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 this website 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:
Also, with further assumptions, it provides,
- It explains the existence of the Pacific Basin.
- It explains the existence of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
- It explains the (impact) mountains that ring the Pacific Ocean.
- It explains why the Earth has continents.
- It explains how, and why, the continents moved apart.
- It explains the existence of the ancient continent of Pangea.
- It explains why Pangea fits neatly within a circle.
- It explains why Pangea had a large split called the proto-Tethys Ocean.
- It explains how continental crust formed and where it came from.
- It explains why continental crust covers only 40% of the Earth's surface.
- It explains why continental crust is so different from oceanic crust.
- It explains why the Earth's core is rotating faster than the rest of the planet.
- It explains why the Earth has a relatively strong magnetic field.
- It explains why the Earth's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing.
- It explains why the Earth has a global surface layer of clay.
- It explains how the ice-caps were able to build to such a size.
- It explains why no evolution occurred in India while a separate continent.
- It explains why the severity of volcanism has decreased.
- It explains the bimodal distribution of elevation.
- It explains the geologically mysterious Gamburstev Mountains.
- It explains why magnetic reversals have not caused mass extinctions.
- It explains why only the top 500 meters of the sea-floor has a significant magnetic anomaly.
Current theories explain only two (numbers five and thirteen) of the above (and both of these explanations are wrong).
- new possibilities regarding the formation of the Moon,
- can explain the tremendous size of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, etc, and
- can explain the large amount of Ar40 in the atmosphere.
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.