The Pacific Ring of Fire is a remnant of the Moon-creating impact event

[slang]

An interesting question. Deep enough to deform slowly, while shallow enough to be able to cause crust features like subduction zones.

Interesting answer. "Q) Where does your theorie work? A) Where it works!". Numbers please

[CaptainToonces]

Numbers please

These cracks could be located between ~200 kilometers deep and ~3,000 km below sea level.

[Shaula]

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.

[cjameshuff]

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.

We're also not talking about planetary-scale masses of pure material. We're talking a complicated mixture of solid particles, solid and liquid solutions, complexes, and so on. Lava commonly contains a variety of minerals such as magnesium oxide with melting points considerably higher than the temperature the lava as a bulk material was quite liquid at.

Plus there are no materials that can bear the loads involved, regardless of the temperature.

[Strange]

The area around ... is a bit troublesome in making the circle a bit deformed, however from ... around ... to the tip of ... I would say there is an undeniable circular pattern.

That statement could be applied to every single one of the plates.

[cjameshuff]

That statement could be applied to every single one of the plates.

There was a lot of impacts going on!

More seriously, there were. This wasn't a unique event, the terrestrial planets are thought to have formed from mergers of much smaller masses, Theia just being one of the last big ones to hit Earth.

[djellison]

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.

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=...start=3&size=b
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/SEMQC9VTLKG_1.html

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?

[cjameshuff]

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.

And when you have a body a tenth the mass of present-day Earth impacting and blasting planetary masses of material into orbit, the resulting impact features (note the plural) are extremely round...spherical, in fact.

[Rhaedas]

The Hellas Impact Basin on Mars is a good example.

[R.A.F.]

Captain Toonces....can you address the points made in post #84???

[captain swoop]

Time I think for the OP to supply more support than 'Looks Like'

[CaptainToonces]

Ok, RAF here's answer to the questions in post 84 (which i've already answered and you have only repeated)

Pangea has nothing to do with invalidating your claims??? Pangea has everything to do with invalidating your claims.

Why would you ignore that simple fact, unless you realize how damaging it is to your ideas??

My theory is about layers of the Earth far below the continental drift layer. We know that the continent-forming crust layer slides faster than layers beneath it as evidenced by Hawaii and Yellowstone. Therefore Pangea theory does not invalidate or damage the idea that deeper layers could be more static over the history of the Earth.

[CaptainToonces]

So to summarise you are proposing a layer of material somewhere in the mantle that is:
- Have the same or similar stiffness to plastic mantle material so it is invisible to seismic waves

I don't think these cracks are invisible to seismic waves. These cracks are accepted in the mainstream view of the mantle. See figure 1 in the paper than Tensor linked to.

- The same density as mantle material so that it doesn't affect pressure waves

Again I don't think the pressure wave data denies the existence of cracks in the mantle, again look at figure 1.

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.

You're right and it's hard to simulate the intense conditions this deep in the Earth. You have exotic conditions of pressure, gravity, and temperature. The theory requires there be large features of materials that have been solid in this environment since the proposed Theia impact.

[CaptainToonces]

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.

Gravity and centripetal force, the process by which the earth is made spherical (well, *almost* spherical) fills in the gravitational anomalies as best it can while not necessarily liquifying the stronger materials.

[djellison]

Gravity and centripetal force, the process by which the earth is made spherical (well, *almost* spherical) fills in the gravitational anomalies as best it can while not necessarily liquifying the stronger materials.

You're saying a ring of dense material left over from an impact has caused (and continues to cause) the ring of fire. This dense material would show as a gravitational anomaly. It does not. Ergo - it doesn't actually exist.

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?

[CaptainToonces]

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.

[Tensor]

I don't think these cracks are invisible to seismic waves. These cracks are accepted in the mainstream view of the mantle. See figure 1 in the paper than Tensor linked to.

Can you point out, exactly in figure 1 what you consider a crack? I ask this as your claim of cracks are not a mainstream view and cracks are not mention in the body of the paper. Since they are not mentioned in the body of the paper, it appears that your interpretation of the figure 1 diagram is in error. And, as a point of interest, figure 1 is not seismic wave data. If you believe it is, your ability to follow the paper is a bit suspect.

Again I don't think the pressure wave data denies the existence of cracks in the mantle,

Yes it does. Specifically explain to us how the data in the body of the paper (mineral composition(see table 2) and P-wave data (as found in figures 2, 6, 7, and 15). Remember, Figure 1 is not seismic wave data.

again look at figure 1.

Again, figure 1 is not P-wave data. Look at the data in figures 2, 6, 7, and 15.

You're right and it's hard to simulate the intense conditions this deep in the Earth. You have exotic conditions of pressure, gravity, and temperature. The theory requires there be large features of materials that have been solid in this environment since the proposed Theia impact.

