"Some 'scientists' attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The supression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system and the history of our study of the solar sytem shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." -- Carl Sagan, cosmologist, 1980
"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -- Jonathan Swift, author, 1726
Good censorship. Geologists conspire to suppress scholarly information and keep people uninformed: Geoblogosphere Call to Arms: The Wikipedia Mantle Page.
I would like to make this post a call to arms of sorts to all geobloggers and internet-savvy geologists out there to help with something. This particular page, Wikipedia’s entry on the mantle, is an absolute shambles. ...5 against 1; I guess that makes it fair for them considering their combined lack of brain mass...=)Modern observations suggest that the mantle is cold.[15][16][17][18][19]That has a very serious whiff of the EEdiots about it. Especially considering that every single reference given about the “cold mantle” is either in regards to an underlying section of the equatorial Atlantic MOR being colder than expected, or other areas of other MORs or spreading regions being cooler than expected (for the record, references 16 and 17 are the same). Not a single one of those references suggests the mantle is cold. The reason being that the mantle isn’t “cold” (whatever that means anyway, cold compared to what? Very unscientific). Any layperson reading this page would, however, be left with the impression that there’s serious debate regarding whether the mantle can flow at all.
The mantle of Mars is also cold.[20]
This has very serious implications for those who believe the mantle is convecting hot fluid.
I hereby kindly request that anyone out there with sufficient expertise in the mantle or associated sciences to please help in righting this travesty. I’m not asking for this to be done today, but over the next year we should endevour to pretty much rewrite this entire Wikipedia entry (lest the EEdiots take it upon themselves to do it for us and misinform the public even further).
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
18 comments:
Whatever, the rigidity of the mantle changes, it's not constant nor is the temperature of the mantle constant. There are parts that are cooler more rigid and parts that are hotter less rigid too. Perhaps driven by electric currents and lightning strikes and perhaps driven by stresses and strains built up around earthquake fault lines. Maybe reduction of metals plays a role too, such as why the oxidized metals of the Earth attract electricity at electrical fault grounding locations.
Wikipedia is not considered a valid scientific source of information in the group I associate.
His pleas will be ignored.
It doesn't help that Expanding Earth hypothesis is bullshit. I mean, if it were real science, the so-called censorship wouldn't be required.
There's too much evidence for subduction, and too little evidence for EE.
EE lacks a mechanism by which it occurs
EE lacks an explanation for orogenesis
EE cannot explain oceanic trenches
EE cannot explain differing rates of continental drift
It should be tossed out and OiM should concentrate instead on Abiotic Oil. At least there, batshit conservatism is served by something meaningful. Infinite Oil means not having to reduce fossil fuel use. This dovetails nicely into his Global Warming denialism, his disregard for Evolution and anti-mainstream thinking and distrust of Academia.
I hasten to add that he may be right about Abiotic Oil. I'm not sure. What I am sure about is EE. It's nonsense, and those who subscribe to it are fools.
It's the iron body centered cubic structure changing to face centered cubic structure thing, isn't it? Not to mention that fission increases volume too. As well as the reduction of oxidized compounds by electrical grounding effects ....all of these contribute to an increase in net volume.
However, volume gets decreased whenever there is a release of gasses from volcanic activity, but even then the displaced lava tends to increase the volume of the crust as it cools down in a less dense form than it was when it was compacted.
Besides, it would be a violation of entropy if the volume of the Earth were to stay the same, if for instance, the rate of subduction were magically equivalent to the rate of sea floor spreading? How can that be? It is absurd to believe that energy can be perfectly conserved from the spreading input to the subduction output, there are energy losses and thereby the subduction rate should be significantly less than the spreading rate, i.e. expansion.
When in doubt, it is wise to consult what the hardcore observers have said.
"...no matter what the temperature of the outer core is, and most likely it is quite high, the mantle is cold, and its rigidity increases with depth, because otherwise seismic wave velocity cannot increase with depth, for example for P waves from 6-7 km/sec in the surface layers to about 14 km/sec at the mantle-core boundary." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, October 2008
"It is established fact, however, that there is not any physically observed discontinuity between deep crust and upper mantle at around 100 km depth, and the continents are observed to have continuous mantle rock roots extending as deep as 600 km (Grand, 1987; Grand et al., 1997). So the question is naturally raised: How is it possible for the upper 100 km of a continent, e.g., North America, to move horizontally by several thousand kilometers at all, under any circumstances, when global seismic tomography data indicate deep continuous roots from the surface down to 600 km depth?" -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005
"Observations at certain points on the Earth's surface, or very close to it, e.g., down mine shafts and from deep continental drilling projects, show that temperature increases by 20° to 30°C per kilometer. If that thermal gradient continues unchanged down to a depth of 40 km, the temperature would be from 800° to 1200°C, which is around the melting point of all rocks. Similarly, at the mantle-core boundary, at about 2900 km, it would be from 58,000° to 87,000°C. Nobody claims such absurd ambient temperatures exist in Earth's lower crust or mantle. Actually, considering the amount of heat energy conventionally proposed to do the mechanical work, e.g. to motivate the supposed bulk convection of semi-fluid rocks, the thermal gradient and, therefore, the temperature inside the Earth, should be much greater than is physically reasonable." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005
"Below we will show some of the simple physical reasons why the present geodynamic and geotectonic paradigms are so dramatically wrong, and why continents cannot move like 'rafts' on a 'sea' of convecting semifluid hot mantle." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005
"Yet, even with the deepest mines, we observe only the top few kilometers of the Earth, and we might rightly be skeptical about extrapolating the observed temperature incease far into the deep interior." -- Bruce A. Bolt, seismologist, 1982
"The interior of the Earth is a problem at once fascinating and baffling, as one may easily judge by the vast literature and the few established facts concerning it." -- A. Francis Birch, geophysicist, 1952
I would also argue that sedimentary rock, the erosion of volcanic rock is significantly less dense than the magma that it originated from too.
