0 members (),
208
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 24
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 24 |
Helloo Mike Kremer I not find my post but you replied to it Where has it Gone?
Thanks Blobby2
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370 |
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?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Convection currents beneath the plates move the plates in different directions. I suspect that Pre will want this claim substantiated before he will accept any of what follows.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
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.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
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.htmlPut 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-…
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Is there a thread on the topic of WATER & Earth? If not, you could always start one. Someone is bound to observe that water + earth = mud, but I promise I will not do that.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
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.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
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).
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
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. Pre, do you interpret their lack of answers as evidence that they have no answers?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370 |
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).
"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). Pre, do you interpret their (the "scientists") lack of answers as evidence that they have no answers? Of course.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Great! This gives me confidence that I can look forward to lots of answers.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
So there must be some converging tectonic segments (caused by the collision), but most segments are diverging (caused by the expansion of the planet) If there is more expansion than contraction, the Earth must be still expanding. Is this supported by modern, precise measurements of the Earth?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Thanks for the acknowledgement, Pre; but this topic seems to be going nowhere. I think I might give it a rest - eternal, perhaps.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370 |
It’s easy to grumble, perhaps with some justification, that Pre doesn’t answer questions. 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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
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?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Depending on what that is intended as a response to, it is probably safe to assume that the subject is closed.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Senior Member
|
OP
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370 |
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?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
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.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|