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.

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).

That could be true but couldn't Plate Tectonics be a result?

I wish you luck in this thread, Paulv!

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:

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?

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.


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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :-)
.

The only reason I persist is that I am interested in the Earth, and am fascinated by anything that seems not to make sense. E.g. you may just have noticed the same sort of persistence with the infinite.

I am not interested in faulting Mansfield's Hypothesis; I just want to understand if/how it works. Pre believes I accept things on "faith"; I gave that up a long time ago; now I question everything until I feel comfortable accepting or rejecting it.

My ideas may be rubbish, but if they are, I want to do something about it. Simply shouting "rubbish" does nothing to bring about a change.

Why was Pangea (plus Tethys) almost circular?

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



The above diagram can still be found at

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

The AAPG claim their maps of Pangaea, Gondwanaland, etc, from whence the sketch comes, are the best that have been produced.

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

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

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

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

Current geological theories provide no explanation.

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

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

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

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

Therefore, Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea) is circular.

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

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

Where the main split is, of course, the pie-shaped region, called the Tethys ocean.

Am I the only person on the Forum who does not follow the logic of this statement? If so, would someone please help me out.

I can acknowledge that if the impacted area is circular, and if the non-impacted area is considered as a "fringe" around it; then the non-impacted area could be consideren as a larger circle, but Pangea seems to be equated to the circle of the impact area.

Yes. It is not very well-explained. Here's (sort of) what I meant:

The impacted area is contained within a circle on the globe (i.e., maps under a certain mapping, to a disk, and thus can be thought of as circular).

Therefore, the non-impacted area is also within a circle on the globe (i.e., maps under another, different mapping, to a disk, and thus can be thought of as circular).

The first mapping referred to here is the azimuthal equidistant projection of PreEarth, with puncture point being the center of the non-impacted region. It is the map you get when you put a small hole in the centre of the non-impacted region and then stretch the planets skin to a flat disc.

Unfortunately, although this map projection shows that the impacted area can be thought of as circular, it is fairly misleading to even introduce it, as it is not necessary, the stated implication is not all that clear, and the map projection that we are really interested in is the one that is used in the AAPG map.

At some point I will rewrite the above post to remove this source of misunderstanding.

The mapping used in the AAPG sketch is the azimuthal equidistant projection of PreEarth, with puncture point being the centre of the impacted region (i.e., the "opposite" of the one just mentioned). It is the map you get when you put a small hole in the centre of the impacted region and then stretch the planets skin to a flat disc.

Under the AAPG mapping the non-impacted area (PreEarth-Pangea) maps to a disk and the impacted area maps to the annular area of ocean surrounding Pangea (as I stated on the other thread).

The AAPG circle corresponds to the boundary of the impacted and non-impacted regions.

Consider the following animation of PreEarth:



Under the AAPG mapping;

The impacted region, that which is within the ring in the above animation, maps to the annular area of ocean surrounding AAPG Pangea.

The non-impacted region, that which is "outside" the ring in the above animation, maps to AAPG Pangea.

The ring itself maps to the AAPG circle.

In the animation PreEarth-Pangea is pictured just as it fractures into continents, which then are expanded apart to their current positions on the newly renovated PreEarth (also known as Earth).

Is it clear now, why (under the collision theory) the boundary of Pangea must be circular?

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.

A great approach Bill; I take the same approach to the god-hypothesis.

AMEN!

Again I say, AMEN!

Interestingly, because of the creation stories--and there are actually two of them, in the first two chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible--almost all first-year theological students took, as their basic science, an introductory course in geology--focusing on the age of mother earth and her rock formations.

Me? Because--even in my early teens--I took evolution, and the findings of modern geology, biology, botany, and the like, for granted, at university I took basic physics and maths--focusing on the order and design of things as they have evolved. Later, I focused on psychology and philosophy.

BTW, a certain few (very few) of my fellow theological students in my four years (pre-seminary) at www.mta.ca --a university with a very modern and progressive approach--were fundamentalists.

