nothing new about this theory other than perhaps timings but thats splitting hairs.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39810 - 08/29/11 05:20 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: Orac]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Orac
You seem to be hedging your bets here ... if they aren't side by side then you really are just talking about the giant impact theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis) and there really is nothing new about this theory other than perhaps timings but thats splitting hairs.

Why do you feel it so important to add your (uninformed) comment, when your comments (in general) make it clear that you do not have a clue what you are talking about?

If you really believe that this is nothing different than the giant impact theory, then, please, just ignore this thread.

Orac's lemma: All planetary collisions are the same (since they involve planets).

Orac's theorem: All collisions are the same (since they involve,... well,... collisions). Smile.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#39811 - 08/29/11 06:43 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Well aren't we a bit touchy.

I simply can't see the differences between the theories if you start hedging bets on collission source you getting all upset about it doesn't change the fact ... maybe I am stupid .. I don't know. As I stated this is way outside my realm of expertise so I have no theory at all.

Yes I will ignore you because obviously one can not ask any remarkably simple questions.

A theory is supposed to be testable and questionable but I guess this a dogma then.

I will leave you to it to convince others then.


Edited by Orac (08/29/11 08:07 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39812 - 08/29/11 07:42 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
LouisMorelli Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 4
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: preearth

When Worlds Collided (the main paper).
The preearth.net Forum (have your say here).

Evidence supporting Kevin Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis.

The Hypothesis:

Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets,
_________________________
Author of "The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life's Cycles"

Top
#39813 - 08/29/11 08:09 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: Orac]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Orac
Yes I will ignore you because obviously one can not ask any remarkably simple questions.

You didn't ask any questions.

You simply made a statement (one that various others have also made).

Maybe if you had made the slightest attempt to see the differences between the theories, you would have. Who knows?

Hard to say though, since you never made any such attempt.

Perhaps, with a little thought, you could even answer the question asked above, as to why the ancient continent of Pangaea fits so neatly within the central circle of this map;



That would be well worth hearing about. I would certainly be interested.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#39814 - 08/29/11 08:24 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Sorry wasn't aware others had said the same thing ... not a mind reader.

But it does sort of beg the question what is different about the theory we don't understand it as well as you.

So perhaps give us a comparision or key point differences as you so eliquently put above to me it just looks like your two planets running into each other scenario.

If you feel there are specific differences highlight them.

I know physics but this is very specialized area related closely to geology and geophysics etc.


Edited by Orac (08/29/11 08:25 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39816 - 08/29/11 08:54 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: Orac]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

Orac; Why don't you make some attempt to understand a theory before commenting on it.

What annoys me is that you have clearly made no attempt (at all) to understand this theory.

So, it is not surprising that you know next to nothing about it.

How is this theory different from the giant impact theory?

Let's start with:

1) the impact causes continental drift
2) the impact causes the Pacific basin
3) the impact creates the Pacific ring of fire
4) the impact raises the ring of mountains around the Pacific
5) the impact creates the Himalayas
6) the impact takes continental crust that completely covers the planet PreEarth and distributes it in patchwork fashion over the surface of the Earth

None of these things are claimed by the giant impact theory.

The giant impact theory claims to create the moon, however,

7) Mansfield's impact does not claim to create the Moon.

These are not minor differences in the theories.

Now,... why does the ancient continent of Pangaea fit so neatly within the central circle of this map;



See above for solution.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#39817 - 08/29/11 09:18 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
LouisMorelli Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 4
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: preearth

When Worlds Collided (the main paper).
The preearth.net Forum (have your say here).

Evidence supporting Kevin Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis.

The Hypothesis:

Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets,


Hay Kevin,
Congratulations for the interesting theory and thanks for bringing new ideas about this planet since we need them a lot at this time of climate change.
I am not a scientist and I am into astronomic issues by accident of my job: studying the systems that comprise the biosphere of Amazon jungle. And I don’t know if you can understand my non-native English. I have questions whose answers will help my work.

1) Your theory is a result of applying mathematics – algebraic structures – and topology… and I am a layman in these fields. You began your reasoning about Earth’s formation departing from the axioms given by Physics about the astronomical state of the world at the time of Earth’s formation, is it right? Those axioms are still theoretical, of course. Then, your theoretical model is yours preferred model among all possible models of that given set of axioms. But… your model consists of applying topology also. Then, you have identified properties of planets and tried to calculate the development of those axioms preserving those properties under the continuous deformations of this planet, such as deformations that involve stretching, but no tearing or gluing. Finally your model emerged through concepts from geometry, and set theory, such as space, dimension, and transformation.
It is all right? Or are there more elements involved into your research that I don’t know?

