Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
0 registered (), 87 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Global Warming invades the U.S.
by Amaranth Rose II
Yesterday at 09:27 PM
Climate Change and Serious errors of design
by Huynh Phu Dat
11/21/14 06:43 AM
Radial Turbine Symetry is BROKEN !!!
by newton
11/20/14 08:06 PM
Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,
by Revlgking
11/20/14 12:04 PM
High Altitude Pseudo-Satellite (HAPS)
by Bill
11/20/14 08:53 AM
Neanderthals are not a subspecies of Homo Sapiens
by Bill
11/20/14 08:36 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 29
Bill 23
Bill S. 22
Revlgking 17
Amaranth Rose II 17
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#37448 - 02/14/11 02:25 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2976
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: preearth
Bill, I did answer this question of yours. I answered "NO."


I have tried to make it clear that I was looking for information, rather than just being critical. A simple "NO" is not the most helpful in that scenario. However, I accept that it is an answer of sorts.

Quote:
I later asked you to explain why you think the volume is important (if you explained why you think it is important, I may be able to answer your question).


Originally Posted By: Bill S
"Thanks for the clearer response to the continental crust question. I understand that it was surface area you were talking about, but that is where I have a problem. Perhaps it is my lack of scientific qualification, but a comparison of volume, rather than just surface area seems to be a more relevant comparison, in terms of knowing how much continental crust was present at each time."


I thought a comparison of volume, rather than just surface area seemed to be a more relevant comparison because surface area alone does not necessarily reflect the amount of crustal material present.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Of Interest?
#37978 - 03/30/11 12:06 AM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: Bill S.]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I have tried to make it clear that I was looking for information, rather than just being critical. A simple "NO" is not the most helpful in that scenario.

Yeah, but if you continue to refuse to help me, help you, by answering a simple question to establish what you are actually asking, then what can one say,....
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#39061 - 07/17/11 03:44 AM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Can anyone else add to the list of flaws in plate-tectonics?
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#39068 - 07/17/11 01:00 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2976
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: preearth
Yeah, but if you continue to refuse to help me, help you, by answering a simple question to establish what you are actually asking, then what can one say,....


What did you not understand about the above answer to one of your questions?

Originally Posted By: Bill
I thought a comparison of volume, rather than just surface area seemed to be a more relevant comparison because surface area alone does not necessarily reflect the amount of crustal material present.


Do you consider that surface area alone would reflect the volume of material present? If so could you explain the relevant maths in reasonably simple terms?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39738 - 08/25/11 08:35 AM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: Bill S.]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Today, the continental crust covers only 35% of the globe" imply a belief that there was the same volume of continental crust present at both times? If so, you would need some evidence about the average thickness at both times.

Yes I believe that the volume of continental crust present at both times is about the same.

There is good reason for believing this.

1) the (surface) area of continental crust present during both periods are much the same.
2) since 99% of the continental crust and mantle is solid there is little chance of the continental crust being added to or subtracted from.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#39746 - 08/25/11 05:08 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: preearth]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2976
Loc: Essex, UK
Thanks, Preearth; this is really what I was trying to get at.

Quote:
since 99% of the continental crust and mantle is solid there is little chance of the continental crust being added to or subtracted from.


This must assume that the concept of plate tectonics is incorrect.


Edited by Bill S. (08/25/11 05:13 PM)
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39760 - 08/26/11 01:02 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2140
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
It must be my that english thing again?

How can continential crust be anything less than 100% what do you have if you don't have crust ... lava or a hole????

There is 30% coverage of water but there is still a crust beneath the water I hope!

I must be missing something in this conversation.


Edited by Orac (08/26/11 01:02 PM)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39762 - 08/26/11 09:29 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2976
Loc: Essex, UK
Orac, of course, you are right there is crust under the oceans, but the thing you are missing is that there is a difference between continental crust and oceanic crust. Continental crust has, on average, a higher silica content and tends to sit on top of the heavier oceanic crust.

