Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Global Tectonics

This sort of pathetic outburst is what wrecks any attempt at reasonable discussion.

Yes, we do have friends. Yes some of them are geologists, but any mention of Mansfield or Preearth leads to a response along the lines of "Leave well alone; you'll never get anything but abuse". "Never" may not be completely correct, but it is not far from the truth.

I've tried, I'm still willing to try, but so far you have established one of two things:

1. Mansfield's theory does not stand up to questioning.

2. you are unable to defend it.

Comparison of your posts with those of KM in other places suggests that you are KM, or his "glove puppet"; in which case, both 1 & 2 would seem to be the case.

Bill S, you could easily have done as I did and written off the whole load of tripe and abuse from the very start, and I congratulate you on sustained Christian virtue - obviously, you've stuck with it by way of penance; but whatever your sins they can't have been that bad.

Haha I have to agree with redewnur sorry Bill S you made the mistake of being kind.

I love the lunatic who has never yet answered a single question about his crackpot ideas calling you out for not answering questions.

About now you probably realize why the bad tempered ill mannered crackpot has been banned off alot of science and physics forums.

I appreciate your sentiment, Rede, but I think my hanging in there has more to do with being a stubborn old sod than with Christian virtue. I like to know what other people’s ideas are all about, and tend to be persistent in asking questions (you may have noticed).

Ok, Bill, I understand that. Then congrats, instead, on a scientific attitude. You might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, haha.

Pre, the complete lack of logic in your last post matches your inability to distinguish one poster from another. As a mathematician you should be able to cope with just three Bills.

"What I tell you three times is true" may have worked for the Bellman, but a science forum usually requires something better.

Pre, are you surprised that it was deleted?

I am sorry you have chosen to re-post it in this thread as it could well contribute to even more deletions here.

I said in another thread that I would transfer a response from that thread to this. I consider it very bad form to ignore questions, comments etc. from others, so I am going to post this reply in spite of the unfortunate direction in which this thread has gone.

Some answers for Pre


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

Current belief is that many of the Earth’s geological features are caused, or at least influenced, by the movement of tectonic plates. For some time the belief was quite widely held that these movements were driven by mantle convection, such is no longer the case. Gravity is now regarded as a more important influence.

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

Although there are still discussions about the possibility of such features as mantle plumes; if convection occurs, it is much more likely to be on a smaller scale, and would be driven by local differences in temperature and density, not by the difference between top and bottom, which would be influenced by intervening discontinuities.

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

This somewhat outdated idea is covered in the previous response. “gigantic up-wellings” may still be favoured by mantle plume supporters, but are not “flavour of the month”.

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

This too is an outdated concept.

“On cooling sufficiently, the rock becomes heavier and sinks (in a gigantic down-welling) back to the bottom of the mantle, and on doing so, completes one lap of a circuit”. Wrong.

There is some evidence, which I have indicated, that sinking , cold rock can be traced to considerable depth, but that this has anything to do with a clearly defined “lap of a circuit” is an assumption too far.

Chastened by an admonition from our Mods, I am making this my last post in this thread. I take responsibility for starting it, albeit with the best intentions, may it rest in peace.

Probably because he doesn't care what some ill tempered, anti-semitic racist crackpot fruit loop on the internet thinks :-)

I mean it's not like ANYBODY in science is taking you seriously pre-earth ... you are just noise and something to ridicule and laugh at.

Basically it only matters to you ... ROFL.

I have had about enough of your name-calling and other childish behaviors. If I find one more of your posts with insults or racist/ethnic remarks I am going to have to do something I'm sure you won't like. I have been getting complaints from the other forum members about your off-topic and off-color posts, and I take that seriously. This is a forum, not a juvenile playground where you can insult the other kiddies and put them down with impunity. Please try to act at least on an adult level or face the consequences.

This is a science forum why would we care about some crackpot geology theory from a ill tempered racist.

Try going to a geology forum.

Now go back to your little dark corner under your rock and rant away to yourself.

Have a care, there, Orac! Just because you don't inhabit geology forums...... Yes, I know that should be "fora", but I'm trying to make a pretence of modernity.

BTW: Pre has sort of re-ignited my interest in geology after almost 40 years, give him credit for that.