2) We know that in the followed development of Pangaea, appeared here the organic compounds, as molecules and proteins, and from those with left-handed rotation developed biological systems. Then, I think that is off doubt that the state of the planet at that time had the forces and elements that evolved towards properties’ life. Have you searched these forces and elements in yours model? If not, why?

3) Biological systems (aka life) has an algebraic structure also… is it right? I understand that an algebraic structure consists of one or more sets, called underlying sets or carriers, closed under one or more operations, satisfying some axioms. Then I think that one optimal way for you testing your model is identifying the algebraic structure under the first complete biological system (the first eukaryote cell system) and calculating the reverse operations till arriving to Pangaea. The properties such as metabolism, life’s cycle, reproduction or replication, etc., must be there, at the primordial Earth.

Remember that Natural laws, mechanisms and process, resumed to properties, are under evolution, of course, because systems are getting more complexes. Then, the biological systems’ properties must be calculated in a reverse evolutionary way, from the most complexes towards singularity.

I think you have no problems understanding the obligatory mandate that life’s properties were represented in an astronomical and primitive fashion among the processes acting at primordial Earth, since that I think you cannot believe that life arouse here by magic or came from another astronomical body, which then must be explained its differences with this planet. Am I right?

3) Have you any photo or registered fact that in the sky there are collisions among planets or other big astronomical bodies, besides those about smaller fragments of comets, meteorites, etc.? Can you give me the link, please?

The reason of my questions is that I am at the same intellectual boat with you. I also developed a theoretical astronomical model about the first galaxy formation. But I did just that: starting from the first complete biological system, and believing that this solar system alone developed it, I searched the forces and elements at primordial astronomical formations. Now I am testing my model against real facts and doing the calculations in the reverse way, your way, that’s why your job is very interesting for my studies. Our models have no eternal conflicts and the discussions about differences are good for us testing our own models. The biggest conflict is just about big astronomical bodies collisions, since that my models does not accept it, yet.

Besides my questions, below are some comments from my models that comprise the “The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles” about some of yours topics:

1) The hole in the Earth where the planet Heaven entered, i.e., the north west Pacific.

Matrix/DNA Theory:
The hole could come from: 1) Among dust and debris in rotation of a died star, first appears a vortex, then a conic spiral and then, the body falling into a star’s orbit makes the egg/spherical shape. The vortex will be a hole. But, this is the way Nature creates its systems and parts of systems, which are the most possible approximation of Matrix/formula, which presents a bottom/central hole.

5) The theory predicts a single circular continent with splits, i.e., Pangaea.

Matrix/DNA Theory:
The initial single circular shape is normal around a vortex, every time there is a vortex spiral at formation.

7) Warren Carey's evidence, is also evidence for this hypothesis.

Matrix/DNA Theory:
Planets are under expansion by the same simplified mechanisms that any vegetable seed begins its expansion after receiving a star’s energy. The expansion is triggered in the nucleus, which forces the peripheral layers to split.
Cheers...
_________________________
Author of "The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life's Cycles"

Top
#39818 - 08/29/11 09:25 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Quote:

Hard to say though, since you never made any such attempt.


I am attempting but you seem ridiculously abrassive about asking questions.

Quote:

1) the impact causes continental drift
2) the impact causes the Pacific basin
3) the impact creates the Pacific ring of fire
4) the impact raises the ring of mountains around the Pacific
5) the impact creates the Himalayas
6) the impact takes continental crust that completely covers the planet PreEarth and distributes it in patchwork fashion over the surface of the Earth


I don't see any of that being excluded from the big impact hypothesis it really doesn't drill into that level. So if you like my layman view is your theory is a more specific version of the big impact theory .... No or am I being dumb here?


Quote:

7) Mansfield's impact does not claim to create the Moon.


Now I agree that is a big difference even to me?

So under this theory the moon was a normal orbital body capture method?


Edited by Orac (08/29/11 09:26 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#39819 - 08/29/11 09:55 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

You ask questions of me. While I look at them, you find an answer (within plate tectonics) for the question in this comment (which is repeated from above).

The following is a map of Pangaea from the America Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG);



The above diagram can still be found at

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/9701904.gif
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/index.htm

The AAPG claim their maps of Pangaea are the most accurate ever produced.

Note that Pangaea (together with the shallow Tethys ocean) is neatly circumscribed by a circle.

Why do you think that Pangaea (plus Tethys) fits neatly within a circle?

Remember, the America Association of Petroleum Geologists drew the circle in this diagram, not me.