Preearth will probably point out, with some justification, that that's an over simplification.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39768 - 08/27/11 10:45 AM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: preearth]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3542
Originally Posted By: from another topic , but I looked anyway
It is obvious once you bother to look.

You say that Heaven crashed into the pre-earth like a bullet rips through an apple leaving the apples skin intact.

hogwash.
the earth is more like a water balloon.

then theres the triangular impact crater on your web site.

was Heaven a huge pyramid?
did Heaven stay inside the earth or become a part of the earth as you say.




why do you sudgest that it was Heaven?
it seems to me that if your claims are correct it should in fact be hell that crashed into the earth.
or at least you would use hell as the projectile and not Heaven because hell is underground not Heaven.

could it be that the originator of this concept had seen this somewhere in a ancient drawing or heard of this from the ancestors of a people who once had a belief that this happened.



maybe we should search in the backwards Google to find answers.


Can you think of a religion that believes that hell was cast down FROM Heaven?

You can use the non-backwards Google to find that answer.

all I can find is that satan was cast down from Heaven and he lives in a place called hell and cannot physically leave hell.






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39773 - 08/27/11 05:05 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: paul]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2976
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Paul
the earth is more like a water balloon


I assume this is not a Biblical "waters under the Earth" thing; so are you suggesting that the proposed collision would have liquified the Earth?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39775 - 08/27/11 09:54 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: Bill S.]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370

Bill; Let me guess where you are headed:

Suppose the Earth was once (completely) covered with a layer of continental crust 13 kms thick.

Since continental crust now only covers about a third of the Earths surface, where is the unaccounted for

2/3 * 510,000,000 * 13 = 4,420,000,000 km≥ of continental crust.

Are you interested in the volume of continental crust so you can account for the "missing" two thirds by stacking it up in 39 km high blocks (interestingly, Alfred Wegener suggests exactly this).

But, if you say that it is now incorporated in 39 km high blocks of continental crust, then who picked up the 13 km thick blocks and stacked them 39 km high,.... maybe, God?

What incredible force lifted and stacked these blocks.

Or, what even more incredible force might have compressed 13 km thick blocks into 39 km thick blocks?

Since no sufficient force is postulated (within plate tectonics) the idea of finding the missing continental crust in this way is flawed.

(Of course a planetary collision would have had the energy to do this, but in my theory the missing 2/3's is accounted for by the mushing of a large amount of continental crust in the mantle, the expansion of the oceans and the fact that one started with the continental crust completely covering a smaller planet.)

By the way, plate tectonics never claims to have done such (compressing or stacking of continental crust).

It is claimed that plate tectonics has raised mountains, however, these mountains are but a small surface feature on such blocks and comprise a very small percentage of the mass of the block.

How these huge blocks of continental crust came about, has never been explained (by traditional theory).

What caused them to be about 40 km high, has never been explained.

What caused the sides of these blocks to be nearly vertical, has never been explained.

Why these blocks only cover 1/3 of the Earth's surface, has never been explained.

In fact, only the PreEarth-Heaven collision explains these last four things.


As to whether you need a crust or not. Assuming the word crust, is here describing something like the shell of an egg, then the planet does not require a crust. However, as Bill has said, both the continental and the oceanic areas have a crust.

The two crusts are quite different in composition (and thus properties).

The oceanic crust averages about 8 kms in thickness, whereas, continental crust averages about 40 kms in thickness.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#39776 - 08/27/11 09:56 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Hello "Paul".

You have just made it absolutely clear that you are not the same Paul that was here a year or so back,... so, who are you? Why do you use Paul's name-tag? and why are you pretending to be the old Paul?
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#39785 - 08/27/11 11:36 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: Bill S.]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3542
Quote:
so are you suggesting that the proposed collision would have liquified the Earth?


of course!

if I rub my hands together they get hot , but rubbing or colliding two planets together would get slightly hotter.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39786 - 08/27/11 11:49 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: preearth]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3542
Quote:
why are you pretending to be the old Paul?


actually there are thousands of us paul's , we are everywhere some of us live on mars and some live on the dark side of earths moon.
some of us live in the past , some in the future , and some in the now.

besides how do we know that your not just some computer program making the post that you make.

and just what gives you the right to question others validity.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39787 - 08/27/11 11:55 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: preearth]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3542
Quote:
You have just made it absolutely clear that you are not the same Paul that was here a year or so back,..