IN SOME OF OUR BULL-SESSIONS, I listen to them say how shocked they were when they heard what the professor of geology said about the age of the earth. A few actually attempted to get a petition going to ask the university to teach creationism and close down the department of geology. This went no where, thank G~0~D!
=============================
WHERE TO FIND THE TWO CREATION STORIES in the Bible--here they are:

The first is in Genesis 1:1-2:3--the Hebrew for god is ELOHIM (literally, gods)
The second is in Genesis 2:4-25--the word for god is YAHWEH (I am) plus ADONAI (Lord--a title, meaning "keeper of the bread" (of life).
A VALUABLE EXPLANATION:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative#Chapter_2
==================
I LIKE THIS APPROACH:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm
ALSO THIS:
http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/284/genesis-creation/#names

=========================
I respect this approach, but I do not agree with it:
THE SO CALLED "ONE-TRUE-CHURCH" APPROACH
http://www.apologeticspress.org/AboutAP.aspx

You see, the propagandists, who hate the truth, have been unable to find fault with the arguments against plate tectonics (presented in the first post).

Since they have been unable to counter the arguments with logic, they now try to avoid the questions by the usual methods (changing the topic, discussing some obscure, but irrelevant, point, ad infinitum, etc, etc) and in this way hide the fact that they have no counter arguments of any worth.

That those here at scienceagogo.com have not been able to find fault with these arguments is not surprising. That none of the university people contacted have seen fit to provide a reply, is quite sad. It is true that not all of the 600 were geologists, or physicists, or people who might feel qualified to judge, but many were.

Its all a bit disappointing,... especially the academics,... who are all suddenly pushed for time, when asked for their critique of the arguments (after having had over a year to think about it). Other responses have been,... "Oh yes, I forgot about that (for the 2nd or 3rd time), I'll have to think about it (some more) and get back to you," and "Why don't you go and see what's his name (again), he knows more about this," and the simplistic, and completely wrong, "the atmosphere convects, therefore the mantle convects," etc.

Preearth, when you say, "You see..." are you addressing me?

Please, keep in mind that, when it comes to understanding what PLATE-TECTONICS is all about, I readily confess: I am a complete amateur--simply one who loves learning more about things of which I am ignorant.

Meanwhile, as long as I am given the freedom to ask questions, I willingly leave it to true experts to deliver the evidence we all need.

With this in mind, Preearth, I once again ask you: What do you think of the work of John Tuzo Wilson?

What do you think of the work of John Tuzo Wilson?

Obviously, I think it is wrong (that there was continental drift before Pangea). And, that should be apparent to anyone with even a vague idea of how continental drift fits into Mansfield's collision theory.

Pre, as I mentioned in your other current thread, I'm trying to do a bit of revision, so I would really appreciate some answers to questions.

A couple of points, the first of which is a question for Pre.

1. Satellite tracking seems to show, with a considerable degree of accuracy, that segments of the Earth’s crust, corresponding to generally accepted tectonic plates are constantly moving, and that this movement accords with what would be expected in terms of convergent and divergent plate boundaries. How does Mansfield’s theory account for this?

2. I have yet to find a convincing explanation for what happens to crustal material beneath Africa. I would appreciate knowing about anything anyone else might find.

The best suggestion I have had from an experienced geologist so far is that the African plate is being subducted under the Eurasian plate.

Initially this did not seem to make sense, but looking further I realised that an image of plates converging from East and West on either side of Africa was an oversimplification. As the map below shows, the movement is towards the North-East and North-West; giving a net movement in a northerly direction. Apparently satellite tracking indicates that the Med is closing. Oceanic crust must be going somewhere.

Rubbish.

No experienced geologist would tell you such rubbish. Your "geologist" is a total amateur.

The African plate is NOT being subducted (to any great extent) under the Eurasian plate. End of story.

An easy way to see that your "geologist" is wrong, is to note that if you have two continental plates colliding (like India and Asia) then the trenches and sea-areas between are squeezed out of existence. That is, no more Mediterranean Sea.

The currently accepted theory involves the African plate rotating into (and colliding with) the Eurasian plate which produced a few minor spots of subduction, but thats all.

The currently accepted theory has the African plate being carried east away from the mid-Atlantic ridge by thousands of kilometres and at the same time being carried west away from the Indian ocean ridge by thousands of kilometres (yeah, I know this doesn't make sense), which has produced millions of square kilometres of new sea-floor.

Now, if you produce all of these millions of square kilometres of new sea-floor, then you have to lose millions of square kilometres somewhere else (by subduction), and that certainly is not what is happening between Africa and Eurasia.

And, in any case, you must be really desperate to believe in plate tectonics, if you think that having the African plate being subducted under the Eurasian plate would somehow solve the problem you are trying to solve.