So; why do you think that Pangaea fits neatly within a circle?

Current geological theories provide no explanation.

However, the PreEarth-Heaven collision provides a simple explanation.

Namely; The impacted area is contained within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

Therefore, the non-impacted area is also within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

The non-impacted area is by definition Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea).

Therefore, Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea) is circular.

To get from PreEarth-Pangea to Earth-Pangea you have to adjust for the fact that Earth has a smaller curvature than PreEarth (PreEarth has a larger curvature than Earth). This adjustment introduces splits. Indeed, if you reduce the curvature of a rigid circular cap (e.g., PreEarth-Pangea), i.e., you flatten it somewhat, then you necessarily introduce splits in the cap.

Therefore, Pangea (Earth-Pangea) is circular with splits.

Where the main split is, of course, the pie-shaped region, called the Tethys ocean.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#39822 - 08/29/11 10:39 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Reading through all this PreEarth and something just struck me you argue Einstein plagarized Poincare and others yet you defend this theory as being different from giant impact theory ... seems more than a little inconsistant.

Or perhaps I should say it shed some light on how you get similar theories based around the same facts and the devil is in the detail.

I am happy to say they are different but if you are going to group Einsteins work with Poincare then this theory is Giant Impact theory be it more specific and with lunar twist.




Edited by Orac (08/29/11 10:40 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#41253 - 10/31/11 09:40 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Note that the name of the 2nd planet has been changed to TheOldMoon. There have been many requests to change the name (strangely enough mainly from academics), but I still like the name Heaven.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#42207 - 01/23/12 03:22 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

The fact that plate-tectonics is a very stupid theory, is quite relevant to all this:

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 even 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 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 more than nine months to come up with some sort of answer to this problem (and the other problems presented below) but they have not.


The following 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 towards the end of March, 2011. It was added to http://www.preearth.net in December, 2011.

Mansfield's Earth Theory & Proof that
various accepted Earth theories are wrong.


Mansfield's Earth theory, is that the Earth formed from the collision of two smaller planets (which, before their collision, were of a similar size and formed a double planet system, much like the Earth and Moon today, except that the previous moon had about thirty-five times the mass of our current Moon).

It is said, that you can tell a good theory by its explanatory power.

The collision theory of Dr. Kevin Mansfield explains all of the following:

[1] It explains the existence of the Pacific Basin.
[2] It explains the existence of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
[3] It explains the (impact) mountains that ring the Pacific Ocean.
[4] It explains why the Earth has continents.
[5] It explains how, and why, the continents moved apart.
[6] It explains the existence of the ancient continent of Pangea.
[7] It explains why Pangea fits neatly within a circle.
[8] It explains why Pangea had a large split called the proto-Tethys Ocean.
[9] It explains how continental crust formed and where it came from.
[10] It explains why continental crust covers only 40% of the Earth's surface.
[11] It explains why continental crust is so different from oceanic crust.
[12] It explains why the Earth's core is rotating faster than the rest of the planet.
[13] It explains why the Earth has a relatively strong magnetic field.
[14] It explains why the Earth's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing.
[15] It explains why the Earth has a global surface layer of clay.
[16] It explains how the ice-caps were able to build to such a size.
[17] It explains why no evolution occurred in India while a separate continent.
[18] It explains why the severity of volcanism has decreased.
[19] It explains the bimodal distribution of elevation.
[20] It explains the geologically mysterious Gamburstev Mountains.
[21] It explains why magnetic reversals have not caused mass extinctions.
[22] It explains why only the top 500 meters of the sea-floor has a significant magnetic anomaly.

Also, with further assumptions, it provides,

[23] new possibilities regarding the formation of the Moon,
[24] can explain the tremendous size of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, etc, and
[25] can explain the large amount of Ar40 in the atmosphere.

Current theories explain only two (numbers five and thirteen) of the above (and both of these explanations are wrong).

The official explanation for (5) is called plate-tectonics.

Plate-tectonics, is the belief that many of Earth's geological features, such as mountains, are caused by currents of solid rock which circulate in the mantle. These extremely slow flows of rock, are thought to be maintained by convection. The convection is claimed to be due to the temperature difference (about 3,000 degrees) between the top and the bottom of the mantle.

The basic idea, is that the rock at the bottom of the mantle, on being heated by the core, becomes lighter, and thus, rises (in a gigantic up-welling) to the top of the mantle. The rock current, then flows (away from the up-welling and) under the Earth's surface, but parallel to it (carrying the continents with it), until it cools. On cooling sufficiently, the rock becomes heavier and sinks (in a gigantic down-welling) back to the bottom of the mantle, and on doing so, completes one lap of a circuit.



