Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG.

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.

Orac's screed is pure example of his basic incompetence (which he continually displays).

"How do you hold a deformation stress for any length of time in a fairly viscous material pressure just spreads think pumping a car tyre or hydrolic pump. If you had a deformation or density stress in a round bubble like his lovely red circles think how the stress would release and what surface movement you would get......."

Well, duuuuhhhh.

"How do you hold a deformation stress for any length of time in a fairly viscous material"... like solid mantle rock?

Like the way deformation stress has been held in the mantle rock below Scandinavia for more than 10,000 years. What's your problem,... 10,000 years not long enough for you.

I also take pleasure in pointing out that his very first assumption "a fairly viscous material" is, in fact, incorrect for mantle rock and thus his analogy (for that is all his argument is) is bound to be wrong. Mantle rock is not "a fairly viscous material" but an extremely viscous material.

In fact, compressed (mantle) rock is the most viscous materials on/in the planet (well, almost, the only more viscous material being the compressed iron of the solid core).

To further quote Orac "However like all crackpots rather than scientists he (Orac) doesn't do the most basic checks or calculations."

Okay since you finally started answering questions I am going to give you a thought experiment this is specifically about your stress your building up and you can actually do this in a lab.

As for plate tectonics lets igore that for now I don't care if it's right or wrong lets test your idea.

Take a bowling ball only this bowling ball is made of metal and we fill the finger hole full of other metals some harder and softer or lets call them different for now as you will see hard and soft become subjective.

No problems so far and now what I am going to do is put it in vice that squeezes it from all sides so like a lathe chuck but in 3 dimensions.

So we start the process and as the pressure builds up one of two things will happen.

1. One of the metals say in the finger strength point will be exceeded and it will deform and get forced to occupy less space this may even involve going liquid due to the forces.

Can the deformed metal put stress back on the metal and to the surface of that deformed it. The answer is no because the deformed metal is weaker and it is in pressure equilibrium to the greater force.


2. The second option is the iron material deforms or goes liquid and do you want to guess what happens then. The more solid material fairly quickly will move through the iron ball melting it as it goes until it reaches the exact centre of the ball. Why well the exact centre of the ball because the pressure around the more solid object is then even and it wont move.


In neither situation can you develop stress of forces the only stress that is developable under both situations is thermal expansion ones almost all normal sorts of stresses are impossible because somewhere in the scheme you have a compliant material.

We started talking about stronger and weaker but really at these pressures it comes down to what atomic structures can survive the pressures as the weaker ones will be subject to one of the two situations above.

Scientists realised all this quite some time ago and hence the restriction on the depth you can develop a normal non thermal stress in the earth.

What you suggest would be possible in the crust but it can't go to any real depth for fairly basic reasons.

Therefore your idea is falsified easily.

Again it does not prove plate tectonics I will leave that up to them to defend but your alternative idea is dead in the water.

Oh really... Did I mention that you are showing profound stupidity. You haven't proved a damn thing, let alone proved that the planet-moon collision idea is false.

And, you just want to forget about the errors of your earlier post. Well OK, I guess.

I should point out why I don't consider Orac's last post worth considering seriously.

He says: "In neither situation can you develop stress of forces the only stress that is developable under both situations is thermal expansion ones almost all normal sorts of stresses are impossible because somewhere in the scheme you have a compliant material."

So according to Orac, he has "proved" that the stresses causing plate-tectonics are impossible because somewhere in the scheme you have a compliant material. Therefore, plate-tectonics is just more rubbish. Well you might convince me that plate-tectonics is rubbish, however,...

Or that the stresses that are causing Scandinavia to rise are impossible because somewhere in the scheme you have a compliant material.

You see his statement directly contradicts the known fact that Scandinavia is still rising and he wants me to believe what he says? Clearly, his model must be wrong at some point, or points.

I guess the main problem here is that pressures involved at mantle depths are so high, that any intuition derived from the laboratory is likely to be wrong. Also, laboratory experiments tend to be idealised in many ways, again making intuition gained from them, somewhat suspect.

If you stop being overly sensitive and think and discuss more Preearth people might actually help you rather than treat you the way you get treated everywhere at the moment as a maddog piriah ... try it you might like it.

I don't particully care if plate tectonics is right or wrong it's not like I have a vested interest in it being right.

Plate tectonics creates lateral stresses in the crust which is consistant with what is possible as per discussion above. You have trouble with the idea of the current circulation they say as responsible for those stresses and thats something I havent really looked at but conceptually there is no obvious problems I can think of.

You explaination has very definite problems that are immediate and clearly obvious.

You best excuse at the moment is that we can't create the conditions in the core but that is factually incorrect even a basic examination of wiki entry will tell you that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth)

=> On August 30, 2011, Professor Kei Hirose, professor of high-pressure mineral physics and petrology at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, became the first person to recreate conditions found at the earth's core under laboratory conditions, subjecting a sample of iron nickel alloy to the same type of pressure by gripping it in a vise between 2 diamond tips, and then heating the sample to approximately 4000 Kelvins with a laser. The sample was observed with x-rays, and strongly supported the theory that the earth's inner core was made of giant crystals running north to south.

He did exactly the thought excercise I gave you above :=)

Essentially what happens as you bring mixtures up to these sorts of pressures is the matter is trying to be squeezed into smaller and smaller space and the strongest atomic lattice structure that can survive the pressure will be the one at the centre because it will have made the other material around it either melt or become compliant.