Why don't you try to draw a map of the mantle currents (which are supposedly causing the plates to move) beneath the plates, all of them. If you do try, you are doomed to failure (which is why such a map has never been drawn). You are doomed to failure, simply, because plate tectonics is wrong.

By the way, your statement "As the map below shows, the movement is towards the North-East and North-West; giving a net movement in a northerly direction." doesn't make any sense at all (its just wrong).

The little arrows on your map, are velocities (usually cms/yr). They say that the left side of the African plate is moving (at some non-zero velocity) towards the east (and also towards the north) and that the southern right side of the African plate is moving (at some non-zero velocity) towards the west (and also towards the north). But, this situation exhibits exactly the same problem that you are attempting to explain away.

Anyway, why do you think that the little arrows showing the direction of movement of the African plate, vary by close to 90 degrees? Two arrows on the African plate point NEE while the 3rd points NW. Don't you think that that is very strange? Two very different directions for the same plate.

LOL no Bill S the gps system is wrong things aren't moving at all ... didn't you know Preearth theory is much greater than actual observation.

Well I did get my laugh for the day so not all was lost.

Orac, that’s very unhelpful! I was going to suggest that you stick to QM, particles and the like; then I remembered that William McDonough plans to use neutrinos to probe the mysteries under our feet, so there’s hope for you yet.

Pre. Thanks for the response; there are a few things I would like to come back to, but time is in short supply at present, as you will appreciate if you are following the philosophy of religions thread in its meanderings.

You split your comments over two posts so I didn't initially notice this particular question.

Mantle rock can store tension for many thousands of years.

I guess you know that the ice caps (from the last ice age) depressed the mantle rock by hundreds of metres and that places like Scandinavia are still rising today (isostatic rebound) even though the ice that caused this depression completely melted more than 10,000 years ago.

Well the continents are still moving for the same reason (that Scandinavia is still rising).

The tension (energy stored) in the mantle rock from the collision was much, much greater and to a much greater depth, than the tension caused by the weight of the ice caps, so it will take a very long time for it to for it to be released. I would guess between 100,000 and a million years, but maybe less, maybe more.

And returning to the previous topic, here is a map showing GPS measuments that I use in one of my articles;



And,... Orac is a moron. Always was, always will be.

ROFL how old are you .. perhaps I have girl bugs as well.

But talking of moronic at least I didn't type this




Do you even remotely understand what you are saying with that stupidity perhaps you could give us the mathematics since you are a mathematician because you sure as hell fail at basic physics.

I would explain but it's actually more fun watching you discuss such garbage try doing the maths for an inverted stress force to the centre of the earths core this I gotta see.

Iterum, hic “ad hominem” cum vindicta venit!

It's a bit like living in a seismic zone. Just when you think its safe to plant your crops, here comes another b..... earthquake!

Is that not what is happening?



No. I just like to know what is going on, and why other people think what they think.

To return to the alleged movement of the African plate.
The directional arrows on the map look difficult to accept, but being of a practical turn of mind I tried to reproduce it using a book on a flat surface. The result was "northward" movement, with rotation.

Seriously Bill surely you can see the problem he has just turned the earth into a maxwell material with a deformation or density stress

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

However like all crackpots rather than scientists he doesn't do the most basic checks or calculations and anyone who disagrees is stupid.


Quick problem list:

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. So now your earth core has to be extremely non viscous to hold the deformation or density stress.

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.

For a density stress we should see it on the gravity of the earth from goce (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/SEM1AK6UPLG_1.html) we should also be able to see quite a few momemtum issues but alas nope we don't see those either.

So let take a closer look at deformation stress using continuum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics) and in particular look at the Clausius–Duhem formula which defines whether a material deformation is thermodynamically allowable or consistant. Oops problem if you consider the core hot and with alot of pressure you are going to have a hell of a time meeting that which is why planet and meteor composition is layered or shelled like.

So perhaps continuum mechanics is wrong what do the observation say http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428110810.htm

Nope they see the same thing => "Some scientists have proposed a region of sediment accumulation at the top of the core, or even distinct liquid layers, but this study shows that the outer core is, in fact, well mixed,"

Has anyone actually studied stress in the earth well yes back as early as 1980 (http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/55.pdf) and even they realized you can't develop much stress beyond 20km down in the core.

There are a hell of alot more problems but that should give you the basic idea.