However, it is a fact that seismic studies have allowed scientists to determine the density of rock at all levels of the mantle, and laboratory experiments have given reasonable estimates of the temperatures (briefly, the deeper the rock is, the hotter and more dense it is). In particular, we know the densities of the cold rock at the top of the mantle and the hot rock at the bottom.

The cold rock (930 K) at the top (about 40 kms down) of the mantle has a density of 3,370 kg/m³.

The hot rock (3,740 K) at the bottom (about 3,700 kms down) of the mantle has a density of 5,560 kg/m³.

So, one of the many, many, many problems with the mantle currents scenario (plate-tectonics), is that, contrary to assumption, the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle is much heavier than the colder rock anywhere above it. Thus the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle will never rise, it will just sit at the bottom of the mantle, forever.

Consequently, mantle currents, do not, and cannot, exist.

Seismic studies have revealed mantle details, such as, the 410 km, 520 km, and 660 km, density discontinuities. These discontinuities are related to chemical, and or, phase changes in the rock, and the discontinuities are globally found to be within a few kilometers of the depths that they are named after. If giant rivers of rock were really flowing through these structures, there would be significant distortion of them, but these discontinuities are always found close to the depths that they are named after.

Seismic studies have told us much about the Earth's interior. They have told us, that at a depth of about 660 km, the density of mantle rock changes suddenly (over about 4 kms) from 4,000 kg/m³ to 4,380 kg/m³. High-pressure studies in the laboratory have revealed that the main component, Mg2SiO4, of olivine (olivine comprises about 60% of the upper mantel and is a solid solution of Mg2SiO4 and Fe2SiO4) undergoes a reversible change to a mixture of MgSiO3 and MgO. This new structure occupies a smaller volume (which accounts for the density change) and is only stable at pressures, corresponding to depths greater than 660 km.

In the mantle current scenario, lower mantle rock is continuously being raised through the 660 km discontinuity. As it rises above 660 km, the reduced pressure allows the MgSiO3 and MgO to recombine as Mg2SiO4. This is accompanied by a decrease in density and an increase in volume. The increase in volume can be found from the density change, and is about 10%. This massive increase in volume of rock, around the up-welling, would cause the Earth's surface to swell and would be accompanied by almost continuous earthquakes, of tremendous magnitude, as existing rock is moved, many kilometres, to accommodate the newly created volume.

On the opposite side of the mantle current (which may be 3,000-4,000 kms away) upper mantle rock is continuously being forced downward through the 660 km discontinuity. As the Mg2SiO4 changes to MgSiO3 and MgO, the rock suffers a large decrease in volume, which would lead to a subsidence of the Earth's surface and would be accompanied by almost continuous earthquakes. Since, none of this is observed, the mantle currents scenario cannot be correct.

To overcome this, and other problems, some geophysicists have suggested that the mantle has stacked convection currents, one circulating above the 660 km discontinuity and another circulating directly below it. But, of course, this new model has serious problems of its own.

That geophysicists cannot tell you whether the mantle has stacked convection current loops, or single loops, shows how very little they actually know about these mythical convection currents. Of recent years, some geophysicists have tried to downplay convection as the main power source of these currents and tentatively suggest that they are really caused by slab push and slab pull, but this is equally hopeless.

There are other arguments against plate-tectonics, that, while not proving it wrong, do render it less plausible. For example, it is claimed that, 200 million years ago, the single continent Pangea covered about 35% of the surface of the Earth, with the remaining 65%, covered by ocean. Obviously, any ocean sea-floor from this time, still existing today, must be more than 200 million years old. However, it is well-known that there is no sea-floor, existing today, that is more than 180 million years old. This tells us that none of the ocean sea-floor that covered 65% of the Earth, 200 million years ago, still exists as sea-floor today. So, what happened to 65% of Earth's surface? Did it just disappear into thin air?

The official answer (from qualified geologists) is that, over the last 200 million years, 65% of the Earth's surface has fallen down various holes and disappeared. So, the disappearing into thin air, answer, is closer than one may have thought. In the language of geology; 65% of the Earth's surface has been subducted. How easy is it to believe that, over the last 200 million years, 65% of entire surface of the Earth has fallen down holes and disappeared?

The official explanation for (13) is called the geo-dynamo theory.

