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 (), 49 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#41806 - 12/14/11 02:45 AM Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG.
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

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
.
#41811 - 12/14/11 11:41 AM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

I guess I may as well post the "evidence" article as well.

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 PreEarth and TheOldMoon. These two, once comprised a double planet system. TheOldMoon orbited PreEarth, and they both orbited the Sun (just like the Earth and Moon today, except that TheOldMoon, with a radius some ninety percent that of PreEarth, was some thirty-five times larger than today's Moon). In the collision, the two planets, became one.

Like a bullet rips through the skin of an apple, leaving most of the skin unscathed, TheOldMoon 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 masses of the apple and bullet are so large that the bullet cannot escape their combined gravity. Then you have the hypothesised situation. Of course, as PreEarth swallowed TheOldMoon, it greatly expanded in size. This expansion, caused the non-impacted crust (which was mainly on the opposite side of the planet) to break into large pieces, called continents. These continents then expanded apart.

The Evidence:

1) The hole in the north west Pacific where TheOldMoon entered.

TheOldMoon 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 TheOldMoon, 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 TheOldMoon'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.





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 TheOldMoon 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 PreEarth'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. The 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 (Earth-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 Earth-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 (Earth-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 AAGP map of Pangaea (from above) with 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 PreEarth and TheOldMoon. 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, TheOldMoon 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 TheOldMoon reconstituted its mantle by gathering these Ar40 depleted rocks in further collisions, even more argon would be lost and TheOldMoon's new mantle would have almost no Ar40, while PreEarth's mantle would still have its full complement. So, when TheOldMoon 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 TheOldMoon's mantle mixed in, and thus, date progressively younger. Similarly, one expects the material that closed over the impact area, to be almost entirely PreEarth's mantle, and thus date oldest.

So, the argon 40 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 accepted ages of 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 TheOldMoon 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 TheOldMoon and a large object, blasted TheOldMoon'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 TheOldMoon'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 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
#41995 - 01/03/12 09:47 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Paulv Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/12/11
Posts: 8
Loc: Florida
That could be true but couldn't Plate Tectonics be a result?

Top
#42011 - 01/04/12 03:50 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
I wish you luck in this thread, Paulv!
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42099 - 01/11/12 11:45 AM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Oph Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/11/12
Posts: 9
preEarth, I am somewhat confused as to why you are attacking a mechanism - convection currents - that are not now thought to play a major role in plate tectonics. Indeed some researchers would hold that the currents are a consequence of plate movement, not the cause. It doesn't give your argument much credibility if you chose to attack outmoded ideas.

Later you say this:
Quote:
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?

I find it very easy to believe. The area may be large, the volume is comparatively small. More to the point seismic data reveals subducting slabs. We can see the 'surface' disappearing.

I am further puzzled by your use of personal incredulity as an argument against plate tectonics. That's the second logical fallacy you've been guilty of - first a strawman and now this.

While we are on the subject of ocean floors, if plate tectonics does not occur how do you explain the presence of ancient ocean floor that has been obducted onto continents?

Top
#42106 - 01/11/12 09:53 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Oph
The area may be large, the volume is comparatively small.


I made a number of attempts to get an answer to a question about area/volume of crust in a slightly different context. I wish you more luck than I had. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42635 - 02/22/12 01:54 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: Bill S.]
julie
Unregistered


His mathematical research involves the study of certain algebraic structures with normed topologies .

Top
#42645 - 02/24/12 03:14 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: ]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Originally Posted By: julie
His mathematical research involves the study of certain algebraic structures with normed topologies .


Yes, well, one hopes he actually understands that subject.

Thanks for popping into this single thread to make a single post conveying an exact quote from his web page.

Top
#42648 - 02/26/12 02:25 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Hi, Julie.

I'm charitably inferring that you are a new member, rather than an "avatar" that Pre has invented in order to drum up some support; so, welcome.

Don't be put off by the somewhat "guarded" reception.

For the benefit of those of us who do not enjoy great mathematical facility, perhaps you would expand a bit on the "algebraic structures with normed topologies"
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42663 - 02/28/12 12:28 AM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

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 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 above) but they have not.


Mr Bill S; Julie is more likely to be your creation, than mine.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#42700 - 03/02/12 09:51 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Pre, unsurprisingly, your statistics seem good. What is a little more surprising is that you appear to have based your argument on an over simplified view of convection, namely, that the mechanism is driven directly by the density/temperature difference between material at the top and bottom of the column. In fact, convection is driven by the density/temperature difference between material at any given level, and material in contact with it above or below. As long as sufficient local difference is maintained to bring about a vertical exchange of material, convection will start. Enough sustained heating from below will result in convection throughout a given column of material without an overall relative change in density between top and bottom at any specific time.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42703 - 03/03/12 12:28 AM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S
you appear to have based your argument on an over simplified view of convection, namely, that the mechanism is driven directly by the density/temperature difference between material at the top and bottom of the column.

