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 Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

Bill 6: This year's first bit of dispelled ignorance is:

Mantle currents cannot exist 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
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
A new year and >>> YAWN <<< same old garbage. Good old PreEarth just answers all the questions as usual.

I usually just ignore PreEarth but what we really need is an option to ignore and not show posts from certain users ... surely forum software has that ability these days.

Last edited by Orac; 01/06/12 03:47 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
We can do that, Orac.
Left-Click on the poster's name and select 'View Profile'. On their profile page you will see an option "Ignore this user".


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
But you could always be tortured by the thought that one day he might answer a question and you would never know!


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
No wonder you like infinity Bill S, I suspect that is about the time before PreEarth ever answers a questions or remotely becomes civilized :-)

I shall take Reds option B and shall be PreEarth free forever.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Coward! smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

So Bill, do you remember this from the thread which was deleted because it showed photos of Barack Obama and G.W. Bush wearing Jewish skullcaps and practicing Jewish religious ceremonies,... Well, what was said in it, is still true, nothing has changed.

Originally Posted By: Bill S
Preearth, perhaps your posting time would be better spent answering questions in other threads. Some of us are keen to learn and discuss. Give it a go!

Truth is, that you are not keen to learn at all. You only say you are.

If you were keen to learn, you would occasionally answer your own questions, but you have never done this. Not even once. Not even when your questions were almost trivial. No partial answers,... nothing.

If you were keen to learn, like you say, you would put in some effort towards that end, but you haven't.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
If you were keen to learn, you would occasionally answer your own questions, but you have never done this. Not even once. Not even when your questions were almost trivial. No partial answers,... nothing.


There is just a chance that I might not post a question if I had answered it myself.

Then again, if I had answered a question, and the answer seemed not to jibe with your posts, experience tells me that you would probably interpret this as my being brain-washed, so it makes sense to try to find out how you/mansfield might have arrived at a particular conclusion. This seems like a reasonable learning process.

Obviously you have made your mind up that I am not trying to learn, so you don't need to answer questions. What more can one do?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
There is just a chance that I might not post a question if I had answered it myself.

Of course, the reference was to questions already posted, but later, through a little reflection, for which you found answers. Clearly, it was then too late not to post the (already posted) question(s).


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
One of the problems with having more than one thread containing almost identical material running concurrently is that switching from one to another can cause trains of thought to be lost. For that reason I am moving a question from another thread in which it became lost in a plethora of red ink and exasperation.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Thanks for that explanation, Pre.

Would it not be the case that any azimuthal equidistant projection would map as a circle?

If Pre-Earth's (or Earth's) "continents" were close together, they would naturally fall (and fit) within such a circle if the centre of the azimuthal equidistant projection coincided with the centre of the land mass.


Might I add to this:

Originally Posted By: Pre
The AAPG circle corresponds to the boundary of the impacted and non-impacted regions.


True; and the process by which this comes about (as you described) means that it could not be otherwise. With no other possible explanation, what does this prove?

If for example I were to produce an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the UK, with a radius of about 500 miles; then do the same from the opposite side of the world, such that the two boundaries were co-incident, it could certainly not be inferred that the rest of the world could be fitted into the same space as the UK.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Your first two questions don't make sense (to me).

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If for example I were to produce an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the UK, with a radius of about 500 miles; then do the same from the opposite side of the world, such that the two boundaries were co-incident, it could certainly not be inferred that the rest of the world could be fitted into the same space as the UK.

That is correct and no one ever said that this was inferred.

Maps that preserve distance (equidistant) are never area-preserving.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
That is correct and no one ever said that this was inferred.


What, then, is established by stressing that Pangaea fits within such a circle? Surely, it could not be otherwise?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
What, then, is established by stressing that Pangaea fits within such a circle? Surely, it could not be otherwise?

It is not my job to answer your questions and it is questions like this that I have difficulty bothering to answer.

With a question like this is impossible to believe that really don't understand the importance of the tight fit of the inner circle around the continent of Pangea. Except for the two splits (the hypothesized Tethys and Arctic Oceans) the fit is pretty much exact. Close up the two splits. It's exact. This is exactly as Mansfield's theory predicts,... exactly.

You come along and say that you can fit a circle around a square, or whatever. Duhhh.

What am I meant to think? That you are an idiot, or you are deliberately misunderstanding what is being said?




Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


pre

you know what , I've been studying the concept and could the reason that the earth has two cores be because there was a collision between two planets?

1 planet = 1 core !!!

2 planets = 2 cores !!!

1 + 1 = 2


what do you think?



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
You come along and say that you can fit a circle around a square


Now, there’s something I didn’t say. However, since you mention it, even an idiot could fit a circle round a square, given the right proportions, so perhaps I could.

Quote:
It is not my job to answer your questions


True, but surely posting a possibly controversial idea is tantamount to inviting questions. If you are choosy about the questions you are prepared to accept, you should stipulate that your posts are not intended for people who think for themselves.

Quote:
and it is questions like this that I have difficulty bothering to answer.


That sort of statement usually means “questions I have difficulty answering”. Past experience suggests that there are vast numbers of questions you cannot be bothered to answer. Perhaps I should admit that it is a waste of time asking them.

Quote:
What am I meant to think? That you are an idiot


If that is what you choose to think, that is entirely up to you. Possibly you think that anyone who does not accept your pronouncements without thought or question is an idiot.

Am I an idiot? Could be that a person who persists in trying to engage an obviously ill mannered bigot in a reasonable discussion could be considered to be an idiot. However, that’s a matter of opinion.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Paul
1 planet = 1 core !!!

2 planets = 2 cores !!!

1 + 1 = 2

what do you think?

Yeah,... have thought about that. Didn't come to any conclusions.

There seems to be some problem as to why the liquid core is still liquid. This idea might help there, but I never followed it up.

Quote:
What am I meant to think? That you are an idiot, or you are deliberately misunderstanding what is being said?

Actually, I think you often deliberately misunderstand what is said (because you have the same political agenda as ImagingGeek, etc).


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Actually, I think you often deliberately misunderstand what is said (because you have the same political agenda as ImagingGeek, etc).


I am quite willing to accept that I sometimes misunderstand what is said. That I do so deliberately is certainly not the case in any serious thread. The fact that misunderstanding is a possibility is one reason why I tend to ask questions until I am reasonably sure I have achieved a level of understanding. Answers such as "rubbish" do tend to lack a degree of explanatory value, and are not among the most illuminating.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: paul
pre; you know what , I've been studying the concept and could the reason that the earth has two cores be because there was a collision between two planets?

1 planet = 1 core !!!

2 planets = 2 cores !!!

1 + 1 = 2

what do you think?

This idea was mentioned in the first ever paper concerning PreEarth;

http://preearth.net/worlds-collide.html



Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I am sure since you never answer criticisms and objections to your ideas it will sink without all trace like it has already.

I think you have been given probably more leeway on SAGG than almost any other forum and at this stage I haven't seen you answer a single problem thrown up even by very tolerant people like Bill S.

So I guess my comment is YAWN ... glug glug glug ... waves theory good-bye as it sinks into oblivion and dies a sad a lonely death.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
"I'm back again, said Nora, with a monumental crash."
Rosemary Wells; "Noisy Nora".

I think the whole subject of global tectonics is sufficiently interesting to be worth discussing. One trouble with spreading comments and questions over several threads is that things get lost.

I'm going to try a fresh thread. Ridiculous? Just adds one more thread! Give it a go.


There never was nothing.
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5