The geo-dynamo theory, is the belief that Earth's magnetic field is caused by convection currents which circulate the molten iron of the outer core. The fact that the outer core is a true liquid, means that if convection really occurred, the outer core would have reached a uniform temperature, a very, very long time ago. The reason this hasn't happened, is that convection cannot actually occur. And this is because the cold liquid iron at top of the outer core weighs 9,900 kg/m³, while the hot liquid iron at the bottom of the outer core weighs 12,160 kg/m³, and the heavier material at the bottom, has absolutely no incentive to rise into the lighter material above it.

It is worth noting that even if the outer core had a uniform temperature, the material at the bottom would still be heavier than the material anywhere above it. This is simply due to gravitational compression.

Consequently, convection in the outer core, does not, and cannot, exist.

So, the geo-dynamo theory, like plate-tectonics, is fatally flawed.

I have only presented difficulties that can be described in a few sentences, but the list of problems with these two theories is very long and thick books could be written on the subject. I have been absolutely stunned by how easy it has been to find significant holes in these theories. But, I guess, this is what one should expect from false theories.

I am certainly not the first to claim that plate-tectonics is simply wrong. That honour belongs to the renowned Australian geologist, Professor Warren Carey. I particularly like his simple observation that there are no subduction zones in, or around, Africa (and similarly for Antarctica). This deficiency in plate-tectonics theory, is so hard to explain, that it is just ignored.



The problem is clear. If there is no subduction, in, or around, Africa, then there is no feasible arrangement of the mantle currents below the African plate.

Returning to Mansfield's Earth theory.

Evidence for this theory is presented in the articles; When Worlds Collided, and Evidence supporting Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis, both of which can be found on the websites named below. A senior geophysicist from the University of Auckland has read the above mentioned articles, and for the first of them, kindly contributed a number of pages of suggestions, and helpful comment. Unfortunately, he believes that plate-tectonics is much too well established, for any competing idea (as different as mine) to be true.

Whether Mansfield's Earth theory is correct, or not, it certainly warrants careful consideration. Any theory that explains such an array of otherwise unexplained facts, is likely to be correct. From a parochial viewpoint, Kevin Mansfield is a New Zealander, who can attract significant attention to New Zealand science. And with attention, comes funding.

Dr. Kevin Mansfield has a BSc(Hons) [mathematics and chemistry] from the University of Auckland and a PhD [mathematics] from the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). His mathematical research involves the study of certain algebraic structures with normed topologies (these being of interest as a framework, in which both relativity and quantum theory, may eventually find a compatible home).

Websites: www.preearth.net and www.preearth.info; 21 March 2011.

PDF version.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#43294 - 04/20/12 12:18 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Plate-tectonics is WRONG.

It is a pity the posters here are unable to defend plate-tectonics against the arguments above, the arguments, that prove plate-tectonics is a false (and stupid) theory.

Don't you have any friends who can help you guys out.

Don't any of you know a friendly academic, or two, who might like to defend plate-tectonics.

Plate-tectonics is a theory that is brain dead,... but kept on life support by the propagandists (professional liars) to be trotted out when the occasion requires it.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#44048 - 06/27/12 11:59 AM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: preearth
Don't you have any friends who can help you guys out.

Don't any of you know a friendly academic, or two, who might like to defend plate-tectonics.

That was a serious question.

Don't you guys know anyone who knows some science?
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#44050 - 06/27/12 02:33 PM Re: Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Pre, you wonder why serious geologists don’t seem to take up your challenge?

It could have something to do with your attitude. Such statements as: “Well, whatever the reason, they certainly are extremely stupid” are likely to attract those looking for a slanging match, rather than a reasonable discussion.

It could also be linked to the “conspiracy theory” presentation which is off putting to all but conspiracy theorists; and few of them appear to be interested in geology.

However, I suspect that a major factor is your tendency to make dogmatic statements which a little consideration reveals to be wrong.

Let’s look at a few examples taken from just two short paragraphs.

“Plate-tectonics, is the belief that many of Earth's geological features, such as mountains, are caused by currents of solid rock which circulate in the mantle. “ Wrong.

“The convection is claimed to be due to the temperature difference (about 3,000 degrees) between the top and the bottom of the mantle.“ Wrong.

“The basic idea, is that the rock at the bottom of the mantle, on being heated by the core, becomes lighter, and thus, rises (in a gigantic up-welling) to the top of the mantle”. Wrong.

“The rock current, then flows (away from the up-welling and) under the Earth's surface, but parallel to it (carrying the continents with it), until it cools”. Wrong.

“On cooling sufficiently, the rock becomes heavier and sinks (in a gigantic down-welling) back to the bottom of the mantle, and on doing so, completes one lap of a circuit”. Wrong.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.