No. The argument is not based on this.

The simplification you mention is used, but simply to show the problem clearly.

The density versus depth graph and the statement: "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)." is there to show that even locally, convection, if it occurs (which of course it cannot) still has denser rock, rising into lighter rock.

Originally Posted By: Bill S
Enough sustained heating from below will result in convection throughout a given column of material without an overall relative change in density between top and bottom at any specific time.

This is wrong because you do not have unlimited heating. You only have enough heat (from the core) to heat the rock at the bottom of the mantle to 3740 K, where it has a density of 5,560 kg/m³ (which is heavier than the rock anywhere above it).

Like I have said above; "the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle is heavier than the 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."
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#42717 - 03/04/12 04:30 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
This is wrong because you do not have unlimited heating. You only have enough heat (from the core) to heat the rock at the bottom of the mantle to 3740 K, where it has a density of 5,560 kg/m³ (which is heavier than the rock anywhere above it).


If the material at the base is heated to 3740K by heat rising from the core then it must become hotter than the material immediately above it. Unless there is a sudden, drastic, change in density at exactly the right place, this must mean that (as it becomes hotter)the basal material becomes less dense than the material directly above it.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42718 - 03/04/12 04:37 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Mr Bill S; Julie is more likely to be your creation, than mine.


BTW, Pre, I still don't follow the logic of this. I could have become a "supporter" myself had our earlier exchanges gone differently, but I am very unlikely to invent supporters at this stage.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42727 - 03/06/12 12:33 AM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S
If the material at the base is heated to 3740K by heat rising from the core then it must become hotter than the material immediately above it. Unless there is a sudden, drastic, change in density at exactly the right place, this must mean that (as it becomes hotter)the basal material becomes less dense than the material directly above it.

No. That is incorrect.

This is true: If the material at the base is heated to 3740K by heat rising from the core then it must become hotter than the material immediately above it.

This is not true: Unless there is a sudden, drastic, change in density at exactly the right place, this must mean that (as it becomes hotter)the basal material becomes less dense than the material directly above it.

You have not considered gravitational compression.

Take two infinitesimal cubes, one sitting on the core and the other directly above it.

The lower cube is hotter which tends to decrease its density.
However, it is lower down, which tends to increase its density (there is more rock above it).

The upper cube is cooler which tends to increase its density.
However, it is higher up, which tends to decrease its density (there is less rock above it).

So, the lower hotter cube is not necessarily lighter that upper cooler cube.

It turns out that the lower cube is more dense than the upper.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#42729 - 03/06/12 01:12 AM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Your example of the cubes works because you have established an arbitrary division “in the right place” between them. Without such a boundary the temperature/pressure gradient, and therefore the density/viscosity would vary gradually, facilitating local inversions.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42731 - 03/06/12 01:34 AM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: Bill S.]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Your example of the cubes works because you have established an arbitrary division “in the right place” between them. Without such a boundary the temperature/pressure gradient, and therefore the density/viscosity would vary gradually, facilitating local inversions.

Rubbish.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#42732 - 03/06/12 02:14 AM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Rubbish.


Thanks for that "enlightening" response, Pre. I thought we almost had some dialogue going there.

I would rather not leave it on that note, but it is almost 2am here, so I shall leave any further comments until a more civilised hour.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42745 - 03/07/12 01:53 PM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK

Pre, to avoid, as far as possible, failure to understand the basis on which each of us is mustering his (/her?) thoughts, perhaps you would give an “agree/disagree” answer to each of the following:

1. If convection were to occur in the mantle, it would not be straightforward Rayleigh–Bénard convection.

2. Mantle tomography indicates that the core-mantle boundary is relatively isothermal, homogeneous and stress free.

3. The upper mantle boundary is heterogeneous, stressful and subject to varied and fluctuating temperatures.

4. Convection can be driven by bottom heating, top cooling, or even side cooling.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42760 - 03/08/12 04:09 AM Re: Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG. [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I give you points for persistance Bill S :-)

Unfortunately PreEarth doesn't answer questions he just decrees it so and is above reproach.

I think this explains the lack of interest in him and his ideas.

Alexia rating on PreEarth.net :=)

Preearth.net has global alexa traffic rank of 14,544,174, a low rank means that this website gets few visitors

Mentalhealth.net has a global traffic rank of 7,710,251 almost twice that of Preath.net

The conclusion is obvious isn't it :-)
.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >



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.