TED Conversations

Jan de Boer

This conversation is closed.

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.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.