Preearths whole idea is easily falsifiable, I can't prove plate tectonics for you but at least I can't falsify it.

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.

Orac; sorry, but you are just talking rubbish.

I went to the trouble of pointing out why much of your above comment was rubbish and all you do is talk even more (different) rubbish. Why don't you ever see the (usually simply) counter-arguments against your arguments? Beats me why the obvious, is not at all obvious to you.

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

Helloo Mike Kremer
I not find my post but you replied to it
Where has it Gone?

Thanks
Blobby2

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.

Blobby2 is most likely just another name of a poster who posts for scienceagogo.com

He has deliberately (er,... "accidently") destroyed the layout of the thread (for those using certain browsers) with the super long string of letters.

Mike Kremer; Why don't you fix the url problem for him.

Blobby2 doesn't seem to want to fix it. I wonder why?

I suspect that Pre will want this claim substantiated before he will accept any of what follows.

http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_4.asp

“One idea that might explain the ability of the athenosphere to flow is the idea of convection currents. When mantle rocks near the radioactive core are heated, they become less dense than the cooler, upper mantle rocks. These warmer rocks rise while the cooler rocks sink, creating slow, vertical currents within the mantle”.

Whilst this kind of simplified explanation may be all that is sought by the majority of people who might read this, it is, with some justification, open to the sort of criticism leveled by Pre.

I would suggest that the idea of mantle convection should be considered in greater detail than this before it is either thrown out or unconditionally accepted.

I find this interesting: Is there a thread on the topic of WATER & Earth?
BTW, in the Gospels, Jesus says (John 3): " We are born of the udatos (water) and the pneuma (air)." Wow--a bright guy, eh?

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/10/if-you-put-all-the-water-on-ea.html

Put all the water on this planet into a single sphere and it would have a diameter of about 860 miles, says the United States Geological Survey. For reference, that's...
boingboing.net/2012/05/10/if-…

If not, you could always start one.

Someone is bound to observe that water + earth = mud, but I promise I will not do that.

It’s easy to grumble, perhaps with some justification, that Pre doesn’t answer questions. However, I think that when he does it is important to recognise that fact, and to make an appropriate response.

Pre, a little while ago you posted a helpful response regarding the possibility, or otherwise, of convection occurring because local temperature inversions might have happened within the mantle. It was not my intention to ignore this; the trouble is, I can’t find it now, and I don’t want to risk misquoting it. It had to do with the combined roles of heat and gravity in determining density.

Hunting time is at a premium at present, so any help that anyone can provide would be appreciated. There are at least 5 threads it could be in.

Pre, somewhere in one of the threads relevant to this discussion you suggested a parallel between current crustal movement and isostatic recovery. Returning to this though; I find myself wondering why, if current tectonic movement is the result of past expansive forces, are there areas in which there are converging tectonic segments? Cf. Lithgow-Bertelloni and Richards (1997).

Pre, do you interpret their lack of answers as evidence that they have no answers?

"are there areas in which there are converging tectonic segments"

The collision caused compressive forces. The expansion caused expansive (tensional) forces.

So there must be some converging tectonic segments (caused by the collision), but most segments are diverging (caused by the expansion of the planet).


Of course.

Great! This gives me confidence that I can look forward to lots of answers.

If there is more expansion than contraction, the Earth must be still expanding. Is this supported by modern, precise measurements of the Earth?

Bill s has added some of his own thoughts to all this in his thread "Global Tectonics" at:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44134

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Pre; but this topic seems to be going nowhere. I think I might give it a rest - eternal, perhaps.

Actually,... I spent an inordinate amount of time answering ImagingGeek's questions.

This taught me that answering the questions of certain types of people, is a total waste of time.

Judging by your reluctance to answer my questions I assume you have me tagged as one of those "certain types". As I said before, that probably means I am in good company.

From things I've been reading recently, it looks as though more geologists are questioning plate tectonics, but I'm not sure that the direction in which they are going will be of much help to you.

I'm going to have another look at some of the ideas and will post anything that seems relevant.

MK, Are you OK with that?

In a word, yes.

Depending on what that is intended as a response to, it is probably safe to assume that the subject is closed.

The subject is not closed.

Bill; why don't you explain what you think has replaced mantle currents as the force that moved the continents so far apart?

You don't seem to know what this force is,... do you?

Pre, I don't recall claiming that anything had replaced mantle currents, or that mantle currents provided the force that moved the continents.