What ever gave you that idea?
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39788 - 08/28/11 12:04 AM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: preearth]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: preearth
If you say that it is now incorporated in 39 km high blocks of continental crust, then who picked up the 13 km thick blocks and stacked them 39 km high,.... maybe, God?

(Of course a planetary collision could easily have done this.)


No. You just made that up. You're doomed Pre-earth, you'll get more and more hardheaded about your idea, and take yourself down more ridiculous paths trying to prop it up. But somehow you will never bother to actually study the existing knowledge or do any useful investigation. You believe you're special and you don't need to work to demonstrate your idea, just do some high-school level calculations and write a lot of ramble.

Common behavior of 99% of cranks. Why don't you see the signs? I notice you tried to distance yourself from "expanding earthers", but why? They're just like you.

All the concerns you have about the existing theories can be solved by researching them. No need to ask people. Go to the literature. If you can't understand the math/prior work, go to the text books. But you won't do that because you don't really want know. You just want to pretend nobody knows.

Take a step back and consider why it all started. It was simply noticing a pattern in the shapes of continents. That's all. Without that you certainly won't be promoting the idea of a giant forklift picking up continents and laying them on top of each other.

Top
#39791 - 08/28/11 07:29 AM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: kallog]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2976
Loc: Essex, UK
Preearth, thanks for the detailed response.

Actually, I wasn't heading towards a major crustal stacking scenario, I tend towards James Hutton's idea that the present is the key to the past, so I am inclined to look for past mechanisms that jibe with present processes, rather than Kallog's giant forklifts.

Quote:
Suppose the Earth was once (completely) covered with a layer of continental crust 13 kms thick.


Whilst willing to "suppose" this for the sake of discussion, I would have to ask why continental crust rather than the more basic oceanic crust?

I can accept that the process of crustal formation might have been so slow that it allowed time for sufficient magmatic differentiation to take place, and continental crust to develop, but that would raise a question as to why we have two quite distinct forms of crust now, and how the patches of continental crust acquired their positions on top of oceanic type crust. I know they are lighter, so isostatic processes come into play, but that would imply at least some local softening of the now underlying oceanic crust.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39793 - 08/28/11 07:40 AM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2976
Loc: Essex, UK
Paul (whoever you are); if the collision liquified the Earth, then presumably it also liquified the other planet?

Would I be right in thinking that your reasoning would say that if that had happened, and plate tectonic mechanisms had not intervened, we would now have an Earth that was completely covered with one type of crust?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39798 - 08/28/11 08:30 AM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2140
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Woah ...

Quote:

Earth, as we now know it, formed from the collision of two similarly sized planets, called Heaven and PreEarth (called Heaven, so that, the collision can be viewed as the mythical marriage between Heaven and Earth). These two, once comprised a double planet system. Heaven orbited PreEarth, and they both orbited the Sun (just like the Earth and Moon today, except that Heaven, with a radius some ninety percent that of PreEarth, was much larger than today's Moon).


Do you have any idea how hard and unlikely that is to have happened?

Do some basic gravity calculations and try to get orbital stability for both the pre and post crash ... have you tried?

Forget everything else at the moment you would have to show me that you could get stability for both configurations which is very very very unlikely.

Examples 6,7 and 8 on here will show you how ahrd this is going to be
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html


Edited by Orac (08/28/11 08:46 AM)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39802 - 08/28/11 05:30 PM Re: What are the main problems with plate tectonics? [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2976
Loc: Essex, UK
Interesting link, Orac; lots of questions; for instance:
In example 8 the three bodies appear to be in syzygy at the start, at 0.5 orbits and 1 orbit.
The divergence seems not to start until almost 1.5 orbits. What initiates the deviation?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
4567891011121314, Tracy319, lalabetsy, teacher, AnitaJohnson
718 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.