Even good old water has been given the pressure treatment http://phys.org/news81094124.html and can be made to do weird and wonderful alloying into weird cystaline solids.

Hopefully by now you get the idea that at these pressures you can't develop the sort of elastic stress you need to drive your process because there is going to be strong lattice seperation forced onto whatever is in the mixture.

You didn't counter anything infact I think you proved what I said.

Read => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

That is the mantle below the crust is compliant to the load on it and I am pretty sure that what I have been arguing.

Unless wait are you arguing that your planet thing sat on top of the mantle deforming it and then what fell thru a hole in it and plate tectonics is the mantle removing the deformation of your planet sitting on the surface?

Is that what you are arguing because I am struggling with why post glacial rebound proves you are right I would have gone the other way?

So perhaps explain the concept in a bit more detail what is pushing what where when and how.

I really don't care whether you are right or wrong or possibly either Preearth you usually run foul of me not over your theory but your behaviour which is very unprofessional and very unscientific.

Infact this is the first time we have been able to somewhat coax you into discussion so perhaps try doing it more.

Some new data abour the differential rate of rotation between core and mantle.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110220142817.htm

The geologist in question is a geophysicist (with PhD) working mainly in rock magnetism and paleomagnetism. Chiefly the evolution of the ancient fields.

I will not ask you if you can better this as I believe that bandying qualifications is largely a waste of time. I mention it only to set the record straight.

I don't believe that a qualified geophysicist told you that crap.

You must have miss heard, or miss reported, what he said.

What's his name and what university does he work for?

Your name is really Preearth?

This sort of exchange is a waste of potential discussion opportunities Perhaps I will suggest that he join SAGG so he can meet a real geologist.

I'll say one thing for Mansfield's theory, It's re-awakening old interests I thought I had left behind in the 80s.

This may be "rubbish", but it's worth a look.

http://www.platetectonics.com/article.asp?a=72&c=6

Pre,
About a month ago I posted the following.


Have I missed the response?

Bill, I assume that this interesting article supports the ideas advocated by J, Tuso Wilson--the first Canadian to receive a degree in geophysics?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tuzo_Wilson

Do you support his theories? Or was his mind full of rubbish?
========================================
BTW, as a layman, since my teens I have had a keen interest in how all the sciences work. This especially includes the soft ones--pneumatology, psychology, sociology and the like.

In this "fight"--certainly not a dialogue, or even a debate--going on in this thread, the term FALSIFY was mentioned more than once. Meaning what? I ask.

I found the dictionary of no help here.

Bill, in lay terms, in the doing of science, what does 'falsify' mean?

Another question: What happens when it is not possible to do double-blind experiments? Does science then, like religion, become a matter of faith? A matter of: Who do we trust?

We have to trust ourselves to make rational judgements about physical reality. For example, yesterday there was a bus stop outside my house. Today, I'm quite confident that it will still be there. If I find that it isn't, then I'll automatically make a judgement that someone removed it. I didn't see anyone remove it, but I don't need a double-blind experiment to prove that's what happened, to an excedingly high order of probablility. That's a judgement of the kind we make thoughout our lives based on an accumulated knowledge of the way the physical world works (even a new born baby is a scientist to that extent) and the process of science is the method by which we can discover exactly that. On the other hand, a person believing in magic may be convinced that the bus stop simply vanished. That would be a matter of faith.

Interesting that faith has crept into a discussion about the truth, or otherwise, of plate tectonics.

I guess KM (or Pre) would judge that any belief in plate tectonics was a matter of faith.

MAGIC, FAITH AND TRUTH
Joke time: Picture a magician entertaining his audience on a Carribean cruise ship. For comic relief, one of his helpers was A smart parrot. No matter what trick--involving the disappearance and/or reappearance of any object--the magician did, the parrot would say: "I know that trick, and what you did with that card!"

Then the parrot squawked an answer which the magician pretended he understood.

This went on for the whole show. Everybody had fun until the ship was hit by a hurricane. It so happened that the magician and the parrot were in the same lifeboat. When the ship disappeared and everything was quiet, up spoke parrot:

"OK! I give up! What did you do with the ship?"

Rev, I'm not sure that that one will even merit a flood of red ink.

Bill, was that a ? Or a ?

[quote-PreEarth said]
It is sad, that you can tell a good theory by its explanatory power.
WELL PREEARTH CAN TELL A GOOD STORY AS WELL HahadeHa Blobby said that!
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
[/quote]
[quote--Blobby2]
BLAB BLAH de BLAH It explains EVERYTHING-----Meaning all the scientists and geos in the world are wrong????
HAVENT YOU GUYS EVER BEEN TO COLLEDGE?????
DONT BELIEVE SUCH DRIVEL
LOOK AT THIS for STARTERS

[url=HTTP://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/pangea.htm][url=HTTP://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/pangea.htm][url=HTTP://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/pangea.htm]HTTP://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/pangea.htm[/url][/url][/url]

Blobby---an Ex Uni student
[/quote]

Hi Blobby2,
I thought you were a newby, but I see you have posted many times in the past. Welcome again?

You do not need to put the URL's in brackets which is why they dont work for you.
Once is enough. like this:-

http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/pangea.htm

P.S Dont let Preearth see any of the above pages
The shock will give him a heart attack