QF,
"Perhaps driven by electric currents and lightning strikes and perhaps driven by stresses and strains built up around earthquake fault lines. Maybe reduction of metals plays a role too, such as why the oxidized metals of the Earth attract electricity at electrical fault grounding locations."
"Besides, it would be a violation of entropy if the volume of the Earth were to stay the same, if for instance, the rate of subduction were magically equivalent to the rate of sea floor spreading? How can that be? It is absurd to believe that energy can be perfectly conserved from the spreading input to the subduction output, there are energy losses and thereby the subduction rate should be significantly less than the spreading rate, i.e. expansion."
Sounds right to me.
Louis,
"Wikipedia is not considered a valid scientific source"
You can say that again.
Jeffery,
"I mean, if it were real science, the so-called censorship wouldn't be required."
That is without a doubt one of the most retarded statements and rationalizations and justifications of fascism and authoritarianism I have ever read in my life.
Adolf Hitler and Big Brother would be proud.
You would have made a great Untersturmführer at the Ministry of Truth.
But I won't add the quote to the crackpot section of the sidebar out of politeness.
@OIM ""Below we will show some of the simple physical reasons why the present geodynamic and geotectonic paradigms are so dramatically wrong, and why continents cannot move like 'rafts' on a 'sea' of convecting semifluid hot mantle." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005"
Direct measurements of continental drift have been made since 1984. These continents which "cannot move" have been directly observed to do so:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041
NASA's scientists have released the first direct measurements of continental drift. They show that the Atlantic is gradually widening, and that Australia is receding from South America and heading for Hawaii. The crustal dynamics project, run from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, uses two techniques to measure the separation of places on the Earth to an accuracy of a few centimetres. Around the world, there are more than 20 stations equipped for one or both.
Relative motions of the stations are expected, according to plate tectonics, the current theory of continental drift. This says that the Earth's crust is made of several plates moving about the planet, and most of the major plates carry a continent on their backs. The exception is the large plate that floors the Pacific Ocean; fortunately for the crustal dynamics team, instruments can be sited on the island of Hawaii to monitor this plate.
The first technique is very long baseline interferometry. Astronomers measure the distance between two radio telescopes, both looking at the same distant quasar, by measuring the difference in time between the signals being received at the two telescopes. They have been making measurements across the Atlantic for over 10 years, using three radio telescopes in the United States and three in Europe. They are now certain that Europe and North America are moving apart at a rate of 1.5 centimetres per year, with an error of less than half a centimetre a year.
Other stations in the crustal dynamics project measure separations by bouncing laser signals off a satellite equipped with reflectors. A telescope next to the laser picks up the faint reflected flash of light, and the time taken for the round trip gives the distance to the satellite. Laser stations have shown a complex pattern of activity around the Pacific.
The Pacific plate is moving away from North America at 4 cm per year, while Australia (on the Indian plate) is encroaching on the Pacific plate at a remarkable 7 cm per year. These measurements are the most accurate, with errors less than 1 cm per year. Both the Pacific and Indian plates appear to be moving away from South America, at 5 to 6 cm per year, though these figures are less certain as they are based on only one laser station in South America. The motion of North America relative to South America and to Australia is negligible.
The GPS system of satellites is sensitive enough to detect continental drift. Click on the station labeled EISL which is located just west of Chile and is moving eastward towards South America (something which Expanding Earth theory says cannot happen). From 1995 to 2004 its longitude shifted ~60 centimeters eastward.
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a constellation of 24 satellites which is used for navigation and precise geodetic position measurements. Daily position estimates are determined from satellite signals which are recorded by GPS receivers on the ground. Data from the IGS, SCIGN, BARD, CORS, BARGEN, and PANGA networks have been analyzed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Horizontal velocities, mostly due to motion of the Earth's tectonic plates and deformation in plate boundary zones, are represented on the maps by arrows extending from each site. Click on the list of names to see detailed time series for a particular site. Additional information may be obtained from mbh@cobra.jpl.nasa.gov.