I think gravity is the only force I have actually suggested as being largely responsible for moving continents and their underlying material.

If anyone is still thinking about the mantle, there's an interesting article at

About.com: http://earth-pages.co.uk

Probing the Earth’s mantle using noise
Posted on December 4, 2012 by Steve Drury.

Bill S, when I followed your link I got an article about papers being referenced in Peer-reviewed journals. Was that your intent, or is the link corrupted?

Sorry about that, Rose. I usually check my links before posting, but I was hurrying.

If you follow that link, and scroll down far enough you should come to the article about the mantle.

Let me know if you still have trouble and I'll set my son on it.

So, gravity is responsible for moving the Himalayas vertically, a few kilometers, against the force of gravity?

Good one Bill.

Pre are you saying that gravity cannot cause things to rise?

Since you claim that gravity is largely responsible for moving continents, I want you to demonstrate exactly how gravity is responsible for moving the Himalayas a few kilometers vertically (against the force of gravity).

One of the factors giving rise (pun intended) to the Himalayas is the upward displacement of lighter sediment by heavier sediment. Note the words 'lighter' and 'heavier', Pre. Ring any bells? Yep, you got it. It's all to do with gravity. No point in talking to you though. I'll just post this useful link for interested readers:

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/everestbeyond/size/size.html

Since you claim that gravity is largely responsible for moving continents, I want you to demonstrate exactly how gravity is responsible for moving the Himalayas a few kilometers vertically (against the force of gravity).

You don't have a clue,.... do you?

Spreading ridges are areas of higher than average heat flow, which is why they are raised relative to surrounding areas. Partial melting in the LV zone allows lithospheric plates to slip down-slope under gravity.

New material fills the resulting gap. Since the Earth appears to remain at a constant size, this mechanism needs to be balanced.

At destructive boundaries GST has clearly established that cold lithospheric material descends under gravity to considerable depths (cf. an earlier post).

Gravity can, thus, be seen to be the driving force moving the lithospheric plates.

Orogeny is a natural result of collisions between areas of continental crust involving thrusting and uplift.

A quid pro quo question.

If the Himalayas rose suddenly, as a result of an impact; how have rivers managed to cut through the range?

Is this another question you are not going to answer?

Since you claim that gravity is largely responsible for moving continents, I want you to demonstrate exactly how gravity is responsible for moving the Himalayas a few kilometers vertically (against the force of gravity).

You don't have a clue,.... do you?

Nothing you just wrote answers the question.


This just proves your "logic" is totally illogical.

So, gravity helps pull a mass downwards and you use this to "explain" how a mass (the Himalayas) moves upward. Maybe you should explain exactly how this happens,... oh,... wasn't that the question in the first place?



Large impacts create large cracks in land masses. Rivers use these.



The question is peripheral and depends on context. For example, the moon's gravity causes the sea to rise in the Earth's gravitational well, but the sea falls in the Moon's gravitational well.

I've gone through all of preearth's threads.
The answer (since you won't get one) is no, he will not answer. Troll of the highest order.

Interesting enough ideas, in the fact that they cause people to brush up on tectonics in order to slam his in your face 'I'm right because I say I'm right' mentality.

Of course, it's easy just to scoff, and never to answer questions, but such tactics are usually the province of the ignorant and bigoted.



You are not a geologist, are you? If you were you would realise that there would be a significant difference between a valley that started its life as a suddenly developed "crack" in an instantaneously formed mountain range, and one that had been gradually eroded by a river over a long period of time.

Bill S, Pre is no geologist and clearly no other respectable kind of '-ist'. From day one, he's succeeded in setting himself up to look like a bigoted ignoramus. I say 'look like' because nobody can really be that stupid. He is simply, as has been stated many many times, a troll with an attitude. That said, if you want to exercise your right to feed him, go ahead - one would probably miss the entertainment if he were not clinging to SAGG like a limpet in love.

Bill, troll feeding is not high on my agenda, but the subject interests me, and where else could you find questions like these to ponder.

"a limpet in love". Now there's a thought! In fact it could be a good subject for a PhD thesis.

Ooh, what about "pessimist"? Antagonist, or defeatist?

Although those are rarely respectable. Maybe amongst their own kind? Maybe I'm just trying to be an optimist...

Yeap, can't keep away from the place.

How many members you got now? The scienceagogo staff and two others? Not bad for the last 3 years.