"Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
"This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius
Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice
So to summarise you are proposing a layer of material somewhere in the mantle that is:
- Stiff enough to preserve cracks in it for 4.5 billion years
- Have the same or similar stiffness to plastic mantle material so it is invisible to seismic waves
- Tough enough to resist the normal convective flows of the mantle
- Brittle enough to crack when hit by Theia
- Porous enough to allow the mantle material through everywhere there are not cracks
- Non-porous enough to channel mantle material where there are cracks
- Less dense than other mantle material so it floats on top of some of it
- The same density as mantle material so that it doesn't affect pressure waves
Your arguments about melting points are not really that good either - at 500 degrees Iron only has half the load bearing strength it does at room temperature. It is ductile way before it melts. You cannot point at a figure for melting point for a mineral and use it to extrapolate high temperature behaviours all that well.
Plus there are no materials that can bear the loads involved, regardless of the temperature.
If there were such a 'high melting point' material ( and the OP Hinted at Iron for this ) then given the average density of the earth is 5.5g/cm^3 and Iron is 7.9g/cm^3 it would be clearly visible as a local gravitational anomaly in data from missions such as GRACE and GOCE.
There is no such circular gravitational anomaly matching the ring of fire.
There is also the small point that impact features are typically exceptionally round, and the ring of fire isn't - indeed, it's not even continuous.
I'd like to ask the OP - how do you explain your theory in the light of this evidence - the lack of a circular gravitational high.
Moreover - what scientific evidence would you accept as disproving of your theory?
The Hellas Impact Basin on Mars is a good example.
Captain Toonces....can you address the points made in post #84???
Time I think for the OP to supply more support than 'Looks Like'
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple
Ok, RAF here's answer to the questions in post 84 (which i've already answered and you have only repeated)
If the process that makes the earth almost spherical would 'fill in' the gravitational anomalies ( which it doesn't - many still remain ) - then wouldn't it also eradicate any lingering symptoms of your supposed impact as well, thus rendering your enter theory dead?
I'll ask again - what scientific evidence would you accept as disproving of your theory?
There is also a new piece of evidence in support of my theory:
4. The ring of fire is bisected by the equator, indicating that the proposed Moon Creating Impact may have altered Earth's axis of rotation along the trajectory of the collision.
Again - it's not really a ring. It's almost trapesoidal in shape - VERY unlike an impact crator.
moreover, how is that evidence? How did it alter the axis of rotation? Do you know what the historical record regarding Earth's rotational axis is, and in particular - nuation?
How exactly do you expect the mantle to "crack" and somehow retain a localized feature to the present day...while getting violently blasted off the planet, mixing with the debris from another protoplanet, partially falling back to form the modern mantle and crust (while another portion managed to make its way outside the Roche limit and form the largest non-planetary body in the inner solar system), and then convecting for a few billion years? Have you even looked at any of the simulations of the event?
Sorry, I still see only 'looks like' 'I think' and handwaving.
Where is the evidence and data that you think supports your idea?
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple
problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)
The idea of cracks throughout the inner Earth doesn't seem very controversial to me. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_%28geology%29:
We seem to have a lot of experts on the Earth's mantle here asserting that it is liquid, and plastic, etc., that it couldn't possibly have any solid structure, but that is by no means a proven mainstream view. Also from From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_%28geology%29:Originally Posted by wikipedia article on Mantle
Originally Posted by wikipedia article on Mantle
Brittle faulting, would be cracks. Oh, and by the way, viscous would still be a plastic solid capable of flowing.Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Your Wikipedia article only says solid. It says it does not melt. Hence it in no way shape or form contradicts what I have been saying all along - that the mantle is plastic. Solids can be plastic, ductile, malleable and so on. You have set up a Strawman and act like knocking it down vindicates your arguments. It does not.
And the cracks in your first quote are cracks in the crust or at most crust mantle interface where it is still mostly non-deformable. Note that these also tend to be temporary unless regenerated by a mantle plume or plate margin.
So, now we have disposed of Wikipedia, apart from one erroneously interpreted diagram have you got an answer to the seismic problem yet?
OK take a look at a map of the Ring of Fire. How are you defining it? If it were truly very circular then it would not include New Zealand and you would expect the west coast of Australia to be highly volcanic. The Aleutian trench is at about 51N and marks the northern boundary. Or you could take the most northern volcano in Alaska or Kamchatka at 62N, The most southerly Antarctic volcano is at 78S and there are many at 65-70S. So where is the Ring of Fire and where would you puts its centre? Being off by ten degrees is quite far from being centred.