TED Conversations

Jan de Boer

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Lets reconsider the basics of several sciences. Step 1. The crust of our Earth is floating on...... On what?

Several sciences are based on incorrect assumptions.
That could be expected. We are all suffering sometimes from tunnel vision, blind spots, not-made-here, political correctness, stubbornness and so on.
So, lets have a look at some “facts”, decide what is wrong about them and leave it to the scientists to tie up the loose ends in a proper scientific way.

They told us at school: “The crust of our Earth is floating on liquid magma.”..... Is that true?
How do you tackle this question?
My way is to estimate the conditions at the underside of the tectonic plates.
First the pressure. Taking in account their thickness, the specific weight of the materials, I come to a pressure of some 20,000 bar plus or minus a few thousands.
Second the temperature. Taking in account their thickness and the temperature gradient I come to a temperature of some 2,000°C plus or minus a few hundreds.
Third, the nature of the material below the crust. If this material is liquid, then the heavier materials will sink down and the lighter materials will move up.
Given the fact that Earth is old, the segregation must have been completed long ago.
Lets look at the lighter atoms and molecules. Most of them are well above their critical point even at 1,000°C and therefor not liquid but gas. Examples are hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, sulpher, sodium and above all carbon-dioxide and water.
An average volcano emits some 500 tons CO2 per hour. There are some 1,500 active volcanoes. Add the emission of sleeping and dead volcanoes and you get a total emission of some ten billion tons CO2 each year. This has been going on for a few billion years, so the crust of our Earth is not floating on liquid lava, but is, like a hovercraft, floating on gas. A mixture of gases, so hot that they are ionized and many are dissociated.

Do you agree so far? If not, proof that I'm wrong.

Next, step 2: Voyage to the center of the Earth.

Topics: DNA research Human Evolution Prehistory SETI climatolgy geology archaeology
0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Tomm Lorenzin

    • 0
    May 31 2012: The continents do not float on liquid magma. They move about on the surface of the asthenosphere. At the temperatures and pressures below the continents the mineral material (rock) of the asthenosphere is "plastic," not liquid. It flows very slowly like the "solid" ice of a glacier. The word asthenosphere's roots mean "without strength."
  • thumb

    Stewart Gault 30+

    • 0
    May 28 2012: I think I'm taking a new angle here after reading below, how does your idea explain plate tectonics? Can gas cause enough friction to pull the plates with it at the speed they're going? Also does the amount of gas you propose at that pressure get you the required weight of the earth to provide the gravity it does? At if it was only hot gas in the center you wouldn't get volcanoes at constructive margins as by your theory it would only be gas, as from my knowledge of gases, they move from high to low pressures, so if a crevice opened in the crust (constructive margin) gas constantly pump out until it was in equilibrium
  • thumb

    Vidyardhi Nanduri

    • 0
    May 24 2012: Searching minds- Guidance in time- Keep up your quest
    see www [dot] scribd [dot]com/doc-72919866/Sense-Index
    note evolution needs to catch-up with creation

  • Jarred Figlar-Barnes

    • 0
    May 21 2012: Hey, guys, he's right you know. The crust is very heavy and it does sink ( subduction zones ), but even though it sinks doesn't mean that its heavier than the material below it. Hence why we see the same material’s coming back up in volcanoes. He is also right in the sense that there is an exceptional amount of gas under the crust, but where it comes from and where it goes are two different matters. Most of these gasses are brought down through subduction. Our oceanic crust is the culprit mostly, bringing with it millions of tons of water and carbon dioxide, the carbon being in the form of dead see life, and ocean sediments, and as these sediments, rocks, and water are heated up and melted. The water and carbon turn to gas, but my friends as we know gas is much lighter than rock. Even at tremendous pressures. So the gas tries to escape, forcing itself up through our crust, mixing with molten rock until it reaches the surface, forming our planets volcanoes and releasing Co2 and water into the atmosphere. This process is just one part of the Carbon and Water cycle's. As for what the plates float on it is commonly believed to be Olivine, slightly denser than crust rock, though a thin layer, enough to make the plates rides a smooth one.

