No Mantle Convection!!!

[RomanumEcclesium]

Earth would then also by now remain a gas giant, albeit losing some of its gaseous atmosphere over the years. Don't forget that if earth was once Jupiter-like, its magnetic field would have been close to Jupiter's in massive size and strength (size would have been reduced as compared to Jupiter as Earth is closer to the sun), but I think even a reduced magnetic field coverage would still be enough to protect the gaseous atmosphere even from very strong T-tauri winds.

[RomanumEcclesium]

I have read the nuclearplanet website and found many disturbing ideas there. Especially with regards to Earth being compressed and once having 300 Earth mass or more of Jupiter-like atmosphere.

Had that been the case, those hundreds of gas giant exoplanets we have discovered so far (and some happen to be very near the star too (less than 1/10th Mercury distance) would not have been possible. Even if the sun once had very strong T-tauri winds, other stars also have it.

[Ayomide345]

maybe some bits of the earth spin faster than others and that mixes everything up? :D

[kurtmcbeth]

Go away you silly little man

[turtleFLxanth]

Is it possible that the difference in gravitation between the top and bottom layers of the mantle might have been neglected? An equal volume parcel of mantle material might indeed have more mass at bottom than at the top due to compression, but there is less gravity acting on it at the bottom, and that may cause that parcel to actually weigh less than the upper parcel, which should induce the lighter parcel on bottom to rise and the heavier parcel at top to fall. Weight vs. mass, not the same.

[MarvinHerndon]

@turtleFLxanth As strange as it seems, the gravitational acceleration,g, at the bottom of the mantle is nearly 9% greater than at the Earth's surface, according to reliable reports published in the scientific literature, so what you suggest can't happen. However, in science it's good to look at all posibilities.

[MarvinHerndon]

Marvin Herndon As strange as it seems, the gravitational acceleration,g, at the bottom of the mantle is nearly 9% greater than at the Earth's surface, according to reliable reports published in the scientific literature, so what you suggest can't happen. However, in science it's good to look at all posibilities.

[MrCommanderZ]

Scientists can be very touchy when their theories are challenged. I like this work. Plate tectonics is kindergarten anyway. Too may flaws.

[AlgenSerene]

The Earth Decompression "theory" is disproved by VLBI (radio interferomery) and satellite data. There are direct measurements of distances between dozens stations on all continents with millimeter accuracy. And there are no any "decompression".

[AlgenSerene]

This is pseudoscience and pseudoarguments. The plate tectonics has an energy source — decay of radioactive elements in Earth's core. This is a basic fact. So thesis of "no energy source" is intentionally wrong. Demo of water and oil is a juggle too. Author hides the fact that on slow heat convection run both in water and oil layers. Thermal conductivity works on the phase boundary, but only convection support heat transfer over and under this boundary.

[MarvinHerndon]

This is science. Radioactive decay energy alone is insufficient to account for the energy exiting Earth, let alone driving geodynamics. The mantle is about 62% more bense at bottom than top. A thermally expanded "parcel" cannot become light enougn to float to the top as required by convection. The Rayleigh number, which was derived for uniform density, incompressible matter has been misapplied has been misapplied to to the mantle, which is compressed by the its own weight. to justify convection.

[MrCommanderZ]

@MarvinHerndon Quite right sir

[sidewallfusion]

Excellent video, thank you for the new information.

[gregrutz]

So the mantle is going to float on the ocean.

I still see convection in the pepper corns.

[DarthHuru]

what's the scientific community response to this theory?

[MarvinHerndon]

No one has refuted my work in the open scientific literature. Rather than make discoveries most make models based upon assumptions which do not have to be correct. Generally, those who make models ignore my work. When an important contradiction arises in science, there should be discussion and debate, if wrong the idea should be refuted in the open literature, otherwise it should be acknowledged. Galileo was ignored too.

[Lingula77]

I think a cool slab of oceanic crust is dense enough to sink in the mantle. It should be remembered that what drives plate tectonics is not primarily convection, but ridge-push and slab-pull, the mechanisms on the edges of the oceanic crust. And these have, if I'm correct, been modelled quite successfully.

[MarvinHerndon]

George E. P. Box said that all models are wrong, a few are useful. Much is modeled that is wrong. Plate tectonics is an incomplete theory, with no energy source, which assumed convection for validity. But, mantle convection is physically impossible. You might like to watch my video 21st Century Earth Dynamics. Thanks for your comment.

[Lingula77]

Sierd Cloetingh said that the Parsons & Sclater models for behavior of the lithosphere are right. Perhaps he and George Box should settle it mano a mano.

Seriously, your illustration of oil on water is not a fair one since the temperature of the lithosphere plays an important role. Talking about flawed models: there's one right in your video. Oceanic crust does not behave like that.