And the seismic data only see the subducted slabs as still solid, not the mantle material. If you think differently, where in the written part of the paper is there a mention of large amounts of solid material in the mantle, other than subducted slabs?

[R.A.F.]

Ok, RAF here's answer to the questions in post 84...

I can see that continuing to try and get you to address how the Pangea theory completely destroys your claim, is pointless.

Enjoy promoting your claim....it'll all be over by the end of the month.

[djellison]

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?

[cjameshuff]

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.

...it may have altered Earth's axis of rotation? The event largely determined Earth's axis of rotation. It added enough angular momentum to the Earth-moon system that Earth ended up with a 5 hour day, most of that momentum eventually getting transferred to the moon through tidal effects. It was vastly more violent and destructive than you seem to recognize.

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?

[Shaula]

I don't think these cracks are invisible to seismic waves. These cracks are accepted in the mainstream view of the mantle. See figure 1 in the paper than Tensor linked to.

No, they are not stable cracks - the things in that figure are temporary plumes of lighter molten material. The reason they can move through the mantle is because it is plastic enough to deform and allow the material to percolate up through it. When the plate boundary changes the pattern of plumes changes too. They are not cracks and not permanent by any stretch of the imagination.

Again I don't think the pressure wave data denies the existence of cracks in the mantle, again look at figure 1.

Wrong interpretation again. And not actually my argument. I was arguing that the pressure wave data denies the existence of a stiff layer capable of preserving features like cracks.

You're right and it's hard to simulate the intense conditions this deep in the Earth. You have exotic conditions of pressure, gravity, and temperature. The theory requires there be large features of materials that have been solid in this environment since the proposed Theia impact.

For which there is no evidence either from seismic surveys, modelling of the materials in the mantle, practical tests of their properties under a range of conditions (you are right in that we have not/cannot do tests of the long term behaviour of these materials under realistic conditions - however material science is pretty good at making do with what experiments that can do!)

[Tensor]

No, they are not stable cracks

snip...

what experiments that can do!)

BTW, I didn't mean to jump in on answers to questions you asked. However,I felt CaptainToonces was misinterpreting the data source I provided. So, I answered those questions, with clarifications where I felt he misinterpreted the data source. If this got in the way of your answers, my apologies.

[captain swoop]

Sorry, I still see only 'looks like' 'I think' and handwaving.
Where is the evidence and data that you think supports your idea?

[Shaula]

BTW, I didn't mean to jump in on answers to questions you asked. However,I felt CaptainToonces was misinterpreting the data source I provided. So, I answered those questions, with clarifications where I felt he misinterpreted the data source. If this got in the way of your answers, my apologies.

No worries, you certainly didn't get in my way or anything! It was you who linked the paper he was misinterpreting. I'd have answered if I was in your shoes lest you be seen as tacitly supporting the idea by providing evidence for it (when you were not).

[AstroRockHunter]

These cracks could be located between ~200 kilometers deep and ~3,000 km below sea level.

You do realize, of course, that if your "cracks" are about 3,000km below sea level, that puts them in the liquid outer core?

[CaptainToonces]

You do realize, of course, that if your "cracks" are about 3,000km below sea level, that puts them in the liquid outer core?

No, it doesn't. The liquid core begins at 3,000km and goes deeper than that.

The idea of cracks throughout the inner Earth doesn't seem very controversial to me. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_%28geology%29:

Partial melting of mantle material is believed to cause incompatible elements to separate from the mantle, with less dense material floating upward through pore spaces, cracks, or fissures, that would subsequently cool and solidify at the surface.

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:

In the mantle, temperatures range between 500 to 900 °C (932 to 1,652 °F) at the upper boundary with the crust; to over 4,000 °C (7,230 °F) at the boundary with the core.[18] Although the higher temperatures far exceed the melting points of the mantle rocks at the surface (about 1200 °C for representative peridotite), the mantle is almost exclusively solid.[18] The enormous lithostatic pressure exerted on the mantle prevents melting, because the temperature at which melting begins (the solidus) increases with pressure.

[Tensor]

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:

Well, if you are going to quote Wikipedia, then there is the following, which completely destroys anything like having cracks in the mantle:

The mantle is considered to be viscous and incapable of brittle faulting

Brittle faulting, would be cracks. Oh, and by the way, viscous would still be a plastic solid capable of flowing.

[Shaula]

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?

[CaptainToonces]

...it may have altered Earth's axis of rotation? The event largely determined Earth's axis of rotation.

Yes, James, that's exactly my point. If there were a remnant of this collision in a circular shape, then this cicrcle would be expected to be centered on the equator. Which the Ring of Fire is. Correct?

[Shaula]

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.