    • Jan de Boer

      • 0
      May 21 2012: Hi Jarred
      One small correction: Gas is not always lighter than rock. Normal air, the kind we inhale, has a weight of 1.4 kg/m3. Increase the pressure to 20,000 bar and the weight runs up to 28,000 kg/m3. almost ten times heavier than rock. Increase the temperature to 2,000°C, then the gas expands to some 8 m3 and the specific weight goes down to some 3.500 kg/m3 which is definitely more than the some 3,000 kg/m3 of rock.

      • Jarred Figlar-Barnes

        • 0
        May 21 2012: Thanks, I was just trying to make a point but you are right in that respect.
  • thumb

    Derek Young 30+

    • 0
    May 20 2012: Hi Jan,

    I see that your profile says your from France. Maybe your theory makes more sense in French, then we could use google translate, or something, to fully understand your concept when you type it out in French. If your thought processes works better in another language, then type it in that language and maybe google, or something, can translate that language.

    Just a suggestion. =)

    • Jan de Boer

      • 0
      May 21 2012: Hi Derek
      A change of language would not change the content.
      I do not think in words but in abstractions and it is only after I have come to results that I translate the results to one of the languages I speak. The most important element of my text is that I completely disagree with several results of various sciences. And I'm confident that I'm correct because I got answers where those sciences fail to give answers. two examples, 1) geologists do not know how and where liquid lava is formed, 2) science has no explanation how mammoths got frozen standing up at at least two month walking from liquid water they need daily and from the food they have still undigested in their mouth and stomach.
      I will supply that explanation in one of the next steps.
      Would you please inform me what you do not understand in my text?
      • thumb

        Derek Young 30+

        • 0
        May 23 2012: Sure Jan, if my knowledge has enough to comprehend the terminologies. =)
        • thumb

          Gabo Moreno 100+

          • +1
          May 24 2012: Make sure Derek to read a bit about geology before buying into Jan's ideas. The materials and state of matter below the crust is not mere assumptions. Read about propagation of seismic waves, how they are measured, and how they reveal things about stuff below the crust. Also read about what most volcanoes expel besides gases. Something about the composition of erupted materials, their relative abundances. Then also read about convection and other sources of turbulence that would not allow magma to behave as a static liquid (a static liquid is implied in Jan's pseudo-science), et cetera. It is fine to have challenging ideas, but it is wrong to state things matter-of-factually, without a proper understanding of the sciences that might be used as foundation to such newer ideas. So, don't be mislead by either Jan or me. Just make sure you have a good foundation to make your own conclusions.

          Best!
      • thumb

        Derek Young 30+

        • 0
        May 25 2012: Well Gabo,

        Actually, I have taken a course in geology and I feel that I am apt to understand certain basic concepts of geology. You are correct in stating that I need to read more about certain aspects. I enjoy someone with a passion and that isn't afraid to challenge certain pre-established ideas, but regardless of Jan's accuracy of information, I enjoy Jan's enthusiam or at least persistency. I live for positivity and constructive conversations. The passion is half the road to self-succession. =)

        Whatever the outcome of Jan's hypothesis, it is fascinating to see the process of discovery or reinvention of established ideas. I must give Jan brownie points for his creativity in giving light to old frameworks, but if these frameworks are firm or faulty is what we attempt to understand through this fascinating debate. =)

        I am glad to be part of discussion that pushes boundaries of thoughts and ideas. I look foreward to learning.

        Thanks for reading my thoughts.
  • thumb

    Christopher Halliwell

    • 0
    May 19 2012: Your argument falls apart due to gravity. Gravity causes more dense materials (metals) to sink towards the center of the earth and less dense materials (gases) toward the surface. I know what you're thinking, "what about volcanic gas?". Most volcanic gases are dissolved in the liquid magma until the pressure drops enough (when it gets to the surface as lava) in order for the gases to separate from the liquid.

    • Jan de Boer

      • 0
      May 22 2012: Hi Christopher
      First my reaction on your deleted comment.
      There is no need to become angry or to use improper words. Anger is OK, but use its energy in a positive manner.
      My subject is a very serious matter and it is a very serious error that official science states that the crust is floating on liquid magma.
      This is the first step and long before step 10 we will be far beyond your imagination.