@Quantum_Flux "It's the iron body centered cubic structure changing to face centered cubic structure thing, isn't it? Not to mention that fission increases volume too. As well as the reduction of oxidized compounds by electrical grounding effects ....all of these contribute to an increase in net volume."
The coefficient of temperature expansion (CTE) is always positive for most materials of interest.
http://www.ami.ac.uk/courses/topics/0197_cte/index.html
If the earth is cooling due to radiative heat losses it should be contracting as the temperature goes down, not expanding.
Tom,
"Direct measurements of continental drift have been made since 1984."
Irrelevant. The quote has nothing to do with continental drift. The only people who rejected continental drift were professional geologists and mainstream scientists (Oreskes 1999).
"These continents which "cannot move"
Why do you believe in fixed-sized Earth?
"They show that the Atlantic is gradually widening"
Since when do you believe in seafloor spreading and the mechanism for Earth expansion? I thought you deny the existence of a mechanism for expansion so why do you believe the Atlantic is expanding?
"Australia is receding from South America"
Exactly. Thus expanding the Pacific and falsifying subduction. If the Pacific is expanding, how can it be subducting?
Ignore this:
Maxlow, J., Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geodetic Data Sets, Curtin University of Technology, Department of Applied Geology, 2001
@OIM "Irrelevant. The quote has nothing to do with continental drift. The only people who rejected continental drift were professional geologists and mainstream scientists (Oreskes 1999)."
Continents moving like "rafts" is what continental drift is. The quotation directly denies continental drift.
"Why do you believe in fixed-sized Earth?"
It's all a matter of quantification. The earth may be expanding due to meteorite impacts assuming this is enough to compensate for the contraction due to cooling, but it would certainly not be anywhere the magnitude of increase your buddy Tassos is proposing (~1.7 km increase in diameter per million years).
"Since when do you believe in seafloor spreading and the mechanism for Earth expansion? I thought you deny the existence of a mechanism for expansion so why do you believe the Atlantic is expanding?"
You must have me confused with someone else. I have always believed in sea floor spreading.
"Exactly. Thus expanding the Pacific and falsifying subduction. If the Pacific is expanding, how can it be subducting?"
Yes, I see you cleverly ignore the data for Easter Island which is on a separate plate (Nazca plate?) which is subducting under the South American plate. The GPS data clearly shows this.
@OIM "Maxlow, J., Quantification of an Archaean to Recent Earth Expansion Process Using Global Geological and Geodetic Data Sets, Curtin University of Technology, Department of Applied Geology, 2001"
Maxlow and Tassos can't even get their numbers straight. According to Tassos the radius of the primordial earth was 0.75 times the radius of the present core (assuming outer core this would be 2,550 km). Maxlow says the radius of the primordial earth was 1,700 km (33 percent less than the Tassos figure).
Also, the Maxlow paper essentially presents a system of equations for earth expansion. No evidence whatsoever is presented for how these formulas were derived.
You'll have to do better than that, OIM.
Tom,
"Continents moving like 'rafts' is what continental drift is."
No Tom. You are confusing continental drift (a 16th century theory) with plate tectonics (a 20th century theory); shock and awe.
"The quotation directly denies continental drift."
Expansion does not deny continental drift.
"Yes, I see you cleverly ignore the data for Easter Island which is on a separate plate (Nazca plate?), which is subducting under the South American plate."
Hawaii and Peru are moving away from eachother so the Nazca plate cannot possibly be subducting. As a matter of fact, zircon dating shows it spreading in every direction.
"The GPS data clearly shows this."
What GPS data? You have no GPS data. I gave you the GPS data and you simply ignored it. Shock and awe.
@OIM "Hawaii and Peru are moving away from each other so the Nazca plate cannot possibly be subducting."
Neither Hawaii nor Peru is on the Nazca plate so the fact that they are moving away from each other has no relevance to the subduction of the Nazca plate. However, Easter Island is on the Nazca plate and it is moving towards Peru.
"What GPS data? You have no GPS data."
(Slams head) Arrggghhh. I tried to post it. Maybe your blogging software clobbered it. Here it is again:
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/EISL.html
Tom,
"Neither Hawaii nor Peru is on the Nazca plate so the fact that they are moving away from each other has no relevance to the subduction of the Nazca plate."
The Nazca plate is directly in between Hawaii an Peru. Hawaii and Peru are moving away from eachother at rate of 80±3 mm/yr.
"However, Easter Island is on the Nazca plate and it is moving towards Peru."
Source?
"http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/EISL.html"
You call that data? It only goes back to 1995. My data goes back to 240 B.C.
@OIM "You call that data? It only goes back to 1995. My data goes back to 240 B.C."
"A History of Greek Mathematics"? Huh? What the hell does that have to do with the question of plate tectonics?
Post a Comment