      To you second comment:
      The specific weight and the density of a gas depends on pressure, temperature and atomic/molecular weight. If different gases have the same pressure and temperature, then they have the same quantity of atoms/molecules per m3. The air we inhale has a weight of 1.4 kg/m3.Increase the pressure to 10,000 bar, then the density will be 14,000 kg/m3 and iron and even mercury will float on it

      I have a nice, related problem for you. Get a copy of the “Map of Piri Reis”, have a long look at it and tell me 1) what is queer about that map and 2) what is the connection with Noah's Ark.
      Solve the riddle and you will know that I really have a tiger by its tail.

  • Comment deleted

  • thumb

    Krisztián Pintér 200+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    May 18 2012: premise: light materials are on the top, heavier below

    conslusion: crust is floating on gas

    logic. gotta love it.
    • thumb

      Derek Young 30+

      • 0
      May 18 2012: It is a pretty cool idea! =)

      Though, it is debatable, so it is time to find how this theory takes shape, where it could be improved, and/or to dispose of it if incorrect. =)
      • thumb

        Gabo Moreno 100+

        • +2
        May 19 2012: The idea is not pretty cool. It is pretty ignorant of the most basic geology. Not only that, it tries to reverse the burden of proof. The onus is on Jan to prove that this idea is right, not on the rest of the world to prove that the idea is wrong. Poor logic.
        • thumb

          Derek Young 30+

          • 0
          May 19 2012: Jan is exactly the individual who I was attempting to refer to, but that has been failed to be translated through my comment, sorry. =)

        • Jan de Boer

          • 0
          May 19 2012: Hi Gabo
          No, I do not reverse the burden of proof. I stated in words why it floats in gases. The fact that it floats on gases leads in later steps to the prediction of other facts that are already published.
          I'm not ignorant of the most basic geology, I'm stating that the most basic geology is incorrect.

          They told me at school that the central core of the Earth was solid and consisted mainly of iron and that the temperature there is some 4,000 - 4,500 °C.
          Why iron? Because there is so much iron in the universe and because its specific weight matches with the specific weight of the core.
          Why that temperature? Because the core behaves like being solid and they reasoned that the temperature has to be lower than the critical temperature of iron to be solid.
          How could they have known? Ever heard of some one having gone down there with a thermometer?
          They made a serious thinking error because 'behaving like' is not equal to 'being'.
          Just follow the next steps and you will encounter dozens of such errors.
          Notably, errors made by professors working at universities.

          Please keep following the developments and judge on the results.
      • thumb

        Gabo Moreno 100+

        • +4
        May 20 2012: Well Jan, your whole argument shows that you are ignorant of the most basic geology. Otherwise you would know how they know so many things about the centre and other layers beneath the surface of the planet. You would know that the stuff below the solid surface is not quiet, you would know of the effects of the planet's rotation. You would know about turbulences and convection, you would know about seismic propagation, and about how these waves show evidence for the different layers below the surface, you would know a lot that would have helped you avoid these blunders (because your "hypothesis" is a series of blunders). You would know that geology is not just guessing based on a bunch of assumptions. Heck, you would know that it is not just CO2 that comes out of those volcanoes and have a better sense of proportion.

        So, yes, you are trying to switch the burden of proof. You have proven nothing, you have proposed something on the basis of deep misunderstanding and ignorance of science, then ask to be proven wrong. No. You find evidence showing that you are right without ignoring the evidence and knowledge that shows you wrong. You figure out why the evidence and actual knowledge gained so far would be still consistent with your new evidence, because you can't ignore those pesky details. That's the way it works. Einstein's theories had to be able to explain what Newton explained before, not just overturn physics and avoid explaining why Newton's theories worked all right, and how the new theories work for that and for those things where Newton's theories failed. Got it? Einstein would have gone nowhere unless his theories explained what Newton explained plus much more. All you have is speculation, again, based on ignorance and misunderstanding.

        How could I expect this to get better if it already started so wrong?
  • thumb

    Derek Young 30+

    • 0
    May 18 2012: How do you integrate the fact that there are areas where the earth has deep trenches? Then there is plate techtonics, what happens to the recycled earth? Does your gas theory prove a new theory about earthquakes and such?
    • thumb

      Christopher Halliwell

      • +1
      May 19 2012: Ehem... Gas hypothesis
      • thumb

        Derek Young 30+

        • 0
        May 20 2012: Hypothesis....I didn't firgure it out until just now. Thanks to Gabo, but you did mention it first, but it totally flew past my thought processis. =P

    • Jan de Boer

      • 0
      May 19 2012: Hi Derek
      According to the geology books the crust of the Earth has a thickness varying between 65 and 70 km. There are deep trenches in the oceans. The mechanism of floating is that the pressure of the liquid or gas under the floating object keeps the floating object from sinking. Differences in height and differences in thickness may cause various tensions which may or may not break up the floating object. Breaking up of the crust will immediately results in volcanic activity. Generally the crust is rather stable and any important instability is immediately worldwide on tv.
      When crust is pushed under a tectonic plate it will start to melt. Once molten the components will segregate according to their specific weight.
      I have no new theory about earthquakes, but don't be surprised if my story will shock the world.
      • thumb

        Derek Young 30+

        • 0
        May 20 2012: Hi Jan,

        If we could drop something to test the depths of trenches, then we could figure out if the contents in those deep trenches are made of more gases or more molten liquids. If your theory is correct, then there would already be molten material residing where deep trenches are and beyond those deep trenches are gases that lift that material above, that melts the rocks. Then what would stop the gases from leaking out of those trenches and rising into the skies?

        Hmm...this has me thinking if the ocean acts as a cusion to all those theoretical gases you write about....interesting.
        • thumb

          Gabo Moreno 100+

          • +3
          May 20 2012: It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.

        • Jan de Boer

          • 0
          May 22 2012: Hi Derek

          I'm not sure if we are still on the same line. The trenches are in the top side of the crust and are filled with seawater. The gases are under the crust, Between the two is some 60 km solid crust.
      • thumb

        Derek Young 30+

        • +1
        May 20 2012: Oh, I see, hypothesis sounds more accurate Gabo. I haven't yet finished all my sciences in school yet, but don't let my education discredit me because my curiousity is what I give credit to. =)

        • Jan de Boer

          • 0
          May 22 2012: Hi Gabo and Derek
          I prefer to call it 'a different vision'. I need a few steps to lay out the basics. Then I start to write the extrapolation and consequences.
          If you wish, you might read a small story by visionair Jules Verne, title "Eternal Adam". It is a horrible and depressing story, as depressing as the reality was time and again and will be again.
          And there are two very interesting books related to my subjects. "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes and "Modern Science in the Bible" by Ben Hobrink.
  • thumb

    Gerald O'brian 50+

    • 0
    May 18 2012: " If this material is liquid, then the heavier materials will sink down and the lighter materials will move up. "

    And if this material were gas?
    You can't be proven wrong until you put some kind of explanation on the table. But never mind that. I'd like to jump to step two. Take me to the center of the Earth.

    • Jan de Boer

      • 0
      May 19 2012: All material will segregate according to their specific weight. some materials will mix, others, like water and fat will not mix. Gases will always mix. You can see hat in the sky, clouds, rain, hail. Under the crust, where the specific weights are in the range of tons/m3, it seems possible that there might exist clouds of molten sand.
      Step to will go to the central core.
      Step 3 is about the central core and there things are really weird.

      • Timo X

        • +1
        May 20 2012: "Gases will always mix. You can see hat in the sky, clouds, rain, hail."
        If gases always mix, how is it possible to see clouds?
        http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/312.jpg

        • Jan de Boer

          • 0
          May 22 2012: Hi Timo
          Sorry, you are right, I made an error here.
          The gases will always mix. Then I wanted to say that, similar to the clouds in the sky, there might be clouds of molten material floating in the high pressure gas under the crust.
    • thumb

      Christopher Halliwell

      • +1
      May 20 2012: Gravity causes more dense materials (metals) to sink towards the center of the earth and less dense materials (gases) toward the surface. I know what you're thinking, "what about volcanic gas?". Most volcanic gases are dissolved in the liquid magma until the pressure drops enough (when it gets to the surface as lava) in order for the gases to separate from the liquid.
      • thumb

        Derek Young 30+

        • 0
        May 20 2012: Ah...that is right, totally forgot about density and gravity. Thank you for the reminder Christopher. =)
Showing all 35 comments